HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004/03/15 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - RegularAGENDA SUMMARY
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
March 15, 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
a. Student Exchange Government Study Program
3. Approval of Minutes
a. City Council Minutes of March 1, 2004 Document
b. City Council Study Session Minutes of February 23, 2004 Document
c. City Council Study Session Minutes of March 1, 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 - None
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public - None
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions
8a. Police Officer Union Contract 1/1/04 – 12/31/05 Document
A 2-year agreement with Police Officers settling the City and Union for 2004 & 05.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the attached resolution approving a Labor
Agreement between the City and Law Enforcement Labor
Services (LELS) #206, establishing terms and conditions of
employment for two years: 1/1/04 – 12/31/05.
8b Resolution Opposing Tax and Expenditure Limitation Proposals and a Proposed
Constitutional Amendment Limiting Growth of Spending Document
Tax and Expenditure Limits (TELs) would severely hamper the city’s efforts to raise
needed revenue, address unexpected crises, and meet shifting or growing public needs.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt a Resolution Opposing Tax and Expenditure
Limitation Proposals (TELs) and opposing the proposed
constitutional amendment limiting growth of spending (TABOR)
8c. Oak Hill Park Improvements Document
Approve plans and specifications and authorize staff to solicit bids for the buildings at
Oak Hill Park.
Recommended
Action:
Approve plans and specifications for the buildings at Oak Hill
Park and authorize solicitation of bids for the project.
8d. Proposed amendments to various sections of Chapter 36 of the Ordinance Code
(pertaining to zoning) to redefine and standardize open space requirements in
the various zoning districts. Document
Proposed amendments make distinctions between “open lot area” requirements for
single family, and “designed outdoor recreation area” for multi-family and group
living housing types, and incorporate more uniform standards for each throughout the
zoning code. The amendments also provide consistent requirements for open space
reductions using the PUD process. Case 03-70-ZA
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve first reading of Ordinance Code amendments
to various sections of Chapter 36 related to zoning to eliminate
definition for “usable open space”, add definitions for “open lot
area” and “designed outdoor recreation area” and to standardize
the application of these definitions throughout Chapter 36 and to
set second reading for April 12, 2004.
8e. WHIOP Real Estate LTD’s application for an amendments to St. Louis Park
Ordinance Code (Zoning) to allow catering as an accessory use to certain uses
in the Office District. Document
Case No. 04-02-ZA
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve 1st reading of an ordinance amending Section
36-115 and 36-223(f) regarding catering and set second reading
for the April 12th City Council meeting.
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 MARCH 15, 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 second reading of Ordinance amending Chapter 36 of the Municipal
Code to delete Section 36-80 Erosion Control subject to the adoption of the Stormwater
Ordinance, adopt ordinance, and approve summary publication. Document
4b Motion to approve the second reading of proposed revisions to Chapter 12 of the
ordinance code to add Article V regarding stormwater, approve the summary, and
authorize summary publication. Document
4c Motion to adopt the attached resolution authorizing restriction of parking along the north
and south sides of the Trunk Highway 7 north Frontage Road, west of Wooddale Avenue
near the Spanish Immersion School/Community Center at 6300 Walker Street. Document
4d Removed
4e Motion to approve a Temporary On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License – Minneapolis
Jewish Day School, 4330 Cedar Lake Road, St. Louis Park for March 28, 2004.
Document
4f Motion to adopt the attached resolution authorizing installation of temporary permit
parking in front of 3128 Idaho Avenue South. Document
4g Motion to approve grant fund award and adopt the attached resolution authorizing
execution of an agreement with the Office of Justice Programs. Document
4h Motion to approve 2nd Reading of an ordinance authorizing the sale of City real property
to Excelsior & Grand II, LLC, approve the summary and authorize summary publication
Document
4i Motion to accept for filing the Planning Commission Minutes of February 18, 2004
Document
4j Motion to accept for filing the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes of
December 17, 2003 Document
4k Motion to accept for filing the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes of
January 15, 2004 Document
4l Motion to accept for filing the Fire Civil Service Commission Minutes of December 29,
2004 Document
4m Motion to accept Vendor Claims for filing (Supplement)
AGENDA SUPPLEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MARCH 15, 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
Item: 031504 - 3a - Minutes of March 1, 2004
Page 1 of 6
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
March 1, 2004
1. Call to Order
Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Boy Scout Troop 161 led the Pledge of
Allegiance.
Councilmembers present: Phil Finkelstein, Paul Omodt, John Basill, Susan Sanger, and Mayor Jeff
Jacobs.
Councilmembers absent: Sue Santa and Sally Velick
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Engineer (Ms. Hagen), Planning Coordinator (Ms.
Erickson), City Attorney (Mr. Scott), Police Chief (Mr. Luse), Human Resources Director (Ms. Gohman),
Fire Chief (Mr. Stemmer), Finance Director (Ms. McGann), and Deputy City Clerk (Ms.Stroth).
2. Presentations – None
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. City Council Minutes of February 17, 2004
The minutes were accepted as presented.
3b. Study Session Minutes of February 17, 2004
The minutes were accepted as presented.
3c. Joint City Council/School Board Minutes of February 9, 2004
The minutes were accepted as presented.
3d. Study Session Minutes of December 8, 2003
From Councilmember Omodt: Page 2, Item 2, delete 5th paragraph.
The minutes were approved as corrected.
4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar
NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which need no
discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a Councilmember or a
member of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion.
4a Accept a portion of the Excelsior and Grand Phase One Public Improvements
St. Louis Park City Council
Item: 031504 - 3a - Minutes of March 1, 2004
Page 2 of 6
4b Authorize execution of Encroachment Agreement with Oak Hill 3501, LLC,
3501 Louisiana Avenue
4c Approve Resolution No. 04-029 authorizing Renewal of Gambling Premises Permit for St.
Louis Park Hockey Boosters Association operating at Bunny’s Bar and Grill, 5916
Excelsior Blvd.
4d Adopt Resolution No. 04-030 to approve St. Louis Park Lions Club’s application for the
placement of 14 temporary signs in the public right-of-way.
4e Approve a 6 month extension of Shelard Homes (Lurie Apartments) Conditional Use
Permit until September 3, 2004.
4f Adopt Resolution No. 04-031 requesting reimbursement for Capital Improvement Projects
from the anticipated 2006 General Obligation Bond issue
4g Designate Topnotch Treecare Service, Inc. as the lowest responsible bidder and authorize
execution of a contract for the 2004 Boulevard Tree and Stump Removal Program in an
amount not to exceed $60,337.12
4h Designate Emery’s Tree Service, Inc. as the lowest responsible bidder, and authorize
execution of a contract for the 2004 private diseased tree removal program in an amount
not to exceed $155,400
4i Designate Rainbow Tree Care, Inc. as the lowest responsible bidder and to authorize
execution of a contract for the 2004 Arbotect 20-S Elm injection program at a cost of $9.50
per diameter inch
4j Accept for filing Planning Commission Minutes of February 4, 2004
4k Accept for filing Planning Commission Study Session Minutes of February 4, 2004
4l Accept for filing Telecommunications Advisory Commission Minutes of December 4,
2003
4m Accept for filing Human Rights Commission Minutes of January 21, 2004
4n Accept for filing Vendor Claims (Supplement)
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to approve the
Agenda and items listed on the Consent Calendar.
The motion passed 5-0.
5. Boards and Commissions – None
6. Public Hearings
6a. Public Hearing to Consider Allocation of 2004 Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) Funds. Resolution No. 04-032
Housing Programs Coordinator, Kathy Larsen, reported on the proposed use of $240,000 of 2004
Urban Hennepin County CDBG Funds. Ms Larsen stated the proposed allocations continue to
meet the Council’s focus approach of spending funds along with the programs national objective
St. Louis Park City Council
Item: 031504 - 3a - Minutes of March 1, 2004
Page 3 of 6
to benefit low and moderate income persons. The 2004 CDBG proposed allocation of funding
will be used for the following projects as well as administrative costs:
• Multifamily Rehab - Perspectives
• Single Family Emergency Repair Program
• Scattered Site Acquisition
• Public Service
§ Hamilton House Social Service Coordinator
§ TRAILS – Family Self Sufficiency Program
• St. Louis Park Emergency Program - Site Acquisition
Ms. Larsen indicated $237,433 from the 2002 grant year funds will be reallocated to the Wayside
House Improvements, Single Family Rehabilitation deferred loans, social service coordinator at
Hamilton House, TRAILS self sufficiency Program, and Single Family Emergency Repair
Program.
Dave Noreen, Chair for St. Louis Park Emergency Program (STEP) thanked the Council and
citizens for their continued support and consideration as a recipient for grant funding.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Basill to adopt Resolution
No. 04-032 approving proposed use of $240,406 of the 2004 Urban Hennepin County Community
Development Block Grant funds, reallocation of 2002 funds, and authorizing execution of
Subrecipient Agreement with Hennepin County and any related Third Party Agreements
The motion passed 5-0.
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communication from the Public – None
8. Resolution, Ordinances, Motions
8a. Request of TOLD Development Company for a Major Amendment to the
Park Commons East Planned Unit Development to convert four two-story
units to eight one-story units thereby increasing the number of units for
Phase NE (Excelsior & Grand Phase II) from 120 to 124 at 3707 and 3709
Grand Way. Case Nos. 04-03-PUD Lot 1, Block 1, Park Commons East 2nd
Addition. Resolution No. 04-033
Planning & Zoning Supervisor, Janet Jeremiah, presented a brief overview of the major
amendment to the Park Commons East PUD to convert four two-story units to eight one-story
units at 3707 and 3709 Grand Way. Ms. Jeremiah indicated Phase I is complete and almost fully
occupied. She stated Phase II construction of the condominium building is on schedule and going
well, but the four two-story condominiums are not selling. TOLD Development is requesting an
amendment to convert the four units to eight single-story units for a total of 124 units. Ms
Jeremiah stated the request meets the conditions of offering a housing variety and meets the life-
cycle needs of the community. She indicated the popular exterior entrances will be retained.
Ms. Jeremiah stated the total number of units will still be within the Environmental Assessment
Worksheet (EAW) parameters and result in less commercial space and less traffic.
St. Louis Park City Council
Item: 031504 - 3a - Minutes of March 1, 2004
Page 4 of 6
Bob Cunningham, TOLD Development, gave a virtual tour slide presentation.
It was motioned by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Basill, to adopt
Resolution No. 04-033 approving the Major Amendment to the Park Commons East PUD
granting Final PUD approval for Phase NE (Excelsior & Grand Phase II) subject to conditions
included in the resolution and authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute amendments to
the Planning Contract.
The motion passed 5-0.
8b. Confirmation of Appointment of Nancy Gohman as Deputy City Manager
City Manager Tom Harmening gave an overview of the need for a Deputy City Manager and his
recommendation of Human Resources Director Nancy Gohman.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to approve
Resolution No. 04-034 confirming the appointment of Nancy Gohman as Deputy City Manager
effective March 1, 2004.
The motion passed 5-0.
8c. Resolution approving Local 49 Union Agreement for 1/1/2004 - 12/31/2005
Human Resources Director, Nancy Gohman, reported on the City and Union settlement for the
2004 and 2005 Local 49 Union Agreement. She indicated the previous contract was for 3 years
and expired December 31, 2003. Ms Gohman stated the agreement was a great accomplishment
by management and union. She commented that the City has a great group of maintenance
employees.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Finkelstein, to adopt
Resolution No. 04-035 approving a Labor Agreement between the City and International Union of
Operating Engineers (IUOE), Local 49 AFL-CIO, establishing terms and conditions of
employment for two years: 1/1/04 – 12/31/05.
The motion passed 5-0.
8d. Phase II Dispatch Consolidation Study
Police Chief, John Luse, gave a general overview of the dispatch consolidation study of the
potential for sharing dispatch services with Richfield, Golden Valley and Brooklyn Center. Mr.
Luse stated the Phase II proposal with PSC Alliance is contingent upon receiving written
commitments from the other three partners. He indicated City Attorney Tom Scott is working
with Hennepin County regarding the legality of billing St. Louis Park for services citizens receive
for free.
Mayor Jacobs stated concern if one of the cities decides to drops out.
St. Louis Park City Council
Item: 031504 - 3a - Minutes of March 1, 2004
Page 5 of 6
Mr. Luse responded that a positive letter was received from Golden Valley and a phone response
from Richfield and expect the same from Brooklyn Center.
Councilmember Sanger commented going forward with the study will not only provide greater
efficicency, but also that high quality service will still be available for all four communities.
Mayor Jacobs commended staff on their great work with the dispatch consolidation project.
Councilmember Basill stated he is looking forward to seeing the additional statistics and results
from this study.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to approve
entering into a contract for professional services with PSC Alliance for the Phase II Dispatch
Consolidation Study contingent upon receipt of written commitments from the three other
participating communities.
The motion passed 5-0.
8e. Refunding of 1996 General Obligation Tax Increment Bonds
Finance Director, Jean McGann, reported on the result of the bond sale. She indicated there were
9 bids with Piper Jaffray winning and an average yield of 3.26 % resulted in a savings of
approximately $750,000. She stated the Bond was rated Aa1 by Moody’s Investment Services.
This action will award the sale of $7,530,000 General Obligation Tax Increment Bonds. The
proceeds of the bond sale will be placed in escrow until February 1, 2005. At that time they will
be used to payoff the 1996 General Obligation Tax Increment Bonds.
Councilmember Omodt asked by saving this money on an annual basis if the budget will need to
be adjusted as we go forward
Ms. McGann stated the 1996 bond was payed for through tax increment revenue, the permanent
improving revolving fund, and the recreation fund. She stated an analysis will be made from the
original document which will indicate if it states a specific dollar amount or based on a percentage
allocation of principal and interest payments. We required to pay at least 20% of the debt with tax
increment revenue.
Discussion took place regarding the use of funds and the bond term.
It was moved by Councilmember Omodt, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to approve
Resolution No. 04-036 awarding the sale of General Obligation Tax Increment Refunding Bonds,
Series 2004A and approval of the refunding escrow agreement.
The motion passed 5-0.
8f. City Engineer’s Report: 2004 Sidewalk Improvement Project, City Project
No. 04-02
St. Louis Park City Council
Item: 031504 - 3a - Minutes of March 1, 2004
Page 6 of 6
City Engineer, Maria Hagen reported on the sidewalk construction project of various sections of
new sidewalk in accordance with the city’s sidewalk, trails, and bikeway plan. All of the
segments were scheduled to be constructed in 2003 but due to budget concerns, only State-Aid
eligible segments were constructed except for Brookside Avenue.
Ms. Hagen stated neighborhood meetings with affected property owners will be held in mid-
March before final plans are approved. Estimated construction She indicated the estimated total
cost of the project is $294,000 and is anticipated to be funded using General Obligation bond
funds. The segments for consideration are as follows:
• Aquila Avenue (33rd Street to 34th Street)
• W. 41st Street (34th Street to 36th Street)
• Morningside Avenue (Wooddale Avenue to Browndale Avenue)
• Wooddale Avenue (Highway 100 ramp to Webster Avenue)
• Brookside Avenue (W. 42nd Street to Jackley Park)
Councilmember Basill asked if the four parking stalls at Jackley Park were parallel to the street.
Ms. Hagen responded they were parallel and that they were a cut in.
Councilmember Basill stated this is what the neighbors requested and was pleased with the
sidewalk connection to the trail around Jorvig Park.
Ms. Hagen indicated that the trail projects are separate projects from sidewalk projects.
It was moved by Councilmember Basill, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to approve
Resolution No. 04-037 establishing the improvement project, and directing staff to sponsor
informational meetings with affected property owners for construction of various sections of
concrete sidewalk.
The motion passed 5-0.
9. Communications
Mayor Jacobs reminded the public of the upcoming Precinct Caucuses to be held Tuesday, March 2nd at
7:00 p.m. by the four major political parties at various locations.
10. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
City Clerk Mayor
St. Louis Park City Council
Item: 031504 - 3b - Study Session Minutes of February 23, 2004
Page 1 of 5
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
Minutes of February 23, 2004
The meeting convened at 7:00.
Present at the meeting were Councilmembers Susan Sanger, Sue Santa, John Basill and Mayor
Jeff Jacobs. Councilmember Phil Finklestein arrived at 7:20 p.m.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Housing Supervisor (Ms. Schnitker); Housing
Program Coordinator (Ms. Larsen); TSS Director (Mr. Pires); Community TV Coordinator (Mr.
McHugh); City TV Coordinator (Mr. Dunlap); Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Hunt);
Planning Supervisor (Ms. Jeremiah); City Clerk (Ms. Reichert)
1. Time Warner Cable Renewal
City Manager Tom Harmening introduced Clint Pires, Technology & Support Services Director,
Reg Dunlap and John McHugh of the City’s Cable TV Office, who have been involved in the
renewal meetings with Time Warner.
Mr. Pires introduced Arlen Mattern from Time Warner.
Mr. Dunlap presented a general background on the cable system and services currently available,
and said Time Warner plans to introduce telephone service before the end of the year.
Councilmember Sanger asked if there would be a fee returned to the City for providing 911
service, and Clint said we’d have to find that out when TWC introduces the service as legal
requirements are continuously re-aligning with technology advances.
John reviewed the timeline for Council action and the business points that are the basis for
renewal talks.
Councilmember Sanger said she’s received complaints about the high price of TWC data service,
and since DSL isn’t available to all residents, it appears as though TWC is operating as a
monopoly. Mr. Mattern replied that dial up service is an alternative that is also available to SLP
customers.
Councilmember Finkelstein asked about franchise term lengths in other cities, what triggered
upgrades in these cities, and if upgrades would be citywide here. He asked for clarification on
the term “upgrade”. He said if an arbitration process was included in the franchise that he would
be interested in where the arbitrators would come from and what their experience would be. He
also wondered about convergence of telecom services, and reclassification of revenues so that
franchise fees wouldn’t be paid on all services.
St. Louis Park City Council
Item: 031504 - 3b - Study Session Minutes of February 23, 2004
Page 2 of 5
Councilmember Sanger suggested including franchise language to require TWC to pay into the
911 service fund, after Councilmember Finkelstein suggested language making it possible to
collect such fees if later it becomes legal to do so.
Tom asked Clint to describe the economic development connection to telecom services, and
Clint said it was important to make sure the un-served areas of the City had access to these
services as the next frontier of economic development will include reliance on access to
broadband telecommunications.
Mayor Jeff Jacobs was concerned about customer privacy and that it was important to have the
language in the franchise since the company officials may change and the company itself may be
sold. Thus, without such language, there is no guarantee of current privacy practices over the life
of the next franchise agreement. Clint acknowledged Council’s interest in this issue and that staff
would need to research options available in the context of applicable state and federal law.
Councilmember Finkelstein asked about Senator Steve Kelley’s bill, and Reg said it received
little support last year and that nothing had been introduced yet this year.
Councilmember Santa asked what specific actions TWC may want the city to take to recognize
community programming. Mr. McHugh responded that there had been no specific
communication about this and more discussion would follow.
Clint reminded everyone of the TAC annual presentation scheduled for March 22 and the April
12th Council meeting on the renewal.
2. Update on Environmental Testing - Edgewood Area Properties
Present for the discussion were Mr. Scott Tracy of Tetra Tech and Mr. Tom Maiello of Angel
Environmental Management.
Mr. Hunt gave an overview of the history of the site and past council actions. He explained that
In July of 2002, council had learned that the site in question may have been used as a dumping
site for a neighboring lithium processing plant. At that time the MPCA and the EPA had
received a privately prepared report which, in Mr.Maiello’s opinion, was not based upon sound
scientific testing procedures.
After that discussion, council had decided that it would be in the city’s best interest to conduct
additional testing and provide more detailed information to the parties involved. The city and an
adjacent property owner then entered into the MPCA’s Voluntary Investigation and Cleanup
Program (VIC).
He further explained that the city was now prepared to move forward with the testing. Staff
wished to discuss how to best assure the public that even though environmental testing was
taking place, all indications so far are that no dangerous materials exist on the site.
St. Louis Park City Council
Item: 031504 - 3b - Study Session Minutes of February 23, 2004
Page 3 of 5
Councilmember Sanger asked what the procedures would “look like” in terms of heavy
equipment, staking, or personnel present that may raise questions from the public. Mr. Maiello
responded that the testing would not be a conspicuous procedure. There would be some
personnel present and digging equipment. He felt it may be wise to proceed during a time when
there would not be nearby activity at the school or in the park adjacent to the site. He explained
that there would also be testing done on the school property and in the park, but it was not
believed that any of the materials from the processing plant would have been deposited on those
sites. The testing would verify those beliefs.
Councilmember Basill agreed that it would not be in anyone’s best interest to unduly alarm the
public, especially when all indicators are that no danger is present.
Council directed staff to move forward with the testing and agreed that the best approach would
be to respond to questions from the public, but not to provide additional notification which may
cause our residents to be alarmed unnecessarily.
3. Grant Year Community Development Block Grant Funds and 2003 Housing Rehab
Activity
Michele Schnitker and Kathy Larsen met with council to discuss the proposed CDBG allocations
and housing rehabilitation activity. Ms. Schnitker explained that staff was again proposing a
“sticks and bricks” allocation which would dedicate funds to programs and services directly
related to city-related housing maintenance and availability.
Ms. Larsen informed council that although Perspectives had recently received a grant from the
Oprah Winfrey Foundation, that grant money was specifically targeted to after school programs
and could not be used to meet needs specific to housing for Perspective program participants.
Councilmember Santa suggested the city receive information in writing regarding the grant to
provide others requesting CDBG funds with the facts regarding the grant.
Councilmember Sanger asked for clarification on the Social Services Coordinator/Family self-
sufficiency program contained in the proposed allocations.
Ms. Schnitker responded that both programs were city-sponsored and directly relate to the
availability of housing for current housing program participants.
Councilmember Sanger was concerned that the allocations remain focused on “sticks and bricks”
projects and not be used to fund social programs. She felt the responsibility for providing social
services funding should fall primarily on Hennepin County. She was sensitive to the needs of
the programs and did not feel the city should immediately withhold funding for the programs, but
suggested they be phased out of the CDBG allocation as other funding sources become available.
Councilmembers Finklestein and Santa both expressed their support for the programs which they
felt were well-run and cost efficient. Councilmember Santa felt she could justify use of CDBG
St. Louis Park City Council
Item: 031504 - 3b - Study Session Minutes of February 23, 2004
Page 4 of 5
funds for Hamilton House programs as the city is the administrator for those programs. She felt
it important to offer services to our residents as we were essentially the landlords of the property.
