HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004/10/04 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - RegularAGENDA SUMMARY
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
October 10, 2004
7:30 p.m.
7:15 p.m. – EDA Meeting
1. Call to Order
a. Pledge of Allegiance
b. Roll Call
2. Presentations
3. Approval of Minutes
a. City Council Minutes of September 20, 2004
b. City Council Special Meeting Minutes of September 20, 2004
c. City Council Study Session Minutes of September 13, 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
6a. Public Hearing to consider petition to vacate an easement to construct slopes and
erect and maintain temporary snow fences created in Document No. 2826324 on
June 11, 1953 at Cedar Lake Road and Park Place Blvd.
Recommended
Action:
Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to approve first reading
of ordinance vacating slope and snow fence easement and set
second reading for October 20, 2004.
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public - None
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions
8a Resolution supporting an Operating Levy Renewal and Bond Referendum for
Independent School District #283 (St. Louis Park Public Schools)
The City Council wishes to publicly express its support of two questions which will
appear on the ballot of election November 2, 2004.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt a resolution in support of the Independent School
District #283 Operating Levy Renewal and Bond Referendum
8b Request by Stonebridge Development and Acquisition, LLC. for approval of a
Planned Unit Development (PUD) for a residential senior housing cooperative
known as Aquila Commons.
Case Nos. 04-24-PUD
8200 33rd Street West
Recommended
Action:
• Motion to approve a resolution for a PUD for the
property at 8200 33rd Street W. to allow a senior housing
co-operative building.
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 October 4, 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 adopt the attached resolution which creates a partnership to benefit Minnehaha
Creek
4b Motion to approve second reading of ordinance amending zoning map to change the
zoning designation from R2 - Single Family Residential to R4 - Multi Family Residential
for a portion of property located at 4100 Vernon Avenue South and 4135 Webster
Avenue South subject to review of the Comprehensive Plan amendments by the
Metropolitan Council, to approve summary and authorize publication. Case No. 04-30-Z
4c Bid Tabulation: Purchase of Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) Supply Contract.
Motion to authorize execution of a contract with Calgon Carbon Corporation for the
purchase of GAC in the amount of $51,440
4d Bid Tabulation: Motion to designate Lametti & Sons, Inc. the lowest responsible bidder
and authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of $302,700.00 for the
Lamplighter Pond Lift Station Improvement Project – City Project No. 00-18A
4e Adopt the attached resolution that accepts this report considering major equipment
replacement scheduled and budgeted for 2005
4f Motion to approve a contract with SRF Consulting Group for Professional Design
Services related to the Excelsior Boulevard Street Improvement Project, Project No.
2004-0400
4g Motion to adopt a resolution authorizing installation and special assessment of a fire
sprinkler system at 1342 Colorado Avenue and directing the Mayor and City Manager to
execute a special assessment agreement with the property owner
4h Motion to approve extension of Park Nicollet Health System’s Minor Amendment to
Planned Unit Development for the construction of an interim parking lot in an open area
south of the medical building at 3900 Park Nicollet Blvd. until October 4, 2005.
Case No. 03-49-PUD (originally approved October 7, 2003)
4i Motion to receive Vendor Claim Report (Supplement)
AGENDA SUPPLEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
October 4, 2002
Items contained in this section are those items
which are not yet available in electronic format
and which are identified in the individual
reports by inclusion of the word “Supplement”.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 100404 - 3a - Minutes of September 20 Regular Meeting
Page 1
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
September 20, 2004
1. Call to Order
Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:33 pm.
Council members present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, John Basill, Phil Finkelstein, Paul Omodt, Susan
Sanger, Sue Santa, and Sally Velick
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney (Mr. Scott), Community
Development Director (Mr. Locke), Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Hunt), Public
Works Director (Mr. Rardin), Planning Coordinator (Ms. Erickson), Planning/Zoning Supervisor
(Ms. McGonigal) and Recording Secretary (Ms. Stegora-Peterson).
2. Presentations
a. EDAM Award Presentation
Mayor Jacobs accepted The Presidents Award from the President of the Economic
Development Association of Minnesota given to Mr. Paul Hyde of Real Estate Recycling
and the Staff of St. Louis Park as partners in the project.
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. City Council Minutes of September 7, 2004
The minutes were approved as presented.
3b. City Council Special Meeting Minutes of August 30, 2004
Councilmember Basill indicated on page two, paragraph three, in the second sentence
insert before the period, “if appropriate”. In the following sentence after St. Louis Park,
instead of “or” insert “and include”.
The minutes were approved as corrected.
4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar
NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which need no
discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a Councilmember or a
member of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion.
4a Adopt Resolution 04-116 imposing a civil penalty of $2000 on DT Management, Inc.
DBA Doubletree Park Place Hotel, 1500 Park Place Blvd., St. Louis Park, for liquor
license violation as recommended by the City Manager.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 100404 - 3a - Minutes of September 20 Regular Meeting
Page 2
4b Authorize the Mayor and City Manager to enter into an agreement between the City of St.
Louis Park and CSM Investors, Inc. for the purpose of obtaining a trail easement over a
portion of CSM Investors’ property located at 4200 Park Glen Road.
4c Approve second reading and adopt Ordinance 2288-04 amending the St. Louis Park Zoning
Ordinance to allow group day care/nursery schools as a conditional use in the Industrial Park
and General Industrial Zoning Districts; approve summary ordinance and authorize publication.
4d Approve a contract with Three Rivers Park District, formerly Hennepin Parks, to clear
and remove snow from the LRT and Cedar Lake Extension Trails through the City of St.
Louis Park for 2004-2005 winter season
4e Adopt Resolution 04-117 approving final payment to Ron Kassa Construction for
Random Curb & Gutter Replacement
4f Designate Hardrives, Inc. the lowest responsible bidder and authorize execution of a
contract with the firm in the amount of $105,623.55 for the 2004 Trails Improvement
Project – City Project No. 04-03
4g Accept Housing Authority Minutes of August 11, 2004
4h Accept Vendor Claims for filing (Supplement)
It was motioned by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Velick, to approve the
Agenda and items listed on the Consent Calendar.
The motion passed 7-0.
6. Public Hearings - None
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions
8a. Request of Foundation Land Development and Master Development Group
(St. Louis Park School District) for a Comprehensive Plan Map change from Civic
to Medium Density Residential and Low Density Residential, a text amendment to
the Plan By Neighborhood chapter to eliminate Brookside School as a public
building/amenity, and a zoning map change from R2 – Single Family Residential to
R4—Multi Family Residential for a portion of property located at 4100 Vernon
Avenue South and 4135 Webster Avenue South. Case Nos. 04-31-CP and 04-30-Z
Resolution No. 04-111
Ms. Erickson presented the staff report.
Nancy Coleman, 5701 42nd St. W, stated that residents on 42nd Street were not included in
the traffic study and had concerns such as the large break in the railroad track by Jackway
Park. She requested that the Council take the traffic problems on 42nd Street into
consideration.
Linda Sandbo, 4205 Webster Av. S, President of the neighborhood association, indicated
that the neighborhood supported the five single-family home concept. She was part of
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 100404 - 3a - Minutes of September 20 Regular Meeting
Page 3
the neighborhood advisory committee and they had listed a number of concerns. She
requested the Council speak to how those issues would be resolved within this process.
Mr. Harmening replied that the concerns were related to parking on Webster Av., the
narrowness of the street and how guest parking would be handled for the new properties
and that the development would result in an increase in traffic. He suggested that Staff
and the Developer meet with the neighborhood to address these items as they got into
detailed plan review.
Ms. Sandbo stated that neighbors were concerned about 41st and Yosemite, and also also
about 42nd and Vernon. Mr. Harmening replied that the developer would work with them
on ensuring that both areas would be looked at in the traffic study.
Ms. Sandbo asked what traffic level would trigger a change in the development proposal.
Mr. Harmening responded that typically traffic volumes on the street are compared levels
seen on comparable residential streets. They also look at level of service, which relates to
how well an intersection performs and how long people have to wait to move through a stop
sign or stop light.
Carol Coffey, 4140 Xenwood Av. S, indicated she thought the traffic study was misleading
and inaccurate. She was concerned with visitors to the residential units, STEP program and
daycare. In a letter she provided earlier, she strongly recommended that the Council and
staff make changes regarding the redevelopment neighborhood process so it was more
democratic. She commended the way the Council looked at projects and also how they
considered the five single-family homes, however she urged them to slow the process and
take a better look at the traffic study and she urged them to do something regarding the
process.
Carla Stevie, SRF Consulting Group, stated that they did the traffic study for Brookside to
determine the impact it would have on the neighborhood. He explained how he had come
to conclusions in the report.
Tom Ross, 4124 Webster Av. S, stated he had lived across from Brookside for about eight
years. When he first heard about the school being sold he was upset for the fear of the
unknown and when he first heard the number of units in the plan he was not happy with the
high density across the street. He had since been impressed by the City’s choice to decrease
the density and place single-family homes in the development. He believed increased
traffic was a major concern of most people in the neighborhood, but pointed out that the
new development would be much less traffic than when people were using the building as a
school. He asked that the Council approve the single-family homes.
Kathe Wecker, 4141 Webster, stated that she lived right next door to this development
and they would be neighbors. She prefered the new development to living next to the
school building in its present state. She had no doubt the property would be redeveloped
and is pleased with this development proposal. She thought the developers and the city
had gone over and above what the neighborhood wanted and had taken all concerns into
consideration.
Phyllis McQuaid, 4130 Yosemite Av., stated that she didn’t think there had been a meeting
about the Brookside property that she had ever missed. In St. Louis Park they had strong
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 100404 - 3a - Minutes of September 20 Regular Meeting
Page 4
attachments to their neighborhoods and to the landmarks in the neighborhoods. The
Brookside school had been their landmark and their identity. She had originally been
worried about the developer’s first plans, but was pleased with the developer’s willingness
to work with the City and neighborhood and she supported the current proposal. She asked
that as traffic was considered that they look at a right turn only sign at the intersection of
Yosemite and Excelsior Boulevard stating, “Right turn only, 7-9 AM and 4-6 PM.” She
thought the neighborhood would agree that would do a big favor to them because if people
wanted to go West, they would have to go up to Brookside. That would be a big asset to
Yosemite Avenue. She appreciated what the developer was willing to do by reducing the
number of units. They would like to see new families.
Mayor Jacobs thought that was something they could have the traffic study company address.
He thanked the developer because they had put in an enormous amount of time on this
proposal. He also thanked the City staff and the residents for their involvement in the process.
Councilmember Basill thanked the residents for the comments and expressing their
concerns. He wanted to be sure in the PUD that they addressed some of the traffic
concerns and didn’t approve this without considering a right turn only or adding a stop
sign. Could they work on issues that were not specifically tied to the property? He
wanted to know what they could expect. Was it possible to require some improvements
or stop signs? Mr. Locke replied yes.
Councilmember Basill stated as they moved through the process there would be neighborhood
meetings for input and they needed that because they wanted to be sure the neighborhood was in
concert with what made sense for the entire neighborhood. They needed to be sure to have more
neighborhood meetings to address those concerns and get consensus from the neighborhood
where a stop sign should or shouldn’t go or where a right turn should or should not go.
Councilmember Sanger supported this plan and wanted to commend the developers for
fining a way to reuse an old building. Leaving the building there added much more
character to the development than just tearing it down. This was a much better plan and
switching to the single-family houses made it an even better plan and much more in
concert with the City’s Housing Summit plan that they had been going through to get
larger homes that could accommodate families with children. Her support for this project
should not be interpreted to mean that she would support the City providing financial aid
for this project. She had concerns about the way the City was brought into the financing
questions on this project at such a late date. She still thought this was a good project, she
just did not want to be misunderstood as supporting City financial assistance, at least in the
amount that some people might be thinking the City would agree to.
Councilmember Basill agreed with Councilmember Sanger about the move-up housing goals. A
study was done that showed in the last ten months, 57% of the people that moved out of our City
moved to larger homes. Of the 82% that moved outside the City, 44% had children. They were
continuing to talk about being a children first community and they needed move-up single-
family homes. They had supported other developers when they had changed the plan and they
needed to support this developer as well to make sure that they promoted their goals. If they had
goals and were not willing to stand behind them financially, it was going to be very tough to
meet those goals. That would be something on the table as they moved forward with the PUD.
Councilmember Sanger mentioned that Ms. Coffey made some comments that they needed to
pay attention to. The comments about ways that they could improve the process of
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 100404 - 3a - Minutes of September 20 Regular Meeting
Page 5
neighborhood involvement in land use planning processes in terms of giving people more
advance notice of meetings and more information further in advance in writing so that people
could digest it. She thought those were good points they should bear in mind as they went
forward with other projects.
