Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005/12/05 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - RegularAGENDA SUMMARY CITY COUNCIL MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA December 5, 2005 7:15 p.m. Economic Development Authority Meeting 1. Call to Order a. Pledge of Allegiance b. Roll Call 2. Presentations 3. Approval of Minutes 3a. City Council Study Session Minutes of October 24, 2005 3b City Council Study Session Minutes of November 11, 2005 Action: Corrections/amendments to minutes - Minutes approved as presented 4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion. Action: Motion to approve the agenda as presented and to approve items listed on the consent calendar (Alternatively: Motion to add or remove items from the agenda, motion to move items from consent calendar to regular agenda for discussion and to approve those items remaining on the consent calendar). 5. Boards and Commissions 6. Public Hearings 6a Public Hearing to consider granting an On-Sale Wine and 3.2 Malt Liquor License with Sunday sales for Best of India, Inc. located at Texa Tonka Shopping Center, 8120 Minnetonka Blvd. in St. Louis Park. Recommended Action: Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to approve on-sale wine and 3.2 malt liquor license with Sunday sales. 6b Assessment Hearing: Alley Paving – 2900 block of Ottawa and Princeton Avenue - Project No. 2005-1800 This report considers the special assessment for the estimated cost of paving the alley in the 2900 block of Ottawa and Princeton Avenue Recommended Action: Mayor to open and close Assessment Hearing: • Motion to adopt the attached resolution establishing the assessment for Project No. 2005-1800. 6c Public Hearing on the 2006 Budget and Property Tax Levy This Public Hearing is to review the 2006 budget and property tax levy (Draft 2006 Budget to be sent 12-2-05 under separate cover) Recommended Action: Mayor to close the Public Hearing 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 and extend the term of the current franchise to December 19, 2005. 7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public - None 8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions 8a Comcast Transfer 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 19, 2005 Council meeting. 8b 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. 8c Disposition and Retention of Excess Public Land for Building Single Family Homes Consideration of disposition of 20 vacant publicly owned parcels based on the Excess Land Task Force recommendations, technical findings and resident input. Recommended Action: It is recommended that the Council approve the resolution related to disposition and/or retention of 17 public parcels. It is recommended that the Council select the appropriate resolutions and make motions of approval for each of the parcels located at 2600 Natchez Avenue South, 5609 Wood Lane and 4525 Morningside Avenue South. It is recommended that the Council approve a resolution to Establish the Sale and Design Review Process and Design Guidelines for the excess land parcels. 8d Request of Julie L. Murphy for a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment from Industrial to Medium Density Residential; and a Zoning Map Amendment from General Industrial (IG) to Two Family Residential (R-3) Location: 6300-6312 Cambridge Street Applicant: Julie L. Murphy Case No.: 05-50-CP and 05-51-Z Recommended Action: • Motion to adopt a resolution to deny the request for a Comprehensive Plan amendment to change the land use designation from Industrial to Medium Density Residential. • Motion to adopt a resolution to deny the request for a zoning map amendment to change the zoning designation from IG – General Industrial to R3 – Two Family Residential. 8e Summary and acceptance of the annual City Manager evaluation Recommended Motion for formal acceptance of the final City Manager Action: annual evaluation. 9. Communications 10. Adjournment Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make arrangements, please call the Administration Department at 952/924-2525 (TDD 952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting. ST. LOUIS PARK CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF December 5, 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 Municipal Consent Request for Trunk Highway 100 Temporary Lane Addition Project: Motion to schedule a Public Hearing for January 17, 2006 at which Mn/DOT shall present the final layout for State Project 2734-43. 4b Motion to Adopt Resolution of Support for Trunk Highway 7/Wooddale Avenue Interchange Improvements. 4c Motion to authorize advertisement for bids to acquire the physical equipment necessary to establish a pilot wireless network and to issue a Request for Proposals as a means to select a lead private sector partner (and possible supporting partners) to deliver and manage wireless high speed internet services to subscribers. 4d Motion to Adopt Resolution Authorizing Special Assessment of Dutch Elm Diseased Trees 4e Motion to approve resolution establishing a special assessment for the installation of a fire suppression sprinkler system at 6425 Cambridge Street 4f Motion to approve Second Reading of an Ordinance setting 2006 rates charged for Water, Sanitary Sewer, Solid Waste, and Storm Water Utility, adopt ordinance, approve summary, and authorize publication. 4g Hoigaard’s Village – Motion to approve the second reading of an ordinance amending the Official Zoning Map for property at 5616 36th St. W., 3550 State Hwy. 100 S., 3501 Xenwood Ave. S. and 5626 36th St. W., adopt ordinance, approve summary, and authorize publication. 4h Hoigaard’s Village – Motion to approve the second reading of an ordinance vacating an alley, adopt ordinance, approve summary and authorize publication. 4i Sam’s Club – Motion to approve the second reading of an ordinance vacating a utility easement, adopt ordinance, approve summary, and authorize publication. 4j Motion to approve Second Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment to change the zoning on the property at 5330 Cedar Lake Road from IP, Industrial Park to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, adopt ordinance, approve summary, and authorize publication. Case Nos. 05-35-ZA 4k Motion to accept vendor claims for filing (supplement) AGENDA SUPPLEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING ***December 5, 2005*** Items contained in this section are those items which are not yet available in electronic format and which are identified in the individual reports by inclusion of the word “Supplement”. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 3a - SS Minutes Oct 24, 2005 Page 1 UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION October 24, 2005 The meeting convened at 7:00 p.m. Councilmembers present: John Basill, Jim Brimeyer, Phil Finkelstein, Paul Omodt, Susan Sanger, Sue Santa and Mayor Jeff Jacobs. Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Community Development Director (Mr. Locke), Director of Technology and Support Services (Mr. Pires), Finance Director (Ms. McGann), Planning/Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal) and Recording Secretary (Ms. Stegora-Peterson). Others present: Tom Asp, Virchow Krause 1. Silvercrest Condo Project Mr. Locke indicated Mr. Gould submitted a letter agreeing to extend the review time. Council asked Mr. Gould to provide a letter indicating why he could not get financing, a commitment to market the project to seniors and for transportation improvements. Mayor Jacobs asked if they discussed larger units for a younger senior demographic? Mr. Locke replied that hadn’t been discussed. Councilmember Brimeyer was upset that at the last meeting they lost sight of the desired end result, move-up housing. Initially he thought it should be a senior campus. His thoughts shifted because they had created a successful environment. He did not agree that they were building too fast and too high, but agreed there should be more diversity. Councilmember Finkelstein clarified the concern was not that they were building too fast, but condominiums were being concentrated in one area. Councilmember Sanger believed they needed to determine if the PUD should be changed. She was OK with 14-stories because they proposed a senior campus. Councilmember Brimeyer clarified the desired end result was a senior campus. Councilmember Sanger noted another alternative was for Mr. Gould to wait. The market or financing may change. Councilmember Basill agreed this was from the City’s own success, but they needed to be calculated and control the growth for the long-term health of the community. Councilmember Brimeyer indicated they wanted move-up housing. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 3a - SS Minutes Oct 24, 2005 Page 2 Councilmember Basill wanted developers to come forward with the right scale, character of the community and density, and compare traffic studies apples to apples. Councilmember Brimeyer stated all developments would add to traffic. They need to differentiate what was too much and figure out a way to handle it. Mr. Harmening indicated the site was zoned and guided for this scale. They needed to look at the project on its own merits. Traffic was the same with the current use as it would be with a 150-unit market rate building. Councilmember Sanger believed there was a demand for senior condos. At the Housing Summit they discussed alternatives for seniors to free up single-family homes. There would be less traffic with a senior building. Councilmember Santa noted the definition of senior was 55 and up. Those who are 55-65 don’t want to be labeled as senior. Councilmember Omodt didn’t believe traffic was a valid argument. The whole area had changed. The change in traffic with this project was negligible. They were victims of their own success. Just because a development changed, didn’t make it bad. This was a technical marketing issue. The market was there for this. Councilmember Sanger asked if the site were sold, would the PUD restrictions still apply? Mr. Locke replied yes. Councilmember Basill stated that seniors in Park Shore building had expressed concerns about it being non age-restricted. Councilmember Brimeyer indicated their only argument should be that it was approved as a senior building. The developer can wait, build it as senior or sell it. Mayor Jacobs stated there were two questions to be answered: What is the downside or problem with non age based building? To what extent do they let traffic concerns govern development? Traffic would need to be managed. Councilmember Sanger believed they should look at this in a more positive way. The community is aging and people may wish to leave their houses. Councilmember Brimeyer stated they were sending mixed-messages to the developer. Councilmember Basill indicated maybe they were, but they were trying to work with him. The issue was senior housing or non age-restricted. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 3a - SS Minutes Oct 24, 2005 Page 3 Mr. Locke asked if there was a marketing issue? Most Councilmembers agreed. Mr. Locke stated they could keep it senior, allow the change and market it to seniors. Condos in general have an older demographic. Councilmember Sanger didn’t understand why they couldn’t get financing when another project had. Ms. McMonigal replied these were considered luxury units and a different market from the other senior (Rottland) building. Councilmember Finkelstein stated he would feel differently if they had tried to market this. Councilmember Omodt believed this was a slight change and noted that Excelsior and Grand had changed many times. Mr. Harmening stated Council would be required to vote on this. Staff could tell Mr. Gould there were not enough votes. Councilmember Omodt felt this was a turning point for the City Council. Other projects won’t be able to make changes once approved. Councilmember Sanger wanted the freedom to evaluate projects on a case-by-case basis. This position wasn’t locked in. Mayor Jacobs agreed this was handled poorly and they gave the developer mixed signals. They needed to evaluate case-by-case. The community was going to look and feel more urban and they needed to recognize the change. Mr. Gould can bring it back, but the votes were not going to change. Councilmember Finkelstein believed they should schedule a meeting how to manage the growth. Mr. Harmening replied they could schedule a Council retreat. 2. Wireless Study Mr. Pires stated this was a follow up discussion about forming the public/private partnership and legal issues. Councilmember Sanger asked: 1) How long the pilot project would be? 2) How they will evaluate it? 3) Several people talked about changing Email. Does the pilot project change the Email and then will it change again? 4) Does it make sense to include neighborhoods with DSL and other without? 5) Does it make sense to include condos and townhouses? Mr. Pires replied they talked about including apartments to test structural questions. They can have a mix of multi-family housing. They need to figure out where DSL is located. Qwest had provided a map, although it was not accurate. Councilmember Omodt noted he looked at the map and everything was wrong. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 3a - SS Minutes Oct 24, 2005 Page 4 Mr. Asp indicated someone doing the pilot project could keep an old Email account. All Time Warner users will have to switch to Comcast Email. They can commit to keep St. Louis Park addresses for a year or longer. People can also use other Email such as Yahoo!, etc. Mr. Pires indicated they wanted to alleviate the hassle. Councilmember Finkelstein asked if technology advances were coming, and if they would be looking at a new model that might be free? The cost was previously $250,000 and now it was $350,000, why? Was the pilot taking into consideration those with electrical sensitivity? Mr. Pires indicated the evaluation of the pilot would look at the goals and how it will be managed and operated. Staff will come back in April or May to check in. Councilmember Sanger believed they needed to identify how they would evaluate this. The pilot should last more than three months. Mr. Pires replied that the pilot could last longer. The value of data for market analysis gets less valid over time. The critical piece is the need to add fiber during the construction period. Councilmember Sanger suggested they check in, continue the pilot and install more fiber if necessary. Mr. Pires indicated there would be commitment and customers involved with the pilot would continue service. Councilmember Santa asked who the partner would be and how they would evaluate? Mr. Pires replied there would be criteria. They were looking at two (or more) partners, manufacturers of equipment and a management partner, doing maintenance and a help desk. This should be reviewed periodically to retain competition. Councilmember Santa believed there needed to be criteria for what to expect from the partners and the service levels. Councilmember Basill was concerned with the risk of money on the pilot project and not in support of spending $4.4 million. He was concerned with the public/partner model. Councilmember Brimeyer asked if anyone was interested in partnering? Mr. Pires replied about half dozen had expressed an interest. Councilmember Finkelstein referred to his previous questions regarding the private market. Mr. Pires replied there was a lot of hype, but he was not sure it would happen. Councilmember Finkelstein asked about the cost and if it would go down by renting equipment? Mr. Pires replied the spreadsheet showed a contingency and application development and allowed flexibility. $100,000 allows the opportunity to develop applications on the web site or expand scope and size of pilot. They would try to avoid areas with health concerns. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 3a - SS Minutes Oct 24, 2005 Page 5 Councilmember Sanger was under the impression it would be their branding, but work and equipment would be private vendors. She would rather the partner be accountable. Mr. Pires indicated they were in it for the equipment and infrastructure and would not be taking help desk calls. They may want to minimize the number of partners, make sure infrastructure is there and determine who manages. Once built, it is the private sectors responsibility. Councilmember Finkelstein indicated there was an attempt for legislation not to allow cities this. Would the pilot project get their “foot in the door”? Mr. Pires replied having paying customers might allow for grandfathering of an existing project. Councilmember Brimeyer asked if other cities did pilots? Mr. Asp replied no. Councilmember Finkelstein asked about the City of Minneapolis? Mr. Pires replied they had received nine or ten proposals, but he had not heard anything more. Mr. Harmening stated the pilot was to be prudent and thoughtful and spend less money. Councilmember Brimeyer indicated investors might not think it is a good idea to do a pilot. He felt they should move forward. They should also determine if wireless was an essential service. They also needed subscribership and investment formulas. Mr. Pires stated they could do the pilot, work out the bugs, with the intention of going citywide. Councilmember Sanger indicated people would be giving something up and there needed to be a commitment. Councilmember Santa believed one of the issues was to test the partnership, how it would work and the relationship. Mr. Pires indicated there were examples they could review. Council requested evaluation criteria and that the item comes before them November 21st. Councilmember Basill believed technology was moving too quickly. They were risking a lot of money. It was not a true private/public partnership and he was not comfortable. Mayor Jacobs stated he was willing to go forward with the pilot project, but would like a better model. Councilmember Omodt was worried about the economics and would like a presentation from Qwest to see the alternatives. If the private market were going to do this, he would like to know. Councilmember Finkelstein suggested it be open to other companies as well. Councilmember Sanger suggested Qwest be given a deadline to provide information. Mr. Pires indicated he would send Qwest a request. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 3a - SS Minutes Oct 24, 2005 Page 6 3. 2006-2010 Capital Improvement Program Ms. McGann stated that the proposed 2006 budget had been balanced and takes into consideration increasing fuel costs and new positions. Positions had not been denied or approved by the City manager. Was the Council still comfortable with the 7% property tax increased? Truth-in-Taxation statements examples were provided. She discussed increased and limited market values. Councilmember Finkelstein asked if there was a standard number for percentage increases? Ms. McGann replied the number came from the Hennepin County system and was what people would see on notices. The School District had a 5.5% increase. Mr. Harmening noted that was based on the maximum levy. Councilmember Sanger asked why lower valued homes had a higher increase? Ms. McGann replied the higher value house had already lost most of the market-value homestead credit. Councilmember Sanger asked when notices would be sent? Ms. McGann replied the second week of November. Councilmember Sanger indicated they needed to make information available about the senior tax credit. Ms. McGann responded that information could be included with the public hearing. Mr. Harmening added a link could be provided on the web site. Ms. McGann noted that the senior deferral was not always a good idea because interest was added. They need to be aware of that up front. Councilmember Basill asked if the City portion on an average house ($230,000) was a $10/month increase? Ms. McGann replied approximately $8-10/month for average and $15- 18/month for higher valued homes. Mr. Harmening stated that part of that $10/month was being used in the community as an investment (pavement). Councilmember Sanger asked with union contracts still open, how that affected the budget? Ms. McGann replied they made assumptions based on cost of living increases, step increases and also looked at the market for appropriate allocations. Ms. McGann discussed how they would pay for various infrastructures and the water fund. If they do all projects, they can bond or do a “pay as you go” method. A handout was provided comparing other communities (assumes no increase in rates). Ms. McGann discussed the impact if Novartis decided to leave. Mr. Harmening stated they would still have production here. Ms. McGann indicated if they were gone, it was $200,000/year for water and $16,000 for storm water. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 3a - SS Minutes Oct 24, 2005 Page 7 They considered a stable rate of consumption, growth was not taken into consideration. She recommended they continue “pay as you go” for the water fund and suggested a GO bond for storm water utilities. Mr. Harmening stated when that as a part of pavement management, the city will replace water mains. The Council agreed with replacing water mains as a part of pavement management. Ms. McGann stated the residents would see an average increase of $10.63/quarter for a family of four. There would also be $95/year for property taxes. Councilmember Sanger believed they needed to educate the public. Ms. McGann responded they could break down the increases. Mr. Harmening added they could list what it would be used for or provide a graph. The Council agreed to proceed forward and schedule the public hearing in December. 4. Council Governance Councilmember Brimeyer provided a handout regarding policy as a leadership tool. If they were concerned about the rapid pace of growth, they needed to say so. They were not going to control the pace with the current interest rates. Councilmember Finkelstein stated they needed to look at the absorption rate and how quickly projects were coming in. Councilmember Brimeyer believed they shouldn’t worry about penetration rates if the market says they can handle this. Mr. Harmening indicated they could say no, but change would still happen on the site. Some sites were zoned for uses they may not feel are the best for this community and they needed to be careful. Councilmember Sanger stated they needed to have a policy discussion on geographic dispersal. Mr. Harmening stated Excelsior and Grand was where they should promote density. Councilmember Finkelstein believed it was Council’s role to ask where they wanted to be in 20 years. Councilmember Brimeyer indicated they could argue for senior and open-market housing, the issue was debating projects when they should ask if they were meeting the housing goals. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 3a - SS Minutes Oct 24, 2005 Page 8 Councilmember Sanger believed the issue was more expansive. One of the reasons why there is discussion about too many condos is traffic implications and congestion. Councilmember Santa noted that people do not want to be labeled (as seniors). Mr. Harmening updated the Council about STEP. They were asking for a one year extension, with the same terms they were presently under. The Council was agreed with the lease extension go to EDA. Councilmember Finkelstein suggested the extension go to January. Councilmember Sanger requested progress reports every three months. Mr. Harmening indicated he would try to program a retreat about governance and development. The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ City Clerk Mayor St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 3b - SS Minutes Nov 14, 2005 Page 1 UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION November 14, 2005 The meeting convened at 6:32 p.m. Councilmembers present: John Basill, Phil Finkelstein, Paul Omodt, Susan Sanger, Sue Santa and Mayor Jeff Jacobs. Councilmember Jim Brimeyer was absent. Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Community Development Director (Mr. Locke), Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Hunt), Housing Program Coordinator (Ms. Larsen), Planning/Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal) and Recording Secretary (Ms. Stegora-Peterson). 1. Children First Update The youth involved with Children First introduced themselves (Alana, Nick, Dana, Anna, Sonya and Ericka). Alana discussed Children First and the youth performed a skit based on the 40 assets. It was noted that they meet monthly and others can attend. Karen Atkinson indicated that the Youth Development committee held a retreat to train children to do interviews with their peers. Jeannie Bloomquist noted training was also done for the Student Advisory Council. Ms. Atkinson indicated that St. Louis Park had been named one of the 100 Best Communities for Children by America’s Promise. She reported on the celebration held in Washington. Mayor Jacobs believed they needed to build assets, but they also needed to continue as children grow older. He noticed asset building in St. Louis Park kids. High school youth were connecting with younger kids and he was very proud. 2. Excess Land Ms. Larsen reported they reviewed input from the public meeting and will bring a final recommendation to the 12/5 Council meeting. They could group all actions together or separate some. Councilmember Sanger preferred to vote on them individually. They needed to discuss additional criteria. The task force criteria that was a good start, but it wasn’t complete. Councilmember Basill believed some parcels were not controversial and could be grouped. Others needed more discussion. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 3b - SS Minutes Nov 14, 2005 Page 2 Councilmember Finkelstein agreed. There were four parcels that were in dispute. He asked what criteria Councilmember Sanger was looking for? Councilmember Sanger replied, in addition to the task force criteria: 1) Environmental impacts (wetlands, potential tree and vegetation loss, concerns about wildlife and other natural resources); 2) Neighborhood perspective; and, 3) Potential flooding issues. Ms. Larsen indicated that the task force came up with criteria to evaluate if the parcels should be used for single-family homes. The issue is the value judgment between the best use of the parcels, such as homes, open space or something else. Councilmember Basill indicated a valid concern was if the parcel was accessible to the public and character to the larger neighborhood. A parcel at a park provides more public use. Councilmember Santa asked for the definition of public? Councilmember Basill replied a parcel that the neighborhood used. Councilmember Santa asked who the public was? Councilmember Basill replied an example would be pocket parks. Not everyone uses them, but the entire neighborhood does. That was the public use he was referring to. Councilmember Santa indicated one of the speakers at the public hearing that made an impression on her was the lady who talked about not having a park in her neighborhood and driving her kids to a park, those were the people she was thinking about. Councilmember Finkelstein stated this wasn’t about the money, although one idea could be to use the money from the land sales to encourage people to add on to their homes. Councilmember Santa believed they had not done as much as they could have for wetlands and the creek and could put extra effort into looking at the highest use to enhance them. Councilmember Sanger stated people were asking questions about the use of the money and they needed to provide answers. Mayor Jacobs replied that would be another process later on such as a public task force. He was not comfortable saying where it would go at this time. Councilmember Sanger believed they needed to provide people with some kind of an answer. Government operations get more expensive, they needed a larger budget discussion to talk about what they were doing. Mayor Jacobs thought they could group the ones without controversy and do the others individually. Mr. Harmening clarified that the parcels that would be voted on individually were: 3 (2600 Natchez), 17 (5609 Wood Lane) and 18 (4525 Morningside). Councilmember Sanger believed the parcel being used as the dog park also needed to be included. Mayor Jacobs noted that might be deferred until it was more definitive. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 3b - SS Minutes Nov 14, 2005 Page 3 Mr. Locke stated if not used as a dog park, they could sell it. They did not know the time frame for the dog park. Councilmember Sanger suggested a separate category for items that would be deferred, including the Wood Lane site because of the Watershed District. Councilmember Basill felt they should keep it on the list. Mr. Harmening indicated they could provide one resolution including the parking lots and parcels that were acceptable for sale and do three separate resolutions for the sites that required more discussion. Councilmember Santa noted that the Watershed District didn’t have the Wood Lane site scheduled for discussion at this time. Mayor Jacobs suggested that the resolution include a sunset provision allowing six months. Councilmember Finkelstein believed this was an opportunity to put something such as a landing on the creek. Councilmember Basill indicated they may not have an answer from the Watershed District on Wood Lane, but the City had not proactively approached the Watershed District either. Mr. Harmening indicated they would use the task force recommendations. Councilmember Sanger believed if they used those, it would appear that they hadn’t heard anything. They should present two or more options on the controversial parcels. Mayor Jacobs suggested they provide two drafts, one to sell and the other not to sell. Councilmember Sanger asked if they voted not to sell, what happens? Could a parcel be added to a park or protected? Future Councils should be aware of the decision. Mr. Harmening responded they would need to determine what they wanted to do with it. Councilmember Sanger commented on the Cedar Lake Rd parcel there was a concern about blocking views. Criteria could be to limit the size of the proposed homes to one story. Mayor Jacobs indicated they needed to have design standards and make sure homes would be in character with the neighborhood. Councilmember Finkelstein noted in the staff report a section regarding design. Councilmember Sanger indicated one parking lot appeared as though it would not have public access. They should all be accessible to the public. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 3b - SS Minutes Nov 14, 2005 Page 4 Mr. Locke indicated that was the site of the former Treasure Island. There is a possibility of the City selling it to a developer, with a caveat that surrounding parcels have access to the parking lot. Councilmember Sanger had a concern about the way it was worded. Councilmember Basill stated the Belt Line parcel is on a lake. He was in favor of including a statement that some component be single-family homes. Mayor Jacobs believed it would depend on the developers financing. If they were serious about move-up housing, they should have a component of single-family homes. Councilmember Finkelstein stated that was a big policy question. They may want to defer the discussion. Councilmember Basill stated he wasn’t looking for concrete language, but if a future Council referred back to this, he would want them to know they wanted consideration given to single- family homes. Councilmember Sanger agreed with a general direction for some form of single-family homes. Mr. Locke indicated people had inquired about that parcel. They could ask them to consider single-family homes. It is a substantial parcel. The purpose of this study was not to decide what to put there. Mayor Jacobs noted it wouldn’t be a binding statement, although the City owned it and could tell them no. They would consider proposals on their own merits. 3. Hoigaard Village TIF Mr. Locke indicated the key issue was TIF. This would be a step toward implementing the Elmwood study. At the next Council meeting, they will present the preliminary PUD and plat. Mr. Frank Dunbar, Dunbar Development Co., discussed the site plan. Councilmember Sanger asked about a deadline? Mr. Dunbar replied it was an open issue with Hoigaard's because they didn’t want to make a decision until they knew this was “real”. Councilmember Sanger felt it was a “chicken and egg” situation regarding Hoigaard's. Councilmember Finkelstein believed it was either the right economics or not. Mayor Jacobs agreed TIF could not be dependent on a particular business, either the economics worked or not. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 3b - SS Minutes Nov 14, 2005 Page 5 Mayor Jacob asked if the warehouse and dock would be included based on the business it was leased to? Mr. Dunbar replied that would only be there for Hoigaard’s. Councilmember Santa asked if that would impact the amount of TIF needed? Mr. Dunbar replied it wouldn’t be a significant impact. Councilmember Sanger stated all retail was not alike. Councilmember Sanger questioned if financial aid should be used for fast food restaurants versus higher quality retail and higher paying jobs. Mr. Dunbar stated discussed the site between 35 ½ & 36th Streets. Councilmember Finkelstein asked the price points? Mr. Dunbar replied the overall range was $225,000-400,000. Mr. Dunbar discussed the proposed construction phasing and more of the site plan. Councilmember Sanger asked if there was an increase in units from the last plan? Mr. Dunbar replied an increase in apartments. Councilmember Sanger asked how they had added the units? Mr. Dunbar replied through the height, which didn’t impact Designed Outdoor Recreation Areas (DORA). Councilmember Basill believed this needed to go back to the neighborhood for more discussion regarding the increase in height and density. Mr. Dunbar indicated that they had a 20’ floor to ceiling on the retail and it would be a net increase now of 4’. Mr. Harmening asked how many units per floor on 36th St? Mr. Dunbar replied less than 20. The unit square footage ranged from 900-1460 sq. ft. Councilmember Basill was concerned about the setback on 36th Street and that enough space be allowed for people to walk. The sidewalk should wrap around to Wooddale. Mayor Jacobs noted if the LRT comes to the area, sidewalks are important. Mr. Locke indicated they were encouraging sidewalks and were discussing the key pedestrian corridors in the area. Mr. Harmening clarified on the east side of Wooddale between 36th and Highway 7, they needed an interim pedestrian connection until permanent improvements were done. Councilmember Basill stated the two existing buildings were a concern. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 3b - SS Minutes Nov 14, 2005 Page 6 Councilmember Sanger stated if the properties were not obtained, property values would go up and they would be harder to obtain. That could be green space or more parking. This may be an opportunity to suggest more involvement in the decision. The TIF is to be paid back in eleven years, but it could take longer. Councilmember Finkelstein noted it would be close to $2 million. Councilmember Finkelstein asked about eminent domain? Mr. Locke responded it was not a successful tool to get the price down. Councilmember Finkelstein asked if they decided to sell, what was the plan? Mr. Dunbar replied they couldn’t economically make anything work. It would be green space. Councilmember Finkelstein asked how much DORA was added? Mr. Dunbar replied 14,000 feet and they added the pond. Ms. McMonigal indicated 17% of the site was DORA. Councilmember Basill understood the complexities of those buildings but it would be a better project without them. This may be a consideration regarding TIF. Councilmember Finkelstein asked how much money was going to the remediation? Mr. Hunt replied regarding the TIF request, they found a gap of $5.75 million due to costs unique to development of the site. Remediation costs will be more substantial than anticipated. Councilmember Santa asked the TIF amount? Mr. Hunt responded they would request a range of $4.75 - 5.5 million. Councilmember Basill asked if there was any county funding available? Mr. Hunt replied there was money, but they had just received funding for other projects and it was unlikely it would be done by spring. The total value of the project, as built, would be $77 million. Councilmember Sanger asked if they needed the larger storm water pond because of runoff from other businesses, could they allocate back to other property owners? Mr. Hunt responded that there were three zones. This site was the low point of the area. Councilmember Finkelstein asked if the project didn’t go forward, how would they deal with the storm water pond capacity? Mr. Hunt replied they would find another location in this area. Mr. Hunt stated that staff was suggesting paying their portion up front and pay back from special assessments to other area properties. Councilmember Sanger asked if they could special assess now? Mr. Harmening stated they would need to discuss the legalities with the City Attorney. Councilmember Basill indicated the small businesses in the area wouldn’t have the means for an assessment. Their storm water works. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 3b - SS Minutes Nov 14, 2005 Page 7 Councilmember Sanger stated that all taxpayers would be subsidizing this. Mr. Hunt noted it would be easier to do with a redevelopment project. Councilmember Finkelstein asked if this would create a precedent for future projects on retention ponds and TIF money? Mr. Hunt responded that each plan was unique. This site had a unique feature with the deficiency of storm water in the area. Ms. McMonigal indicated this is the lowest area and the modifications were recommended by the Engineer. Mayor Jacobs asked about the next steps? Mr. Locke asked if the Council wanted to move forward with this level of assistance? Councilmember Finkelstein asked if this was a reasonable amount of appropriation? Mr. Mark Ruff, Ehlers & Associates, replied that the pond was a separate issue from TIF. This would be high end, but an acceptable range. Development costs associated with the site are extraordinary costs. Councilmember Finkelstein inquired about the “look back” provision? Councilmember Sanger asked if they had ever gotten money back from a “look back” provision? Mr. Ruff replied not in St. Louis Park, but they had in other cities. Councilmember Sanger stated that the TIF payback was eleven years, would that change? Mr. Hunt replied yes, it would be 13 years. Mr. Harmening stated a potential use of excess TIF could be for transportation. Mr. Locke indicated the preliminary PUD and plat will be coming for the Council on Monday, 11/21. Then they can move forward to set up the TIF District or combine it. Councilmember Santa asked when they would meet with the neighborhood? Councilmember Basill replied he would make some phone calls so they were aware of the change in height. Mr. Dunbar stated density with the larger units hadn’t increased. The market was changing to require larger units. The meeting adjourned at 9:12 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ City Clerk Mayor St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 4a - TH 100 Interim Improvement Project Page 1 4a Municipal Consent Request for Trunk Highway 100 Temporary Lane Addition Project: Motion to schedule a Public Hearing for January 17, 2006 at which Mn/DOT shall present the final layout for State Project 2734-43. Background: At the September 26, 2005 Study Session, Mn/DOT staff presented to Council their plan to address increasing congestion on HWY 100 in SLP by making temporary improvements to the highway. In simple terms, their proposal consisted of removing the clover leaf at HWY 7 and HWY 100 and replacing it with a diamond interchange with traffic signals on HWY 7 at each ramp intersection (2); the shoulders of HWY 100 would be converted to carry mainline traffic so there could be three through lanes in each direction with limited merging areas for on and off traffic. Mn/DOT staff expressed the desire to obtain SLP approval yet this year so this project could be designed and constructed during 2006. They presented a project schedule showing project tasks, the Municipal Consent Approval Process, and a construction staging plan. Council expressed concerns that the temporary improvements might mean a delay in the major reconstruction project earlier proposed, as well as concerns over increased noise, air quality impacts, local traffic and infrastructure impacts, the potential for decreased safety, and liability to the City for approval of this interim project. Mn/DOT staff, Wayne Norris, PE and Tom O’Keefe, PE, stated this project is essentially the first stage or phase in the eventual HWY 100 reconstruction project – this work has to be done to facilitate or allow for that project to happen. It can either be done now or later on in conjunction with the reconstruction project. At the end of the Study Session, Council directed staff to communicate City concerns to Mn/DOT and request they be officially addressed. On August 29th, notice was published in the state Environmental Quality Board Monitor of the Mn/DOT Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for these temporary improvements to HWY 100. The 30 day comment period ran through Wednesday, September 28th. SLP staff has reviewed and submitted comments on the EAW. The only technical concern noted was the need to provide emergency vehicle pre-emption for the new signals on HWY 7. Recent Project Activities: November 1, 2005: City Manager, Tom Harmening, and Mayor Jacobs met with the Commissioner of Mn/DOT, Carol Molnau, along with Edina officials to officially present City of St. Louis Park concerns to Mn/DOT (copy attached). On November 2, city staff met with Mn/DOT staff to discuss City concerns and what might be done to address them. These discussions continue at the present time. November 21, 2005: The City of St. Louis Park received notice from Mn/DOT of a Negative Declaration regarding the need for an EIS for this proposed interim Hwy 100 project meaning this project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects and that an EIS is not required for these proposed improvements. Where potential environmental effects have been identified, they are being addressed in the detail design of the project or mitigative measures are being incorporated into the project design process. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 4a - TH 100 Interim Improvement Project Page 2 November 22, 2005: Mn/DOT officially submitted the interim project to the City of St. Louis Park to begin the Municipal Consent Approval process (attached). As a result, the City has 15 days to schedule a Public Hearing on the project. Staff plans to request the Council set a hearing date at the December 5th Council meeting. A draft project schedule was presented by Mn/DOT to the City at the September 26 Study Session. Staff has attached a revised schedule based on the Mn/DOT submittal received on the 22nd: November 28, 2005: Staff updated Council on the recent project activities, indications on how Mn/DOT may respond to City concerns associated with this project, and next steps. Next Steps: The following steps have been identified to respond to Mn/DOT’s Municipal Consent Request dated November 22, 2005: 1. City to set a public hearing date within 15 days of official request - December 5, 2005 2. City to provide a 30-day notice of the Public Hearing – prior to December 17, 2005 3. Mn/DOT to host an Open House Meeting before the City Public Hearing - early January 2006 4. City to conduct a Public Hearing within 60 days of official request - January 17, 2006 5. City to approve or disapprove the Mn/DOT request within 90 days of the Public Hearing or let the time period expire in which case it is deemed approved - April 17, 2006 Attachments: Revised project schedule Municipal Consent Request of November 22, 2005 (Supplement) Prepared By: Michael P. Rardin, Public Works Director Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 4a - TH 100 Interim Improvement Project Page 3 TH 100 Temporary Lane Project Schedule St. Louis Park City Council – November 28, 2005 Project Development Schedule: EAW Comment Period – ends Sept. 28, 2005 Mn/DOT Staff Approved Layout – Oct. 2005 Project Plans Turn-in – Jan. 2006 Project Letting – April 2006 Award and Construction Start – May 2006 • Stage 1 – May 2006 to July 2006 • Stage 2 – July 2006 to Aug. 2006 • Stage 3 – Aug. 2006 to Sept. 2006 • Stage 4 – end of Sept. 2006 • Stage 5 – first of Oct. 2006 Construction Finish – Fall 2006 Municipal Approval Schedule: • Access changes • Capacity increases or decreases • Acquisition of permanent rights-of-way City Council Work Session – Sept. 26, 2005 Municipal Consent Package to City – Nov. 22, 2005 City Schedules Public Hearing – Dec. 5, 2005 Mn/DOT Open House – Early Jan. 2006 Public Hearing – Jan. 17, 2006 City Council Approval/Disapproval – no later than April 17, 2006 St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 4b - Hwy 7 Wooddale 2006 Cap Budget Request Page 1 4b Motion to Adopt Resolution of Support for Trunk Highway 7/Wooddale Avenue Interchange Improvements. Background: This proposed project has been submitted for both state and federal funding. This proposed project would provide for the construction of a grade-separated interchange at Wooddale Avenue and T.H. 7. The project would also include pedestrian and bicycle friendly improvements along with re-configuration of the frontage roads in order to improve access, safety, and traffic flow for both the T.H. 7 corridor and Wooddale Avenue. The City of St. Louis Park is pursuing this proposed project with the support of the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT). This proposed improvement is essential in meeting the transportation and safety needs of both Mn/DOT and the City, and has been identified accordingly in the City’s Capital Improvement Program (C.I.P.) and Comprehensive Plan. In addition to high commuter usage in the T.H. 7 corridor, the T.H. 7/Wooddale intersection experiences many other traffic and safety related problems. Due to significant congestion and delays on T.H. 100 during peak hour conditions, motorists often exit T.H. 100 at 36th Street to utilize Wooddale Avenue as an alternate route to T.H. 7 or points beyond. The current T.H. 7/Wooddale intersection also presents constraints and issues, in that a closely spaced frontage road, freight and commuter railroad tracks, and a regional trail are all located in very close proximity to the intersection. Back-ups on Wooddale Avenue often extend on to 36th Street. Despite recent signal timing modifications by Mn/DOT to the T.H. 7 corridor, the T.H. 7/Wooddale intersection still experiences significant delays during the peak traffic periods. In addition, potential future re-development activities and associated traffic studies have determined that the T.H. 7/Wooddale improvement is a critical element in meeting the future transportation needs in this area. T.H. 7 also provides a barrier for bicycles and pedestrians to cross at Wooddale Avenue. The separated grade interchange will therefore provide opportunities for pedestrians and bicyclists to safely cross the T.H. 7 corridor in order to link with destinations such as schools, recreation and transit facilities, and future light rail. Process: The request for state funds was done as a 2006 Capital Budget Request during June 2005 and that request was updated on October 31, 2005 (attached). The Capital Budget Request process is conducted by the Minnesota Department of Finance (DOF) as a part of the State’s overall legislative process. Over the next several months, the DOF will evaluate all Capital Budget Requests submitted by local governments. As a part of this process, a resolution of support from the governing body is required by the DOF. Once evaluated by DOF, requests are sent to the Governor and legislature for consideration. Legislative consideration is expected between February and April of 2006. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 4b - Hwy 7 Wooddale 2006 Cap Budget Request Page 2 Cost: If the funds can be obtained for this project, construction is planned to commence in 2009 and be completed in 2010. Total project cost, including right of way, is estimated to be $18 million. At this time, $1,000,000 in state general obligation bond funds is being requested. A local match of that amount will be needed. At this time, it is not known specifically what the Federal, Mn/DOT, and City share will be. However, City funds are expected to be provided from Tax Increment Financing (TIF)/Development Fund. Recommendation: Staff recommends adopting the attached resolution providing support for funding for the Trunk Highway 7/Wooddale Avenue Interchange Improvements. Attachments: Resolution 2006 Capital Budget Request, October 31, 2005 Prepared by: Michael Rardin, Director of Public Works Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 4b - Hwy 7 Wooddale 2006 Cap Budget Request Page 3 RESOLUTION NO. 05-174 RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT OF TRUNK HIGHWAY 7/WOODDALE AVENUE INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park is the official governing body of the City of St. Louis Park; and WHEREAS, this project is consistent with the City of St. Louis Park Capital Improvement Plan and Comprehensive Plan and it is believed to be consistent with the policies of the Metropolitan Council’s Development Guide, including the Transportation Policy Plan and Regional Development Framework; and WHEREAS, this project is located in a significant high use transportation corridor (Trunk Highway 7) in the Twin Cities metropolitan area; and WHEREAS, this project supports improvements planned to the regional and local transportation system at T.H. 7 and Wooddale Avenue; and WHEREAS, this project supports and enhances inter-modal transportation uses, including motor vehicle, transit, light rail, bicycle, and pedestrian uses; and WHEREAS, this project implements a solution in the form of continuity, capacity, and safety to a transportation problem and provides upgrade to the regional transportation system. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park in regular meeting assembled to adopt this Resolution in support of the request for state general obligation bond funds for the T.H. 7/Wooddale Avenue Interchange Improvement project. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of this Resolution be provided to the Minnesota Department of Finance as a part of the T.H. 7/Wooddale Avenue Interchange Improvement 2006 Capital Budget Request. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 5, 2005 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 4b - Hwy 7 Wooddale 2006 Cap Budget Request Page 4 2006 CAPITAL BUDGET REQUEST OCTOBER 31, 2005 Jayne Rankin, Capital Budget Coordinator Minnesota Department of Finance 400 Centennial Building 658 Cedar Street St. Paul, MN 55155 RE: 2006 Capital Budget Request Hwy 7 / Wooddale Ave Intersection Reconstruction Dear Ms. Rankin: As per Mr. Jim Schowalter’s letter of September 2, 2005, this is an updated request for $1,000,000 in state funding to assist in the reconstruction of the intersection of Trunk Highway 7 at Wooddale Avenue in St. Louis Park, Minnesota. An earlier request was sent to Mr. Tom Harren June 13, 2005. 1. Name of the local government or political subdivision that is submitting the request. City of St. Louis Park. 2. Project title. Hwy 7 / Wooddale Avenue Intersection Reconstruction. 3. Project priority number (if the applicant is submitting multiple requests). N/A 4. Project location. This project is located at the intersection of Highway 7 and Wooddale Avenue in St. Louis Park. 5. Total project cost (all funding sources – all years – for all capital costs). $18,000,000 - this is a preliminary estimate based on concept plans at this time. A final estimate will be developed based on final plans should this project move forward. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 4b - Hwy 7 Wooddale 2006 Cap Budget Request Page 5 6. Request for state funds in 2006. $1,000,000 7. Additional state funds to be requested for subsequent project costs/phases in 2008. None 8. Additional state funds to be requested for subsequent project costs/phases in 2010. None 9. Non-state funds available or to be contributed to the project (list the dollar amount and sources – federal, city, private, or other). $ 69,000 - Private $ 2,081,000 - City $ 8,100,000 - Mn/DOT $ 6,750,000 - Federal (requested in the 2005 TAB regional solicitation and from Mn/DOT) 10. Project description and rationale. This request is for $1,000,000 in state funds to aid in financing the reconstruction of the at- grade intersection of Highway 7 and Wooddale Avenue in St. Louis Park to a grade separated intersection. Currently the capacity and safety of this at-grade signalized intersection could be characterized as poor at best. Based on a recent traffic analysis, the intersection is currently operating at a level of service D, LOS D, and is projected to decrease to a level of service F, LOS F, by 2007. MnDOT staff have identified significant safety (crash) concerns in this corridor (Hwy 7 from Hwy 169 to Hwy 100) with the east half of the corridor of particular concern. Pedestrians and bicyclists currently use this intersection to access mass transit, the regional trail system, the community center, and the High School. In addition, significant traffic to and from an adjacent industrial/commercial complex south also use this intersection as their major access point. This project is of both local and regional significance. This project will allow for the separation of regional and local traffic which will vastly improve the regional transportation systems. The regional systems alluded to are Hwy 7, the SWLRT Regional Trail immediately to the south, and the proposed future dedicated busway or LRT system. Without this intersection improvement project, these other regional systems will not be possible or the existing ones will fail very shortly due to congestion and safety concerns. Reconstruction of this intersection to a grade separated intersection is the only practical long term solution to this infrastructure problem. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 4b - Hwy 7 Wooddale 2006 Cap Budget Request Page 6 11. Identify who will own the facility. Identify who will operate the facility. Mn/DOT and the City of St. Louis Park will own, operate and maintain the new grade separated intersection. 12. Identify total project costs for each of the following categories: land acquisition, predesign, schematic design, design development, preparation of bid documents; construction costs; furniture & equipment, and relocation costs. Land Acquisition 4,000,000 Project Development 214,304 Design 560,696 Construction 11,500,000 Construction Inspection/Administration 1,725,000 Total $18,000,000 13. Identify the total square footage of the current facility and new square footage requested for the project. N/A 14. Project schedule: Identify the date (month/year) when construction crews are expected to first arrive on site, and the date (month/year) when construction will be completed with a certificate of occupancy obtained. If financing can be obtained in 2006, this improvement could be designed in 2006 and 2007. MnDOT is currently reviewing two concepts for this project, each of which could work, and we are waiting their response to further develop preliminary plans for this project. A project predesign has not been submitted to the Commissioner of Administration. Right of way (lands and buildings) could be acquired during 2008 and contracts awarded in early 2009. Construction could begin in 2009 and be completed in 2010. The new intersection could be available for use by the end of 2010. 15. Identify any new or additional state operating dollars that will be requested for operation of the project (cite the amount and year, if applicable). None 16. Attach a resolution of support from the governing body of the applicant, if available. A resolution will be provided in the near future. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 4b - Hwy 7 Wooddale 2006 Cap Budget Request Page 7 17. Project contact person, title, address, phone, fax, and email (a project spokesperson who is knowledgeable on the project and can answer detailed questions). Michael P. Rardin, P.E. Public Works Director City of St. Louis Park 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Phone: 952/924-2551 Fax: 952/924-2663 Email: mrardin@stlouispark.org Thank you for your consideration of our project. I look forward to hearing from you and would be available to answer any questions related to the proposed project. Sincerely, Michael P. Rardin, P.E. Director of Public Works cc: Tom Harmening, City Manager Kevin Locke, Community Development Director Steve Simon, State Representative Ron Latz, State Representative Steve Kelley, State Senator St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 4c - Wireless Internet Pilot Project Authorizations Page 1 4c Motion to authorize advertisement for bids to acquire the physical equipment necessary to establish a pilot wireless network and to issue a Request for Proposals as a means to select a lead private sector partner (and possible supporting partners) to deliver and manage wireless high speed internet services to subscribers. PURPOSE OF REPORT: The purpose of this report is to request Council authorization to request proposals and bids as appropriate to implement the pilot wireless Internet project approved by Council at its November 21 meeting. BACKGROUND: At its November 21, 2005 meeting, Council adopted a 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. The next step in this process is to request proposals and bids to implement the pilot project. PILOT PROJECT: The pilot project includes several 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 in anticipation of citywide implementation • The estimated time frame for municipal, educational, citizen, and business use of the pilot is February – May 2006 • The Pilot is to continue through citywide build out (if directed by Council) without interruption • The estimated cost of a pilot project is approximately $280,000, which is provided through an internal loan from the Economic Development Fund • 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) St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 4c - Wireless Internet Pilot Project Authorizations Page 2 PRIVATE – PUBLIC PARTNERSHIP MODEL: The recommended service model from the study is a private – public partnership model. This model 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 Variations on this model will be considered in the proposal process, in which many private vendors have expressed an interest. 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 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 St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 4c - Wireless Internet Pilot Project Authorizations Page 3 The City Council and School Board discussed this as recently as their November 29 joint meeting. RECOMMENDATIONS: Under the private – public partnership model, bids and proposals are required to (1) acquire the physical equipment required to establish a wireless network and (2) select a lead partner (and possibly supporting partners) to deliver and manage wireless high speed Internet services to subscribers. Staff recommends Council authorize advertisement for bids and proposals for 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. Staff anticipates returning to Council with bid and proposal recommendations no later than its January 17, 2006 meeting. Prepared By: Clint Pires, Director of Technology and Support Services Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 4d - DED Tree Special Assessment Page 1 4d Motion to Adopt Resolution Authorizing Special Assessment of Dutch Elm Diseased Trees Background: At the July 26, 2004 Study Session, Council discussed the large volume of trees that are required to be removed due to Dutch Elm Disease (DED). At that time, a program was introduced which allows home owners to have the cost of removal of these trees assessed to their property. This program allows an assessment to be placed on the property and repaid over a specific number of years based on the dollar amount of the assessment. Since October of 2004, sixteen (16) assessments have been approved for this program. At this time, the City has received an additional petition for special assessment. This petition indicates that the property owners waive their right to a public hearing and wish to have the cost of the removal of the DED tree placed as a special assessment against their property. The total dollar amount that will be assessed to this property is $2,108.70 at an interest rate of 5.97%. The actual property address, assessment amount and terms are shown on Exhibit A. Diseased trees continue to be removed and staff anticipates there will be additional residents that want to take advantage of the special assessment program. Any additional requests for this program that come in before mid-November will be placed as an assessment on the 2006 property taxes. After that date, the assessment will be on the 2007 property taxes. Attachments: Resolution Prepared By: Jean McGann, Director of Finance Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 4d - DED Tree Special Assessment Page 2 RESOLUTION NO. 05-174 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SPECIAL ASSESSMENT OF DUTCH ELM DISEASED TREE(S) AT (SEE ADDENDUM A) WHEREAS, the Property Owner(s) at see Addendum A (“Benefited Property”) have petitioned the City of St. Louis Park to authorize a special assessment for the removal of Dutch Elm Diseased tree(s) on the Benefited Property; and WHEREAS, the Property Owner(s) have agreed to waive their right to a public hearing, right of notice and right of appeal pursuant to Minnesota Statute, Chapter 429; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the Forester related to the removal of Dutch Elm Diseased tree(s). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Ci ty Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that: 1. The petition from the Property Owner(s) requesting the approval and special assessment for the Dutch Elm Diseased tree(s) is hereby accepted. 2. The removal of the Dutch Elm Diseased tree(s) in conformance with the specifications on file in the office of Park & Recreation, Environmental Division is hereby authorized. 3. The total estimated cost for the removal of Dutch Elm Diseased tree(s) is accepted at $2,108.70 and itemized on Addendum A. 4. The Property Owner(s) have agreed to waive their rights to public hearing, notice and appeal from the special assessment; whether provided by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, or by other statutes, or by ordinance, City Charter, the constitution, or common law. 5. The Property Owner(s) agree(s) to pay the City for the cost of the above improvements through special assessment over a specified number of years as itemized on Addendum A at 5.97% interest. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 4d - DED Tree Special Assessment Page 3 6. The Property Owner(s) agree(s) to execute an agreement with the City and any other documents necessary to implement the removal of Dutch Elm Diseased tree(s) and the special assessment of all costs associated therewith. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 5, 2005 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 4d - DED Tree Special Assessment Page 4 RESOLUTION 05-174 ADDENDUM A BENEFITTED PROPERTY NAME ADDRESS PID AMOUNT YEARS INTEREST Richard Larson 3125 Quebec Ave S 17-117-21-22-006 2,108.70$ 3 5.97% TOTAL 2,108.70$ St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 4e - Fire Sprinkler Assessment Page 1 4e Motion to approve resolution establishing a special assessment for the installation of a fire suppression sprinkler system at 6425 Cambridge Street Background: Trent Dore and Steve Dore, owners of the commercial building at 6425 Cambridge Street, have requested the City to authorize the installation of an automatic fire suppression sprinkler system for the commercial building and assess the cost against the property in accordance with the City’s special assessment policy. Analysis: The special assessment policy for installation of automatic fire sprinkler systems in existing buildings was adopted by the City Council in 1995. The City promotes the installation of fire suppression sprinkler systems and facilitates their installation to promote the general public health, safety and welfare within the community. The Building Code requires the installation of a fire sprinkler system due to major remodeling project of the building. The property owner will be hiring a contractor to install the sprinkler system throughout the building and bring it up to compliance with the current code. Based on the proposed work, the system qualifies for the City’s special assessment program. The property owner has petitioned the City to authorize the installation of the fire sprinkler system and special assess the cost of the installation. Sprinkler plans have been submitted and approved by City staff. The total eligible cost of the installation has been determined to be $22,900.00. An Administrative Fee of $115.00 will be added to the special assessment. Staff has determined that adequate funds are available through the Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund. Attachments: Resolution Prepared By: Cary Smith, Fire Marshal Through: Luke Stemmer, Fire Chief Jean McGann, Director of Finance Approved By: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 4e - Fire Sprinkler Assessment Page 2 RESOLUTION NO. 05-175 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING INSTALLATION AND SPECIAL ASSESSMENT OF FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM AT 6425 Cambridge Street, St. Louis Park, MN 55426 WHEREAS, , the Property Owners at 6425 Cambridge Street have petitioned the City of St. Louis Park to authorize a special assessment for the installation of a fire sprinkler system in the building at 6425 Cambridge Street; and WHEREAS, the Property Owner has agreed to waive their right to a public hearing, right of notice and right of appeal pursuant to Minnesota Statute, Chapter 429; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the Fire Marshal related to the installation of the fire sprinkler system. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that: 1. The petition from the Property Owner requesting the approval and special assessment for the fire sprinkler system is hereby accepted. 2. The installation of the fire sprinkler system in conformance with the plans and specifications approved by the Fire Department and Department of Inspections is hereby authorized. 3. The total estimated cost for the design and complete installation of the fire sprinkler system is accepted at $22,900.00. 4. An administrative fee of $115.00 for processing shall be added to the special assessment. 5. The total special assessment against the property will be $23,015.00. 6. The Property Owners have agreed to waive their rights to a public hearing, notice and appeal from the special assessment; whether provided by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, or by other statutes, or by ordinance, City Charter, the constitution, or common law. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 4e - Fire Sprinkler Assessment Page 3 7. The Property Owners agree to pay the City for the cost of the above improvements through a special assessment over a ten (10) year period at five point seven one percent (5.71%) interest. 8. The Property Owners agree to execute an agreement with the City and any other documents necessary to implement the installation of the fire sprinkler system and the special assessment of all costs associated therewith. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 5, 2005 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 4f - 2nd Rdg 2006 Utility Rates Page 1 4f Motion to approve Second Reading of an Ordinance setting 2006 rates charged for Water, Sanitary Sewer, Solid Waste, and Storm Water Utility, adopt ordinance, approve summary, and authorize publication. Current Status On November 21, 2005 Council approved 1st reading of an ordinance setting 2006 rates to be charged for Water, Sanitary Sewer, Solid Waste, and Storm Water Utility Enterprise services. Enterprise Funds 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. 2006 rates are to be effective for services received in 2006. History 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. 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. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 4f - 2nd Rdg 2006 Utility Rates Page 2 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. 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. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 4f - 2nd Rdg 2006 Utility Rates Page 3 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$ 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 $2.00 per quarter. The justification for this is that Solid Waste rates are competitive with the private sector rates. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 4f - 2nd Rdg 2006 Utility Rates Page 4 Summary of Utility Rates Proposed for 2006 In summary, if all infrastructure improvements are completed based on the staff recommendation of issuing General Obligation Revenue Bonds, the impact on an average family is as follows: Family of 2 Family of 4 Water 2.56$ 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: 120505 - 4f - 2nd Rdg 2006 Utility Rates Page 5 ORDINANCE NO. 2304-05 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: 2006 = $9.50 REF 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: St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 4f - 2nd Rdg 2006 Utility Rates Page 6 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 (includes 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: 120505 - 4f - 2nd Rdg 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 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: 120505 - 4f - 2nd Rdg 2006 Utility Rates Page 8 SUMMARY ORDINANCE NO. 2304-05 AN ORDINANCE SETTING 2006 RATES FOR WATER, SEWER, STORMWATER, AND SOLID WASTE UTILITIES This ordinance sets 2006 rates for water, sewer, stormwater, and solid waste utilities at the following amounts: The 2006 Water and Service Charge is set at: 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 The 2006 Sewer and Service Charge Rates are set at $1.7023 per 100 cubic feet of water consumption during the winter quarter; and $3.55 Monthly and $10.65 Quarterly for the Service Charge. The 2006 Stormwater Utility Residential Equivalent Factor (REF) is set at $9.50 The 2006 Solid Water Utility Rates are set at: Refuse/Garbage Service Rate (includes 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 St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 4f - 2nd Rdg 2006 Utility Rates Page 9 This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication. Adopted by the City Council December 5, 2005 Jeffrey W. Jacobs /s/ Mayor A copy of the full text of this ordinance is available for inspection with the City Clerk. Published in St. Louis Park Sailor: December 15, 2005 St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 4g - 2nd Rdg Hoigaards Rezone Page 1 4g Hoigaard’s Village – Motion to approve the second reading of an ordinance amending the Official Zoning Map for property at 5616 36th St. W., 3550 State Hwy. 100 S., 3501 Xenwood Ave. S. and 5626 36th St. W., adopt ordinance, approve summary, and authorize publication. Background: The City Council approved amendments to the Comprehensive Plan for the Hoigaard’s Village development earlier this year. At the November 21st meeting, the Council then approved the first reading of an ordinance amending the Official Zoning Map. The site is currently comprised of two zoning districts, IP – Industrial Park and C2 – General Commercial. The parcels immediately adjacent to the north side of 36th Street West are proposed to be rezoned to MX – Mixed-Use for the construction of a 5-story building with first floor retail. The remaining parcels are proposed to be rezoned to RC – Multi-Family Residential for the construction of a 4-story condominium building, 22 attached row homes, and a 4-story apartment building. Attachments: Ordinance approving amendments to the Official Zoning Map Summary of the attached ordinance for publication Map showing existing and proposed zoning classifications Prepared by: Adam Fulton, Associate Planner Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 4g - 2nd Rdg Hoigaards Rezone Page 2 ORDINANCE NO. 2305-05 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE CHANGING BOUNDARIES OF ZONING DISTRICTS 5616 36TH STREET WEST 3550 STATE HIGHWAY NO. 100 SOUTH 3501 XENWOOD AVENUE SOUTH 5626 36TH STREET WEST FROM I-P INDUSTRIAL PARK AND C-2 COMMERCIAL TO M-X MIXED USE AND R-C MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 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. 05-37-Z). Section 2. The St. Louis Park Zoning Ordinance adopted December 28, 1959, Ordinance No. 730; amended December 31, 1992, Ordinance No. 1902-93, amended December 17, 2001, Ordinance No. 2216-01, as heretofore amended, is hereby further amended by changing the zoning district boundaries by reclassifying the following described lands from their existing land use district classification to the new land use district classification as indicated for the tract as hereinafter set forth, to wit: Parcel 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: 120505 - 4g - 2nd Rdg Hoigaards Rezone Page 3 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 The zoning for the above named parcels is hereby amended as follows: Parcel A: from I-P Industrial Park to R-C Multi-Family Residential Parcels B and D: from I-P Industrial Park to M-X Mixed-Use Parcel C: from C-2 General Commercial to R-C Multi-Family Residential Section 3. The contents of Planning Case File 05-37-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. 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: 120505 - 4g - 2nd Rdg Hoigaards Rezone Page 4 SUMMARY ORDINANCE NO. 2305-05 AN ORDINANCE CHANGING BOUNDARIES OF ZONING DISTRICTS 5616 36TH STREET WEST 3550 STATE HIGHWAY NO. 100 SOUTH 3501 XENWOOD AVENUE SOUTH 5626 36TH STREET WEST This ordinance states that zoning district boundaries of 5616 36th Street West, 3550 State Highway No. 100 South, 3501 Xenwood Avenue South, and 5626 36th Street West will be changed from IP-Industrial Park and C-2 Commercial to M-X Mixed Use and R-C Multi- Family Residential. This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication. Adopted by the City Council December 5, 2005 Jeffrey W. Jacobs /s/ Mayor A copy of the full text of this ordinance is available for inspection with the City Clerk. Published in St. Louis Park Sailor: December 15, 2005 St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 4h - 2nd Rdg Hoigaards Vacation Page 1 4h Hoigaard’s Village – Motion to approve the second reading of an ordinance vacating an alley, adopt ordinance, approve summary and authorize publication. 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 City Council approved the first reading of the ordinance vacating this alley at its November 21, 2005 meeting. 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 Summary of the Ordinance approving the Vacation of an Alley Map showing location of alley to be vacated Prepared by: Adam Fulton, Associate Planner Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 4h - 2nd Rdg Hoigaards Vacation Page 2 ORDINANCE NO. 2306-05 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. Section 4. The alley is vacated upon the approval and recording of the Final Plat of Lot 1 or Lot 2 of the approved Preliminary Plat titled Hoigaard Village 1st Addition. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 4h - 2nd Rdg Hoigaards Vacation Page 3 Section_5. 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: 120505 - 4h - 2nd Rdg Hoigaards Vacation Page 4 SUMMARY ORDINANCE NO. 2306-05 AN ORDINANCE VACATING PORTION OF ALLEY LYING BETWEEN 36TH STREET WEST AND 35 ½ STREET WEST This ordinance states that a portion of an existing alley lying between 36th Street West and 35 ½ Street West shall be vacated. This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication. Adopted by the City Council December 5, 2005 Jeffrey W. Jacobs /s/ Mayor A copy of the full text of this ordinance is available for inspection with the City Clerk. Published in St. Louis Park Sailor: December 15, 2005 St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 4i - 2nd Rdg Sam's Club Vacation Page 1 4i Sam’s Club – Motion to approve the second reading of an ordinance vacating a utility easement, adopt ordinance, approve summary, and authorize publication. Background: The City Council approved the first reading of an ordinance vacating a utility easement at the Sam’s Club site, located at 3745 Louisana Avenue, on November 21, 2005. 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 for a public water main to be relocated as a result of the new building’s location. Attached is a plan showing the existing easement highlighted in red. The legal description of the easement can be found in the attached ordinance. The Public Works Department has reviewed the proposal and has determined that the relocated water main serves Sam’s Club only. For this reason, no water service disruptions to surrounding residences should occur during the relocation of the water main. Attachments: Ordinance Vacating a Utility Easement Summary of the Ordinance Vacating a Utility Easement Map of approved site plan, showing easement to be vacated Prepared By: Adam Fulton, Associate Planner Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 4i - 2nd Rdg Sam's Club Vacation Page 2 ORDINANCE NO. 2307-05 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: 120505 - 4i - 2nd Rdg 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. 