Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004/11/15 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - RegularAGENDA SUMMARY CITY COUNCIL MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 7:30 p.m. 6:30-7:25 p.m. – Study Session in Westwood Room, Lamplighter Pond Update 7:25 p.m. - Economic Development Authority 1. Call to Order a. Pledge of Allegiance b. Roll Call 2. Presentations 3. Approval of Minutes a. City Council Minutes of November 1, 2004 b. City Council Study Session Minutes of October 25, 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 – None 6. Public Hearings – None 7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public - None 8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions 8a. Request of Foundation Land LLC and Master Development LLC (St. Louis Park School District) for Preliminary and Final PUD approval for Brookside School Lofts and Preliminary and Final Plat approval for “Brookside”. Case Nos. 04-52-PUD and 04-57-S Lots 1-11 and 29-36 Block 10 Suburban Homes Co.’s Addition except highway Recommended Action: ü Motion to approve resolution approving Preliminary and Final Plat for “Brookside”. ü Motion to approve resolution approving Preliminary and Final PUD for Brookside School Lofts 8b. Second Reading: Proposed Ordinance Amending Chapter 8, Article VIII – Rental Housing Licensing Consideration of an ordinance amending Chapter 8, Article VIII to expand the rental housing licensing program to include non-owner occupied 1 and 2 family dwelling units. Recommended Action: Motion to approve second reading of an ordinance amending Chapter 8, Article VIII for Rental Housing Licensing and set annual license fees to be effective January 1, 2005, approve the ordinance summary and authorize summary publication. 8c. Amendment to St. Louis Park Ordinance Code (Zoning) to eliminate a requirement prohibiting the City from accepting an application for a PUD (Planned Unit Development), variance or conditional use permit (CUP) where the application is not in conformance with the existing Comprehensive Plan land use designation. Case Nos. 04-56-ZA This amendment will allow the City to simultaneously process Comprehensive Plan amendments, zoning map amendments, and a CUP or PUD where all of these approvals are required for a project. Recommended Action: Motion to approve first reading of Ordinance Code text amendment related to zoning and set second reading for December 6, 2004. 8d. Establishing employer contribution for city sponsored benefits program for 2005. Recommended Action: Motion to adopt the attached resolution setting benefit levels effective January 1, 2005 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 NOVEMBER 15, 2004 SECTION 4: CONSENT CALENDAR NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion. 4a Motion to approve 2nd reading and adopt ordinance amending Chapter 30 of the St. Louis Park Municipal Code Regarding Parking Distance from Driveways and Alleys and Self- propelled Wheeled Devices, approve summary ordinance and authorize publication. 4b Motion to adopt a resolution approving continued participation in the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT) for Workers Compensation Coverage effective December 1, 2004. 4c Motion to accept for filing the Planning Commission Minutes of September 1, 2004 4d Motion to adopt a resolution authorizing final payment to BCG Construction, Inc. for completion of Park Commons Sidewalk and Street Lighting Work 4e Motion to adopt the attached resolution accepting this report, establishing and ordering Water Treatment Plant Improvement Project No. 20041301, approving plans and specifications, and authorizing advertisement for bids. 4f Motion to accept Vendor Claims for filing (Supplement) 4g Motion to approve Resolution for a Minor Amendment to the existing Special Permit for property located at 5775 Wayzata Blvd to amend the approved site plan by adding a paved drive lane for parking a mobile diagnostic trailer. Case Nos. 04-58-CUP 4h Motion to adopt a resolution affirming Council’s plan to move forward in partnership with the City of Golden Valley for delivery of public safety dispatch services for the Cities of St. Louis Park and Golden Valley AGENDA SUPPLEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING November 15, 2004 Items contained in this section are those items which are not yet available in electronic format and which are identified in the individual reports by inclusion of the word “Supplement”. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 111504 - 3a - Council Minutes of 11-01-04 Page 1 UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA November 1, 2004 1. Call to Order Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm. Council members present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, John Basill, Phil Finkelstein, Paul Omodt, Susan Sanger, Sue Santa, and Sally Velick Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney (Mr. Scott), Director of Inspections (Mr. Hoffman), Environmental Health Official (Mr. Camilon), Sgt. Lori Drier and Recording Secretary (Ms. Stegora-Peterson) 2. Presentations - None 3. Approval of Minutes 3a. City Council Minutes of October 18, 2004 The minutes were approved as presented. 3b. Study Session Minutes of October 11, 2004 Councilmember Finkelstein noted on item number two that he had expressed concern and urged staff to look into this further. The minutes were approved as corrected. 3c. Study Session Minutes of September 27, 2004 Councilmember Sanger noted on page one, the last paragraph of item number one, “residents on one block of the” should be inserted after “…from the”. 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 04-132 authorizing final payment to Standard Sidewalk for completion of work on 2004 Sidewalk Project 04-02. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 111504 - 3a - Council Minutes of 11-01-04 Page 2 4b Accept for filing the Housing Authority Minutes of September 18, 2004 4c Approve 2nd reading of an ordinance setting 2005 fees called for by ordinance, approve the summary and authorize summary publication 4d Authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute a Communications System Subscriber Agreement with Hennepin County and Authorized Users Regarding: Use of the Regionwide Public Safety Radio Communications System, Lease, Maintenance and Repair of Subscriber Radios, Administrative and Operational Support of the Subscriber Radio Fleet. 4e Approve the Fourth Amendment to the Amended and Restated Contract for Private Redevelopment By and Between St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority and City of St. Louis Park and Meridian Properties Real Estate Development LLC dated July 23, 2001. 4f Approve the Subordination Agreement between U.S. Bank National Association, the City of St. Louis Park, and the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority and Excelsior & Grand IV LLC relative to the Excelsior and Grand Phase E Project. 4g Accept for filing the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes of September 14, 2004 4h Accept Vendor Claims for filing (Supplement) It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Santa, 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. First Reading: Proposed Ordinance Amending Chapter 8, Article VIII – Rental Housing Licensing Mr. Hoffman, Mr. Camilon and Sgt. Drier presented the staff report. Tom Powers, 2241 Hampshire Av. S, believed it was important to consider renters as equal and active members of the community. Regular inspections would be intolerable. Renters would have to pay for the costs of this through their rent. He felt appropriate opportunities for inspection occurred at time of ownership change or if a tenant called for probable cause. Gary Berscheid, 1604 Blackstone, stated he had been an active landlord and owned a number of properties. He believed owner-occupied housing had as many violations as rental properties and felt landlords and tenants were being treated as second-class citizens. He asked if City, County and Non-profit housing groups would be subject to the same inspections. He was unhappy with the change in 1990 which made landlords responsible for the actions of their tenants and believed the tenants should be responsible St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 111504 - 3a - Council Minutes of 11-01-04 Page 3 for their own actions. He was concerned about inspections which may trigger police action against tenants and was concerned that inspections would be a violation of tenant’s rights. Mayor Jacobs asked about County and nonprofit owned properties and if they would be subject to this? Mr. Hoffman replied that the Housing Authority owned some houses that are rented and they would be included in this. Group homes, typically owned by individuals, would also be subject to this ordinance. Councilmember Omodt asked if an Inspector would need a search warrant under this program? Mr. Hoffman replied that Minnesota Statute allowed Building or Housing Inspectors to enter a property with an owner, who has right of entry provided they notify the tenant in advance that they were going through the property for the purpose of an inspection. Sgt. Drier added if something was discovered in plain view they would notify the police and a search warrant would be obtained. Diane Jones Ladlie, 2733 Hampshire Av. S, indicated she lived next to a rental property that was very dangerous to her and anyone who had lived there. The property was in extremely poor condition and inspections were needed to protect the people that lived there. She had reported conditions to the city a number of times and believed the property owner was only interested in profits and not living conditions of the tenants. Rental property owners should be responsible for who they rent it to. Judy Burton, 6026 W 35th St., stated that there was an inspection that was supposed to be done when tenants changed. Mr. Hoffman clarified that program had been dropped in 2001. Ms. Burton stated in St. Louis Park they were building new housing that was supposed to be affordable. When the housing was completed, it wasn’t affordable anymore. She called surrounding communities and no one else had an ordinance like this. Hopkins had a $20 fee and only inspected if a complaint was issued and also did random inspections. She asked how many single-family homes were in St. Louis Park? Mayor Jacobs replied 12,000. Ms. Burton asked how many rental units were there? Mr. Hoffman replied approximately 7,780 rental single-family homes. Ms. Burton was concerned that this ordinance would require that landlords raise their rent which could be cost prohibitive to tenants and contribute to segregation. The ordinance would create problems in attracting renters. Councilmember Omodt asked if the fees would be tax deductible? Mr. Scott replied he believed it would be a business expense. Councilmember Finkelstein indicated his understanding was approximately one out of three of the rental homes had a correction notice in the last year. It was also his understanding that there were approximately 12,000 single-family homes in St. Louis Park. He asked before the meeting how many other correction notices they had and there were approximately 1,200. In rental homes there had been correction notices issued to St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 111504 - 3a - Council Minutes of 11-01-04 Page 4 one out of three, while the single-family owner occupied homes had one out of ten. It was three times worse as a housing inspection issue. William Putnam, 3172 Hillsboro Av. S, stated that he started in a duplex because it was affordable. They could say it was a business, but it wasn’t profitable. Even when you start to break even, you have to put more money into upkeep. Most of them were responsible landlords and keep their properties up. They needed to keep up all of the properties in St. Louis Park, and it should also be homeowners. He owned three properties, but sold two and kept one because he was thinking of retiring and moving back into it, but he would still be subject to this ordinance even if he moved back in. He felt inspections should be triggered with a complaint and that homeowners should also be subject to routine inspections. Mr. Putnam believed town homes should also be included in the program as associations typically controlled only the outside maintenance of townhome properties. Mayor Jacobs believed they were more actively enforcing the property maintenance code. Mr. Camilon noted they received a lot of complaints on single-family properties too. Where they can, they send Inspectors to deal with them the same way they did with rental property. Sometimes property owners didn’t take care of it and they had to take it to the next level. If they didn’t comply, they referred it to the City Attorney for further action. They had been addressing the issues better. He thought the current staff had made a better attempt at getting an equal, respectful compliance for most of the residents in the city. Richard Johnson, 4353 Briarwood Ln, Mtka, stated that one of the unintended consequences of this ordinance was that it would make property owners responsible for behavior of tenants. No matter how carefully screened, getting rid of a difficult tenant was extremely difficult, time consuming and expensive. He also believed the ordinance should apply equally to owner-occupied homes. He was concerned about tenant lawsuits against landlords resulting from perceived damages, as in the case of prosecution for controlled substances. He hoped there would be a hold harmless clause attached to this ordinance. Councilmember Sanger stated that several people had mentioned the concern if this ordinance is passed it made the landlords responsible for tenant behavior. She asked the City Attorney to address that. Mr. Scott stated that this ordinance dealt with the enforcement of the property maintenance code. Anything the tenant did that would cause damage that violated the property maintenance code would go back to the owner, but other things that might go on at the rental property and that the tenant might or might not do, would not be impacted by this ordinance. That could come up in many different contexts, such as loud parties or creation of a nuisance, the tenant would remain liable for those. This just dealt with a situation where as now, the property owner is responsible for making sure the rental property complied with the property maintenance code. This was simply setting up a regular inspection to see if that was happening. It was a mechanism for inspection and didn’t change any of the responsibility between the tenant and the property owner. Mayor Jacobs asked if something such as gutters were deteriorated would be treated different under this ordinance than if they saw a single-family owner-occupied home with St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 111504 - 3a - Council Minutes of 11-01-04 Page 5 a bad gutter or torn off screen? Mr. Camilon replied it wouldn’t be treated differently, it was part of the property maintenance code, that it be maintained. Larry Kirchner, 1300 Melrose Ave., stated that in the study conducted 15 years ago, the conclusion arrived at by both tenants and landlords was that the tenants were opposed to the ordinance. He supported comments made earlier about tenant behavior and recalled a situation with a tenant who, despite good references, had turned his property into a trash house. As a result of that experience he tried to do a better job of screening and monitoring. He suggested that a committee be formed again with homeowners, landlords, tenants and staff to reconsider the ordinance. He was not comfortable with the fees and felt the would have greater impact on persons who rented out more units. Richard Eaton, 4701 16th St. W, stated that he didn’t understand why a condo association or town house association would be exempt because they have a controlling authority. He owned a duplex and was the controlling authority. Since correction notices were already being issued to rental properties when problems occurred, he did not understand wy an additional $75 should be required for a licensing program. David Estenson, 3324 Xylon Av. S, stated he was offended as a rental property owner for the City to say that because rental properties exist, they were more prone to being run down and needed to be inspected. He believed people were prone to complain about homes when the property owner wasn’t living there and that owner-occupied homes should be inspected as well. Mary Ann Lavoie, 5712 York Av., noted when they were talking about responsibility, she didn’t think it was fair for owners to be responsible for the tenants. She also noted that owner-occupied people were not as responsible in many cases as landlords were. She believe inside inspections of rental property were discriminating and destroying the ability of the tenants right to their property. George Simon, 2668 Inglewood Av. S, indicated that the draft ordinance mailed out had an exemption for dwelling units complying with relative homestead requirements, but that was not in the attachment tonight? Mr. Hoffman replied that the proposed draft that had been sent out for the meeting notice included the exception for relative homestead. Since then, through discussion, that exception was eliminated. It would apply to any non-owner-occupied residence even if it carried a relative homestead classification. Mr. Simon stated he lived in his fathers home and treated it just as if it were his own home and maintained it well. He couldn’t fathom having inspectors in every two years. Diane Slais, 3529 Zinran Av. S, stated that two homes adjacent to her property were rental properties. They had junk cars and there was no clean up of the yard or maintenance of the property. It had only been rental property for a year, but the landlord didn’t come around much. The house behind her on Yukon was a disaster. The tenants had moved from Las Vegas because of medical issues. They were paying $1150/month rent and were now being forced to move out of the property because it was uninhabitable. There were leaking pipes and ceiling tiles falling down at will in the basement. The St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 111504 - 3a - Council Minutes of 11-01-04 Page 6 landlord kept promising to make changes but it never happened. She had never seen the landlord after 14 years until last fall. She saw a lot of first ring suburbs that had gone down the tubes, but she thought St. Louis Park still had a mark of excellence and a lot to be proud of. People needed to be responsible. Councilmember Basill stated he got many calls from people who wouldn’t come to the meeting because they felt it would be confrontational, but very concerned about their property and neighborhood. He received a letter from a person who owned her home and said that, “rentals in single residential areas are presenting new and challenging problems for the City.” That was something he heard often, many people were concerned about rentals and the upkeep. He had a renter who asked that this be passed, but was afraid to complain about their landlord. There were comments in the staff report from a landlord who said, “The City was doing a good job with inspections,” “The City enforces Code and does a good job” “advantages to have the City inspect the rental property: the license fee is tax deductible, inspect to maintain the property value, thinks this program is a good idea.” The fee was tax deductible and they didn’t have to pass it all along to the residents. There were many ways there could be good stewardship within the community. They had seen a 50% increase in rented homes within the city since 2001 when they stopped the inspection program. That happened because of the value of the location and of the single-family homes in the community. No matter how they looked at the numbers, the number of complaints on rental units and non-owner-occupied units was higher than they had on homes that were owner- occupied. They budget money for Inspections staff and because they were having a higher amount of complaints and problems with non-homesteaded properties, the single families were subsidizing them because they were spending more time on the non-homestead properties. They had 7,000 rental properties and 6,200 got inspected now because they were multi-family units. 