Mr. Harmening clarified in front of the Council was a revised copy of the ordinance that
did not change the substance of the action, it just clarified a few things.
Ms. Erickson stated what had been added, was highlighted. The other thing that was added
was to state specifically that they were not adopting a change in zoning for the West 90 feet
of those lots that abutted Webster Avenue. There were no substantive differences.
Mr. Harmening noted in the staff report motion under the Comp Plan, it spoke to the
property at 4100 Vernon Avenue and under the Zoning motion it spoke to the property at
4100 Vernon Avenue and 4135 Webster. He asked Ms. Erickson to clarify. Ms. Erickson
clarified that the Brookside School was on the property at 4100 Vernon. That was the
property that under the Comprehensive Plan was guided for Civic. The School District also
owned another single-family lot along Webster Avenue, South of the 4100 lot. It was
currently part of the parking lot. That was not guided for Civic, but was zoned single-
family and as they looked at this plan, that would be included in the Zoning motion.
Councilmember Finkelstein commented that they had talked in study sessions about
increasing single-family homes and they were all in favor of that, in addition to the great
work by the developer. But he did not want the developer or anyone else to be confused
because there was a limit as to how much aid the City could provide and he hoped they
wouldn’t come back for a much larger request for aid than what had already been discussed.
Councilmember Basill thanked that developer. They had been very patient, there had been
many changes. If they did not go with this developer, there were many other developers
that came forward and he was very concerned with some of the other plans and the density.
This developer had been willing to work with them and understood the community in St.
Louis Park and this neighborhood. He believed they would truly do a nice project for the
City. He also thanked the Council for agreeing to delay this to allow for neighborhood
meetings. Staff had been outstanding responding to some of the changes in the Housing
Summit and some of the goals that the community had told them about and that the Council
was embracing. He also wanted to defend the Planning Commission because they never
saw the plans for single-family homes. He didn’t want the residents of Brookside to wonder
why the Planning Commission recommended approval of a plan with higher density and no
single-family homes, because they never had the opportunity to consider that.
It was moved by Councilmember Basill, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to approve
Resolution 04-111 for a Comprehensive Plan Map amendment to change the land use
designation from Civic to Medium Density Residential and Low Density Residential for
property located at 4100 Vernon Avenue South, amend text in the Plan By Neighborhood
chapter subject to approval by the Metropolitan Council, approve summary and authorize
publication.
The motion passed 7-0.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 100404 - 3a - Minutes of September 20 Regular Meeting
Page 6
It was moved by Councilmember Basill, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to approve
first reading of ordinance amending zoning map to change the zoning designation from
R2—Single Family Residential to R4—Multi Family Residential for a portion of property
located at 4100 Vernon Avenue South and 4135 Webster Avenue South subject to
approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendments by the City Council and Metropolitan
Council, and set second reading for October 4, 2004.
8b. Request of TOLD Development Company for Final Plat approval for Park
Commons East 3rd Addition and a Major Amendment to the Park Commons East
Planned Unit Development granting Final PUD approval for Phase E (Park Commons
East 3rd Addition formerly Outlots F and G, Park Commons East) (northwest corner
of Excelsior Boulevard and Monterey Drive). Case Nos. 04-36-PUD and 04-37-S
Resolution No. 04-112 & 04-113
Ms. Erickson presented the staff report. She noted an issue related to trash and its pickup
had come up. They had been working to resolve this issue and believed there was a
resolution, which was included in the conditions of approval.
Councilmember Velick commented that she was disappointed when she read the staff
report about the garbage removal with all of the people that worked on the process, that
something like this was overlooked.
Bob Cunningham, TOLD Development Company, responded that their initial plan was to
construct Excelsior and Grand with four front yards, leaving them with some difficult
choices on how to handle trash. In each side of the first phase, they handled trash by
putting it inside a truck dock and it would then need to be brought up to the street. They
established loading zones to do that a long time ago and that was the method they had been
using since completion of the first phase. There had been some notable objections to the
methodology, despite the fact that was what they had agreed to. They were always
looking to do a better job at Excelsior and Grand. They were working to fix that. In Phase
NE all of the trash would be handled off-street. They had that handled in Phase E. They
were working to incorporate a screen in the truck dock so people wouldn’t see the
dumpsters as they were stored. Indoor dumpster storage already occurred and they were
doing a trial run of picking up trash in an off-street location. They were continuing to
work with staff to make sure that their concerns were heard and they responded to them in
a timely, economical and mutually acceptable fashion and they would continue to do that.
Mr. Harming requested that the developer show elevations of the project and describe
materials that were being proposed.
Mr. Cunningham showed a digital photograph of the model of the building and discussed
the materials for the building and parking lot.
Councilmember Omodt asked if the monument sign on the corner of Monterey and
Excelsior was the same as the staircase or was it incorporated into the staircase feature?
Mr. Cunningham replied that it was, there was a Park Commons monument there. The
idea was to create the same design in terms of the letters and letter heights as found
elsewhere in Park commons, but they were trying to give it a little more urban feel.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 100404 - 3a - Minutes of September 20 Regular Meeting
Page 7
There would be two identities, the Park Common identity on-grade and directly above
that, the Excelsior and Grand script logo built into the building.
Councilmember Sanger asked about the 200 parking spaces that were necessary for the
amphitheater and parks. Were they saying that they had determined they no longer
needed those 200 spaces for evening events or were they saying they would be
somewhere else on the site? Mr. Cunningham replied that the park usage was never
intended to be in one place. It was intended to be extra parking that could be used for
park patrons primarily for amphitheater events and other events occurring adjacent to the
project. When they commissioned Walker parking, they wanted to be sure those 200
stalls with this building and use would exist elsewhere during the times as called out in
the development agreement. Those were identified as being surplus stalls in the analysis
during the times where there were 75 called for and where there were 200 called for.
Councilmember Sanger understood that, but if they were not going to be able to use the
spaces here because it was primarily a residential building, and there was only one site left
to be developed after this for Park Commons that was also going to be residential, where
were the 200 spaces going to be? Mr. Cunningham replied they would be on the street, in
the parking ramp and in the location adjacent to the building under construction now.
Mr. Harmening helped clarify that the development contract says that TOLD needs to
prove that there would be 200 or more parking stalls available within the project area to
the public after all of their needs were met. If they were not, they would need to provide
stalls. They could be on-street or in the above-ground ramps. When they got to Phase 4,
they would study it again.
Mr. Cunningham stated that Phase NW would be approx. 112-114 units and the parking
that would go along with that.
Councilmember Finkelstein asked when they were anticipating the NW Phase and about
the row houses on Princeton Avenue? Mr. Cunningham replied with respect to Phase
NW, he thought it would be about a year. They would be starting design sometime in
spring, then go through work sessions and neighborhood groups through the summer and
be back before the Council next fall for the final phase. At one time their development
agreement included a portion of land known as Phase W, but it had a date certain under
which they needed to perform and they did not meet with the City expectations of what
would happen and that time had lapsed. They did not have any control over that block or
the strip of land adjacent on Princeton Avenue.
Councilmember Basill asked if it were fully developed and then ran into parking concerns,
where would they add the parking? It was important for people to understand that there
were areas. Mr. Cunningham replied that they had one remaining Phase NW, the parking
adjacent to Wolf Park was rather substantial. There is a through street and a lot of parking
adjacent to Wolf Park. At the West side of Wolf Parkway, there were about nine parking
stalls and they were all parallel. They had done preliminary sketches for NW and hadn’t
gone further, but he thought it would be a simple and cheap fix to replicate what they had
seen adjacent to the park on Phase NE in an area along Wolf Parkway on Phase NW. It
would be on Wolf Parkway and adjacent to the park. He believed there were options to
add between 40 and 60 additional parking stalls on that side.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 100404 - 3a - Minutes of September 20 Regular Meeting
Page 8
Councilmember Basill indicated that a comment was made earlier about the office space
and about this being five stories compared to four stories. He thought that was an
important clarification to make because it was office space, what was the difference in
the height? Mr. Cunningham replied they were ending up with a five-story residential
building of approximately 62 feet versus if they were to build a four-story office building
in the same kind of access along Excelsior Boulevard which was the original plan.
Ceiling heights in residential floors were much less than what they were in an office
building. They were ending up with a building that was roughly the same height, that
was five stories tall in a residential building, but four stories tall in an office building.
Councilmember Santa asked if he could tell her how tall the neighboring buildings were
at Excelsior and Grand? Mr. Cunningham replied that the neighboring buildings,
comparing the corner height of this building to the corner height at Phase E, this building
was approximately 50 feet from the sidewalk to the top of the parapet, the other was
approximately 12 feet taller.
Councilmember Basill stated that they mentioned the materials and he understood that
construction was more expensive than it was twelve months ago, but this was their
landmark project and he wanted to be careful to keep high standards. He knew they
wouldn’t do anything to jeopardize that, but he thought it needed to be said. Mr.
Cunningham replied that they would still be before the Council for one more phase and
planned on owning the buildings that were non-owner-occupied for a long time and
didn’t plan on doing anything to jeopardize quality either.
It was moved by Councilmember Basill, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to approve
Resolution 04-112 granting approval of the Final Plat for Park Commons East 3rd Addition.
The motion passed 6-0-1, with Councilmember Finkelstein abstaining.
Councilmember Finkelstein stated he was abstaining because he had purchased one of the
units. Although the City Attorney had advised him that he could vote on this, he felt
more comfortable abstaining.
It was motioned by Councilmember Basill, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to approve
Resolution 04-113 granting a Major Amendment to the Park Commons East PUD that
includes Final PUD approval for Phase E (Excelsior & Grand Phase E) with stated
conditions.
The motion passed 6-0-1, with Councilmember Finkelstein abstaining.
8c. Major amendment to an existing CUP to allow increased building height,
revised site and building layout and a change from rental to owner occupied units
for the residential portion of the proposed mixed use/residential-office development.
Case No. 04-40-CUP. 1155 Ford Road
Resolution No. 04-114
Ms. McGonigal presented the staff report.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 100404 - 3a - Minutes of September 20 Regular Meeting
Page 9
Jay Nelson, ESG Architects described the details of the building and changes to the
designs. Exterior activity space had been added. The building would be four to five feet
higher. The exterior stucco was changed to brick, but they would not be changing the
color palettes. The top band would be heritage blue and there would be a metal cornice
that would be a patina green. Flipping the building allowed the commercial area to be
along Wayzata boulevard which would be seen more by the traffic and the residential
would be on the residential side of the neighborhood.
Councilmember Velick commented that she was pleased to see the old athletic club go
and this would be a wonderful addition to that area. Had this gone through Planning
Commission and had they approved the blue and green colors? Mr. Nelson replied they
were trying to stay with the heritage versions of the colors. The copper color was a
traditional cornice color. He wasn’t trying to be extravagant on the color scheme of the
building, they were trying to be modest yet attractive.
Councilmember Velick asked what would happen with the billboard? Ron Mehl,
Stonebridge Development, replied that the billboard was on the adjacent property, but
there was a walkway that overhung onto their property. One of the conditions was that
should no longer interfere onto their property. Clear Channel had resolved that by
removing one foot from the catwalk, but that was the best they could do.
Councilmember Sanger stated she was glad to see this turn into owner-occupied housing.
When did they intend to begin construction and what were the price ranges of the units?
Mr. Mehl replied based on their market studies, they had some smaller units that were
715 square feet that would be about $160,000. They also had some units approaching
2000 square feet that would be around $350,000. They would like to start clearing the
site this fall or put up a sales trailer and try to get pre-sales and start construction in the
spring. They would anticipate a twelve-month construction period.
It was moved by Councilmember Velick, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to adopt
Resolution 04-114 approving a major amendment to 02-40-CUP to allow increased
building height, revised site and building layout and a change from rental to owner
occupied for the residential portion of the proposed mixed use/residential-office
development subject to conditions in the attached resolution.
The motion passed 7-0.
8d. Snow Removal Enforcement Policy
Resolution No. 04-115
Mr. Harmening presented the staff report. What they were asking the Council to adopt
via resolution was a directive to the Police Department that they could begin issuing
citations for vehicles illegally parked on-street when three or more inches of snow have
fallen and that those citations could be issued whether or not the vehicle had been plowed
in. The Police Department should coordinate the towing of vehicles with their private
contractors for vehicles that had been issued a citation and that had not been moving.
