HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005/11/21 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - RegularAGENDA SUMMARY
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
NOVEMBER 21, 2005
7:30 p.m.
7:15 p.m. Economic Development Authority Meeting
1. Call to Order
a. Pledge of Allegiance
b. Roll Call
2. Presentations
a. Presentation City of Brooklyn Park
b. Recognition Lynn Schwartz
3. Approval of Minutes
a.. City Council Minutes of November 7, 2005
Action: Corrections/amendments to minutes - Minutes approved as presented
4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar
NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which need no
discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a Councilmember or a
member of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion.
Action: Motion to approve the agenda as presented and to approve items listed on
the consent calendar
(Alternatively: Motion to add or remove items from the agenda, motion to move items
from consent calendar to regular agenda for discussion and to approve those items
remaining on the consent calendar).
5. Boards and Commissions
6. Public Hearings
6a. Public Hearing to Consider 2006 Utility Rates
First reading of an ordinance setting 2006 rates charged for Water, Sanitary Sewer,
Solid Waste, and Storm Water Utility.
Recommended
Action:
Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to approve 1st
reading of an ordinance setting 2006 rates charged for
Water, Sanitary Sewer, Solid Waste, and Storm Water
Utility and set second reading for December 5, 2005.
6b. Sam’s Club - Vacation of a Utility Easement
Public hearing to discuss the vacation of a utility easement at 7115 W. Lake St. and
3745 Louisiana Ave. S.
Recommended
Action:
Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to approve 1st reading of
an ordinance vacating a utility easement across Sam’s Club
property at 7115 W. Lake St. and 3745 Louisiana Ave. S. and set
second reading for December 5, 2005.
6d. Time Warner Cable TV Franchise Renewal Public hearing to discuss the status of the franchise renewal process with Time Warner Cable, Inc. Recommended Action: Motion to continue the public hearing to December 5, 2005.
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions
8a. Proposed Transfer of Cable Television System
Proposed transfer of the Cable Communications Franchise Ordinance and cable
system from Time Warner Cable, Inc. to Comcast Cable Communications, LLC.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to continue transfer of the Cable Communications
Franchise Ordinance and cable system from Time Warner Cable,
Inc. to Comcast Cable Communications, LLC to December 5,
2006 Council meeting.
6c. Hoigaard’s Village - Public Hearing for the Vacation of an Alley
Case No. 05-63-VAC
Union Land, LLC.
SW Quadrant of Highway 100 and Highway 7
Recommended
Action:
Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to approve 1st reading of
an ordinance approving the Vacation of an Alley and set second
reading for December 5, 2005.
8b. Wireless Internet Study
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the attached resolution authorizing staff to
proceed with a pilot project for wireless high-speed Internet
service at a cost not to exceed $280,000 with the intention of
subsequently establishing a citywide wireless high-speed Internet
service unless the results of the pilot study suggest that it is
unadvisable to proceed further.
8d. Request of JMW Development LLC for a Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment from Industrial to Commercial; and a Zoning Map Amendment
from IP – Industrial Park to C-1 –Neighborhood Commercial
Location: 5330 Cedar Lake Road
Applicant: JMW Development, LLC
Case No.: 05-34-CP and 05-35-Z.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the attached resolution approving the
Comprehensive Plan amendment to change the land use
designation from Industrial to Commercial and approve summary
for publication.
Motion to approve 1st reading of the attached ordinance approving
the zoning map amendment to change the zoning designation from
IP – Industrial Park to C-1 – Neighborhood Commercial and set
second reading for December 5, 2005.
8c. Hoigaard Village Amendment to the Official Zoning Map, Preliminary Planned
Unit Development (PUD), Preliminary Plat, Variance from the Subdivision
Ordinance
Case No. 05-61-S, 05-62-PUD, 05-63-VAC
Union Land, LLC.
SW Quadrant of Highway 100 and Highway 7
Recommended
Action:
• Motion to adopt 1st reading of an ordinance amending the
Official Zoning Map and set second reading for December 5,
2005.
• Motion to adopt a resolution of approval for the Preliminary
Planned Unit Development, subject to conditions in the
resolution.
• Motion to adopt a resolution of approval for the Preliminary
Plat and Variance from the Subdivision Ordinance, subject to
conditions in the resolution.
8f. Request by SilverCrest Properties for a Major Amendment to a Planned Unit
Development
Location: 3601 Park Center Boulevard
Applicant: SilverCrest Properties
Case No: Case No. 05-33-PUD
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt Resolution No. 000, authorizing a Major
Amendment to the Planned Unit Development for the
elimination of age restrictions at the Park Summit
Condominiums, with conditions.
8g. City Engineer’s Report: Westdale Park Detention Pond, Project No. 2006-1300
This report considers the construction of a water quality detention pond at Westdale
Park, located just east of Flag Avenue and adjacent to Westwood Lake.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the attached resolution accepting this report,
establishing and ordering Improvement Project No. 2006-1300,
approving plans and specifications, and authorizing advertisement
for bids.
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.
8e. Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment from Low Density Residential to
Medium Density Residential; and a Zoning Map Amendment from R2 Single
Family Residential to R4 – Multi Family Residential
Case No.: 05-58-CP and 05-59-Z
Applicant: Mitchell I. Kieffer
Location: 5714 Lake Street West
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve resolution to deny the Comprehensive Plan
amendment to change the land use designation from Low Density
Residential to Medium Density Residential and to deny the
zoning map amendment to change the zoning designation from R-
2 Single Family Residential to R4 – Multi Family Residential.
ST. LOUIS PARK CITY COUNCIL
MEETING OF NOVEMBER 21, 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 accept Jaycees donation of $500.00 and authorize the City to make a
contribution to the Police Reserves for $500.00.
4b. Preparation for possible purchase of tax forfeited property, 2741 Salem Ave South
from Hennepin County.
4c. Motion to accept BOZA Minutes of June 23, 2005 for filing
4d. Motion to accept Planning Commission Minutes of October 19, 2005 for filing
4e. Motion to accept Housing Authority Minutes of October 19, 2005 for filing
AGENDA SUPPLEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
***11-21-05***
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: 112105 - 3a - CC Minutes Nov. 7
Page 1
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
November 7, 2005
1. Call to Order
Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm.
Council members present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, John Basill, Jim Brimeyer, Phil Finkelstein, Paul
Omodt, Susan Sanger and Sue Santa
Staff present: Associate Planner (Mr. Fulton), City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney
(Mr. Scott), Director of Technology and Support Services (Mr. Pires), Human Resources
Coordinator (Ms. Fosse), Human Resources Director (Ms. Gohman), Planning/Zoning
Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal) and Recording Secretary (Ms. Stegora-Peterson).
2. Presentations
a. Recognition of Cindy Reichert
Mayor Jacobs recognized Ms. Reichert for 14 years of service as City Clerk.
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. City Council Minutes of October 10, 2005
Councilmember Sanger indicated on page eight, item 8c, second reading should be
October 17th.
Councilmember Santa noted on page six, the second paragraph, should read, “…for one
person finances may not be an issue”.
The minutes were approved as corrected.
3b. City Council Minutes of October 17, 2005
The minutes were approved as presented.
3c. Study Session Minutes of October 17, 2005
Councilmember Santa indicated on page two, seventh paragraph, to insert “along
Minnehaha Creek” after “city-owned land” and replace the word “use” with “study”.
The minutes were approved as corrected.
4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar
NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which need no
discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a Councilmember or a
member of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 3a - CC Minutes Nov. 7
Page 2
4a Designate Claude M. Anderson Electric Company as the lowest responsible
bidder and to authorize execution of a contract for the installation of a generator at
the Recreation Center.
4b Adopt Resolution No. 05-150 approving benefits for Paid-on-Call Firefighters
through Volunteer Firefighters’ Benefit Association of Minnesota
4c Authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute a contract with Uniforms
Unlimited for police uniforms for a two-year period from January 1, 2006,
through December 31, 2007
4d Adopt Resolution No. 05-151 for hardship special assessment deferral for senior
citizens & disabled citizens
4e Adopt Resolution No. 05-152 approving continued participation in the League of
Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT) for Workers Compensation Coverage,
effective December 1, 2005.
4f Adopt Resolution No. 05-153 authorizing Special Assessment of Dutch Elm
Diseased Trees
4g Adopt Resolution No. 05-154 authorizing final payment in the amount of
$12,867.41 for completion of 2004 Annual Sidewalk Maintenance – Ti-Zack
Concrete, Inc. for the City Contract No. 86-04
4h Adopt Resolution No. 05-155 authorizing final payment in the amount of $7,188.73
for completion of 2004 Trail Improvement Project – Hardrives, Inc. for City Contract
No. 93-04
4i Adopt Resolution No. 05-156 authorizing the Hennepin County Municipal Waste
Abatement Incentive Fund Agreement to fund the City’s parks recycling project.
4j Adopt Resolution No. 05-157 authorizing Special Assessment of Sewer and
Water Service Line Repair/Replacement
4k Accept Housing Authority Minutes of August 10, 2005 for filing
4l Accept vendor claims for filing (supplement)
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to approve the
Agenda and items listed on the Consent Calendar.
The motion passed 7-0.
5. Boards and Commissions - None
6. Public Hearings
6a. Time Warner Cable TV Franchise Renewal
Mr. Pires stated negotiations were continuing and they were close on terms that met
Council’s goal to ensure that local programming continues, as well as other business points.
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing.
Councilmember Omodt asked why they chose to extend the agreement through December 6th?
Mr. Pires responded it would allow staff to have the current franchise in effect through the
next two Council meetings.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 3a - CC Minutes Nov. 7
Page 3
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Omodt to continue
the public hearing to November 21, 2005 and extend the term of the franchise agreement
to December 6, 2005.
The motion passed 7-0.
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions
8a. Comcast Transfer
Mr. Pires stated that Comcast had expressed reservations about some of the provisions in
the resolution. Staff was working through the conditions to see if they could be met.
Comcast had authorized extension of the transfer application until December 6th.
Councilmember Brimeyer felt the Council needed to be prepared to provide drink, drive
and flush and Internet access to everyone.
It was moved by Councilmember Brimeyer, seconded by Councilmember Finkelstein, to
extend the date to consider transfer of the Cable Communications Franchise Ordinance
and cable system from Time Warner Cable, Inc. to Comcast Cable Communications, LLC
to December 6, 2005.
The motion passed 7-0.
8b Gateway Lofts Preliminary and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD),
Preliminary and Final Plat, and Variance from the Subdivision Ordinance
Case No. 05-52-PUD and 05-53-S Mr. Parrish Hemmeke 1324 and 1332 Kentucky
Ave. Resolution No.’s 05-147 and 05-148
Mr. Fulton presented the staff report.
Councilmember Brimeyer asked how long the project would take? Mr. Fulton replied
construction was intended to begin this fall, but it may be too late.
Councilmember Brimeyer indicated there was a concern about parking during construction.
Lane Moore, Custom Structures, indicated they were looking at 36 weeks of construction
time. The underground parking should be completed within 6-8 weeks and will be used
to park construction vehicles.
Mayor Jacobs asked when they planned to begin construction? Mr. Moore replied this
fall if possible.
Councilmember Finkelstein asked if there would be any major excavation, with many
dump trucks? Mr. Moore responded they would try to keep all of their equipment on-site
and use the driveway in the cul-de-sac.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 3a - CC Minutes Nov. 7
Page 4
Councilmember Finkelstein asked if they would use the park and go? Mr. Moore replied no.
It was moved by Councilmember Brimeyer, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to approve
Resolution No. 05-147 Preliminary and Final Planned Unit Development, subject to conditions
as stated in the Resolution.
The motion passed 7-0.
It was moved by Councilmember Brimeyer, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to approve
Resolution No. 05-148 Preliminary and Final Plat and Variance to the Subdivision Ordinance,
subject to conditions as stated in the Resolution.
The motion passed 7-0.
8c. Establishing 2006 employer contribution for City sponsored benefits program.
Ms. Fosse presented the staff report.
Councilmember Sanger commended HR staff for the good results they had achieved and
for working with other cities to achieve better rates. She was also glad they would be
getting rid of the distinction between exempt and non-exempt employees.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to adopt
Resolution No. 05-149 establishing the employer contribution levels for City sponsored
benefit programs effective January 1, 2006.
Councilmember Santa noted she would be abstaining because VEBA was administrated
through her employer.
Councilmember Basill asked if the grace period on the flexible spending account had
changed with the new federal law? Ms. Fosse replied they stayed with the calendar year
and had not changed the plan documents at this time.
The motion passed 6-0-1, with Councilmember Santa abstaining.
9. Communications
Mayor Jacobs reported on recognition St. Louis Park had received as one of the 100 Best
Communities for Young People.
Mr. Harmening reported on attending the award presentation in Washington DC. He thanked
those in the community who contributed.
Mayor Jacobs indicated Senior Chore Day was held last week and thanked the students and others that
assisted. He was very proud of them. Councilmember Finkelstein added that the girls synchronized
swim team also attended and noted their achievements.
Mayor Jacobs stated the election was the following day and people should get out and vote.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 3a - CC Minutes Nov. 7
Page 5
Councilmember Brimeyer announced the Community Foundation held their third annual Give
Back Day. Waste Management was donating $5,000 to the Community Foundation for work at
the Westwood Nature Center for programs or capital improvements. The Foundation gave out
$45,000, mostly for youth programs as a result of the donation from the Webber Family
Foundation. They held back $5,000 and the School Foundation had held back $5,000 to do a
joint Community Foundation/School Foundation project dealing with art in the community.
They hoped to present ideas in the spring.
10. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 8:08 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
City Clerk Mayor
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 4a - Police Reserves Contribution
Page 1
4a. Motion to accept Jaycees donation of $500.00 and authorize the City to make a
contribution to the Police Reserves for $500.00.
Background:
The Jaycees would like to donate $500.00 to the Police Reserves in recognition of the work that
the Police Reserves provided at a recent Jaycee function. Since the donation comes from
charitable gambling proceeds, the donation can only be given to a non-profit or government
entity.
Since the Police reserves have not yet applied for non-profit status, the Jaycees can not make the
donation directly to them. The Police reserve account is not part of the City funds; thus can not
be considered a government entity.
The Jaycees can make a donation to the City. In recognition of all the benefits the city receives
from the police reserves, the city could, in turn, make a donation of $500.00 to the Police
Reserves. The end result would be the same; however, to meet all regulatory requirements, the
process would need to be completed as stated above.
Attachments: None
Prepared By: Jodi Bursheim, Assistant Finance Director
Reviewed By: Jean McGann, Director of Finance
Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 4b - 2741 Salem Ave Tax Forfeit
Page 1
4b. Preparation for possible purchase of tax forfeited property, 2741 Salem Ave
South from Hennepin County.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve resolution approving designation of
nonconservation land shown on Classification List “1346 C/NC”
by Board of County Commissioners of Hennepin County.
Background
At the November 14, 2005 Study Session, Council received a written report regarding the
possible acquisition of a tax forfeit singe family property located at 2741 Salem Ave S.
On September 30, 2005, Hennepin County notified the city that the property at 2741 Salem
Ave S has been tax forfeited. Whenever property goes tax forfeit in Hennepin County, the
County advises the city where the property is located. Cities have the option of requesting a tax
deed for the property for a public purpose, requesting a nonpublic sale to the city, or authorizing
the County to sell the property at auction. To exercise the nonpublic sale option, cities are
required to approve a resolution approving designation of tax forfeit land as non-conservation
and requesting its purchase in order for it to be sold for development. The resolution must be
passed within 60 days from date of notification, in this case by November 23, 2005.
Owner/County Negotiations
• This tax forfeit case is unusual in that the owner and county are currently negotiating a resale
of the property back to the owner. If the owner and county reach agreement and resale to the
owner occurs, the city would not be allowed to acquire the property.
• However, in the event the owner-county negotiations fall through, the city would have the
option to acquire the property.
The purpose of approving the resolution within the 60-day deadline is to ensure that the City
would have the option to purchase the property if the owner and county do not reach agreement.
Approval of the resolution would not bind the city to acquire the property.
Potential Use of Property
This home appears to have potential for expansion as part of the Home Renewal Lite Program.
Staff has not been allowed access, so the property condition has not been confirmed; however
based on exterior visual drive by and known property information it appears the home would be
suitable for expansion with a new 2 car garage.
§ This property is a single family home in the Fern Hill Neighborhood.
§ The lot is zoned R2 and is 40’ x 128’ with alley.
§ The 1 ½ story home was built in 1951, has a full bath and 2 bedrooms on 1st floor and 1
bedroom in the upstairs expansion. 1st floor has 946 sq ft and expansion has 435 sq ft.
§ There is a single stall detached garage.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 4b - 2741 Salem Ave Tax Forfeit
Page 2
§ The home is rated in average condition by the City appraiser.
§ The relatively modest price of the home would make expansion an economically viable
option in this neighborhood.
If the property were unsuitable for a large family home, it might have the potential to become an
affordable ownership opportunity through a partnership with West Hennepin Community Land
Trust or Habitat for Humanity.
Potential Estimated Revenue - $60-$80,000
• Total upfront acquisition cost would be approximately $173,044.
The county determined purchase price is based on the 2005 assessed value of $165,700;
special assessment payment of $2,724; assurance fee, state deed preparation fee, filing fees
and the state deed tax totaling approximately $1,560. Legal and administrative fees related to
the acquisition will be approximately $1,500.
• The county would reimburse the city approximately $82,000.
If sold, the County would be required to share the proceeds from the sale with the City. The
City’s share of the sale proceeds will be approximately half the purchase price.
• An individual/builder would likely pay the city approximately $150,000 - $170,000 for the
property, resulting in net revenue of approximately $60,000 - $80,000.
Next Steps
Staff will keep council apprised of negotiations between the owner and county. In the event the
property can be acquired, staff will seek Council direction on acquisition and use of the property.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the Resolution approving designation of non-
conservation land shown on Classification List “1346 C/NC” by the Board of County
Commissioners of Hennepin County. Approval of this resolution does not bind the city to
acquire the property.
Attachment: Resolution
City Manager’s Digest item
Staff recently touched base with the developers of the Aquila Commons Senior Co-op project,
Stonebridge Development, in order to obtain an update. Staff was informed that demolition of
the former Talmud Torah school building would begin in the next two weeks. Stonebridge also
hopes to close on its construction financing in early December. This will enable commencement
of building construction in the spring.
Prepared By: Kathy Larsen, Housing Programs Coordinator
Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 4b - 2741 Salem Ave Tax Forfeit
Page 3
RESOLUTION NO. 05-_____
RESOLUTION APPROVING DESIGNATION OF NONCONSERVATION
LAND SHOWN ON CLASSIFICATION LIST “1346 C/NC”
BY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF HENNEPIN COUNTY
2741 SALEM AVENUE SOUTH
WHEREAS, the City Council of St. Louis Park has received from the County Auditor of
Hennepin County a list of lands in said City which became the property of the State of
Minnesota for nonpayment of taxes and said list has been designated as Classification List “1346
C/NC”; and
WHEREAS, the parcel of land described in said list has heretofore been classified by the
Board of County Commissioners of Hennepin County as nonconservation land, and
WHEREAS, in the event the owner does not repurchase the property, in a timely
manner, the City requests acquisition of said properties for redevelopment of a single family
home under the Home Renewal Program which is administered by the St. Louis Park Housing
Authority;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council, pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes 1949, Section 282.01, Subd. 1, that the Board’s classification of land as nonconservation
described in said list is approved, and the sale of the land described below is approved:
Lot 20, Block 4, “Oak Lawn”, Hennepin County, Minnesota
Property I.D. 31 029 24 32 0138
2741 Salem Avenue South
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 21, 2005
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 4c - BOZA Meeting Minutes 06-23-05
Page 1
Board of Zoning Appeals/June 23, 2005
Page 1 of 6
MINUTES OF JUNE 23, 2005
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
The St. Louis Park Board of Zoning Appeals Committee conducted a regular meeting on
Thursday, June 23, 2005, at St. Louis Park City Hall, 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard, St.
Louis Park, Minnesota.
Members Present: Chair Susan Bloyer
Vice Chair Ryan Burt
Commissioner James Gainsley
Commissioner Paul Roberts
Commissioner Henry Solmer
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Tara Olson, Community Development Secretary
1. CALL TO ORDER – ROLL CALL
Chair Bloyer called the regular meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
2. APPROVE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMITTEE MINUTES
Motion by Commissioner Gainsley, seconded by Commissioner Solmer, to approve the
following minutes:
1) Board of Zoning Appeals Committee public hearing and regular meeting minutes dated
March 24, 2005.
Motion Carried. Voting Yes: Bloyer, Burt, Gainsley, Roberts and Solmer. Voting No: None.
3. CONSENT AGENDA
None
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 4c - BOZA Meeting Minutes 06-23-05
Page 2
Board of Zoning Appeals/June 23, 2005
Page 2 of 6
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS/COMMITTEE BUSINESS
A. Case No. 05-24-VAR – The request by Francie Glickman for a variance from the
requirements of Sections 36-163(f)(5) & (8) of the Zoning Ordinance to allow an
attached garage to be located 2.5 feet from the rear property line instead of the
required 25 feet, and 13.3 feet from the side property line abutting the street instead
of the required 20.75 feet for property located at 2900 Ottawa Avenue South.
In as much as staff believes that all 7 criterion have been satisfied, staff recommends approval of
the attached Resolution #04-05 approving a 22.5 foot variance to the required 25 foot rear yard,
and a 7.45 foot variance to the required 20.75 foot side yard abutting the street for the
construction of a two car attached garage based on the findings in the attached Resolution.
With no questions, Chair Bloyer opened the public hearing.
Fancie Glickman, applicant of 2900 Ottawa Avenue South, stated she would like to build a new
garage because her existing garage is starting to rot. Her existing garage has a dirt floor which is
causing retained moisture inside and fears soon she will have animals nesting in her garage.
Commissioner Solmer asked Ms. Glickman what was causing water to run into her garage.
Ms. Glickman stated that when it rains water runs along the sidewalk adjacent to her garage and
into her garage though the many wood rotted holes.
Commissioner Solmer was wondering if this elevation problem would persist with her new
garage or if this is something she will correct.
Ms. Glickman stated she has discussed the water problem with her contractor and they will make
sure it is corrected.
With no questions, Chair Bloyer closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Gainsley feels that the grade of the land is a hardship and is in favor of granting
the variance.
Motion by Commissioner Gainsley, seconded by Commissioner Roberts, to approve Resolution
No. 04-05 to allow a variance from the requirements of Sections 36-163(f)(5) & (8) of the
Zoning Ordinance to allow an attached garage to be located 2.5 feet from the rear property line
instead of the required 25 feet, and 13.3 feet from the side property line abutting the street instead
of the required 20.75 feet for property located at 2900 Ottawa Avenue South.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 4c - BOZA Meeting Minutes 06-23-05
Page 3
Board of Zoning Appeals/June 23, 2005
Page 3 of 6
Motion Carried. Voting Yes: Bloyer, Burt, Gainsley, Roberts and Solmer. Voting No: None.
B. Case No. 05-25-VAR – The request by David & Linda Palmquist for a variance
from Sections 36-163(f)(5) & 8 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow an attached garage
and addition to the home to be located 5 feet from the side property line instead of
the required 6 feet, and a 6 foot side yard instead of the required 8 feet and 4 inches
for that portion of the addition that is beyond the first 40 feet in side wall length for
property located at 7936 26th Street West.
In as much as staff believes that all 7 criterion have been satisfied, staff recommends approval of
the attached Resolution No. 05-05 approving a 1 foot variance to the required 6-foot side yard for
the construction of a two car attached garage, together with a 2 foot 4 inch variance to required 8
foot 4 inch side yard to allow the construction of an addition to the back of the home based on
the findings in the attached Resolution.
Commissioner Gainsley questioned the year the home was constructed.
Applicant responded that the home was constructed in 1951.
With no questions, Chair Bloyer opened the public hearing.
David Palmquist, applicant of 7936 26th Street West, stated his family has outgrown their present
home and they would like to add an addition which will accommodate their family needs and
storage. He has priced comparison homes in St. Louis Park and has found that he and his family
would prefer remodeling the existing home then having to relocating the family to another city
and face relocating his children to a different school district.
Commissioner Solmer asked Mr. Palmquist if the proposed site drawings were created before he
was made aware of the setback issues.
Mr. Palmquist stated he was aware of the garage setback but was not aware of the additional
setback for a long wall.
Commissioner Solmer asked Mr. Palmquist if he has yet consulted with his builder to redo the
site drawings.
Commissioner Solmer asked Mr. Palmquist if he would be able to build further to the back.
Mr. Palmquist stated he could make that adjustment but it would greatly reduce the laundry size
and/or the rear yard space.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 4c - BOZA Meeting Minutes 06-23-05
Page 4
Board of Zoning Appeals/June 23, 2005
Page 4 of 6
Commissioner Solmer asked Mr. Palmquist if he has considered rearranging the addition walls
into the rear yard and still have the same proposed square feet.
Mr. Palmquist stated that he has not.
Commissioner Burt asked Mr. Palmquist if the neighbor to the east has seen the plans.
Mr. Palmquist stated the neighbor has seen the plans and is in support of the addition.
Chair Bloyer pointed out that the submitted drawings don’t list the amount of proposed square
footage or a scale and is wondering if decreasing the family room by one square foot would still
allow the applicant to have a larger laundry room.
Mr. Palmquist stated he hasn’t spoken to his builder about that option and does fear reducing the
living room would create the exterior of the home to have a notch look.
Chair Bloyer asked Mr. Palmquist if he knew the proposed length of the laundry room without
the living room addition.
Mr. Palmquist stated that he believes the distance is 9 or 10 feet. Also, he pointed out that he
does have a new site plan that shows a few minor revisions to the current plans, the new plans
has a ½ bath and an L shaped pantry.
Commissioner Gainsley stated he can’t find a hardship and feels the lot is plenty big and would
like to find alternatives to the building plan.
Mr. Palmquist stated that the garage proposal is much more important than the home addition
and would be willing to revisit building plans with his builder to meet the setback requirements.
Commissioner Gainsley suggested that continuing the meeting at a later date is an option.
Commissioner Burt suggested the Board review each of the requested two variances separately;
suggesting a continuation on the home addition variance request which could allow time for the
applicant and the builder to revise the home addition plans.
Commissioner Gainsley would like the applicants to spend more time with their builder on
options to avoid needing the home addition variance.
Mr. Palmquist stated he would be fine with an approved garage variance and a continuation of
the home addition variance.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 4c - BOZA Meeting Minutes 06-23-05
Page 5
Board of Zoning Appeals/June 23, 2005
Page 5 of 6
With no questions, Chair Bloyer closed the public hearing.
Chair Bloyer stated she is in favor of granting the garage setback variance and continuing the
home addition variance to a later meeting.
Commissioner Gainsley stated he is in favor of granting the garage variance to allow the option
of move-up housing in St. Louis Park since a two-car garage is a reasonable need but would like
a continuation on the home addition variance.
Motion by Commissioner Gainsley, seconded by Commissioner Burt to approve Resolution No.
05-05 to allow a variance from Sections 36-163(f)(5) of the Zoning Ordinance to allow an
attached garage and addition to the home to be located 5 feet from the side property line instead
of the required 6 feet and table consideration of the requested variance to Section 36-163(f)(8)
for a 6 foot side yard instead of the required 8 feet and 4 inches for that portion of the addition
that is beyond 40 feet in side wall length, until the September meeting so that Mr. Palmquist
could either revise site drawings or withdraw the application.
Motion Carried. Voting Yes: Bloyer, Burt, Gainsley, Roberts and Solmer. Voting No: None.
5. Old Business
Commissioners have decided to schedule the training on July 28, 2005 at 6:00 p.m.
6. New Business
a. Election of Officers
Chair Gainsley nominated Commissioner Burt to be elected as Chairperson.
Commissioner Burt received a 4 to 1 vote as Chairperson.
Commissioner Burt accepts position of Chairperson.
Motion by Commissioner Gainsley, seconded by Commissioner Roberts, that Ryan Burt be
elected Chairperson.
Commissioner Roberts nominated Commissioner Gainsley to be elected as Vice Chairperson.
Commissioner Gainsley accepts position of Vice Chairperson.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 4c - BOZA Meeting Minutes 06-23-05
Page 6
Board of Zoning Appeals/June 23, 2005
Page 6 of 6
Motion by Commissioner Roberts, seconded by Commissioner Burt, that James Gainsley be
elected Vice Chairperson.
Motion Carried. Voting Yes: Bloyer, Burt, Gainsley, Roberts and Solmer. Voting No: None.
7. Communications
None
8. Miscellaneous
None
9. Adjournment
Commissioner Roberts moved and Commissioner Burt seconded the motion for adjournment.
The regular meeting of the Board of Zoning appeals adjourned at 7:48 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Tara Olson
Community Development Secretary
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 4d - Planning Commission Minutes 10-19-05
Page 1
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
October 19, 2005--6:00 p.m.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynne Carper, Claudia Johnston-Madison, Dennis
Morris, Carl Robertson, Jerry Timian
MEMBERS ABSENT: Robert Kramer
STAFF PRESENT: Adam Fulton, Meg McMonigal, Gary Morrison,
Nancy Sells
1. Call to Order – Roll Call
Commissioner Timian arrived at 6:18 p.m.
2. Approval of Minutes of October 5, 2005
Commissioner Robertson moved approval of the minutes. Commissioner Morris
seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0.