780 that were one or two family homes are not inspected and getting preferential treatment. He didn’t want the police spending a lot of time having to chase down peoples tenants, there was some landlord responsibility. They were running it as a business and needed to make sure the business was run well so that their police department could concentrate on real emergencies. When other businesses had a lot of issues and police there on a regular basis, they had worked with those business owners to clean it up. They didn’t want to do the job of a good landlord and didn’t want the police department doing the job of a good landlord, they wanted the owners of the properties making sure they had solid leases and were dealing with those issues. The complaints on rental properties were higher and when he looked at this and asked what the right thing to do was, the non-owner occupied houses had a higher complaint percentage and because of that they needed to approve this. He had a call from a person living next to rental properties who was ready to retire and had real estate agents tell them they would take a $20-25,000 hit because of the rental properties. That was not being fair. It was allowing someone to run a business and make money at a neighbors expense. He was supporting this ordinance. Councilmember Finkelstein noted that the number of rental homes had more than doubled in the last ten years. Mr. Hoffman indicated since 2001 the number of rental single family dwellings that were identified as non-homestead had gone up about 50%. Councilmember Finkelstein stated no matter how they calculated this, they were still several times more likely to have a correction notice for a rental home than they were for an owner- St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 111504 - 3a - Council Minutes of 11-01-04 Page 7 occupied home. They were dealing with a first ring suburb and a majority of homes were built between World War II and 1960. They took a lot of careful maintenance and many landlords had done an extraordinary job, but some haven’t. That was seen in the number of correction notices, even if they took aside the two garbage cans that were left out. Prior to 2001 they had an even more intrusive inspection going on because every time they changed a tenant, they would need a City inspection. This was much less intrusive. He had been a landlord outside of St. Louis Park and knew it was difficult and they couldn’t pre-judge tenants. It was one of the hardest things to get rid of difficult tenants. He believed this program was good for the tenants, good for the neighbors and good for the landlords by keeping up property values and he believed it was good for the City. It was part of their stewardship program. Councilmember Sanger supported the program and agreed with Councilmember Basill and Finkelstein's comments. One of the speakers raised the question of who was being protected by this ordinance? This was not an ordinance aimed at just the protection of tenants or just at landlords. This was an ordinance aimed at the protection of the entire community and was no different than any of the other housing inspection and property maintenance programs. The goal of which wasn’t just aimed at any one particular home it was aimed at keeping the entire community in good shape. They needed to work hard to keep first ring suburbs from going downhill and people liked it there because they had strong housing. This situation has been compounded by a trend in the last couple of years. Not only has the number of rental homes been skyrocketing, but they get a report every month about who buys property and it was obvious that another trend was that homes were being bought, not by individuals who may own a home here or there, but by large corporations who may not even be in Minnesota and buying homes as an investment. Large corporations and the absentee landlords would have less incentive to keep the homes up because they had no connection to the neighbors and the neighborhood. They didn’t even know what was going on at these houses because they were not here to look. Her belief was that some of those at the meeting were the “cream of the crop” and very responsible landlords, not the people in general who owned the houses that they got complaints about. They receive a lot of complaints about rental properties and about their lack of attention and neglect by the landlords, particularly corporate landlords. Those are the problems this proposed ordinance was aimed at minimizing. This was no different from licensing any other business. They owned the properties as an investment and were running them as a business. The margins might be thin, but they owned these properties because the values were appreciating every year in St. Louis Park and they may get profits when they sold the homes. Like any other business they needed to be licensed and they needed to do inspections to make sure that they met the property maintenance standards. They also had problems with owner-occupied houses and she received many complaints about those as well. They are held to the same property maintenance standards. Just because they were not included in this ordinance didn’t mean that they didn’t get a lot of attention for keeping those houses up and didn’t meant that perhaps there shouldn’t be other programs addressed to them. They had talked about repeating the drive by inspections program in the future on an on-going basis. That was a different issue and didn’t negate the need to do this with rental properties. She wasn’t clear why they were exempting condos and townhouses. That was something they should look at in the future to add them, but she thought they should start here. Councilmember Santa also supported the ordinance and agreed with the other Councilmembers. She noted the Crime Free Multihousing Program available for apartment St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 111504 - 3a - Council Minutes of 11-01-04 Page 8 buildings, she had talked to managers and owners of small apartment buildings who had taken advantage of that program and found it very helpful to find problems before they got bigger. They could address problem tenants sooner in the process. Also, the information and education for owners and tenants was a value. It was a start to good education. She heard several people talk about a prior task force of single and duplex owners who got together and met and talked with tenants and how valuable that was and she would like to see that started again. She would like to see the Inspections Department play a role in having that happen and include other programs so that better communication could happen between landlords and tenants and deal with issues before they got out of hand. She heard a lot of complaints about rental housing and also about owner-occupied houses. The main difference was that they knew where to find the owner when it was owner-occupied and had a person they could deal with. With a rental property, they had to track down an owner and it took a lot more time, was more irritating for the neighbors and problems tended to grow. Councilmember Velick commented that she believed those at the meeting were the responsible landlords. The City appreciated it and appreciated the concerns they brought forward. Much of the discussion had been helpful and would perhaps lead further to a task force. She received a lot of calls. When you can’t reach a landlord and neighbors are complaining about parties and other issues of reckless endangerment for the neighborhood such as cars all over and trash, the police had spent hours of time trying to track down this landlord. That was not right and not fair. She supported this ordinance and thought it was a good start. Mayor Jacobs stated he had been on both sides of this. He had owned his own house for many years and had owned rental property in St. Louis Park and in Minneapolis. He knew what the landlords were talking about. He has had his house inspected many times and was very thankful for it once because they came out on a change of tenancy and found out that the transite flue had plugged and if the tenants had turned the furnace on they would have had a problem with carbon dioxide back-up. From his perspective he was very happy that the inspection had occurred. Did he regard the inspections as a bit of a pain? At that point he did, but in retrospect he thought it may have been far more valuable to go out and deal with the housing improvements that had to be made, one of which was the transite flue. They knew there were single-family homes in bad shape, but the percentage of complaints they were getting on rental homes was higher and therefore a problem to be taken care of. Ultimately they had a community problem that needed to be addressed. He expected that most of the additional fee would be passed on to the tenants. When he was renting his homes, one of the things the tenants were looking for was not just price, but they were looking for the quality of the home. This took care of a community wide problem. The cost may have some impact on the ability to rent to some tenants, but it would result in a community wide benefit, not just to the tenants but for the community in general. Ultimately what they were aiming for was to have no more of the pictures that were shown in the presentation. They were working on single-family owner occupied houses as well. This was a logical extension of a long-standing program in place for the multi-family housing. He understood there were additional costs and potentially some hassles, but he didn’t think the dire consequences as predicted would occur. The benefits would far outweigh the costs and he said that having been both a homeowner as well as a rental landowner. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 111504 - 3a - Council Minutes of 11-01-04 Page 9 Ms. Burton asked how many tenants were informed of this? Mr. Hoffman replied it was in the Park Perspective that was mailed last month to all residents. There was also an article in the Sun Sailor. Mr. Eaton asked if anyone had a break down of the number of violations for someone such as himself with an owner-occupied duplex versus non owner-occupied? Mayor Jacobs was unsure. Councilmember Velick stated that the lists that they received monthly showed that corporations were in increasing numbers buying properties in St. Louis Park. Mr. Eaton stated if that was the problem and they didn’t know where they were, couldn’t there be a fourth exemption for owner-occupied duplexes? Everyone on the Council said that they didn’t know where those people were for non owner-occupied properties. He was right there, it was the same as an owner-occupied single house, he just happened to have two houses. This was not a business, the only reason he purchased a duplex was because he could count that rental income as income to be able to afford the place. Mayor Jacobs indicated they could get more information upon second reading. Mr. Hoffman noted that they could prepare that information for Council. Mayor Jacobs believed that was a good point if the landlord did not live on the property and they were having a greater percentage of problems as a result, that may not hold true. He would be interested in looking at that. Mr. Johnson asked about the comment of the landlords being unreachable. How would this ordinance find those landlords? Councilmember Sanger replied that part of the issue was that sometimes they didn’t even know who the landlords were. As part of the licensing they had to give contact information with a phone number and Email. That was a start in the right direction. Councilmember Basill thought what made the difference was even if they couldn’t track them down, they were assured under this program that the house had been inspected within the last two years and had been brought up to code. It would help because they would have been in the property and made sure it was being maintained. Ms. Burton asked what the vacancy rate was on these properties? Mr. Hoffman replied the City didn’t have that information. It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Finkelstein, to approve first reading of an ordinance amending Chapter 8, subdivision VIII for rental housing and set 2nd reading for Monday November 15, 2004. A speaker in the audience stated that she had owned properties since the 1980’s and had one inspection through the years. It was not about the $75, it was about what they found St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 111504 - 3a - Council Minutes of 11-01-04 Page 10 and the $5,000 it cost her to fix things. They were petty things that all added up. It was already a tough business and hard to get tenants. Mayor Jacobs replied he was aware of that. His transite flue cost about $800, but that was nothing compared to what it would have cost him if one of the tenants had died in that house. Councilmember Basill asked upon second reading that they look at the concern and statistics about owner-occupied duplexes. The motion passed 7-0. A member of the audience asked to view the complaints. It was noted it was public information with the exception of the complainant. Mr. Scott suggested a formal request be made to the City for that information. 8b. Parking Distance from Driveways and Alleys and Self-propelled Wheeled Devices Sgt. Drier presented the staff report. Councilmember Velick asked what it was before the change. Sgt. Drier replied there was no number. Councilmember Finkelstein stated that there was a discussion in the study session that it was 15 feet from the center median and was difficult to figure out. Sgt. Drier completed the staff report. Councilmember Santa indicated she had a question brought to her about the self- propelled wheeled devices and if this meant that kids could not use their skateboards or inline skates on the trails as they currently did? Sgt. Drier replied it would not prohibit them. Responsible use was allowed. Councilmember Basill asked for further clarification if someone was inline skating on the way to a trail and had to go through a public area was that OK? Sgt. Drier replied that was OK, just that it be responsible use. Councilmember Omodt indicated he used to live by the high school and the complaints were skateboarders on the steps. Police would chase them away and they would keep coming back and nothing would happen. He didn’t think skateboarding was a crime, but when people were not being responsible it was hard on the neighbors because of the noise and traffic. They had a skate park, but neighbors were still complaining about the kids and the skateboards. Would they be able to enforce that now if they were not being responsible? Sgt. Drier replied yes it would. If it was posted at the high school, “No Skateboarding” then they could do something about it. They could always do something about the noise and curfew and other related issues with the behavior. Councilmember Omodt stated that he spent a lot of time at the Rec Center and they have a beautiful skate park on the East side by the public art and there are always kids skateboarding and inline skating there. He had talked to the maintenance staff and they St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 111504 - 3a - Council Minutes of 11-01-04 Page 11 were sick of sending the kids away because they wouldn’t go the 100 yards to the skate park. Were they also going to start enforcing that. It has ruined the concrete in that area. He would like to see the City go after that because it was a nuisance and it was ruining their property. Sgt. Drier replied she had talked with Cindy Walsh about this specifically because they had posted “No Skateboarding” at the front of the Rec Center along the fire lane and they subsequently take the signs down, which was vandalism and theft. They had discussed ways to deal with that. Councilmember Finkelstein noted that the definition of a wheelchair didn’t affect devices such as a wheelchair operated by a disabled person, bicycles, wagons or strollers. There are some devices that are self-propelled that are not wheelchairs have a battery underneath such as a Cushman vehicle. Would wheelchair cover that or did they need to add the words, “or similar machine”? Mr. Scott replied that they needed to be careful with similar machines because there were some other non self-propelled vehicles. They could look at that for second reading and consider a definition of wheel chair. Mayor Jacobs stated he had been at the Rec Center and seen kids in front and staff had made them move and when the police had made them move and within 15 minutes they showed up again. It was not a good solution to have them do that in front of the building. This was a good ordinance and they had talked about putting an obstacle or two near the skate park so the kids that wanted to do that would have somewhere or put them in parks around town. Part of the purpose in building the skate park was so skateboarders, in line and trick skaters and bikers would have a place to do that. The damage doesn’t look good and he was concerned someone would get hurt. It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to approve 1st reading and set second reading for November 15, 2004 amending the Ordinance Code for changing the parking distance from driveways and alleys and regulating the use of self-propelled wheeled devices. The motion passed 7-0. 