Towing should begin within 24 hours from when a citation had been issued. Thirdly, that
the Police Department should use discretion in the issuance of citations due to unusual or
extenuating circumstances related to a snow event. Extenuating circumstances can be a
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 100404 - 3a - Minutes of September 20 Regular Meeting
Page 10
variety of things including other calls for service like accidents or medical calls. They
should keep overtime costs within limits and be in alignment with budget considerations.
Councilmember Santa indicated that residents needed to know what the policy was, how
they were going to enforce it and that it made for much less confusion if people were told
up front what to expect on the enforcement of the parking and snow removal rules.
Councilmember Sanger agreed with Councilmember Santa and in addition that by
adopting this policy approach it was her hope that cars would be off the street sooner
during a snow event and therefore the snow plow crews would be more efficient in
getting a whole street plowed curb to curb the first time through.
It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Finkelstein, adopt
Resolution 04-115 which outlines the approach to be used by City staff to enforce the
City’s ordinance relative to snow and ice removal on streets in the City of St. Louis Park.
The motion passed 7-0.
9. Communications
Mr. Harmening stated that the Citizens involvement guide was before the Council for review.
There was also a memo and handout from Reg Dunlap, the Civic TV Coordinator, regarding a
Charter Commission seventh grade geography and history presentation. There was an
opportunity for Councilmembers to participate.
Mayor Jacobs thanked the election judges and the City Clerk and her staff for running the
primary election.
Councilmember Velick indicated she had received a letter from a resident who had heard about
the inspections of rental properties. She wanted to support that program. The resident brought
up a very important point on why they should have residential inspections of rental property
because of parking issues. That was related to the snow removal. She brought up a very
important area of problem for the Police that where she lived it was a cul-de-sac and there were
three homes that were rental properties with multiple people in the homes. She didn’t know how
they would park in the winter or how the street would be cleaned. She wanted to say that she
supported the program and they had heard what she had to say.
10. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
City Clerk Mayor
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 100404 - 3b - Special Mtg Minutes of September 20
Page 1
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
September 20, 2004
1. Call to Order
The meeting was convened at 7:03 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) and Recording Secretary (Ms. Stegora-Peterson).
Guests from the School Board: Debra Bowers (Superintendent), Jeff Priess (Director of
Business Services) and Keith Broady (School Board Chair).
2. School Referendum
Ms. Bowers stated that the referendum was 18% of their income. It was critical to their mission
and if they didn’t have the funds available, they would need to begin looking at reducing
programs, closing schools and grade configuration alignment. They would be looking at $7
million in reductions. They had already absorbed cuts in administration, maintenance, buildings
and grounds, etc and would no longer able to keep the cuts away from the buildings. If this
didn’t pass, they would begin that work and it would impact all of their lives.
Mr. Priess reviewed the presentation materials. They currently have the authority to levy
$1421/student. 71% of the revenue comes from the State and 18% from the local levy, which
had been flat for the last three years. They would be asking the voters to renew the levy that
would be expiring, for an inflationary increase.
Ms. Bowers mentioned that this year they again had a $1.2 million shortfall. If they have
$400,000, it would help to offset that, but they would still need to be very financially prudent.
They were really watching the bottom line.
Mr. Priess stated that the general education revenue made up most of the 71% of revenue from
the State. Cumulative reductions since the 2002/03 school year had been $5.5 million due to no
increase in state funding.
Ms. Bowers noted there was inflation on transportation. Teacher salaries were raised less than inflation.
Mr. Priess indicated teachers received 1% on the first year and 1.5% the second, every one of the
other bargaining units had their salary schedules frozen for a three-year period. That included step
movement as well for one year.
Councilmember Sanger asked if the referendum failed, would residents receive a tax reduction?
How much would that be? It might be helpful to show that it wouldn’t be a large amount.
Mr. Priess replied that in talking with their consultant, Bob Noi, that was something they didn’t
want to put out because some people may think it was a big tax cut.
Ms. Bowers stated if the referendum failed, this winter they would begin looking at closing
schools and increasing class sizes seven to eight kids.
Councilmember Basill wanted examples to show people. Mr. Priess replied that class size would
be drastically impacted. Program elimination. This was on the operating budget.
Ms. Bowers stated they had already made serious cutbacks at the district office, there would probably
continue to be some there, but it would now hit the classrooms. They would probably close a school.
Councilmember Sanger thought it would be very helpful if they could translate it, if this didn’t
pass, it was the equivalent of “X” teachers. Mr. Priess thought it would be approximately 50
teachers and they presently had a total of 320.
Ms. Bowers indicated closing an elementary school would gain about $500,000 without the
Principal, health clerk, custodian, etc. If you look at $7 million, class sizes would have to go up.
85% of what they did was in salaries.
Mayor Jacobs stated they would become a bad school district and people had a pretty good sense
that their housing value, whether they had kids in the school or not, was inexorably tied to the
value of the school. It wasn’t just about having a fourth grader, it was about being around fourth
graders and property values, and people could see a decrease.
Ms. Bowers stated that they were competing against Hopkins, Edina and Minnetonka and were
doing well now. They had a few more kids coming in than they were losing. Through PSI,
International Baccalaureate, and programs that her predecessor had done, they had been able to
stem the flow of kids out of their school district. If they did not have those kinds of programs, it
would mean losing the kinds of kids that they wanted to have.
Mr. Priess noted that the City Council could have a discussion about whether or not they wanted to
vote to increase certain levies, the School Board was not allowed to have that discussion because of
State law. If they were not at the cap, which they had been, they could have a discussion about
whether or not they wanted to hold a referendum election to let the voters do it. This created the
impression with some people that the schools were always going to them looking for money, but
that was because other public bodies could have discussions and votes on whether or not to have
increases. They couldn’t say that costs had gone up and they needed another 3%.
Councilmember Finkelstein thought they could make an argument that State funding had declined when it
didn’t take inflation into account and they were paying for increased fuel, health care and wage costs.
Councilmember Santa asked how long the levy was for? Mr. Brody replied it was ten years and
the last levy was five years.
Mr. Brody stated until 1999 the local levy was based on tax capacity. The law said by 2000 it
needed to be based on market value. They could do that by Board vote and have it go for five
years. They did that and waited until the last year because the City gave them approx.
$400,000/year from TIF money. When they shifted to market value that would no longer be
available. They did not have to go out for a ten-year renewal.
Councilmember Sanger asked if the operating levy did not pass this year, did they intend to bring
it back on next years ballot? Mr. Brody replied it would be irresponsible not to do that. They
weren’t going into this levy campaign as a dress rehearsal. They wanted to get it this year.
Ms. Bowers stated if they had to cut $7 million, almost 20% of the budget, it would take a lot of
group process to do that and would cause a lot of concern about which school they would close.
If they didn’t have to go through that pain, she didn’t think any of them wanted to.
Mr. Brody reviewed the bond referendum.
Mayor Jacobs stated a question that they would get at neighborhood meetings was that they just
did this and “why were they doing it again?” They needed to explain why it was different and
how it was different and articulate that.
Ms. Bowers indicated the web site [www.slpschools.org] shows building by building what they
spent on the last bond.
Mayor Jacobs suggested they have the information posted in other places such as the Rec. Center.
Councilmember Sanger also suggested having a one-page fact sheet to provide people.
Mr. Priess indicated that the Superintendent was going to send a letter out to the community that
would hit many of those points.
Ms. Bowers indicated that the Vote Yes committee was working on a one-page sheet on how the
last bond was spent. Half of that was for indoor air quality.
Councilmember Sanger asked who was on the Vote Yes Committee? Mr. Brody provided the names.
Mayor Jacobs asked if they would be doing lawn signs? Ms. Bowers replied it depended on how
much funding they had. They were currently setting up phone banks, looking at doing postcards
and letters to the editor. They were working through ways to put out information.
3. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
City Clerk Mayor
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 100404 - 3c - Study Session Minutes of September 13
Page 1
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
September 13, 2004
The meeting was convened at 7:00 p.m.
Council members present: John Basill, Phil Finkelstein, Paul Omodt, Susan Sanger, Sue Santa,
Sally Velick and Mayor Jeff Jacobs
Staff present: City Manager (Tom Harmening), Community Outreach Coordinator (Martha
McDonell), Public Works Director (Mike Rardin), Mark Hanson (Operations Superintendent),
Community Development Director (Kevin Locke), Economic Development Coordinator (Greg
Hunt), Planning Coordinator (Judie Erickson), Michelle Schnitzker (Housing Supervisor) and
Housing Program Coordinator (Kathy Larsen).
Guests: Youth and Senior Summit: Linda Trummer, Jim and Marlys Liska and Bob Sate
Brookside: Charlie Nestor, Bruce Bahneman and Jim Deanovie
1. 2004 Youth and Senior Summit
Council members were provided with a list of questions and issues raised at the Youth and
Senior Summits. Martha McDonell noted that department heads have also received these notes
and would like direction from the city council on follow-up.
Jeff Jacobs, on behalf of the entire council, complimented the staff and volunteers who organized
the summits. Council members and organizers all agreed that this year’s question/answer format
offered immediate feedback to seniors and significantly improved the Senior Summit.
Sally Velick noted that the Senior Summit takes a lot of staff time and asked whether it should be
held every other year rather than annually. Marlys Liska responded that the surveys handed out
at the Senior Summit gave attendees the option of checking “next year,” and the attendees
overwhelmingly said they wanted an annual event.
Sue Sanger asked whether anyone had an idea on how well the summit links seniors to one
another, noting that community-building is one of St. Louis Park’s goals. Martha McDonell
responded that she didn’t know, but would add this question to next year’s evaluation form.
Jeff Jacobs asked what the city should do to follow up on the issues raised at the summit.
Sue Sanger noted that many of the issues raised at the Senior Summit were not specific to seniors
and would be of interest to people of all ages. She asked that staff communicate information
related to these issues via routine communications tools (web site, newsletter, handbook, etc.)
and see if information could also be placed in the school district’s publication for seniors. After
a discussion, it was agreed that these are appropriate steps, but seniors really want face-to-face
communication. Council members and volunteers agreed to pursue monthly symposiums or
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 100404 - 3c - Study Session Minutes of September 13
Page 2
quarterly senior events that focuses on one issue (i.e., housing at one session, transit at another).
Another option would be to piggy-back on existing events such as the monthly men’s breakfast.
Phil Finkelstein asked that the information gleaned from the Senior Summit also be woven into
the process for creating a community housing strategy and renewing the city’s visioning process.
Jim Liska noted that he followed up on the seniors’ concern about cable television rates. (The
basic rate is $10 and then jumps to $50 a month. Seniors asked if there couldn’t be an
intermediate option.) Those present agreed that a Time Warner representative should be invited
to next year’s summit. They also asked that staff share notes from the Senior Summit with Time
Warner and others who might have an interest in the issues raised at the summit.
Council members also asked that department heads be asked to review the issues raised at the
Senior Summit and come back to the council with recommendations for possible action.
Linda Trummer then circulated a list of issues raised at the Youth Summit.
Council members expressed concern about some of the worries raised by kids, especially
concerns about personal safety, bullying and gangs. Jeff Jacobs asked whether the city ought to
fund a school liaison officer at the Junior High School. Sally Velick noted that she was
concerned to hear about gangs at Ainsworth Park and wondered whether this problem can be
attributed to visitors or tenants at Louisiana Courts. Council members also expressed concern
about the comments about the skate park, noting that truant kids are at the park during the school
day, and kids may be climbing into the Rec Center at night. Phil Finkelstein suggested that the
list of concerns raised at the Youth Summit be shared with the school board.
Jeff Jacobs then asked the council whether the city should create a Youth Commission to talk
about these issues on an on-going basis. Paul Omodt suggested that the city work with the
school district to reactivate the Youth Development Committee. Sue Santa said she would bring
this issue to the next CEAC (Community Education Advisory Council) meeting. If the school
district reactivates the Youth Development Committee, council members said they would like
the school district to include representatives from private schools. Linda Trummer suggested
that this group could also be assigned with the task of organizing the Youth Summit.
2. Financial Assistance Plan for Redeveloping Brookside School Site
Community Development staff updated the council on three financing options to ensure that
single family homes can be included in the redevelopment project proposed for the Brookside
School site. After discussion, two options (tax abatement and creating a TIF district) were
deemed not feasible. The third option, using pre-1979 TIF dollars to help purchase the school
from the School District, appears to hold promise if issues concerning chain of title, price and
environmental abatement can be addressed.
In asking staff to pursue this option, council asked that staff negotiate the price with the school
district. Council members felt the school district had set an unrealistic sales price by expecting
that the zoning designation would be changed. Council members felt the city should not pay an
unrealistic price for the building and that the school district must help bridge the gap between the
asking price and the price the property is worth to a developer. Sue Sanger did not want the city
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 100404 - 3c - Study Session Minutes of September 13
Page 3
to set a precedent with other sellers and developers by paying an unrealistic price for the property
simply because it was owned by the school district and the district is facing financial hardship.