3. Hearings
A. Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning from Low Density Residential to
Medium Density Residential (continued from October 5, 2005)
Location: 5714 West Lake Street
Applicant: Kieffer Family Limited Partnership
Case Nos.: 05-58-CP and 05-59-Z
Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator, presented the staff report.
Mitchell Kieffer, applicant, commented that the staff report says that R-4 multi-family
housing is to the north and east of his property. He said according to the
Comprehensive Plan, in 1997 over 6,000 cars traveled on West Lake Street per day. He
added that currently that number must be much higher based on cut through traffic related
to Highway 100 road work.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 4d - Planning Commission Minutes 10-19-05
Page 2
Mr. Kieffer said his family built the adjacent apartment building on Lake Street in 1967.
It has always been maintained up to the high standards of the neighborhood. Two years
ago they invested heavily in landscaping and other improvements. That property is
zoned R-4. The townhomes directly behind his property are also zoned R-4. Mr.
Kieffer said the zoning map is somewhat misleading as there are two lots on the other
side of West Lake Street coming up from Minnetonka Blvd. that are zoned R-2, but
which are actually commercial buildings grandfathered into that district. He said the
zoning map provided in the staff report does not show the church and church parking lot
directly behind 5701 West Lake Street, which is the house in front of his property. He
went on to say that McDonald’s is about .3 mile from the subject property, as are other
commercial buildings and the high school.
Mr. Kieffer noted that the staff recommendation for his applications is for approval.
Mr. Kieffer said people have assumed the property was a small fixer-upper. He said
there were many code compliance issues that needed correction, including new 100 amp
electrical service. He said the exterior will remain unchanged, except for replacing the
broken front steps and trimming of bushes. He said his business is real estate financial
management. He is also co-owner of a business that sells products primarily to large
retail chains such as Ace Hardware and Home Depot. He said the company does not
distribute or receive products at 5714 West Lake Street. A warehouse is located out of
state. Customers do not visit the property so he does not believe traffic would be
increased on West Lake Street. He said that no one other than himself comes to the
home on weekends when the traffic and parking from the corner church reaches almost to
his property. Mr. Kieffer said that parking will not be permitted on the lawn or
neighbor’s driveway.
Commissioner Morris asked why Mr. Kieffer doesn’t use one of his vacant apartment
units for his office.
Mr. Kieffer said since the house is a three bedroom house it provides space for three
separate offices. There are no three bedroom units in the apartment building.
Commissioner Morris noted that the application states the office would be a temporary
use.
Mr. Kieffer said things have changed a little bit since the application was made. The
business has put a lot of money into the correction items which were ordered by the
Inspections Department.
Commissioner Morris asked what efforts Mr. Kieffer made to look for zoned office
space. He asked why this house was considered for his office.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 4d - Planning Commission Minutes 10-19-05
Page 3
Mr. Kieffer said it was a series of happenstances. He’s owned the adjacent apartment
building since 1967. He drove by and saw the house was for sale. He didn’t know what
he was going to use it for. He happened to sell his house in Minneapolis around the same
time. He had his office in the carriage house of that property. He said a lot of thought
did not go into the purchase of the house.
Commissioner Robertson asked if the applicant had looked into what it will cost to meet
commercial building codes.
Mr. Kieffer responded that he didn’t think those items would be prohibitive. He said
currently he has enough “on his plate” and that he would prefer not to move.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked why the applicant didn’t look into the zoning for
office before purchasing the property.
Mr. Kieffer said the property was purchased because it was available, it was next door to
his apartment property, and it was well priced. The company purchased the property
quickly because they thought it was a good idea. The idea to use the house for an office
happened after the purchase.
Commissioner Timian asked if the applicant has developed a long term strategy since the
purchase of the house.
Mr. Kieffer said the decision to purchase the property was made in about 1 ½ hours.
He said his general plan is to use the home as an office for the next 2 – 5 years.
The applicant distributed copies of the City Inspections and Correction Notice for 5714
Lake Street West.
The Chairperson stated that the public hearing remained open from October 5, 2005.
Loren Bottner, said he lives at 3067 Zarthan which is part of the townhouse community
immediately behind 5714 Lake Street West. He asked how the zoning for parking will
impact the property. He asked if parking would be required to be in the front or if the
property would have to be reshaped to accommodate parking in the rear.
Mr. Morrison said if the applicant keeps the use as office they would need to apply for a
Conditional Use Permit. He stated that there would be some ability to put some parking
in the front or off to the side. Commercial standards for parking require a 25 ft. drive
aisle. The existing garage could be used for one parking space. A joint access
agreement would allow some parking in the backyard. Buffering would be required for
backyard parking.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 4d - Planning Commission Minutes 10-19-05
Page 4
Sonja Christopherson, 5720 W. Lake St., said she lives next door to the Kieffer home.
She said Mr. Kieffer and the other partners have been very pleasant to her. She gave
them permission to park in front of her house at any time. She said 5714 W. Lake St. is a
beautiful setting and it would be sad to see any changes made.
Howard Rosten, representing the applicant, said Mr. Kieffer would comply with
requirements for drive aisle for a commercial use. He said if the City would prefer that
the property be kept looking like a residential home even though it is an office, they
would be happy not to expand the drive aisle.
Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor, said that particular kind of site issue
would be addressed at the time of a conditional use permit application should the
rezoning and Comp Plan amendment go forward.
Chair Carper closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked if there was any other way for Mr. Kieffer to
accomplish the office use without changing the zoning.
Mr. Morrison said there isn’t another option. A home occupation is an option, however,
there is a limit to how much of a home can be utilized in this business, and only
occupants of the home can work in a home occupation.
Commissioner Robertson said he was adamantly opposed to the request. He said there is
a struggle to find single family homes, so he can’t support a perfectly good single family
home and lot being turned into an office. Commissioner Robertson said the City’s recent
Housing Summit identified a shortage of larger single family homes and an abundance of
multi-family housing. The applicant’s request goes against what a lot of people have
been working for in the City. He suggested that the need to change the interior from
residential to commercial is probably more substantial than the applicant realizes.
Commissioner Morris asked what percentage of the upgrade had been completed before
inspectors stopped office renovation.
Mr. Morrison responded that it is virtually completed. The renovation was primarily
wiring for computers and phones. The remainder was bringing it up to code for a single
family home.
Commissioner Morris asked if Conditional Use Permits can be timed to expire.
Ms. McMonigal said there is mixed case law on expiration. Generally the permit runs
with the land. She said she could speak with the City Attorney for clarification.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 4d - Planning Commission Minutes 10-19-05
Page 5
Commissioner Morris said he agrees with Commissioner Robertson regarding the land
use. He said he didn’t agree with the indefinite use of a single family residence for office
under the current circumstances. The Comp Plan and Housing Goals promote the
upgrade of housing stock. The interim use for an office when there is office vacancy
throughout St. Louis Park and the metro area is not acceptable. Commissioner Morris
said he agreed with residents who spoke at the previous meeting who said that the request
is creeping encroachment of land uses.
Commissioner Johnson-Madison said she didn’t support the rezoning and Comp Plan
change. She said the applicant is sincere but she is concerned about future use. The
request doesn’t fit into the City goals for single family housing homes.
Chair Carper said he had concerns about the request as it is inconsistent with the goal of
encouraging single family housing. He said he was concerned about approving a
rezoning without a definite plan.
Commissioner Robertson made a motion to recommend denial of the Comprehensive
Plan amendment to change the land use designation from Low Density Residential to
Medium Density Residential and to recommend denial of a zoning map amendment to
change the zoning designation from R2 – Single Family Residential to R-4 – Multi
Family Residential. Commissioner Johnston-Madison seconded the motion. The
motion to recommend denial passed on a vote of 5-0.
B. Gateway Lofts Variance from Subdivision Ordinance regarding drainage and
utility easements (public hearing) and consideration of Preliminary and Final
Plat and Planned Unit Development for Condominium Building (unfinished
business)
Location: 1324 and 1332 Kentucky Ave. S.
Applicant: Parrish Hemmeke
Case No.: 05-53-S and 05-52-PUD
Adam Fulton, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. He reviewed plan revisions
which have been made since the September 21st meeting. Sidewalk has been included
along Kentucky Ave. The retention pond has been changed slightly to accommodate
sidewalk and change in ownership. Mr. Fulton said the applicant has also decided to
locate the building a bit off the property line. He reviewed changes to the plat. A
sidewalk easement won’t be required. Mr. Fulton said the applicant will provide 21% of
the site for DORA. Street dedication for the south cul-de-sac has been provided.
Commissioner Morris asked if there was any resolution regarding parking in the cul-de-
sac during construction.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 4d - Planning Commission Minutes 10-19-05
Page 6
Mr. Fulton said conditions about off-site parking for construction employees during
preliminary construction phases can be added. Subsequent to that, there will be parking
available once underground parking is complete. The applicant has agreed to work with
the Blinds Store owner to minimize construction parking.
Chair Carper opened the public hearing for the variance from the subdivision ordinance.
As no one was present wishing to speak, the Chair closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Morris thanked the developer and staff for coming back with a revised
plan that met all the concerns and conditions which were raised at the September 21st
meeting.
Commissioner Robertson said he agreed with Commissioner Morris’ remarks.
Commissioner Morris made a motion recommending approval of the Preliminary and
Final Plat and Planned Unit Development and variance from the Subdivision Ordinance.
Commissioner Robertson seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0.
C. Zoning text amendment allowing “Places of Assembly” as a Conditional Use in
the C-1, Neighborhood Commercial; C-2, General Commercial and O, Office
zoning districts.
Case No: 05-60-ZA
Ms. McMonigal presented the staff report. She distributed a revised draft ordinance.
Chair Carper asked if a map overlay is available which illustrates the affected zoning
districts.
Ms. McMonigal indicated the affected districts on the zoning map.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison suggested that the topic may need a study session
discussion.
Ms. McMonigal said a study session could be held.
Chair Carper opened the public hearing.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 4d - Planning Commission Minutes 10-19-05
Page 7
Jan Burke, representative of a new orthodox congregation, Darchei Noam, said the
congregation is trying to find space in St. Louis Park and is limited by the eruv. She
explained that when they were looking for a space, they discovered they couldn’t take a
space in a commercial district. The spaces they are looking at are limited to
Minnetonka Blvd. Ms. Burke said the urgency is that to go through the planning
process, including a Conditional Use Permit, they wouldn’t be able to build until spring.
She said the congregation is desperately looking for space as quickly as possible.
Ms. McMonigal said staff has worked with the synagogue over the past several months
looking for possible alternative sites. The synagogue has worked very hard and continues
to look at every possible site within the eruv area. She said the issue was discussed once
or twice at City Council study sessions. Ms. McMonigal said the proposed amendment
has changed a bit as the ordinance has been expanded.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked which zoning district would be most affected by
the amendment.
Ms. McMonigal responded that the C-1 district would be impacted the most. She went
on to explain that C-1 district is along the south side of Excelsior Blvd. and various spots
along Minnetonka Blvd. and Louisiana Ave.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked how property owners were notified of the
proposed amendment.
Ms. McMonigal said notification of property owners is typically not done for a City-wide
ordinance. A public hearing notice for City-wide ordinances is always published,
however.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison said she was not comfortable considering the request at
this time.
Commissioner Morris discussed a scenario such as Miracle Mile where a liquor store
recently opened. He asked if it would be allowed to co-exist next to a place of assembly.
Ms. McMonigal said theoretically that was correct, unless there were some requirements
regarding liquor licensing.
Commissioner Morris said he agreed with Commission Johnston-Madison that there
needs to be more discussion about the amendment. He said theoretically religious
assemblies could be next to bars, restaurants, and gun clubs.
Mr. Fulton commented that Federal law prohibits local government from prohibiting
churches from locating in a place similar to where a club or lodge would be allowed.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 4d - Planning Commission Minutes 10-19-05
Page 8
Commissioner Morris said the synogogue’s specific need and location may not be in
conflict, but there may be unintended conflicts as applied to the zoning code and City in
general.
Ms. McMonigal said a study session could be held. She suggested that the City Attorney
could attend as well.
Commissioner Timian stated that it might be a joint City Council and Planning
Commission study session.
Ms. McMonigal said staff would look into that.
Ms. Burke stated that currently the only place to have a place of worship is in a
residential area. She commented that parking issues are even more dramatic in a
residential area.
Chair Carper said that more discussion was needed to address unintended consequences
of the proposed amendment.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison moved to continue the public hearing until a study
session is held. Commissioner Robertson seconded the motion. The motion passed on a
vote of 5-0.
Discussion was held about inviting the City Council to a Planning Commission study
session on this topic.
4. Unfinished Business
A. Amendment to Comprehensive Plan Designation from Industrial to Commercial
and Rezoning from IP Industrial to C1 Neighborhood Commercial for 1.5 acre
parcel
Location: 5330 Cedar Lake Road
Applicant: JMW Development/Paul Maenner
Case Nos.: 05-34-CP and 05-35-Z
Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Administrator, presented the staff report.
In her summary, Ms. McMonigal stated that while the site may be good from a marketing
and visibility standpoint, that doesn’t necessarily mean it is a good long term land use for
the City. Based upon the staff analysis, Ms. McMonigal stated that staff recommends
denial of the requests.
Commissioner Timian asked for more detail about a proposed Duke development to the
north. Ms. McMonigal pointed out the Duke properties. She said a fairly extensive
development of office and mixed-use is planned for the site.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 4d - Planning Commission Minutes 10-19-05
Page 9
Commissioner Morris asked Ms. McMonigal about Public Works’ viewpoint on the
feasibility of the proposed pedestrian cross walks on the north and south end of the site.
Ms. McMonigal said a site analysis has not been completed as the current request regards
land use. She remarked that the crossings would have to be at the corners.
Commissioner Timian commented on pedestrians running across Cedar Lake Road from
the overflow parking ramp for the Northwest Athletic Club rather than using a shuttle
bus.
Paul Maenner, partner, JMW Development, said JMW’s office is located right across the
street from the site in the Parkdale Office complex.
Mr. Maenner said that 45% of the building at 5330 Cedar Lake Road is typical warehouse
used for storage, so there isn’t any major manufacturing process going on at the site.
Mr. Maenner spoke about the traffic study. He said JMW believes the traffic impacts
will be even less than those projected by the study, as their revised plan is for 12,000 sq.
ft., versus the original proposal of 15,000 sq. ft.
Mr. Maenner reviewed the revised plans to reuse the building. He said JMW proposes to
keep an encroachment agreement with the City on the adjacent City land.
Mr. Maenner stated what JMW feels are the compelling reasons to support the proposal.
He said traffic will not be negatively impacted. He commented that the area is
underserved and by adding a few additional retail options, the proposal will support
existing assets and help make them more productive. The aesthetic appearance of the
property will be improved and a building will be recycled. Mr. Maenner noted that JMW
isn’t asking for any City subsidies. They anticipate the property will generate taxes
approximately 96% higher than what is currently generated.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked what other uses are proposed besides a restaurant
and coffee shop.
Mr. Maenner said it will be uses supportive of the office environment and complementary
to the existing uses. They haven’t done a marketing study. He said they are considering
uses like a home accessory business and a copy business.
Commissioner Morris said he was inclined to approve the request. He said he didn’t feel
this site would ever be guided for Industrial Park use considering the configuration of
Hwy. 100 and the access roads. He didn’t think the loss of this one I-P property would
outweigh the economic advantages. He said he felt the revisions the applicant made are
better than the original proposal. He felt there was a need for the use and the traffic
generated wasn’t bad.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 4d - Planning Commission Minutes 10-19-05
Page 10
Commissioner Robertson said he agreed with Commissioner Morris’ remarks. He said
on principle he was concerned about changing an industrial property, but felt that the
applicant presented a compelling argument.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison said the proposed uses could be complementary to the
Duke development. She said she understood the concern that uses could change. She
asked Ms. McMonigal if she had concerns about traffic.
Ms. McMonigal responded that the traffic could change based on the type and number of
uses.
Chair Carper said he felt the applicant addressed earlier concerns of the Planning
Commission. He said the proposal does have issues regarding crosswalks.
Commissioner Morris moved to recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan
amendment to change the land use designation from Industrial to Commercial and
approval of a zoning map amendment to change the zoning designation from IP –
Industrial Park to C-1 Neighborhood Commercial. Commissioner Timian seconded the
motion. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0.
5. New Business
Ms. McMonigal discussed options for a zoning study session.
6. Communications
A. Chair Carper stated that Michelle Bissonnette had resigned from the Planning
Commission. He thanked Ms. Bissonnette for her service.
B. Ms. McMonigal stated that the October 5th meeting of the Planning Commission
was not scheduled in error. The meeting was scheduled in accordance with the
City’s meeting policy on holidays and major religious holidays.
7. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Nancy Sells
Administrative Secretary
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 4e - HA Board Minutes 10-19-05
Page 1
1
MINUTES
Housing Authority
St. Louis Park City Hall, Westwood Room
St. Louis Park, Minnesota
Wednesday, October 19, 2005
5:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Catherine Courtney, Steve Fillbrandt and Anne
Mavity. Commissioner Judith Moore arrived at 5:06 p.m.
STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Anderson, Cindy Stromberg, Jane Klesk, Michele Schnitker
and Brian Swanson
OTHERS PRESENT: Nate Oliver, Kern, DeWenter, Viere, Ltd., Certified Public
Accountants
1. Call to Order
Commissioner Courtney called the meeting to order at 5:03 p.m.
2. Approval of Minutes for August, 2005
The August 10, 2005 minutes were unanimously approved.
3. Hearings – None
4. Reports and Committees – None
5. Unfinished Business – None
6. New Business
a. Audit Presentation
Mr. Oliver provided an explanation of the Audited Financial Statements and
Management Letter for Fiscal Year Ended March 31, 2005. He stated that the
Housing Authority received a clean opinion with no material weaknesses or
reportable conditions. Mr. Oliver answered commissioners’ questions and also
explained changes due to the implementation of Governmental Accounting Standards
Board (GASB) guidelines, which require that additional information be reported as
well as changes to the reporting format.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 4e - HA Board Minutes 10-19-05
Page 2
2
b. Approval of Revised Payment Standards for Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher
Program
Ms. Stromberg explained that HUD recently issued new Fair Market Rents (FMRs)
for the Metro area at the 50th percentile, effective October 1, 2005. Staff proposes
that the HA’s Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Payment Standards be revised to
equal the FMRs for all bedroom sizes, and recommends that the Commissioners
approve the revised Payment Standards of $619 for zero bedroom, $725 for one
bedroom, $882 for two bedrooms, $1,168 for three bedrooms, $1,318 for four
bedrooms and $1,516 for five bedrooms. Commissioner Mavity moved to approve
the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program Payment Standards to equal the
FMRs for all bedroom sizes, effective December 1, 2005, and Commissioner Moore
seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0, with Commissioners Courtney,
Fillbrandt, Mavity and Moore voting in favor.
c. Resolution No. 540, Disposition of Obsolete Equipment
Ms. Anderson stated the HA has two vehicles slated for disposition at auction, a 1990
Ford pick-up truck and a 1994 Dodge van. Commissioner Moore moved to approve
Resolution No. 540, Resolution of the Housing Authority Authorizing Disposition of
Obsolete Equipment, and Commissioner Fillbrandt seconded the motion. The motion
passed 4-0, with Commissioners Courtney, Fillbrandt, Mavity and Moore voting in
favor.
d. Approval of Caretaker Contract for Hamilton House
Ms. Anderson explained that the current Hamilton House caretaker has given notice
for November 15, 2005. Commissioner Mavity moved for approval of the Hamilton
House Caretaker Contract with Razdija and Jasmina Suljic at a fee of $450 per month
plus free rental of Unit 222, effective December 1, 2005. Commissioner Moore
seconded the motion, and the motion passed 4-0, with Commissioners Courtney,
Fillbrandt, Mavity and Moore voting in favor.
e. FSS Annual Report
Ms. Schnitker provided a brief explanation of the 2005 Family Self-Sufficiency
Report. The HA received notice of a $18,638 FSS grant award for Section 8
participant use for the coming year, and this will fund the program through
December, 2006 when combined with CDBG funds.
f. Update on Louisiana Court
Ms. Schnitker informed the Board that U.S. Bank decided not to purchase additional
tax credits for Louisiana Court and is proposing to sell their Limited Partnership
interest. PPL has initiated discussions with two potential replacements, however,
until this issue is finally resolved, capital funding from the County, MHFA and the
City has been put on hold.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 4e - HA Board Minutes 10-19-05
Page 3
3
7. Communications from Executive Director
a. Claims List September and October - 2005
Commissioner Moore moved for ratification of Claims List No. 10–2005, and
Commissioner Mavity seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0, with
Commissioners Courtney, Fillbrandt, Mavity and Moore voting in favor.
b. Communications
1. Update – Excess Public Land Task Force
2. Strategic Plan Follow-Up
3. Action Plan
4. Monthly Report for September and October, 2005
5. Scattered Site Houses and Hamilton House (verbal report)
6. Draft Financial Statements - Report
8. Other
9. Adjournment
Commissioner Moore moved to adjourn the meeting, and Commissioner Mavity seconded
the motion. The motion passed 4-0, with Commissioners Courtney, Fillbrandt, Mavity and
Moore voting in favor. The meeting adjourned at 6:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Anne Mavity, Secretary
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 6a - Public Hearing 2006 Utility Rates
Page 1
6a. Public Hearing to Consider 2006 Utility Rates
First reading of an ordinance setting 2006 rates charged for Water, Sanitary Sewer,
Solid Waste, and Storm Water Utility.
Recommended
Action:
Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to approve 1st reading of
an ordinance setting 2006 rates charged for Water, Sanitary
Sewer, Solid Waste, and Storm Water Utility and set second
reading for December 5, 2005.
Background
The City of St. Louis Park operates four (4) utility funds. These funds are classified as Enterprise
Funds and were established to account for the acquisition and operation of water, sanitary sewer,
solid waste, and storm water utilities which are either entirely or predominantly self-supporting
from user charges to the general public.
Each year, the Council is requested to review utility rates and financial forecasts to determine the
appropriate amount that needs to be collected to provide water, sanitary sewer, solid waste, and
storm water services to the Community as well as to determine what infrastructure improvements
are necessary in order to maintain the system
Finance staff has completed 5-year forecasts of rates for all Utility Funds. Public Works has
provided estimates of infrastructure needs not only for the 5-year forecast period but for future
needs out to the year 2020. This information is extremely beneficial even though it is difficult to
estimate what will be needed that far into the future. By extending a forecast out to the year 2020,
the quantification of what anticipated rates need to be in order to accommodate infrastructure needs,
is much easier to justify.
The forecast of infrastructure improvements is high due to limited expenditures in past years and a
20 – 50 year old infrastructure system. Staff has identified what rates will need to be in order to
accommodate all infrastructure improvements, Council has reviewed and discussed this information
at length, and staff is recommending increasing utility rates as outlined below.
Water Fund
The Public Works Water Division has completed an analysis that incorporates infrastructure,
repairs, and maintenance needs for the years 2006 – 2020. Many items that are considered repairs
or maintenance involve a significant amount of capital.
Finance has completed an analysis of how these infrastructure and other improvements could be
financed. As part of this analysis, Finance has included a 3-month cash reserve for operations.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 6a - Public Hearing 2006 Utility Rates
Page 2
Utilize a pay as you go methodology – this method requires increasing rates to pay for projects as
they occur. Listed below are both advantages and disadvantages of utilizing a pay as you go
methodology.
1. Rates increases would need to occur in the years 2006 – 2009
2. Rates stabilize in the year 2009. If significant additional infrastructure improvements
are not necessary after 2013, there should be adequate reserves to either continue with
stabilized rates or possibly reduce rates
3. Given the relative age of the infrastructure, the building of reserves is financially
responsible
4. We are predicting that consumption will increase over the next couple of years due to
significant redevelopment that is now occurring.
5. The current users would pay for the capital projects now rather than spreading out the
cost over the next 20 years
6. This option would require a $500,000 permanent transfer in from other City resources to
assist with paying for infrastructure improvements.
Rate Comparison
Water
Overall rates in the Water Utility Fund have been relatively stable from 1999 – 2005. Per unit cost
by year are indicated below.
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Per unit cost 0.682 0.696 0.696 0.696 0.717 0.717
Based on the 5-year projections for rates, including all anticipated projects, the per unit cost is
estimated as follows;
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Rates 0.717 0.900 1.004 1.154 1.362 1.362 1.362
Estimated Reserve Balances 1,137,976 1,058,530 646,713 422,046 47,182 12,176 810,072
--------------------------------------Estimated-------------------------------------------
Staff is also exploring alternative financing mechanisms that would provide a reduced interest rate.
One option staff is looking at is the Drinking Water Revolving Loan Fund held by the Minnesota
Department of Health that would be available to finance wastewater rehabilitation projects.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 6a - Public Hearing 2006 Utility Rates
Page 3
Sanitary Sewer
Sanitary Sewer capital expenses have been relatively stable over the past years and we anticipate
this trend to continue. The primary reason for recommending a rate increase is due to the increased
costs for disposal of waste. The Metropolitan Council has indicated a 4% rate increase for disposal
in 2006. They have also indicated that St. Louis Park can expect future rate increases averaging
about 1.5% per year. As always, these are just estimates and are subject to change.
Overall rates in the Sanitary Sewer Utility Fund have been relatively stable from 1999 – 2005, per
unit cost by year is indicated below.
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Cost per Unit 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.544 1.6212
Staff is recommending an increase of 5% for 2006. The rate increase essentially covers the MCES
rate increase as well as other inflationary increases.
Based on the 5-year projections for rates, including all anticipated projects, the per unit cost is
estimated as follows;
------------------------------Estimated---------------------------------
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Cost per unit 1.6212 1.7023 1.7874 1.9661 2.1037 2.2300 2.3415
Storm Water
The Storm Water Utility has experienced a great deal of expense and rate increases since its’
inception in 2001. In addition to the initial GO Revenue Bond issued to start the Storm Water
Projects; this fund has a loan from the Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund.
This fund has many upcoming projects that do not have a funding source. All bond and loan
proceeds have been utilized and the current revenue stream is not sufficient to support additional
projects. In addition, the City of St. Louis Park was awarded a $750,000 grant by the State of
Minnesota during the 2005 legislative session. This grant requires the City to spend $750,000 in
order to receive the $750,000 grant.
In order to accommodate both the matching grant dollars needed and the ongoing flood projects,
staff is recommending issuing a General Obligation Revenue Bond in the amount of $1.5M in 2009.
The grant dollars would then be expended in 2009 and projects after that date would be relatively
small. To accomplish this, rates would need to be increase from $7.20 per residential equivalency
factor in 2005 to $9.50 per residential equivalency factor in 2006. Future rate increases are outlined
below.
------------------------------Estimated---------------------------------
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Cost per Residential
Equivalency Factor 7.20$ 9.50$ 11.50$ 11.50$ 13.00$ 13.00$ 13.00$
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 6a - Public Hearing 2006 Utility Rates
Page 4
Solid Waste
The Solid Waste Fund does not have any capital projects as this is a contracted service. A reserve
for the purchase of additional garbage carts has been made for each of the 5-years analyzed. In
analyzing this fund, the reserve balances have adequate amounts such that a transfer to assist with
the funding of a project outside of the Solid Waste Fund would not be detrimental.
Based on the new 5-year garbage contract, the City of St. Louis Park will experience rate increases
over the life of the contract. These rate increases are necessary in order to ensure that revenues
equal expenses and the fund does not show a net loss. Staff has analyzed the revenues and expenses
of this fund and has concluded that the original estimate of increasing rates by $2.00 per quarter is
adequate. The original estimate was done at the inception of the new contract.
Staff is recommending an increase in the Solid Waste rates by $2.00 per quarter. The justification
for this is that Solid Waste rates are competitive with the private sector rates.
Summary of Utility Rates Proposed for 2006
In summary, if all infrastructure improvements are completed based on the staff recommendation of
issuing General Obligation Revenue Bonds, the impact on an average family is as follows:
Family of 2 Family of 4
Water 2.56$ 4.39$
Sanitary Sewer 1.14 1.94
Solid Waste 2.00 2.00
Storm Water 2.30 2.30
Total Increase per quarter 8.00$ 10.63$
Total Annual Increase 32.00$ 42.52$
Utility Fund Rate Increases
Attachments: Ordinance
Prepared By: Jean McGann, Director of Finance
Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 6a - Public Hearing 2006 Utility Rates
Page 5
ORDINANCE NO. ______ - 06
AN ORDINANCE SETTING 2006 RATES FOR
WATER, SEWER, SOLID WASTE AND STORMWATER UTILITIES
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
Sec. 1. Section 32-31 of the Municipal Code states that rates due and payable to the city by
each water user for billings on or after February 26, 2001, for water taken from the city water
supply system shall be set from time to time by the city. The 2006 Water and Service Charge is
hereby set as follows:
Meter Size Code Meter Size
(in inches)
Monthly Quarterly
1 5/8 $ 3.63 $ 5.60
2 3/4 4.08 6.80
3 1 5.27 9.96
4 1 1/2 7.77 16.82
5 2 11.27 26.04
6 3 19.82 49.03
7 4 33.42 79.38
9 6 64.58 155.56
$0.90 per 100 cubic feet
100 cubic feet = 750 gallons = 1 unit
Sec. 2. Section 32-98 of the City Code states that charges for sewer service to residential
and nonresidential users within the city provided in section 32-97 for billings on or after February
26, 2001, shall be an amount per 100 cubic feet of water consumption set by the city from time to
time. The 2006 Sewer and Service Charge Rates are hereby set as follows:
$1.7023 per 100 cubic feet of water consumption during the winter quarter
$3.55 Monthly and $10.65 Quarterly – Service Charge
Sec. 3. Section 32-142 of the City Code states that fees for the use and availability of the
storm sewer system shall be determined through the use of a Residential Equivalent Factor (REF).