Mr. Harmening stated that he understood council’s perspective, but that the city staff is not
trained as social workers. Funding these programs would take the pressure off staff to manage
our city-owned housing programs. He suggested that both programs in question be funded this
year, and that staff work to identify alternative funding sources for future years.
Ms. Larsen outlined reallocation plans for previous years’ grants and stated that the public
hearing to consider the allocations was scheduled for March 1st.
4. Availability of Property Near Hwy 7 and Wooddale Avenue
Mr. Hunt and Ms. Jeremiah presented a brief history of the property ownership and interests in
development by past and present owners. They felt that the property’s location warranted
consideration of a city purchase to ensure that the area would be available for future
development of the area’s transportation infrastructure.
Mayor Jacobs agreed that it was in the city’s best interest to control the property, but was
concerned about the purchase cost.
Councilmember Sanger questioned the property’s environmental condition. Mr. Hunt stated that
the condition of the property was unknown at this time, but that the city would do due diligence
as part of the purchasing process.
Mayor Jacobs asked council to consider this purchase in light of the situation that occurred with
the Hutchinson Spur purchase. The original price of that property had been approximately
$250,000 which the council at the time believed to be too high. Because council did not act at
that time, the purchase price arrived at through the condemnation process was approximately
$1.7 million dollars and for that reason the city did not acquire the property at that time. He
would not like to be in a position where the city needed to purchase the property in the future.
He feels that was a distinct possibility and would not like hindsight to show that the purchase
should have been made now.
Councilmember Sanger asked if the property would be valuable in the future if the city did
purchase and then found there was no public use for the property. Ms. Jeremiah responded that
the property had significant potential for a private developer and she believed the purchase
would be a good public investment.
Councilmember Basill agreed that the land would only increase in value.
Councilmember Santa stated that she wanted to be sure that if the city did purchase the land, the
existing building would be put to good use and not be left to deteriorate. Mr. Hunt responded
that there are already tenants interested in occupying the building temporarily.
St. Louis Park City Council
Item: 031504 - 3b - Study Session Minutes of February 23, 2004
Page 5 of 5
Councilmember Finklestein asked how the purchase would be funded. Mr. Harmening
responded that the Excelsior Blvd TIF District would provide the funding.
Mayor Jacobs and the council requested that Mr. Harmening direct staff to continue negotiations
for purchase of the property and to keep council apprised of progress made.
5. Communications
Mr. Harmening updated the council on the process of hiring a new Community Development
Director.
6. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
City Clerk Mayor
St. Louis Park City Council
Item: 031504 - 3c - Study Session Minutes of 3-1-04
Page 1 of 4
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
Minutes of March 1, 2004
The meeting convened at 8:30 p.m.
Councilmembers present were Phil Finkelstein, Paul Omodt, John Basill, Susan Sanger,
and Mayor Jeff Jacobs.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Planning and Zoning Coordinator (Ms.
Jeremiah), and Deputy City Clerk (Ms. Stroth).
1. Quadion Redevelopment Proposal & Request for Financial Assistance
Ms. Jeremiah introduced Michael Noonan and Tim Whitten from Rottlund and George
Sherman from Sherman & Associates to the Council. She would like to talk about
ownership issues and stated that Quadion owned property on both the east and west sides
of Wooddale including two single family properties. There are two single family
properties that they are interested in acquiring. Ms. Jeremiah explained the two
alternatives that Rottlund brought to the Planning Commission. Alternative 1 would
include the two single family homes and Alternative 2 would not. She stated that by
adding the four single family properties they would gain 18 additional town homes. By
not attaining the properties, they would lose parking as the roadways would have to go
around other properties. Ms. Jeremiah stated that there are stormwater issues that are
now close to being resolved.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that progress has been made on the purchase of the remaining two
single family homes. She added that there would be a financial gap of $800,000 if the
single family properties were retained.
Ms. Jeremiah explained that Sherman Properties had proposed twenty percent of the
senior housing to be affordable housing which equates to 16 of the 80 units. She stated
that Mr. Sherman had submitted his Tax Increment Financing application as well as his
application to Hennepin County for funding.
Mr. Sherman reported that even at market rate prices, the units would not support the cost
of the project. He stated that affordable units would be required to even apply for TIF.
Mayor Jacobs asked what the gap would be if there were no affordable units and
Councilmember Sanger inquired where they would get the money from. Mr. Sherman
stated that the gap would be $1 million dollars. Mr. Harmening summarized that there
would not be a lot of funding sources available to cover the gap and that Mr. Sherman
would need to rely on TIF funds.
St. Louis Park City Council
Item: 031504 - 3c - Study Session Minutes of 3-1-04
Page 2 of 4
Councilmember Finkelstein asked what the back up plan would be if they could not do
the affordable units and Mr. Sherman replied that it would be up to Rottlund as he would
have to step out. Councilmember Finkelstein stated that the Council had heard that there
would not be a need for public money. Ms. Jeremiah stated that the redevelopment of the
office building raises costs. Mr. Noonan felt the office building needs to stay.
Councilmember Sanger inquired if senior rental housing could be put in its place. Mr.
Noonan replied that it would be condominiums steered towards seniors. He stated that
there will still be a gap due to acquisition costs.
Mr. Noonan stated that they could still go forward even if they did not obtain the single
family homes on Oxford St. Mr. Noonan replied that there are three pieces to the
project: the Oxford properties, senior housing, and the possibility of even going further
with more TIF.
Mr. Harmening felt the most pressing issue for Rottlund at the moment is the ownership
of the single family homes. He reported that they have made very good progress with the
two remaining homes and feels they are nearing an agreement. Mr. Harmening stated
that the goal is to approve a preliminary plan in the middle of March for two different
alternatives. Mr. Noonan explained that they would like Council support of Alternative 1
with Alternative 2 as a fall back measure. Mr. Noonan stated that they would like a
timeframe on completing discussions on municipal funds for the project. He stated if
after good faith efforts Alternative 1 was not approved they would move forward with
Alternative 2 without the single family homes. He explained that the needed an approval
on which they could rely as they are on a very tight timeframe. Councilmember Sanger
clarified that Rottlund wished the Council to approve both PUD’s.
Mr. Noonan stated that he has written the contracts contingent upon three matters and
that they have appropriate approval by the city and financial assistance. Ms. Jeremiah
stated that this is just the preliminary stage and it would still need to come back for final
approval. Mr. Ruff stated that by approving both options it puts them at a disadvantage
and would make it more awkward to negotiate. Councilmember Finkelstein inquired if
this commits them to using TIF. Mr. Ruff replied that normally a project will either
happen with TIF or not happen without TIF. Councilmember Finkelstein asked what
happens if they move forward with Alternative 1 and then Council decides they cannot
afford TIF. Mr. Ruff replied that the purchase agreements would be contingent on these
factors. Mr. Noonan stated that redevelopment of the area is supported by the community
and the community would rather see some redevelopment than none at all.
Mayor Jacobs felt it all boiled down to how much risk the Council is willing to go
forward with Alternative 1. Councilmember Basil inquired if it was possible to develop a
formula that would base TIF on the purchase price of the homes. Councilmember Sanger
suggested a formula plus a cap, though she had concerns that would drive up the purchase
price. Mr. Ruff stated that they need to determine the amount of profit from the project
and its relation to the amount of assistance from the city.
St. Louis Park City Council
Item: 031504 - 3c - Study Session Minutes of 3-1-04
Page 3 of 4
Mr. Harmening stated that he needed to understand the rush and commented that Council
is not required to vote on this on March 15th. Jim Voss, Cresa Partners, stated the
building they were moving into would close on April 1st and if they could not meet that
deadline, they would not have anywhere to go and the project could not move forward.
He stated that a sixty day requirement causes some serious problems for them. Mr.
Noonan inquired if TIF is appropriate to acquire the properties. Councilmember Basill
did not feel that TIF was not appropriate but the question remains of how much TIF. The
Council agreed.
Mr. Noonan stated that they could achieve the same end goal if they approved Alternative
1 with a time specific period for municipal finance or with Alternative 2 with a
commitment for Rottlund to work with the city on the same end result. Mr. Harmening
had concerns that the end result may not be the same and their bargaining position may
be compromised. He stated that he has told the single family property owners he would
need a decision within a week. Mr. Harmening stated that further analysis is needed on
the proposal and clarification of the amount of the gap.
Councilmember Basill would like to present Alternative 1 as the preferred alternative
with Alternative 2 as a fall back along with a side agreement. Mr. Harmening stated that
a third approach would be to approve Alternative 2 with the intent of working towards
Alternative 1 but that would have to come back for further approval.
Mr. Ruff inquired what happened if Rottlund comes back with condos and Ms. Jeremiah
stated that it does fit the plat.
Councilmember Sanger brought up condemnation and if it would be of assistance to
Rottlund as well as lenders. Mr. Noonan did not feel that it would be necessary. Mayor
Jacobs asked for staff to update them as soon as they get word on the two properties. He
emphasized the need to see actual numbers for the TIF amount needed and asked Mr.
Ruff to review the proposal. Councilmember Sanger would like to see an update at the
next study session so that Council can discuss what amount is acceptable to the City
Mayor Jacobs stated that there is a possibility of holding a special meeting on either
March 22nd or 29th.
2. Communications
Mr. Harmening updated the Council on the possibility of a future organizational
development session/retreat.
Mr. Harmening reported that the city’s legislation bills have been heard in committee.
Mr. Harmening gave an update on solid waste and stated that there is a large problem
with overflowing garbage carts and approximately 20% of homes were not in
compliance. He stated that a letter would be going out to residents to remind them of the
ordinance requirements. Councilmember Sanger would like to see a warning notification
St. Louis Park City Council
Item: 031504 - 3c - Study Session Minutes of 3-1-04
Page 4 of 4
placed on overflowing carts between now and when the letter is mailed out.
Councilmember Omodt had concerns with uncollected waste and the odor it would cause.
Councilmember Finkelstein asked for clarification on what the ordinance states on where
carts can be placed. Mr. Harmening clarified that carts should be put in the resident’s
garage as well as certain places in the yard, but not in the street.
Mr. Harmening reported that they received 112 applications for the Community
Development Director position and he has narrowed it down to ten candidates.
Interviews will be held on March 8th and 9th. A meet and greet for the finalists will be
held on March 16th from 8:30 to 9:00 a.m.
3. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
City Clerk Mayor
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
031504 - 4a - Deletion of Erosion Control
Page 1 of 13
4a. Motion to approve second reading of Ordinance amending Chapter 36 of the
Municipal Code to delete Section 36-80 Erosion Control subject to the adoption of
the Stormwater Ordinance, adopt ordinance, and approve summary publication.
Background:
On February 17, 2004, the City Council approved first reading of an amendment to the
Municipal Code to add a “Stormwater” ordinance. On the same date, the City Council approved
first reading of an ordinance to delete Section 36-80 (Erosion Control) of the Municipal Code
related to zoning. The reason for the proposal to delete Section 36-80 is that the language was
replaced into the “Stormwater” ordinance and the overall goal is to consolidate all of the
requirements regulating stormwater, except floodplain regulations which cannot be moved out of
zoning, into one section of the code.
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.
Attachments: Proposed text amendment
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
031504 - 4a - Deletion of Erosion Control
Page 2 of 13
ORDINANCE NO. 2265-04
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
031504 - 4a - Deletion of Erosion Control
Page 3 of 13
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
031504 - 4a - Deletion of Erosion Control
Page 4 of 13
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
031504 - 4a - Deletion of Erosion Control
Page 5 of 13
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
031504 - 4a - Deletion of Erosion Control
Page 6 of 13
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
031504 - 4a - Deletion of Erosion Control
Page 7 of 13
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
031504 - 4a - Deletion of Erosion Control
Page 8 of 13
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
031504 - 4a - Deletion of Erosion Control
Page 9 of 13
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
031504 - 4a - Deletion of Erosion Control
Page 10 of 13
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
031504 - 4a - Deletion of Erosion Control
Page 11 of 13
(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
031504 - 4a - Deletion of Erosion Control
Page 12 of 13
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
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
031504 - 4a - Deletion of Erosion Control
Page 13 of 13
SUMMARY
ORDINANCE NO. 2265-04
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK
ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING BY
DELETING SECTION 36-80 (EROSION CONTROL)
This ordinance states that Section 36-80 Erosion Control will be deleted from the zoning code.
Regulations relating to erosion control will be consolidated into the Municipal Stormwater
Ordinance.
This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication.
Adopted by the City Council March 15, 2004
Jeffrey W. Jacobs /s/
Mayor
A copy of the full text of this ordinance is available for inspection with the City Clerk.
Published in St. Louis Park Sailor: March 25, 2004
04-01-ZA sum/res-ord
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
031504 - 4b - Stormwater Revisions
Page 1 of 21
4b. Motion to approve the second reading of proposed revisions to Chapter 12 of the
ordinance code to add Article V regarding stormwater, approve the summary, and
authorize summary publication.
Background: At the meeting of February 17, 2004, Council approved the first reading of
proposed revisions to Chapter 12 of the ordinance code to add Article V regarding stormwater .
At that meeting questions were raised regarding the effect of this ordinance on the conditional
use permit process for the hauling of fill material and how this ordinance compares to the
existing stormwater provisions in the zoning ordinance.
The CUP process is not affected by these revisions to the code. Discussions will be held in the
future regarding the CUP process.
The revised provisions replace and enhance the previous stormwater provisions in the zoning
ordinance. All issues in the previous ordinance are included as well as newly required federal
regulations.
No changes were requested nor made to the proposed revisions to Chapter 12 of the ordinance
code in the form it was proposed at the City Council meeting of February 17, 2004.
Ordinance Revisions: Staff determined that the best way to address the NPDES regulations in a
concise manner is to consolidate all existing ordinance requirements plus 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 revisions, all required stormwater issues will be addressed. Staff worked with the city
attorney to write the proposed revisions regarding stormwater, which repeal the existing erosion
control language in the Zoning Ordinance and, at the same time, replaces it with language 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
• Illicit Discharge & Connection
• Post Construction Stormwater Runoff (erosion control)
• Wetland protection measures
• Enforcement and appeal provisions
The proposed revisions to Chapter 12 adding an article regarding stormwater 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
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
031504 - 4b - Stormwater Revisions
Page 2 of 21
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.
Recommendation: Motion to approve the revisions to Chapter 12 of the ordinance code to add
an article regarding stormwater, approve the summary, and authorize summary publication.
Attachments: Proposed article regarding stormwater revisions to Chapter 12 of the
ordinance code
Resolution
Summary
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
031504 - 4b - Stormwater Revisions
Page 3 of 21
ORDINANCE NO. (2264) - 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
031504 - 4b - Stormwater Revisions
Page 4 of 21
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
031504 - 4b - Stormwater Revisions
Page 5 of 21
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
031504 - 4b - Stormwater Revisions
Page 6 of 21
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
031504 - 4b - Stormwater Revisions
Page 7 of 21
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
031504 - 4b - Stormwater Revisions
Page 8 of 21
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.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
031504 - 4b - Stormwater Revisions
Page 9 of 21
f. Cost estimate.
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
031504 - 4b - Stormwater Revisions
Page 10 of 21
(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
031504 - 4b - Stormwater Revisions
Page 11 of 21
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
031504 - 4b - Stormwater Revisions
Page 12 of 21
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
031504 - 4b - Stormwater Revisions
Page 13 of 21
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
031504 - 4b - Stormwater Revisions
Page 14 of 21
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
031504 - 4b - Stormwater Revisions
Page 15 of 21
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
031504 - 4b - Stormwater Revisions
Page 16 of 21
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
031504 - 4b - Stormwater Revisions
Page 17 of 21
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 BMPs; 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
031504 - 4b - Stormwater Revisions
Page 18 of 21
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
031504 - 4b - Stormwater Revisions
Page 19 of 21
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 March 15, 2004
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
031504 - 4b - Stormwater Revisions
Page 20 of 21
RESOLUTION NO. 04-038
RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 12
OF THE ORDINANCE CODE TO ADD ARTICLE V
REGARDING STORMWATER
WHEREAS, the 1987 amendment to the EPA Clean Water Act (Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq) establishes the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES), and
WHEREAS, NPDES requires the MN Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) to enforce the
federal regulations as they apply to the municipal stormwater systems, and
WHEREAS, 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
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, that the City hereby adopts the attached Ordinance (2264-04) revisions to Chapter 12 of the
ordinance code to add Article V regarding stormwater.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council March 15, 2004
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
031504 - 4b - Stormwater Revisions
Page 21 of 21
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
SUMMARY OF 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
ORDINANCE NO. (2264-04)
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that, on March 15, 2004, Ordinance No. (2264-04) was
adopted by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota.
NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that, because of the lengthy nature of Ordinance No.
(2264-04), the City Council has directed that a title and summary be prepared for publication.
NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that the ordinance adopted by the City Council modifies
existing city regulations reducing and controlling stormwater, soil erosion and sedimentation within
the City. The ordinance conforms the City’s official controls to current state and federal
requirements, including those specified by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) and creates a permit system integrated into existing city development and permit process
to address erosion and stormwater control measures. It requires construction site stormwater
runoff and erosion control at development and redevelopment sites, prohibits illicit discharges and
connections to the City stormwater system, regulates post-construction runoff measures, requires
wetland protection measures, and provides enforcement and appeal procedures.
A printed copy of the whole ordinance is available for inspection by any person during the
City's regular office hours.
APPROVED for publication by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park this 15th day
of March, 2004.
Reviewed for Administration:
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
St. Louis Park City Council
Item: 031504 - 4c - Hwy 7 Parking Restrictions
Page 1 of 2
4c. Traffic Study No. 587: Motion to adopt the attached resolution authorizing
restriction of parking along the north and south sides of the Trunk Highway 7
north Frontage Road, west of Wooddale Avenue near the Spanish Immersion
School/Community Center at 6300 Walker Street.
Background: The City of St. Louis Park Traffic Division has requested the installation of
parking restrictions along the north Frontage Road of Trunk Highway 7, west of Wooddale
Avenue near the Spanish Immersion School/Community Center at 6300 Walker Street.
The concern expressed by the Traffic Division is that the narrow width of the frontage road and
the tendency for people to park on both sides of the street cause the driving lanes to become too
narrow to navigate.
In response to this request, Engineering staff examined the street width and parking patterns in
the area. The frontage road, from Wooddale Avenue to a point 236 feet west, is 30 feet wide and
curves. The proposal would restrict parking on both sides of the frontage road in this area.
West of the curve, the road widens to 34 feet. That is wide enough to allow parking on one side
of the street only. The proposal would restrict parking for an additional 564 feet on the south
side of the street. Parking was retained on the north side instead of the south in order to
eliminate the need to cross the frontage road for those parents who are dropping off children.
Also, parking restrictions on either side of the driveway to the school would be increased from
the required ordinance width of 5 feet to 15 feet. This will accommodate better sight lines for
those vehicles exiting the parking/drop off area onto the frontage road.
Staff has discussed the proposal to restrict on-street parking with St. Louis Park School District
and Community Education staff. The School District is supportive of the proposed parking
restrictions.
Recommendation: Staff recommends adopting the attached resolution authorizing installation
of “No Parking” restrictions on the south side of the north Frontage Road Trunk of Highway 7
from Wooddale Avenue to a point 800 feet west, on the north side of the north Frontage Road of
Trunk Highway 7 from Wooddale Avenue to a point 236 feet west, and on the north side of the
north Frontage Road of Trunk Highway 7, 15 feet on either side of the driveway/drop off area to
the Spanish Immersion School/Community Center at 6300 Walker Street.
Attachments: Map (supplement)
Resolution
Prepared by: Laura Adler, Engineering Program Coordinator
Reviewed by: Maria Hagen, City Engineer
Mark P. Hanson, Public Works Operations Superintendent
St. Louis Park City Council
Item: 031504 - 4c - Hwy 7 Parking Restrictions
Page 2 of 2
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
RESOLUTION NO. 04-039
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING INSTALLATION OF “NO PARKING”
RESTRICTIONS ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE NORTH FRONTAGE ROAD OF
TRUNK HIGHWAY 7 FROM WOODDALE AVENUE TO A POINT 800 FEET WEST,
ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE NORTH FRONTAGE ROAD OF TRUNK HIGHWAY
7 FROM WOODDALE AVENUE TO A POINT 236 FEET WEST, AND ON THE
NORTH SIDE OF THE NORTH FRONTAGE ROAD OF TRUNK HIGHWAY 7 FOR 15
FEET ON EITHER SIDE OF THE DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE TO THE SPANISH
IMMERSION SCHOOL AT 6300 WALKER STREET
TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 587
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, has studied and has determined that
traffic controls are necessary at this location.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of St.
Louis Park, Minnesota, that the Director of Public Works is hereby authorized to install the
following controls:
1. Parking restrictions on the south side of the north Frontage Road of Trunk Highway 7
from Wooddale Avenue to a point 800 feet west, on the north side of the north Frontage
Road of Trunk Highway 7 from Wooddale Avenue to a point 236 feet west, and on the
north side of the north Frontage Road of Trunk Highway 7 for 15 feet on either side of
the driveway entrance to the Spanish Immersion School at 6300 Walker Street.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council March 15, 2004
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
031504 - 4e - Mpls Jewish Day Schl Temp Liquor License
Page 1 of 1
4e Motion to approve a Temporary On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License –
Minneapolis Jewish Day School, 4330 Cedar Lake Road, St. Louis Park for
March 28, 2004.
Background:
The Minneapolis Jewish Day School is holding their Annual Fund Raiser event on Sunday,
March 28th, 2004 between the hours of 5:30 p.m. – 10:00 p.m. Staff has administratively
approved all required permits for the event, with the exception of the Liquor License which must
be approved by Council.
Police Investigation
The principals were investigated and no record or warrants were found.
Prepared by: Nancy Stroth, Deputy City Clerk
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
031504 - 4f - Permit Parking at 3128 Idaho
Page 1 of 2
4f. Traffic Study No. 586: Motion to adopt the attached resolution authorizing
installation of temporary permit parking in front of 3128 Idaho Avenue South.
Background: The City has received a request from Ms. Laurel Mickelson of 3128 Idaho Avenue
South to restrict on-street parking in front of her house. Ms. Mickelson will be having surgery
soon and a caregiver will be staying with her for several months. Ms. Mickelson’s caregiver has
limited mobility, has been issued a disabled persons parking permit, and needs accessible
parking. Due to other on street parking which occurs on her street, Ms. Mickelson has requested
the City install permit parking in front of her home for a period of six months.
Staff has discussed this request with Ms. Mickelson. Installation of handicapped parking signs is
not feasible, since the parking stall design requirements cannot be met on this local street.