After a discussion, council members agreed that staff should pursue this option
3. Closure of 28th/29th Street Railroad Crossings
Mike Rardin and Mark Hanson recapped the reasons for considering the closure of roadways that
cross railroad tracks at 28th and 29th Street in the Birchwood neighborhood. They also
summarized the process used to obtain citizen input about the proposal.
Sue Sanger stated that closing the crossings did not make sense if, at the end of the day, the
neighborhood is unhappy and the city spends $9,500 to save $500 a year. Closing the crossings
would be a hardship on Birchwood residents, many of whom would be forced to make a left turn
onto Minnetonka Boulevard when trying to leave the neighborhood.
Mike Rardin replied that the issue is not money but whether the city would get an upgraded
crossing on the city’s timetable or the railroad’s timetable. If and when the railroad decides to
upgrade the crossing, the city would have to pay to raise the roadways.
Council members stated that these were not strong enough arguments to merit a closing. They
felt it would be better to leave the crossings in rough shape, but keep them open.
John Basill noted that the Railroad Task Force working in the Brookside neighborhood came to
the understanding that the crossings can be left open for the time being, but could be closed if it’s
possible to make changes to allow trains to go straight through the community without blowing
whistles. A better argument for closing a crossing could be made if there was a city-wide effort
to close crossings in exchange for whistle-free train transit.
Sue Santa said it’s appropriate to do nothing now, but the city should be proactive with the
railroad so the city doesn’t end up with a bill for two crossings. She would like the city to work
to ensure that we save $10,000 by closing one crossing and upgrading another crossing.
Council directed staff to send a letter to the Bronx Park and Birchwood neighborhoods notifying
them of the decision to leave the crossings open without upgrading.
4. Disposition of City-owned Land for Larger Single Family Homes
Tom Harmening asked the council what process it should follow as it addresses the issue of
unneeded city-owned parcels.
Sue Sanger suggested that staff propose a set of criteria for property sales rather than assign this
job to a task force. Sanger said giving this decision to a task force would be abdicating council
responsibility. Jeff Jacobs argued that, by setting the criteria, the city will communicate that it
has already decided to sell these parcels. He felt that the city should approach the process by
framing the problem (excess property) versus proposing a solution (selling land for home-
building). Sanger felt that the council has already heard the problem (lack of move-up housing)
in surveys, Vision St. Louis Park discussion and housing summit meetings. She felt it is now the
council’s responsibility to take action to address that problem.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 100404 - 3c - Study Session Minutes of September 13
Page 4
Phil Finkelstein suggested that the council ask residents what is the best use of these parcels. He
felt this approach would not presuppose an answer. He suggested that the city set up a task force
that would be asked to draft specific criteria. The task force could then hear public comments,
do research and make recommendations on each individual parcel. He also urged the task force
to ask the larger question of what’s the best use of these parcels and not limit the answer to
move-up housing or open space but also consider using the land for a dog park or other uses.
Several council members did not like the parcel-by-parcel approach and preferred to deal with
the parcels “as a group.”
Sue Sanger expressed concern that each neighborhood would recommend that the city “do
nothing” leaving the city no further ahead than it is now. Sanger argued that this issue requires a
broad policy approach aimed at creating additional move-up housing. Jeff Jacobs said that,
while the housing summit and vision process concluded that we need move-up housing, the
council would have to be prepared to live with the answer that neighborhoods just want these
parcels left as open space. Jacobs said there’s a problem if we can’t get people to agree that
there’s a problem. He felt a task force is an appropriate approach because, at least, people can’t
complain about the process even if they don’t like the result.
Phil Finkelstein said he did not want a process that becomes a “tyranny” of the vocal opposition.
He asked council members whether they had the political will to address this controversial issue
and the courage to take action that is likely to be unpopular with adjacent property owners.
Tom Harmening pointed out that there are some parcels (small lots next to parking and remnant
lots) that could be taken out of this process. Paul Omodt suggested that staff be directed to sell
remnant property that has no future use as either housing or open space. He also urged that staff
propose a process that is actionable within a one year time span.
Tom Harmening suggested that staff draft a proposal for a process. The draft proposal could
include broad criteria for selling parcels that serve no legitimate public use, stakeholders who
should be included in the process, options for touring sites and open houses or neighborhood
meetings. Council members agreed to this proposal.
Staff then highlighted other community development efforts aimed at encouraging remodeling
and expansion of existing homes pointing out that most move-up housing is created by
remodeling, not new construction. Council members liked the “transformation loan” option
which encourages remodeling of existing homes.
A number of council members also liked the Aquila Regeneration proposal. They felt the limited
geographical area would ensure a manageable marketing effort that ties into nearby
redevelopment plans and ensures that seniors can remain in their neighborhood. Sue Sanger
opposed this proposal because she felt it was too limited and gives undue assistance to a
developer. Other council members felt the idea of starting in a small area, working out the bugs
and ensuring a successful housing transition was worth trying. A number felt they were
honoring Vision St. Louis Park’s goal of making St. Louis Park a “lifelong community” which
meant helping seniors remain in the community.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 100404 - 3c - Study Session Minutes of September 13
Page 5
5. Parking Alternatives – Excelsior Boulevard and Monterey
Staff and council members outlined the complaints they’ve heard from Salon One and its
customers concerning reduced parking due to the Excelsior and Grand.
Sue Santa pointed out that these concerns are similar to those expressed by business owners
along Minnetonka Boulevard when on-street parking was removed due to safety and traffic
concerns. She felt the city needs to take a larger view of the issue. Sue Sanger added that this
issue is the landlord’s to solve. Staff noted that the landlord had been approached by the city to
find a way to alleviate the problem but the landlord was not willing to do anything. Given that,
council members felt it was inappropriate to spend city funds to pave a private parking lot.
6. Communications
Tom Harmening asked if the council would like to hear a presentation about the school
referendum. Council members supported this suggestion and Harmening will schedule a 30
minute presentation for the next council meeting.
John Basill clarified that the Brookside neighborhood meeting set for September 28 is to discuss
the specifics of a noise wall and its design—not whether there will be a noise wall along this
segment of Highway 100.
8. Adjournment
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m.
__________________________________ _________________________________
City Clerk Mayor
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 100404 - 4a - Minnehaha Creek Partnership, Resolution
Page 1
4a Motion to adopt the attached resolution which creates a partnership to benefit
Minnehaha Creek.
Background
The partnership is between the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and all the cities the creek
passes through. The intent of the partnership is to review revisions to the watershed plan to
improve water quality by restoring aquatic ecosystems and reducing flood damage to the
Minnehaha Creek corridor. The partnership group will finalize recommendations within a three
year period.
Goal of the Partnership Group
The goal is to create a common vision and implementation plan to present to the Minnehaha
Creek Watershed Board and the Army Corps of Engineers. The Army Corps of Engineers has
money available to improve water quality and quantity if the implementation plan meets their
requirements.
Jim Vaughan is the City’s designated staff representative to the committee and Sue Santa is the
Council appointee. There are also two resident members, Helen Pitt and Mary Karius. They will
meet monthly to react to and provide guidance and recommendation on policy development,
technical issues and public involvement.
Approval of Resolution
Staff recommends approving the attached resolution from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District to show support for the project. Jim Vaughan will be the designated staff person to
follow this project and provide the council will a final report.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Cynthia S. Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 100404 - 4a - Minnehaha Creek Partnership, Resolution
Page 2
RESOLUTION NO. _______
RESOLUTION TO CREATE A MINNEHAHA CREEK PARTNERSHIP
WHEREAS, Minnehaha Creek is a highly valued stream flowing from Lake Minnetonka
to the Mississippi River; and
WHEREAS, the preservation and enhancement of the Minnehaha Creek Corridor is a
high-priority expressed in the comprehensive plans for each of the cities along the Creek, and the
Water Resources Management Plan of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District; and
WHEREAS, urbanization in the Minnehaha Creek Watershed has led to the degradation
of the stream’s flow regime, habitat and water quality, but the Creek has high potential for
restoration; and
WHEREAS, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District completed in 2003 a detailed
Hydrologic/Hydraulic and Pollutant Loading Study, and a Minnehaha Creek Stream Assessment;
and
WHEREAS, the MCWD will undertake revisions to its Watershed Management Plan in
partnership with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Feasibility Study to explore the potential
federal interest for Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration and Flood Damage Reduction in the
Minnehaha Creek Corridor;
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park desires to partner with the other communities
along the Creek to seek protection and restoration of the Minnehaha Creek Corridor;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of St. Louis Park supports the
formation of a partnership to provide guidance and recommendations on policy development,
technical issues, and public involvement to create a common vision and implementation plan for
the Minnehaha Creek Corridor, to be organized as follows:
1. Partnership Composition
The partnership will comprise the following partners:
• City of Minnetonka;
• City of Hopkins;
• City of St. Louis Park;
• City of Edina;
• City of Minneapolis;
• Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board;
• Hennepin County; and
• Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 100404 - 4a - Minnehaha Creek Partnership, Resolution
Page 3
2. Policy Board
a. The partnership Policy Board will comprise a member of the governing body of each
of the partner organizations. City Councilmember Sue Santa is the designated
representative for the City of St. Louis Park
b. The Policy Board will generally meet quarterly as needed and pursuant to an
established project schedule and work plan.
3. Technical Advisory Committee
a. The Technical Advisory Committee will provide technical review and
recommendations to the partnership and will comprise a staff representative from
each of the partner organizations, and a representative from the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources, Minnesota Department of Health and such other governmental agencies
having a technical interest and expertise to offer for the benefit of the Minnehaha
Creek Corridor.
b. The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District technical representative will serve as the
Chair of the Technical Advisory Committee.
c. The Technical Advisory Committee will generally meet monthly as needed pursuant
to the established project work schedule and work plan. Jim Vaughan, Environmental
Coordinator is the designated City of St. Louis Park representative on this committee
4. Public Advisory Committee
a. The Public Advisory Committee will comprise two citizen representatives designated
by each partner organization, and up to seven other representatives of stakeholder
organizations named by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District to represent
conservation, property owner, development, and recreational interests in the
Minnehaha Creek Watershed appointed by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed through
an open application process.
b. The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District will designate one of its Board Members to
serve as Chair to the Public Advisory Committee.
c. The Public Advisory Committee will generally meet monthly as needed pursuant to
the established project schedule and work plan. Helen Pitt and Mary Karius are the
designated City of St. Louis Park representatives on this committee
5. Legal Authority
It is understood that the decisions and activities of the partnership are advisory only, and
will not have any binding legal authority on any of the partnership’s members. The
parties to the partnership expect that recommendations developed and approved by the
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 100404 - 4a - Minnehaha Creek Partnership, Resolution
Page 4
partnership will be duly considered and acted upon by the governing body of the
respective the partnership members.
6. Term
The partnership will meet and work for an initial period of three (3) years, concluding on
or before March 1, 2007, subject to a determination to renew the work of the partnership
by each of its partner organizations.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council October 4, 2004
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 100404 - 4b - 2nd reading Brookside School
Page 1
4b Motion to approve second reading of ordinance amending zoning map to change the
zoning designation from R2 - Single Family Residential to R4 - Multi Family
Residential for a portion of property located at 4100 Vernon Avenue South and
4135 Webster Avenue South subject to review of the Comprehensive Plan
amendments by the Metropolitan Council, to approve summary and authorize
publication. Case No. 04-30-Z
Background
On September 20, 2004, the City Council approved first reading of an ordinance amending the
zoning map for a portion of property at 4100 Vernon Avenue South and 4135 Webster Avenue
South. This action was in response to an application from Foundation Land Development and
Master Development Group (St. Louis Park School District) in association with the
redevelopment of the Brookside School site. The request was to change the zoning for all of the
school property except the west 90 feet abutting Webster Avenue. This portion is to remain R2 –
Single Family Residential and be redeveloped as single family.
Attachments: Proposed Ordinance
Proposed Ordinance Summary
Prepared by: Judie Erickson, Planning Coordinator
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 100404 - 4b - 2nd reading Brookside School
Page 2
ORDINANCE NO.__________
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE
CHANGING BOUNDARIES OF ZONING DISTRICTS
4100 VERNON AVENUE SOUTH
4135 WEBSTER AVENUE SOUTH
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the
Planning Commission (Case No. 04-30-Z).
Section 2. The City Council has considered the goals and policies of Vision St. Louis
Park, the Comprehensive Plan, and the preliminary findings of the Housing Summit as it relates
to the need for additional large single family homes.
Section 3. The St. Louis Park Zoning Ordinance adopted December 28, 1959, Ordinance
No. 730; amended December 31, 1992, Ordinance No. 1902-93, amended December 17, 2001,
Ordinance No. 2216-01, as heretofore amended, is hereby further amended by changing the
zoning district boundaries by reclassifying the following described lands from their existing land
use district classification to the new land use district classification as indicated for the tract as
hereinafter set forth, to wit:
Parcel One: Lots 10 and 11, Block 10, Suburban Homes Co.’s Addition, Hennepin
County, Minnesota (Torrens)
Parcel Two: Lot 8, Block 10, Suburban Homes Co.’s Addition, Hennepin County,
Minnesota (Torrens)
Parcel Three: Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 and 36, Block 10, Suburban
Homes Co.’s Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota; EXCEPT that portion taken by the
State of Minnesota for trunk highway purposes as shown by the Final Certificate
recorded as Document No. 4040269, described as Parcel 12, S.P. 2734, being that portion
of Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, Block 10, Suburban Homes Co.’s Addition, which lies easterly
of the following described line: Beginning at the southeast corner of said Lot 6; thence
run northwesterly to a point on the north line of said Lot 4, distant 10 feet west of the
northeast corner thereof; thence run northwesterly to a point on the north line of said Lot
2, distant 25 feet west of the northeast corner thereof; thence run westerly on the north
line of said Lot 2 to its intersection with a line run parallel with and distant 60 feet west
of the east line of said Block 10, thence run northerly on said 60 foot parallel line to its
intersection with a line run parallel with and distant 22 feet south of the north line of said
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 100404 - 4b - 2nd reading Brookside School
Page 3
Lot 1, then run westerly on said 22-foot parallel line to its intersection with a line run
parallel with and distant 70.5 feet west of the east line of said Block 10; thence run
northerly on said 70.5 foot parallel line to the north line of said Lot 1 and there
terminating. (Abstract)
EXCEPT the west 90 feet of Lots 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 and 36, Block 10, Suburban
Homes Co.’s Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota
Parcel Four: The east 36.66 feet of Lot 29, Block 10, Suburban Homes Co.’s Addition,
Hennepin County, Minnesota
from R-2 Single Family Residential to R-4 Multi-Family Residential
Section 4. The zoning district classification for the west 90 feet of Lots 30, 31, 32, 33,
34, 35, and 36, Block 10, Suburban Homes Co.’s Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota is
retained as R-2 Single Family Residential.
Section 5. The contents of Planning Case File 04-30-Z and 04-31-CP are hereby entered
into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
Section 6. The ordinance shall take effect upon Metropolitan Council review of
associated Comprehensive Plan amendment.
Adopted by the City Council October 4, 2004
Reviewed for Administration
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
04-30-Z: res-ord/2004
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 100404 - 4b - 2nd reading Brookside School
Page 4
SUMMARY
ORDINANCE NO._____________
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE
CHANGING BOUNDARIES OF ZONING DISTRICTS
FROM R-2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO R-4 MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
4100 VERNON AVENUE SOUTH
4135 WEBSTER AVENUE SOUTH
This ordinance states that the zoning classification for a portion of property at 4100 Vernon
Avenue South and 4135 will be changed from R-2 Single Family Residential to R-4 Multi-
Family Residential. Zoning classification for the west 90 feet of Lots 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, and
36, Block 10, Suburban Homes Co’s. Addition is retained as R-2 Single Family Residential.
The ordinance shall take effect upon Metropolitan Council approval of associated
Comprehensive Plan amendment.
Adopted by the City Council October 4, 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: October 14, 2004
res-ord/2004/04-30-Zsum
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 100404 - 4c - Bid Tab 2004 GAC
Page 1
4c Bid Tabulation: Purchase of Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) Supply
Contract. Motion to authorize execution of a contract with Calgon
Carbon Corporation for the purchase of GAC in the amount of $51,440
Background: Granular Activated Carbon Treatment Plants are located at 2935 Jersey
Avenue (Water Treatment Plant No. 1) and at 4601 W. 41st Street (Water Treatment Plant
No. 4). These plants came on line in 1986 and 1993, respectively. These GAC plants
treat drinking water contaminated by the Reilly Tar and Chemical Plant. This treatment
is effective in removing polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) contaminants. The
GAC absorbs the PAH’s as the contaminated water passes through the filters. The GAC
eventually becomes loaded with the PAH particles, is no longer effective in the removal
of the PAH’s, and must be replaced. The GAC treated water is continually monitored to
measure the amount of PAH’s removed. When the level of PAH’s in the treated water
increases to the Drinking Water Advisory Level the GAC has to be scheduled for
replacement. Based on years of experience, the replacement of the GAC is now done
annually at these plants.
Bids were received on September 21, 2004 for the supply and regeneration of GAC for
Water Treatment Plants No. 1 and 4. An advertisement for bids was published in the St.
Louis Park Sun-Sailor on September 8, 2004. Specification and bid documents were sent
to Calgon Carbon Corporation and Norit Americas, Inc. which are the only two qualified
suppliers of GAC. A summary of the bid results is as follows:
Bidder Bid Amount
Calgon Carbon Corporation $ 51,440
Norit Americas, Inc. NO BID
Financial Considerations: The bid amount of $51,440 is about a 2% decrease from the
2003 contract with Calgon Carbon Corporation which totaled $52,400. The 2004 Water
Utility Budget provides $60,000 for this GAC exchange at Water Treatment Plants No. 1
and 4.
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the contract be awarded to the low bidder,
Calgon Carbon Corporation for the contract amount of $51,440.
Prepared by: Scott Anderson, Utilities Superintendent
Reviewed by: Michael Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 100404 - 4d - Bid Tab Lamplighter Lift Station
Page 1
4d Bid Tabulation: Motion to designate Lametti & Sons, Inc. the lowest responsible
bidder and authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of $302,700.00
for the Lamplighter Pond Lift Station Improvement Project – City Project No. 00-18A
Background: This storm sewer lift station pumps water from Lamplighter Pond to the City’s
storm sewer system. Due to the lift station’s age and the condition of its pumps, it is in need of
replacement. 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. At the August 16th Council
meeting, the City Council authorized staff to solicit bids for this work. As noted at that time, the
lift station needs to be replaced whether or not other anticipated work on Lamplighter Pond
occurs.
Analysis: Bids were received on September 21, 2004. An advertisement for bids was published in
the St. Louis Park Sun-Sailor on September 2 & 9, 2004 and in the Construction Bulletin on August
27 and September 3 & 10, 2004. Two (2) bids were received for this project. A summary of the bid
results is as follows:
Contractor Bid Amount
Lametti & Sons, Inc. $302,700.00
Carl Bolander & Sons Company $500,000.00
Engineer’s Estimate $410,000.00
Evaluation of Bids: A review of the bids indicates Lametti & Sons, Inc. submitted the lowest
responsible bid. The City’s consultant, WSB and Associates, has reviewed the contractor’s
qualifications and has determined that they are qualified to perform the work necessary to
complete the project.
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: This work is eligible for funding through the MnDNR grant at a 1:1
match. Therefore, half of the costs will be paid for using Storm Sewer Utility Bond proceeds
and half will come from the City’s MnDNR Grant fund.
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
Item: 100404 - 4e - 2005 Equipment Replacement
Page 1
4e. Adopt the attached resolution that accepts this report considering major
equipment replacement scheduled and budgeted for 2005.
Background: Procurement of vehicles is accomplished in a variety of ways. By Statute,
Charter, and Ordinance, all purchases over $50,000 have to be authorized by the Council and are
bid in accordance with public contracting laws. This means that after equipment purchases are
authorized by Council, the City can either call for bids or equipment may be purchased through
other agencies that have already legally bid for this equipment (i.e. State of Minnesota contracts,
Hennepin County contracts, etc.).
Replacement of equipment costing less than $50,000 does not necessarily require Council
authorization. Staff replaces this type of equipment by purchasing it through State or County
contracts or by obtaining competitive quotes.
Budget: In the first quarter of 2004, Public Works staff met with each equipment-using
department to discuss fleet management as well as short term and long term planned
replacements. From this discussion, Public Works revised the planned replacement list. From
this list, year 2005 replacements were placed in the budget proposal earlier this year.
Final List for Replacement: The final list for year 2005 contains 31 units estimated to cost
(gross) $983,696. This listing is attached for your information. Of those, there are 5 vehicles
that will cost close to or more than $50,000 and require Council authorization to purchase.
Recommendation: Adopt the attached resolution that accepts this report considering major
equipment replacement scheduled and budgeted for 2005 and authorizes staff to acquire
equipment as allowed by Statute, Charter, or Ordinance.
Attachments:
Resolution Year 2005 Major Equipment Replacement
2005 Equipment Purchase Spreadsheet
Prepared by: Mark Hanson, Operations Superintendent
Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 100404 - 4e - 2005 Equipment Replacement
Page 2
RESOLUTION NO. 04-_____
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING REPORT, APPROVING SPECIFICATIONS,
AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENTS FOR BIDS FOR
YEAR 2005 MAJOR EQUIPMENT PURCHASES
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota has received a report from
the Director of Public Works related to major equipment scheduled for replacement during year 2005,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park,
Minnesota, that:
1. The Director of Public Works Report regarding year 2005 equipment replacement is hereby accepted.
2. The following five (5) pieces of equipment costing close to or more than $50,000 are authorized for
replacement or addition during year 2005:
Old Vehicle
Unit No.
New Vehicle Description
Estimated Cost
1. 8162 COMMUNICATIONS VEHICLE $158,620
2. 8840 GARBAGE TRUCK $ 68,000
3. 8943 TRUCK SINGLE DUMP $108,150
4. 9607 TRUCK, 2-TON SUPER DUTY $ 56,758
5. 9712 SWEEPER, SELF-PROPELLED $116,700
3. The Director of Public Works is further authorized to acquire all year 2005 equipment purchases as
allowed by Statute, Charter, or Ordinance through the following methods: by bid, by purchase from
State of Minnesota Contract, Hennepin County Contract, or by quotations.
4. The necessary specifications for year 2005 equipment purchases as prepared under the direction of
the Director of Public Works are approved.
5. When necessary, the City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted at least two weeks in the
official newspaper and in the Construction Bulletin advertisements for bids for said equipment listed
above under said specifications. Advertisements shall appear not less than twenty-one (21) 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 cashier’s check, bid bond, or certified
check payable to the City for five (5) percent of the amount of the bid.
6. Bids received for the equipment listed above shall be tabulated by the Director of Public Works who
shall report his tabulation and recommendation to the City Council.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 4, 2004
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 100404 - 4e - 2005 Equipment Replacement
Page 3
No.
Old
Unit
No.Old Description
Rpl.