The 2006 Storm water Utility Residential Equivalent Factor (REF) is hereby set as follows:
2004 = $9.50 REF
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 6a - Public Hearing 2006 Utility Rates
Page 6
Sec. 4. Section 22-32 through section 22-27 of the City Code address Garbage Collection.
The 2005 Garbage rates are hereby set as follows:
22-33 Special pickup (refuse
/recycling/yard waste)
$15 each
22-34 Extra Cart
30 Gallon $40 each
60 Gallon $44 each
90 Gallon $48 each
22-35 Extra refuse stickers $2.25 quarterly
22-37 Refuse/Garbage
Service Rate (inc. tax)
30 Gallon $37.01 quarterly
60 Gallon $47.58 quarterly
90 Gallon $58.16 quarterly
90P (120 – 180 Gallon) $68.73 quarterly
270 Gallon $88.73 quarterly
360 Gallon $108.73 quarterly
450 Gallon $128.73 quarterly
540 Gallon $148.73 quarterly
22-37 Yard Waste Credit $3.00 quarterly
22-37 Extended absence 31% credit for the # of weeks absent (per table below)
Number of
Weeks Absent
30 Gallon 60
Gallon
90
Gallon
90+
Gallon
270
Gallon
360
Gallon
450
Gallon
540
Gallon
1 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
2 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
3 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
4 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
5 $4.40 $5.70 $6.90 $8.20 $10.60 $13.00 $15.30 $17.70
6 $5.30 $6.80 $8.30 $9.80 $12.70 $15.60 $18.40 $21.30
7 $6.20 $7.90 $9.70 $11.50 $14.80 $18.10 $21.50 $24.80
8 $7.10 $9.10 $11.10 $13.10 $16.90 $20.70 $24.60 $28.40
9 $7.90 $10.20 $12.50 $14.80 $19.00 $23.30 $27.60 $31.90
10 $8.80 $11.30 $13.90 $16.40 $21.20 $25.90 $30.70 $35.50
11 $9.70 $12.50 $15.30 $18.00 $23.30 $28.50 $33.80 $39.00
12 $10.60 $13.60 $16.60 $19.70 $25.40 $31.10 $36.80 $42.60
13 $11.50 $14.70 $18.00 $21.30 $27.50 $33.70 $39.90 $46.10
14 $12.40 $15.90 $19.40 $22.90 $29.60 $36.30 $43.00 $49.70
15 $13.20 $17.00 $20.80 $24.60 $31.70 $38.90 $46.00 $53.20
16 $14.10 $18.20 $22.20 $26.20 $33.90 $41.50 $49.10 $56.70
17 $15.00 $19.30 $23.60 $27.90 $36.00 $44.10 $52.20 $60.30
18 $15.90 $20.40 $25.00 $29.50 $38.10 $46.70 $55.30 $63.80
19 $16.80 $21.60 $26.40 $31.10 $40.20 $49.30 $58.30 $67.40
20 $17.70 $22.70 $27.70 $32.80 $42.30 $51.90 $61.40 $70.90
21 $18.50 $23.80 $29.10 $34.40 $44.40 $54.40 $64.50 $74.50
22 $19.40 $25.00 $30.50 $36.10 $46.50 $57.00 $67.50 $78.00
23 $20.30 $26.10 $31.90 $37.70 $48.70 $59.60 $70.60 $81.60
24 $21.20 $27.20 $33.30 $39.30 $50.80 $62.20 $73.70 $85.10
25 $22.10 $28.40 $34.70 $41.00 $52.90 $64.80 $76.70 $88.70
26 $22.90 $29.50 $36.10 $42.60 $55.00 $67.40 $79.80 $92.20
22-37 Late payment penalty 10% of amount due (quarterly)
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 6a - Public Hearing 2006 Utility Rates
Page 7
Sec 5. The Rates set in section 1, section 2, section 3, and section 4 above shall be included in
Appendix A of the City Code with other fees and charges called for by ordinance.
Sec 5. This ordinance shall become effective 15 days after its publication
Adopted by the City Council November 21, 2005
Reviewed for Administration
City Manager Mayor
Attest:: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 6b - Sam's Club-Vacation
Page 1
6b. Sam’s Club - Vacation of a Utility Easement
Public hearing to discuss the vacation of a utility easement at 7115 W. Lake St. and
3745 Louisiana Ave. S.
Recommended
Action:
Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to approve 1st reading of
an ordinance vacating a utility easement across Sam’s Club
property at 7115 W. Lake St. and 3745 Louisiana Ave. S. and set
second reading for December 5, 2005.
Background:
Sam’s Club was granted a Conditional Use Permit to build a new store earlier this fall. Sam’s
Club needs to vacate an existing utility easement and dedicate a new easement. A public water
main must be relocated as a result of the new building’s location.
Attached is a plan showing the existing easement highlighted in red. The proposed easement
drawing is also attached. It will be placed over the relocated water line.
The Public Works Department has reviewed the vacation request and new easement and has
determined that they are adequate. The Public Works Department has indicated that there will be
no significant service disruptions as a result of the relocation of the water main.
Attachments: Ordinance Vacating a Utility Easement
Location map
Map of approved site plan, showing easement to be vacated
Legal description, easement to be vacated
Proposed easement dedication
Legal description, easement to be dedicated
Prepared By: Adam Fulton, Associate Planner
Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 6b - Sam's Club-Vacation
Page 2
ORDINANCE NO: ____-05
AN ORDINANCE VACATING UTILITY EASEMENT
ACROSS PORTION OF 3745 LOUISIANA AVENUE SOUTH
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. A petition in writing signed by a majority of all of the owners of all
property abutting upon both sides of the utility easement proposed to be vacated has been duly
filed. The notice of said petition has been published, in the St. Louis Park Sailor, on November
10, 2005, and the City Council has conducted a public hearing upon said petition and has
determined that the utility easement is not needed for public purposes, and that it is for the best
interest of the public that said utility easement be vacated.
Section 2. The following described utility easement, as now dedicated and laid out
within the corporate limits of the City of St. Louis Park, is vacated:
A 30 foot underground utility easement being 15 feet on either side of and measured at
right angles to the north line of the following described Parcel A, together with the
westerly 20 feet of the following described Parcel A (as measured at right angles to the
westerly line of said Parcel A) except the South 10 feet of the West 10 feet of said
westerly 20 feet of the following described Parcel A, which Parcel A is legally described
as:
That part of Lot 2, which lies between the Easterly extensions of the north and
south lines of the South 30 feet of Lot 10 (as measured at right angles to the South
line of said Lot 10), lying Westerly of the Easterly 10 feet thereof; and
The South 30 feet of Lots 10 and 22 (as measured at right angles to the South line
of said Lots 10 and 22); and
That part of the South 30 feet of Lot 33 (as measured at right angles to the South
line of said Lot 33) which lies Easterly of the following described line:
Beginning at a point on the Northerly line of Lot 33, distant 66 feet (as
measured along the Northerly line of said Lot 33) Easterly from its
Northwesterly corner, thence Southerly to a point on the Northerly line of
Lot 35, distant 61 feet (as measured along the Northerly line of said Lot
35) Easterly from its Northwesterly corner and there terminating;
all in Block 162, Rearrangement of St. Louis Park, according to the recorded plat thereof.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 6b - Sam's Club-Vacation
Page 3
Section 3. The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this ordinance in
the Office of the Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be.
Section 4. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication.
Adopted by the City Council December 5, 2005
Reviewed for Administration
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 6c - Hoigaards Vacation Of Alley
Page 1
Background:
The Hoigaard’s Village project requires the vacation of an alley that currently runs east-
west between West 36th Street and West 35-1/2 Street. The Department of Public Works
has determined that the vacation of this alley is appropriate. The vacation of this alley
provides the applicant space to ensure that underground parking for the two
condominium buildings is safely accessible.
The development proposal has utilized existing infrastructure to the greatest extent
possible. The existing alley is not needed for the proposed development. For this reason,
staff recommends that it be vacated.
Attachments: Ordinance approving the Vacation of an Alley
Map showing location of alley to be vacated
Prepared by: Adam Fulton, Associate Planner
Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
6c. Hoigaard’s Village - Public Hearing for the Vacation of an Alley
Case No. 05-63-VAC
Union Land, LLC.
SW Quadrant of Highway 100 and Highway 7
Recommended
Action:
Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to approve 1st reading
of an ordinance approving the Vacation of an Alley and set
second reading for December 5, 2005.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 6c - Hoigaards Vacation Of Alley
Page 2
ORDINANCE NO.______-05
AN ORDINANCE VACATING PORTION OF ALLEY
LYING BETWEEN 36TH STREET WEST AND 35 ½ STREET WEST
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. A petition in writing signed by a majority of all of the owners of all
property abutting upon both sides of the alley proposed to be vacated has been duly filed.
The notice of said petition has been published, in the St. Louis Park Sailor, on November
10, 2005, and the City Council has conducted a public hearing upon said petition and has
determined that the alley is not needed for public purposes, and that it is for the best
interest of the public that said alley be vacated.
Section 2. The following described alley as now dedicated and laid out within
the corporate limits of the City of St. Louis Park, is vacated:
That portion of the alley lying southerly of Lots 11 through 23 and northerly of
Lots 24 and 25, Block 27, Rearrangement of St. Louis Park, lying Northerly of
Lots 6, 7, 9 and 10, Block 27, St. Louis Park, both plats on file and of record in
the office of the County Recorder, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying east of the
east right of way line of Xenwood Avenue and lying west of the west right of way
line of Webster Street.
Containing 5,303 sq. ft. or 0.1217 acres of land.
reserving, however, to the City of St. Louis Park any and all easements that may exist in,
over, and across the described property for storm sewer, sanitary sewer, water main, and
public utility purposes.
Section 3. The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this
ordinance in the Office of the Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles
as the case may be.
Sec.4. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council December 5, 2005
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 6d - Time Warner Franchise Renewal
Page 1
6d. Time Warner Cable TV Franchise Renewal
Public hearing to discuss the status of the franchise renewal process with Time Warner Cable, Inc. Recommended Action: Motion to continue the public hearing to December 5, 2005.
Background: Council was last updated on the status of the franchise renewal process at its November 7, 2005 meeting. At that meeting, Council continued the public hearing to November 21 and extended the term of the franchise agreement to December 6, 2005. The current franchise agreement extension with Time Warner (TW) is due to expire on December 6 unless extended by Council at its December 5 meeting. As indicated at all meetings, progress on the 2+ year franchise renewal process has been slow. However, significant progress has been made in the last several weeks. At the last several Council meetings, City staff indicated that enough progress had been made to warrant continuation of the public hearing and extension of the franchise, and that staff would continue to prepare for the formal process in the event the City and TW cannot resolve renewal issues in principle. Authorization regarding the formal process had been given by Council previously. Latest Negotiations: City and TW negotiations teams last met on Monday, October 3 to discuss the latest proposal from TW, received that morning. City staff indicated that with a couple of changes, the proposal was something staff would feel comfortable presenting to Council for its consideration. City staff’s focus continues to be building a package of several major business points, in large measure, to meet the Council’s major concerns related to continuation of local programming and costs. It must also be made clear that there are several other operational business points in the interest of the community in this package. While City and TW staff move towards agreement on these other operational business points, the respective staffs must also agree to specific enabling franchise language. Latest Developments: Since the November 7 Council meeting City staff and the City Attorney have been in regular communications with TW in an attempt to come to agreement on a franchise in principle. Significant progress has been made in the last week. Offers and counteroffers have been traded and it now appears that the City and TW are very close to reaching an agreement in principle on major business points. It may be that an agreement in principle could be reported verbally at this meeting if enough progress is made before the Council meeting. However, even if such progress is made by that date, an agreement in principle would need to be translated into mutually acceptable detailed franchise agreement language. As a result, the City and TW continue to operate under the existing franchise. The existing franchise provisions are acceptable to the City until a renewed franchise is agreed upon.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 6d - Time Warner Franchise Renewal
Page 2 Based on City and TW staff continuing to work on reaching agreement in principle on major business points, it is now critical and fair to both parties that TW and City staff have the opportunity to continue discussions and agree on remaining detailed franchise agreement language. In order to do that, be ready for the alternative formal process (which all hope is unnecessary), and protect the interests of the community, staff recommends that Council continue this franchise renewal process to its December 5 meeting with the action below. Staff will also continue preparations for the formal process per Council action on September 19. Recommendation: Consistent with the current status of negotiations, it is recommended that Council continue the public hearing to December 5, 2005, with the hope of seeing principles of an agreement on that date. Staff will be present at the Council meeting to answer questions. Prepared by: Clint Pires, Director of Technology and Support Services Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 8a - Comcast Transfer
Page 1
8a. Proposed Transfer of Cable Television System
Proposed transfer of the Cable Communications Franchise Ordinance and cable system
from Time Warner Cable, Inc. to Comcast Cable Communications, LLC.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to continue transfer of the Cable Communications
Franchise Ordinance and cable system from Time Warner Cable,
Inc. to Comcast Cable Communications, LLC to December 5,
2006 Council meeting.
Background:
On June 15, 2005, Comcast notified the City about an agreement to purchase all of Time Warner
Cable’s Minnesota cable TV systems, including St. Louis Park’s franchise. Time Warner and
Comcast are purchasing the bankrupt Adelphia cable systems for about $12.7 billion in cash.
Adelphia has about 5 million subscribers, and the systems will be geographically divided
between Comcast and Time Warner so the systems can be clustered together. As part of the
clustering, Time Warner’s Minnesota, Florida and Louisiana franchises would be swapped for
Comcast’s Dallas, Los Angeles and Cleveland area franchises.
Some Minnesota cities have already granted Comcast’s request for franchise transfers, including
Helena, Jackson, Jordan, Lanesboro, Lewisville, Madelia, New Ulm, Sand Creek and Waverly.
Bloomington recently approved the transfer with the condition that the Time Warner franchise
fee review be settled to the satisfaction of the City.
The City has retained Brian Grogan of Moss & Barnett to assist with the franchise transfer
process. A report from Mr. Grogan is designed to comment on Comcast’s legal, technical and
financial ability to operate the franchise, the parameters set by federal law. In addition, a
franchise fee review has also been in process.
Comcast and Time Warner Cable are the two largest cable operators in the United States, and
offer similar services, including video, high speed data, and telephone.
Regarding St. Louis Park’s specific franchise, which was originally set to expire on October 10,
2005, Comcast’s Director of Government Relations, Kathi Donnelly-Cohen told the
Telecommunications Advisory Commission on August 4, 2005 that until a new franchise
agreement is in effect, Comcast would meet all terms of the existing franchise after the transfer.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 8a - Comcast Transfer
Page 2
Area of Concern:
There is one customer benefit Time Warner offers that probably will not continue if the system is
transferred to Comcast: a choice of high speed data internet service providers (ISP’s). When
America Online purchased Time Warner in 2000, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) required
that customers have a choice of ISP’s, a unique arrangement in the cable television industry. As
a result, Time Warner high speed data customers can choose between these ISP’s: Road Runner,
AOL Broadband and EarthLink. Comcast customers do not have a choice of ISP’s.
Traditional “common carrier” telephone companies like Qwest and Verizon must allow
competing ISP’s on their systems. However, a recent Federal Communications Commission
ruling may remove this requirement within a year, thereby removing the requirement for ISP
competition for both the cable and telephone industry. Cable systems lead in the competition for
residential high speed data customers with 18.7 million customers compared to the telephone
companies’ 11.8 million customers (December 31, 2004 figures reported by Pike & Fischer).
The City has no direct authority over the high speed data or telephone services offered by Time
Warner due to Federal Communications Commission rulings or Federal law. However, City
staff has been contacted by several EarthLink customers that would like to continue with that
service after the system is transferred to Comcast. Other subscribers have addressed the City
Council on this item as well. Customers may well be forced to change domain names for their e-
mail addresses after the transfer, a disruptive process for both residents and business people.
Comcast has been notified of this concern multiple times and is aware of it. They have been
asked to address the City Council on its plans to assist subscribers make whatever domain name
transition may be necessary should the transfer actually be completed. Staff has requested that
Comcast address expectations for St. Louis Park subscribers on this issue, but as of this writing,
staff has not received any additional information or response from Comcast. The attached
information describes customer responses and how Comcast has handled this customer transition
in the past. This may shed some light on what to expect should a transfer be completed.
Process and Recommendation:
At its September 19, 2005 meeting, Council closed the public hearing related to this issue. On
October 10, staff reported that while the City awaits Brian Grogan’s Comcast report, a final
Time Warner franchise fee review had been completed. Findings from the franchise fee review
of 2002-2004 reveal that TW may have underpaid the City “between $60,000 to $73,500 based
on the limited information available to estimate the underpayments,” according to Front Range
Consulting. Front Range conducted a fee review, which is less intensive than a fee audit and
results in more rounded numbers than an audit. This report has been shared with Time Warner
and City staff expects to work toward a settlement. St. Louis Park partnered with Bloomington,
Minneapolis and Shakopee on the fee review, and Shakopee has already received a settlement
check. Bloomington expects settlement in the next six months.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 8a - Comcast Transfer
Page 3
On November 7, staff reported the City had also received Brian Grogan’s Comcast report
(available for review at the City Clerk’s Office). Mr. Grogan’s report concludes that Comcast has
the legal, technical, and financial capability to operate the St. Louis Park franchise. This leaves
the franchise fee audit findings remaining to be settled. City and TW staff are working on this.
Once the franchise fee audit questions are resolved and franchise renewal proceedings
completed, there will then exist an intact and clean franchise that can be approved for transfer to
Comcast. Until that time, the current franchise remains in a precarious state of uncertainty with
the regular action of City Council required to extend it.
Upon agreement from TW, the 394 application for transfer was extended by Council to
December 6, 2005. It should be noted that some Council action on the application is required by
or before December 6, 2005 regarding this application or the transfer is deemed approved
without conditions, unless both parties agree to another extension.
It is hoped that the transfer can be completed at the December 5, 2006 Council meeting and staff
recommends continuing this item until that date.
Prepared by: Clint Pires, Director of Technology and Support Services
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 8a - Comcast Transfer
Page 4
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0DIZ/is_6_15/ai_97384378/print
FindArticles > Cable World > Feb 10, 2003 > Article > Print friendly
AT&T Addresses Given Reprieve
Byline: SHIRLEY BRADY
Don't mess with the address.
That was driven home to Comcast during its attempt to transition former AT&T
Broadband high-speed Internet subscribers from their attbi.com addresses to
comcast.net addresses.
AT&T Broadband subscribers will start sending e-mail with the Comcast domain
name this spring, but will continue to receive e-mail sent to their old
attbi.com address until December 2004 - instead of a previously announced 60-
day window for e-mail forwarding.
The migration is happening in a market-by-market basis, with subscribers
being contacted in coming weeks with details.
The extension follows complaints by customers and media outlets in areas such
as California's Bay Area (which starts switching in April), Seattle, Denver
and Portland, Ore.
The outcry grew particularly fierce in the Northeast, where Comcast
executives took matters in hand last week.
Comcast Cable president Stephen Burke and Kevin Casey, who runs the company's
New England market (which has almost 500,000 high-speed subs in six states),
met with Boston Globe staff last Wednesday to announce the companywide e-mail
extension.
The extension comes as the company prepares to rebrand the former AT&T
Broadband systems. The Bay Area switches to the Comcast name on Feb. 14,
followed by Portland next month, according to company officials quoted in
local press reports.
=============================================================
http://networkingsmallbusiness.com/compendium/2003/002288.html
attbi.com stays on for awhile
By Adam Gaffin
Networking for Small Business, 02/05/03
The Boston Globe reports that Comcast, taking over from AT&T Broadband, will
let its users keep their attbi.com addresses at least through the end of
2004.
Comcast had originally threatened to drop attbi.com as early as this spring,
which for some users would have meant the third domain change in about a
year.
Moving to soothe outraged customers, Comcast Corp. said yesterday it has reached a deal with
AT&T to let millions of cable broadband Internet subscribers across the United States --
including more than 200,000 in Massachusetts and New Hampshire -- keep using their attbi.com
e-mail addresses through at least December 2004.
City Council Study Session
112105 - 8b - Wireless Internet Study
Page 1
8b. Wireless Internet Study
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the attached resolution authorizing staff to
proceed with a pilot project for wireless high-speed Internet
service at a cost not to exceed $280,000 with the intention of
subsequently establishing a citywide wireless high-speed Internet
service unless the results of the pilot study suggest that it is
unadvisable to proceed further.
PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION:
The purpose of this report is to request Council direction on whether to proceed with a pilot
wireless project utilizing a private – public partnership model, or to discontinue exploration of
wireless services in St. Louis Park. For purposes of ensuring coverage of Council issues, much of
the information provided on October 24 is repeated here with requested updates. Staff and the
consultant will be present at the Council meeting.
BACKGROUND:
At its October 24 meeting, Council reviewed information provided by staff and requested a
number of follow-ups. Staff understood these follow-ups to include:
1. Principles for measuring success of a pilot project.
2. Principles for measuring success of the private partner(s).
3. Noting the need for partner accountability (a lead partner to call and hold to account,
even though there may be multiple private partners involved).
4. Inviting Qwest to re-submit its current DSL coverage in St. Louis Park; its plans,
commitment, and schedule to expand DSL coverage in SLP; and any plans it may have
for deployment of wireless technologies in St. Louis Park.
5. In the private – public partnership, provide more detail of the partners’ actual investment
and risk, and options for increasing such risk and investment.
6. Noting Council modification from the proposed “pilot only” approach to a pilot designed
to work out expected technical and operational modifications, and not complete citywide
implementation only if the pilot fails based on measurements of success.
7. Clarify it is intended that service to the pilot areas continue through citywide build out
without service interruption.
8. Dealing with e-mail address transition. There are ways to forward e-mails sent to old
addresses to new addresses via partners.
9. Confirm that the structure of the pilot is intended to include all 4 wards, avoid individuals
who have expressed health concerns whenever possible, attempt to use mix of DSL and
non-DSL covered neighborhoods, and include condominiums if possible.
10. Address Google and Google-like approaches as well as the Minneapolis approach.
11. Note options for full and partial City exit strategies within a 3 – 5 year time frame while
the service continues because the private sector has found it profitable to provide wireless
service at desirable price points.
12. Provide a wider range of pilot project costs instead of just the $352,000 option along with
consequences of investing less in the pilot.
City Council Study Session
112105 - 8b - Wireless Internet Study
Page 2
Staff and the consultant have attempted to incorporate responses to the above questions as
revisions to the Potential Pilot Project description below.
QWEST INFORMATION:
Qwest was invited to submit an updated map and additional information on its plans. The
following information was received via e-mail from Andrew Schriner of Qwest:
From: Schriner, Andrew [mailto:Andrew.Schriner@qwest.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 2:50 PM
To: Clint Pires
Subject: RE: Map
1. The map should be ready soon. I'd like to bring to the meeting the network engineer responsible for
DSL buildout in the Twin Cities. He can answer questions about specific locations. (City Staff Note: City
staff have invited Qwest to share this map with Council and staff on Friday, November 18, 1:30 – 2:00
p.m. and Monday, November 21, 6:00 – 6:30 p.m. Confirmation of Qwest’s availability to share the map
will be e-mailed separately).
2. We've made no commitments about future deployments in St. Louis Park. Because of legal
requirements there are limitations on communicating information about deployments until we have given
our wholesale customers notice. I have indicated to Council Member Omodt that there are several
locations in St. Louis Park where we have had difficulty in getting Right of Way to place equipment that
provides high speed Internet. We would like to work with the City to see if we can resolve some of the
Right of Way issues that exist at those sites. Resolving the ROW issues would significantly expand
coverage in the community. At the meeting it would be helpful if the City would identify other areas of the
city that are a priority for high speed Internet service.
3. At this time we do not have plans to offer a wireless broadband product in St. Louis Park or at other
locations in Minnesota. Qwest is currently testing Wi Max in two locations in our 14 state service region,
but at this time we are not ready to offer that service to our customers.
POTENTIAL PILOT PROJECT:
A Wireless Pilot Project Overview has been attached to this report. It includes project objectives,
goals, and action steps. In summary, this pilot is intended to test many of the technical and
operational conclusions of the wireless study and provide a platform to move to a city-wide
implementation. Here are some of the highlights of what is included in proposed pilot project:
• 4 residential areas (approximately 3,500 parcels)
• 1 business area (which could be part of a residential neighborhood)
• 1 multiple-dwelling building (apartment, condo, other) area
• Public safety and public services application testing
• Educational testing (e.g., Power School)
• Test various City geographies / structures / current access to high-speed Internet
• Pilot in each of the four wards
• Encourage various private firms to participate
• Refine plans and customer materials should citywide implementation occur
• Should the Council approve a pilot project in November, the estimated time frame for
citizen and business use of the pilot is February – May 2006
City Council Study Session
112105 - 8b - Wireless Internet Study
Page 3
• The Pilot is to continue through citywide build out (if directed by Council) without
interruption
• The estimated cost of a pilot project is approximately $352,000, which is provided
through an internal loan from the Economic Development Fund (pilot cost could be
$278,000 if application development is reduced)
• The pilot project is structured such that the investment would be carried forward and not
duplicated in a citywide project. A citywide project is estimated to cost approximately
$4.445 million
• It is intended that all monies borrowed for a citywide project be repaid by only those who
choose to subscribe to a wireless high-speed Internet service and municipal uses, not
from general property taxes (i.e., those who use the service pay for it)
PRIVATE – PUBLIC PARTNERSHIP MODEL:
The attached “GoMoorhead Responsibility Overview” describes the deep commitment of its
private partner in the provision of services. This is one example of what a private – public
partnership model may resemble in St. Louis Park.
The recommended service model from the study is a private – public partnership model.
Information on such a model is attached and essentially calls for the City to exercise its core
competencies and the private partner(s) to do the same. There could be more than one private
partner. In summary, here are highlights of the different roles:
• The private partner(s) add staff to monitor and maintain the network software operations
• The private partner(s) add staff to monitor and maintain the wireless network and access
to the Internet
• The private partner(s) add staff to book fulfillment of setting up subscriber accounts
• The private partner(s) add staff to provide 24 x 7 help desk support
• The private partner(s) add staff to provide troubleshooting for the subscriber
• The City provides its branding value as demonstrated in the surveys
• The City provides a storefront, where people come to pick up their equipment (bridge,
laptop card, instructions, etc.)
• The City adds wireless as another service on utility bills (just as water, sewer, and solid
waste are other utility services)
• The City adds the wireless utility service only for those who request this optional service
• The City owns the base infrastructure – fiber optic cables – which is also used for public
safety - services, and optionally owns (private partners could also own) wireless radios,
gateways, etc.
• Wireless subscribers pay monthly service fees and lease or buy the bridge or laptop card
to connect to the wireless service
City Council Study Session
112105 - 8b - Wireless Internet Study
Page 4
PARTNERSHIP WITH ST. LOUIS PARK SCHOOLS:
In addition to the City and private partner(s), another potential pivotal member of the team is St.
Louis Park Schools (ISD# 283). Advantages City and District staff have discussed (and which
need further discussion) that could potentially be provided by the School District include:
• Ability to organize collection and distribution of PC’s to help bridge the digital divide (a
wireless high-speed Internet service is much more useful when people have a device to
connect to it)
• Availability of fiber optic network to use as wireless backbone throughout City
• Connection to families with children
• Marketing the service to families using Schools’ branding value
• Technical assistance (perhaps via Community Education) to assist people with useful
Internet applications
• Sharing on some basis in any gains or losses from operation of a wireless service
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is staff’s view that all study questions have been addressed to the extent practicable prior to
deciding whether or not to move forward with a pilot project. All technical, market, and financial
feasibility tests suggest wireless service as proposed above is viable in St. Louis Park. Staff feels
the most comprehensive information possible has been provided through the study process,
including significant public input (both pro and con) on a variety of related issues. While
feasibility data and public input can inform the policy debate, the Council is ultimately left to
determine what is in the best interest of the community.
While staff viewed wireless service neutrally at the beginning of the study, data provided
throughout the study process convinces staff that a City role is warranted in the provision of
high-speed wireless Internet service. In addition to working through the many issues that have
been presented during the study, input provided by residents and businesses indicates likely
success of this service. This is a service many indicate they would like to see made available and
would be even more inclined to subscribe to if the City has a role. That is a rare and wonderful
expression of confidence from the community to its elected officials.
Staff recommends Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing staff to move forward with a
pilot wireless project at an expenditure not to exceed $280,000, review results of the pilot, and
complete a citywide build out of wireless services unless results of the pilot project suggest that
is unadvisable.