However, the City’s Traffic Policy and past practice do allow for permit parking in this situation.
It has been the City’s practice to use permit parking, which can then be removed when the
individual needing the access no longer resides there or no longer needs the access. In this case,
Ms. Mickelson requires the parking restrictions while recovering from her surgery and is
amenable to a period of only six months for the signage.
Staff considers the resident’s request to be valid and supports the installation of permit parking
for handicap access at 3128 Idaho Avenue South. This recommendation is based on the
following:
1. The resident of the household will require a caregiver due to upcoming surgery.
2. The caregiver has limited mobility and has been issued a disabled persons parking
permit.
3. Conflicting parking tendencies with neighbors will be eliminated.
Recommendation: Staff recommends adopting the attached resolution authorizing installation
of temporary permit parking restrictions as described.
Attachments: Map (supplement)
Resolution
Prepared by: Laura Adler, Engineering Program Coordinator
Reviewed by: Maria Hagen, City Engineer
Mark P. Hanson, Public Works Operations Superintendent
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
031504 - 4f - Permit Parking at 3128 Idaho
Page 2 of 2
RESOLUTION NO. 04-040
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING INSTALLATION OF TEMPORARY PERMIT
PARKING IN FRONT OF 3128 IDAHO AVENUE SOUTH
TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 586
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota that it
is in the best interest of the City to establish a parking restriction based upon permit issuance in
front of 3128 Idaho Avenue South.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that parking shall not be permitted at any time unless
the vehicle prominently displays a City-issued parking permit on the left rear windshield.
Emergency vehicles, governmental vehicles and commercial vehicles parked at curbside while
work is conducted are exempt from these restrictions.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the parking restriction enacted herein shall remain
in effect for a period of six months from the date of this resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Ci ty Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that the Director of Public Works is hereby authorized to install the following
controls:
1. Permit parking at 3128 Idaho Avenue South
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council March 15, 2004
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
031504 - 4g - Juvenile Accountability Block Grant
Page 1 of 2
4g. Motion to approve grant fund award and adopt the attached resolution authorizing
execution of an agreement with the Office of Justice Programs.
Background:
The Office of Justice Programs has approved the City of St. Louis Park’s application for funding
under the Juvenile Accountability Block Grant Program (JABG) in the amount of $9,946.00 with
matching funds in the amount of $1,105.00. The purpose of the JABG Program is to fund
juvenile accountability programs.
Recipients must agree to comply with special conditions which include; a resolution authorizing
the execution of agreement, EEOP requirement certification, certifications regarding lobbying,
debarment, suspension and drug-free workplace requirements and providing the City’s Federal
Tax Identification number.
Attachments: Resolution Authorizing Execution of Agreement
Grant contract (on file in City Clerk’s office)
Prepared by: John D. Luse, Chief of Police
Approved by: Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
031504 - 4g - Juvenile Accountability Block Grant
Page 2 of 2
RESOLUTION NO. 04-041
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS AND
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
FOR A JUVENILE ACCOUNTABILITY BLOCK GRANT
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park Police Department has been awarded a Juvenile
Accountability Block Grant from the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Office of Justice
Programs in the amount of $9,946.00; and
WHEREAS, the State requires the City Council to adopt a resolution approving the grant
agreement and authorizing its execution;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council authorizes the City of St.
Louis Park to enter into a cooperative agreement with the Office of Justice Programs in the
Minnesota Department of Public Safety and authorizes the Mayor and City Clerk to execute such
agreements and amendments as are necessary to implement the project on behalf of the City of
St. Louis Park.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council March 15, 2004
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
St. Louis Park City Council
Item: 031504 - 4h - Sale of Property to EG II
Page 1 of 5
4h
Motion to approve 2nd Reading of an ordinance authorizing the sale of City real
property to Excelsior & Grand II, LLC, approve the summary and authorize
summary publication
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
Summary
Quit Claim Deed
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park City Council
Item: 031504 - 4h - Sale of Property to EG II
Page 2 of 5
ORDINANCE NO. 2266-04
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 ________, 2004
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution
City Clerk City Attorney
St. Louis Park City Council
Item: 031504 - 4h - Sale of Property to EG II
Page 3 of 5
SUMMARY
ORDINANCE NO. 2266-04
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING SALE OF CITY REAL
PROPERTY TO EXCELSIOR & GRAND II, LLC
This ordinance authorizes 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. This
ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication.
Adopted by the City Council March 15, 2004
Jeffrey W. Jacobs /s/
Mayor
A copy of the full text of this ordinance is available for inspection with the City Clerk.
Published in St. Louis Park Sailor: March 25, 2004
St. Louis Park City Council
Item: 031504 - 4h - Sale of Property to EG II
Page 4 of 5
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
Item: 031504 - 4h - Sale of Property to EG II
Page 5 of 5
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
031504 - 4i - Planning Commission Minutes 2-18-04
Page 1 of 16
OFFICIAL MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
February 18, 2004--6:00 p.m.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynne Carper, Ken Gothberg, Claudia Johnston-Madison,
Dennis Morris, Carl Robertson, Jerry Timian
MEMBERS ABSENT: Michelle Bissonnette
STAFF PRESENT: Judie Erickson, Janet Jeremiah, Gary Morrison,
Nancy Sells
1. Call to Order – Roll Call
2. Approval of Minutes of February 4, 2004
Commissioner Morris moved approval of the regular meeting minutes and study
session minutes of February 4, 2004. Commissioner Carper seconded the motion
and the motion passed 6-0.
3. Hearings
A. 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, 5912
Oxford Street, 5916 Oxford Street, 5920 Oxford Street, 5926 Oxford
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. South
Judie Erickson, Planning Coordinator, presented a staff report. She said the land
use recommendation/concept plan for the area coming out of the Elmwood Area
Study in February 2003, basically looked at townhouses on the southern portion,
lower density multi-family in the center, and a higher density residential on the
northern portion. She explained that as redevelopment interest in the area went
on, Quadion Corporation, which is leaving the area, has an agreement to sell its
property to Rottlund Homes. Rottlund Homes proposed a redevelopment plan
that showed townhouses on the south side, condominium building mid-way, and a
senior rental property on the north end. She said that plan is different from the
Elmwood Area Study in that it retains an existing office building. Ms. Erickson
explained that the application involves two alternative plans for consideration:
Alternative 1 includes residential properties on the north side of Oxford Street and
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
031504 - 4i - Planning Commission Minutes 2-18-04
Page 2 of 16
Alternative 2 excludes those properties. Two of the four properties proposed to
be included in Alternative 1 are not owned by Quadion and attempts to purchase
these have not been successful so far. Ms. Erickson went on to say that staff
and the developer agree that the overall site plan is improved when the four
properties are included, therefore Rottlund submitted an alternative plan that does
include the four residential properties on the north side of Oxford Street.
Ms. Erickson reviewed Alternative 1 and Alternative 2.
Ms. Erickson said staff does feel that Alternative 1 does conform to the concept
plan brought to the City when the reguiding and rezoning of the property
occurred. Staff believes Alternative 1 does meet the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan. Alternative 1 has 1.16 acres of usable open space or 225
square feet/dwelling unit. Ms. Erickson said because there will be a requirement
for park dedication, the development does qualify for a reduction in usable open
space.
Ms. Erickson said staff does believe that the proposed site plan layout for
Alternative 1 is well thought out and functions well. Issues which require
further consideration relate to storm water. The stormwater ponding area is
retained by 8 foot high walls along 2 sides of the pond. She mentioned the pond
is significantly deep and there has been some discussion about whether or not the
pond would be a dry pond or a wet pond. Staff and the developer agree that a
wet pond would be more aesthetically pleasing. Ms. Erickson went on to say
that the lowest floor elevation of the buildings next to the pond are 2 feet above
high water level which means that the underground garages are at ground level
and the first floor levels are 11 feet above the street level. Staff would like the
developer to provide elevation drawings and cross sections that show the impact
of their proposal. Staff will be looking very carefully at the final PUD building
material requirements for the project.
Ms. Erickson commented on transit and the need for direct sidewalk connections
to maintain and enhance the pedestrian orientation as much as possible.
Ms. Erickson discussed the requirement of all new redevelopment for storage of a
100-year storm event and release at a lesser rate. She said City engineers and a
consulting engineer are still looking at some of the figures to make sure
requirements are met. She added that a Watershed District permit will be
required for Final PUD approval.
Ms. Erickson discussed Alternative 1 with regard to the new proposed
requirements for “designed outdoor recreation area”, stating that the new DORA
standard would be met. A more detailed plan for the open space area will be
required for final PUD approval.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
031504 - 4i - Planning Commission Minutes 2-18-04
Page 3 of 16
Ms. Erickson reviewed the proposed preliminary plat for Alternative 1. The
subdivision requires the vacation of West 37th Street and the alley. Ms. Erickson
also discussed standards for sidewalk and trails, erosion control, tree removal,
landscaping, easements, stormwater, park dedication, and development
agreement.
Ms. Erickson said the findings of the traffic study indicate that the proposed
redevelopment will have less impact on peak hour traffic than the manufacturing
use. Preliminary traffic information and the Elmwood Study indicate a need to
expand the Wooddale Ave. right-of-way to accommodate adequate traffic lanes,
center median, boulevards, sidewalks and trail.
Ms. Erickson said much of the analysis for Alternative 2 is similar to Alternative
1, especially along the northern parts of the project. She commented on
differences.
Ms. Erickson said that Alternative 2 is not consistent with the original concept
plan presented at the time of the public hearing for the reguiding and rezoning of
the Quadion property. The southwest portion is not consistent because
Alternative 2 does not include the four Oxford properties, which is the most
important issue. The Elmwood Study concept plan was added to the
Comprehensive Plan and that did include a redevelopment of the properties.
Alternative 2 is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Alternative 2 is not
consistent with the Elmwood Area Land Use, Transit and Transportation Study
Recommendations as the four single family properties are not redeveloped as
recommended.
Ms. Erickson stated that Alternative 2 requests a higher density, lower open space
ratio, and greater parking reduction than Alternative 1 and staff does not believe it
meets the requirements for a higher standard of site design and minimal impacts
on surrounding areas. Ms. Erickson reviewed other staff findings of Alternative
2: Alternative 2 would not result in the ultimate development of the residential
properties on the north side of Oxford Street, and Alternative 2 would result in a
incoherent street frontage along Oxford Street in terms of sidewalk, landscaping,
building setbacks, and other streetscape amenities.
Ms. Erickson stated that staff is recommending approval of Alternative 1 and
denial of Alternative 2 (for the reasons stated and in the staff report).
Commissioner Morris said it appears that public sidewalks will occur next to the
curb, without boulevards.
Ms. Erickson said a 6 foot boulevard is a requirement of the subdivision, so that
the plans will need revision to reflect boulevards.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
031504 - 4i - Planning Commission Minutes 2-18-04
Page 4 of 16
Commissioner Morris commented on internal roadways. Ms. Erickson said the
28 feet would include a parking lane and two 10 foot lanes which is not very clear
on the plans.
Commissioner Morris asked about snow removal. Ms. Erickson said the
developer would be required to remove snow from private streets. If Alternative
2 is approved, an agreement would have to be made for the developer to remove
snow on the alley.
Commissioner Morris asked about the northern private road and the storm
connecting to Wooddale to an existing storm. Ms. Erickson said all of the
stormwater is anticipated to be put into the pond so connections need to be in that
direction.
Chair Robertson asked for clarification on total proposed housing townhome
units. Ms. Erickson said the difference should be 18. Alternative 1 has an
additional 16 unit townhome building plus one of the buildings in Alternative 1 is
longer than in Alternative 2.
Chair Robertson asked about parking for property on the east side of Wooddale.
Ms. Erickson responded that Quadion is in the southern building and tenants are
in the northern building. She understands that many of those tenants have either
left or are leaving. Quadion will be relocating and when they relocate it will leave
that building empty. She said there has been discussion about demolishing one
of the buildings in order to provide parking for the other. There hasn’t been a
definitive answer of how it is going to be handled which is why as a condition of
approval these buildings can’t be occupied without the parking they need.
Chair Robertson called a 5 minute recess at 6:55 p.m.
The meeting reconvened at 7:00 p.m.
Tim Whitten, Executive V.P., Rottland/David Bernard Builders, said that Ms.
Erickson had done a very good job with the site plans. He said Rottlund’s biggest
concern with the staff report is that staff recommends Alternative 1 and also
recommends denial of Alternative 2. He said Rottlund has always taken the
position through the process that Alternative 2, without the four parcels being
included, is the track they needed to take. Rottlund has tried to acquire the
properties and to date have not been able to do that. He said they believe there is
some movement regarding that opportunity but they do not know where it is
going at this stage.
Mr. Whitten showed design boards of both Alternatives and how they compared
to the concept plan.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
031504 - 4i - Planning Commission Minutes 2-18-04
Page 5 of 16
Mr. Whitten said that Rottlund’s position is that advancing Alternative 1 and
Alternative 2 simultaneously works for their needs. Advancing Alternative 2 by
itself works for their needs. He said advancing Alternative 1 by itself does not
work for Rottlund because they do not have control of the four properties. He
said he respects the fact that staff supports Alternative 1. He said Rottlund
supports it as well, as do the neighbors, it is the ultimate goal. Mr. Whitten
continued by saying Rottlund cannot get to that point without being able to close
on the property and have control and the only way they can do that is with
Alternative 2. Mr. Whitten stated that even with the other parties signing on to
the plat or participating, it still doesn’t solve the issue because Rottlund has issues
of the financial disparity between including those properties together. Mr.
Whitten said Rottlund is committed to Alternative 1. He added that the advantage
of doing them simultaneously, which is how they started with staff just before
revising these plans, was that Rottlund said they could only advance Alternative 2
without those four properties. Staff said they understood. Rottlund said the only
other way to do it is to combine the two and do them simultaneously. He said
staff felt at the time that was not possible but found through discussions with the
City attorney that it was an opportunity, so it was brought forward.
Mr. Whitten said had Rottlund known the staff position was not to support
Alternative 2 at all, they would not have advanced Alternative 1.
Mr. Whitten said the remainder of his remarks would regard Alternative 2 only
because it is the only plan Rottlund can succeed with. Mr. Whitten showed how
Rottlund has reworked the concept plan with the help of staff and neighbors to
come to Alternative 2. Mr. Whitten said it is interesting how Alternative 1 could
have such a glowing staff report and Alternative 2 have such a marginal report.
Mr. Whitten posed the question could the property (four homes on Oxford) be
developed at a later date. He said Rottlund would like to get approval of
Alternative 2, knowing that they would aggressively pursue acquiring the
properties and producing Alternative 1. If that didn’t happen quickly, he showed
how another developer might come back and develop 13 townhomes of a different
style on the four parcels at some time in the future. Mr. Whitten said Rottlund is
quite hopeful that they will be able to accomplish the acquisition of the properties
to be included in the development (Alternative 1).
Mr. Whitten said Rottlund will continue to work with staff and Rottlund’s
engineers on building elevation issues, especially around the pond area and along
Wooddale and Oxford. At this point they have already determined they can lower
the building (townhome near Wooddale) elevation about 1 ½ feet.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
031504 - 4i - Planning Commission Minutes 2-18-04
Page 6 of 16
Mr. Whitten remarked that it appears Rottlund has satisfied parking and open
space requirements. He said the project will have a Master Association which
will include snow removal particulars.
Regarding storm ponding, Mr. Whitten said their engineers are confident that
their plan is satisfying the pond requirements and Watershed requirements. He
said he does understand that City engineers have not completed their analysis.
Mr. Whitten asked if public streets are required to have sidewalks and boulevards.
He said the staff report referenced private streets but did not mention it as part of
the conditions. He said on the perimeter on the public streets the plan provides
for sidewalks and boulevards.
Ms. Erickson responded that a boulevard is required along all public streets.
Sidewalk is also required on at least one side of the private street along with a
boulevard.
Mr. Whitten said they would have some challenges with that but will address it.
Mr. Whitten went on to say that Rottlund needs Alternative 2 in order to advance
the project and get to Alternative 1. He said since there are no specific conditions
in the staff report for Alternative 2, Rottlund’s recommendation is to use the
conditions of Alternative 1 if that makes sense to advance Alternative 2.
Mr. Whitten said Rottlund’s issues with conditions are: 1) item 3c detailed plan
usable open space (DORA) definition. Rottlund doesn’t believe this does not
apply since it has not yet been approved and they meet the current requirements;
and; 2) condition 3e asking to provide details of the pond showing how it is lined
to retain permanent water. Rottlund believes that should be subject to the
Watershed District decision. Mr. Whitten said other than those two items,
Rottlund is comfortable with conditions outlined by staff.
Mr. Whitten said he is concerned about the requirement for an easement for a
property to the east which is not part of Rottlund’s application. He said it is not
a problem but seems to be an unusual request.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked if there have been any discussions about
changing the exterior of the existing office building.
Mr. Whitten said Rottlund does not have any plans for changing the exterior,
although it can be analyzed.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison said she is not comfortable with the exterior and
she would like to see some discussion occur on changing it. She said she is
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
031504 - 4i - Planning Commission Minutes 2-18-04
Page 7 of 16
concerned about saleability and people moving into all new construction looking
at the office building as it exists today.
Commissioner Gothberg mentioned his concern about elevations and the holding
pond, and his concern that appearances and access related to elevations and the
holding pond be resolved for final approval.
Chair Robertson said the developer has given Alternative 3 by suggesting the
development of the southwest corner at a later date. He asked in looking at all
factors, including financing and timeline, if Alternative 1 is still the goal. He
asked if Alternative 3 doesn’t look more attractive to Rottlund,
Mr. Whitten said Alternative 1 is absolutely preferred by Rottlund. He said
Alternative 3 is not something they would do, he mentions it as an opportunity.
Mr. Whitten said for many reasons Alternative 1 is their preference, and
Alternative 2 is needed to get there.
Chair Robertson asked about alternatives for the pond. He mentioned the depth
if it is a dry pond. He asked if underground storage was an option.
Dave Nash, engineer, MFRA Associates, responded that underground storage is
very high maintenance and very expensive. He said the only concern that the
Watershed District has mentioned is infiltration and their preference to see the
pond as an unlined pond. Rottlund’s concern is whether the Watershed District
would deny their permit if the City makes a lined pond a requirement.
Chair Robertson asked as more details are provided and if the Commission is not
comfortable with the aesthetics, if an underground tank is a possibility.
Mr. Nash said it was an engineering possibility but he did not know how that
would affect the economics of the entire site.
Mr. Whitten said Rottlund would be willing to pursue that economically and look
at the option. Their difficulty has been with the Watershed’s preference for a
standard and typical choice.
In answer to Commissioner Morris’ question about drainage, Mr. Nash said storm
sewer goes along the north road that cuts through the open area and down to the
pond.
Chair Robertson asked if owners of the two properties not owned by the applicant
wished to speak.
Leo Zaback, 5920 Oxford, owner of the second property, said the area was
rezoned for Rottlund with an exception made for the office building. Roadways
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
031504 - 4i - Planning Commission Minutes 2-18-04
Page 8 of 16
will be removed and the alley closed. He said he understands the City’s need to
change the tax base. He said the existing neighborhood is unique and diverse. It
would be nice to keep a unique neighborhood. His home is over 100 years old.
He said he believes a grid design works better for movement. He said the
neighborhood is very open. The development is very private. The greenspace is
in the middle and very private. Mr. Zaback commented on the eight foot hole in
one corner keeping people away, as well as the street keeping people away. He
said he thinks a plan should be developed that uses 37th Street. Mr. Zaback said
he believes there will be change in traffic. He said when the factory was active
there was early morning traffic and traffic at 5:00 p.m. Nights, weekends, and
daytime were very peaceful. He said he believes studies have shown that
residents are making many more trips than in the past. He commented that it is
now standard for 2 and 3 car garages and the trend is not less car traffic and
parking, it is for more car traffic and more parking.
Mr. Zaback said there is more visual greenspace, not less visual greenspace, if the
four houses are retained. He added that retaining the homes would also lead to a
gradual movement into the high density area. He doesn’t believe retaining the
four houses is a bad idea.
Mr. Zaback said he has been willing to work with Rottlund Homes and with the
City on a potential sale of his property. He said he has received one call last fall.
Discussion has occurred between himself, attorneys, and Rottlund Homes. He
said all he is asking for is an exchange for what he has and something similar.
He said the offer he received was very low, a little over $200,000. He
distributed lists of pending duplex sales in the neighborhood to Commissioners
and said one around the corner is $325,000. He said homes nearby in less
desirable neighborhoods are being sold for $350,000 and up.
Mr. Zaback concluded by saying two plans have been presented and he is willing
to go either way. No real preference but it would be more fair for himself and the
other owner to know which plan will go forward. He hopes more thought is given
now to improve plans.
Chair Robertson asked if the other property owner was present and wished to
speak. No one responded.
Chair Robertson opened the public hearing.
Joan Snyder, 3906 Alabama, said her concerns with the project include traffic, the
extra street behind Oxford, increased taxes for owners related to the new street,
and guest and tenant parking provided for the new buildings.
Ms. Erickson said the senior building will have 80 units and 80 underground
parking spaces plus a surface lot of about 20 spaces. She said the condominium
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
031504 - 4i - Planning Commission Minutes 2-18-04
Page 9 of 16
building will have 66 units and 66 underground parking spaces. Total surface
parking lots will provide 118 spaces (Alternative 1). Staff and the developer
believe parking requirements have been met.
Janet Jeremiah, Planning and Zoning Supervisor, commented that one of the
reasons Alternative 1 is preferred is because it provides more parking. She said
by retaining the office building an opportunity is provided for shared parking
during evenings and weekends. With Alternative 1, a total of 160 parking spaces
would be provided in surface lots and on-street parking in the private
development, providing a lot of additional parking for guests and tenants. Ms.
Jeremiah said the townhomes are proposed to be parked at 2 per unit. Ms.
Jeremiah said the street behind Oxford is proposed to be a private street which
will be paid for by the developer, so there will not be any assessment to existing
residents in the area.
Sonja Almlie, 3924 Webster Ave. S., said the strong opinion of the neighbors she
has spoken with, and herself, is to support Alternative 2. She said the
neighborhood strongly supports what Rottlund is doing overall. They do have
concerns about the landscaping and hope that it will exceed the minimum
required. Meeting requirements for pedestrian traffic is also important to the
neighborhood as are elevations. Ms. Almlie said from the standpoint of the
overall project, the neighborhood feels that moving forward with Alternative 2 is
beneficial to the project. She said they hope the developer is committed to
working with the homeowners, but if not there are options for the neighborhood
long term.
Regarding the retaining pond, Ms. Almlie said that although it would be nice to
have a liner and on-going water, the most important factor for residents is that
they do not end up with a storm sewer situation. The neighborhood does want to
make sure the water is appropriately handled. If it can be accommodated by
having a wet pond for aesthetics that is good, but if it is better handled by a dry
pond that could include appropriate landscaping that would be preferable.
Ms. Almlie said she does not find the office building objectionable. She said she
does not believe it is a significant issue with the neighborhood. She suggested a
poll could be taken. Ms. Almlie said the project shouldn’t be held up to increase
the aesthetics of that building. She said it was more important to create better
aesthetics and better servicing of the whole neighborhood. Ms. Almie said
parking is a concern and she would like to see parking requirements exceeded for
a project of this nature. She suggested parking at the office building be issued by
permit.
Cate Ford, 6215 Oxford, president of the Elmwood Neighborhood Association,
said the association has worked very closely with the developers and the City
throughout the project development. The Association supports both options. Ms.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
031504 - 4i - Planning Commission Minutes 2-18-04
Page 10 of 16
Ford said Alternative 1 is great but Alternative 2 provides gradual transition from
single family homes to medium density. The Association is anxious to see
something happen as opposed to nothing.
Tom Larson, 3751 Brunswick, said he would encourage the City to work with the
developer with either plan to make the project work. He said he sees the
development as a cornerstone for the entire Elmwood area.
Jim Lande, CEO, Quadion Corp., said the company, more commonly known as
Minnesota Rubber, has been a citizen of St. Louis Park for 59 years. He has been
CEO for the last 18 years. He said Quadion has worked very hard with the City
and the developer for the last 3-4 years in what they hope will be a legacy for the
company as they seek to find a new corporate home. Mr. Lande said for the
company it requires not only the ability to sell the property to a responsible and
progressive developer, but Quadion’s ability to find a new home that they can also
finance. The two transactions are highly interdependent. He said he urged the
Commission to support both options for preliminary plan approval. Mr. Lande
said the lack of their ability to sell the property at this time means they will lose
their ability to purchase a new home they have chosen. He explained it is
optioned for a limited period of time and highly conditioned upon the ability to
sell the existing property. He said Quadion is in a delicate position in its ability
to match both transactions.
Chair Robertson closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Carper commented that Alternative 1 was well documented in the
staff report and Alternative 2 was not, leaving Alternative 2 more open without
control criteria. He asked if the Commission was to recommend Alternative 2,
how could it have a firmer set of criteria.
Ms. Erickson said Alternative 2 could be approved with the same conditions as
Alternative 1. She said something to consider would be the findings for denial
of Alternative 2. She went on to say that Alternative 2 is not consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. Staff could be instructed to come back with an amendment
to the Comp Plan. She said Alternative 2 is not consistent with the Elmwood
Land Use Study. Commissioners could list reasons that they think it should still
be approved. Staff does not think Alternative 2 will result in the ultimate
redevelopment of the residential properties due to the size of lots. Commissioners
could recommend that leaving the single family homes intact is consistent with
the neighborhood. Regarding the finding of not meeting the zoning code for
PUD in that there are negative impacts to the residential properties, she suggested
a determination would have to be made showing the private road could be made
to not impact the four properties. Ms. Erickson said staff is very concerned
about an incoherent street frontage along Oxford Street in Alternative 2 in terms
of sidewalk, landscaping, and boulevard. A requirement could be made that this
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
031504 - 4i - Planning Commission Minutes 2-18-04
Page 11 of 16
be consistent throughout the whole block front even though those properties are
not owned by the developer. Ms. Erickson said if the findings for denial of
Alternative 2 could be addressed as well as adding pertinent conditions, a
recommendation could be made.
Commissioner Carper asked if a recommendation needed to be postponed. He
said it appears to be a lose-lose proposition. If Alternative 1 is approved and no
movement occurs with the single family homes, everyone seems to lose. He said
Alternative 2 seems to have too many unknowns. He said everyone wants to
move forward but he would be in favor of continuing consideration until the
Commission receives a statement of what Alternative 2 could deliver.
Commissioner Morris said everyone wants the project to move forward. At the
study session both plans seemed to be viable alternatives. He suggested that the
Commission also had the option to not make a recommendation. He said the
Commission could give a recommendation of approval of Alternative 1 and not
make any recommendation regarding Alternative 2.
Ms. Jeremiah said that was a viable alternative. She said staff is on the record
with concerns regarding Alternative 2. She said staff believes a win-win situation
can be accomplished. Progress is being made on the purchase of the single family
properties and is not at a standstill, it just hasn’t come as quickly as hoped in
regard to Quadion’s interest in the sale and Rottlund’s interest in moving forward.
Commissioner Gothberg said he thinks everyone agrees that Alternative 1 is a
much better long-term outcome. The deficiencies of Alternative 2 relate to
whether that remaining piece of property could be developed in accordance with
the long-term Elmwood Study and Comp Plan. If the Commission believes it
can, it could state its belief that the property can be developed in accordance with
the Elmwood Study.
Commissioner Robertson said he doesn’t see Alternative 2 as being contrary to
the Elmwood Study or Comp Plan. Future development of those properties could
fall right along the lines of the Study and the Comp Plan. In reference to the
street frontage inconsistencies mentioned by staff, he said he believes whole
blocks can’t necessarily be developed at the same time. He said a little diversity
or change isn’t so terrible and can be improved later by a developer. He said his
biggest concern regards the PUD finding of negative impact on existing lots. He
said this finding might now influence the property owners to sell at this time.
Chair Robertson said Alternative 2 isn’t bad and is viable. Alternative 1 is
preferable. He said he would ask the developer to look for ways to make the
open space more inviting to all. He suggested that Alternative 2 could be
recommended with defined conditions.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
031504 - 4i - Planning Commission Minutes 2-18-04
Page 12 of 16
Mr. Whitten asked staff how to work with a timeline without being able to close
on the sale of the property.
Ms. Jeremiah said staff is committed to facilitating the purchase of the single
family properties in some manner. She said other options could be considered
further by the City Council.
Mr. Whitten said a continuance of the public hearing would be a hardship for the
developer. He also said that the developer does not see the open space of the
project as private space, it is public open space. They will work with staff to
make it a better opportunity for open space.
Commissioner Gothberg asked if Alternative 2 would present a negative impact to
Mr. Zaback’s property.
Mr. Zaback responded that construction would be a problem in Alternative 2, but
the development would not be a problem.
Commissioner Gothberg made three motions:
Commissioner Gothberg moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the
City Council that Alternative 1 is the preferred alternative for redevelopment of
the total property subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report. The motion
passed on a vote of 6-0.
Commissioner Gothberg moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the
City Council that Alternative 2 is an acceptable development plan for the
properties that it covers and the Commission believes the long term goals of the
Elmwood Study as well as the Comprehensive Plan could be met with Alternative
2 proposal, although sometime in the future, and the Commission does not find
there would be negative impacts to the residential properties on the north side of
Oxford Street. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0-1. Commissioner Carper
abstained.
Commissioner Gothberg moved to recommend approval of the petition to vacate
West 37th Street and the alley north of the Oxford properties subject to conditions
in the staff report.
Commissioner Morris requested a friendly amendment that the alley vacation is
subject to the approval of Alternative 1. Commissioner Gothberg accepted the
friendly amendment.
The motion passed on a vote of 6-0.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
031504 - 4i - Planning Commission Minutes 2-18-04
Page 13 of 16
Ms. Jeremiah asked if additional discussion regarding Alternative 2 issues would
also be included as conditions for recommendation of Alternative 2.
The Chair and Commissioner Gothberg said yes, that was their understanding of
the motion.
B. Case No. 04-02-ZA—Request of WHIOP Real Estate Limited Partnership
for amendments to St. Louis Park Ordinance Code (Zoning) to allow
catering as an accessory use to certain uses in the Office District.
Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator, presented a staff report. He said
that staff recommends that the text amendment include a condition that all
vehicles used in connection with the catering operation be stored within a building
or screened area of a parking structure or in a legal off-site location. Mr.
Morrison added that staff recommends that grocery store be dropped from the list
of uses that catering could be accessory to in the Office District.
Commissioner Gothberg asked for an explanation of the difference between a
delicatessen that also sells groceries and a grocery store that has a delicatessen.
Mr. Morrison said a delicatessen would be a primary land use whereas in a
grocery store the delicatessen would be an accessory to the primary use.
Commissioner Gothberg asked if a large grocery store was accidently in an Office
District, if it could not have catering because the deli is small in comparison to the
grocery store. Mr. Morrison said that was correct. Mr. Morrison said that retail
is allowed in the Office District but in a limited capacity. It is allowed as part of a
larger PUD or larger office development.
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 the Ordinance Code
text amendments (Zoning) relating to catering as an accessory use in the Office
District in accordance with staff’s recommendations. The motion passed on a
vote of 6-0.
Chair Robertson called a 5 minute recess at 8:15 p.m. The meeting reconvened at
8:20 p.m.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
031504 - 4i - Planning Commission Minutes 2-18-04
Page 14 of 16
C. Case No. 04-03-PUD—Request of TOLD Development Company for a
Major Amendment to the Park Commons East Planned Unit Development
to convert four two-story units to eight one-story units thereby increasing
the number of units for Phase NE (Excelsior & Grand Phase II) from 120
to 124 at 3707 and 3709 Grand Way.
Ms. Jeremiah presented a staff report. She stated that Phase II approval allowed
up to 120 condominium units subject to conditions. One of the conditions
required individual exterior entrances for ground floor units along Park Commons
Drive and a minimum of four two-story condominium units. She explained that
construction of the Phase II condominium building is on schedule, and sales are
generally going well. She stated, however, that the four two-story condominiums
are not selling and TOLD is requesting the amendment to convert the four two-
story units to eight single-story units for a total of 124 units. Individual ground
floor entrances on Park Commons Drive would be maintained and the site plan
and building elevations would not change. She presented a before and after
elevation drawing illustrating the entry stoops. Ms. Jeremiah said that the units
would then all line up and be the same type for all four stories of the building.
She said there will be ground floor entries to two other units, one of which was
anticipated at approval in September, 2003. The corner unit also requested a
ground floor entry which wasn’t anticipated and that is a change staff approved
via the building permit process, so there will be six entry stoops on Park
Commons Drive providing a nice streetscape amenity.
Commissioner Morris asked even though the conversion is from two story to one
story would all of the units still have interior access to the corridor. Ms. Jeremiah
responded that was correct, now the second story units would also have interior
access to the corridor.
Ms. Jeremiah commented that staff had looked at the intent of having the two-
story units and found they were considered desirable as a means of providing a
variety of life cycle housing opportunities for St. Louis Park residents in keeping
with many of the City’s housing goals. She explained that the developer has been
marketing these units for almost one year and has been unable to generate interest
in them. Prospective buyers might be concerned that at some time they will need
one-story living. They might be concerned about resale values in an aging
demographic market. Also, the two-story units aren’t as efficient because the
stairs take up living space, so they may not be viewed as quite a good a value.
Ms. Jeremiah said that whatever the reason, they don’t seem necessary to meet the
life cycle housing needs because they aren’t selling. She added that on the other
hand the individual exterior entrances have been very popular and provide
diversity.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
031504 - 4i - Planning Commission Minutes 2-18-04
Page 15 of 16
Ms. Jeremiah said staff had looked at the Environmental Assessment Worksheet
parameters to determine that the changes remain within the types of analysis that
was done for traffic and other environmental factors. The EAW analyzed a total
of 660 units overall for the 15 acre redevelopment. Ms. Jeremiah explained with
Phase I and II, units would be up to 462, so there would still be almost 200 units
available for future phases, which should be adequate. She said that the amount
of commercial space has been dropping relative to the EAW, which is probably
more important from a traffic impact, so if need be, the EAW could be re-
analyzed, but that is not recommended or necessary at this time. Ms. Jeremiah
said staff also looked at whether additional parking would be required. The four
two-story units would have been two-bedroom units, whereas the one-story units
would all be one-bedroom units, so no change in number of bedrooms is proposed
overall for the project. The parking analysis was done based on the number of
bedrooms, so staff doesn’t see a change there or the need for additional parking.
Ms. Jeremiah reviewed the conditions proposed for the major amendment.
Bob Cunningham, TOLD Development, gave a slide presentation of a
condominium unit which is similar to what is currently being proposed in the
PUD major amendment.
Commissioner Morris asked about storage units. Mr. Cunningham said storage is
optional in the project. He said they are finding they have ample storage and
ample parking. If they project out the last 30 units, they are about 10-12 parking
stalls extra and certainly have enough storage space to accommodate buyers.
Chair Robertson opened the public hearing. As no one was present wishing to
speak, the Chair closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison made a motion recommending approval of the
Major Amendment to the Park Commons East PUD granting Final PUD approval
for Phase NE (Excelsior & Grand Phase II) subject to conditions recommended by
staff. The motion passed 6-0.
D. Case No. 03-70-ZA—Public hearing for text amendments relative to
standardizing requirements for usable open space, allowing open space
reductions across zoning districts, and approving standard reductions for
redevelopment plans using the PUD process.
Ms. Erickson said that two City Council study sessions have been held on the text
amendments subsequent to the public hearing held by Planning Commission on
November 19. Ms. Erickson explained that there have been some suggestions
and modifications, in addition to those suggested by the Planning Commission.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
031504 - 4i - Planning Commission Minutes 2-18-04
Page 16 of 16
The Planning Commission also has not yet seen text for the amendments. Staff
would also like to change requirements for certain categories, such as nursing
homes, as well.
Commissioner Gothberg asked if the Council made any significant suggestions
relative to what the Planning Commission reviewed on November 19. Ms.
Erickson said Council asked that definitions be tightened up. She said Council
was also very concerned about reducing open space requirements in the R-1
Single Family District. She said the amendment will not include a modification
to that requirement. Ms. Erickson said City Council is quite supportive of using
the new standard for designed outdoor space. They agree with the Planning
Commission that it will provide for better open space for multi-family
developments.
Chair Robertson opened the public hearing.
Chair Morris made a motion to continue the public hearing until such time that
City Council has completed Study Session discussions. The motion passed on a
vote of 6-0.
4. Unfinished Business
5. New Business
6. Communications
A. Recent City Council Action – Feb. 17
B. Other
On behalf of Martha McDonnell, Community Outreach Coordinator, Ms.
Erickson reported that an Open House for members of City Commissions
will be held on Monday, March 22, 6:30 – 8:00 p.m. Invitations will be
mailed soon.
7. Miscellaneous
8. Adjournment
Chair Robertson adjourned the meeting at 8:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Nancy Sells
Administrative Secretary
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
031504 - 4j - PRAC Minutes of 12-17-03
Page 1 of 5
OFFICIAL MINUTES
PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY COMMISSION
DECEMBER 17, 2003 – 7 P.M.
REC CENTER PROGRAMMING OFFICE
MEMBERS PRESENT: R. Bruce Cornwall, Kirk Hawkinson, Dick Johnson, Nancy Nelson, and
Tom Worthington
MEMBERS ABSENT: Sarah Lindenberg and Dana Strong
GUESTS PRESENT: Raj Maddali, Salah Siyo, and Kevin Swanson
STAFF PRESENT: Stacy Voelker and Cindy Walsh
Jim Lombardi was introduced but not present through entire meeting
1. Call to order
Nancy Nelson, Chair, called the meeting to order at 7:06 p.m.
2. Adjustments to the agenda
Cindy Walsh added approval of December 8, 2003 minutes and removed item 4a, Quadion
Development / Park Dedication, as Quadion is not ready to suggest development aesthetics.
3. Approval of Minutes
A. November 19, 2003
Kirk Hawkinson moved to approve the minutes of the November 19, 2003 meeting,
Tom Worthington seconded. The motion passed 5-0.
B. December 8, 2003
Kirk Hawkinson moved to approve the minutes of the December 8, 2003 meeting, Tom
Worthington seconded. The motion passed 5-0.
4. New Business
A. Quadion Development / Park Dedication
Item was removed from agenda.
B. Discuss Youth Association Meeting to be held in January
Mr. Worthington distributed a draft of the Code of Conduct and elements that pertain to
sports associations, the general public, and Parks and Recreation sporting activities. Mr.
Worthington recommended suggesting to Associations to apply the Code of Conduct.
The Associations would provide the City with their plan on how they will implement
the Code. Mr. Hawkinson inquired if the Associations codes have been reviewed and
was informed only two were received and reviewed when requested. Mr. Worthington
suggested mailing the draft of the Code to the Associations with their invite and discuss
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
031504 - 4j - PRAC Minutes of 12-17-03
Page 2 of 5
it at the January 15 meeting. The Commission discussed the fact that the Associations
mentioned the need for this at last year’s meeting. Mr. Johnson inquired if the City
should have the Code of Conduct established and approved prior to distributing to the
Associations. Ms. Nelson advised the adopted Code should be discussed and adopted by
the Associations. Mr. Johnson suggested having the Associations give the Commission
their Code. Ms. Nelson will ask the Associations representatives for input at their
January meeting. If the Associations agree, the City will put together a unified Code and
distribute.
Mr. Worthington suggested if the Associations do not adopt the Code of Conduct
guidelines, they may not receive field usage. Commission members agreed that a Code
of Conduct needs to be on file prior to issuing field usage permits. Ms. Walsh feels they
should be informed what the Commission is working on and asked for input. Ms.
Nelson and Mr. Cornwall suggested asking Associations if they prefer a unified code for
all or feel they each need their own specific code. Mr. Cornwall feels the Commission
should suggest the core specifics of the code that must be adhered to and then each
Association could tweak as it pertains to their sport. Mr. Worthington indicated some
Associations may have state wide guidelines they need to adopt. Mr. Cornwall
suggested the City Code be in addition to those guidelines. Ms. Walsh suggested
presenting at the annual Youth Association Summit meeting in January as core code and
the Associations could add to it if the particulars of their association are needed. The
Commission discussed the draft and suggested changes. Members suggested printing in
brochure and include on web site. Ms. Walsh would like the Commission to think about
where to post signs to ensure people would read. Mr. Hawkinson inquired on training
for coaches. Ms. Nelson suggested through Children First or via video training. Ms.
Walsh suggested changing verbage in draft to “may host” training and feels they could
contact Children’s First or other organizations to assist in training. Mr. Worthington
suggested the Commission could facilitate if there’s a large interest. Ms. Nelson
suggested adding another meeting mid-year to facilitate training if there’s an interest.
Mr. Cornwall asked if the Commission needs to develop disciplinary measures as stated
in the Code and inquired if the City has a process for discipline. Ms. Walsh advised it
could be similar to disciplinary measures adhered to for employees (warnings and
released). She suggested talking with Associations to see what they have done and ask
for input to adopt. Ms. Walsh feels it may take a good portion of the annual meeting to
go through the Code. The Commission discussed the agenda for the annual Sports
Association Summit Meeting.
Mr. Worthington will make changes to the Code of Conduct and e-mail to Ms. Voelker.
Ms. Voelker will make changes to letter and agenda, and will attach code. Members
approved mailing and list.
C. Oak Hill Project Update
Ms. Walsh met with neighborhood members once. The firm of Krech, O’Brien, Mueller
and Wass, Inc. has been selected as the building architect. The design work will begin
soon and may have sketch of building at their January meeting. Ms. Walsh indicated
staff has met with the Health Department on the water feature and are trying to work out
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
031504 - 4j - PRAC Minutes of 12-17-03
Page 3 of 5
splash pad concept that could hold water for smaller kids to splash in. Health
Department has issues with holding water. Mr. Cornwall inquired if there are videos of
existing splash pads for parents to see. Ms. Walsh indicated there are pictures available.
Mr. Cornwall felt it might help parents visualize what is being suggested. Mr.
Hawkinson agreed a visual would be beneficial. Ms. Walsh indicated there are only
three primary manufacturers. Mr. Johnson wondered if it is cost prohibited to put water
into sewer and Ms. Walsh advised all sprayed water is treated and recycled. The Health
Department suggested there is more of a health concern for standing water and
contamination versus sprayed water. The main issue is the rate at which fresh water is
replaced. Ms. Walsh advised staff is still working on what features could be included.
Mr. Johnson inquired if the splash park would be fenced in and Ms. Walsh indicated it
could be but then there is less money for the water feature. Mr. Hawkinson confirmed
there would be no lifeguard on duty, only parent supervision. Ms. Walsh will update the
Commission when next meeting is set.
Mr. Worthington inquired when Walker field be available for use and Ms. Walsh
indicated it will be available in spring depending on the weather.
5. Old Business
A. In-House Soccer in St. Louis Park
Raj Maddali reiterated their research and findings with the Commission. Mr. Maddali
advised the Soccer Club met as a board and advised they want an alternative for in-
house soccer. Parents have also called Mr. Maddali and advised the same. Mr. Maddali
feels his organization should be included in the Code of Conduct.
Kevin Swanson of 5001 West 40th Street in St. Louis Park has a daughter that would
like to be involved in Soccer but does not understand why the prices are so high. Mr.
Swanson got involved with Mr. Maddali to assist in researching alternatives to lower the
cost of soccer. Mr. Swanson thanked the Commission for their time in this matter.
Salah Siyo of 2937 Maryland Avenue South in St. Louis Park has two boys and is very
active in soccer, including coaching. Mr. Siyo wants kids to play soccer but feels the
cost is too high. He attended Mr. Maddali’s meeting and wants to participate in the Club
to give his expertise and assist in reducing the cost of the sport.
Ms. Walsh advised staff has proposed offering an in-house soccer program in the
summer and fall to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission. Ms. Walsh briefly
reviewed staff’s proposal and advised staff is only interested in younger kids as it is felt
it is the City’s place to offer instructional activities and allow the associations to offer
competitive leagues. Mr. Maddali quested if the amount being charged is too little. Ms.
Walsh advised staff is concerned with the number of kids that will sign up as each
program has a minimum requirement to run. Staff wants the program to happen so
wanted to keep costs down as much as possible. Ms. Walsh advised equipment can be
shared between activities which lowers the cost although this may vary every year as
equipment needs to be replaced. Ms. Nelson asked if the Commission had any
comments or questions on the proposal. Mr. Johnson clarified which proposal was Mr.
Maddali’s and which was the City’s, including age groups to compare proposals. Ms.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
031504 - 4j - PRAC Minutes of 12-17-03
Page 4 of 5
Nelson mentioned other issues may arise that may change the cost as the City can
provide equipment that can be used in other activities whereas an association would
have to endure all costs. Mr. Maddali advised the Soccer Club reviewed all numbers.
Mr. Johnson inquired if the proposal were adopted, would members of the Club
volunteer to assist in the program. Mr. Maddali indicated they would like to keep the
Soccer Club active as funds have been collected and wants to do fund raising also. Mr.
Maddali also indicated members of the Club want to help in registration and the
marketing process. Staff would run the program but the Soccer Club would be there to
help and make sure it goes through.
Mr. Cornall is supportive of the Parks and Recreation Department offering in-house
soccer as he is confident in the department, does not feel it is replacing any other
program, it meets the Commission’s philosophy, it is a positive community aspect for
the City, it answers community members concerns, and he is confident staff will do a
good job. Mr. Cornwall also likes the idea of having a ‘booster club’. Mr. Johnson
inquired what would happen if there are too many registrants and Ms. Walsh advised
staff would work out as with other activities. Mr. Worthington advised board members
of the Soccer Association indicated they are willing to work with staff and share goals.
Ms. Nelson feels this is a positive way to restructure something that has gotten
complicated and feels this is a positive way to deal with it. Ms. Nelson suggested it may
assist the Soccer Association also. Mr. Hawkinson, along with the Commission,
commended Mr. Maddali for his research and thanked him.
Mr. Cornwall motioned to adopt the Parks and Recreation Department’s proposal to
offer in-house soccer. Mr. Hawkinson seconded. The motion passed 5-0.
Ms. Walsh introduced Jim Lombardi, Recreation Supervisor, to the Commission. Mr.
Lombardi briefed the Commission on his history in Recreation and past employment
along with his background. Mr. Lombardi advised he will be running the in-house
soccer league. Ms. Walsh suggested getting the word out as soon as possible that staff is
offering in-house soccer. Mr. Maddali asked if the Soccer Club could take names and
addresses for registration forms to be sent and was advised they could. Ms. Walsh
suggested flyers be distributed now to advise of activity offering. Mr. Maddali indicated
parents have voiced their concern that if staff doesn’t get enough kids enrolled to run the
program that it may be too late to sign up for the program through the Soccer
Association. Ms. Walsh indicated staff will work with Mr. Maddali and distribute flyers
advising the program. Mr. Worthington suggested sending flyers home with kids from
school. Mr. Worthington also noted that in-house soccer registration generally takes
place in March (through the Soccer Association).
Commission thanked Mr. Maddali, Mr.Swanson and Mr. Siyo who in turn thanked the
Commission and staff.
B. Code of Conduct Discussion
Discussed in new business section, item 4 B.
6. Communications
A. Chair
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
031504 - 4j - PRAC Minutes of 12-17-03
Page 5 of 5
Ms. Nelson advised the Commission and staff that she has purchased a home in
Minneapolis and will need to resign. She is in St. Louis Park through January so
resignation will be effective February 1, 2004. Ms. Walsh advised once resignation
letter is received, Clerks office would post. Commission commended Ms. Nelson on the
work she has completed for the Commission.
B. Commissioners
None.
C. Program Report – None
None.
D. Director’s Report
Ms. Walsh indicated the City has received several requests for an off leash dog area.
Staff has identified nine possible areas that are not active use parks. Main possible area
is by Victoria Pond as it has a couple acres and parking area. Commission members
briefly discussed and feel they are wonderful community development places.
Ms.Walsh advised staff would talk with Council in January with possible sites then
bring suggestion to the Commission.
7. Adjournment
Moved by Tom Worthington and seconded by Bruce Cornwall to adjourn. Motion passed 5-0.
With no further business, the Commission adjourned at 8:41 p.m.
Minutes prepared and
respectfully submitted by,
Stacy M. Voelker
Recording Secretary
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
031504 - 4k - PRAC Minutes of 1-15-04
Page 1 of 3
1
OFFICIAL MINUTES
PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY COMMISSION
JANUARY 15, 2004 – 7:30 P.M.
REC CENTER BANQUET ROOM
MEMBERS PRESENT: Kirk Hawkinson, Sarah Lindenberg, Dana Strong, and Tom Worthington
MEMBERS ABSENT: R. Bruce Cornwall, Dick Johnson and Nancy Nelson
STAFF PRESENT: Stacy Voelker and Cindy Walsh
1. Call to order
Tom Worthington, Co-chair, called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m.
2. Adjustments to the agenda
None.
3. Approval of Minutes of December 17, 2003
Commission deferred approval to February 18, 2004 meeting.
4. New Business - Quadion Development / Park Dedication
Cindy Walsh introduced Judie Erickson from the planning division of Community
Development. Ms. Erickson advised if anyone sub-divides a lot, the park dedication ordinance
goes into effect. Ms. Erickson reviewed and discussed the area and the Proposed
Comprehensive Plan with the Commission. She indicated that if Light Rail Transit were to
come in, the trail would remain in place. Staff received a proposal for commercial and
residential use from Rottlund. Ms. Erickson advised the Commission would need to
recommend if they want the land or cash in lieu. Ms. Walsh inquired when item will be
presented to Council and if the Commission could review and discuss next month. Ms.
Erickson advised the item is scheduled to go to the Planning Commission on Wednesday,
January 21. Mr. Hawkinson inquired if a stop light study was done and Ms. Erickson advised
several transportation studies were done and road/traffic improvements will be recommended.
Ms. Erickson indicated that by opening this area, visibility would increase and only one
entrance would be allowed in the new development.
Mr. Worthington asked for staff’s opinion and Ms. Walsh advised if cash in lieu is received, it
would go into the park improvement fund. Ms. Walsh advised the money could assist in the
upgrade of parks in that area. Center Park would serve as the neighborhood park in this area.
Mr. Worthington inquired if more discussion was needed or if members wanted to make a
motion. Mr. Strong recommends a motion take the cash in lieu of land dedication; Mr.
Worthington seconds the motion. Motion passed 4-0.
Commission members thanked Ms. Erickson.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
031504 - 4k - PRAC Minutes of 1-15-04
Page 2 of 3
2
5. Old Business
A. Youth Association Meeting Wrap Up
Mr. Strong commented that it was good to have associations here and hear comments. Mr.
Worthington and Mr. Strong indicated they would like the associations to interact more and
discussed how that would be accomplished. Mr. Strong complimented Mr. Worthington on his
work in creating the Code of Conduct. Mr. Worthington indicated he is interested in creating an
umbrella youth association. Mr. Strong advised baseball had proposed an umbrella association
and people were leery of the concept. Mr. Hawkinson inquired if other Cities information could
be obtained. Mr. Strong advised the City of Bloomington has an umbrella association and feels
it may stifle new activities. Mr. Worthington questioned if there might be certain aspects that
the associations are wiling to share. Mr. Strong feels there is a need for it but everyone will
have to give up something which might be challenging. Mr. Strong indicated he was in favor of
researching the idea.
Mr. Worthington commented it was good to hear positive feedback on field/facility usage.
6. Communications
A. Chair
None.
B. Commissioners
Mr. Hawkinson inquired on Nancy Nelson’s status on the Commission. Ms. Walsh
advised staff is researching.
C. Program Report – None
None.
D. Director’s Report
Ms. Walsh advised the soccer league proposal will be reviewed by Council on Monday.
The City Council extended compliments to the Parks and Recreation Advisory
Commission for their research and felt having the City involved as a “competitor” is
preferred over another association. Perhaps staff would offer in-house soccer inclusively
in the future. Mr. Worthington inquired if the Maddali’s were satisfied with the decision
and Ms. Walsh advised they are.
Ms. Walsh advised the potential off leash dog site will be brought to the Commission at
their February meeting to discuss. Members feel it would be nice to have a dedicated
area.
7. Adjournment
Moved by Dana Strong and seconded by Kirk Hawkinson to adjourn. Motion passed 4-0. With
no further business, the Commission adjourned at 8.24 p.m.
Minutes prepared and
respectfully submitted by,
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
031504 - 4k - PRAC Minutes of 1-15-04
Page 3 of 3
3
Stacy M. Voelker
Recording Secretary
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
031504 - 4l - Fire Civil Service Minutes of 12-29-03
Page 1 of 1
MINUTES
FIRE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
December 29, 2003, 3:00 p.m.
FIRE CONFERENCE ROOM, 1ST FLOOR CITY HALL
1) The meeting was called to order at 3:00 p.m. by Chairperson Mann.
2) In attendance were Commissioners William MacMillan, David Lee and John Mann. Also present were
Nancy Gohman, Human Resources Director, Ali Fosse Staff Liaison/Human Resources Coordinator, Luke
Stemmer, Fire Chief, John Lindstrom, Battalion Fire Chief, Dale Antonson, Union President and Lieutenant,
Tom Harmening, Interim City Manager, and Lindsay Biddle, guest.
3) A motion was made by Commissioner MacMillan, seconded by Commissioner Lee to approve the minutes
from the last meeting, held February 3, 2003. The motion carried.
4) Chief Luke Stemmer discussed the reorganization of the Fire Department, including reasons for the addition
of Fire Captain as a Classification in the by-laws. A motion was made by Commissioner MacMillan,
seconded by Commissioner Lee to approve the amendment to the Rules and Regulations of the Fire Civil
Service Commission. The motion carried.
5) Nancy Gohman introduced Interim City Manager, Thomas K. Harmening, to the commission. He is soon to
be the new City Manager.
6) Chief Stemmer and Battalion Chief Lindstrom discussed the Fire Lieutenant recruitment process and job
description A motion was made by Commissioner Lee, seconded by Commissioner MacMillan to approve
the recruitment process for Lieutenant. The motion carried.
7) Chief Stemmer and Battalion Chief Lindstrom discussed the Fire Captain recruitment process and job
description A motion was made by Commissioner MacMillan, seconded by Commissioner Lee to approve
the recruitment process for Captain. The motion carried.
8a) Commissioner Lee expressed thanks and gratitude to Commissioner Mann for his years of dedicated
service to the City of St. Louis Park and the Fire Department. Chief Stemmer also expressed
appreciation to Commissioner Mann for his participation on the commission. A motion was made by
Commissioner Lee, seconded by Commissioner MacMillan to ask the City Council to recognize
Commissioner Mann’s years of service on the Civil Service Commission. Motion carried.
8b) Commissioner Mann resigned his position effective upon the adjournment of this meeting.
9) A motion was made by Commissioner MacMillan, seconded by Commissioner Lee to adjourn the
meeting. The Commission adjourned at 3:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Ali Fosse, City Staff Liaison to the Fire Civil Service Commission
St. Louis Park City Council
Item: 031504 - 8a - 2004-05 Police Officer Union Contract
Page 1 of 3
8a. Police Officer Union Contract 1/1/04 – 12/31/05
A 2-year agreement with Police Officers settling the City and Union for 2004 & 05.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the attached resolution approving a Labor
Agreement between the City and Law Enforcement Labor
Services (LELS) #206, establishing terms and conditions of
employment for two years: 1/1/04 – 12/31/05.
Background:
The City had two negotiation sessions with Patrol Officers. The increases recommended for
2004 are same given to non-union employees for wages and employer contribution. This will be
our third 2005 settlement.
Listed below is the summary of changes as negotiated:
• 2 year agreement
• 2004 wage increase 2% January 1, 1% July 1
• 2004 increase in employer contribution $45/mo. ($550/mo in 2003, to $595/mo. in 2004)
• 2005 wage increase 3% January 1, 2005
• 2005 increase in employer contribution same as other exempt employees.
• Add language in regard to probation: All newly hired or rehired employees shall serve a
one (1) year probationary period. All employees promoted to a new job classification
shall serve a one (1) year probationary period in such new job classification. During the
probationary period, a newly hired or rehired employee may be terminated at the sole
discretion of the employer. During the probationary period, an employee promoted to a
new job classification may be reassigned or demoted to their previous position at the sole
discretion of the employer. Comment: this language reflects our practice.
• Injury on Duty: Change from 90 working days to 720 hours. Comment: This change is
for ease in calculation purposes. Since 90 times 8 hours per day equals 720 hours, we
agreed to change this to hours in the contract.
• Add the word “overall” in performance pay. New language to read: In order to be
eligible, the employee must receive an overall above average performance evaluation for
work performed in the assignment. Comment: Performance pay is only available to
Support Services Agents and a select group of assignments.
• Change the method of payment for Field Training Officer assignments to $2.91 per hour
up to a maximum of $350 per trainee. Comment: No increase in rate, due to the
maximum of $350 which is currently in contract.
• Payment of Uniform allowance to be made the first payroll in February.
The City is very pleased with this offer and recommends approval.
The proposed contract is on file with the City Clerk. More detail is available upon request.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
031504 - 8a - 2004-05 Police Officer Union Contract
Page 2 of 3
Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution
approving a Labor Agreement between the City and Law Enforcement Labor Services #206,
Police Officers, establishing terms and conditions of employment for the duration of 1/1/04 –
1/31/05
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Nancy Gohman, Human Resources Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
031504 - 8a - 2004-05 Police Officer Union Contract
Page 3 of 3
RESOLUTION NO. 04-042
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE LABOR AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
AND
LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES INC. LOCAL #206
POLICE OFFICERS
JANUARY 1, 2004–DECEMBER 31, 2005
WHEREAS, the City and the Union have reached a negotiated settlement covering the
terms and conditions of a Labor Agreement as permitted by the State of Minnesota Public
Employees Labor Relations Act, and
WHEREAS, the City Council may enter into such agreements as authorized by its
Charter; now therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park that the Mayor and
City Manager are authorized to execute a Collective Bargaining Agreement, City Contract #
between the City of St. Louis Park and Law Enforcement Labor Services Inc. (LELS) Local #206
Police Officers effective January 1, 2004 – December 31, 2005.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council March 15, 2004
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
St. Louis Park City Council
Item: 031504 - 8b - Opposing TELs and TABOR Proposals
Page 1 of 3
8b Resolution Opposing Tax and Expenditure Limitation Proposals and a Proposed
Constitutional Amendment Limiting Growth of Spending
Tax and Expenditure Limits (TELs) would severely hamper the city’s efforts to raise
needed revenue, address unexpected crises, and meet shifting or growing public needs.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt a Resolution Opposing Tax and Expenditure
Limitation Proposals (TELs) and opposing the proposed
constitutional amendment limiting growth of spending (TABOR)
Background:
Proponents of Tax and Expenditure Limits (TELs) are mounting a campaign to amend the state
Constitution to limit the growth of state and local unit of government spending to inflation plus
population growth. Lawmakers are being pressured to sign a "Taxpayers Bill of Rights"
pledge to "support and promote an amendment to the Minnesota Constitution that limits
government spending increases."
TELs, including the Taxpayers' Bill of Rights (TABOR), are first and foremost unnecessary.
Legislators last year demonstrated their ability to make difficult decisions when they solved
the state's $4.3 billion deficit-the sixth largest in the nation. Legislators should be allowed and
expected to do the jobs for which they actively campaign. Adopting this Constitutional
amendment would essentially mean legislators would no longer need to make the tough
decisions for which they are elected.
In addition, TELs/TABOR would mandate that government be run by formula rather than
through a thoughtful, deliberative process designed to ensure public policy issues are fully
explored and considered. TELs/TBOR operate under the assumptions that: government
services are "right" and being delivered at the "right" level; population growth and inflation are
appropriate measures of growth; government shouldn't make up for economic downturns; and
the state will not need to respond to any crises in the future.
Attachment: Resolution
Prepared By: Cindy Reichert, City Clerk
Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park City Council
Item: 031504 - 8b - Opposing TELs and TABOR Proposals
Page 2 of 3
RESOLUTION NO. 04 - 043
A RESOLUTION TO OPPOSE TAX AND
EXPENDITURE LIMITATION PROPOSALS
(TABOR and Similar Proposals)
WHEREAS, the Taxpayers League and others are endorsing proposals to amend the
State Constitution to institute tax and expenditure limitations at the state and local levels of
government that could only be overridden by a vote of the people – an example of these
proposals is the “Taxpayers Bill of Rights”;
WHEREAS, such proposals would tie the hands of state and local leaders in times of
crisis and other unpredictable circumstances, putting state and local governments on “auto pilot”
and circumventing thoughtful consideration of policy decisions;
WHEREAS, such proposals would prevent state and local officials from making the
tough decisions they were elected to make, passing the responsibility for learning all aspects of
often complex issues to citizens who have other jobs and responsibilities;
WHEREAS, amending the constitution is a virtually irrevocable action and should only
be undertaken when legislative remedies have proven inadequate;
WHEREAS, such proposals are unnecessary – a “solution in search of a problem” – as
demonstrated by lawmakers at both state and local levels of government taking action to deal
with one of the worst budget crises to hit the State of Minnesota and, by result, Minnesota’s
cities;
WHEREAS, this is further demonstrated by the fact that state and local spending as a
percentage of personal income has actually declined in recent years, even before the 2003 deficit;
WHEREAS, regardless of whether TABOR/TELs are applied just to the State or to local
governments as well, these proposals would bring great harm to local communities through
continued reductions in state funding, increases in unfunded State mandates, and, potentially,
direct tax and expenditure limitations at the local level, which would severely erode decision-
making at the local level and the ability to provide the basic services residents and businesses
expect and deserve;
WHEREAS, such proposals would force the State, and potentially cities, to spend
valuable time and money asking for permission from the same people who elected them before
any action can be taken on important issues, and would also force taxpayers to pay twice for
governance – once for elections of their State and local officials, and again for elections to make
the decisions those officials should have made.
St. Louis Park City Council
Item: 031504 - 8b - Opposing TELs and TABOR Proposals
Page 3 of 3
WHEREAS, such proposals contradict the fundamental principles upon which our
constitution and system of government are based – that representative, not direct, democracy is
the most effective form of government as it is most likely to result in good public policy;
WHEREAS, those states that have instituted proposals similar to the Taxpayers Bill of
Rights, such as Colorado, now face severe problems in meeting the basic needs of their citizenry;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the city of the City of St.
Louis Park that this Council believes that state and local elected officials are elected to do a job –
that job is to represent the interests of their constituents, to deal with difficult decisions, to
thoughtfully debate and determine the best course of action for the state or the community they
serve.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Council opposes limits on state and/or local
taxes and expenditures, whether through constitutional amendment or other means, and supports
the principle of representative democracy as the best route to sound public policy.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council March 15, 2004
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
St. Louis Park City Council
Item: 031504 - 8c - Oak Hill Park Building Plans and Specs
Page 1 of 2
8c. Oak Hill Park Improvements
Approve plans and specifications and authorize staff to solicit bids for the buildings at
Oak Hill Park.
Recommended
Action:
Approve plans and specifications for the buildings at Oak Hill
Park and authorize solicitation of bids for the project.
Background: The 2004 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) includes three separate projects that all
relate to the planned improvements to Oak Hill Park. The largest of these projects relates to the
demolition of the existing warming house and large picnic shelter, and the construction of a new
large picnic shelter and warming house building. The City has budgeted $520,000 to be spent on
the demolition, design and construction of these structures. In addition to designing these
structures, the consulting firm of Krech, O’Brien, Mueller & Wass, Associated Architects, will
be drafting a design concept for future warming house buildings.
The 2004 CIP also includes two other projects related to Oak Hill Park. The budget for these
projects is $140,000 for a water feature and $200,000 for site improvements to trails and parking
areas in the park.
Public Process: City staff met with residents who live near Oak Hill Park last fall to get their
ideas prior to designing the building. Residents expressed an interest in having a building that is
multipurpose so that it is useable year-round. There were many comments about bathroom
accessibility from the outside and inside. The current design at Louisiana Oaks Park was
preferred over Wolfe Park because the bathrooms can be used even when the building is locked.
Continuing to use the green metal roof (similar to Louisiana Oaks Park Pavilion) is a design
feature that residents would like to see us continue. It is staff’s goal to include that as one of the
consistent design features used for all of our future park buildings.
Staff met with residents for a second time on March 9. At that meeting, residents were shown
plans for the water feature and the warming shelter building. Comments about both items were
favorable. The main concern at the meeting was the possible elimination of the traffic light at
33rd and Texas. Although this doesn’t directly have anything to do with the park improvements,
residents are concerned that the elimination of the lights would inhibit pedestrian safety to the
park. Other comments included construction of a safety screen around the gas fireplace in the
shelter building, posting rules for use and behavior by the splash pad, and fencing around the
splash pad area. All of their suggestions, with the exception of the traffic light, can be
accommodated. The traffic light is an issue that will have to be discussed in greater detail with
Public Works.
Building Plans: The current plan incorporates the suggestions of the residents as well as some
other unique design features. The building is proposed to be 2,200 square feet with a cost
estimate of $355,000. City staff and the consultant are in the process of reviewing the utility lines
that currently service the building. It is likely that those utility lines may need to be replaced as a
St. Louis Park City Council
Item: 031504 - 8c - Oak Hill Park Building Plans and Specs
Page 2 of 2
part of this building process. The $355,000 does not include any utility work. Thus, the bids may
come back slightly higher than anticipated based on the need for utility work. Staff anticipates
any additional utility work to be covered in the $520,000 budgeted amount.
Large Picnic Shelter Construction: In addition to the warming house building, the budgeted
$520,000 includes a new large picnic shelter. Resident input on this building confirmed staff’s
plan to make the shelter large enough to accommodate 100 people. Residents also asked for a
food serving area that includes outlets for crock pots and other small appliances such as coffee
pots. There will also be water access for groups who are serving food and beverages. The shelter
design is currently underway and it appears that this structure will cost approximately $90,000.
Ideally, the construction of this building would be done by the contractor who bids on the
warming shelter building. The shelter design will be ready to bid in April with the warming
house building.
Water Feature: The existing wading pool will be demolished this spring. A splash pad will be
constructed to serve as a water feature for park users. As we previously discussed, this splash pad
is not considered a pool because all water drains out immediately. This area will not be
supervised. The water feature will be maintained in a similar manner to the various playground
equipment that we have throughout the City. The total cost is $140,000. Staff will try to save
money in other areas of the project so that additional money can be made available to fence in
the site.
Additional Oak Hill Improvements: In addition to the buildings and water feature, staff will be
reconstructing some of the trails throughout the park. The parking lot on the west side of the park
(located along Rhode Island Avenue) will also be reconstructed. Staff is working with the City
Engineer on drainage issues associated with this parking lot. Staff would also like to improve the
lighting of the ball field area. This space is used by the Football Association in the fall and by
our residents for winter skating. The total amount of these additional improvements is budgeted
to be $200,000.
Next Steps and Timelines: Staff will work with the consultant to finalize the plans and
specifications for the warming shelter and the picnic shelter. Our goal is to bid the project out in
April. The Council will be asked to approve the low bidder and authorize the project to begin at
their May 3, 2004 council meeting. The project construction will begin in May.
Recommendation: Staff recommends approving the plans and specifications for the buildings at
Oak Hill Park and authorizes solicitation of bids for the project.
Prepared By: Cynthia S. Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
031504 - 8d - Usable Open Space
Page 1 of 41
8d. Proposed amendments to various sections of Chapter 36 of the Ordinance Code
(pertaining to zoning) to redefine and standardize open space requirements in
the various zoning districts.
Proposed amendments make distinctions between “open lot area” requirements for
single family, and “designed outdoor recreation area” for multi-family and group
living housing types, and incorporate more uniform standards for each throughout the
zoning code. The amendments also provide consistent requirements for open space
reductions using the PUD process. Case 03-70-ZA
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve first reading of Ordinance Code amendments
to various sections of Chapter 36 related to zoning to eliminate
definition for “usable open space”, add definitions for “open lot
area” and “designed outdoor recreation area” and to standardize
the application of these definitions throughout Chapter 36 and to
set second reading for April 12, 2004.
Background:
On October 24, 2003, the City Council reviewed existing regulations regarding usable
open space as well as options to standardize the requirements among zoning districts and
to ensure a higher standard for open space in multi-family developments. On November
11, 2003, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and approved text amendments
to Chapter 36 of the Ordinance Code pertaining to redefining and standardizing how open
space requirements are regulated throughout the various zoning districts. This was
followed by another City Council Study Session on December 8, 2004. At that time the
Council requested additional information about the current status of single family lots in
the R1 zoning district. The Council reviewed open space during a subsequent study
session in February. Council direction was to preserve the existing R1 open area
requirement. (Attached is a copy of the February study session staff report for reference.)
The Planning Commission held another public hearing on March 3, 2004, when they
reviewed specific text relative to various residential land uses, including single family,
multi-family, cluster housing, nursing homes, group homes, etc. (Standardization of the
nursing home and group home requirements was not considered by the Planning
Commission previously.) The Planning Commission recommended approval of the
proposed text with one change to the staff recommendation. The Planning Commission
proposed that swimming pools should be allowed to occupy a certain percentage (up to
50% was suggested) of the open lot area on a single family lot. They also suggested that
the table should be incorporated into the code. The Planning Commission recommended
approval on a vote of 7-0.
The purpose of the proposed changes are fourfold:
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
031504 - 8d - Usable Open Space
Page 2 of 41
1. To incorporate uniform standards for open space for similar uses throughout the
zoning code.
2. To require open space for multi-family projects that is truly usable and designed
for the active and/or passive use of its residents.
3. To correct a flaw in language that restricted the area that open space could be
counted on single family lots (rear yard vs. back yard).
4. To incorporate consistent criteria via the PUD process for approving open space
reductions for all projects.
Recommendation:
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed text changes to
the zoning code as indicated on the attached proposed ordinance.
Attachments: Excerpts – Unofficial Planning Commission minutes 3-3-04
Proposed zoning text changes
Table of proposed changes
February 17 Study Session Report
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
031504 - 8d - Usable Open Space
Page 3 of 41
Unofficial Minutes - Excerpts
St. Louis Park Planning Commission
March 3, 2004
C. Case No. 03-70-ZA—Proposed amendments to various sections of
Chapter 36 of the Ordinance Code (pertaining to zoning) to redefine and
standardize open space requirements in the various zoning districts.
Ms. Erickson stated that at study sessions, the City Council expressed concern
about lowering the open space requirements for single family homes in the R-1
zoning district. City Council would like to retain 600 sq. ft. of usable open space
(open lot area) in the R-1 District. Ms. Erickson said in an earlier discussion with
the Planning Commission, staff had not discussed making open space standards
consistent for nursing homes, group homes and other kinds of residential-related
uses. She said the entire proposed text amendments are now to be considered
by the Planning Commission. Ms. Erickson said a spreadsheet attached to the
amendments should summarize the proposal for open space requirements. The
staff report also includes a chart showing how the PUD reductions would be
applied to all of the varied uses.
Commissioner Carper asked for explanation about the minimum dimension of 20
feet in all directions included in the Open Lot Area definition. He said City
Council had asked for 600 sq. ft., but 20 feet in all directions would be 400 sq. ft.
Ms. Erickson said 20 feet in all directions is a minimum dimension not a
maximum dimension, so that anything less than 20 feet cannot be measured. In
order to meet the 600 sq. ft. requirement, the open area could be 20 x 30 feet but
10 x 60 feet would not meet the minimum dimension requirement.
Commissioner Morris said that one reason this was discussed was to prevent
space which was really unusable from being counted as square footage and being
designated as the recreation area.
Chair Robertson asked if there was a minimum dimension for the Designed
Outdoor Recreational Area.
Ms. Erickson said one has not been included at this time. It was not included
because it would be hard to meet all of the standards without providing a
reasonable width.
Chair Robertson asked if the summary spreadsheet would appear in the zoning
code. Ms. Erickson said that could be a friendly amendment to the proposed
amendments.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
031504 - 8d - Usable Open Space
Page 4 of 41
Commissioner Gothberg asked why swimming pools were not included in the
open lot area definition, but were included in the Designed Outdoor Recreational
Area definition.
Ms. Erickson said the Commission can make a recommendation including a
swimming pool as Open Lot Area.
Commissioner Morris said in the past discussion occurred whether or not a sand
lot was recreational equipment, or a swimming pool or paved patio decks were
considered recreational or open. He said open and accessible space doesn’t have
to be a green space only. He went on to say that pools are definitely recreational,
though seasonal.
Commissioner Gothberg suggested that swimming pools be added into the Open
Lot Area definition.
Commissioner Gothberg said in the Commission’s original discussions relative to
single family and reducing the 600 sq. ft. requirement for usable open space, the
Commission’s recommendations were related to the fact that St. Louis Park has so
many small lots where the 600 sq. ft. requirement can hinder additions to houses
and garages. He asked to hear more about the City Council’s viewpoint. He
suggested a compromise depending on lot size.
Ms. Erickson responded that the Council discussed the 600 ft. requirement at
more than one study session. At Council’s request, staff provided numbers of all
of the lots that were substandard in the R-1 District. She said a lot of discussion
was held about the overall requirement in the R-1 being for larger lots, the feeling
of open space versus building size, and balance. Staff studied variances and
found that variances only inhibited garages in the R-1 district, and did not impact
the house because the original text said it had to be in the rear yard which was the
rear 25 feet. Ms. Erickson explained that if that is fixed in the amendment,
Council felt the 600 ft. requirement should be retained. If there were issues that
prohibited expansions, that could be brought back at a later date.
Chair Robertson commented that a subject at the recent Housing Summit sessions
has related to creative ways to increase house sizes. He said he thinks the 600 ft.
requirement probably works for what currently exists. Other mechanisms may
be looked at to address larger houses and can be addressed in the future.
Commissioner Morris said the 600 ft. requirement should be subject to variance
so that if a property owner wants to expand a garage and needs to take 100 ft. of
the open land area they could request a variance. He said if variance requests
become too frequent, then there is a problem with the code, but it doesn’t exclude
people from making those decisions and expanding their use of the property.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
031504 - 8d - Usable Open Space
Page 5 of 41
Ms. Jeremiah responded that there would be a variance option. She added that
the variance findings are fairly onerous so expanding a lot or building beyond
what is considered typical, reasonable use would not necessarily warrant a
variance. If there were many variance requests that could be looked at in the
future.
Ms. Jeremiah said she wasn’t sure if consensus was reached regarding swimming
pools in the single family districts. She said she wanted to point out that a
swimming pool could conceivably be the only open lot area on a single family
property. Ms. Jeremiah added that pools aren’t accessible in the winter, they are
covered, and may not have the same appearance as the other types of areas
considered to be open lot area. She said it wouldn’t be uncommon to have a 20
ft. by 20 ft. or 20 ft. by 30 ft. swimming pool on a single family property. In and
of itself that would meet the open lot area requirement.
Chair Robertson suggested that language such as allowing a swimming pool to
encroach as long as 50% of the required open space is not swimming pool could
be a compromise.
Chair Robertson opened the public hearing. As no one was present wishing to
speak he closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Morris said he believed the code keeps the door open to expand
building sites in St. Louis Park while still retaining some open space on
properties. He asked about the front yard setback and open space.
Ms. Jeremiah said the open lot area cannot be located in the front yard or the side
yard abutting a street.
Commissioner Morris moved to recommend approval of amendments to various
sections of Chapter 36 of the Ordinance Code (zoning) according to the draft
ordinance and with inclusion of comments and suggestions of the Planning
Commission. The motion passed on a vote of 7-0.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
031504 - 8d - Usable Open Space
Page 6 of 41
ORDINANCE NO.______
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK
ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING BY
AMENDING SECTIONS 36-4, 36-36, 36-37, 36-72, 36-115, 36-142,
36-163, 36-164, 36-165, 36-166, 36-167, 36-193, 36-194,
36-222, 36-223, 36-266, and 36-367
REDEFINING AND STANDARDIZING OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS
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. 03-70-ZA).
Sec. 2. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Sections 36-4, 36-36, 36-37, 36-72,
36-115, 36-142, 36-163, 36-164, 36-165, 36-166, 36-167, 36-193, 36-194, 36-222, 36-
223, 36-266, and 36-367are hereby amended by deleting stricken language and adding
underscored language. Section breaks are represented by ***.
Definition: Sec 36.4
Usable open space means a required ground area or terrace on a lot which is graded,
developed, landscaped and equipped and intended and maintained for either active or
passive recreation or both, available and accessible to and usable by all persons
occupying a dwelling unit or a rooming unit on the lot and their guests. Usable open
space has a minimum dimension of 30 feet. Roofs, driveways and parking areas do not
constitute usable open space.
Designed Outdoor Recreational Area means designed outdoor space intended for passive
or active recreation accessible and suited to the needs of residents and/or employees. The
area shall be functional and aesthetic, designed with clear edges, relate to the principal
building or buildings, include sidewalk connections, seating, landscaping, and other
amenities. The area should be compatible with or enlarge upon existing pedestrian links
and public parks or open space and may include swimming pools, tot lots, courtyards,
plazas, picnic areas, and trails within natural areas. Outdoor recreational areas shall not
include driveways, parking areas, steep slopes, or ponds designed solely for stormwater
retention.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
031504 - 8d - Usable Open Space
Page 7 of 41
Open Lot Area means an area of a lot, not located within a front yard or side yard
abutting a street that has a minimum dimension of 20 feet in all directions and does not
include a building, driveway, outdoor storage, or parking space. Open covered porches,
gazebos, decks, and patios are permitted encroachments into the open lot area.
Swimming pools are permitted encroachments provided they do not occupy more than
50% of the open lot area.
Sec. 36-36 Continuation of certain special permits.
***
(d) General conditions for continued special permit uses. All land uses subject to
continued special permits are subject to the following general conditions:
***
(4) (b) Any nonconformities existing on the site shall be brought into greater or
complete compliance with other provisions of this chapter to the extent reasonable and
possible, except that greater or complete compliance will not be required with the
following provisions:
***
8. Usable open space Designed Outdoor Recreational Area and Open Lot Area
***
Sec. 36-37 Enforcement
***
(a)(7) The yards, parking spaces, and open spaces designed outdoor recreation area, and open
lot area required by this chapter for buildings existing at the time of adoption of
the ordinance from which this chapter is derived or for any building erected after
its adoption, shall not be encroached upon or considered as part of the yard,
parking space, , or open spaces designed outdoor recreation area, or open lot area
required for any other building unless joint use of parking or a combination of
yards or open spaces designed outdoor recreation area or open lot area is
specifically authorized by this chapter. No lot shall be divided nor shall any
structure be erected or altered to reduce the floor area ratio below that required
by this chapter for the district in which the lot is located.
Sec. 36-72. Required yards and open space.
(a) The area of a yard, bufferyard, or other open space designed outdoor recreation area, or
open lot area shall not be reduced below the minimum size required by this chapter.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
031504 - 8d - Usable Open Space
Page 8 of 41
***
(c) If the existing bufferyard or other open space designed outdoor recreation area, or open
lot area is less than the minimum size required by this chapter, it shall not be reduced in
size.
(d) No yard or open space designed outdoor recreation area, or open lot area which is
required by this chapter for any structures shall be included as a part of any yard or open
space which is required by this chapter for another structure, except as provided in the
regulations concerning the bufferyard.
(e) Usable open space which is required by this chapter shall contain improvements
such as outdoor swimming pools, patio areas, game areas, landscaped and grassy
areas which contain benches, sculpture gardens, pedestrian paths and trails, or
similar outdoor fixtures or features. Usable open space shall be available and
accessible to and usable by all persons occupying the dwelling units, group
facility, or other use for which the usable open space is required.
***
Section 36-115 Land use by zoning district: interpretation of land use tables.
TABLE 36-115B
ZONING DISTRICTS
TABLE OF BULK REGULATIONS
R1 R2 R3 R4 RC C1 C2 O IP IG MX
Open space
per dwelling
unit
600 400 400 400 400 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
***
TABLE 36-115D
OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
031504 - 8d - Usable Open Space
Page 9 of 41
Zoning District
Single
Family
Cluster
Housing
Multi-
Family
Elderly
Housing
Nursing
Home
Group
Home
R1-Single Family Residential 600/OLA
400/OLA or
12%DORA NA NA 12% DORA 12% DORA
R2-Single Family Residential 400/OLA
400/OLA or
12%DORA NA NA 12% DORA 12% DORA
R3-Two-Family Residential 400/OLA
400/OLA or
12%DORA NA NA 12% DORA 12% DORA
R4-Multi-Family Residential 400/OLA
400/OLA or
12%DORA 12% DORA 12% DORA 12% DORA 12% DORA
RC-Multi-Family Residential NA
400/OLA or
12%DORA 12% DORA 12% DORA 12% DORA 12% DORA
C1-Neighborhood Commercial NA NA 12% DORA 12% DORA NA NA
C2-General Commercial NA NA 12% DORA 12% DORA NA NA
O-Office NA NA 12% DORA 12% DORA NA NA
MX-Mixed Use NA NA 12% DORA 12% DORA NA NA
Reductions may be allowed via the PUD process, if the development meets certain criteria.
OLA = Open Lot Area DORA = Designed Outdoor Recreation Area
Sec. 36-142. Descriptions.
(a) Residential uses. The following are typical of the residential uses referred to in this
chapter.
***
(8) Nursing home means a licensed health care facility providing lodging and 24-hour care
for medically or physically impaired persons usually on a long-term basis.
Residents of the facility do not have private apartments or kitchens. This use
includes a food service and may include supporting medical and retail services
for the residents. A quiet area is preferred and usable outdoor open space is
required.
Section 36-163 R-1 single-family residential district.
***
(c) Uses permitted with conditions. A structure or land in an R-1 district may be used
for one or more of the following uses if its use complies with the conditions stated
in section 36-162 and those specified for the use in this subsection.
(1) Group home/nonstatutory. The conditions are as follows:
a. At least 800 square feet of lot area shall be provided for each person
housed on the site.
b. At least 150 square feet of usable open space shall be provided for each
person housed on the site At least 12% of the lot area shall be
developed as designed outdoor recreation area.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
031504 - 8d - Usable Open Space
Page 10 of 41
***
(d) Uses permitted by conditional use permit. No structure or land in any R-1 district
shall be used for the following uses except by conditional use permit. These uses
shall comply with the requirements of all the general conditions provided in
section 36-365 and with the specific conditions imposed in this subsection.
(1) Cluster housing. The conditions are as follows:
a. Cluster housing shall meet the following minimum requirements:
1. No more than four dwelling units shall be incorporated in a single
building.
2. The density of the development shall not exceed the density
allowed in the zoning district in which the use is to be
located; except when the use is located adjacent or across
the street from public protected parks or open space which
are equal to or greater than the area of the development site
and the proposal is found to promote goals and policies of
the city, the density may be increased by 60 percent.
3. The site shall not have less than one-half acre.
4. This section shall not be applied to conversion of existing dwelling
units but may be applied to site clearance and
redevelopment. Existing units may be incorporated into
new development plans when such units are not converted.
5. There shall be 600 square feet of usable open space for each
dwelling unit. This requirement may be reduced to 400
square feet if the use is located adjacent or across the street
from public protected parks or open space and the proposal
is found to promote goals and policies of the city. Each lot
developed with cluster housing shall contain either 400
square feet of open lot area per residential unit or the
development shall contain 12% designed outdoor
recreational area.
6. Sidewalks with a minimum width of five feet shall be provided
along all sides of the lot that abut a public street.
b. The applicant shall clearly demonstrate through the application and site
plan that a superior development would result by clustering. The
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
031504 - 8d - Usable Open Space
Page 11 of 41
presence of a superior development shall be determined by
reference to the following criteria:
1. The presence and preservation of topographic features, woods and
trees, water bodies and streams, and other physical and
ecological conditions.
2. Suitable provisions for permanently retaining and maintaining the
amenities and open space.
3. Building location, building groupings, landscaping, views to and
from the units, building forms and materials, recognition of
existing development and public facilities, and city goals
and policies including the comprehensive plan as well as
specific plans for the area.
***
(f) Dimensional standards/densities.
***
(12) Each lot developed with a single-family residence shall contain at least 600 square
feet of usable open space in the rear yard open lot area. For the purpose of
this section, usable open space shall have a minimum dimension of 20 feet
in all directions and shall not contain any structures or parking.
***
Sec. 36-164. R-2 single-family residence district.
***
(c) Uses permitted with conditions. A structure or land in an R-2 district may be used
for one or more of the following uses if its use complies with the conditions stated
in section 36-162 and those specified for the use permitted in this subsection.
(1) Group home/nonstatutory. The conditions are as follows:
a. A minimum of 800 square feet of lot area shall be provided for each
person housed on the site.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
031504 - 8d - Usable Open Space
Page 12 of 41
b. A minimum of 150 square feet of usable open space shall be provided for
each person housed on the site At least 12% of the lot area shall be
developed as designed outdoor recreation area.
***
(d) Uses permitted by conditional use permit. No structure or land in any R-2 district
shall be used for the following uses except by conditional use permit. These uses
shall comply with the requirements of all the general conditions provided in
section 36-365(b) and with the specific conditions imposed in this subsection and
such other conditions as may be imposed by the city council under section 36-
34(b).
(1) Cluster housing. The conditions are as follows:
a. Cluster housing shall meet the following minimum requirements:
1. No more than four dwelling units shall be incorporated in a single
building.
2. The density of the development shall not exceed the density
allowed in the zoning district in which the use is to be
located; except when the use is located adjacent or across
the street from public protected parks or open space which
are equal to or greater than the area of the development site
and the proposal is found to promote goals and policies of
the city, the density may be increased by 60 percent.
3. The site shall not have less than one-half acre.
4. This section shall not be applied to conversion of existing dwelling
units but may be applied to site clearance and
redevelopment. Existing units may be incorporated into
new development plans when such units are not converted.
5. There shall be 600 square feet of usable open space for each
dwelling unit. This requirement may be reduced to 400
square feet if the use is located adjacent or across the street
from public protected park or open space and the proposal
is found to promote goals and policies of the city. Each lot
developed with cluster housing shall contain either 400
square feet of open lot area per residence or the
development shall contain 12% designed outdoor
recreational area.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
031504 - 8d - Usable Open Space
Page 13 of 41
6. Sidewalks with a minimum width of five feet shall be provided
along all sides of the lot that abut a public street.
***
(f) Dimensional standards/densities. The dimensional standards/densities are as
follows:
***
(12) Each lot developed with a single-family residence shall contain at least 400 square
feet of usable open space in the rear yard open lot area. For the purpose of
this section, usable open space shall have a minimum dimension of 20 feet
in all directions and shall not contain any structures or parking.
***
Sec. 36-165. R-3 two-family residence district.
***
(c) Uses permitted with conditions. A structure or land in an R-3 district may be used
for one or more of the following uses if its use complies with the conditions stated
in section 36-162 and those specified for the use in this subsection (c):
(1) Group home/nonstatutory. The conditions are as follows:
a. At least 800 square feet of lot area shall be provided for each person
housed on the site.
b. At least 150 square feet of usable open space shall be provided for each
person housed on the site At least 12% of the lot area shall be
developed as designed outdoor recreation area.
(2) Nursing home. The conditions are as follows:
a. A minimum of 600 square feet of lot area shall be provided for each
person to be housed on the site.
b. All structures shall be located at least 30 feet from a lot line of an abutting
lot in an R district.
c. The lot shall contain at least 150 square feet of usable open space per
resident. At least 12% of the lot area shall be developed as
designed outdoor recreation area.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
031504 - 8d - Usable Open Space
Page 14 of 41
***
(d) Uses permitted by conditional use permit. No structure or land in any R-3 district
shall be used for the following uses except by conditional use permit. These uses
shall comply with the residential restrictions and performance standards of section
36-162, all the general conditions provided in section 36-365, the specific
conditions imposed in this subsection (d) and such other conditions as may be
imposed by the city council under subsection (b) of section 36-34.
(1) Cluster housing. The conditions are as follows:
a. Cluster housing shall meet the following minimum requirements:
1. No more than four dwelling units shall be incorporated in a single
building.
2. The density of the development shall not exceed the density
allowed in the zoning district in which the use is to be
located; except when the use is located adjacent or across
the street from public protected parks or open space which
are equal to or greater than the area of the development site
and the proposal is found to promote goals and policies of
the city, the density may be increased by 60 percent.
3. The site shall not be less than one-half acre.
4. This section shall not be applied to conversion of existing dwelling
units but may be applied to site clearance and
redevelopment. Existing units may be incorporated into
new development plans when such units are not converted.
5. There shall be 600 square feet of usable open space for each
dwelling unit. This requirement may be reduced to 400 square feet
if the use is located adjacent or across the street from public
protected parks or open space and the proposal is found to promote
goals and policies of the city. Each lot developed with cluster
housing shall contain either 400 square feet of open lot area per
residence or the development shall contain 12% designed outdoor
recreational area.
***
(f) Dimensional standards/densities. The dimensional standards/densities are as
follows:
***
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
031504 - 8d - Usable Open Space
Page 15 of 41
(9) Each lot shall contain at least 400 square feet of usable open space for each
dwelling unit located on it. Each lot shall contain 150 square feet of usable
open space for each person occupying group living quarters on the lot.
Each lot developed with a single-family or two-family residence shall
contain at least 400 square feet of open lot area per dwelling unit.