Cycle Age Primary Department New Vehicle Description
Est. Cost
2005
1 0301 SEDAN,POLICE SQUADS 2 2 POLICE DEPT SEDAN,POLICE SQUADS 25,235
2 0302 SEDAN,POLICE SQUADS 2 2 POLICE DEPT SEDAN,POLICE SQUADS 25,235
3 0303 SEDAN,POLICE SQUADS 2 2 POLICE DEPT SEDAN,POLICE SQUADS 25,235
4 0305 SEDAN,POLICE SQUADS 2 2 POLICE DEPT SEDAN,POLICE SQUADS 25,235
5 8162 COMMUNICATIONS VEHICLE 10 24 POLICE DEPT COMMUNICATIONS VEHICLE 158,620 *
6 9717 TRUCK,1/4T,4X4 SPORT-UTL 8 8 POLICE DEPT TRUCK,1/4T,4X4 SPORT-UTL 30,175
7 9424 TRUCK,1/4T,4X4 SPORT-UTL 8 11 FIRE TRUCK,1/2T,4X4 SPORT-UTL 33,475
8 9417 SEDAN, FULL SIZE 8 11 FIRE TRUCK,1/2T,4X4 SPORT-UTL 33,475
9 9229 MOWERS, WALK BEHIND 10 13 PARK MAINTENANCE MOWER, VERSATILE RIDING 36,300
10 9522 MOWER, GROUNDMASTER 72"10 10 PARK MAINTENANCE MOWER, GROUNDMASTER 72"15,193
11 9707 TRUCK,3/4T,4X4 8 8 PARK MAINTENANCE TRUCK,3/4T,4X4 22,918
12 9512 TRUCK,3/4T,2X4 8 10 PARK MAINTENANCE TRUCK,3/4T,2X4 UTILITY 22,918
13 8513T TRAILER 20 20 PARK MAINTENANCE TRAILER 6,695
14 8366 SWEEPER, TURF 8 22 PARK MAINTENANCE SWEEPER, TURF 11,073
15 8840 TRUCK, 50' AERIAL BUCKET 20 17 PARK MAINTENANCE GARBAGE TRUCK 68,000 *
16 417 SKID-STEER LOADER 1 1 PARK MAINTENANCE SKID-STEER LOADER 2,369
17 9507 SEDAN, MID-SIZE (TAURUS)8 10 INSPECTIONS SEDAN, MID-SIZE (TAURUS)16,635
18 9713 SEDAN, MID-SIZE (TAURUS)8 8 POOL SEDAN, MID-SIZE (TAURUS)16,635
19 8943 TRUCK SINGLE DUMP 15 16 POOL TRUCK SINGLE DUMP 108,150 *
20 9430 VAN, CARGO/CLUB 10 11 ENGINEERING VAN, CARGO/CLUB 24,442
21 9428 VAN, CARGO/CLUB 10 11 FACILITIES MAINTENANCE VAN, CARGO/CLUB 24,442
22 9607 TRUCK, 2-TON SUPER DUTY 10 9 SANITARY SEWER TRUCK, 2-TON SUPER DUTY 56,758 *
23 9516 TRUCK, 1-TON, 2X4 8 10 WATER DEPT TRUCK, 1-TON, 4X4, UTILITY 25,750
24 9515 TRUCK, 1-TON, 2X4 10 10 WATER DEPT TRUCK, 1-TON, 2X4, UTILITY 25,750
25 8943UB PLOW,UNDERBODY 15 16 OPERATIONS WING PLOW 6,901
26 130.19 SANDER, TAILGATE 15 16 OPERATIONS SPIN SPANDER 2,987
27 89143 FRONT PLOW 15 16 OPERATIONS FRONT PLOW 6,896
28 422 SKID-STEER LOADER 1 1 OPERATIONS SKID-STEER LOADER 2,369
29 9712 SWEEPER, SELF-PROPELLED 8 8 OPERATIONS SWEEPER, SELF-PROPELLED 116,700 *
30 N/A N/A 10 N/A OPERATIONS FRONT PLOW (P/U - 9707 Repl)3,565
31 N/A N/A 10 N/A WATER DEPT FRONT PLOW (P/U - 9516 Repl)3,565
Total
Notes: * For units estimated near or over $50,000, Council will be requested to authorize purchase
983,696$
2005 Equipment Purchases
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 100404 - 4f - Excelsior Blvd - SRF Consulting
Page 1
4f Motion to approve a contract with SRF Consulting Group for Professional Design
Services related to the Excelsior Boulevard Street Improvement Project, Project
No. 2004-0400
Background: The Hennepin County Transportation Department is developing preliminary plans
to reconstruct Excelsior Boulevard from Highway 100 west to Louisiana Avenue. The purpose
of the project is to improve vehicular and pedestrian safety, improve capacity for vehicles,
restore the pavement to an adequate condition, replace a deficient bridge at Minnehaha Creek
and provide streetscaping/landscaping to create a more attractive pedestrian environment.
Three County projects will be considered. They include:
Project
Number
Project Description
Anticipated
Construction Year
CP9745 Road reconstruction, Xenwood Avenue to west of
Dakota Avenue
2006
CP0405 Minnehaha Creek bridge replacement 2008
CP0410 Road reconstruction, East of Louisiana Avenue to
West of Dakota Avenue
2008
Hennepin County is proposing to develop the preliminary layout for all three projects at this
time. Construction of the first project, from Xenwood Avenue to Dakota Avenue, is planned for
2006; however, the two remaining projects would not be constructed until 2008 and only if
funding is secured. Hennepin County feels it is prudent to obtain citizen and City involvement
and approval on all three projects at one time.
Similar to the projects on the east side of Highway 100, the City is interested in applying
elements of the streetscape palette to this corridor. Based on feedback from adjacent property
owners obtained at a meeting in 2000, their desire would be to extend the existing decorative
elements and overall theme to the area west of the Excelsior Blvd. bridge, but because there is
limited right of way along the road the streetscaping is expected to be less intense than that
created east of Highway 100.
Analysis: Unlike the other Excelsior Boulevard streetscape projects, Hennepin County, not the
City, will act as the lead agency for the roadway project. However, the City will partner with the
County to provide the planning, engineering and support necessary to incorporate streetscape
elements into the project.
Staff is recommending that SRF Consulting Group be retained to assist in developing and
finalizing the streetscape design. SRF was the designer of the third Streetscape project (adjacent
to Excelsior and Grand) which was recently completed. SRF has already created draft
streetscape concepts for this project and participated in the development process to date.
SRF’s role would be to assist the City in meeting with property owners to discuss streetscape
design issues and to prepare final plans for the initial (Xenwood Avenue to Dakota Avenue)
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 100404 - 4f - Excelsior Blvd - SRF Consulting
Page 2
project. These plans will be coordinated and combined with Hennepin County’s roadway plans
into one County-administered bid letting and construction contract.
In total, SRF would assist the City with the following tasks and at the following estimated costs:
# Task Cost
1 Data Collection/Preliminary Report/Public Involvement $17,988
2 Preliminary Design $21,222
3 Final Plans and specifications $35,160
4 Bidding Administration $1,964
5 Direct, Non-salary expenses $849
Total $77,183
Fees will be paid based on actual hours expended. The funding source for the consulting
services and most of the City’s share of the project will be the EDA’s Development Fund or Pre-
79 Tax Increment dollars.
Recommendation: Motion to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute a contract with
SRF Consulting Group for services associated with concept development and preliminary & final
design of streetscaping elements for the Excelsior Boulevard Street Improvement project in the
amount of $77,183.00. The City’s standard professional services contract will be utilized for this
purpose.
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
Item: 100404 - 4g - Fire Sprinkler Assessment 1342 Colorado
Page 1
4g Motion to adopt a resolution authorizing installation and special assessment of a
fire sprinkler system at 1342 Colorado Avenue and directing the Mayor and City
Manager to execute a special assessment agreement with the property owner.
Background:
Madhu Reddy, owner of the commercial building at 1342 Colorado Avenue has requested that
the City authorize the installation of an automatic fire suppression sprinkler system for the
building and assess the cost against the property in accordance with the City’s special assessment
policy.
Analysis:
The special assessment policy for installation of automatic fire sprinkler systems in existing
buildings was adopted by the City Council in 1995. The City promotes the installation of fire
suppression sprinkler systems and facilitates their installation to promote the general public
health, safety and welfare within the community.
The Building Code requires the installation of a fire sprinkler system in this building because of
major remodeling project in the building.. The property owner will be hiring a contractor to
install the sprinkler system throughout the building and bring it up to compliance with the
current code. Based on the proposed work the system qualifies for the City’s special assessment
program. The property owner has petitioned the City to authorize the installation of the fire
sprinkler system and special assess the cost of the installation. Sprinkler plans have been
submitted and approved by City staff. The total eligible cost of the installation has been
determined to be $30,380. An Administrative Fee of $152.00 will be added to the special
assessment.
Staff has determined that adequate funds are available through the Permanent Improvement
Revolving Fund.
Prepared by: Cary Smith, Fire Marshal
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 100404 - 4g - Fire Sprinkler Assessment 1342 Colorado
Page 2
RESOLUTION NO ________________________
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING INSTALLATION AND SPECIAL ASSESSMENT OF
FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM AT 1342 Colorado Avenue
WHEREAS, the Property Owner at 1342 Colorado Avenue (“Benefited Property”) has
petitioned the City of St. Louis Park to authorize a special assessment for the installation of a fire
sprinkler system in their commercial building on the Benefited Property; and
WHEREAS, the Property Owner has agreed to waive their right to a public hearing, right
of notice and right of appeal pursuant to Minnesota Statute, Chapter 429; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the
Fire Marshal related to the installation of the fire sprinkler system.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that:
1. The petition from the Property Owner requesting the approval and special
assessment for the fire sprinkler system is hereby accepted.
2. The installation of the fire sprinkler system in conformance with the plans and
specifications approved by the Fire Department and Department of Inspections is hereby
authorized.
3. The total estimated cost for the design and complete installation of the fire
sprinkler system is accepted at $30,380.00.
4. An administrative fee of $152.00 for processing shall be added to the special
assessment.
5. The Property Owner has agreed to waive their rights to a public hearing, notice
and appeal from the special assessment; whether provided by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429,
or by other statutes, or by ordinance, City Charter, the constitution, or common law.
6. The total special assessment against the Benefited Property will be $30,532.00.
7. The Property Owner agrees to pay the City for the cost of the above
improvements through special assessment over a ten (10) year period at five point nine seven
percent (5.97%) interest.
8. The Property Owner(s) agree(s) to execute an agreement with the City and any
other documents necessary to implement the installation of the fire sprinkler system and the
special assessment of all costs associated therewith.
Adopted by the City Council October 4, 2004
(Insert Signature Block)
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 100404 - 4h - Extension Pk Nicollet interim parking lot
Page 1
4h Motion to approve extension of Park Nicollet Health System’s Minor Amendment
to Planned Unit Development for the construction of an interim parking lot in an
open area south of the medical building at 3900 Park Nicollet Blvd. until October 4,
2005. Case No. 03-49-PUD (originally approved October 7, 2003)
Background:
On October 7, 2003, the City Council approved a minor amendment to a Planned Unit
Development for Park Nicollet Health Systems to construct a 46 stall interim parking lot directly
south of the four story brick building at 3900 Park Nicollet Blvd. The location of the proposed
parking lot was approved as an open courtyard during Phase I of the Park Nicollet Medical
Center. In the Master Plan for Phase II, future construction plans propose a four level building
expansion to the 3900 building, over the courtyard. The parking lot is designed to have one
entry/exit and one way circulation around 4 rows of parking. The lot is proposed to be an
interim lot built to alleviate current patient and staff parking needs.
On September 21, 2004, the applicant submitted a request for an extension of the amendment to
the PUD. At this time Park Nicollet does not have plans in place for further campus
development and desires to maintain the flexibility to build the interim parking lot at a later date.
The Ordinance states that permits are removed 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 amendment to the Planned Unit Development until October 4,
2005.
Attachment:
Letter from Park Nicollet Health Systems
Prepared by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 100404 - 4h - Extension Pk Nicollet interim parking lot
Page 2
VIA EMAIL
From: Spiegle, Duane F. [mailto:spiegd@parknicollet.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2004 3:50 PM
To: Nancy Sells
Cc: Meg McMonigal
Subject: RE: official plan exhibits - interim paved parking expansion
Dear Ms. McMonigal, would you please put on the consent agenda for the city council Park
Nicollet's request to have the city extend the approval for the Park Nicollet Clinic parking
expansion until October of 2005. We are requesting this extension because we do not have our
plans in place for further campus development and do not want to spend the $150,000 to build
the lot and have things change on us and tear it out soon after. This extension will allow us a bit
more time for campus planning for parking facilities. Thank you very much for your consideration,
sincerely, Duane VP Real Estate Park Nicollet Health Services.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 100404 - 6a - PH Easement Vacation Cedar Lake Road
Page 1
6a. Public Hearing to consider petition to vacate an easement to construct slopes and
erect and maintain temporary snow fences created in Document No. 2826324 on
June 11, 1953 at Cedar Lake Road and Park Place Blvd.
Recommended
Action:
Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to approve first reading
of ordinance vacating slope and snow fence easement and set
second reading for October 20, 2004.
Background:
Hennepin County reconstructed Cedar Lake Road as a county road in 1953. As part of the
reconstruction, Hennepin County required an easement to construct slopes and erect snow fences
on private property. Generally these types of easements have built in expiration dates.
In the case of the subject easement, no expiration date was established and the easement is still in
full force and effect. Hennepin County transferred Cedar Lake Road to the city in 1995. Along
with the right of way, all easements were also transferred.
The city has received a petition to vacate the slope and snow fence easement from property on
the northeast corner of Cedar Lake Road and Park Place Boulevard. The actual easement
includes a much larger area, and since the need for the slope and snow fence were temporary, the
need to maintain the easement no longer exists.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the entire easement established by Document No. 2826324 be vacated.
Attachments: Petition to vacate a portion of the easement
Proposed Ordinance
Map of easement location
Prepared By: Judie Erickson, Planning Coordinator
Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 100404 - 6a - PH Easement Vacation Cedar Lake Road
Page 2
ORDINANCE NO.___________
AN ORDINANCE VACATING SLOPE EASEMENT ASSOCIATED WITH
CONSTRUCTION OF CEDAR LAKE ROAD
Parkdale Drive and Cedar Lake Road
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 easement proposed to be vacated has been duly filed.
The notice of said petition has been published, in the St. Louis Park Sailor, on September 23,
2004 and the City Council has conducted a public hearing upon said petition and has determined
that the easement is not needed for public purposes, and that it is for the best interest of the
public that said easement be vacated.
Section 2. The following described easement as originally conveyed to Hennepin
County and laid out within the corporate limits of the City of St. Louis Park, is vacated:
Legal Description as included in Document No. 2826324 dated June 11, 1953
(Attachment A)
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 October 18, 2004
Reviewed for Administration
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
res-ord/2004 04-44-VAC
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 100404 - 8a - Support of ISD 283 Referendum
Page 1
8a
Resolution supporting an Operating Levy Renewal and Bond Referendum for
Independent School District #283 (St. Louis Park Public Schools)
The City Council wishes to publicly express its support of two questions which will
appear on the ballot of election November 2, 2004.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt a resolution in support of the Independent School
District #283 Operating Levy Renewal and Bond Referendum
Background:
At the study session meeting of September 27, 2004, Council expressed their desire to fully
support the request by ISD #283 for the voters of St. Louis Park to vote “yes” on two questions
which will appear on the ballot of election on November 2, 2004
Question # 1 - Operating Levy Renewal
A “yes” vote on this question will renew the existing Operating Levy with an
inflationary increase that will provide the district with $1,600 per student, each
year for the next 10 years; and
Question #2 – Bond Referendum
A “yes” vote on this question will pass a Bond Referendum that will provide the
district with $10 million for facility repairs and renovations.
Prepared by: Cindy Reichert, City Clerk
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 100404 - 8a - Support of ISD 283 Referendum
Page 2
RESOLUTION NO. 04-______
RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF ST. LOUIS PARK
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT #283
OPERATING LEVY RENEWAL AND BOND REFERENDUM
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park and Independent School District #283 have
shared a long and cooperative relationship of service to the citizens of St. Louis Park; and
WHEREAS, the City is proud to partner with a school district which serves as a national
model for academic performance, attendance, up-to-date and rigorous core curriculum and
instruction, positive and caring atmosphere, and parent and community involvement; and
WHEREAS, the City Council shares the vision of our district which states, “As a caring,
diverse community with a tradition of putting its children first, we will ensure that all students
attain the highest level of achievement and become contributing members of society, and we will
offer everyone high quality opportunities for lifelong learning, by providing multiple pathways
to excellence and challenging each learner to meet high standards, within a safe environment”;
and
WHEREAS, the City recognizes that in order to achieve these goals and to remain a
vital, contributing force in our community, our schools must have the resources necessary to
carry out their mission; and further recognizes that without an increase in funding our district
will be forced to make drastic budget reductions, seriously affecting the quality of education
provided to students; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of St.
Louis Park hereby declares its support for renewal of the existing Operating Levy with an
inflationary increase that will provide the district with $1,600 per student, each year for the next
10 years; and that the City Council also declares its support for passage of a Bond Referendum
that will provide the district with $10 million for facility repairs and renovations.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 4, 2004
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
St. Louis Park City Council
Item: 100404 - 8b - Aquila Commons PUD CC
Page 1
8b Request by Stonebridge Development and Acquisition, LLC. for approval of a
Planned Unit Development (PUD) for a residential senior housing cooperative
known as Aquila Commons.
Case Nos. 04-24-PUD
8200 33rd Street West
Recommended
Action:
• Motion to approve a resolution for a PUD for the
property at 8200 33rd Street W. to allow a senior housing
co-operative building.
Zoning: RC, Multi-Family Residential
Comprehensive Plan Designation: High Density Residential
Parcel Size 2.75 acres (119,798 sq. ft.)
Current Land Use: Vacant School (former Talmud Torah)
Proposed Land Use 110 units - Senior Co-operative Housing
Request
Stonebridge Development & Acquisition, LLC, is requesting approval of a PUD (planned unit
development) for a 110-unit residential senior housing cooperative building located at the
Talmud Torah school property, at 8200 33rd Street. On September 1, 2004, the Planning
Commission held a public hearing and recommended approval of the PUD with conditions.
Background
On August 18, 2004 the City Council approved a Comprehensive Plan amendment for this
property. This amendment changed the designation on the property to High Density Residential,
which allows the proposed senior co-op. The zoning on the property was and is RC, Multi-
family Residential.
The original building proposal was to construct a 3 and 4 story, 122-unit senior housing
cooperative on the 2.75 acre site. The developers met with the neighbors several times to discuss
concerns including building proximity, scale and traffic. A new building and site plan emerged
from the meetings, and a re-oriented 110-unit building, with reduced height on a portion, is now
proposed.
Project Description
The developer proposes to demolish the existing school building and construct a new, 110-unit 3
and 4-story senior housing cooperative. The building is configured in a “u” shape, with 3-stories
along the south side (33rd Street) and 4-stories on the north side. Underground parking will
include 111 spaces that will be accessed from Virginia Avenue. The visitor parking lot is
proposed to be accessed off of 33rd Street, on the southeast side of the site, and will hold 49
spaces.
St. Louis Park City Council
Item: 100404 - 8b - Aquila Commons PUD CC
Page 2
Through the neighborhood meeting process, the building was revised to minimize the amount of
building that faces the adjacent single family homes to the east. The number of stories was also
reduced on the west and south sides, to minimize the impacts on the adjacent Wynmoor
Condominiums.
Co-operative Housing
The developer described cooperatives as, “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 home owners. This will provide an affordable and sustainable housing option for the senior
community.”
Planned Unit Development
Multi-family dwellings are permitted with conditions in the RC, Multi-Family Zoning district,
and because a Redevelopment Plan for the project was adopted in the Comprehensive Plan, the
following items are allowed flexibility:
• reductions in setbacks to the front and side yards (the west and north property lines),
• increase in the ground floor area (GFAR), and
• reduction in the parking requirements.
Standard Basic
Req’ts
Modification
Allowed for
PUD
Resulting
Req’ts under
PUD
Requirements
allowed by
approved
Redevelopment
Plan
Proposed
Plan
Ground
Floor Area
coverage of
site
25% of
site
5% increase
in coverage
26.25%
coverage
33% coverage 33%
Front yard
setback
(Virginia
Av)
30 ft.
minimum
Maybe
reduced to 0
ft.
0 feet 10 ft. 20 ft.
North Side
yard setback
80 ft. based
on bldg hgt
None 80 ft. 20 ft. 19.75 ft*
Parking 220 stalls Reduction of
up to 30%
154 stalls Parking
reductions as
approved by PUD
160 stall plus
15 stall proof
of parking
* As part of the finalization of bldg and site plans, staff will work with developer to insure the 20
ft requirement is met (it currently is off by 3 inches)
St. Louis Park City Council
Item: 100404 - 8b - Aquila Commons PUD CC
Page 3
Site and Building Design
Site Layout:
Proposed is a 3 and 4-story building in a u-shaped configuration. Four stories are along the north
side, with 3 stories on the east and south sides. Underground parking for residents will be
accessed off of Virginia Avenue. A visitor parking lot will be located off of 33rd Street.
The plan proposes garden plots on the east side of the building and an outdoor front porch area
with cedar trellis and benches in front of the main entry on the south side of the building.
Building:
The 110-unit building is proposed to be constructed primarily of brick, with cement board siding
and shakes on a portion of it. Cultured stone is present over the main entryway. A small amount
of cultured stone veneer and rock face are also on the building. The roof will be flat, with some
standing seam mansard roof portions. There are 71 2-bedroom units, 38 1-bedroom units and 1
3-bedroom unit.
The building is setback from property lines as follows:
Direction Setback Existing Use Zoning
East 68’ 1” Single Family Residential R2
South 16’ 10” Single Family Residential R2
West 20’ 0” Multi-family Condominiums RC
North 19’9” Nursing Home RC
Parking:
Underground parking is provided for each unit (111 spaces). Access to the parking is from the
Virginia Avenue side. Guest parking will be off of 33rd Street with 49 spaces. Another 15
spaces are shown as proof of parking, should they be needed in the future. This adds up to 1.6
spaces per unit. In the developer’s experience, for the senior demographic group .75 to 1.25
spaces per unit is generally what is needed.
Two (2) spaces are required per unit in the Zoning Code; with a PUD, a reduction of up to 30%
is allowed.
Requirement 220 spaces
With a 30% reduction 154
Proposed 160
Proof of parking 15
The parking meets the PUD requirement, and with the reduction in units from 122 to 110, the
proof of parking is not needed.
Pedestrian connections:
Sidewalks are planned around the site and along the street frontages. From the Virginia Avenue
cul-de-sac, there will be a stairway connection built to connect to 33rd Street. It will be
maintained by Aquila Commons. This creates 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.
St. Louis Park City Council
Item: 100404 - 8b - Aquila Commons PUD CC
Page 4
A new asphalt pathway will be constructed by the Developer on the length of 33rd Street along
the property and will continue to Texas Avenue. It will cross in front of a single family home,
off of this site. The Developer and City are working with the property owner to accommodate
this pathway.
Traffic:
SRF Consulting was hired to complete a traffic analysis on behalf of the City (paid for by
Stonebridge Development). The study analyzed anticipated effects of the proposed development
on traffic, peak hour operations and site access. The study (attached) was for 122 units and the
results show the senior housing development is expected to generate approximately 425 daily
trips, compared to 625 daily trips with a school 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 as
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 highest 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.
Landscaping:
A landscape plan has been submitted. It contains 95 trees, 230 shrubs and 117 perennials
distributed around the site. The plan was revised to accommodate the neighbor’s desires. Two
large Cottonwood trees (48” and 60”) will be preserved. A 6-foot high wood fence will be
placed along the east property line, weaving in and out of the plantings along that side.
Designated Open Recreation Area:
Twelve-percent (12%) of the site must be designated for open recreation area. A total of 13.5%
is designated on this site as shown on the site plan.
Lighting:
A lighting plan was submitted. Two lights are shown on the parking lot islands. They are 25
feet tall and are shoebox style. A wall light is shown on the underground parking entrance as
well. The proposed lighting plan meets City requirements.
Neighborhood Meetings:
A neighborhood meeting was held on June 10, 2004. The neighborhood identified the following
issues:
St. Louis Park City Council
Item: 100404 - 8b - Aquila Commons PUD CC
Page 5
• 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.
On July 28, 2004 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 revised the plan to
what is now proposed (110 units, building reoriented, reduced number of stories on a portion of
the building).
On August 25, 2004, the developer met with the neighbors again. Eight residents were in
attendance. The developer presented the latest development plan showing 110 co-op units.
Residents expressed appreciation for the work the developer had done to address resident
concerns. Questions were asked about maintenance of the flat roof, possible ways to further
reduce the number of units and the height of the building. Further refinement of the landscaping
adjacent to the single family homes at the east end of the site was also discussed. Resident
comments with regards to the project were generally favorable.
St. Louis Park City Council
Item: 100404 - 8b - Aquila Commons PUD CC
Page 6
Recommendation:
On September 1, 2004, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the PUD with the
following conditions as recommended by Staff:
1. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with the conditions of
this resolution, the approved Official Exhibits as modified prior to signing to meet
required conditions of this approval, and City Code; documents incorporated by reference
herein.
2. Any signs must conform to the city’s sign regulations. Prior to the installation of any
signs, including temporary signs or new sign faces, a sign plan must be approved by the
Zoning Administrator and sign permits must be obtained.
3. Prior to any site work, the developer shall meet the following requirements:
a. Stormwater design details must be submitted and approved by the Public Works
Director.
b. Final sidewalk construction specifications must be approved by the Public Works
Director.
c. A copy of the Watershed District permit shall be forwarded to the City.
d. Obtain the required demolition permit, erosion control permits, utility permits and
other permits required by the City, which may impose additional conditions.
e. Any other necessary permits from other agencies shall be obtained.
f. Sign Assent form and official exhibits.
h. Specifications for tree protection and erosion control fencing must be submitted
and approved by the City Forester. Required tree protection and erosion control
fencing must be installed prior to grading activities.
i. All other engineering requirements must be met.
4. Prior to issuance of a building permit, which may impose additional requirements, the
applicant shall:
a. Meet all Public Works Department/Utility requirements as recommended by staff.
b. The developer shall supply the City with copies of all necessary permits from
other governmental agencies or bodies prior to any site work, including the
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and MPCA.
c. Building materials samples & colors must be submitted to and approved by
Zoning Administrator.
d. Meet any Fire Department emergency access requirements during construction.