ATTACHMENTS:
To assist Council in its discussion, the following attachments have been provided:
• Wireless Pilot Project Overview
• Private – Public Partnership Model
• GoMoorhead Responsibility Overview
• Enabling Project Resolution
Prepared By: Clint Pires, Director of Technology and Support Services
Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Study Session
112105 - 8b - Wireless Internet Study
Page 5
St. Louis Park, MN
Wireless Pilot Project Overview
November 14 , 2005
Objective
St. Louis Park seeks to enhance the community’s quality of life by promoting the availability and
affordability of mobile / portable high-speed and broadband data connectivity. St. Louis Park
views this service as one way to more effectively compete in the municipal market space; attract
and retain a wide variety of residents, businesses, organizations, and visitors; and enhance the
efficiency and effectiveness of municipal and educational services. Many of the creative ways in
which anytime / anywhere access to the Internet will be used can only be imagined by those who
are willing to experiment with this innovation. The pilot project will test the assumptions
presented in the business plan and results will assist in the community’s decision regarding a
city-wide implementation of a wi-fi network.
Goals
• Provide a migration path to a full implementation (if implementation pursued)
• Select vendor for full implementation (if implementation pursued)
• Test acceptance of proposed rates
• Test geographic variables
• Facilitate interest in private - public partnerships
• Test network in each ward, including homes, businesses, and multiple dwelling units (e.g.,
condos, apartments)
• Test performance differences between Wi-Fi and EVDo (latest wireless technology from vendors
such as Sprint and Verizon)
• Conduct full system test during full foliage (if implementation pursued)
• Refine key public safety and public works applications to consider
• Refine business plan
• Make implementation course corrections as determined during the pilot
Action Steps
1. Refine pilot project plan.
i. Refine public safety, public service, and education applications, requirements, and
benefits
§ Understand upsides and downsides- for example:
• Increase internal efficiencies (upside)
• Data backup of other Police agencies (downside)
§ Expand overview of applications beyond public safety and public services
• Includes education (Power School Software)
ii. Develop detailed pilot implementation plan that considers health, security, legal and other
concerns that may emerge
iii. Select diverse test area(s) for pilot implementation
iv. Solicit residents and businesses in test area to participate in the pilot
v. Develop e-mail migration strategy for Pilot and city-wide implementation
2. Develop and distribute a Request-for-Information (RFI) for wireless equipment
i. Select the wireless vendor for pilot based on the RFI responses
§ O btain pricing for pilot project
§ Obtain estimated pricing for full system roll-out
§ Understand vendor stability and risk
ii. Understand support of public safety requirements (i.e. separate frequency on Virtual
Private Network (VPN) vs. VPN only)
iii. Develop tests to be conducted during pilot to test the selected vendor network including:
§ Response time and speed of network
§ Impact of portable telephones, user wireless networks, etc to performance
City Council Study Session
112105 - 8b - Wireless Internet Study
Page 6
§ Impact to system performance from:
• Winding streets
• Steel siding
• Stucco houses
• Heavy foliage
• Hills
• High population density areas (apartments & condominiums)
iv. Encourage response from a range of equipment vendors such as:
§ Motorola
§ Tropos
§ Bel Aire
§ Sky Pilot
§ Others
v. Conduct site visits of the top two vendors
3. Develop an RFI for private-public partnerships
i. Structure to allow private companies to propose a variety of options including:
§ Leveraging St. Louis Park’s brand image (store front)
§ Providing wireless network operations, core network monitoring, ISP hosting, and
help desk support
§ Providing sales fulfillment and customer activation
§ Providing Internet access (Network Access Point).
ii. Include a request for specific services and costs for the pilot project support including:
§ Internet access
§ Customer trouble shooting
§ System performance monitoring
iii. Understand potential partner’s investment (time and funding) to participate in the pilot
project (see attachment). Investment areas may include:
§ Set-up fees
§ E-mail transition tools (ability to receive e-mail sent to previous addresses)
§ System integration assistance (pilot and implementation)
§ Core-network set-up and training
§ Customer documentation (installation materials, access policies, other)
§ Training of selected City of St Louis Park staff
§ CALEA wiretapping requirements (spring 2007)
§ Staff additions
§ Network Investment (full or partial)
• Shared public safety-service benefit model
o Similar to Johnson Controls energy management program with
municipalities. An example of this is Johnson Control’s street
lighting. With this program:
§ The municipality and Johnson Controls review the energy
savings by replacing street lighting with energy efficient
bulbs.
§ Johnson Controls obtains financing for high-efficient street
lighting.
§ The municipality will pay Johnson Controls a percentage of
the realized energy cost savings.
§ If the agreed upon savings are not realized, Johnson
Controls is responsible for the amount financed.
o St. Louis Park and Partner identify public safety-service
applications and benefits
o Partner invests in network, financed with performance bonds,
backed by partner
City Council Study Session
112105 - 8b - Wireless Internet Study
Page 7
o Partner payments made with agreed upon public safety-service
applications savings. If savings are not realized, Partner covers
shortfalls (i.e., Partner takes a financial risk)
o St. Louis Park operates the “Retail” offering via other partnerships
iv. Encourage responses from a range of potential partners such as:
§ Golden West Technologies
§ Unplugged Cities
§ Multiband
§ Norlight
§ Comcast
§ Time Warner Cable
§ Qwest
§ Onvoy
§ Integra
§ Johnson Controls
§ Others
v. Consider selecting multiple potential partners
vi. Consider a partner that would take the lead point-of-accountability in system integration
and/or partner management
vii. Conduct site visits as appropriate
4. Select and Implement pilot area(s)
i. Avoid neighborhoods that have residences concerned with health issues and consider home
bridge equipment with “auto fall back” power features (lower RF emissions when not in use) and
external antenna options
ii. Consider area that does not have DSL access and an area with DSL access
iii. Look at neighborhoods and locations that are potentially difficult to cover with wireless
iv. Include a condominium if possible
v. Solicit residences and businesses in test area to participate in the pilot
vi. Address opportunities to close digital divides
5. Conduct detailed wireless broadband design
i. Refine additional fiber optic backhaul cable requirements
ii. Refine projected fiber access points and coordinate with radio gateway locations
iii. Establish pole contact agreements with Xcel Energy
iv. Engineer multi-tenant building solutions
6. R efine public safety, public service, and education applications
i. Update benefits for input into business model
ii. Include economic development benefits
7. Monitor pilot area network performance and measure success of Pilot based upon RFI
responses and agreements with vendor and partners. Performance measurements to judge
success of pilot include (but not limited to):
i. Equipment Vendor Evaluation (Partial)
§ Document upload and download data rates
§ Document system availability
§ Understand ease (or difficulty) of installation (example: What percentage of
installations required truck-rolls? External antennas?).
§ Understand any variations of performance based on time-of-day
§ Compare pilot test results to network performance specifications
§ Pilot results support business plan assumptions
ii. Partner Evaluation (Partial)
§ Response time for call center (sales fulfillment, general help desk, other)
§ Customer satisfaction survey results (see task 8)
§ Public safety and service benefit projections (shared public safety-service benefit
model)
§ Customer experiences with on-site installation and trouble shooting
§ E-mail access and performance (access times, spam blocking, etc.)
§ Performance of features such as parental control
City Council Study Session
112105 - 8b - Wireless Internet Study
Page 8
§ Performance of core-network and system integration
§ Interaction with St. Louis Park staff for billing and other operational coordination
§ Pilot results relative to business plan assumptions
8. Conduct customer satisfaction survey and discussion forum of pilot participants
i. What worked, what did n ot, and what modifications are required?
ii. Will they continue service?
iii. Will they make positive recommendations and serve as a reference for quotes, etc.?
9. Negotiate implementation costs with selected vendor
i. Obtain software source code and production rights in case of vendor default
ii. Negotiate up front and ongoing support costs
iii. Negotiate vendor maintenance fees prior to purchase
10. Define and negotiate roles and costs with identified partners
i. Ensure partners have a financial stake (risk and reward)
11. Develop materials for customer distribution
i. Wiring and connection diagrams
ii. Installation instructions
iii. Fair Access Policy (FAP)
12. Update business plan with results of pilot and transition into city-wide implementation
i. Update municipal wireless approaches including Minneapolis and Google’s venture in
San Francisco
§ Minneapolis has short-listed two vendors – US Internet and EarthLink (each to
setup a “pilot hot zone” for comparison)
§ Minneapolis has no say on short or long term retail pricing
§ Minneapolis model suggests they might have coverage at borders with suburbs,
but would still need to be subscriber to Minneapolis system in most cases
§ Minneapolis has no say whether or not system is expanded into surrounding
communities
§ Coverage in surrounding communities likely to only extend in a few hundred feet (
1 to 2 lengths of a football field)
§ Google has indicated they will provide free service in San Francisco.
§ San Francisco is a “test” for Google
§ Google has indicated they will not build out in other communities
ii. Refine partial and full exit strategies (3 to 5 year time frame)
iii. Use as a benchmark guide as the city-wide implantation proceeds forward
Potential Private-Partnership Model
St. Louis Park has a strong brand image, and leverage of the image is attractive to private
Internet providers. This along with St. Louis Park implementing a city-wide wi-fi network provides
an attractive proposition to private Internet providers. A key objective of the pilot project is to
refine a partnership model. A starting point for consideration follows.
• St. Louis Park provides the public “store front”. Store front services are provided with St.
Louis Park’s branding, billing is from St. Louis Park, and customer contact is via St. Louis
Park certified agents. (Note: Some partners would be able to provide the storefront and
billing, with the potential consequence of significantly changing project financial
feasibility).
• The private partner(s) provide technical aspects including: 24 x 7 help desk coverage,
core network monitoring and configuration, wireless network monitoring, customer trouble
shooting, Internet access, and the technical portion of being an Internet Service Provider
(ISP).
This potential model is shown in the following figure. In the figure, three potential partners are
shown. This is just an example, and listed functions could be served with fewer or more partners
and use additional electronic and physical service modes.
City Council Study Session
112105 - 8b - Wireless Internet Study
Page 9
City Council Study Session
112105 - 8b - Wireless Internet Study
Page 10
Pilot Project Investment Alternatives
Council also requested that staff look at alternative pilot project investment models. As shown below, the pilot project investment ranges from
$277,000 to $352,000. Both options include wireless high-speed Internet access. The low end of the investment range would not include
significant web page or other application development. Such development could occur during a citywide build out and that would delay some
of the service branding. Two options are presented below.
City Council Study Session
112105 - 8b - Wireless Internet Study
Page 11
1. Refine pilot project plan 3,240$ 3,240$
2. Develop and distribute a Request-for-Information (RFI) for wireless equipment 5,360 5,360
3. Develop an RFI for private-public partnerships 4,300 4,300
4. Select and implement pilot area(s).5,360 5,360
5. Conduct detailed wireless broadband design 32,160 32,160
6. Implement and test identified public safety and education applications 15,160 15,160
7. Monitor pilot area network performance 13,921 13,921
8. Conduct Internet survey of pilot participants 3,240 3,240
9. Negotiate implementation costs with selected vendor, assuming a successful pilot 5,360 5,360
10. Define and negotiate roles and costs with identified partners 5,360 5,360
11. Develop materials for customer distribution 3,240 3,240
12. Update business plan with results of pilot & determine wither or not to move forward 5,360 5,360
Sub Total 102,061$ 102,061$
Travel Expenses 12 person trips at $330 per trip 3,960$ 3,960$
Project Expenses Misc Copies, Postage and Out of Pocket Expenses 2,500 2,500
Wireless Equipment 80,000 80,000
Network Eqipment 40,000 40,000
Internet Acess 12,000 12,000
Fiber Extensions 12,000 12,000
Application Development 50,000 -
Contigency 50,000 25,000
Sub-Total 250,460$ 175,460$
TOTAL PROJECTED COSTS 352,521$ 277,521$
Proposal Cost Elements/Activities
Total (Range)
PROJECT INVESTMENT
Schedule
City Council Study Session
112105 - 8b - Wireless Internet Study
Page 12
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
12/5 12/12 12/19 12/26 1/2 1/9 1/16 1/23 1/30 2/6 2/13 2/20 2/27 3/6 3/13 3/20 3/27 4/3 4/10 4/17 4/24 5/1 5/8 5/15
1. Refine pilot project plan
2. Develop and distribute a Request-for-Information (RFI) for
wireless equipment
3. Develop an RFI for private-public partnerships
4. Select and implement pilot area(s).
5. Conduct detailed wireless broadband design
6. Implement and test identified public safety and education
applications
7. Monitor pilot area network performance
8. Conduct Internet survey of pilot participants
9. Negotiate implementation costs with selected vendor,
assuming a successful pilot
10. Define and negotiate roles and costs with identified partners
11. Develop materials for customer distribution
12. Update business plan with results of pilot & determine wither
or not to move forward
Schedule
Week
Task
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
112105 - 8b - Wireless Internet StudyWireless Internet Study
Page 13
GoMoorhead!
Responsibility Overview
Moorhead Public Service (MPS)
• Retail store (for CPE distribution & branding)
• Billing (long-term)
• Wireless network monitoring & maintenance
• Business oversight & management
Multiband
• 24x7 helpdesk
• Answer technical questions regarding:
- Hardware
- Wireless bridge problems
- Cable issues
- Wireless access
- Software issues
- Navigating the net and your computer
- Log on issues
• Provide 24 x 7 staff availability
• Support billing inquiries
• Billing (temporary)
• Core network (routers & switches) set-up
• Core network (routers & switches) monitoring
• Credit card authentication for roamers
• ISP Hosting
• Provide and maintain servers
• Provide and maintain ISP connection (redundant)
• Incorporate disaster recovery
• Provide physical facilities for back-office equipment
• Monitor the network
• Track customer sign-ins
• Provide data file for MPS billing (long term)
• Respond to subpoenas regarding consumer traffic
• Account creation and maintenance
• Email service and support(including SPAM and virus monitoring)
• MAC address authentication and maintenance
• Security practices
• User authentication
• Usage reporting requirements (law enforcement, other)
• On-site customer support (truck rolls)
• Sales fulfillment (answer calls from 299-5555, GoMoorhead's main number)
• Provide 7 x 24 network monitoring
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
112105 - 8b - Wireless Internet StudyWireless Internet Study
Page 14
702 Communications
• Internet access (45Mbps, provider and path redundant)
• Fiber backhaul (partial)
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
112105 - 8b - Wireless Internet StudyWireless Internet Study
Page 15
RESOLUTION NO. 05-161
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION
OF A PILOT WIRELESS HIGH SPEED INTERNET SERVICE
THROUGH A PRIVATE – PUBLIC PARTNERSHIP
WHEREAS, the City Council directed study of wireless high-speed Internet service
beginning in November 2004, and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered several questions around current Internet
service in St. Louis Park including availability, choice, cost, and mobility / portability, and
WHEREAS, the City Council directed informal community interest surveys to help
inform the study of wireless high-speed Internet service, and
WHEREAS, the City Council directed the conduct of and participated in a due diligence
process including a formal study to determine technical, market, and financial feasibility of
wireless high-speed Internet service, and
WHEREAS, the City Council directed and staff engaged in many methods of public
process to gather input from all communities of interest on the need for, concerns about, support
for, and opposition to the concept of a City role in ensuring the availability of competitively
priced wireless high-speed Internet service, and
WHEREAS, the City Council directed as part of the due diligence process study of legal
powers of the City to play a role in ensuring the availability of competitively priced wireless
high-speed Internet service, and
WHEREAS, results of the technical, market, financial feasibility, and other studies and
processes mentioned above indicate the viability of wireless high-speed Internet service through
use of a private – public partnership model, and
WHEREAS, results of the technical, market, financial feasibility, and other studies and
processes mentioned above suggest use of a private – public partnership model would maximize
the community benefit from wireless high-speed Internet service through each partner exercising
its own respective technical, marketing, operational, and branding strengths, and
WHEREAS, the City Council has given due consideration to results of the technical,
market, financial feasibility, and other studies and processes including those mentioned above,
and in addition considered public policy questions including the essentiality of available and
competitively priced high-speed Internet service to all members of the residential, business,
private, and non-profit communities and for the provision of effective and efficient municipal
and educational services, and
WHEREAS, the community of St. Louis Park competes with other cities throughout
Minnesota and the Untied States for a wide variety of participating residents, businesses, families
and students, and institutions to support and enhance the community’s quality of life, and
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
112105 - 8b - Wireless Internet StudyWireless Internet Study
Page 16
WHEREAS, St. Louis Park strives to be a community of choice for a lifetime and a
Children First community.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park that:
1. The appropriate City officials are hereby authorized and directed to cause the design
and implementation of a pilot wireless high-speed Internet service through use of a
private – public partnership model.
2. The appropriate City officials are hereby authorized and directed to integrate into the
design and implementation of said pilot wireless high-speed Internet service steps that
would minimize duplicate efforts and costs if the City moves forward with
construction of a citywide wireless high-speed Internet service through use of a
private – public partnership model.
3. The appropriate City officials are hereby authorized to expend up to $280,000
through an internal loan from the Economic Development Fund on said pilot wireless
high-speed Internet service using all purchasing methods legally available to the City.
4. The appropriate City officials are hereby authorized and directed to report back to the
City Council results of the pilot project at the appropriate time in the spring of 2006.
5. The appropriate City officials are hereby authorized and directed to consider
implications for the design and citywide construction of a wireless high-speed
Internet service through use of a private – public partnership model, contemplating
availability of said service in fall 2006.
6. That said citywide construction of a wireless high-speed Internet service will not
occur if results of the pilot project reflect a likely chance of failure or other
undesirable performance relating to appropriate standards and measures including
technical and market considerations.
7. That results of said pilot wireless high-speed Internet service through use of a private
– public partnership model will be limited in representing expected results of a
similar citywide wireless high-speed Internet service due to constraints in funding,
physical infrastructure, and randomness of geography and subscribers, and that such
limitations will be taken into account in evaluating results of said pilot.
8. The appropriate City officials are hereby authorized and directed to partner as
appropriate with Independent School District No. 283 and other appropriate public,
private and non-profit to cause the design and implementation of a pilot wireless
high-speed Internet service through use of a private – public partnership model.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 21, 2005
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 8c - Hoigaard's Village Mixed Use Development
Page 1
Site Area: 9.6 Acres
Zoning: C-2 General Commercial
I-P Industrial Park
Proposed Zoning: M-X Mixed Use
R-C Multi-Family Residential
Comprehensive Plan: Commercial Mixed-Use
High Density Residential
Current Use: Commercial and Industrial Uses
Proposed Use: Mixed Use and Residential
Description of Request:
Requested is approval of an Amendment to the Official Zoning Map, a Preliminary Planned Unit
Development, and a Preliminary Plat with a Variance from the Subdivision Ordinance for
easements for a 9.6 acre redevelopment site known as Hoigaard’s Village.
8c. Hoigaard Village Amendment to the Official Zoning Map, Preliminary Planned
Unit Development (PUD), Preliminary Plat, Variance from the Subdivision
Ordinance
Case No. 05-61-S, 05-62-PUD, 05-63-VAC
Union Land, LLC.
SW Quadrant of Highway 100 and Highway 7
Recommended
Action:
• Motion to adopt 1st reading of an ordinance amending the
Official Zoning Map and set second reading for December 5,
2005.
• Motion to adopt a resolution of approval for the Preliminary
Planned Unit Development, subject to conditions in the
resolution.
• Motion to adopt a resolution of approval for the Preliminary Plat
and Variance from the Subdivision Ordinance, subject to
conditions in the resolution.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 8c - Hoigaard's Village Mixed Use Development
Page 2
Development Proposal:
The developer is proposing to redevelop a 4 block area located in the northwest corner of 36th
Street and Highway 100. The intent is to remove the buildings currently on the site and construct
the following in four phases (see attached site plan):
v A 5-story mixed-use building on West 36th Street that may include Hoigaards on the first
floor (60 feet in total height, plus architectural features)
v Residential condominiums above on the block facing West 35 ½ Street
v Row houses
v Apartments
The concept for Hoigaard’s Village includes creating a “Main Street” along 36th Street with retail
on the first floor. It keeps the historic “grid” pattern of development, by maintaining the existing
public streets and grid street pattern in their current locations. The proposed site plan offers a
mix of housing opportunities that focus on the trends toward more transportation alternatives for
residents and reducing dependence on the automobile. A central green area next to a large pond
provides a focal point for the development and ties together the components of the plan. The
pond accommodates water quality and quantity requirements for a larger portion of the central
Elmwood Area and will enable future redevelopment of other parcels in the area.
Hoigaard’s is considering locating in the retail portion of the proposed mixed-use building. At
this time, however, the final decision as to its future location has not been determined. Other
retail development will take its place if Hoigaard’s does not locate on this site.
The two buildings located on the east side of Webster Avenue have not been included as part of
the Hoigaard’s Village project. The developer determined that one of these buildings was not for
sale, and that the other building was priced such that it could not be incorporated into the project.
Staff has determined that the inclusion of these buildings is not essential for a successful project.
Elmwood Area Context:
The Hoigaard Village development is, a step toward implementation of the City’s Elmwood
Land Use, Transit and Transportation Study. This study was conducted in 2002 by Hennepin
County and the City with funding from the Federal Transit Administration. It included
representatives from the City of St. Louis Park, MnDOT, Hennepin County Regional Rail
Authority, Metropolitan Council, Metro Transit, Three Rivers Park District, Federal Railroad
Administration, neighborhood associations, business owners, property owners and the Twin
Cities and Western Railroad.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 8c - Hoigaard's Village Mixed Use Development
Page 3
The purpose of the Study was to develop a 30 year vision to guide decisions in the commercial
and industrial area generally bounded by Highway 7, Highway 100, Wooddale and Brunswick
Avenues. (Please see Context and Connections Map). It was evident that major land use
changes and turnover could be expected. In addition, the Southwest Light Rail Transit (SW
LRT) line was designated and planning work on it was being done.
The Elmwood Study provided land use, transit, and transportation plans to guide redevelopment
of the area as a pedestrian and transit oriented neighborhood. This included making 36th Street a
retail/mixed-use “Main Street,” providing pedestrian connections to nearby community
attractions such as the Rec Center, Community Center, Excelsior and Grand, Wolfe Park and
amphitheatre, High School, shopping, medical facilities and employment.
In 2002, the Elmwood Study did not anticipate the redevelopment of Hoigaards, a well
recognized long time retail destination. It did suggest, however, that in the event of
redevelopment of the Hoigaards site, it could be replaced with a campus style office use.
Another alternative use, discussed but not included as a recommendation of the study, was high
density residential. High density residential contributes to the mixture of uses in the area and
supports the future light rail transit in the SW LRT Corridor. It also supports retail businesses in
the area and helps create an area where people can live without complete dependence on the
automobile.
Elmwood Area Connections:
Automobile
Auto traffic in and around the proposed Hoigaard’s Village development will be significantly
different in the coming years. The City is currently studying numerous improvements to the road
infrastructure that will dramatically impact driving conditions. Included in those improvements
are changes to the intersection of Wooddale Avenue and Highway 7, which is rated as one of the
most poorly functioning intersections in close proximity to the proposed development. Plans
include changes to the location of the frontage road to improve the intersection’s functionality
and the construction of a bridge over Highway 7. The attached traffic study discusses those
improvements and their effect upon driving conditions.
An improvement to the road system that was recommended in the Elmwood Study is an
additional bridge over Highway 100. The study indicates that both Wooddale Avenue and West
36th Street would function at a higher level if a bridge over Highway 100 were built in the
proximity of the southern portion of Wooddale Avenue. At this time, however, further planning
has not been undertaken and a decision on the construction of such a bridge has not been made.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 8c - Hoigaard's Village Mixed Use Development
Page 4
The attached traffic study indicates that while many of the roads surrounding the Hoigaard’s
Village development currently function at acceptable levels, some of the intersections have very
low Levels of Service (LOS) from at least one direction of approach. For instance, Highway 7
and Wooddale is a LOS “D” and Wooddale and the Frontage Road is a LOS “F”, the lowest LOS
category. SRF’s analysis of the proposed development project is for traffic conditions for the
year 2009, the date at which the proposed development is completed and fully occupied. The
study indicates that the development proposal will have a minimal impact with respect to the
total number of generated. The study indicates that even if the development is not built, the
surrounding intersections will operate at or near current levels of service – meaning that traffic
conditions will deteriorate somewhat whether Hoigaard’s Village was constructed or not.
The traffic study makes clear that the proposed improvements to Highway 7 and Wooddale are
the key to alleviating many of the negative driving conditions found around West 36th Street.
Many of those negative conditions occur as a result of the Wooddale Avenue/Highway 7
intersection; the study makes clear that the primary problem is vehicle queuing on Wooddale,
which can only be improved by improving access across Highway 7. Additionally, the study
indicates that automotive congestion on Highway 100 causes an undetermined amount of
diversion of automotive trips from Highway 100 to local streets. This would be improved upon
completion of the Highway 100 reconstruction through St. Louis Park proposed by the Minnesota
Department of Transportation.
Transit
Metro Transit currently provides two regular bus routes along West 36th Street. The 615 route
provides circulator service through St. Louis Park, and ends its route at the Ridgedale Mall in
Minnetonka. The 615 is not, by definition of the Zoning Code, a “frequently operating transit
line,” however, it provides hourly service to West 36th Street. The other primary Metro Transit
route serving the area is route 17. While route 17 is major bus route through St. Louis Park, the
portion that serves West 36th Street is only an occasional leg of the 17 – the 17F. For this reason,
the 17F arrives at and departs from the West 36th Street area only 7 times daily.
Bus routes and frequency, determined by Metro Transit, are constantly adjusted. When new
development occurs, it is important for Metro Transit to reevaluate service to that area. Should
the Hoigaard’s Village project receive preliminary approvals by the and City Council, Staff will
begin working with Metro Transit to determine if bus service levels should be increased.
Major improvements to the transit service at West 36th Street hopefully will occur in the future..
The Southwest Light Rail Transit Corridor (SW LRT) has a station planned at Wooddale
Avenue, which is 2 blocks from the Hoigaard’s Village development. The timeline for
construction of the SW LRT is not determined at this time, but planning is ongoing. The project
is currently at the “Alternatives Analysis” stage. A map is included that depicts the location of
the future station at Wooddale Avenue.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 8c - Hoigaard's Village Mixed Use Development
Page 5
Pedestrian
The addition of Hoigaard’s Village to this area of St. Louis Park will enhance pedestrian
amenities for many residents in the community. The development includes streetscape amenities
along West 36th Street that will increase pedestrian safety and encourage pedestrians to use the
sidewalk for both functional and recreational purposes.
374 new housing units are proposed in the Hoigaard’s Village development. The additional
residential density improves the area for pedestrian uses by increasing the number of users taking
part in walking activities and increasing those times during the day when such activities take
place. The close proximity of Hoigaard’s Village to complementary uses such as shopping and
recreation means that more trips will be taken by foot rather than by car. As a result, the
development will encourage foot traffic and have a lesser impact on auto traffic in the area.
The proposed sidewalk along West 36th Street is currently planned to be twelve feet in width.
However, changes to the site plan may provide opportunities to increase the size of this sidewalk.
Shopping
The Hoigaard’s Village development is located in close proximity to many regional shopping
opportunities and will encourage further retail redevelopment along West 36th Street consistent
with the Elmwood Area Plan. Directly across Highway 100 and approximately two blocks from
the development is a Target store. It is anticipated that many future residents will avail
themselves of the opportunity to walk to Target.
Located a short distance from Target along Park Center Boulevard is a large Byerly’s Grocery
Store. Within the Byerly’s store, dining, banking, postal and other incidental services are
offered. Further along Park Center Boulevard is a large AAA Travel Store and the offices of the
Minnesota Department of Motor Vehicles, as well as a the Mann Cinema-6 movie theater.
In addition to the nearby shopping opportunities that may be enjoyed by future residents of
Hoigaard’s Village, the development is located within a half-mile of St. Louis Park’s reinvented
“downtown” area of Excelsior and Grand. The numerous retail opportunities at Excelsior and
Grand would be easily accessible for all residents via the sidewalks and trails connecting West
36th Street to Excelsior Boulevard.
Recreation
In addition to the on-site recreational opportunities, numerous recreation opportunities exist
nearby for future residents of Hoigaard’s Village. The development is located just two blocks
east of a major access point to the Southwest Regional Trail system, which connects St. Louis
Park to Hopkins, downtown Minneapolis, and other points throughout the Metropolitan Area.
The development is also only four blocks from the St. Louis Park Recreation Center and Wolfe
Park, which has walking paths, the amphitheatre, and a playground.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 8c - Hoigaard's Village Mixed Use Development
Page 6
The development is close to other recreational opportunities. Both Bass Lake and the Central
Community Center are located within a half mile. There are several smaller parks within a
quarter mile of the development, as well. Center Park is located just to the south, along
Wooddale Avenue. Jorvig Park, likewise, is located to the west of the site.
Schools
Educational opportunities are close-by for future residents of the proposed Hoigaard’s Village.
The Senior High School and Central Community Center, located adjacent to one another, are
located within a half-mile of the development. In addition, educational programs are also held at
the Recreation Center.
Trails
As stated above, the project is only two blocks from a major access point to the Southwest
Regional Trail system. The Southwest Regional Trail system is composed of 27 miles of trails,
and provides scenic views, functional trail access to important regional amenities and job centers.
A map is provided demonstrating the full extent of access provided by the Southwest Regional
Trail.
Medical Facilities
The Hoigaard’s Village development is located within a half-mile of Park Nicollet Medical
Center and approximately 3/4 of a mile of Methodist Hospital. Easy access to both these high-
quality medical facilities will enable nearly any health or related problem to be addressed rapidly.