9. Communications Mr. Harmening stated that there would be a post office built in St. Louis Park to replace the Elmwood branch that was located near Beltline and 36th Street. The new post office was being built at Raleigh and 36th Street, just to the West. The buildings have been demolished and he would expect they would have permits soon and plan to have construction done by spring. It would be a retail walk up facility as well as annex distribution facility. Councilmember reminded people to vote. Mayor Jacobs stated it was critical to vote. People could register at the polls. He thanked the City Clerk staff and election judges for their hard work over the past few weeks and months on the election. Mayor Jacobs indicated that the St. Louis Park football team had a playoff game on Saturday, but most of the team was involved that morning participating in senior chore day along with members of the Rotary clubs. They had a very important football game, yet they were out helping senior citizens St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 111504 - 3a - Council Minutes of 11-01-04 Page 12 do chores all morning. He was very proud of the job they had done. Councilmember Finkelstein thanked John Thang who set that up. Volunteers like that make this a great place to live. 10. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ City Clerk Mayor St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 111504 - 3b - Study Session Minutes of 10-25-04 Page 1 UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION October 25, 2004 The meeting convened at 7:00 p.m. Councilmembers present were John Basill, Phil Finkelstein, Paul Omodt, Susan Sanger, Sue Santa, Sally Velick, and Mayor Jeff Jacobs. Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Police Chief (Mr. Luse), Fire Chief (Mr. Stemmer), Police Captain (Mr. DiLorenzo), Director of Community Development (Mr. Locke), Planning and Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McGonigal), Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Hunt), Assistant Zoning Administrator (Mr. Morrison), and City Clerk (Ms. Reichert). 1. PSAP Consolidation Update Chief Luse updated the Council on the recent changes to the consolidation plan. He stated that the City of Richfield no longer wishes to participate in the consolidation. The City of Golden Valley is committed to the consolidation while the City of Brooklyn Center is undecided. Chief Luse presented the proposal and the operating cost split for St. Louis Park, Golden Valley, and Brooklyn Center. He stated that Hennepin County has imposed a fast approaching deadline of November 30th. Councilmember Sanger inquired about the cost split and how it will change over time. Chief Luse stated that there would be short term benefits if dispatch is located in Brooklyn Center. However, there is a long term benefit of adding more cities to the consolidation. Councilmember Sanger questioned if the cost will be adjusted yearly. Mr. Harmening replied that it will depend on the number of calls for service and how much is charged for fees. Councilmember Santa inquired about St. Louis Park’s “culture of service” and how the cities will work together. Chief Luse stated that it is a cause for concern and it will be discussed as they move forward. Councilmember Santa made it clear that she did not want to dilute the level of service that is currently given. Mr. Harmening said that staff can work toward an end result of good quality service. Council directed the City Manager to continue talking to the City of Brooklyn Center. Mr. Harmening asked if they should continue talking with Hennepin County. Mayor Jacobs stated his concerns about diminished service. Councilmember Velick inquired if there was anything new in the County’s proposal and Chief Luse replied that there was not. Councilmember Finkelstein was concerned that growth will result in moving dispatch to different locations. Councilmember Basill wants to see the dispatch center located in St. Louis Park. Councilmember Santa emphasized that the level of service is more important than the location of the dispatch center. Mr. Harmening clarified that the Hennepin County proposal is not an option, they will continue talks with Brooklyn Center and Golden Valley, and it will be a challenge to keep the dispatch center in St. Louis Park. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 111504 - 3b - Study Session Minutes of 10-25-04 Page 2 2. Hannon Lake Single Family Homes Preliminary & Final Plat Mr. Morrison explained the location of the single family homes and the neighborhood concerns. Council questioned grading, erosion, and tree preservation. Mr. Morrison replied that a conservation easement is included in the proposal. He stated that the developer has also asked if townhouses would be acceptable. Staff felt such a development would be too dense and would require too much grading. Councilmember Velick inquired about water run off. Mr. Morrison replied that the developer would be charged with doing a water run off study. Councilmember Omodt stated that Council wants more “move up” housing. He opposes the development for several reasons such as water quality and significant technical challenges of the site. He would like to see three homes back on the market and sold for fix ups. Councilmember Sanger asked if the developer has the legal right to do subdivision as proposed. Ms. McGonigal replied that it was. Councilmember Velick stated that the City has more control over PUD and townhome developments. The developer owns the property and can legally develop the property. She would like to see conservations continued and sewer upgrades addressed. Mr. Morrison stated that the developer still needs to submit a grading plan for staff review. Council discussed the pros and cons of townhomes versus single family homes. The majority of Councilmembers were in favor of a single family home development. Mayor Jacobs felt they would be better off if some kind of redevelopment occurred on this site and that it would be preferable to the existing situation. Mr. Morrison reported that the application should be complete soon and staff will bring the proposal back to Council. 3. STEP’s Request to Temporarily Lease the former Soomekh Building 5925 Highway 7 Mr. Hunt outlined the proposed terms for a temporary lease between STEP and the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority. He asked if the Council was in support of such a lease. Councilmember Santa stated that she was in support of it and would like to be more involved in the permanent relocation of STEP. Councilmember Sanger felt the temporary lease was a good idea but she had concerns about safety such as traffic and congestion. She also felt the liability insurance needs to be increased. Councilmember Omodt expressed his concerns about setting precedence in allowing non-profits free rent. He recalled that at the time the property was purchased, staff had indicated there would be revenue for the city from the rental fee should a tenant move into the property. Mayor Jacobs stated that he had St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 111504 - 3b - Study Session Minutes of 10-25-04 Page 3 the same concerns but felt it was okay on a temporary basis. Mr. Hunt indicated that the building was not being leased out by the city to any other party as construction adjacent to the site is imminent. Mr. Hunt stated that the other building (Emergency Food Network) that STEP is looking at should be done by December of 2005. Councilmember Finkelstein asked what would happen if STEP is unable to move. After discussion council agreed about the importance of managing expectations and ensuring STEP’s understanding that the lease was only temporary and would remain temporary regardless of STEP’s situation at the end of the term. Councilmember Basill felt there were several things to consider when drafting the lease agreement. Some considerations could be renewal of lease with higher rent, terms for extension, and how expectations are managed. Mr. Harmening stated they could include a provision that would allow the city to collect market rate rent should the agreement be renewed. Council was open to this idea. 4. Golden Auto/National Lead Site Jeff Golden was present at the meeting. Paul Hyde, Real Estate Recycling, was also present. The developer gave an overview of the plans and distributed a handout on the environmental problems at the site. Councilmember Sanger inquired whether the plans account for future railroad improvements. She is in support of environmental clean up. Mr. Harmening clarified easement areas in the development proposal. Councilmember Sanger asked how truck traffic will affect Highway 7 & Louisiana Ave. Mr. Harmening replied that traffic studies are already being done. Mr. Harmening asked if Council would like to move forward with the rezoning of the site and the Council directed staff to do so. 5. Communications Mr. Harmening stated that staff has received several phone calls regarding the proposed single family rental licensing. 6. Adjournment – The meeting was adjourned at 9:14 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ City Clerk Mayor St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 111504 - 4a - Parking Distances, Self Propelled Devices Page 1 4a. Motion to approve 2nd reading and adopt ordinance amending Chapter 30 of the St. Louis Park Municipal Code Regarding Parking Distance from Driveways and Alleys and Self-propelled Wheeled Devices, approve summary ordinance and authorize publication. Background: The City Council met on November 1, 2004, and approved the first reading of the proposed ordinance amendments relating to parking distance from driveways and alleys and the regulation of self-propelled wheeled devices. Parking Distance from Driveways and Alleys Adoption of an ordinance amendment changing the parking distance from driveways and alleys to five (5) feet from the intersection of the curb line and the nearest edge of the driveway. This will allow approximately the length of one vehicle for safe access/egress to any driveway or alley. During the August 23, 2004 study session, Council members discussed concern over the proposed parking distance. As a result of this discussion, the proposed distance was reduced from fifteen (15) feet to five (5) feet. Self-propelled Wheeled Devices Adoption of an ordinance regulating the use of self-propelled wheeled devices as defined in the proposed ordinance. With the development of a public skate park, this ordinance was created to regulate skateboard and in-line skating traffic in that public area during posted hours, and address public safety concerns throughout the city. During recent years numerous complaints have been received regarding skateboarding locations and practices. At the time the City Council approved first reading of the ordinance, the City Attorney agreed to clarify language pertaining to the definition of a wheelchair per state statute. The ordinance amendment was changed to, “wheelchair or similar device operated by a disabled person as a substitute for walking”. Attachments: Proposed ordinance amendments Prepared By: John D. Luse Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 111504 - 4a - Parking Distances, Self Propelled Devices Page 2 ORDINANCE NO. ______-04 AN ORDINANCE REGULATING PARKING AND SELF PROPELLED WHEELED DEVICES AMENDING CHAPTER 30 OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK MUNICIPAL CODE THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN: SECTION 1. Chapter 30 of the St. Louis Park Municipal Code is hereby amended to add: Sec. 30-161. Parking Distance from Driveways and Alleys. No person shall park a vehicle on a public street, except in compliance with the directions of a police officer, within five (5) feet of a public or private driveway or alley. The five (5) foot distance shall be measured from a point which is the intersection of the projected street curb line and the projected nearest edge of the driveway or alley. SECTION 2. Chapter 30 of the St. Louis Park City Code is further amended to add article VI as follows: ARTICLE VI. SELF-PROPELLED WHEELED DEVICES 30-210. Definition. The term “self-propelled wheeled device” shall mean a non-motorized platform, flat board, shoe, or similar object mounted on wheels and designed or intended to propel a rider by human power or force of gravity including, but not limited to scooters, skate boards, rollerskis, rollerskates and in-line skates. These devices do not include a wheelchair or similar device operated by a disabled person as a substitute for walking, or bicycles, wagons, or strollers. 30-211. Prohibited Acts and Regulations It shall be unlawful for any person to ride or operate a self-propelled wheeled device under any of the following conditions: (a) On private property of another, unless written permission has been obtained from the owner, occupant or person in control of the property. (b) On public or private property that has been posted prohibiting the operation of self-propelled wheeled devices. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 111504 - 4a - Parking Distances, Self Propelled Devices Page 3 (c) On any state highway located within the City of St. Louis Park. (d) In a careless, reckless or negligent manner so as to be likely to endanger the safety of any person or the property of any other person. (e) In any area within the city while being pushed, pulled or in any way propelled by any motorized vehicle or bicycle. (f) In a skate park during prohibited hours. (g) Contrary to the rights and duties applicable to the driver of any vehicle pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 169, except for those provisions therein which by their nature cannot reasonably be applied to such devices. SECTION 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective fifteen (15) days after its passage and publication. ADOPTED this ______ day of ____________, 2004, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park. CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK By:___________________________ Jeffrey Jacobs, Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Cynthia Reichert, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ________________________________ City Attorney St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 111504 - 4a - Parking Distances, Self Propelled Devices Page 4 SUMMARY ORDINANCE NO.______ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 30 OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE REGULATING PARKING AND SELF PROPELLED WHEELED DEVICES This ordinance states that Sections 30-161, 30-210 and 30-211 be added relative to: The parking distance from driveways and alleys and the regulation of self-propelled wheeled devices. This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication. Adopted by the City Council November 15, 2004 Jeffrey W. Jacobs /s/ Mayor A copy of the full text of this ordinance is available for inspection with the City Clerk. Published in St. Louis Park Sailor: November 24, 2004 St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 111504 - 4b - Workers Compensation Renewal Page 1 4b. Motion to adopt a resolution approving continued participation in the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT) for Workers Compensation Coverage effective December 1, 2004. Background: In 2003 the council approved participation in the LMCIT for workers compensation coverage. The policy year on our workers compensation coverage runs 12/1/03 through 11/30/04. From 1993 to 2003 the city was self-insured for workers compensation. We continue to be responsible for work comp activity including reactivated claims during this timeframe. Unfortunately, we are not able to close several older cases at this time and we have had some new claim activity from this timeframe. In order to handle self insurance claims, we must also continue with an administrator. We are hopeful that we will be able to continue with Sedgwick for administration of claims and activity from 1993 – 2003. Costs: The quote for renewal with LMCIT for workers compensation including managed care: 12/1/03 – 11/30/04 12/1/04 – 11/30/04 Increase $296,644 $325,018 9.6% The increase is based on actual estimated payroll. It also is based on our experience modification factor (review of claims activity) of .99. The lower the experience modification number the higher the discount we could receive on premium. Our experience of .99 shows that we have a higher level of claims activity and minimal discount. We do receive a $42,172 discount on our premium rates by participating in managed care. In 2004, the fee to have Sedgwick administer self insured claims was $10,000. We are in the process of obtaining a quote from them for 2005. Budget Funds to cover fully insured workers compensation program offered through the LMCIT are included in the budget. Funds for coverage for “tail claims” during the timeframe we were self- insured have also been reserved in our budget and the uninsured loss fund. Recommendation: We are pleased with how the workers compensation claims are being handled through LMCIT. Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution, approving continued participation in the League of Minnesota Workers Compensation Program effective December 1, 2004. Attachment: Resolution Prepared by: Nancy Gohman, Human Resources Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 111504 - 4b - Workers Compensation Renewal Page 2 RESOLUTION NO. 04- RESOLUTION APPROVING CONTINUED PARTICIPATION IN THE LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA WORKERS COMPENSATION PROGRAM WHEREAS, The City Council wishes to adopt workers compensation coverage and programs to limit liability to the City of St. Louis Park. NOW THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park: 1. The City continues coverage with the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust for Workers Compensation coverage effective December 1, 2004. 2. The City Manger shall continue to secure coverage for management of claims made between the period of 1993 through 2003 when the City was self-insured for workers compensation and also has the authority to continue to approve payment for necessary administration, processing and settlement of such open claims. Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council City Manager Mayor Attest City Clerk St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 111504 - 4c -Planning Commission Minutes of 9-1-04 Page 1 OFFICIAL MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA September 1, 2004--6:00 p.m. COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Michelle Bissonnette, Claudia Johnston-Madison, Carl Robertson, Jerry Timian MEMBERS ABSENT: Dennis Morris, Lynne Carper STAFF PRESENT: Meg McMonigal, Gary Morrison, Nancy Sells 1. Call to Order – Roll Call Chair Robertson called the meeting to order at 6:20 p.m. 2. Approval of Minutes of August 18, 2004 Commissioner Johnston-Madison made a motion to approve the minutes. The motion passed 4-0. 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 St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 111504 - 4c -Planning Commission Minutes of 9-1-04 Page 2 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 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. 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 minutes record. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 111504 - 4c -Planning Commission Minutes of 9-1-04 Page 3 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. 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. B. Case Nos. 04-32-CUP and 04-33-VAR—Request by Target Corporation for an amendment to an existing special permit to allow a 47,742 square foot addition, together with requests for variances to permit larger wall signs than allowed by code, to allow a reduced bufferyard along the west property line, and allow some reductions to the architectural requirements for property located at 8900 Highway 7 Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator, presented the staff report. Mr. Morrison commented on the traffic study. The interior traffic flow and five key intersections were studied. Commissioner Bissonnette asked about how the existing footprint would change. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 111504 - 4c -Planning Commission Minutes of 9-1-04 Page 4 Mr. Morrison said the change is mostly to the south into the existing parking lot and the front with a new façade. The courtyard will also extend a little more. Chair Robertson asked staff about trellises on the south façade. Mr. Morrison replied that this was in response to staff’s request that Target look at the south elevation from a pedestrian viewpoint. Chair Robertson discussed the possibility of designing 10 inches less building, resulting in a 24 inch deviation. He asked if the trellises could be brought out. Mr. Morrison said staff had made those suggestions to Target. The applicant’s response was that the store size cannot be reduced but they are interested in working with the City to improve the site on the outside. Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked if parking spaces would be lost overall. Mr. Morrison said currently there are 1,044 parking spaces on the site, including the Knollwood Village property. The SuperTarget proposal would provide 841 parking spaces and 821 spaces are required. These numbers are based on current conditions. If for example, the strip mall were to get a restaurant which requested a liquor license, that would increase the parking requirement. A request such as this is anticipated. Target is working with Gator Co. to work out a new parking agreement. Any approvals for the Target proposal would be contingent on that agreement working out. Commissioner Johnston-Madison said that currently the parking is not well defined, but she felt the new project would address that problem. She asked staff to speak about needs for additional parking if a restaurant with liquor license comes in. Mr. Morrison spoke about a neighborhood meeting held on August 31 regarding the proposal. Neighbors mentioned problems with the current interior traffic flow, but appeared to be satisfied with Target’s proposal. Parking for a restaurant with liquor license is a problem which would need to be worked out. Commissioner Bissonnette said her concerns regarded traffic, particularly on 36th Street and the regional trail, primarily weekend traffic. She said she isn’t convinced with the results of the traffic study. Mr. Morrison said staff is confident in the results of the traffic study. Chair Robertson commented on the sign variance, asking if because the code doesn’t address it correctly and it doesn’t work here, is a variance the correct vehicle to deal with this or should there be an amendment to the code to allow the 300 square foot for this use. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 111504 - 4c -Planning Commission Minutes of 9-1-04 Page 5 Mr. Morrison said yes, to both. Staff plans on initiating zoning code amendments to the code at the November 3 Planning Commission meeting and the sign amendment can be included at that time. Target’s need for a variance came up during this application process. In the meantime, Target needs to proceed, so staff is recommending approval of the variance. Chair Robertson asked about setting a precedence by that action. Mr. Morrison replied that the shopping center provision doesn’t address the needs of a larger tenant store such as a SuperTarget. The signage proposed is scaled to the large building. John Dietrich, RLK-Kuusisto, project manager, said the applicant has been working with City staff for the last seven months for a site with a 40-year-old store which is being remodeled. Mr. Dietrich, said that the applicant is satisfied with the results of the traffic study. The peak hour for SuperTarget on weekdays is 7-8 p.m. and on weekends from 3-4 p.m. Mr. Dietrich said the applicant will be able to meet the code requirements for materials and will not require a variance for materials only. Variances will still be needed for the deviations on the south, west and north elevations. Chair Robertson said the hearing was continued from August 18 and remains open. Steven Steuck, 8812 W. 36th Street, asked how the rebuilding of the parking lot would affect bus service. Mr. Dietrich said the site is a major transit route. Reconstruction is scheduled to commence in January with opening scheduled for October, 2005. Staging will occur and bus service will be relocated from time to time with notification, and it will be maintained. Scott Mann, West Suburban Housing Partners, 8851 36th St. West, is concerned about the bufferyard variance in the rear. Their property abuts Knollwood Village and Target. West Suburban could not get a variance for their landscape plan. Landscaping costs doubled from their original bids. He has objections to Target’s request for bufferyard variance, especially since the trees are under a powerline. Chair Robertson asked if the hill portion belongs to West Suburban Housing Partners. Mr. Mann said it did and it is landscaped to the bufferyard. At one time they did offer Target an easement. He said they would like to see the bufferyard brought up to what it should be. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 111504 - 4c -Planning Commission Minutes of 9-1-04 Page 6 Wanda Brannon, Solar Car Wash, 8951 W. 36th St., supports the project. She said two entrances at Target will be great. She said she is concerned about the regional trail, the hill and cross traffic. She is concerned about the foot traffic which comes through the car wash parking lot from the apartments. After the SuperTarget is completed she hopes apartment residents will be able to cut through the south side rather than the car wash. Chair Robertson closed the public hearing. Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked if West Suburban Partnership and Target have had further conversations regarding the bufferyard. Mr. Morrison said that the code does allow for bufferyards to be met through agreement by using landscaping materials and plants on adjacent properties that are currently existing or by planting on neighboring properties. That has not occurred between Target and West Suburban Housing Partnership. John Dietrich, RLK, said Target has spoken to Mr. Mann about sharing the landscape they have put in. Target felt the cost for the easement proposed by Mr. Mann was excessive. If the Commission and Mr. Mann agree, Target would be happy to put the material on his retaining wall or get it up higher. Mr. Dietrich said that Target is not interested in encumbering their property with an agreement nor paying for the rights of using someone else’s property. Commissioner Timian asked about the possibility of electrical wires going underground. Mr. Dietrich said the cost would be prohibitive. Chair Robertson wondered about planting on top to get a better bufferyard. He suggested a variety of plantings to create a visual point of interest rather than a visual barrier. He has a problem with the variance request at the south wall. 14’ feels weak for this size façade. He would recommend approval of the variance but encourages the architect to explore doing something more to scale at that point. Chair Robertson asked if the City would examine safer crossing at the regional path through this application or if that would be studied separately. Commissioner Bissonnette said she has seen several accidents at that location. Commissioner Johnston-Madison encouraged Mr. Mann to continue discussions with Target regarding the bufferyard. Chair Robertson encouraged the applicant to strengthen the south end design element prior to City Council consideration. Commissioner Johnston-Madison made a motion for the following: St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 111504 - 4c -Planning Commission Minutes of 9-1-04 Page 7 • Recommend approval of a variance to Section 36-362(g)(4)c to allow two wall signs to exceed the 150 square foot maximum for sign faces allowed for shopping centers with the condition that no sign face exceed 300 square feet. • Recommend approval of a variance to Section 36-366 to allow four inch deviations along the west and north elevation instead of the required 24 inches, and to allow 14 inch deviations along the south elevation instead of the required 24 inches. • Recommend denial of a variance to Section 36-366 to allow more than 10% of class III materials on the west façade, less than 60% of class I materials on the north façade, and more than 10% of class III materials on the north façade. • Recommend approval of a variance to Section 364(f)(4) allowing the reduction of bufferyard requirements along the west property line from 2706 plant units to 516 as illustrated in the landscaping plan. • Recommend approval of the Special Permit Amendment, subject to the conditions as recommended by staff. • Request City Council to review comments of the meeting. The motion passed 4-0. The Chair adjourned the meeting at 8:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Nancy Sells Adm. Secretary St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 111504 - 4d - Accept Park Commons Sidewalk & Lighting Work Page 1 RESOLUTION NO. ______________ RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK ON PARK COMMONS DRIVE SIDEWALK AND STREET LIGHTING INSTALLATION CITY PROJECT NO. 03-11 CONTRACT NO. 127-03 BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, as follows: 1. Pursuant to a written contract with the City dated October 7, 2003, BCG Construction, Inc. has satisfactorily completed the Park Commons Drive sidewalk and street lighting installation, as per Contract No. 127-03. 2. The Director of Public Works has filed his recommendations for final acceptance of the work. 3. The work completed under this contract is accepted and approved. The City Manager is directed to make final payment on the contract, taking the contractor's receipt in full. Original Contract Price $92,966.90 Change Order $3,740.00 Under run ($14,592.87) Final Contract Price $82,114.03 Previous Payments ($73,136.79) Balance Due $8,977.24 Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 15, 2004 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 111504 - 4e - Water Treatment Plant #4 Upgrade Page 1 4e. Motion to adopt the attached resolution accepting this report, establishing and ordering Water Treatment Plant Improvement Project No. 20041301, approving plans and specifications, and authorizing advertisement for bids. Background: At the June 14, 2004 Study Session, staff reviewed with Council the need for filter rehabilitation at all six City Water Treatment Plants (WTP’s) along with radium contamination issues and possible solutions. At the July 19, 2004 Council meeting, staff presented a report detailing the water treatment plant upgrade proposed for WTP #10. The report also informed Council that other WTP filter rehabilitation improvements will be done in the near future under separate contracts following the same development and approval process. At the October 10, 2004 Study Session, staff reported to the Council of an alternative filter upgrade at WTP # 4 that appears to be more advantageous than the earlier identified upgrade at WTP #10. Project Description: Staff has combined two previously programmed water utility projects (#20041300 – WTP Filter Rehabilitation and #20051200 – WTP Radium Removal Equipment) in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) into one project - WTP Filter Rehabilitation which provides for filter rehabilitation and treatment revisions at each of the City’s six WTP’s. This project consists of filter media replacement and the addition of chemical injection equipment for iron/radium reduction. At this time staff is proposing that the improvements for WTP #4 be bid and constructed in one contract as requested herein. This proposed contract will complete all necessary filter rehabilitation work at WTP #4. Financial Considerations WTP #4 Contract Costs WTP #4 Contract Funding Water Utility Fund $98,089 Project Timeline: Should the City Council approve the project, it is anticipated that the following schedule for the WTP #4 contract improvements could be met: • Approval of Plans/Authorization to Bid by City Council November 15 • Advertise for Bids November 24 and December 1 • Bid Opening December 13 • Bid Tab Report to City Council; Award contract December 20 • Construction February thru April, 2005 Attachments: Resolution Prepared by: Scott Anderson, Superintendent of Utilities Reviewed By: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Construction (includes 10% contingency) $ 82,089 Engineering $ 16,000 TOTAL $ 98,089 St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 111504 - 4e - Water Treatment Plant #4 Upgrade Page 2 RESOLUTION NO. __________ RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE WATER FEASIBILITY REPORT, ESTABLISHING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 20041301, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 20041301 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the Utility Superintendent related to water treatment plant rehabilitation and the installation of radium removal equipment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that: 1. The Water Feasibility Report regarding water treatment plant filter rehabilitation and the installation of radium removal equipment is hereby accepted. 2. The proposed project, designated as Project No. 20041301, is hereby established. 3. The plans and specifications for the making of the improvement, as prepared under the direction of the Public Works Director, are approved. 4. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted at least two weeks in the official newspaper and in the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids for the making of said improvement under said-approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall appear not less than ten (10) days prior to the date and time bids will be received by the City Clerk, and that no bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the City Clerk and accompanied by a bid bond payable to the City for five (5) percent of the amount of the bid. 5. The bids shall be tabulated by the Public Works Director who shall report his tabulation and recommendation to the City Council. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 15, 2004 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 111504 - 4g - 5775 Wayzata Blvd Permit Amendment Page 1 4g. Motion to approve Resolution for a Minor Amendment to the existing Special Permit for property located at 5775 Wayzata Blvd to amend the approved site plan by adding a paved drive lane for parking a mobile diagnostic trailer. Case Nos. 04-58-CUP Background: On July 15, 1985, the City Council approved a special permit to construct a nine story office building, drive-in banking facility, and Class III restaurant at 5775 Wayzata Blvd (Park Place East). That permit was amended on December 21, 1987 to construct a one story addition on the east side of the building. The purpose of that addition was to facilitate the placement of medical scanning equipment for a company called CDI – Center for Diagnostic Imaging. Occasionally, trailers that house imaging equipment are brought to the site for use by the customers of CDI. Because the equipment is so expensive, CDI utilizes these trailers until they develop a large enough clientele to justify purchasing the equipment which is then installed inside the building. The trailer is currently being parked in the parking lot on the north side of the building. Site: Site Highway 394 Park Place Blvd16th StreetZarthan AveC e d ar L a k e R d Highway 100Double Tree Hotel Costco Wayzata Blvd Request: CDI is asking for an amendment to the existing special permit to allow for the construction of a paved driveway running north/south along the east side of the building. No additions to the building are proposed. In fact, the only modifications to the building being St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 111504 - 4g - 5775 Wayzata Blvd Permit Amendment Page 2 proposed consist of an awning over a sidewalk between the building and proposed trailer location. The purpose of the proposed driveway is to park the mobile diagnostic trailer in a location that is not interfering with traffic or site parking, and is convenient for the clients using the facilities. Currently, the trailer, when in use, is parked on the north side of the building, in the first row of parking spaces along the front wall of the building. (See attached exhibit for existing trailer location and proposed location.) The proposed location is convenient for CDI, as the customers would exit through the east side of the building, just a few feet away from the trailer. They would then be able to enter directly into the trailer under the cover of a small awning to be constructed on the building. As shown in the drawings, staff believes the proposed site allows for better screening of the trailer than the current site and does not interfere with the site parking and traffic flows. The site is required to maintain at least 12% of the property in open space. The site has approximately 136,100 square feet of open space, and is required to have at least 65,606 square feet. If this application is approved, then the open space would be reduced to 135,900 square feet, which is well above the 65,606 square foot minimum required. The improvement will require the removal of two 8 inch Ash trees, and one 6 inch Honey Locust. The applicant is proposing to replace these trees with 5 Austrian Pines and 1 Honey Locust. The existing Arborvitae hedge currently screening the east side of the building will remain to screen the proposed trailer site. The proposal meets all zoning requirements, and no issues were identified by the Building Inspections, Engineering and Fire Departments. As an FYI, the existing trailer was allowed under the temporary use section of the Zoning Ordinance. The ordinance states that a temporary use is allowed for no more than a total of 6 months per calendar year. The temporary use section of the ordinance could still be exercised to bring in a second trailer which would be parked in the parking lot. CDI is not sure if a second trailer would ever be utilized, however, since the technology changes so rapidly, it is reasonable to assume that they may on occasion need a second trailer that would be on site for short periods of time. The Temporary Use section of the Zoning Ordinance would allow a second trailer to be placed in the parking lot under for a total time period not to exceed 6 months per calendar year. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the resolution amending the existing special permit to allow for the construction of the driveway along the east side of the building for the purpose of parking one trailer housing imaging diagnostic equipment. Prepared by: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Attachments: Proposed Resolution Site Aerial Photo Proposed Site Plan Proposed Elevations St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 111504 - 4g - 5775 Wayzata Blvd Permit Amendment Page 3 RESOLUTION NO. ____ Amends and Restates Resolution No. 87-209 A RESOLUTION AMENDING AND RESTATING RESOLUTION NO. 87-209 ADOPTED ON DECEMBER 21, 1987, AND GRANTING AMENDMENT TO EXISTING SPECIAL PERMIT UNDER SECTION 36-36 OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DRIVEWAY FOR THE PURPOSE OF PARKING AND KEEPING ONE IMAGING TRAILER AT 5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD FINDINGS WHEREAS, Center for Diagnostic Imaging-CDI (Park Place Opco, LLC), has made application to the City Council for an amendment to an existing special permit under Section 36-36 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code to allow the construction of a driveway for the purpose of parking and keeping one imaging trailer at 5775 Wayzata Boulevard within an (O) Office Zoning District having the following legal description: Lot 4, Block 2, Park Plaza, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Together with a non-exclusive easement for driveway and sidewalk purposes over adjoining Tract B, Registered Land Survey No. 1512, as created in Document No. 1431433. Torrens WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the information related to Planning Case Nos. 78-127-DDD, 81-114-SP, 85-31-SP, 87-84-SP, and 04-58-CUP and the effect of the proposed amendment to the site plan 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 and the effect of the use on the Comprehensive Plan; and compliance with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, a special permit was issued regarding the subject property pursuant to Resolution No. 87-209 of the St. Louis Park City Council dated December 21, 1987, which contained conditions applicable to said property; and WHEREAS, due to changed circumstances, amendments to those conditions are now necessary, requiring the amendment of that special permit; and WHEREAS, it is the intent of this resolution to continue and restate the conditions of the permit granted by Resolution No. 87-209, to add the amendments now required, and to consolidate all conditions applicable to the subject property in this resolution; St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 111504 - 4g - 5775 Wayzata Blvd Permit Amendment Page 4 WHEREAS, the contents of Case Nos. 78-127-DDD, 81-114-SP, 85-31-SP, 87-84-SP, and 04-58-CUP are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case. CONCLUSION NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Resolution No. 87-209 (document not filed) is hereby restated and amended by this resolution which continues and amends a special permit to the subject property for the purposes of permitting the construction of a driveway for the purpose of keeping one (1) trailer containing imaging equipment within the (O) Office District at the location described above based on the following conditions: 1. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with Exhibit A – Site Plan; Exhibit B – Planting and Lighting Plan; Exhibit C – Grading Plan; Exhibit D – Garage Level Plan; Exhibit E – Elevation Plans; Exhibit F – Site Plan and Utility Diagram, except as modified on November 8, 1978 and on July 1, 1985. 2. All landscaping, parking improvements, curbing, sodding, building construction and related elements as shown on the exhibits shall be completed by October 15, 1980. 3. That a Class III restaurant be allowed on the first floor as shown on Exhibit G – Cafeteria, containing no more than 1,800 square feet of floor area and without any exterior signage. 4. An addition to the east side of the building containing 1,866 square feet is hereby permitted in accordance with Exhibit H – Park Place Office Building Addition Site Plan/Floor Plan; and Exhibit I – Park Place Office Building Addition Elevations. Said Exhibits H and I supersede the exhibits in Condition No. 1 but only to the extent relative to the 1,866 square foot addition and realignment of the abutting driveway connecting the two parking lots and adjacent landscaping. If the proposed addition is constructed, it shall be completed, including the said landscaping adjustments and driveway, by May 15, 1986. 5. An addition to the northeast side of the building containing 1,492 square feet is hereby permitted in accordance with Exhibit A1 – Site Plan and Planting Plan; and Exhibit E1 – Elevation Plan, with all improvements to be completed by October 30, 1988. 6. The special permit shall be amended on November 15, 2004 to incorporate all of the preceding conditions and add the following conditions: a. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with Exhibits A1a, A1b- site plans, E1a and E1b-elevations, such documents incorporated by reference herein. b. This driveway may only be used for the purpose of keeping a trailer containing imaging diagnostic equipment. c. No more than one trailer may be permanently kept on site. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 111504 - 4g - 5775 Wayzata Blvd Permit Amendment Page 5 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. Under the Zoning Ordinance, this permit shall be revoked and cancelled if the building or structure for which the conditional use permit is granted is removed. Assent form and official exhibits must be signed by applicant (or applicant and owner if applicant is different from owner) prior to issuance of building permit. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 15, 2004 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk Res-ord/2004/04-58-CUP St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 111504 - 4h - PSAP Partnership Resolution Page 1 4h. Motion to adopt a resolution affirming Council’s plan to move forward in partnership with the City of Golden Valley for delivery of public safety dispatch services for the Cities of St. Louis Park and Golden Valley Background: During the course of 2003 budget discussions, the public safety dispatch center was identified as an area which should be evaluated for potential budget savings. In the initial analysis, two options existed which appeared to offer some potential for cost reduction in this area. The first was to begin dialogue with Hennepin County regarding public safety dispatch services provided by the Hennepin County Sheriff’s Department. The second option was to open dialogue with neighboring communities who were not receiving public safety dispatch services from Hennepin County and explore interest in a consolidation of independent PSAPS in the county. This resulted in the following: • In 2003 a consulting firm, PSC Alliance, was retained by a ten city consortium to examine current PSAP operations in the County and possible consolidation options. This study was presented to the City Council in February, 2004. • In March, 2004 PSC was retained by the cities of St. Louis Park, Golden Valley, Richfield, and Brooklyn Center to examine the specific feasibility, costs, etc of a four city consolidation. • Conversations were initiated with Hennepin County regarding their provision of PSAP services. This resulted in the County Board formally indicating they would provide PSAP services to St. Louis Park and other cities at no cost, but in a considerably different format than that which we have operated under for several years. Each option was evaluated for its inherent advantages and disadvantages. Council met in study session on August 30, 2004 to receive the Findings and Report prepared by PCS Alliance and to discuss options with staff from St. Louis Park and Golden Valley. As a result of that discussion, council directed staff to continue working toward a partnership with the City of Golden Valley, and possibly the cities of Richfield and Brooklyn Center. On October 25, 2004 Council again discussed PSAP at study session and were informed that the City of Richfield was no longer interested in participating in the consolidation. Since that time the City of Brooklyn Center has also decided to partner with Hennepin County for PSAP services. Next Steps: Staff has continued to meet with representatives of the City of Golden Valley and is recommending that the partnership between the Cities of St. Louis Park and Golden Valley continue. The attached resolution affirms the Council’s interest in continuing this very successful partnership. Attachments: Resolution Prepared By: Cindy Reichert, City Clerk Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 111504 - 4h - PSAP Partnership Resolution Page 2 RESOLUTION NO. 03-114 RESOLUTION AFFIRMING COUNCIL’S PLAN TO MOVE FORWARD IN PARTNERSHIP WITH THE CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY FOR DELIVERY OF PUBLIC SAFETY DISPATCH SERVICES FOR THE CITIES OF ST. LOUIS PARK AND GOLDEN VALLEY WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park and other Minnesota cities have experienced budget reductions which impact the ability of cities to deliver cost-effective public safety dispatch services; and WHEREAS, as part of an effort to develop strategies to deal with these impacts, and to explore opportunities to maximize effectiveness and save money while maintaining an acceptable level of service, St. Louis Park undertook a study of alternatives for the future delivery of 9-1-1 dispatching services; and WHEREAS, various alternatives were studied including; the sharing of services with another city or group of cities under a variety of governance models, outsourcing PSAP operations to the Hennepin County Sheriff’s department, and to continue operating a PSAP jointly with Golden Valley either under the existing vendor-client relationship or a new joint powers agreement; and WHEREAS, after thorough study of these alternatives, council recognized the value of our existing partnership with the City of Golden Valley, noting that the model has worked successfully for 11 years, is designed to be flexible and responsive, employs dispatchers who are familiar with our communities and our police and fire personnel, and provides the support needed for jail and front counter services at the St. Louis Park Police Department; and WHEREAS, Council further recognizes the value added by this model which contributes to a climate of police and citizen partnership which may not exist at the same high level under a different model of PSAP service delivery. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that we support the current model of partnership between the cities of St. Louis Park and Golden Valley relating to dispatch. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Council also directs staff to continue working toward adding other cities to this partnership as opportunities to expand become available. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 15, 2004 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 111504 - 8a - Brookside Final Plat & PUD Page 1 8a. Request of Foundation Land LLC and Master Development LLC (St. Louis Park School District) for Preliminary and Final PUD approval for Brookside School Lofts and Preliminary and Final Plat approval for “Brookside”. Case Nos. 04-52-PUD and 04-57-S Lots 1-11 and 29-36 Block 10 Suburban Homes Co.’s Addition except highway Recommended Action: ü Motion to approve resolution approving Preliminary and Final Plat for “Brookside”. ü Motion to approve resolution approving Preliminary and Final PUD for Brookside School Lofts PROPOSAL: The developers are proposing to convert the two upper stories of the existing Brookside School building to 27 condominium units and the basement story to underground parking. A new 14- unit (2-story) condominium building is proposed on the site directly south of the existing school building. The development will also include 5 single-family lots facing Webster Avenue. The applicant is proposing to sell the single family lots to another builder. Comprehensive Plan: Low and Medium Density Residential Zoning: R-2 Single Family Residential R-4 High Density Residential Lot Size: 114,306 square feet for Plat 73,303 square feet in PUD (Total area less single family) Proposal: 41 residential units (condominiums) 5 single family lots Building Height: Allowed: 3 Stories or 40 feet Proposed: Existing school building = About 36 feet New building = 34 feet (2 stories) Density (R4): Allowed: 30 units/acre Proposed: 23 units/acre FAR: Allowed: 0.7 Proposed: 0.7 St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 111504 - 8a - Brookside Final Plat & PUD Page 2 Condominium Parking: Required: 74 spaces Proposed: Below ground 53 spaces (60 including 7 tandem) At grade: 16 spaces Proof of Parking: 6 spaces Total proposed: 75 spaces BACKGROUND On September 20, 2004, the City Council approved a Comprehensive Plan amendment changing the land use designation from CIVIC to Low and Medium Density Residential for the Brookside School property. A second reading for a zoning map amendment was approved for a portion of the property on October 4, 2004. This proposal is in conformance with those approvals (see attached maps). On November 3, 2004, the Planning Commission held a public hearing for a preliminary and final PUD and plat for the site. One member of the public was in attendance and spoke in favor of the proposal. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposal with conditions recommended by staff. PROCESS: A neighborhood meeting to review the current development proposal was held on October 13th. About a dozen people were in attendance, including staff. The developers presented the proposed site and building plans along with a concept for the required open space (DORA). One neighborhood representative was concerned about the methodology and numbers calculated in the traffic study that was completed by SRF Consulting Group prior to the City Council approval of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning map amendments. The traffic study found that traffic generated by the proposed use will not adversely impact existing streets or intersections. A copy of the traffic study is attached. The current request is for Preliminary and Final PUD approval and Preliminary and Final Plat approval. ISSUES: Ø Are the Preliminary and Final Plat and PUD proposals in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and applicable ordinances and policies? Ø Does the PUD meet the requirements of zoning? Is the applicant requesting PUD modifications? Ø What are the likely impacts on adjacent neighbors? Ø Will the current tenants be relocated? St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 111504 - 8a - Brookside Final Plat & PUD Page 3 Analysis of Issues: Ø Are the Preliminary and Final Plat and PUD proposals in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and applicable ordinances and policies? The attached development conforms to the recent reguiding and rezoning of the property. The PUD covers only the condominium portion of the property because property in the R2 zoning district is not eligible for the PUD process. The plat covers the entire School District parcel. Plat The Hennepin County parcel map indicated that a portion of the school building was within the MNDOT or Vernon Avenue right of way. The legal description of the property shows that the Hennepin County map is incorrect. When an approved final plat is filed with Hennepin County, the error will be corrected on the map. Staff finds the proposed preliminary and final plat to be acceptable, with the condition that the proposed utility and drainage easement along the rear property line of Lot 1 be increased to protect the proposed storm water pond. In order to provide the required boulevards between the sidewalks and streets, the proposed sidewalks along Webster Avenue and West 41st Street are shown on private property. This is acceptable provided sidewalk easements are provided in favor of the City. The plat will require park dedication. Chapter 26 of the Municipal Code (Subdivision) states that the City may elect to receive at its option either 20% of the land area (22,861 square feet or 0.52 acres) within the subdivision or cash in lieu of land at the rate of $900 per unit ($41,400). The Code states that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend to the City Council the preferred option. If the City elects to receive cash, this amount is deposited in the city's Park and Recreation Development Fund to be used for park planning, park acquisition, park development or public art. The Park and Recreation Commission will be reviewing this proposal at its regular meeting on November 17. Since park dedication would only be about ½ acre, it is expected that the recommendation would be to receive cash-in-lieu of land. The conditions of approval in the resolution are contingent upon the Park and Recreation Commission recommending approval of cash-in-lieu of land. The plat will also require trail dedication at the rate of $225 per unit. Public Works has found that the proposed drainage meets City requirements. The lowest floor elevations (garage) of the proposed new buildings are below the high water of the dry pond and will require special waterproofing. A Minnehaha Creek Watershed District permit will also be required prior to any site work and obtaining the permit is listed as a condition of approval. Ø Does the PUD meet the requirements of zoning? Is the applicant requesting PUD modifications? St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 111504 - 8a - Brookside Final Plat & PUD Page 4 PUD modifications. The applicant is requesting the following PUD modifications: ü A reduction in the 30-foot front yard setback requirement for the existing school building. This building does not currently meet the setback and is non-conforming. The requested modification is allowed via the PUD process and would reduce the requirement to conform to the current building location. The Planning Commission recommended approval of this requested modification. ü A reduction from 15 feet to 0 feet between the existing school building and the interior drive aisle on the west side of the existing school building and from 15 feet to 10 feet for parking on the east side of the existing school building. In order to create the proposed single family lots, the drive aisle accessing the underground garage spaces must be located adjacent to the existing building. The purpose of the setback requirement is to minimize impacts, such as noise and headlights, to adjacent living spaces. Since all the proposed living spaces occur one floor above the proposed drive aisle, these impacts will be minimized via a vertical separation. Staff believes that the proposed modification is justified. The “horseshoe” parking on the east side of the building presents the easiest circulation and guest parking arrangement. Residential units will be half a story above the parking level, and residential impacts are not anticipated with this modification. The Planning Commission recommended approval of this modification. Bufferyards. The proposed development requires a Bufferyard C between the proposed condominiums and adjacent residential, both existing and proposed. The proposed landscape plan meets the bufferyard requirements. A revised landscape plan was received on November 8th, and is still being reviewed by the Environmental Coordinator. If any revisions to the plant materials are requested, a revised landscape plan will be required prior the City signing the final plat. Tree Replacement. The tree inventory shows that only a few trees exist on the site, but that these will be removed. The replacement requirement is 129.6 caliper inches. The landscape plan indicates 139 caliper inches being replaced. Parking. The zoning code requires 2 parking spaces per unit (41 units). A 10% deduction is allowed if the development is located within ¼ mile of a frequently operating transit route, if there is a dedicated pedestrian route to the bus stop. The applicant is proposing 75 off-street parking spaces and seven tandem garage spaces. The tandem spaces technically do not meet the zoning ordinance requirement for parking space. However, with the 10% allowed reduction (or 8 spaces), the parking requirement is technically met. It is anticipated that on-street parking will also be available along Vernon Avenue. Other requirements related to open space are being met. Ø What are the likely impacts on adjacent neighbors? St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 111504 - 8a - Brookside Final Plat & PUD Page 5 During neighborhood meetings several issues were identified, some related to this development specifically and others were not related. These included:. ü Traffic. A traffic study was completed by SRF Consulting Group that indicates traffic from this development will not change the level of service on adjacent streets and intersections. The neighborhood has requested several traffic regulation devices, including several stop signs and a “no left turn” sign at Excelsior Boulevard and Yosemite; those requests will be addressed separately since the need is not a result of this development. The neighborhood also requested that the railroad crossing at 42nd Street be improved. The railroad itself is responsible for maintaining crossings and no funds are currently allocated in the City budget to upgrade railroad crossings. ü Noise wall. In 2005 MNDOT will be constructing a noise wall along TH100. Vernon Avenue will be narrowed as a result of this project. Initial design indicated that all on- street parking would be lost on Vernon Avenue. The City Engineer has been working with MNDOT and it appears that a 26-foot wide street width can be preserved, thereby preserving on-street parking on one side of Vernon Avenue. The actual drive lanes will be narrowed from the existing. ü Access to Pedestrian Bridge. Access to the pedestrian bridge will be maintained both during construction and after the project is completed. ü Parking on Webster. Originally there was neighborhood concern that if guest parking from this project was allowed on Webster Avenue there would not be sufficient parking for current residents. This is due to the narrowness of the street and because parking is currently only allowed on one side of the street. The City Council approved a rezoning that retains the single family zoning on the portion of the site abutting Webster Avenue. The proposed plat shows 5 single family lots rather than the 12 townhouses originally proposed. The proposed single family lots will have off-street parking garages and driveways to accommodate off-street parking requirements. ü Bus stop at 41st and Webster. Residents requested that during construction the school bus stop at 41st and Webster be temporarily moved for safety reasons. Staff will work with the bus company to determine whether this change is necessary. ü Buffers between the project and existing homes. The zoning code requires a “Bufferyard C” between the proposed condominium development and adjacent single family homes. The proposed landscape plan shows that this level of bufferyard is being provided. Ø Will the current tenants be relocated? The Brookside School building currently has two tenants: STEP and Discoveries for Children. The City is working with both to find a new location. Recommendation: Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the attached resolution approving Preliminary and Final PUD and Plat for Brookside Lofts subject to conditions. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 111504 - 8a - Brookside Final Plat & PUD Page 6 Attachments: Ø Resolution approving Preliminary and Final PUD Ø Resolution approving Preliminary and Final Plat Ø Approved Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Maps Ø Application submittal and traffic study Ø Proposed Plat and PUD Exhibits Ø Planning Commission minutes Prepared By: Judie Erickson, Planning Coordinator 952-924-2574 jerickson@stlouispark.org Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 111504 - 8a - Brookside Final Plat & PUD Page 7 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION GIVING APPROVAL FOR PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT OF “BROOKSIDE” BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of St. Louis Park: Findings 1. St. Louis Park Public School District and 4100 Vernon Developers, LLC, owners and subdividers of the land proposed to be platted as “Brookside” have submitted an application for approval of preliminary and final plat of said subdivision in the manner required for platting of land under the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, and all proceedings have been duly had thereunder. 2. The proposed preliminary and final plat has been found to be in all respects consistent with the City Plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and the ordinances of the City of St. Louis Park. 3. The proposed plat is situated upon the following described lands in Hennepin County, Minnesota, 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 St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 111504 - 8a - Brookside Final Plat & PUD Page 8 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 Lot 1, thence 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) Parcel Four: Lot 29, Block 10, Suburban Homes Co.’s Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota (Abstract) Conclusion 1. The proposed preliminary and final plat of “Brookside” is hereby approved and accepted by the City as being in accord and conformity with all ordinances, City plans and regulations of the City of St. Louis Park and the laws of the State of Minnesota, subject to the following conditions: a. Approval of the Final Plat is subject to the conditions of Brookside School site PUD approval, the planning contract, the development agreement with the EDA, and requirements of other agencies including the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. b. 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. provided, however, that this approval is made subject to the opinion of the City Attorney and Certification by the City Clerk. 2. The City Clerk is hereby directed to supply two certified copies of this Resolution to the above-named owner and subdivider, who is the applicant herein. 3. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute all contracts required herein, and the City Clerk is hereby directed to execute the certificate of approval on behalf of the City Council upon the said plat when all of the conditions set forth in Paragraph No. 1 above and the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code have been fulfilled. 4. Such execution of the certificate upon said plat by the City Clerk, as required under Section 26-123(1)j of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, shall be conclusive showing of proper compliance therewith by the subdivider and City officials charged with duties above described and shall entitle such plat to be placed on record forthwith without further formality. 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 Meeting 111504 - 8a - Brookside Final Plat & PUD Page 9 Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 15, 2004 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 111504 - 8a - Brookside Final Plat & PUD Page 10 RESOLUTION NO._____________ A RESOLUTION APPROVING PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) UNDER SECTION 36-367 OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING FOR PROPERTY ZONED R-4 MULTI- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOCATED AT 4100 VERNON AVENUE SOUTH AND 4135 WEBSTER AVENUE SOUTH WHEREAS, an application for approval of a Preliminary and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) was received on September 20, 2004, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the Preliminary and Final PUD at the meeting of November 3, 2004, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Preliminary and Final PUD on a 6-0-1 vote with five members voting in the affirmative and one member abstaining, 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. Foundation Land Development and Master Development, LLC have made application to the City Council for a Planned Unit Development under Section 36-367 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code within the district located at R-4 Multi-Family Residential District and R-2 Single Family Residential District for the legal description as follows, 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 St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 111504 - 8a - Brookside Final Plat & PUD Page 11 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 Lot 1, thence 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) Parcel Four: Lot 29, Block 10, Suburban Homes Co.’s Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota (Abstract) 2. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission (Case No. 04-52-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 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 04-52-PUD are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case. Conclusion The 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. Final PUD approval and development is contingent upon developer meeting all conditions of final approval including all Minnehaha Creek Watershed District requirements. 3. There shall be a maximum of 41 condominium units and such development shall include individual exterior entrances for ground floor units in Building 2 along Vernon Avenue. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 111504 - 8a - Brookside Final Plat & PUD Page 12 4. There shall be a minimum of 60 below-ground residential parking stalls, including tandem stalls. 5. Front yard, parking and drive aisle modifications are approved as follows: a. Front yard of 23 feet b. Drive aisle of 0 feet from existing building c. Parking of 10 feet from existing building 5. Prior to signing the Final Plat, the following conditions shall be met: a. The Environmental Coordinator shall review and find the Landscape Plan plant species acceptable. b. A revised plat that increases the drainage easement on Lot 1 to include the area within the ordinary high water level shall be reflected. c. Condominium association papers and other Final Plat documents shall be received and approved by the City Attorney. d. The applicant shall submit park and trail dedication fees in the amount of $51,750, if cash in lieu of park dedication is approved by the Park and Recreation Commission. e. An easement over all sidewalks proposed on private property along Webster Avenue and West 41st Street shall be submitted and approved by the City Attorney. 6. Prior to starting any site work, the following conditions shall be met: a. The Planning and EDA Redevelopment Contracts shall be signed that address, at a minimum, construction staging/routes/hours/duration, required completion of improvements prior to occupancy, allowable administrative amendments, prevention of garage space sales to non-residents, and consistency between documents as required by the City Attorney. b. A copy of permit from Minnehaha Creek Watershed District must be provided. c. An erosion control permit must be secured from the City. 7. Prior to issuance of any building permits, which may impose additional conditions, the following conditions shall be met: a. Evidence of filing the final plat shall be submitted. b. Evidence of filing easements over all sidewalks proposed on private property along Webster Avenue and West 41st Street shall be submitted. c. Color samples of all materials, shall be submitted and approved by the Zoning Administrator. d. An Irrigation Plan shall be submitted and approved by the Zoning Administrator. e. A Lighting Plan, including light fixture details shall be submitted and approved by the Zoning Administrator. 8. The developer shall comply with the following conditions during construction: a. All City noise ordinances shall be complied with. b. The hours of construction shall be limited as follows: All outdoor activity and loud equipment operation shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 am and 5:00 pm weekdays and 9:00 am and 5:00 pm on holidays; no such activity shall take place on weekends. Indoor construction activity that does not involve loud St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 111504 - 8a - Brookside Final Plat & PUD Page 13 equipment shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 am and 10:00 pm on weekdays and 9:00 am and 10:00 pm on weekends and holidays. 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. 9. 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. 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. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 15, 2004 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 111504 - 8a - Brookside Final Plat & PUD Page 14 Excerpts Unofficial Planning Commission Minutes November 3, 2004 3. Hearings A. Case No. 04-52-PUD and 04-57-S--Public hearing to review the request of Foundation Land LLC and Master Development LLC (St. Louis Park School District) for Preliminary and Final PUD approval for Brookside School Lofts and Preliminary and Final Plat approval for “Brookside”. Ms. Erickson presented the staff report. She said the only item that will change from the plans is the pond area. A part of Lot 1 will have to dedicate a larger drainage easement so that pond will be able to function. Commissioner Carper asked if follow-up to traffic studies is ever conducted after construction to see if projections have been accurate. Ms. Erickson responded that a follow-up to a traffic study isn’t done after a project is built. The City does address questions and concerns that arise after construction. Ms. Erickson said she does believe the traffic study undertaken for the Brookside project based on traffic counts, site observation, and projections based on use is very complete and accurate. Chair Robertson said traffic engineers are always refining methods and the modeling is very good. Commissioner Morris asked about drainage for the underground parking, asking whether the drainage is through a retention pond or connection to the street. Jeff Wrede of Tushie Montgomery Architects reviewed the utility plan. Commissioner Morris said the underground parking appears to be slightly below the level of the retention pond. Mr. Wrede said the applicant is raising the floor of the school building approximately 3 ½ feet. The school building will be 2.8 feet higher than the pond invert. Mr. Wrede spoke about the trench drain and invert figures. Mr. Wrede and Commissioner Morris spoke about stormwater retention on the roof system. Mr. Wrede said the applicant needs to work with City engineers to determine the rate of flow for evacuating water from the roof. Commissioner Morris asked if the developer had considered a green roof. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 111504 - 8a - Brookside Final Plat & PUD Page 15 Mr. Wrede responded it had not been considered. Commissioner Timian asked if the sale of the property had been finalized. Ms. Erickson responded it has not. The purchase agreement is in effect though November. The developer is looking to have an approval prior to closing. Chair Robertson asked why the property is divided as it is. Ms. Erickson said it has to do with condo ownership, single family ownership and different financing. She said the condo project is viewed as one lot for determining setbacks. Chair Robertson said in regards to cash in lieu of trees, he’s comfortable with a final 10%, but if it is 40-50% of trees being cash in lieu he’s uncomfortable. He’d rather see the trees. Ms. Erickson responded that the City would rather see the trees as well. Charlie Nestor, Master Development, said they appreciate everyone’s participation in the project. Commissioner Bissonnette asked if Master is developing the five single family homes. Mr. Nestor said Master will prepare the lots as pad-ready. They will be working with the City regarding architectural covenants to meet the City guidelines for move-up housing. Master will probably sell the lots to a builder(s). Mr. Wrede showed photographs of an existing home in the neighborhood and architectural drawings of the project to illustrate how design elements will complement the neighborhood. Commissioner Johnston-Madison complimented the neighborhood, developer, architect, City Council and Planning Commission for their work on the project. She said the inclusion of the single family homes into the project is a very innovative way to increase the number of single family homes in the City. Chair Robertson opened the public hearing. Kathy Wecker, 4141 Webster Ave. S., lives next door to the project. She said the developers have worked very well with the neighborhood and she is looking forward to the project. The developer worked very hard to keep the school building. She stated that at first she wasn’t sure about including 5 single family homes, but now she does see that 5 homes do fit into the project area. She said the developer has been great to the neighborhood and she feels the project will be very good for the neighborhood. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 111504 - 8a - Brookside Final Plat & PUD Page 16 The Chair closed the public hearing as no one else was present who wished to speak. Commissioner Kramer asked about a driveway to underground parking behind the building. He wondered if the driveway was an alley in the making, saying it feels like a dead end street to him. Mr. Nestor said the street is wider than an alley way. The street will be lower than the single family homes. The backyards will be above that driveway. Commissioner Johnston-Madison made a motion to recommend approval of the Preliminary and Final Plat and Preliminary and Final PUD for Brookside School Lofts subject to conditions recommended by staff. The motion passed 6-0-1 (Timian abstained). St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 111504 - 8b - 2nd Reading Rental licensing Ordinance Page 1 8b. Second Reading: Proposed Ordinance Amending Chapter 8, Article VIII – Rental Housing Licensing Consideration of an ordinance amending Chapter 8, Article VIII to expand the rental housing licensing program to include non-owner occupied 1 and 2 family dwelling units. Recommended Action: Motion to approve second reading of an ordinance amending Chapter 8, Article VIII for Rental Housing Licensing and set annual license fees to be effective January 1, 2005, approve the ordinance summary and authorize summary publication. Purpose of Ordinance: To expand the current rental housing licensing and inspection program in place for rental buildings with 3 or more units to include non-owner occupied 1 & 2 family dwelling units. The proposed ordinance is intended to help ensure residents have a safe, healthy, and well maintained environment to live in while encouraging overall housing vitality in the community. Background: First reading of the proposed ordinance was approved without change during the November 1, 2004 meeting following staff presentation of the program and public comments. Issues: During discussion of the ordinance Council requested staff to compile information on owner-occupied duplexes and consider if they should be excluded from the program through an additional exception in the ordinance. Clarification of other data and program criteria is also provided in response to public questions and discussion which occurred. • Owner occupied duplex – 102 duplexes are currently homesteaded, indicating the owner is residing in one of the duplex units. 46 pieces of written correspondence to resolve code issues have been sent to 19 of these properties. The 19% notice rate is higher than for owner occupied homes (approximately 10%) but less than other rental 1 & 2 family dwellings (29%). The content of this correspondence includes several types of property maintenance issues, including proper trash management. • Written correspondence – Letters, notices, and citations written to resolve code issues at non-owner occupied properties during the past three years indicate a much higher rate than for owner occupied units. 226 properties (29% of 780 currently identified rental units – this number will fluctuate) were issued a total of 633 correspondence items. These numbers are slightly different than presented during first reading. This correction resulted from the additional research performed to answer the question regarding owner occupied duplexes. Files for all 780 properties were counted. The percentage of correspondence for owner occupied homes (~10%) is an approximation since the research time for an exact verification would be significant. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 111504 - 8b - 2nd Reading Rental licensing Ordinance Page 2 • Complaints received – A review of complaints received on our complaint phone line implemented in November 2003 until June 2004 revealed about 8% of calls involved non-owner occupied property, proportionally about twice the rate relative to the number of units in the city. • Housing Authority Homes – 37 individual dwelling units owned and rented by the H.A. would be subject to the requirements of this ordinance. These properties would continue to be inspected twice a year by H.A. staff as currently occurring. Staff would be trained for consistent application of the Property Maintenance Code. Since no additional inspection time would be needed, an annual license fee of $15 for licensing administration is proposed. The Hamilton House Multi-family building owned by the H.A. is licensed and inspected through the current rental licensing program. • Group homes – Any non-owner occupied dwelling unit not specifically exempted in the proposed ordinance would be subject to the program requirements. This includes State and County licensed facilities. The City Attorney has stated that this ordinance would not conflict with these other licenses. • Rental licensing in other cities – Similar inspection programs have been in place for several years in both Richfield and Brooklyn Park. According to two of our current inspectors who have previously worked with those programs when employed by the respective cities, the most significant difficulty was not entering the units, but getting all the units licensed. Recommendation: According to correspondence history, code issues involving owner occupied duplex buildings are greater then owner occupied homes but less then absentee owner rentals. Using only percentages to justify any component of this program is not sufficient. The intent of the program is to provide periodic inspection of non-owner occupied dwelling units, helping to ensure a safe a healthy environment. Encouraging property maintenance is for the benefit and vitality of the community. Approval of the Ordinance as proposed is recommended. Attachments: Attachment A – Proposed Ordinance as passed during 1st reading Prepared by: Brian Hoffman, Director of Inspections Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 111504 - 8b - 2nd Reading Rental licensing Ordinance Page 3 ATTACHMENT A ORDINANCE _______-04 AN ORDINANCE EXPANDING THE RENTAL HOUSING LICENSE REQUIREMENT TO INCLUDE ONE AND TWO FAMILY DWELLING UNITS, AMENDING CHAPTER 8 OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK CODE OF ORDINANCES THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN: SECTION 1. Chapter 8, Subdivision VIII of the St. Louis Park Code of Ordinances is amended as follows: Subdivision VIII. Rental Housing Sec. 8-326. License required. (a) The owner of a residential building or portion thereof operated as rental housing with one or more dwelling units must obtain a rental housing license. The license shall contain a statement that the tenant or tenants may contact the attorney general for information regarding the rights and obligations of owners and tenants under state law. The statement shall include the telephone number and address of the attorney general. (b) The term “rental housing” means any occupied dwelling or dwelling unit that is not owner occupied. The term includes any dwelling or dwelling unit occupied by a relative of the owner. (c) Exceptions. No license shall be required under the following circumstances: (1) A single family dwelling or single dwelling unit of a duplex occupied by the building owner for a minimum of six months per calendar year. (2) Rented rooms within an owner occupied dwelling unit. (3) Rented dwelling units that are part of a condominium or townhouse association. Sec. 8-327. Maintenance. The owner of rental housing must maintain all units, common space and exteriors of such buildings in compliance with the City Code and state and federal laws and regulations. The owner of such rental housing shall perform a periodic assessment of all portions of the building and correct any inadequacies to ensure the building is maintained in good repair. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 111504 - 8b - 2nd Reading Rental licensing Ordinance Page 4 Sec. 8-328. City inspections. (a) The owner of rental housing shall permit access by the City to perform a minimum of one inspection every two years of the common space and every dwelling unit. The City may perform or require additional inspections if deemed necessary by the City or by the request of a tenant. The owner shall notify the tenant or tenants of the time when the City inspection will be conducted and provide access to the units. (b) The owner’s rental housing license may be suspended, revoked or denied renewal for failing to maintain the licensed building in compliance with the property maintenance code as set forth in chapter 6, article V of this Code or otherwise failing to comply with the requirements of the City Code or applicable state or federal law. Secs. 8-329--8-345. Reserved. SECTION 2. Section 8-33 of the city code states that all fees for licensing shall be set by City Council. Annual business license fee for 1 & 2 family rental housing shall be $75 per dwelling unit, $125 per duplex when both units are licensed, and $15 for Housing Authority owned single family dwelling units. SECTION 3. The fees set in Section 2 above shall be included in Appendix A of the city code with other fees and charges called for by ordinance. SECTION 4. This Ordinance shall take effect January 1, 2005. Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council _________, 2004 City Manager Mayor Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution: City Clerk City Attorney St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 111504 - 8b - 2nd Reading Rental licensing Ordinance Page 5 SUMMARY ORDINANCE NO.______ AN ORDINANCE EXPANDING THE RENTAL HOUSING LICENSE REQUIREMENT TO INCLUDE ONE AND TWO FAMILY DWELLING UNITS, AMENDING CHAPTER 8 OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK CODE OF ORDINANCES This ordinance expands the current rental housing licensing and inspection program in place for rental buildings with 3 or more units to include non-owner occupied 1 & 2 family dwelling units. The proposed ordinance is intended to help ensure residents have a safe, healthy, and well maintained environment to live in while encouraging overall housing vitality in the community. This ordinance shall take effect January 1, 2005. Adopted by the City Council November 15, 2004 Jeffrey W. Jacobs /s/ Mayor A copy of the full text of this ordinance is available for inspection with the City Clerk. Published in St. Louis Park Sailor: November 24, 2004 St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 111504 - 8c - Concurrent Applications Page 1 8c. Amendment to St. Louis Park Ordinance Code (Zoning) to eliminate a requirement prohibiting the City from accepting an application for a PUD (Planned Unit Development), variance or conditional use permit (CUP) where the application is not in conformance with the existing Comprehensive Plan land use designation. Case Nos. 04-56-ZA This amendment will allow the City to simultaneously process Comprehensive Plan amendments, zoning map amendments, and a CUP or PUD where all of these approvals are required for a project. Recommended Action: Motion to approve first reading of Ordinance Code text amendment related to zoning and set second reading for December 6, 2004. Background: Currently, the zoning code states that the city cannot accept an application for a conditional use permit, PUD, or variance if the proposed use is not in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. This means that the Planning Commission must hold a public hearing and consider a Comprehensive Plan amendment separate from conditional use permit, PUD or variance application. Typically, when applications for comprehensive plan and zoning amendments are brought to neighborhood meetings or to the Planning Commission, there is a desire for information about the actual project, not just the Comprehensive Plan or zoning change. Residents typically want to know about the land uses, building design, density and other specifics of the proposal. Many requirements that help staff and the Planning Commission analyze project impacts, such as a traffic study, are not required until the conditional use permit or PUD application for the project is submitted. The elimination of this requirement will allow all applications related to a specific project to be submitted and processed concurrently. Although a developer will not be required to submit all applications together, in those cases where this occurs, the city will be able evaluate the entire project on its merits, and approve Comprehensive Plan amendments with more knowledge of the project details. This change will mean the project review period will be limited to 120 days, whereas with separate applications there would typically be two 120-day application periods. Even though there is more time allowed for city review currently, it is not necessarily beneficial; it can be more difficult to review parts of proposals. The Planning Commission held a public hearing for this amendment on November 3, 2004. No one from the public was present. The Planning Commission discussed the merits of the amendment, including costs to a developer for assembling a complete development application ahead of any preliminary approval. The Planning Commission suggested a process where a developer could submit a “concept” plan for the Planning St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 111504 - 8c - Concurrent Applications Page 2 Commission to review that is not a complete application. Staff is considering a process whereby a developer could have an informal review of their project at the Planning Commission, but that is not part of this amendment. Proposed Amendment: The proposed amendment is to delete in its entirety the following zoning code section. By eliminating this restriction, applications can be processed concurrently. Section 36-34 (d)(2)b.7 If the requested comprehensive plan amendment involves a land use or density change on a particular parcel of land, no request for a conditional use permit, planned unit development, or variance related to that parcel shall be accepted for processing until action on the comprehensive plan amendment has been completed. Recommendation: Staff and the Planning Commission believe this change will allow a full review of a project, versus a piecemeal approach and recommend approval of the amendment. Attachments: Proposed Ordinance Planning Commission minutes Prepared by: Judie Erickson Planning Coordinator 952-924-2574 jerickson@stlouispark.org Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 111504 - 8c - Concurrent Applications Page 3 ORDINANCE NO.______ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING BY AMENDING SECTION 36-34 CONCURRENT APPLICATIONS THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN: Findings Sec. 1. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission (Case No. 04-56-ZA). Sec. 2. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Section 36-34 is hereby amended by deleting stricken language. Section 36-34 (d)(2)b.7 If the requested comprehensive plan amendment involves a land use or density change on a particular parcel of land, no request for a conditional use permit, planned unit development, or variance related to that parcel shall be accepted for processing until action on the comprehensive plan amendment has been completed. Sec. 3. The contents of Planning Case File 04-56-ZA are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case. Sec.4. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication. Adopted by the City Council December 6, 2004 Reviewed for Administration City Manager Mayor Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution: City Clerk City Attorney St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 111504 - 8c - Concurrent Applications Page 4 Excerpts Unofficial Planning Commission Minutes November 3, 2004 3. Hearings C. Case No. 04-56-ZA— Public Hearing for a proposed amendment to St. Louis Park Ordinance Code (Zoning) relating to eliminating a requirement that an application for a development project cannot be accepted until the appropriate Comprehensive Plan land use designation has been approved. Ms. Erickson said staff is proposing that the City be allowed to consider all parts of a development proposal concurrently. Chair Robertson said from a developer’s point of view, it could be quite an expenditure to submit all applications concurrently, especially if there is an issue which becomes problematic for the development. He said he prefers to look at Comprehensive Plan amendments separately to provide big picture analysis. He said if there was a vehicle for an applicant to make a casual presentation to the Commission prior to the public hearing, he would be more comfortable with concurrent applications. Ms. Erickson said applicants would not be required to present applications simultaneously, but the proposed ordinance would allow concurrent applications. She said Planning Commission study sessions might be an aside topic. Chair Robertson said a casual presentation wouldn’t have to be a study session, but could be a very brief open mike session prior to a regular Commission meeting. Ms. McMonigal said some communities do concept reviews. It could be looked at. Commissioner Bissonnette said a concept review sounds like a good idea, and it would also provide interaction between the developer and the community. Commissioner Johnston-Madison a concept review was a good idea as long as that process didn’t limit neighborhood interaction with the developer. Chair Robertson said currently someone from the City is represented at the neighborhood meetings. The Commission then gets feedback on that and the process happens in the right order. This would avoid situations where a concept review turned into a public hearing. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 111504 - 8c - Concurrent Applications Page 5 Chair Robertson opened the public hearing. He closed the public hearing as there was no one present wishing to speak. Commissioner Morris said the Commission can get sidetracked by the development when considering an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. He said by considering Comp Plan amendments on their own merit, the Commission can be more objective in decision making. He stated that first the Commission needs to objectively decide on the Comp Plan change, and secondly decide if the development fits that need. Chair Robertson said by reviewing the applications together in the same meeting, it could solidify the requests into one decision. There is a reason to keep applications separate through incremental steps. He said he does support an applicant’s decision to bring items all together if they believe they have a great idea. Commissioner Morris said a vital part of the process is still a community meeting between the neighborhood and the developer before the request comes to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Johnston-Madison said she agreed with both viewpoints. Ms. McMonigal said some communities don’t want to make a Comp Plan and zoning change unless they know exactly what the development will be. If everything is presented together, they are comfortable making that change. She went on to say that the down side of making those changes without knowing the proposal is losing some control and discretion. Ms. McMonigal said that often at the Comp Plan stage the developer begins to develop partial plans, partial concepts, partial building drawings in response to neighborhood’s desire to know more about the development. From staff’s point of view, concurrent applications would provide an opportunity to more fully evaluate the project. She added that prior to applying, the developer would have met with staff many times. The developer would probably have met with the neighborhood prior to the public hearing, although that is not required. She said the public hearing is not supposed to be the end point, but a time to get input from the public. Things can change in the proposal but the technical details will be complete at that point. Commissioner Morris moved approval of Ordinance Code text amendments (Zoning) relating to eliminating a requirement that an application for a development project cannot be accepted until appropriate Comp Plan land use designation has been approved. The motion was approved 4-0-2 (Commissioners Kramer and Robertson abstained). St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 111504 - 8d - 2005 Employee Benefit Levels Page 1 8d. Establishing employer contribution for city sponsored benefits program for 2005. Recommended Action: Motion to adopt the attached resolution setting benefit levels effective January 1, 2005 Background: Each fall, the Council sets the contribution for St. Louis Park employees to use in the selection of benefits. The City holds “open enrollment” information sessions in mid- November, allowing employees to select benefits for the upcoming plan year. Our benefit plan offers choices in the following areas: • Medica health insurance plans: High, Elect/Essential and new for 2005 a high deductible plan with a health reimbursement arrangement • Basic life coverage offered through Prudential Life • Supplemental life insurance • Dependent life insurance • Dental offered through Delta for employee or family coverage • Long-term disability offered through Fortis • Flexible spending accounts allowing employees to set aside funds pre-tax for qualified medical expenses up to $2,400, or daycare up to $5,000 • Deferred compensation - 4 plan options (457 plan for retirement savings pre-tax). GOOD NEWS FOR 2005 1. 0% INCREASE ON 2005 MEDICAL PREMIUM RATES, 2. ADDITION OF A NEW HIGH DEDUCTIBLE MEDICAL PLAN 3. THREE YEARS OF RATES GUARANTEED Medical Insurance: The City of St. Louis Park participates with a group of cities to purchase health insurance (LOGIS Healthcare Group, 5000+ members). For 2005, we received bids from a number of carriers. As a result of negotiations with the carrier, rates were held at a 0% increase for 2005 along with a 3 year rate guarantee from Medica. Changes in plans are as follows: • 2005 0% increase on premiums; also offering a new high deductible medical plan, with a funding program for employees selecting this option. (0% was negotiated even though group experience required a 10.2% increase) • 2006 12% increase maximum on our premiums • 2007 16% increase maximum on our premiums What medical plans will we offer in 2005? We will continue to offer Medica plans High and Elect/Essential to our employees. These plans have the same plan design with no changes in coverage. The 3rd plan offered in 2004, Low option, will be replaced with a new High Deductible medical plan. We will continue with the four tiers for all plans: single, employee & spouse, employee & child and family. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 111504 - 8d - 2005 Employee Benefit Levels Page 2 2005 medical rates monthly premium: Medica Medica High 2004 2005 Single $374.75 Same as ‘04 No change in plan design Emp & Spouse $800.37 Same as ‘04 No change in plan design Emp & Child(ren) $756.10 Same as ‘04 No change in plan design Family $987.70 Same as ‘04 No change in plan design Elect & Essential 2004 2005 Single $342.33 Same as ‘04 No change in plan design Emp & Spouse $731.11 Same as ‘04 No change in plan design Emp & Child(ren) $690.66 Same as ‘04 No change in plan design Family $ 902.67 Same as ‘04 No change in plan design High Deductible 2005 Single $246.66 $2,500 deductible Emp & Spouse $526.81 $5,000 deductible Emp & Child(ren) $497.67 $5,000 deductible Family $650.11 $5,000 deductible What is this high deductible health insurance plan? New for 2005, LOGIS will offer a high deductible insurance plan with lower premiums. The deductible is $2,500 for single and $5,000 deductible for all others (family, employee & spouse, employee & children). The plan uses the same open network as Medica high option. If the deductible is reached, the plan will pick up 100% of the coverage with the exception of prescriptions and out-of-network. Why offer a high deductible? The employee benefits committee has been reviewing health options over the past several years. Through research, the employee benefits committee found that high deductible plans could be favorable for both the employer and employee. The committee recommended the city implement a plan if favorable rates were offered by the carrier. People are usually more cautious in spending their own money. A high deductible plan allows an individual to make choices in health care spending since first dollars come directly from their deductible account. The combination of lower premiums and individual control on medical spending could result in significant savings. Lower medical usage and cost controls will result in lower premiums in the long run. We are hopeful that high deductible plans will help lessen increases in health care costs. Is there a way to fund the deductible? St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 111504 - 8d - 2005 Employee Benefit Levels Page 3 Yes. The deductible is funded by setting up a Health Savings Account. We are recommending a funding mechanism set up under IRS called a VEBA (Voluntary Employee Beneficiary Association). This high deductible medical plan is designed with a requirement that the employer must fund 50% of the deductible. The deductible for single coverage is $2,500, for other groups $5,000. At a minimum we must fund $1,250 for single, and $2,500 for other groups. The recommendation is to fund all levels of the VEBA equally at $2,500. (This would be 100% funding of single deductible and 50% funding of all other groups). Funding would be provided via the benefit contribution we provide to our employees. What is a VEBA? The IRS has set up programs to set aside funds tax free to fund medical expenses. A VEBA is a Voluntary Employee Beneficiary Association, a tax exempt trust 501(c)(9) and MN Statutes 352.98. Funds placed in a VEBA can be used by the employee for qualified medical expenses. Funds will be placed in a VEBA trust in the individuals name to use to cover the deductible expenses. VEBA funds not spent will stay with the individual and roll each year for future expenses. The advantage to a VEBA is that funds are set aside and used tax free for qualified medical expenses. The VEBA stays with an individual even after they leave employment and can be used to continue to pay for qualified medical expenses. Can an employee choose the high deductible plan without a VEBA? No. The LOGIS Healthcare Group requires a Health Reimbursement Arrangement be in place with the high deductible plan to help fund the deductible and manage risk for employees. What product will be used to administer the VEBA? We are recommending America’s VEBA Solution. This VEBA is an annuity with a fixed rate of return no lower than 3%. Currently the fund is returning 3.4% as an investment into the individual’s account. This VEBA is the same product we plan to use for a post employment health savings plan (recommendation on this plan design coming to Council in December). America’s VEBA Solution will also coordinate use of funds in the flexible spending account as it relates to the high deductible health plan. By having single administrator we are able to provide benefit coordination of all 3 programs for employees and the city. By using one administrator for all 3 programs, it will save costs by avoiding duplication of administration fees. Are there fees to run the VEBA? Yes. There is a $4.50/month administrative fee which will be paid for by the city for active employees. Once an employee leaves the city, the administration charge will be transferred to the individuals account. Administration charge for the city is limited to only those who choose a high deductible plan with the VEBA. Does the city hold the VEBA funds for the high deductible plan? No. Funds are set up in the name of the individual as a trust. The trust we are recommending is America’s VEBA Solution. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 111504 - 8d - 2005 Employee Benefit Levels Page 4 Other benefits and changes for 2005: Below is a summary of other changes in benefits for the 2005 plan year. Dental: We will continue with Delta dental with an average increase of 5%. Dental is a voluntary program for our employees. 2005 monthly dental rates with Delta Dental 2004 2005 Single $35.36 $36.83 Family $79.19 $83.72 Life: LOGIS Healthcare was required to receive formal bids for 2005. Our current carrier, Prudential, was awarded the contract. We were pleased to receive rates for 2005 that are more favorable to our employees. The life rates are also guaranteed for 5 years with no increase. Other positive changes include an option to increase the maximum amount of voluntary life insurance from $200,000 to $500,000. With the bid, we are also able to open up enrollment again for our employees to enter the plan without evidence of insurability to the $50,000 level. This is typically only open to an employee at the time of hire. Long Term Disability (LTD): LTD is a voluntary selection for our non-exempt employees and is provided to our exempt employees. Rates increased by 7% due to plan experience. We will continue with Fortis as our carrier for LTD. Deferred compensation: The city offers 4 deferred compensation programs (457 plans). Deferred compensation is a program that allows employees to save and invest today for retirement. Federal and (in most cases) state income taxes are deferred until your assets are withdrawn, usually during retirement when you may be in a lower tax bracket. This is a voluntary program for employees. Recommendation for 2005 employer contribution: We are recommending a $10 per month increase in the employer contribution for both the exempt and non-exempt employees for 2005 for all plans. This is proposed as other parts of our benefits plan are increasing in cost e.g. dental. In addition, we want to encourage participation in the high deductible plan for the reasons noted earlier. In St. Louis Park, our non-exempt employees receive a lower benefit contribution than exempt employees. To help our non-exempt to fund the VEBA and to encourage them to participate in the high deductible program, we are recommending an additional $70/mo. for non- exempt who participates in this new plan for 2005. This means, for 2005, non-exempt employees who chose the high deductible plan with a VEBA will receive $675/month, those that remain with Medica High and Elect/Essential will receive $605/mo. Since exempt employees will receive $705/month, no additional funds for VEBA are recommended for 2005. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 111504 - 8d - 2005 Employee Benefit Levels Page 5 2005 Recommended Employer Contribution: Recommended 2004 2005 Exempt employees (not eligible for overtime) All plans $695/mo $705/mo. Non-exempt employees (overtime eligible) High and Elect/Essential plan $595/mo. $605/mo. Non-exempt employees selecting the High Deductible with a VEBA will receive an additional $70/month to help fund the VEBA. $675/mo. Budget Funding for the program described above is included in the 2005 proposed budget. Plan Administration If Council approves this recommendation, we will also need to modify our Flexible Benefit Plan document to incorporate the VEBA. These plans are required by IRS regulations. HR staff will also be working on modifying notices to current and separated employees who are on our benefit plan. Such documents will be presented to Council in December for approval. Recommendation: Staff recommends adoption of the attached resolution setting benefit levels effective January 1, 2005. Please let me know if additional information is needed regarding this matter. Attachments: Resolution Prepared by: Nancy Gohman, Human Resources Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 111504 - 8d - 2005 Employee Benefit Levels Page 6 RESOLUTION NO. 04- RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION FOR BENEFITS FOR 2005 WHEREAS, the City Council has established a benefit plan that provides an effective means for providing employee group benefits, and WHEREAS, the City Council establishes rates and plans for each calendar year, and, WHEREAS, the administration of such plans will be in accordance with plan documents as approved by the City Manager, who will also set policy and procedures for benefit level classification and administration of plans. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park: 1. The Council supports implementation of a high deductible plan with a health savings account for employees for 2005. 2. Effective January 1, 2005, the monthly contribution of benefit dollars from the city for full time employees and City Manager will increase $10 per month as follows: • non-exempt employees, working at least 30 hours per week $605/month. • exempt employees working at least 30 hours per week $705/month. 3. Effective January 1, 2005, non-exempt employees who elect to participate in the high deductible plan will receive an additional $70 per month (for a total of $675 per month). The additional funds are to assist non-exempt employees in funding the high deductible plan and placement of the funds into the health savings account (VEBA) for the deductible. 4. The City will continue to provide, at no cost to exempt employees, term-life insurance at one and one-half times the annual salary and a long-term disability plan or cost equivalent as plan allows. 5. Effective January 1, 2005, the monthly contribution of benefit dollars for non-union employees (classified as .5 FTE) working 20 through 29 hours per week shall be set at 50% of the exempt or non-exempt full time employee monthly contribution level, and for non- exempt this shall also include 50% of #3 above. 6. The appropriate City officials are hereby authorized and directed to deduct the balance of any sum premium from the compensation of an employee or officer and remit the insurer under an approved contract the employee or officer and share of any such premium. (Insert Signature Block)