Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004/02/17 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - RegularAGENDA SUMMARY CITY COUNCIL MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, February 17, 2004 7:30 p.m. Study Session to Follow Immediately After Regular Meeting 1. Call to Order a. Pledge of Allegiance b. Roll Call 2. Presentations 3. Approval of Minutes a. City Council Minutes of February 2, 2004 Document b. City Council Study Session Minutes of February 2, 2004 Document c. City Council Study Session Minutes of January 26, 2004 Document 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 7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public - None 8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions 8a. First Reading of an ordinance authorizing the sale of City real property to Excelsior & Grand II, LLC. Document This report considers the adoption of an ordinance authorizing the sale of City real property to Excelsior & Grand II, LLC. Recommended Action: Motion to approve First Reading of an ordinance authorizing the sale of City real property to Excelsior & Grand II, LLC and set Second Reading for March 1, 2004. 8b. Resolution Approving the Residential Street Maintenance and Rehabilitation Program Document Request to adopt the Residential Street Maintenance and Rehabilitation Program which would establish 8 maintenance areas within the City for application of various pavement maintenance efforts. Recommended Action: Motion to approve the attached resolution which adopts the City’s Residential Street Maintenance and Rehabilitation Program 8c. First Reading of the proposed Ordinance Code for the Stormwater Ordinance Document Recommended Action: Motion to approve First Reading of proposed Ordinance Code for the Stormwater Ordinance, and set the second reading for March 15, 2004. 8d. First Reading of Zoning Text amendment to delete Section 36-80 Erosion Control Document Zoning text amendment to delete Section 36-80 Erosion Control as a step toward consolidating regulations associated with land disturbing events into the Stormwater Ordinance. Case No. 04-01-ZA Recommended Action: Motion to approve first reading of Ordinance amending Chapter 36 of the Municipal Code to delete Section 36-80 Erosion Control subject to adoption of the Stormwater Ordinance and set second reading for March 1, 2004. 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 FEBRUARY 17, 2004 SECTION 4: CONSENT CALENDAR NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion. 4a Motion to approve resolution for renewal of the 2004 liquor licenses listed on the resolution contingent upon receipt of all appropriate documentation. Document 4b Motion to adopt a resolution supporting an application for state funding of a City project for the construction of local trail connections to the regional trail system Document 4c Motion to accept Vendor Claims for filing (Supplement) 4d Motion to accept for filing the Human Rights Commission Minute of December 17, 2004 Document 4e Motion to accept for filing the Planning Commission Minutes of January 21, 2004 Document 4f Motion to accept for filing the Housing Authority Minutes of January 14, 2004 Document AGENDA SUPPLEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 17, 2004 Items contained in this section are those items which are not yet available in electronic format and which are identified in the individual reports by inclusion of the word “Supplement”. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 021704 - 3a - Council Minutes of Feb. 2, 2004 Page 1 of 5 UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA February 2, 2004 1. Call to Order Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Councilmembers Present: John Basill, Phil Finkelstein, Susan Sanger, Sue Santa, Sally Velick, Paul Omodt, and Mayor Jeff Jacobs. Staff Present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney (Mr. Scott), Fire Chief (Mr. Stemmer), Planning & Zoning Supervisor (Ms. Jeremiah), City Clerk (Ms. Reichert), Housing Programs Coordinator (Ms. Larsen), Housing Supervisor (Ms. Schnitker), and Deputy City Clerk (Ms. Stroth). 2. Presentations 2a. Presentation on NORC (Natural Occuring Retirement Communities) Grant for the Senior Program Mary Forbush, Jewish Community Center Children & Services; Rita Kach, Lenox Sr. Program Coordinator; Annette Malinsky-Sandler, Project Coordinator of NORC Grant Project; and Michael Klein, Sholom Community Alliance presented information regarding the NORC Grant of over $1 million for the Senior Program. Included in the partnership will be the City, School, Jewish Community Center, Park Nicollet, Hennepin County, Lenox, Rotary Club, Sholom Community Alliance, and Hamilton House. 3. Approval of Minutes 3a. City Council Minutes of January 20, 2004 From Councilmember Omodt: Page 1, Item 2a, correct spelling error plague to plaque. 3b. City Council Study Session Minutes of January 20, 2004 From Councilmember Sanger: Page 2, Paragraph 2, last sentence after not all alleys were assessed, add or improved. 3c. City Council Study Session Minutes of January 12, 2004 The minutes were 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 St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 021704 - 3a - Council Minutes of Feb. 2, 2004 Page 2 of 5 Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion. City Manager Harmening requested the addition of Consent Item 4f to approve Planning Commission minutes of January 7. 4a Adopt Resolution No. 04-021 requesting an administrative variance from State- Aid rule 8820.2800 subpart 2 for City Project No. 02-01B with State Aid project designations of S.A.P 163-282-15, 163-283-16, 163-295-03, 163-295-04, and 163-295-05. 4b Adopt Resolution No. 04-022 authorizing application for a Hennepin County grant to fund the City’s curbside recycling program. 4c Accept Vendor Claims for filing (Supplement) 4d Approve Resolution No. 04-023 providing for the sale of $7,550,000 General Obligation Tax Increment Refunding Bonds Series 2004a. 4e Approve Temporary On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for Sabes Jewish Community Center, 4330 Cedar Lake Road, St. Louis Park for February 7, 2004 4f Accept for filing the Planning Commission Minutes of January 7, 2004. It was moved by Councilmember Velick, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to approve the agenda and items listed with the addition of Item 4f on the Consent Calendar. The motion passed 7-0. 5. Boards and Commissions 5a. Appointment to Planning Commission for a term expiring December 31, 2005. It was moved by Councilmember Omodt, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to approve the appointment of Claudia Johnston-Madison to the Planning Commission for a term expiring December 31, 2005. The motion passed 7-0. 6. Public Hearings – None 7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None 8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions 8a. Request by SilverCrest Properties for Final Planned Unit Development approval for a residential senior housing development, Case No. 03-38-PUD 3601, 3633 and 3663 Park Center Boulevard. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 021704 - 3a - Council Minutes of Feb. 2, 2004 Page 3 of 5 Resolution No. 04-024 Planning and Zoning Supervisor Janet Jeremiah presented a Staff report on SilverCrest Properties request for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for Park Summit Senior Condominiums and the Park Shores campus. The proposal includes a 14 story, 150 unit senior housing development to be located at 3601 Park Center Boulevard. She indicated a new curb cut was proposed on south end of condo property with restricted access just for construction on an interim basis until a consolidated access could be built in approximately this location onto the assisted living property. Ms. Jeremiah stated that staff, the developer, and the Planning Commission agreed it would be beneficial to construct a consolidated access prior to occupancy of the condominium building if possible. However, there is still a need to work with other property owners with regard to the consolidated access. She indicated conditions for cost sharing for the roadway improvements and continued payments of special service district fees are included in the resolution. She stated it is anticipated the project would be under construction in 2005 for occupancy in 2007. Councilmember Velick expressed concerns regarding the parking and the limited access. Councilmember Sanger questioned the following: • What if Target doesn’t agree to the consolidated access • What if the building is built and occupied before resolving the access issue • If the interim access is delayed, what guarantees do we have from the developer and the condominium association Ms. Jeremiah responded a median break would prevent vehicles coming out of Target, relatively low traffic volumes are expected for the senior condominiums, and that is has been deemed acceptable by the City Engineer and outside consultant. She stated the developer and or property owners would be responsible for paying for the consolidated access. She also stated there will be a requirement of the condominium association documents to address this provision. Councilmember Sanger asked if Target is not willing to alter their parking lot, would the City be stuck with the interm situation on a permanent basis. City Attorney Tom Scott responded yes we could proceed ahead and acquire what we need to do the proposed consolidated access. Councilmember Basil asked if the City could require financial contribution from Target. City Attorney Scott responded at this time, we could not acquire financial contribution from Target. He stated this would be a road project restructuring the access and we would have to acquire from Target whatever property interest is needed. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 021704 - 3a - Council Minutes of Feb. 2, 2004 Page 4 of 5 Councilmember Omodt questioned if there was a plan in place to not disrupt existing traffic and taking away traffic as we go. Ms. Jeremiah responded the intent would be to put the interim access in place for construction purposes for taking the quickest route to and from Hwy 100, and could be required in the development agreement. Bill Gatlin, 2620 Hampshire Avenue, questioned the costs of the units, age requirement, and the need for low cost housing. Ms. Jeremiah responded the anticipated price range is $250,000 - $700,000 per unit and the age requirement is over 55. It was moved by Councilmember Basill, seconded by Councilmember Sanger to adopt a resolution approving the Final Planned Unit Development, subject to the conditions in the resolution, and authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to execute a development agreement. Councilmember Finkelstein suggested the motion should also include the interim access conditions be required in the development agreement. It was moved by Councilmember Basill, seconded by Councilmember Sanger to adopt Resolution No. 04-024 approving the Final Planned Unit Development, subject to the conditions in the resolution, and authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to execute a development agreement to include the interim access conditions. The motion passed 7-0. 8b. Resolution Approving 2004 Liquor License Renewals. City Clerk Reichert reported that 29 liquor license renewal applications have been prepared for Council’s approval. Additional applications will be presented at the next Council meeting. Bill Gatlin, 2620 Hampshire Avenue, questioned why the liquor stores are closed early. Ms. Reichert responded the hours of operatinon are set by Minnesota State Statute. It was moved by Councilmember Omodt, seconded by Councilmember Santa to approve Resolution No. 04-025 regarding 2004 liquor license renewals for on-sale, off-sale, Sunday-sale, club and wine intoxicating liquor licenses, and for off-sale and on-sale 3.2% malt liquor. License year to run March 1, 2004 through February 28, 2005. The motion passed 7-0. 9. Communications St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 021704 - 3a - Council Minutes of Feb. 2, 2004 Page 5 of 5 Mayor Jacobs extended condolences to the family of former Mayor and Councilmember Len Thiel who recently passed away. 10. Adjournment Mayor Jacobs adjourned the meeting at 8:15 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ City Clerk Mayor St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 021704 - 3b - Study Session Minutes of Feb. 2, 2004 Page 1 of 4 UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION February 2, 2004 The meeting convened at 8:30 p.m. Councilmembers present: John Basill, Phillip Finkelstein, Paul Omodt, Sue Santa, Susan Sanger, Sally Velick, and Mayor Jeff Jacobs. Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Chief of Police (Mr. Luse), Fire Chief (Mr. Stemmer), PSAP Manager (Ms. Alex), Planning and Zoning Supervisor (Ms. Jeremiah), Housing Programs Coordinator (Ms. Larsen); Housing Supervisor (Ms. Schnitker), and Deputy City Clerk (Ms. Stroth). Others present: Jeff Nelson, PSC Alliance; Stonebridge Development Project Team. 1. Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) Consolidation Study Update PSAP Manager, Heather Alex, presented a brief overview of the need for future options for the delivery and infrastructure of public safety 9-1-1 dispatching services. She stated PSC Alliance conducted a study of alternatives to deal with the impact of declining LGA funds; and ways to maximize effectiveness and save money while still maintaining an acceptable level of service. She stated the two options include sharing dispatching services with other cities or requesting dispatching services from Hennepin County Sheriff. Jeff Nelson, PSC Alliance, summarized the analysis of the study. He stated similarities and differences were found in technology, staffing, policies, procedures, protocols, and governance. Mr. Nelson indicated the importance of how well partners get along and that the needs are being met. He discussed demographic issues and the economies of consolidation. He concluded there are opportunities for better use of staff and technology. Councilmember Finkelstein questioned why some suburbs who use Hennepin County Dispatch Services do not have to pay while others are charged. City Manager Harmening stated conversations were held with County Commissioner Gail Dorfman regarding training and startup costs; and that the County Board will be discussing policy issues. Councilmember Sanger suggested to not only look at the costs, but also the long range plan. She also indicated that the City Attorney look at the issue. City Manager Harmening and Mayor Jacobs both agreed there is still the need to continue working with Hennepin County. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 021704 - 3b - Study Session Minutes of Feb. 2, 2004 Page 2 of 4 Councilmember Santa asked if funds could be available from Department of Justice through homeland security. She felt that more consolidation might produce a more rapid response. Mr. Nelson responded these grants are more technology based and not for staffing levels. Ms. Alex indicated the possibility of a grant up to $500,000 for radio equipment and infrastructure to connect our system with Hennepin County radio system. She stated the Governor is proposing some funding for brick and mortar projects. Fire Chief Stemmer commented that availability of funds since in the aftermath of September 11 is now starting agencies to operate together. Ms. Alex reviewed the timeline. She stated the first portion of funds must be spent by July 1, 2005 and that the clear direction with Richfield, St. Louis Park, Golden Valley, and Brooklyn Center be determined by June 2004. Mr. Nelson indicated the need for space, newer technology and resources for command and control. Discussion took place regarding the dual track approach and the cluster approach. Mayor Jacobs concluded the incentive was to go forward with the dual track approach and that we would be better served with the consolidation of other cities; and also to continue working with Hennepin County. City Manager Harmening commented on the importance for citizens to know we have looked at all the options. 2. Stonebridge Development presentation regarding a proposed Senior Cooperative Housing Redevelopment Project on the former Talmud Torah school property and its request for Tax Increment Financing Assistance Mr. Hunt introduced the following Stonebridge Development Project Team members: Ron Mehl, Stonebridge; Mary Bujold, Maxfield Research Inc.; Jim Deanovie, Peter Andrea Company; Gary Tushie, Tushie Architects; Tim Larkin, Glaser Financial; and Mark Ruff & Stacie Kvilvang, Ehlers & Associates. He reminded the Council that the purpose of a Preliminary TIF Application was to allow a developer to present a proposal in a project’s initial stages to determine if there was interest for staff and the developer to work further on the project. Mr. Mehl discussed how limited equity senior coops work, their track record in other suburban communities, and the need for TIF assistance. He stated it would not be feasible to do rental property at this location nor condominiums due to the market conditions. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 021704 - 3b - Study Session Minutes of Feb. 2, 2004 Page 3 of 4 Ms. Bujold stated from research, seniors are concerned about housing costs and in most cases want to downsize or make a lateral move. She indicated this project provides a much needed, more affordable housing option providing greater flexibility for seniors in St. Louis Park. Councilmember Sanger questioned cost issues, advantages and disadvantages of senior coop housing verses senior condominium housing. Mr. Mehl responded that the market is the key issue where the downpayment is a source of the funds and a function of financing the project verses taking out a loan. He stated there is less market risk with cooperative housing and that it is a lifestyle choice. Discussion took place regarding advantages and disadvantages of Cooperative Housing and Condominium Housing. Results from the discussion are as follows: Senior Cooperative Housing Seniors in a Condominium Financially feasible – rapid appreciation Similar to apartment, but less down payment Community mortgage shared Less market risk, HUD insured AAA rating Place to live and still have cash Coop pays for appliances, maintenance, taxes Community of similar age range Greater bonding between people More social activities Retain more seniors in community Assures long term affordable housing Improved security with co-op ownership Limiting inheritance issues Price limitation when selling Own your own mortgage for 1 unit Maximum Inheritance value Association fees No tax write off Place to live but less cash Different ages No controls on affordability Loan difficulty for no income seniors More chance to become run down Councilmembers Sanger and Santa asked if household incomes will be above or below a certain threshold. Mr. Ruff indicated there are no limits on income or assets and that the terms could be negotiated. Mayor Jacobs asked if there needs to be subsidizing or if the project could be developed without TIF. Mr. Ruff stated there is a need for some level of subsidizing and the amount can be discussed later. Mr. Hunt stated the Tax Increment Financing will payout in less than 9 years. He stated the funds will directly assist in the acquisition of the land at the site and also aid in the cost of demolition of the building that is on site. Councilmember Omodt stated he was not comfortable using TIF at this time and the need to further discuss further goals in affordable senior housing, and other ways to develop the site. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 021704 - 3b - Study Session Minutes of Feb. 2, 2004 Page 4 of 4 Councilmember Santa indicated the need to figure out the main reasons to base a decision on whether it is affordability, living environment of similar ages, or renting verses moving lateral, etc. Councilmember Velick felt there was a need for this kind of housing but was not committed to do TIF and would like to know more regarding what makes a worthy TIF Project. Councilmember Sanger requested staff to put together some business points and market study for further discussion. Mr. Hunt discussed the “very good” result of the TIF Proposal report card. He stated the affordable income limit factor mode was determined by the value of unit as defined by the Metropolitan Council. City Manager Harmening summarized there is an interest for different types of housing products, a need for more time to work with developer and develop operational business points. Councilmember Omodt requested more information on the entire TIF policy. It was the consensus of the Council to continue discussion on the Senior Cooperative Housing Redevelopment Project and the policies and criteria for Tax Increment Financing. 3. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ City Clerk Mayor St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 021704 - 3c - Study Session Minutes of Jan. 26, 2004 Page 1 of 3 UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION January 26, 2004 The meeting convened at 7:00 p.m. Present at the meeting were Councilmembers John Basill, Phillip Finkelstein, Paul Omodt, Sue Santa, Sally Velick, and Mayor Jeff Jacobs. Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Director of Finance (Ms. McGann), Accountant (Ms. Rinta), Director of Public Works (Mr. Rardin), City Engineer (Ms. Hagen), Engineering Project Manager (Mr. Olson), Engineering Program Coordinator (Ms. Adler), Planning and Zoning Supervisor (Ms. Jeremiah), Community Outreach Coordinator (Ms. McDonell), and City Clerk (Ms. Reichert). 1. Legislative Update Senator Steve Kelley and Representative Ron Latz were present at the meeting. Council and staff discussed bonding issues. Senator Kelley stated that if the issue was not already addressed in the current bills, it was questionable whether it would pass this year. He reported that the budget situation overshadowed all proposed legislation. He believed Governor Pawlenty would not support local projects. When asked about telecommunications issues, Senator Kelley outlined his position, which he stated had not changed. He believed that our state laws regarding telecommunications and new communications technologies were outdated and he would continue to push for changes in legislation. 2. Volunteer Recognition for Boards and Commissions Sarah Krezowiak, Volunteer Coordinator, was present at the meeting. Ms. Krezowiak distributed an annual report on the volunteer programs as well as handouts on recognizing volunteers. Ms. McDonell suggested the council sponsor a “meet and greet” reception prior to a study session and provide an opportunity for the chairs of each commission to provide some comments about their commission, projects underway, and future plans. Council agreed that the reception was a good idea and set a date of March 22 for the event.. 3. Traffic Signal Improvements at Louisiana and Hwy. 7 Mr. Olson gave a presentation on the findings of the study conducted by WSB and Associates. The report recommended the installations of traffic signals at both Walker and Lake Streets with St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 021704 - 3c - Study Session Minutes of Jan. 26, 2004 Page 2 of 3 Louisiana Ave S. as well as dual left turn lanes at Highway 7 and Louisiana. He reported that staff had met with Mn/DOT and discussed the plan. He stated that staff realizes this is a short- term solution and has asked SRF Consulting Group to develop long-term concept plans. Councilmember Finkelstein inquired about the impacts of Methodist Hospital reconstruction and if a traffic signal would be needed at Louisiana Ave S and the hospital entrance. Ms. Hagen replied that the traffic study did not indicate that one was needed. Councilmember Santa asked about the quality of the soil where the road will be widened. Mr. Olson replied that it is satisfactory and the permit from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District has already been approved. Councilmember Finkelstein asked about funding for the project and Mr. Harmening responded that $O.P. funds would be used. He reported that Louisiana Oaks has asked that staff assess the period of time the project would take. Councilmember Santa inquired about the Holiday Station entrance. Mr. Harmening stated that staff is continuing to move forward and is working hard with Mn/DOT. Ms. Hagen reported that the long term proposal would be implemented around 2015. Mr. Harmening added that the current intersection will break down between 2013 and 2020. Ms. Hagen stated that staff is working with Mn/DOT to find funding options. 4. Refunding of 1996 GO Tax Increment Bonds Ms. McGann explained how the bonds sale could save between $40,000-50,000 per year. Council asked staff to move forward with the sale. Mr. Harmening stated that Council will need to set a sale date at the next regular meeting. 5. Stormwater Ordinance to Meet Federal Requirements Mr. Anderson explained the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The NPDES requires the MN Pollution Control Agency to enforce federal regulations on municipal stormwater systems. Staff felt the best way to address this issue is to consolidate all existing ordinances and the new requirements into one ordinance. Councilmember Basill asked if the Quadion site would be impacted by this ordinance. Ms. Jeremiah stated that she would look into the CUP requirements. 6. Communications Staff informed council that they were considering the viability of purchasing property near Highway 7 and Wooddale. Council will be kept informed St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 021704 - 3c - Study Session Minutes of Jan. 26, 2004 Page 3 of 3 Staff reminded Council that there will be a study session following the next regular meeting and there is also the Talmud Torah tour. Staff would like to plan an organizational development session to plan a Council retreat. Council asked for an update on who was interviewed for boards and commissions and was not appointed. Staff informed Council that former mayor Len Thiel has passed away. 7. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ City Clerk Mayor St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 021704 - 4a - Liquor License Renewals Page 1 of 2 4a. Motion to approve resolution for renewal of the 2004 liquor licenses listed on the resolution contingent upon receipt of all appropriate documentation. Background: Renewal applications, liquor liability insurance certificates and license fees have now been received from all of the City’s liquor establishments. The license year runs March 1, 2004, to February 28, 2005. City Ordinance requires property tax payments to be current prior to issuance of a liquor license and all tax payments for the establishments are current. Staff has been working with representatives of McCoy’s Public House who are re-negotiating their liquor liability coverage. They expect to complete their negotiations and present us with an insurance certificate within the next week. Therefore, we are recommending approval of the intoxicating on- sale and Sunday sale liquor license for that establishment contingent upon receipt of the certificate. With that exception, all establishments listed in Appendix A of the attached resolution are recommended for approval. Attachments: Resolution Prepared by: Kim Olson, Admin. Secretary Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 021704 - 4a - Liquor License Renewals Page 2 of 2 RESOLUTION NO. 04-027 RESOLUTION APPROVING ISSUANCE OF LIQUOR LICENSE RENEWALS FOR YEAR 2004 The license year runs March 1, 2004, to February 28, 2005. WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 340A and St. Louis Park Ordinance Code Chapter 3, provide for liquor licensing in cooperation with the Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement Division of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, and. WHEREAS, no license may be issued or renewed if required criteria has not been met, and BE IT RESOLVED by the City of St. Louis Park City Council that the applicants and the following establishments listed below have met the criteria necessary for issuance of their respective liquor licenses, and the applications are hereby approved. Establishment Name Address Type of License Applebee’s Grill Bar 8332 Highway 7 Intoxicating On-Sale and Sunday Chipotle Mexican Grill 5480 Excelsior Blvd Non-Intoxicating On Sale and Wine Fuddruckers 6445 Wayzata Blvd. Intoxicating On-Sale and Sunday McCoy’s Public House 3801 Grand Way Intoxicating On-Sale and Sunday Minneapolis Golf Club 2001 Flag Ave. Club and Sunday Santorini’s 9920 Wayzata Blvd Intoxicating On-Sale and Sunday Thanh Do 3005 Utah Ave S Non-Intoxicating On-Sale and Wine Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council February 17, 2004 City Manager Mayor Attest: __________________________________ City Clerk St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 021704 - 4b - Trail Grant Application Page 1 of 2 4b. Motion to adopt a resolution supporting an application for state funding of a City project for the construction of local trail connections to the regional trail system Background: Making the City a safer and more pedestrian-friendly community was one of the recommendations of Vision St. Louis Park. In response to this suggestion, a city-wide Sidewalk, Trail, Bikeway and Crossing Plan was developed. This Plan, which has been incorporated into the city’s Comprehensive Plan, identifies areas of the city in need of additional sidewalk, trails or bikeways, and busy roadway or railroad crossings where pedestrian safety improvements can be implemented. The final Plan was adopted on July 5, 2000 with the Council requesting that the proposed new sidewalk and trail segments be constructed within a 3-year time period. Corrections and minor changes have been made to the plan since its adoption. The changes were based on both errors and by new requests received by residents. Part of those changes included making connections from the City’s local trail system to the regional trail system. Analysis: Three connections to the regional trail system from the City’s local system have been identified and included in the City’s Plan. They are at the following locations: • France Avenue, north of Excelsior Blvd., from the Bass Lake/George Haun trail to the Southwest trail • From Edgebrook Park to the Southwest trail • From the Virginia Ave. parking lot, near Lake Victoria, to the Cedar Lake Extension trail These local connections are eligible for grant funds under a Department of Natural Resources (DNR) grant program. The program will provide reimbursement of 50% of the eligible costs to construct connections to the regional trail system up to a maximum of $100,000. Staff is preparing an application for these grant funds. A preliminary estimate of expected costs for the project is between $50,000 - $55,000. If the City’s project is accepted under the grant program, the project could receive up to $25,250. The City’s share of the project would be paid via GO Bond proceeds. As part of the grant application process, the applicant needs to provide evidence of support from the local governing body. Staff has prepared a resolution for Council to adopt to demonstrate their support of the application and proposed project. Recommendation: Motion to adopt the attached resolution supporting an application for state funding of a City project for the construction of local trail connections to the regional system. Attachment: Resolution Prepared By: Jim Olson, Engineering Project Manager Reviewed By: Maria A. Hagen, City Engineer Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 021704 - 4b - Trail Grant Application Page 2 of 2 RESOLUTION NO. 04-028 RESOLUTION SUPPORTING AN APPLICATION TO THE LOCAL TRAIL CONNECTIONS GRANT PROGRAM, SPONSORED BY THE STATE DNR, TO ASSIST WITH FUNDING A CITY PROJECT TO CONSTRUCT LOCAL TRAIL CONNECTIONS TO THE REGIONAL SYSTEM WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted a city-wide system of walks, trails, and bikeways to be built and maintained by the City; and WHEREAS, this city-wide plan identifies the need for local trail connections to the regional system at the following locations • France Avenue, north of Excelsior Blvd., from the Bass Lake/George Haun trail to the Southwest trail • From Edgebrook Park to the Southwest trail • From the Virginia Ave. parking lot, near Lake Victoria, to the Cedar Lake Extension trail ; and WHEREAS, the City is currently developing a project for the said connections; and WHEREAS, the state provides grant funds for projects such as this from time to time; and WHEREAS, the City wishes to apply for these grant funds to assist in the project funding. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT BE RESOLVED THAT, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park hereby supports the application for state funding and supports a City project for the construction of local trail connections to the regional system Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council February 17, 2004 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 021704 - 4d - HRC Minutes of 12-17-03 Page 1 of 3 City of St. Louis Park Human Rights Commission Minutes – December 17, 2003 Westwood Room – City Hall Call to Order Chair Siegesmund called the meeting to order at 7:20 p.m. Present Commissioners: Matthew Armbrecht; Kristen Edsall, Seema Maddali, Kristi Rudelius-Palmer; Kristin Siegesmund, and Randall Snow Staff: Martha McDonell, Commission Liaison Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as presented. Approval of Minutes Several small corrections were suggested for the minutes of November 19, 2003. It motioned by Mr. Armbrecht, seconded by Ms. Rudelius-Palmer, to approve the minutes with the suggested corrections. Motion passed 6-0. Commissioner Reports Chair Siegesmund updated the commission on the caller who had reported a bias incident on the Human Rights Hotline. She reported that the suspects were caught. Chair Siegesmund informed the new members of the Hate Crime Response Plan. Ms. Rudelius-Palmer emphasized the need to have the Police Department follow through. She informed the commission that Sgt. Lorin Kramer, the commission’s Police liaison, will be retiring soon. The commission discussed who would replace him as a liaison to the commission. Ms. McDonell had spoken to Sgt. Kramer and she had told him that they would prefer a liaison who was interested in the position rather than an appointee. She also suggested that the commission write a list of expectations. Mr. Snow asked if a information session has ever been done over at the police department. Ms. McDonell reported two years ago they had a speaker come in to talk about properly reporting hate crimes. Ms. Rudelius-Palmer thought a liaison between the Police Advisory Commission and the Human Rights Commission would be helpful. Ms. Edsall stated that she had attended one of the Police Advisory Commission meetings and there was an overlap of what both commissions were trying to do. Ms. McDonell suggested that the Human Rights Commission try to get on the agenda for the Police Advisory Commission after they have their first couple of meetings. The commission discussed the possibility that many people do not know what constitutes a hate crime. Ms. McDonell clarified that it is up to the victim to determine whether or not they perceived the crime as a hate crime. Ms. Rudelius-Palmer stated that she serves on the Board of MN League of Human Rights Commissions and she is in District 18. She had reports available for the other commissioners on what is currently happening in Golden Valley, Crystal, New Hope and Robinsdale. She reported that the new MN Human St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 021704 - 4d - HRC Minutes of 12-17-03 Page 2 of 3 Rights Commissioner is going to be speaking at the Golden Valley City Hall on January 8th and it would also be a good opportunity to connect with the Golden Valley Human Rights Commissioners. Ms. Rudelius-Palmer stated that there were good recruitment efforts done by the other cities for the Human Rights Student Essay Contest resulting in a high number of entries. Ms. Rudelius-Palmer reported that St. Louis Park was not included on the Institute of Race and Poverty’s report on racial profiling. She stated that in Plymouth they were conducting a police profiling follow-up survey. Ms. McDonell provided a listing of all the Human Rights Award winners from previous years. Ms. McDonell stated that she received a call on the Human Rights Line and the caller did not want to involve the commission. The caller had contacted the State and requested the proper forms. Ms. McDonell reported that the caller did request a commissioner’s name in the event they chose to involve the commission and Ms. McDonell spoke to Ms. Kirsch who then volunteered to speak with the call if need be. She added that the caller was reassured by the fact that there was a group concerned and responding to these types of issues. Ms. Rudelius-Palmer then asked if the police had been involved. Ms. McDonell responded that it was not a hate crime but an issue of discrimination with an employer. Ms. Maddali reported that there is a large portion of Somali and other communities of color that feel their children are being left out of soccer programs. She stated that she and other members of the community have tried to work with the Soccer Association to no avail and she is hopeful that the Park & Recreation Department in the city will start an in-house soccer program. Ms. Maddali stated that several members have been insulted by the Soccer Association. Ms. McDonell replied that the role of the commission is to listen and respond to bias incidents. Mr. Armbrecht inquired if there was a way to find out how many incidents have been reported to the MN Department of Human Rights. Ms. McDonell stated that she would try to get updated statistics. Mr. Snow felt they should be able to receive the types incidents involved but not private data. Old Business Human Rights Award at City Council Ms. Siegesmund reported that she, Ms. Gaffney, and Ms. Maddali were present. Ms. Rudelius-Palmer would like to see some follow-up on producing a local cable program on the Human Rights Award Winners. She added that it would be useful to bring to the schools. Ms. Maddali felt that the presentations were a success. Ms. Rudelius-Palmer mentioned that the Sun Sailor had previously done articles in the paper on Human Rights Award recipients. Ms. Maddali volunteered to follow up on getting an article published. Human Rights Day Conference Mr. Armbrecht reported that he, Ms. Gaffney, and Ms. Rudelius-Palmer attended the conference. The conference was sponsored by the MN Department of Human Rights. Ms. McDonell informed the new members about the conference and that she also met the diversity coordinator for Benilde St. Margaret. She stated that it was a newly created position and the coordinator was very willing to help advertise for the essay contest. Ms. McDonell also spoke to the newly appointed School Board member, Julie Schweitzer, about getting a school appointed commissioner on the commission. Mr. Armbrecht suggested having Ms. Schweitzer appointed as that commissioner. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 021704 - 4d - HRC Minutes of 12-17-03 Page 3 of 3 The commission discussed participation in the Human Rights Essay and drafting of the annual question. Ms. Maddali had several ideas for a flyer for the next year. Time to Talk Mr. Armbrecht gave a brief background on the conference he had attended on establishing community forums. Ms. Siegesmund inquired about the cost of the organizing these forums. Mr. Armbrecht replied that the YMCA provides the speaker and he was not sure about the lunch itself. Ms. Siegesmund thought they could promote the forums and send information packets out to businesses and other community groups. Ms. Rudelius-Palmer felt that there were three options available for the commission in regard to this: market the forums, sponsor a forum or have it as part of the Cultural Competency forum. Mr. Armbrecht would like the commission to be involved in some way. Audit Committee Ms. McDonell updated the new members on the purpose of the committee. She stated that Commissioner Gaffney would be forwarding changes to the consultant. INS/City Separation Ordinance Mr. Armbrecht summarized the purpose of the ordinance explaining that the ordinance states cities would help as much as required to report those breaking immigration laws but they still welcome everyone to receive services. He would like to invite one of the persons pushing for the idea in Minneapolis and St. Paul to the commission’s next meeting. He would also like to introduce the idea to Council and discuss the process of getting the ordinance approved. The commission will invite the police department to the meeting. Review of Work Plan The commission felt they should distribute the work plan in the next month and review it at the next meeting. Ms. Rudelius-Palmer inquired if they needed to compile a list of accomplishments. Ms. McDonell replied that they normally do an end of year report. New Business Election of New Officers Ms. Siegesmund felt that another commissioner should take over the position of Chair Commissioner. Ms. Rudelius-Palmer stated that she did not have enough time to be the chair of a commissioner. A motion was made to vote Mr. Armbrecht as Chair and Mr. Snow as Co-Chair. Motion passed 6-0. Invitation to Benilde-St. Margaret Diversity Coordinator The commission decided to invite the Diversity Coordinator to the February meeting. Adjournment It was motioned by Ms. Siegesmund, seconded by Mr. Armbrecht, to adjourn the meeting at 9:00 p.m. Motion passed 6-0. Respectfully submitted, Kim Olson, Recording Secretary St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 021704 - 4e - Planning Commission Minutes Jan. 21, 2004 Page 1 of 11 OFFICIAL MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA January 21, 2004--6:00 p.m. COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynne Carper, Ken Gothberg, Dennis Morris, Carl Robertson, Jerry Timian MEMBERS ABSENT: Michelle Bissonnette STAFF PRESENT: Julie Grove, Janet Jeremiah, Nancy Sells 1. Call to order – Roll Call 2. Approval of Minutes of January 7, 2003 Commissioner Carper noted a correction to page 4, paragraph 4. Commissioner Lynne should be corrected to Commissioner Carper. Commissioner Morris moved approval of the minutes of January 7, 2003 as amended. The motion passed 5-0. 3. Hearings Chair Robertson announced that Item C. (Case Nos. 03-79-CP and 03-80-Z Request of TOLD Development Company for amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and zoning) has been withdrawn by the applicant. Chair Robertson said that if anyone was present regarding Item B (Case Nos. 03-73- PUD, 03-74-S, 03-75-VAC Request of Rottlund Homes/Quadion Corp. for a preliminary PUD, plat and vacation) the item could be moved up on the agenda. As no one was present, the item was not moved. A. Case No. 03-78-S—Request by Charles Stinson for preliminary and final plat approval with a variance to the subdivision ordinance to reduce the minimum lot width for a corner lot from 85 feet to 75 feet 3 inches. 2545 Huntington Avenue South Julie Grove, Associate Planner, presented a staff report. Letters from Robert B. Fine (representing Beverlee Fine, 2530 France Ave. S.) and James and Renee Gainsley (2625 Inglewood) expressing objection to the proposal were distributed to Commissioners. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 021704 - 4e - Planning Commission Minutes Jan. 21, 2004 Page 2 of 11 Commissioner Morris asked why the code has an 85 foot corner lot frontage. Ms. Grove responded that the zoning ordinance includes the larger setback to make sure there is enough buildable area on corner lots. With the subdivision ordinance the extra lot width makes a consistency in the buildable area of all lots; interior versus corner lots; the buildable area being inside of the setbacks itself regardless of the extraordinary setback. Commissioner Morris remarked if the subject lot was not a corner lot but was central to a block, it would be set back 75 feet from the street. But a corner lot has to be 10 feet further back, which doesn’t match the setback of the other buildings. He said for instance if there were 10 lots on the street the 2 corner lots would be 85 foot frontages where the center lots would be 75 foot frontages. He asked what difference it makes if they are all the same lot depth. Janet Jeremiah, Planning and Zoning Supervisor, said the difference would come into play with the sideyard abutting the street on the corner lot and the fact that it actually reduces the buildable area. She explained that with an extraordinary lot width, you could still have a larger house on the lot. She said she understood why Commissioner Morris was questioning it, but the idea is the extraordinary setback exists on the sideyard abutting the street, and a larger lot is needed to accommodate that. Commissioner Morris said he asked about this to determine whether or not the Commission wants to take the issue up at another date rather than debate the issue as part of this discussion. Chair Robertson said he understands the need to keep the zoning code straightforward but thought it wouldn’t be that difficult to have the code read that a corner needs to have 10,200 feet and could still be 75 feet wide but the depth would allow for the same building size. There might be a way to have more flexibility without complicating the code too much. He said the project is very well done but there is a problem with a single dimension. He explained that the Commission’s hands are tied because it isn’t really a hardship case and variances cannot be granted just to make a project work. Chair Robertson said the staff recommendation fit very well, but at a later date he would like to look at ways to provide some flexibility for achieving the goals of a corner lot. Charles Stinson, architect and owner, provided a history on the project. Mr. Stinson stated that he and the other owner who is also the builder, Streeter & Associates, have worked together in the area for 16 years. They have won many architecture awards and have been involved in many land planning projects, including a neighborhood in Chanhassen. He explained they have talked for a number of years about combining efforts, finances and goals, including working with properties that are vacant or are going to change, and do the best thing they know how to do. They knew it was a challenging site as it was on the edge of France Ave., St. Louis Park and Mpls., the park system, and on the edge of a lot of change in the neighborhood. Mr. Stinson said they met with the City twice and believed they could do 3 lots, and bought the property. He explained that when they started discussing it later with Ms. Grove they understood the variance request was necessary. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 021704 - 4e - Planning Commission Minutes Jan. 21, 2004 Page 3 of 11 Mr. Stinson said the concept and goal is to have a winning project for the neighborhood, the neighbors, and the buyers and they have spent a lot of time and energy thinking through what is the best use for the property. He added that they do a lot of large homes but they also do more medium sized homes and believe that is the future--high quality projects, upgrading the landscaping, architecture of high quality. A neighborhood meeting was held at a home they had designed on Cedar Lake which was an infill lot. Variances were granted on that project. When the variance was granted for that home it was suggested the project would be an example of good infill development. Mr. Stinson explained that besides meeting the larger setback for the lot, they are also cascading the house back, making the footprint bigger so there is more open space on that corner. Mr. Stinson said if it helps the case, they would be willing to make the house even a little bit narrower so they are even beyond what the setback for planting or open space would be on the corner. He asked what is the essence of the 85 feet? What are they trying to do by it? He stated that they far exceed the requirements for the three properties and they are willing to make the house narrower if that makes sense. He added that the area closest to the setback is just a fireplace making the house already 3-4 feet back, and then it cascades farther back. Mr. Stinson said if they built two houses, the houses could potentially be much larger in square footage than all three of the proposed houses combined. Their goal is to try to tighten them up so people can afford them. Two neighbors have indicated interest in the project. Another possible owner is someone who had lived in the neighborhood, moved out, and wants to return. A third party is someone who has made two proposals for real estate for a teardown and they weren’t the low bid so they continued looking. He explained that they have real people who are interested and with three homes they have a little more flexibility of holding power, and with a budget to do something in keeping with the neighborhood. Mr. Stinson said they have invested much time, energy, and belief and have a team to create something they believe is a good thing for the neighborhood rather than the alternative of bigger and bigger houses. Mr. Stinson concluded by saying that Ms. Grove did a great job of identifying the items required for a variance. He added he would have just put them in different locations so they all work. He mentioned they have met all the zoning, dimensional standards, densities including lot size, setbacks, FAR, open space requirements, and visibility to the corner. Regarding hardship, he said it really is an unusual site due to two corners, three street frontages and a busy site. He said that he believes this can be a new positive, elegant and beautiful cornerstone for the neighborhood, and a good example of urban development. Commissioner Morris asked about the yard between the three properties, asking if joint easements would be created. Mr. Stinson responded the lawn functions would be organized but properties would be separate. Commissioner Morris asked if the green space illustrated is a strangely shaped back yard. Commissioner Carper said in looking at the illustration the terms rear yard and front yard are used, yet it appears that the view area (front yard) is overlooking Cedar Lake for two homes on St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 021704 - 4e - Planning Commission Minutes Jan. 21, 2004 Page 4 of 11 Huntington. The entry area on Huntington has the function of a backyard with a car entry and a garage. Commissioner Carper asked if he was interpreting correctly. Mr. Stinson said that it could be interpreted that way. The courtyard and open space are really toward Huntington. The main glass areas are toward Cedar Lake. Commissioner Carper asked about the black border on the drawings, asking if it was a fence. Mr. Stinson responded that it was a terracing wall. Shane Coen, Coen + Partners, consultant to the project, spoke about the team, scale, materiality and context of the project. Mr. Coen commented on the strong reputation of Streeter and Stinson. He added that his firm has a strong reputation in land planning and they designed Jackson Meadow in Marine on St. Croix and other new innovative communities. He said when he was asked to evaluate the Huntington project, he was not asked to provide an economic evaluation, but asked what is the best thing for these lots and the neighborhood. He stated that his review began with a contextual viewpoint. He said he believed three lots were the appropriate scale for multiple reasons: the lots on France Ave. are large and have wide lots so he determined that the land should be divided and the France Ave. side should be a single level house. On Huntington the important thing to him seemed to be two houses with a break in- between them so there would be a view corridor through the two houses and to the lake versus a single large house stacked on top of another large house underneath it. He said the character of the houses on Huntington and the lot widths are much more consistent with this plan than they would be with a single 150 ft lot width. Traveling west, south and north from there, there is great diversity in house scale throughout the neighborhood. He believes the scale of the project provides a very interesting model for St. Louis Park to point to in the future. Mr. Coen said he would encourage consideration to postpone and discuss making the zoning ordinance and subdivision ordinance consistent. Mr. Coen continued by saying the buildable area is not an issue in the project. Setback requirements are being met and the applicant doesn’t mind shrinking the scale of the home. The idea is to create a series of structures versus two larger structures. He said the reality of the economics of the purchase price if two homes are built would be that the upper lot has to be a big house. In reference to the neighborhood meeting, Mr. Coen said a lot of the neighborhood was strongly opposed to the project. He said he believes the neighborhood is battling change because the lot has been empty, though not very pretty, for a very long time. He went on to say that the landscaping and surfacing plan is very significant. Chair Robertson opened the public hearing. Steven Silton, 2515 Inglewood Ave., said that Mr. Stinson is being extremely modest about his credentials as he is world known as a remarkable architect. He said Mr. Stinson’s dilemma is St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 021704 - 4e - Planning Commission Minutes Jan. 21, 2004 Page 5 of 11 that he spent an incredible sum on the lot. Mr. Silton said the neighborhood is facing a push for higher density in these infill situations. Mr. Silton stated he believes there will be a continual push for this kind of density. The density will be substantially different from anything in that area. The high density around the lakes is something Cedar Lake is just starting to deal with. He mentioned the Minneapolis side of Cedar Lake. Mr. Silton said if the request is granted it will immediately turn every remaining lot into a tear down to build a massively large house or a tear down with a push for higher density. He mentioned the tendency on Lake Calhoun to subdivide lots smaller and smaller and put higher density homes on them until there is a push to tear down all residences in the area and build just apartments or condominium complexes. This is the first step on the St. Louis Park side of turning the unique Cedar Lake area into a Lake Calhoun area which isn’t consistent with the neighborhood’s history and character. Joshua Schneck, 3912 W. 25th St., said he grew up in St. Louis Park and moved into the neighborhood on Huntington in 1959. He moved away and returned 15 years ago. He said the neighborhood is very special. He said the project may be a great idea but it is the wrong neighborhood. Mr. Schneck said the neighborhood has been a single family residential neighborhood for decades. The neighborhood has the qualities that he wanted and this is why he stayed in St. Louis Park when he recently purchased his current home. He added there is no economic reason that would not allow the lot to be sold as is or in two lots. Mr. Schneck said more money can be made selling three houses than two and that is what is driving the project. He said the project would definitely change the character of the neighborhood. He added that the intersection is already problematic. Wayne Jenkins, 2601 Huntington, lives directly across the street from the property in question. He asked to what degree the applicant is held to the plan if the variance is approved. The Chair responded that they could change the plans some. The variance goes with the lot. Ms. Jeremiah said potentially a condition could be added to the resolution that the variance was subject to the plans submitted. Mr. Jenkins commented that the applicant is being courted by potential buyers. He said a flaw in the project is that if the plans were approved and the buyers should decide they want certain features added or subtracted from the properties in question, any kind of change could be made. Terracing of the structure to the street could be abandoned in order to obtain a larger house which, he said, is quite conceivable given what the homes will cost. Mr. Jenkins said the lot is a very valuable piece of land. The lot rises up with a view beyond the recently completed wetlands, Cedar Lake, and a view of downtown Minneapolis. Mr. Jenkins stated that by no means is the applicant cleaning up a blighted piece of St. Louis Park. Mr. Jenkins commented that there is no way to guarantee that the landscaping is anything more than dressing to push the project through. He said Mr. Coen is a consultant, not an objective individual. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 021704 - 4e - Planning Commission Minutes Jan. 21, 2004 Page 6 of 11 Mr. Jenkins asked about the project if interest rates jump. He said there are too many unknowns to grant the variance. Mr. Jenkins said there will be a tremendous push on St. Louis Park to increase density. As a resident, he said he would rather see the City show consistency to its past legacy to being extremely stringent and choose the higher set of restrictions. The City is known for having tough inspectors and being tough on rules. He said that is a good thing. Mr. Jenkins said he is flabbergasted that someone would propose a development that looks much more similar to Excelsior & Grand than it does to any house within that neighborhood. It is by appearance primarily a commercial development. He said it looks far more like a set of townhomes than family homes Leanne Stewart, 2544 Huntington Ave., said she believes it is very important to separate this project from the team. She said there is no doubt that it is a quality team but she does not believe it is the appropriate development for the neighborhood. She said from the vantage point of Cedar Lake, this project would be the doorway to St. Louis Park via the chain of lakes and that view will be totally inconsistent with what currently stands in the neighborhood. She explained that currently standing from the lake one sees homes set back from the street with large expansions of grass, upward sloping hill, and homes relatively low to the ground, and fairly sedate. Ms. Stewart said that the proposed development will totally change the look of the entire neighborhood and change a doorway to St. Louis Park from Minneapolis. Ms. Stewart said she didn’t think there was a legal necessity for the variance to be approved and she would like that to be kept in mind. The property can be developed without granting the variance. William Lipham, 2501 France Ave., said he and his wife recently moved from 27th & Ewing to 2501 France because they liked the neighborhood for the type of greenspaces that the houses afford. He agrees that the team is good, it is the density and lack of green space that he is concerned about in terms of how it will impact the community in property value as well as changing the overall perception of the neighborhood. Mr. Lipham said while shopping for their current residence, they did inquire about purchasing the 2545 Huntington lot. The sale price was $1,000,000 so he knows three homes are being proposed for economic reasons. Mr. Lipham is not opposed to developing two sites on the lot and he believes that could be done in accordance with zoning regulations. Keith Olive, 2534 Huntington Ave., said he was surprised that the developer tells the neighborhood that the project is good for the neighborhood when all the residents speaking so far were very opposed to it. It is not consistent with the current density in the neighborhood. The project looks more like a set of clustered townhouses out of character with the setting of the neighborhood. He said he is pleased that the staff does not find hardship as a necessity for granting the variance and he hopes the Planning Commission will deny the variance. Beverly Rockler Fine, 2530 France Ave., said her property is approximately 3 ½ lots running from the France side to Huntington. She said her home was built in 1955 by her parents with the understanding that there would be one family home on the lots. When the next door property St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 021704 - 4e - Planning Commission Minutes Jan. 21, 2004 Page 7 of 11 was divided, her parents were very disturbed and planted trees to block the houses from view. Three more homes in this area will total six homes on one block. She said the neighbor’s concerns were brought to the neighborhood meeting and the neighborhood has not heard from anyone in favor of the project. She asked why the property has to be subdivided into three parts. The designs are beautiful but why not design something compatible to the neighborhood. She said she believes the project is a financial incentive for the builder and for the city. Ms. Fine said her home is set back from France Ave. and it will be totally damaged by property built in front and two homes in back. She asked about high fences that might be put in around pools. Risa Cohen, 2600 Huntington, said the home which burned down on the site was a gorgeous home which fit with the character of the neighborhood. She agrees with her neighbors that they don’t approve of a project which doesn’t fit the character of the neighborhood. The proposal will block her view of downtown. She commented that at the neighborhood meeting the developers did not seem to take into consideration how their project will affect everybody around it. Ms. Cohen asked if the effect of the project on the busy intersection has been explored. Jeff Royce, 2517 Huntington, has lived in the neighborhood for many years. He supports all the previous remarks made by neighbors. He said if the side setbacks are reduced to 75 feet, the next time a house goes up for sale developers will be interested in purchasing his lot (a corner lot) for two homes. If the side lot widths keep being reduced, the density in one block alone could be substantially impacted by granting a variance to the current applicant. He believes the project will look like a development, not like separate homes, which is not in character with the neighborhood. Catherine Courtney, 2643 Huntington, stated that she lives one-half block south of subject property. She said visually she cannot see the lot from her home. She said the intersection is her bus stop and her concern is maintaining that bus stop and not adding to what is already a very congested intersection. She said she is also concerned about density and lack of green space. The smallest of the proposed homes is twice the size of her home. The proposed landscaping takes out every tree currently on the lot. Ms. Courtney said the applicant has said they will replant large trees but she said she felt there are many nice large trees on the lot that are worth saving. She added that the proposed landscaping is highly structural with terraces, pools, decks, and driveways leaving very little greenspace. Charles Hanson, 2613 Huntington, said he supports the comments made by his neighbors regarding density and design. He said the curved roof of the proposed design looks like the old Arbys design. Bruce Botten, 3920 Cedar Shore Drive, said he concurs with the neighbors comments. He said he did call all the commissioners about the project. He said the team is very good but the lot is too small for their proposal. He said all the properties will be affected by the push for high density and it needs to be stopped. The project would take away from the neighborhood, the history of St. Louis Park and the existing architecture. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 021704 - 4e - Planning Commission Minutes Jan. 21, 2004 Page 8 of 11 Mr. Jenkins, 2601 Huntington, said in regards to the bus route being maintained, it should be noted that 26th St. carries traffic for Benilde. He stated that Benilde can be erratic in its level of responsibility regarding traffic, so he believes it is one of the factors regarding safety at the intersection. Chair Robertson closed the public hearing. Commissioner Gothberg said he agrees with staff’s findings that there is no justification to supporting the variance. He said with respect to the subdivision ordinance, if the Planning Commission starts tinkering with ordinances it has to be careful of unintended consequences. He said the proposed design does not fit the character of the neighborhood. Chair Robertson said that any tinkering of the ordinance needs to be done without a particular project in mind and any adjustments need to stand on their own merit. He said he is not opposed to looking at the ordinance. Chair Robertson said the project brings to light the possibility that having a hard and fast extra 10 feet of lot width may not be the best solution when looking at the essence of what we are doing. Chair Robertson said that the applicant has indicated that a smaller building on that site would work. The proposed density meets current zoning but it may feel like it is way over what exists because the houses in the immediate area so much exceed the density requirements. Chair Robertson said he takes issue with the comments that the project doesn’t fit into the neighborhood. He said he likes a little diversity, as it is more interesting, and it adds to the neighborhood. Chair Robertson said everyone will need to face increased density in the future. He said there is a lot of force in St. Louis Park to increase a little density and there is a lot of discussion about more housing and more move-up housing. He said across the City we will be seeing some increases in density simply to meet demands and we have to accept that there is going to be increased pressure to increase density. Commissioner Morris said he agreed with the Chair’s sentiments. He stated that commissioners do live in St. Louis Park and their concerns—tear down, build up, architectural style--are the same as the neighbors who have spoken regarding the application. He went on to say that those concerns are not regulated by the ordinance. He said that a lot of the comments have been about architectural style. He said if 10 more feet of frontage existed on Huntington, the request for a variance would not be made, and the applicant would just get a building permit and build. Commissioner Morris commented on density saying that three small houses or two very big houses will be more dense than what is proposed. He said he doesn’t believe the proposal is overbuilt. He stated that people will be selling their double and triple-sized lots. Commissioner Morris said he agrees with staff that two of the four criteria for granting the variance are not met in this situation but he believes the Planning Commission should revisit the corner lot size, to see if it is desirable and for what reason it exists. He doesn’t see in this particular circumstance that the plan shouldn’t work in this size property, but it is against the code. He said he thinks it is a desirable development. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 021704 - 4e - Planning Commission Minutes Jan. 21, 2004 Page 9 of 11 Commissioner Timian asked Mr. Stinson if they had considered space and place in the proposed project. Mr. Stinson responded that in their opinion they have gone to great lengths to do that. Commissioner Timian said if that was the case, then why did the neighbors show up and speak against it. Mr. Stinson said other neighbors called indicating interest in the project. He said one individual at the neighborhood meeting said it was a great project and if they were just moving to the neighborhood they would want to be part of it, but because they live there they don’t want any change. Change is hard. Mr. Stinson remarked that the team has thought long and hard about three homes versus two homes. A resident asked about the definition of density as people per acre and the effect of density on the sanitary sewer system. Ms. Jeremiah said density is measured by the number of residences/acre rather than the number of people/acre, although there are limits on families (regulations regarding numbers of unrelated individuals living in one residence). Density is looking at buildings and the number of units/acre. Regarding sanitary sewer capacity, Ms. Jeremiah said that is reviewed on an on- going basis, particularly when an applicant requests a zoning change and an increase in the density. This neighborhood is unique in its lots sizes. She remarked that the residential districts are very variable, even in the R-1, which is the largest lot single-family district. Almost 40% of the homes in the R-1 district citywide do not meet the minimum lot size requirement. She added that even a greater percentage don’t meet the minimum lot width requirement as they were developed prior to these regulations. These regulations really pertain to the new subdivisions. Ms. Jeremiah said that there is a lot of variety within the city and staff does look at the corner lot provision as being a policy issue. The City has a lot of housing goals, because it has found that the City is not necessarily accommodating life-cycle housing for all of the residents. At the same time, the City has some unique neighborhoods and character that should be preserved, so these are difficult policy issues. Ms. Jeremiah said that staff does believe the correct way to look at this is through a more holistic, comprehensive approach to try to determine if it makes sense to make that change to the corner lot provision or not. She said that currently the direction has been that the City Council is not ready to make that change but would rather look at it on a case by case basis. Ms. Jeremiah added that more research can be done for the Planning Commission’s benefit. The City Council will be very interested in the recommendations of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Morris said he would vote to accept the staff recommendation, but he stated that he believed Condition No. 1 (special circumstances or conditions affecting the property) was met due to the issue of the 10 feet of frontage. He said he would like to bring that general issue back to the Commission at a later date. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 021704 - 4e - Planning Commission Minutes Jan. 21, 2004 Page 10 of 11 Chair Robertson said that the findings for a variance in this case can’t be made, and yet this is one of the better, more thoughtful designs of a residential nature and he doesn’t want a lack of variance to stop the project. He stated that a variance is not the correct vehicle by which to resolve this. He said that he does want to look at the ordinance. Commissioner Morris moved to adopt a resolution denying the preliminary and final plat and variance for Biltmore Addition based upon the findings set forth in the resolution. The motion passed 5-0. Commissioner Gothberg stated that the Planning Commission is strictly a recommending body and the issue will go to the City Council. Staff confirmed the Council meeting will be on Tuesday, February 17, 7:30 p.m. 3B. Case Nos. 03-73-PUD, 03-74-S, 03-75-VAC--Request of Rottlund Homes (Quadion Corporation) for a preliminary PUD and plat for property located at 3630 Wooddale Ave., 5951 and 5957 W. 37th Street and petition to vacate W. 37th Street between Wooddale Ave. and Alabama Ave. S. and alley north of Oxford Street and east of Alabama Ave. S. Ms. Jeremiah reported that the applicant has requested the Planning Commission continue the public hearing until such time as plan revisions can be provided that address redesign related to street layout, building placement, storm water pond, and an option for including four properties located on the north side of Oxford Street which were not included with the preliminary plans. Commissioner Morris asked why a public hearing was being held without materials being provided to commissioners. Ms. Jeremiah said that the applicant requested that materials not be supplied, since they requested a continuance and are going to be resubmitting a new design. The applicant concurred with staff for some recommendations to changes, and because of that, they didn’t think it was a worthwhile use of time to go through a full analysis of the previous plans. The applicant preferred that the Planning Commission take a fresh look at the new plans. Commissioner Morris said he was inclined to say the application was incomplete rather than a complete application which is being held over for a public hearing. Ms. Jeremiah said that staff had made the determination that the application was complete, but that there were some design issues including whether or not it met stormwater requirements. An analysis could have been conducted with recommended changes or potentially denial. However the applicant preferred they be given the time to resubmit. Commissioner Morris asked if it wouldn’t have been more convenient to not have held the public hearing until the applicant was prepared to have one. Ms. Jeremiah responded that it would have been more convenient, but that at the time of publication for the hearing, the application was complete. Staff was obligated to publish the public hearing. She said letters were submitted to the residents informing them that the hearing St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 021704 - 4e - Planning Commission Minutes Jan. 21, 2004 Page 11 of 11 would be continued, so they were aware there would not be a full discussion at this meeting. Ms. Jeremiah apologized to any residents who did not receive the notice. Commissioner Morris said for the record, he would vote no on continuing the public hearing, because he doesn’t believe the public hearing should be held based on precedent. Ms. Jeremiah said the intent of staff was that a public hearing would not be held, but since it was advertised for this date, it would be opened. She said when the applicant is ready to come back, the public hearing notice will be resubmitted. She asked anyone present who did not receive a notice to leave their name and address so staff can make sure they are on the mailing list. Chair Robertson opened the public hearing. Commissioner Gothberg moved to continue the public hearing until such time as plan revisions have been received. The motion passed on a 4-1-0 vote with Commissioner Morris opposed. Chair Robertson adjourned the meeting at 7:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Nancy Sells Administrative Secretary St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 021704 - 4f - Housing Authority Minutes of Jan. 14, 2004 Page 1 of 3 MINUTES Housing Authority St. Louis Park, Minnesota Wednesday, January 14, 2004 Westwood Room 5:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Catherine Courtney, William Gavzy, Judith Moore, and Shone Row. Commissioner Anne Mavity arrived at 5:16 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Anderson, Jane Klesk and Michele Schnitker OTHERS PRESENT: Rosemary Foley and Katherine Johnson, CHARP 1. Call to Order Commissioner Courtney called the meeting to order at 5:03 p.m. 2. Approval of Minutes for December 10, 2003 The December 10, 2003 minutes were unanimously approved. 3. Hearings a. Annual Agency Plan Ms. Schnitker briefly explained HUD’s requirement that the Housing Authority submit a streamlined Annual Agency Plan for 2004. There will still be a full Plan with all attachments and policies available at City Hall and Hamilton House available for public review. The Plan was presented at a Hamilton House Council meeting. The Plan has been submitted to Hennepin County, although the written certification has not yet been received. Commissioner Courtney opened the Public Hearing. Ms. Foley commented favorably on the efforts of the HA to recruit participants for the Resident Advisory Board. Ms. Foley stated CHARP’s desire to see the percentage of lease-ups to minorities increased. Additionally, Ms. Foley mentioned suburban Hennepin County goals, one of which is to improve the delivery of services to populations in need. Ms. Schnitker responded that Vail Place and Wayside House both provide project-based Section 8 units to mentally disabled and chemically dependent persons. Ms. Foley stated that CHARP believes overall that the St. Louis Park HA has an excellent Plan. There being no further comments, Commissioner Courtney closed the Public Hearing. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 021704 - 4f - Housing Authority Minutes of Jan. 14, 2004 Page 2 of 3 4. Reports and Committees – None 5. Unfinished Business – None 6. New Business a. Approval of Annual Agency Plan – Fiscal Year End March 31, 2005 Commissioner Gavzy moved to approve the submission of the Annual Agency Plan and to approve Resolution No. 520 certifying the Plan’s consistency with the County’s Consolidated Plan and the HA’s compliance with other Plan related documents, and Commissioner Moore seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0, with Commissioners Courtney, Gavzy, Mavity, Moore and Row voting in favor. b. Approval of Section 8 Operating Budget – Fiscal Year End March 31, 2005 After Ms. Schnitker explained a few changes to the budget, Commissioner Gavzy moved to approve the Section 8 Operating Budget Fiscal Year Ending March 31, 2005. Commissioner Row seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 5-0, with Commissioners Courtney, Gavzy, Mavity, Moore and Row voting in favor. c. HRA Tax Levy – Report Ms. Schnitker provided a brief report on the status of the City’s 2004 HRA Levy. The City Council approved the levy, designating the funds for infrastructure improvements in redevelopment areas. 7. Communications from Executive Director a. Claims List No. 1-2004 Commissioner Moore moved to ratify Claims List No. 1-2004, and Commissioner Gavzy seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0, with Commissioners Courtney, Gavzy, Mavity, Moore and Row voting in favor. b. Communications 1. Monthly Report for January, 2004 2. Scattered-Site Houses and Hamilton House (verbal report) 3. Draft Financial Statement 8. Other – None St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 021704 - 4f - Housing Authority Minutes of Jan. 14, 2004 Page 3 of 3 9. Adjournment Commissioner Moore moved to adjourn the meeting, and Commission Gavzy seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0, with Commissioners Courtney, Gavzy, Mavity, Moore and Row voting in favor. The meeting was adjourned at 6:39 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Anne Mavity, Secretary St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 021704 - 8a - Sale of Property to Excelsior & Grand II Page 1 of 4 8a. First Reading of an ordinance authorizing the sale of City real property to Excelsior & Grand II, LLC. This report considers the adoption of an ordinance authorizing the sale of City real property to Excelsior & Grand II, LLC. Recommended Action: Motion to approve First Reading of an ordinance authorizing the sale of City real property to Excelsior & Grand II, LLC and set Second Reading for March 1, 2004. BACKGROUND On September 15, 2003, the St. Louis Park EDA authorized the sale of Lot 1, Block 1, Park Commons East 2nd Addition to Excelsior & Grand II, LLC for Phase II of the Excelsior & Grand redevelopment project. The St. Louis Park EDA then conveyed the above property on October 15, 2003. At closing it was discovered that a small piece of the subject property (a portion of vacated Ottawa Avenue) was still owned by the City. This occurred when Ottawa was vacated and the ownership of the property reverted to the City. At closing, the EDA’s attorney provided Old Republic Title Insurance Company with a letter of undertaking that stated that the EDA would obtain a quit claim deed from the City to the EDA who, in turn, would convey it to the developer. Old Republic Title however, requested that the City provide a deed directly to the developer which is acceptable to the EDA’s attorney. RECOMMENDATION The City’s attorney prepared the attached Ordinance authorizing Sale of Real Property to Excelsior & Grand II, LLC and recommends its approval. The City’s attorney has indicated that no public hearing is required for this conveyance. Also attached is the quit claim deed prepared by the EDA’s attorney. While the City's title relates to only a small sliver of land, the quit claim covers the entire property so it can be filed of record. Attachments: Ordinance Quit Claim Deed Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 021704 - 8a - Sale of Property to Excelsior & Grand II Page 2 of 4 ORDINANCE NO. _________ CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING SALE OF CITY REAL PROPERTY TO EXCELSIOR & GRAND II, LLC WHEREAS, the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (“EDA”) previously conveyed Lot 1, Block 1, Park Commons East 2nd Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota, to Excelsior & Grand II, LLC pursuant to the Development Contract between the parties. WHEREAS, it was subsequently discovered that the City owns a small portion of this property and the City needs to convey its interest in the property to complete the transfer to Excelsior & Grand II, LLC. WHEREAS, the City does not have any outstanding debt on this real property. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK ORDAINS: SECTION 1. The sale of the City’s interest in Lot 1, Block 1, Park Commons East 2nd Addition, Hennepin County by Quit Claim Deed to Excelsior & Grand II, LLC is hereby authorized. SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall be effective fifteen (15) days after its passage and publication. ADOPTED this ______ day of ____________, 2004, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park. Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council January 5, 2004 City Manager Mayor Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution: City Clerk City Attorney St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 021704 - 8a - Sale of Property to Excelsior & Grand II Page 3 of 4 Quit Claim Deed STATE DEED TAX DUE HEREON: $_______ Date: ____________________ FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, City of St. Louis Park, a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota, Grantor, hereby conveys and quitclaims to Excelsior & Grand II, LLC, Grantee, a limited liability company under the laws of Minnesota, real property in Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows: Lot 1, Block 1, Park Commons East 2nd Addition (if more space is needed, continue on back) together with all hereditaments and appurtenances. ¨The Seller certifies that the seller does not know of any wells on the described real property. ¨A well disclosure certificate accompanies this document. ¨I am familiar with the property described in this instrument and I certify that the status and number of wells on the described real property have not changed since the last previously filed well disclosure certificate. CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK By___________________________________________ Its Mayor By___________________________________________ Its City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 021704 - 8a - Sale of Property to Excelsior & Grand II Page 4 of 4 NOTARIAL STAMP OR SEAL (OR OTHER TITLE OR RAK) STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN } ss.: The foregoing was acknowledged before me this ______ day of _________, 2004, by Jeff Jacobs and Tom Harmening, the Mayor and City Manager of the City of St. Louis Park, a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of Minnesota, on behalf of the municipal corporation, Grantor. ____________________________________ SIGNATURE OF PERSON TAKING ACKNOWLEDGMENT Check here if part or all of the land is Registered (Torrens) x Tax Statements for the real property described in this instrument should be sent to (include name and address of Grantee): Excelsior & Grand II LLC 20800 Swenson Drive, Suite 400 Waukesha, WI, 53186 This instrument drafted by: Kennedy & Graven, Chartered 470 Pillsbury Center Minneapolis, MN 55402 St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 021704 - 8b - Street Maintenance and Rehab Page 1 of 17 8b. Resolution Approving the Residential Street Maintenance and Rehabilitation Program Request to adopt the Residential Street Maintenance and Rehabilitation Program which would establish 8 maintenance areas within the City for application of various pavement maintenance efforts. Recommended Action: Motion to approve the attached resolution which adopts the City’s Residential Street Maintenance and Rehabilitation Program BACKGROUND: The majority of streets in St. Louis Park were reconstructed, in certain segments or groups, from the mid-1960’s to the early-1980’s. Since then, individual streets have received major reconstruction or repair either due to failures or in conjunction with a redevelopment effort. Approximately 3% of streets (5 miles) have not been upgraded to city standards. The City’s street network consists of approximately 153 centerline-miles of paved roadways. Of this total, 98% or 149.7 centerline-miles are paved in asphalt and 2% or 3.3 centerline-miles are surfaced in concrete. The Overall Condition Index (OCI) is a methodology used to evaluate and rate pavements on a range of 100 (newly surfaced pavement) to 0 (failed pavement). In 2000, the overall average OCI of the City’s pavement network was 69.6. The city’s streets are still in relatively good condition. This is due to the fact that the streets were built well, are situated on good soils, utilize curb & gutter for drainage and have been well maintained. City maintenance crews have continually worked to properly maintain the streets using basic maintenance strategies such as crack filling and sealcoating. However, as pavements age, more aggressive maintenance strategies are needed to prolong their life. Also, more extensive maintenance is needed to “catch” certain streets and extend their life before total reconstruction becomes necessary. PROGRAM OVERVIEW: The goal of this program is to continuously maintain the City’s residential street pavements in a safe and fiscally responsible manner. City staff has drafted a management program that will extend pavement life through proactive maintenance. The program’s basic elements consist of: § Evaluating & rating the street segments in a consistent and objective manner § Identifying segments in need of extensive maintenance or reconstruction § Applying the appropriate maintenance strategies at the appropriate times § Establishing a dedicated source of funding for the program § Implementing the identified projects on an 8-year/area cycle PROGRAM CONCEPTS AND ISSUES: At the June 10, 2002 Council Study Session, the City Council directed staff to proceed with program development. A final program and initial 5- year project plan was presented to the City Council at their January 12, 2004 Study Session. At that time the City Council agreed that staff should bring this matter to a future Council meeting St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 021704 - 8b - Street Maintenance and Rehab Page 2 of 17 to allow for formal adoption of the program A report titled Street Rehabilitation and Management Program is included as Attachment C and gives an overview of the entire program. • Current network condition assessment In 2000, the overall average OCI of the city’s pavement network was 69.6. The goal of the program is to maintain the overall street network at an OCI of no less than 70. § Maintenance strategies An effective pavement maintenance program integrates many preventive maintenance strategies and rehabilitation treatments. The key is to apply the right maintenance at the right time so that funding is used in the most cost-effective manner. This means that some streets, that are currently in poor condition, may not receive a maintenance treatment until they have deteriorated to the point of reconstruction, and; some streets in relatively good condition will receive treatment in order to prolong their life, (using the best first strategy, not worst first strategy). § Consolidated work plan Maintenance and reconstruction, for a given year, are consolidated into one of eight areas in the city and are shown on the Pavement Restoration Map, Attachment A. This results in lower mobilization costs, more efficient communication with residents, and less inconvenience to property owners and the traveling public. Sealcoating would be performed in the same areas, but on a lagged schedule so that new pavements receive a sealcoat application within 3 years after construction. Areas were purposely divided along neighborhood boundaries to facilitate communication with residents and the neighborhood associations. § Unimproved streets Unimproved streets are not planned to be upgraded in conjunction with this program. Unimproved streets are defined as those streets without concrete curb & gutter, which have never been constructed to the City’s standards. Most streets were constructed to City standards in the 1960’s through the early 1980’s and the costs were assessed back to the property owners. At that time, curb & gutter was installed and streets were reconstructed to a uniform standard. In the case of those streets without curb & gutter, they have not been constructed to the City’s standards and no special assessments have been levied against the property owners. Therefore, property owners are still responsible for this initial reconstruction to city standards. This process could be initiated by the property owners at any time via petition under the special assessment policy. • Coordination with city & private utilities Repairs to the city utilities (water, sanitary sewer & storm sewer) will be coordinated in conjunction with street repairs. Utility Division staff has reviewed the proposed projects, and although evaluation of the various utilities has not progressed as quickly as the residential street maintenance and rehabilitation program, staff has coordinated respective repairs to the extent possible. Identified projects will also be sent to the private utilities (i.e. Xcel Energy, Reliant Energy-Minnegasco, etc.) in order to inform them early in this process so they may also coordinate any necessary repairs or upgrades to their system either before or during the pavement St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 021704 - 8b - Street Maintenance and Rehab Page 3 of 17 projects. Utilities will be encouraged to coordinate their work with the city’s projects because City policy does not allow routine street excavations for 5 years after resurfacing of a roadway except for an emergency repair. This will ensure that new pavement will not be cut soon after its been installed. • Driveway repairs Due to the convenience of having a general contractor in the area, many residents may request information on having their driveway paved in conjunction with the project. Staff will facilitate this process by connecting the individual property owners with the contractor. Some contractors are willing to do this type of work, others are not. Driveway replacement or repair is beyond the scope of this program and projects, and residents will have to work directly with the contractor on payment, materials, workmanship, etc. INITIAL FIVE-YEAR PROJECT PLAN: Based on the analysis and rating completed in 2000, City staff have developed a list of maintenance projects targeted at the first 5 areas in the program. These projects were based on the initial ratings, but were further refined based on field review and analysis by various Public Works staff including personnel from Operations & Maintenance, Utilities, and Engineering. In the 5-year project list, over 15 miles of pavement will receive a maintenance treatment such as a mill & overlay, or complete removal & replacement of the asphalt surface. Curb repair for heaved or broken segments will occur prior to, or in conjunction with, the pavement repair. No pavement segments are scheduled to be completely reconstructed at this time. This is a positive sign that the city’s residential streets are in relatively good condition. This also means that street widths will not be altered and boulevard trees should not need to be removed. Attachments B1 through B5 show maps of the individual projects for the first five years of the program. SCHEDULE/TIMING: Area 1, the first year of the program, is scheduled for 2005. Staff has already begun compiling traffic and soil data in anticipation of preliminary design beginning later this summer. Also in 2005, most of the streets in Area 3 that are not programmed in the 5- year project plan, will be sealcoated. A proposed project schedule for Area 1 is shown below. Future project areas will have similar, but slightly condensed, schedules. Task/Step Time Prior to Construction Initial Year Timeline Send information letter to affected property owners informing them of project, timing and responsibility for right-of-way encroachments and driveway reconstruction 17 months Feb. 2004 Research and compile data on existing street construction 14-16 months Jan.-March 2004 Perform soil borings and traffic counts (as needed) 12-14 months March-May 2004 St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 021704 - 8b - Street Maintenance and Rehab Page 4 of 17 Request for information from adjacent property owners 12 months May 2004 Prepare preliminary plans 9-11 months June-Aug., 2004 Initial resident meeting; primary purpose is to identify issues that would affect design 10 months September 2004 Feasibility Report to City Council (consider preliminary plans) 6-7 months Nov.-Dec. 2004 Resident meeting to review preliminary plans 5-6 months Dec.-Jan. 2005 Project approval/final plan approval by City Council (written notice mailed to residents) 2 months Jan.-Feb. 2005 Solicit bids; award contract 1 month March 2005 Pre-construction meeting with residents 2-4 weeks April 2005 Construction - May –Oct. 2005 PUBLIC PROCESS: The initial communication and input strategy proposed by staff included a city-wide information mailing, open house meetings, and Park Perspective articles. Based on various reasons, staff revised that strategy. Instead, informational pieces on the overall program and purpose were prepared for the Park Perspective and city’s web page. Also, significant information was provided to the public in 2003 during the budget reconciliation and franchise fee adoption processes. No general open house meetings on the overall program were held. Staff does not expect these projects to be controversial, however, normal procedures for informing residents and soliciting their input, on individual projects will be undertaken. This will include: neighborhood meetings, individual meetings as needed, and informational notices throughout construction. Areas were purposely divided along ward & neighborhood boundaries to facilitate communication. FUNDING: Based on analysis by the City’s Cartegraph software, it appears that an annual investment of $1,500,000 (adjusted annually for inflation) is needed to maintain the street network at an OCI of no less than 70. Sources of revenue have been established at $900,000 from the recently adopted franchise fees with Xcel Energy & CenterPoint Energy-Minnegasco, and $600,000 from our water & sewer utility funds. With annual increases of 2% per year for anticipated inflation, this equates to a total of $7.8M in planned pavement repairs from 2005 through 2008. At this time, projected costs for the initial 5-year projects are estimated at $6.2M. Because extensive street projects have not been undertaken by the city in a number of years, staff has made their best effort to accurately, but conservatively, estimate project costs. Better unit cost prices will be available after the first several years of the program. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the attached resolution which adopts a city-wide Residential Street Maintenance and Rehabilitation Program. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Pavement Maintenance Area Map (Supplement) St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 021704 - 8b - Street Maintenance and Rehab Page 5 of 17 Attachment B1-B5: Street Maintenance Map-Area 1 – Area 5 (Supplement) Attachment C: Updated Street Rehabilitation and Mgmt Program Report Attachment D: Resolution Prepared By: Maria A. Hagen, City Engineer Reviewed By: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 021704 - 8b - Street Maintenance and Rehab Page 6 of 17 Attachment C City of St. Louis Park Street Rehabilitation and Management Program Prepared By: Public Works Department, Engineering Division June, 2002 Updated: December 2003 St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 021704 - 8b - Street Maintenance and Rehab Page 7 of 17 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE NUMBER TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 PROBLEM STATEMENT 3 PROGRAM GOAL 3 PROGRAM PURPOSE 3 BACKGROUND 4 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 4 PROGRAM METHODOLOGY 5 PROGRAM ELEMENTS 5 PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE STRATEGIES 6 COMMUNICATION & OUTREACH 10 FUNDING 10 PROGRAM BENEFITS 11 SUMMARY 11 APPENDICES § Pavement Condition vs. Time Graphs § OCI vs. Time Graph § Systems Condition Graph § Area Map A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 PROBLEM STATEMENT The City’s streets are wearing out. No program is currently in place, (other than special assessment through petition), to reconstruct or maintain city streets other than filling potholes, patching, and sealcoating. Based on an engineering inspection and evaluation of each street’s pavement, completed in 2000, there are a number of roads that need to have extensive maintenance performed on them, up to and including total reconstruction. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 021704 - 8b - Street Maintenance and Rehab Page 8 of 17 Pavement maintenance can be equated to home ownership and maintenance. Certain repairs need to be completed at certain times, i.e. painting windows or siding to protect them from the elements. At other times, more extensive repairs are needed where superficial maintenance is just not enough, i.e. replacing rotted window sills or siding instead of just painting over them. If the rotting can be stopped, or at least curtailed, before the sills or siding need to be replaced, money will be saved in the long term. In a similar manner, staff is recommending implementation of a street rehabilitation and maintenance program while streets are still in relatively good condition so that the City can begin to address problems in a proactive manner, (see Appendix A-1). Providing a mechanism now, to address the problem of deteriorating streets, is a responsible action for the city to take and will help to avoid having a large portion of the network deteriorate all at once. The objective of this street maintenance program is to extend pavement life and enhance system-wide performance in a cost-effective and efficient way by providing the right maintenance or repair at the right time. PROGRAM GOAL The goal of the Street Rehabilitation and Maintenance Program is to continuously maintain the City’s residential street infrastructure system in a safe and fiscally responsible manner. To accomplish this, the Public Works Department will program and implement long-term, cost- effective maintenance strategies in a manner that will maximize the life of a given street. The overall system will be maintained to ensure that the overall weighted rating of all residential streets will be no less than 70. PROGRAM PURPOSE Delays in maintenance increase the quantity of pavement defects and their severity so that when corrected, the rehabilitation cost is much greater. It is beneficial from both a cost and user perspective to focus on preventive maintenance efforts where possible. Therefore, the purpose of the program is to: 1) protect the existing pavement structure 2) slow the rate of pavement deterioration 3) correct pavement deficiencies 4) coordinate pavement maintenance with utility repairs and replacement BACKGROUND: The City’s street network consists of approximately 153 centerline-miles of paved roadways. Of this total, 98% or 149.7 centerline-miles are paved in asphalt and 2% or 3.3 centerline-miles are surfaced in concrete. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 021704 - 8b - Street Maintenance and Rehab Page 9 of 17 The majority of streets in St. Louis Park were reconstructed, in certain segments or groups, from the mid-60’s to early-80’s. Since then, individual streets have received major reconstruction or repair either due to failures or in conjunction with a redevelopment effort. Nationwide, there is no defined standard for how long a pavement is expected to last. That is because there are too many variables, i.e. weather, traffic, soils, utility cuts, etc. that contribute to a pavement’s deterioration. Some cities and counties simply depreciate pavements over a 20- year life; some employ pavement management systems, and others do nothing. If the simple depreciation standard is applied to the city of St. Louis Park, then most of the streets in the City have exceeded their useful life. Fortunately, the city’s streets are still in relatively good condition. This is due to the fact that the streets were built well, are situated on good soils, utilize curb & gutter for drainage and have been well maintained. City maintenance crews have continually worked to keep streets in decent condition using basic maintenance strategies such as crack filling and sealcoating. However, as pavements age, more aggressive maintenance strategies are needed to prolong their life. Also, more extensive maintenance is needed to “catch” certain streets and extend their life before total reconstruction is necessary. PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: In 1999, the Public Works Department established a computerized Pavement Management System (PMS) to assist in identifying and tracking street pavement performance and condition at a network level of management. The system uses a software program called Cartegraph. The Cartegraph program is able to objectively evaluate the condition of a street and estimates its projected life cycle. The PMS uses a rating of the physical condition of a street called the Overall Condition Index (OCI). The OCI rates pavements on a range of 100 (newly surfaced pavement) to 0 (failed pavement). The OCI rating is obtained from a field inspection the entire street surface by a technician who measures the quantity, type, and severity of distresses in the pavement. This evaluation is done in accordance with a uniform rating manual (PAVER developed by AASHTO) to assure that similar sections receive similar ratings. The PMS software utilizes these field measurements to compute an OCI rating for each street segment. Studies by the Federal government, local and regional research agencies and various universities have analyzed a broad spectrum of actual case histories and have “predicted” what a typical life cycle might be for a bituminous-surfaced or concrete-surfaced street. Naturally, any individual street’s life can vary significantly depending on the volume and weight of traffic, soil conditions, etc. Using these “predicted” life cycle experiences of similar pavements, a recommended pavement management strategy for each of the analyzed street segments is formulated from the OCI rating, (see Appendix A-2). In 2000, the overall average OCI of the City’s pavement network was 69.6, (see Appendix A-3). PROGRAM METHODOLOGY: An eight-year rotation or cycle will be implemented that will focus maintenance and rehabilitation activities in one area of the City per year. An eight-year St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 021704 - 8b - Street Maintenance and Rehab Page 10 of 17 cycle was chosen based on preventive maintenance research which shows that roads, in good condition, should be sealcoated every 6-10 years. The City was divided into 8 areas of comparable size in terms of pavement square footage. The areas were also divided along neighborhood boundaries in order to facilitate future communications and public process. Using the OCI pavement ratings collected in the 2000 analysis, a weighted overall condition rating was established for each area. This was calculated by multiplying the area of each pavement segment by its rating and then dividing by the sum of the pavement areas. Thus, those areas with the greatest amount of poor pavement will be addressed in order. Sealcoating will also be performed on a cycle, however, it will lag four years behind the other maintenance program in order to sealcoat the newly-paved streets as well. This has been shown to be a proactive long-term measure for new pavements. Based on the weighted overall condition rating, the following rotation was developed, (also see Appendix A-4). The timeline for sealcoating in Areas 3 & 4 was adjusted slightly, since Area 4 had not been sealcoated in over 10 years. Area Maintenance Year Sealcoat Year 1 2005 2009 2 2006 2010 3 2007 2004/2011 4 2008 2003/2012 5 2009 2005/2013 6 2010 2006/2014 7 2011 2007/2015 8 2012 2008/2016 PROGRAM ELEMENTS: The following items comprise the iterative steps that are proposed to be taken in order to deliver on the program’s objectives. Appropriate input from affected property owners will be solicited early in the process as described in the Communications and Outreach section of this report. Communication with affected property owners will continue throughout construction. Evaluation The PMS only establishes a network-level analysis of the street segments and recommends a maintenance strategy based upon similar pavements. Project level analysis has been or will be completed for each Area to verify that 1) the streets identified for maintenance or rehabilitation are the correct ones and, 2) that the recommended maintenance strategy is appropriate. At least two years prior to the planned year of maintenance and rehabilitation, the City will evaluate the pavements visually and may conduct destructive and non-destructive tests to determine underlying soil conditions in selected areas. City staff will conduct the evaluation in order to verify the information obtained in the 2000 PMS analysis. Staff will also assess the St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 021704 - 8b - Street Maintenance and Rehab Page 11 of 17 condition of utilities in the area to determine need for repair or replacement in conjunction with the street rehabilitation efforts. Future in-depth field inspections will be conducted as necessary to obtain updated OCI ratings. Project Identification and Selection Based on the 2000 analysis, the visual evaluation, test reports, and utility needs, staff will determine street segments in need of repair and/or rehabilitation for the first 5 years of the program. Then, appropriate rehabilitation strategies will be applied to the segments based upon a variety of factors including but not limited to: identified strategy based upon segment OCI; pavement, utility, and curb & gutter condition and age; available funding; adjacent projects, etc. Projects selected and their appropriate maintenance strategies will be entered into the Capital Improvement Program at least 2 years prior to the anticipated construction year. Context-Sensitive Design Staff will proceed with the surveying and design of projects at least one year in advance of the proposed construction season. This will allow time for citizen review of the design concepts and possible modification of the plans based on input received. Roadway design will incorporate repair of adjacent facilities, such as sidewalks, when appropriate. The City’s awareness of environmental and quality of life concerns that may be brought about by some strategies is countered by the knowledge that the benefits of the overall program outweigh individual issues. However, design will thoughtfully balance these sometimes competing objectives and, wherever possible, fit the project to the particular needs of the area. Construction The selected segments within an area will be combined or divided into various projects based upon staff’s determination of project scope, complexity, etc. Projects will be coordinated to ensure that disruption is minimized to the extent possible. PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE STRATEGIES: The following maintenance strategies will be used in the Street Maintenance and Rehabilitation Program. Each has their own life cycle and will contribute to extending the life of a given pavement section to varying degrees. Miscellaneous Patching A significant maintenance effort incorporating “isolated” subgrade correction, patch & repair, milling and placement of structural or leveling overlays. This work is performed 1-2 years before an area is scheduled to be sealcoated or microsurfaced. Crack Sealing Crack sealing is the placement of a rubberized sealant in a crack that has been thoroughly cleaned and dried. This provides a protective coating and seals out water. This work is performed prior to a sealcoat or microsurfacing application. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 021704 - 8b - Street Maintenance and Rehab Page 12 of 17 Sealcoating This is the surface application of an asphalt emulsion followed by the placement of small-graded aggregate (rock). The purpose of this treatment is to add surface friction to the pavement, facilitating vehicle traction, and to seal the surface from oxidation and the effects of moisture. Sealcoating can extend the life of a pavement in good condition by 5-9 years. Sealcoating will be performed on a similar cycle as the more intensive street maintenance efforts, however, it will lag four years behind the regular program in order to sealcoat the newly constructed streets as well. This has been shown to be a proactive long-term measure for new pavements. Microsurfacing Involves applying a mixture of asphalt and very-fine aggregate in a thin layer over the surface of the existing pavement. The benefits of microsurfacing are similar to that of sealcoating but it also corrects minor surface irregularities such as ruts. It is most beneficial to higher volume roads because it can be opened to traffic quickly and, there is no loose rock associated with the procedure. Microsurfacing can extend the life of a pavement in good condition by 6-10 years. Mill & Overlay/Resurfacing This process becomes necessary when the upper surface layer (1”-2”) of a pavement has deteriorated considerably. Milling consists of grinding the existing bituminous surface down at the outside edges to establish a uniform cross-section of pavement prior to adding a new hot mix overlay. Sometimes, the entire pavement width is milled to a uniform depth, depending on the extent of the surface distresses. In either situation, the milling creates an even surface assuring the overall thickness of the new overlay. Resurfacing can extend the life of a pavement by 10-15 years. Pavement Removal & Replacement All existing asphalt pavement is removed through a full-depth milling process, pulverized to a specific gradation, reclaimed and recycled in with the existing aggregate base before a new full- depth hot mix asphalt pavement is installed. Pavement removal and replacement establishes a new pavement section that can last for 20-40 years depending on subsequent maintenance, condition of underlying utilities, and curb condition. Reconstruction This option may incorporate the same procedure as pavement removal and replacement, however, it may also involve subgrade soil corrections, removal of aggregate base, and replacement of curb & gutter. A new full-depth hot mix asphalt pavement is then installed. Reconstruction establishes a new pavement section that can last for 40-60 years depending on subsequent maintenance. The following elements will be incorporated as a part of the various maintenance strategies to the extent deemed necessary by staff: Subgrade Correction St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 021704 - 8b - Street Maintenance and Rehab Page 13 of 17 To be performed as needed where sub-surface structural problems have been identified. This involves removal of the unsuitable soils and installation of appropriate materials. Utility Repair or Replacement Utility Division staff, as well as representatives from the private utilities (Reliant Energy, Xcel Energy, & Qwest Communications) will be consulted to determine existing infrastructure reliability and need for replacement. Needed repairs will be coordinated with the street maintenance projects. Utility replacement may precipitate evaluation of alternative methods of installation if the street is in relatively good condition. Concrete Curb & Gutter Installation or Repair Spot repair of curb & gutter will be completed as necessary to promote good drainage. Scraped or scuffed curbing, that is functionally sound, will not be replaced. Repairs will be made with curb of a design similar to the existing. Sidewalk Installation or Repair Spot repair of sidewalk repair will be completed only where necessary to facilitate pedestrian safety and accessibility. City-wide repairs will continue as a yearly maintenance project based on severity of distress. Requests for installation of new sidewalk will be incorporated into the street maintenance projects as appropriate. Driveway Reconstruction Due to the convenience of having a general contractor in the area, many residents may request information on having their driveway paved in conjunction with the project. Staff will facilitate this process by connecting the individual property owners with the contractor. Driveway replacement or repair would be beyond the scope of the project, and residents would work directly with the contractor on payment, materials, workmanship, etc. The City will not warranty driveway construction. Driveway work cannot be assessed to individual property owners. During certain maintenance strategies it may be necessary to replace the driveway apron and/or a portion of a driveway to facilitate street drainage. Only areas with significant drainage problems will be considered for correction. Broken, cracked or heaved driveway aprons that create a significant drainage problem in the street, or a safety hazard, will be considered for repair. Driveways that are repaired, will only be repaired to the extent necessary to achieve positive drainage. Trees In keeping with the City’s existing directives, trees will be protected from damage and/or removal to the extent possible. Given the limited space available in many areas, removal of trees for the benefit of the overall project may be necessary, i.e. replacement of curbing to achieve positive drainage. When trees are removed, these areas will be prioritized by the Forester for installation of replacement trees. Retaining Walls St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 021704 - 8b - Street Maintenance and Rehab Page 14 of 17 Replacement of retaining walls, located on the city right-of-way, will be completed only where the street project necessitates removal of all or part of the wall or, where the wall is substantially out of alignment (vertically or horizontally) to the point where failure of the wall is imminent. Replacement of retaining walls, on private property, will be completed only where the street project necessitates removal of all or part of the wall. Right-of-way Encroachments In keeping with the City’s existing practice, removal and relocation of right-of-way encroachments, i.e. fences, shrubs, sprinkler systems, etc. shall be completed by, and at the expense of, the adjacent property owner. The following table summarizes the elements that will be considered in conjunction with implementation of each maintenance strategy: Sealcoating Microsurfaci ng Mill & Overlay Pavement Replacemen t Reconstructi on Subgrade Correction X X X Utility Repair or Replacement X-limited X X Curb & Gutter Repair X1 X1 X X X Curb & Gutter Installation X X X Sidewalk Repair X1 X1 X X X Sidewalk Installation X2 X2 X2 Streetlighting Installation or Repair X2 X2 X2 Driveway Reconstruction X3 X3 X3 Trees X X Retaining Walls X-limited Right-of-Way Encroachments X 1- Work to be done under other city-wide repair programs 2 – By petition of affected property owners; costs to be assessed 3 – Responsibility of property owner; costs cannot be assessed COMMUNICATION & OUTREACH: The eight pavement areas were specifically designated based upon neighborhood boundaries in order to facilitate communication both during program implementation and the design & construction phases. Although City staff will determine the streets designated for maintenance and rehabilitation as well as the appropriate maintenance strategy, citizen input is desired to deal with concerns about drainage, trees, utility problems, etc. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 021704 - 8b - Street Maintenance and Rehab Page 15 of 17 Informational pieces on the overall program and purpose will be prepared for the Park Perspective and the City’s web page. Staff will also contact the Sun Sailor to determine their interest in writing an article on the overall program. Typical Project Implementation Timeline The following schedule will be followed for property owner review and communication. The purpose of the meetings with residents will not be to discuss the merits of the project nor to modify the results of the engineering analysis on the proper method or extent of repair. Instead, the meetings will focus on answering resident questions about the design & construction process, to identify opportunities to correct existing problems or minimize possible inconvenience, and to maintain resident communication from project development through construction. Task/Step Time Prior to Construction Initial Year Timeline Notice of proposed project; information on property owner responsibility for right-of-way encroachment issues (as appropriate) 17 months Feb. 2004 Request for information from adjacent property owners 12 months May 2004 Initial resident meeting; primary purpose is to identify issues that would affect design 10 months July 2004 Feasibility Report to City Council (consider preliminary plans) 6-7 months Nov.-Dec. 2004 Resident meeting to review preliminary plans 6-7 months Dec.-Jan. 2005 Project approval/final plan approval by City Council (written notice mailed to residents) 2 months Jan.-Feb. 2005 Pre-construction meeting with residents 2-4 weeks April 2005 Construction - May –Oct. 2005 FUNDING: Based on analysis by the City’s Cartegraph software, it appears that an annual investment of $1,500,000 is needed to maintain the residential street network at an OCI rating of no less than 70. Funding for this program is expected to come from the proceeds of franchise fees with Xcel Energy and CenterPoint Energy, and the Sewer and Water Funds. No special assessments, other than for specially requested items, are proposed. Concurrently, staff will develop necessary Muncipal State Aid (MSA) street maintenance and rehabilitation projects. Funding for this element of the program has been scheduled for $900,000 per year. This amount will come from the City’s Municipal State Aid fund. PROGRAM BENEFITS: The following items have been identified as overall benefits of the program: Objective & fair program St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 021704 - 8b - Street Maintenance and Rehab Page 16 of 17 Various street segments are evaluated objectively based upon quantitative data. The selected maintenance strategies are based upon the latest pavement research and designed to improve the overall pavement network. Proactive maintenance extends pavement life-cycle Effective maintenance strategies are used to extend the life-cycle of the pavement and are designed in anticipation of future maintenance efforts. Higher level of service to the public Drainage, rideability, surface friction and overall aesthetic appearance are improved thus providing a higher level of service to the traveling public who use the streets as well as those who live adjacent to them. Context-sensitive design It works. It fits. It looks good. These are the desired reactions of citizens, to the program, after completion. This is achieved by integrating projects into the context or setting through clear identification of issues early on, consideration of different perspectives, and tailoring designs to particular project circumstances. Effective communication with affected residents that relies on accurate information, listening, and honesty, is recognized as paramount to achieving a successful project. Consolidated work plan Maintenance and reconstruction, for a given year, are consolidated into one of eight areas in the city. This results in lower mobilization costs to the contractor, more efficient communication with residents, and less inconvenience to property owners and the traveling public. SUMMARY: The historical approach to managing pavements both in the City and nation-wide has been reactive – fix the worst pavements first. The investment in good or fair pavements and the use of quantitative data was limited. With the establishment of a Street Rehabilitation and Maintenance Program, those street segments and associated rehabilitation strategies, which benefit the network as a whole, are identified first. From there, individual projects are analyzed and verified at the project level. This new approach is proactive, and emphasizes preservation of the existing system and enhanced system-wide performance through thoughtful, conscientious application of the right treatment at the right time. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 021704 - 8b - Street Maintenance and Rehab Page 17 of 17 Attachment D RESOLUTION NO. 04-026 RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE CITY’S RESIDENTIAL STREET MAINTENANCE AND REHABILITATION PROGRAM WHEREAS, the City wishes to maintain its streets in a cost-effective and responsible manner; and WHEREAS, minimal street maintenance has been completed on residential streets after initial construction to City standards, and WHEREAS, more extensive maintenance strategies are needed to maintain the streets in their existing condition, and WHEREAS, a Residential Street Maintenance and Rehabilitation Program has been developed to address theses needs NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, that the City hereby adopts the attached Residential Street Maintenance and Rehabilitation Program (dated January, 2004) Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council February 17, 2004 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 021704 - 8c - Stormwater Ordinance Page 1 of 20 8c. First Reading of the proposed Ordinance Code for the Stormwater Ordinance. Recommended Action: Motion to approve First Reading of proposed Ordinance Code for the Stormwater Ordinance, and set the second reading for March 15, 2004. BACKGROUND: The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) is a 1987 amendment to the EPA Clean Water Act (Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.). NPDES requires the MN Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) to enforce the federal regulations as they apply to the municipal stormwater systems. The City of St. Louis Park is required to establish standards to ensure water quality, minimize stormwater pollution, soil erosion and sediment in waterways, and to control the volume of water runoff to water resources. A report was prepared in April, 2002 for City Council and Administrative staff that outlined the basic requirements of the NPDES general permit and actions the City was required to take to comply with the Federal Phase II permit program. On April 22, 2002 the Council accepted the report submitted by staff. Our NPDES Phase II permit application was submitted on March 7, 2003, meeting the Federal deadline. A study session report was presented to Council on March 23, 2003 summarizing the requirements under NPDES, the general permit, and the City’s Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The most recent study session report was presented to Council on January 26, 2004. On February 4, 2004, the Planning Commission recommended eliminating Section 36-80 of the City Zoning Code related to erosion control. One of the NPDES requirements addressed in the City’s Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is an action item to establish an ordinance that addresses erosion control, illicit discharge and elimination, and post construction stormwater runoff. ORDINANCE PROVISIONS: Staff determined that the best way to address the NPDES regulations in a concise manner is to consolidate all existing ordinance requirements and the new requirements into one ordinance that would include the provisions listed below. The existing erosion control section in the Zoning Ordinance addresses erosion control and references post-construction runoff control. However, it does not address illicit discharge and elimination. Under the proposed ordinance, all required stormwater issues will be addressed. Staff worked with the city attorney to write the proposed stormwater ordinance, which repeals the existing erosion control language in the Zoning Ordinance and, at the same time, replaces it with an ordinance that complies with NPDES requirements. The Planning Commission recommended the elimination of Section 36-80 of the City Zoning Code related to erosion control. Key Ordinance Sections: • Construction Site Stormwater Runoff and Erosion Control • Permit required St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 021704 - 8c - Stormwater Ordinance Page 2 of 20 • Exceptions provided • Enforcement provisions • Illicit Discharge & Connection • Use of best management practices (BMPs) required • Watercourse protection measures • Notification of spills by property owner • Post Construction Stormwater Runoff (erosion control) • Long term stormwater management plans required • Maintenance of existing stormwater facilities required • Routine inspections and long term maintenance • Maintenance covenants • Wetland protection measures • Enforcement and appeal provisions The proposed stormwater ordinance establishes a City erosion control permit system to monitor and manage erosion control in our City. This erosion control permit will be integrated into our existing development and permit processes. This City permit will allow us to fulfill our obligation to oversee the management of erosion control measures during construction and over the lifetime of the property. The means of doing this is to have an erosion control permit with a one-time fee for that development on that property, until such time as it may be redeveloped with a new permit. ISSUES & CONCERNS: CONSTRUCTION The ordinance requires a city erosion control permit for all construction except additions, garages and landscaping for single-family homes and duplexes. Other construction, including new homes, commercial buildings, and multi-family housing, may require a City erosion control permit, depending upon the size of the land disturbing activity and its proximity to a wetland. If the land disturbed is over 5,000 square feet or over 50 cubic yards, the project will require a city erosion control permit. This will require a plan for erosion control during construction, as well as a long-term stormwater management plan, as required by the NPDES general permit. For homeowners, a long-term plan can be as simple as landscaping the yard and maintaining it. The 2004 cost of the City erosion control permit is a flat fee of $150. PERMIT PROCESS Anyone approaching the permit counter in Inspections regarding a construction project will receive information and guidance on the erosion control permit application and guidelines. Inspections will process the applications. Engineering will review plans for erosion control and stormwater management plans. The process requires inspections by the Environmental Coordinator and monitoring by all City field staff in the area of the project. LONG TERM INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 021704 - 8c - Stormwater Ordinance Page 3 of 20 The ordinance provides for long term inspection and maintenance of the erosion control measures. All projects with a city erosion control permit will be entered into a Public Works management system that will notify us every five years that the property is due for an erosion control and stormwater maintenance inspection. The City will send the property owner a letter requesting an inspection by a Professional Engineer be completed and the report given to the City. Routine maintenance is required if determined necessary by Best Management Practices (BMPs) or by these inspections and will be the responsibility of the property/facility owner. NEXT STEPS: 1. Second reading: Monday, March 15, 2004. 