Zoning Analysis:
The request for an amendment to the Official Zoning map, typically addressed by the Council
concurrently with the request for a Comprehensive Plan amendment, is instead being addressed
concurrently with the request for a Planned Unit Development. The Planning Commission
recommended approval of the amendment to the Official Zoning map earlier this fall.
The proposed zoning districts have been considered for the purposes of completing a zoning
analysis. An attached map shows the proposed zoning for the site. Based on the proposed
zoning district, the proposal meets most requirements of the Zoning Code, with the exception of
setbacks and parking; modifications for these items may be approved through the PUD process as
discussed further below.
A final landscape plan will be submitted with the final PUD application. Staff has determined
that sufficient space is available to meet all bufferyard and tree replacement requirements. The
Zoning Code also requires that all overhead utilities be placed underground.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 8c - Hoigaard's Village Mixed Use Development
Page 7
Factor Required Proposed Met?
Use MX (Mixed-use)
RC (Residential)
MX (Mixed-use)
RC (Residential)
Yes
Lot Area 2.0 acre site 9.6 acre site Yes
Density 50 units per acre 39 units per acre Yes
Height None/75 feet 66 feet/67 feet Yes
Building Materials 60% Class I materials 60% Class I materials Yes
Off-Street Parking Retail 148 Retail 118
Yes Residential 748 Residential 599
Subtotal 896
Reductions (180) Excess 32
Total
Required
716
Total
Provided
749
Setbacks – Front/Rear
PUD Requested for Setbacks – See analysis below.
Yes
Setbacks – Side/Side Yes
Floor Area Ratio 1.3 Maximum 1.2 Yes
Ground Floor Area
Ratio
0.25 Maximum 0.21 Yes
Open Area/DORA 46,965 sq. ft. (12%) 68,384 sq. ft. (17%) Yes
Bufferyards –
Front/Rear
Bufferyards, Landscaping, and Tree Replacement to be
finalized with final PUD and plat. The site provides
adequate space to easily provide all required
bufferyards, landscaping, and tree replacement.
Yes
Bufferyards –
Side/Side
Yes
Landscaping Yes
Trees Yes
Mechanical Equipment Full screening required. Provided. Yes
Sidewalks Required along all streets
and building frontages.
Provided along all streets
and building frontages.
Yes
Refuse handling Full screening required. Provided underground. Yes
Transit service None required. Provided along 36th
Street; Routes 17 and
615.
Yes
Bicycle Parking Required. Provided underground
and at building entrances.
Yes
Stormwater Required for site. Regional stormwater
provided.
Yes
The developer has requested the use of cementitious siding (Hardi-Plank) as a class I material.
The determination of how to classify cementitious siding has been administrative, because it is
not classified by the Zoning Code. Staff recommends that cementitious siding be approved as a
class I material for this development, and anticipates bringing forth an amendment to the Zoning
Code that will further classify cementitious siding within a City ordinance.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 8c - Hoigaard's Village Mixed Use Development
Page 8
Without cementitious siding, the development proposal is very close to meeting zoning standards
for class I materials, as summarized in the following table:
Building Percent Class I Material
without Cementitious Siding
Percent Class I Material with
Cementitious Siding
Mixed Use
Building
79% 97%
Condo Building 55% 82%
Row Houses 43% 84%
Apartments 55% 84%
PUD Modifications:
The developer is requesting the following modifications to zoning requirements through the PUD
process:
Setbacks:
Through the use of PUD modifications, buildings do not have to be set back from the property
line. However, the developer is providing setbacks to maintain the character of the neighborhood
as outlined in the Elmwood Area Land Use, Transit, and Transportation Study.
Required Yards Required by
Zoning Code
Required by
PUD
Provided
Mixed Use Building, Lot 1
Front (S) 0’ 0’ 0’-12’
West 0’ 0’ 14’-16’
East 0’ 0’ 7’-14’
Rear (N) 0’ 0’ 94’
Condominium Building, Lot 2
Front (N) 65’ 0’ 24’
West 45’ 0’ 13’
East 40’ 0’ 8’
Rear (S) 25’ 0’ 16’
Row Houses, Lot 3
Front (S) 30’ 0’ 17’
West 18’ 0’ 14’
East 15’ 0’ 6’
Rear (N) 25’ 0’ 10’
Apartments, Lot 4
Front (S) 67’ 0’ 76’
West 42’ 0’ 92’
East 47’ 0’ 42’
Rear (N) 25’ 0’ 16’
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 8c - Hoigaard's Village Mixed Use Development
Page 9
Parking:
For the overall PUD, the developer is requesting a 15% reduction for required parking as well as
a 5% reduction for bicycle parking.
The developer is providing 749 parking stalls. Of those parking stalls, a substantial number (475
spaces) are provided below-grade or in structured (enclosed) parking, meeting the PUD
requirement for a “creative and efficient use of land,” “higher standards of site and building
design,” and “more efficient and effective use of streets, utilities, and public facilities to support
high-quality development at a lower cost” (Sec. 26-367 (a)). For those reasons, Staff has
determined that the Hoigaards Village development qualifies for the PUD modifications for
parking, in addition to the reduction for providing bicycle parking.
The final count for parking spaces results in approximately one space provided for each bedroom
within the development. Visitor parking is provided for each building in surrounding surface
parking lots and in some on-street spaces. Staff anticipates that parking will be shared between
retail and residential uses, though the development does not require the use of a joint parking
agreement.
Ground Floor Area Ratio:
The developer initially requested a PUD modification for Ground Floor Area Ratio (GFAR).
Upon review, Staff has determined that no modification for GFAR is required. The development
provides an overall GFAR of 0.21; the maximum GFAR for the entire development is 0.25
without any PUD modifications.
Planned Unit Development (PUD) Objectives:
The Hoigaard’s Village development requires a PUD for certain reductions from the Zoning
Code. The Zoning Code requires that applicants for a Planned Unit Development demonstrate
how the proposal will “enhance, support, and further the following objectives”:
1. Provide for integrated pedestrian facilities to and within the project:
The layout has retained the existing street grid, incorporating the historical layout of
Xenwood Avenue, Webster Street, 35-1/2 Street and 36th Street into the development plan.
Sidewalks are provided along all streets. To further improve pedestrian facilities, the
development includes a trail which runs along the north side of the site and loops back to
meet with the sidewalk on Webster Avenue.
A preliminary design for a pedestrian-oriented streetscape is also proposed for 36th Street.
Enhanced streetscape design will improve the site for pedestrians accessing the retail
component of the development along 36th Street.
Besides providing integration into the existing street grid, the development also provides
enhanced integration into the existing Southwest Regional Trail system. The trail system is
heavily used by bicycle commuters into downtown Minneapolis, but also serves as a
recreational resource for pedestrians and bicyclists.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 8c - Hoigaard's Village Mixed Use Development
Page 10
2. Enhance linkages to mass transit facilities:
At the current time, the development site is served by two Metro Transit routes: the 17 and
the 615. Neither route is a “frequently operating transit line” under the existing Zoning Code;
however, it is possible that Metro Transit may increase the frequency of either route
following the construction of 374 new residential units.
The future Southwest Light Rail Transit line (SW LRT) will pass within 100 feet of the
development; moreover, a station is proposed for Wooddale Avenue, which is located two
blocks to the west. For this reason, the developer has proposed what is considered a “transit-
oriented development” (TOD). Most often, transit-oriented development qualifies for more
parking reductions than are proposed. In this case, such parking reductions would not be
appropriate at this time because the SW LRT may not be constructed for 10-15 years.
However, the location of the proposed development means that future residents will easily be
able to take advantage of regular transit access to locations throughout the Twin Cities
Metropolitan area.
3. Increase the supply of low-income and moderate-income housing:
The development includes 374 market-rate units. It is expected that these units will sell to
households with a variety of incomes, including those households of moderate income. The
development incorporates a mix of housing types. Condos, row homes and apartments of
varying sizes are proposed.
4. Incorporate implementation of travel demand management strategies as part of the PUD.
Because this is a mixed-use development, the implementation of travel demand strategies
requires no specific planning or management. The purpose of a travel demand management
strategy is to spread the number of automobile trips throughout the day, reducing the negative
impacts that occur during peak travel times. In this case, residents will be of mixed ages and
incomes, and units will be both rental and owner-occupied. For this reason, residents will be
leaving the site at varied times.
5. Provide public plazas and designed outdoor recreation area which exceeds minimum chapter
requirements:
The development includes 17% of the site area for Designed Outdoor Recreation Area
(DORA). The requirement is 12% for the overall site. It is noteworthy that the developer
was able to exceed the DORA requirement by approximately 40%, while also providing a
large stormwater pond that is not included in DORA calculations. A large part of the DORA
is made up of a well-designed central plaza located to the west of the stormwater pond. The
plaza will be primarily grass-covered and will feature walking paths, benches, and native
landscaping.
6. Provide a high degree of aesthetics through overall design and display of public art:
The development includes a site plan that provides green space to all residents and improves
public access through, around, and to the site. The site’s design provides for use of the large
regional stormwater pond as a site amenity, rather than a pond which would otherwise act as
a utility structure. Further, the developer has proposed the construction of a central green
space to the west of the pond that will act as a focal point for the entire site.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 8c - Hoigaard's Village Mixed Use Development
Page 11
The proposed regional stormwater pond located on the site will be surrounded by native
plantings. The pond will also feature one or two fountains that will be maintained by the
homeowner’s association.
Preliminary Plat:
The Hoigaard Village 1st Addition plat consists of 6 newly formed lots:
Lot 1 - Mixed Use – 25,000 s.f. retail and 71 loft condominiums
Lot 2 - Condominiums – 61 units
Lot 3 - 22 Row houses (condominium ownership)
Lot 4 - Apartments – 220 units
Lot 5 - Pond area
Lot 6 - Parking lot
The six lots included in the proposed plat meet all subdivision requirements for minimum lot
size, shape, and dimension. Drainage and utility easements will be provided over utilities and the
stormwater pond as required by the City Engineer. A variance for easements around the property
lines is addressed below. Several items will be required with the final plat, including: a detailed
stormwater plan and calculation; a maintenance agreement for the stormwater plan; and
condominium association papers approved by the City Attorney. Park and trail dedication fees
are required and will be collected with the final plats for the development.
Subdivision Variance:
As part of the Hoigaard’s Village development, Union Land II, LLC. has applied for a
Subdivision Variance from a required easement. The request is for elimination of the required
10’ easement along W 36th Street. Planning and Engineering Staff have completed an analysis of
the Hoigaard’s Village development and determined that an easement along West 36th St. is not
needed and a variance should be granted. The Ordinance states “A variance shall only be
recommended when the Planning Commission finds that all of the following exist”:
1. There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property such that the strict
application of the provisions of this chapter would deprive the applicant/owner of the
reasonable use of the land.
The applicant is proposing the construction of a mixed-use, transit-oriented development. In
addition to completing this complex development, the City has required that the applicant use
a portion of the site for a large stormwater pond. The required pond will improve the
stormwater runoff conditions not only for the entire development site, but will also improve
the runoff conditions for a substantial portion of the upstream drainage area. Because the
pond is designed to serve needs greater than those found on the development site, staff has
determined that special circumstances affect the property and that the proposed variance is
appropriate for the site because of a reduced need to additional drainage and utility
easements.
2. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare
or injurious to other property in the territory in which the property is situated.
The granting of the proposed variance will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare
of the community. Rather, the proposed variance will enable the developer to build a
stormwater pond that will serve an area greater than the development site.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 8c - Hoigaard's Village Mixed Use Development
Page 12
3. The variance is to correct inequities resulting from an extreme physical hardship such as
topography, etc.
The variance corrects the inequity of topographical variation within the Elmwood
Neighborhood. The lowest point in the central stormwater runoff area (See map) is on the
Hoigaard’s property. For this reason, the applicant is required to construct a large stormwater
pond on the site, and cannot provide the required drainage and utility easements.
4. The variance is not contrary to the intent of the Comprehensive Plan.
The Comprehensive Plan specifically calls for a regional stormwater solution to be provided
for the Elmwood area. Granting a variance for the development site provides an opportunity
for the developer to install a stormwater pond required by the Comprehensive Plan. As the
installation of this pond makes the completion of the proposed development more difficult
than it otherwise would be, a variance from the requirement that the applicant provides
drainage and utility easements is appropriate.
Engineering Items:
The developer is working with the City Engineering department on designing the utilities for the
site. An area wide stormwater pond has been located on this site as it is the low point for the
central Elmwood area subwatershed. It is designed large enough to accommodate an additional
30.1 acres of redevelopment within the Elmwood area. This pond will provide efficiency for
handling stormwater in the area, and reduce the occurrence of downstream flooding problems.
Public Process:
Urban Land II, LLC., (Frank Dunbar) presented the development proposal at two neighborhood
meetings to obtain the community’s input. The developer applied for amendments to the
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map. For each of those amendments, a public hearing was held
at the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission recommended approval of both
amendments.
The City Council has also discussed the Hoigaard’s Village development proposal on previous
occasions. The Council has granted final approval to the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan
and to a resolution of support for a Livable Community Development Grant Application from the
Metropolitan Council. In addition, the Council has discussed the development at several Study
Sessions; including discussions regarding the application for Tax-Increment Financing (TIF).
The developer’s request for Preliminary PUD and Plat with a Subdivision Variance were heard
by the Planning Commission on November 2, 2005. The Planning Commission recommended
approval of all the requests.
Summary:
Hoigaard’s Village provides for the implementation of portions of the Elmwood Study. It will
provide a mixture of housing opportunities and establish 36th Street as a local “main” street.
Setting up the area as a “Transit Oriented Development,” or TOD, is important to planning for
the future SWLRT and creating community connections. By creating a compact, walkable area,
the neighborhood becomes a place well connected to surrounding amenities, shopping and work
places.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 8c - Hoigaard's Village Mixed Use Development
Page 13
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the Amendment to the Official Zoning Map, Preliminary Planned
Unit Development, and Preliminary Plat with a Variance from the Subdivision Ordinance,
subject to conditions contained in the resolutions.
Attachments: Ordinance Amending the Official Zoning Map
Resolution approving Preliminary PUD
Resolution approving Preliminary Plat and Subdivision Variance
Sketches of the development scheme
Portion of Existing Hennepin County Trails Map
Context and Connections map
Site Plan and related documents
Narrative provided by Urban Works
Traffic Study completed by SRF Consulting
Prepared by: Adam Fulton, Associate Planner
Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 8c - Hoigaard's Village Mixed Use Development
Page 14
RESOLUTION NO. 05-162
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PRELIMINARY
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) UNDER SECTION 36-367
OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO
ZONING FOR PROPERTY ZONED M-X MIXED USE AND
R-C MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOCATED AT
5616 36TH STREET WEST
3550 STATE HIGHWAY NO. 100 SOUTH
3501 XENWOOD AVENUE SOUTH
5626 36TH STREET WEST
WHEREAS, an application for approval of a Preliminary Planned Unit Development
(PUD) was received on September 20, 2005 from the applicant, and
WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing on the Preliminary PUD was mailed to all owners
of property within 350 feet of the subject property plus other affected property owners in the
vicinity, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the Preliminary PUD concept at the
meeting of November 2, 2005, and
WHEREAS, notice of public hearing on the Preliminary PUD was published in the St.
Louis Park Sailor on October 20, 2005, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing at the meeting of
November 2, 2005, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Preliminary PUD
on a 6-0 vote with all members present voting in the affirmative, and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the staff reports, Planning Commission
minutes and testimony of those appearing at the public hearing or otherwise including comments
in the record of decision.
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park:
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 8c - Hoigaard's Village Mixed Use Development
Page 15
Findings
1. Union Land II, LLC has made application to the City Council for a Planned Unit
Development under Section 36-367 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code within the M-X
Mixed Use and R-C Multi-Family districts located at 5616 36th Street West, 3550 State
Highway No. 100 South, 3501 Xenwood Avenue South, and 5626 36th Street West for the
legal description as follows, to-wit:
Parcel A: 3501 Xenwood Avenue South
Lots 11 to 23 inclusive, Block 27, “Rearrangement of St. Louis Park” Torrens
Parcel B: 5616 36th Street West
Lots 7 and 10 except the South 18 feet of said lots, Block 27, “St. Louis Park” Abstract
Lots 24 and 25, except the South 18 feet of said lots, Block 27, “Rearrangement of St.
Louis Park” and Lot 9, except the South 18 feet thereof, Block 27, “St. Louis Park”
Torrens
Parcel C: 3550 Highway 100 South
A tract of land comprising Lots 10 to 34, inclusive, Block 26, “Rearrangement of St.
Louis Park” and the vacated alleys in said Block 26; Lots 3 to 13 inclusive, Block 75,
“Rearrangement of St. Louis Park” and the vacated alley in said Block 75; all the vacated
Webster Avenue, Former First St., adjoining the Easterly line of said Block 26; Lots 1 to
7, inclusive, and a part of Lots 8, 9 and 10, Block 14, “Collins’ Addition to St. Louis
Park”; and a part of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, Section 6, Township
28, Range 24; all described as follows:
Beginning at the Southwest corner of Block 26, “Rearrangement of St. Louis Park”;
thence East along the South line of said Block 26 and its extension to the Southeast
corner of Lot 13, Block 75, “Rearrangement of St. Louis Park” ; thence South along the
West line of the Southwest Quarter of Section 6, Township 28, Range 24, to the Westerly
right-of-way line of State Trunk Highway No. 100; thence Easterly and Northeasterly
along said Westerly right-of-way line to the Northwesterly line of said Block 14,
“Collins’ Addition to St. Louis Park”; thence Southwesterly along the Northwesterly line
of said Block 14 and its extension to the Northwesterly corner of Lot 34, in said Block 26,
thence South along the West line of said Block 26 to the point of beginning: EXCEPT
that part thereof shown as Parcel 7 on Minnesota Dept. of Transportation Right of Way
Plat Numbered 27-41. Torrens
Parcel D: 5626 36th Street West
Lots 6, Block 27, “St. Louis Park Addition” Abstract
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 8c - Hoigaard's Village Mixed Use Development
Page 16
2. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission
(Case No. 05-62-PUD) and the effect of the proposed PUD on the health, safety and welfare
of the occupants of the surrounding lands, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the
effect on values of properties in the surrounding area, the effect of the use on the
Comprehensive Plan, and compliance with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance.
3. The City Council has determined that the PUD will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or
general welfare of the community nor with certain contemplated traffic improvements will it
cause serious traffic congestion or hazards, nor will it seriously depreciate surrounding
property values. The Council has also determined that the proposed PUD is in harmony with
the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan and that
the requested modifications comply with the requirements of Section 36-367(b)(5).
4. The contents of Planning Case File 05-62-PUD are hereby entered into and made part of the
public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
Conclusion
The Preliminary Planned Unit Development at the location described is approved based on the
findings set forth above and subject to the following conditions:
1. Modifications to the Zoning are approved as follows:
a. Setback modifications are approved as contained in the Official Staff Report to the
City Council, dated November 21, 2005.
b. A 15% reduction from the required off-street parking spaces.
2. With the Final PUD, the following shall be submitted and approved:
a. A final landscape plan, with a plan for irrigation.
b. A tree replacement plan.
c. A trash management plan.
d. A lighting plan, including light fixture details.
e. A plan for screening rooftop and ground mounted mechanical equipment.
f. Building and architectural screening material samples and colors.
g. Fire lanes must be shown on the final site plan.
h. The smokestack and any related contamination on the site must be removed
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 8c - Hoigaard's Village Mixed Use Development
Page 17
3. Prior to starting any site work, the following conditions shall be met:
a. Assent form and official exhibits must be signed by applicant and owner.
b. The applicant must provide evidence the final plat is filed.
c. A preconstruction conference shall be held with the appropriate development,
construction and city representatives.
d. A staging plan for demolition and construction shall be filed with the City.
e. All necessary permits must be obtained.
f. The billboard on the site must be removed.
4. Prior to issuing a final certificate of occupancy, all existing utilities must be placed
underground.
In addition to any other remedies, the developer or owner shall pay an administrative fee of $750
per violation of any condition of this approval.
Pursuant to Section 36-367(e)(6) of the Zoning Ordinance, the City will require execution of a
development agreement as a condition of approval of the Final P.U.D. The development
agreement shall address those issues which the City Council deems appropriate and necessary.
The Mayor and City Manager are authorized to execute the development agreement.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 21, 2005
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 8c - Hoigaard's Village Mixed Use Development
Page 18
RESOLUTION NO. 05-163
RESOLUTION GIVING APPROVAL FOR PRELIMINARY
PLAT OF HOIGAARD VILLAGE 1ST ADDITION WITH
VARIANCE FROM SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE FOR EASEMENTS
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of St. Louis Park:
Findings
1. Union Land, II, LLC, owner and subdivider of the land proposed to be platted as Hoigaard
Village 1st Addition has submitted an application for approval of preliminary plat of said
subdivision with a variance from the subdivision ordinance for easements (Section 26-154) in
the manner required for platting of land under the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, and all
proceedings have been duly had thereunder.
2. The proposed preliminary plat has been found to be in all respects consistent with the City
Plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and the
ordinances of the City of St. Louis Park.
3. The proposed plat is situated upon the following described lands in Hennepin County,
Minnesota, to-wit:
Parcel A: 3501 Xenwood Avenue South
Lots 11 to 23 inclusive, Block 27, “Rearrangement of St. Louis Park” Torrens
Parcel B: 5616 36th Street West
Lots 7 and 10 except the South 18 feet of said lots, Block 27, “St. Louis Park” Abstract
Lots 24 and 25, except the South 18 feet of said lots, Block 27, “Rearrangement of St.
Louis Park” and Lot 9, except the South 18 feet thereof, Block 27, “St. Louis Park”
Torrens
Parcel C: 3550 Highway 100 South
A tract of land comprising Lots 10 to 34, inclusive, Block 26, “Rearrangement of St.
Louis Park” and the vacated alleys in said Block 26; Lots 3 to 13 inclusive, Block 75,
“Rearrangement of St. Louis Park” and the vacated alley in said Block 75; all the vacated
Webster Avenue, Former First St., adjoining the Easterly line of said Block 26; Lots 1 to
7, inclusive, and a part of Lots 8, 9 and 10, Block 14, “Collins’ Addition to St. Louis
Park”; and a part of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, Section 6, Township
28, Range 24; all described as follows:
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 8c - Hoigaard's Village Mixed Use Development
Page 19
Beginning at the Southwest corner of Block 26, “Rearrangement of St. Louis Park”;
thence East along the South line of said Block 26 and its extension to the Southeast
corner of Lot 13, Block 75, “Rearrangement of St. Louis Park” ; thence South along the
West line of the Southwest Quarter of Section 6, Township 28, Range 24, to the Westerly
right-of-way line of State Trunk Highway No. 100; thence Easterly and Northeasterly
along said Westerly right-of-way line to the Northwesterly line of said Block 14,
“Collins’ Addition to St. Louis Park”; thence Southwesterly along the Northwesterly line
of said Block 14 and its extension to the Northwesterly corner of Lot 34, in said Block 26,
thence South along the West line of said Block 26 to the point of beginning: EXCEPT
that part thereof shown as Parcel 7 on Minnesota Dept. of Transportation Right of Way
Plat Numbered 27-41. Torrens
Parcel D: 5626 36th Street West
Lots 6, Block 27, “St. Louis Park Addition” Abstract
4. There are special circumstances affecting the property such that the strict application of the
provisions of the subdivision ordinance would deprive the applicant/owner of the reasonable
use of the land. Such circumstances arise due to the property’s physical shape, and
topographical layout.
5. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare
or injurious to other property in the territory in which the property is situated. The granting
of the variance will enable the construction of a large stormwater pond which will extend
benefits to a substantial portion of the surrounding properties.
6. The variance is to correct inequities resulting from an extreme physical hardship such as
topography. Topography results in the lowest point in the drainage basin to be found within
those lots herein considered, and results in the necessary construction of a large stormwater
pond over land previously used for parking area.
7. The variance is not contrary to the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. The variance enables
the construction of a stormwater pond that maintains compliance with the Comprehensive
Plan and fulfills goals laid out in multiple chapters of the Comprehensive Plan.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 8c - Hoigaard's Village Mixed Use Development
Page 20
Conclusion
1. The proposed preliminary plat of Hoigaard Village 1st Addition is hereby approved
and accepted by the City as being in accord and conformity with all ordinances, City
plans and regulations of the City of St. Louis Park and the laws of the State of
Minnesota, subject to the following conditions:
a. Variance from the Subdivision Code, Section 26-154 “Easements” for the
required easements along the southerly portion of Parcels B and D.
b. A tree preservation plan must be submitted and approved prior to final plat
approval.
c. Detailed stormwater plans and calculations must be submitted and approved
prior to final plat approval.
d. A maintenance agreement for the stormwater pond must be executed prior to
final plat approval.
e. Condominium association papers must be approved by the City Attorney
prior to final plat approval.
f. The vacation of the alley, as requested, must be approved by the City
Council prior to final plat approval.
In addition to any other remedies, the developer or owner shall pay an administrative fee
of $750 per violation of any condition of this approval.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 21, 2005
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 8d - JMW Comp Plan And Rezoning
Page 1
8d. Request of JMW Development LLC for a Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment from Industrial to Commercial; and a Zoning Map
Amendment from IP – Industrial Park to C-1 –Neighborhood
Commercial
Location: 5330 Cedar Lake Road
Applicant: JMW Development, LLC
Case No.: 05-34-CP and 05-35-Z.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the attached resolution approving the
Comprehensive Plan amendment to change the land use
designation from Industrial to Commercial and approve
summary for publication.
Motion to approve 1st reading of the attached ordinance
approving the zoning map amendment to change the
zoning designation from IP – Industrial Park to C-1 –
Neighborhood Commercial and set second reading for
December 5, 2005.
Request:
JMW Development LLC is requesting amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and
Official Zoning Map to allow retail uses at 5330 Cedar Lake Road. The property is 1.5
acres in size and is located at the southeast corner of Cedar Lake Road and Park Place
Boulevard (see attached map). If approved, the applicants would like to rebuild or use the
existing building for 12,400 square feet of retail uses such as a drive-through coffee shop,
a counter order restaurant without a drive-through, and other small retail or commercial
uses.
Comprehensive Plan Designation: Industrial
Request: Commercial
Current Zoning:
IP – Industrial Park
Request: C-1 - Neighborhood Commercial
Parcel Size: 1.538 acres
Current Land Use:
Graybow Communications Group and Mr.
Print
Proposed Land Use: Retail
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 8d - JMW Comp Plan And Rezoning
Page 2
Background:
Currently, Graybow Communications Group and Mr. Print are located in the 23,906
square foot building on the site. The building is industrial; it is constructed of concrete
block with loading docks. The owners have an agreement with the City to use right-of-
way along Cedar Lake Road that is connected to the property for parking of
approximately 34 cars. The right-of-way that is currently being used for parking was
turned back to the city from Hennepin County last year and the property owner and the
city have an “Encroachment Agreement” with a 90 day termination clause. Although the
applicants would like to purchase the property, City Staff has been hesitant to recommend
giving up additional right-of-way in light of the future development proposed north of
this area; additional right-of-way might be needed in the future if major road or
intersection changes are needed.
On October 19 the Planning Commission reviewed the applicants request and
recommended approval of the Comp. Plan Amendment and rezoning.
5330 Cedar Lake Road
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 8d - JMW Comp Plan And Rezoning
Page 3
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Issues:
¤ How do the proposed amendments impact surrounding properties?
¤ How do the proposed amendments change the physical character of the location
and neighborhood?
¤ What other uses would be permitted under the proposed rezoning?
¤ How will the proposed amendments affect local traffic?
¤ Do the proposed amendments improve or degrade the transitions between
existing land uses?
¤ How do the proposed amendments impact the natural environment?
¤ Are there unaccounted benefits to the proposed amendment, such as the removal
of blighted properties?
How would the proposed amendment impact surrounding properties?
Properties surrounding this property include: Northwest Club to the east/southeast; Office
Depot and PetSmart to the northwest; Office buildings to the north; and industrial
buildings east to Highway 100.
Impacts to surrounding properties would be significant, as retail uses on this site would
produce much more traffic than exists today. While there is good access to this site and
other sites in the area, increased traffic may impact access points, and require fewer in
order to make traffic flow better.
The area to the east is also industrial. There are three parcels with significant industrial
buildings on them. All are buildings over 50,000 square feet, appear to be primarily
manufacturing or warehousing in nature, have loading docks, a small portion of office
space and limited parking. These uses will likely not change in the future because of the
size of the buildings, the limitations on parking and the locational advantages.
In the next few years, a major change is expected to the north of this site in the “Duke”
area. A major development is planned, with significant office, commercial and
potentially residential uses.
What would be the effect of changing land uses?
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning
Attached is a list of the uses that are allowed in each district. The effects of a land use
change from light industrial to neighborhood commercial on this site would include a
change in the activity, appearance, traffic, and use of the area. Pedestrian traffic to the
site would likely be increased.
Light industrial uses typically are large buildings with higher appearance standards and
fewer impacts than heavy industrial uses. They include such things as warehousing and
light industrial that usually have few employees and few daily trips based on the square
footage of the building.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 8d - JMW Comp Plan And Rezoning
Page 4
Neighborhood uses are convenience retail and services that typically serve surrounding
residential areas. Such uses include convenience stores, gas stations, dry cleaners, coffee
shops and the like. They are usually relatively small users and small buildings. The
purpose of the C-1 zone “…is to provide for low-intensity, service-oriented commercial
uses for surrounding residential neighborhoods. Limits will be placed on the type, size,
and intensity of commercial uses in this district to ensure and protect compatibility with
adjacent residential areas.”