5. The developer shall comply with the following conditions during construction
a. All City noise ordinances shall be complied with, including that there be no
construction activity between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. on weekdays and 10
p.m. and 9 a.m. on weekends and holidays.
b. Loud equipment shall be kept as far as possible from residences at all times.
c. The site shall be kept free of dust and debris that could blow onto neighboring
properties.
d. Public streets shall be maintained free of dirt and shall be cleaned as necessary.
e. The Zoning Administrator may impose additional conditions if it becomes
necessary in order to mitigate the impact of construction on surrounding
properties.
6. Prior to issuance of any occupancy permit:
St. Louis Park City Council
Item: 100404 - 8b - Aquila Commons PUD CC
Page 7
a. Fire lanes shall be in accordance with the signed Official Exhibits.
b. Landscaping and irrigation shall be in accordance with the signed Official
Exhibits and approved irrigation plan except that a temporary C of O can be
issued prior to completion of landscaping and irrigation improvements provided
an irrevocable, automatically renewable letter of credit is submitted in the amount
of 125% of all landscaping and irrigation improvements.
c. Exterior building improvements shall be completed in accordance with the signed
Official Exhibits and approved materials and colors except that signs shall be
approved as part of a sign plan.
d. Prior to receiving a Certificate of Occupancy, as-built drawings of the relocated
public utilities shall be submitted to and approved by the Public Works
Department.
7. The developer shall provide the required number of replacement trees on site unless off-
site trees are approved by the Community Development Director and Parks and
Recreation Director and cash-in-lieu of trees have been paid.
8. All roof top equipment must be painted to match the color of the roof top, which is to be
an earth tone color as approved by the zoning administrator.
9. The developer or property owners(s) shall pay an administrative fine of $750 per
violation of any condition of this approval.
Attachments:
Ø Location & Zoning Map (supplement)
Ø Application
Ø Development Plans and shadow studies
Ø City sidewalk and trail map and City Trail & Sidewalk Master Plan (supplement)
Ø Traffic study (supplement)
Ø Draft Planning Commission Minutes of September 1, 2004
Prepared By: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Approved By Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park City Council
Item: 100404 - 8b - Aquila Commons PUD CC
Page 8
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
September 1, 2004--6:00 p.m.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
3. Hearings
A. Case No. 04-24-PUD-- Request by Stonebridge Development for a Preliminary
and Final PUD for development of a senior housing cooperative located at 8200
33rd Street West
Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor, presented the staff report. She reviewed
PUD standards. She stated that through the Comprehensive Plan process the applicant requested
and received some additional allowances through a Redevelopment Plan. Through the proposed
PUD the applicant meets all of the zoning requirements.
Ron Mehl, Stonebridge Development, reviewed the planning process the developer has
undertaken which has included City Council study sessions and neighborhood meetings. He
explained that a new building and site plan emerged from the neighborhood meetings, resulting
in the applicant’s proposal for a re-oriented 110-unit building with reduced height on a portion of
the building.
Gary Tushie, Tushie Montgomery Architects, reviewed eleven changes which were made to the
original plan in response to concerns of the neighborhood. Incremental reductions to the number
of units were done in response to traffic concerns. Reducing the number of stories on the east
and south side from 4 stories to 3 stories was done to lessen the impact of the building to the
neighbors on the west. Setbacks were increased to lessen the impact of the building. The
footprint was revised in response to objections to balconies facing single family homes. The
floor area ratio and total square footage were reduced. The amount of green space was increased
by 5,000 sq. ft. The configuration of the screen wall was revised to a serpentine wall design with
plant materials on both sides of the wall. The pitched roof was replaced with a flat roof in
response to height concerns. Plant material was added to help screen the single family view of
the 4-story portion of the building.
Mr. Tushie presented drawings of the project illustrating several viewpoints.
Commissioner Timian asked about the location of the garage entrance. Mr. Tushie said the only
garage access is off Virginia Ave.
Chair Robertson said that the public hearing is continued from August 18 and remains open.
Gene Stormoen, 3200 Virginia Ave. S., Windmore Condos, said the developer had made a very
good effort in working with the neighborhood on the planning process. He said perhaps in the
process the project design has been diminished and he feels badly about that. He said he
St. Louis Park City Council
Item: 100404 - 8b - Aquila Commons PUD CC
Page 9
continues to be concerned about traffic and asked about the decision to have garage access at
Virginia when a stoplight exists at 33rd and Texas. He said as proposed, all the parking traffic
will come out on a dead-end street as Virginia is a cul-de-sac. Mr. Stormoen said Windmore
residents are concerned about what will happen to Virginia Ave. He commented that the
parking study showed there would be little, if any, impact to Virginia Avenue. The
condominium association is going to pursue getting its own traffic study because they don’t feel
the City’s traffic study conclusion is valid. If the study turns out not to be valid once the project
is up and running, Mr. Stormoen proposes that the Commission recommend to the Council that
the traffic signal be moved from 33rd to 32nd.
Mr. Tushie said the first site plan showed the access to the garage off 33rd. Staff, including
engineering staff, recommended that access come off of Virginia Ave. He said the traffic study
indicated that access off Virginia worked better for the building. Mr. Tushie said the applicant
can go either way on this.
Mr. Tushie said the engineering staff’s position was verified by the traffic study conducted by
SRF. Separating the traffic of visitors from resident traffic would help the traffic flow in the
neighborhood.
Mr. Stormoen asked if the Commission would recommend to the Council that the traffic light be
moved if the traffic study proves not to be valid, and there is a real impact on 32nd and Texas.
Chair Robertson said the Council would have access to Mr. Stormoen’s comments in the
minute’s record.
As no one else was present who wished to speak, the Chair closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Timian asked if there was any chance of bringing 33rd Street all the way through
and opening up Virginia Ave.
Mr. Tushie responded that the grade difference is too great. It would also encourage cut through
traffic.
Commissioner Timian asked if bringing in two entrances and exits to the parking ramp--one
Virginia and one at the far end of the 4-story building--would be an option.
Mr. Mehl said it was pointed out at a Council study session that by having all the underground
parking go out of Virginia, there are more ways to get out then just off of 33rd, for example going
all the way up to Minnetonka.
Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator, said that the site is tight in terms of meeting
other zoning requirements, open space, parking, etc., and to put in a drive and the grade
necessary to get down to the basement level would take up a lot of the required open space.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison said the residents and the developers have come up with good
solutions for the project with the exception of the parking entrance.
St. Louis Park City Council
Item: 100404 - 8b - Aquila Commons PUD CC
Page 10
Chair Robertson said he thought the design changes were very good and the plan works much
better. The neighborhood effort has been very successful.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison made a motion recommending approval of a PUD with
conditions for the property at 8200 33rd St. W. to allow a senior housing co-operative building.
The motion passed 4-0.
St. Louis Park City Council
Item: 100404 - 8b - Aquila Commons PUD CC
Page 11
RESOLUTION NO._____________
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT (PUD) UNDER SECTION 36-367 OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK
ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING FOR PROPERTY ZONED
RC MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOCATED AT 8200 33RD STREET WEST
WHEREAS, an application for approval of a Preliminary and Final Planned Unit
Development (PUD) was accepted as completed on June 21, 2004 from the applicant, and
WHEREAS, the time period for review was extended an additional 60 days until October
19, 2004, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the Preliminary and Final PUD at the
meeting of September 1, 2004, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Preliminary and
Final PUD on a 4-0 vote with all members present voting in the affirmative, and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the staff reports, Planning Commission
minutes and testimony of those appearing at the public hearing or otherwise including comments
in the record of decision.
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park:
Findings
1. Stonebridge Development and Acquisition, LLC, has made application to the City Council for
a Planned Unit Development under Section 36-367 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code within
the RC Multi-Family Residential district located at 8200 33rd Street West for the legal
description as follows, to-wit:
Lot 2, Block 1, Aquila Park Addition, according to the dually recorded plat thereof of
Hennepin County, Minnesota
2. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning
Commission (Case No. 04-24-PUD) and the effect of the proposed PUD on the health, safety and
welfare of the occupants of the surrounding lands, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the
effect on values of properties in the surrounding area, the effect of the use on the Comprehensive
Plan, and compliance with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance.
3. The City Council has determined that the PUD will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or
general welfare of the community nor with certain contemplated traffic improvements will it
cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards, nor will it seriously depreciate surrounding property
values. The Council has also determined that the proposed PUD is in harmony with the general
St. Louis Park City Council
Item: 100404 - 8b - Aquila Commons PUD CC
Page 12
purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan and that the requested
modifications comply with the requirements of Section 36-367(b)(5).
4. The contents of Planning Case File 04-24-PUD are hereby entered into and made part of the
public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
Conclusion
The Preliminary and Final Planned Unit Development at the location described is approved
based on the findings set forth above and subject to the following conditions:
1. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in conformance with the Final PUD
official exhibits.
2. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with the conditions of
this resolution, the approved Official Exhibits as modified prior to signing to meet
required conditions of this approval, and City Code; documents incorporated by reference
herein.
3. Any signs must conform to the city’s sign regulations. Prior to the installation of any
signs, including temporary signs or new sign faces, a sign plan must be approved by the
Zoning Administrator and sign permits must be obtained.
4. Prior to any site work, the developer shall meet the following requirements:
a. Stormwater design details must be submitted and approved by the Public Works
Director.
b. Final sidewalk construction specifications must be approved by the Public Works
Director.
c. A copy of the Watershed District permit shall be forwarded to the City.
d. Obtain the required demolition permit, erosion control permits, utility permits and
other permits required by the City, which may impose additional conditions.
e. Any other necessary permits from other agencies shall be obtained.
f. Sign Assent form and official exhibits.
h. Specifications for tree protection and erosion control fencing must be submitted
and approved by the City Forester. Required tree protection and erosion control
fencing must be installed prior to grading activities.
i. All other engineering requirements must be met.
5. Prior to issuance of a building permit, which may impose additional requirements, the
applicant shall:
a. Meet all Public Works Department/Utility requirements as recommended by staff.
b. The developer shall supply the City with copies of all necessary permits from
other governmental agencies or bodies prior to any site work, including the
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and MPCA.
c. Building materials samples & colors must be submitted to and approved by
Zoning Administrator.
d. Meet any Fire Department emergency access requirements during construction.
6. The developer shall comply with the following conditions during construction
St. Louis Park City Council
Item: 100404 - 8b - Aquila Commons PUD CC
Page 13
a. All City noise ordinances shall be complied with, including that there be no
construction activity between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. on weekdays and 10
p.m. and 9 a.m. on weekends and holidays.
b. Loud equipment shall be kept as far as possible from residences at all times.
c. The site shall be kept free of dust and debris that could blow onto neighboring
properties.
d. Public streets shall be maintained free of dirt and shall be cleaned as necessary.
e. The Zoning Administrator may impose additional conditions if it becomes
necessary in order to mitigate the impact of construction on surrounding
properties.
7. Prior to issuance of any occupancy permit:
a. Fire lanes shall be in accordance with the signed Official Exhibits.
b. Landscaping and irrigation shall be in accordance with the signed Official
Exhibits and approved irrigation plan except that a temporary C of O can be
issued prior to completion of landscaping and irrigation improvements provided
an irrevocable, automatically renewable letter of credit is submitted in the amount
of 125% of all landscaping and irrigation improvements.
c. Exterior building improvements shall be completed in accordance with the signed
Official Exhibits and approved materials and colors except that signs shall be
approved as part of a sign plan.
d. Prior to receiving a Certificate of Occupancy, as-built drawings of the relocated
public utilities shall be submitted to and approved by the Public Works
Department.
8. The developer shall provide the required number of replacement trees on site unless off-
site trees are approved by the Community Development Director and Parks and
Recreation Director and cash-in-lieu of trees have been paid.
9. All roof top equipment must be painted to match the color of the roof top, which is to be
an earth tone color as approved by the zoning administrator.
10. The developer or property owners(s) shall pay an administrative fine of $750 per
violation of any condition of this approval.
In addition to any other remedies, the developer or owner shall pay an administrative fee of $750
per violation of any condition of this approval.
Pursuant to Section 36-367(e)(6) of the Zoning Ordinance, the City will require execution of a
development agreement as a condition of approval of the Final P.U.D. The development
agreement shall address those issues which the City Council deems appropriate and necessary.
The Mayor and City Manager are authorized to execute the development agreement.
The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this resolution in the Office of the
Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be.
St. Louis Park City Council
Item: 100404 - 8b - Aquila Commons PUD CC
Page 14
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 4, 2004
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
res-ord/2004/04-24-PUD