2. The ordinance is effective 15 days after publication. Recommendation: Motion to approve First Reading of proposed Ordinance Code for the Stormwater Ordinance, and set the second reading for March 15, 2004. Attachments: Proposed Stormwater Ordinance Prepared By: Scott Anderson, Utilities Superintendent Laura Adler, Engineering Program Coordinator Sarah Hellekson, Public Works Administrative Specialist Reviewed By: Mike Rardin, Director of Public Works Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 021704 - 8c - Stormwater Ordinance Page 4 of 20 ORDINANCE NO. _______ - 04 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE AMENDING CHAPTER 12: ENVIRONMENTAL AND PUBLIC HEALTH TO INCLUDE ARTICLE V: STORMWATER, SOIL EROSION, AND SEDIMENTATION THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN: SECTION 1. Chapter 12 of the St. Louis Park Municipal Code, is hereby amended to add a new Article V as follows: ARTICLE V. STORMWATER, SOIL EROSION, AND SEDIMENTATION Sec. 12-151 Purpose. The purpose of this ordinance is to provide for the health, safety and general welfare of the residents of St. Louis Park by reducing and controlling stormwater, soil erosion and sedimentation within the City. It establishes standards and specifications for conservation practices and planning activities which enhance water quality, minimize stormwater pollution, soil erosion, and sediment in waterways, and control the volume of water runoff to receiving streams and other water resources. Sec. 34-152. Definitions The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this division, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the section , except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: Authorized Enforcement Agency means employees or designees of the City or other governing authorities designated to enforce this ordinance. Best Management Practices (BMPs) means schedules of activities, prohibitions of practices, general good housekeeping practices, pollution prevention and educational practices, maintenance procedures, and other management practices to prevent or reduce the discharge of pollutants directly or indirectly to stormwater, receiving waters, or stormwater conveyance systems. BMPs also include treatment practices, operating procedures, and practices to control site runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge or water disposal, or drainage from raw materials storage. City refers to the City of St Louis Park, any employees, agents, contractors or designee. Clean Water Act refers to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.), and any subsequent amendments thereto. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 021704 - 8c - Stormwater Ordinance Page 5 of 20 CWRMP means the Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan on record in the City offices. Discharge any substance entering the stormwater system by any means. Discharge, Illicit means any direct or indirect non-stormwater discharge to the stormwater system, except as exempted in Section 6.C. of this ordinance. Discharge, Non-Stormwater means any discharge to the stormwater system that is not composed entirely of stormwater. Erosion means any process that wears away the surface of the land by the action of water, wind, ice or gravity. Erosion can be accelerated by the activities of people and nature. Erosion Control refers to methods employed to prevent erosion. Examples include soil stabilization practices, horizontal slope grading, temporary or permanent cover, and construction phasing. Erosion Control Plan means a plan detailing erosion control during construction activity as defined in the Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan (CWRMP), Appendix M. Hazardous Materials: means any material, including any substance, waste, or combination thereof, which because of its quantity, concentration; or, physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics, may cause or significantly contribute to a substantial present or potential hazard to human health, safety, property, or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed of, or otherwise managed. Illicit Connections means either 1) Any drain or conveyance, whether on the surface or subsurface, which allows an illicit discharge to enter the stormwater system, including but not limited to any conveyances which allow any non-stormwater discharge including wastewater, process wastewater, and wash water to enter the stormwater system and any connections to the stormwater system from indoor drains and sinks, regardless of whether said drain or connection had been previously allowed, permitted, or approved by an authorized enforcement agency or; 2) Any drain or conveyance connected from a commercial or industrial land use to the stormwater system which has not been documented in plans, maps, or equivalent records and approved by an authorized enforcement agency. Industrial Activity means activities subject to NPDES Industrial Permits as defined in 40 CFR, Section 122.26 (b)(14). Land Disturbing Activity means any activity which changes the volume or peak flow discharge rate of rainfall runoff from the land surface, including the grading, digging, cutting, scraping, or excavating of soil, placement of fill materials, paving, construction, substantial St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 021704 - 8c - Stormwater Ordinance Page 6 of 20 removal of vegetation or any activity which bears soil or rock, or involves the diversion or piping of any natural or man-made watercourse. NPDES means National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System as established pursuant to 33 USC § 1342(b) to regulate discharges of pollutants to waters of the United States. NPDES Permit means a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Stormwater discharge permit issued by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (pursuant to 33 USC § 1342(b)) that regulates discharges of pollutants to waters of the United States, whether the permit is applicable on an individual, group, or general area-wide basis. Non-Point Source Pollution means pollution from any source other than any discernable, confined and discreet conveyances, and shall include but not be limited to pollutants from agricultural, silvicultural, mining, construction, subsurface disposal and urban runoff sources. Permanent Stabilization Plan means a written plan to establish permanent vegetation to prevent erosion of soil. This plan may be in the form of a letter. Permanent vegetation includes sod, native grasses, trees or other acceptable forms of landscaping. Person means any individual, association, organization, partnership, firm, corporation or other private or public entity recognized by law and acting as either the owner or as the owner's agent. Pollutant means anything which causes or contributes to pollution. Pollutants may include, but are not limited to: paints, varnishes, and solvents; oil and other automotive fluids; non- hazardous liquid and solid wastes and yard wastes; refuse, rubbish, garbage, litter, or other discarded or abandoned objects, ordinances, and accumulations, so that same may cause or contribute to pollution; floatables; pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers; hazardous substances and wastes; sewage, fecal coliform and pathogens; dissolved and particulate metals; animal wastes; wastes and residues that result from constructing a building or structure; and noxious or offensive matter of any kind. Premises means any building, lot, parcel of land, or portion of land whether improved or unimproved including adjacent sidewalks and parking strips. Sediment means solid matter carried by water, wastewater or other liquids. Stormwater means any surface flow, runoff, and drainage consisting entirely of water from any form of natural precipitation. Stormwater Facility means anything within the stormwater system that collects, conveys or stores stormwater, including, but not limited to any inlets, piped storm drains, pumping facilities, retention and detention basins, natural and human-made or altered drainage channels, reservoirs, and other drainage structures. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 021704 - 8c - Stormwater Ordinance Page 7 of 20 Stormwater Management means the use of structural or non-structural practices that are designed to reduce stormwater runoff pollutant loads, discharge volumes, peak flow discharge rates and detrimental changes that affect water quality and habitat. Stormwater Management Plan means a plan which describes how runoff and associated water quality impacts resulting from the development will be controlled or managed. This plan must indicate whether stormwater will be managed on-site or off-site and, if on-site, the general location and type of practices. This final plan must be signed by a licensed professional engineer (PE), who will verify that the design of all stormwater management practices meet the submittal requirements of the Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan (CWRMP). Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) means a document which describes the Best Management Practices and activities to be implemented by a person or business to identify sources of pollution or contamination at a site and the actions to eliminate or reduce pollutant discharges to stormwater, stormwater systems, and/or receiving waters to the maximum extent practicable. Stormwater System means facilities by which stormwater is collected and/or conveyed, including but not limited to any roads with drainage systems, streets, gutters, curbs, inlets, piped storm drains, pumping facilities, retention and detention basins, natural and human-made or altered drainage channels, reservoirs, and other drainage structures. Structure means anything manufactured, constructed, or erected, which is normally attached to, or positioned on land, including portable structures, earthen structures, roads, parking lots and paved storage areas. Watercourse means a stream or body of water, or a natural or artificial channel for the passage of stormwater. Wastewater means any water or other liquid, other than uncontaminated stormwater, discharged from a facility. Waters of the U.S. means any water in the United States per definition as specified 33 CFR 328.a. Wetlands as defined in Minnesota Rules 7050.0130, subpart F, means areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. Sec. 12-153. Responsibility for Administration. The City shall administer, implement, and enforce the provisions of this ordinance. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 021704 - 8c - Stormwater Ordinance Page 8 of 20 Sec. 12-154. Applicability. This ordinance shall apply to all water entering the stormwater system generated on any developed and undeveloped lands unless explicitly exempted by an authorized enforcement agency or in this ordinance. Sec. 12-155. Severability. The provisions of this ordinance are hereby declared to be severable. If any provision, clause, sentence, or paragraph of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person, establishment, or circumstances shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions or application of this Ordinance. Sec. 12-156. Construction Site Stormwater Runoff and Erosion Control. (a) Purpose. The purpose of this section is to regulate land disturbing activities, to preserve and enhance the natural environment by reducing sedimentation in streams, lakes, stormwater systems and other waterways, protect the quality of surface water resources, preserve and protect wildlife habitat, restore sites to reduce the negative environmental effects of land disturbing activities, provide effective practices for erosion and sedimentation control, and to comply with local, state and federal regulations. (b) Scope. Except where an exemption applies, any person proposing a land disturbing activity within the City shall apply to the City for the approval of erosion control plan. No land shall be disturbed until the plan is approved by the City and conforms to the standards set forth herein. (c) Erosion control plan and permit required. 1. Review and approval. No person may grade, fill, excavate, store, dispose of soil and earth materials, or perform any other land disturbing or land filling activity without first submitting an erosion control plan for review and approval by the City and obtaining a permit as required in this section. The erosion control permit is not a replacement for a City Conditional Use Permit as required in section 36- 79 of the City Ordinance, nor is it a replacement for a watershed district permit or a state NPDES permit. 2. General exemptions. Land disturbing activities, which meet all the following criteria, are exempt from the requirements of this section: a. The disturbed or filled area is 5,000 square feet or less in area, and; b. The volume of soil or earth material stored or moved is 50 cubic yards or less, and; St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 021704 - 8c - Stormwater Ordinance Page 9 of 20 c. No drainage way is blocked or has its stormwater-carrying capacities or characteristics modified; and. d. The activity does not take place within 100 feet by horizontal measurement from the top of the bank of a watercourse, the ordinary high water mark of a water body, or the ordinary high water mark of a wetland associated with a watercourse or water body. The activity does not take place within an established 100-year floodplain. 3. Categorical exemptions. Notwithstanding the requirements of the City Code, the following activities are exempt from the permit requirements: a. Emergency activities necessary to prevent or alleviate immediate dangers to life or property. b. General farming, gardening and nursery activities. c. One and two family residential construction activity limited to: 1) additions to the existing structure, 2) landscaping and landscaping structures, and 3) construction of a garage. (d) Submission requirements for erosion control permit. 1. Application items. Application for an erosion control permit shall include submittal of: a. Application form and fee. b. Site map and grading plan. c. Interim erosion and sediment control plan as defined in the City’s Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan, Appendix M. d. As defined in the Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan, Appendix M: • Final erosion control plan • stormwater management plan or permanent stabilization plan as required e. Work schedule. f. Cost estimate. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 021704 - 8c - Stormwater Ordinance Page 10 of 20 2. Fees. All applications shall be accompanied by a permit fee. Fees for permits shall be fixed and determined by the City council, adopted by resolution and uniformly enforced. Such permit fees may, from time to time, be amended by City council resolution. A copy of the resolution setting forth currently effective permit fees shall be kept on file by the City and shall be open to inspection during regular business hours. (e) Review Procedure. 1. Process. City staff will review each complete application for an erosion control permit to determine its conformance with the provisions of this ordinance. Within 60 days of receiving an application, City staff shall either approve, approve with conditions, or deny an erosion control permit application. 2. Appeal. An appeal by an applicant of a denial of a permit under this section shall be made under the manner prescribed in section 36-31 of this Code. 3. Site Review. When a permit is granted, City staff shall inspect the property for erosion control compliance with city code, permit conditions and site plans prior to the onset of construction activities. (f) Form of security. Before a permit is issued, the City may require the permittee to post security in a form acceptable to the City equal to 125 percent of the cost estimate stated in the application and agreed by the City to be the cost of the work to be done under the permit. The security may take the form of cash in United States currency or an irrevocable letter of credit issued by a financial institution and in a form acceptable to the City. 1. Release of security. a. Any security deposited with the City to guarantee performance of the grading and erosion control work shall be released to the person holding the permit upon determination by the City that the conditions of the permit have been satisfactorily performed if no action has been taken by the City to recover all or a part of the security before that determination has been made. b. Securities held to ensure the successful completion of the final plan and an interim plan shall be released to the permittee either one year after termination of the permit, or when a final plan is submitted for the unimproved site, whichever is later, if no action has been taken by the City to recover all or a part of the security filed by the permittee before that date. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 021704 - 8c - Stormwater Ordinance Page 11 of 20 (g) Suspension of permit. In enforcing the permit: 1. The City may suspend the permit and issue a stop work order and the permittee shall cease all work on the work site except for work necessary to remedy the cause of the suspension. 2. The permittee may request a reinstatement of a suspended permit upon correction of the causes for suspension and, if the conditions of the permit have been complied with in full, the City shall reinstate the permit. 3. If the permittee fails or refuses to cease work as required under subsection 6.H. [Actions against security] of this section, the City shall revoke the permit. 4. The City shall not reinstate a revoked permit but shall proceed to act against the security as provided in subsection 6.H. [Actions against security] of this section. (h) Action against security. The City may act against the appropriate security if any of the following conditions exist: 1. The permittee stops performing the land disturbing activities or filling, and abandons the work site prior to completion of the grading plan. 2. The permittee fails to conform to the interim plan or final plan as approved, and has had its permit revoked as provided in subsection (g) Suspension of Permit of this section. 3. The techniques utilized under the interim or final plan fail within one year of installation or before the final plan is implemented for the site or portion of the site, whichever comes later. 4. The City determines that action by the City is necessary to prevent excessive erosion from occurring on the site, or to prevent sediment from occurring on adjacent or nearby properties. The City shall use funds recovered from the security to reimburse the City for all direct and indirect costs incurred in doing the remedial work undertaken by the City or private contractor under contract with the City. CURRENTLY: (Code 1976, § 14:4-10) Cross reference(s)--Environment and public health, ch. 12. Suggest looking at cross- references to Zoning as well. Someone from Planning should check this. Do we still need references to Environment & public health? St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 021704 - 8c - Stormwater Ordinance Page 12 of 20 Sec. 12-157. Illicit Discharge and Connection (a) Objectives. The objectives are to regulate the introduction of pollutants to the stormwater system by any user; to prohibit illicit connections and discharges to the stormwater system; and to establish authority to carry out all inspection, surveillance and monitoring procedures necessary to ensure compliance with this ordinance. (b) Discharge Prohibitions. 1. Prohibition of Illicit Discharges. No person shall discharge or cause to be discharged into the stormwater system or watercourses any materials, including but not limited to pollutants or waters containing any pollutants that cause or contribute to a violation of applicable water quality standards, other than stormwater. a. The commencement, execution or continuance of discharge of pollutants to the stormwater system is prohibited except as follows: water line flushing or other potable water sources, landscape irrigation or lawn watering, diverted stream flows, ground water infiltration to storm drains, uncontaminated pumped ground water, foundation or footing drains (not including active groundwater de-watering systems), crawl space pumps, air conditioning condensation, springs, non-commercial washing of vehicles, natural riparian habitat or wet-land flows, fire fighting activities, and any other water source not containing pollutants. b. Discharges specified in writing by the authorized enforcement agency as being necessary to protect public health and safety are allowed. c. Dye testing is an allowable discharge, but requires a verbal notification to the authorized enforcement agency prior to the time of the test. d. The prohibition shall not apply to any non-stormwater discharge permitted under an NPDES permit, waiver, or waste discharge order issued to the discharger and administered under the authority of the Federal Environmental Protection Agency, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, or other agency, provided that the discharger is in full compliance with all requirements of the permit, waiver, or order and other applicable laws and regulations, and provided that written approval has been granted for any discharge to the stormwater system. 2. Prohibition of Illicit Connections. The construction, use, maintenance or continued existence of such connections to the stormwater system is prohibited. This prohibition expressly includes, without limitation, illicit connections made in the past, regardless of whether the connection was permissible under law or practices applicable or prevailing at the time of connection. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 021704 - 8c - Stormwater Ordinance Page 13 of 20 A person is considered to be in violation of this ordinance if the person connects a line conveying wastewater to the stormwater system, or allows such a connection to continue. (c) Suspension of Stormwater System Access. 1. Suspension due to Illicit Discharges in Emergency Situations. The City may, without prior notice, suspend stormwater system discharge access to a person when such suspension is necessary to stop an actual or threatened discharge which presents or may present imminent or substantial danger to the environment, or to the health or welfare of persons, or to the stormwater system or waters of the United States. If the violator fails to comply with a suspension order issued in an emergency, the authorized enforcement agency may take such steps as deemed necessary to prevent or minimize damage to the stormwater system or waters of the United States, or to minimize danger to persons. 2. Suspension due to the Detection of Illicit Discharge. Any person discharging to the stormwater system in violation of this ordinance may have their stormwater system access terminated if such termination would abate or reduce an illicit discharge. The City will notify a violator of the proposed termination of its stormwater system access. The violator may petition the City for a reconsideration and hearing. A person commits an offense if the person reinstates stormwater system access to premises terminated pursuant to this Section, without the prior approval of the City. (d) Monitoring of Discharges. 