How will the proposed amendment affect local traffic?
A traffic study was completed by SRF Consulting Group Inc. Two (2) land use scenarios
were studied:
Scenario 1 Scenario 2
Coffee shop with drive-thru 2 ksf 2 ksf
Fast food without drive-thru 3 ksf
Specialty Retail 18 ksf 10 ksf
Total daily trips 1,630 2,835
Total daily trips in the worst case scenario would be 2,835 daily.
With the proposed change in use, the level of service (capacity of an intersection A-F
with A being the best) would be “C” during the p.m. peak hour. The intersections
currently are operating at a level “C.”
It appears from this analysis that the traffic impacts from the proposed scenarios would
add traffic, and not change the level of service at the adjacent intersections.
Traffic heading for Highway 100 southbound uses Parkdale Drive, on the northern side of
this property. Parkdale Drive has a number of access points along it, however drivers
tend to use it as an entrance ramp, significantly increasing speed as they travel east.
Traffic to and from this site would use the two driveways to it (one is right-in/right-out
only).
Concept Plan:
A concept plan was initially submitted, and the two scenarios analyzed for traffic
purposes were for 20,000 square feet and 15,000 square feet. Since the traffic study was
completed, the applicants revised the concept plan for 12,400 square feet; it is attached
and shows a reuse of the existing building, with a portion of it removed. This site plan
has not been analyzed and has a number of issues that would need to be addressed
including driveway locations, crosswalk locations, drive-through circulation, service
delivery, trash accommodations, landscaping etc.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 8d - JMW Comp Plan And Rezoning
Page 5
In both concept plans submitted there is a deficiency in parking that is made up on city
right-of-way; the later concept plan shows 40 spaces in this area. As noted above, staff
has been hesitant to recommend giving city up additional right-of-way in light of the
future development proposed north of this area; additional right-of-way might be needed
in the future if major road or intersection changes are needed. Without that parking being
certain into the future, the amount of retail that would be allowed would be limited.
Does the proposed amendment improve or degrade the transitions between existing
land uses?
A change here should be considered in relation to the industrial area that includes the
three buildings to the east. Those buildings are all large in size with relatively small
amounts of parking. They are unlikely to change in use from industrial because of their
size, type of building and location.
The site might be considered a transitional site, as it is not directly tied to the adjacent
industrial uses to the east of this property. It is surrounded by major roadways, and is not
connected to other land uses in the area.
Are there unaccounted benefits to the proposed amendment, such as the removal of
blighted properties?
The building on the site is constructed as block and not architecturally significant. New
development or redevelopment of the building could improve the building stock. Site
improvements would improve the landscaping and other aesthetics on the site.
Staff Analysis:
Making a change to the Comprehensive Plan and zoning is a discretionary act of the City.
The City relies on its Comprehensive Plan to provide guidance for future land uses. To
make a change, a compelling reason is needed. For this request, staff does not believe a
strong compelling reason is evident.
The site may be viable from a market point of view, however that does not make it the
best land use for the area in the long term. This would be a very isolated retail site, as it
is surrounded by major roadways on three sides, and no other adjacent retail. It would
not be connected to any other of the surrounding land uses in the area either.
This site is small and sits between industrial, office and the health club, with retail to the
northwest. Suggested uses for the site include a coffee shop and a fast food restaurant,
with additional small scale retail. (The site could not actually accommodate 12,400 s.f.
of retail area because of the parking).
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 8d - JMW Comp Plan And Rezoning
Page 6
The traffic study indicated that the roadway system with some changes to the site plan,
retail as analyzed could operate on this site, without changes to the level of service at
surrounding intersections. The proposed C-1 zoning allows for a number of uses beyond
the concept plan, however, some of which could create more significant traffic
movements.
Finally, a dramatic change to the “Duke” property to the north is expected over the next
few years. It would be better to analyze a request such as this after knowing the land uses
and impacts of that development, and seeing the overall traffic impacts to the area.
Remaining Issues:
The amount of retail development allowed is highly dependent on parking. The
applicants would like to purchase the right-of-way property that is currently being used
for parking. Parking spaces in the right-of-way are not counted toward required parking
amounts; without the right-of-way, uses would be limited. City Staff has been hesitant to
recommend giving up additional right-of-way in light of the future development proposed
north of this area. Some alternatives for using the property might be explored, such as a
longer term agreement for parking or looking at long term configurations of the
intersection to see if a sale of a portion of the property would be possible.
Most retail uses would be allowed by right if the Comprehensive Plan and zoning are
changed. Site plan review would be at staff level unless a Conditional Use Permit (such
as required for drive-throughs) or other approval is required. The site plan submitted and
attached has not been reviewed by staff and the changes of the driveway locations would
need to be thoroughly analyzed before site plan and other approvals are given.
Planning Commission Action:
On July 20, 2005 the Planning Commission held a public hearing and delayed action at
the request of the applicant. A traffic study was completed following this meeting by
SRF Consulting Group Inc. It concluded that with the proposed change in use, the level
of service would be “C” during the p.m. peak hour. The intersections currently are
operating at a level “C” so it appears from this analysis that the traffic impacts from the
proposed development would add traffic, but not change the level of service at the
adjacent intersections.
The item was considered at the October 19, 2005 Planning Commission meeting. The
Planning Commissioners commented that they did not think this site would be used for
industrial in the long term, considering its size and the configuration of the access roads
to Highway 100. While the loss of industrial land was discussed, Commissioners did not
think the loss of this one I-P property would outweigh the economic advantages of
making this a more useable site and improving its overall aesthetics. In addition, the
traffic generated did not impact the surrounding intersections dramatically.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 8d - JMW Comp Plan And Rezoning
Page 7
Planning Commission Recommendation:
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the request to amend the
Comprehensive Plan from I, Industrial to C, Commercial and amend the Zoning Map
from IP, Industrial Park to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial for the parcel at 5330 Cedar
Lake Road.
Attachments: Proposed Resolution Approving Comprehensive Plan
Proposed Ordinance Approving Rezoning
List of Zoning Uses in C-1 and IP
Planning Commission Minutes of October 19, 2005 (excerpt)
Location Map
Traffic Study dated September 16, 2005
Existing and Proposed Comprehensive Plan Map
Existing and Proposed Zoning Map
Letter from Applicant
Conceptual Site Plan and drawings
Prepared by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 8d - JMW Comp Plan And Rezoning
Page 8
RESOLUTION NO. 05-160
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN 2000 TO THE YEAR 2020 FOR THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTES 462.351 TO 462.364
5330 CEDAR LAKE ROAD
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan 2000-2020 was adopted by the City
Council on May 17, 1999 (effective September 1, 1999) and provides the following:
1. An official statement serving as the basic guide in making land use, transportation
and community facilities and service decisions affecting the City.
2. A framework for policies and actions leading to the improvement of the physical,
financial, and social environment of the City, thereby providing a good place to live and
work and a setting conducive for new development.
3. A promotion of the public interest in establishing a more functional, healthful,
interesting, and efficient community by serving the interests of the community at large
rather than the interests of individual or special groups within the community if their
interests are at variance with the public interest.
4. An effective framework for direction and coordination of activities affecting the
development and preservation of the community.
5. Treatment of the entire community as one ecosystem and to inject long range
considerations into determinations affecting short-range action, and
WHEREAS, the use of such Comprehensive Plan will insure a safer, more
pleasant, and more economical environment for residential, commercial, industrial, and
public activities and will promote the public health, safety, and general welfare, and
WHEREAS, said Plan will prepare the community for anticipated desirable
change, thereby bringing about significant savings in both private and public
expenditures, and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan has taken due cognizance of the planning
activities of adjacent units of government, and
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 8d - JMW Comp Plan And Rezoning
Page 9
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan is to be periodically reviewed by the
Planning Commission of the City of St. Louis Park and amendments made, if justified
according to procedures, rules, and laws, and provided such amendments would provide a
positive result and are consistent with other provisions in the Comprehensive Plan, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of St. Louis Park
recommended adoption of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan 2000-2020 on
October 19, 2005, based on statutes, the Metropolitan Regional Blueprint, extensive
research and analyses involving the interests of citizens and public agencies;
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of
the Planning Commission (Case No.05-34-CP);
WHEREAS, the contents of Planning Case File No. 05-34-CP are hereby entered
into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of St. Louis Park
that the Comprehensive Plan, as previously adopted by the Planning Commission and
City Council, is hereby amended as follows:
Change the land use designation as shown on the attached map from Industrial to
Commercial.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 21,
2005
Contingent upon approval of the Metropolitan
Council
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 8d - JMW Comp Plan And Rezoning
Page 10
SUMMARY
RESOLUTION NO.: 05-160
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN 2000 TO THE YEAR 2020 FOR THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTES 462.351 TO 462.364
5330 CEDAR LAKE ROAD
This resolution states that the Comprehensive Plan land use designation of 5330 Cedar
Lake Road will be changed from Industrial to Commercial.
Adopted by the City Council November 21, 2005
Contingent upon approval of the Metropolitan
Council
Jeffrey W. Jacobs /s/
Mayor
A copy of the full text of this resolution is available for inspection with the City Clerk.
Published in St. Louis Park Sailor: December 1, 2005
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 8d - JMW Comp Plan And Rezoning
Page 11
ORDINANCE NO.__________
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE
CHANGING BOUNDARIES OF ZONING DISTRICTS
5330 CEDAR LAKE ROAD
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation
of the Planning Commission (Case No. 05-35-Z).
Section 2. The St. Louis Park Zoning Ordinance adopted December 28, 1959,
Ordinance No. 730; amended December 31, 1992, Ordinance No. 1902-93, amended
December 17, 2001, Ordinance No. 2216-01, as heretofore amended, is hereby further
amended by changing the zoning district boundaries by reclassifying the following
described lands from their existing land use district classification to the new land use
district classification as indicated for the tract as hereinafter set forth, to wit:
Lot 1, Block 1, Watson’s Addition
from IP Industrial Park to C-1 Neighborhood Commercial.
Section 3. The contents of Planning Case File No. 05-35-Z are hereby entered
into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
Section 4. The ordinance shall take effect upon Metropolitan Council
approval of associated Comprehensive Plan amendment.
Adopted by the City Council December 5, 2005
Reviewed for Administration
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 8d - JMW Comp Plan And Rezoning
Page 12
Comparison of Zoning Districts
C-1 , Neighborhood
Commercial
IP, Industrial Park
Residential uses
Cluster housing PC/CUP
Multiple-family dwelling PC/CUP
Human care uses
Adult day care PC
Group day care PC <10% P >10% CUP
Medical/dental offices PC
Institutional uses
Education/academic CUP
Funeral home PC
Libraries PC
Museums/art galleries PC
Parks/open space P P
Parks/recreation PC
Police/fire PC P
Public service structures PC PC
Utility substations PC
Commercial uses
Animal handling PC
Appliance, small engine and bicycle repair PC
Bank PC
Business/trade school PC P
Clubs and Lodges
Without intoxicating liquor license
PC
Food service PC
In-vehicle sales/service CU
Motor fuel station
Motor vehicle service/repair
CUP
A
Office PC >50% CUP
Post office customer service CUP P
Printing process PC
Private entertainment (indoor)
Without intoxicating liquor license
PC
Restaurants
Without intoxicating liquor license
PC
Retail PC PUD
Retail, large item (up to 20,000 sf) PC
Services PC PUD
Shopping centers (up to 20,000 sf) PC
Studio PC
Sexually-oriented business
Limited impact
PC
High impact PC
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 8d - JMW Comp Plan And Rezoning
Page 13
Comparison of Zoning Districts
Industrial uses
Communication tower PC PC
Showrooms P
Warehouse and storage P
Manufacturing/processing PC
Medical or dental labs PC
Mixed use development PC/CUP
Transportation uses
Parking lot PC/A PC
Parking ramp
Parking business PC
Heliport CUP
Transit stations PC
Excerpts – Planning Commission Minutes – July 20, 2005
B. Amendment to Comprehensive Plan Designation from Industrial to
Commercial and Rezoning from IP Industrial to C1 Neighborhood
Commercial for 1.5 acre parcel
Location: 5330 Cedar Lake Road
Applicant: JMW Development/Paul Maenner
Case Nos.: 05-34-CP and 05-35-Z
Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor, presented the staff report. She
distributed a hand-out showing uses allowed in the C-1 District.
Ms. McMonigal commented that the site may be a good site for retail uses from a
marketing and visibility standpoint; however, the C-1 uses are broad and could
have significant impacts. She said that commercial districts are quite wide open
to just about any use. Depending on what the specific use is, it could have
significant traffic and access impacts. It could change the character of the
neighborhood and there is a concern about that. She said that staff recommends
denial of the requests.
Ms. McMonigal remarked that once the zoning is changed any use in the
commercial category could be allowed. She noted that it is a tough site as it is
small, and it doesn’t really relate to the other industrial uses on the site. She said
she can see the potential for retail on the site but without knowing the specific
uses she is not comfortable recommending approval. Ms. McMonigal went on to
say that changes to the Zoning Code are being discussed that would allow
Comprehensive Plan and rezoning applications to be considered at the same time
as Conditional Use Permits and PUDs.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 8d - JMW Comp Plan And Rezoning
Page 14
There was a discussion about Podany’s business and whether or not it was
considered a retail use.
Mr. Fulton said he thought Podany’s was classified as a retail showroom which is
a permitted use in the IP Industrial Park district.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison said she liked the idea of something new at the
site but she is concerned about traffic. She asked if the application could be put
on hold until a traffic study is done.
Ms. McMonigal said that could be done but a traffic study would require specific
uses and a site plan, not just a concept plan.
Commissioner Timian asked if a C2 General Commercial designation would work
for the developer.
Ms. McMonigal said C2 is less restrictive than C1.
Paul Maenner, applicant, said staff had suggested that C1 would probably meet
their needs and be more appropriate for what they were trying to accomplish as
C2 would open up more possibilities for traffic issues.
Ms. McMonigal added that C2 allows big box retail and is a much heavier use.
Ms. McMonigal noted that maps in the report had an error. The requests are
being made only for the front 1.5 acre parcel.
Commissioner Morris asked what percentage of the City’s Industrial zoned
property this site comprised.
Ms. McMonigal said the data base for the Industrial Study is currently being
compiled.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison commented that the site is so small that it is
hard to believe it could be developed for any kind of industrial purposes.
Ms. McMonigal responded that there are very few uses allowed in the IP district
that are commercial. Included would be business and trade schools, medical,
optical and dental laboratories, printing process, catering, communication tower,
manufacturing process, showrooms, and storage.
Paul Maenner, applicant, said he wanted the opportunity to address some of the
concerns such as traffic and uses with the Planning Commission.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 8d - JMW Comp Plan And Rezoning
Page 15
Mark Johnson, applicant, said the Zoning Code does allow retail in the IP district
if it is incidental to a warehouse type facility. Mr. Johnson said their title
commitment references Res. 85-132 and identifies the zoning as DDD Diversified
Development District. Item 4 of the resolution states that the building may be
used for office, warehouse, retail, health clubs and health clubs.
Mr. Fulton said the Code has been rewritten and the DDD zoning designation no
longer exists.
Mr. Johnson said traffic is a concern as two large retail anchors generate a
significant amount of traffic. He said they are prepared to better define the
types of uses for the site and have a traffic engineer run some projections based
on those uses and compare them to the current condition. Mr. Johnson said just
prior to the meeting he asked Ms. McMonigal to provide them with the current
level of service for the intersection at Cedar Lake Rd. and Parkdale.
Mr. Johnson commented on the City-owned right-of-way on the site. He
discussed the dedicated right turn lane in front of the property. He suggested that
any other proposed geometrics proposed for that intersection would be difficult
because of Office Max in the northeast quadrant, the office park to the north, the
athletic club to the south, and specific access points from Cedar Lake Road to
Highway 100. Mr. Johnson went on to say that the probability of something
dramatic needing to be done there is somewhat limited because of existing
development.
Chair Carper opened the public hearing. As no one was present wishing to
speak, the Chair closed the public hearing.
A discussion was held regarding options for the applicant.
Commission Johnston-Madison said she’d like the Commission to consider
tabling the requests due to lack of information.
Commissioner Morris said there is a need for eating establishments in the area,
especially if that area is more opened up to office and retail. He said he is
concerned about creating a block that has two zoning uses. He said from a traffic
perspective it is a difficult area to open up driveways and get pedestrian
movement. He said he is inclined to deny the requests until the City determines
what it wants to do with its IP zoning properties.
Commissioner Robertson said he didn’t have a problem with splitting the zoning
on the block. He said he finds it more unusual when zoning is split on a street.
He discussed the economic benefit of industrial vs. retail. He said he couldn’t
vote to remove more industrial land.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 8d - JMW Comp Plan And Rezoning
Page 16
Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked Commissioner Morris what kind of
information he hoped to get from the Industrial Study that would help him make a
decision on the applicant’s request.
Commissioner Morris said he feels the City shouldn’t lose any more industrial
properties. It might come to a decision to freeze rezoning of industrial properties,
or provide a certain set of guidelines for considering rezoning.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked what kind of industrial use Commissioner
Morris envisioned on this size parcel.
Commissioner Morris responded that there would be the possibility of a
consolidated parcel, instead of four or five different businesses.
Chair Carper commented that currently it is a functional IP property and could be
sold as industrial.
There was a discussion about why staff recommended denial other than traffic
issues.
Ms. McMonigal said primarily when the zoning is changed; there is no control
over what kind of retail use might go in the site. She said her concern was that
some of the uses might not be appropriate in the area, such as communication
tower, sexually oriented businesses, grocery store, or motor fuel station. She
explained that while conditions could be placed on some permitted uses, once the
zoning is changed it is difficult legally to say no to anything which is permitted in
that zoning district.
Commissioner Morris said the concept plan presented by the applicant is for a
drive-through restaurant or drive-through facility. He said it may not be a good
site for a drive-through facility as it would generate a lot of traffic.
Commissioner Morris said he was inclined to give the applicant extra time to
work out some of the issues on the use of land as well as finding out more about
where the Industrial Study may take the City.
Commissioner Robertson said his issue didn’t regard use or traffic, but strictly
that he is not willing to give up the industrial property at this point in time.
Tabling it would give the applicant some time to look into a good use that was
worth losing some industrial property. He said in general he’s not comfortable
with a vaguely defined use.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison suggested tabling the requests to give the
applicant time to complete a traffic study and to determine what type of retail
would be appropriate.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 8d - JMW Comp Plan And Rezoning
Page 17
Ms. McMonigal stated that the City requires its traffic engineer to complete the
traffic study, paid by the applicant, based on the uses that the applicant identifies.
She added that the data for the Industrial Study has just been collected.
Additional analysis needs to be done and she doesn’t have a date of completion at
this time.
Mark Johnson, applicant, clarified that they had wanted to buy just a portion of
the City-owned property, not the entire piece.
Mr. Johnson asked if there was any advantage to consider applying for a PUD.
Ms. McMonigal responded that the City’s PUD process does not specify uses.
The underlying zoning district regulates what the uses are. Staff is proposing a
change in the ordinance to make the PUD a little bit stronger in making an
overlay zoning district. Under that scenario uses could be specified for a
particular piece of property. That might be one option for the applicant. She said
it takes 3-4 months to make a change to the zoning code.
Mr. Johnson asked if there was any merit to the applicant agreeing to certain deed
restrictions that would preclude certain uses.
Ms. McMonigal said she would check with the City Attorney.
Mr. Johnson said obtaining some hard traffic data is important. He said they
would like to postpone and continue to gather information and meet with staff.
Commissioner Robertson moved to table the requests until the City and developer
receive the completed traffic study. Commissioner Johnston-Madison seconded
the motion, and the motion was approved on a vote of 5-0.
Excerpts – Planning Commission Minutes – October 19, 2005
4. Unfinished Business
A. Amendment to Comprehensive Plan Designation from Industrial to
Commercial and Rezoning from IP Industrial to C1 Neighborhood
Commercial for 1.5 acre parcel
Location: 5330 Cedar Lake Road
Applicant: JMW Development/Paul Maenner
Case Nos.: 05-34-CP and 05-35-Z
Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Administrator, presented the staff report.
In her summary, Ms. McMonigal stated that while the site may be good from a
marketing and visibility standpoint, that doesn’t necessarily mean it is a good long
term land use for the City. Based upon the staff analysis, Ms. McMonigal stated
that staff recommends denial of the requests.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 8d - JMW Comp Plan And Rezoning
Page 18
Commissioner Timian asked for more detail about a proposed Duke development
to the north. Ms. McMonigal pointed out the Duke properties. She said a fairly
extensive development of office and mixed-use is planned for the site.
Commissioner Morris asked Ms. McMonigal about Public Works’ viewpoint on
the feasibility of the proposed pedestrian cross walks on the north and south end
of the site.
Ms. McMonigal said a site analysis has not been completed as the current request
regards land use. She remarked that the crossings would have to be at the
corners.
Commissioner Timian commented on pedestrians running across Cedar Lake
Road from the overflow parking ramp for the Northwest Athletic Club rather than
using a shuttle bus.
Paul Maenner, partner, JMW Development, said JMW’s office is located right
across the street from the site in the Parkdale Office complex.
Mr. Maenner said that 45% of the building at 5330 Cedar Lake Road is typical
warehouse used for storage, so there isn’t any major manufacturing process going
on at the site.
Mr. Maenner spoke about the traffic study. He said JMW believes the traffic
impacts will be even less than those projected by the study, as their revised plan is
for 12,000 sq. ft., versus the original proposal of 15,000 sq. ft.
Mr. Maenner reviewed the revised plans to reuse the building. He said JMW
proposes to keep an encroachment agreement with the City on the adjacent City
land.
Mr. Maenner stated what JMW feels are the compelling reasons to support the
proposal. He said traffic will not be negatively impacted. He commented that
the area is underserved and by adding a few additional retail options, the proposal
will support existing assets and help make them more productive. The aesthetic
appearance of the property will be improved and a building will be recycled. Mr.
Maenner noted that JMW isn’t asking for any City subsidies. They anticipate the
property will generate taxes approximately 96% higher than what is currently
generated.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked what other uses are proposed besides a
restaurant and coffee shop.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 8d - JMW Comp Plan And Rezoning
Page 19
Mr. Maenner said it will be uses supportive of the office environment and
complementary to the existing uses. They haven’t done a marketing study. He
said they are considering uses like a home accessory business and a copy
business.
Commissioner Morris said he was inclined to approve the request. He said he
didn’t feel this site would ever be guided for Industrial Park use considering the
configuration of Hwy. 100 and the access roads. He didn’t think the loss of this
one I-P property would outweigh the economic advantages. He said he felt the
revisions the applicant made are better than the original proposal. He felt there
was a need for the use and the traffic generated wasn’t bad.
Commissioner Robertson said he agreed with Commissioner Morris’ remarks.
He said on principle he was concerned about changing an industrial property, but
felt that the applicant presented a compelling argument.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison said the proposed uses could be complementary
to the Duke development. She said she understood the concern that uses could
change. She asked Ms. McMonigal if she had concerns about traffic.
Ms. McMonigal responded that the traffic could change based on the type and
number of uses.
Chair Carper said he felt the applicant addressed earlier concerns of the Planning
Commission. He said the proposal does have issues regarding crosswalks.
Commissioner Morris moved to recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan
amendment to change the land use designation from Industrial to Commercial and
approval of a zoning map amendment to change the zoning designation from IP –
Industrial Park to C-1 Neighborhood Commercial. Commissioner Timian
seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 8e - Lake Street Plan And Zoning Amendment
Page 1
Comprehensive Plan
Designation: Low Density Residential
Request: Medium Density Residential
Current Zoning: R-2 – Single Family
Request: R-4 – Multi Family Residential
Parcel Size: 20,500 square feet
Current Land Use: Single Family Home
Proposed Land Use: Office – less than 2,500 square feet in floor area
Request:
Kieffer Family Limited Partnership is requesting amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and
Official Zoning Map to allow an existing single family home to be converted into an office at
5714 Lake Street West. The property is approximately .5 acres in size and is located on the west
side of Lake Street, just south of Minnetonka Boulevard (See attached location map).
Background:
Currently the property contains a rambler style single family home. The home was sold in June
of 2005, which triggered a point of sale inspection. (Every home is required to be inspected by
the Building Inspections Department before it is sold. This inspection is called a point of sale
inspection.) The inspection resulted in some code compliance issues that needed to be corrected.
During the course of the follow-up inspections, the building inspectors noted that the building
appeared to be in the process of being remodeled into an entirely office use. This concern was
forwarded to staff in the zoning department who then met Mitchell Kieffer at the site to discuss
8e. Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium
Density Residential; and a Zoning Map Amendment from R2 Single Family
Residential to R4 – Multi Family Residential
Case No.: 05-58-CP and 05-59-Z
Applicant: Mitchell I. Kieffer
Location: 5714 Lake Street West
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve resolution to deny the Comprehensive Plan
amendment to change the land use designation from Low Density
Residential to Medium Density Residential and to deny the zoning
map amendment to change the zoning designation from R-2 Single
Family Residential to R4 – Multi Family Residential.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 8e - Lake Street Plan And Zoning Amendment
Page 2
his remodeling and planned use of the building. During this meeting, it was confirmed that the
home was in the process of being converted to an entirely office use, and that no one is currently,
or is planning to, live in the house. It was also confirmed that Mr. Kieffer did not check with the
city to see if the building could be converted from a single family home to an office use before
beginning the conversion.
Mr. Kieffer was informed that an office use is not permitted in the R-2 Zoning District. He was
also informed that he would have to either discontinue the office use, or make application to
amend the comprehensive plan and rezone the property to a district that would allow it. After
reviewing the zoning ordinance, it was determined that the R-4 Zoning District best fit his plans.
The R-4 District borders the subject property to the north and west, and it allows both office
buildings that are smaller than 2,500 square feet in floor area and apartment buildings. Mr.
Kieffer stated he may at some point in the future consider removing the house, and constructing
an apartment building. His family owns the adjacent apartment building on Lake Street, so a new
apartment building would either be an extension of the existing apartment building or in some
way be complementary to it. To this end, Mr. Kieffer decided to apply for the comprehensive
plan amendment and zoning map amendment to rezone the property to the R-4 Zoning District
rather than vacate the building, with the understanding that if the applications should be denied,
he would have to immediately discontinue the office use.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 8e - Lake Street Plan And Zoning Amendment
Page 3
Issues:
¤ What changed, or what changing conditions make the passage of this amendment
necessary?
¤ What is the expected effect of the proposed amendment?
• How does the proposed amendment change the physical character of the location and
neighborhood?
• What other uses would be permitted under the proposed rezoning?
• How will the proposed amendment affect local traffic?
• Does the proposed amendment improve or degrade the transitions between existing land
uses?
• Are there unaccounted benefits to the proposed amendment, such as the removal of
blighted properties?
¤ Is the request consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan?
What changed, or what changing conditions make the passage of this amendment
necessary?
Properties surrounding this property include: the West Lake Estates Apartment building to the
north, the Zarthan Park Townhomes to the west and single family homes to the south, and across
the street to the east.
The 16 unit townhome complex to the west was constructed in 1978 as a cluster development,
the apartment building to the north was constructed in 1967, and the adjoining single family
homes were constructed in the 1940s. The zoning in the area has remained relatively unchanged.
The single family homes, including the subject property, have been consistently zoned R-2 single
family, and the property to the west and north of the subject property have been consistently
zoned together as a group. Their zoning designation was R-B in the past, and is now R-4. The
change to R-4 occurred in the city wide zoning update in the early 1990s.
Other than Highway 100, there are no changes to transportation, the Comprehensive Plan or the
Zoning map planned for this area.
What other uses would be permitted under the proposed rezoning?
The following is a list of uses allowed in both the R-2 Single Family District and the R-4 Multi-
Family District. The uses listed as permitted or permitted with conditions do not require review
by the Planning Commission or approval by the City Council. The uses listed as permitted by
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) require a public hearing before the Planning Commission, and
approval by the City Council.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 8e - Lake Street Plan And Zoning Amendment
Page 4
R-2 Single Family District R-4 Multi-Family District
Permitted Uses Single-family dwellings Two-family dwellings
State-licensed residential facilities
serving six or fewer persons
Rooming houses
State-licensed residential facilities
serving 16 or fewer persons
Parks/open space
Transit stations
Single-family dwelling
Permitted With Conditions Parks and open spaces Adult day care
Group home/nonstatutory Group day care/nursery school
Community centers Group home/non-statutory
Educational (academic) Nursing home
Libraries Community centers
Parks/recreation Educational (academic)
Police/fire station Libraries
Religious institutions Parks and recreation
Bed and breakfast establishments Police/fire station
Communication tower Religious institutions
Transit station Communication tower
Permitted by CUP Public service structures Multiple-family dwelling
Cluster housing
Elderly housing
Public service structure
Hostel
Multiple principal structures on a
Single lot
Public service structure
Office less than 2,500 square feet
How will the proposed amendment affect local traffic?
If the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map were amended to allow an R-4 zoning designation,
then the applicant states he would use the house as an office building. He has stated he will not
change the outside appearance so it would continue to appear to be a single family home. The R-
4 zoning district also allows for multi-family. (Both the proposed office and multi-family uses
require approval of a conditional use permit in the R-4 District.)