***
(13) Any parcels which are subdivided for the purpose of creating condominium
ownership are permitted provided that the overall density created within
all condominium parcels and the common lot do not exceed the maximum
density permitted within the zoning district. Provisions for open space
designed outdoor recreation area may be provided on a common lot. Any
front, rear, and side yard dimensions required by this section shall apply
from the building face to the property line of the common lot.
***
Sec. 36-166. R-4 multiple-family residence district.
***
(c) Uses permitted with conditions. A structure or land in an R-4 district may be used
for one or more of the following uses if its use complies with the residential
restrictions and performance standards of section 36-162 and those conditions
specified for the use in this subsection (c):
(1) Adult day care. The conditions are as follows:
a. The facility shall be located in a religious facility, community center,
nursing home or hospital.
b. A minimum of 150 square feet of outdoor area for seating or exercise area
shall be provided for each person under care/ At least 12% of the
lot area shall be developed as designed outdoor recreation area.
***
(3) Group home/nonstatutory. The conditions are as follows:
a. A minimum of 800 square feet of lot area shall be provided for each
person housed on the site.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
031504 - 8d - Usable Open Space
Page 16 of 41
b. A minimum of 150 square feet of usable open space shall be provided for
each person housed on the site At least 12% of the lot area shall be
developed as designed outdoor recreation area.
(4) Nursing home. The conditions are as follows:
a. A minimum of 500 square feet of lot area shall be provided for each
person to be housed on the site.
b. All structures shall be located a minimum of 30 feet from a lot in an R
district.
c. The lot shall contain a minimum of 150 square feet of usable open space
per resident. At least 12% of the lot area shall be developed as designed
outdoor recreation area.
***
(d) Uses permitted by conditional use permit. No structure or land in any R-4 district
shall be used for the following uses except by conditional use permit. These uses
shall comply with the requirements of all the general conditions provided in
section 36-365 and with the specific conditions imposed in this subsection (d) and
such other conditions as may be imposed by the city council under section 36-
34(b).
(1) Multiple-family dwelling. The conditions are as follows:
a. Access shall be to a roadway identified in the comprehensive plan as a
collector or arterial or shall be otherwise located so that access can
be provided without generating significant traffic on local
residential streets.
b. Building lots shall contain a minimum of 400 square feet of usable open
space per dwelling unit and no more than one-half can be located
in the front yard. New developments which are required or elect to
dedicate land or cash in lieu of land for parks, trails and open space
in accordance with the provisions of this chapter may reduce this
requirement on a one-for-one basis to a minimum of 200 square
feet per dwelling unit. A minimum of 12% of the building lot
shall be developed as designed outdoor recreation area.
c. The minimum spacing between buildings shall be the average heights of
the buildings.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
031504 - 8d - Usable Open Space
Page 17 of 41
d. All buildings shall be located a minimum of 15 feet from the back of the
curbline of internal private roadways or parking lots.
e. If parking is accommodated on the required public or private road system,
it must meet minimum public street width requirements of this
chapter to allow on-street parking.
f. Sidewalks with a minimum width of five feet shall be provided along all
sides of the lot that abut a public streets. Sidewalks shall also be
provided between the public street and parking areas to all building
entrances.
(2) Cluster housing. The conditions are as follows:
a. Building lots shall contain a minimum of 400
square feet of usable open space per dwelling unit and no more
than one-half can be located in the front yard. New developments
which are required or elect to dedicate land or cash in lieu of land
for parks, trails and open space in accordance with the provisions
of this chapter may reduce this requirement on a one-for-one basis
to a minimum of 200 square feet per dwelling unit. . Each lot
developed with cluster housing shall contain either 400 square feet
of open lot area per residence or the development shall contain
12% designed outdoor recreational area.
b. The minimum spacing between buildings shall be the average heights of
the buildings.
c. Side and rear yards may be reduced to zero feet where dwellings are
designed to share common walls.
d. Sidewalks with a minimum width of five feet shall be provided along all
sides of the lot that abut a public street and along at least one side
of interior private streets.
e. Attached garages shall be located a minimum of 18 feet from the edge of a
sidewalk closest to it or from the back of the curbline of internal
private roadways or parking lots if no sidewalk exists.
f. If parking is accommodated on the required public or private road system,
it must meet minimum public street width requirements of the
subdivision ordinance to allow on-street parking.
(3) Elderly housing. The conditions are as follows:
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
031504 - 8d - Usable Open Space
Page 18 of 41
a. Property shall meet all of the conditions for multiple-family
dwelling/cluster housing.
b. A minimum of 25 percent of the usable open space shall be developed as
outdoor recreation or garden areas.
c. Elderly housing shall provide a minimum of 1,000 square feet of lot area
for each dwelling unit.
d. The property owner shall record a covenant to run with the land executed
in a form approved by the city which restricts the use of the
property to occupancy by the elderly.
e. The development shall provide a lounge or other inside community rooms
equal in aggregate size to a minimum of 15 square feet for each unit.
***
(g) Dimensional standards/densities. The dimensional standards/densities are as
follows:
***
(13) Each lot shall contain a minimum of 400 square feet of usable open space for each
dwelling unit located on the lot. Each lot developed with a single-family
or two-family residence shall contain at least 400 square feet of open lot
area per dwelling unit.
(14) Any parcels which are subdivided for the purpose of creating condominium
ownership are permitted provided that the overall density created within
all condominium parcels plus the common lot do not exceed the maximum
density permitted within the use district. Provisions for open space
designed outdoor recreation area may be provided on a common lot. Any
front, rear, and side yard dimensions required by this section shall apply
from the building face to the property line of the common lot.
***
Sec. 36-167. R-C high-density multiple-family residence district.
***
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
031504 - 8d - Usable Open Space
Page 19 of 41
(c) Uses permitted with conditions. A structure or land in an R-C district may be used
for one or more of the following uses if it complies with the residential
restrictions and performance standards of section 36-162 and with those specified
for the use in this subsection:
(1) Adult day care. The conditions are as follows:
a. The facility shall be located in a religious facility, community center,
nursing home or hospital.
b. A minimum of 150 square feet of outdoor area for seating or exercise area
shall be provided for each person under care At least 12% of the
lot area shall be developed as designed outdoor recreation area.
***
(3) Group home/nonstatutory. The conditions are as follows:
a. A minimum of 800 square feet of lot area shall be provided for each
person housed on the site.
b. A minimum of 150 square feet of usable open space shall be provided for
each person housed on the site At least 12% of the lot area shall be
developed as designed outdoor recreation area.
(4) Nursing home. The conditions are as follows:
a. A minimum of 500 square feet of lot area in shall be provided for each
person to be housed on the site.
b. All structures shall be located a minimum of 30 feet from a lot in an R
district.
c. The lot shall contain a minimum of 150 square feet of usable open space
per resident. At least 12% of the lot area shall be developed as designed
outdoor recreation area.
***
(12) Multiple-family dwelling. The conditions are as follows:
a. Access shall be to a roadway identified in the comprehensive plan as a
collector or arterial or shall be otherwise located so that access can
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
031504 - 8d - Usable Open Space
Page 20 of 41
be provided without generating significant traffic on local
residential streets.
b. Building lots shall contain a minimum of 400 square feet of usable open
space per dwelling unit and no more than half can be located in the
front yard. New developments which are required or elect to
dedicate land or cash in lieu of land for parks, trails and open space
in accordance with the provisions of this chapter may reduce this
requirement on a one-for-one basis to a minimum of 200 square
feet per dwelling unit. A minimum of 12% of the building lot
shall be developed as designed outdoor recreation area.
c. The minimum spacing between buildings shall be the average heights of
the buildings.
d. All buildings shall be located a minimum of 15 feet from the back of the
curbline of internal private roadways or parking lots.
e. If parking is accommodated on the required public or private road system,
it must meet minimum public street width requirements of the
subdivision ordinance to allow on-street parking.
f. Sidewalks with a minimum width of five feet shall be provided along all
sides of the lot that abut a public street. Sidewalks shall also be
provided between the public street and parking areas to all building
entrances.
g. Conditions listed in subsections (c)(12)a.--(c)(12)fe. of this section and
certain performance standards may be waived or amended using
the PUD process if so specified in a redevelopment plan for the
area that has been adopted as part of the city comprehensive plan.
(13) Cluster housing. The conditions are as follows:
a. Building lots shall contain a minimum of 400 square feet of usable open
space per dwelling unit and no more than half can be located in the front
yard. New developments which are required or elect to dedicate land or
cash in lieu of land for parks, trails and open space in accordance with the
provisions of this chapter may reduce this requirement on a one-for-one
basis to a minimum of 200 square feet per dwelling unit. Each lot
developed with cluster housing shall contain either 400 square feet of open
lot area per residence or the development shall contain 12% designed
outdoor recreational area.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
031504 - 8d - Usable Open Space
Page 21 of 41
b. The minimum spacing between buildings shall be the average heights of
the buildings.
c. Side and rear yards may be reduced to zero feet where dwellings are
designed to share common walls.
d. Sidewalks with a minimum width of five feet shall be provided along all
sides of the lot that abut a public street and along at least one side
of interior private streets.
e. Attached garages shall be located a minimum of 18 feet from the edge of a
sidewalk closest to it or from the back of the curbline of internal
private roadways or parking lots if no sidewalk exists.
f. If parking is accommodated on the required public or private road system,
it must meet the minimum public street width requirements of the
subdivision ordinance to allow on-street parking.
g. Conditions listed in subsections (c)(13)a.--(c)(13)fc and (c)(13)e-f. of this
section and certain performance standards may be waived or
amended using the PUD process if so specified in a redevelopment
plan for the area that has been adopted as part of the city
comprehensive plan.
***
(d) Uses permitted by conditional use permit. No structure or land in any R-C district
shall be used for the following uses except by conditional use permit. These uses
shall comply with the residential restrictions and performance standards of section
36-162, the general conditions of section 36-367, and with the specific conditions
imposed in this subsection as follows:
(1) Elderly housing. The conditions are as follows:
a. Property shall meet all of the conditional use requirements of multiple-
family dwellings.
b. A minimum of 25 percent of the usable open space shall be developed as
outdoor recreation or garden areas.
c. Elderly housing shall provide a minimum of 900 square feet of lot area for
each dwelling unit.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
031504 - 8d - Usable Open Space
Page 22 of 41
d. The property owner shall record a covenant to run with the land executed
in a form approved by the city which restricts the use of the
property to occupancy by the elderly.
e. The development shall provide a lounge or other inside community rooms
equal in aggregate size to a minimum of 15 square feet for each unit.
***
(g) Dimensional standards/densities. The following standards shall apply unless
specifically waived or amended by a redevelopment plan for the area that has
been adopted as part of the city comprehensive plan or as provided in section 36-
367:
***
(13) Each lot shall contain at least 400 square feet of usable open space for each
dwelling unit contained thereon.
(14) Any parcels which are subdivided for the purpose of creating condominium
ownership are permitted provided that the overall density created within
all condominium parcels plus the common lot do not exceed the maximum
density permitted within the zoning district. Provisions for open space
designed outdoor recreation area may be provided on a common lot. Any
front, rear and side yard dimensions required by this section shall apply
from the building face to the property line of the common lot.
***
Sec. 36-193. C-1 neighborhood commercial district.
***
(c) Uses permitted with conditions. A structure or land in a C-1 district may be used
for one or more of the following uses if its use complies with conditions stated in
section 36-192, and those specified for the use in this subsection (c). None of the
following uses shall exceed intensity classification 4, except by conditional use
permit:
(1) Adult day care. The condition for adult day care is that a minimum of 150 square
feet of outdoor seating or exercise area shall be provided for each
person under care at least 12% of the lot area shall be developed
as designed outdoor recreation area.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
031504 - 8d - Usable Open Space
Page 23 of 41
***
(d) Conditional uses. No structure or land in a C-1 district shall be used for the
following uses except by conditional use permit. These uses shall comply with the
commercial restrictions and performance standards of section 36-192, the
requirements of all the general conditions provided in section 36-365, with the
specific conditions imposed in this subsection (d), and with any other conditions
the city council may impose.
***
(4) Residential/multifamily/cluster housing. The conditions are as follows:
a. It is part of a larger commercial development permitted within the district.
b. The building design and placement provide a desirable residential
environment.
c. Access to off-site parks, open space, plazas and pedestrianways is
provided.
d. The housing is located above the ground floor.
e. The minimum spacing between buildings is at least equal to the average
heights of the buildings except where dwellings share common
walls.
f. The total number of units provided on an individual parcel does not
exceed a density of 30 units per acre.
g. The use is in conformance with the comprehensive plan including any
provisions of the redevelopment chapter and the plan by
neighborhood policies for the neighborhood in which it is located
and conditions of approval may be added as a means of satisfying
this requirement.
h. A minimum of 12% of the site area is developed as designed outdoor
recreation area.
***
Sec. 36-194 C-2 general commercial district
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
031504 - 8d - Usable Open Space
Page 24 of 41
***
(c) Uses permitted with conditions. A structure or land in a C-2 district, may be used
for one or more of the following uses if its use complies with conditions stated in
section 36-192 and those specified for the use in this subsection (c):
***
(25) Residential/multifamily/cluster housing. The conditions are as follows:
a. It is part of a larger commercial development permitted within the district.
b. The building design and placement provide a desirable residential
environment.
c. Access to off-site parks, open space, plazas, and pedestrianways is
provided.
d. The housing is located above the ground floor.
e. The building where the housing is provided is a maximum of three stories
in height.
f. The total number of units provided on an individual parcel does not
exceed eight.
g. The minimum spacing between buildings is at least equal to the average
heights of the buildings except where dwellings share common
walls.
***
(d) Uses permitted by conditional use permit. No structure or land in a C-2 district
shall be used for the following uses except by conditional use permit. Those uses
shall comply with the commercial restrictions and performance standards of
section 36-192, all those general conditions provided in section 36-367 and with
the specific conditions imposed in this subsection (d), and with any other
conditions which may be imposed by the city council.
***
(7) Multiple-family dwelling and cluster housing. The conditions are as follows:
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
031504 - 8d - Usable Open Space
Page 25 of 41
a. It is part of a larger commercial development permitted within the district.
b. The building design and placement provide a desirable residential
environment.
c. Access to off-site parks, open space, plazas and pedestrianways is
provided.
d. The housing represents a maximum of 30 percent of the ground floor area
of total development. One hundred percent of floor area above the
ground floor may be developed as housing.
e. The site contains a minimum of 400 square feet of usable open space per
dwelling unit and no more than half of the open space is located in
the front yard. This may be reduced to 200 square feet for each
dwelling unit that is located within 500 feet of a park, public plaza
or other public usable open space. A minimum of 12% of the site
area is developed as designed outdoor recreation area.
f. The minimum spacing between buildings is at least equal to the average
heights of the buildings except where dwellings share common
walls.
g. All dwelling units are at or above the grade of all land within a distance of
25 feet from all faces of the buildings.
h. Buildings are located a minimum of 15 feet from the back of the curbline
of internal private roadways or parking lots.
i. Housing density does not exceed 50 units per acre.
j. The use is in conformance with the comprehensive plan including any
provisions of the redevelopment chapter and the plan by
neighborhood policies for the neighborhood in which it is located
and conditions of approval may be added as a means of satisfying
this requirement.
(8) Elderly housing. The conditions are as follows:
a. The property meets all of the conditional use requirements of multiple-
family dwellings in subsection (d)(7) of this section.
b. A minimum of 25 percent of the usable open space is developed as
outdoor recreation or garden areas.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
031504 - 8d - Usable Open Space
Page 26 of 41
c. A minimum of 900 square feet of lot area is provided for each dwelling
unit.
d. Covenants running with the land in a form approved by the city attorney
have been recorded which restrict the use of the property for
occupancy by the elderly.
e. The development shall provide a lounge or other inside community rooms
amounting to a minimum of 15 feet for each unit.
f. The use is in conformance with the comprehensive plan including any
provisions of the redevelopment chapter and the plan by
neighborhood policies for the neighborhood in which it is located
and conditions of approval may be added as a means of satisfying
this requirement.
***
Sec. 36-222. Office district restrictions and performance standards; general
provisions.
***
(11) Each lot shall contain usable open space/plazas at the ratio of 0.12 times the gross
floor area of all the structures on the lot; but shall not be less than 12
percent of the total lot area. These areas shall be developed into functional
and aesthetic yard areas, plazas, courtyards and/or pedestrian facilities
which are compatible with or enlarge upon the pedestrian links and public
open space. The usable open space may be provided on a lot separate from
the use provided that it is part of the overall development covered by a
PUD process or that covenants which ensure the perpetuation of the
required open space in a form approved by the city attorney be provided.
***
Sec. 36-223 O office district
***
(e) Uses permitted by PUD. No structure or land in any O district shall be used for
the following uses except by the PUD process. These uses shall comply with the
requirements of all the general conditions provided in section 36-222 and with the
specific conditions imposed in this subsection (e). Uses and structures which are
permitted by right, permitted with conditions, or permitted as conditional uses
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
031504 - 8d - Usable Open Space
Page 27 of 41
may also be permitted by PUD. Provisions for the PUD and modifications to
dimensional standards and densities are provided under section 36-367.
(1) Multiple-family dwellings. The provisions are as follows:
a. The housing is part of a larger development permitted within the district.
b. The building design and placement provide a desirable residential
environment.
c. Access to off-site parks and open space, plazas and pedestrianways is
provided.
d. Housing-related uses do not represent more than 25 percent of the first
story or 25 percent of the second story of any building in the
development.
e. A minimum of 400 square feet of usable open space is provided per
dwelling unit and no more than half is located in the front yard.
f. No dwelling units are located below the second story of the building. All
housing-related uses located within the first story shall be limited
to common areas and rental offices.
g. The minimum spacing between buildings in a multi-building project is at
least equal to the average heights of the buildings except where
dwellings share common walls.
h. All buildings are located a minimum of 15 feet from the back of the
curbline of internal private roadways or parking lots.
i. The density does not exceed 50 units per acre. The maximum density may
be increased by up to 50 percent at the sole discretion of the city
council if two or more of the following are provided:
1. At least 80 percent of the required parking is provided in
underground or aboveground structures, including all levels
of parking ramps.
2. Buildings are placed at or near the street right-of-way and off-
street parking is screened from the public right-of-way by
buildings.
3. At least 35 percent of the building ground coverage contains
structures of six or more stories in height, thereby
conserving open space within the development site.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
031504 - 8d - Usable Open Space
Page 28 of 41
j. The use is in conformance with the comprehensive plan including any
provisions of the redevelopment chapter and the plan by
neighborhood policies for the neighborhood in which it is located
and conditions of approval may be added as a means of satisfying
this requirement.
(2) Elderly housing. The provisions are as follows:
a. All of the requirements of multiple-family dwellings in subsection (e)(1)
of this section are met.
b. A minimum of 25 percent of the usable open space shall be developed as
outdoor recreation or garden areas.
c. A minimum of 900 square feet of lot area is provided for each dwelling
unit.
d. Covenants running with the land which restrict the use of the property for
occupancy by the elderly in a form approved by the city attorney
have been recorded.
e. A lounge or other inside community room totaling a minimum of 15
square feet for each unit is provided.
f. The use is in conformance with the comprehensive plan including any
provisions of the redevelopment chapter and the plan by
neighborhood policies for the neighborhood in which it is located
and conditions of approval may be added as a means of satisfying
this requirement.
(3) Shopping centers. The provisions are as follows:
a. The shopping center is part of a larger development permitted within the
district.
b. Each lot shall contain usable open space/plazas at the ratio of 0.12 times
the gross floor area of all the structures on the lot, but shall not be
less than 12 percent of the total lot area. These areas shall be
developed into functional and aesthetic yard areas, plazas,
courtyards and pedestrian facilities which are compatible with or
enlarge upon the pedestrian links and public open space.
***
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
031504 - 8d - Usable Open Space
Page 29 of 41
(g) Dimensional standards. The dimensional standards are as follows:
(10) Each lot shall contain designed outdoor recreation area/plazas at the ratio
of 0.12 times the gross floor area of all the structures on the lot; but shall
not be less than 12 percent of the total lot area. These areas shall be
developed into functional and aesthetic yard areas, plazas, courtyards
and/or pedestrian facilities which are compatible with or enlarge upon the
pedestrian links and public open space. The designed outdoor recreation
area may be provided on a lot separate from the use provided that it is part
of the overall development covered by a PUD process or that covenants
which ensure the perpetuation of the required designed outdoor recreation
area in a form approved by the city attorney be provided.
***
MX – Mixed Use District
***
Sec. 36-266 Dimensional/performance standards and general requirements.
***
(4) The development site shall include a minimum of 12 percent usable open space
designed outdoor recreation area based on private developable land area.
The minimum open space requirement may be reduced to a minimum of
eight percent of the private developable land area if one or more of the
following are provided:
a. Accessible usable open space. Accessible usable open space on land
within 600 feet of all buildings within the development. Such open
space must be protected by covenants which ensure its
perpetuation. Open space credits for protected open space are
granted at the sole discretion of the city council based upon the
following findings:
1. The land area of the usable open space is at least twice the size of
the open space credit requested for the development site;
2. The development includes logical pedestrian/bicycle connections
from the usable open space, through the development site,
and to other properties adjacent to the development; and
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
031504 - 8d - Usable Open Space
Page 30 of 41
3. The design of the development is sensitive to the usable open
space. Sensitive design features include the following:
i. Design of pedestrian/bicycle connections to enhance
existing circulation patterns within the open space;
ii. Location of building service areas away from the open
space or in heavily screened areas;
iii. Design and location of buildings to complement the scale
and character of the open space; and
iv. Use of substantial landscaping to provide adequate
transitions between the development and open
space.
b. Public art. Open space credits for public art are granted at the sole
discretion of the city council and may reduce open space
requirements by a maximum of two percentage points.
c. Other public amenities. Open space credits for public amenities are
granted at the sole discretion of the city council and may reduce
open space requirements by a maximum of two percentage points.
***
Section 36-367. Planned unit development (PUD) process.
TABLE 36-367A
ALLOWABLE MODIFICATIONS IN PUDS
Chapter Requirement
Distance from property lines, except when
abutting residentially zoned or used property
No required yards
Distance from other buildings As building code allows
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
031504 - 8d - Usable Open Space
Page 31 of 41
Building height No maximum if consistent with the
comprehensive plan
Density 10% increase or as consistent with the
comprehensive plan
Ground floor area 5% increase
Floor area ratio Limited by height, density and ground floor
area restrictions
Usable open space Designed Outdoor
Recreation Area
20% 33% decrease consistent with
provisions below. If land is dedicated for
park, then the decrease may be increased to
50% according to provisions below.
Parking 15% decrease in addition to other allowable
chapter reductions
***
(4) An applicant for a PUD seeking modifications as permitted in table 36-367A shall
demonstrate how the proposal will enhance, support, and further the
following objectives:
a. Provide for integrated pedestrian facilities to and within the project;
b. Enhance linkages to mass transit facilities;
c. Increase the supply of low-income and moderate-income housing;
d. Incorporate implementation of travel demand management strategies as
part of the PUD plan;
e. Provide public plazas and usable open space designed outdoor recreation
area which exceeds minimum chapter requirements; and
f. Provide a high degree of aesthetics through overall design and display of
public art.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
031504 - 8d - Usable Open Space
Page 32 of 41
(5) If the applicant is seeking modifications to the use district requirements for designed
outdoor recreation area, those modifications are allowed at the sole
discretion of the City Council based upon the following provisions.
a. Reductions of up to 50% of the designed outdoor recreational area shall be
approved by PUD at the sole discretion of the City Council only if the site
meets of the following requirement:
Land or cash in lieu of land is dedicated for parks, trails, and open space
on a one for one basis up to a maximum of 50% of the requirement.
b. If the full park dedication reduction is not taken, the City Council may
consider reductions if the site meets one or more of the following
requirements, but in no case may the reduction for these items exceed 33%
or the cumulative reduction exceed 50% of the requirement:
1. Permanent accessible open space or regional trail is located on land
within 600 feet of all buildings within the development and meets all of
the following:
i. Such open space or regional trail is deeded as public and
designated in the Comprehensive Plan as Park or is protected by
covenants which ensure its perpetuation for public use.
ii. The land area of such open space is at least twice the size of the
recreational area credit requested for the development site.
iii. The development includes logical pedestrian/bicycle
connections to the open space or regional trail.
iv. The location of building service areas is away from the open
space or in heavily screened areas.
v. Design and location of buildings complement the scale and
character of the open space, and
vi. Use of substantial landscaping is provided to create transitions
between the development and open space.
Projects meeting all of the open space/trail requirements may reduce
designed outdoor recreational area requirements by up to 20%
2. Public Art. Recreation space credits for public art are granted at the
sole discretion of the city council and may reduce designed outdoor
recreational area requirements by up to 20%.
3. Other public amenities. Recreational area credits for public amenities
are granted at the sole discretion of the city council and may reduce the
designed recreational area requirements by a maximum of 20%.
4. A redevelopment plan has been adopted into the Comprehensive Plan
that approves reductions to designed outdoor recreational area by a
maximum of 33%.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
031504 - 8d - Usable Open Space
Page 33 of 41
5. Indoor parks. Recreation space credits for significant indoor
recreational space, such as a park or courtyard, may be granted at the sole
discretion of the city council and may reduce designed outdoor
recreational area requirements on a one for one basis by up to a maximum
of 20%
***
(4) Final PUD plan. The final development plan for a PUD shall contain all of the
following information:
a. A final plat which meets the requirements of the Code provisions which
create condominium ownership, if required.
b. A final site plan drawn to scale showing the location of all structures
including their placement, size and type as well as streets, parking
areas and stall arrangement, walkways and other pedestrian
facilities, parking calculations, and open space designed outdoor
recreation area including public plazas and commons.
Sec. 3. The contents of Planning Case File 03-70-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
Reviewed for Administration
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
03-70-ZA:res-ord
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
031504 - 8d - Usable Open Space
Page 34 of 41
# Usable Open Space Requirements
Purpose Of Report:
To follow-up the December 8, 2003, Study Session discussion by providing additional
information as well as proposed zoning ordinance text changes.
BACKGROUND:
On December 8, 2003, the City Council reviewed the action of the Planning Commission
relative to the public hearing that was held on November 19, 2003, when they reviewed
the standards and requirements for Usable Open Space for residential and
residential/mixed use projects. The Planning Commission recommended text changes to
the Zoning Code that would redefine usable open space, separate the standards for single
family vs. multi-family, and make the requirements more consistent.
During the December 8, 2003, study session, there was discussion about proposed
reduction in the open space standards in the R1 district for single family detached
development. Staff and the Planning Commission recommended making a consistent
standard for all single family development of 400 square feet. Greater lot area and
setback requirements would still apply in the R1 Single Family (see attached drawing).
The Council requested that staff provide information relative to lot width and area in the
R1:
There are a total of 3,384 single family lots in the R1 District. Of those, 45% do
not meet the lot width requirement (75 feet) for a new lot. A map showing the
distribution of these lots is attached. 39% of the lots in the R1 district do not meet
the lot area requirement (9,000 square feet) for a new lot. A map showing the
distribution of these lots is also attached.
The City Council also requested information about variances granted for usable open
space for single family lots:
In the past 2 years, 3 variances were requested to reduce the size of the required
usable open space in the rear yard. Two requests were for lots in the R2 district
and one in the R1 district. All of these would have been unnecessary had the
requirement for usable open space been a “back yard” rather than “rear yard”
requirement. (The definition for “back yard” is the space between the rear
building wall of the house and the rear property line. The definition for “rear
yard” is the rear 25 feet of the lot.) The proposed text changes do fix this
problem.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
031504 - 8d - Usable Open Space
Page 35 of 41
The Planning Commission recommended eliminating the definition for “Usable Open
Space” and replacing it with “Open Lot Area” as a requirement for single family lots and
“Designed Outdoor Recreation Area” for multi-family and mixed-use developments. The
Council suggested a revision to the definition of “Designed Outdoor Recreation Area”
that would include a requirement that the space should be accessible to the intended
users. The proposed definitions are included in the proposed text changes (attached) and
include the suggested revision. The attached chart reflects how the standards would be
applied. Proposed PUD reduction standards are also included in the last few pages of the
proposed text.
“Open Lot Area” is proposed as a standard for single family and cluster (townhouse)
development, although cluster housing would have an option of providing either an “open
lot area” for each unit, or providing a more community “designed outdoor recreational
area”.
Multiple family residential uses as well as nursing homes would be required to provide
12% of the lot area as designed space. (12% is the current standard for “O” and “MX”
developments prior to allowable reductions.) Options for reductions would be allowed
by PUD (see below and attached).
PROPOSED PUD REDUCTIONS:
Currently reductions to open space requirements can be gained by dedicating park (or
cash in lieu of park dedication), being located in close proximity to a park, and through
the PUD process. Staff and the Planning Commission are proposing that reductions be
allowed only through the PUD process and recommended approval of amendments to the
PUD section of the code that identify measurable standards for allowing reductions. The
maximum 50% reduction would be applied only if land (or cash in lieu of land) is
dedicated for park. (The Subdivision Code requires park dedication of 20% of the total
land area of the development for densities over 10 units per acre.) Otherwise, the
proposed maximum reduction would be 33%, or equal to that currently allowed in the
MX District.
Effects on Future Development:
Single Family.
§ Clarifies what can be included in open space (decks, patios, gazebos).
§ Reduces R-1 standard from 600 to 400 square feet for consistency with other single
family districts. Allows greater flexibility for designing accessory structures and
additions on these lots. Greater lot area, setbacks and other limitations such as
maximum building coverage would still have to be met in the R1 district. The
attached diagram shows all of the zoning code requirements that result in “open area”
on a lot.
Multi-Family. Staff brought a table and comparison drawings showing the amount of
open space provided on several existing projects to the December 8 Study Session.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
031504 - 8d - Usable Open Space
Page 36 of 41
These showed that the amount of open space provided does not necessarily reflect the
quality or usability of the space or proximity and connection to other public spaces. The
new definition would ensure that the space is adequately designed and not just “leftover”
space. The proposed PUD standards for open space reductions provide a means to
review requests under consistent guidelines. Any reductions would only be approved at
the sole discretion of the City Council.
Next Steps:
In the process of identifying all of the sections of the code that would need amending in
order to implement the proposed changes in definition, staff would like to further review
how redevelopment plans are addressed in the code, both with respect to open space
requirements, tracking of approvals, and internal consistency. For this reason, staff is
proposing to go back to the Planning Commission with same additional amendments.
These then would all be brought to the Council together for first reading probably in
March.
Staff is still interested in Council direction with respect to making definition changes,
developing consistent standards, and consistent reductions via the PUD process.
Staff also intends to review the Rottlund proposal for the Quadion site using the proposed
standard for “designed outdoor recreation area”, if that is the Council direction. The
requirement is 12% of the land with allowable reductions via the PUD process. A
preliminary look at a recently submitted concept plan that includes the four single family
properties on Oxford Street indicates that the proposed “designed outdoor recreation
space” is at about 10% of the project area. They will be required to provide cash in lieu
of park dedication, which is one of the proposed criteria for allowing a reduction via the
PUD process. With an allowable 2% reduction, the “designed outdoor recreation space”
requirement would be met. Rottlund has also submitted a concept plan showing
development without the four single family properties where the “dora” is between 7.5%
and 8% of the project area and would require a 35% reduction via the PUD.
Attachments: Map of R1 distribution of lots less than 75 feet wide
Map of R1 distribution of lots less than 9,000 square feet
Drawing showing requirements for building coverage in R1 and
R2
Table A, Proposed Zoning Code Revisions
Proposed Text Changes to definition and PUD reductions
Prepared By: Judie Erickson, Planning Coordinator
952-924-2574 or jerickson@stlouispark.org
Approved By:
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
031504 - 8d - Usable Open Space
Page 37 of 41
Garage
House(Principle Building)
RearYard
FrontYardBackYard
#
Side 2
#
Side 1
#
BUILDABLE AREALimited by GFAR
Use District Requirements
R1 Zoning District R2 Zoning District
Min. Lot Area 9,000 sq.ft. Min. Lot Area 7,200 sq.ft.
Ground floor area ratio 0.3 Ground floor area ratio 0.3
Setbacks Setbacks
Front = 30 feet Front = 25 feet
Rear = 25 feet Rear = 25 feet
Side 1 = 9 feet Side 1 = 7 feet
Side 2 = 6 feet Side 2 = 5 feet
Side abutting street = 15 feet Side abutting street = 15 feet
Principle building cannot occupy the entire buildable area, it can
only occupy 0.3 of the total lot area.
Lot Diagram
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
031504 - 8d - Usable Open Space
Page 38 of 41
Proposed Zoning Code Amendments related to
definition of “Usable open space”.
Definition: Sec 36.4
Usable open space means a required ground area or terrace on a lot which is graded,
developed, landscaped and equipped and intended and maintained for either active or
passive recreation or both, available and accessible to and usable by all persons
occupying a dwelling unit or a rooming unit on the lot and their guests. Usable open
space has a minimum dimension of 30 feet. Roofs, driveways and parking areas do not
constitute usable open space.
Designed Outdoor Recreational Area means designed outdoor space intended for passive
or active recreation accessible and suited to the needs of residents and/or employees. The
area shall be functional and aesthetic, designed with clear edges, relate to the principal
building or buildings, include sidewalk connections, seating, landscaping, and other
amenities. The area should be compatible with or enlarge upon existing pedestrian links
and public parks or open space and may include swimming pools, tot lots, courtyards,
plazas, picnic areas, and trails within natural areas. Outdoor recreational areas shall not
include driveways, parking areas, steep slopes, or ponds designed solely for stormwater
retention.
Open Lot Area means an area of a lot, not located within a front yard or side yard
abutting a street that has a minimum dimension of 20 feet in all directions and does not
include a building, driveway, outdoor storage, or parking space. Open covered porches,
gazebos, decks, and patios are permitted encroachments into the open lot area.
Proposed Zoning Code Amendments related to
allowable reductions to open space requirements
via the PUD process.
TABLE 36-367A
ALLOWABLE MODIFICATIONS IN PUDS
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
031504 - 8d - Usable Open Space
Page 39 of 41
Chapter Requirement
Distance from property lines, except when
abutting residentially zoned or used property
No required yards
Distance from other buildings As building code allows
Building height No maximum if consistent with the
comprehensive plan
Density 10% increase or as consistent with the
comprehensive plan
Ground floor area 5% increase
Floor area ratio Limited by height, density and ground floor
area restrictions
Usable open space Designed Outdoor
Recreation Area
20% 33% decrease consistent with
provisions below. If land or cash in lieu of
land is dedicated for park, then the decrease
may be increased to 50% according to
provisions below.
Parking 15% decrease in addition to other allowable
chapter reductions
(4) An applicant for a PUD seeking modifications as permitted in table 36-367A shall
demonstrate how the proposal will enhance, support, and further the
following objectives:
a. Provide for integrated pedestrian facilities to and within the project;
b. Enhance linkages to mass transit facilities;
c. Increase the supply of low-income and moderate-income housing;
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
031504 - 8d - Usable Open Space
Page 40 of 41
d. Incorporate implementation of travel demand management strategies as
part of the PUD plan;
e. Provide public plazas and usable open space designed outdoor recreation
area which exceeds minimum chapter requirements; and
f. Provide a high degree of aesthetics through overall design and display of
public art.
(5) If the applicant is seeking modifications to the use district requirements for designed
outdoor recreation area, those modifications are allowed at the sole
discretion of the City Council based upon the following provisions.
a. Reductions of up to 50% of the designed outdoor recreational area shall be
approved by PUD at the sole discretion of the City Council only if the site
meets of the following requirement:
Land or cash in lieu of land is dedicated for parks, trails, and open space
on a one for one basis up to a maximum of 50% of the requirement.
b. If the full park dedication reduction is not taken, the City Council may
consider reductions if the site meets one or more of the following
requirements, but in no case may the reduction for these items exceed 33%
or the cumulative reduction exceed 50% of the requirement:
1. Permanent accessible open space or regional trail is located on land
within 600 feet of all buildings within the development and meets all of
the following:
i. Such open space or regional trail shall be deeded as public and
designated in the Comprehensive Plan as Park or must be
protected by covenants which ensure its perpetuation for public
use.
ii. The land area of such open space must be at least twice the size
of the recreational area credit requested for the development
site.
iii. The development includes logical pedestrian/bicycle
connections to the open space or regional trail.
iv. The location of building service areas is away from the open
space or in heavily screened areas.
v. Design and location of buildings shall complement the scale
and character of the open space, and
vi. Use of substantial landscaping is provided to create transitions
between the development and open space.
Projects meeting all of the open space/trail requirements may reduce
designed outdoor recreational area requirements by up to 20%
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
031504 - 8d - Usable Open Space
Page 41 of 41
2. Public Art. Recreation space credits for public art are granted at the
sole discretion of the city council and may reduce designed outdoor
recreational area requirements by up to 20%.
3. Other public amenities. Recreational area credits for public amenities
are granted at the sole discretion of the city council and may reduce the
designed recreational area requirements by a maximum of 20%.
4. A redevelopment plan has been adopted into the Comprehensive Plan
that approves reductions to designed outdoor recreational area by a
maximum of 33%.
5. Indoor parks. Recreation space credits for significant indoor
recreational space, such as a park or courtyard, may be granted at the sole
discretion of the city council and may reduce designed outdoor
recreational area requirements on a one for one basis by up to a maximum
of 20%
St. Louis Park City Council
Item: 031504 - 8e - 1st Reading Catering as Accessory Use
Page 1 of 7
8e. WHIOP Real Estate LTD’s application for an amendments to St. Louis Park
Ordinance Code (Zoning) to allow catering as an accessory use to certain uses
in the Office District.
Case No. 04-02-ZA
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve 1st reading of an ordinance amending Section
36-115 and 36-223(f) regarding catering and set second reading
for the April 12th City Council meeting.
Background:
WHIOP Real Estate LTD has requested a text amendment to allow catering as an accessory use
in the Office District if accessory to a restaurant, food service, delicatessen, grocery store or retail
bakery. This text amendment has been requested in order to accommodate a restaurant with
liquor and catering operations in the Interchange Office building, in the space formerly occupied
by Yvette’s restaurant. Staff is proposing an alternative amendment which would meet the
applicant’s needs.
On May 15, 2000, the City Council approved a text amendment that created a definition for
catering, (see attachment) established the zoning districts which would permit a catering
business, and determined parking requirements for catering operations. As such, a catering
business is currently permitted as a principal land use in the Industrial Zoning Districts, and is
permitted as an accessory use to restaurants, food services, delicatessen, grocery store or retail
bakery in the Commercial and Mixed Use Districts. City records indicate that the Office District
was not discussed at any of the public meetings, nor was it contemplated in the staff reports.
Planning Commission Action:
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing for the application at it's February 18,
2004 meeting, and no one from the community was at the meeting to speak. On a 6-0 vote, the
Planning Commission recommended the City Council approve the amendment as recommended
by staff.
St. Louis Park City Council
Item: 031504 - 8e - 1st Reading Catering as Accessory Use
Page 2 of 7
Issues:
• What are the proposed text amendments?
• What are the anticipated effects of the proposed amendments?
• What is the effect of the proposed amendment on WHIOP’s plan for a restaurant to
occupy the space formerly occupied by Yvette’s?
Issues Analysis:
What are the proposed text amendments?
The applicant is asking that the same considerations that currently extend to catering in the
Commercial and Mixed-Use Districts also apply to the Office District. The applicant is
proposing that section 36-223(f) be amended to add the following:
(6) Catering if accessory to a restaurant, food service, delicatessen, grocery store or retail
bakery.
Staff is recommending the following text amendments:
Section 36-115 Table 36-115A
Zoning
Districts R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-C C-1 C-2 O I-P I-G M-X
Catering N N N N N A A A PC P A
Section 36-223(f):
(6) Catering if accessory to a restaurant, food service, delicatessen or retail bakery
with the condition that all vehicles used in connection with the catering operation
be stored within a building or screened area of a parking structure or in a legal off-
site location.
• What are the anticipated effects of the proposed amendments?
St. Louis Park City Council
Item: 031504 - 8e - 1st Reading Catering as Accessory Use
Page 3 of 7
Staff believes catering could be allowed as an accessory use to restaurants, food services,
delicatessens and retail bakeries in the Office District as effectively as it is in the Commercial
and Mixed Use Districts.
The proposed amendment would allow catering as an accessory use in the Office District in the
same manner it is allowed in the Commercial and Mixed Use Districts by allowing restaurants,
food services, delicatessens and retail bakeries to use their existing kitchen facilities to prepare
and deliver food to off-site locations (cater).
Staff believes grocery stores do not fit within the criteria in which the Zoning Ordinance allows
retail uses in the Office District, and therefore is recommending that grocery stores not be
included in the amendment. Retail uses are allowed in the Office District as long as they are part
of an overall office development, in which case, the retail development would be compatible and
complimentary to the office development. Staff believes that grocery stores are not compatible
and complimentary to office developments, and therefore, recommend not including grocery
stores in this amendment. Staff will be initiating additional future amendments to the Office
District to help clarify this and similar issues.
Truck traffic, noise, odor, and refuse handling are all associated with restaurant, food services,
delicatessens and retail bakery uses as well as catering. These impacts are currently reviewed
through the approval process for each of the primary uses and staff believes the catering
operation is not a substantial enough accessory use to require additional review.
Outside storage is not permitted in the Office District, and staff is recommending calling out this
standard in the proposed catering amendment to clarify the fact that vehicles used in conjunction
with a catering operation would have to be either stored inside a building or parking ramp, or
stored off-site. If catering vehicles are to be parked in the ramp during office hours, the applicant
would need to show that parking requirements could still be met.
What is the effect of the proposed amendment on WHIOP’s plan for a restaurant to occupy
the space formerly occupied by Yvette’s?
A restaurant is in the process of occupying the space formerly occupied by Yvette’s, and it is
their plan to conduct a catering business out of this facility. As part of the proposed catering
operation, the restaurant needs to store 1 – 2 box-style delivery vehicles, and it was originally
their plan to store these vehicles within the Interstate office building parking ramp, or at the
Santorini’s restaurant site. Each of these options, however, poses a problem. As mentioned
St. Louis Park City Council
Item: 031504 - 8e - 1st Reading Catering as Accessory Use
Page 4 of 7
above, outside storage of vehicles or equipment is not permitted in the Office District, and the
trucks are too tall and cannot fit within the parking ramp. Therefore, the trucks cannot be stored
at the Interchange site. Outside storage of vehicles or materials also is not permitted within the
General Commercial District, therefore, they cannot be stored at the Santorini’s site.
The effect the proposed amendment has on the proposed restaurant is that it would allow catering
as an accessory use to the restaurant, however, the restaurant owner would have to either use
vehicles that can be stored within the parking ramp where they are not visible from off-site, or
the applicant would have to secure a location where they can be legally stored off-site. In
speaking with the restaurant owner, he stated he has property in Golden Valley where the trucks
can be stored. So vehicles will not be stored at either the Interchange or Santorini’s property.
Recommendation:
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the attached ordinance amending
Section 36-115 and 36-223(f) regarding catering and set second reading for the April 12th City
Council meeting.
Attachments:
1. Proposed Ordinance Amending the Office District accessory uses.
2. Definition of Catering as found in the St. Louis Park Zoning Ordinance.
Prepared By: Gary Morrison, Asst. Zoning Administrator
952-924-2592
gmorrison@stlouispark.org
Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Definition of Catering as found in the St. Louis Park Zoning Ordinance
Section 36-142(e)(2):
St. Louis Park City Council
Item: 031504 - 8e - 1st Reading Catering as Accessory Use
Page 5 of 7
Catering means an operation where food is either fully or partially prepared on site and delivered
to the customer off site for final preparation and consumption. Characteristics include truck
traffic, refuse storage issues, limited on-site public contact, and possible odors from materials
and processing.
St. Louis Park City Council
Item: 031504 - 8e - 1st Reading Catering as Accessory Use
Page 6 of 7
ORDINANCE NO. _________
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO
ZONING BY AMENDING SECTIONS 36-115 and 36-223(f) REGARDING CATERING
THE CITY COUNCIL OF 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. 04-02-ZA).
Sec. 2. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Section 36-223(f) Office District: Accessory
Uses is amended to add the following:
(6) Catering if accessory to a restaurant, food service, delicatessen or retail bakery
with the condition that all vehicles used in connection with the catering operation
be stored within a building or screened area of a parking structure or in a legal off-
site location.
The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Section 36-115 Table 36-115A is amended as
follows:
Zoning
Districts R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-C C-1 C-2 O I-P I-G M-X
Catering N N N N N A A A PC P A
Sec. 3. The contents of Planning Case File 04-02-ZA are hereby entered into and made
part of the public hearing record of decision for this case.
Sec. 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective fifteen (15) days after its
passage and publication.
St. Louis Park City Council
Item: 031504 - 8e - 1st Reading Catering as Accessory Use
Page 7 of 7
ADOPTED this ______ day of ____________, 2004, by the City Council of the City of
St. Louis Park.
(Insert Signature Block Here)