1. Access to Facilities. a. The City shall be allowed to enter and inspect facilities and properties subject to regulation under this ordinance as often as may be necessary to determine compliance with this ordinance and for the purposes of inspection, sampling, examination and copying of records that must be kept under the conditions of an NPDES permit to discharge stormwater, and the performance of any additional duties as defined by state and federal law. b. The City shall have the right to set up on any permitted facility such devices as are necessary in the opinion of the authorized enforcement agency to conduct monitoring and/or sampling of the facility's stormwater discharge. c. The City has the right to require the discharger to install monitoring equipment as necessary. The facility's sampling and monitoring equipment St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 021704 - 8c - Stormwater Ordinance Page 14 of 20 shall be maintained at all times in a safe and proper operating condition by the discharger at its own expense. d. Any temporary or permanent obstruction to safe and easy access to the facility to be inspected and/or sampled shall be promptly removed by the owner or operator at the written or oral request of the City and shall not be replaced. The costs of clearing such access shall be borne by the owner of operator. e. Unreasonable delays in allowing the City access to a permitted facility is a violation of a stormwater discharge permit and of this ordinance. A person who is the operator of a facility with a NPDES permit to discharge stormwater associated with industrial activity commits an offense if the person denies the City reasonable access to the permitted facility for the purpose of conducting any activity authorized or required by this ordinance. (e) Requirement To Prevent, Control, And Reduce Stormwater Pollutants By The Use Of Best Management Practices. 1. Owner Responsibility. The owner or operator of any property shall provide, at owner/operator’s expense, reasonable protection from accidental discharge of prohibited materials or other wastes into the municipal stormwater system or watercourses through the use of structural and non-structural Best Management Practices (BMPs). Further, any person responsible for a property or premise, which is, or may be, the source of an illicit discharge, may be required to implement, at said person's expense, additional structural and non-structural BMPs to prevent the further discharge of pollutants to the stormwater system. These BMPs are listed in the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s current BMPs, and are necessary for compliance with requirements of the NPDES permit and Appendix J of the City’s Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan. (f) Water Course Protection. 1. Owner Responsibility. Every property owner through which a watercourse passes, or such person's lessee, shall keep and maintain that part of the watercourse within their property free of trash, debris, excessive vegetation, and other obstacles that would pollute, contaminate, or significantly impact the flow of water through the watercourse. All owners or lessees shall maintain existing privately owned structures within or adjacent to a watercourse, so that such structures will not become a hazard to the use, function, or physical integrity of the watercourse. (g) Notification of Spills. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 021704 - 8c - Stormwater Ordinance Page 15 of 20 1. Notwithstanding other requirements of law, as soon as any person responsible for a facility, vehicle or operation, or responsible for emergency response for a facility or operation has knowledge of any known or suspected release of materials of any amount, which are resulting or may result in illicit discharges or pollutants discharging into the stormwater system or water of the United States, said person shall take all necessary steps to ensure the discovery, containment, and cleanup of such release. In the event of such a release of hazardous materials said person shall immediately notify the City and other emergency response agencies of the occurrence via emergency dispatch services. In the event of a release of non-hazardous materials, said person shall notify the City in person or by phone no later than the next business day. If the discharge of prohibited materials emanates from a commercial or industrial establishment or vehicle, the owner or operator of such establishment or vehicle shall also retain a written record of the discharge and the actions taken to prevent its recurrence. Such records shall be retained for at least three years. Sec. 12-158. Post construction stormwater runoff. (a) Objectives. The objectives of this Section are to establish minimum stormwater management requirements and controls to protect and safeguard the general health, safety, and welfare of the public residing in watersheds within this jurisdiction. This section seeks to meet that purpose through the following objectives: 1. Reduce stormwater runoff rates and volumes, soil erosion and non-point source pollution, wherever possible, through stormwater management controls and to ensure that these management controls are properly maintained and pose no threat to public safety; 2. Control stormwater runoff in any development to reduce flooding, silt deposits, stream bank erosion and maintain the integrity of stream channels; 3. Control non-point source pollution caused by stormwater runoff from development; and 4. Control the total annual volume of surface water runoff, which flows from any specific site following development. (b) Applicability. The rules of applicability are as set forth in Sec. 12-156. [Construction Site Stormwater Runoff and Erosion Control] of this ordinance, with some exceptions. A stormwater management plan is not required for construction or redevelopment of a single or double family home. A stormwater management plan is not required for residential construction on less than two (2) acres with a density of two (2) units or less per acre. However, a permanent stabilization plan is required for projects that meet these exceptions. (c) Stormwater Management Plan. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 021704 - 8c - Stormwater Ordinance Page 16 of 20 1. Stormwater Management Plan Required for All New Developments and Redevelopments. No application for development or redevelopment will be approved unless it includes a stormwater management plan detailing in concept how runoff and associated water quality impacts resulting from the development will be controlled or managed. This plan must indicate whether stormwater will be managed on-site or off-site and, if on-site, the general location and type of practices. The stormwater management plan(s) shall be referred for comment to interested agencies, and any comments must be addressed in a final stormwater management plan. This final plan must be signed by a licensed professional engineer (PE), who will verify that the design of all stormwater management practices meet the submittal requirements of the Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan. 2. Maintenance of Existing Stormwater Facilities. Any stormwater facility in existence prior to adoption of this ordinance shall be maintained by the owner of the stormwater facility and in a manner to conform to design standards for that facility. Any redevelopment of the stormwater facility shall require that the facility meet current stormwater design standards as set forth in this ordinance. The thresholds for maintenance are triggered once sediment deposition reaches a point greater than is allowed under the design standard criteria, or such deposition begins to have a substantial effect on the water quality or holding capacity of the pond. 3. Inspection of Stormwater Facilities. Inspection programs may be established on a reasonable basis, including but not limited to an inspection at least once every five years or more often if deemed necessary to ensure proper functioning of the stormwater management facility. Inspections are the responsibility of the owner of the stormwater facility and must be completed by a licensed professional engineer (PE) hired for that purpose. Inspection results must be completed and submitted to the City of St Louis Park every five years beginning five years from the completion of development or from the date of this ordinance for a pre- existing stormwater facility. Inspections may include, but are not limited to: reviewing maintenance and repair records; sampling discharges, surface water, groundwater, and material or water in drainage control facilities; and evaluating the condition of drainage control facilities and other stormwater treatment practices. All new and existing stormwater management facilities must undergo, at a minimum, an inspection every five years to document maintenance and repair needs and ensure compliance with the requirements of this ordinance and accomplishment of its purposes. This maintenance may include: removal of silt, St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 021704 - 8c - Stormwater Ordinance Page 17 of 20 litter and other debris from all catch basins, inlets and drainage pipes; grass cutting and vegetation removal; and necessary replacement of landscape vegetation. Any maintenance needs found must be addressed in a timely manner, as determined by the City of St. Louis Park. The inspection and maintenance requirement may be increased as deemed necessary to ensure proper functioning of the stormwater management facility. (d) Maintenance Covenants. Maintenance of all stormwater management facilities shall be ensured through the creation of a formal maintenance covenant that must be approved by the City of St. Louis Park and recorded at the Hennepin County Recorders Office prior to final plan approval. As part of the covenant, a schedule shall be developed for when and how often maintenance will occur to ensure proper function of the stormwater management facility. The covenant shall also include plans for periodic inspections to ensure proper performance of the facility between scheduled cleanouts. The owner/operator shall show in the maintenance covenant how it will utilize Best Management Practices (BMPs) to prevent discharge of pollutants into the stormwater system. These BMPs are listed in the City’s Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and the current Minnesota Pollution Control Agency BMP standards, and are necessary for compliance with requirements of the NPDES permit and Appendix J of the City’s Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan. The threshold for maintenance is triggered once sediment deposition reaches a point greater than is allowed under the design standard criteria, or such deposition begins to have a substantial effect on the water quality or holding capacity of the pond. (e) Right-of-Entry for Inspection. When any new drainage control facility is installed on private property, or when any new connection is made between private property and a public stormwater system, the property owner shall grant to the City of St. Louis Park the right to enter the property at reasonable times and in a reasonable manner for the purpose of inspection. This includes the right to enter a property when the City has a reasonable basis to believe that a violation of this ordinance is occurring or has occurred, and to enter when necessary for abatement of a public nuisance or correction of a violation of this ordinance. (f) Records of Installation and Maintenance Activities. Parties responsible for the operation and maintenance of a stormwater management facility shall make records of the installation and of all maintenance and repairs, and shall retain the records for at least ten years. These records shall be made available to the City during inspection of the facility and at other reasonable times upon request. Reference Appendix “T” of the Comprehensive Surface Water Management Plan, entitled Stormwater Management Guidelines for New Development or Redevelopment within the City of St. Louis Park. Sec. 12-159. Wetland Protection. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 021704 - 8c - Stormwater Ordinance Page 18 of 20 All land disturbing activities, which impact or may impact a wetland, must be in conformance with the City’s Wetland Management Plan, which is Appendix “B” of the City’s Comprehensive Surface Water Management Plan, as adopted by Council Resolution. Sec. 12-160. Enforcement. (a) Violation. Any action, failure to act or land use practice that would impair water quality if allowed to continue, shall constitute a public nuisance and be treated as a misdemeanor under this Code. (b) Notice of Violation. Whenever the City finds that a person has violated any section of this Code or failed to meet a requirement of this Ordinance, the City shall order compliance by written Notice of Violation to the responsible person. Such notice may require: 1. Monitoring, analyses and reporting; 2. Elimination of illicit discharges or connections; 3. Abatement of pollution and hazards; 4. Restoration of affected property; 5. Remediation of issue; 6. Payment of a fine to cover administrative and remediation costs; 7. Implementation of source control or treatment BMP’s; and 8. Other actions as deemed necessary by the City. If abatement of a violation and/or restoration of affected property is required, the notice shall set forth a deadline within which such remediation or restoration must be completed. The notice shall further advise that, should the violator fail to remediate or restore within the established deadline, the work will be done by the City or other local governmental unit or a contractor and the expense thereof shall be charged to the violator. (c) Failure to maintain practices. If a responsible party fails or refuses to meet the requirements of the maintenance covenant, the City of St. Louis Park, after reasonable notice, may correct a violation of the design standards or maintenance needs by performing all necessary work to place the facility in proper working condition. In the event that the stormwater management facility becomes a danger to public safety or public health, the City of St. Louis Park shall notify the party responsible for maintenance of the stormwater management facility in writing. Upon receipt of that notice, the responsible person shall have 30 days to effect maintenance and repair of the facility in an approved manner. After proper notice, the City of St. Louis Park may assess the owner(s) of the facility for the cost of repair work and any penalties; and the cost of the work shall be a lien on the property, or prorated against the beneficial users of the property, and may be placed on the tax bill and collected as ordinary taxes by the county. Sec. 12-161. Appeal of Notice of Violation. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 021704 - 8c - Stormwater Ordinance Page 19 of 20 Any person receiving a Notice of Violation may appeal the determination of the City. The notice of appeal must be received within 5 days from the date of the Notice of Violation. Hearing on the appeal before the appropriate authority or designee shall take place within 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice of appeal. The decision of the City or the local government unit or designee shall be final. Sec. 12-162. Enforcement Measures After Appeal. If the violation has not been corrected pursuant to the requirements set forth in the Notice of Violation, or, in the event of an appeal, within 5 days of the decision of the City or local government unit upholding the decision of the authorized enforcement agency, then representatives of the authorized enforcement agency shall enter upon the subject private property and are authorized to take any and all measures necessary to abate the violation and/or restore the property. It shall be unlawful for any person, owner, agent or person in possession of any premises to refuse to allow the government agency or designated contractor to enter upon the premises for the purposes set forth above. Sec. 12-163. Cost of Abatement of the Violation. Within 30 days after abatement of the violation, the owner of the property will be notified of the cost of abatement, including administrative costs. The property owner must file any objection to the amount of the assessment in writing with the City within 30 days. If the amount due is not paid within a timely manner as determined by the decision of the City or by the expiration of the time in which to file an appeal, the costs shall become a special assessment against the property and shall constitute a lien on the property for the amount of the assessment. Any person violating any of the provisions of this article shall become liable to the City by reason of such violation. Sec. 12-164. Injunctive Relief. It shall be unlawful for any person to violate any provision or fail to comply with any of the requirements of this Ordinance. If a person has violated or continues to violate the provisions of this Ordinance, the authorized enforcement agency may petition for a preliminary or permanent injunction restraining the person from activities which would create further violations or compelling the person to perform abatement or remediation of the violation. Sec. 12-165. Compensatory Action. In lieu of enforcement proceedings, penalties, and remedies authorized by this Ordinance, the authorized enforcement agency may impose upon a violator alternative compensatory actions, such as storm drain stenciling, attendance at compliance workshops, creek cleanup, and similar programs. Sec. 12-166. Violations Deemed A Public Nuisance. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 021704 - 8c - Stormwater Ordinance Page 20 of 20 In addition to the enforcement processes and penalties provided, any condition caused or permitted to exist in violation of any of the provisions of this Ordinance is a threat to public health, safety, and welfare, and is declared and deemed a nuisance, and may be summarily abated or restored at the violator's expense, and/or a civil action to abate, enjoin, or otherwise compel the cessation of such nuisance may be taken. Sec. 12-167. Criminal Prosecution. Any person that has violated or continues to violate this ordinance shall be liable to criminal prosecution to the fullest extent of the law. The authorized enforcement agency may recover all attorney’s fees court costs and other expenses associated with enforcement of this ordinance, including sampling and monitoring expenses. Sec. 12-168. Remedies Not Exclusive. The remedies listed in this ordinance are not exclusive of any other remedies available under any applicable federal, state or local law and it is within the discretion of the authorized enforcement agency to seek cumulative remedies. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council , 2004 City Manager Mayor Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution: City Clerk City Attorney St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 021704 - 8d - Deletion of Erosion Control Policy Page 1 of 15 8d. First Reading of Zoning Text amendment to delete Section 36-80 Erosion Control Zoning text amendment to delete Section 36-80 Erosion Control as a step toward consolidating regulations associated with land disturbing events into the Stormwater Ordinance. Case No. 04-01-ZA Recommended Action: Motion to approve first reading of Ordinance amending Chapter 36 of the Municipal Code to delete Section 36-80 Erosion Control subject to adoption of the Stormwater Ordinance and set second reading for March 15, 2004. Background: There have been a number of new requirements imposed by federal, state, and watershed district agencies that require modification of how the City currently regulates surface water and erosion during land disturbing events. Currently, some of these regulations occur in the zoning code, some in surface water policy (adopted within the Comprehensive Plan) and some in other areas of the code. Staff is proposing to consolidate all of the requirements, except floodplain regulations which cannot be moved out of zoning, into a “Stormwater Ordinance” to be adopted into the Municipal Code. Chapter 36-80 regulating erosion control is proposed to be deleted from the zoning chapter. On January 26, 2004 the City Council was updated on the adoption of the Stormwater Ordinance and the proposed zoning ordinance amendment. The Planning Commission held a public hearing to remove Section 36-80 Erosion Control from the zoning chapter on February 4, 2004, and unanimously recommended approval of same. The Planning Commission also requested that Sec. 36-79. Grading; filling and land reclamation; excavation and mining be brought back to them for further consideration for deleting or amending as part of streamlining the process. (Sec. 36-79 requires a conditional use permit for fill or excavation in excess of 400 cubic yards of soil.) Issues: • What is the substance and impact of the proposed amendment? • Will the proposed amendment result in diminished developer or contractor performance during land disturbing events? Issue Analysis: • What is the substance and impact of the proposed amendment? Section 36-80 Erosion Control St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 021704 - 8d - Deletion of Erosion Control Policy Page 2 of 15 This section of the code sets standards and a process for erosion control during land disturbing events. An erosion control permit is currently required by code, but it does not require approval by the City Council in the form of a conditional use permit. Staff and the Planning Commission are proposing to delete this section in its entirety. Similar standards and process are included in the Stormwater Ordinance, which the Council is considering for first reading. Since all of the provisions of Section 36-80 will be replaced in the Stormwater Ordinance, the actual impact is considered to be nil. Staff is also engaged in formalizing a more aggressive plan to identify and address erosion control violations. Erosion control permits are required from the City and watershed district permits are also required whenever land disturbing events occur above a certain threshold. Each of these permits address the same issues that are addressed in Section 36-80. • Will the proposed amendments result in diminished developer or contractor performance during land disturbing events? Even though the proposed amendment is to eliminate provisions from the zoning code, the provisions will be readopted into the Stormwater Ordinance and will continue to be enforced. In fact, many provisions will be tightened to comply with new federal, state, and watershed regulations. Recommendation: Staff and the Planning Commission recommend deletion of Section 36-80 of the zoning code, subject to the adoption of the Stormwater Ordinance. Attachments: Unofficial minutes – Planning Commission 2/4/04 Proposed ordinance deleting Section 36-80 Erosion Control from Chapter 36, Zoning. Prepared by: Judie Erickson, Planning Coordinator (952) 924-2574 email jerickson@stlouispark.org Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 021704 - 8d - Deletion of Erosion Control Policy Page 3 of 15 Excerpts – Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission February 4, 2004 3. Hearings A. Case No. 04-01-ZA—Proposed amendments to St. Louis Park Ordinance Code (Zoning) relating to Section 36-80 Erosion Control and Section 36-79 requirements for conditional use permits for fill or excavation of over 400 cubic yards. Ms. Erickson, Planning Coordinator, presented a staff report. She explained that the purpose of the proposed action is to consolidate into one section of the Municipal Code all the requirements and regulations that address stormwater. Two sections of the Zoning Code would be deleted: 1) erosion control; and 2) conditional use permits for fill or excavation over 400 cubic yards. Ms. Erickson said at the time the public hearing notice for the amendments was published, staff anticipated amending Section 36-79, the Conditional Use Permit section for excavation and fill over 400 cubic years. She said since staff now proposes deleting that section, a new hearing notice will be published for a public hearing on that matter. Ms. Erickson explained that removing the sections from the Zoning Code will not change the City’s regulation of surface water and erosion events. Instead it will be a shift in where the controls happen. Controls will go into the permitting process. The permit will include a requirement of notification to neighborhoods when there is any kind of significant truck hauling. Commissioner Carper asked if any public hearings would occur for residents with concerns about various activities such as hauling. Ms. Erickson said a hearing would occur with some uses. She explained that currently many uses require conditional use permits or PUDs. Any hauling that would be associated with a conditional use permit or a PUD would be part of that public hearing process. Ms. Erickson went on to say that if the activity was excavation for regular pond maintenance or excavation for foundations or other uses not requiring a CUP, then there would not be a public hearing. She explained that by ordinance there will be a notice process in those situations so that affected residents would have an opportunity to call staff to discuss their concerns. Commissioner Carper gave an example of a recent public hearing held at the Planning Commission for excavation at 460 Ford Road. Ms. Erickson said the only thing that required a CUP in that project was the actual excavation itself, not the building and in the future that type of situation wouldn’t require a public hearing, but there would be an avenue to voice concerns directly to staff. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 021704 - 8d - Deletion of Erosion Control Policy Page 4 of 15 Janet Jeremiah, Planning and Zoning Supervisor, commented that as the public hearing was not being held on Section 36-79 (requirements for CUPs for fill or excavation of over 400 cubic yards) staff did not include a full analysis of the permitting requirements that those types of uses would entail. She said, however, the intent is to cover the issues normally discussed at the public hearing and make sure the public hearings held before the Planning Commission are catered to the development proposal and not just excavation types of issues. Ms. Jeremiah said a much more detailed analysis will be provided in the staff report for the public hearing regarding Section 36-79. Staff is not proposing that a recommendation be made on deleting that section at this meeting, only to direct staff to bring back a full analysis. Commissioner Morris commented that when the Planning Commission reviews cases like the recent Shelard Park request for excavation, the vast majority of residents attending the hearing have no objection to the excavation, rather the objections are to the development. He said he thinks that may result with too much debate before the Planning Commission about the legitimacy of a development, as opposed to whether the excavation should be allowed. He added that there are some legitimate debates that take place but the vast majority of excavation requests before the Planning Commission are solely housekeeping items. He said he understands why staff would like to remove that from the public format into a permitting process. He suggested that triggers could be put into the permitting process which would require public hearings for certain types of excavation. Commissioner Gothberg stated that most of the excavation routes under consideration by the Planning Commission have been well developed by staff. Only in a few instances has the Commission recommended changes. He said for the future, depending on the volume of material moved, people who live on proposed hauling routes should have an opportunity to attend a neighborhood meeting as part of the permitting process. Chair Robertson opened the public hearing. As no one was present wishing to speak, the Chair closed the public hearing. Commissioner Gothberg moved to recommend approval of Ordinance Code text amendments (relating to zoning) to eliminate Section 36-80 erosion control and defer proposed amendments to Section 36-79, requesting staff to bring back an amendment deleting Section 36-79. The motion passed 6-0. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 021704 - 8d - Deletion of Erosion Control Policy Page 5 of 15 ORDINANCE NO.______ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING BY AMENDING SECTION 36-80 (EROSION CONTROL) THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN: Findings Sec. 1. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission (Case No. 04-01-ZA). Sec. 2. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Section 36-80 is hereby deleted as follows: Sec. 36-80. Erosion control. (a) Purpose. The purpose of this section is to regulate land disturbing activities to preserve and enhance the natural environment by reducing sedimentation in streams, lakes, storm sewer systems and other waterways, protect the quality of surface water resources, preserve and protect wildlife habitat, restore sites to reduce the negative environmental effects of construction activities and provide uniform techniques and methods for erosion and sedimentation control. (b) Erosion control plan required. (1) Review and approval. No person may grade, fill, excavate, store, dispose of soil and earth materials, or perform any other land disturbing or land filling activity without first submitting an erosion control plan for review and approval by the city and obtaining a permit as required in section 36-79 and subsection (c) of this section. (2) General exemptions. Land disturbing activities which meet all of the following criteria are exempt from the requirements of this section: a. The disturbed or filled area is 15,000 square feet or less in area. b. The volume of soil or earth material stored or moved is 400 cubic yards or less. c. The area from which rainwater runoff is diverted, either during or after construction, is smaller than two acres. d. An impervious surface of less than 10,000 square feet is created. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 021704 - 8d - Deletion of Erosion Control Policy Page 6 of 15 e. No drainage way is blocked or has its stormwater-carrying capacities or characteristics modified. f. The activity does not take place within 100 feet by horizontal measurement from the top of the bank of a watercourse, the ordinary high water mark of a water body, or the ordinary high water mark of a wetland associated with a watercourse or water body. (3) Categorical exemptions. Notwithstanding the requirements of subsection (b)(2) of this section, the following activities are exempt from the permit requirements: a. An excavation below finished grade for basements and footings of a building, retaining walls or other structure authorized by a valid building permit. This shall not exempt any fill made with the material from the excavation, nor any excavation having an unsupported height greater than five feet after completion of the structure. b. Cemetery graves. c. Refuse disposal sites controlled by any other regulations. d. Excavations for tunnels. e. Mining, quarrying, excavating, and stockpiling of rock, sand, gravel, aggregate, or clay, if authorized, established and conducted in the manner provided in this chapter. f. Exploratory excavations under the direction of soil engineers or engineering geologists. g. Emergency activities necessary to prevent or alleviate immediate dangers to life or property. (c) Submission requirements for permit. (1) Application items. The application for a permit shall include all of the following items: a. Application form and fee. b. Site map and grading plan. c. Interim erosion and sediment control plan. d. Final erosion and sediment control plan, where required. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 021704 - 8d - Deletion of Erosion Control Policy Page 7 of 15 e. Work schedule. f. Cost estimate. g. Surety. (2) Application form and fees. The following information is required on the application form: a. Name, address, and telephone number of the applicant. b. Name, address, and telephone number of the property owner. c. Names, addresses, and telephone numbers of the persons responsible for preparation of the site map and grading plan. d. Names, addresses, and telephone numbers of the persons responsible for the preparation of the final erosion and sediment control plan. e. A vicinity map showing the location of the site in relationship to the surrounding areas, watercourses, water bodies, and other significant physical features. f. Date of the application. g. Name, address and telephone number of the person responsible for maintenance of the erosion and sediment control measures. h. Signature of the owner or authorized representative of the owner of the property. i. Application fee. (3) Site map and grading plan. The site map and grading plan shall contain the following information: a. Existing and proposed topography of the site taken at a contour interval of no less than two feet. b. Contour lines extending a minimum of 100 feet beyond the property boundaries or a distance sufficient to show the relationship between on-site and off- site drainage. c. Property lines shown in true location with respect to topographic information on the plan. d. Location and graphic representation of all existing and proposed natural and manmade drainage facilities. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 021704 - 8d - Deletion of Erosion Control Policy Page 8 of 15 e. Detailed plans of any surface and subsurface drainage devices, walls, cribbing, dams and other devices to be constructed with or as a part of the proposed work, and a map showing the drainage area and the estimated runoff of the areas served by any drain. f. Location and graphic representation of proposed excavations and fills, of on-site storage of soil and other earth material and of on-site disposal of earth material. g. Location of proposed final surface runoff, erosion and sediment control measures. h. Quantity, in cubic yards, of soil or earth material to be excavated, filled, stored, or otherwise utilized on the site. i. Outline of the methods to be used in clearing vegetation and in storing and disposing of the cleared vegetative matter. j. Proposed sequence and schedule of excavation, filling, and other land disturbing and filling activities and soil or earth materials storage or disposal. k. Location of any buildings or structures on the property where the work is to be performed, and the location of any buildings or structures on land of adjacent owners which are within 15 feet of the property line of the subject property, or which may be affected by the proposed grading operations. (4) Interim erosion and sediment control plan. The following information shall be provided with respect to conditions which may exist on the site during land disturbing, filling activities, or soil storage: a. Maximum surface water runoff from the site shall be calculated using the United States Soil Conservation Service TR55 model or by any other method which the city deems acceptable. b. A description of the measures to be undertaken to retain sediment on the site including, but not limited to, the designs and specifications for sediment, detention basins, and traps, and a schedule for their maintenance and upkeep. c. A description of the surface runoff and erosion control measures to be implemented including, but not limited to, types and methods of applying mulches and designs and specifications for diverters, dikes, and drains, and a schedule for their maintenance and upkeep. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 021704 - 8d - Deletion of Erosion Control Policy Page 9 of 15 d. A description of the vegetative measures to be used including, but not limited to, types of seeds and fertilizer and their application rates, the type, location, and extent of preexisting and undisturbed vegetation types and a schedule for maintenance and upkeep of vegetation planted for erosion control purposes. e. The location of all the measures listed in subsections (c)(4)b., (c)(4)c. and (c)(4)d. of this section shall be shown in detail on the grading plan. (5) Final erosion and sediment control plan. The following information shall be provided to describe the conditions which will exist on the site following completion of final construction of structures and improvements, and where these final structures and improvements have not been covered by an interim plan: a. Maximum runoff from the site shall be calculated using the United States Soil Conservation Service TR55 model or by any other method which the city finds acceptable. b. A description of and the specifications for sediment retention devices. c. A description of and the specifications for surface runoff and erosion control devices. d. A description of all vegetative measures to be employed. e. The information required by subsections (c)(5)b., (c)(5)c. and (c)(5)d. of this section shall be shown on the site and grading plan. f. The applicant may use any erosion and sediment control technique in the interim or final plan which is at least as effective as the standards and criteria contained in subsection (e) of this section, if that alternative technique is approved by the city. (6) Work schedule. The applicant shall submit a work schedule showing the following information: a. Proposed grading schedule. b. Proposed conditions of the site on the 15th of each month from April through October. c. Proposed schedule for installation of all interim erosion and sediment control measures including, but not limited to, the stage of completion of erosion and sediment control devices and vegetative measures on each of the dates specified in subsection (c)(6)b. of this section. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 021704 - 8d - Deletion of Erosion Control Policy Page 10 of 15 d. Schedule for installation of permanent erosion of sediment control devices where required. (7) Cost estimate. The applicant shall submit an estimate of the cost of implementing and maintaining all interim and final erosion and sediment control measures having that level of detail necessary to permit verification of the proposed estimate. (d) Review process. (1) The city shall review all documents required to be submitted with the application, and may request additional data, clarification of submitted data, or correction of defective submissions within ten working days after the date of submission. (2) The city shall notify the applicant of its decision to grant or deny the permit within 20 working days from the date the required submission by the applicant has been acknowledged by the city to be complete. This date may be extended by mutual agreement of the city and the applicant. (3) The applicant may request review of the application by the county conservation district to determine whether the proposed plan complies with the standards and management practices of the Erosion and Sediment Control Manual, Conservation District of Hennepin County, 1989. If the county conservation district conducts a review and certifies to the city that the plan is in substantial compliance with the standards and management practices in the Erosion and Sediment Control Manual, that certification shall be the necessary technical review required by this section. Certification of the erosion and sediment control measures by the county conservation district shall not constitute approval of the overall permit, the requirements for maintenance, or the provision of security required in subsections (f) and (g) of this section. (4) Permits issued under this section shall be valid during the shorter of the following periods of time: a. The period during which the proposed land disturbing, filling activity, or soil storage takes place. b. The period during which the proposed land disturbing, filling activity, or soil storage is scheduled to take place. (5) An appeal by an applicant of a denial of a permit under this section shall be made under the manner prescribed in section 36-31. (6) A permit issued under this section may be assigned to other parties provided: a. The permittee notifies the city of the proposed assignment. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 021704 - 8d - Deletion of Erosion Control Policy Page 11 of 15 b. The proposed assignee agrees to all the conditions and duties imposed by the permit and assumes responsibility for all work required to be performed in writing filed with the city, provides the security required by subsection (g) of this section, pays any and all applicable fees. c. The city approves the assignment. (e) Standards and conditions. (1) Erosion and sediment control measures proposed as part of an interim or final erosion or sediment plan shall comply with the following general criteria: a. Stabilization of denuded areas and soil stock piles. Permanent or temporary soil stabilization shall be applied to disturbed areas within 15 days after final grading of any portion of the site. Soil stabilization shall also be applied within 15 days to denuded areas even if they may not be at final grade if they will remain dormant or undisturbed for longer than 60 days. Soil stabilization measures shall be appropriate for the time of year, site conditions and estimated duration of use. Soil stockpiles shall be stabilized or have sediment trapping measures employed to prevent sediment damage. b. Establishment of permanent vegetation. A permanent vegetative cover shall be established on denuded areas not otherwise permanently stabilized. Permanent vegetation shall not be considered established until a ground cover is achieved which is mature enough to control soil erosion satisfactorily. c. Protection of adjacent properties. Properties adjacent to or recipients of runoff from a site of land disturbing activity shall be protected from sediment deposition. Vegetated filter strips and sediment barriers shall be used where runoff is in sheet flow only. Filter strips shall be at least 20 feet wide. If vegetative filter strips are used alone and are ineffective, additional perimeter and stabilization controls shall be provided. d. Timing and stabilization of sediment trapping measures. Sediment basins and traps, perimeter dikes, sediment barriers and other measures intended to trap sediment on the site shall be constructed before grading the site. These shall be made functional before the land is disturbed. When earthen structures such as dams, dikes, and diversions are required, they must be seeded or mulched within 15 days after installation. e. Sediment basins. If denuded drainage areas have an area of two acres or larger, runoff from these areas shall pass through a sediment basin or other St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 021704 - 8d - Deletion of Erosion Control Policy Page 12 of 15 suitable sediment trapping facility with equivalent or greater storage capacity and trapping efficiency. The city may vary these requirements as appropriate or necessary. f. Cut and fill slopes. 1. Cut and fill slopes shall be designed and constructed in a manner which will maximize inherent stability and minimize erosion. Consideration shall be given to the length and steepness of the grade, the character of soils, the watershed, groundwater conditions and other applicable factors. Slope stabilization measures shall be employed to slopes which are eroding or unstable within one year of construction. Such corrective measures shall be continued until the problem is corrected. 2. Diversions shall be constructed at the top of long steep slopes which have significant drainage area above the slope. Diversions or terraces may also be used to reduce slope length. 3. Concentrated stormwater shall not be allowed to flow down cut or fill slopes unless contained within an adequate temporary or permanent channel, flume or slope drain structure. 4. Whenever a slope face crosses a water seepage plane which endangers stability of the slope, adequate drainage or other protection shall be provided. g. Stabilization of waterways and outlets. All on-site stormwater conveyance channels shall be designed and constructed to convey stormwater without erosion. The surface water management plan sets storm design frequency which must be adhered to in designing stormwater conveyance. Stabilization measures necessary to prevent erosion shall also be provided at the outlets of all pipes and paved channels. h. Storm sewer inlet protection. All storm sewer inlets shall be protected so that sediment-laden water will not enter the storm sewer system without first being filtered or otherwise treated to remove sediment. i. Working in or across watercourses. 1. Construction vehicles shall be kept out of watercourses if possible. Where in-channel work is necessary, precautions shall be taken to stabilize the work area during construction to minimize erosion. The channel, including its bed and banks, must always be restabilized immediately after in-channel work is completed. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 021704 - 8d - Deletion of Erosion Control Policy Page 13 of 15 2. Where a watercourse, which is conveying water, must be crossed regularly by construction vehicles during construction, a temporary stream crossing must be provided. j. Construction access routes. Wherever construction vehicle access routes intersect paved public roads, provisions shall be made to minimize the transport of sediment and soil particles by runoff or by vehicles tracking on to the paved surface. Where sediment is transported onto a public road surface, the road shall be cleaned thoroughly at the end of each day. Sediment shall be removed from roads by shoveling or sweeping and it shall be transported to a controlled sediment disposal area. Street washing shall be allowed only after sediment has been removed. k. Removal of temporary measures. All temporary erosion and sediment control measures shall be removed within 30 days after final site stabilization is achieved, or after the temporary measures are no longer needed unless otherwise authorized by the city. Trapped sediment and other disturbed soil areas resulting from the removal of temporary measures shall be permanently stabilized to prevent further erosion and sedimentation. l. Stormwater management. The erosion and sediment control plan shall include all necessary provisions to ensure the stormwater runoff from the site will not create erosion and sediment downstream from the site being disturbed. (2) Erosion and sediment control measures proposed as part of an interim or final erosion or sediment control plan shall comply with the Erosion and Sediment Control Manual, Conservation District of Hennepin County, dated 1989, and all other applicable laws and regulations. (f) Maintenance of erosion and sediment control measures. Upon completion of final grading and installation of permanent erosion and sediment control measures, the permit holder or its successors or assigns shall maintain the erosion and sediment control measures according to the currently approved plan. Failure to maintain these measures according to the currently approved plan shall be a violation of this chapter. (g) Security required. (1) Form of security. Before construction begins, the permittee shall post security in a form acceptable to the city equal to 125 percent of the cost estimate stated in the application and agreed by the city to be the cost of the work to be done under the permit. The security may take the form of cash in United States currency or an irrevocable letter of credit. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 021704 - 8d - Deletion of Erosion Control Policy Page 14 of 15 (2) Suspension of permit. Before taking action against the permittee's surety, the city shall first resort to the following procedures: a. The city may suspend the permit and issue a stop work order and the permittee shall cease all work on the work site except for work necessary to remedy the cause of the suspension. b. If the permittee fails or refuses to cease work as required under subsection (g)(2)a. of this section, the city may revoke the permit and issue a stop work order for any and all activities on the site. c. The permittee may request a reinstatement of a suspended permit upon correction of the causes for suspension and, if the conditions of the permit have been complied with in full, the city shall reinstate the permit. d. The city shall not reinstate a revoked permit but shall proceed to act against the surety as provided in subsection (g)(3) of this section. (3) Action against surety. The city may act against the appropriate surety if any of the following conditions exist: a. The permittee stops performing the land disturbing activities or filling and abandons the work site prior to completion of the grading plan. b. The permittee fails to conform to the interim plan or final plan as approved, and has had its permit revoked as provided in subsection (g)(2)b. of this section. c. The techniques utilized under the interim or final plan fail within one year of installation or before final plan is implemented for the site or portion of the site, whichever comes later. d. The city determines that action by the city is necessary to prevent excessive erosion from occurring on the site, or to prevent sediment from occurring on adjacent or nearby properties. The city shall use funds recovered from the surety to reimburse the city for all direct and indirect costs incurred in doing the remedial work undertaken by the city or private contractor under contract with the city. (4) Release of security. a. Any security deposited with the city to guarantee performance of the grading, erosion, and control work shall be released to the person holding the permit upon determination by the city that the conditions of the permit St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 021704 - 8d - Deletion of Erosion Control Policy Page 15 of 15 have been satisfactorily performed if no action has been taken by the city to recover all or a part of the security before that determination has been made. b. Securities held to ensure the successful completion of the final plan and an interim plan shall be released to the permittee either one year after termination of the permit, or when a final plan is submitted for the unimproved site, whichever is later, if no action has been taken by the city to recover all or a part of the security filed by the permittee before that date. Sec. 3. The contents of Planning Case File 04-01-ZA are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case. Sec.4. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication. Adopted by the City Council March 15, 2004 Reviewed for Administration City Manager Mayor Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution: City Clerk City Attorney 04-01-ZA:res/ord