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: 120505 - 4i - 2nd Rdg Sam's Club Vacation Page 4 SUMMARY ORDINANCE NO. 2307-05 AN ORDINANCE VACATING UTILITY EASEMENT ACROSS PORTION OF 3745 LOUISIANA AVENUE SOUTH This ordinance states that an existing utility easement located across a portion of 3745 Louisiana Avenue South shall be vacated. This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication. Adopted by the City Council December 5, 2005 Jeffrey W. Jacobs /s/ Mayor A copy of the full text of this ordinance is available for inspection with the City Clerk. Published in St. Louis Park Sailor: December 15, 2005 St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 4j - 2nd Rdg JMW Comp Plan And Zoning Amend. Page 1 4j Motion to approve Second Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment to change the zoning on the property at 5330 Cedar Lake Road from IP, Industrial Park to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, adopt ordinance, approve summary, and authorize publication. Case Nos. 05-35-ZA 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). Currently, an industrial building is located on the site. It is approximately 23,906 square feet in size and 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. 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. Any drive-through users on the site would need a Conditional Use Permit Process: The first reading of the Zoning Ordinance was approved on November 21, 2005. If approved, the ordinance will take effect following publication and Metropolitan Council review of the associated Comprehensive Plan amendment. Attachments: Ordinance Summary of Ordinance for publication Zoning Map showing location Prepared By: Meg J. McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 4j - 2nd Rdg JMW Comp Plan And Zoning Amend. Page 2 ORDINANCE NO. 2308-05 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 review of associated Comprehensive Plan amendment. 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: 120505 - 4j - 2nd Rdg JMW Comp Plan And Zoning Amend. Page 3 SUMMARY ORDINANCE NO. 2308-05 AN ORDINANCE CHANGING BOUNDARIES OF ZONING DISTRICTS 5330 CEDAR LAKE ROAD This ordinance states that the zoning district of 5330 Cedar Lake Road will be changed from IP Industrial Park to C-1 Neighborhood Commercial. This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication. Adopted by the City Council December 5, 2005 Jeffrey W. Jacobs /s/ Mayor A copy of the full text of this ordinance is available for inspection with the City Clerk. Published in St. Louis Park Sailor: December 15, 2005 St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 6a - Public Hrg Liquor License Best Of India Page 1 6a Public Hearing to consider granting an On-Sale Wine and 3.2 Malt Liquor License with Sunday sales for Best of India, Inc. located at Texa Tonka Shopping Center, 8120 Minnetonka Blvd. in St. Louis Park. Recommended Action: Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to approve on-sale wine and 3.2 malt liquor license with Sunday sales. Background: In October of 2005, the City received a request from Autul Mondal for a wine and beer license with Sunday sales for Best of India, Inc. located at Texa Tonka Shopping Center, 8120 Minnetonka Blvd. in St. Louis Park. Best of India opened for business in August 2005 and has entered into a five year commercial lease agreement. The restaurant is open nine hours a day, has seating capacity for 55 people, has approximately five employees, and will be open year-round. A public hearing notice was published on November 17, 2005 and no calls have been received in response to the notice. Application: The Police Department has conducted a full investigation of Best of India, Inc. and its co-owners Autul Mondal of Northfield, MN and Naresh Panday of St. Louis Park, and has found nothing in the course of their investigation that would warrant denial of the license. The application and police report are on file in the Office of the City Clerk should Councilmember’s wish to review the information prior to the public hearing. Recommendation: The applicant has met all requirements for issuance of the license and staff is recommending approval. Prepared by: Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 6b - 2900 Ottawa-Princeton Alley Assessment Hearing Page 1 6b Assessment Hearing: Alley Paving – 2900 block of Ottawa and Princeton Avenue - Project No. 2005-1800 This report considers the special assessment for the estimated cost of paving the alley in the 2900 block of Ottawa and Princeton Avenue Recommended Action: Mayor to open and close Assessment Hearing: • Motion to adopt the attached resolution establishing the assessment for Project No. 2005-1800. Background: At its September 19, 2005 meeting, the City Council approved the City Engineer’s Report for construction of a concrete alley in the 2900 block of Ottawa and Princeton Avenue. Subsequently, a Public Hearing/Assessment Hearing was held on October 17, 2005. At the hearing, staff presented plans, a cost estimate and the assessment role for the improvements. One property owner questioned his assessment amount and disputed the length of his property that was being assessed. The Council adopted the resolution ordering the improvement project but continued the resolution adopting the proposed assessment. Staff was directed to review the dispute to determine if any changes in the assessment were needed. Assessment Dispute: At the October 17th assessment hearing, the owner of 4806 Minnetonka Blvd. argued that the length of his property being assessed should be reduced. The assessable length assigned to the parcel was 65 feet, the perpendicular length between the north property line and south property line which abutted the alley. The owner argued that a portion of that length abutted a shared driveway entrance to his property and the property at 4800 Minnetonka Blvd. The owner felt that he should not be charged an assessment on the length abutting the shared driveway entrance, only the length along the building on his property. Dispute Resolution: The Engineering staff in consultation with the City Assessor have thoroughly reviewed the dispute and give the following analysis and recommendations: In the original platting of the 2900 block of Ottawa and Princeton Avenue, the alley was a T- shape configuration. In the early 1940’s a portion of the alley was vacated leaving an irregular L-shaped alley. The irregularity is at the corner of the alley where a short portion of the T-shape alley remains and extends to the east approximately 15 feet. This portion of the alley is what serves as the shared driveway entrance to 4806 and 4800 Minnetonka Blvd. Staff recommends that this short 15 foot portion of the alley be paved as part of the entire alley project. This will be a small revision to the plans which was not included in the original design. This small amount of additional work will not change the estimated cost of the project. Staff also recommends that the assessable length assigned to the property at 4806 Minnetonka Blvd. be reduced from 65 feet to 45.91 feet. This will exclude the length of alley which abuts in front of the shared driveway. This would then be consistent with how the City assesses properties on the corners of T-shaped alleys. The City Assessor has met with the property owner of 4806 Minnetonka Blvd. to discuss the reduced assessment for his property and the owner is amenable to the change. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 6b - 2900 Ottawa-Princeton Alley Assessment Hearing Page 2 Revised Assessment Role: As a result of reducing the assessment of one property, the assessable amount for the remaining properties will also change. The total cost for the project will remain at $69,000 but the assessment for those remaining properties will increase. The assessment for a typical lot with a 40 foot width will increase by $87, which is about a $4.35 increase in the annual installment for the 20 year assessment period. The largest assessment increase will be $179 for the property at 2939 Princeton. The assessment for the property at 4806 Minnetonka Blvd. will be reduced by$1,547. Public Notification: Abutting property owners have received written notice of the new assessment hearing, including date, time and the revised assessment amount. The notice was accompanied with a letter explaining the changes in assessment and offered the affected property owners the opportunity to discuss the changes in the assessment should they desire. Staff has received no questions from the affected owners. General background information on the alley project is summarized below: Location: 2900 block of Ottawa and Princeton Avenue Proposed Project: Paving existing gravel alley with concrete Assessment Data: 100% of the cost for the concrete alley paving is proposed to be assessed to the abutting property owners. The costs will be apportioned in accordance with the City’s special assessment policy with direct and indirect benefits. Estimated Cost: Estimated cost: $69,000 Total Assessment: $69,000 Number of parcels: 21 Assessment Period: 20 years Interest rate: 5.70% Alley Improvement Project Timetable: • Assessment Hearing December 5, 2005 • End of 30 Day Appeal on Assessments January 4, 2006 • Advertise for bids February/March 2006 • Bid Opening February/March 2006 • Bid Tab Report to Council, Council can award the bid and order the project or delay the project if there are any assessment appeals March 2006 • Construction April/May 2006 Total construction time should be 3-4 weeks. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 6b - 2900 Ottawa-Princeton Alley Assessment Hearing Page 3 Recommendation: Staff recommends Council adopt the resolution for the assessment of the proposed improvement with the revised assessment role. Attachments: Resolution (Adopt Assessment Improvement) Assessment Spread Sheet Map October 17, 2005 Public/Assessment Hearing Council Report Prepared by: Jim Olson, Engineering Project Manager Reviewed by: Scott Brink, City Engineer Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works Bruce Stepnick, City Assessor Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 6b - 2900 Ottawa-Princeton Alley Assessment Hearing Page 4 RESOLUTION NO. 05-166 RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT IMPROVEMENT NO. 2005-1800, ALLEY PAVING IN THE 2900 BLOCK OF OTTAWA AND PRINCETON AVENUE. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park as follows: 1. Notice of hearing on this improvement was duly mailed on November 16, 2005 and published in the official City newspaper, the St. Louis Park Sailor, on November17, 2005 and November 24, 2005 as required by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429. 2. A public hearing having been held on this date and opportunity having been given at the hearing to all persons to make known their objections to the proposed assessment, and the Council being fully advised of the pertinent facts, the proposed assessment as it deems just is adopted and shall constitute the special assessment levied against the respective lands therein described, and each tract of land is found to be specifically benefited by the improvements in the amount of assessment levied against it. 3. The assessment shall be payable, unless prepaid, in equal annual installments extending over the period of 20 years. The first installment shall be payable concurrently with general taxes levied in the year 2006, and payable in the year 2007, and shall bear interest at the rate of 5.70 percent per annum. To the first installment shall be added interest on the entire assessment from November 1, 2006, until December 31, 2006, the year in which the assessment will be levied. For subsequent installments, interest shall be added for one year on the total of all unpaid installments. No interest will be charged as to any parcel if the entire assessment is paid at the Office of the Treasurer within 30 days from the date of adoption of the assessment resolution. 4. The location of the construction improvement over which installments are to be extended for a period of 20 years is as follows: Improvement # Type of Improvement Location 2005-1800 Alley Paving 2900 Block of Ottawa and Princeton Avenue 5. The Finance Department shall transmit a certified copy of this assessment to the county auditor to be extended on the proper tax lists of the county, and such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 5, 2005 City Manager Mayor Attest: City C lerk St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 6b - 2900 Ottawa-Princeton Alley Assessment Hearing Page 5 Estimated Cost: $69,000 Revised October 20, 2005 70% Direct Benefit (garage or access) 30% Indirect Benefit (dust, noise, and mud) (A) Direct Benefit: 701.82 total footage and $68.82 per front foot (B) Indirect Benefit:1054.96 total footage and $19.62 per front foot. total $69,000.00 direct $48,300.00 indirect $20,700.00 ********* Indirect ************ ******** Direct ********** Total Indirect Direct Direct & Address Ind feet % Indirect Allocation Dir feet % Direct Allocation Indirect 2901 Princeton Ave. S 40 3.79 $785 0 0.00 $0 $785 2905 Princeton Ave. S. 40 3.79 $785 40 5.70 $2,753 $3,538 2909 Princeton Ave S 40 3.79 $785 40 5.70 $2,753 $3,538 2913 Princeton Ave S 40 3.79 $785 40 5.70 $2,753 $3,538 2917 Princeton Ave S 40 3.79 $785 40 5.70 $2,753 $3,538 2921 Princeton Ave S 40 3.79 $785 40 5.70 $2,753 $3,538 2925 Princeton Ave S 40 3.79 $785 40 5.70 $2,753 $3,538 2929 Princeton Ave S 40 3.79 $785 40 5.70 $2,753 $3,538 2933 Princeton Ave S 40 3.79 $785 40 5.70 $2,753 $3,538 2939 Princeton Ave S 85.91 8.14 $1,686 85.91 12.24 $5,912 $7,598 St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 6b - 2900 Ottawa-Princeton Alley Assessment Hearing Page 6 ********* Indirect ************ ******** Direct ********** Total Indirect Direct Direct & Address Ind feet % Indirect Allocation Dir feet % Direct Allocation Indirect 2900 Ottawa Ave. S 70 6.64 $1,374 0 0.00 $0 $1,374 2908 Ottawa Ave. S. 45 4.27 $883 45 6.41 $3,097 $3,980 2912 Ottawa Ave. S. 45 4.27 $883 45 6.41 $3,097 $3,980 2916 Ottawa Ave. S. 40 3.79 $785 40 5.70 $2,753 $3,538 2920 Ottawa Ave. S. 40 3.79 $785 0 0.00 $0 $785 2924 Ottawa Ave. S. 40 3.79 $785 40 5.70 $2,753 $3,538 2928 Ottawa Ave. S. 80 7.58 $1,570 0 0.00 $0 $1,570 2936 Ottawa Ave. S. 40 3.79 $785 40 5.70 $2,753 $3,538 4800 Minnetonka Blvd 40 3.79 $785 40 5.70 $2,753 $3,538 4806 Minnetonka Blvd 45.91 4.35 $901 45.91 6.54 $3,160 $4,060 4820 Minnetonka Blvd 123.14 11.67 $2,416 0 0.00 $0 $2,416 Total 1054.96 $20,700 701.82 $48,300 $69,000 St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 6b - 2900 Ottawa-Princeton Alley Assessment Hearing Page 7 Proposed Alley Paving St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 6b - 2900 Ottawa-Princeton Alley Assessment Hearing Page 8 ****REPORT FROM MEETING OF OCTOBER 17, 2005**** 6b Public Hearing and Assessment Hearing: Alley Paving – 2900 block of Ottawa and Princeton Avenue This report considers paving the alley in the 2900 block of Ottawa and Princeton Avenue Recommended Action: Mayor to open and close Public Hearing: • Motion to adopt the attached Resolution ordering the construction of a concrete alley in the 2900 block of Ottawa and Princeton Avenue, Project No. 2005-1800, approving plans and specifications and authorizing receipt of bids. Mayor to open and close Assessment Hearing: • Motion to adopt the attached resolution establishing the assessment for Project No. 2005-1800. Background: At its September 19, 2005 meeting, the City Council approved the City Engineer’s Report for construction of a concrete alley in the 2900 block of Ottawa and Princeton Avenue, and scheduled a Public Hearing/Assessment Hearing for October 17, 2005. The City’s assessment policy (Res. #00-078) for funding alley improvements requires abutting property owners to pay 100 % of the improvement costs. A petition for this work, signed by 74% of the benefited property owners, has been submitted to the City. A neighborhood meeting attended by 9 property owners was held September 7, 2005. Staff reviewed the proposed construction, assessment costs and options on a construction schedule. The property owners who attended the meeting favored the construction project with a Spring 2006 construction start date. The purpose of holding the assessment hearing prior to implementation of the project is to allow the City to consider any objections to the assessment or the project before it is built. General background information on the alley project is summarized below: Location: 2900 block of Ottawa and Princeton Avenue Proposed Project: Paving existing gravel alley with concrete Assessment Data: 100% of the cost for the concrete alley paving is proposed to be assessed to the abutting property owners. The costs will be apportioned in accordance with the City’s special assessment policy with direct and indirect benefits. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 6b - 2900 Ottawa-Princeton Alley Assessment Hearing Page 9 Estimated Cost: Estimated cost: $69,000 Total Assessment: $69,000 Number of parcels: 21 Assessment Period: 20 years Interest rate: 5.70% Notification: Abutting property owners have received written notice of the public hearing and assessment hearing, including date, time and assessment amount. Alley Improvement Project Timetable: • Public Hearing & Assessment Hearing October 17, 2005 • End of 30 Day Appeal on Assessments November 16, 2005 • Advertise for bids February/March 2006 • Bid Opening February/March 2006 • Bid Tab Report to Council, Council can award the bid and order the project or delay the project if there are any assessment appeals March 2006 • Construction April/May 2006 Total construction time should be 3-4 weeks. Recommendation: Staff recommends proceeding with this project as outlined above and in the earlier City Engineer’s Report dated September 19, 2005. Attachments: Resolution (Order Project & Authorize Advertisement for Bids) Resolution (Adopt Assessment Improvement) Assessment Spread Sheet Map City Engineer’s Report Prepared by: Jim Olson, Engineering Project Manager Reviewed by: Scott Brink, City Engineer Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 6b - 2900 Ottawa-Princeton Alley Assessment Hearing Page 10 RESOLUTION NO. 05-____ RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING AND ORDERING AN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A CONCRETE ALLEY IN THE 2900 BLOCK OF OTTAWA AND PRINCETON AVENUE, PROJECT NO. 2005-1800, AND APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS & AUTHORIZING THE PROJECT LETTING FOR SPRING 2006 WITH CONSTRUCTION TO COMMENCE THEREAFTER WHEREAS, pursuant to a resolution passed by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park on the 19th day of September, 2005, the City Engineer has prepared plans and specifications for the construction of a concrete alley in the 2900 block of Ottawa and Princeton Avenue and has presented such plans and specification to the City Council for approval; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that: 1. Such improvement is necessary, cost effective, and feasible as detailed in the City Engineer’s Report. 2. The proposed project is hereby established and ordered. 3. The plans and specifications for the making of the improvement, as prepared under the direction of the City Engineer, are approved. 4. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted at least two weeks in the official newspaper and at least one week in the Construction Bulletin, an advertisement for bids for the making of said improvement under said-approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall appear not less than ten (10) days prior to the date and time of receipt of bids, and specify the work to be done, state the date and time bids will be received by the City Clerk, and that no bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the City Clerk and accompanied by a bid bond payable to the City for five (5) percent of the amount of the bid. 5. The City Engineer shall report the receipt of bids to the City Council shortly after the scheduled Spring 2006 letting date. The report shall include a tabulation of the bid results and a recommendation to the City Council for award of contract. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 17, 2005 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 6b - 2900 Ottawa-Princeton Alley Assessment Hearing Page 11 RESOLUTION NO. 05-____ RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT IMPROVEMENT NO. 2005-1800, ALLEY PAVING IN THE 2900 BLOCK OF OTTAWA AND PRINCETON AVENUE. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park as follows: 1. Notice of hearing on this improvement was duly mailed on October 3, 2005 and published in the official City newspaper, the St. Louis Park Sailor, on October 6, 2005 and October 13, 2005 as required by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429. 2. A public hearing having been held on this date and opportunity having been given at the hearing to all persons to make known their objections to the proposed assessment, and the Council being fully advised of the pertinent facts, the proposed assessment as it deems just is adopted and shall constitute the special assessment levied against the respective lands therein described, and each tract of land is found to be specifically benefited by the improvements in the amount of assessment levied against it. 3. The assessment shall be payable, unless prepaid, in equal annual installments extending over the period of 20 years. The first installment shall be payable concurrently with general taxes levied in the year 2006, and payable in the year 2007, and shall bear interest at the rate of 5.70 percent per annum. To the first installment shall be added interest on the entire assessment from November 1, 2006, until December 31, 2006, the year in which the assessment will be levied. For subsequent installments, interest shall be added for one year on the total of all unpaid installments. No interest will be charged as to any parcel if the entire assessment is paid at the Office of the Treasurer within 30 days from the date of adoption of the assessment resolution. 4. The location of the construction improvement over which installments are to be extended for a period of 20 years is as follows: Improvement # Type of Improvement Location 2005-1800 Alley Paving 2900 Block of Ottawa and Princeton Avenue 5. The Finance Department shall transmit a certified copy of this assessment to the county auditor to be extended on the proper tax lists of the county, and such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 17, 2005 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 6b - 2900 Ottawa-Princeton Alley Assessment Hearing Page 12 Estimated Cost: $69,000 March 2005 Revised Aug. 19,2005 70% Direct Benefit (garage or access) 30% Indirect Benefit (dust, noise, and mud) (A) Direct Benefit: 721 total footage and $66.99 per front foot (B) Indirect Benefit:1074 total footage and $19.27 per front foot. total $69,000.00 direct $48,300.00 indirect $20,700.00 ********* Indirect ************ ******** Direct ********** Total Indirect Direct Direct & Address Ind feet % Indirect Allocation Dir feet % Direct Allocation Indirect 2901 Princeton Ave. S 40 3.72 $771 0 0.00 $0 $771 2905 Princeton Ave. S. 40 3.72 $771 40 5.55 $2,680 $3,451 2909 Princeton Ave S 40 3.72 $771 40 5.55 $2,680 $3,451 2913 Princeton Ave S 40 3.72 $771 40 5.55 $2,680 $3,451 2917 Princeton Ave S 40 3.72 $771 40 5.55 $2,680 $3,451 2921 Princeton Ave S 40 3.72 $771 40 5.55 $2,680 $3,451 2925 Princeton Ave S 40 3.72 $771 40 5.55 $2,680 $3,451 2929 Princeton Ave S 40 3.72 $771 40 5.55 $2,680 $3,451 2933 Princeton Ave S 40 3.72 $771 40 5.55 $2,680 $3,451 2939 Princeton Ave S 86 8.01 $1,658 86 11.93 $5,761 $7,419 St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 6b - 2900 Ottawa-Princeton Alley Assessment Hearing Page 13 ********* Indirect ************ ******** Direct ********** Total Indirect Direct Direct & Address Ind feet % Indirect Allocation Dir feet % Direct Allocation Indirect 2900 Ottawa Ave. S 70 6.52 $1,349 0 0.00 $0 $1,349 2908 Ottawa Ave. S. 45 4.19 $867 45 6.24 $3,015 $3,882 2912 Ottawa Ave. S. 45 4.19 $867 45 6.24 $3,015 $3,882 2916 Ottawa Ave. S. 40 3.72 $771 40 5.55 $2,680 $3,451 2920 Ottawa Ave. S. 40 3.72 $771 0 0.00 $0 $771 2924 Ottawa Ave. S. 40 3.72 $771 40 5.55 $2,680 $3,451 2928 Ottawa Ave. S. 80 7.45 $1,542 0 0.00 $0 $1,542 2936 Ottawa Ave. S. 40 3.72 $771 40 5.55 $2,680 $3,451 4800 Minnetonka Blvd 40 3.72 $771 40 5.55 $2,680 $3,451 4806 Minnetonka Blvd 65 6.05 $1,253 65 9.02 $4,354 $5,607 4820 Minnetonka Blvd 123 11.45 $2,371 0 0.00 $0 $2,371 Total 1074 $20,700 721 $48,300 $69,000 St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 6b - 2900 Ottawa-Princeton Alley Assessment Hearing Page 14 Proposed Alley Paving St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 6b - 2900 Ottawa-Princeton Alley Assessment Hearing Page 15 ****REPORT FROM MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 19, 2005**** 4b. City Engineer’s Report: Alley Paving – 2900 block between Ottawa and Princeton Avenues – Motion to adopt the attached resolution that accepts this report, establishes this Improvement Project and sets a Public Hearing and Assessment Hearing date of October 17, 2005. – Project No. 2005-1800. Background: On April 8, 2005, the residents in the 2900 block of Ottawa and Princeton Avenues submitted a petition to the City requesting that the alley adjacent to their properties be paved in accordance with the City’s standard for alleys. The petition was signed by enough property owners (74%) to advance the project. The City’s policy states that at least 51% of the properties must sign the initial petition. The alley is an “L” shaped alley that runs south from W. 29th Street to the rear property line of 4800 Minnetonka, then west to Princeton Avenue. Twenty-one (21) properties abut the alley of which all would be assessed under our policy. City Alley Paving Special Assessment Policy: The City’s Alley Paving Special Assessment Policy is as follows: A. The cost of alley improvements for residential properties shall be assessed when at least 51 percent (alley front feet) of the property owners petition for the improvement: 1. Thirty (30) percent of the cost of the improvement shall be assessed against all properties abutting the alley. (INDIRECT BENEFIT) 2. Seventy (70) percent of the cost of the improvement shall be assessed against directly benefited properties as defined in paragraph 5(B). (DIRECT BENEFIT) B. A property is directly benefited if it has an existing garage with direct access to the alley, if an access to the alley could be constructed from an existing garage, or if no garage exists, there is sufficient area on the lot to build a garage with access to the alley. C. Commercial and multi-family property owners shall be assessed 100 percent of the cost of the improvement. D. Alleys shall be constructed of concrete and shall be assessed for a period of 20 years. Analysis: The City’s standard design for alley paving specifies a six (6)-inch thick concrete pavement, 10 feet in width, with driveway apron connections between the paved alley and abutting paved driveways. In accordance with City practice, the driveway connections will match existing materials and grades. Pavement grades will be established to provide positive drainage without requiring additional storm sewer construction, whenever possible. Staff has recently completed plans and a detailed estimate of the proposed alley. Public Involvement Process: Staff held an informational meeting for area residents on September 7, 2005 to inform residents of the assessment process and to review the preliminary plans. Nine (9) residents attended the meeting representing seven (7) properties. Staff provided an overview of the project and answered the resident’s questions. At the meeting staff posed a question about construction timing and what schedule might be favored. Two schedules were presented, a fast track schedule for construction yet this Fall and a Spring 2006 schedule. Staff explained that with fast track schedule, bid prices may be higher because of the limited time left St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 6b - 2900 Ottawa-Princeton Alley Assessment Hearing Page 16 in this year’s construction season. Upon discussing the pros and cons of each schedule, all of the residents attending the meeting agreed that construction in Spring 2006 would be best. Staff plans to provide a follow-up letter to the all of the abutting residents of the proposed alley project. The letter will included a review of the information provided at the neighborhood meeting along with an estimated assessment for each for the abutting parcels. The letter will also offer those residents unable to attend the meeting an opportunity to contact staff with any questions or arrange a meeting to view the plans at City Hall. Once the project is awarded, staff will schedule another meeting with the affected property owners to discuss the construction schedule. Financial Considerations: The City’s Policy for funding alley improvements requires the abutting property owners to pay 100% of the improvement costs. The Policy also provides for the assessments to be levied as direct and indirect benefits based upon abutting frontage. To assist the petition sponsor, City staff provides the petition forms and a rough estimate of the alley construction cost before the sponsor begins to gather signatures. Our initial rough estimate which considers only concrete paving with a limited amount of grading work was $48,530. Now that preliminary plans are complete, staff has prepared a detailed estimate that puts the cost at $69,000. The increased cost is a result of additional grading work which is required to provide positive drainage throughout the length of the alley. An estimate of the assessment amount for each property is attached. A summary of the estimated costs and revenue sources is as follows: Estimated Costs: Construction Costs $50,350 Engineering & Administrative (12%) $ 6,050 Contingencies $12,600 TOTAL $69,000 Revenue Sources: Special Assessments $69,000 Alley Improvement Project Timetable: Should the City Council approve the City Engineer’s Report, it is anticipated that the following schedule could be met: • City Engineer’s Report to City Council September 19, 2005 • City Council holds Public Hearing & Assessment Hearing October 17, 2005 • End of 30 Day Appeal on Assessments November 16, 2005 • Advertise for bids February 2006 • Bid Opening February/March 2006 • Bid Tab Report to Council March 2006 • Preconstruction meeting with residents Spring 2006 • Construction Spring 2006 Feasibility: The project, as proposed herein, is cost-effective and feasible under the conditions noted and at the costs estimated. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 6c - Public Hearing 2006 Budget And Property Taxes Page 1 6c Public Hearing on the 2006 Budget and Property Tax Levy This Public Hearing is to review the 2006 budget and property tax levy Recommended Action: Mayor to close the Public Hearing Background: Each year, under Truth in Taxation regulations, the City is required to hold a Public Hearing to review and discuss the annual budget and property tax levy. On September 6, 2005 the City Council approved the preliminary 2006 budget, property tax levy, and HRA levy. The City is proposing to increase the property tax levy by 7% and levy the maximum amount allowed under the HRA regulations. Formal adoption of the 2006 budget, property tax levy, and HRA levy is scheduled for December 19, 2005. Council has reviewed and discussed both the 2006 Proposed Budget and the 2006 – 2010 Capital Improvement Program at great length. On October 24, 2005 staff was given direction on the final components of the 2006 budget including the property tax levy increase amount, staffing, pavement management, and utility rates. On November 21, 2005 a Public Hearing was held to discuss 2006 utility rates. The 2nd reading for 2006 utility rates is part of this agenda. 2006 Budget At this time the 2006 budget is balanced. Revisions have been made to reflect the ever increasing cost of fuel, gas, and electricity. In addition, staffing requests have also been reviewed and refined. Property Taxes Property taxes are allocated to several budgets to pay for a portion of general fund and park and recreation fund services as well as infrastructure improvements. Infrastructure improvements are focused on outstanding debt and the ongoing pavement management program. The overall property tax levy is 7% greater than in 2005. The allocation of property tax revenues are as follows; St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 6c - Public Hearing 2006 Budget And Property Taxes Page 2 2006 Proposed Property Taxes Percent Allocation 2005 Property Taxes Percent Allocation General Fund **13,092,719$ 70.71%12,730,102$ 73.57% Parks and Recreation 2,887,292 15.59%2,735,828 15.81% Park Improvement **1,010,000 5.45%999,708 5.78% Debt Service 1,110,200 6.01%837,500 4.84% Pavement Management 415,000 2.24%- 0.00% Total 18,515,211 100.00%17,303,138$ 100.00% ** Includes property tax levy and market value homestead credit General Fund The General Fund is being presented as a balanced budget. Current revenues equal current expenditures and a reserve account has been established in case of an emergency. The emergency reserve is necessary in case of higher than estimated fuel, gas, or electricity costs, significant snowfall, or other instances which may arise. The budget presented includes many assumptions, most of which have been discussed previously. Given the discussions that have been held concerning the 2006 budget, it is beneficial to review the assumptions made when preparing the budget. Please note that not all assumptions impact only the General Fund. Assumptions: Ø Property tax levy increase of 7% (3.02% general levy and 3.98% debt service/pavement management levy) Ø Cost of living increase for employees and an increase in the employer contribution towards benefits Ø Move towards equalization between exempt and non-exempt employers contribution towards benefits Ø PERA increases as directed by legislation (City-wide impact of approximately $120,000) Ø All union contracts are open for 2006 Ø Partial funding of Dispatch by Police and Fire Pension fund Ø Addition of Police Liaison Officer for School District with 50% School participation Ø Parktacular support in the amount of $6,000 Ø Overhead allocations are calculated based on the fee reporting methodology developed in 2003 Ø Resource allocation towards Public Art via the Housing Rehabilitation fund Ø Resource allocation toward the Vision Process St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 6c - Public Hearing 2006 Budget And Property Taxes Page 3 Recommendation There is no action required at this meeting. The meeting is intended to provide information to the public about the budget and property tax levy as well as to receive comments and input from the public. Staff will give a presentation of the overall 2005 General Fund Budget and Property Tax Levy and provide other general information related to property taxes. Next Steps Council will be asked to adopt the 2006 budget and property tax levy on December 19th, 2005. Attachments: Draft 2006 Budget - To be sent under separate cover. Prepared By: Jean McGann, Director of Finance Approved By: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 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 and extend the term of the current franchise to December 19, 2005. Background: Council was last updated on the status of the franchise renewal process at its November 21, 2005 meeting. At that meeting, Council continued the public hearing to December 5 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. Significant progress has been made in the last several weeks to this multi-year negotiations process. 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 Developments: Since the November 21 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 and prepare a draft franchise renewal ordinance. That first draft is essentially ready for Council review, including major business points. However, due to other major items on the Council agenda this evening, staff is recommending Council continue this item to its December 19 meeting. This will allow Council and the public to provide appropriate comment and suggestions. The existing franchise provisions are acceptable to the City until a renewed franchise is agreed upon. Recommendation: Consistent with the accelerated progress of negotiations and other current agenda items, it is recommended that Council continue the public hearing and extend the term of the current franchise to December 19, 2005. This continuance will also allow additional refinement of the draft renewal ordinance. Prepared by: Clint Pires, Director of Technology and Support Services Approved by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 8a - Comcast Transfer Page 1 8a Comcast Transfer 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 19, 2005 Council meeting. Background: On June 15, 2005, Comcast notified the City about an agreement to purchase all of Time Warner Cable’s Minnesota cable TV systems, including St. Louis Park’s franchise. Time Warner and Comcast are purchasing the bankrupt Adelphia cable systems for about $12.7 billion in cash. Adelphia has about 5 million subscribers, and the systems will be geographically divided between Comcast and Time Warner so the systems can be clustered together. As part of the clustering, Time Warner’s Minnesota, Florida and Louisiana franchises would be swapped for Comcast’s Dallas, Los Angeles and Cleveland area franchises. Some Minnesota cities have already granted Comcast’s request for franchise transfers, including Helena, Jackson, Jordan, Lanesboro, Lewisville, Madelia, New Ulm, Sand Creek and Waverly. Bloomington recently approved the transfer with the condition that the Time Warner franchise fee review be settled to the satisfaction of the City. 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: 120505 - 8a - Comcast Transfer Page 2 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. 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 (see public hearing report on this item on tonight’s agenda), 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 (pending and to be reported by Monday evening), the 394 application for transfer can be extended by Council to December 19, 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 19, 2005 Council meeting and staff recommends continuing this item to that date. Prepared by: Clint Pires, Director of Technology and Support Services Approved by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 8b - Park Summit PUD Amendment Page 1 8b 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 was first approved by the City in 2004. PROPOSED REVISIONS: SilverCrest proposes to change the project from a 14-story building to a 12-story building, changing the height from 145 feet to 126 feet; and reduce the number of condominiums from 150 to 145. SilverCrest has also agreed to actively market the condominiums to buyers 55 years of age and older. These changes will reduce the parking requirements and traffic impacts of the development. RECOMMENDATION: The Staff and Planning Commission recommended approving the request. A resolution with conditions is attached for approval. It includes the following conditions: 1. The Park Summit building will be revised to be a maximum of 12 stories and 126 feet in height, having a maximum of 145 condominium units. 2. No age restrictions shall be placed on future residents at the Park Summit Condominiums, however the condominium units will be marketed to buyers 55 years of age and older. 3. 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. If shown to be needed, 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. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 8b - Park Summit PUD Amendment Page 2 4. 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 revised site plan. 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 all previous resolutions regarding the direct access point to 3601 Park Center Boulevard. 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. e. Provide up to $9,000 toward the cost of transit shelters at the intersection of West 36th Street and Park Center Boulevard. Attachments: Resolution No. 000, a resolution authorizing a Major Amendment to the PUD to remove age restrictions for Park Summit Condominiums 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: 120505 - 8b - Park Summit PUD Amendment Page 3 RESOLUTION NO. 05-167 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). 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 St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 8b - Park Summit PUD Amendment Page 4 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 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; St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 8b - Park Summit PUD Amendment Page 5 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: 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. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 8b - Park Summit PUD Amendment Page 6 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. 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. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 8b - Park Summit PUD Amendment Page 7 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. 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. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 8b - Park Summit PUD Amendment Page 8 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. 2. Prior to any site work, including demolition, the developer shall meet the following requirements: a) Development and maintenance agreement(s) shall be executed between the developer and the City. The agreement(s) shall include, but not be limited to, conditions for the developer meeting the following requirements: i) Construction vehicles shall access the site from Hwy. 100, 36th Street, and Park Center Blvd. utilizing the interim curb cut as a left-in, right-out only. Construction vehicles shall not be permitted on Park Center Blvd. south of the senior condominium property. ii) Public sidewalk and trail construction. iii) Repair and cleaning of public streets. iv) Tree replacement. v) Constructing a consolidated driveway access to all three properties as shown conceptually on the Proposed Access and Internal Circulation Plan (dated December 30, 2003) of the Official Exhibits. vi) Cost sharing for the road improvements to Park Center Boulevard and the possible traffic signal at the consolidated access driveway. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 8b - Park Summit PUD Amendment Page 9 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 homeowner’s association documents shall also address continued payment of Special Service District fees equivalent to fees previously paid by the office development at 3601 Park Center Blvd. e) Record all cross-easement agreements for utilities and drainage for the three lots within the PUD and record any required changes to the joint parking and access agreements, maintenance agreement, and trail easement. f) Reimburse the City for City attorney’s fees in drafting/reviewing such documents. g) Obtain demolition, work in the right of way and erosion control permits, Watershed District permit and other necessary permits from the City and other agencies. h) Sign Assent Form and Official Exhibits. i) Meet City and Public Works Department requirements for utility connections and disconnects, including pavement restoration, protection of sidewalk, trail, lighting and streetscape elements and replacement of any damaged elements, j) Meet solar shading requirements or obtain approval of a variance. k) Meet any other conditions of the development agreement required prior to site work. 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. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 8b - Park Summit PUD Amendment Page 10 d) Meet any other conditions as required by the Development Agreement prior to building permit. 4. The developer shall comply with the following conditions during construction: a) All City noise ordinances shall be complied with, including that there be no construction activity between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. on weekdays and 10 p.m. and 9 a.m. on weekends and holidays. b) Loud equipment shall be kept as far as possible from residences at all times. c) The site shall be kept free of dust and debris that could blow onto neighboring properties including the City aquatic facility. d) Public streets shall be maintained free of dirt and shall be cleaned as necessary. e) Construction vehicles are prohibited from entering the site from park land property. f) The Zoning Administrator may impose additional conditions if it becomes necessary in order to mitigate the impact of construction on surrounding properties. g) A left-in, right-out temporary construction entrance is allowed on the 3601 Park Center Blvd. property (Lot 1) in accordance with the approved grading plan and Condition C.2.a) i) of this resolution. 5. A PUD modification to allow a sign setback of 15 feet is approved subject to approval of a sign permit. Sign permits are required prior to installation of any temporary or permanent signs and shall include designation of guest parking spaces. 6. The developer shall comply with the following conditions prior to occupancy of the senior condominium building: a) All permanent site and building improvements shall be complete, other than landscaping, and a letter of credit for 125% of the cost of landscaping shall be submitted. 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. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 8b - Park Summit PUD Amendment Page 11 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 December 5, 2005 to incorporate all of the preceding conditions and add the following conditions for the Park Summit building at 3601 Park Center Boulevard: 5. The Park Summit building will be revised to be a maximum of 12 stories and 126 feet in height, having a maximum of 145 condominium units. 6. No age restrictions shall be placed on future residents at the Park Summit Condominiums, however the condominium units will be marketed to buyers 55 years of age and older. 7. 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. If shown to be needed, 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. 8. 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 revised site plan. 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 all previous resolutions regarding the direct access point to 3601 Park Center Boulevard. b. Grant the City of St. Louis Park an easement for the purpose of the installation of wireless internet equipment and related appurtenances. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 8b - Park Summit PUD Amendment Page 12 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. e. Provide up to $9,000 toward the cost of transit shelters at the intersection of West 36th Street and Park Center Boulevard. In addition to any other remedies, the developer or owner shall pay an administrative fee of $750 per violation of any condition of this approval. Assent form and official exhibits must be signed by applicant (or applicant and owner if applicant is different from owner) prior to issuance of building permit. Approval of a Building Permit, which may impose additional requirements. Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council December 5, 2005 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 8c - Excess Land Page 1 8c Disposition and Retention of Excess Public Land for Building Single Family Homes Consideration of disposition of 20 vacant publicly owned parcels based on the Excess Land Task Force recommendations, technical findings and resident input. Recommended Action: It is recommended that the Council approve the resolution related to disposition and/or retention of 17 public parcels. It is recommended that the Council select the appropriate resolutions and make motions of approval for each of the parcels located at 2600 Natchez Avenue South, 5609 Wood Lane and 4525 Morningside Avenue South. It is recommended that the Council approve a resolution to Establish the Sale and Design Review Process and Design Guidelines for the excess land parcels. Background: At the November 14, 2005 City Council study session, Council discussed the disposition of excess land parcels and directed staff to prepare resolutions for action at the December 5, 2005 meeting. The Council report of November 14, 2005 is attached and includes background information from the Excess Land Task Force and public process that has led to this meeting. At the October 17, 2005 City Council meeting, Council received the Excess Land Task Force Recommendations and technical findings related to building homes on the 20 excess parcels. Staff also provided background data related to open space and previous criteria used by a 1995 Open Space and Parks Task Force to identify and evaluate appropriate uses for vacant parcels. Also, at the October 17, 2005 meeting 34 residents addressed the Council. Discussion Regarding Use Of Revenues Generated From Possible Sale Of Parcels: At the November 14, 2005 meeting, Council briefly discussed possible uses of revenues that would be generated should parcels be sold. The Council seemed to support a policy that revenues should not be placed in the general fund, but rather possibly serve needs relating to the environment (woodlands, wetlands, wildlife habitat, shade); aesthetics; need for open space; and other activities to increase “move-up” housing. Staff suggests that specific plans, including the Excess Land Task Force suggestions, for use of revenues generated from any sales be discussed at an upcoming study session. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 8c - Excess Land Page 2 Recommended Action: The attached resolutions authorize specific actions, with conditions, for each parcel. 1. The first resolution determines the future use of 17 excess parcels as recommended by the Excess Land Task Force, supported by technical data and with input from resident. This resolution includes the following recommended actions with conditions: Sell as Developable as Single Family Homes Parcel 2 2715 Monterey Ave S Parcel 6 2005 Louisiana Ave S Parcel 10 9019 Cedar Lake Road Parcel 12 2601 Pennsylvania Ave S Parcel 16 7701 Edgebrook Ave S Parcel 19 4200 Natchez Ave S Sell as Developable as Townhouses/Condos/Mixed Use Parcel 7 13th Lane West Parcel 8 Texas Ave and Frontage Road Sell or Lease and Retain as Parking Lots Parcels 1, 14 and 15 2814 Inglewood Ave, 6534 Walker Ave and 3301 Gorham Ave Retain as Vacant Lots and Sell to Abutting Owners or Groups of Neighbors Parcel 5 2015 Louisiana Ave S Parcel 9 1608 Utah Ave S Retain for Future Potential Development Parcel 4 Cedar Lake Road and Hwy 100 Parcel 20 3515 Belt Line Blvd Initiate Neighborhood Planning Process to Establish Future Use Parcel 11 9258 Club Road Retain as Vacant Lot for City Utility Purposes Parcel 13 2812 Zarthan Ave S 2. There are two alternative resolutions for each of the following parcels. One resolution authorizes sale of the parcel and one retains the parcel as public land. Parcel 3 2600 Natchez Ave S Parcel 17 5609 Wood Lane Parcel 18 4525 Morningside Ave S 3. The final resolution establishes the Sale and Design Review Process and Design Guidelines for the excess public land parcels that will be sold. The process and guidelines are attached to this resolution as Exhibit A. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 8c - Excess Land Page 3 The resolutions, when acted upon, will serve as guidance for current and future Councils, residents and staff, providing documentation of the deliberative decision making process employed by the City. Next Steps: Upon Council action, staff will begin the process of preparing parcels to be sold and develop a process for deciding use of funds generated from sales for Council consideration. Some of the parcels will require amendments to the Comp Plan, subdivision and platting which will require Council action prior to actual disposition of properties. Attachments: Resolution Determining the Future Use of Certain Excess Public Lands. Resolution Authorizing Sale of Property Located at 2600 Natchez Avenue S. Resolution Retaining Tax Forfeited Property Located at 2600 Natchez Avenue South, to Be Used as Public Open Space Resolution Authorizing Sale of Property Located at 5609 Wood Lane Resolution Retaining City Property Located at 5609 Wood Lane, To Be Used As Public Open Space Resolution Authorizing Sale of Property Located at 4525 Morningside Avenue South Resolution Retaining City Property Located at 4525 Morningside Avenue South, to be Part of Browndale Park Resolution Establishing the Sale and Design Review Process and Design Guidelines for the Excess Land Parcels Public Comments Received Following November 14, Study Session Map of Excess Public Land Locations November 14, 2005 City Council Study Session Report Prepared By: Kathy Larsen, Housing Programs Coordinator Reviewed By: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 8c - Excess Land Page 4 RESOLUTION NO. 05-168 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION DETERMINING THE FUTURE USE OF CERTAIN EXCESS PUBLIC LANDS WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park owns certain property the status and use of which has been reviewed as part of the City’s excess public land process; and WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park can obtain title to certain other public property the status and use of which has been reviewed as part of the City’s excess public land process; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that to sell certain parcels and retain others in public ownership as set forth herein is in the public interest. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. Parcel 2. City staff is directed to take the necessary steps to sell the property located at 2715 Monterey Avenue South; and identified as Parcel 2 on the City’s Excess Public Lands List for the construction of one single family home. City will retain the easement located on the parcel for storm water utility purposes. 2. Parcel 6. City staff is directed to take the necessary steps to sell the property located at 2005 Louisiana Avenue South; and identified as Parcel 6 for the construction of one single family home. 3. Parcel 10. City staff is directed to seek development proposals and take the necessary steps to sell to a developer with demonstrated capability, the property located at 9019 Cedar Lake Road; and identified as Parcel 10 for the purpose of developing up to four single family homes on the site. The site plan shall retain lake visibility from Cedar Lake Road. 4. Parcel 12. If this parcel is not deemed by the City Council to be necessary for use as an off-leash dog park and retained in public ownership, then City staff is directed to seek development proposals and take the necessary steps to sell to a developer with demonstrated capability, the property located at 2601 Pennsylvania Avenue South; and identified as Parcel 12 for the purpose of developing up to four single family homes on the site. Potential buyers shall be made aware of train noise. 5. Parcel 16. City staff is directed to take the necessary steps to sell the property located at 7701 Edgebrook Avenue South; and identified as Parcel 16 for the construction of one single family home, including noise mitigating construction. Potential buyers shall be made aware of train noise. 6. Parcel 19. City staff is directed to take the necessary steps to sell the property located at 4200 Natchez Avenue South; and identified as Parcel 19 for the construction of two single family homes. The site plan must accommodate existing drainage. A portion of the site, at direction of the City Engineer will be retained by the City for storm water purposes. 7. Parcel 7. City staff is directed to seek development proposals and take the necessary steps to sell to a developer with demonstrated capability, the property located at 13th Lane West; and identified as Parcel 7 for the construction of a mixed use or live/work development which would include owner-occupied multi-housing units. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 8c - Excess Land Page 5 8. Parcel 8. City staff is directed to seek development proposals and take the necessary steps to sell to a developer with demonstrated capability, the property located at Texas Avenue and Frontage Road; and identified as Parcel 8 for the construction of up to eleven units of owner-occupied multi-family housing units. An easement will be required for the existing Public Works pumping station. 9. Parcels 1, 14 & 15. As to Parcel 1 located at 2814 Inglewood Avenue South, Parcel 14 located at 6534 Walker Avenue, and Parcel 15 located at 3301 Gorham Avenue, City staff is directed to take the necessary steps to sell or lease parking lots to adjacent businesses to be retained as parking lots, consistent with City policies, plans and efforts to manage and lease its other publicly owned parking facilities and ensure that parking remains available to the general public at these lots. 10. Parcel 5. City staff is directed to take the necessary steps to sell all or a portion of the property located at 2015 Louisiana Avenue South; and identified as Parcel 5, to the abutting property owners. The parcel is not deemed suitable for building and will remain vacant due to drainage issues on this site. 11. Parcel 9. City staff is directed to take the necessary steps to sell all or a portion of the property located at 1608 Utah Avenue South; and identified as Parcel 9, to the abutting owners or group of neighbors. The city will retain an easement for pond access for storm water purposes. The buildable footprint on this site does not allow for a large home. 12. Parcel 4. City staff is directed to re-evaluate the property located at Cedar Lake Road and Highway 100; and identified as Parcel 4 for residential development if MnDOT determines that future conveyance of the parcel to the City is desirable. Up to five homes could be sited on this parcel. 13. Parcel 20. The City will retain the property located at 3515 Belt Line Boulevard; and identified as Parcel 20 for future development. Building single family homes should be considered as a component of future development proposals for this site. 14. Parcel 11. City staff is directed to initiate a planning process with the neighborhood of Parcel 11 located at 9258 Club Road, to establish the future use of this site, recognizing that lack of access to the site currently restricts building and park use. 15. Parcel 13. The City will retain the property located at 2812 Zarthan Avenue; and identified as Parcel 13 for storm water utility purposes. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 5, 2005 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 8c - Excess Land Page 6 RESOLUTION NO. 05-169 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SALE OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2600 NATCHEZ AVENUE SOUTH WHEREAS, the parcel located at 2600 Natchez Avenue South; and identified as Parcel 3 on the City’s Excess Public Lands List is a tax forfeited property and can be acquired by the City for resale; and WHEREAS, the total parcel area is approximately186,400 square feet and includes a wetland; and WHEREAS, the buildable area above the 100 year flood line and not wetland is approximately 24,696 square feet; and WHEREAS, mature oak trees have been located on the Northeast upland portion of the parcel; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the sale of the Northeast upland portion of Parcel 3 is in the public interest. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that City staff is directed to take the necessary steps to sell the northeast upland portion of Parcel 3 for the construction of one single family home in accordance with the City’s adopted Sale and Design Review Process and Design Guidelines. Mature oak trees shall be retained to the degree possible. The entire wetland area shall be retained by the City. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 5, 2005 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 8c - Excess Land Page 7 RESOLUTION NO. 05-_____ CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RETAINING TAX FORFEITED PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2600 NATCHEZ AVENUE SOUTH, TO BE USED AS PUBLIC OPEN SPACE WHEREAS, the parcel located at 2600 Natchez Avenue South; and identified as Parcel 3 on the City’s Excess Public Lands List is a tax forfeited property and can be acquired by the City for resale; and WHEREAS, the total parcel area is approximately186,400 square feet and includes a wetland; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that sale of a portion of Parcel 3 is not in the public interest, and that this complete parcel should be retained as public open space; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this complete parcel be retained as tax forfeit property to be used as open/public space. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 5, 2005 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 8c - Excess Land Page 8 RESOLUTION NO. 05-170 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SALE OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5609 WOOD LANE PENDING MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT ACTION WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park owns property located at 5609 Wood Lane; and identified as Parcel 17 on the City’s Excess Public Lands List; and WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park acquired this parcel in 1975 with partial funding from a Federal Open Space Grant with the goal of protecting the flood plain, making improvements along Minnehaha Creek, and acquiring contiguous private creek shore property; and WHEREAS, in 1984 the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) repealed restrictive covenants which required HUD prior approval of city sale of parcels purchased with Open Space Grant funds; and WHEREAS on August 8, 2005, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District formally requested that the City provide the District six months additional time to fully explore options for the ownership, use, and management of this parcel; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the sale of Parcel 17 is in the public interest NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Minnehaha Creek Watershed District be given the requested six month opportunity to fully explore their options for the ownership, use and management of this parcel. If, after six months of the adoption of this Resolution, terms of purchase, with deposit, by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and the City are not agreed upon, City staff is directed take the necessary steps to sell Parcel 17 for the construction of one single family home in accordance with the City’s adopted Sale and Design Review Process and Design Guidelines. The City will retain an easement to maintain control over creek shoreline property to protect floodplain, protect the creek and protect potential for a trail along Minnehaha Creek. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 5, 2005 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 8c - Excess Land Page 9 RESOLUTION NO. 05-____ CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RETAINING CITY PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5609 WOOD LANE, TO BE USED AS PUBLIC OPEN SPACE WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park owns property located at 5609 Wood Lane; and identified as Parcel 17 on the City’s Excess Public Lands List; and WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park acquired this parcel in 1975 with partial funding from a Federal Open Space Grant with the goal of protecting the flood plain, making improvements along Minnehaha Creek, and acquiring contiguous private creekshore property; and WHEREAS, in 1984 the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) repealed restrictive covenants which required HUD prior approval of City sale of parcels purchased with Open Space Grant funds; and WHEREAS, on August 8, 2005, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District formally requested that the City give the District six month additional time to fully explore options for the ownership, use, and management of this parcel; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the sale of Parcel 17 is not in the public interest. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this parcel be retained as City property to maintain control over creek shoreline property to protect floodplain, protect the creek and protect potential for a trail along Minnehaha Creek. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 5, 2005 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 8c - Excess Land Page 10 RESOLUTION NO. 05-171 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SALE OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4525 MORNINGSIDE AVENUE SOUTH WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park owns property located at 4525 Morningside Avenue South; and identified as Parcel 18 on the City’s Excess Public Lands List; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the sale of Parcel 18 is in the public interest. WHEREAS, the shade trees on this parcel are considered important to neighboring residents. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that City staff is directed to take the necessary steps to sell Parcel 18 for the construction of one single family home in accordance with the City’s adopted Sale and Design Review Process and Design Guidelines. The site design shall retain as many trees as possible. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 5, 2005 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 8c - Excess Land Page 11 RESOLUTION NO. 05-_____ CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RETAINING CITY PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4525 MORNINGSIDE AVENUE SOUTH TO BE PART OF BROWNDALE PARK WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park owns property located at 4525 Morningside Avenue South; and identified as Parcel 18 on the City’s Excess Public Lands List; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the sale of Parcel 18 is not in the public interest. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this parcel be retained as an integral part of the Browndale Park. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 5, 2005 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 8c - Excess Land Page 12 RESOLUTION NO. 05-172 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE SALE AND DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS AND DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR EXCESS LAND PARCELS WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park owns certain property and can obtain title to certain other public property, the status and use of which has been reviewed as part of the City’s excess public land process; and WHEREAS, the City has determined that certain properties will be sold for development of housing; and WHEREAS, the Sale and Design Review Process and Design Guidelines incorporate components resulting from public input during the excess public land process; and WHEREAS, the City desires to establish a uniform Sale and Design Review Process, to ensure residents have a preference in purchasing parcels; and WHEREAS, the City desires to establish Design Review Guidelines to ensure homes constructed are compatible with neighboring homes and neighborhoods. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: The Sale and Design Review Process and Design Guidelines attached hereto as Exhibit A are hereby adopted by reference; and shall be administered by the St. Louis Park Housing Authority. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 5, 2005 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 8c - Excess Land Page 13 EXHIBIT A SALE AND DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS The City’s legal counsel has reviewed the proposed sale process and advises that a residency preference is legally sound. The process is designed to ensure individual residents are allowed equal access to the purchase process as there is strong consensus from task force members and residents that developers should not have an advantage in purchasing sites. 1. The proposal process would be announced and communicated clearly and often to ensure interested parties are informed. A pre-proposal meeting will be conducted. This meeting will outline the requirements of the proposal process, design standards, design review process, and requirements of development agreement. 2. Purchase of a parcel or a portion of a parcel by adjacent owners. a. For oversized excess land parcels, offer adjacent property owners the opportunity to purchase a portion of the excess land parcel at fair market value. This would provide an opportunity for adjacent owners to expand their existing homes. b. Provide adjacent property owners and neighbors, the option to purchase a parcel or portion where parcels are deemed unsuitable for building a new large single family home 3. The following components would provide a “level playing field” for purchase by residents. a. The selected buyers of single family lots would be the residents with the highest offer that agrees to: occupy the home; comply with the design standards, submit to the design review process and contractual requirements; and, demonstrates financial capability. A house plan would not be required to make a proposal, but agreement to comply with the standards would be required. b. In the event resident offers do not meet the minimum fair market appraised value, the highest non-resident offer would be selected. c. Each buyer could only purchase one single family parcel. d. The multi-lot parcels requiring coordination of developing roads and utility access would be offered to both developers and residents that demonstrate development capability. No parcels would be sold until a proposal with site design and house plans that meet all applicable city codes was approved by the design review committee. 4. Potential buyers will submit their offer price and a signed statement of agreement to comply with design guidelines, comply with the decision of the design review committee, adhere to a completion date, and use a licensed contractor. 5. The person with selected offer will have six weeks to provide: a. plan in compliance with design standards and zoning and building codes for review by the design review committee b. proof of demonstrated financial capability to build their proposed home c. references of the builder d. proof of builder’s insurance e. general contractor license number f. estimated completion date St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 8c - Excess Land Page 14 6. Staff will conduct initial review of house and site plan and other provisions. 7. The house and site design will be forwarded to the design review committee, which will be composed of: a residential architect; a landscape architect; an individual from the respective neighborhood association; a builder or realtor; and an Excess Land Task Force member. The committee will meet with the perspective buyer to provide feedback regarding the design. The City/HA would retain the right to refuse any offer or design plan found unsuitable by the Design Review Committee. The house and site plan must be approved prior to sale. 8. The Housing Authority and buyer would execute a development agreement at the time of sale committing the buyer to build a home consistent with the approved plans within a reasonable period of time. DESIGN GUIDELINES These design guidelines would ensure that the new homes will blend with the surrounding area and address specific design desires of the City and neighboring residents. There is a strong preference for designs that fit urban lots and have streetscape appeal by using details such as front porches or defined front entrances. Potential buyers are expected to consult with an architect on the house design. The city’s architectural design assistance service can be accessed for this purpose. A design review committee will review the site and house plans, providing feed back to the individual during the design phase. In addition, all plans must meet zoning and building code requirements. 1. Interior Building Design • Each home shall be single-family, owner-occupied. • Minimum of three bedrooms. • Two full bathrooms are preferred, however, a minimum of one full bathroom and a ½ bathroom will be considered. • A full basement shall be provided in the house unless soil conditions warrant otherwise, or unless the selected design results in a split level basement or walkout. • Value added amenities such as greatrooms, dens or porches are required. • Energy efficient products and construction techniques are encouraged. 2. Exterior Building Design • The goal is to build a large single family home with height and mass of the new home compatible with the scale of the surrounding neighborhood. Two story homes on a block of one story homes can be designed with compatible style and finishes. Architectural details such as roofline, gables, and window detailing shall be compatible with existing buildings in the neighborhood. • Plans must present a balanced and pleasing distribution of wall and window areas from all views. Windows shall be presented on all building elevations. Double hung windows are preferred, especially on the front of the house facing streets. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 8c - Excess Land Page 15 • Exterior materials (siding, soffits, doors, windows) should be low in maintenance. Steel, brick and stucco are preferred exterior materials. High-grade synthetics and new siding materials will be considered. 3. Garage Design • A two-car, or larger, garage attached or detached, must be provided on the site for a single family house. • The garage should not be the predominant feature of the home; if there is an alley, it must be used for garage access. If there is not alley access, the home shall be designed to minimize the view of the garage doors to the street (e.g. garage doors turn away from the street, garage set back from the front façade, etc.) 4. Site and Grounds • The entire ground shall be landscaped to be aesthetically pleasing in all seasons. Land forms and plant materials shall be used to define the site and blend with the adjoining property. • Existing trees shall be preserved when possible. Care should be taken to preserve existing root systems. Tree wrap reinforcement shall be used on trees directly adjacent to active grading and construction areas. In the event tree removal is required to build, tree replacement is required. • All air condition units must be located in rear or side yard. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 8c - Excess Land Page 16 Public Comments Submitted Following November 14, 2005 Study Session. Only five residents and one realtor have contacted staff and their input is noted below: 1 Resident called interested in purchasing the Morningside parcel 1 Resident called interested in purchasing the 2600 Natchez parcel 1 Realtor requested notification if parcels are sold. 1 Resident requested documentation from MCWD regarding 5609 Wood Lane The following emails have been received From B. Williams November 26, 2005 City council et al, Hopefully you are still able to receive public feedback on the proposed land sale. My understanding is that the parcel on 4525 Morningside is one of three is still in the "undecided" category. I'm sending this email as my "vote" in favor of selling this parcel. My comments: 1 - I think the process for reviewing all of the potential lots has been reasonable. My request is that the feedback--especially what was received at the council and other community meetings-- is considered based on the merit of each argument, and not purely on the quantity of comments made . The October council meeting was a prime example of how public discussion can appear one-sided when one of the groups (i.e. those opposed to developing 4525 Morningside) dominated the conversation by pure numbers, repeating similar arguments over and over. Also, I think there were quite a few attendees who may have spoken that night in favor of selling the lot next to Browndale park, but didn't due to the discomfort of confronting the folks lucky enough to already live near Browndale park. 2 - 4525 Morningside is not part of Browndale park. It is an undeveloped parcel of land that, just like the 10-15 other houses that are adjacent to the park were at one point in time. The first time I drove down Browndale (long before this proposed land sale was even raised) I said to my wife, "Wow, that is a great LOT!" I didn't say, "Wow, what a cool piece of Browndale park jutting out under those nice big trees!" 3 - The following argument has been made by those opposed to developing these lots: 19 lots is too few to make a dent in the commission's goal of offering move up housing to more St Louis Park residents. I completely disagree. Offering up a single lot to one family is HUGE to that family...a significantly more important event to that one family than the incremental benefit to ALL of the residents currently adjacent to Browndale park--which happens to be one of the most beautiful and functional parks in the entire city. Also, revenues generated by these lots should benefit ALL St Louis Park residents. I admit that there is no clear equation to demonstrate who benefits more ( i.e. the 10-15 families who get to use the extra piece of land VS. the one family that would get to live next to the park plus the rest of the community benefiting from the extra revenues), but I do believe it's not as simple as saying "19 lots is too few to make a dent in achieving the commission's goal." St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 8c - Excess Land Page 17 Good luck in your decision. Thanks for considering my opinions. From Tim Lynch Nov 16, 2005 I've attended most of the public meetings and have tried to stay abreast of the "excess land" issue. As we appear to be approaching "crunch time" I wanted to ensure I was heard. In general: First of all, I like the idea of developing parcels of land that offer up more "move up" housing to SLP residents. I think this initiative does that. Second, I think using the funds from the land sale to enhance our parks and trails for all residents outweighs the "land loss" of a few families near these potential lots. Specific to 4525 Morningside: I do not believe this is part of the park. In my opinion it is an undeveloped lot next to the park. I heard the following argument made at one of the council meetings: "We play on this piece of land all the time, which shows that this is part of the park." It's crazy logic to say that just by playing on a piece of land that is not your own, that eventually it becomes your park for all time. As an example, my kids play every day on their neighbors lawn, but that doesn't make it their "park." If the neighbor one day decides to put up a fence or demand that we not use their yard, then we have to abide by their decision and find another spot to play in. Thanks. Hopefully 4525 Morningside is added to the list of lots up for sale! ******Report from City Council Study Session November 14, 2005******** 2. Use of Excess Public Land for Building Single Family Homes Community Development PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION: This discussion item is intended to prepare the City Council to take action on the Excess Land Task Force recommendations at the December 5, 2005 City Council meeting. Staff seeks Council guidance on the approach desired for acting on the recommendations. This report identifies issues related to the following discussion areas: • Historical rationale for considering change of use of 19 vacant parcels • The Excess Land Task Force recommendations and technical findings • Public comments • Incorporating residents concerns into solutions BACKGROUND At the October 17, 2005 City Council meeting, the Council received the Excess Land Task Force recommendations regarding the use of 19 parcels of excess land for building large single family St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 8c - Excess Land Page 18 homes. A presentation of technical findings and conclusions summarized that eleven of the parcels are suitable for residential buildings; nine for large single family homes and two for mixed use/multifamily housing. Residents then addressed the Council, articulating their concerns, issues, opposition and support of the possible sale of parcels. The transcript of comments from the October 17, 2005 City Council Meeting Minutes is attached. Rationale for Considering the 19 Vacant Parcels as Excess Land The Excess Land Task Force was given 19 parcels to consider for potential use for single-family home sites. Many of the sites were identified by the 1995 Park and Open Space Task Force; other sites were identified between 2002 and 2004 as a response to the growing awareness of the need for more housing for families with children, as well as addressing Local Government Aid budget cuts and frequent resident phone calls inquiring about purchasing vacant lots. The questions below were used by the 1995 Park and Open Space Task Force to identify the best use of vacant parcels within the city. • Does this parcel clearly serve basic needs of the community or of multiple neighborhoods? • Does this parcel clearly serve basic needs of the host neighborhood? • Does this parcel serve as a buffer between residential and commercial developments? • Does this parcel serve as focal point for neighborhood activities? • Does this parcel provide linkage between community facilities and community spaces? • Is this parcel unique and/or does it contribute to a variety of public spaces? • Is this parcel physically accessible and visually accessible to the neighborhood, surrounding neighborhood, or to others outside the neighborhood? • If this parcel were developed, what would be the best and worst case scenarios (in terms of zoning, tax generation, wetland issues, impacts on the neighborhood, and impacts on the community? Similar factors were considered to identify additional parcels since 1995. The Parks and Recreation, Public Works and Community Development staff’s final list of vacant parcels determined to be excess were put forth for consideration based on the following factors: • Is the parcel relatively small, with limited opportunity to accommodate recreational use? • Is the parcel accessible to the public? • Is the parcel’s current public use minimal? • Would the impact of the parcel’s development negatively impact existing natural corridors? • Is the parcel needed for storm water or utility needs? • Would sale of the parcel decrease City maintenance costs? • Where a parcel is contiguous with existing parkland, how important is the parcel to the function of the park? • Is the parcel vacant and publicly owned by another jurisdiction which is no longer using the parcel? St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 8c - Excess Land Page 19 EXCESS LAND TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS The Task Force began its consideration of the excess land parcels in January 2005 and, following input from the public, concluded that additional technical analysis was needed to evaluate the suitability of the excess land parcels as sites for single-family homes. Over the summer (2005) staff conducted detailed analysis of the excess land parcels. The technical analysis found some sites suitable for housing and others not. The technical analysis supports the finding that nine of the parcels are buildable as large single family home sites and two of the parcels are suitable for building other types of housing. The intent is to bring the Excess Land Task Force recommendations, supported by findings from the technical analysis, as a set of recommendations to the December 5, 2005 Council Meeting for action. Staff is seeking Council direction regarding how the Council would prefer to consider the recommendations at the December 5, 2005 Council meeting. All the recommendations can be grouped into one resolution requiring a single Council action. Or the recommendations can be brought to the Council as a series of resolutions requiring separate Council actions. Following are the Task Force recommendations, supported by technical findings that would be acted upon at the December 5, 2005 meeting. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 8c - Excess Land Page 20 Recommendations regarding the disposition of the subject properties: Parcel 2, 2715 Monterey Ave S. Direct staff to take the necessary steps to sell parcel for building one single family home and retain easement for storm water utility located on parcel, ensure design guidelines and sale process are implemented. Parcel 3, 2600 Natchez Ave S. Direct staff to take the necessary steps to sell NE upland portion of parcel for building one single family home, ensure design guidelines and sale process are implemented, including that site design standards ensure mature oaks are retained to degree possible. The whole wetland will be retained by the City. Parcel 6, 2005 Louisiana Ave S. Direct staff to take the necessary steps to sell parcel for building one single family home, ensure design guidelines and sale process are implemented. Parcel 10, 9019 Cedar Lake Road. Direct staff to take the necessary steps to sell parcel to developer for building up to four single family homes, ensure design guidelines and sale process are implemented. Sale would only occur after developer has submitted acceptable site and house plans. Parcel 12, 2601 Pennsylvania Ave S. Direct staff to take the necessary steps to sell parcel to developer for building up to four single family homes, ensure design guidelines and sale process, including awareness of train noise are implemented. Sale would only occur after developer has submitted acceptable site and house plans. In the event this parcel is deemed necessary for use as an off- leash dog park, it would be retained in public ownership. Parcel 16, 7701 Edgebrook Ave S. Direct staff to take the necessary steps to sell parcel for building one single family home, ensure design guidelines and sale process are implemented. Parcel 17, 5609 Wood Lane. Direct staff to take the necessary steps to sell parcel for building one single family home, ensure design guidelines and sale process are implemented. Establish easement to retain City control over creek shoreline property to protect floodplain, protect the creek and protect potential for a trail along Minnehaha Creek... Parcel 18, 4525 Morningside Ave S. Direct staff to take the necessary steps to sell parcel for building one single family home, ensure design guidelines and sale process are implemented, including that site design standards retain as many trees as possible. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 8c - Excess Land Page 21 Parcel 19, 4200 Natchez Ave S. Direct staff to take the necessary steps to sell parcel for building two single family homes, ensure design guidelines and sale process are implemented, including that the site plan maintains existing drainage patterns. The abutting lowland portion will be retained by the City for storm water purposes. Recommendation for Parcels to be Sold for Building Townhouses/Condos/Mixed Use Parcel 7, 13th Lane West. Direct staff to seek development proposals and take the necessary steps to sell parcel to developer to build a mixed use or work loft development which would include up to five owner- occupied multihousing units. The sale would only occur after developer submits acceptable plans. Parcel 8, Texas Ave and Frontage Road. Direct staff to seek development proposals and to take the necessary steps to sell parcel to developer to build up to eleven units of owner-occupied multifamily housing units. The sale would only occur after developer submits acceptable plans. An easement will be required for existing Public Works pumping station. Recommendation for Parcels to be Sold or Leased and Retained as Parking Lots Parcel 1, 14 and 15, 2814 Inglewood Ave S, 6534 Walker Ave., 3301 Gorham Ave. Direct to staff to take the necessary steps to sell or lease parking lots to adjacent businesses to be retained as parking lots, consistent with City policies, plans and efforts to manage and lease its other publicly owned parking facilities. At the Inglewood site, the sale or lease should ensure that parking remains available to the general public. Recommendation for Parcels Not to be Sold at this Time and be Considered for Future Potential Development Parcel 4, Cedar Lake Road and Hwy 100 Recommendation that City would re-evaluate use as home site if MNDOT determines future conveyance to the City is desirable. Up to five homes could be sited on this parcel. Parcel 20, 3515 Belt Line Blvd. Recommendation that City retain for future development. Recommendation for Parcels with Physical Constraints to Large Single Family Home Development Parcel 5, 2015 Louisiana Ave S. Direct staff to take the necessary steps to sell all or a portion of the parcel to abutting owners. Parcel would remain vacant due to drainage issues on this site. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 8c - Excess Land Page 22 Parcel 9, 1608 Utah Ave S. Direct staff to take the necessary steps to sell all or a portion of the parcel to abutting owners. The city would retain an easement for pond access for storm water purposes. The buildable footprint on this site does not allow for a large home. Parcel 11, 9258 Club Road Direct staff to initiate planning process with neighborhood for future use of this site, recognizing that lack of access to site currently restricts building and park use. Parcel 13, 2812 Zarthan Ave S. Recommendation the City retain parcel for storm water utility purpose. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE EXCESS LAND PROCESS INCLUDING OCTOBER 17, 2005 MEETING. Thirty-four residents spoke at the City Council meeting. In many cases residents spoke on behalf of other residents. Some residents spoke in support of the sale of excess land parcels and many others raised concerns about the sale of excess land parcels. Most of the concerns were raised regarding 3 specific parcels, 4525 Morningside, 5609 Wood Lane and 2600 Natchez; but some of the concerns were expressed about the sale of parcels in general or about other specific parcels. Key concerns raised were: 1. the need to protect the environment (woodlands, wetlands, wildlife habitat, shade) 2. the importance of at least some of the excess parcels for aesthetics purposes 3. the need for open space/inadequacy of parkland in at least some areas of the city 4. sale of excess land for larger family homes will have only limited impact and other efforts to provide “move-up” housing are needed. Residents that supported the sale of the excess land also supported the proposed land sale process and the proposed design guidelines. They noted that the sale of excess land would: 1. add new families to the City of St. Louis Park 2. generate land sale and tax revenues 3. benefit the whole city rather than specific neighborhoods. Response to Resident Concerns The issues raised by residents throughout the public process, including the October 17th meeting, are important issues and deserve to be addressed. Some ideas for addressing these issues could include the following: Environmental Stewardship Residents at the October 17, 2005 Council meeting raised many environmental concerns about the sale of excess land parcels. Many of these issues could be addressed in a positive manner through the land sale process and with the funds generated from land sales. The City’s environmental stewardship could be enhanced through the sale of excess land. Steps could be taken to protect the important environmental aspects of specific sites. In addition, revenue from the sale of excess land could be a source of funds to enhance the environment. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 8c - Excess Land Page 23 The use of sale revenues to establish an environmental legacy that benefits the whole City including impacted neighborhoods could be explored. For example, an environmental fund could be established that could leverage other funds to perform activities that could make improvements to Minnehaha Creek or significant wetland improvements in St. Louis Park possible. Examples of environmental enhancements that could be funded from land sales or accomplished at the time parcels are sold include: • Wood Lane: Conversations with Minnehaha Creek Watershed District staff indicate that the Board has NOT moved to purchase this lot, nor has the Board scheduled it for discussion. If the city were to sell the Wood Lane parcel for private use, we can protect the floodplain and creek by establishing an easement over the creek-side portion of this parcel for a trail, or simply floodplain protection. • 2600 Natchez Ave S.: Much of this site is wetland. The City can preserve the wetland by retaining ownership of the wetland portion of the site. Other natural features on the site (trees or wildlife habitat) can also be protected by easement and/or design standards. • Wetland Cleanup: Proceeds from the sale of parcels could be used to create an environmental fund and used to clean up debris in wetlands, or improve wildlife habitat. • FEMA Maps: Land sale proceeds could also be used to conduct a FEMA approved analysis for the wetland areas like those by 2600 Natchez. The establishment of FEMA approved 100 year flood elevations would benefit all residents with properties abutting a wetland. This engineering study would cost up to $20,000. It would help residents with flood insurance as well as the ability to get approval of any plans they may have for expanding their homes or garages. Currently residents near the 2600 Natchez wetland cannot get approval of their building plans without a costly analysis of flood elevations by their properties. • Tree Planting: Land sale proceeds can be used for landscaping in the community including planting shade trees. Aesthetic Improvement Projects Similarly to funding environmental improvements, excess land proceeds could be used to address community concerns about aesthetics. Excess land sale revenues could be used to fund aesthetic improvements for the benefit of the whole community. Some portion of the land sale proceeds could be used for community landscaping or public art or other actions aimed at improving the aesthetics of the community. Need for “Move-up Housing” Efforts with Greater Impact Several residents commented that the sale of a few excess land parcels will have limited impact on the need for “move-up” homes in St. Louis Park. Admittedly, 17 new single family homes is not a large increase in the number of “move-up” homes, but it is still an increase over the number of homes we have today. It also takes a community resource (land) and uses it to address a key community goal, providing larger, single-family homes. The sale of excess land is not the only City effort to address the need for more large single family homes. The City has implemented the “Move-up in the Park” program which includes loan programs and design services aimed at helping and encouraging residents to expand and remodel existing homes. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 8c - Excess Land Page 24 Some residents offered ideas to expand the city’s rehab and renovation efforts. Resident ideas and help is always welcome. These residents could be recruited for focus groups to brainstorm ideas about improving housing programs, promoting the programs and even promoting the city as a place to stay. NEXT STEPS: With Council guidance, staff will prepare a resolution outlining action to be taken on the Excess Land Task Force recommendations at the December 5, 2005 Council meeting. This resolution would also include adoption of design and sale guidelines. In the event recommendations are adopted to sell any of the parcels at the upcoming Council meeting, staff would begin the process implementing the recommendations which would include title work, conveyance of tax forfeited and MNDOT properties to the City and possible amendments to the Comp Plan. Attachment: Public Comments from October 17, 2005 City Council Meeting Parcel Location Map (Supplement) Prepared By: Kathy Larsen Reviewed by: Kevin Locke Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 8d - Cambridge Comp Plan And Rezoning Page 1 Comprehensive Plan Designation: Industrial Request: Medium Density Residential Current Zoning: IG – General Industrial Request: R-3 – Two Family Residential Parcel Size: 18,600 square feet Current Land Use: 2 – two family homes Proposed Land Use: 2 – two family homes Request: Julie Murphy is requesting amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Official Zoning Map for two existing duplexes. The property has two existing structures and each structure has two dwelling units for a total of 4 dwelling units on the property. The property is approximately .42 acres in size and is located on the north side of Cambridge Street, just west of the Soo Line Railroad (See attached location map). The homes are legal non-conforming uses which means they were permitted by the zoning code at the time the structures were built and occupied, then at some time after the use was approved, the zoning code was changed to no longer allow the use. As a legally non-conforming use, the use is allowed to operate as it is, but it cannot expand or intensify in any manner. Process: The public hearing was opened at the October 5, 2005 Planning Commission meeting. At the request of the applicant, the hearing was continued to October 19th, then again continued to November 16th. The continuances were requested so she could gather information for the application. 8d Request of Julie L. Murphy for a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment from Industrial to Medium Density Residential; and a Zoning Map Amendment from General Industrial (IG) to Two Family Residential (R-3) Location: 6300-6312 Cambridge Street Applicant: Julie L. Murphy Case No.: 05-50-CP and 05-51-Z Recommended Action: • Motion to adopt a resolution to deny the request for a Comprehensive Plan amendment to change the land use designation from Industrial to Medium Density Residential. • Motion to adopt a resolution to deny the request for a zoning map amendment to change the zoning designation from IG – General Industrial to R3 – Two Family Residential. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 8d - Cambridge Comp Plan And Rezoning Page 2 The 120 day review period for this application will end on December 7, 2005. The City Council will need to act on this application at the December 5th meeting to meet the review deadline. History of Site: The structures were built in 1898. The earliest zoning map we have on record dates to 1932, and this map shows the property zoned Heavy Industrial with a density overlay of “C”. The Industrial District at that time was all inclusive, meaning it allowed all uses with the exception of those listed. The list of prohibited uses was short and did not prohibit residential. The overlay density “C” allowed residential at a density of one unit per 2,400 square feet. It appears that the 1932 zoning ordinance permitted the residential use as it exists today. The 1949, 1959, 1987 & the current zoning map all show the property zoned Industrial. It isn’t until the 1959 zoning ordinance that residential uses were no longer allowed within the Industrial Districts, therefore it appears that the subject property has been legally non-conforming since 1959. Non-conforming uses: Zoning The city’s ordinance states that all legal non-conforming structures may continue to be occupied and maintained, but may not be expanded or intensified in any manner. It also states that if they are damaged beyond 60% of the assessor’s market value they must be removed, or made to conform within 12 months of the date of damage. In 2004, the state passed a law allowing any legal non-conforming structure to be replaced in its entirety within one year of it being damaged or removed. This law supersedes any city ordinance, and means a person may remove a legal non-conforming structure, or replace a damaged or destroyed legal non-conforming structure in its entirety and to the same dimensions existing before the structure was removed or damaged. The city records show that the property was purchased by Julie Murphy in June of 2002 at a sale price of $445,000. She is now trying to sell the property and believes that the legall non- conforming classification is preventing her from selling the property. Neighborhood land use and zoning The property is guided Industrial and zoned General Industrial. The properties to the north, west and south are also guided Industrial and zoned General Industrial. The Soo Line Railroad runs along the east property line and the property to the east, on the other side of the railroad track is guided Medium Density Residential and is zoned R-3 Two Family Residential. The property is in the Brooklawns Neighborhood, which consists of industrial uses in the northern third of the neighborhood, medical use (Methodist Hospital) in the southwestern third and a mix of predominantly single family homes in the southeastern third. A small amount of commercial use exists along Excelsior Blvd; and, two medium density properties are located at the corner of Excelsior Blvd and Dakota Ave. The Brooklawns Neighborhood plan identifies goals for the single family neighborhood, Excelsior Blvd and the future light rail station. The goals include larger homes, sidewalk improvements, parks and streetscape improvements. It also identifies a concern that the noise generated by the railroad is “troublesome” to residential properties. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 8d - Cambridge Comp Plan And Rezoning Page 3 Issues: ¤ What changed, or what changing conditions make the passage of this amendment necessary? ¤ What are the expected effects 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 the subject property include industrial uses to the north, west and south. The railroad runs along the east property line with predominantly single family homes on the east side of the railroad tracks. While the neighborhood to the east is predominantly single family, there are some two-family homes scattered throughout the neighborhood. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 8d - Cambridge Comp Plan And Rezoning Page 4 Historically, the city identified the railroad as a physical boundary, and since 1959, used it to separate and buffer the industrial uses from the residential neighborhoods. While this physical separation protects residential neighborhoods from noise, odor and traffic impacts resulting from the industrial uses, it also protects the industrial properties by reducing the likelihood of complaints and vandalism and accidents resulting from trespassing. The railroad tracks provide a physical separation between land uses of single family and industrial. The applicant’s property is on the industrial side of that barrier which makes it difficult to justify the rezoning of an industrial property to residential. There have been no physical changes to the neighborhood to suggest a need to change the Comprehensive Plan and/or rezone this site. The zoning map for this area has been consistent since 1959, and the property has been legal non-conforming since 1959. The only recent change to city ordinances and state laws that could be seen to have an impact on this property is the state law that protects legal-non-conforming structures and land uses by allowing them to indefinitely continue and, be completely rebuilt within one year of the structure being removed or damaged. The applicant believes that the market has changed making it more difficult to provide financing and insurance for legally non-conforming structures. The applicant has provided letters from financial and insurance agencies to support this claim. These letters include one letter from an insurance agency, two from a lender and a one from an appraiser. All of the letters acknowledge the difficulties inherent in a legal non-conforming structure, but none of them state that financing or insurance cannot be provided. The letters are attached for your review Staff acknowledges that financing and insurance of such structures may be more difficult to obtain than conforming structures, however, the city has numerous legal non-conforming structures that are insured, and bought and sold. The most common type of legal non- conforming structure is the two-family dwelling, and there are many of them scattered throughout the R-1 and R-2 Single Family Residential Districts. Staff frequently receives phone calls from appraisers and lending institutions checking on the zoning of these structures, and informs them that they are legal non-conforming. Staff has yet to encounter a property that could not be sold or insured as a result of the legal non-conforming designation. What other uses would be permitted under the proposed rezoning? The following is a list of uses allowed in both the I-G General Industrial District and the R-3 Two Family Residential 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: 120505 - 8d - Cambridge Comp Plan And Rezoning Page 5 How will the proposed amendment affect local traffic? A difference between a residential use and an industrial use is the type of traffic generated. An industrial use will generate both car and truck traffic, while residential uses generate predominantly car traffic. The type of traffic is a significant reason for separating the land uses. Locating industrial uses together minimizes truck traffic on residential roads, and keeps it on those roads designed and intended to for industrial traffic. The traffic generated from this small parcel whether it is zoned industrial or residential is very limited and would have little or no traffic impact on the surrounding area. Does the proposed amendment improve or degrade the transitions between existing land uses? Staff believes the proposed amendment will degrade the transition between existing land uses. The transition between the medium density residential and industrial land uses is effectively delineated by the railroad track, and is made even more effective by the fact that the track is elevated and provides a physical barrier blocking views, noise and traffic. I-G General Industrial District R-3 Two Family Residential District Permitted Uses Showrooms Single family dwellings Freight terminals Two family dwellings Manufacturing/processing, recycling operations State-licensed residential facilities serving 6 or fewer persons Warehouse and storage Parks/open space Parcel delivery services Multi-family dwellings existing before December 31, 1992 Permitted With Conditions Utility substations Religious institutions High impact sexually oriented business Communication tower Animal handling Group home/non-statutory Autobody/painting Nursing home Composting operations Community centers Motor vehicle service and repair Educational (academic) Outdoor storage Libraries Parking lots Parks and recreation Office Police/fire station Medical/dental laboratories Public service structure Permitted by CUP Heliport Public service structure More than one principal building 2 principal buildings on a single lot Group Daycare/nursery school Detached garages exceeding size limits More than one principal building St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 8d - Cambridge Comp Plan And Rezoning Page 6 The transition of land uses in the Brooklawns Neighborhood are so well defined by the railroad and other physical features that the only encroachment by a land use across a transition is the subject property. While the existing 4 dwelling units currently co-exist with industrial uses and traffic, it is the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and current zoning that the use of this property should be industrial, not residential. The redevelopment options for this property include removing the existing structures and building a new industrial building, or removing the structures and combining with adjacent industrial properties to form a larger industrial redevelopment project. Are there unaccounted benefits to the proposed amendment, such as the removal of blighted properties? The existing structures are not blighted and appear to be in good condition. Mr. Murphy submitted a drawing (attached) indicating that he believes the property is too small for an industrial use. However, the setbacks used in the analysis are too big. He is proposing a 50 foot front yard setback where the code requirement for a one story industrial building is 20 feet (40 feet if parking is provided in the front). He also proposes a 20 foot side and rear setback where the code requirement is 12 feet on one side, 0 feet on the other and 10 feet to the rear. The odd shape and small size of the property is a limiting factor, but would not prevent a small industrial structure from being built. Other industrial uses are allowed, including outside storage as a principal use, which are not dependent upon building space. The property could also be combined with additional industrial properties to allow for a larger industrial structure or expansion of the existing adjoining structures. Is the request consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan? The Industrial Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan identifies up to 9 percent of the land in the city as being industrial. Since 2000, the city has rezoned some industrial parcels from industrial to another district, typically residential. The city has not rezoned land from another land use to industrial so the percentage of industrial land has declined since 2000. The Comprehensive Plan identifies a goal of providing a variety of housing where applicable, and maintaining the integrity of the industrial areas by providing opportunities for expansion and protecting the industrial areas from encroachment of other land uses. Staff believes the proposed amendment create an encroachment of residential into an otherwise dominantly industrial area. Staff also believes that while providing for a variety of housing is an important goal, and is actively being pursued throughout the city, the future use of this particular property would be better as industrial rather than residential. There are numerous better residential opportunities throughout the city, but few locations for preserving or enhancing industrial. Therefore, staff believes the request is not consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, and that the land use map and zoning map should remain industrial for this property. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 8d - Cambridge Comp Plan And Rezoning Page 7 Public Process: Mr. Steve Murphy, acting on behalf of the applicant, presented the application to the Planning Commission on November 16, 2005. Mr. Murphy explained the difficulty he is having selling the building, and he stated that his potential buyers are having difficulty finding financing and insurance. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing at that meeting, and received no comments from the public. The Planning Commission recommended denial of the requested amendments, based on the belief that the highest and best use for the property is industrial. They felt mortgage companies should not be dictating zoning or be requesting letters that guarantee the property meets all applicable laws and codes. They also felt that the state statute protects the property for rebuilding, and that changing the zoning is the wrong tool for this situation. Recommendation: The Planning Commission and Staff recommend that the Council adopt the attached Resolution denying the request to amend the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning for the parcel at 6300-6312 Cambridge Street. Attachments: Location map. Letters submitted by applicant Applications Proposed Resolution of denial Draft minutes from November 16, 2005 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: 120505 - 8d - Cambridge Comp Plan And Rezoning Page 8 RESOLUTION NO. 05-_____ RESOLUTION OF DENIAL A RESOLUTION OF FINDING REGARDING THE APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2000-2020 AND A REZONING FROM GENERAL INDUSTRIAL (IG) TO TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-3) FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6300 – 6312 CAMBRIDGE STREET WHEREAS, on August 9, 2005, Julie L. Murphy filed an application to amend the Comprehensive Plan land use designation for property located at 6300-6312 Cambridge Street from Industrial to Medium Density Residential, and an amendment to the Zoning Map to change the zoning from General Industrial (IG) to Two Family Residential (R-3), and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the request on October 5, 2005 and at the request of the applicant continued that hearing to October 19, 2005 and November 16, 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: 120505 - 8d - Cambridge Comp Plan And Rezoning 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. 05-50-CP and Planning Case File No. 05-51-Z 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 that the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park makes the following findings: 1. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission (Case No. 05-50-CP and 05-51-Z); and 2. The City Council has considered the effect of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Map amendment and Zoning Map amendment on the health, safety and welfare of the occupants of the surrounding lands and finds the following: a. The property has been guided Industrial since 1984 and zoned Industrial since 1932; b. The long term use of the property is planned for industrial based on the site characteristics and surrounding land uses; c. The comprehensive plan map and zoning map designations should be, and were, determined through a public process involving the input of the neighborhood, and a comprehensive, city wide land use analysis and not solely determined by the financing options made available by mortgage companies; d. The property abuts other industrial property; e. The character of the area has not changed in any substantial way since the property was originally guided and zoned Industrial; f. The property can be put to a reasonable use under its current Industrial classification; and g. The property’s current legal nonconforming residential use also provides a reasonable use of the property. 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 6300-6312 Cambridge Avenue from Industrial to Medium St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 8d - Cambridge Comp Plan And Rezoning Page 10 Density Residential and the rezoning request from General Industrial (IG) to R-3 – Two Family Residential is hereby denied. Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council December 5, 2005 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 8d - Cambridge Comp Plan And Rezoning Page 11 Unofficial Minutes Excerpts – Planning Commission November 16, 2005 3. Hearings A. Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning from Industrial to Two-Family Residential (Continued from October 5, 2005 and October 19, 2005) Location: 6300-6312 Cambridge Applicant: Julie Murphy Case Nos.: 05-50-CP and 05-51-Z Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator, presented the staff report. He explained that the applicant would like to sell the property. The applicant has stated they cannot get financing or insurance because the property’s use is legally non-conforming. They are presenting rezoning as a solution to make the property conforming. Mr. Morrison said staff review has found that the property has a legally non-conforming land use as a residential use in an industrially zoned property. There are numerous other legal non-conforming uses throughout the City. Staff acknowledges that financing and insuring these properties may be difficult, but not impossible. Mr. Morrison referenced a state law passed in 2004 which allows any legal non-conforming structure to be replaced in its entirety within one year of being damaged or removed. Mr. Morrison stated that staff recommendation is for denial of the requests for Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezoning. Commissioner Robertson asked if there was any zoning which would allow residential, but also allow much of what is allowed in the Industrial District so that the property could become conforming but not have to be residential. Mr. Morrison said the closest would be R-4 where there is a permitted office use if less than 2,500 sq. ft., but the applicant’s property exceeds that size. Commissioner Morris asked about Certificates of Rebuild. Mr. Morrison said those requests come to him, and he will not issue those certificates. He commented on laws and ordinances changing and without an inspection, staff can’t say for certain that a property meets code. Commissioner Morris said in 2002 in order the list the property the owner would have been required to get a City inspection to certify the property meets code. Mr. Morrison said owners get an inspection under the building code and housing code, but not the zoning code. Commissioner Morris asked if the Certificate of Rebuild would be a zoning letter. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 8d - Cambridge Comp Plan And Rezoning Page 12 Mr. Morrison responded a Certificate of Rebuild would encompass a housing inspection, code compliance and zoning compliance. Steve Murphy, husband of applicant Julie Murphy, said that mortgage companies are adding more layers of requirements due to changing laws and codes. He explained that three years ago when the property was purchased, the appraisal did not require noting whether or not the property was a legal non-conforming use. At that time, the financing company was more concerned about value, not whether or not it was a legal non- conforming use. Mr. Murphy spoke about a property he owns in Hopkins which is also a double bungalow in similar circumstances. He tried selling it in Spring, 2005, but could not sell it because the City of Hopkins refused to issue a Certificate of Rebuild. Their ordinances were contrary to state law. He explained that he faxed the state statute to the mortgage company. It was determined that since City of Hopkins staff could not give a legal opinion, the document was not acceptable. The mortgage company had to have something that would state it was rebuildable. In the City of Hopkins, he was the first property owner to request a Certificate of Rebuild. Mr. Murphy said he believes the City of St. Louis Park will be receiving many requests for Certificates of Rebuild as financing is getting very difficult. Owners have to be able to prove that their properties are rebuildable. He went on to say that an undue hardship is created for any legal non- conforming use because of the way things have changed in the last two years in the financing and insurance industry. Commissioner Kramer asked for clarification about the 2004 state statute as it regards the applicant’s property. Mr. Morrison said nothing has changed from the City’s perspective. Zoning has not changed. State law has changed to the owner’s benefit in allowing them the right to completely rebuild the structure if it is damaged or removed, so they’ve had some relief in that regard. He said that previously, if a property was damaged beyond 60%, it had to be removed and could not be rebuilt. Commissioner Johnston-Madison commented that what changed from the past is that the legal non-conforming status is now noted in the appraisal. Mortgage companies don’t want to underwrite a mortgage that is not saleable in their portfolio. She asked for more information as to why the Zoning Administrator cannot issue a Certificate of Rebuild. Mr. Morrison said he has been asked a couple of times to issue such a certificate and he has refused because he does not have a physical inspection review of the property to make sure all issues are met. Typically requests are made for these kinds of letters without an as-built survey so he has nothing to review. He is just asked to sign off on the letter saying yes, it can be rebuilt. Most of the time he cannot do that because he doesn’t have the data. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 8d - Cambridge Comp Plan And Rezoning Page 13 Mr. Morrison went on to say that zoning letters have been issued in the past. Over the last few years those letters have evolved into two-page requests about a multitude of issues. It becomes a very labor intensive process, especially with large complexes, verifying that it meets every single code. Staff provides the zoning and flood information and lets the applicant know the files are open for their review. Ms. McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor, added that many cities no longer answer these kinds of requests. They will answer zoning and floodplain questions. Mortgage companies are invited to review the files, complete a survey and do the research. After completing the research, mortgage companies can certify the information back to the lender or insurance company. Commissioner Robertson said it seems the applicant is asking to have the zoning changed to simplify this. He said that zoning is a whole different issue and the alternative is to put the burden back on the applicant to take care of this a different way. He said he presumed it would be difficult and expensive. He asked staff if it could be done. Ms. McMonigal responded she believed it could be done. She felt if the applicant took the state law back to a lender or had an attorney take it back to the lender, it would work. Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked Mr. Murphy why the lender isn’t providing this certification service. Mr. Murphy responded that the lender wants the information and they want the city to provide it. He continued by saying that all the lender wants to know is if the property is rebuildable. He said in Hopkins, the City Attorney prevented staff from giving a legal opinion to decipher the state law and how it applies to local municipalities. Tom Scott, City Attorney, said there isn’t any problem pointing out the City ordinance and the state statute. Normally the mortgage company reads the state statute and makes its own conclusion about rebuilding. He said typically City Attorneys advise staff not to render legal opinions. Informal discussion and clarification is conducted but legal opinions are not provided. In reference to the questionnaires requesting certification of a multitude of other issues, Mr. Scott said he agrees with staff that it is the mortgage company’s responsibility to research and certify those issues. In response to a question regarding whether or not City code is in compliance with the 2004 state statute, Mr. Morrison said the code has not been amended to be consistent with the recent state statute. He added that the state statute supercedes the city ordinance. Ms. McMonigal said staff is working on that particular amendment. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 8d - Cambridge Comp Plan And Rezoning Page 14 Mr. Murphy stated that if state law changes again they will still have a problem with being non-conforming. He said if the property is rezoned to R-3 the property will be safe forever. He said ultimately the market is the best arbiter of what is the best use of the property. He said as the property abuts the R-3 district, it would be an easier way to go. Mr. Murphy commented on the decrease in the value of the property as currently zoned. He explained the benefits of rezoning to the City in that it takes away the risk for buyers and the value increases. He said the economics aren’t there for a commercial building. Currently it is difficult to obtain a Certificate of Rebuild and it is difficult to sell. Commissioner Robertson asked if the property had any historic significance. Mr. Morrison said that NordicWare is the only property with historic significance in the area. Commissioner Morris asked if the lender documents provided by the applicant came from buyers. Mr. Murphy said he had provided a couple of different mortgage company’s views. Commissioner Morris said he didn’t see any evidence that anyone had not been able to secure financing. Mr. Murphy said buyers had not qualified because of zoning. Commissioner Morris said his reading of the letter shows that it has been difficult but that there is a new state statute and those difficulties are being overcome. He said he thinks what the applicant is explaining is a traditional problem. But since statutory legislation has recently been passed to address the problem, it seems that the lenders aren’t coming on board and adjusting their underwriting review requirements. Commissioner Morris said the industry is exhibiting the problems, not the municipal bodies which provide information to the industry. He said there are probably dozens of legal non-conforming properties that are sold annually. He said he didn’t think Comprehensive Plans and zoning codes need to be changed to accommodate lender’s demands for assurance of their loans. Chair Carper opened the public hearing. As no one was present wishing to speak, the Chair closed the public hearing. Chair Carper asked how many similar properties might exist. Mr. Morrison responded that there are many legal non-conforming structures and uses, and duplexes are probably the most common. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120505 - 8d - Cambridge Comp Plan And Rezoning Page 15 Ms. McMonigal said the question isn’t just about rezoning, but also regards looking at the long range plan. Zoning changes then follow Comprehensive Plan changes. Commissioner Robertson said he sympathizes with the applicant’s problems, but the highest and best use is for the property to remain industrial. Mortgage companies should not be dictating zoning or requesting letters of absolute guarantee. He said it appears that the state statute protects the property for rebuilding. Commissioner Morris said he was somewhat divided on the arguments. He understands the seller’s hardship but said he’s uncomfortable using a spot zoning method to correct the issues of financial institutions. He commented that the property is up to City code, it is sellable, it may be more difficult to find a lender willing to underwrite the loan, the state has identified problems and proactively changed some statutes on it, and the City is working on its mechanism for complying with the state statute. He said it’s not in the Commission’s realm to determine the market. He said he supports the staff recommendation of denial. Commissioner Kramer said he also sympathizes with the applicant, but said he felt the applicant had options. He said there is always a market for insurance at some premium, the property still has rental income, and contract for deed could be used for mortgage financing. Commissioner Kramer said changing the zoning is the wrong tool for this situation. He said he supports the staff recommendation. Commissioner Johnston-Madison said she also sympathized with the applicant but she is concerned about setting a precedent for rezoning. She said it is imperative that the City amend the zoning code as quickly as possible to reflect the state statute. Presenting the amendment to a mortgage company could benefit the seller. She said it is a difficult decision but she also supports the staff recommendation. Chair Carper said he was also concerned about precedent and the unintended consequences of the rezoning request. Commissioner Morris made a motion to recommend denial of the Comprehensive Plan amendment to change the land use designation from Industrial to Medium Density Residential and denial of a zoning map amendment to change the zoning designation from IG-General Industrial to R3 – Two Family Residential. Commissioner Robertson seconded the motion. The motion recommending denial passed on a vote of 5-0. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120505 – 8e – Annual City Manager Evaluation Page 1 8e Summary and acceptance of the annual City Manager evaluation. Recommended Motion for formal acceptance of the final City Manager Action: annual evaluation. Background On Monday, November 28, 2005 the Council met with Consultant Larry Bakken in executive session to discuss the annual City Manager evaluation. At our meeting this evening, the Mayor will provide a summary of the evaluation results. Evaluation summary documents will be mailed to the Mayor and Councilmembers in a separate package from our consultant, Larry Bakken, prior to Monday’s meeting. Attachment: Resolution Prepared by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120505 – 8e – Annual City Manager Evaluation Page 2 RESOLUTION NO. 05-____ RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE ANNUAL CITY MANAGER EVALUATION WHEREAS, the City Council provides an opportunity to hold an annual evaluation of the City Manager and; WHEREAS, on November 28, 2005 an Executive Session of the Council was held to discuss the evaluation, and; WHEREAS, Larry Bakken, consultant, has worked with the Council to finalize the evaluation with the Council. NOW, THEREFORE, LET IT BE RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park hereby accepts the annual evaluation of the City Manager. Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council December 5, 2005 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk