Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004/08/16 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - RegularAGENDA SUMMARY CITY COUNCIL MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA August 16, 2004 7:30 p.m. 6:40 p.m. – Planning Commission Interviews, Westwood Room 1. Call to Order a. Pledge of Allegiance b. Roll Call 2. Presentations a. Amphitheater Award b. Junior Leaders Recognition 3. Approval of Minutes a. City Council Minutes of August 2, 2004 b. City Council Study Session Minutes of July 26, 2004 c. City Council Study Session Minutes of July 12, 2004 d. City Council Special Meeting Minutes of July 12, 2004 Action: Corrections/amendments to minutes - Minutes approved as presented 4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion. Action: Motion to approve the agenda as presented and to approve items listed on the consent calendar (Alternatively: Motion to add or remove items from the agenda, motion to move items from consent calendar to regular agenda for discussion and to approve those items remaining on the consent calendar). 5. Boards and Commissions 6. Public Hearings 7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public - None 8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions 8a. Request by Stonebridge Development and Acquisition, LLC. for an amendment to the City’s Comprehensive Plan to change the land use designation from Civic to High Density Residential and adopt a Redevelopment Plan for the property for a residential senior housing cooperative known as Aquila Commons. Case Nos. 04-23-CUP 8200 33rd Street West Recommended Action: • Motion to adopt resolution approving a Comprehensive Plan map amendment changing land use designation for property at 8200 33rd St W. from Civic to High Density Residential and text amendments to Chapter P of Comprehensive Plan 2000 – 2020 contingent upon Metropolitan Council review. 8b. City Engineer’s Report: Lamplighter Pond Storm Water Improvement Project – Lift Station Replacement – Project No. 00-18A This report considers the replacement of an existing storm sewer lift station located at Pennsylvania Avenue and Franklin Avenue, near Lamplighter Pond. Recommended Action: Motion to adopt the attached resolution accepting this report, establishing and ordering Improvement Project No. 00-18A, approving plans and specifications, and authorizing advertisement for bids. 8c. City Engineer’s Report: 2004 Trail Improvement Project, City Project No. 04-03 This report considers the construction of various sections of new trail in accordance with the city’s sidewalk, trails, and bikeway plan Recommended Action: Motion to adopt the attached resolution accepting this report, establishing and ordering Improvement Project No. 04-03, approving plans and specifications, and authorizing advertisement for bids. Motion to adopt the attached resolution accepting a grant from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resource (DNR) for partial funding of regional trail connections. 8d. Adjustment to the City Manager’s Salary Recommended Action: Motion to adopt a resolution confirming a salary increase for the City Manager and paid time off effective August 1, 2004. 9. Communications 10. Adjournment Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make arrangements, please call the Administration Department at 952/924-2525 (TDD 952/924- 2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting. ST. LOUIS PARK CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 16, 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 a 6 month extension of Shelard Homes (Lurie Apartments) Conditional Use Permit until February 16, 2005. 4b Motion to enter into a Clean Water Partnership Agreement for Vegetative Maintenance at Twin Lakes Park with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. 4c Motion to adopt a resolution appointing election judges for the Primary and General Elections to be held September 14 and November 2, 2004. 4d Motion to adopt the attached resolution rescinding Resolution No. 03-134 and authorizing the installation of one-hour parking restrictions from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. on the east side of Xenwood Avenue from Excelsior Boulevard to a point 150 feet north of Excelsior Boulevard. 4e Motion to approve second reading and adopt an ordinance amending St. Louis Park Ordinance Code (Zoning) to amend the regulations pertaining to variances in the Floodplain Districts and regulations pertaining to the Floodplain Districts by adding clarifications required by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA); approve summary ordinance and authorize publication. 4f Motion to approve second reading of ordinance vacating West 37th Street between Alabama Avenue and Wooddale Avenue and alley north of Oxford Street and east of Alabama Avenue, adopt ordinance, approve summary and authorize its publication. 4g Item moved to Action Agenda – Please see Item #8d 4h Motion to approve resolution authorizing final payment to Hulegaard Construction for Runnymead Lane (Area #1) and Dahl Property (Area #9) storm sewer improvement project 4i Motion to approve a Temporary On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License – Holy Family Catholic Church, 5900 & 5925 W. Lake St., St. Louis Park for September 18 & 19, 2004 4j Motion to accept for filing the Fire Civil Service Commission Minutes of May 6, 2004 4k Motion to accept Vendor Claims (Supplement) 4l Motion to accept for filing the Housing Authority Minutes of June 9, 2004 AGENDA SUPPLEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING August 16, 2004 Items contained in this section are those items which are not yet available in electronic format and which are identified in the individual reports by inclusion of the word “Supplement”. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 081604 - 3a - Council Minutes of 8-2-04 Page 1 UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA August 2, 2004 1. Call to Order Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm. Council members present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, John Basill, Phil Finkelstein, Paul Omodt, Susan Sanger, Sue Santa, and Sally Velick Staff present: City Attorney (Mr. Scott), City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Director of Community Development (Mr. Locke), Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Hunt), Fire Chief (Chief Stemmer), Human Resources Director (Ms. Gohman), Planning Coordinator (Ms. Erickson), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Stegora-Peterson). 2. Presentations 2a. Junior Naturalist Appreciation Michelle Franken, Activity Specialist at the Westwood Nature Center, was present at the meeting and together with Mayor Jacobs presented certificates to the Junior Naturalists in appreciation of their volunteer service. The Jr. Naturalishts had volunteered a total of 988 to date this year helping with kids camps, ponds, wild flowers, Monarch monitoring and, animal care. Mayor Jacobs also thanked the families for their support of the program. 3. Approval of Minutes 3a. City Council Minutes of July 19, 2004 Councilmember Basill commented that the minutes were very thorough and very accurate. The minutes were approved as presented. 4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion. 4a Designate Parsons Technologies the lowest responsible bidder and authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of $496,543.00 for construction of a fiber optic network to connect certain City and School District buildings. 4b Accept vendor claims for filing (Supplement) 4c Accept for filing the BOZA minutes of May 27, 2004 4d Accept for filing the Human Rights Commission Minutes of June 16, 2004 St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 081604 - 3a - Council Minutes of 8-2-04 Page 2 Mr. Harmening recommended that item 8c be removed from the agenda and be rescheduled for the August 16th, 2004 meeting. It was motioned by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to approve the Agenda with the deletion of item 8c, and items listed on the Consent Calendar. The motion passed 7-0. 5. Boards and Commissions It was motioned by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to appoint Marjorie Douville to the Fire Civil Service Commission. The motion passed 7-0. 6. Public Hearings 6a. Public Hearing - Elmwood Village Tax Increment Finance District Resolution No.’s 04-090 and 04-091 Mr. Hunt indicated he had no further comments beyond those submitted at the EDA meeting, however Hennepin County had submitted testimony that they requested be included in the record. He summarized their comments regarding the Elmwood Village Renewal and renovation TIF District, they found the TIF Plan does not identify the type of housing, whether it would be rental or ownership, or the age range or income level of the targeted market for the units; however, since the TIF would be used as a funding mechanism of last resort to maximize the density of housing units, it appeared the TIF District satisfied the preference of the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners for use of tax increment financing. Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing and with no one present to speak the public hearing was closed. Councilmember Basill indicated that one of the changes was the decision to sell the office building. He had some concerns about the outside and asked the developer if they were going to refurbish it before it was sold, or if that would be up to the seller? Michael Noonan, Rottlund Homes, replied that their intention had always been to sell the office building. When they were before the Council previously, there was the intention to sell it to Sherman and Associates and that transaction had not transpired and their intention was to take the office building to the market. They planned to refurbish the outside and as well as additional work to make it ready for sale. They anticipated that the work would take place later this month or early September. Councilmember Basill noted that he saw a couple of the Elmwood neighborhood leaders present and it was nice to see them sitting next to the developer. Mayor Jacobs indicated the reason no one spoke was because they had been speaking before which was good. It was motioned by Councilmember Basill, seconded by Councilmember Finkelstein to adopt Resolution No. 04-090 approving the elimination of parcels from the Trunk Highway 7 Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing District (Hennepin County TIF District No. 1302), within Redevelopment Project No. 1 in the City of St. Louis Park; and, to adopt Resolution St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 081604 - 3a - Council Minutes of 8-2-04 Page 3 No. 04-091 modifying Redevelopment Project No. 1, establishing the Elmwood Village Tax Increment Financing District, and adopting a Tax Increment Financing Plan therefor. The motion passed 7-0. 6b. Public Hearing - Aquila Commons Tax Increment Finance District Resolution No. 04-092 Mr. Hunt presented the staff report. Hennepin County had sent a letter regarding the proposed Aquila Commons Housing TIF District, since the TIF would be used as a funding mechanism of last resort for development of ownership housing for moderate income seniors, the TIF district satisfied the preference of the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners for the use of tax increment financing. Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. Tom Racette, 3341 Texas Av. S, had lived in the area for 28 years and was very familiar with the area and the proposed TIF District. He had attended neighborhood meetings and was concerned about the size of the project and traffic impacts in the neighborhood. He stated that a petition in opposition to the project had been signed by over 100 people also concerned with the size and scope of the project, traffic and the impact a project of that size would have on the neighborhood. He stated that the concept was good and the neighborhood wanted to see good development, but the proposal was too big. He had talked with a number of neighbors and the consensus was if Stonebridge could bring the structure to two-stories, he believed it would be welcomed with open arms and be a win/win for everyone. He had asked if that would be possible and the response had been that it depended on whether TIF financing was available from the City. He suggested exploring that possibility, but was concerned that Councilmember Sanger was not in favor of TIF financing for this project. Councilmember Sanger responded she was not conceptually opposed to all TIF financing in all circumstances, it was just this particular proposal. Tracy Burns, 3301 Virginia, Aquila Neighborhood Assn, indicated they had been spending a lot of time talking about this and the neighbors were alarmed and worried about the size and scope of the project. She would like to see a smaller building. She had spoken to people that supported the project as proposed, one family that wanted to move in, one man that had a moving business and thought he could make money from it and a third person that was worried about other larger projects that might be proposed should this one fail. She was not opposed to redevelopment of the site and knew the site could not remain vacant forever. She would like to see something smaller that they could be happy with and good neighbors with. Mayor Jacobs indicated that Council’s proposed actions for the TIF District and the Comp Plan amendment (8a), wasn’t constraining the City from having these discussions. He wanted to be clear that what was on the table now was the establishment of the TIF District and then a Comp Plan amendment. He acknowledged the concerns expressed about the project, and stated that many of the details needed to be discussed. Mr. Locke replied that the action now was creating the TIF district and did not commit the City to the St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 081604 - 3a - Council Minutes of 8-2-04 Page 4 specific project that had been designed to illustrate how this might work. It also did not preclude the City from ending up approving a project that was two or four-stories or a specific number of units. Mayor Jacobs asked if it locked them into any particular TIF number. Mr. Locke replied no, it set a maximum, but it didn’t lock them in. Ms. Burns stated that they had heard a lot from the developer and City staff that there was a minimum economic level at which they could produce this building and this development. She had heard over and over that they couldn’t seem to do it for anything less. That was very consistent and they were trying to see if there was a scenario where they could do something less, if it were doing something with the TIF or making a different layout of the building with larger units, she didn’t know what the magic scenario would be. Mr. Harmening explained that they had generally agreed that $1 million in tax increment assistance would be something at this point in time the City was comfortable with. That was based on 122 units. If the number of units went down, perhaps by eliminating a floor or two, the amount the developer could afford to pay for the land would go down too. Even though the number of units would be less many of the development costs would remain the same. One of the largest costs is the land acquisition cost. Presumably if the cost of the land stayed the same, and the price the developer could afford to pay dropped, then the funding gap for the project would increase and therefore the request for tax increment assistance would go up. The current request for assistance, based on a 122 unit building is $1 million. A smaller building would require more tax increment help. The amount of additional help needed, he couldn’t guess at. It was a function of the size of the project, if there were more units on the project, the tax increment assistance would be less, if there were fewer units in the project, the TIF assistance would be more. Ms. Burns thought perhaps instead of $40,000 to get into the building, a prospective buyer could be required to pay $50,000; it was still not a huge difference. This could be a way to cover the funding gap created by building a smaller building. Mayor Jacobs felt those were legitimate questions that needed to be discussed after they passed on the issue of the establishment of the TIF district. A concern he had was the fact that it set a maximum because of what the City Manager just said and if the unit count went down, the TIF assistance may need to go up and he was not sure by how much. The amount of assistance would depend on the number of units. Mr. Locke replied that the tax increment consultant could address that issue. Stacie Kvilvang, Ehlers and Associates, indicated essentially what Mr. Locke was stating, that the TIF budget set the maximum, so they were looking at 122 units. The maximum tax increment that would be generated for that district would be much more than $1 million. They had just reduced the term of the district for the purposes of creating the development agreement. If in fact there were more units, they could look at accommodating a larger tax increment amount if that was the way they chose to move forward in the future. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 081604 - 3a - Council Minutes of 8-2-04 Page 5 Mayor Jacobs clarified if there were less units, they would need more TIF. He wanted to make sure that the Council had the maximum flexibility to continue this discussion, so if the number of units changed, they could accommodate that in a tax increment financing number. Ms. Kvilvang replied that the present value on the tax increment was in excess of $3 million, so they had a couple million of “wiggle” room. To the extent that they would need more than that, they would need to look at redoing the district. Councilmember Santa asked if it were correct to say if they went with 122 units, they could anticipate a pay back in nine years, however if they lowered the number of units, they could anticipate an extended period, perhaps 13-15 years for a payback? So the number could stay the same, but the payback period could be extended? Mr. Locke replied the amount of increment that was generated depended upon how much development was put on the site. If they reduced the number of units on the site, they would likely reduce the total amount of tax increment generated, but would increase the need for tax increment assistance for the developer to be able to afford to do the project. For this project to move forward there are a couple of pieces to the puzzle. One was creating the TIF District which made it possible for the City to collect tax increment dollars which the City could spend how the City saw fit, including assisting this project. There was a second piece, that was more generic, which was entering into a contract with the developer that spelled out how much development they were going to create, what the value was and how much assistance they would be provided. That would be the piece that would vary depending on how many units and how much assistance they needed. Mr. Racette expressed concern that the development agreement would be before the Council on August 16th, which was not enough time to hold neighborhood meetings. He suggested deferring until alternate proposals could be presented to the neighborhood. Mr. Locke stated there was a certain amount of “chicken and egg” aspect to these situations in that they don’t go through all of the work to create a TIF district unless there was a viable proposal that showed the TIF numbers would work. What had been proposed would work. There was nothing saying that they would have to put the development agreement on the August 16th meeting if the Council wanted to change the nature of the project. Mr. Locke indicated that once the City created the TIF district, the City still had to figure out the terms of a deal. If the Council wanted to do a different project than had been proposed, the district could be created and it may take more time to come up with a different project. Councilmember Sanger commented that when they talked about whether the perceived need for TIF financing might be increased, to bear in mind that they were thinking about it only in terms of the current proposed governance structure of this building, the structure of a limited equity co-op. If they were willing to consider other forms of building governance, they may very well find that they could still build senior housing with far less need, or perhaps not any need for TIF financing. She urged that the developer consider other alternatives and not let themselves have a very narrow perspective on the alternative. The second comment went to the issue of flexibility, if a St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 081604 - 3a - Council Minutes of 8-2-04 Page 6 Comp Plan amendment were passed, the City would lose a lot of flexibility because once that was changed, the developer had far more leverage to build what he wanted. It seemed to her that particular decision ought to be deferred until there was a clear consensus on what kind of building and how much money was involved. Gene Storman, Board President of Windemere Condominiums, felt that the city shouldn’t let the developer go two more weeks and put in more time if there was a possibility of reducing the scope of the project. He pointed out the level of opposition referring to the signatures on the petition. The comments he was hearing from persons opposed were “too big,” “too high,” and “too much traffic being generated onto Virginia.” He was aware of what the traffic study showed, but was still concerned about entrance onto Texas from 32nd. He did not believe the developer had interest in reducing the scope of the project. The developer had said that they made significant changes in the project based on the neighbors input, yet the only change was to reconfigure the four-story element because of the zoning setback and height requirements. He asked the city to consider the possibility of participating to a greater degree with TIF. Ron Bell, Stonebridge Development, stated that they had two neighborhood meetings. At the first meeting, some of the things that were brought up were building height, traffic, perceived property values and reduction, shadow casts, neighbors wanted to see what the building would look like from various perspectives and models, they wanted to see other examples of similar developments where there were three and four-story buildings near single family homes, additional enhancements to create more green space were requested and that the density was too high. As far as the building mass and heights, they listened to the neighbors and tried to do everything they could, keeping in mind the economics of the property and the cost of the land. A major concern had been the six single-family homes along Texas where they had the four-stories. They reconfigured the building, moving that four-story piece closer to a park where there were no single-family homes. Traffic was also a concern and the City hired SRF Engineers (at the developer’s expense) who were present to talk about the traffic study. They had hired Maxfield Research to study surrounding property values and the impact of senior co-ops on surrounding neighborhoods. Their study showed that at four other Sr. Co-ops the property values next to the co-op increased about 8% in the year following the year that the co-op was built. The shadow cast by the proposed development met city requirements, but a summertime shadow study was requested and the developer provided that, as well. They had provided building elevations and examples of similar developments. Additional enhancements were another concern and the developer had asked to have 14 surface parking spaces be shown as proof of parking. The current high density housing zoning that was on the property would allow for 137 units of mixed market rate housing on the site, which would create a lot more traffic and be a bigger building than what they were proposing. They had chosen to do 122 units of senior housing. Based on the eight concerns expressed by the neighborhood, the developers felt that they had worked very hard and spent a considerable amount of money to get studies done. They had held two neighborhood meetings and had tried to address as many concerns as possible. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 081604 - 3a - Council Minutes of 8-2-04 Page 7 Wally Johnson, Stonebridge Development Company, stated that this was their first venture at a cooperative. Their reason for pursuing a cooperative on this site was the market value of the homes in the existing neighborhood, the price points the market would support and the senior population of this area. The need for a 122 unit building was simply a product of the acquisition price of this property which is $1.9 million (there was an appraisal that supported that) and other development costs. They also had about $360,000 of asbestos and other abatement costs that needed to covered. He expressed his belief that a limited equity cooperative would work in this location. They had made a number of modifications to the project as a result of neighborhood input. He noted that developments of this kind were not affecting the value of nearby single- family homes. Their decision to do a limited equity co-op and how the economics worked had been explained at many meetings of Planning Commission and City Council. This model was what they believed was best for this neighborhood and offered a housing option not available elsewhere in the city. There were other proposed condominium buildings at much higher price-points, $350,000 and up, but this was not the neighborhood for that type of building. TIF assistance provided maintenance of a long-term parking lot, the street light and was covering and writing down the cost of the building that affected the sales prices. The limited equity was going to be for the citizens of St. Louis Park for a long time and allowed people to get into this building at an affordable cost for a number of years. They had tried to share numbers with everyone in terms of construction estimates, financing costs, etc. Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing. Councilmember Santa asked to hear about the traffic study. There were several questions that came up at the neighborhood meeting that she did not see specifically addressed in the study, specifically traffic on Utah between 33rd and 34th. Another concern and point of interest was what peak hour was? How did that work and what did it mean when they said that there were 13 cars during the peak period? Carla Stueve, SRF replied that the cut-through issues on Utah between 33rd and 34th were considered. Cut-through traffic occurred for a couple of reasons, the first reason it would occur was if the main route was congested and someone was trying to avoid it. The intersection of 33rd Street and Texas Avenue was operating at level of service “A” which was not found very much in the Metro area and was the best level of operation. There was also a traffic signal, so it was very easy to access Texas. There was plenty of capacity at 33rd and Texas, so trying to avoid the congested route was not an issue. The other reason that cut-through would occur was if there was a very direct route or an easier route to take. Utah South of 33rd was very circuitous down to Knollwood Mall. The majority of traffic would either go down Texas or go to the West on 33rd and go South on Aquila. If there was some cut-through in the neighborhood, it would be very minimal. The driveway on 33rd would be mainly used by visitors. The main resident access was off Virginia so the number of trips that would be during the PM peak hour by visitors would be very low. Councilmember Santa stated that they heard a comment about how difficult it was to get from 32nd onto Texas. Ms. Stueve replied they looked at that in detail, which was St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 081604 - 3a - Council Minutes of 8-2-04 Page 8 something that they didn’t normally do. But they had someone sit at that intersection during the AM and PM peak periods, from 7-8:00 AM and then from 4:30-5:30 PM; and count the delay for vehicles on 32nd trying to access Texas. The average delay during the AM peak period was two seconds and the average delay during the PM peak hour was seven seconds. The perception may be that they were waiting longer than they really were, but the average delay was pretty low. That intersection was also operating at a level of service “A” and was consistent with what the traffic model was telling them. The trips that were projected to be generated by this development were based on the ITE Trip Generation Reports, which are based on hundreds of studies over many years of different land use types. During the AM peak hour the number of trips projected for this development was ten trips. That meant ten total trips, five in, five out, for example during the AM peak period. During the PM peak period 13 trips were projected, during a one- hour period. Mayor Jacobs clarified that they were just dealing with the establishment of the tax increment finance district, although comments and discussion had gone beyond that topic. Councilmember Omodt stated he had some concerns. He had no doubt about the integrity of Stonebridge, he had met with them and visited properties with them and thought their reputation was solid. He agreed with Mr. Racette who talked about making this a win/win and was afraid that they would set an expectation by approving this which meant one thing to one group and another thing to the other group and that the “chicken and egg” question was not going to be answered the way they wanted. He struggled because some people were saying that the height of the nursing home was three-stories, when he was there he only counted two. If they couldn’t even count the same stories, they were all in a different spot. He had not been in a third story in that building, as far as he could tell there were only two above-ground stories. Mr. Mehl indicated that there were three stories on the side where it dropped off along 32nd on the West. Councilmember Omodt thought depending on where you stood it was two or three. They were moving a little too fast and that there were too many questions. Even though they said there would be some “wiggle” room, he would rather have them come back. There were other developers that had spent a lot of time meeting and usually they came up with pretty good results (Elmwood and Methodist Hospital for example). He didn’t think this was ready. He didn’t have a problem with TIF on this property; he just thought this building didn’t fit with the character of the neighborhood, and that they needed to do more work. If they needed to adjust the scale and scope of the project to meet the character of the neighborhood, they would all be ahead. He asked the City Manager if this could be deferred to another time. Mr. Harmening responded with regard to the tax increment creation, they could do that. They had several options available, they could approve the creation of the tax increment district or deny it, or continue this matter to a later date if they wished and take action at that time. There were no time constraints associated with it. Where they did run into some time constraints was on the Comp Plan amendments. They had to take some kind of action within the 60/120-day rule, either approve or deny or get an extension from the developer. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 081604 - 3a - Council Minutes of 8-2-04 Page 9 Councilmember Omodt asked if they knew what that date was specifically? Mr. Locke replied that he believed they had the ability to continue for another month, until September 2nd or 3rd, which would be the end of the 120-day cycle. Councilmember Velick indicated that they were doing two things on this project, one was to establish a TIF District and the second was to approve the Comprehensive Plan amendment. Both of those items would make no difference whether or not this project specifically, was approved. Later on in the process, this would become a PUD and then they would have far more leverage to discuss the height, and traffic studies, in additional to any other neighborhood concerns. She believed these items should go ahead at this meeting. Mr. Harmening added if the Council were to approve the creation of the tax increment district and the Comp Plan amendment, there were a minimum of two other approvals needed. One would be that the EDA would have to approve a development agreement that laid out the amount of assistance and the terms of the deal, not unlike what was approved for the Rottlund project. The other was approval of a PUD and perhaps a plat that went into the specifics of the building height, materials, traffic, landscaping, etc. Having said that, he didn’t want to diminish the importance of what they were doing. They would be expressing an interest in the project by creating the tax increment district and amending the Comp Plan, but they were not committing to this project if they approved those items. Councilmember Omodt asked if they took off the Civic Designation from this parcel of land, what stopped the developer from selling the land to someone who could put in a six-story building or something with higher density? Mr. Harmening replied given case law and other determinations made by land use attorneys, even if they did not change the land use designation or Comp Plan, a developer could propose a project within the realm of the zoning and ultimately build it with a Civic designation on the site. Mr. Scott added that when they had a conflict between the Comp Plan and the Zoning ordinance, the Zoning ordinance did control. The law was that they were not supposed to have those conflicts and that they were supposed to take steps to eliminate them, but from the standpoint of someone applying, if they had a conflict, which they did have, there was a strong argument that the Zoning ordinance controlled. Councilmember Finkelstein spoke in favor of the concept of a limited equity senior co- op. He thought it clearly passed the “but/for” test. This was an asbestos infested building that sat vacant for two years and was looking worse every month. Prior to that time it was utilized as the Talmud Torah School which had a fair amount of traffic. In regard to the limited equity cooperative, he believed that was the most attractive portion of this concept in the sense that they were keeping it affordable for the seniors of St. Louis Park now and in the future and he thought it met the needs of the City and the neighborhood. He thought they should do this and vote in favor of a tax increment finance district. In regard to the second issue, he asked if they could approve the tax increment financing, but hold off on the decision of the Comp Plan? Mr. Harmening replied they had the time to do that within the realm of their time restrictions. Councilmember Finkelstein wanted to see a limited equity senior co-op and thought even the neighborhood agreed that it was a good concept. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 081604 - 3a - Council Minutes of 8-2-04 Page 10 Councilmember Santa stated she was torn on this. She liked the concept of a limited equity senior co-op. She thought Stonebridge had come up with a proposal that had some very attractive elements, but felt that there had not been nearly enough neighborhood meetings. They had talked about two neighborhood meetings and knew that similar projects had two meetings a week. There were a lot of issues that had been raised by the neighborhood and they had not had an opportunity to discuss them thoroughly with the developer or City staff. There were still a lot of issues that needed to be discussed about this project, which was not to say that it didn’t have some really good elements. She was in favor of setting up a tax increment finance district because she thought it was necessary to get a project on this property. She would like to do that and would also like to see a lot more neighborhood meetings with the developer and staff to discuss some of these issues so that they could come to a resolution. It was her firm belief that a project could only benefit from neighborhood input. She pointed out the fine work that was done at Excelsior and Grand as a foremost example of what a developer, City staff and neighbors working together could come up with that was far better than the vision of anyone person. It was motioned by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Finkelstein to adopt Resolution No. 04-092 modifying Redevelopment Project No. 1 and establishing the Aquila Commons Tax Increment Financing District and adopting a Tax Increment Financing Plan therefor subject to City Council approval of the pending amendment to the City’s Comprehensive Plan changing the land use designation of the subject property. Councilmember Basill indicated he was in favor of approving the tax increment financing, because he thought he even heard from the neighbors that they wanted some redevelopment there. He wanted the neighbors to understand that he wasn’t approving any kind of density on the site. They had jumped ahead a little by talking about that, which was OK because it was coming, but he wasn’t looking at how many units per acre or the height of this building that should be allowed. They were not approving the number of units or the building height now, and he wanted residents to understand that they were only approving the TIF district. What the TIF district would allow was something that they were all on the same page about, which was some redevelopment for the site, eventually. By approving the TIF district, it did not mean that they were going to end up with a certain amount of units, or a certain height. They would have to determine that down the road and that was why he was OK moving ahead with the TIF district. Councilmember Omodt stated he would be voting against the TIF because he thought it was too much, too soon. He would rather see a more defined plan before them instead of saying that they were just going to do something later. To Councilmember Finkelstein’s comments, he disagreed because the developer bought the building knowing that it had asbestos. It had been sitting vacant for two years. It was not asbestos “infested” and the kids that went to Talmud Torah were not running around in an asbestos infected school, and then the next day they bought it. He thought it was a scary word to put out there for kids that might have gone there to think that they might have been at risk. Frankly, it was the property owner’s duty to keep the property up to code and they could not let it sit and deteriorate, they needed to comply with zoning and property maintenance. He didn’t want people believing they could let their property deteriorate and then get tax increment dollars, because that was not the way it worked. They needed to look at tax increment as a “but/for” test, and if the project had a community benefit. The City also had to make St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 081604 - 3a - Council Minutes of 8-2-04 Page 11 sure property owners kept up their property. He disagreed that the building was infested and that those kids were at risk. Councilmember Finkelstein replied with regard to the asbestos, it was clear that it made reuse of the building in its present condition difficult. The motion passed 5-2, with Councilmembers Omodt and Sanger opposed. 6c. Public hearing for petition of Rottlund Homes to vacate West 37th Street between Alabama Avenue and Wooddale Avenue and alley north of Oxford Street and east of Alabama Avenue. Request of Rottlund Homes for a final 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 to construct 78 townhouse units, 66 condominium units, and 80 senior condo units and with a variance from the subdivision ordinance for private street width and a PUD modification for building height. Case Nos. 03-75-VAC, 03-73-PUD, 03-74-S. Resolution No. 04-093 Ms. Erickson presented the staff report. Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. Kirk Hawkinson, 6008 Goodrich Av., indicated on the other project they had done a study of traffic in the area, which wasn’t done on this. The stoplight on 36th and Wooddale was not very residentially friendly. It was set up for people to cut-through on 36th and go onto Highway 7. Were they going to make two left turn lanes? Ms. Erickson replied as part of the Elmwood study that was done prior to this project, they looked at Wooddale Av. and a two-lane street in each direction with a landscaped median between 36th St. and Oxford St. was being proposed. It would allow for a left turn from Wooddale going onto 36th St. and also allow someone to continue going straight. Oxford would remain a one-way. Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing. Councilmember Basill asked if the timing with the median on Wooddale was different than this project? Ms. Erickson replied that was correct. There had not been a date set for that. As part of the development proposal, they were dedicating additional right-of- way on the West side of Wooddale Av. and giving an easement for additional right-of- way on the East side so there would be right-of-way in place to do that project. Councilmember Basill agreed with Mr. Hawkinson’s comments that the intersection was not that friendly and he wanted to make sure that there were other concerns with that road being widened and that it was a long-term project and there would be a public process. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 081604 - 3a - Council Minutes of 8-2-04 Page 12 Councilmember Sanger asked if the developer could provide an idea of the price ranges in the buildings? Will there be three separate condominium associations, or just one? If they were separate how would there be governance or oversight on the common areas and outdoor space? Michael Noonan, Rottlund Homes, replied that they were proposing three housing types, the senior condominium, the loft condominium in the middle and the townhouses. The loft condominiums would be the most affordable beginning with base prices in the $180’s, which would match with the Met Council’s affordable housing targets that had been established, in fact below their numbers. The next affordable would be the senior condo which would be in the range of $225,000, and the townhouse would be $275- 280,000. The square footages ranged at 950 sq. ft. in the lofts, the senior condos about 1250 sq. ft. and the townhouse about 1800 sq. ft. Councilmember Finkelstein asked what the range of prices would be? Mr. Noonan responded the starting prices would be buying the base model, and the individual would have the ability to purchase additional options for cabinetry, flooring etc. Councilmember Finkelstein understood that, but asked if it would range from $225- 250,000? Mr. Noonan believed on average, the purchasers were probably putting somewhere between $0 to $25-30,000 in terms of extras and upgrades. In terms of the governance structure, they were going to have a master association to cover the ground of the entire site which would be responsible for the maintenance of the roads and the underlying utilities as well as the common areas and the storm water management pond. The individual buildings would have their own sub-associations, which would be responsible for the structures themselves, the underground parking, as well as the exterior shell and the roof. That way they had individual housing units responsible for their own upkeep and maintenance while the collective were responsible for the common areas and grounds that they all enjoyed. Councilmember Basill stated that they talked earlier about the office building and that it would get a face left which was positive. To compliment that, he knew this was an issue brought up by staff and at some of the neighborhood meetings, for the neighbors that were not in attendance, he wanted them to be aware that any garage levels that were exposed would be done with class one material which was important for residents who had asked that question and were not aware of that. That was a positive development. It was motioned by Councilmember Basill, seconded by Councilmember Sanger to approve first reading of ordinance to vacate West 37th Street between Alabama Avenue and Wooddale Avenue and alley north of Oxford Street and east of Alabama Avenue and set second reading for August 16, 2004; to approve Resolution No. 04-093 for Final PUD with conditions; and, to approve Resolution No. 04-094 for Final plat with conditions. The motion passed 7-0. Mr. Harmening wanted to take a moment to recognize the hard work that had gone into this project to get them to this point. It started with the Elmwood study, which was undertaken in cooperation with Hennepin County and it was gratifying to see the results of that study for part of the Elmwood neighborhood area. He thanked the neighborhood for their St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 081604 - 3a - Council Minutes of 8-2-04 Page 13 perseverance and patience, along with the developer and staff. Working together they were able to come up with a product that everyone felt would be an asset to the community. Councilmember Basill was at countless meetings. It took a while and they were not sure they would get to this point, but through a lot of hard work they were able to accomplish it. Mayor Jacobs echoed Mr. Harmening’s comments. This was a story he liked telling because in most communities you didn’t have the developer sitting alongside the neighborhood in which they were going to do the development. That was a testament to both the developer’s willingness to talk to the neighborhood and the neighborhoods willingness to talk to the developer. It was an attainable vision and a testament to staff facilitating meetings with the neighborhoods and developers. 7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None 8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions 8a. Request by Stonebridge Development and Acquisition, LLC. for an amendment to the City’s Comprehensive Plan to change the land use designation from Civic to High Density Residential and adopt a Redevelopment Plan for their property for a residential senior housing cooperative development. Case Nos. 04-23- CUP 8200 33rd Street West. Mr. Locke presented the staff report. Councilmember Finkelstein thought it made sense if they were going to be talking about having more neighborhood meetings, delaying action at this point to give the parties more time to talk, although he really wanted to see a limited equity co-op. Mayor Jacobs though that was what he had heard from the neighborhood, but the question was not whether they had a limited equity senior co-op, the question was dimension and scale and the details. Councilmember Santa indicated she would hate to see this drag on and didn’t think it was fair to the developer or the neighborhood. She understood they had another 30 days? Mr. Locke responded that the 120 days would expire September 2nd or 3rd and there was only one more Council meeting before that on August 16th. Councilmember Santa stated she was hearing on the Council that there was a desire to defer. She would not want to defer more than two weeks. She wished to see more neighborhood meetings, one for the six homes most impacted on the East who had very specific issues significant to them and no one else, and then a more generalized meeting with other neighbors who had expressed some concerns. It was motioned by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Finkelstein, to continue the discussion to the August 16, 2004 Council Meeting. Councilmember Velick stated that she would have approved this at this meeting and was unsure that they would gain anything in two weeks, that they wouldn’t have gained even if they approved the Comprehensive Plan. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 081604 - 3a - Council Minutes of 8-2-04 Page 14 Mayor Jacobs agreed, but didn’t see any harm in waiting two weeks, other than a little delay. He didn’t know how many meetings they would be able to have. They would have a much more detailed discussion during the PUD discussions about the actual details of the project. Councilmember Basill stated if they were going to delay it for two weeks, he would like to know what they were talking about for the proposed density and the number of units per acre. He knew they were just approving a change, but that had been the substance of the conversation and if they should approve that when they didn’t know the density. He didn’t have any of those facts and knew normally they didn’t do that, but it this process had gotten ahead of itself and he would like to know that because if it became a part of the conversation he would like to have that information to make comparisons to other projects done in the city and look at the density. When they talked about the number of stories, he asked what that meant in feet. He would like to have that information. Councilmember Sanger indicated that her concern was what they thought would be accomplished by delaying this two weeks? She didn’t want to raise the expectation of neighbors that something significant would actually change in two weeks. They ought to be clear about the expectations. Mayor Jacobs thought that it would allow for more mutual education. What they saw with the Quadion development was the classic example of mutual education that the developer needed to be sensitive to what the neighborhood was concerned about and why. And, conversely, the neighborhood needed to understand the economics, maybe they hadn’t had an opportunity to explore it and what impact taking off a story of this building would have on a project. His guess was that taking off a full story might end up “killing” it and was that really what the neighborhood wanted? They needed to have that discussion and have some communication and relationship building and education back and forth. Councilmember Sanger asked if in two weeks there were any realistic expectations that even if there was some agreement, that maybe this project ought to be changed in some way, that it actually would be changed and there would be revised plans and revised financial numbers in two weeks? Mr. Harmening replied that was a good point. To expect that they would have issues worked out with the neighborhood, the developer and the City in less than two weeks was probably unlikely, but it allowed them to explore further with the neighborhood and organize a meeting. A central issue, which had become apparent to him, was building height and massing. From a traffic perspective, not to dismiss those concerns, that was probably not an area where staff had a major concern. Given what had been on that site before as a school and what was being proposed, the traffic impacts were even less with the proposed senior project than what was experienced on the site before as a school. They needed to spend time on building height and massing and understanding what the neighborhoods concerns. Typically it related to density, which transferred to traffic. That was not necessarily the situation here. Then you look at issues of shading and view sheds and massing and how it felt and what it might require was more graphic work by the developer or visiting another project. By spending a lot of time working on that, he thought people began to understand how it would feel. That didn’t mean a three or four- story building was right for this site, but they needed to spend more time talking which St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 081604 - 3a - Council Minutes of 8-2-04 Page 15 would require more effort by the developer and staff. They wouldn’t have the answers in two weeks, but they might feel more comfortable that it was something they could continue to move on, understanding they still needed development agreement approval and PUD approval. The motion passed 7-0, Councilmember Sanger voted no. 8b. Resolution approving contract with International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) #993 – Firefighters for 1/1/2004 - 12/31/2005 Resolution No. 04-095 Ms. Gohman reported that they were pleased to have their fifth of five contracts and the settlement with the Firefighters. This was consistent with the other agreements and with a lot of time, patience, and much conversation they had an agreement. She thanked Chief Stemmer and the Battalion Chief Lindstrom on this contract along with the negotiating team members from the Fire Division, Lieutenant Antinson and Firefighters Ryan and Dobish. It was motioned by Councilmember Finkelstein, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to adopt a resolution approving a Labor Agreement between the City and International Association of Firefighters (IAFF) #993, establishing terms and conditions of employment for two years: 1/1/04 – 12/31/05. Councilmember Finkelstein complimented Ms. Gohman and Chief Stemmer and was pleased to see the health savings account. Mayor Jacobs echoed Councilmember Finkelstein’s comments and indicated it was a testament to the relationship that existed between the City of St. Louis Park and the various labor unions that they were able to get the labor agreements done with a minimum of disruption. It was a lot of work, but there were no arbitrations or disharmony. He congratulated both sides. The motion passed 6-0-1, Councilmember Omodt was absent. 8c. City Engineer’s Report: Lamplighter Pond Storm Water Improvement Project – Lift Station Replacement – Project No. 00-18A Deleted from agenda. Rescheduled to August 16, 2004. 8d. Proposed Amendments to Section 36-33(d) and Sections 36-291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298 and 299 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code relating to Zoning to amend the regulations pertaining to variances in the Floodplain Districts and regulations pertaining to the Floodplain Districts by adding clarifications required by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Case Nos. 04-35-ZA Ms. Erickson presented the staff report. Councilmember Sanger asked regarding the section on recreational vehicles in floodplains, assuming they passed these changes, could they still apply and enforce the existing ordinance that had limitations on parking recreational vehicles? Secondly, if they passed this ordinance, would it permit someone to operate a parking lot for recreational vehicles in the St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 081604 - 3a - Council Minutes of 8-2-04 Page 16 floodplain? Ms. Erickson replied yes, whenever there were conflicting laws, the more stringent would apply. Parking lots were permitted to be in the floodplain, so if there was a storage yard someplace for recreational vehicles, it could also be in the floodplain. Councilmember Sanger asked if it would still be subject to the Zoning code? Ms. Erickson replied that was correct. It was motioned by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Velick, to approve 1st reading of the ordinance amending Section 36-33(d) and Sections 36-291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298 and 299 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code relating to Zoning to amend the regulations pertaining to variances in the Floodplain Districts and regulations pertaining to the Floodplain Districts by adding clarifications required by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and set second reading for the August 16th City Council meeting. The motion passed 7-0. 9. Communications Mayor Jacobs indicated that National Night out would be tomorrow and St. Louis Park would be holding 100 parties. Mayor Jacobs noted as the contract with the City Manager required, an evaluation was performed of the City Manager and facilitated by the Organizational Development Director, Bridget Gothberg. Council Members were given the opportunity to give feedback and evaluate the manager on a number of different areas, both communication with the Council, with the public and with staff, as well as management and communication styles and general leadership abilities. In general the evaluation was excellent. Mr. Harmening was doing a wonderful job and they were proud of him. The consensus of the Council was that the new City manager had not only met, but far and away exceeded their expectations and done a very good job. Mayor Jacobs indicated that the dog park was now open by Bass Lake. It was a temporary interim use until they found a more permanent location. 10. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ City Clerk Mayor St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 081604 - 3b - Study Session Minutes of 7-26-04 Page 1 UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION July 26, 2004 The meeting convened at 7:00 p.m. Present at the meeting were Councilmembers John Basill, Phil Finkelstein, Paul Omodt, Susan Sanger, Sue Santa, Sally Velick and Mayor Jeff Jacobs. Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Community Development Director (Mr. Locke), Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Hunt), Finance Director (Ms. McGann), City Engineer (Ms. Hagen), Director of Inspections (Mr. Hoffman), Environmental Health Officer (Mr. Camilon), Parks and Recreation Director (Ms. Walsh), Enviromental Coordinator (Mr. Vaughan), and City Clerk (Ms. Reichert). 1. Tax Increment District Update Finance Director, Ms. McGann and Mark Ruff of Ehler’s and Associates met with council to review the financial conditon, debt management and future value of the city’s tax increment districts. She presented findings and recommendations which were outlined in the report and welcomed questions from the council. Councilmember Velick inquired if TIF funds could be used to acquire property for public purpose. Mr. Ruff responded that the city could indeed purchase property, but would have to subsequently sell to a developer. Councilmember Sanger asked if there was a way to protect the city against legislative changes. Mr. Ruff replied that the city had done a good job of anticipating changes in TIF legislation in the past and was in a good position to weather further changes. Mr. Harmening said that our best protection is to ensure that when a developer requests TIF the city uses due diligence to ensure the responsible use of that funding tool. 2. Excelsior Boulevard Reconstruction A representative from the Hennepin County Transportation Department presented the County’s 2005 Capital Improvement Plan. He showed the three project areas for Excelsior Boulevard and the components of each. Councilmember Sanger noted that no bike trails were incorporated into the design. ____ indicated that there was a designated trail as part of the sidewalk and trail system that crosses the bridge over highway 100 and then runs to the south of excelsior blvd which was a safer route given space limitations along excelsior. Council suggested improved signage as an alternative. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 081604 - 3b - Study Session Minutes of 7-26-04 Page 2 Councilmember Finkelstein would like to see public art incorporated along the corridors. Councilmember Sanger would like to revisit the size of the medians and stated that she felt they should be increased. Ms. Hagen replied that staff would take Council’s comments into consideration and see what they could do. Councilmember Basill inquired whether all roadways that currently intersect with excelsior will remain open. ____ responded that roads which “T” with Excelsior Blvd will be closed, but roads that cross will remain open. Ms. Hagen described the stakeholder involvement process to be used with the projects. She stated that staff would meet with business owners during a day in September and the four affected neighborhood groups during an evening in September. She added that they will initially hold meetings with right of way impacted properties. Mr. Harmening stated that the model used with the East Excelsior reconstruction allowed businesses to take advantage of the commercial rehabilitation program. Mr. Harmening stated that a possible special service district may be used on the west Excelsior Boulevard reconstruction. 3. Consideration of Rental Licensing Mr. Hoffman stated that both staff and individual Councilmembers had concerns regarding one and two family rental housing and would like to consider adopting a licensing and inspection program for that type of housing. Councilmember Velick inquired if additional staff would be needed once such a program has been implemented. Mr. Hoffman replied that an extra staff person would be needed but inspection fees would cover the cost. Councilmember Sanger would like to see condominiums and townhomes included in the program as well as vacant homes. Mr. Harmening stated that staff would move forward with creating an ordinance and will bring it to Council very soon so that the ordinance could become effective in January of 2005. Councilmember Santa felt they needed more data on condos and townhomes before including them in the program. Mr. Camilon stated that he did not feel the condos and townhomes were problematic. Councilmember Velick would like to start with one and two family homes for the time being. Councilmember Basill was concerned about landlords passing the fee on to renters. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 081604 - 3b - Study Session Minutes of 7-26-04 Page 3 Mayor Jacobs pointed out that there may be opposition to this program, but that he still believed it was for the good of the residents of St. Louis Park. 4. Budget Ms. McGann stated that the proposed budget assumes a 3% property tax levy increase, 3% employee wage and benefit increase, dispatch funding, reduction of Market Value Homestead Credit, elimination of 2004 adopted revenue for street/sidewalk repairs, and a transfer of funds from the Police and Fire Pension to Technology Support Services. Councilmember Finkelstein felt public lots should be paid for by the users of the lots. Councilmember Santa felt that the public was willing to pay more to continue receiving the level of service they are accustomed to. Mr. Harmening stated that Council would need to consider increased spending in 2005 for contracting out tree trimming as well as transfers from the Police and Fire Pension Fund to the General Fund. Councilmembers Basill and Sanger brought up the possibility of providing sidwalk shoveling service to all residents of the City. Councilmember Santa felt they must do a good job of informing the public about the city’s financial situation and impactson services. We must let the public know that if they want additional services there will be additional cost. Mayor Jacobs did not want to tie an increase to a particular service. Councilmember Velick reported that eighteen percent of residents are seniors and it is hard for them to pay extra. Councilmember Finkelstein asked for a report on how we are doing with the already enacted budget cuts. Ms. McGann stated that she would prepare a report with an update on the status of those cuts. Tree Timming/Removal Ms. McGann outlined the special assessment proposal for diseased trees for both public and private trees. She stated that residents are very interested in a payment plan. Councilmember Santa felt that trees are a community benefit. Councilmember Basill brought up the fact that some residents paid for the protective injection for their trees and are now paying for removal of those trees. Ms. Walsh stated that they need to distinguish between public and private trees. She suggested adding the rotational trimming of boulevard trees. Councilmember Sanger felt they also needed to bring back the trimming and clean up list. Ms. Walsh stated they could establish the list and then do rotational trimming. She added that she will put together some options to consider. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 081604 - 3b - Study Session Minutes of 7-26-04 Page 4 Councilmember Basill felt that residents who paid for an injection and still had to have their tree removed should receive a reduced tree removal cost. Mr. Vaughan stated that he will look at the possibility of doing that. Councilmember Basill suggested providing an incentive for residents to purchase tree injections. Councilmember Sanger suggested injected an y remaining elms after this year. Mr. Locke stated that there is a natural incentive for residents to inject elms to avoid the cost of tree removal. Mr. Harmening summarized that the Council is flexible on the amount of increase on the property tax levy, that a tree trimming contract may be possible to add back into the budget, the new budget will not rely as heavily on the Police and Fire Pension Fund, staff will propose a policy change to allow for special assessments for public and private tree removal, and staff will provide background information on budget cuts from 2004. Councilmember Santa also wanted an update on revenue increases. Ms. McGann reported that funds from the Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund can be used to cover the increased cost of tree removal. 5. Communication The Council discussed the content of neighborhood newsletters. Mayor Jacobs asked if council wanted to discuss a proposed Hennepin County smoking ban at a future meeting. Staff agreed to place the item on the tentative agenda for a future meeting. 6. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ City Clerk Mayor St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 081604 - 3c - Study Session Minutes of 7-12-04 Page 1 UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION July 12, 2004 The meeting convened at 7:06 p.m. Councilmembers present: John Basill, Phil Finkelstein, Paul Omodt, Susan Sanger, Sue Santa, Sally Velick and Mayor Jeff Jacobs. Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Public Works Director (Mr. Rardin), City Engineer (Ms. Hagen), Director of Inspections (Mr. Hoffman), Environmental Health Official (Mr. Camilon), and City Clerk (Ms. Reichert). 1. 2003 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Ms. McGann introduced representatives of Kern, DeWenter, Viere, Ltd., who had performed the 2003 audit. The city had issued an unqualified opinion of the financial statements of 2003, which is the highest opinion that can be offered. Ms McGann and the auditor reviewed the management report and discussed the health of the various funds of the city. Council discussed the possibility of receiving an additional 1.6 million from the state and impacts on the budget if that were to occur. Mr. Harmening cautioned council against relying on that money in their calculations as it was likely not to occur. 2. Relationship between Community Education and the City of St. Louis Park Ms. Walsh introduced Linda Severaid, Community Education Director, and provided a historical overview of the relationship between the City and the Community Education Department. Ms. Severaid distributed a handout outlining the principles and philosophy of Community Education Services. She felt that Community Education was perhaps the most important outreach tool available to the school district, as programs touch residents from birth to death. She also explained the mission of the Community Education Advisory Commission and provided some information on its structure. Councilmember Velick asked about the future of the Eliot School Building. Ms. Severaid stated that the intent of the district is to repair and update the structure. Mayor Jacobs commented on the relationship between the school board and city council stating that he believed good communication was key to the success of both boards. Ms. Severaid informed the council that the school board was considering a levy referendum on the November Ballot. Ms. Walsh spoke briefly about the relationship between the City’s Parks and Recreation Department and the School District’s Community Education Department. There are funds exchanged each year and programs and services are offered in cooperation between the two departments. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 081604 - 3c - Study Session Minutes of 7-12-04 Page 2 Ms. Severaid requested council to consider an increase in funding for senior programming stating that she understood the council was operating under tight budgetary controls due to the economy and political climate. Council agreed to consider that possibility as they move forward with the 2005 budget planning process. 3. Louisiana Court Update Staff and representative of PPL met with council to provide an update on the financial status of Project for Pride in Living’s Louisiana Court Development. Steve Kramer and Barbara McCormick from PPL and Mark Ruff of Ehler’s and Associates were in attendance. Ms. Schnitker gave an overview of the financial situation stating that goals that had been set earlier were not being met. PPL is proposing a stabilization plan which includes capital investments, better programming for resident retention, introduction of new tenants with rental subsidies and supportive services, improved support services for persons with special needs and reductions in operating expenses. Possible city contributions could be tax abatements, project based rental assistance and additional police support, possibly in the form of a resident officer. Ms. Schnitker recommended that an independent management consultant conduct an assessment of PPL’s program, goals and management practices. Councilmember Sanger asked if the PPL’s proposed actions were sufficient to address the root causes of the problems. PPL responded that they have conducted surveys to determine those root causes, and that results indicated that PPL needs to have a stronger presence at the site. Social problems should be addressed which would improve resident retention. Councilmember Finklestein asked what exactly is being done to help with some of the social issues. Ms. McCormick responded that PPL is trying to provided a higher level of social assistance. She believed even more social assistance would be required. Mayor Jacobs cited the success of the Meadowbrook Collaborative in turning around a very bad situation there, and suggested a similar model may need to be put into place at Louisiana Courts. Mr. Ruff stated that financial problems being experienced by PPL are not due entirely to PPL’s management, but that the economy and tax laws were also significant contributing factors. Councilmember Omodt stated he was not happy with the performance of PPL’s management and stated that he believed PPL staff was not entirely honest with the council at their last presentation. For him, tax abatement was entirely out of the question. Councilmember Basill believed that putting money into enhanced safety and security for the residents would help with the problem of resident retention. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 081604 - 3c - Study Session Minutes of 7-12-04 Page 3 Ms. Schnitker suggested that staff move forward with retaining an independent consultant to assess PPL’s management practices and if council agreed, staff would work with the consultant to provide a detailed analysis and report for the council at a future date. Mr. Harmening asked PPL staff if it would be helpful to have a letter of support from the city as they move forward with securing various grants as part of their plan. They indicated that a letter would be helpful. Councilmembers were supportive of providing such a letter. 4. Housing Summit Discussion of Draft Goals and Public Input Process Staff met with council to review revisions made to the draft housing policy and draft housing goals that had been made after the Housing summit meeting of June 24th. Ms. Schnitker explained that they were looking for approval from the council on the goals prior to beginning the next phase of the public process. Mr. Locke stated they were not intending to take a finalized document to the focus groups, but rather, wanted to seek public reaction to broad statements as a basis for starting discussions. Councilmember Sanger was concerned that the statements were too broad and felt more specificity needed to be added. Councilmember Basill suggested the goals be ranked in importance by the council prior to distribution them in a public forum. Mr. Harmening said that the intent of public process is not to conduct scientific statistical research, but to provide a starting point for public discussion. Therefore, the goals were presented as broad statements. Ms. Larsen indicated that the goals would also be put on the city’s website when they were ready. Mr. Harmening asked councilmembers to submit their written comments by email and staff would prepare another draft for their review. 5. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 10:28 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ City Clerk Mayor St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 081604 - 3d - Special Mtg Minutes of 7-12-04 Page 1 UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING July 12, 2004 The meeting convened at 7:00 p.m. Present at the meeting were Councilmembers John Basill, Paul Omodt, Susan Sanger, Sue Santa, Sally Velick, Phil Finklestein, and Mayor Jeff Jacobs. Also present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Engineer (Ms. Hagen); and City Clerk (Ms. Reichert) 1. 2004 Street Sealcoat Project Councilmember Velick asked if curbs on Virginia Avenue South could be installed at the same time this project was completed. Ms. Hagen responded that she would look into the request and give Councilmember Velick an answer at a future date. Councilmember Omodt asked if only two bids were received, would the project have to be rebid? Mr. Harmening stated that new bids were not necessary. Motion by Councilmember Velick, seconded by Councilmember Santa to designate Pearson Brothers, Inc. the lowest responsible bidder and authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of $126,211.70 for the 2004 Street Sealcoat Project, No. 2004-0001 Motion passed 7-0. The meeting was adjourned at 7:06 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ City Clerk Mayor St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 081604 - 4a - Lurie Apartments CUP Page 1 4a. Motion to approve a 6 month extension of Shelard Homes (Lurie Apartments) Conditional Use Permit until February 16, 2005. Case No. 02-40 CUP ( Originally Approved September 3, 2002) Background: On September 3, 2002, the City Council approved a Conditional Use Permit for Lurie Apartments to construct a mixed use residential and commercial building on the northeast corner of Ford Road and Wayzata Boulevard. An athletic club currently exists on site. The Conditional Use Permit is for a 5-story building, with approximately 5,800 square feet of office, 2,100 square feet of residential support area, 33 parking stalls on the first floor, and four floors of apartment above. Sixty five (65) residential units were approved. The developer has now applied for an amendment to the CUP and is proposing to change the project to condominium units with a revised site layout. The public hearing for the amendment is scheduled to be heard by the Planning Commission on August 18, 2004. In order to allow the CUP to be amended, the extension is requested. Previously the City Council approved two 6-month extensions for the project (on July 21, 2003 and March 3, 2004). The Ordinance states that conditional use permits are revoked and canceled after one year from the date of adoption of the resolution if no construction has occurred, unless an extension is approved by the City Council. Recommendation: Staff recommends extending the Conditional Use Permit until February 16, 2005 to allow for processing plan changes through an amendment to the CUP for Stonebridge Condominiums. Attachments: Letter from Stonebridge Development (Supplement) Prepared by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 081604 - 4b - MCWD Cooperative Agreement Page 1 4b. Motion to enter into a Clean Water Partnership Agreement for Vegetative Maintenance at Twin Lakes Park with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Background The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) has approached the City with a proposal to take over the maintenance of the south pond at Twin Lakes Park. They propose to recreate the landscape of the perimeter of the pond which is the shore land restoration area. They will be removing all of the existing vegetation except for mature trees and replacing it with a prairie grass and wildflower mix with native shrubs mixed throughout. City staff will work with MCWD on access routes through the park to the pond. Length of Agreement They will be maintaining this area for five years from the date of execution, which is the length of this agreement. Start Date The MCWD plans to start this project in September of 2004. The majority of the work will be completed in first year which includes removing shore land plants, seeding the area and applying erosion control matting. In the second year, MCWD will seed areas again, remove invasive plants and mow as needed. In year three, MCWD will burn the shore land plants and remove invasive plants. The entire project will be completed over a three year period. Resident Notification City staff will notify the residents of this project via mail. The contact for the project will be Jim Hafner, Senior District Technician, from the MCWD. The residents will be given his name and phone number as a point of contact. Jim Vaughan, Environmental Coordinator, will work with Jim Hafner to ensure that this project is completed. Attachments: Cooperative Agreement Prepared by: Jim Vaughan, Environmental Coordinator Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 081604 - 4b - MCWD Cooperative Agreement Page 2 COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT For Vegetation Maintenance At Twin Lakes Park, City of St. Louis Park The parties to this Cooperative Agreement are the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (“District”), a watershed district created pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103D; and the City of St. Louis Park (“City”), a municipal corporation of the State of Minnesota. Recitals and Statement of Purpose WHEREAS on November 23, 1994, the District and the City, along with the City of Minneapolis and Hennepin County, entered into a “Cooperative Agreement for a Clean Water Partnership Project” (“Clean Water Partnership Agreement”) to improve water quality in the Minneapolis Chain of Lakes; and WHEREAS pursuant to the Clean Water Partnership Agreement, the partners have constructed water quality/wetland basins in Twin Lakes Park adjacent to Twin Lakes and taken other actions to improve the water quality in those lakes and provide other water resource benefits; and WHEREAS under the Clean Water Partnership Agreement, the District assumed the responsibility to prepare a plan for maintenance of the improvements and the City assumed responsibilities for implementing the plan; and WHEREAS the project provided for the planting and maintenance of aquatic and riparian vegetation, which vegetation is in need of present and ongoing maintenance; and WHEREAS the District finds that the improvements, including the aquatic and riparian vegetation, provide regional water resource benefits and is willing to maintain that vegetation, and the City concurs in the District’s proposal to do so; NOW THEREFORE the City and the District enter into this Agreement to document the responsibilities to be assumed by each party; establish procedures to carry out these responsibilities; and facilitate communication and cooperation between the parties to ensure that aquatic and riparian vegetation associated with the Twin Lakes clean water project is properly maintained to achieve the water resource goals of those projects. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 081604 - 4b - MCWD Cooperative Agreement Page 3 AGREEMENT 1. This Agreement concerns the areas in Twin Lakes Park and adjacent to Twin Lake as delineated on Exhibits A and B, attached hereto and incorporated herein. 2. The District, at its cost, will prepare a vegetation management plan for the subject areas. The District and the City will cooperate in the District’s preparation of the plan. 3. On City approval of the plan, the District, at its cost, will assume responsibility for vegetation management in the subject areas in accordance with the plan. In its discretion, the District may enter into contracts and make other arrangements within its authority to carry out its responsibilities. Permit approval is required before work may begin on any City property. 4. The District will obtain permits and approvals from the City as necessary to implement the vegetation management plan, but will not be subject to permit fees. The City will cooperate in processing needed permits and approvals. The City, as landowner, will cooperate as necessary in the District’s obtaining of other permits and approvals as may be required to implement the plan. 5. The City will provide access and staging areas that are needed and reasonably convenient for any District management activity. Before performing any activity that may disrupt traffic or disturb adjacent lands or public use, the District will coordinate with the City to minimize these disruptions and disturbances in a way that does not substantially increase the cost of the work. The City will require grounds protection from heavy vehicles. The District must supply protection and in all cases will be responsible for removal of protection and restoration of the grounds. 6. The City will be responsible, at its cost, to notify the public of management activity to the extent the City and the District agree it is useful and appropriate to do so. The MCWD will provide at least 30 day notice to the City prior to the commencement of any scheduled maintenance. Any maintenance burning will be consistent with the procedures contained in City policies. 7. The District’s responsibilities under this Agreement extend only to the vegetation within the subject areas. The District is not responsible for management of vegetation or landscaping outside of these areas and is not responsible for the maintenance of any structures or trails. In accordance with the Chain of Lakes Agreement, the District remains responsible for major pond maintenance. The City will avoid any activity in the subject areas inconsistent with the vegetation management plan, and will take appropriate steps to prevent its personnel and contractors from engaging in any such activity. 8. The City and the District will meet at least annually to review activity under this Agreement. The District annually will provide an activity report to the City describing the work it has performed under the Agreement. 9. Each party acts under this Agreement pursuant to its own authority, and neither party acts as St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 081604 - 4b - MCWD Cooperative Agreement Page 4 the agent or representative of the other. Each party shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the other party, its officers, employees, agents and representatives from any and all actions, costs, damages and liabilities of any nature to the degree they are the result of any action or inaction that is the basis for the first party's liability in law or equity. Nothing in this Agreement creates any rights in any third party or waives any defense or immunity either party may have with respect to third parties. 10. This Agreement is effective when it has been fully executed by both parties, and will terminate five years from the date it takes effect. The Agreement may be amended only by a writing executed by both parties. 11. The failure of either party to insist on the strict performance by the other party of any obligation or to exert a right under this Agreement does not waive the party’s right in the future to do so. A waiver on one or more occasion of any obligation or right under the Agreement will not be construed to waive any subsequent obligation or right. 12. All communications under this Agreement shall be directed to Jim Hafner, Senior District Technician, on behalf of the District, and Jim Vaughan, Environmental Coordinator, on behalf of the City, except as either otherwise may provide in writing. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Cooperative Agreement. MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT, a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota, President Date APPROVED AS TO FORM AND EXECUTION Attorney Date CITY of ST. LOUIS PARK, a municipal corporation of the State of Minnesota, Attest: Cindy Reichert, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor (seal) Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 081604 - 4c - Appoint 2004 Election Judges Page 1 4c. Motion to adopt a resolution appointing election judges for the Primary and General Elections to be held September 14 and November 2, 2004. Background: Minnesota Statutes and City Charter require that election judge appointments be made at least 25 days before the election at which the election judges will serve. The attached resolution contains the names of individuals who have been selected to serve as election judges at this fall’s primary and general elections. The City Clerk’s office has completed updating and verifying the City’s election judge availability list. All individuals who have previously served as an election judge, were on the list submitted to the County Auditor by the major political parties, or have expressed an interest in serving as an election judge were sent a questionnaire and application to determine their interest, availability and qualifications. Desire to serve as an election judge is growing in our community. State law allows citizens to serve as judges without a loss in pay. We received applications from 233 persons this year and were able to place 210. Selection was made based upon the attached criteria. St. Louis Park will again be working with the city’s two senior high schools to recruit student election judges after school starts this fall. Council’s action on this resolution will serve to appoint judges for both the primary and general elections and training of judges for both elections will proceed almost immediately. Another resolution will be presented to Council in October to appoint student judges and to make adjustments in staffing that may be necessary prior to the general election. Additional training sessions will also be held in late October for student judges and other judges unable to attend the August sessions. Attachments: Resolution Appointment Criteria Prepared by: Nancy Stroth, Deputy City Clerk Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 081604 - 4c - Appoint 2004 Election Judges Page 2 ELECTION JUDGE PLACEMENT CRITERIA 2004 Election Year Statutory Requirements: • Live in Minnesota • Party Balance at Polls • Qualified to Vote in the Election Required Qualifications for Election Judge: • Ability to understand and follow City, County, State and Federal election laws, regulations and procedures • Ability to interact appropriately with the public, co-workers and election staff • Ability to clearly communicate rules, regulations, answer questions and resolve problems and conflicts • Ability to sit or stand for long periods of time Required Qualifications for Chair and Co-Chair: • Ability to supervise and direct activities of others in the polling place • Ability to interpret rules and procedures and apply in practical situations • Experience operating computerized equipment • Ability to maintain composure and focus in stressful situations • Ability to resolve problems and conflicts Other Considerations: • Resident of St. Louis Park • Past performance in the polling place • Comments received from public and co-workers in previous elections • Completeness and legibility of application materials • Placement of experienced SLP judges is based on qualifications and past performance • Appointments made to home precinct when possible St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 081604 - 4c - Appoint 2004 Election Judges Page 3 RESOLUTION NO. 04-______ A RESOLUTION APPOINTING ELECTION JUDGES FOR THE PRIMARY AND GENERAL ELECTIONS OF 2004 WHEREAS, Primary and General Elections will be held on September 14 and November 2, 2004 and the City must appoint judges no later than 25 days before each election by resolution of the City Council: NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the following persons have agreed to serve as Election Judges and are hereby appointed to serve: Ward 1 Precinct 1 Benilde/St. Margaret’s High School Schoen Lou Chair Steege Richard Co-Chair Enz Mary Leader Jackie Braunstein Farrel Steffes Barb Capra Sandy Larson Flora Laiderman Nessa Lee Brown Carol Struss Michele Hines Linda Zotta Brigit Ward 1 Precinct 2 Peter Hobart Primary Center Kusnetz Robert Chair Maynard Mary Co-Chair Hintz Todd Rheinhart Ethel Swenson Joyce Lindell Joseph Keedy Joanne Muszynski Mary Ann Nerheim Constance Laird Marilyn Ward 1 Precinct 3 Groves Academy Drache Kay Chair Bloom Janice Co-Chair Bratland Rose Stevenson Leah Murman Jeffrey Lovelace Laurice Robitz Doris Gruenberg Jo Krishef Dale Atlas Linda Hilgers Peggy Schaust Carol Ann Ward 1 Precinct 4 Groves Academy LaPray Jami Chair Novotney Dolores Co-Chair hairins Michael Botner Loren Cox JoAnn Kurtz J. Hamilton Worrell Edwin McGown Joyce Becker Donald Murman Gloria Malcomson Nanette Ward 1 Precinct 5 City Hall - Community Room Berthene Sandra Chair Lykken Laurie Co-Chair Olson Ferda Morris Gloria Walsh Carol Welch Rita Gleekel Barbara Ruhl Barbara Bloom Laura Smith Esther St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 081604 - 4c - Appoint 2004 Election Judges Page 4 Ward 2 Precinct 6 City Hall Council Chambers Juntunen Jan Chair Marsden Rick Co-Chair Barton Nancy Brehmer David Briesemeister Kathy Grimes Marie Loehr Nicol Meyer Michael Smith Pam Ward 2 Precinct 7 SLP Rec Center Plumeri Margaret Chair Wagner Catherine Co-Chair Bagloo Ira Cox David L. Hindin Hanna Johnston-Madison Claudia Leerssen Julianne Paul Mary A. Rasmussen Ruth Vekich Susan Wisely Susan Ward 2 Precinct 8 Susan Lindgren Intermediate Center Bloom Jon Chair Vitale Kristine Co-Chair Bunsness Karen Carlson Lawrence Charney Lori Freshman Phil Manuel Julie Anne Monson Patricia Roppe Joan Theissen Katherine Thornsjo Lucille Ward 2 Precinct 9 Aldersgate United Methodist Church Larson David Chair Bjorgaard Deb Co-Chair Benda Beatrice Campbell Mary Ennenga Mark Hansen Betty Hendrix Mary Kurtz Kirsten Roth Steven Smith Greg Stapleton Kris Ward 3 Precinct 10 Prince of Peace Lutheran Church Tape William Chair Deane Betty Co-Chair Byrd Kathleen Hawkinson Eileen Hill Geraldine Iacono John Johnson Carol Magdziarz-Rainey William Maier John Monroe Myrtle Quilling Shirley Saxl Susi Ward 3 Precinct 11 SLP Senior High School Nelson Dorothy Chair Serrell Judith Co-Chair Benson Janet Donovan Will Evers Betty Lou Galbraith Ardis Nalezny Lois C Noyes Patsy Shrupp Dorothy Silvernail Arleene Wasserman Sandra Ward 3 Precinct 12 Lenox Community Center Otterblad Patricia Chair Smits George Co-Chair Berglund Brenda Boser John Hemmerle John Holden Agnes Lawless Agnes Meyers Sally Nekola Barbara Polach Janet Scully MaryJo St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 081604 - 4c - Appoint 2004 Election Judges Page 5 Ward 3 Precinct 13 Aquila Primary Center Williams Michael Chair Bjoraker Erik Co-Chair Arlington John Grove Henry Harman Lori Isenberg Wendy Metzker Kathy Shirley Ted Swan Jill Weinstein Sheldon Ward 4 Precinct 14 Westwood Lutheran Church Stulberg Jean Chair Posz Albert Co-Chair Anderson Janet Dewing Jane Eakins Lilla Larson Sharon Ritter Donald Schoeneman Lew Stanchfield Sherm Tanick Paul Wheeler Mary Worthingham Vivian Ward 4 Precinct 15 Peace Presbyterian Church Martens Brenda Chair Carlson Cheryl Co-Chair Bierma Shirley Hartman Michele Just Carol Kasan Edward Koepcke Stephen Maier Marjory Rubinstein Esther Skelton Bonnie Solarz Dan Ward 4 Precinct 16 SLP Junior High School Christensen Mary Lou Chair Plovnick Ross Co-Chair Decker Sharon Fischels Angela Hood Susan Johnson Shirley (Precinct 16 continued) Mayes Nancy Nicholes Nancy Richards David Savick Elaine Ward 4 Precinct 17 Eliot Community Center Desens Helen Chair Wickersham Mary Co-Chair Bergquist Rogene Dell Ed Lipson Harvey Max Marilyn Peltier Kay Smith Alice Stalling Geri Weinstein Joan Absentee Ballot Board Judges Aslakson Barbara Berlin Nancy Evers Carol Huiras Ken Ploof Patricia Tangney Alice Varner Sim E. Alternate Judges Bunik Peter Chi Esther Disrud Emma Flatten Anna Goldman Arnold Haskvitz Dorothy Hofstedt Ardell Holden Mary Ann Johnson Millie Leerssen Julianne Liberman Morris I. Lipson Edith Magrino Michelle Richards Margie Siegle Anne VonEschen Brandee St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 081604 - 4c - Appoint 2004 Election Judges Page 6 Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council August 16, 2004 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 081604 - 4d - Xenwood Parking Restrictions Page 1 4d. Traffic Study No. 589: Motion to adopt the attached resolution rescinding Resolution No. 03-134 and authorizing the installation of one- hour parking restrictions from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. on the east side of Xenwood Avenue from Excelsior Boulevard to a point 150 feet north of Excelsior Boulevard. Background: Last year, the City received a request from the property/business owner at 5608 Excelsior Boulevard, Helmut Mauer, to install one-hour parking restrictions along the east side of Xenwood Avenue adjacent to his business. The request was initiated due to the all day, on-street parking that occurs from adjacent homes and businesses which makes access for tow trucks with vehicles and delivery trucks extremely difficult. The request was granted, and one-hour parking restrictions were authorized on September 15, 2003, through Resolution No. 03-134. Recently, a resident contacted the City to request that the parking restrictions be changed from one-hour parking restrictions at all times to one-hour parking restrictions only during business hours, which are 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. The owner was amenable to this change. Analysis: This is a minor change to existing signage. The intent of the 24-hour, one- hour parking restriction was to provide short-term parking for the business at 5608 Excelsior Boulevard. Changing the restrictions to allow unlimited parking during non- business hours provides the neighborhood with additional parking while still providing short-term parking for the business. Since this is a minor change and the parties involved were contacted and agreed to the change, no public notice was issued. City staff feels that this is appropriate for this situation. Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution rescinding Resolution No. 03-134 and providing for the installation of one- hour parking restrictions from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. on the east side of Xenwood Avenue from Excelsior Boulevard to a point 150 feet north. Attachments: Map (Supplement) Resolution Prepared by: Laura Adler, Engineering Program Coordinator Reviewed by: Maria A. Hagen, City Engineer Scott Merkley, Public Works Coordinator Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 081604 - 4d - Xenwood Parking Restrictions Page 2 RESOLUTION NO. 04-102 RESOLUTION RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 03-134 AND AUTHORIZING INSTALLATION OF ONE-HOUR PARKING RESTRICTIONS FROM 7 A.M. TO 5 P.M. ON XENWOOD AVENUE, NORTH OF EXCELSIOR BOUELVARD TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 589 WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota has been requested, has studied, and has determined that revised traffic controls are necessary at this location; and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 03-134 currently prescribes traffic controls in this area which need to be revised; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that Resolution No. 03-134, dated September 15, 2003, is hereby rescinded; and LET IT BE FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Director of Public Works is hereby authorized to install the following controls: 1. One-Hour parking restriction from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. on the east side of Xenwood Avenue from Excelsior Boulevard to a point 150 feet north of Excelsior Boulevard. Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council August 16, 2004 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 081604 - 4e - Floodplain Ordinance Amendments Page 1 4e. Motion to approve second reading and adopt an ordinance amending St. Louis Park Ordinance Code (Zoning) to amend the regulations pertaining to variances in the Floodplain Districts and regulations pertaining to the Floodplain Districts by adding clarifications required by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA); approve summary ordinance and authorize publication. Ca se Nos. 04-35-ZA Background: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) provides the city with Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM). These maps indicate the locations and types of flood zones throughout the city. The maps currently used by the city were completed in June of 1986, and since then, the city and property owners have initiated several amendments. In March of 2001 the City was provided with preliminary revised copies of the Flood Insurance Rate Maps. These revised maps include all of the amendments approved by FEMA since 1986, the date of the last approved maps. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management as required under the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 and the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968. As a condition of continued eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), the City must remain in compliance the NFIP regulations by amending or supplementing the existing floodplain management measures in force to reflect data shown on the latest FIRM modifications. Staff has received and reviewed the proposed maps and determined that they accurately portray the amendments submitted since 1986. Staff has also received a list of “Mandatory Revisions” as required by FEMA and the DNR. Staff has reviewed these revisions, and determined that they are clarification amendments only, and do not alter existing policy, or create additional regulations affecting the use of land. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing for the amendment at its July 21, 2004 meeting. No comments were received. The Commission on a 4-0 vote recommended the Council approve the amendments. At the August 2, 2004 City Council Meeting, staff presented the Planning Commission’s recommendations. The City Council considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission and staff and approved first reading of the attached ordinance on a 6-0 vote. Prepared By: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager Attachments Proposed Ordinance Proposed Summary Ordinance St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 081604 - 4e - Floodplain Ordinance Amendments Page 2 ORDINANCE NO. 2276-04 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 36 (ZONING) OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK CODE RELATING TO VARIANCES IN THE FLOOD DISTRICTS AND RELATING TO REGULATIONS FOR THE FLOOD PLAIN DISTRICTS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK ORDAINS: Section 1. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has updated the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM), and is requiring the maps and regulations pertaining to the flood districts to be updated for those communities that wish to continue to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Section 2. The City of St. Louis Park is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Program, and desires to continue participating in the program, Section 3. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission (Case No. 04-35-ZA) Section 4. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Section 36 is hereby amended by deleting stricken language and adding underscored language. Section breaks are represented by ***. Section 5. Section 36-33(d) (3) Notice. After receipt of a complete application, the city shall set a date for a public hearing before the board of zoning appeals for any variance request within 45 days after the application for a variance is received by the city. The public hearing shall be held only after the notice required by subsection (b)(1) of this section has been given. The Zoning Administrator shall submit by mail to the Commissioner of Natural Resources a copy of the application for proposed variance(s) occurring within a floodway, flood fringe or floodplain district sufficiently in advance so that the Commissioner will receive at least ten days notice of the hearing. *** St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 081604 - 4e - Floodplain Ordinance Amendments Page 3 (5) Issuance. The board of zoning appeals shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to public safety, the effect on the character and development of the neighborhood and the values of property in the surrounding area, and the effect of the proposed variance upon the comprehensive plan. The board of zoning appeals may grant a variance from the strict application of the provisions of this chapter provided that: a. The board of zoning appeals may grant a variance from the strict application of the provisions of this chapter provided that: a1. Where by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a lot, or where by reason of exceptional topographical or water conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional conditions of such lot, the strict application or the terms of this chapter would result in peculiar and practical difficulties or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such lot in developing or using such lot in a manner customary and legally permissible within the use district in which such lot is located. b2. Conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to the property or immediately adjoining property, and do not apply, generally, to other land or structures in the use district in which the land is located. c3. The granting of the proposed variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. d4. The granting of the proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, or endanger public safety. e5. The granting of the variance will not unreasonably impact on the character and development of the neighborhood, unreasonably diminish or impair established property values in the surrounding area, or in any other way impair the health, safety, and comfort of the area. f6. The granting of the proposed variance will not be contrary to the intent of this chapter and the comprehensive plan. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 081604 - 4e - Floodplain Ordinance Amendments Page 4 g7. The granting of a variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable undue hardship or difficulty. b. The board of zoning appeals may grant the variance requested and impose conditions and safeguards as a condition to the variance to ensure compliance with the conditions imposed and to protect adjacent properties. *** c. If the application for a variance involves property within a floodway, flood fringe and floodplain district, then a copy of all decisions granting variances shall be forwarded by mail to the Commissioner of Natural Resources within ten (10) days of such action, and the following additional variance criteria of the Federal Emergency Management Agency must also be satisfied: 1. Variances shall not be issued by a community within any designated regulatory floodway if any increase in flood levels during the base flood discharge would result. 2. Variances shall only be issued by a community upon (i) a showing of good and sufficient cause, (ii) a determination that failure to grant the variance would result in exceptional hardship to the applicant, and (iii) a determination that the granting of a variance will not result in increased flood heights, additional threats to public safety, extraordinary public expense, create nuisances, cause fraud on or victimization of the public, or conflict with existing local laws or ordinances. 3. Variances shall only be issued upon a determination that the variance is the minimum necessary, considering the flood hazard, to afford relief. 4. No variance shall allow a lower degree of flood protection than the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation. d. Flood Insurance Notice and Record Keeping. The Zoning Administrator shall notify the applicant for a variance that: 1) The issuance of a variance to construct a structure below the base flood level will result in increased premium rates for flood insurance up to amounts as high as $25 for $100 of insurance coverage and 2) Such construction below the 100-year or regional flood level increases risks to life and property. Such notification shall be maintained with a record of all variance actions. A community shall maintain a record of all variance actions, including justification for St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 081604 - 4e - Floodplain Ordinance Amendments Page 5 their issuance, and report such variances issued in its annual or biennial report submitted to the Administrator of the National Flood Insurance Program. Section6. Sec. 36-291. Purpose and intent. (d) National Flood Insurance Program Compliance. This Ordinance is adopted to comply with the rules and regulations of the National Flood Insurance Program codified as 44 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 59 -78, as amended, so as to maintain the community’s eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program. Section 7. Sec. 36-292. Application of division provisions. (a) Lands to which division applies. These floodplain regulations shall apply to all lands within the jurisdiction of the city shown on the official zoning map as being located within the boundaries of the floodway, flood fringe, or General floodplain districts. While this map shows the approximate locations of the boundaries of the floodway, flood fringe, and floodplain districts, the final location shall be determined by a topographic map, in comparison to the 100-year flood elevation and other applicable hydraulic modeling data. (b) Adoption of flood insurance study. The flood insurance study for the city prepared by the Federal Insurance Administration dated June 17, 1986, and the flood boundary and floodway map and flood insurance rate map dated June 17, 1986, are hereby adopted as part of this division by reference. The Official Zoning Map together with all materials attached thereto is hereby adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this ordinance. The attached material shall include the Flood Insurance Study, Volume 1 of 2 and Volume 2 of 2, Hennepin County, Minnesota, All Jurisdictions and the Flood Insurance Rate Map panels numbered 27053C0331E, 27053C0332E, 27053C0334E, 27053C0342E, 27053C0351E, 27053C0352E, 27053C0353E, 27053C0354E, 27053C0361E and 27053C0362E for the City of St. Louis Park, dated September 2, 2004, as developed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The Official Zoning Map shall be on file in the office of the Zoning Administrator. *** (c) Regulatory flood protection elevation. The regulatory flood protection elevation shall be an elevation no lower than two feet one foot above the elevation of a regional flood plus any increases in flood elevation caused by encroachments on the floodplain that result from designation of a floodway. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 081604 - 4e - Floodplain Ordinance Amendments Page 6 *** (e) No stage increase permitted. No structure, fill, deposit, obstruction or storage of materials or equipment shall be allowed in any floodway, flood fringe, or general floodplain district which will cause any increase in the stage of the 100-year flood or will cause an increase in flood damages in the reaches affected. Section8. Sec. 36-293. Definitions. Flood fringe means that portion of the floodplain outside of the floodway. Flood fringe is synonymous with the term "floodway fringe" used in the flood insurance study for the city. It also includes all land above the designated ordinary high-water level and below the regional flood elevation of all wetlands and lakes where flood elevations have been established by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Floodplain means the beds proper and the areas adjoining a wetland, lake or watercourse which have been or hereafter may be covered by the regional flood. It also includes all lands above the designated ordinary high-water level, and below the flood elevation of all wetlands and lakes where flood elevations have not been established by FEMA. *** Lowest Floor means the lowest floor of the lowest enclosed area (including basement). An unfinished or flood resistant enclosure, used solely for parking of vehicles, building access, or storage in an area other than a basement area, is not considered a building’s lowest floor. *** Manufactured Homes means any manufactured home as defined in Section 36-4 of this ordinance except that their shall be no size limitation on the structure. *** Regulatory flood protection elevation means an elevation no lower than one foot two feet above the elevation of the regional flood plus any increases in flood elevation caused by encroachments on the floodplain that result from designation of a floodway. *** Substantial Damage means damage of any origin sustained by a structure where the cost of restoring the structure to its before damaged condition would equal or exceed 50 percent of the market value of the structure before the damage occurred. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 081604 - 4e - Floodplain Ordinance Amendments Page 7 Substantial Improvement within any consecutive 365-day period, any reconstruction, rehabilitation (including normal maintenance and repair), repair after damage, addition, or other improvement of a structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the structure before the “start of construction” of the improvement. This term includes structures which have incurred “substantial damage,” regardless of the actual repair work performed. The term does not, however, include either: (a) Any project for improvement of a structure to correct existing violations of state or local health, sanitary, or safety code specifications which have been identified by the local code enforcement official and which are the minimum necessary to assure safe living conditions. (b) Any alteration of an “historic structure,” provided that the alteration will not preclude the structure’s continued designation as an “historic structure.” For the purpose of this Ordinance, “historic structure” shall be as defined in Code of Federal Regulations, Part 59.1. Section 9. Sec. 36-294. Establishment of zoning districts. (a) Districts. The following overlay districts are established for the purpose of regulating development in flood hazard areas within the city: (1) Floodway district (FW). The floodway district shall include those areas designated as floodway on the Flood Insurance Rate Map adopted in Section 36- 292(b). flood boundary and floodway map. (2) Flood fringe district (FF). The flood fringe district shall include those areas designated as floodway fringe on the flood boundary and floodway map adopted in section 36-292(b). Flood Insurance Rate Map as adopted in Section 36-292(b) as being within Zone AE or Zone AH but being located outside of the floodway. (3) General floodplain district (FP). The general floodplain district shall include those areas designated as unnumbered A zones Zone A or Zones AE, Zone A0, or Zone AH without a floodway on the flood insurance rate map as adopted in Section 36-292(b). (b) Compliance. Provisions for compliance are as follows: (1) Recreational vehicles that do not meet the exemption criteria specified in Section 36-294(b)(1)a below shall be subject to the provisions of this Ordinance and as specifically spelled out in Sections 36-294(b)(1)c below. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 081604 - 4e - Floodplain Ordinance Amendments Page 8 a. Exemption - Recreational vehicles are exempt from the provisions of this Ordinance if they are placed in any of the areas listed in Section 36- 294(b)(1)b below and further they meet the following criteria: 1. Have current licenses required for highway use. 2. Are highway ready meaning on wheels or the internal jacking system, are attached to the site only by quick disconnect type utilities commonly used in campgrounds and recreational vehicle parks and the recreational vehicle has no permanent structural type additions attached to it. 3. The recreational vehicle and associated use must be permissible in any pre-existing, underlying zoning use district. b. Areas Exempted For Placement of Recreational Vehicles: 1. Individual lots or parcels of record. 2. Existing commercial recreational vehicle parks or campgrounds. 3. Existing condominium type associations. c. Recreational vehicles exempted in Section 36-294(b)(1)a lose this exemption when development occurs on the parcel exceeding $500 for a structural addition to the recreational vehicle or exceeding $500 for an accessory structure such as a garage or storage building. The recreational vehicle and all additions and accessory structures will then be treated as a new structure and shall be subject to the elevation/flood proofing requirements and the use of land restrictions specified in Section 36- 294(c) & Section 36-294(d) of this Ordinance. There shall be no development or improvement on the parcel or attachment to the recreational vehicle that hinders the removal of the recreational vehicle to a flood free location should flooding occur. (1) New manufactured homes, replacement manufactured homes, travel trailers and travel vehicles are prohibited in floodplain districts. (2) Modifications, additions, structural alterations normal maintenance and repair, or repair after damage to existing nonconforming structures and nonconforming uses of structures or land are regulated by the general provisions of this chapter. (1) New manufactured homes, replacement manufactured homes, travel trailers and travel vehicles are prohibited in floodplain districts. *** St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 081604 - 4e - Floodplain Ordinance Amendments Page 9 (d) Flood fringe district (FF). Fill, dredge spoil, and all other similar materials deposited or stored in the flood fringe district shall be protected from erosion by vegetative cover, mulching, rip rap or other acceptable method. *** (2) Standards for flood fringe permitted uses. Standards for flood fringe permitted uses are as follows: a. All structures, including accessory structures, must be elevated on fill so that the lowest floor including basement floor, is at or above the regulatory flood protection elevation. The finished fill elevation for structures shall be no lower than one foot above the regulatory flood protection elevation and the fill shall extend at such elevation at least 15 feet beyond the outside limits of the structure erected thereon. b. For all new structures constructed after June 15, 1998, the lowest floor building opening elevations shall be no lower than two feet above the regulatory flood protection 100-year flood elevation. For all structures existing on June 15, 1998, and additions to structures existing on June 15, 1998, the lowest floor building openings shall be no lower than one foot below the regulatory flood protection elevation. at one foot above the flood elevation. c. As an alternative to elevation on fill, accessory structures that do not exceed 500 square feet for the outside dimension at ground level may be internally flood proofed in accordance with subsection (d)(3)b.1 & 2. of this section. *** e. Any structure that is not elevated on fill or flood proofed in the manner provided in this section or any use of land that does not comply with the standards in subsection (cd) of this section shall only be allowable as a conditional use. *** (3) Standards for flood fringe conditional uses. Alternative elevation methods other than the use of fill may be utilized to elevate a structure's lowest floor above the regulatory flood protection elevation. These alternative methods may include the use of stilts, pilings and parallel walls, or abovegrade, enclosed areas such as crawl spaces or tuck under garages. The base or floor of an enclosed area shall be considered abovegrade and not a structure's basement or lowest floor if the St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 081604 - 4e - Floodplain Ordinance Amendments Page 10 enclosed area is abovegrade on at least one side of the structure; it is designed to internally flood and is constructed with flood resistant materials; and it is used solely for parking of vehicles, building access or storage. The alternative elevation methods noted in this subsection (d)(3) are subject to the following additional standards: *** b. Specific standards for abovegrade, enclosed areas. Abovegrade, fully enclosed areas such as crawl spaces or tuck under garages must be designed to internally flood and the design plans must stipulate: 1. The A minimum area of “automatic” openings in the walls where internal flooding is to be used as a floodproofing technique. When openings are placed in a structure's walls to provide for entry of floodwaters to equalize pressures, There shall be a minimum of two openings on at least two sides of the structure and the bottom of all openings shall be no higher than one foot above grade. The automatic openings shall have a minimum net area of not less than one square inch for every square foot subject to flooding unless a registered professional engineer or architect certifies that a smaller net area would suffice. The automatic oOpenings may be equipped with screens, louvers, valves, or other coverings or devices provided that they permit the automatic entry and exit of floodwaters without any form of human intervention. *** (4) Standards for all flood fringe uses. Standards for all flood fringe uses are as follows: *** b. Commercial uses. Accessory land uses such as yards, railroad tracks, and parking lots may be at elevations lower than the regulatory flood protection elevation. However, a permit for such facilities to be used by the employees or the general public shall not be granted in the absence of a flood warning system that provides adequate time for evacuation if the area would be inundated to a depth and velocity such that when multiplying the depth (in feet) times velocity (in feet per second) the product number exceeds four (4) greater than two feet or be subject to flood velocities greater than four feet per second upon occurrence of a regional flood. *** St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 081604 - 4e - Floodplain Ordinance Amendments Page 11 (e) General floodplain district (FP). Fill, dredge spoil, and all other similar materials deposited or stored in the floodplain shall be protected from erosion by vegetative cover, mulching, rip rap or other acceptable method. (1) Permissible uses. The uses listed in subsection (c)(1) of this section shall be permitted uses. All other uses shall be subject to the floodway/flood fringe evaluation criteria of subsection (e)(2) of this section. Subsection (c) of this section shall apply if the proposed use is in the floodway district and subsection (d) of this section shall apply if the proposed use is in the flood fringe district. (2) Procedures for floodway and flood fringe determinations within the general floodplain district. a. Upon receipt of an application for a conditional use permit for a use within the FP district, the applicant shall be required to furnish such information deemed necessary by the zoning administrator for the determination of the regulatory flood protection elevation and whether the proposed use is within the floodway or flood fringe district. This information may include the following: *** 3. A typical valley cross-section(s) showing the channel of the stream, elevation of land areas adjoining each side of the channel, cross-sectional areas to be occupied by the proposed development, and high water information. 4. Photographs showing existing land uses, vegetation upstream and downstream, and soil types. 5. Profile showing the slope of the bottom of the channel or flow line of the stream for at least 500 feet in either direction from the proposed development. b. The applicant shall submit one copy of the information in subsection (e)(2)a. of this section to a designated engineer or other expert person or agency for technical assistance to determine whether the proposed use is in the floodway or flood fringe district and to determine the regulatory flood protection elevation. Procedures consistent with Minnesota Regulations 1983, parts 6120.5000--6120.6200 shall be followed in this expert evaluation. The designated engineer or expert is strongly encouraged to discuss the proposed technical evaluation methodology with the department of natural resources' area hydrologist prior to commencing the analysis. The designated engineer or expert shall: St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 081604 - 4e - Floodplain Ordinance Amendments Page 12 *** 3. Compute the floodway necessary to convey or store the regional flood without increasing flood stages. more than 0.5 foot. A lesser stage increase than 0.5 foot shall be required if, as a result of the additional stage increase, increased flood damages would result. An equal degree of encroachment shall be assumed in computing floodway boundaries. (f) Factors for conditional use approval. The factors upon which the decision of the city council shall be based when considering conditional use applications are as follows: (1) Hearings. Upon filing for an application for a conditional use permit, the Zoning Administrator shall submit by mail to the Commissioner of Natural Resources a copy of the application for proposed conditional use sufficiently in advance so that the Commissioner will receive at least ten days notice of the hearing. (2) Decisions. In granting a conditional use permit the city council shall prescribe appropriate conditions and safeguards, in addition to those specified in Section 36-294(f)(4), which are in conformity with the purposes of this Ordinance. Violations of such conditions and safeguards, when made a part of the terms under which the conditional use permit is granted, shall be deemed a violation of this Ordinance punishable under Section 36-300. A copy of all decisions granting conditional use permits shall be forwarded by mail to the Commissioner of Natural Resources within ten (10) days of such action. (3) The factors upon which the decision of the city council shall be based when considering conditional use applications are as follows: (1)a. All relevant factors specified in other sections of this chapter division. (2)b. The danger to life and property due to increased flood heights or velocities caused by encroachments. (3)c. The danger that materials may be swept onto other lands or downstream to the injury of others or they may block bridges, culverts or other hydraulic structures. (4)d. The proposed water supply and sanitation systems and the ability of these systems to prevent disease, contamination and unsanitary conditions. (5)e. The susceptibility of the proposed facility and its contents to flood damage and the effect of such damage on the individual owner. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 081604 - 4e - Floodplain Ordinance Amendments Page 13 (6)f. The importance of the services provided by the proposed facility to the community. (7)g. The requirements of the facility for a waterfront location. (8)h. The availability of alternative locations not subject to flooding for the proposed use. (9)i. The compatibility of the proposed use with existing development and the development anticipated in the foreseeable future. (10)j. The relationship of the proposed use to the comprehensive plan and floodplain management program for the area. (11)k. The safety of access to the property in times of flood for ordinary and emergency vehicles. (12)l. The expected heights, velocity, duration, rate of rise, and sediment transport of the floodwaters expected at the site. (13)m. Such other factors which are relevant to the purposes of this division. (4) Conditions Attached to Conditional Use Permits. Upon consideration of the factors listed above and the purpose of this Ordinance, the city council shall attach such conditions to the granting of conditional use permits as it deems necessary to fulfill the purposes of this Ordinance. Such conditions may include, but are not limited to, the following: (a) Modification of waste treatment and water supply facilities. (b) Limitations on period of use, occupancy, and operation. (c) Imposition of operational controls, sureties, and deed restrictions. (d) Requirements for construction of channel modifications, compensatory storage, dikes, levees, and other protective measures. (e) Flood proofing measures, in accordance with the State Building Code and this Ordinance. The applicant shall submit a plan or document certified by a registered professional engineer or architect that the flood proofing measures are consistent with the regulatory flood protection elevation and associated flood factors for the particular area. Section 10. Sec. 36-295. Application to subdivision. (a) No land shall be subdivided which is unsuitable because of flooding, inadequate drainage, water supply or sewage treatment facilities. All lots within the floodplain districts shall contain a building site at or above the regulatory flood protection elevation. All subdivisions shall have water and sewage treatment facilities that comply with the St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 081604 - 4e - Floodplain Ordinance Amendments Page 14 provisions of this division and have road access both to the subdivision and to the individual building sites no lower than two feet below the regulatory flood protection elevation. For all subdivisions in the floodplain, the floodway and flood fringe boundaries, the regulatory flood protection elevation and the required elevation of all access roads shall be clearly labeled on all required subdivision drawings and platting documents. (b) Floodway/Flood Fringe Determinations in the General Flood Plain District: In the General Flood Plain District, applicants shall provide the information required in Section 294(e)(2) of this Ordinance to determine the 100-year flood elevation, the Floodway and Flood Fringe District boundaries and the regulatory flood protection elevation for the subdivision site. (c) Removal of Special Flood Hazard Area Designation: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has established criteria for removing the special flood hazard area designation for certain structures properly elevated on fill above the 100-year flood elevation. FEMA's requirements incorporate specific fill compaction and side slope protection standards for multi-structure or multi-lot developments. These standards should be investigated prior to the initiation of site preparation if a change of special flood hazard area designation will be requested. Section 11. Sec. 36-296. Public facilities. (c) On-site Sewage Treatment and Water Supply Systems: Where public utilities are not provided: 1) On-site water supply systems must be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the systems; and 2) New or replacement on-site sewage treatment systems must be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the systems and discharges from the systems into flood waters and they shall not be subject to impairment or contamination during times of flooding. Any sewage treatment system designed in accordance with the State's current statewide standards for on-site sewage treatment systems shall be determined to be in compliance with this Section. Section 12. Sec. 36-297. Certification and record. (a) Permit required. A permit issued by the zoning administrator which conforms to the provisions of this chapter shall be secured prior to the following: (1) Erection, addition, modification, rehabilitation (including normal maintenance and repair), or alteration of any building, structure or portion thereof; *** (3) Change or extension of a nonconforming use; and St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 081604 - 4e - Floodplain Ordinance Amendments Page 15 *** (5) Construction of a dam, septic system or fence; and (6) Repair of a structure that has been damaged by flood, fire, tornado, or any other source. *** (g) Notifications for Watercourse Alterations. The Zoning Administrator shall notify, in riverine situations, adjacent communities and the Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources prior to the community authorizing any alteration or relocation of a watercourse. If the applicant has applied for a permit to work in the beds of public waters pursuant to Minnesota Statute, Chapter 103G, this shall suffice as adequate notice to the Commissioner of Natural Resources. A copy of said notification shall also be submitted to the Chicago Regional Office of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). (h) Notification to FEMA When Physical Changes Increase or Decrease the 100-year Flood Elevation. As soon as is practicable, but not later than six (6) months after the date such supporting information becomes available, the Zoning Administrator shall notify the Chicago Regional Office of FEMA of the changes by submitting a copy of said technical or scientific data. Section 13. Sec. 36-298. Nonconformities--Compliance with chapter. (a) A structure or the use of a structure or premises which was lawful before the passage or amendment of the ordinance from which this chapter is derived but which does not conform to the provisions of this chapter may be continued subject to the following conditions. Historic structures, as defined in Section 36-293(b) of this Ordinance, shall be subject to the provisions of Sections 36-298(a)(1) – (4) of this Ordinance. *** (2) Any structural alteration or addition to a nonconforming structure or nonconforming use which would result in increasing the flood damage potential of that structure or use shall be protected to the regulatory flood protection elevation in a manner permitted in the state building code, except as further restricted in subsection (a)(3) and (a)(5) of this section. *** (4) If any nonconforming use or structure is destroyed by any means, including floods, to an extent of 50 percent or more of its market value at the time of St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 081604 - 4e - Floodplain Ordinance Amendments Page 16 destruction substantially damaged, as defined in Section 36-293 of this Ordinance, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of this chapter, The applicable provisions for establishing new uses or new structures will apply depending upon whether the use or structure is in the floodway, flood fringe or general floodplain district. (5) If a substantial improvement occurs, as defined in Section 36-293 of this Ordinance, from any combination of a building addition to the outside dimensions of the existing building or a rehabilitation, reconstruction, alteration, or other improvement to the inside dimensions of an existing nonconforming building, then the building addition (as required by Section 36-298(a)(2) above) and the existing nonconforming building must meet the requirements of Section 36- 294(c) or 36-294(d) of this Ordinance for new structures, depending upon whether the structure is in the Floodway or Flood Fringe District, respectively. Section 14. Sec. 36-299. Amendments. (a) The floodplain designation on the official zoning map shall not be removed from floodplain areas unless it can be shown that the designation is in error or that the area has been filled to or above the elevation of the regional flood regulatory flood protection elevation and is contiguous to lands outside the floodplain. Special exceptions to this rule may be permitted by the commissioner of natural resources if it is determined that, through other measures, lands are adequately protected for the intended use. Section 15. Sec. 36-300. Penalties for violation. Sec. 36-300. Penalties for violation. (a) Violation of the provisions of this Ordinance or failure to comply with any of its requirements (including violations of conditions and safeguards established in connection with grants of variances or conditional uses) shall constitute a misdemeanor and shall be punishable as defined by law. (b) Nothing herein contained shall prevent the city from taking such other lawful action as is necessary to prevent or remedy any violation. Such actions may include but are not limited to: (1) In responding to a suspected Ordinance violation, the Zoning Administrator and Local Government may utilize the full array of enforcement actions available to it including but not limited to prosecution and fines, injunctions, after-the-fact permits, orders for corrective measures or a request to the National Flood Insurance Program for denial of flood insurance availability to the guilty party. The Community must act in good faith to enforce these official controls and to correct Ordinance violations to the extent possible so as not to jeopardize its eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 081604 - 4e - Floodplain Ordinance Amendments Page 17 (2) When an Ordinance violation is either discovered by or brought to the attention of the Zoning Administrator, the Zoning Administrator shall immediately investigate the situation and document the nature and extent of the violation of the official control. As soon as is reasonably possible, this information will be submitted to the appropriate Department of Natural Resources' and Federal Emergency Management Agency Regional Office along with the Community's plan of action to correct the violation to the degree possible. (3) The Zoning Administrator shall notify the suspected party of the requirements of this Ordinance and all other official controls and the nature and extent of the suspected violation of these controls. If the structure and/or use is under construction or development, the Zoning Administrator may order the construction or development immediately halted until a proper permit or approval is granted by the Community. If the construction or development is already completed, then the Zoning Administrator may either: (1) issue an order identifying the corrective actions that must be made within a specified time period to bring the use or structure into compliance with the official controls; or (2) notify the responsible party to apply for an after-the-fact permit/development approval within a specified period of time not to exceed 30-days. (4) If the responsible party does not appropriately respond to the Zoning Administrator within the specified period of time, each additional day that lapses shall constitute an additional violation of this Ordinance and shall be prosecuted accordingly. The Zoning Administrator shall also upon the lapse of the specified response period notify the landowner to restore the land to the condition which existed prior to the violation of this Ordinance. Section 16. Secs 36-300 301-320. Reserved. Section 17. Section 36-33 (d) Variances; limitations. The board of zoning appeals may grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of this chapter and impose conditions and safeguards in the variances granted in cases where by reason of narrowness, shallowness, shape of a lot, exceptional topographical or water conditions, or other extraordinary and exceptional conditions of the lot, the strict application of the terms of this chapter would result in peculiar and practical difficulties or exceptional or undue hardship to the owner of the lot in developing or using the lot in a manner customary and legally permissible in the use district in which such lot is located. Applications for variances shall be filed with the director of planning and shall describe the exceptional conditions of the lot and the peculiar and practical difficulties claimed as a basis for the variance. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 081604 - 4e - Floodplain Ordinance Amendments Page 18 (1) Applications. All applications for variances shall be initiated by, or with the consent of, the owners of the property. A complete application shall consist of: a. An application form. b. The fee payment. c. A survey of the property showing all property lines, structures and easements. d. A plan showing all existing and proposed structures. e. A map or plat showing the lands proposed for variance and all lands within 350 feet of the boundaries of that property and the names and addresses of the owners of the lands in the area as they appear on the records of the county auditor or other appropriate records. f. Any other materials required by the city. Before a variance request is approved, the request for the variance shall be considered by the board of zoning appeals. The board of zoning appeals shall consider the strict application of the provisions of this chapter and the requirements of all applicable state law. (2) Consideration by the planning commission. Before the board of zoning appeals issues any variance, the planning commission or a representative authorized by the planning commission shall review the variance request and report its findings and recommendations to the board of zoning appeals. If no report is transmitted to the board of zoning appeals within 45 days after referral of the variance request to the planning commission or its authorized representative, the board of zoning appeals may take action without a planning commission report. (3) Notice. After receipt of a complete application, the city shall set a date for a public hearing before the board of zoning appeals for any variance request within 45 days after the application for a variance is received by the city. The public hearing shall be held only after the notice required by subsection (b)(1) of this section has been given. The Zoning Administrator shall submit by mail to the Commissioner of Natural Resources a copy of the application for proposed variance(s) occurring within a floodway, flood fringe or floodplain district sufficiently in advance so that the Commissioner will receive at least ten days notice of the hearing. *** St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 081604 - 4e - Floodplain Ordinance Amendments Page 19 (5) Issuance. The board of zoning appeals shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to public safety, the effect on the character and development of the neighborhood and the values of property in the surrounding area, and the effect of the proposed variance upon the comprehensive plan. The board of zoning appeals may grant a variance from the strict application of the provisions of this chapter provided that: a. The board of zoning appeals may grant a variance from the strict application of the provisions of this chapter provided that: a1. Where by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a lot, or where by reason of exceptional topographical or water conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional conditions of such lot, the strict application or the terms of this chapter would result in peculiar and practical difficulties or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such lot in developing or using such lot in a manner customary and legally permissible within the use district in which such lot is located. b2. Conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to the property or immediately adjoining property, and do not apply, generally, to other land or structures in the use district in which the land is located. c3. The granting of the proposed variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. d4. The granting of the proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, or endanger public safety. e5. The granting of the variance will not unreasonably impact on the character and development of the neighborhood, unreasonably diminish or impair established property values in the surrounding area, or in any other way impair the health, safety, and comfort of the area. f6. The granting of the proposed variance will not be contrary to the intent of this chapter and the comprehensive plan. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 081604 - 4e - Floodplain Ordinance Amendments Page 20 g7. The granting of a variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable undue hardship or difficulty. b. The board of zoning appeals may grant the variance requested and impose conditions and safeguards as a condition to the variance to ensure compliance with the conditions imposed and to protect adjacent properties. c. If the application for a variance involves property within a floodway, flood fringe and floodplain district, then a copy of all decisions granting variances shall be forwarded by mail to the Commissioner of Natural Resources within ten (10) days of such action, and the following additional variance criteria of the Federal Emergency Management Agency must also be satisfied: 1. Variances shall not be issued by a community within any designated regulatory floodway if any increase in flood levels during the base flood discharge would result. 2. Variances shall only be issued by a community upon (i) a showing of good and sufficient cause, (ii) a determination that failure to grant the variance would result in exceptional hardship to the applicant, and (iii) a determination that the granting of a variance will not result in increased flood heights, additional threats to public safety, extraordinary public expense, create nuisances, cause fraud on or victimization of the public, or conflict with existing local laws or ordinances. 3. Variances shall only be issued upon a determination that the variance is the minimum necessary, considering the flood hazard, to afford relief. 4. No variance shall allow a lower degree of flood protection than the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation. d. Flood Insurance Notice and Record Keeping. The Zoning Administrator shall notify the applicant for a variance that: 1) The issuance of a variance to construct a structure below the base flood level will result in increased premium rates for flood insurance up to amounts as high as $25 for $100 of insurance coverage and 2) Such construction below the 100-year or regional flood level increases risks to life and property. Such notification shall be maintained with a record of all variance actions. A community shall maintain a record of all variance actions, including justification for their issuance, and report such variances issued in its annual or biennial St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 081604 - 4e - Floodplain Ordinance Amendments Page 21 report submitted to the Administrator of the National Flood Insurance Program. Section 18. The contents of the Planning Case File No. 04-35-ZA is hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case. Section 19. Effective Date. 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. CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK By:___________________________ Jeffrey W. Jacobs, Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________ Cynthia Reichert, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ________________________________ City Attorney St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 081604 - 4e - Floodplain Ordinance Amendments Page 22 SUMMARY ORDINANCE NO. 2276-04 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 36 (ZONING) RELATING TO FLOODPLAIN DISTRICTS This ordinance states that amendments will be made to the regulations pertaining to variances in the Floodplain Districts and regulations pertaining to the Floodplain Districts by adding clarifications required by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication. Adopted by the City Council August 16, 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: August 26, 2004 04-35-ZAsum/2004/res-ord St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 081604 - 4f - Elmwood Street Vacation Page 1 4f. Motion to approve second reading of ordinance vacating West 37th Street between Alabama Avenue and Wooddale Avenue and alley north of Oxford Street and east of Alabama Avenue, adopt ordinance, approve summary and authorize its publication. Background: As part of the redevelopment of the old Quadion property on the west side of Wooddale Avenue, Rottlund Homes has petitioned the City to vacate West 37th Street between Alabama Avenue and Wooddale Avenue and to vacate an existing alley just north of the four residential properties along Oxford Street. These roadways will be replaced with private roads that will serve the proposed redevelopment. Most of existing water main that is located within West 37th Street will be removed. A portion of it will be retained within an easement to serve the existing office building. Staff and the Planning Commission recommended the City Council find no public need and approve the ordinance vacating the street and alley. One of the single family homes north of Oxford Street will continue to be occupied and require alley access after the alley is officially vacated. The former property owner and Rottlund Homes negotiated an occupancy agreement that includes continued use of the alley. The alley will not be demolished until the home is no longer occupied. On August 2, 2004, the City Council approved first reading of ordinance to vacate. The process for vacation involves adopting an ordinance and that involves two readings. The vacation is required before the new plat that was approved by the City Council on August 2 can be filed with Hennepin County. Attachments: Proposed Ordinance Ordinance Summary Prepared by: Judie Erickson Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 081604 - 4f - Elmwood Street Vacation Page 2 ORDINANCE NO. 2277-04 AN ORDINANCE VACATING STREET AND ALLEY WEST 37TH STREET BETWEEN WOODDALE AVENUE AND ALABAMA AVENUE SOUTH AND ALLEY NORTH OF OXFORD STREET AND EAST OF ALABAMA AVENUE SOUTH THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. A petition in writing signed by a majority of all of the owners of all property abutting upon both sides of the street and alley proposed to be vacated has been duly filed. The notice of said petition has been published, in the St. Louis Park Sailor, on July 22, 2004, and the City Council has conducted a public hearing upon said petition and has determined that the street and alley is not needed for public purposes, and that it is for the best interest of the public that said street and alley be vacated. Section 2. The following described street and alley, as now dedicated and laid out within the corporate limits of the City of St. Louis Park, is vacated: Legal description to be added reserving, however, to the City of St. Louis Park any and all easements that may exist in, over, and across the described property for storm sewer, sanitary sewer, water main, and public utility purposes. Section 3. The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this ordinance in the Office of the Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be. Sec.4. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication. Adopted by the City Council August 16, 2004 Reviewed for Administration City Manager Mayor Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution: City Clerk City Attorney St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 081604 - 4f - Elmwood Street Vacation Page 3 SUMMARY ORDINANCE NO. 2277-04 AN ORDINANCE VACATING STREET AND ALLEY WEST 37TH STREET BETWEEN WOODDALE AVENUE AND ALABAMA AVENUE SOUTH AND ALLEY NORTH OF OXFORD STREET AND EAST OF ALABAMA AVENUE SOUTH This ordinance states that it has been determined that the street and alley are not needed for public purposes and have been vacated. This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication. Adopted by the City Council August 16, 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: August 26, 2004 03-75-VACsum:res-ord/2003 St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 081604 - 4h - Storm Water Improvements Final Payment Page 1 RESOLUTION NO. 04-103 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK ON RUNNYMEAD LANE (AREA #1) & DAHL PROPERTY (AREA #9) STORM WATER IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT NOS. 00-03 & 03-05 CONTRACT NO. 111-03 HULEGAARD CONSTRUCTION BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, as follows: 1. Pursuant to a written contract with the City dated November 15, 2003, Hulegaard Construction has satisfactorily completed the Runnymead Lane (Area #1) and Dahl Property (Area #9) storm sewer improvement project, as per Contract No. 111-03. 2. The Director of Public Works has filed his recommendations for final acceptance of the work. 3. The work completed under this contract is accepted and approved. The City Manager is directed to make final payment on the contract, taking the contractor's receipt in full. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council August 16, 2004 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 081604 - 4i - Holy Family Temporary Liquor License Page 1 4i. Motion to approve a Temporary On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License – Holy Family Catholic Church, 5900 & 5925 W. Lake St., St. Louis Park for September 18 & 19, 2004. Background: The Holy Family Catholic Church will be holding a fundraiser on September 18, 2004 from 5 p.m. to midnight and September 19, 2004 from noon to 6 p.m. This is their annual fundraising event for the year. 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. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the license. Prepared by: Kim Olson, Administration Secretary Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 081604 - 4j - Fire Civil Service Minutes of 5-6-04 Page 1 MINUTES FIRE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION May 6, 2004, 1:00 p.m. FIRE CONFERENCE ROOM, 1ST FLOOR CITY HALL 1) The meeting was called to order at 3:04 p.m. by President Lee. 2) In attendance were Commissioners David Lee and William MacMillan. Also present were Luke Stemmer, Fire Chief, John Lindstrom, Battalion Fire Chief, Ali Fosse, Human Resources Coordinator/Staff Liaison, Nancy Gohman, Human Resources Director, and Dale Antonson, Union President. 3) A motion was made by Commissioner MacMillan, seconded by President Lee to approve the minutes from the last meeting, held March 8, 2004. The motion carried. 4) The proposed changes to the Rules and Regulations of the Fire Civil Service Commission were discussed. Nancy Gohman discussed the recommended changes with the Commission. A motion was made by Commissioner MacMIllan, seconded by President Lee to approve the following changes to the Rules and Regulations of the Fire Civil Service Commission. Motion carried. • (Page 1) In the exercise of authority granted by Minnesota Statues, Chapter 420, and Section 8 of the City Code and amendments thereto, the Fire Civil Service Commission of the City of St. Louis Park Minnesota, hereby adopts and promulgates the following Civil Service Rules and Regulations for the Fire Department of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, which shall become effective as amended on May 6, 2004. All previous Rules and Regulations of the Commission are hereby revoked. • (Page 1, Definition 5) The term VETERAN has the same meaning as given to that term by MS 43.40, 43A.11, 197.447, 197.455, 197.46, 197.48, and 197.481. • (Page 5, Rule Seven – Suspension) The Fire Chief, Deputy Fire Chief, Battalion Fire Chief, or Fire Captain shall have the power to suspend, with or without pay, any subordinate officer (or employee of the department), for a period not exceeding sixty (60) calendar days, for purposes of discipline or pending investigation. 5) Chief Stemmer thanked Commissioner MacMillan for his assistance in identifying a possible candidate to fill the vacant Commissioner position. President Lee recommended the new Commissioner be invited to a meeting soon after his/her appointment by the Council to meet others, get a copy of the Rules and Regulations, and possibly tour the Fire Stations. 6) A motion was made by Commissioner MacMillan, seconded by President Lee to adjourn the meeting. The Commission adjourned at 3:11 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Ali Fosse City Staff Liaison to the Fire Civil Service Commission St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 081604 - 4l - Housing Authority Minutes of 6-09-04 Page 1 MINUTES Housing Authority St. Louis Park, Minnesota Wednesday, June 9, 2004 Westwood Room 5:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Catherine Courtney, Andria Daniel, Steve Fillbrandt, Anne Mavity, and Judith Moore STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Anderson, Judie Erickson, Jane Klesk, Michele Schnitker, and Tanya Warren OTHERS PRESENT: NAHRO Scholarship recipient Shlynn Hayes and family 1. Call to Order Commissioner Courtney called the meeting to order at 5:04 p.m. 2. Approval of Minutes for May, 2004 The May 12, 2004 minutes were unanimously approved. 3. Hearings – None 4. Reports and Committees – None 5. Unfinished Business – None 6. New Business a. Presentation of NAHRO Scholarship Ms. Anderson provided a brief overview of the NAHRO scholarship program and presented two NAHRO scholarships totaling $1,000 to St. Louis Park resident Shlynn Hayes. Ms. Hayes thanked the Board and explained that she is a student studying special education and also works at St. Louis Park High School. b. Review of St. Louis Park Development Projects Ms. Erickson presented the Board with an update on several of the multi-family housing development projects in St. Louis Park. In accordance with the Comprehensive Plan, St. Louis Park plans to add 2,472 housing units by 2020. As of March, 2004, 1,794 units have been approved and/or completed, and an additional St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 081604 - 4l - Housing Authority Minutes of 6-09-04 Page 2 256 units are currently in the approval stage. Ms. Erickson also reviewed commercial developments. c. Approval of Family Self-Sufficiency Contract – Resource, Inc. Ms. Schnitker provided an overview of the Family Self-Sufficiency contract between the St. Louis Park Housing Authority, Plymouth HRA, and Resource Inc., Employment Action Center. The projected total contract amount is $53,952. Currently, the HA pays 60% of the contract ($32,371), and Plymouth pays 40%. The HA will be securing a grant for the Section 8 portion of this contract and will most likely be able to secure funds for the Public Housing portion also. The program assists Section 8 and Public Housing tenants in obtaining self-sufficiency. Commissioner Moore moved to approve the Family Self-Sufficiency Contract, and Commissioner Fillbrandt seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0, with Commissioners Courtney, Daniel, Fillbrandt, Mavity and Moore voting in favor. d. Approval of New Payment Standards for the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program Ms. Schnitker explained recent changes in the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program. Since the HA is being funded at a lower level than it has been in the past, amounting to an approximate 5.5% decrease annually, staff is recommending new payment standards equal to 100% of Fair Market Rents, effective August 1, 2004. Commissioner Mavity moved for approval of New Payment Standards for the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program, and Commissioner Daniel seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0, with Commissioners Courtney, Daniel, Fillbrandt, Mavity and Moore voting in favor. e. Community Involvement Program Shelter Plus Care Application Ms. Schnitker stated that Community Involvement Program is interested in expanding their Shelter Plus Care rental assistance program by adding four additional units. They are currently working on a development in Minnetonka that will have four buildings, each with four studio apartments. There will be two Shelter Plus Care units in two of the four buildings. Commissioner Moore moved to approve the Community Involvement Program Shelter Plus Care Application, and Commissioner Fillbrandt seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0 with Commissioners Courtney, Daniel, Fillbrandt and Moore voting in favor. Commissioner Mavity abstained from voting. f. Revenue Recapture Report Ms. Klesk provided the Board with a report of the Revenue Recapture Program total debt and collection results for the past year. 7. Communications from Executive Director a. Claims List No. 6-2004 St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 081604 - 4l - Housing Authority Minutes of 6-09-04 Page 3 Commissioner Moore moved for ratification of Claims List No. 6-2004, and Commissioner Mavity seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0, with Commissioners Courtney, Daniel, Fillbrandt, Mavity and Moore voting in favor. b. Communications 1. Monthly Reports for June, 2004 2. Scattered-Site Houses and Hamilton House (verbal report) 3. Draft Financial Statement Financial information was tabled until the next Board meeting. 8. Other – None 9. Adjournment Commissioner Mavity moved to adjourn the meeting, and Commission Moore seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0, with Commissioners Courtney, Daniel, Fillbrandt, Mavity and Moore voting in favor. The meeting was adjourned at 6:53 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Anne Mavity, Secretary St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 081604 - 8a - Aquila Commons Comp Plan Amendment Page 1 8a. Request by Stonebridge Development and Acquisition, LLC. for an amendment to the City’s Comprehensive Plan to change the land use designation from Civic to High Density Residential and adopt a Redevelopment Plan for the property for a residential senior housing cooperative known as Aquila Commons. Case Nos. 04-23-CUP 8200 33rd Street West Recommended Action: • Motion to adopt resolution approving a Comprehensive Plan map amendment changing land use designation for property at 8200 33rd St W. from Civic to High Density Residential and text amendments to Chapter P of Comprehensive Plan 2000 – 2020 contingent upon Metropolitan Council review. Zoning: RC, Multi-Family Residential Comprehensive Plan Designation: Civic Parcel Size 118,069 sq. ft. Current Land Use: Vacant School (former Talmud Torah) Proposed Land Use Senior Co-op Other required approvals: PUD Request: Stonebridge Development & Acquisition, LLC, is requesting an amendment to the City’s Comprehensive Plan to change the land use designation from Civic to High Density Residential, and adopt a Redevelopment Plan for a residential senior housing cooperative development for the Talmud Torah school property, located north of 33rd Street and east of the cul-de-sac on Virginia Avenue South. Update: The request for a Comprehensive Plan amendment was continued from the August 2, 2004 City Council meeting in order that the developers could meet with the neighbors to discuss the site and building layout. The original proposal was to construct a 3 and 4 story, 122 unit senior housing cooperative on the 2.75 acre site. On August 11, 2004, the developers met with the neighbors. Building proximity, scale and traffic were the main issues and a new building and site plan emerged from the meeting; the building was reoriented so the “u” shape is toward Texas Avenue and less building faces the single family homes to the east. The visitor parking lot would be adjacent to the homes on Texas Avenue. The developer is drawing up the new alternative and it will be available at the City Council meeting. Details of the site and building plans would be considered St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 081604 - 8a - Aquila Commons Comp Plan Amendment Page 2 as a part of the PUD application at future Planning Commission and City Council meetings, if the Comprehensive Plan amendment is approved. The developer has also requested TIF assistance, and is analyzing the implications of the building design alternatives, based on the number and size of units; additional information on the economic and TIF impacts of the alternative number of housing units will be presented at the meeting. Background: The application is to accommodate a proposed redevelopment of the property, which contains a vacant school building. This property is currently zoned RC, Multi-Family Residential. The adoption of a Redevelopment Plan in the City’s Comprehensive Plan is being requested to allow some flexibility to certain standards in conjunction with the senior cooperative. Specifically, the request is to allow reductions in setbacks to the front and side yards (the west and north property lines), increase the ground floor area (GFAR), and reduce the parking requirements. Multi-family dwellings are permitted with conditions in the RC, Multi-Family Zoning district, however if a Redevelopment Plan for the project is adopted in the Comprehensive Plan, a Planned Unit Development (PUD) process and approval is required. A complete PUD application has been received and staff is currently reviewing the plans. If the Comprehensive Plan amendments are approved, the PUD request will be heard before the Planning Commission on September 1, 2004 (continued from August 18, 2004). On June 2, 2004 the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this item and heard testimony from residents who had concerns regarding the upcoming project proposal (See attached Unofficial PC Minute Excerpts). The Planning Commission encouraged neighborhood collaboration and requested information from a traffic study including a neighborhood comparison of number of trips generated by multifamily housing be brought back with the PUD proposal. The Planning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend approval of amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. A neighborhood meeting was held on June 10, 2004. The neighborhood identified some the following issues: • There were many concerns about traffic and potential traffic increases. • The height and scale of the building will shadow the single family backyards to the east in the summer months, and potential loss of privacy. • The building is too dense. • Some residents were worried surrounding property values would diminish. • A few residents were interested in this as a housing option and one asked to be put on a waiting list. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 081604 - 8a - Aquila Commons Comp Plan Amendment Page 3 The developer explained the current plan, and committed to providing additional information on specific items requested, such as a summer shadow study, a traffic study, and a rendering to show the scale of the building compared to the surrounding area. SRF consulting was hired to complete a traffic analysis on behalf of the City and paid for by Stonebridge Development. The study analyzed anticipated effects of the proposed development on traffic, peak hour operations and site access. The study is attached and the results are described below. A consultant from SRF will be in attendance at the Council meeting to answer questions. On July 28th, another neighborhood meeting was held at City Hall. Approximately 45-50 residents attended the meeting (of those, 28 signed in). Another petition against the project, identical to the ones previously submitted, was submitted prior to the meeting with 24 additional signatures of residents along the 3100 and 3200 block of Texas Ave. During the meeting staff explained the process and actions that need to happen before a project would receive approval. The developer provided a project description; explained changes that have been made to the plans based upon previous comments, answered questions and took additional comments. It was generally a positive meeting. There was a mixture of reactions to the project both in favor and against the proposal. Some of the issues raised were concerns that traffic will be increased and the size of the building is too large. Others liked the concept, use, size of units and proposed prices. The developer agreed to have a follow-up meeting with the owners of the single family homes that abut the project along Texas. The purpose would be to discuss specific design modifications to the buffer along the east property line. These residents are potentially the most affected by the development. On August 11, 2004, another neighborhood meeting was held. The neighbors immediately adjacent to the property to the east met first, and the broader neighborhood met following the first meeting. Neighbors talked of their concerns and a new configuration for the building was conceived: the building was changed so the “u” shape was reoriented 90 degrees, with less building face toward the single family homes to the east. The visitor parking lot would be adjacent to the homes on Texas Avenue. Neighbors generally liked the new orientation and the developer’s architect indicated he would draw up the design to be available at the City Council meeting. Project Description The developer proposes to demolish the existing school building and construct a 3 and 4 story senior housing cooperative called Aquila Commons. The developer has stated, “cooperatives are a form of housing in which residents own their units by purchasing a share of the corporation that owns the building on behalf of the residents. Residents then pay a monthly charge to cover the mortgage, costs of operating and cost of maintaining the building. The structure of cooperatives allows for lower operating costs, participation in the growth of equity by individual tenants, and provides the same tax advantages as St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 081604 - 8a - Aquila Commons Comp Plan Amendment Page 4 home owners. This will provide an affordable and sustainable housing option for the senior community” (see attached application). A concept plan was submitted for adoption into the Redevelopment Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. It shows a horseshoe shaped building with a surface parking lot accessed off of 33rd Street and access to underground parking off of Virginia Avenue. The plan proposes garden plots on the east side of the building and an outdoor front porch area with gardens, arbors, water features and benches in front of the main entry (south side of the building). Sidewalks are shown throughout the site and along most street frontages except around the curve of the cul-de-sac. Staff recommends the sidewalk be continued around the cul-de-sac with a stair connection over the hill to connect to the sidewalk on 33rd Street. This would create connections to both the park and to a transit line on Texas Avenue for residents located along Virginia Avenue and north of the subject property. Surrounding Uses and Zoning: Existing Use Zoning North Nursing Home RC East Single Family Residential R2 South Single Family Residential R2 West Multi-Family Condominiums RC Issues: • Is the proposed change in land use consistent with the zoning designation? • What are the purpose and standards for adopting a Redevelopment Plan? • What modifications are being requested to the Zoning Ordinance requirements and why? • Is the proposal consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Livable Community principles, Redevelopment Plan goals, and Neighborhood Plan goals? • What are the results of the traffic study? Analysis: Is the proposed land use consistent with the zoning designation? The existing school building was built in the late 1950’s. Today, the school is no longer operating and the building is now vacant. The property owners are interested in redeveloping this property, however any redevelopment and change in land use is required to be consistent with both the zoning and the land use guiding for the parcel. As stated previously the zoning on the subject property is R-C, Multi-Family Residential and it is guided as Civic. Under this land use (Civic) public buildings such as schools, government buildings, religious institutions, community centers and libraries are permitted (parks and open space are not included in this category). The proposal is to change the land use designation from Civic to High Density Residential to accommodate St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 081604 - 8a - Aquila Commons Comp Plan Amendment Page 5 a senior housing co-op. This land use would be consistent with the current zoning designation and would permit a multi-family housing project. It would also be consistent with the existing land uses to the north and west, which contain a nursing home and multi-family condominium development respectively. What are the purpose and standards for adopting a Redevelopment Plan? Multi-family housing is a permitted use with conditions in the R-C High Density Residential District. One of the conditions specifies that “Conditions a through g [the conditions for multi-family development] and certain performance standards may be waived or amended using a PUD process if so specified in a Redevelopment Plan for the area that has been adopted as part of the City Comprehensive Plan.” Therefore, the Redevelopment Plan allows flexibility in meeting certain Zoning Ordinance requirements provided a PUD is approved, plans are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and the Redevelopment goals of the Comprehensive Plan. A Redevelopment Plan can allow for greater modifications to the Zoning Ordinance requirements than a PUD ordinance in some areas. With the current proposal, the developer is requesting a modification to the ground floor area requirement, front and side yard setback requirements, and parking standards. Some of these modifications exceed the maximum modification allowed under a PUD (See below for further analysis) alone. What modifications are being requested to the Zoning Ordinance requirements and why? [From original proposal:] The following modifications to the Zoning Ordinance requirements are being requested by the developer. The PUD modification allowances are listed as a guide, along with the standard requirement and the proposed modifications. The areas where the proposed modification exceeds the modification allowed by PUD are the ground floor area ratio, and the side yard setback. Existing nonconformities on the property are not addressed as this property is planned for redevelopment and will be addressed through the PUD process in the near future. Standard Requirement PUD mod. Resulting PUD Actual Allowed Standard Requested Ground Floor Area .25 5% increase 26.25 .33 Front Yard Setback 30 feet No required 0 10 feet (Virginia Ave.) yard Side Yard Setback ±80 feet None ±80 feet 20 feet St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 081604 - 8a - Aquila Commons Comp Plan Amendment Page 6 (North prop. Line) Parking Reductions 244 stalls Up to 30% 183 stalls 183 stalls decrease Proposed Modifications: The proposed modifications (italics) are listed below. • Proposed increase in ground floor area (GFAR): Ground Floor Area Ratio may be a maximum of .33. The increase in ground floor area (ratio of building footprint to lot area) is the result of larger ‘for sale’ owner occupied housing units. In an initial concept for this development, which met the ground floor area requirement, smaller units were proposed. However, a market study conducted by the developer indicated larger units are desirable. The proposed increase to accommodate larger ‘for sale’ housing and the average units per acre are compatible with the City goals. As a side note, the developer is requesting TIF assistance and has been working with the City’s Economic Development Coordinator on that process. One other reason for the increase in ground floor area is the developer’s efforts to meet the zoning code’s building wall deviation requirements. The developer is providing additional bump outs in the building footprint instead of incorporating an architectural feature such as brick pilasters. Bump outs are more attractive than pilasters but increase the ground floor area. In addition, the ground floor area requirement could be met by increasing the height of the building, which is allowable by Code. The developer is trying to be more consistent with the overall heights of other multi-family development in the neighborhood. Staff believes the proposed design is superior to construction of a taller building, and even though the ground floor area is proposed to be increased, the proposed project still meets and may exceed the designed outdoor recreational area/open space requirements. • Proposed setback reductions: Building setback may be a minimum of 10 feet on the west, 20 feet on the north. The developer proposes to have a 10 foot setback from the cul-de-sac on Virginia Avenue (Front yard) and a 20 foot setback from the north property line (Side yard). The RC zoning district requires a minimum of 30 feet for the front yard setback and due to the size and height of the building a minimum of 87 feet for the north side yard setback. The front yard setback requirement can be reduced to have a zero yard setback requirement under the PUD process and both requirements can be waived if addressed in a Redevelopment Plan adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan. The reduced front yard setback will bring the proposed building closer to Virginia Avenue, which will allow for a larger landscaped area on the east side adjacent to the single family residential properties. A shading analysis has been provided which shows that proposed building does not shade the nursing home to the north even St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 081604 - 8a - Aquila Commons Comp Plan Amendment Page 7 with a reduced side yard setback. The nursing home’s parking lot is adjacent to the north lot line, and the 3 to 4 story nursing home itself is located in the center of their property. Staff prefers the larger green space to be located east of the building to provide more space for landscaping and screening adjacent to the single-family homes along Texas Avenue. • Reduction in parking: Allow parking reductions as approved by PUD. Proposed parking reductions are consistent with the allowable 15% modification though PUD and 10% transit reduction. The developer is proposing 1.5 parking stalls per dwelling unit for a total of 183 parking spaces for 122 units. With the PUD and transit reductions the ordinance requires 183 spaces. The developer believes there is more parking than is really needed and proposes to construct 169 parking spaces and designate an area for 14 more spaces as proof of parking that can be provided if needed in the future. This reduces the paved area and increases the green space while ensuring enough parking will be provided. In order to qualify for the transit reduction the developer is required to install a sidewalk to the existing bus stop on Texas Avenue and 33rd Street. The developer has proposed to construct a sidewalk along all street frontages and to extend the 33rd Street sidewalk to the east to connect to Texas Avenue. The sidewalk along 33rd Street will also connect to the trail directly to the west (this trail is part of the Aquila Park trail system). This extension will provide a connection to the transit stop on the corner of Texas Avenue and 33rd, and will complete a sidewalk/trail segment identified on the adopted Trail & Sidewalk Plan in the Comprehensive Plan (see attached City Wide Trail and Sidewalk Master Plan). It also provides a connection from the sidewalk along Texas Ave west to the trail system in Aquila Park, the regional trail system and even to Knollwood Mall (see attached City sidewalk and trail map &). One resident who lives at 3256 Texas Avenue (corner of Texas & 33rd Street) is concerned that this sidewalk will be too close to their existing garage and home. Based upon a survey it appears the house is setback 1 foot and the garage 2 feet from the property line (33rd St.; staff believes an error was made when the home was built and surveyed ,as the home was shown to be 9 feet from the property line on the original survey). Staff understands the need to compromise on locations when retrofitting sidewalks in areas where none exist. In this case, staff believes a sidewalk connection to Texas Ave is needed for safety reasons; and will meet the City’s goals of providing pedestrian connections to services and amenities. It is anticipated that the connection will be used not only by seniors using transit but also by residents using the City’s sidewalk and trail systems. One of the Comprehensive Plan’s Livable Communities goals is to provide safe pedestrian ways that separate pedestrians from car traffic and provide easy connections to encourage pedestrian activity. Staff believes this sidewalk segment along 33rd Street is important and in fact is shown on the City Wide Trail St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 081604 - 8a - Aquila Commons Comp Plan Amendment Page 8 and Sidewalk Master Plan. There are several similar situations in other locations throughout the City where sidewalks are located close to the homes and garages (see attached examples). To accommodate for the close proximity for the home and garage at 3256 Texas Avenue, the sidewalk could be placed directly behind the curb. This will require the removal of a silver maple, which the developer would be required to replace. The boulevard width is 14 feet and this will provide approximately 10 feet between the house and sidewalk. Staff will work with the homeowner and the developer to find an appropriate location for the sidewalk. The appropriateness of the proposed modifications is addressed below under Comprehensive Plan Consistency. • Is the proposal consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Livable Community principles, Redevelopment Goals, and Neighborhood Plan goals? Livable Communities Principles: The Comprehensive Plan requires that any private development which utilizes public funding demonstrate how Livable Communities principles are addressed in the project. The following principles apply to this Redevelopment Plan proposal: • Provide safe, interesting, pleasant pedestrian and bicycle trails which connect all neighborhoods to services and amenities. • Facilitate building locations and design which emphasizes a relationship with a walkable public realm. Support design which emphasizes architecture, art, and pedestrian and transit connections. • Provide Life-cycle housing. In support of these principles, pedestrian and vehicular circulation is good within the development. New sidewalk connections are proposed which will facilitate pedestrian connections to gardens, parks, trails and transit facilities. A sidewalk connection is proposed from the subject property to Texas Avenue and a frequently operated transit line. In addition, connections are proposed to the trail and Aquila Park east of the site. Life-cycle housing is being provided and will offer an affordable and sustainable housing option for the senior community, thus promoting the retention of residents within St. Louis Park. The proposed cooperative also has the potential to make single-family homes within St. Louis Park currently owned by seniors available for resale to new families. Regarding the relationship to the public realm, the removal of the school will remove a building containing asbestos and replace it with a high quality building thus improving the appearance of the property. The development will also increase the amount of open space/outdoor recreational area. A front porch is proposed off the front of the building and includes the addition of gardens, arbors, benches and other amenities. Garden plots, berms and landscaping are also proposed on the east side of the building next to the single family residential properties. The traffic signal at the intersection of 33rd Avenue and Texas Avenue has, in the past, been recommended for approval. As a St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 081604 - 8a - Aquila Commons Comp Plan Amendment Page 9 part of the proposed project, the developer has agreed to pay for the continued maintenance of this signal. Redevelopment Goals: A goal of the Comprehensive Plan’s Redevelopment Chapter to provide a balanced and sustainable housing stock to meet diverse needs both today and in the future. Some of the strategies for implementing this goal that apply to this proposal include: develop public/private partnerships and create incentives for the development of a variety of housing stock; and seek non-traditional housing options to enable all demographic groups --including the elderly to remain in St. Louis Park. The City’s Redevelopment Chapter also uses specific criteria to judge the merit of housing plans and redevelopment proposals to ensure their sustainability into the future. The following criteria apply to this proposal. • Implement Vision St. Louis Park Goals – see livable communities principles above. • Enhance Neighborhoods – the project proposes to provide sidewalk connections to parks, open space, and transit. • Increase Tax Base – this goal is met. • Improve Infrastructure – developer is proposing to retain an existing traffic signal at a busy intersection. • Enhance Transit – sidewalk connections to a transit route on Texas Avenue are proposed. • Improve Maintenance – project will remove a building containing asbestos. • Meet Market Demand – the project helps meet demand of an aging population with affordable housing options. • Relate to Adjacent Development – the project will blend with other multi- family developments to the north and west; provide trail connections to the nearby park; create a designed outdoor recreational area including individual garden plots. • Leverage Public Funds Effectively- TIF assistance is anticipated; the level of assistance is anticipated to be an effective use of public funds. • Create Jobs – new jobs will be created both with construction of the facility and management and maintenance of the cooperative. Aquila Neighborhood ‘Plan by Neighborhood Goals’: The Plan by Neighborhood Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan outlines desired neighborhood improvements for the Aquila Neighborhood, which is where the subject property is located. Some of the recommended improvements related to this neighborhood include adding sidewalks though the neighborhood; improving transit; and providing safe street crossings. As indicated above, the proposed redevelopment would provide additional sidewalk and trail connections including transit connections, and would result in the retention of a traffic light at Texas Avenue and 33rd Street, a major crossing for neighborhood access to Oak Hill Park and transit on Texas Avenue. Summary: In general, the proposed modifications are reasonable and meet many of the goals, policies and implementation strategies of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff does St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 081604 - 8a - Aquila Commons Comp Plan Amendment Page 10 recommend that any future redevelopment of the subject property emphasize livable communities principles, particularly high density residential in accordance with the existing multi-family zoning, provide a strong connection between the development and public spaces and exhibit interesting architecture and pedestrian connections. What are the results of the traffic study? Based upon SRF’s traffic analysis, which included looking at the traffic impacts on adjacent roadway systems, peak hour operations, and a site plan review, the consultant made the following conclusions. Traffic forecasts: SRF analyzed three possible development scenarios for the subject site: 1: assumes current zoning (RC) with 122 apartments 2: assumes current use of site – 47,346 sq. ft. school 3: assumes proposed senior housing development According to SRF’s findings the senior housing development is expect to generate approximately ½ of the daily trips generated by 122 unit apartment units, and 2/3 of the daily trips generated by an occupied school. SRF estimated the trips generated by the proposed development would be approximately 425 daily trips, compared to 625 daily trips with the current use (See table 2 in attached traffic study). During the a.m. peak hour, 10 trips are expected and 13 trips are anticipated during the p.m. peak hour. These are very low volumes and are not expected to affect the nearby intersections, such at Virginia and 32nd, 32nd and Texas, and 33rd and Texas Ave. For comparison purposes SRF also estimated the number of trips that would be generated at peak hours if 15 single family homes were on the property. They determined there would be approximately 11 trips during the a.m. peak hour and 15 trips during the p.m. peak hour. Therefore the senior development is expected to generate a similar number of trips as single family developments during peak hours. Level of service: All intersections are expected to continue to operate at the same level of service (LOS A) during the peak hours with completion of the proposed development. Based upon a delay study completed for the intersection of 32nd Street/Texas Ave, the current average delay for eastbound vehicles on 32nd St during the a.m. peak hour is approximately 2 seconds per vehicle. During the p.m. peak hour the average delay is approximately 7 seconds. The proposed use is not expected to increase these delays. Recommendation: Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan Map amendment to change the land use designation from Civic to High Density Residential, subject to adoption of Comprehensive Plan Redevelopment Plan guidelines and review by the Metropolitan Council. Attachments: St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 081604 - 8a - Aquila Commons Comp Plan Amendment Page 11 Ø Proposed resolutions Ø Location & Zoning Map (supplement) Ø Existing & Proposed Comprehensive Plan Land Use Maps (supplement) Ø Application and proposed concept plan (supplement) Ø City sidewalk and trail map and City Trail & Sidewalk Master Plan (supplement) Ø Traffic study (supplement) Prepared By: Julie Grove, Associate Planner Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 081604 - 8a - Aquila Commons Comp Plan Amendment Page 12 RESOLUTION NO. 04-096 A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2000 TO THE YEAR 2020 FOR THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTES 462.351 TO 462.364 8200 33rd STREET WEST CHANGE LAND USE FROM CIVIC TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND ADOPT A REDEVELOPMENT PLAN WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan 2000-2020 was adopted by the City Council on May 17, 1999 (effective September 1, 1999) and provides the following: 1. An official statement serving as the basic guide in making land use, transportation and community facilities and service decisions affecting the City. 2. A framework for policies and actions leading to the improvement of the physical, financial, and social environment of the City, thereby providing a good place to live and work and a setting conducive for new development. 3. A promotion of the public interest in establishing a more functional, healthful, interesting, and efficient community by serving the interests of the community at large rather than the interests of individual or special groups within the community if their interests are at variance with the public interest. 4. An effective framework for direction and coordination of activities affecting the development and preservation of the community. 5. Treatment of the entire community as one ecosystem and to inject long range considerations into determinations affecting short-range action, and WHEREAS, the use of such Comprehensive Plan will insure a safer, more pleasant, and more economical environment for residential, commercial, industrial, and public activities and will promote the public health, safety, and general welfare, and WHEREAS, said Plan will prepare the community for anticipated desirable change, thereby bringing about significant savings in both private and public expenditures, and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan has taken due cognizance of the planning activities of adjacent units of government, and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan is to be periodically reviewed by the Planning Commission of the City of St. Louis Park and amendments made, if justified according to St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 081604 - 8a - Aquila Commons Comp Plan Amendment Page 13 procedures, rules, and laws, and provided such amendments would provide a positive result and are consistent with other provisions in the Comprehensive Plan, and WHEREAS, amendments to the Comprehensive Plan may be initiated by petition of the owners of the actual property, the guiding of which is proposed to be changed, and WHEREAS, the owners of the property at 8200 33rd Street West petitioned the City to change the Comprehensive Plan land use designation from Civic to High Density Residential and adopt a Redevelopment Plan to allow the redevelopment of the existing educational use, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of St. Louis Park recommended adoption of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan 2000-2020 on June 2, 2004, based on statutes, the Metropolitan Regional Blueprint, extensive research and analyses involving the interests of citizens and public agencies, and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of St. Louis Park that the Comprehensive Plan, as previously adopted by the Planning Commission and City Council, is hereby amended as follows: Change the land use designation as shown on the attached map from Civic to High Density Residential and adopt a Redevelopment Plan in Chapter P, the Redevelopment Chapter, for the subject property showing a residential senior housing cooperative development. 1. Change the land use designations from Civic to High Density Residential as shown on the attached map: 2. Change the Redevelopment Chapter, Chapter P, to adopt a Redevelopment Plan for a residential senior housing cooperative development with the following: a. a new Figure P-10, as attached, to be titled “Aquila Commons Redevelopment Concept Plan”, which will include the following text: The Aquila Commons redevelopment district was established in 2004 to facilitate the redevelopment of a former private school (known as Talmud Torah School). A Redevelopment Plan was adopted by the City Council on August 16, 2004 for 8200 33rd Street West, and will entail the construction of a senior housing cooperative. Any future redevelopment of the subject property shall emphasize livable community’s principles, provide an attractive public realm, and interesting architecture and pedestrian connections. The following modifications to performance standards may be adopted through PUD consideration: • Ground Floor Area Ratio may be a maximum of .33. • Building setback may be a minimum of 10 feet on the west, 20 feet on the north. • Parking reductions as approved by PUD. (Signature Block) St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 081604 - 8a - Aquila Commons Comp Plan Amendment Page 14 SUMMARY RESOLUTION NO. 04-096 A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2000 TO THE YEAR 2020 FOR THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTES 462.351 TO 462.364 8200 33rd STREET WEST This resolution states that the land use designation for property located at 8200 33rd Street West will be changed from Civic to High Density Residential and that a redevelopment plan for the property for a residential senior housing cooperative development will be adopted into the Comprehensive Plan. Adopted by the City Council August 16, 2004 Contingent upon approval of the Metropolitan Council Jeffrey W. Jacobs /s/ Mayor A copy of the full text of this resolution is available for inspection with the City Clerk. Published in St. Louis Park Sailor: August 26, 2004 Res/ord/2004/04-23-CPsum St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 081604 - 8b - Lamplighter Pond Lift Station Replacement Page 1 8b. City Engineer’s Report: Lamplighter Pond Storm Water Improvement Project – Lift Station Replacement – Project No. 00-18A This report considers the replacement of an existing storm sewer lift station located at Pennsylvania Avenue and Franklin Avenue, near Lamplighter Pond. Recommended Action: Motion to adopt the attached resolution accepting this report, establishing and ordering Improvement Project No. 00-18A, approving plans and specifications, and authorizing advertisement for bids. Background: The City is currently developing a project to increase the storm water storage capacity of Lamplighter Pond which would help alleviate flooding at a number of homes in the area. The proposed plan is to excavate the pond to the north and lower the water elevation. Also, as a part of this project, the pond bottom would be excavated to remove built-up sediment deposits, the shorelines re-graded and restored with native vegetation, and the storm sewer lift station replaced. There is no natural outlet to the pond. The lift station pumps water from the pond to the City’s storm sewer system allowing the lake level to remain relatively constant. Due to the lift station’s age and the condition of its pumps, it is in need of replacement. Staff has been finalizing the plans for the lift station design and is recommending the City proceed with this phase of the overall project as a separate contract. The decision to proceed with this phase of the project was considered because this work is somewhat specialized and could easily be completed in advance of the other aspects of the project. This would also allow us to continue to use the existing station while the new one is being installed. Please note that this lift station needs to be replaced regardless of whether the other improvements to the pond are made. Analysis: The City’s consultant, WSB and Associates, has prepared plans for the replacement of the existing lift station. The plans call for replacement of the wet well, intake sewer pipe, pumps, and control system. The lift station would be constructed near the existing one. Once the new station becomes operational, the old wet well will be filled and the small building used to house the electrical controls will be torn down. The only portion of the new lift station which will appear above ground level will be the control panel. A bituminous driveway will be installed to access the station from Pennsylvania Avenue. Two trees and a bush will need to be removed to install the new station. The contractor will attempt to relocate the bush. Replacement landscaping, including trees and bushes, will be installed as a part of the contract. The improved station will provide a safer and more reliable pumping system with fewer maintenance costs. The pumps and control system will be compatible with others in the City thus providing ease of use for the Utility Division operators. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 081604 - 8b - Lamplighter Pond Lift Station Replacement Page 2 Public Information and Consideration: Staff has mailed an informational letter to the surrounding residents and property owners informing them of the recommendation to proceed with this portion of the project and the date of the Council meeting when action would be taken. Construction hours will be limited to 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. in accordance with previous direction from the Planning Commission. Access to the site will be limited to Franklin Avenue. Construction Timing: Installation of the new wet and dry wells would be completed this Fall before the ground is frozen. It is likely that the pumps and control box will take several months to be manufactured, so work would be suspended until they are available. In the Spring, the station will be tested and put into operation before removing the existing station. Landscaping of the site would be done at the end of the project. Therefore, construction would likely begin in October but not be completed until May of 2005. Financial Considerations: The estimated cost of the lift station replacement project is $459,000. This includes a 10% contingency. This work is eligible for funding through the MnDNR grant at a 1:1 match. A summary of the project costs and funding is: Project Costs Construction (includes 10% contingency) $ 410,000 Engineering $ 49,000 TOTAL $ 459,000 Project Funding MnDNR grant proceeds $ 229,500 Storm Sewer Utility Bond proceeds $ 229,500 TOTAL $ 459,000 Should the City Council approve the City Engineer’s Report, it is anticipated that the following schedule could be met: • Approval of Plans/Authorization to Bid by City Council August 16 • Advertise for bids August/September • Bid Opening September 23 • Bid Tab Report to City Council; Award contract October 4 • Construction October through May, 2005 Attachments: Resolution Site map (supplement) Prepared by: Maria A. Hagen, City Engineer Reviewed By: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 081604 - 8b - Lamplighter Pond Lift Station Replacement Page 3 RESOLUTION NO. 04-097 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE CITY ENGINEER’S REPORT, ESTABLISHING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 00-18A, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF THE LAMPLIGHTER POND LIFT STATION, PROJECT NO. 00-18A WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the City Engineer related to storm water system improvements for the replacement of a storm sewer lift station at Lamplighter Pond. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that: 1. The City Engineer’s Report regarding the lift station improvements at Lamplighter Pond within the city is hereby accepted. 2. The proposed project, designated as Project No. 00-18A, is hereby established. 3. The plans and specifications for the making of the improvement, as prepared under the direction of the City Engineer, are approved. 4. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted at least two weeks in the official newspaper and in the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids for the making of said improvement under said-approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall appear not less than ten (10) days prior to the date and time bids will be received by the City Clerk, and that no bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the City Clerk and accompanied by a bid bond payable to the City for five (5) percent of the amount of the bid. 5. The bids shall be tabulated by the City Engineer who shall report her tabulation and recommendation to the City Council. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council August 16, 2004 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 081604 - 8c - 2004 Trail Improvements Page 1 8c. City Engineer’s Report: 2004 Trail Improvement Project, City Project No. 04- 03 This report considers the construction of various sections of new trail in accordance with the city’s sidewalk, trails, and bikeway plan Recommended Action: Motion to adopt the attached resolution accepting this report, establishing and ordering Improvement Project No. 04-03, approving plans and specifications, and authorizing advertisement for bids. Motion to adopt the attached resolution accepting a grant from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resource (DNR) for partial funding of regional trail connections. Background: Making the City a safer and more pedestrian-friendly community was one of the recommendations of Vision St. Louis Park. In response to this suggestion, a city-wide Sidewalk, Trail, Bikeway and Crossing Plan was developed. This Plan, which has been incorporated into the city’s Comprehensive Plan, identifies areas of the city in need of additional sidewalk, trails or bikeways; and, busy roadway or railroad crossings where pedestrian safety improvements can be made. The final Plan was adopted on July 5, 2000 with some minor changes and revisions since then. The 2004 Trail Improvement Project includes six new segments identified in the City’s plan. Three of the six segments are regional trail connections where the City has applied for grant monies from the DNR and received preliminary notice of award for 50% of construction costs. Analysis: Six segments of new trail are identified for construction in 2004. They are as follows: A new trail along Flag Avenue, from 36th Street north to Knollwood Green Park, requested through a petition from the neighborhood. A new trail from Alabama Avenue west along 36th Street to Jorvig Park. A new trail along Gorham Avenue and Library Lane adjacent to the Hennepin County Library. A trail connection at the Southwest Regional Trail at the north end of France Avenue in the Minikahda Oaks neighborhood. A regional trail connection from the Victoria Lake parking area to the Cedar Lake Extension trail (Hutchinson Spur). And a regional trail connection at the west end of Edgebrook Park from the end of Rhode Island Dr. to the Southwest Regional Trail. Plans for each of the above trail segments have been developed by Engineering Division staff based upon the guidelines established for the program. These guidelines indicate a preferred design of an 8 foot-wide bituminous trail. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 081604 - 8c - 2004 Trail Improvements Page 2 Design/Construction Considerations: Flag Avenue Trail Segment: This trail will run along the south side of Flag Avenue from 36th Street to Knollwood Green Park. The 8 foot wide bituminous trail will be placed adjacent to the edge of the road with no boulevard green space. The steep grade next to this road prevents a boulevard area next to this trail. West 36th Street Trail Segment: This trail will extend an existing trail constructed in 2003. This new segment runs along the north side of 36th Street from Alabama Avenue west to Jorvig Park then ending at 37th Street. The 8 foot bituminous trail will have a 3 foot boulevard area. There are no significant design issues with this segment. Gorham Avenue/Library Lane: This segment provides a route along the Hennepin County Library. The 8 foot bituminous trail will run along the west side of the Library next to Gorham Avenue. It will connect to an existing trail at the north end of the property crossing to Library Lane. The existing trail, constructed in the early 1980’s, will also be reconstructed. A short portion of the trail will then run south along the east side of the Library on Library Lane. A portion of this segment will be an extension of a 6 foot sidewalk along Library Lane on the east side of the Library. This trail will allow users to circumvent the Library as they cross over Louisiana Avenue using the pedestrian bridge and head east toward the High School and vice- versa. City staff met with Hennepin County Library staff to discuss design alternatives for this trail segment. Library staff preferred that the City reconstruct an old existing trail on the west side of Gorham Avenue rather than along the Library property. Their concerns centered on increased pedestrian conflict with Library traffic and the need to relocate a portion of the Library’s irrigation system residing in the boulevard. Their issues along with the design alternatives were brought to the City’s Development Review Committee for recommendation. The Committee recommended that the trail be placed in the boulevard area along the Library. This location provides for the best pedestrian visibility and does not require any loss of trees as would be necessary if the City reconstructed the old existing trail on the west side of Gorham Avenue. It may be necessary to restrict street parking along Gorham Avenue to provide improved site lines for the street crossing. Staff will analyze this and bring an item before the Council, prior to award of contract, if necessary. France Avenue Regional Trail Connection: This trail connection will provide access to the Southwest Regional Trail. It will serve the residents of the Minikahda Oaks neighborhood as well as some of the residents in the Wolfe Park neighborhood. The trail will provide a route from the end of France Avenue to the regional trail. The trail crosses two properties, the Minikahda Mini Storage site and the Park Glenn office complex owned by CSM Corporation. Staff has met with both owners to discuss the trail plans and both owners support the trail connections. Easements will be obtained for trail purposes across these properties. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 081604 - 8c - 2004 Trail Improvements Page 3 Victoria Lake Regional Trail Connection: This trail will provide a connection from the parking area on the east end of Victoria Lake to the Cedar Lake Extension Trail. This will be an 8 foot bituminous trail running through a grass area. There are no significant design issues with this segment. Edgebrook Park Regional Trail Connection: This trail connection will provide convenient access to the Southwest Regional Trail for those residents living north of Edgebrook Park. The trail will run along the west end of the park from Rhode Island Drive to the regional trail. There will be minor brush removal necessary to construct this trail. The new trail connection was presented to the residents at a neighborhood meeting this past March. All comments received were favorable. Financial Considerations: Funding for this project will come from General Obligation bonds and DNR grant monies. The City applied for a grant from the DNR for those segments which connect to the Regional Trail System. The grant program provides 50% matching funds for regional trail connections which promote local access to the regional system. The City has been awarded a grant from the DNR pending completion of an environmental assessment and adoption of a resolution which accepts the grant and assures maintenance of the trail connections for 20 years. The grant will amount to approximately $20,000. Project Costs: Location Cost Flag Avenue $ 19,970.00 West 36th Street $ 20,972.00 Gorham Avenue/Library Lane $ 17,828.50 France Avenue $ 19,649.00 Victoria Lake $ 5,823.50 Edgebrook Park $ 7,133.00 Subtotal $ 91,376.00 Contingencies 10% $ 9,138.00 Engineering & Admin. 12% $ 10,965.00 TOTAL $111,479.00 Project Funding: General Obligation Bonds $ 91,500.00 DNR Grant Funds $ 20,000.00 TOTAL $111,479.00 Project Timeline: Should the City Council approve the City Engineer’s Report, it is anticipated that the following schedule could be met: St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 081604 - 8c - 2004 Trail Improvements Page 4 • City Engineer’s Report/Approval of Plans/Authorization to Bid by City Council August 16, 2004 • Advertise for bids August 26, September 2 • Bid Opening September 9, 2004 • Bid Tab Report to City Council; Award contract September 20, 2004 • Construction October 2004 • Complete Construction Spring 2005 Summary of Feasibility: The proposed project is cost-effective and feasible under the conditions noted and at the prices estimated. Attachment: Map (Supplement) Resolutions Prepared by: Jim Olson, Engineering Project Manager Reviewed By: Maria A. Hagen, City Engineer Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 081604 - 8c - 2004 Trail Improvements Page 5 RESOLUTION NO. 04-098 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE CITY ENGINEER’S REPORT, ESTABLISHING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 04-03, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 04-03 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the City Engineer related to the construction of various segments of bituminous trail as part of the City’s Sidewalk, Trail, Bikeways and Crossing plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that: 1. The City Engineer’s Report regarding the construction of various segments of trail within the city is hereby accepted. 2. The proposed project, designated as Project No. 04-03, is hereby established. 3. The plans and specifications for the making of the improvement, as prepared under the direction of the City Engineer, are approved. 4. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted at least two weeks in the official newspaper and in the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids for the making of said improvement under said-approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall appear not less than ten (10) days prior to the date and time bids will be received by the City Clerk, and that no bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the City Clerk and accompanied by a bid bond payable to the City for five (5) percent of the amount of the bid. 5. The bids shall be tabulated by the City Engineer who shall report her tabulation and recommendation to the City Council. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council August 16, 2004 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 081604 - 8c - 2004 Trail Improvements Page 6 RESOLUTION NO. 04-099 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING FUNDS FROM THE LOCAL TRAIL CONNECTIONS GRANT PROGRAM, SPONSORED BY THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, TO ASSIST WITH FUNDING A CITY PROJECT TO CONSTRUCT LOCAL TRAIL CONNECTIONS TO THE REGIONAL SYSTEM WHEREAS, the City has received notice of award from the State Department of Natural Resources for grant funds to be used in the construction of local trail connections to the regional system; and WHEREAS, a city-wide plan identifies the need for local trail connections to the regional system at the following locations • France Avenue, north of Excelsior Blvd., from the Bass Lake/George Haun trail to the Southwest trail • From Edgebrook Park to the Southwest trail • From the Virginia Ave. parking lot, near Lake Victoria, to the Cedar Lake Extension trail; and WHEREAS, the City has designed and prepared plans for the said trail connections. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park that: 1. The City of St. Louis Park hereby accepts the grant funds provided through the Local Trail Connections Program. 2. The City will provide matching funds of no less than 50% of the grant monies. 3. The City will maintain for no less than 20 years the trail connections noted herein. 4. The City’s fiscal agent will be: Jean McGann Director of Finance 5005 Minnetonka Blvd. St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council August 16, 2004 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 081604 - 8d - City Manager Pay Page 1 8d. Adjustment to the City Manager’s Salary Recommended Action: Motion to adopt a resolution confirming a salary increase for the City Manager and paid time off effective August 1, 2004. Background: On July 19, 2004 the Council conducted a 6 month performance review of the City Manager. The result of the review was that the Council determined that Tom’s performance is satisfactory. The overall rating noted performance as outstanding, exceeds requirements and satisfactory/meets expectations. The Employment agreement for the City Manager allows for Council to adjust the salary after six months with a satisfactory evaluation. The compensation section in the City Manager’s contract (attached) states: After six months, Manager shall be given a performance evaluation. If the performance evaluation is satisfactory, the City Council will adjust Manager’s salary to not less that $116, 600, but not to exceed $121,600, the projected 2004 mid-point of City Manager salary range based upon the ICMA Regional Survey, subject to statutory limitations. 2004 Pay & range for City Manager Currently the salary for the City Manager is $114,000. Our consultant set the pay range for City Manager for 2004 at the following level: Minimum Midpoint Maximum $111,744 $121,604 $131,464 The consultant determined that the range used for review of regional salaries would be from comparable positions in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota and Wisconsin. Population range of 34,000 to 54,500. Discussion During the Study Session on August 9th, the Council discussed setting the new pay for the City Manager at $120,000. The Council also discussed the salary cap which places limitations on compensation at $116,600. The attached resolution sets the City Manager salary at $120,000 effective August 1, 2004. He will continue with a car allowance at $600/mo per contract (55% of this amount = $330/mo is excluded from the salary cap since it is considered business use, and $270/mo. must be considered as compensation based on the statute since it is non business use). Due to the salary cap of $116,600 for our city, the Council will need to approve paid leave (PTO) in equivalent hours above the salary limit. Paid leave (PTO) for 2004 will be 53 hours and will begin on August 1, 2004 and will accrue on a per pay period basis and may be used as earned. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 081604 - 8d - City Manager Pay Page 2 Recommendation: We ask Council to confirm the increase for the City Manager and Paid time off effective August 1, 2004. Attachments: Resolution Prepared by: Nancy Gohman, Human Resources Director St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 081604 - 8d - City Manager Pay Page 3 RESOLUTION NO. 04-100 RESOLUTION CONFIRMING A SALARY INCREASE AND PAID TIME OFF FOR CITY MANAGER. WHEREAS, On January 20th, 2004, the City Council entered into an employment agreement with Thomas K. Harmening as City Manager for the City of St. Louis Park, and WHEREAS, after 6 months of employment, the City Council conducted a performance evaluation and determined that Tom’s performance is satisfactory. The overall rating noted performance as outstanding, exceeds requirements and satisfactory/meets expectations and WHEREAS, the City Council now desires to increase the compensation and approve paid time off for the City Manager in accordance with his contract with the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park Minnesota: Effective August 1, 2004, Council approves an annual salary of $120,000 for the City Manager, not including car allowance. Salary application must comply with the salary limitations set by statute, therefore, the City Manager shall receive paid leave (PTO) in the equivalent hours above the salary limitations. Paid Time Off (PTO) for 2004 will be 53 hours which accrue on a per pay period basis and may be used as earned. Paid Time Off (PTO) starts 8/1/04. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 081604 - 8d - City Manager Pay Page 4