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 8e - Lake Street Plan And Zoning Amendment
Page 5
The office use, although not approved, has been in operation for a couple months. It has resulted
in approximately 3 vehicles at the site during the day, and it has not been receiving customer
traffic. In this regard, the use is similar to a single family home in traffic generated and outside
parking. However, if all necessary approvals are received to allow an office at this property, then
the existing office use could be replaced with another office use. While still less than 2,500
square feet, another office use could generate more traffic and parking than the current office use
does, which could result in an increase in on-street parking or a larger parking surface in the front
yard.
The R-4 Zoning District allows up to 30 units per acre. The subject property is approximately
20,500 square feet in area, which could be approved for up to 14 dwelling units. This would
represent a significant increase in traffic being generated by this parcel over that which is
currently being generated by the single family home. Staff believes Lake Street could
accommodate the additional traffic, however, a determination as to whether or not the traffic and
parking on-site would adversely effect the neighboring properties is difficult to conclude at this
time without a site plan to review.
Does the proposed amendment improve or degrade the transitions between existing land
uses?
The property is bounded on the east by Lake Street, and the north and west by multi-family. It is
adjacent to a single family home on the south. The property is approximately 20,500 square feet,
and the single family home to the south is 11,000 square feet. The back yard of the subject
property is large for a single family home and has historically acted as a buffer between the
multi-family and single family neighborhoods. This large area, in conjunction to the proximity to
the Lake Street/Minnetonka Blvd intersection also makes the subject property a potentially
redevelopment property. It’s on a bus line, in close proximity to the Minnetonka Blvd/Hwy 100
interchange, and is adjacent to existing multi-family.
Staff believes the redevelopment that could result if this request is approved could reduce the
amount of open space in the back yard that the neighboring multi-family and single family
properties are enjoying. The redevelopment of the property into a multi-family use, however,
would require that at least 12% of the property be set aside for designed outdoor recreation area
(DORA). This DORA could be located in such a way that the sense of open space the neighbors
are currently enjoying could be preserved, however that is difficult to say for certain without a
site plan to review. Staff also believes that the transition between the existing multi-family and
single family uses would be preserved by using the existing home as an office that is less than
2,500 square feet in area if the residential appearance and character of the structure is preserved.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 8e - Lake Street Plan And Zoning Amendment
Page 6
Are there unaccounted benefits to the proposed amendment, such as the removal of
blighted properties?
The existing structure is not blighted, and a considerable amount of work was recently completed
on the structure to bring it up to code. The structure is viable for either a single family or office
use.
Is the request consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan?
The housing chapter of the Comprehensive Plan was amended in 2005, and identifies needs and
goals such as:
1. 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.
The determination of the Planning Commission is that the request is not consistent with the goals
and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. The Commission stated that the city is emphasizing
the preservation of single family homes, and is encouraging families to stay in St. Louis Park.
They further stated that this single family home, which sits on a large lot, is perfect for a large
family because it has plenty of room for expanding, and therefore, should be preserved as a
single family home, not converted to an office use.
Public Process:
Mr. Kieffer, the applicant, held a neighborhood meeting on September 29, 2005. The
neighborhood meeting was an informal open house style meeting, and no presentations were
made. Mr. Kieffer, however, was available to answer questions. Approximately 10 neighbors
attended the meeting, and they appeared to find the proposed office use to be acceptable as long
as it did not change the outside appearance of the single family home.
On October 5th, the Planning Commission held a public hearing for Mr. Kieffer’s proposed
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map amendments. Several people from the neighborhood
appeared, and spoke in opposition to the request. Mr. Keiffer was not able to attend the hearing
as it was scheduled on a Jewish holiday, so the hearing was continued to the October 19th
meeting where Mr. Kieffer addressed the Planning Commission, answered questions, and
responded to concerns raised on the 5th. The minutes from these meetings are attached for your
review. Also attached are copies of letters received regarding the application.
The Planning Commission recommended denial of the Comprehensive Plan amendment to
change the land use designation from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential
and to recommend denial of a zoning map amendment to change the zoning designation from R2
– Single Family Residential to R-4 – Multi Family Residential.
The motion passed on a vote of 5-0.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 8e - Lake Street Plan And Zoning Amendment
Page 7
Planning Commission Recommendation:
Recommendation to deny the Comprehensive Plan amendment to change the land use
designation from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential.
Recommendation to deny the zoning map amendment to change the zoning designation
from R2 – Single Family Residential to R4 – Multi Family Residential.
Attachments: Location map
Letters from neighbors
Applications
Letters from Applicant
Planning Commission Minutes
Resolution of Denial
Prepared by: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning & Zoning Supervisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 8e - Lake Street Plan And Zoning Amendment
Page 8
RESOLUTION NO. 05-164
RESOLUTION OF DENIAL
A RESOLUTION OF FINDING REGARDING THE APPLICATION
FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2000-2020
AND A REZONING FROM R-2 TO R-4
FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT
5714 LAKE STREET WEST
WHEREAS, on September 1, 2005, the Kieffer Family Limited Partnership filed an
application to amend the Comprehensive Plan land use designation for property located at 5714
Lake Street West from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential, and an
amendment to the Zoning Map to change the zoning from R-2 Single Family Residential to R-4
Multi-Family Residential, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the request on
October 5, 2005 and continued that hearing to October 19, 2005, and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan 2000-2020 was adopted by the City Council on
May 17, 1999 (effective September 1, 1999) and provides the following:
1. An official statement serving as the basic guide in making land use, transportation and
community facilities and service decisions affecting the City.
2. A framework for policies and actions leading to the improvement of the physical,
financial, and social environment of the City, thereby providing a good place to live and
work and a setting conducive for new development.
3. A promotion of the public interest in establishing a more functional, healthful,
interesting, and efficient community by serving the interests of the community at large
rather than the interests of individual or special groups within the community if their
interests are at variance with the public interest.
4. An effective framework for direction and coordination of activities affecting the
development and preservation of the community.
5. Treatment of the entire community as one ecosystem and to inject long range
considerations into determinations affecting short-range action, and
WHEREAS, the use of such Comprehensive Plan will insure a safer, more pleasant, and
more economical environment for residential, commercial, industrial, and public activities and
will promote the public health, safety, and general welfare, and
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 8e - Lake Street Plan And Zoning Amendment
Page 9
WHEREAS, said Plan will prepare the community for anticipated desirable change,
thereby bringing about significant savings in both private and public expenditures, and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan has taken due cognizance of the planning activities
of adjacent units of government, and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan is to be periodically reviewed by the Planning
Commission of the City of St. Louis Park and amendments made, if justified according to
procedures, rules, and laws, and provided such amendments would provide a positive result and
are consistent with other provisions in the Comprehensive Plan, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the staff report, the statements of the
applicant and public and recommended denial of the request on a vote of 5-0; and
WHEREAS, the contents of Planning Case File No. 05-58-CP and Planning Case File
No. 05-59-Z are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of
decision for this case.
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the
Planning Commission (Case No. 05-58-CP and 05-59-Z).
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park that the applicant’s request for an amendment to Comprehensive Plan 2000 – 2020 to
change the land use designation at 5714 Lake Street West from Low Density Residential to
Medium Density Residential and the rezoning request from R-2 - Single Family Residential to R-
4 - Multi Family Residential is hereby denied.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council November 21, 2005
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 8f - Park Summit PUD Amendment
Page 1
8f. Request by SilverCrest Properties for a Major Amendment to a Planned
Unit Development
Location: 3601 Park Center Boulevard
Applicant: SilverCrest Properties
Case No: Case No. 05-33-PUD
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt Resolution No. 000, authorizing a Major
Amendment to the Planned Unit Development for the
elimination of age restrictions at the Park Summit
Condominiums, with conditions.
REQUEST:
SilverCrest Properties has requested a major amendment to a Planned Unit Development (PUD)
to remove the age restriction clause for the Park Summit Condominiums within the previously
approved final PUD agreement for the Parkshore campus. The proposal for the Park Summit
Condominiums, part of that final PUD, was first approved by the City in 2004. SilverCrest is
requesting the removal of the age restriction clause. The Staff and Planning Commission
recommended approving the request by the attached resolution.
DEVELOPER UPDATE:
The Developer, Mike Gould, is exploring options to address the Council’s concerns for the
development. He will be able to present the proposals at the meeting on Monday night.
Attachments:
• Resolution No. 000, a resolution authorizing a Major Amendment to the PUD to remove age
restrictions for Park Summit Condominiums
• Staff Report 10-10-05 City Council Meeting
• Staff Report, 9-12-05 City Council Study Session
• Staff Report, 8-15-05, City Council Meeting
• Planning Commission Minutes, 7-20-05
• SRF Traffic Study dated July 13, 2005
Prepared by: Meg J. McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 8f - Park Summit PUD Amendment
Page 2
RESOLUTION NO. 05-______
A RESOLUTION AMENDING AND RESTATING
RESOLUTION NOS. 96-153, 96-189, 03-139, AND 04-024,
ADOPTED ON OCTOBER 7, 1996,
DECEMBER 2, 1996, OCTOBER 7, 2003, AND FEBRUARY 2, 2004,
APPROVING A FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD)
UNDER SECTION 36-367 OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE
AND CONSOLIDATING CONDITIONS FROM AN EXISTING SPECIAL PERMIT
AND PUD FOR PROPERTY ZONED R-C, MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
GRANTING FINAL PUD APPROVAL FOR A SENIOR HOUSING CONDOMINIUM
DEVELOPMENT AT 3601 PARK CENTER BOULEVARD AND
COMBINING PROPOSED AND EXISTING DEVELOPMENT OF THE
PARKSHORE CAMPUS AS A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
3601, 3633 AND 3663 PARK CENTER BOULEVARD
MAJOR AMENDMENT TO PUD FOR
ELIMINATION OF AGE RESTRICTIONS AT THE
PARK SUMMIT CONDOMINIUMS
3601 PARK CENTER BOULEVARD
WHEREAS, SilverCrest Properties, LLC has made application to the City Council for a
Major Amendment to a Final Planned Unit Development (Final PUD) under Section 36-367 of
the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code to allow the elimination of age restrictions at 3601 Park
Center Boulevard within a R-C, Multi-Family Residential Zoning District having the following
legal description:
Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1, Silvercrest Addition
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered information related to Planning Case No.
05-33-PUD and the effect of the proposed elimination of age restrictions on the health, safety
and welfare of the occupants of the surrounding lands, existing and anticipated traffic conditions,
the effect on values of properties in the surrounding area, the effect of the use on the
Comprehensive Plan, and compliance with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance.
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the Major Amendment to the Final
PUD will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community nor with
certain contemplated traffic improvements will it cause serious traffic congestion or hazards, nor
will it seriously depreciate surrounding property values. The Council has also determined that
the proposed amendment to the Final PUD is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of
the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan and that the requested modifications comply
with the requirements of Section 36-367(b)(5) and 36-266(16).
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 8f - Park Summit PUD Amendment
Page 3
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 86-62 on May 19, 1986 approving
a special permit to allow construction of a 207 unit senior citizen apartment building at 3663
Park Center Boulevard; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 96-153 on October 7, 1996
approving an amendment to the existing special permit for the 207-unit senior apartment
building at 3663 Park Center Boulevard to allow certain site design changes (realignment of an
existing trail and certain concrete curbs; construction of an additional sidewalk connection; and
modifications to the approved landscape plan) in association with separate PUD approval of a 45
unit assisted living building on a portion of 3601 Park Center Boulevard (now 3633 Park Center
Boulevard); and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 96-152 on October 7, 1996
approving the Final PUD for the existing office building, removal of the bank with in-vehicle
service and new 45 unit assisted living building at 3601 Park Center Boulevard (now also 3633
Park Center Boulevard); and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 96-189 on December 2, 1996
rescinding Resolution No. 96-152 approving the Final PUD in order to correct the legal
description and address; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution 99-101 on September 7, 1999
approving an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to adopt a Redevelopment Plan for 3601,
3633 and 3663 Park Center Boulevard allowing certain modifications to ordinance requirements
and parameters for future redevelopment of the office building at 3601 Park Center Boulevard;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 99-102 on September 7, 1999
approving the preliminary and final plat for Silvercrest Addition to reconfigure internal lot lines
allowing a 46 unit addition to the assisted living building on Lot 2 for a total of 91 units and
requiring trail easements over Lots 1, 2 and 3 (3601, 3633 and 3663 Park Center Boulevard
respectively), a road easement over Lot 3, trail construction over Lots 1 and 2, a parking
agreement between Lots 2 and 3, certain maintenance agreements, and cooperation with the City
regarding future construction of the north-south roadway and trail on Lot 3; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2143-99 on September 7, 1999
vacating certain drainage, utility and trail easements at 3601, 1633 and 3663 Park Center
Boulevard effective upon recording new easements; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 99-140 on December 6, 1999
amending and restating the conditions of Resolution No. 99-102 to extend the plat filing deadline
to January 6, 2000; and
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 8f - Park Summit PUD Amendment
Page 4
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 03-138 on October 7, 2003
approving an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to revise the text of the Redevelopment
Plan to allow density and floor area ratio (FAR) averaging over the 3601, 3633 and 3663 Park
Center Boulevard properties, to increase the allowable average floor area ratio for all three
properties, to increase allowable height for future redevelopment of the 3601 Park Center
Boulevard, and to allow a curb cut on the south edge of the 3601 Park Center Boulevard property
(until such time as access consolidation could be achieved), and to adopt an overall
Redevelopment Plan for the three properties;
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 03-139 on October 7, 2003
approving a Preliminary PUD for redevelopment of the 3601 Park Center Boulevard office
building for a 150 unit senior housing condominium building and consolidating conditions from
the PUD for 3601 and 3633 Park Center Boulevard and special permit for 3663 Park Center
Boulevard granting Preliminary PUD approval for proposed and existing development of the
Parkshore Campus at 3601, 3633 and 3663 Park Center Boulevard; and
WHEREAS, a Final PUD was approved regarding the subject property pursuant to
Resolution No. 04-024 of the St. Louis Park City Council dated February 2, 2004 which
contained conditions applicable to said property; and
WHEREAS, due to changed circumstances, amendments to those conditions are now
necessary, requiring the amendment of that Final PUD; and
WHEREAS, it is also the intent of this resolution to continue and restate the conditions
of Resolution Nos. 96-153, 96-189, 03-139, and 04-024 to add the amendments now required,
to reference the required conditions of Resolution No. 99-140, and thereby to consolidate all
conditions applicable to the subject properties into this resolution, and
WHEREAS, the contents of Planning Case Files 86-20-SP, 96-16-PUD, 96-25-CUP, 99-
14-CP, 99-15-S, 99-16-V, 03-37-CP, 03-38-PUD, and 05-33-PUD are hereby entered into and
made part of the public hearing and the record of decision for this case.
CONCLUSION
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Resolution No. 04-024 (filed as
Document No. 8440134) is hereby restated and amended by this resolution which continues and
amends a Final Planned Unit Development to the subject property for the purpose of permitting
the elimination of age restrictions within the R-C, Multi-Family Residential Zoning District at
the location described above based on the following conditions:
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 8f - Park Summit PUD Amendment
Page 5
A. From special permit Res. 96-153 3663 Park Ctr. Blvd. (now also 3633 Park Center
Blvd.):
1. That the site be developed, used and maintained in accordance with Exhibit A - Site
Plan; Exhibit B - Ground Floor Plan; Exhibit C - Ground Floor Plan; Exhibit D - First
Floor Plan; Exhibit E - Typical Floor Plan; Exhibit F - West Elevation and North
Elevation; Exhibit G - East Elevation and South Elevation; and Exhibit H -
Landscape Site Plan, (the floor plans are for general purposes only.) except as
amended by conditions C. 1-11 adopted on February 2, 2004 and as modified by the
following conditions:
2. The use of the site shall be for senior citizen housing containing 207 units.
3. That all trash be stored inside the building and there be no outdoor storage of trash or
trash containers.
4. That all lighting be directed perpendicular to the ground and no direct rays shall
extend beyond the property line.
5. That the driveway and private entrance contain concrete, poured-in-place curbing
measuring six inches above and below the adjacent roadway surface.
6. That the upper portions of the ramp in the interior of the parking lot contain 5%
landscaping and pedestrian circulation and additional ornamental trees be provided
along the south and east lot lines as shown on the revised plan, and that up to 20
parking spaces be permitted to be eliminated to provide for the additional
landscaping.
7. That erosion control provisions be employed during the construction phase to protect
Wolfe Lake and to minimize erosion on the site and runoff of erosion material into
other private or public property.
8. That the entrance road be designed and constructed in a manner so as to protect the
City storm sewer system and as specified by the Director of Public Works.
9. That driveways be constructed at a grade not to exceed 6%.
10. That the link from the cul de sac to the sidewalk be constructed at a grade not to
exceed 5% and that all other walkways be constructed at a grade not to exceed 4%
and curb drops be provided at all intersections with the private and public roads.
11. That the east-west walkway along the north property line be at least as wide as the
adjacent trail in Wolfe Park to which it is to link with. Said walkway to be extended
by the applicant to the walkway in Wolfe Park and be lighted using decorative
lighting to match the lighting in Wolfe Park.
12. That prior to construction, an easement be provided to the City permitting the five
feet parallel to Park Center Boulevard to be used for pedestrian purposes and that a
pedestrian easement approximately 25 feet wide be provided along the north property
line for pedestrian purposes. (The width is wider to accommodate the curvilinear
nature of the design.)
13. That all improvements including buildings, landscaping, parking, curbing and other
improvements as contained on the improved exhibits be completed by May 15, 1988;
however, if a certificate of full occupancy is received by September 1, 1987, all
landscaping and other improvements must be completed by October 15, 1987.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 8f - Park Summit PUD Amendment
Page 6
14. The continued special permit shall be amended pursuant to Planning Case No. 96-25-
CUP to permit realignment of an existing trail and certain concrete curbs;
construction of an additional sidewalk connection; and modifications to the approved
landscape plan to allow construction of a 45 unit Assisted Living facility on 3633
Park Center Boulevard subject to the following conditions:
a) The northern portion of the site shall be developed, used and maintained in
accordance with Exhibit I: Demolition Plan, Exhibit J: Site Plan, Exhibit K:
Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan, Exhibit L: Landscape Plan such
documents incorporated by reference herein.
b) Prior to issuance of an erosion control permit and commencement of site work, a
14 feet wide trail easement shall be dedicated to the City in a form acceptable to
the Director of Park and Recreation and the City Attorney.
c) Prior to issuance of utility permits, details of the proposed storm sewer
connection shall be approved by the City Engineer.
d) Prior to issuance of an Occupancy Permit for the adjacent Assisted Living
facility, the trail realignment shall be completed by the applicant in accordance
with City specifications and in a manner acceptable to the Director of Park and
Recreation, unless a letter of credit in an amount equal to 125% of the cost of
said trail construction has been submitted in a form acceptable to the City
Attorney.
15. Assent form and official exhibits must be signed by applicant prior to issuance of
erosion control permit and commencement of site work.
B. From Res. 96-189 final PUD for 3601 Park Center Blvd. (now also 3633 Park Center
Blvd.):
1. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with Exhibit A:
Demolition Plan, Exhibit B: Site Plan, Exhibit C: Grading, Drainage and Erosion
Control Plan, Exhibit D: Landscape Plan, Exhibits E and F: Elevations, Exhibit G:
Fence, Enclosure Designs, except as amended by conditions C. 1-11 adopted on
February 2, 2004, and the following conditions:
a) Approval of the Final PUD does not grant any concept approval for future
phases of development involving this property.
b) Approval of the Final PUD is contingent upon City Council approval of an
amendment to the Continued Special Permit for the Parkshore Place apartment
property to address associated improvements involving that property; approval
of the Final PUD is further contingent upon adherence by the applicant to any
conditions of such Special Permit approval.
c) Approval of the Final PUD includes modification of the lot width requirement in
the "R-C" District from 80 feet to 40 feet and allows for administrative approval
of a subdivision to create a separate lot for the Assisted Living property (3633
Park Center Boulevard) as shown on Exhibit B.
d) Approval of the Final PUD is contingent upon termination of the drive thru bank
lease, once the current term expires, and removal of the drive thru building.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 8f - Park Summit PUD Amendment
Page 7
e) Evidence of Watershed District approval shall be submitted prior to issuance of
erosion control and building permits; the project shall comply with other City,
State, and Federal agency requirements as applicable.
f) Final Utility Plans and evidence of property owner consent to sanitary sewer
connections shall be submitted and approved by the City Engineer prior to
issuance of utility and building permits.
g) Samples of final building materials and colors and potential minor changes to the
exhibits, as needed, shall be submitted and approved by the Director of
Community Development prior to issuance of buildings permits. Use of vinyl
siding is expressly prohibited.
h) A development agreement between the applicant and EDA shall be executed
prior to issuance of building permits.
i) Irrigation and Site Lighting Plans (including photometric) shall be approved by
the Zoning Administrator prior to issuance of building permits.
j) Sprinkler and Fire Alarm Plans shall be approved by the Fire Marshall prior to
issuance of building permits.
k) Joint parking and access agreements between the office/bank property, Assisted
Living Property, and Parkshore Place apartment property, in a form acceptable
to the City Attorney, shall be executed prior to issuance of an Occupancy Permit
for the Assisted Living facility.
l) All improvements shall be completed in a manner acceptable to the City prior to
issuance of an Occupancy Permit, except that a temporary Occupancy Permit
may be issued prior to completion of landscaping improvements provided a
letter of credit in an amount equal to 125% of the cost of said improvements is
submitted in a form acceptable to the City Attorney.
C. The Planned Unit Development shall be amended on February 2, 2004 to incorporate all
of the preceding conditions and to grant Final PUD approval for a 150 unit senior condominium
development (“Park Summit Condominiums”) at 3601 Park Center Boulevard and consolidation
of access and related improvements at 3633 and 3663 Park Center Boulevard subject to the
following conditions:
1. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in conformance with the Final PUD
official exhibits, which shall include the revised Parking Structure plan sheet stamped
as Received by the City December 22, 2003 and the Proposed Access and Internal
Circulation Plan stamped as Received by the City December 30, 2003. The Proposed
Access and Internal Circulation Plan may be revised based upon more detailed future
roadway design work. The Official Exhibits shall also include the revised
Description Sketch survey showing existing trail and roadway easements stamped as
Received by the City January 16, 2004, and the revised Dimensional Site Plan
stamped as Received by the City on January 16, 2004. The Proposed Alternate
Entrance on the Dimensional Site Plan is not approved.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 8f - Park Summit PUD Amendment
Page 8
2. Prior to any site work, including demolition, the developer shall meet the following
requirements:
a) Development and maintenance agreement(s) shall be executed between the
developer and the City. The agreement(s) shall include, but not be limited to,
conditions for the developer meeting the following requirements:
i) Construction vehicles shall access the site from Hwy. 100, 36th Street, and
Park Center Blvd. utilizing the interim curb cut as a left-in, right-out only.
Construction vehicles shall not be permitted on Park Center Blvd. south of
the senior condominium property.
ii) Public sidewalk and trail construction.
iii) Repair and cleaning of public streets.
iv) Tree replacement.
v) Constructing a consolidated driveway access to all three properties as
shown conceptually on the Proposed Access and Internal Circulation Plan
(dated December 30, 2003) of the Official Exhibits.
vi) Cost sharing for the road improvements to Park Center Boulevard and the
possible traffic signal at the consolidated access driveway.
vii) On-going responsibility for maintaining the strip of park land located east
of the condominium and west of the park access drive off of 36th Street.
viii) Adherence to the parking management plan and requirements to convert the
proof-of-parking spaces if directed by the City in response to on- or off-site
parking problems.
ix) Agreement to pay the equivalent of special service district fees previously
paid by the office development for the 3601 Park Center Blvd. property.
x) Adherence to required conditions in the homeowner’s association declaration
documents.
b) Submit financial security in the form of cash escrow or letter of credit in the
amount of 125% of the costs of public sidewalk and trail installation,
repair/cleaning of public streets/utilities, and tree replacement/landscaping.
c) Required tree protection, erosion control fencing, trail closed signs, and safety
fencing shall be in place and approved by the City prior to any grading and
demolition activities.
d) The homeowners association documents shall be as approved by the City
Attorney and shall prohibit the rental or sale of guest parking spaces and the sale
or rental of any parking spaces to non-residents. The homeowners association
documents shall also address continued payment of Special Service District fees
equivalent to fees previously paid by the office development at 3601 Park Center
Blvd.
e) Record all cross-easement agreements for utilities and drainage for the three lots
within the PUD and record any required changes to the joint parking and access
agreements, maintenance agreement, and trail easement.
f) Reimburse the City for City attorney’s fees in drafting/reviewing such
documents.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 8f - Park Summit PUD Amendment
Page 9
g) Obtain demolition, work in the right of way and erosion control permits,
Watershed District permit and other necessary permits from the City and other
agencies.
h) Sign Assent Form and Official Exhibits.
i) Meet City and Public Works Department requirements for utility connections
and disconnects, including pavement restoration, protection of sidewalk, trail,
lighting and streetscape elements and replacement of any damaged elements,
j) Meet solar shading requirements or obtain approval of a variance.
k) Meet any other conditions of the development agreement required prior to site
work.
3. Prior to issuance of any building permits, which may impose additional requirements,
the developer shall comply with the following:
a) Meet any Fire Department emergency access requirements during construction.
b) Building materials samples to be submitted to and approved by the City.
c) Lighting plans, including photometrics to be submitted to and approved by the
City for the entire development. Lighting design is to be compatible throughout
the development, and shall meet all City standards.
d) Meet any other conditions as required by the Development Agreement prior to
building permit.
4. The developer shall comply with the following conditions during construction:
a) All City noise ordinances shall be complied with, including that there be no
construction activity between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. on weekdays and
10 p.m. and 9 a.m. on weekends and holidays.
b) Loud equipment shall be kept as far as possible from residences at all times.
c) The site shall be kept free of dust and debris that could blow onto neighboring
properties including the City aquatic facility.
d) Public streets shall be maintained free of dirt and shall be cleaned as necessary.
e) Construction vehicles are prohibited from entering the site from park land
property.
f) The Zoning Administrator may impose additional conditions if it becomes
necessary in order to mitigate the impact of construction on surrounding
properties.
g) A left-in, right-out temporary construction entrance is allowed on the 3601 Park
Center Blvd. property (Lot 1) in accordance with the approved grading plan and
Condition C.2.a) i) of this resolution.
5. A PUD modification to allow a sign setback of 15 feet is approved subject to
approval of a sign permit. Sign permits are required prior to installation of any
temporary or permanent signs and shall include designation of guest parking spaces.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 8f - Park Summit PUD Amendment
Page 10
6. The developer shall comply with the following conditions prior to occupancy of the
senior condominium building:
a) All permanent site and building improvements shall be complete, other than
landscaping, and a letter of credit for 125% of the cost of landscaping shall be
submitted.
b) Submit as-built plans to the City in electronic or Mylar format for all civil
infrastructure.
c) Meet any other conditions as required by the development agreement prior to
occupancy.
d) If reasonably possible, complete improvements in Condition 7. Otherwise, make
the temporary construction access "permanent" until such time as the
consolidated access is completed.
7. The developer agrees to close the driveway access on the 3601 Park Center Blvd
property (Lot 1), repair the right-of-way, and construct the consolidated PUD access,
at developer's or property owners' expense, at the time of reconstruction of Park
Center Blvd. adjacent to the PUD site.
8. The developer or property owners agree to pay a fair share of any future traffic signal
at the consolidated PUD access.
9. The developer or property owners agree to continue paying the equivalent of special
service district fees previously paid by the office development at 3601 Park Center
Blvd.
10. The developer or property owners agree to comply with the conditions of Resolution
99-102, including but not limited to cooperation with the City regarding future
construction of the north-south roadway and additional trail construction on the 3663
Park Center Blvd. property (Lot 3).
11. The developer or property owner(s) shall pay an administrative fine of $750 per
violation of any condition of this approval.
D. The Planned Unit Development shall be amended on November 21, 2005 to incorporate all
of the preceding conditions and add the following conditions:
1. No age restrictions shall be placed on future residents at the Park Summit
Condominiums, to be located at 3601 Park Center Boulevard.
2. The developer will provide a minimum of 255 parking spaces for the Park Summit
condominium building at 3601 Park Center Boulevard. A minimum of 240 of those
spaces must be provided underground.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 8f - Park Summit PUD Amendment
Page 11
3. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the Park Summit
Condominiums, the developer shall:
a. Construct a consolidated driveway access to the campus, completing all
driveway and sidewalk connections as shown on the official site plan. This
requirement shall supersede any other requirement in this Resolution regarding
the construction of the consolidated campus driveway.
b. Grant the City of St. Louis Park an easement for the purpose of the installation
of wireless internet equipment and related appurtenances.
c. Donate $40,000 for the purpose of erecting public art within or near the campus
area for the benefit of the residents of the campus and the City. The developer
shall work with the Director of Parks and Recreation to facilitate the decision
process regarding the type and location of the public art installation.
d. Ensure that all mechanical equipment, including that mechanical equipment
already installed on other buildings within the PUD, is completely and fully
screened from off-site view in accordance with zoning regulations.
4. The direct access point to 3601 Park Center Boulevard will be closed and the access to
the campus shall be via the consolidated campus driveway as shown on the official site
plan. This requirement shall supersede any other requirement in this Resolution
regarding the direct access point to 3601 Park Center Boulevard.
5. The developer will provide up to $9,000 toward the cost of transit shelters at the
intersection of West 36th Street and Park Center Boulevard.
6. The developer shall allow underground parking at the Park Shores apartment building
(3663 Park Center Boulevard) to be leased to residents of the Park Summit
Condominium building (3601 Park Center Boulevard) needed.
In addition to any other remedies, the developer or owner shall pay an administrative fee of $750
per violation of any condition of this approval.
Assent form and official exhibits must be signed by applicant (or applicant and owner if
applicant is different from owner) prior to issuance of building permit.
Approval of a Building Permit, which may impose additional requirements.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 8f - Park Summit PUD Amendment
Page 12
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 21, 2005
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 8f - Park Summit PUD Amendment
Page 13
STAFF REPORT OF 10-10-05
8e Request by SilverCrest Properties for a Major Amendment to a Planned Unit
Development
Location: 3601 Park Center Boulevard
Applicant: SilverCrest Properties
Case No: Case No. 05-33-PUD
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt Resolution authorizing a Major Amendment
to the Planned Unit Development for the elimination of age
restrictions at the Park Summit Condominiums and changes
to the underground parking structure.
REQUEST:
SilverCrest Properties has requested a major amendment to a Planned Unit Development (PUD)
to remove the age restriction clause for the Park Summit Condominiums within the previously
approved final PUD agreement for the Parkshore campus. The proposal for the Park Summit
Condominiums, part of that final PUD, was first approved by the City in 2004. SilverCrest has
now requested the removal of the age restriction clause.
On September 19, 2005, the City Council requested staff work with SilverCrest Properties to
enhance the PUD characteristics of the Parkshore campus. The following items are issues that
have been identified that would enhance the PUD project:
1. Build the consolidated access driveway for the 3-building campus with the Park Summit
building construction (versus building it in the future). This would:
▪ Avoid a future driveway change for the residents and visitors.
▪ Improve traffic visibility and stacking on Park Center Boulevard at the time
building is first occupied.
2. Improve the parking by jointly using parking on the campus by:
▪ Formally allowing residents of the Park Summit building to use dedicated
underground parking spaces in the Park Shores apartment building.
▪ Formally allowing and directing overflow guest parking from the Park Summit
building to use surface parking on the Park Shores apartment building.
3. Enhance pedestrian and transit improvements by:
▪ Connecting the campus internally and externally (see attached plan) to improve
movements and allow easier cross usage of surface parking.
▪ Improving the transit stop at 36th Street and Park Center Boulevard by adding a
bus shelter.
4. Add Public Art:
▪ Donate funds to create public art within or near the campus site.
5. Dedicate an easement for Wireless internet access:
▪ Allow the City to utilize the building to incorporate Wifi equipment.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 8f - Park Summit PUD Amendment
Page 14
RECOMMENDATION:
The Staff recommends an amount of $40,000 for public art and up to $9,000 for the bus shelter.
The public art amount was arrived at based in part on negotiations and in part based on the
construction value of the project. The dollar amount for the bus shelter is based upon the
approximate cost of a standard shelter. With the items as outlined above, Staff recommends
approving the attached resolution.
Attachments:
• Resolution No. 000, a resolution authorizing a Major Amendment to the PUD for Park
Summit Condominiums.
• Development Summary and Site Plan
• Staff Report, 9-12-05 City Council Study Session
• Staff Report, 8-15-05, City Council Meeting
• Planning Commission Minutes, 7-20-05
Prepared by: Adam W. Fulton, Associate Planner
Meg J. McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 8f - Park Summit PUD Amendment
Page 15
STAFF REPORT OF 9-12-05 STUDY SESSION
4. Park Summit Condominiums – PUD Amendment Community Development
PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION:
On August 15, 2005, the City Council continued consideration to remove the age restrictions for
the Park Summit Condominium building. The Council asked for more information related to this
issue and requested it be placed on a Study Session for further discussion.
Background
In 2004 the City approved a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for 150 Park Summit
Condominiums as a part of a larger senior campus, including the two buildings to the south: an
assisted living facility and a 14-story senior apartment complex. All of the units in the Park
Summit building were to be “age-restricted.” The requested amendment would remove that
restriction, and allow units to be sold to buyers of any age.
Reasons Given by Developer for Requested Change
The Developer, SilverCrest Properties, has given a number of reasons for the requested change to
eliminate the age restrictions for this building, including:
▪ Absorption rate for senior high rise condominiums is slow
▪ Less risk without the constraint of a narrow market segment
▪ Younger, healthier seniors are reluctant to live in age-restricted buildings
▪ Less risk to buyers - better resale possibilities without restrictions and easier to keep
building full
▪ Need to pre-sell 50 to 60 % of the units for lenders to finance construction
▪ Building will be built in one phase, approximately $50 million in exposure for lenders
▪ Will be able to keep it as a luxury building
Specific Issues
Is it Still a Campus?
Park Summit Condominiums were approved as a portion of a three-building complex making up
the PUD. The PUD would continue to be a campus in that it will have common driveways,
shared parking, shared trail connections, unified building styles and shared open space. The
changes would be that the Park Summit building would not have services as a non-age restricted
building, and the tunnel connecting Park Summit to the Parkwood Assisted Living building
would be eliminated. [Removing the tunnel will incidentally facilitate a surface trail connecting
to Wolfe Park at grade versus being raised over the tunnel.] The three buildings will continue to
function as a cohesive campus, albeit not at the same level as if services were provided.
Senior Housing Designation:
In 1997, the City Council adopted a redevelopment plan into the Comprehensive Plan for the site
of the proposed Park Summit Condominiums. The redevelopment plan speaks directly to the
senior nature of both the senior high-rise apartments and the assisted living building, but states
only that the office building property (3601 Park Center Boulevard) be redeveloped as high
density residential. The applicable sections of the Comprehensive Plan are attached for review.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 8f - Park Summit PUD Amendment
Page 16
Building Height and Shading:
During the 2004 approval process for the proposed building, caution was taken in relation to the
building’s height and potential to cause surrounding buildings and open space to be in the shade
for portions of the day. Provisions relating to shading were amended within the Zoning Code to
permit the construction of the Park Summit building. After consideration of the effects of the
14-story building on surrounding uses, it was determined that those effects would be negligible.
Traffic
Traffic impacts were analyzed and showed minimal impacts on the roadway system for the
change from an age-restricted building to a non-age restricted building. Although residents of
age-restricted buildings on average make fewer trips than residents living in non age-restricted
buildings, in analyzing the changes, SRF stated that “the change in trips is expected to have
minimal impact to the adjacent intersection volumes.” In either case, moving the driveway
further south and adding a turn lane will improve the overall operations along Park Center
Boulevard. Traffic impacts from this requested change are minimal.
Parking
Parking for the Park Summit building was increased for this change by adding 30 underground
spaces (from 210 to 240). With 15 surface spaces, this meets the zoning code requirements of a
total of 255 spaces.
Guest parking will be surface, underground and via cross-parking easements with Parkwood
Assisted Living and Park Shores Apartments. Parkshores Apartments has enough parking that
all employees for Parkwood and Park Shores park underground and the surface lots are very
underutilized. Guests of Park Summit will be allowed to use the 24 surface spaces at Parkwood
and 80 surface spaces at Parkshores.
General Condominium Market-Related Issues
Following the presentation of the market study of condominiums to the City Council earlier this
summer, issues relating to condominiums development have been identified, including:
• The number of like units built within a short time-frame
• The geographical distribution of new condominium units
• Ability of the market to purchase the number of new units (whether these units would be
purchased by people from outside of SLP)
Condominium Proposals in St. Louis Park
The attached list and map shows development proposals in St. Louis Park. The attached pie
charts show how the increase over time affects the overall housing stock in the City. If all of the
condominium developments are constructed, it means 723 new units will be added to the
approximately 22,100 units existing in the City. This represents a small portion of the overall
housing units in the City, and a relatively small change in the housing mix over time.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 8f - Park Summit PUD Amendment
Page 17
Geographical Distribution
As stated above, there are several condominium projects proposed, approved or underway in St.
Louis Park. They are distributed across nearly the entire city, as shown on the attached map.
Certain portions of the City are better suited to condominium development than others. In the
Park Commons redevelopment area and Elmwood Study area, numerous properties were
designated as appropriate for condominium development in the late 1990s. For this reason, there
are more condo developments located between Highway 7 and Excelsior Boulevard on both
sides of Highway 100 than in other parts of St. Louis Park. The proximity to transit, retail
services, regional transportation, future LRT, jobs, and open space support condo development in
these areas.
Market Conditions:
It is anticipated that SilverCrest will have its market analysis consultant at the Study Session to
discuss the condo market in greater detail. In general, demographic and economic trends are
very supportive of condo development over the long term. While market conditions will
fluctuate over time, city land use planning and zoning should be guided by community goals and
policies, and long term trends. Short term market conditions are generally self correcting since
without sufficient buyers, condos do not get financed and built. Most lenders require presales.
Few condominium projects are able to proceed without selling a large number (often as high as
60%) of the units prior to construction.
The current condominium trend can be viewed as an opportunity for St. Louis Park to diversify
and add to its housing stock. The current developments are not displacing single family homes
or neighborhoods, but are enriching our housing stock, meeting the goals of the Comprehensive
Plan, adding to the tax base, and helping to sustain a steady population growth for the long term.
Future Action
This item is scheduled for formal consideration on September 19, 2005.
Attachments: Map showing condominium developments in St. Louis Park (Supplement)
List of Housing Developments (Supplement)
Housing Mix Charts (Supplement)
Pages P-28 and P-29 of the Comprehensive Plan, Redevelopment Chapter
(Supplement)
Prepared By: Adam Fulton, Associate Planner
Meg J. McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Reviewed By: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 8f - Park Summit PUD Amendment
Page 18
8a. Request by SilverCrest Properties for a Major Amendment to a Planned Unit
Development
Location: 3601 Park Center Boulevard
Applicant: SilverCrest Properties
Case No: Case No. 05-33-PUD
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt Resolution No. 000, authorizing a Major
Amendment to the Planned Unit Development for the
elimination of age restrictions at the Park Summit
Condominiums and changes to the underground parking
structure.
Zoning Designation: R-C, Multi-Family Residential
Comp. Plan Designation: High Density Residential
PROJECT SUMMARY:
SilverCrest Properties has requested a major amendment to a Planned Unit Development (PUD)
to remove the age restriction clause for the Park Summit Condominiums within the previously
approved final PUD agreement for the Parkshore Campus. The proposal for the Park Summit
Condominiums, part of that final PUD, was first approved by the City in 2004. SilverCrest has
now requested the removal of the age restriction clause; otherwise, the final PUD will not be
changed except to add conditions relating primarily to parking.
Staff identified two main issues regarding conversion to a non-age restricted building; parking
and traffic. Parking had originally been designed for an age-restricted building. More parking is
needed for a non-age restricted building. As a result, additional parking is provided in the new
plan. Traffic studies were completed under the premise that persons living in an age-restricted
building take fewer trips than persons in a non age-restricted building. The City’s traffic
consultant was asked to re-evaluate the traffic impact of the proposed project under the new
assumption that the building will not be age-restricted. Both the parking and traffic issues are
discussed further below.
Staff completed a review of the new parking scenario and judged that it would be acceptable
under the Zoning Code. Changing traffic conditions were first reconsidered by a consultant
retained by SilverCrest Properties; subsequently, a city-hired consultant also reviewed the
updated traffic information. It was determined that a new condominium building, even without
age restrictions, would slightly reduce the number of PM peak hour trips to and from the site, in
comparison to the existing office building.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed Major Amendment at its July
20, 2005 meeting. No interested parties spoke at the meeting. After voicing its concerns, the
Planning Commission recommended approval of the Major Amendment.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 8f - Park Summit PUD Amendment
Page 19
BACKGROUND:
SilverCrest Properties received approvals for a PUD along Park Center Boulevard just south of
36th Street West in 2003 and 2004. The proposal was for a three-building complex marketed
specifically towards persons 55 years of age and older. At the present time, the first two
structures have been built and currently serve residents of St. Louis Park in an age-restricted
setting.
SilverCrest Properties now believes that the age restrictions placed on the third building will
make sales difficult, and so is requesting the removal of those age restrictions. Mr. Mike Gould
of SilverCrest Properties has indicated that it is the company’s intent to continue marketing
towards older residents, particularly those older than age 55; however, it will not be limited to
buyers over the age of 55.
The only changes proposed to the originally approved Park Summit condominium building
features are changes to the parking ramp. The building will remain the same height and have the
same number of units. The following table details the proposed changes:
Development Summary
Site Characteristic Pre-Amendment Post-Amendment
Site Area 83,127 sq. ft. Same
Open Space Provided 23,200 sq. ft. Same
Open Space Required 22,010 sq. ft. Same
Surface Parking 15 spaces Same
Indoor Parking 210 spaces 240 spaces
Total Parking Provided 225 spaces 255 spaces
Total Parking Required 218 spaces 255 spaces
Floors 14 floors Same
Height 145 feet Same
Underground 2 levels Same
Dwelling Units 150 dwelling units Same
Density 78.5 units per acre Same
Density Permitted met by PUD Same
Ground Floor Area 26,000 square feet Same
Floor Area 303,000 Same
Ground Floor Area Ratio 0.31 Same
Floor Area Ratio 3.65 Same
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 8f - Park Summit PUD Amendment
Page 20
ISSUES ANALYSIS:
The following is a summary of the major issues reviewed by staff to determine whether the
proposed amendment is appropriate. The Major Amendment to the Planned Unit Development
is required to prevent any adverse impacts to the health, safety or welfare of the surrounding
community. A location map, site plan and a copy of the building elevations are attached to the
report for review.
Issues:
• What concerns arose during the public hearing before the Planning Commission on July
20, 2005?
• Is the proposed Major Amendment to the Planned Unit Development cohesive with the
Comprehensive Plan and the previously adopted Preliminary PUD plan?
• How will the use of the proposed 14-story condominium building change?
• Will the removal of the age-restrictions affect off-street parking at the site?
• How will the removal of age-restrictions affect the surrounding properties?
• What traffic impacts are associated with the proposed amendment?
Analysis:
What concerns arose during the public hearing before the Planning Commission on July 20,
2005?
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the amendment to the final PUD, removing
the age-restrictions from the original development plan. No interested parties spoke during the
public hearing. The Planning Commission addressed several concerns, including the effect of
losing senior housing units, the redesign of Park Center Boulevard, the increase in traffic, the
building floor plans and changes to the trail and green space.
The Comprehensive Plan states only that the site should be developed at a high density for
residential purposes, and does not address the type of high density units that should be placed on
the site. In addition, staff explained that the redesign and reconstruction of Park Center
Boulevard is not currently anticipated to occur for several years.
Mr. Gould of SilverCrest properties explained that the building and floor plans may undergo
minor changes from floor to floor, but that no major changes were planned nor would the
number of units change; in addition, he explained that no changes were proposed to the existing
trail and green space available on-site. The only major change is the removal of the tunnel
connecting Park Summit to the buildings to the south.
One result of the Planning Commission’s recommendations is the addition of the condition that
the driveways between the Park Summit condominium building and the driveway to the two
properties to the south be connected, as shown in the original development plans.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 8f - Park Summit PUD Amendment
Page 21
Is the proposed Major Amendment to the Planned Unit Development consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and the previously adopted final PUD plan?
Approval of the final PUD plan relied on Chapter P of the Comprehensive Plan, which
specifically addresses the redevelopment the proposed Park Summit Condominium site. The
redevelopment plan for the site includes factors such as density, floor area ratio, building height,
location and appearance, and open space. The current proposal solely addresses the age-
restriction clause in the final PUD plan; it does not affect density, a primary concern of the
guidelines adopted into the Comprehensive Plan.
The density of the project is 78.5 units per acre. During the prior review of the proposed Park
Sum
mit
buildi
ng,
this
densit
y was
permi
tted
because the total site density, including Park Summit, remains below the goal of 75 units per
acre.
How will the use of the proposed 14-story condominium building change?
Few changes in use are anticipated in light of the removal of the age-restriction clause. The
building will remain completely residential with minor services offered on the first floor.
Age-restricted buildings condominiums may differ slightly from non age-restricted
condominiums. In age-restricted condominiums, fewer trips per day from the building are
expected. For example, in a non age-restricted building, 4.18 trips per day are expected for each
dwelling unit, while in an age-restricted building, only 3.48 trips per day are expected per
dwelling unit. Non age-restricted condominiums may also have additional trips during peak
traffic hours and may attract residents who tend to spend less time within the building as
compared to typical residents of an age-restricted building.
The primary change in the building’s use, therefore, is a question of trips to and from the
building and time spent within the building. Because it is the City’s responsibility to ensure that
any new development remains within the confines of existing transportation networks, an update
was completed to the traffic study completed for the final PUD approvals. Traffic impacts are
discussed below.
Will the removal of the age-restrictions affect off-street parking at the site?
City code allows for reductions in parking for age-restricted buildings. In the case of the final
PUD approved for the Park Summit Senior Cooperative, 218 parking stalls were to be provided.
A reduction of 30% was taken by SilverCrest Properties for the 14-story structure, resulting from
its proximity to transit, the provision of bicycle parking, and the use of PUD. The new request
allows for a 15% reduction in required off-street parking.
Proposal PUD
Reduction
Transit
Reduction
Bicycle
Reduction
Required
Parking
Required After
Reductions
150 Senior
Units
15%
10%
5%
300 spaces
218 spaces
150
Market-
rate Units
15%
0%
0%
300 spaces
255 spaces
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 8f - Park Summit PUD Amendment
Page 22
Off-Street Parking Details for Park Summit
As a result of the alteration of the proposed building to non age-restricted, additional parking is
required. The proposal is for 150 dwelling units, which requires 300 spaces based on the
existing Zoning Code. SilverCrest proposes to take a 15% reduction from the required number
of spaces due to its use of PUD, bringing the total required spaces to 255. The plans for the
building have been altered to increase the amount of parking in the underground ramp, bringing
the total spaces provided in the two-level underground structure to 240 spaces.
Staff believes that the parking plans submitted for Park Summit will be sufficient to handle the
number of resident and visitor vehicles on-site at any given time. New development projects are
required to reserve 10% of the total required parking for guest parking. Consequently, some of
the guest parking would need to be accommodated in the underground ramp. The developer has
proposed various methods to enable visitors to enter the ramp. In addition to that guest parking,
the developer has also stated that some of the above-ground parking at the ParkShore Senior
Housing complex will be available to guests at Park Summit.
How will the removal of age-restrictions affect the surrounding properties?
Impacts to Senior Campus Plan
It is unlikely that the removal of age-restrictions will have negative implications for the
properties surrounding Park Summit. The Park Summit Condominium building will not be
connected through an underground tunnel to the ParkShore Assisted Living building to the south.
A tunnel had been planned between the two buildings to enhance the senior ‘campus’ plan that
was a large part of the final PUD. Removing the tunnel from the building’s plan eliminates any
grading problems associated with the trail, which would have passed over the tunnel.
Impacts to surrounding land uses
The removal of age-restrictions will have few impacts on the Target and Byerly’s stores across
Park Center Boulevard from the development. The primary impact of the proposed
condominium building on both retailers is a result of additional vehicle trips, which is addressed
below.
Impacts to surrounding and transportation corridors
SilverCrest Properties intends, as required by the final PUD, to change the trail connection
running between the Park Summit building and the ParkShore Assisted Living building. The
trail connection will be realigned due to the new building’s alignment, parking, and lack of an
underground tunnel. Building setbacks from the trail provide sufficient room for access to and
from the trail; additionally, it is a continued requirement that SilverCrest will install appropriate
lighting and landscaping along the trail where it passes by Park Summit Condominiums.
During the review of the previous PUD proposal by SilverCrest Properties, it was indicated that
the proposed driveway from the site entering onto Park Center Boulevard will be moved from its
present location approximately 80 feet to the south. The alteration of the driveway location will
serve to improve traffic conditions on Park Center Boulevard.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 8f - Park Summit PUD Amendment
Page 23
At some point in the future, the City intends to reconstruct Park Center Boulevard, creating a
new connection to the south. Upon the City’s initiation of construction, it is expected that the
proposed entrance to the Park Summit building will be combined to a single entrance at the
ParkShore Assisted Living building. It is planned that this entrance could align with the primary
entrance to Target directly across Park Center Boulevard.
At the recommendation of the Planning Commission, the connection between the Park Summit
building and the buildings to the south is included as a condition of the resolution, to be
completed at the time of construction. Such a requirement was not included in the conditions of
approval during the first approval process.
What traffic impacts are associated with the proposed amendment?
Traffic impacts were analyzed for the initial proposal during the PUD process in 2003. At that
time, SilverCrest intended for the three-building complex to focus on life cycle housing for
seniors. Trip data indicates that residents of age-restricted buildings often make fewer trips than
residents living in a non age-restricted building. With the requested change to a non age-
restricted building, staff requested an update to the traffic data. The following table summarizes
trip information for 3601 Park Center Boulevard, taken from the update to the traffic analysis by
SRF Consulting Group.
Trip Generation Estimates
Scenario
Land Use
Size Daily
Trips
P.M. Peak Trips (1 hour)
In Out Total
1 Office 36,000 sq. ft 396 15 43 58
2 Senior
Condos
150 Units 522 10 7 17
3 High Rise
Condos
150 Units 627 35 22 57
While overall trips rise as a result of the change from an office building to a high rise
condominium building, it is expected that high rise condo trips would be spread throughout the
day – occurring with slightly less intensity during the peak traffic periods in the morning and the
evening. The change to high rise condos from senior condos results in approximately 20% more
trips per day (627 vs. 522).
The update to the traffic study completed by RLK Consulting on behalf of SilverCrest Properties
and a review of that update completed by SRF Consulting Group on behalf of the City are
attached for review.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 8f - Park Summit PUD Amendment
Page 24
SUMMARY:
Changing the proposed Park Summit condominium building from age-restricted to non-age
restricted will result in an increased number of trips to and from the building each day.
However, it will ultimately result in a very minor reduction in the number of peak hour trips
taken to and from the site and will spread traffic flow to and from the site evenly throughout the
day.
Parking at the site is improved, resulting from the inclusion of additional parking spaces below
ground. Staff does not anticipate problems with off-street parking as a result of the new plan. It
remains likely that residents of the proposed condominium will utilize the nearby transit,
pedestrian, and bicycle facilities.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission and staff recommend a motion to adopt Resolution No. 000,
authorizing a Major Amendment to the Planned Unit Development for the elimination of age
restrictions at the Park Summit Condominiums.
Attachments:
• Resolution No. XX, a resolution authorizing a Major Amendment to the PUD for Park
Summit Condominiums.
• Draft minutes of the July 20, 2005 Planning Commission meeting
• Review of revisions to the 2003 traffic study, discussing non age-restricted traffic rates,
completed by SRF Consulting (retained by the City of St. Louis Park)
• Revisions to the 2003 traffic study, discussing non age-restricted traffic rates completed by
RLK Consulting
• Location Map
• Development plans
• Resolution No. 04-024, A Resolution Granting Final PUD Approval for a Senior Housing
Condominium at 3601 Park Center Boulevard. (Case 03-38-PUD).
Prepared by: Adam W. Fulton, Associate Planner
Reviewed by: Meg J. McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 8f - Park Summit PUD Amendment
Page 25
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 8f - Park Summit PUD Amendment
Page 26
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 8g - Westdale Park Detention Pond
Page 1
8g. City Engineer’s Report: Westdale Park Detention Pond, Project No. 2006-1300
This report considers the construction of a water quality detention pond at Westdale
Park, located just east of Flag Avenue and adjacent to Westwood Lake.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the attached resolution accepting this report,
establishing and ordering Improvement Project No. 2006-1300,
approving plans and specifications, and authorizing
advertisement for bids.
BACKGROUND: In 1994, the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission (BCWMC)
and the City prepared the Westwood Lake Watershed and Lake Management Plan (Westwood Lake
Plan). The plan sets forth water quality goals for the lake and specifies watershed best management
practices (BMPs) and construction activities to be implemented to improve the quality of storm
water inflow in order to meet these goals. Construction of a storm water detention basin on the
west side of the lake was one of the recommended actions in the Plan. Subsequently, this
construction project was included in the BCWMC’s 10-Year Capital Improvement Program for
construction in 2006-2007. The project is also included in the City’s Capital Improvement
Program.
Construction of a detention pond is intended to reduce the amount of phosphorous, suspended
sediments, and litter entering the lake. Based on a review of the removal efficiency that could be
obtained, it was determined by BCWMC staff that the economical pond size would be
approximately 2 acre-feet. BCMWC discussed and approved the project at its March 17, 2005
meeting. On April 4, 2005, the City Council authorized execution of a contract with Barr
Engineering for professional services associated with the development and design of a storm water
detention pond in the area of Westdale Park.
On September 19, 2005, the City Council was provided with a report that provided information
regarding the status of the project. At that time, Barr Engineering had completed preliminary plans
and a public informational meeting for presentation of the preliminary plans was scheduled for
September 28.
ANALYSIS AND DESIGN: Westwood Lake has an open water surface area of about 38 acres
and a maximum depth of 5 feet. Storm water from 305 acres surrounding the lake is collected here.
The area west of the lake, identified in the feasibility study as the Flag Avenue Drainage District, is
145 acres (47%) of the entire drainage area. It contributes 48% of the storm water phosphorous
load to the lake. Storm water runoff from the 92 acres west of Highway 169 is treated by Kilmer
Pond. The discharge from Kilmer Pond joins the storm sewer system draining the 52 acres of
single-family residences directly west of the lake. This runoff enters the lake untreated, and has
been observed to carry floating debris and litter to the lake. Constructing a pond to treat the storm
water runoff from this drainage district is therefore needed to protect the lake and minimize
degradation of its water quality. It is estimated that this project would reduce the total suspended
solids load to the lake by nearly 80% and the phosphorous load by approximately 14 percent.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 8g - Westdale Park Detention Pond
Page 2
Barr Engineering has completed plans for the proposed pond in Westdale Park (drawings attached).
The pond would essentially cover the majority of the existing park property, which essentially
covers an area of roughly 1.5 acres. The existing play structure would be relocated to the
Westwood Hills Nature Center and the existing basketball court removed. Other elements of the
project include:
• Excavation to construct the pond
• Wetland mitigation
• Construction of a skimming structure to prevent debris from entering the lake
• Restoration with native plantings
• Installation (connection) of a floating boardwalk that would connect to the existing
boardwalk circling Westwood Lake.
• Installation of BMPs at the other lake inlets
STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT AND PUBLIC PROCESS: Over the last year or so staff
has had conversations with neighborhood representatives about this project, including two recent
public informational meetings. On September 28, 2005, a public information meeting was held at
the Westwood Nature Center to discuss the proposed project, along with plans for new playground
equipment and other improvements at the Nature Center. Notices for the meeting were sent to all
residents in the Westdale, Crestview, and Westwood Hills Neighborhoods. Representatives of both
the Public Works Department and the Parks and Recreation Department were in attendance to
present the plans, gather input, and answer questions.
As a result of the comments received, a second informational meeting was held at Westdale Park on
November 10, 2005. At this meeting, the pond boundaries were staked in the field, and several
residents attended to provide comments with regards to the proposed construction and landscaping.
Residents voiced specific requests and comments with regards to the number and location of trees,
construction limits, construction schedule, and additional input. These comments have been
received and incorporated into the final design as feasible. Residents have been notified that this
project will be considered at the November 21st City Council meeting.
COSTS/FUNDING: The total estimated cost of the Westdale Park Pond at this time is in
accordance with the estimate provided in the Capital Improvement Program (C.I.P.) of $464,000.
This amount includes the actual construction cost, engineering and administrative costs. This figure
will be further refined upon the receiving of actual bids. Funding would be provided from monies
designated by the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission (BCWMC).
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 8g - Westdale Park Detention Pond
Page 3
PROJECT TIMELINE: Should the City Council approve the City Engineer’s Report, the
following schedule is proposed:
• Approval of Plans/Authorization to Bid by City Council November 21, 2005
• Advertise for bids November - December
• Bid Opening December 22, 2005
• Bid Tab Report to City Council; Award contract January 9, 2006
• Commence Construction January 23, 2006
• Complete Construction (Pond) March 15, 2006
• Complete Construction (Landscaping/Restoration) June 1, 2006
Attachments: Resolution
Project Location Sheet (Supplement)
Existing Conditions and Removals (Supplement)
Site and Grading Plan (Supplement)
Plan Sheet of Proposed Construction (Supplement)
Prepared By: Scott A. Brink, City Engineer
Reviewed By: Michael Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 112105 - 8g - Westdale Park Detention Pond
Page 4
RESOLUTION NO: 05-165
RESOLUTION.ACCEPTING THE CITY ENGINEER’S REPORT,
ESTABLISHING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2006-1300,
APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND AUTHORIZING
ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2006-1300
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the City
Engineer related to the Westdale Park Detention Pond.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park,
Minnesota, that:
1. The City Engineer’s Report regarding the Westdale Park Detention Pond is hereby accepted.
2. The proposed project, designated as Project No. 2006-1300, is hereby established.
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 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 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 bids shall be tabulated by the City Engineer who shall report the tabulation and
recommendation to the City Council.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council November 21, 2005
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk