Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004/12/06 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - RegularAGENDA SUMMARY CITY COUNCIL MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA December 6, 2004 7:30 p.m. 1. Call to Order a. Pledge of Allegiance b. Roll Call 2. Presentations a. NORC (Nurturing Our Retiring Citizens) Program Update 3. Approval of Minutes a. City Council Minutes of November 15, 2004 b. City Council Study Session Minutes of November 15, 2004 c. City Council Study Session Minutes of November 8, 2004 Action: Corrections/amendments to minutes - Minutes approved as presented 4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion. Action: Motion to approve the agenda as presented and to approve items listed on the consent calendar (Alternatively: Motion to add or remove items from the agenda, motion to move items from consent calendar to regular agenda for discussion and to approve those items remaining on the consent calendar). 5. Boards and Commissions 6. Public Hearings 6a. Public Hearing on the 2005 Budget and Property Tax Levy This Public Hearing is to review the 2005 budget and property tax levy Recommended Action: Mayor to close the Public Hearing 7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public - None 8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions 8a. City Engineer’s Report: Lamplighter Pond Flood Improvement Project, City Project No. 00-18 This report considers the restoration and expansion of Lamplighter Pond. Recommended Action: § Motion to adopt the attached resolution accepting this report, establishing and ordering Improvement Project No. 00-18, approving plans and specifications, and authorizing advertisement for bids. § Motion to adopt the attached resolution authorizing approval of an agreement with Park Assembly of God Church regarding a permanent easement. 8b. Request for Conditional Use Permit by the City of St. Louis Park to permit the excavation of approximately 81,300 cubic yards of excavation material and expand the pond by 5.9 acres through excavation of the area north of Lamplighter Pond --1800 Pennsylvania Ave. S. and 1461 Texas Ave. S. Case No. 03-50-CUP 1800 Pennsylvania Ave. S and 1461 Texas Ave. S. Recommended Action: Motion to adopt a resolution approving the Conditional Use Permit to allow the excavation of approximately 81,300 cubic yards of soil from the location described subject to conditions included in the resolution. 8c. Request by Target Corporation for an amendment to its existing Special Permit #96-39 to construct a new SuperTarget, together with requests for variances to permit larger wall signs than allowed by code, to allow a reduced bufferyard along the west property line. 8900 State Highway #7 Case No. 04-32-CUP & 04-33-VAR Recommended Action: • Motion to approve the Special Permit Amendment, subject to the conditions as recommended by staff • Motion to approve a variance to Section 36-364(f)(4) allowing the reduction of bufferyard requirements along the west property line from 2706 plant units to 801 as illustrated in the landscaping plan. • Motion to approve 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. 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 December 6, 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 close the Time Warner Cable “renewal proceeding” and continue the informal franchise renewal process. 4b Motion to approve resolution for Final Plat for Oak Park Village 2nd Addition. (Case No. 04-63-S 3401, 3451, 3501 Louisiana Avenue South) 4c Motion to accept October 2004 Financial Statements 4d Motion to approve resolution authorizing renewal of premises permit for St. Louis Park Boy’s Traveling Basketball, operating at Texa-Tonka Lanes, 8242 Minnetonka Blvd 4e Motion to authorize execution of a contract with S & S Tree Specialists, Inc. for 2005 Tree Pruning (trimming) 4f Motion to approve contract with Oak Knoll Animal Hospital for animal boarding services and authorize Mayor and City Manager to execute. 4g Motion to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute the attached five-year contract with All Hours Towing for towing services. 4h Motion to approve audit contract with Abdo, Eick, & Meyers, LLP for 2004 - 2007 4i Motion to accept the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes of Oct. 19, 2004 for filing 4j Motion to accept the Housing Authority Minutes of October 13, 2004 for filing 4k Motion to accept the Planning Commission Minutes of November 3, 2004 for filing 4l Motion to accept the Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of September 23, 2004 for filing 4m Motion to accept the Human Rights Commission Minutes of April 21, 2004 for filing 4n Motion to accept the Human Rights Commission Minutes of June 16, 2004 for filing 4o Motion to adopt a resolution authorizing installation and special assessment of a fire sprinkler system at 4300 36 ½ Street West and directing the Mayor and City Manager to execute a special assessment agreement with the property owner. 4p Motion to adopt a resolution accepting concrete alley paving work by BCG, Construction, Inc. on the 7600 and 7700 blocks of Edgewood Ave. and authorizing final payment to be issued. 4q Motion to adopt a resolution accepting work on curb and gutter installation and street maintenance project (Virginia Avenue and W. 22nd Street) and authorizing final payment to be issued. 4r Motion to accept Vendor Claims for filing (Supplement) AGENDA SUPPLEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING December 6, 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 120604 - 3a - City Council Minutes of 11-15-04 Page 1 UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA November 15, 2004 1. Call to Order Councilmember Sanger called the meeting to order at 7:44 pm. Council members present: John Basill, Phil Finkelstein, Paul Omodt, Susan Sanger and Sue Santa. Council members absent: Mayor Jeff Jacobs and Sally Velick Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney (Mr. Scott), Community Development Director (Mr. Locke), Director of Inspections (Mr. Hoffman), Environmental Health Official (Mr. Camilon), Human Resources Director (Ms. Gohman), Planning Coordinator (Ms. Erickson) and Recording Secretary (Ms. Stegora-Peterson). 2. Presentations - None 3. Approval of Minutes 3a. City Council Minutes of November 1, 2004 Councilmember Sanger noted on page three, Mr. Hoffman replied to a question from Ms. Burton about the number of rental units. The number should be 780 and not 7,780. It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Basill, to approve the minutes as corrected. 3b. Study Session Minutes of October 25, 2004 Councilmember Basill indicated on page three, in the third paragraph, ", if we are not willing to continue the lease at the same cost. He would be fine with extension at the same cost." should be inserted at the end after, "...are managed". It was moved by Councilmember Omodt, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to approve the minutes 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. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 3a - City Council Minutes of 11-15-04 Page 2 4a Approve 2nd reading and adopt Ordinance No. 2283-04 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 Adopt Resolution No. 04-135 approving continued participation in the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT) for Workers Compensation Coverage effective December 1, 2004. 4c Accept for filing the Planning Commission Minutes of September 1, 2004 4d Adopt Resolution No. 04-136 authorizing final payment to BCG Construction, Inc. for completion of Park Commons Sidewalk and Street Lighting Work 4e Adopt Resolution No. 04-137 accepting this report, establishing and ordering Water Treatment Plant Improvement Project No. 20041300A, approving plans and specifications, and authorizing advertisement for bids. 4f Motion to accept Vendor Claims for filing (Supplement) 4g Approve Resolution No. 04-138 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 Adopt Resolution No. 04-139 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 Mr. Harmening requested item 8d be moved to the first item of discussion under item eight. It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Finkelstein, to approve the Agenda and items listed on the Consent Calendar. The motion passed 6-0. 6. Public Hearings - None 7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None 8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions 8d. Establishing employer contribution for city sponsored benefits program for 2005. Resolution No. 04-140 Ms. Gohman presented the report. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 3a - City Council Minutes of 11-15-04 Page 3 Councilmember Basill asked if it was an HAS and not an HRA? Ms. Gohman replied the product they were putting into place would not be taxable under the Minnesota State Tax Code presently. It was a VEBA under the specific IRS and State codes. Councilmember Omodt asked what this did for the budget for 2005/2006? Mr. Harmening replied the dollars necessary to fund the program had been accounted for in the budget. Councilmember Omodt asked what the percent increase was? Ms. Gohman responded that the full budgeted amount was $210,000 for increases. With this plan design, they would use $155,000 out of $210,000. It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to adopt Resolution No. 04-140 setting benefit levels effective January 1, 2005. Councilmember Sanger complimented staff on negotiating health insurance rates that were not going up. The motion passed 5-0. 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 Resolution No. 04-133 Ms. Erickson presented the staff report. Councilmember Basill indicated the report stated that Master Development was planning on selling the five single-family homes for development. What kind of controls would they have when that came through concerning the design and make-up of the homes? They had made a decision to rezone it and include the five homes with the desire to have move-up single-family homes with three and four bedrooms. He wanted to be sure that was what they ended up with? Ms. Erickson replied that a development agreement was required for this development. As part of the development agreement, they were requesting covenants that would be placed on the property before it was sold that would include those minimum requirements. Councilmember Basill added that they should be designed consistent with the character of the neighborhood. Ms. Erickson noted that provision would also be included. Councilmember Sanger expressed concern whether they had enough off-street parking to meet the needs of the condominium residents and the five new homes. Ms. Erickson responded that this met the parking requirements and staff believed there would be adequate parking for the residents and their guests. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 3a - City Council Minutes of 11-15-04 Page 4 Charlie Ness, Master Development, thanked the staff, Council and neighborhood for their help on this development. Regarding the architectural covenants, they provided a rough draft of a document they had gotten from a homeowners association that had houses that fit into the category of move-up housing and met the architectural covenants. They were working in conjunction with staff to finalize that. Councilmember Basill indicated in the staff report, page five, there was talk about traffic in the neighborhood and that was something brought up at the neighborhood meetings. The decision was made to address those issues separately going forward after the development was built and to look at where traffic was flowing and if additional stop signs or sidewalks were needed. He wanted to be sure that they didn’t lose sight of that. It was an expectation of the neighborhood that someone would be in touch with them when this project was complete to see if changes needed to be made. Ms. Erickson responded that staff had conversations with the President of the neighborhood association that if some sort of basket weave design for stop signs was desired by the neighborhood, that the Public Works Department would work with them toward accomplishing that. It was moved by Councilmember Basill, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to approve Resolution No. 04-133 approving Preliminary and Final Plat for “Brookside”. The motion passed 5-0. It was moved by Councilmember Basill, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to approve Resolution No. 04-134 approving Preliminary and Final PUD for Brookside School Lofts. The motion passed 5-0. 8b. Second Reading: Proposed Ordinance Amending Chapter 8, Article VIII - Rental Housing Licensing. Ordinance No. 2282-04 Mr. Hoffman presented the staff report. He noted one of the questions that came up was about owner-occupied duplexes. There are 102 duplex buildings with about 19% issued written correspondence to resolve code issues. Staff recommended they be included in the rental licensing program. This program would also apply to group homes. William Putnam, 3172 Hillsboro Av. S, stated that it had been mentioned that they were running rental properties as a business. He suggested they give them some options if it is considered a business, such as allowing them to contract their own garbage company or allow them to have only one large garage can instead of two little ones. He believed this wasn’t about keeping up a property, it was about hiring more people in the City. Tom Powers, 2241 Hampshire Av. S, indicated he was a renter. His comments were based on a discussion with Councilmember Velick who raised concerns about beatifying the city and a desire to protect high value property. He was concerned that his home be St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 3a - City Council Minutes of 11-15-04 Page 5 treated with respect and be free of government agents and unfair taxation and fees. He believed, through his rent, he was paying higher taxes and did not understand why he should be paying more. He wondered how this program addressed what he presumed were her concerns about businesses buying property and turning them into rental units. Wouldn’t that provide affordable housing for people who couldn’t buy homes? There was also mention of social and economic issues, which he thought would be better addressed in a more community oriented venue than licensing. A landlord would be sued if he did substandard repair that caused any damage to the occupants. He suggested requiring people to have the utility companies do inspections. He had a problem with Fourth Amendment violations regarding this. He didn’t know what threatened people about renters. It was his opinion if this ordinance was passed, that St. Louis Park had become a slum and was very arrogant. He asked that they consider other ways of handling these issues and involve renters in the community. Gary Berscheid, 1604 Blackstone, stated that his tenant had lived in his property for 14 years and would have been inspected seven times at probably a cost of $1,000 and he didn’t think she would see much benefit. A statement was made that one reason why they needed this was that they were not going to have any reoccurrence of the fire at the University of Minnesota that killed three students. This inspections program would not stop that fire which was started after a night of drinking and smoking on a couch on the front porch. Regarding deductibility of the $75 on their taxes. It only became tax deductible when he lost money. There was a statement about rental properties paying very little taxes, he had his tax statements and for an estimated market value of $145,000, he paid $1700/year in taxes. On $166,000, he paid $1951/year. There was an exception for family-occupied properties that was dropped. His daughter lived in one of his units, yet her house had to be inspected. He would like that to be included as an exception. He was concerned if this program was implemented, that the inspection criteria be clearly defined. One of the past problems with the point of sales of houses was that different inspectors had different criteria and it was not clearly defined. It would become very subjective. He would like to see total cost control. If there were multiple problems on one work order, it could add up. He asked for a policy to handle those situations. The purpose is to keep up the property, not to bankrupt the owners. If they sold, there would not be affordable housing or alternative places to rent. Councilmember Sanger clarified when he spoke about the taxes, the point that was made at the last meeting wasn’t to say that rental properties had no taxes. It was to say that was a smaller differential between homestead and non-homestead taxes compared with several years ago when rental properties were taxed at a much higher premium. Mr. Berscheid believed there was quite a savings for homestead properties. Councilmember Sanger asked staff to comment on the issue raised regarding the clarity of what the points upon any property would be inspected. Mr. Hoffman responded that the inspection that would be done would be the same inspection done at the time a house was sold, or on an apartment building. They inspect to the International Property Maintenance Code, as the City had adopted and amended. The code says if something St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 3a - City Council Minutes of 11-15-04 Page 6 had broken or deteriorated, it had to be fixed. If the roof was old, it didn’t mean it had to be replaced. At the time where it was leaking or if all of the granular materials had worn off and you can see the tar paper, then it was a deteriorated roof that had to be replaced. It would be the same uniform inspection that was currently done for all other properties under the Property Maintenance Program. Mr. Berscheid stated he had experienced inspections in the 1980’s and it was totally different depending on who they had do the inspection. He would like to see it clarified in writing and possibly a checklist sent out, so he could go through the property and be on the “same page” as the inspector. Mr. Hoffman responded that was part of the education component and something they would want to include. If this were implemented, a list would be sent out with the application. Concilmember Finkelstein wanted to be clear that this was primarily a post World War II suburb with tender homes that took a lot of maintenance and care. In the past there was a rule that there was supposed to be an inspection any time a rental home had a tenant change, which was the ruling until 2001. Regrettably that wasn’t always observed. Now when nothing was being done, there were a greater number of rental homes and a situation where there were twice as many inspection reports on non-owner occupied homes as were on owner-occupied homes. That was why he supported this as good stewardship. It was good for tenants and would make them safer. It was good for the neighborhoods because it would be keeping these homes clean and repaired. It was good for the community and the landlord by maintaining these properties and maintaining the real estate values for everyone. He didn’t have anything against people that were renters or landlords, but he thought this was a problem that needed to be “nipped in the bud”. Councilmember Basill stated that there were comments made about protecting $400,000 homes. The majority of the homes were not $400,000 homes and this was to protect people that were in one and half story homes as well. He wanted to be sure people were clear that this was not just to protect certain wards or certain parts of the city, it was to protect homes throughout the city no matter what their values were. There was a comment that they were concerned about businesses buying homes and that they wanted to protect from those businesses. There was some truth that businesses had bought homes. They wanted to make sure they didn’t come in and buy property and not maintain it for the renters. They wanted the renters to have a good place to live, a safe place to live and a place that was well maintained. He didn’t look at this ordinance as being anything against renters, it was there to have good housing for them. The majority of rental units, three or more units, were licensed already. This was the unique group that was not licensed. He was in support of this ordinance. The only thing he was torn on was the owner-occupied duplexes. It was easier to reach these landlords and they didn’t have the opportunity to “opt out” and sell to someone else who would possibly buy it and rent it, they lived in the home. However, the statistics were that they had more complaints and more letters issued to those particular duplexes. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 3a - City Council Minutes of 11-15-04 Page 7 Councilmember Santa stated that she received several comments from members of the community. One voice mail was from an individual that believed that all residents and homeowners in St. Louis Park would be charged for the inspections of rental properties. It was her understanding that only rental properties, single-family and two-family, were being charged for their properties. Single-family homeowners were not going to be charged a fee. Mr. Hoffman replied that only the units that were being rented and non- owner occupied would be licensed and inspected and the only ones subject to the fee. Councilmember Santa stated that the second point that was raised was that this was not something new in the city. The majority of renters in St. Louis Park have their homes inspected. This was just expanding it slightly to include all rental properties. Mr. Hoffman replied that was correct. 7,000 rental units were currently licensed in 300 buildings or three units and more. This would be the same program, expanded to include the rented one and two-family units. Councilmember Santa indicated the issue that she received the most feedback on was from renters wanting to know when this would happen so they didn’t have to worry about retaliation from landlords. When would this go into effect? Mr. Hoffman replied the ordinance would require the owner of any non-owner occupied property to have a license by January 1, 2005. If this passed, they would send out correspondence and applications to the property owners in the next couple of weeks. At that time, they would need to return the application and the annual fee by January 1st. They would then begin inspections in early 2005. With the number of units, it may take up to two years to do the initial inspection on some of the properties. They had not determined a schedule of how that would happen. If there was a problem with a unit, a tenant could call Inspections to inform them of any problems. Councilmember Sanger commented based on the fact that there were twice as many inspection notices and correspondence that had to go out to those units, compared to single-family owner-occupied buildings, she was supportive of including that in the ordinance. In a couple of years, after they had some data regarding how this ordinance was working they could review the statistics and see how well it was working and see whether all aspects of it made sense. She would be supporting this. It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Finkelstein, to approve second reading of an Ordinance No. 2282-04 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. The motion passed 5-0. A member of the audience asked if the Councilmembers had seen a list showing the nature of the complaints on these properties? Councilmember Finkelstein responded that they had seen a slide show of properties with issues. Councilmember Sanger added that St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 3a - City Council Minutes of 11-15-04 Page 8 they were given information that suggested that the types of infractions ranged from very serious health and safety violations to minor issues and everything in between. The same audience member expressed amazement that the Council was making a decision with such a large impact without knowing the nature of the complaints that they were dealing with. Mr. Camilon indicated that there was a fair share of on-going complaints that had to do with trash left at the curb. These were the issues that neighbors complained about regularly to the Council. While to some people they seemed trivial, if you lived next door to that and had animals getting into the trash because they were not covered, it was an issue. The same audience member thought the Council was stepping over their bounds without looking at the seriousness of the information. Councilmember Omodt stated that they didn’t want to put in additional government regulation where it was not needed. He called the staff and asked about the nature of the complaints, but didn’t need a list to make a determination. The majority of calls that he received were property complaints. It was not snow shoveling, it was complaints from renters and non-renters about the appearance of housing and the inside of houses. To characterize this Council as not doing work and not doing their homework was wrong. They put a lot of time into this. They have had an inspection program in place for a long time, but these properties were not included. Councilmember Basill added that he views houses when he receives complaints. He has had properties that parked cars in the back yard and created noise issues. When neighbors complain to the owner, the problems can become worse. They also get smaller complaints as well. Mr. Putnam’s concern about if there should be two smaller cans instead of one big one was a valid concern that they should discuss later. He also shared Mr. Berscheid’s concern that they have standards so people knew what they were dealing with. They were familiar with what was out there and he had visited many sites. It needed to be addressed. 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 Ms. Erickson presented the staff report. Councilmember Santa recalled recently several instances where because the Comp Plan had to be changed first, but no one wanted to look at the Comp Plan before they knew what was going to go there. The neighbors believed that what they were seeing was a “done deal” and that there was no option for them to have an impact or to be heard. At the time it was an unfortunate way to do that and gave the wrong message to the neighborhood when they were asking for input. She was supporting this amendment. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 3a - City Council Minutes of 11-15-04 Page 9 She had her “druthers” about changing the Comp Plan for a specific site plan when it could change, but believed in the interest of encouraging neighborhood understanding of the process and making it more user friendly for everyone, the developer and the neighbors, that this was a good amendment. Councilmember Finkelstein stated when they looked at projects like Aquila, Brookside and Quadion, didn’t those go beyond the 120 days? The extra time was useful in getting more neighborhood involvement and refining the plan. He was worried that they might lose some flexibility to get more neighborhood involvement. Mr. Locke responded that several of those projects did go for quite an extended period of time, but typically those extensions were going on while the Zoning or Comp Plan amendments were being considered. Frequently the applicant applied for the more general change of the Comp Plan or the Zoning and as soon as they went to the neighborhood, the neighbors wanted to know what they really wanted to do. Then things would stop while the developer went back to show them what they wanted to do. The process got extended and took longer, but not necessarily became more enlightening or friendly for the neighbors. If they could have brought the plan in at the very beginning for those projects, the process would have gone quicker, but the neighborhoods would have gotten better and timelier information. They could indicate to the developer that projects were not going to be approved unless they had more time to deal with the neighborhoods. Councilmember Basill asked if they wanted to use the “old” route and apply for the Comp Plan change first, then brought forward the plan, could they do that with this change? Ms. Erickson replied that this would not mandate that they bring it all together, but would allow them to do so. Currently, people want to know the traffic impact on a development. In the PUD process they request a traffic study, but it was not required for a Comp Plan change. They can’t answer the question about the traffic impacts when they were at the Comp Plan change unless they requested the PUD at the same time. In terms of giving good information to the neighborhood so they could understand the impacts of the project, the way it was presently done, they couldn’t. The longer a developer had to hold onto a property, if they had extensions to a purchase agreement, etc., it cost money. A developer would rather do it in as short a time period as they could because land has holding costs associated with it. One of the things a developer may want to do is find out what the Planning Commission thought about a project before they made full application. They were putting a process in place where they would talk about having a neighborhood meeting before someone came in with an application so that some of the time was in front of the application process. Councilmember Finkelstein indicated they had talked about having a brochure about how projects work, what the process was and how much time was involved, but he was worried that this would move things along a lot quicker. It would put pressure on both the Planning Commission and City Council and he thought in some cases that the delay had led to a better project because it led to more involvement. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 3a - City Council Minutes of 11-15-04 Page 10 Councilmember Basill asked if someone brought forward a Comp Plan and PUD and they thought they were OK with the Comp Plan, but the PUD still needed some work, could they be split at that point and one be approved and the other be delayed? Mr. Locke replied. If they had both the PUD and a rezoning, there was nothing requiring them to approve them both. They had to work within the 120 day and 60 day rules. He didn’t want this portrayed as something to make the life of developers easier, it may, but that wasn’t why staff had put this forward. A private entity can apply to rezone a property or to change the Comprehensive Plan. What drives them to make that kind of request is if they have a specific project in mind. They are required to ask for the general change which made a certain amount of logical sense, but what happened was the neighborhood knew there was a specific project coming and the City and staff got caught in a credibility gap. They were telling them to talk about the general stuff first, but they were interested in the detail and thought we were trying to hide something from them. Councilmember Sanger stated she had mixed feelings on this and thought the intent of what they were trying to accomplish made sense, to be able to consider all of the relevant pieces of information at once. She had a concern about the 60 day and 120 day limitations. Proposing that all of these run concurrently, it potentially compressed the time frame and put them into a position of voting before the process was fully played out and they had the best possible suggestions for the project. She asked if this could be modified and design the process to see everything at once if they wanted to show it that way, but the time frames for the different processes would still run sequentially rather than concurrently? Mr. Locke replied if they made a valid application, the 60 day clock began to tick. They didn’t have the ability to line those up. Mr. Scott stated that they controlled the timing when there was a Comp Plan or zoning amendment involved. If there was a concurrent application and they were at 110 days and didn’t feel they had enough detail on the PUD, they could indicate to the developer that they had to extend the time or they would deny the Comp Plan amendment. In the area of Comp Plan or rezoning, they had virtually total discretion and there were very few situations, because it was a legislative decision making process, where they could not simply say that was “nice” but they chose not the change their Comp Plan or rezone property. If they got into a situation where they needed more time, unless the developer wanted to run the risk of having the Comp Plan or rezoning denied, they would extend the time. They should never find themselves in a situation where they would be forced to act, other than to deny a Comp Plan or rezoning. Councilmember Sanger thought there had been situations when they had been told they had to vote on a certain date, even though they didn’t want to because they were at the deadline. The option of voting “no” on them wasn’t particularly fair either because it meant if they wanted to reapply, they would have to start the whole process and pay more fees, and the ordinance said if they had been turned down for some of these, they had to wait a certain period of time before they could reapply. She wasn’t sure that suited anyone’s purposes to do it that way. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 3a - City Council Minutes of 11-15-04 Page 11 Mr. Scott stated that he thought the reapplying may just apply to a variance, not a Comp Plan or rezoning. Secondly, he agreed if the developer decided they wanted an answer and wouldn’t extend the time frame, then they would have to act. In the context of a Comp Plan or rezoning, they could decide to deny the application because they didn’t have sufficient information to address it. Councilmember Finkelstein suggested if they were going to have a “fast track” option, they should have more requirements, such as having the concept plan ready, making sure the neighborhood had met already and had an opportunity to consider it and be involved. He thought this should possibly be discussed further at a study session. Councilmember Basill clarified this was coming forward because some of the neighborhood leaders and associations got very nervous when they saw the Council making a Comp Plan change without a plan. He thought that had value and merit, but he also understood where Councilmember Finkelstein was coming from and he didn’t know how they struck a balance. Mr. Scott commented that the typical way this was done was to run the applications through concurrently. From the standpoint of the legal aspect, once they approve the Comp Plan and the rezoning, they have given up where they had virtually all of the discretion. From his standpoint, he preferred the City to retain as much discretion as it could. When they saw the final product, if it fit the criteria generally, but they just didn’t like what they were seeing or the direction the project was going, if they had already approved the Comp Plan amendment and the rezoning, they had vastly limited their ability to control the project. If a developer was not willing to extend the time to review the project because the Council felt that they didn’t have enough detail, that raised red flags and shouldn’t happen. They had the ultimate control to deny. It was moved by Councilmember Finkelstein, seconded by Councilmember Basill, to consider the item at the next study session. Councilmember Finkelstein believed there were differing viewpoints and this merited more discussion. Councilmember Omodt added without the Mayor and Councilmember Velick present, it would be better for the full Council to discuss. The motion passed 5-0. 9. Communications Councilmember Finkelstein stated that there was a temporary exhibit at the Minnesota History Center from the Smithsonian on our American Presidents. They could see everything from the St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 3a - City Council Minutes of 11-15-04 Page 12 survey equipment of George Washington to the pajamas of George Harding. He encouraged people to see this, it would be here until May. 10. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 9:22 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ City Clerk Mayor St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 120604 - 3b - Study Session Minutes 11-15 Page 1 UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION November 15, 2004 The meeting convened at 6:34 p.m. Councilmembers present: John Basill, Phil Finkelstein, Susan Sanger, Sue Santa and Sally Velick. Councilmembers absent: Mayor Jeff Jacobs and Paul Omodt. Staff present: City Attorney (Mr. Scott), City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Public Works Director (Mr. Rardin), City Engineer (Ms. Hagen) and Recording Secretary (Ms. Stegora-Peterson). 1. Lamplighter Pond Update Mr. Rardin presented background information about pond draw down and settlement which could occur. Staff believed that the pond had been at or below elevation 875’ in the past and settlement that would have happened had likely already occurred. The consultant had reaffirmed that. Mr. Scott noted that all reports stated that there should not be any damage to structures if they were built properly. There may, however, be damage to sidewalks, steps, lawns or driveways. He advised staff that if there was subsidence, and if the property owners could show it was a result of this projects, that they should view that as an additional project cost. Mr. Rardin noted there would still be settlement in the area regardless of whether the project moved forward or not. Councilmember Sanger asked why the recommendation now was to reduce the pond to 878’, and if they would still have the same benefits in regard to flood mitigation? Mr. Rardin replied that keeping it at 878’ would allow more capacity. Ms. Hagen reviewed the options (in handout). Option one would be the “do nothing” approach. They would install a berm, replace the lift station and clean the ponds. There would be no flood protection or maintenance. Option two, there would be maintenance, but there would be no flood protection with the exception of the berm. Option three would include both maintenance and some level of flood protection. The staff recommendation would be to design the pond to 878’ (option 3b). At certain times of the year, the pond would be lowered to approximately 875’. Mr. Rardin noted if the pond was managed between 878’ and 875’, they would not have a problem with subsidence. Ms. Hagen noted if they designed the pond to 878’, some homes would still need to be flood proofed. Councilmembers expressed concern that they would need to do that after this project. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 120604 - 3b - Study Session Minutes 11-15 Page 2 Mr. Rardin noted that there was an adopted Council program for flooding, and homes would be eligible for flood proofing or acquisition. They couldn’t guarantee maintaining the pond at 875’. This item would be on the December 6, 2004 agenda with a staff recommendation. 2. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 7:28 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ City Clerk Mayor St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 120604 - 3c - Study Session Minutes 11-8 Page 1 UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION November 8, 2004 The meeting convened at 6:00 p.m. Present at the meeting were Councilmembers John Basill, Phil Finkelstein, Paul Omodt, Susan Sanger, Sue Santa and Mayor Jacobs. Present at the meeting were Planning Commissioners Michelle Bissonnette, Lynne Carper, Robert Kramer, Dennis Morris, and Carl Robertson. Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Human Resources Director (Ms. Gohman), Director of Technology and Support Services (Mr. Pires), Community Development Director (Mr. Locke), Planning Coordinator (Ms. Erickson), Housing Supervisor (Ms. Schnitker), Housing Programs Coordinator (Ms. Larsen), City Engineer (Ms. Hagen), and City Clerk (Ms. Reichert). 1. Planning Commission/City Council Joint Discussion Mr. Locke stated that their intent was to discuss the Housing Summit, long range plans, and opportunities and constraints in a fully built community. Ms. Schnitker gave an update on the progress of the Housing Summit meetings since the last large meeting. The next large meeting will be held on Tuesday, December 7th. Staff will present information from staff outreach efforts to the housing focus groups. Mr. Locke gave background information on residential zoning and subdivision regulations, Comprehensive Plan housing and neighborhood goals, residential in-fill regulation evaluation and retaining oversized residential lots. Chair Robertson asked Ms. Schnitker what the public reaction is to the housing goals. She replied that it is basically the same response as the large group’s reaction and there were no surprises. Commissioner Morris felt that retention of small home is also important. Councilmember Sanger inquired if residents are asking for comparable homes based on size and architecture style when in-fill occurs. Ms. Larsen replied that they are asking for similar architecture style. Councilmember Finkelstein had questions about large homes and the approval process. Councilmember Sanger inquired about tear downs and stated that not much has been done to date. Chair Robertson replied that it is a city program and he would like to see the same results without it being a city program. Ms. Larsen stated that comments from the focus groups indicated that the ordinance code should be relaxed to allow for larger homes and expansion. Chair Robertson felt more can be put on a St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 120604 - 3c - Study Session Minutes 11-8 Page 2 lot if it is designed well. Ms. Schnitker had heard complaints about restrictive setbacks. Chair Robertson emphasized the ability to construct larger homes through proper design. Mayor Jacobs stated that it may be time to challenge sight lines in neighborhoods and allow for different front setbacks. Councilmember Santa and Commissioner Morris mentioned safety issues and said people like to be able to see down their block. Commissioner Kramer inquired if they could move streets to allow them to meander. Mayor Jacobs stated that it is very difficult to move existing streets. Councilmember Sanger and Chair Robertson agreed that more density in terms of square footage is desired. Commissioner Morris asked if they would be in the role of directing what would be developed or just reacting to proposals. Chair Robertson asked if they can institute development overlay districts. Mr. Locke explained how overlay districts work. Chair Robertson felt the ordinance code needs fine-tuning to allow for growth and change. Mayor Jacobs cautioned against being dictatorial to the private market. Councilmember Santa would also like to see research to find out what is coming in terms of demographics and the market. Councilmember Basill stated that if Council decides which uses and density are appropriate, they need to be cautious not to incur liability for the city. He added that perhaps they could add a requirement (a formula) to provide single family homes if rezoning is adjacent to residential areas. Chair Robertson thought they should look at rezoning and development proposals separately. Commissioner Carper stated that they have recently been dealing with lot subdivision issues and that it is also an issue for residents. He felt they needed to find a way to keep lots the same size so as not to change the character of neighborhoods. Councilmember Sanger suggested only allowing a complete re-build of a house if it has already been torn down. Council discussed review of the Comprehensive Plan and would like to see plans formed for future five year increments. Councilmember Santa added that they should avoid creating different standards for more and less affluent neighborhoods of the city. 2. Lamplighter Pond St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 120604 - 3c - Study Session Minutes 11-8 Page 3 Ms. Hagen presented staff’s recommendation for the best case outcome. She then presented the results of the draw down test. She stated that the tests indicated that the pond fluctuates between 870’s to 880’s. The Council was concerned about the cost and results from the project. Some concerns were subsidence, inconsistencies, confusion about the different proposed projects, and whether the results were worth the cost of the project. Ms. Hagen finished explaining the details of staff’s proposed plan. Council then discussed the benefits of each component of the plan. 3. Wi-Fi Mr. Pires explained that other cities have begun to offer low-cost, high-speed wireless Internet access to their residents. He explained that he and Mr. Harmening visited the City of Chaska to learn more about this approach. He stated that it has shown to be successful at a lower cost and there is a variety of public/private partnerships. Mr. Pires believes this could be successful in St. Louis Park. Councilmember Sanger stated that there may be segments of St. Louis Park that are underserved or choose not to have cable. Mr. Pires proceeded to present a slide show on Wi-Fi. The Council was supportive of further research. The question was raised whether providing this service was a legitimate function of government. Mr. Pires stated that some of the benefits of a city provided service are connections to the community, opportunity for economic development, affordability and availability to all residents, and lifelong learning. Mr. Harmening stated that staff feels that research and investment are worthwhile and it would be to their advantage to take the lead in this area. Mr. Omodt inquired where the funds would come from for due diligence. Mr. Harmening replied that it would come from the General Fund and the Economic Development Fund. 4. Communications Mr. Harmening informed Council that Brooklyn Park is going to Hennepin County for dispatch services. 5. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 10:02 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ City Clerk Mayor St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 4a - Cable TV Renewal Proceeding Page 1 4a. Time Warner Cable Renewal Proceeding: Motion to close the “renewal proceeding” and continue the informal franchise renewal process. Background: The cable TV franchise renewal proceeding is used to evaluate the legal, technical and financial qualifications of the current cable system operator and evaluate the current and anticipated needs of different communities within the City. It has included public comment and evaluation of Time Warner Cable’s recent renewals in Minnesota. Our current franchise expires February 27, 2005. However, Council can vote to extend the franchise an additional six months. At their April 12 meeting, Council extended the renewal proceeding to November 1, 2004 Since then, staff has researched renewal topics, including community development (areas unserved by TWC) and public safety (digital phone service 911.) Although we are still working to resolve some issues (Emergency Alert System for digital cable TV channels) enough inquiry has been made to continue the renewal negotiations to their conclusion. Recommendation: Motion to close the “renewal proceeding” and continue the informal franchise renewal process. Prepared by: John McHugh, TV Coordinator Through: Clint Pires, Director of Technology and Support Services Approved by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 4b - Final Plat Oak Park Village 2nd Addition Page 1 4b. Motion to approve resolution for Final Plat for Oak Park Village 2nd Addition. (Case No. 04-63-S 3401, 3451, 3501 Louisiana Avenue South) Site Data: Comprehensive Plan Designation Commercial Zoning Designation C2 – General Commercial Background: The St. Louis Park EDA has owned Lot 1 Block 7 Oak Park Village (northeast corner of Louisiana Avenue and Walker Street, 3451 and 3501 Louisiana Ave. S.) for a number of years. In December of 2003, the EDA administratively split the lot and sold the majority of the property to Oak Hill 3501 LLC (Anderson Builders). The City also vacated an existing undeveloped alley along the north property line to accommodate the construction of a new office building. The northern portion of Block 7 was sold to Philips Investment Co. (Park Tavern) which had been leasing this portion of the site for parking. As a part of the sales agreements, the City agreed to replat the property. The Planning Commission held a public hearing for this request on December 1, 2004. No one was present wishing to speak. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Final Plat on a vote of 5-0. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 4b - Final Plat Oak Park Village 2nd Addition Page 2 A copy of the final plat drawing is attached. Since development has already occurred on the properties, the subdivision is more of a formality and not to accommodate development. Since no future development is expected, the required documents associated with the preliminary plat have been waived. Stormwater storage and final grading associated with the EDA property have already occurred as a requirement of constructing the new building at 3501 Louisiana. The Park Tavern building was constructed in 1980. The plat shows dedication of drainage and utility easements and additional right of way along Walker Street to accommodate existing needs. Issues Analysis: • Is the final plat acceptable? The final plat of Oak Park Village 2nd Addition proposes two lots. There is no change to the total number of lots, so park dedication is not required. The purpose of the plat is to recombine parcels consistent with current ownership resulting from the EDA sale of the property, and to dedicate additional right of way to accommodate the existing Walker Street. The proposed easements are consistent with City requirements and accommodate existing City utilities. Recommendation: Staff and the Planning Commission recommend waiving the requirements for the preliminary plat and approval of the final plat. Attachments: Proposed Resolution approving Final Plat Final Plat (Supplement) Prepared by: Judie Erickson, Planning Coordinator Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 4b - Final Plat Oak Park Village 2nd Addition Page 3 RESOLUTION NO. 04-141 RESOLUTION GIVING APPROVAL FOR FINAL PLAT OF OAK PARK VILLAGE 2nd ADDITION BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of St. Louis Park: Findings 1. The City of St. Louis Park, subdivider of the land proposed to be platted as Oak Park Village 2nd Addition has submitted an application for approval of final plat on behalf of Oak Hill 3501 LLC and Philips Investment Co. current owners of said property. 2. The subdivision involves two previously platted lots, will not cause the land or any structure on the land to be in violation of Municipal Code or the building code, is not to accommodate development; therefore, the requirements for preliminary plat have been waived. 3. The subdivision meets the requirements for platting of land under the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, and all proceedings have been duly followed. 4. The proposed 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. 5. The proposed plat is situated upon the following described lands in Hennepin County, Minnesota, to-wit: Lot 1, Block 7, Oak Park Village and Lot 1, Block 6, Oak Park Village; and, The westerly half of the dedicated alley embraced within Block 165, Rearrangement of St. Louis Park as originally platted in 1887 which would accrue to said property by reason of the vacation thereof. Conclusion 1. The proposed final plat of Oak Park Village 2nd Addition 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 St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 4b - Final Plat Oak Park Village 2nd Addition Page 4 Minnesota, 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. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 6, 2004 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk Res-ord:04-63-S St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 4c - October 2004 Financial Statements Page 1 4c. Motion to accept October 2004 Financial Statements Attached are the October 2004 financial statements for the General Fund and the Park and Recreation fund. The list below summarizes what is included in this packet. 1. Monthly financial statements for the overall general fund and park and recreation fund by account summary level comparing the annual budget figures to the tenth month of 2004 actual figures. 2. Monthly financial statements for expenditures of the general fund by each department and for expenditures of the park and recreation fund by each division that compares the annual budget figures to the tenth month of 2004 actual figures. Please note that a negative sign in front of a revenue figure indicates a positive number or rather actual revenue received. In addition, when comparing the “Monthly Financial Report” to the “Departmental Expenditure report”, the “Departmental Expenditure Report” does not include budgeted or actual transfers nor miscellaneous expenses that are included as “other expense”. In reviewing the October financial statements, it is important to note a couple of key factors that had an impact this month to the monthly statements provided: • In comparison from September’s to October’s monthly financial report, there is a significant increase in the October report within Charges for Services in the General Fund. • The increase in Charges for Services of approximately $240,000 is attributable to several factors. First, salary reimbursement from the Housing Authority from April through August in the amount of approximately $205,000 was received. Next, approximately $24,000 in Engineering Services revenue was recorded. This is a result of many projects being substantially complete for the year. Finally, about $11,000 in quarterly revenue was recorded for Patrol Officer Services. • In reviewing the Park and Recreation fund, the monthly financial report shows decreases in expenditures for Personal Services and Services and Other Charges. These decreases are attributable to the reduction in seasonal staff and the decrease in the removal/cleaning of diseased trees respectively. Additional reminders from previous reports: • Since the City budgets on an annual basis, the budget numbers that appear on the monthly financial reports are annual figures. However, the actual revenues and expenditures are monthly figures. Therefore, you will see much fluctuation in the month to month comparison. • The interest revenue allocation is not yet reflected in the Year-to date actual numbers. Therefore, interest revenue is showing as a negative number. This number will be offset with the interest earnings once the allocation is completed. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 4c - October 2004 Financial Statements Page 2 • Due to the fact that overall revenues are low during the beginning months of each year, the city keeps a reserve of approximately four months of expenditures for cash flow purposes. Attachments: Monthly Financial Statements Prepared By: Brian Swanson, Accountant Approved By: Jean McGann, Director of Finance Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 4d - Premises Permit Renewal SLP Basketball Page 1 4d. Motion to approve resolution authorizing renewal of premises permit for St. Louis Park Boy’s Traveling Basketball, operating at Texa-Tonka Lanes, 8242 Minnetonka Blvd Background: St. Louis Park Boy’s Traveling Basketball has submitted an application for renewal of a Gambling Premises Permit at Texa-Tonka Lanes, 8242 Minnetonka Blvd in St. Louis Park. The Association is a public charitable organization which provides a place and structure for boys in 5th through 8th grade to play competitive basketball. Tournaments are held throughout the Twin Cities metro area and are sponsored by the member associations. The St. Louis Park Boys Traveling Basketball Association and other similar local organizations are members of the larger parent Minnesota Youth Athletic Association (MYAA). All requirements for issuance of the license have been met. An investigation was conducted by our Police Department and staff’s recommendation is approval of the license. The City Council must act to approve or deny the renewal before it is submitted to the State Gambling Control Board. If approved, a copy of the resolution passed by the Council will be submitted to the State. Attachments: Resolution Prepared by: Cynthia D. Reichert, City Clerk Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 4d - Premises Permit Renewal SLP Basketball Page 2 RESOLUTION NO. 04-142 A RESOLUTION APPROVING ISSUANCE OF A PREMISES PERMIT FOR LAWFUL GAMBLING St. Louis Park Boy’s Traveling Basketball At Texa-Tonka Lanes, 8242 Minnetonka Blvd WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 349 and St. Louis Park Ordinance Code Chapter 15 , provide for lawful gambling licensing by the State Gambling Control Board; and WHEREAS, a licensed organization may not conduct lawful gambling at any site unless it has first obtained from the Board a premise permit for the site; and WHEREAS, the Board may not issue or renew a premises permit unless the organization submits a resolution from the City Council approving the premises permit; therefore, BE IT RESOLVED by the City of St. Louis Park City Council that the applicant listed above meets the criteria necessary to receive a premises permit, and the application is hereby approved. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 6, 2004 City Manager Mayor Attest: __________________________________ City Clerk St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 4e - 2005 Tree Pruning Contract Page 1 4e. Motion to authorize execution of a contract with S & S Tree Specialists, Inc. for 2005 Tree Pruning (trimming) Background: Prior to 2004, pruning (trimming) of boulevard trees was performed by a combination of City staff and selected tree companies, with expenses covered by the Parks & Recreation Departmental budget. Due to budget reductions implemented in 2003, all pruning of boulevard trees was suspended. The suspension of boulevard tree pruning created concerns and potentially dangerous situations including pedestrian and emergency vehicle obstructions, large, dead hanging branches, and improper tree growth. During the 2004 budget process, Council requested that $100,000 be restored to the budget to be used for rotational tree pruning (trimming) throughout the City and to complete the previously compiled list for requested tree pruning. City staff has identified 175 requests for tree pruning service. This contract will complete these service requests. The contractor designated above will also perform rotational pruning in three areas of the City (north, central and south). The rotational pruning portion of the contract will be split up so that several areas throughout the City are completed in 2005. The remaining areas will be pruned in subsequent years. Ideally, pruning should be performed on each tree every seven years. Bid Analysis: Bid packages for the 2005 Tree Pruning contract were mailed out in early November. The requested bid was based on a per hour contractor cost due to the variety and sizes trees to be pruned, as well as the requirements for service calls to be completed. Bids were opened on Wednesday, December 1, 2004 at 11 a.m. at City Hall. One bid was subsequently received from S & S Tree Specialists, Inc. S & S provided a bid of $148/hr for a two person crew and related equipment. The likely reason for only one bid being received relates to the fact tree service companies in general are extremely busy and backlogged on work. Recommendation: Staff recommends S & S Tree Specialists, Inc. as the 2005 Tree Pruning Contractor. S & S Tree Specialists, Inc. has successfully performed similar contracts for the City for three consecutive years. Prepared by: Jim Vaughan, Environmental Coordinator Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 4f - Animal Boarding Agreement Page 1 4f. Motion to approve contract with Oak Knoll Animal Hospital for animal boarding services and authorize Mayor and City Manager to execute. Background: Park Pet Hospital, the current holder of the animal boarding contract, exercised a clause in the contract allowing for the cancellation of the agreement to become effective upon 90 days written notice. The animal boarding contract with Park Pet Hospital will end December 31, 2004. Staff recognizes the need to competitively bid for services whenever possible; to that end, five (5) request for proposals were sent to animal hospitals in and surrounding St. Louis Park. Two proposals were returned expressing an interest in entering into a contract with the City. Oak Knoll Animal Hospital and Golden Valley Animal Hospital returned proposals. Oak Knoll Animal Hospital entered the lower proposed fees. Oak Knoll Animal Hospital, which is located in St. Louis Park, has proposed to enter into a three-year contract at a fee of $400.00 per month. This monthly fee is remaining unchanged from the previous contract and will allow the City to extend the locked fee for the next three years. Euthanasia costs will also remain at the prior contract rate of $40.00. Euthanasia is conducted very infrequently, and staff feels locking the fee at the contract rate for an additional three years will be in the best interests of the City. Golden Valley Animal Hospital made a proposal that matched the monthly fee of $400.00, but had the euthanasia fees set at $42.00. The Golden Valley Animal Hospital also included an exception that may allow for only one (1) animal to be boarded over holidays. Oak Knoll Animal Hospital has applied for necessary license in accordance with state requirements and staff has contacted inspectional services and been advised Oak Knoll will be approved by December 31, 2004 as a boarding facility authorized to contract animal services with municipalities. If for any reason, licensing is denied, staff will return to council with a different recommendation. Attachments: 2005 - 2007 Animal Boarding Contract Prepared by: John D. Luse, Chief of Police Approved by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 4f - Animal Boarding Agreement Page 2 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK ANIMAL BOARDING AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made, executed, and entered into this ________ day of ___________________, by and between the CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, a Minnesota municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as “City” and Oak Knoll Animal Hospital, hereinafter referred to as “Provider”. 1. Recitals. City and Provider agree that this Agreement is made in accordance with the following recitals: A. City is in need of certain services which are hereinafter described and desires to engage Provider as an independent contractor to provide said services in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth herein. B. City and Provider agree that it is mutually advantageous for them to set forth their respective obligations and agreements in their entirety in writing in this Agreement. C. City has determined that the provision of services by Provider would serve the best interests of the City of St. Louis Park and finds that Provider is ready, willing and able to provide such services. D. For and in consideration of the parties adhering to their prospective obligations, covenants and undertakings hereinafter contained, as well as for and in consideration of the compensation to be paid Provider by the City, the receipt and sufficiency of which is acknowledged by the Provider to be set forth in this Agreement, the City and Provider agree to enter into this Agreement as hereinafter set forth. 2. Services. Provider agrees to board all dogs and cats found or seized by the City for a period of at least five (5) regular business days, and such longer periods as required by law and this Agreement. Regular business days means any day during which the Provider is open to the public for four (4) or more consecutive hours between 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. After that time Provider may take steps to place the animal in a shelter home, make available to a licensed institution pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 35.71, or to dispose of the dog or cat in a humane manner. Provider will provide basic veterinary services as requested, and receive compensation therefor as long as the services are in compliance with Section 4c of this Agreement. Provider will make available reasonable emergency after hours care as necessary. The Provider shall keep an accurate written account of all animals impounded and the duration of the impoundment and all animals destroyed and any other fees or services rendered, and provide this information upon request by the City. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 4f - Animal Boarding Agreement Page 3 Release to owners of dogs or cats impounded. Release will take place only after proof of payment or authorization has been given from the City police department. 3. Term. The term of this Agreement shall begin on the 1st day of January 2005, and end on December 31, 2007. This agreement can be canceled during its term by either party upon 90 days written notice to the other. Additionally, provider may at any time terminate the boarding services by giving the City 90 days written notice. The administrative fee referred to in paragraph 4(a) will not be paid if boarding services are terminated. 4. Compensation. The fees to be paid by the City to the Provider for carrying out the obligations and responsibilities of this Agreement shall be as follows: a) The City agrees to pay a total administrative fee of four hundred dollars ($400.00) per month. Provider must invoice the City monthly. b) The City agrees to pay the sum of forty dollars ($40.00) in euthanasia fees for each animal disposed of in a humane manner by Provider pursuant to this Agreement, unless the Provider has failed to properly notify the City in a timely fashion that an animal has exceeded its holding period. c) The City shall pay veterinary fees to the Provider as billed, provided that the Provider obtained prior City approval for veterinary costs which exceed a total of One Hundred Fifty and No/100 Dollars ($150.00) and further provided that the billed fees which are not subject to prior approval are comparable to the fees of similar operations in the Twin Cities area. d) The City shall make payment to Provider within thirty (30) days after receipt of the invoice for services provided. Any animal impounded, except mistreated animals, which is not claimed after five (5) regular business days, becomes the property of the City and may be disposed of in a humane manner or placed in the custody of some other suitable person. A mistreated animal seized by the City pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 343.22 may be humanely disposed of ten (10) days after the animal is taken into custody provided the notice and hearing requirements of Minn. Stat. § 343.235, Subd. 3 are satisfied. Any animal taken into custody that has bitten a person or that may have exposed a person to rabies shall be quarantined for at least ten (10) days. Upon proper determination by a licensed doctor of veterinary medicine, any animal seized pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 343.22 may be immediately disposed of when the animal is suffering and is beyond cure through reasonable care and treatment. In the event that a dead animal is delivered to Provider, the Provider shall dispose of the animals remains. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 4f - Animal Boarding Agreement Page 4 5. Supplies, Equipment and Incidentals. The City and Provider agree that the Provider shall furnish any and all supplies, equipment and incidentals within Provider’s space capabilities necessary for Provider’s performance of this Agreement. 6. Termination. The City reserves the right to terminate Provider at any time within the term of this Agreement, as provided in Section 3. In the event of such termination, the City shall provide Provider written notice of termination and upon the effective date of the termination, Provider shall immediately cease and desist Provider’s provision of services under this Agreement and City shall have no further obligation under this Agreement to pay any further compensation to Provider except for compensation due and owing for services prior to the effective date of the termination. 7. Liability Insurance. Provider shall take out and maintain during the term of this Agreement public liability and property damage insurance covering personal injury, including death and claims for property damage which may arise out of Provider’s services hereunder. Limits for bodily injury and death shall not be less $1,000,000 combined single limit; limits for property damage shall be not less than $200,000 for each occurrence; or a combination single limit policy of $1,000,000 or more. Provider shall promptly file with the City a certificate evidencing coverage. The certification shall provide that the City must be given thirty (30) days advance written notice of the cancellation of the insurance. 8. Hold Harmless. Provider agrees to defend, hold harmless and indemnify the City, its officers, agents and employees from and against any and all claims, damages, demands, actions, or causes of action (including court costs and reasonable attorney’s fees) of whatever nature or character arising form the performance by the Provider herein. 9. Independent Contractor. City and Provider agree that Provider, while engaged in carrying out and complying with the terms and condition of this Agreement and the provision of services thereunder, shall be considered at all times an independent contractor and not an officer, employee or agent of the City. City and Provider further agree that Provider shall not at any time or in any manner represent that Provider or any of Provider’s agents or employees are in any manner agents or employees of the City. City and Provider further agree that Provider shall be exclusively responsible under this Agreement for Provider’s own FICA payments, withholding amounts and/or self-employment taxes or other taxes if any such payments, amounts or taxes are required to be paid by law or regulation. 10. Written Notice or Other Correspondence. Any written notice or other correspondence to be provided by or between the City and the Provider in accordance with this Agreement shall be either hand delivered or mailed by registered or certified mail to the following addresses: CITY: City of St. Louis Park Police Department 3015 Raleigh Avenue South St. Louis Park, MN 55416 St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 4f - Animal Boarding Agreement Page 5 PROVIDER: Oak Knoll Animal Hospital 7202 Minnetonka Boulevard St. Louis Park, MN 55426 11. Waiver of Default. Any waiver by City of a default under the provisions of the Agreement by Provider shall not operate or be construed as a waiver of a subsequent default by the Provider. No waiver shall be valid unless in writing and signed by the Mayor and City Manager on behalf of the City. 12. No Assignment. The City and the Provider agree that the services to be rendered by the Provider under this Agreement are unique and personal. Accordingly, the Provider may not assign any of the Provider’s rights or delegate any of the Provider’s duties or obligations under this Agreement without City consenting to such an assignment and the assignment being reduced to writing and signed by the Mayor and City Manager on behalf of the City. 13. Invalidity of Provisions. If any term or provision of this agreement or any application hereof to any person or circumstances, shall to any extent be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement or the application of such term or provision to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is held invalid or unenforceable shall not be effected thereby and each term and provision of this Agreement shall be valid and be enforced to the fullest extent permitted by law. 14. Entire Agreement. This instrument herein contains the entire and only agreement between the parties and no oral statements or representations or prior written matter not contained in this instrument shall have any force and effect. This Agreement shall not be modified in any way except by writing executed by both parties. 15. Governing Law. Minnesota Statutes, Minnesota Rules, and City Ordinances are incorporated herein. Anything in this Agreement that conflicts with the statutes, rules, and ordinances is superseded. 16. Sales Tax. The Provider will charge the City sales tax where appropriate. 17. Workers Compensation/Employer's Liability. The Provider will furnish the City with a Certificate of Insurance demonstrating proof of coverage for workers compensation and employer's liability insurance as required by law. 18. Discrimination. Provider agrees to comply with Minn. Stat. § 181.59 which states: a) That, in the hiring of common or skilled labor for the performance of any work under any contract or any subcontract, no contractor, material supplier or vendor shall by reason of race, creed or color, discriminate against person or persons who are citizens of the United States or resident aliens who are qualified and available to perform the work St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 4f - Animal Boarding Agreement Page 6 to which employment relates; b) That no contractor, material supplier or vendor, shall, in any manner, discriminate against or intimidate or prevent the employment of any person or persons identified in clause (a) of this section, or on being hired, prevent or conspire to prevent the person or persons from performance of work under any contract on account of race, creed or color; c) That a violation of this section is a misdemeanor; and d) That this Agreement may be canceled or terminated by the City and all money due or to become due under the Agreement, may be forfeited for a second or any subsequent violation of the terms or conditions of this Agreement. 19. Work Hours. The boarding facility shall be open for pick up of animals during normal business hours, which shall coincide with the hours of the City offices. Requests for after hours services will be charged according to services provided. 20. Administrative Release of Impounded Animals. The City shall provide license forms, license tags and receipts necessary to release impounded animals. The Provider shall fill out all forms requested by the City and comply with all requirements in Minn. Stat. § 35.71 regarding the release of animals to licensed institutions. 21. Records. Provider shall maintain and preserve for at least two (2) years the following records: a. The description of the animal by species, breed, sex, approximate age and other distinguishing traits; b. The location at which the animal was seized; c. The date of seizure; d. The name and address of the person from whom any animal three months of age or over was received; e. The name and address of the person to whom any animal three months of age or over was transferred; and f. The history of disease conditions diagnosed by a veterinarian or diagnostic laboratory on animals housed on the premises. The records must be maintained in a form permitting easy perusal by the public. The Provider must allow the public to view the records and animals in custody at any time during which the Provider is open to the public. 22. Disposition of Remains. Provider agrees to comply with the disposition of animal carcasses as required under Minn. Stat. § 35.82, Subd. 2(a). St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 4f - Animal Boarding Agreement Page 7 23. Enforcement and Attorneys' Fees. The prevailing party in any action or proceeding in court to enforce the term of this Agreement shall be entitled to receive its reasonable attorneys' fees and other reasonable costs and expenses from the non-prevailing party. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands as of the day and year first above written. CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK By: ____________________________ Jeffrey Jacobs, Mayor By: ____________________________ Its__________________________ By: ____________________________ Tom Harmening, City Mgr. ATTEST: ___________________________ Cynthia Reichert, City Clerk St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 4g - Towing Contract Page 1 4g. Motion to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute the attached five- year contract with All Hours Towing for towing services. Background: The current towing contract expires on December 31, 2004. This contract was the first 5 year contract implemented for tow services in the City of St. Louis Park. In 1999, the contract changes were discussed with the City Council and the following changes were made to the contract: 1. Expand radius for impound lot from 2 miles to 5 miles. 2. Extend contract length from 2 years to 5 years. The changes were made to create a more competitive bidding process and to broaden the eligibility parameters for towing contractors. The same factors exist today and the changes were retained in the proposed 2005 – 2009 contract. In addition, work with the City Attorney resulted in minor changes in existing contract language and adjustment of fees allowed to be charged by the contractor and fees payable to the City of St. Louis Park. Analysis: In response to our bid advertisement, two bids were received for the towing contract; one from Schmit Towing, and one from All Hours Towing, the current contractor. All Hours Towing is based in St. Louis Park at 3635 Hampshire Avenue. City zoning has acknowledged the address is in compliance with City Zoning laws for vehicle storage as required by the contract. Schmit Towing was the second bidder. The address used for vehicle storage was 6040 Olson Memorial Highway in Golden Valley. Golden Valley Director of Planning and Development was contacted and replied the address indicated as the storage location in Golden Valley was zoned industrial. Within that zoning district, the storage of vehicles as part of a towing operation was not permitted. (See attached letter). The City Attorney was contacted by staff, submitting the letter and contract for evaluation. The attorney advised that in his opinion, Schmit Towing did not meet the essential requirements of the contract and should be rejected for that reason. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 4g - Towing Contract Page 2 The bid summary is as follows: 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Schmit Towing Towing Charge $75.00 $75.00 $75.00 $75.00 $75.00 Daily Storage $25.00 $25.00 $25.00 $25.00 $25.00 Example – 1 day total $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 All Hours Towing Towing Charge $74.50 $74.50 $79.50 $79.50 $84.50 Daily Storage $25.00 $25.00 $25.00 $30.00 $30.00 Example – 1 day total $99.50 $99.50 $104.50 $109.50 $114.50 Conclusion All Hours Towing has submitted a lower competitive bid for the first 2 years, but the bid included an escalating clause that increases the bid in years 3, 4 and 5. The City Attorney has indicated that the bid submitted by Schmit should be rejected and therefore, it is our recommendation that the contract be awarded to All Hours Towing. Attachments: Letter from Golden Valley Director of Planning and Development Bid documents are available for review in the City Clerk’s office. Prepared by: John D. Luse, Chief of Police Approved by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 4g - Towing Contract Page 3 St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 4h - Auditor Contract Page 1 4h. Motion to approve audit contract with Abdo, Eick, & Meyers, LLP for 2004 - 2007 Background: On October 11, 2004 the City of St. Louis Park sent out request for audit proposals for the years 2004 – 2007. Proposal materials were sent to eight Certified Public Accounting Firms that specialize in government audits. The deadline for proposals was Monday, November 8th. The City received proposals from five of the eight firms. Listed below are the names of the Certified Public Accounting Firms that received the requests for proposals. Name of Firm Proposal Received Abdo, Eick, & Meyers, LLP Received Deloutte & Touche, Public Accountant Declined - based on previous commitments HLB Tautges Redpath, Ltd.Received Kern, DeWenter, Viere, Ltd.Received KPGM Declined - based on previous commitments Larsen, Allen, Weishair & Company Received MMKR & Company, Public Accountant Declined - based on previous commitments Eide Bailly, LLP, Public Accountant Received Virchow Krause & Co.No Response An evaluation of each of the proposals was completed and two firms were selected to interview. On November 19th, interviews were conducted with Abdo, Eick, & Meyers, LLP and Kern, DeWenter, Viere, Ltd. The interview panel consisted of Tom Harmening - City Manager, Brian Swanson – Accountant, Craig Troutman – Accountant, and Jean McGann - Director of Finance. Recommendation: For the past four years, Kern, DeWenter, Viere, Ltd has been the City’s Audit Firm. We have had a good relationship with this firm and there are no outstanding issues. The interview panel discussed the relationship issue, as well as other merits of the two firms interviewed. In the end, the panel unanimously voted to recommend changing audit firms to Abdo, Eick, & Meyers, LLP for the audit of financials statements in 2004 – 2007. This decision was based on the following; Ø It is good practice to have a fresh perspective on the financial statements Ø Abdo, Eick, & Meyers, LLP will have more experienced auditors assigned to the audit Ø Abdo, Eick & Meyers, LLP all-inclusive price for audit services is slightly less than Kern, DeWenter, Viere, Ltd. Ø Abdo, Eick & Meyers, LLP uses technology to a greater extent then Kern, DeWenter, Viere, Ltd which reduces the amount of time spent by accounting staff City Staff recommends entering into a contact for audit services for the years 2004 – 2007 with Abdo, Eick, & Meyers, LLP. Prepared By: Jean McGann, Director of Finance Approved By: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 4i - PRAC Minutes of 10-19-04 Page 1 OFFICIAL MINUTES PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY COMMISSION OCTOBER 19, 2004 at 5:45 P.M. PARK TOUR / REC CENTER PROGRAMMING OFFICE MEMBERS PRESENT: Bruce Cornwall, Steve Hallfin, Kirk Hawkinson, Richard Johnson, Dana Strong, and Tom Worthington MEMBERS ABSENT: Sarah Lindenberg STAFF PRESENT: Rick Beane, Rick Birno, Stacy Voelker and Cindy Walsh 1. Call to order Tom Worthington called the meeting to order at 7:23 p.m. 2. Adjustments to the agenda None. 3. New Business A. Park Tour Commission members Mr. Hallfin, Mr. Hawkinson, Mr. Johnson, and Mr. Strong met at the Rec Center and proceeded to Oak Hill and Nelson Parks. Staff reviewed current reconstruction at Oak Hill Park which is scheduled to be completed by the end of 2004. The building at Nelson Park was viewed and members were advised reconstruction will take place in 2005. 4. Approval of Minutes from September 14, 2004 Mr. Hallfin moved to approve the minutes from the September 14, 2004 meeting, Mr. Hawkinson seconded. The motion passed 6-0. 5. Old Business A. Approve Code of Conduct Ms. Voelker distributed copies of the proposed Code of Conduct for review by the Commission. Mr. Birno advised that staff made adjustments according to recommendations by Tom Scott, City Attorney. Members discussed if the Code of Conduct should be applied to field and spectator areas which was agreed it should. Members suggested distribution to associations advising adherence would be appreciated. Staff advised the policy governs basic day-to-day activity. If the Commission would like it to be enforceable by the police, it must become an St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 4i - PRAC Minutes of 10-19-04 Page 2 ordinance. Members agreed to keep a policy. Mr. Birno suggested asking associations to assist with cost of signage and the Commission members agreed. Members discussed the Code of Conduct and requested the following changes: • Remove the last sentence on page one which states “remember that the game is for youth, not adults”. • Remove the word “youth” from the second to last sentence on page one and on page two, first paragraph under “internal”. • Remove quotes from sports advocates in fourth paragraph under “partners”. • Proposed last paragraph under “internal” to read “investigate sports advocate programs for controlling inappropriate sidelines behavior”. Ms. Walsh recapped understanding that the Commission would adopt the Code of Conduct which would then be recommended for adoption to the associations at their January meeting. Mr. Strong inquired if the Code of Conduct will be included in the Park Reservation Permit Policy and members agreed it would be attached to the policy. Mr. Strong motioned to pass the Code of Conduct with above changes; Mr. Johnson seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0. B. Review and Discuss Park Reservation Permit Policy Ms. Voelker distributed a draft of the policy for review by the members. Mr. Birno advised that staff included recommendations made by the City’s attorney and staff. Mr. Birno reviewed and discussed the suggested changes with the Commission. Members inquired if postings are available that display the field schedule in which Mr. Birno indicated staff will review. Members reviewed and suggested the following changes: • Members would like to define “inclusive” listed in item one by adding an “all participants play” statement. • Members discussed requiring background checks from associations and the financial implications. Mr. Birno inquired which area (required or expected) it should be listed under. Mr. Strong suggested it be a required item only if the City could provide economic resources. Members discussed and agreed to remove it from the ‘required’ section but leave it in the “expected” section. Mr. Worthington and members thanked Mr. Birno for his work on the policy. Mr. Strong will provide staff a draft of the letter to associations asking for the information stated in the Park Reservation Permit Policy. Staff will have the City Attorney review it as soon as it is received. 6. Communications A. Chair St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 4i - PRAC Minutes of 10-19-04 Page 3 Mr. Worthington would like to discuss the Commission’s 2005 goals and how they would like to be involved in projects at their regular meeting in November. B. Commissioners Mr. Strong and Mr. Hallfin inquired on the acoustics in the pavilions at Oak Hill and Louisiana Oaks Parks. Mr. Beane will research options. Mr. Strong advised a draft of the association letter will be available soon for Tom Scott’s review. C. Program Report Ms. Voelker advised the School Board will interview one individual, Carol Hedberg, for the vacant Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission position. The interview will be conducted on 11/8/04. D. Director’s Report Ms. Walsh will meet with associations in November or December for input on the building replacement scheduled at Browndale and Birchwood Parks. Staff will discuss with the Commission at their November meeting. 7. Adjournment Moved by Mr. Cornwall and seconded by Mr. Strong to adjourn. Motion passed 6-0. With no further business, the Commission adjourned at 8:33 p.m. Minutes prepared and respectfully submitted by, Stacy M. Voelker Recording Secretary St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 4j - Housing Authority Minutes of 10-13-04 Page 1 MINUTES Housing Authority St. Louis Park, Minnesota Wednesday, October 13, 2004 Westwood Room 5:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Catherine Courtney, Andria Daniel, Steve Fillbrandt Commissioner Judith Moore arrived at 5:12 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Anderson, Jane Klesk, Kevin Locke, Michele Schnitker. 1. Call to Order Commissioner Courtney called the meeting to order at 5:06 p.m. 2. Approval of Minutes for September, 2004 Commissioner Daniel moved to approve the minutes of September 8, 2004, and Commissioner Fillbrandt seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 3-0, with Commissioners Courtney, Daniel, and Fillbrandt voting in favor. 3. Hearings – None 4. Reports and Committees – None 5. Unfinished Business – None 6. New Business a. Capital Improvement Work Bid Award Ms. Anderson presented background information for planned alterations on the first floor of Hamilton House, to provide office space for maintenance staff. The lowest bid was from Socon Construction for $32,500. Commissioner Fillbrandt moved for approval of the contract with Socon Construction for work at Hamilton House to create an office area for maintenance staff, and Commissioner Daniel seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 3-0, with Commissioners Courtney, Daniel, and Fillbrandt voting in favor. b. Contract Approval for Architectural Services for Capital Fund Program (CFP) Ms. Anderson explained that the HA will receive $220,761 for the Capital Fund Program for 2004. The HA solicited proposals in 2001 for architectural services and two responses were received. After reviewing proposals, staff recommended St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 4j - Housing Authority Minutes of 10-13-04 Page 2 continuing with Studio Five Architects for the next CFP funding cycle. The primary work consists of window replacements at Hamilton House and several scattered site units, for a total estimate of $150,000. Studio Five proposes a fee of $16,170, plus up to $2,000 for reimbursables. Commissioner Moore moved to approve the execution of a contract with Studio Five Architects for architectural services for upcoming CFP work at a base fee of $16,170, plus up to $2,000 for reimbursables. Commissioner Daniel seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 4-0, with Commissioners Courteney, Daniel, Fillbrandt, and Moore voting in favor. 7. Communications from Executive Director a. Claims List No. 10–2004 Commissioner Fillbrandt moved for ratification of Claims List No. 10–2004, and Commissioner Moore seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 4-0, with Commissioners Courtney, Daniel, Fillbrandt, and Moore voting in favor. b. Communications Ms. Schnitker provided an update on the Housing Summit, stating that eight or more focus groups will be conducted over the next month. 1. Monthly Report for October, 2004 2. Scattered-Site Houses and Hamilton House (verbal report) 3. Draft Financial Statement 8. Other – None 9. Adjournment Commissioner Moore moved to adjourn the meeting, and Commissioner Fillbrandt seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0, with Commissioners Courtney, Daniel, Fillbrandt, and Moore voting in favor. The meeting was adjourned at 5:57 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Anne Mavity, Secretary St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 4k - Planning Commission Minutes of Nov. 3 Page 1 OFFICIAL MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA November 3, 2004--6:00 p.m. COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Michelle Bissonnette, Lynne Carper, Claudia Johnston- Madison, Robert Kramer, Dennis Morris, Carl Robertson, Jerry Timian STAFF PRESENT: Judie Erickson, Meg McMonigal, Nancy Sells 1. Call to Order – Roll Call Chair Robertson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 2. Approval of Minutes of September 1, 2004 Commissioner Morris moved approval of the minutes of September 1, 2004. The motion passed 3-0-2 (Commissioners Carper and Kramer abstained). Commissioners Bissonnette and Timian arrived at 6:05 p.m. 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. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 4k - Planning Commission Minutes of Nov. 3 Page 2 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. 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. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 4k - Planning Commission Minutes of Nov. 3 Page 3 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. 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). Commissioner Timian left the meeting at 6:40 p.m. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 4k - Planning Commission Minutes of Nov. 3 Page 4 B. Case No. 04-55-CUP-- Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Montessori School in the Industrial Park (IP) zoning district at 4931 West 35th Street. Ms. McMonigal explained that the request has been withdrawn because the property owner decided to go with a different buyer. The buyer needs the entire building space. Discoveries for Children Montessori School is looking for another building and expects to come before the Planning Commission on December 1 with their request at another site. 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 said a concept review was a good idea as long as that process didn’t limit neighborhood interaction with the developer. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 4k - Planning Commission Minutes of Nov. 3 Page 5 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. 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 St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 4k - Planning Commission Minutes of Nov. 3 Page 6 designation has been approved. The motion was approved 5-0-1 (Commissioner Kramer abstained). 4. Communications. Meg McMonigal reminded commissioners of the joint Planning Commission/City Council study session on November 8 at 6 p.m. 5. Adjournment The chair adjourned the meeting at 6:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Nancy Sells Administrative Secretary St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 4l - BOZA Minutes of Sept. 23, 2004 Page 1 MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 23, 2004 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK The St. Louis Park Board of Zoning Appeals Committee conducted a regular meeting on Thursday, September 23, 2004, at St. Louis Park City Hall, 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard, St. Louis Park, Minnesota. Members Present: Vice Chair Ryan Burt Commissioner James Gainsley Commissioner Tom Powers Commissioner Paul Roberts Members Absent: Chair Susan Bloyer Staff Present: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator Tara Olson, Community Development Secretary 1. CALL TO ORDER – ROLL CALL Vice Chair Burt called the regular meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. APPROVE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMITTEE MINUTES Motion by Commissioner Gainsley, seconded by Commissioner Powers, to approve the following minutes as presented with the following corrections: Page 1, Vice Chair Burt called the meeting to order instead of Chair Bloyer. 1) Board of Zoning Appeals Committee public hearing and regular meeting minutes dated August 26, 2004. Motion Carried. Voting Yes: Burt, Gainsley, Powers and Roberts. Voting No: None. 3. CONSENT AGENDA None 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS/COMMITTEE BUSINESS A. Case No. 04-48-VAR – The request of Robert Borre for variances from the requirements of Section 36-164(f)(3) and Section 36-164(f)(5) of the Ordinance Code relating to zoning to allow the construction of an attached two car garage does not meet the St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 4l - BOZA Minutes of Sept. 23, 2004 Page 2 required 9 foot side yard abutting a street or the required 25 foot rear yard for property located in the R-2 Single Family Residential District at 2751 Toledo Avenue South. Staff does not believe all 7 criteria have been satisfied to allow the garage as proposed with living space, and therefore recommends denial of the requested 14 foot variance to the rear yard. Staff also believes that all 7 criteria have been satisfied for the proposed variance to the side yard abutting the street for the two-car garage only, and recommends approval of the enclosed Resolution approving the request for the following variance: 1. A variance to Section 36-164(f)(3) to allow a 3 foot side yard abutting the street instead of the required 9 foot minimum. Commissioner Gainsley asked staff to explain the requirements for an attached garage. Mr. Morrison stated that an attached garage must be within 6 feet to the home or attached. This property has an underground tunnel connecting the home and garage. With no more questions, Vice Chair Burt opened the public hearing. Robert Borre, applicant of 2751 Toledo Avenue South, stated that he would like to construct a garage that will allow him to park two vehicles and provide allowable storage space. The existing garage is small, leaks and has begun deteriorating. Mr. Borre stated he would like to build a structure that is consistent with his existing home and the neighborhood (presented photos of neighboring homes Exhibit #1, letter of support by neighbors Exhibit #2). Commissioner Gainsley asked staff the maximum height allowable with the current setback? Mr. Morrison stated there is no setback dependent on the height but if it is attached to the principle building it can’t be any taller than 30 feet to the mid point of the gable which this proposal does conform to that requirement. Richard Lang, neighbor at 2743 Toledo Avenue South stated he feels the applicants have done a nice job on maintaining their home and would like to see them be able to proceed with the garage. Karen Borre, applicant of 2751 Toledo Avenue South stated that the existing garage is rotting and is a hazard. During raining days she prefers to park outside due to the hazard and the leaking inside of the garage. Commissioner Gainsley would like the Commissioners and records to be known that on Exhibit #2, letter of support by neighbors the petition states “The Board of Zoning Appeals has made findings” and would like to clarify that the Board of Zoning Appeals has not findings at this time. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 4l - BOZA Minutes of Sept. 23, 2004 Page 3 With no more questions, Vice Chair Burt closed the public hearing. Commissioner Roberts stated that the proposed garage height meets the height requirements but doesn’t meet the setback requirement. He feels that the applicants are unable to relocate the proposed garage due to an obstruction of a power pole. Commissioner Gainsley feels that the property grade, easement and the obstructing power pole gave the applicants no other alternatives and is in favor of granting the variance. Vice Chair Burt agrees with Commissioner Gainsley, in addition he feels the size of the applicants’ lot is difficult due to the grade of the lot along with the power pole location. Commissioner Powers feels that the setback is abutting an alley along with a lack of alternatives he feels the property grade and the location of the power pole create a hardship for the applicants. Motion by Commissioner Gainsley, seconded by Commissioner Powers, to approve Resolution No. 05-04 to allow a variance of Section 36-164(f)(3) and Section 36-164(f)(5) of the Ordinance Code relating to zoning to allow the construction of an attached two car garage that has a 3 foot side yard abutting the street instead of the required 9 feet and an 11 foot rear yard instead of the required 25 feet for property located in the R-2 Single Family Residential District at 2751 Toledo Avenue South. Motion Carried. Voting Yes: Burt, Gainsley, Powers and Roberts. Voting No: None. B. Case No. 04-49-VAR – The request of Ali Keyes for a variance from the requirements of Section 36-74(d)(2) of the Ordinance Code relating to zoning to allow the construction of a 6 foot high fence in the front yard instead of the allowed 3.5 foot high maximum for property located in the R-2 Single Family Residential District at 3816 Wooddale Avenue South. In as much as staff believes that all 7 criteria have been satisfied for the proposed variance, staff recommends approval of the enclosed Resolution approving the variance to Section 36-74(d)(2) of the Zoning Ordinance to allow the construction of a 6 foot high fence in the front yard instead of the allowed 3.5 foot high maximum, subject to the 50 foot visibility triangle being maintained at the corner of Cambridge Avenue and Wooddale Avenue. Vice Chair asked staff to point out the front yard on this particular property. Mr. Morrison stated that the front yard on a corner lot is generally the shortest property line of the two. With no more questions, Vice Chair Burt opened the public hearing. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 4l - BOZA Minutes of Sept. 23, 2004 Page 4 Ali Keyes, applicant of 3816 Wooddale Avenue South stated she would like to install a 6 foot high privacy fence to provide more privacy in her yard. Presently she has a 6 foot tall voluntary tree/hedge growing along the boulevard which looks unattractive and doesn’t provide much privacy. (Exhibit #1; Photos of voluntary trees/hedge). Andy Wienzel, neighbor at 5607 Cambridge Street, feels that Ms. Keyes voluntary trees/hedge have become a nuisance and in the past he has trimmed them but feels a 6 foot privacy fence will not give her anymore privacy and would prefer she doesn’t construct a fence. Commissioner Gainsley asked Ms. Keyes if she would be interested in keep the nonconforming trees/hedge instead of installing a six foot high fence. Ms. Keyes stated the voluntary trees/hedge is unattractive and would not like to keep them. Commissioner Gainsley asked how she would feel about a clause in the variance stating a six foot high fence is not allowed on the side yard which is Wooddale Avenue. Ms. Keyes stated she would like to install the fence onto Wooddale Avenue several feet. With no more questions, Vice Chair Burt closed the public hearing. Commissioner Power agrees with staff recommendation to allow the construction of a 6 foot high fence in the front yard instead of the allowed 3.5 foot high maximum, subject to the 50 foot visibility triangle being maintained at the corner of Cambridge Avenue and Wooddale Avenue. Vice Chair Burt would like to approve the construction of a 6 foot high fence along Cambridge Avenue into the visibility triangle area and continue up to 20 feet in length on Wooddale Avenue. Also restrict the side yard to a minimum fence height of 3.5 feet. Motion by Commissioner Powers, seconded by Commissioner Roberts, to approve Resolution No. 06-04 to allow a variance from the requirements of Section 36-74(d)(2) of the Ordinance Code relating to zoning to allow the construction of a 6 foot high fence in the front yard instead of the allowed 3.5 foot high maximum for property located in the R-2 Single Family Residential District at 3816 Wooddale Avenue South subject to the following conditions: 1. The fence stay out of the visibility triangle, 2. The 6 foot height is allowed to continue north along Wooddale Avenue not to exceed a distance of 20 feet beginning at the visibility triangle and 3. The remaining portion of the side yard abutting Wooddale Avenue shall be subject to a 3.5 foot fence height. Motion Carried. Voting Yes: Burt, Gainsley, Powers and Roberts. Voting No: None. C. Case No. 04-50-VAR – The request of David Wingenbach for variances from the requirements of Section 36-164(f)(3), Section 36-164(F)(4) and Section 36-162(c)(7)b.1.i of the Ordinance Code relating to zoning to allow the construction of a detached, two car St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 4l - BOZA Minutes of Sept. 23, 2004 Page 5 garage which exceeds the maximum allowable coverage of 25% of the area between the house and rear lot line, is built in the restricted portion of a back yard that is abutting a neighbors front yard and does not meet the required 15 foot side yard abutting a street for property located in the R-2 Single Family Residential District 3500 Utah Avenue South. In as much as staff believes that all 7 criteria have been satisfied for the proposed variances, staff recommends approval of the enclosed Resolution approving the request for the following variances: 1. A variance to Section 36-162(c)(7)b.1. to allow a maximum of 28.5% of the back yard coverage instead of the required maximum of 25% for accessory buildings. 2. A variance to Section 36-164(f)(3) to allow a 9 foot side yard abutting the street instead of the required 15 foot minimum. 3. A variance to Section 36-164(f)(4) to allow a building to be constructed within the required restricted building area. With no more questions, Vice Chair Burt opened the public hearing. David Wingenbach, applicant of 3500 Utah Avenue South stated he would like to build a two car garage as proposed. With no more questions, Vice Chair Burt closed the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Powers, seconded by Commissioner Gainsley, to approve Resolution No. 07-04 to allow variances: to Section 36-162(c)(7)b.1. to allow a maximum of 28.5% of the back yard coverage instead of the required maximum of 25% for accessory buildings, a variance to Section 36-164(f)(3) to allow a 9 foot side yard abutting the street instead of the required 15 foot minimum and a variance to Section 36-164(f)(4) to allow a building to be constructed within the required restricted building area for property located in the R-2 Single Family Residential District at 3500 Utah Avenue South. Motion Carried. Voting Yes: Burt, Gainsley, Powers and Roberts. Voting No: None. 5. Old Business None 6. New Business None 7. Communications St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 4l - BOZA Minutes of Sept. 23, 2004 Page 6 Commissioners have decided to schedule a training on October 28, 2004 at 6:00 p.m. 8. Miscellaneous None 9. Adjournment Commissioner Gainsley moved and Commissioner Powers seconded the motion for adjournment. The regular meeting of the Board of Zoning appeals adjourned at 8:06 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Tara Olson Community Development Secretary St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 4m - Human Rights Minutes of 4-21-04 Page 1 City of St. Louis Park Human Rights Commission Minutes – April 21, 2004 Westwood Room, City Hall Call to Order Chair Armbrecht called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. Present Commissioners: Matthew Armbrecht, Colleen Clark, Kristen Edsall, Annie Gaffney, Seema Maddali, Kristi Rudelius-Palmer, and Kristin Siegesmund. Staff: Martha McDonell, Commission Liaison Guest: Nancy Tellett-Royce, Children First Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as presented. Approval of Minutes The minutes of February 18 and March 17, 2004 were approved with amendments noted to staff by Mr. Armbrecht. Commissioner Report Mr. Armbrecht noted that Michael Roan would be unable to attend the meeting. He asked the Commission to disregard the information that had been distributed previously because it was being updated. Mr. Roan was tentatively going to attend the May meeting to present that information. Ms. McDonell distributed an updated roster. Ms. Maddali noted that the Chair needed to be updated. Ms. McDonell indicated that the Police Liaisons were added to the roster. She met with them for an orientation and they seemed enthusiastic. Sergeant Dave Shoemaker said he would undertake Hate Crime reminders and include it in the annual training (response plan and reporting). Ms. Rudelius-Palmer asked if they would be attending the meetings. Ms. McDonell replied that she would send them minutes and agendas and asked them to attend if possible. She could request them to attend if necessary. Mr. Armbrecht asked if they should be included in Email messages? Ms. McDonell replied that Commissioners should make that judgment as needed. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 4m - Human Rights Minutes of 4-21-04 Page 2 Ms. Rudelius-Palmer asked the status of new Commissioners. Ms. McDonell replied they hadn’t been appointed yet. More people seemed to be interested in the Police Advisory Commission. Ms. Maddali believed this commission was not very visible. Ms. Rudelius-Palmer asked the total number of Commissioners? Ms. McDonell replied 10. Ms. Rudelius-Palmer asked how they switch the voting/non-voting youth members? Ms. McDonell replied that had been done already. Mr. Armbrecht asked if they should have more and younger youth? Ms. McDonell replied that they had to be in high school. They were also required to live in St. Louis Park. Ms. Rudelius-Palmer noted she was talking with the person heading the 9th Grade initiative and would meet with her next week and address that issue. Mr. Armbrecht asked if the School Board could appoint someone? Ms. McDonell noted she was working with the superintendent. Ms. Edsall stated that the Children First meeting would be a good place to find someone. Ms. Rudelius-Palmer asked if Ms. McDonell had forms from the Minnesota League of Human Rights Commissions? The annual meeting would be the first week of October and they would have an update. Ms. McDonell indicated she would receive a bill and there would probably be information. Ms. Edsall asked what they got with this membership? Ms. McDonell replied that they provided the conference. Ms. Rudelius-Palmer indicated that they had a strategic planning session on how the mission was to service Human Rights Commissions effectively and disseminate information. They were getting Emails on-line for commission distribution. They were trying to improve that level of communication, but it was slow to move forward. The two day conference, It’s Time to Talk About Race, would be May 25 and 26 and she would send out information. Mr. Armbrecht indicated it would be good to have a web site. Ms. Rudelius-Palmer replied that there was a site with a bulletin board of information. They would also be sending a calendar of events. Ms. Siegesmund noted that the Minnesota League of Human Rights Commissions were all volunteers. She suggested Ms. Edsall should volunteer for the Commission. Ms. Rudelius-Palmer indicated that the District Heads were supposed to disseminate information. The Minnesota Department of Human resources got a grant to write a K-12 grant with three phases totaling $80,000 to be done the Fall of 2005. They were piloting a draft with schools in 2004-05 and then it would go to other Minnesota schools. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 4m - Human Rights Minutes of 4-21-04 Page 3 Old Business A. Discuss distribution of the diversity survey Ms. Gaffney distributed the Human Resources Survey distribution checklist and survey forms. She would call printers to have color signs made. The Commission discussed which sign they preferred and determined they could have them printed half one way and half the other. Ms. McDonell would provide name tags. Ms. Edsall indicated that Commissioners could submit questions to her and she would make signs. Mr. Armbrecht suggested they get demographic information from Saint Louis Park. Ms. Rudelius-Palmer discussed the Implementation Steps (handout). They could use tape recorders for statements/stories. Ms. Siegesmund suggested they provide the hot line number for statements to be recorded on voice mail. Ms. Rudelius-Palmer asked for business cards with the hot line number on them. Ms. Edsall suggested they provide a handout of frequently asked questions. Ms. Rudelius-Palmer noted they should also inquire if people had already taken the survey. The following would reflect changes to the Implementation Plan: B. Provide hot line number instead of recording statements. C. No candy. Ms. McDonell noted that the Commissioners could buy candy if they wanted and submit receipts for reimbursement. D. Case where they don’t get survey immediately (I’m not sure what the discussion was from my notes??) E. Changed to survey everyone. They should record refusals to compare the number asked to the number refused. F. They should use the location name on the survey. Ms. McDonell would try to have the surveys printed in batches. The Commissioners would be provided a block of numbers. Ms. Maddali suggested using different colors for the surveys. Ms. Rudelius-Palmer suggested they use blocks of 100 and label them with the number and location. Ms. McDonell indicated that they would be billed for the survey by Bill ? (consultant) and that it was higher due to the number of drafts. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 4m - Human Rights Minutes of 4-21-04 Page 4 Ms. Rudelius-Palmer suggested they didn’t need to do the sample test. Ms. McDonell suggested that each Commissioner ask three people to do the survey to find any problems. She would then have it finalized. B. INS Update – No update C. Event Schedule & Plans, May 16 children First Ice Cream Social & June 15, Fire Open House & June 18, Parktacular Parade Ms. McDonell indicated they were signed up for the Ice Cream Social and a budget was put together. Ms. Maddali indicated that she was unable to contact the person she met who was a clown that promoted diversity. Ms. Siegesmund suggested that the Commission just do the survey. Ms. McDonell stated that they needed to have things for the kids to be able to draw in the adults. She would handle the sign and tablecloths. The social is May 16th from 1:00-4:00. Ms. Edsall volunteered to order the prizes for the kids. Commissioners volunteering to work at the ice cream social: Armbrecht, Edsall, Gaffney, Maddali, Rudelius-Palmer and Siegesmund. Ms. Maddali asked about the demographics? Ms. McDonell indicated it was on the survey and they didn’t tally it. Ms. Rudelius-Palmer believed they needed to have a system. Ms. Siegesmund indicated the survey was to know what the protected populations were feeling. If the significant population was Caucasian, they needed to give the survey to every minority person. Ms. McDonell indicated that the Commission needed to approve the budget. She suggested $150. A motion was made and seconded to approve a budget of $150 for the Ice Cream Social. Approved. Ms. Rudelius-Palmer suggested a motion be made to cover the costs of the brochure, 150 Ways to Show Kids You Care ($7/20 brochures). Ms. McDonell noted that the Commission hadn’t spent much of their budget and could try distributing the brochures. The yearly budget for the Commission was $450. Ms. Rudelius-Palmer suggested that they spend $100 on the brochures. Ms. Siegesmund suggested that they could be selective about where they passed out the brochure. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 4m - Human Rights Minutes of 4-21-04 Page 5 A motion was made and seconded to spend $100 to purchase the brochure, 150 Ways to Show Kids You Care. Approved. The Commission decided on the times they would volunteer for the Ice Cream Social. Ms. Siegesmund asked how they should do they survey? Mr. Armbrecht believed it should be done in a random fashion. Ms. Siegesmund believed everyone who wanted to fill it out, should. Ms. Siegesmund suggested everyone fill it out and then they could decide how to do the tally of the results. New Business A. Michael Roan – unable to attend B. Nancy Rellett-Royce, Children First Ms. Rellett-Royce distributed handouts with information about Children First. The Search Institute did research for 15 years looking at prevention and risk behaviors and thought that there were different ways to help children grow up healthy. They looked at 1200 studies and formed a list of 40 developmental assets. A percentage of 6-12 grade students from 300 communities took inventory and noted their experiences. She noted asset number 27, Equality and Social Justice, 52% said that was an asset. They looked at the list and asked if more or fewer assets mattered. On page 3 of the handout it showed the results. The lesser percentage experiencing thriving behaviors, it showed that the number of assets had an effect. Those with lower number of assets had the reverse effect and were more likely to have problematic behaviors. Those with the most assets reported very little engagement in risk behaviors. A presentation was done in Saint Louis Park with the school superintendent in March, 1992 and it was determined that the kids were at risk. Schools were not meeting the kids needs and they needed to do something. The superintendent began the At Risk Committee looking at models around the country including this information and that was when she became involved. Saint Louis Park went to the Search Institute and asked how they could make developmental assets available to young people. They didn’t know how to apply to a whole community. They tried to figure out how to make it possible to access developmental assets. This is not a program, it is a philosophy to be a caring place for a child. They put Children First – for all kids, not just those “at risk.” Kids fall into all ranges. It is a partnership with the business community, faith communities, schools, the City, neighborhoods and youth who are at the table to work with them. Children First is a nationally recognized model, they are also in South Africa and Australia. They are creating social change by making adults aware they can do something. They also partner with other projects such as the Park Nicollet Clinic at Central. They try to promote good things and that anybody can do these things. Doing work with the survey in Saint Louis Park and after five years of data, as seen on page one of the handout, the average number of assets was up from 19.4 to 20.1 across the entire group. In the 6th grade it jumped from 22.7 to 24.8. Other numbers went up a bit. The high school program was started in 1999 and they St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 4m - Human Rights Minutes of 4-21-04 Page 6 polled a sub group and found that there were some gains. They have done a program for a year where they worked on social skills and also saw increases. A small sample of kids went up by five assets, which affected other grades (up). Other risks such as truancy and the number of kids failing classes dropped. They tried to use common sense. Bob Ramsey interviewed partners and put together the Children First Story to say how communities played roles. They invited people to use assets they were passionate about and most useful. Some examples in the community of businesses becoming involved were a floral shop and the Lennox neighborhood who campaigned to raise awareness. They decided their own role. Ms. Maddali asked why parental involvement declined? Ms. Tellett-Royce replied that they looked at the numbers, but had no funding to do research. She believed that there was less time for involvement with the economy downturn and more parents working more of the time. School engagement wasn’t as high. One statistic noted that there was one TV for every man, woman and child, thus distractions made it hard to push children. Schools needed to work on parental education and the critical roles that they play. There are also some cultural differences. They find that most school related assets were higher for Asians and lower for other ethnic minorities. The information was broken down more on their web site (children-first.org). One study, Grading Grown Ups, describes mechanisms to change adults and they needed to partner to make changes happen. This survey asked two questions: Which things people need to have in their life? And, Which do you feel your friends are providing? This study reported the gap. It is broken down by race, Hispanics and African Americans had a smaller gap versus Caucasian participants. Ms. Edsall asked if they looked at socio economics? Ms. Tellett-Royce replied yes, that information was on the web site. Ms. Siegesmund noted that they surveyed many kids and the assets had changed. Ms. Tellett-Royce stated that young people feel supported, then they hit puberty and are individuated, then pull back by the 11th or 12th grade. They were trying to see if the number of assets were up by the 6th grade, the drop less dramatic, if it would rebound faster after that. Ms. Edsall stated that probably coincided with the time when kids believed parents were “less smart.” Ms. Tellett-Royce related a personal story about overhearing some parents state that they were glad to be done with the hard part when their kids were in 4th grade. The kinds of parenting changes, but the need didn’t go away. Mr. Armbrecht asked if there were other variables such as the economy? Ms. Tellett-Royce replied that this country values professionalism and was good at designing programs and hiring professionals to run them, but kids needed others to take care of them such as parents and neighbors, not to leave it to the professionals. Those factors made it harder to step St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 4m - Human Rights Minutes of 4-21-04 Page 7 forward and become involved. The 40 assets are just common sense, which wasn’t so common anymore. Adult/child contact was not as typical as in the past. Ms. Gaffney asked if that could be related to stranger anxiety? Ms. Siegesmund noted she spoke to a child who became afraid and ran into their house when she spoke to them. Ms. Tellett-Royce indicated that many things made if difficult for that relationship. Ms. McDonell asked what the next stage was? The commissions were similar with mission, but no programs. The Human Rights Commission had done some youth projects, but predominantly education of adults. What could the Commission do, other than be aware? The vision survey came to mind as a community vision. One question on the survey asks if they were aware of the Assets and 12% were aware. Maybe the survey could be improved to include another piece. Ms. Tellett-Royce stated that the focus at Children First is on the first two decades of life. Ms. McDonell indicated that next year would be the first comparison for the differences on the survey. Ms. Tellett-Royce found that survey helpful to share the percentages. How do they boost percentages? Young people talk about Mosaic activities with peers. They need to feel that their voice mattered. They could do presentations to young people and ask their input. This tells young people that they mattered in the community. Ms. Rudelius-Palmer asked if survey was done on race and gender? Ms. Tellett-Royce replied yes, that information was on the web site. Ms. Maddali asked if they would be willing to talk to PTO’s? Ms. Tellett-Royce replied yes, they usually also have a young person present as well. Ms. Rudelius-Palmer said that Saint Louis Park was doing a new Human Rights survey and asked if there was a way that Children First volunteers could help disseminate the survey? Ms. Tellett-Royce replied that they could do a presentation and asked for volunteers. Their next meeting was on May 26th and they would also be at the ice cream social. There was also a Mayors Youth Summit on April 29 where they talk about youth issues. Ms. McDonell noted that there was also a senior summit in June. Ms. Edsall indicated they could reach out to businesses. Education was part of this and parents didn’t know how to take care of kids at different ages. This was a great opportunity and the data was striking. She hadn’t heard of it and wondered what she could do. Ms. Gaffney asked if they had a budget to hand out information? St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 4m - Human Rights Minutes of 4-21-04 Page 8 Ms. Siegesmund stated that the handout titled, 150 Ways To Show Kids You Care was better information than the assets. Ms. Rudelius-Palmer indicated that could be handed out with the surveys. Ms. Tellett-Royce indicated the brochure was available for purchase. Ms. Maddali noted she had seen the information before in her children’s backpack flyers. Ms. Edsall stated she wouldn’t have access to that information without children. Ms. Tellett-Royce noted it was a challenge to find out how to reach different groups of people such as young adults without children. Ms. Rudelius-Palmer stated they could stamp contact information on the backs of the brochures. Ms. Tellett-Royce communicated that she could be reached by Email at nancytsearch-institute.org. C. Let’s Get Real Video – Not shown Set Agenda for Next Meeting No discussion Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:06 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Amy L. Stegora-Peterson Recording Secretary St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 4n - Human Rights Minutes of 6-16-04 Page 1 City of St. Louis Park Human Rights Commission Minutes – June 16, 2004 Westwood Room, City Hall Call to Order Commissioner Maddali called the meeting to order at 7:15 p.m. There being no quorum, only discussion was held and no actions taken. Present Commissioners: Colleen Clark, Seema Maddali and Julie Kirsch. Staff: Martha McDonell, Commission Liaison Commissioner Report Ms. McDonell reported that she had hired a student intern (Anna Derek) for three months who would be assisting with the distribution of the diversity survey. Old Business A. Report on the school presentation at Cedar Manor for the Essay contest winner Ms. McDonell displayed a photo from the presentation. (Commissioner Maddali, Katie Rawls (winner), parents Tim and Deb Rawls, Mayor Jeff Jacobs and Commissioner Armbrecht.). Ms. Maddali thought it was a proud moment for Cedar Manor. Ms. McDonell thought it was a good change to present the award at the school and not at the City Council meeting. B. Report on Fire Open House table Ms. McDonell indicated that the open house went very well and was very busy, but there were only three surveys submitted. People were not able to take the time to fill out the surveys because the event was more for people with little children who were interested in other activities at the open house. Ms. Maddali thought that each event was geared toward a different demographic and the ice cream social was more casual and allowed people more time to fill surveys out. Ms. McDonell updated the Commission about the Parktacular event. The Commissioners were invited to ride on a double-decker bus in the parade. Ms. Rudelius-Palmer would be representing the Commission on the bus. C. Continue discussion of the distribution of the diversity survey Ms. McDonell distributed the survey distribution list and asked for input on items to be removed and added. The following changes were recommended: Mayor’s Youth Summit, Children First ice cream social, Fire Open house (completed); Central Community Center should be changed to St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 4n - Human Rights Minutes of 6-16-04 Page 2 Free Clinic. Ms. Kirsch updated the Commission about research she had done on the JCC Jewish Comm. Center and that she was unable to find a contact person. She would follow up further. The program was more of an English language program and not the Jewish Comm. Center. Remove Post Office and Dollar Store; Move Grocery Store (i.e. Cub Foods, Sam’s Club, Costco and Byerly’s) and Retail Stores (i.e. Target, Walgreens, Knollwood) to the Employer Section and Ms. Maddali would research; Remove Main Theater and Bowling Alleys; Ms. McDonell would research City Hall and the possibility of distributing the survey when residents were doing homesteading or visiting the Inspections counter; Remove Post Office, Fire Station and City Hall. Remove Aquilla “ACT” – Social Workers Cedar Manor “ACT” – Social Workers and YES Kids; Change Faith Communities to low priority; Remove Schools. The Intern could be assigned to research Doubletree Hotel, Health Partners Clinic and Park Nicollet Clinic. Ms. Maddali volunteered to research distributing the survey to Methodist Hospital employee’s . It was suggested to consider the employees at Knollwood Mall and also add small retail centers such as the Cedar Louisiana strip mall; Almsted’s Super Valu, Home Depot and Novartis. Ms. McDonell indicated she would revise the list and send it to the Commissioners via Email Ms. Clark had been checking on the ESL teachers at the high school. She had a potential volunteer opportunity to teach English and could look into that. Set Agenda for Next Meeting Ms. Maddali indicated that the Commission had talked about submitting articles to the newspaper each month. Ms. McDonell indicated it hadn’t been on the agenda since that time. Ms. Maddali noted that Commissioner Armbrecht sent an Email with a list assigning Commissioners to different months, but she didn’t believe anything had been done. The Commission needed to be more proactive to make themselves more visible. Ms. Maddali suggested that the Commission consider a different meeting schedule in the summer (and also November and December) because people are busier and not always able to attend. Many other Commissions combine two months of meetings. Ms. McDonell indicated she would add that to the next agenda for discussion. She would also add the survey and review of the fall calendar. Ms. Maddali asked how the Commission had assessed their performance in the past? Ms. McDonell replied that this Commission has always had a work plan and in January they looked at the work plan to see what had been done. It is usually done on a yearly basis and was a self-review. There is currently a three-year work plan. Ms. Maddali believed they needed more objective measures. Ms. McDonell would add the performance measurements as an agenda item at the next meeting. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 7:58 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Amy L. Stegora-Peterson Recording Secretary St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 4o - Fire Sprinkler Assessment Page 1 4o. Motion to adopt a resolution authorizing installation and special assessment of a fire sprinkler system at 4300 36 ½ Street West and directing the Mayor and City Manager to execute a special assessment agreement with the property owner. Background: Ronald E. Clark, owner of the commercial building at 4300 36 ½ Street West has requested that the City authorize the installation of an automatic fire suppression sprinkler system for the building and assess the cost against the property in accordance with the City’s special assessment policy. Analysis: The special assessment policy for installation of automatic fire sprinkler systems in existing buildings was adopted by the City Council in 1995. The City promotes the installation of fire suppression sprinkler systems and facilitates their installation to promote the general public health, safety and welfare within the community. The Building Code requires the installation of a fire sprinkler system in this building because of major remodeling project in the building. The property owner will be hiring a contractor to install the sprinkler system throughout the building and bring it up to compliance with the current code. Based on the proposed work the system qualifies for the City’s special assessment program. The property owner has petitioned the City to authorize the installation of the fire sprinkler system and specially assess the cost of the installation. Sprinkler plans have been submitted and approved by City staff. The total eligible cost of the installation has been determined to be $35,028. An Administrative Fee of $175.00 will be added to the special assessment. The total Special Assessment will be $35,203.00. Staff has determined that adequate funds are available through the Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund. Attachment: Resolution Prepared by: Cary Smith, Fire Marshal Through: Luke Stemmer, Fire Chief and Jean McGann, Finance Director Approved by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 4o - Fire Sprinkler Assessment Page 2 RESOLUTION NO 04-143 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING INSTALLATION AND SPECIAL ASSESSMENT OF FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM AT 4300 36 ½ Street West, St. Louis Park, MN 55416 WHEREAS, the Property Owner(s) at 4300 36 ½ Street W. (“Benefited Property”) (has) have petitioned the City of St. Louis Park to authorize a special assessment for the installation of a fire sprinkler system in their (office/retail) building on the Benefited Property; and WHEREAS, the Property Owner(s) (has) have agreed to waive their right to a public hearing, right of notice and right of appeal pursuant to Minnesota Statute, Chapter 429; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the Fire Marshal related to the installation of the fire sprinkler system. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that: 1. The petition from the Property Owner(s) requesting the approval and special assessment for the fire sprinkler system is hereby accepted. 2. The installation of the fire sprinkler system in conformance with the plans and specifications approved by the Fire Department and Department of Inspections is hereby authorized. 3. The total estimated cost for the design and complete installation of the fire sprinkler system is accepted at $35,028.00. 4. An administrative fee of $175.00 for processing shall be added to the special assessment. 5. The total special assessment against the property will be $35,203.00. 6. The Property Owner(s) (has) have agreed to waive their rights to a public hearing, notice and appeal from the special assessment; whether provided by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, or by other statutes, or by ordinance, City Charter, the constitution, or common law. 7. The Property Owner(s) agree(s) to pay the City for the cost of the above improvements through special assessment over a ten (10) year period at five point seven seven percent (5.77%) interest. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 4o - Fire Sprinkler Assessment Page 3 8. The Property Owner(s) agree(s) to execute an agreement with the City and any other documents necessary to implement the installation of the fire sprinkler system and the special assessment of all costs associated therewith. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 6, 2004 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 4p - Final Payment for BCG Construction Alley Paving Page 1 RESOLUTION NO. 04-144 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK ON CONCRETE ALLEY PAVING 7600 & 7700 BLOCKS EDGEBROOK AVENUE CITY PROJECT NO. 03-15 CONTRACT NO. 72-04 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 July 19, 2004, BCG Construction, Inc. has satisfactorily completed the concrete alley paving in the 7600 & 7700 blocks of Edgebrook Avenue, as per Contract No. 72-04. 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 $29,686.60 Underrun $(3,845.10) Previous Payments $23,787.51 Balance Due $ 2,053.99 Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 6, 2004 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 4q - Curb & Gutter and Street Maint. Final Payment Page 1 RESOLUTION NO. 04-145 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK ON CURB AND GUTTER INSTALLATION AND STREET MAINTENANCE PROJECT (VIRGINIA AVENUE AND W. 22ND STREET) CITY PROJECT NO. 04-19 CONTRACT NO. 95-04 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 September 22, 2004, Standard Sidewalk, Inc. has satisfactorily completed the Virginia Avenue and W. 22nd Street curb and gutter installation and street maintenance project, as per Contract No. 95-04. 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 $21,871.75 Change Order $4,567.00 Over Run $5,478.25 Final Contract Price $31,917.00 Previous Payments ($30,321.15) Balance Due $1,595.85 Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 6, 2004 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 4q - Curb & Gutter and Street Maint. Final Payment Page 2 St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 6a - 2005 Budget & Levy Public Hearing Page 1 6a. Public Hearing on the 2005 Budget and Property Tax Levy This Public Hearing is to review the 2005 budget and property tax levy Recommended Action: Mayor to close the Public Hearing Background: Each year, under Truth in Taxation regulations, the City is required to hold a Public Hearing to review and discuss the annual budget and property tax levy. On September 6, 2004 the City Council approved the preliminary 2005 budget, property tax levy, and HRA levy. The City is proposing to increase the property tax levy by 6% and levy the maximum amount allowed under the HRA regulations. Formal adoption of the 2005 budget, property tax levy, and HRA levy is scheduled for December 20, 2004. Council has been reviewing and discussing the budget for many months. At the November 22, 2004 Council Study Session, Council was provided with a full draft of the 2005 Proposed, 2004 Revised budget, and 5-Year Capital Improvement Program. As a result of this meeting, the following revisions were made to the budget. Council Direction Increase property tax levy from 5.69% to 6.0% Allocate $20,000 to Community Education for Senior Programming Earmark $6,000 for Adaptive Services, pending additional information Other Budget Revisions Add revenue associated with Single and Multi Family Housing Program Incorporate part time Inspector for Single and Multi Family Housing Program Reduction in tobacco disclosure revenue Addition of one accountant in the Finance Dept A reduction of Police and Fire Pension Fund contribution to General Fund for Dispatch Additional allocation of resources towards Technology and Administration. Other: Staff requests Council to refer to the budget draft provided at the November 22, 2004 Study Session for additional details on the 2005 Budget. A copy of this report will be made available to the Public. Recommendation: There is no action required at this meeting. The meeting is intended to provide information to the public about the budget and property tax levy as well as to receive comments and input from the public. Staff will give a presentation of the overall 2005 General Fund Budget and Property Tax Levy and provide other general information related to property taxes. Prepared By: Jean McGann, Director of Finance Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 8a - Lamplighter Pond Engineer's Report Page 1 8a. City Engineer’s Report: Lamplighter Pond Flood Improvement Project, City Project No. 00-18 This report considers the restoration and expansion of Lamplighter Pond. Recommended Action: § Motion to adopt the attached resolution accepting this report, establishing and ordering Improvement Project No. 00-18, approving plans and specifications, and authorizing advertisement for bids. § Motion to adopt the attached resolution authorizing approval of an agreement with Park Assembly of God Church regarding a permanent easement. Program Background: As a result of heavy rainstorms in the summer of 1997, the City completed a study of flooded properties based on a mailed survey to property owners. This study led to the establishment of a Flood Problem Area program. The goal of the Flood Problem Area program was to prevent structures, which were being flooded by “public” waters flowing onto private property, to be protected from a 100-year plus 25% rain occurrence. This equates to roughly 3.75 inches of rain falling in 1 hour or 7.5 inches in a 24-hour period. Guidelines for correcting flood problem areas were adopted by the City Council in April 2000. Twenty-nine (29) problem areas were identified and included in the original program. Structures could be protected by 1) minor “maintenance” modifications of the storm water system, 2) construction of a city-sponsored flood improvement project, or 3) floodproofing or acquisition of the affected structures. Project Background: The Lamplighter Pond Flood Improvement project was one of the construction projects identified in the program. Pond rehabilitation and replacement of the lift station, scheduled for the late 1990’s, was postponed so that it could be considered in conjunction with this flood improvement project. Lamplighter Pond was constructed in the mid- to late-1960’s as a holding basin for storm water. The pond is fed by a number of storm sewers which empty into it. There is no natural outlet; instead, water is mechanically pumped out of the lake into a storm sewer which eventually empties into the wetland located south of Cedar Lake Road & east of the Soo Line railroad tracks. Project investigation and development began in 2001. The original design option called for the pond to be expanded using the Junior High School play fields. This option was abandoned due to excessive cost and impacts. The design was then modified to achieve additional storm water storage capacity by 1) expanding the pond, and 2) lowering the normal water elevation. In addition to the project, some structures would have required floodproofing to achieve the level of protection established in the program guidelines. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 8a - Lamplighter Pond Engineer's Report Page 2 An Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) was prepared and released for comments in August of 2003. The EAW was approved by the City Council at their September 15, 2003 Council meeting with a determination that the effects of the project would be mitigated by the improvements resulting from the project. At that same meeting, the Council voted unanimously to approve a pond reconstruction project and authorized advertisement for bids for the work. However, based on resident concerns over potential groundwater impacts, the approved project was put on hold temporarily so that a more extensive groundwater drawdown test could be conducted. This was completed in October 2004. The purpose of conducting additional testing and analysis was two-fold: 1) to more accurately determine the depth of the muck material to be excavated (resulting in more accurate quantities and therefore more accurate bids); and 2) to evaluate groundwater impacts associated with lower normal pond elevations. Analysis: In order to meet Flood Program goals, 175 acre-feet of storm water storage capacity is needed. Currently, the pond provides 61 acre-feet of storage capacity, enough to contain an 8- year frequency rainfall event. Nineteen (19) structures are subject to flooding from the 100-year plus 25% rainfall event, based on lowest opening elevations. Protection for these structures, according to Program goals, can be achieved by creating more storm water storage capacity, floodproofing or acquiring structures, or a combination of these two options. Because of the limited amount of open space available around the pond, expanding it to achieve 175 acre-feet of storm water storage was determined to be infeasible due to a number of factors. Staff realizes that many issues are of importance to the City and its residents. People may weigh the importance of these issues differently. Some of these issues include: § Flood protection of structures § Aesthetics § Water quality § Recreation § Wildlife § Fishing § Settlement § Maintenance § Street & yard flooding Drawdown Test Results Since last fall, the City has reviewed inspection records of homes in the area, conducted evaluations & videotape logs of several area homes, installed additional monitoring wells & completed a more extensive drawdown test in the pond. The drawdown test was conducted during August, Sept. & October of this year. During that time, the water level in the pond was lowered and 17 monitoring wells were measured to determine the groundwater depth at various locations around the pond. What was found is that there is some correlation between lowering the water in the pond and lowering of groundwater around the pond. In general, the closer you are to the pond, the more the groundwater is affected. It was also observed that a minor amount of groundwater came into the pond when the pond was nearly empty but during and after rain events, the pond would fill quickly. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 8a - Lamplighter Pond Engineer's Report Page 3 A concern of area residents was “What effect will lowering the normal pond elevation have on my house?” Based on City records, it appears that all of the homes in the area are built on pilings, or the unsuitable dirt below them was removed and replaced with engineered soils. Therefore, if the house was built properly, no structural effects should result. Areas which are not supported by good soil or pilings, including such things as driveways, yards & sidewalks, have settled and will continue to settle regardless of this project. There are many factors which affect how soil and water interact such as type of soil, thickness of peat, elevation of groundwater, weather, etc. In other words, there are many variables in determining the rate of settlement at any given place. The City’s geotechnical consultant, Braun Intertec, feels that settlement of open areas may occur up to 1 ½”where the peat is thickest, but based on anecdotal evidence it is quite possible there may be little to no settlement in open areas. Based on this information, staff feels that the pond elevation can be safely lowered from the level where it has currently been maintained. Recommended Project The project recommended by staff would consist of the following elements (see attached site plan): Project Elements: 1. Removal of sediment from the storm sewer outlets 2. Replace existing lift station 3. Construct berm behind homes facing Texas Avenue* 4. Removal of sediment from the pond bottom 5. Construction of several deep pool areas for fish habitat 6. Re-grade eroded slopes 7. Install semi-aquatic plants & vegetation to stabilize banks 8. Create “no-mow” buffer strip around pond 9. Construct trail to encircle pond 10. Expansion of the pond to the north onto church property 11. Construct overland swale from 22nd/Pennsylvania Avenue 12. Re-grade rear yards of homes between Quebec Drive & Pennsylvania Ave.* 13. Strategically manage normal pond water operating level to a low level of 875 during critical times of the year * dependent on obtaining approval and permission from adjacent property owners Twelve (12) of the 19 structures will be protected to the Program goal level by the above project. The remaining homes would be eligible for floodproofing under the City’s program or they could be acquired by the City if there are willing sellers. The enlarged pond would be able to contain a 90-year storm event when the pond water level is at elevation 875. The frequency and level of flooding in streets and yards would decrease from current conditions. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 8a - Lamplighter Pond Engineer's Report Page 4 Staff feels that the recommended project is the best project that can be delivered that balances all identified issues. Easements In order to expand the pond to the north, it is necessary to obtain a permanent easement over this property. The property is owned by the Park Assembly of God Church which is located at 1615 Texas Avenue South. In discussions with the church since project inception, they have been amenable to providing the City with an easement to excavate this area for additional storm water storage as long as the land is not needed to meet any requirements for the planned expansion of their facility. Community Development staff has reviewed the preliminary concept plan to determine its feasibility from the City’s perspective. The most significant issue relates to fill in a floodplain to allow the expanded structure. It has been determined that the church can issue an easement for the northerly lot without negative impact on their future expansion. However, this will require that the City designate 0.25 acre-feet of storage within the newly expanded pond to be used as mitigating floodplain for the future expansion. Several other conditions are a part of the agreement including re-platting of all of the church propert y into one parcel, clarification on liability issues, removal of some trees along the west side of the church (in city right-of-way), and reimbursement of costs associated with the easement process. These costs are limited to no more than $10,000. A complete copy of the proposed agreement, drafted by the City Attorney, is attached for review. The expansion and renovation of the Junior High School’s athletic fields was taken into consideration when designing the overland swale and piping which is proposed to run from the intersection of 22nd Street and Pennsylvania Avenue to the pond. The swale and piping has been designed to avoid areas of future excavation by the school. A temporary easement from the school will be necessary to construct the swale. Tree Removal and Replacement: Of the 166 trees on the project site, 56 will be removed for a loss of 643 caliper inches. 100 trees will be replaced as a part of the project for a gain of 250 caliper inches. This exceeds the City’s tree replacement ordinance which requires 158 caliper inches of replacement trees. Public Information and Consideration Throughout the project, staff has attempted to incorporate comments from the public into the final design. For example, on August 27, 2003, a neighborhood meeting was held to review the preliminary plans. As a result of this meeting, the plans were modified to reduce impacts to existing trees, open space, and park facilities. A neighborhood meeting to review the recommended project and the drawdown test results was held on November 17, 2004. About 15 residents attended this meeting. In general, there appears to be an understanding and acceptance that a pond reconstruction project is necessary. However, there are still several residents who feel that the open area to the north of the pond, proposed for St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 8a - Lamplighter Pond Engineer's Report Page 5 excavation, should be maintained in its current state, and that trees in that area should not be removed. Conditional Use Permit A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) from the City is required since the project involves excavation in excess of 400 cubic yards. The Conditional Use Permit was approved at the October 15, 2003 Planning Commission meeting. The CUP was approved subject to the following conditions: § Limit hours of construction operation from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. § Notify the neighborhood in advance of weekend construction § Locate access and egress points as far away from residences as possible § Install fencing to ensure that trucks follow designated access routes § Require trucks to queue off-site as much as possible Approval of the CUP is before the City Council tonight as another agenda item. Project Timeline: It is anticipated that the following schedule could be met: 12/06/04 Council meeting: § Approval of CUP § Approval of plans and specifications § Authorization to solicit bids § Approval of easement agreement Dec. 2004 Advertise for bids 12/28/04 Bid opening 1/6/04 Council meeting: Award of contract Jan. 2005 Begin excavation Sept. 2005 Complete project grading and restoration Dredging and grading of the pond would begin this winter when the ground is frozen. This will limit disturbance to surrounding residents. Final grading and planting would occur in the spring/summer of 2005. Financial Considerations: $1,500,000 was budgeted in the Capital Improvement Program for these improvements (including engineering, easements, etc.). The total estimated cost, last fall was $1,483,037. Estimated costs, based upon the results of the drawdown test, have been revised upwards due to the poorer quality and additional quantity of sediment material discovered. All costs are eligible for funding through the MnDNR grant at a 1:1 match. Project Costs Construction $1,240,900 Contingencies $124,100 Engineering (prelim. thru construction) $340,000 Easements $25,000 TOTAL $1,730,000 St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 8a - Lamplighter Pond Engineer's Report Page 6 Project Funding Storm Water Utility Fund $ 865,000 MnDNR Flood Improvement Grant $ 865,000 TOTAL $1,730,000 Attachments: • Resolution-Authorization to Advertise for Bids • Resolution-Agreement with Park Assembly of God church • Agreement with Park Assembly of God church • Site Plan (Supplement) Prepared By: Maria A. Hagen, City Engineer Reviewed By: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 8a - Lamplighter Pond Engineer's Report Page 7 RESOLUTION NO. 04-146 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE CITY ENGINEER’S REPORT, ESTABLISHING AN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR THE LAMPLIGHTER POND FLOOD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, PROJECT NO. 00-18 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the City Engineer related to storm water system improvements for the dredging and expansion of Lamplighter Pond. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that: 1. The City Engineer’s Report regarding the grading improvements at Lamplighter Pond within the city is hereby accepted. 2. The proposed project, designated as Project No. 00-18, is hereby established. 3. The plans and specifications for the making of the improvement, as prepared under the direction of the City Engineer, are approved. 4. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted at least two weeks in the official newspaper and in the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids for the making of said improvement under said-approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall appear not less than ten (10) days prior to the date and time bids will be received by the City Clerk, and that no bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the City Clerk and accompanied by a bid bond payable to the City for five (5) percent of the amount of the bid. 5. The bids shall be tabulated by the City Engineer who shall report her tabulation and recommendation to the City Council. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 6, 2004 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 8a - Lamplighter Pond Engineer's Report Page 8 RESOLUTION NO. 04-147 A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN EASEMENT AGREEMENT WITH PARK ASSEMBLY OF GOD CHURCH FOR PONDING, TRAIL, UTILITY AND DRAINAGE PURPOSES WHEREAS, the Church is amenable to granting the City a permanent easement for trail, drainage, and ponding purposes over a portion of their property as described in the attached agreement; and WHEREAS, the City requires the easement to construct an addition to the existing storm water holding pond known as Lamplighter Pond; and WHEREAS, plans for this improvement have been designed and approved by the City Council at their December 6, 2004 meeting NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, authorizes the Mayor and City Manager to execute this agreement (attached) on behalf of the City, subject to final review by the City Attorney. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 6, 2004 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 8a - Lamplighter Pond Engineer's Report Page 9 EASEMENT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT made this _______ day of _____________, 2004, by PARK ASSEMBLY OF GOD of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, a Minnesota non-profit corporation, the Grantor, hereinafter referred to as "Church", and the CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of Minnesota, the Grantee, hereinafter referred to as "City". The parties agree as follows: 1. The Church grants to the City a permanent easement for trail, drainage and ponding purposes over the property described on Exhibit A hereto (“easement property”), including the rights of the City, its contractors, agents, servants, and assigns, to enter upon the easement property at all reasonable times to construct, reconstruct, inspect, repair, and maintain said public trail, drainage and ponding systems over, across, on, under, and through the easement property, together with the right to grade, level, fill, drain, pave, and excavate the easement property, and the further right to remove trees, bushes, undergrowth, and other obstructions interfering with the location, construction, and maintenance of said public facilities. 2. The Church will retain fee ownership of the easement property. The Church intends to combine through a platting process the property at 1615 Texas Avenue, 1461 Texas Avenue, 7901 18th Street West, and a portion of the 16th Street public right-of-way, to be vacated by the City, in such a manner so that all properties constitute a single, contiguous St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 8a - Lamplighter Pond Engineer's Report Page 10 parcel. If the City cannot vacate all of the 16th Street right-of-way that is within the footprint of the Church’s driveway access to Texas Avenue, an ingress and egress easement will be provided to the Church over the part of the right-of-way that is not vacated. 3. The City will remove and dispose of the large cottonwood trees located in the 16th Street right-of-way in the vicinity of Texas Avenue, as well as a cottonwood tree located immediately east of the Church property. 4. The Church agrees to grant a utility easement through the property located at 7901 18th Street West to accommodate the relocation of utilities from the 16th Street public right-of-way as part of the platting process. 5. The City of St. Louis Park will pay for all costs associated with surveying, preparation, and filing of required easements, combining properties by the platting process, vacating the right-of-way, and preparing and executing other documents or drawings that are necessary to accommodate the pond expansion. The City will also reimburse the Church for the costs it has incurred relating to the property acquisition discussions and efforts that have taken place over the past years including costs associated with having their engineers, attorneys, and planners review the concept plans and legal documents provided throughout this process. The City’s total reimbursement to the Church for all the costs described in this paragraph will not exceed $10,000. 6. The City will construct as part of this project ,and reserve for the Church, up to 0.25 acre feet of compensatory floodplain storage. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 8a - Lamplighter Pond Engineer's Report Page 11 7. The City may utilize the vacated 16th Street right-of-way alignment for construction vehicle access to the Lamplighter Pond from Texas Avenue. Any damage to the Church driveway from Texas Avenue as a result of moving trucks in and out of the pond during construction along this alignment will be repaired upon completion of the project. 8. The City will provide the Church with copies of drawings and calculations showing the design of the Lamplighter Pond project, as prepared by registered land surveyors and civil engineers, which show the flood plain elevation level on all church property. 9. The City agrees to indemnify the Church from any claims against it arising solely and exclusively from the City’s ownership and operation of the trail and pond and not involving any wrongful conduct by the Church, its agents or contractors. This Agreement shall run with the land and may be recorded in the Hennepin County Recorder’s Office. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have signed this Agreement on the date first written. CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK By: Jeffrey W. Jacobs, Mayor By: Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 8a - Lamplighter Pond Engineer's Report Page 12 PARK ASSEMBLY OF GOD CHURCH of St. Louis Park, Minnesota By: Its: STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of _______________, 2004, by Jeffrey W. Jacobs and Thomas K. Harmening, the Mayor and City Manager of the City of St. Louis Park, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on its behalf. ___________________________________ Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of _______________, 2004, by _____________________________________ the _____________________ of Park Assembly of God Church of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, a Minnesota non-profit corporation, on behalf of said corporation. ___________________________________ Notary Public THIS INSTRUMENT DRAFTED BY: Campbell Knutson (TMS) Professional Association Suite 317 1380 Corporate Center Curve Eagan, Minnesota 55121 TMS/cjh St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 8a - Lamplighter Pond Engineer's Report Page 13 EXHIBIT “A” TO EASEMENT AGREEMENT A permanent easement for ponding, trail, utility and drainage purposes over, under and across that part of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 5, Township 117, Range 21, lying South of the most southerly line of the plat of Turf and Paddock, and its Easterly extension, East of the plat of Texas Terrace Third Addition and West of the Westerly right-of- way line of Pennsylvania Avenue, except the West 570 feet of the East 600.00 feet of the South 25.00 feet thereof, and which is a portion of the following described property: Beginning at the Southwest corner of Block 1, Texas Terrace 3rd Addition, then East to the Southeast corner thereof then North to the Northeast corner thereof, then East along the South line of Turf and Paddock and its Easterly extension to the East line of the NW ¼ of the SW ¼ then South to the Southeast corner thereof, then West along the South line thereof to the Easterly line of Texas Avenue then Northerly along said Easterly line to the beginning, except the South 25 feet of the East 600 feet thereof and except road. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 8b - Lamplighter Pond CUP Page 1 8b. Request for Conditional Use Permit by the City of St. Louis Park to permit the excavation of approximately 81,300 cubic yards of excavation material and expand the pond by 5.9 acres through excavation of the area north of Lamplighter Pond --1800 Pennsylvania Ave. S. and 1461 Texas Ave. S. Case No. 03-50-CUP 1800 Pennsylvania Ave. S and 1461 Texas Ave. S. Recommended Action: Motion to adopt a resolution approving the Conditional Use Permit to allow the excavation of approximately 81,300 cubic yards of soil from the location described subject to conditions included in the resolution. Current Zoning: R1 & R2, Single Family Residential Comprehensive Plan Designations: Park & Low Density Residential Description of Request: The City is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow the excavation of approximately 81,300 cubic yards of soil to expand and improve Lamplighter Pond. The Public Works Department is proposing to expand the area of Lamplighter Pond, located at 18th Street west of Pennsylvania Avenue, to provide flood relief to the homes and streets in the vicinity. The expansion is proposed to be on the north side of the existing pond, on undeveloped property owned by Park Assembly of God. The City Attorney has drafted an easement agreement that is acceptable to the Church. The City Council will be asked to approve this easement agreement with the Church this evening under a separate item. On October 15, 2003 the Planning Commission held a public hearing and heard testimony regarding the proposed Conditional Use Permit. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) subject to conditions. The Public Works Department has conducted additional testing during the past year and the only change in the CUP request since the Planning Commission consideration is an increase in the cubic yards of material to be excavated from 47,000 to 81,300. The engineering work in the past year found poorer quality and additional quantities of sediment material, meaning the area of the pond to be expanded will not change, but the volume of material removed will be increased. Background: During rain events larger than an 8-year frequency, homes located near the intersections of 22nd St with Quebec and Pennsylvania Avenues experience flooding. The storm sewer system in this area directs the storm water to Lamplighter Pond and when its capacity is exceeded water levels in the pond rise. The system backs up and floods adjacent homes and streets. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 8b - Lamplighter Pond CUP Page 2 Public Works is proposing to provide flood relief by lowering the normal water level of Lamplighter Pond to provide additional storage. The pond bottom and storm sewer outlets will be cleaned of the accumulation of silt. The pond’s shoreline will be re-graded and sloped. The City is also proposing to increase the area of the pond by 5.9 acres to provide additional storm water storage and flood relief. All of this work will require the excavation of approximately 81,300 cubic yards of material. A CUP is required for the removal of approximately 81,300 cubic yards of soil for the expansion of area of Lamplighter Pond. Tree replacement and landscaping plans were submitted. Approximately 56 trees are proposed to be removed and 100 new trees and shrubs are proposed to planted, which would exceed the tree replacement requirements. Two-and-one-half (2½) caliper inch trees are proposed. Shrubs will be planted in lieu of trees along the banks of the pond. As a mitigation measure, a 35-foot buffer is proposed to be established around the perimeter of Lamplighter Pond. The buffer will be planted with native plant species and kept in a natural state. The existing vegetation is reed canary grass, a non-native species and much of the buffer is currently mowed. The shoreline area is proposed to be regraded to create a more gradual slope so the vegetation can establish. Recommendation On October 15, 2003 the Planning Commission recommended approval of the conditional use permit on a vote of 6-0 with the following conditions: § Limit hours of construction operation from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. § Notify the neighborhood in advance of weekend construction § Locate access and egress points as far away from residences as possible § Install fencing to ensure that trucks follow designated access routes § Require trucks to queue off-site as much as possible Issues: What route is proposed to haul the material? How long will the hauling take place and what will be the hours of operation? How will dust and noise be managed? Issues Analysis: Ø What route is proposed to haul the material? The following hauling routes are proposed: Inbound: I-394 – Louisiana Ave – Franklin Ave – Pennsylvania Ave –South Site Access Point Outbound: Northerly Site Access Point – Pennsylvania Ave – Wayzata Blvd – Louisiana Ave – I-394 St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 8b - Lamplighter Pond CUP Page 3 Ø How long will the hauling take place and what will be the hours of operation? Hauling is anticipated to take place this winter and will take approximately 2-3 months. Per Ordinance, hauling can occur between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on the weekend and holidays. The Planning Commission recommended limiting the hours of operation from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. during the weekdays and no weekend work without first notifying the neighborhood. Ø How will dust and noise be managed? Fugitive dust and noise mitigation will be achieved by requiring contractors to comply with state requirements and local ordinance requirements. The Public Works staff will ensure that the contract includes requirements for controlling dust and noise as necessary. To minimize adverse impacts to the existing trail system around the pond, all disturbed portions of the trail will be replaced. The trail will also be extended so that it runs completely around the pond. Recommendation: Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the excavation of approximately 81,300 cubic yards of soil from the location described subject to the conditions in the resolution. Attachments: Ø Location Map Ø Proposed Resolution Ø Sketch Plan of Proposed Enhancements Prepared By: Julie Grove, Associate Planner Meg J. McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 8b - Lamplighter Pond CUP Page 4 Location Map 16TH ST W MARYLAND AVE SNEVADA AVE S18TH ST W TEXAS CIR 14TH ST W PENNSYLVANIA AVE SOREGON AVE STEXAS AVE S18TH ST WAHDR UTAH AVE SFRANKLIN AVE W LAMPLIGHTER POND PENNSYLVANI A PARK # Proposed Expansion St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 8b - Lamplighter Pond CUP Page 5 RESOLUTION NO. _____ A RESOLUTION GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT UNDER SECTION 36-79 OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING TO PERMIT EXCAVATION OF APPROXIMATELY 81,300 CUBIC YARDS OF EXCAVATION MATERIAL AND EXPAND POND 5.9 ACRES FOR PROPERTIES ZONED R-1 AND R-2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS LOCATED AT 1800 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE SOUTH AND 1461 TEXAS AVENUE SOUTH BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park: Findings 1. The City of St. Louis Park and Park Assembly of God Church have made application to the City Council for a Conditional Use Permit under Section 36-79 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code for the purpose of excavation of approximately 81,300 cubic yards of excavation material and to expand pond 5.9 acres through excavation of area north of pond within R-1 and R-2 Single Family Residential Districts located at 1800 Pennsylvania Avenue South and 1461 Texas Avenue South for the legal description as follows: That part of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 5, Township 117, Range 21, lying South of the most southerly line of the plat of Turf and Paddock, and its Easterly extension, East of the plat of Texas Terrace Third Addition and West of the Westerly right-of-way line of Pennsylvania Avenue, except the West 570 feet of the East 600.00 feet of the South 25.00 feet thereof, and which is a portion of the following described property: Beginning at the Southwest corner of Block 1, Texas Terrace 3rd Addition, then East to the Southeast corner thereof then North to the Northeast corner thereof, then East along the South line of Turf and Paddock and its Easterly extension to the East line of the NW ¼ of the SW ¼ then South to the Southeast corner thereof, then West along the South line thereof to the Easterly line of Texas Avenue then Northerly along said Easterly line to the beginning, except the South 25 feet of the East 600 feet thereof and except road. 2. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission (Case No. 03-50-CUP) and the effect of the proposed excavation and pond expansion 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. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 8b - Lamplighter Pond CUP Page 6 3. The Council has determined that the excavation and pond expansion will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community nor will it cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards, nor will it seriously depreciate surrounding property values, and the proposed excavation and pond expansion is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. 4. The contents of Planning Case File 03-50-CUP are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case. Conclusion The Conditional Use Permit to permit the excavation of approximately 81,300 cubic yards of excavation material and expansion of pond by 5.9 acres through excavation of the area north of pond at the location described is granted based on the findings set forth above and subject to the following conditions: 1. The Lamplighter Pond site shall be excavated in accordance with the Grading, Erosion Control and Landscape Plans; and such documents incorporated by reference herein. 2. Haul routes shall be as follows: Inbound: I-394 – Louisiana Ave – Franklin Ave – Pennsylvania Ave –South Site Access Point Outbound: Northerly Site Access Point – Pennsylvania Ave – Wayzata Blvd – Louisiana Ave – I-394 3. The hours of operation shall be limited to the hours between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on weekdays and 9:00 am and 6:00 p.m. on weekends if needed. Written notice to all property owners within a distance of at least 350 feet, as determined by the Community Development Director, must be provided prior to conducting work on the weekends. 4. Access and egress points to the excavation site must be located as far as possible from residences and fencing must be installed to direct truck traffic onto the site. 5. Trucks must queue off-site as much as possible. 6. The City shall ensure that the contract addresses dust control and repair/cleaning of public streets. Under the Zoning Ordinance Code, this permit shall be revoked and cancelled if the 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 a building permit. 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 December 6, 2004 St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 8b - Lamplighter Pond CUP Page 7 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 8b - Lamplighter Pond CUP Page 8 Lamplighter Pond Sketch Plan of Proposed Enhancements St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 8c - SuperTarget Special Permit Amendment Page 1 8c. Request by Target Corporation for an amendment to its existing Special Permit #96-39 to construct a new SuperTarget, together with requests for variances to permit larger wall signs than allowed by code, to allow a reduced bufferyard along the west property line. 8900 State Highway #7 Case No. 04-32-CUP & 04-33-VAR Recommended Action: • Motion to approve the Special Permit Amendment, subject to the conditions as recommended by staff • Motion to approve a variance to Section 36-364(f)(4) allowing the reduction of bufferyard requirements along the west property line from 2706 plant units to 801 as illustrated in the landscaping plan. • Motion to approve 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. Zoning: C-2, General Commercial Comprehensive Plan Designation: Commercial SITE MAP St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 8c - SuperTarget Special Permit Amendment Page 2 BACKGROUND: Target Corporation has applied for a major amendment to its Special Permit to construct an addition to the existing Target store in the Knollwood Village Shopping Center at the northeast corner of Hwy 169 & Hwy 7 and convert it to a Super Target. The existing Special Permit covers both the Target and the mall properties, and was originally approved in 1971. In 1996 it was amended to incorporate a new parking lot lighting scheme, realignment of the front drive aisle and to revise the area outside the main building entrance to include a new entry canopy and extension of the sidewalk. A parking and access agreement was required and approved as part of the special permit. On September 1, 2004, the Planning Commission conducted the public hearing, and recommended approval with some conditions (See Planning Commission Action Below). Before the application could be forwarded to the Council for action, the applicant decided to amend the application to remove the building instead of adding onto it. They resubmitted plans, and worked with staff and the watershed district to ensure the revised plans meet the code requirements and are compatible with the plans the Planning Commission reviewed and acted on. Once the staff review and revisions were completed, a copy was forwarded to the Planning Commission members together with a brief description of the change. The Planning Commission Chair responded saying that the Commission does not have any issues with the proposed changes, therefore, the revised application for reconstruction instead of remodeling has been forwarded directly to the City Council together with the Planning Commission recommendation. The proposal before the Council is for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and two variances for the property located at Lot 3, Block 1, Target Second Addition. The CUP is for a major amendment to the existing special permit to allow the demolition and removal of the existing 133,438 square foot Target store, and the construction of a new 173,890 square foot Super Target. The proposed improvements are to the Target owned parcel (Lot 3) only. There are no improvements proposed in this application for the Knollwood Village shopping center. In addition to the new Super Target building, the proposed amendment includes a complete reconstruction of the parking lot to accommodate the creation of a storm water rate control/water quality system meeting the requirements of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, landscaping, lighting and improved traffic flow. In conjunction with the amendment to the Special Permit, the following variances are requested: 1. Variance to sign regulations to allow two wall signs to exceed the 150 square foot maximum for sign faces allowed for shopping centers. 2. Variance to reduce the bufferyard requirements along the west property line. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 8c - SuperTarget Special Permit Amendment Page 3 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The Planning Commission reviewed the application at its September 1, 2004 meeting, and recommended as follows: (Excerpt from minutes) Commissioner Johnston-Madison encouraged Mr. Mann (apartment building manager) 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: • 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. PROJECT SUMMARY Target Corporation is proposing a thorough redesign and upgrade of the property which will include reconstruction of a new Super Target building, and updates the site landscaping, lighting, and storm water elements of the site plan. Attached is a narrative submitted by the applicant that provides a detailed description of the proposed site improvements. Project Summary: Architectural Design. Code Requirement: The Architectural Design section of the Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum of 60% Class I materials, and a maximum of 10% Class III materials per elevation. Proposed Façade: The north façade services the truck docks and faces the shopping center service court and is visible to the adjacent apartment building. This wall is proposed to be approximately 80% Class I (brick and stucco) and less than 10% Class III (Poured concrete at the truck docks.). St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 8c - SuperTarget Special Permit Amendment Page 4 The east façade is the front face of the store, and faces State Highway #7, Minnehaha Creek and Aquila Ave. This elevation is nearly 100% Class I material (brick, stucco and glass), which is an upgrade from the existing façade which is approximately 90% Class II materials (exposed aggregate concrete panels) and 10% Class I materials (glass entry doors and windows). The south façade faces State Highway #7. This elevation will be nearly 100% Class I materials (brick and stucco), and will feature a series of wall panels and horizontal banding all in class I materials. This façade is also an upgrade from the previous building which is approximately 100% Class II materials (exposed aggregate concrete panels). The west façade faces State Highway #7, a regional trail and the parking lot of the adjacent apartment building. This wall is proposed to be approximately 90% Class I materials (brick and stucco), and less than 10% Class III (poured in place concrete near truck docks). Again, the existing façade is approximately 100% Class II materials (exposed aggregate concrete panels). The applicant had applied for variances to building deviation and material requirements, and these applications were recommended for approval by the Planning Commission. The recommendations were based on the proposal to add onto the existing Target store. Since that time, the applicant has decided to remove the existing store, and build an entirely new building. Since the applicant will be constructing an entirely new building, the justification for the variances no longer exists and the applicant withdrew their request for those variances. The new building will exceed the architectural requirements for materials and deviations. The line of visibility from Highway 7 and the apartment building to the west makes it impossible to fully screen the rooftop equipment. The applicant is proposing to paint the equipment to match the color of the roof, which will be an earth tone color. Project Summary: Parking The existing special permit requires a minimum of 1,044 parking spaces for all properties covered under the special permit. The parking formula requires 792 parking spaces after transit and bicycle deductions. The amendment would reduce the parking spaces provided on site from 1,044 to 809 plus 10 proof of parking spaces. Both Target and the strip mall properties are covered by a parking and access agreement, and the strip mall needs at least 114 spaces provided on the Target property to meet parking requirements. The existing shared parking and access agreement is approximately 23 pages in length and was drafted in 1975 under different circumstances than exist today. The document and exhibits are difficult to read due to copy degeneration, and refer to plans made in the 1970s that no longer apply. Throughout the course of staff’s review, Target has been working with Gator Properties (adjacent property owner) to update the parking agreement. Staff is proposing that the Target expansion be conditioned on a revised shared parking agreement being in place which meets city requirements and is approved by the city attorney. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 8c - SuperTarget Special Permit Amendment Page 5 Project Summary: Traffic SRF conducted a traffic study, which included an analysis of 5 key intersections, (36th/Boone, 36th/Aquila, Aquila/N Knollwood Mall access, Aquila/37th and TH7/Aquila). SRF made the following comments: 1. All key intersections currently operate at an acceptable Level of Service (LOS) D or better, and will continue to operate at these levels in 2006, after planned improvements in the area are completed. Planned improvements include not only the Super Target, but also expansion of retail activities in the Knollwood Mall. The only anticipated change in LOS is the Aquila Ave / 37th St intersection, which would go from an existing LOS B to a proposed LOS C. (LOS A, B, C and D are considered to be acceptable levels of service.) 2. For analysis purposes, SRF took a conservative approach by doubling the estimated traffic volumes typically generated by a superstore, such as Super Target. The results as noted above, were still LOS of D or better for all key intersections. 3. The interior traffic flow is good. SRF recommends changing the existing diagonal parking spaces to 90 degree parking. This recommendation is being incorporated into the proposed site plan. SRF also recommends construction of a complete drive aisle into the site extending westward from the 37th St/Boone Ave intersection to the shopping center. This would require the removal of 20 parking spaces to accommodate the installation of a large landscaped island similar to the other 3 sections of this drive aisle. This has been incorporated into the revised plan. Project Summary: Landscaping/Bufferyards The site as proposed will provide a substantial increase in site landscaping. Landscaping will be provided interior to the parking lot, and along the perimeter of the property to meet all but one of the bufferyard requirements. The only landscaping element not proposed to meet code requirements is the bufferyard F, which is required along the western property line. The applicant is limited in space due to the placement of the existing structure and both overhead power lines and underground utilities. There is also only 10 feet of area between the property line and the edge of the 25 foot wide rear service drive, and the power poles appear to be located down the center of the 10 foot green strip. The applicant is proposing to meet the requirements to the best of their ability, and to this end, is requesting a variance which is discussed later in this report. Since the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant has reached an agreement with the neighboring property to provide additional landscaping on the apartment property. This would be in addition to the bufferyard F the apartment owner installed 2 years ago (see attached landscaping plan). Staff believes this satisfies the Planning Commission’s recommendation for approval of Target’s request for a variance to the bufferyard F requirements which was contingent upon providing more landscaping than was proposed at the public hearing. Project Summary: Stormwater/Floodplain St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 8c - SuperTarget Special Permit Amendment Page 6 The Public Works Department and Watershed District indicated that the calculations submitted appear to be complete, and only minor revisions are required. Staff is recommending the application be approved contingent upon staff and watershed approval. VARIANCES As noted above, the following variances have been requested: 1. Variance to sign regulations (Section 36-362(g)(4)c.) to allow two wall signs to exceed the 150 square foot maximum sign face areas allowed per wall sign in shopping centers. The sign regulations allow wall signs to cover up to 7% of the wall area where the sign is located. The front wall is approximately 14,040 square feet in area, and the applicant is proposing to install approximately 744 square feet of signage. 744 square feet of signage would only be 5.3% of the front wall. Target is proposing wall signage on the front wall only. The proposed signage meets the 7% rule, however, each sign located on a shopping center cannot have a sign face that exceeds 150 square feet. Two of the proposed signs exceed this maximum. One is proposed to have a sign face area of 334 square feet, the other 167 square feet. As a point of reference, if the Target store were not part of a shopping center, then the maximum allowable sign face area would be 300 square feet, not the 150 square foot maximum required for shopping centers. As explained in the variance narrative below, staff believes that the variance is justified as the 150 square foot sign face maximum is in keeping with typical retail stores found in a strip mall, but is not in proportion with larger tenant stores such as a Super Target. Staff believes the 300 square foot sign face maximum which is typical of the General Commercial District should be applied to the Super Target. 2. Variance to reduce the bufferyard requirements along the west property line. A bufferyard F consisting of 2,706 plant units is required. The applicant is proposing to install 3 Lindens, 15 Colorado Spruce, 15 Arborvitae, 12 Junipers and 45 Lilacs for a total of 801 plant units. This is an increase from the 270 plant units proposed at the public hearing. These plants will be planted on the neighboring property, and are in addition to the bufferyard F that was installed as part of the apartment building constructed to the west two years ago. Variance Analysis: Section 36-33(d) of the Zoning Ordinance states that variances from the strict application of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance may be granted and that the city may impose conditions and safeguards provided that all of the following seven criteria are satisfied: St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 8c - SuperTarget Special Permit Amendment Page 7 1. Where by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of the lot, or where by reason of exceptional topographic or water conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional conditions of such lot, the strict applications of the terms of this ordinance would result in a peculiar and practical difficulties or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such lot in developing or using such lot in a manner customary and legally permissible within the zoning district in which said lot is located. The subject property is impacted by the following factors: 1. A large floodplain projecting from Minnehaha Creek which covers essentially all of the parking lot, thereby restricting development of the property. 2. When the store was built approximately 40 years ago, an active railroad existed along the western property line. 3. The grade along the south property line increases abruptly approximately 30 feet to Highway 7. 4. The grade along the west property line increases abruptly by approximately 6 feet. Sign Variance. In the applicant’s narrative regarding the sign variance, the applicant states that the subject property is located adjacent to Minnehaha Creek and State Highway 7. The primary access to this site from Highway 7 to Aquila Avenue, thence routed north to 37th Street and west to the subject parcel. The existing 15.5-acre parcel does not have convenient access from Highway 7 and the finished floor elevation is below the centerline elevation of Highway 7. The window of visibility to the store is limited to the westbound traffic on Highway 7. The grades of eastbound Highway 7 will prohibit visibility of the building and of the front facade. The building location along 37th Street between Minnehaha Creek and Aquila Avenue also blocks visibility of the store facade. The distance of the front facade from westbound lanes of Highway 7 at the Minnehaha Creek crossing is approximately 750 feet. This is the only clear vantage point of the facade before the elevation rise of Highway 7 begins to obscure the site. The applicant also states that they believe that a strict application of this Ordinance would result in an undue hardship to this property due to the Code allowance of up to 7% coverage on buildings, which are over 200,000 square feet or in a PUD. The grades of Highway 7 prohibit visibility of the signage on the south elevation of the store and the location of Minnehaha Creek along the east property line prohibits the placement of a freestanding pylon sign. The primary access at Highway 7 and Aquila does not introduce SuperTarget nor is there a pylon sign such as the Knollwood Village sign. This application is placing the entire site and building signage on the front facade to compensate for the wetlands of the creek and grades of Highway 7. Staff believes that the site limitations presented by the grade change up to Highway 7, and the floodplain which required the building to be located to the far western edge of the property is satisfies this criteria, however, staff also believes that the sign faces should be held to the same general standard of the General Commercial District in which the Super Target is located, which is a maximum of 300 square feet. Bufferyard Variance. There is approximately 10 feet between the west property line and the service drive curb, and this area cannot be widened because of the location of the existing St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 8c - SuperTarget Special Permit Amendment Page 8 building. This bufferyard area is further restricted by overhead power lines along the entire length of the west property line. The power lines limit the ability to place conifers and deciduous trees that typically have the higher point value. As a result of these limitations, and at the recommendation of the Planning Commission, the applicant is proposing to plant 801 plant units on the neighbor’s property as noted above. Staff believes that the location of the building, and consequently the lack of space for the bufferyard is the result of floodplain impacts and the fact that there was an active railroad along the western property line when the building was constructed. The presence of the power line also provides a limiting factor for meeting the requirements of Bufferyard F. Staff believes this criterion has been satisfied for the requested variance to the bufferyard. 2. Conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property and do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. Sign Variance. The finished floor elevation of Super Target is 907 feet. The grade of Highway 7 in line with the front facade is 936 feet and continues to rise. The wetlands of Minnehaha Creek completely cover the east property line and the poor soils prohibit placement of a freestanding sign, which would have visibility from both directions on Highway 7. The only visible facade to Highway 7 is to the westbound traffic. The applicant believes that this situation is not met by any other property in the District. Staff concurs with the applicant, and believes that visibility on the site is limited as a result of the large parcel size and the difference in grade between the floor elevation of the building and the highway elevation. Staff believes this criterion has been satisfied for the requested sign variance to allow the sign face maximum to be raised to 300 square feet, which is the typical maximum size for properties this size in the General Commercial District. Bufferyard Variance. The applicant states that the conditions only apply to the subject property and the adjacent property to the north. They also state that there is not another 20 plus acre parcel zoned C-2 which, at the time of development, had an active railroad as its boundary and now has a public trail and four-story apartments in its place. The applicant believes this is a unique situation and their response is creative and unique to the greatest extent possible. The site limitations imposed by the placement of the existing building and the power lines along the west property line limit the ability to provide a bufferyard F. Staff concurs with the applicant, and believes that this criterion has been satisfied for granting reductions to the bufferyard requirements along the west property line as proposed by the applicant. 3. The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Sign Variance. The applicant states that the variance request is a modest increase in the allowable wall signage, which is integral and proportionate to the facade of the building. The St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 8c - SuperTarget Special Permit Amendment Page 9 applicant is proposing to construct new facades along the east and south to bring the building into compliance with the Class I materials similar to the level a PUD zoning district requires. The substantial right is to be allowed a similar amount of signage that a PUD or shopping center is granted. The proposed signage package, which restricts all of the site signage to one wall and covers 5.2% of the front façade, is a reasonable request. The granting of this request is necessary for the preservation of competition with other retailers in the area who have both freestanding signs, signage on more than one façade and a direct visible connection to the primary entrance onto Highway 7; shops such as Kohl’s, Cub Foods and Old Navy. Staff concurs with the applicant. The shopping center provision in the ordinance restricts the sign face to no more than 150 square feet. Super Target, however, has a larger store front than a typical store does in a shopping center. Restricting the sign face to 150 square feet would be in keeping with smaller stores in a shopping center, but it would be lost in the large store front that is being proposed. Staff recommends granting the variance to allow a sign face maximum of 300 square feet, which is typical of the General Commercial District. Bufferyard Variance. The applicant states that without this variance being granted the applicant cannot remodel, expand, or “intensify” the business or site in any manner. The site currently has excess parking capacity and the property owner cannot redevelop the site with the burden of the bufferyard requirement, which was applied after this site was constructed. Staff concurs with the applicant, and believes that the lack of space for the bufferyard, together with the existing power lines, prevents the applicant from establishing a bufferyard F, and therefore, believes that this criterion has been satisfied. 4. The granting of the variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety. Staff believes that none of the requested variances will impair an adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety, and therefore, believes that this criterion has been satisfied for all requested variances. 5. The granting of the variance will not unreasonably impact on the character and development of the neighborhood, unreasonably diminish or impair the established property values in the surrounding area, or in any other way impair the health, safety, comfort, or morals of the area. Sign Variance. The applicant states that the granting of the variance will enhance the character of the neighborhood and allow the redevelopment of the SuperTarget to proceed. Without the variance for the signage, the building will remain as it is today. The ability to concentrate services on this parcel enables the end use product which allows convenience for the public and is mutually beneficial for the City. This use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan with its location in the heart of the C-2 district next to a major arterial roadway. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 8c - SuperTarget Special Permit Amendment Page 10 Staff cannot say that the project would not continue without the sign variance, but staff does believe that increasing the sign face area to 300 square feet is in keeping with the sign regulations of the General Commercial District, and therefore, would not unreasonably impact the character of the neighborhood. By increasing the sign face area to 300 square feet, one of the proposed signs would still have to be reduced by 34 square feet. Bufferyard Variance. The applicant states that the granting of this variance will enable the entire project to proceed in conjunction with the sign variance and conditional use permit (CUP) for the site and building improvement. Property values will improve, landscape screening and bufferyards will be improved, pedestrian access to the public trail will be secured and the architectural image to all facades will be significantly improved to the point where the materials are exceeding the Class I percentages throughout. The applicant believes that the entire site redesign is an improvement for the City, the adjacent property owner, the residents of the adjacent properties and the applicant. This redevelopment fully meets the vision of the City for a redevelopment of a 40-year old site. The intent of the code is fully carried out when one balances the constraints of the existing site. Staff concurs with the applicant, and believes that the combination of bufferyard and architectural improvements throughout the building will dramatically improve the character and property values of the neighborhood. Staff believes this criterion has been satisfied. 6. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Ordinance or Comprehensive Plan. Sign Variance. The applicant states that the variance will not be contrary to the Zoning Code and/or Comprehensive Plan. The signage design for square footage, building coverage and aesthetic qualities meets the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. This redevelopment is exactly the type of redevelopment the City desires, expansion of an existing use with a market driven view on product. Staff concurs with the applicant, and believes that by allowing the sign face area to be increased to 300 square feet would be consistent with the zoning regulations for the General Commercial District. Bufferyard Variance. The applicant states that the granting of the variance meets the intent of the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. Staff concurs with the applicant, and believes that it clearly is the intent to increase the quality of architecture in existing and proposed building, to protect adjacent residential properties from the impact of commerical development by the use of bufferyards when ever possible, and to encourage amenities such as a Super Target would bring to the city. Even though the increased bufferyard along the west property line does not meet the bufferyard F requirements, staff believes that this is made up for by the increase of class I materials along the west facade from 0% to 90%. Staff believes this criterion has been satisfied for the reduction of the bufferyard regulations. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 8c - SuperTarget Special Permit Amendment Page 11 7. The granting of the variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable undue hardship or difficulty. Sign Variance. The applicant states that the hardship to attract customers to a retail center which has no direct visible line of site to the access at Highway 7 and Aquila, which has significant grades on the south obscuring the store, and has a creek and wetlands across the eastern boundary is not a convenience. The signage is necessary to capture the narrow window of visibility to the westbound Highway 7 vehicles. Signage on other facades and freestanding signs are not proposed. This signage will help attract customers to this center which was identified by the City’s traffic consultant as an under utilized center in the May 6, 2004, Traffic Report. Staff concurs with the applicant, and believes that allowing the sign face area to be increased to 300 square feet is in keeping with the General Commercial District for properties of this size, and that limiting the sign face area to 150 square feet would place a hardship on SuperTarget that is not typical for properties of this size in the General Commercial District. Bufferyard Variance. The applicant believes the proposal meets the intent of the Code. The applicant also believes the hardship of the bufferyard plant points along the west property line is not achievable. The proposed landscape improvements represent what they believe can be achieved by working with the neighboring property to enhance the bufferyard F they provided. Staff concurs with the applicant, and believes that the variance to the bufferyard F requirements along the west property line are necessary to alleviate demonstrable undue hardship and difficulties as outlined in the prior criterions. Staff recommends the following: Approval of the attached Resolution approving: 1. 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; and 2. Approving a variance to Section 364(f)(4) allowing the reduction of bufferyard requirements along the west property line from 2706 plant units to 801 as illustrated in the landscaping plan. Approval of the attached Resolution amending the existing Special Permit #96-39 for Lot 3, Block 1, Target Second Addition to allow the expansion of the existing Target into a Super Target subject to the following conditions: 1. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with the conditions of this resolution, the approved Official Exhibits as modified prior to signing to meet required conditions of this approval, and City Code; documents incorporated by reference herein. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 8c - SuperTarget Special Permit Amendment Page 12 2. Prior to any site work, the developer shall meet the following requirements: a. Final storm water design details must be submitted and approved by the Public Works Director. b. Final sidewalk construction specifications must be approved by the Public Works Director. c. A copy of the Watershed District permit shall be forwarded to the City. d. Obtain the required demolition permit, erosion control permits, utility permits and other permits required by the City, which may impose additional conditions. e. Any other necessary permits from other agencies shall be obtained. f. Sign Assent form and official exhibits. g. Specifications for tree protection and erosion control fencing must be submitted and approved by the City Forester. Required tree protection and erosion control fencing must be installed prior to grading activities. 3. Prior to issuance of a building permit, which may impose additional requirements, the applicant shall: a. Meet all Public Works Department/Utility requirements as recommended by staff. b. The developer shall supply the City with copies of all necessary permits from other governmental agencies or bodies prior to any site work, including the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and MPCA. c. Building materials samples & colors must be submitted to and approved by Zoning Administrator. d. Meet any Fire Department emergency access requirements during construction. e. A revised parking and access agreement, as reviewed and approved by the city attorney, be entered into by Target Corp and Gator Knollwood Properties (Owners of the Super Target and Knollwood Village Shopping Center properties). A signed and recorded copy of the agreement shall be submitted to the zoning administrator. 4. The developer shall comply with the following conditions during construction a. All City noise ordinances shall be complied with, including that there be no construction activity between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. on weekdays and 10 p.m. and 9 a.m. on weekends and holidays. b. Loud equipment shall be kept as far as possible from residences at all times. c. The site shall be kept free of dust and debris that could blow onto neighboring properties. d. Public streets shall be maintained free of dirt and shall be cleaned as necessary. e. The Zoning Administrator may impose additional conditions if it becomes necessary in order to mitigate the impact of construction on surrounding properties. 5. Prior to issuance of any occupancy permit: a. Fire lanes shall be in accordance with the signed Official Exhibits. b. Landscaping and irrigation shall be in accordance with the signed Official Exhibits and approved irrigation plan except that a temporary C of O can be St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 8c - SuperTarget Special Permit Amendment Page 13 issued prior to completion of landscaping and irrigation improvements provided an irrevocable, automatically renewable letter of credit is submitted in the amount of 125% of all landscaping and irrigation improvements. c. Exterior building improvements shall be completed in accordance with the signed Official Exhibits and approved materials and colors except that signs shall be approved as part of a sign plan. d. Prior to receiving a Certificate of Occupancy, as-built drawings of the relocated public utilities shall be submitted to and approved by the Public Works Department. e. The developer shall provide the required number of replacement trees on site unless off-site trees are approved by the Community Development Director and Parks and Recreation Director and cash-in-lieu of trees have been paid. f. All roof top equipment must be painted to match the color of the roof top, which is to be an earth tone color as approved by the zoning administrator. g. An irrevocable agreement, as reviewed and approved by the city attorney, be entered into between Target Corp. and the current owner of the apartment building at 3601 Phillips Parkway to allow the planting of the required bufferyard materials along the shared property line as illustrated in the approved landscaping plan. A copy of the signed and recorded document shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator. h. Upon approval of the Zoning Administrator, Chief Building Official, and City Engineer, a certificate of occupancy may be issued prior to completion of certain site improvements if an automatically renewing letter of credit in the amount of 125% of all unfinished site improvements is first submitted to the city. 6. Prior to the installation of any signs, including temporary signs or new sign faces, a sign plan must be approved by the Zoning Administrator and sign permits must be obtained. 7. The developer or property owners(s) shall pay an administrative fine of $750 per violation of any condition of this approval. Attachments: • Site Aerial Photo • Resolution Approving Special Use Permit • Resolution Approving Variances • Traffic Study • Development plans • Application Materials • Letters received regarding application. Prepared by: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator 952-924-2592 gmorrison@stlouispark.org Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 8c - SuperTarget Special Permit Amendment Page 14 St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 8c - SuperTarget Special Permit Amendment Page 15 RESOLUTION NO. 04-149 Amends and Restates Resolution No. 96-39 A RESOLUTION AMENDING AND RESTATING RESOLUTION NO. 96-39 ADOPTED ON MARCH 18, 1996, AND GRANTING AMENDMENT TO EXISTING SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SUPERTARGET STORE FOR PROPERTY ZONED C-2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL AT 8900 HIGHWAY 7 FINDINGS WHEREAS, Target Corporation has made application to the City Council for an amendment to an existing special permit to allow the construction of a SuperTarget store at 8900 Highway 7 within a C-2 General Commercial Zoning District having the following legal description: Lot 3, Block 1, Target Second Addition (Torrens) WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the information related to Planning Case Nos. 96-8-CUP and 04-32-CUP and the effect of the proposed building 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, an amendment to an existing special permit was issued regarding the subject property pursuant to Resolution No. 96-39 of the St. Louis Park City Council dated March 18, 1996 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. 96-39, to add the amendments now required, and to consolidate all conditions applicable to the subject property in this resolution; WHEREAS, the contents of Case Nos. 96-8-CUP and 04-32-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. 96-39 (filed as Document No. 2696197) 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 St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 8c - SuperTarget Special Permit Amendment Page 16 SuperTarget store within the C-2 General Commercial District at the location described above based on the following conditions: 1. That the site be developed, used and maintained in accordance with Exhibit A – General Plan; Exhibit B – Proposed Drainage Plan (as modified by the Planning Department on November 2, 1971); and Exhibit C – Final Plan Target First Addition, except as said exhibits may be hereinafter modified by the following conditions or conditions under the plat of Target First Addition (exhibits are on file in the City Development office at the City of St. Louis Park.) 2. All new electric, gas, water, sanitary sewer, telephone, and utilities shall be placed underground. 3. The 44-foot wide private road from Target Road to West 36th Street shall have a poured- in-place concrete curb at least 6 inches high and said road and curb shall be constructed at standards acceptable to the City Engineer. Said road shall be kept clean and free from potholes and maintained thereafter. 4. Street trees shall be planted abutting the private road at a spacing of one tree for every 50 feet as shown on Exhibit A, as modified. 5. Additional landscaping in the parking lot and along the pedestrian way shall be provided as shown on Exhibit A, as modified. The private road from West 26th Street to Target Road shall have decorative on-street lighting to provide 1.5 foot candles at the street level, or equal to or greater than the level of lighting in the parking lots if said lighting exceeds 1.5 foot candles. 6. A pedestrian walk shall be provided along the west side of Lot 4 from the proposed bus plaza to West 36th Street. 7. The pedestrian network shall be improved with landscaping as shown on Exhibit A, as modified. 8. Signs shall be limited to nameplate signs, symbols, logos and architectural features that identify a particular service or goods provided on that site. All signs shall meet the following conditions: a. No advertising or business signs shall be located within 25 feet of the private road. b. Billboards are hereby prohibited. c. All new signs are to be integrated with the building unless a need for a free- standing sign is documented in which case there shall be no more than one free- standing sign which does not exceed 80 square feet in area and 25 feet in height per lot. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 8c - SuperTarget Special Permit Amendment Page 17 d. Business signs not attached to the buildings shall be architecturally treated and coordinated with the principal building by use of compatible materials and design. e. Lighting for signs shall be interior or indirect so that light rays are not directly visible beyond the lot lines. 9. All new buildings and remodeling of either existing or new buildings shall be compatible and complimentary to the highest standard of building located between West 36th Street, Aquila Avenue, the Burlington Northern Railroad right-of-way and Highway 7. Elements of compatibility include but are not limited to: Building form and mass, exterior materials and their appearance and durability, landscaping, exterior lighting, and site development. 10. Development on vacant lots requires a special permit and the filing of an application under provisions provided in the Ordinance. All such proposals must be compatible with the overall plan. 11. All of the improvements shall be in accordance with the following schedule: a. The private road including the curbing, surfacing, landscaping and tree planting adjacent thereto shall be completed by July 1, 1973. b. Construction of a major pedestrian walk and landscaping adjacent thereto between Target Road and Target Department Store and from the Target Department Store to the north end of the Target Department Store parking lot shall be completed by July 1, 1973. c. Landscaping and planting in the Target lot as shown on Exhibit A as modified, shall be completed by July 1, 1973. d. Street lighting along the private road shall be completed by September 1, 1973. 12. The City shall be given an easement over the private road and to the public park along the utility easement which parallels the south line of Lot 4. 13. All access to public roads and to the lots as contained in the plat shall be as shown on the general plan, unless modifications to the general plan are approved. 14. In compliance with provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance and the Commercial Development Unit, the subdivider and applicant shall enter into a contract with the City covering the necessary improvements as contained in the special permit and the final plat. 15. That Lot 4, Target First Addition be developed for a four-story office building and six- stall drive-in bank facility with the following conditions: St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 8c - SuperTarget Special Permit Amendment Page 18 a. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with Exhibit D – Site Plan; Exhibit E- Grading Plan; Exhibit F – Landscape Plan; and Exhibit G – Elevation Plan; except as hereinafter modified by the following conditions: b. The total changeable floor area of the office building for parking shall not exceed 46,600 square feet. c. The lot shall be graded so as to meet the grades of existing park land with a slope of no more than 2 to 1 or the transition between the surfaced area and the park area shall be accomplished by a decorative terrace, with said plans subject to the approval of the City prior to construction. d. Pedestrian walkway, street lighting, street trees and planting of the parking islands shall be accomplished as provided in the overall general plan and as shown on Exhibit F, as modified by the Planning Department on November 2, 1971. e. All improvements as shown on the Exhibits D, E, F, and G, as modified including surfacing, striping, tree planting, landscaping, pedestrian walkway, lighting, plaza, and the like shall be completed by July 1, 1973. 16. The site shall be modified, developed, used and maintained in accordance with Exhibit H – Site and Parking Plan, dated August 9, 1976; Exhibit I – Landscaping Plan dated August 9, 1976; Exhibit J – Grading Plan dated August 9, 1976; Exhibit K – Utility Plan dated August 9, 1976; Exhibit L – Elevation Plan dated August 9, 1976; as modified by the Planning Department August 13, 1976. 17. That new utility and pedestrian easements be provided as identified on Exhibit H, and that the pedestrian way be constructed within 12 months after completion of the installation of utilities in the easement or within 12 months after notification by the City that said utilities will not be placed, and said construction of the pedestrian way shall commence. 18. Sign area shall be constructed, designed and maintained in accordance with Exhibits H and L, provided the total sign area of Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 shall not exceed 2,557 square feet, the maximum allowed under the Zoning Ordinance. 19. That the garden store attached to the south side of Target be improved by elimination of the cyclone fencing and replaced with decorative treatment before July 1, 1977, and said garden store shall not be used for warehousing nor shall it be used for storage of goods not sold directly from the garden store. 20. That all building improvements and landscaping included on the plans be completed by July 1, 1977, except as otherwise noted above. 21. All fire hydrants on the site shall be in conformance with City standards or modified to meet City standards. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 8c - SuperTarget Special Permit Amendment Page 19 22. A siamese hydrant connection shall be installed on the east side of the proposed grocery store for Fire Department access to the sprinkler system. 23. There shall be no on-sale liquor or off-sale liquor uses or licenses allowed on the premises or property. 24. The site shall be modified, developed, used and maintained in accordance with Exhibit M – Site Plan, dated December 8, 1976, and Exhibit N – Elevation Plans, and Final Plat of Target, Second Addition, and modified as follows: a. Existing curbed island north of the Target Store loading area shall be retained. b. The periphery of the site along parking areas, loading areas and driveways shall be curbed. c. Curbed and landscaped islands shall be provided at the ends of the parking bays along the roadway located between the Applebaum (Rainbow) store, miscellaneous shops and the parking lot. d. Signs shall be constructed, designed and maintained in accordance with Exhibits H and L, provided the total sign area for Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 shall not exceed 2,557 square feet, the maximum allowed under the Zoning Ordinance, and there shall not be more than one free-standing sign per lot, and said free-standing sign shall not have more than 100 square feet of sign area per side. 25. The refuse compactors shall be painted to be compatible with the building, shall be closed at all times, and the area shall be maintained in a clean and orderly condition. 26. All building improvements and landscaping included on the plan shall be completed by October 1, 1977. 27. A Class II restaurant shall be permitted in accordance with Section 14-156(17) of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, subject to the following condition: a. That the restaurant site shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with Exhibit M – Restaurant Floor Plan, and Exhibit N – Knollwood Village Master Rental Plan (Case No. 77-25-SP) 28. Condition No. 24 shall be changed to read “there shall be no on-sale liquor or off-sale liquor except for on-sale wine allowed on the premises of property.” 29. The Class II Restaurant permitted by Condition No. 28 shall be modified to a Class I Restaurant and shall be limited to the sale and consumption of wine on the premises in conjunction with the sale of food. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 8c - SuperTarget Special Permit Amendment Page 20 30. The north entrance to the Knollwood Village Shopping Center is permitted to be revised in accordance with Exhibit O – Parking Revision, dated May 5, 1978. 31. Signs shall be permitted to be installed in accordance with Exhibit P – Directory Signs, and Exhibit Q – Tenant Identification Signs. 32. Four temporary outdoor sales may be permitted each calendar year, in which all tenants of the shopping center may participate; and said sales shall be in compliance with a license issued to the shopping center in accordance with Ordinance No. 1417 adopted August 7, 1978. 33. That a 400 square foot addition be allowed for retail use subject to the following conditions: a. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with Exhibit R – Rental Area Plan; Exhibit S – Floor Plan; and Exhibit T – Elevations b. No further expansion of retail floor area shall be permitted. c. All improvements shall be completed by May 30, 1984. 34. That a Class II restaurant be permitted with a changeable floor area for parking purposes not to exceed 1,450 square feet, subject to the following conditions: a. All trash and garbage from the restaurants shall be stored in an indoor trash room. b. All improvements shall be completed by May 30, 1988. 35. The special permit shall be amended pursuant to Planning Case No. 92-51-SP to permit construction of a 700 square foot addition to the Rainbow Foods facility subject to the following conditions: a. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with Exhibit V modified as follows, such documents incorporated by reference herein: 1. Deletion of galvanized metal panels as exterior materials. 2. Substitution of stucco on the north wall of the addition painted to match the existing north wall of the Rainbow Food store and concrete block on the west and south side of the addition painted to meet the existing west wall of Rainbow Foods. 3. Deletion of the shed roof and substitution of a flat roof. b. All improvements shall be completed by September 21, 1993. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 8c - SuperTarget Special Permit Amendment Page 21 36. The continued special permit shall be amended pursuant to Planning Case No. 94-41- CUP to permit exterior modifications subject to the following conditions: a. Information necessary to determine compliance with the current zoning ordinance be submitted prior to issuance of any building permit authorized by this minor amendment to the continued special permit so that a determination can be made that the site is being brought into greater or complete compliance with the current zoning ordinance and with other provisions of this ordinance, to the extent reasonable and possible. b. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with Exhibit W – Project Elevation, Typical Bay Elevation and Typical Canopy section; such document incorporated by reference herein. 37. The conditional use permit shall be amended pursuant to Planning Case No. 95-40-CUP to permit modifications to the parking lot subject to the following conditions: a. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with Exhibit X – Mill/Overlay removals, Proposed Improvements, and Proposed Plantings as modified to meet the following conditions of approval; such documents incorporated by reference herein. b. The total number of parking spaces provided for the shopping center shall not be less than 1,054 except as approved by subsequent amendment to the continued special permit. c. Curbed traffic islands shall be provided at the ends of all parking rows. d. A 3-cable guide rail is approved as an alternative to curbing at the southeast periphery of the parking lot; a 6-inch poured-in-place concrete curb is required in all other areas. e. Landscaping shall comply with the approved 1976 Landscape Plan in areas that are not being disturbed by the approved parking lot modifications. f. A revised landscape plan shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Coordinator prior to commencement of work on the parking lot modifications; a minimum of 1,350 plant units and an irrigation system, if determined necessary by City Staff, shall be installed in the modified parking lot area by October 31, 1996. g. A Letter of Credit or other financial surety as approved by the City Attorney shall be submitted prior to commencement of work on the parking lot modifications in an amount equal to 1 ½ times the value of the approved landscaping requirements. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 8c - SuperTarget Special Permit Amendment Page 22 38. The special permit shall be amended pursuant to Planning Case No. 96-8-CUP to permit modifications to the building entrance, front drive aisle and parking lot lighting subject to the following conditions: a. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with Exhibit Y – Proposed Improvements, Partial Plan Front Elevation, and Lighting Photometric as modified to meet the following conditions of approval; such documents incorporated by reference herein. b. A revised site plan shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Coordinator prior to issuance of building permits or commencement of work on the parking lot modifications; such site plan shall include curbed islands around all light poles, and the number of parking spaces may be reduced to accommodate the required islands; the Planning Coordinator shall note the approved number of parking spaces on the revised site plan. c. A revised lighting plan shall be submitted and approved by the Zoning Administrator prior to issuance of building permits or commencement of work on the parking lot modifications; site lighting shall not exceed a maximum of 1.0 foot-candle at the perimeter of the shopping center property. d. Parking lot landscaping shall comply with Exhibit X – Proposed Planting, which was stamped and signed as approved on 9-5-95; however, planting islands shall be located according to the approved revised site plan. All approved landscaping shall be installed by October 31, 1996. A Letter of Credit or other financial surety as approved by the City Attorney shall be submitted prior to commencement of work on the parking lot modifications in an amount equal to 1-1/2 times the value of the approved landscaping requirements. 39. The special permit shall be amended on December 6, 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 the conditions of this resolution, the approved Official Exhibits as modified prior to signing to meet required conditions of this approval, and City Code; documents incorporated by reference herein. b. Prior to any site work, the developer shall meet the following requirements: 1) Final storm water design details must be submitted and approved by the Public Works Director. 2) Final sidewalk construction specifications must be approved by the Public Works Director. 3) A copy of the Watershed District permit shall be forwarded to the City. 4) Obtain the required demolition permit, erosion control permits, utility permits and other permits required by the City, which may impose additional conditions. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 8c - SuperTarget Special Permit Amendment Page 23 5) Any other necessary permits from other agencies shall be obtained. 6) Sign Assent form and official exhibits. 7) Specifications for tree protection and erosion control fencing must be submitted and approved by the City Forester. Required tree protection and erosion control fencing must be installed prior to grading activities. c. Prior to issuance of a building permit, which may impose additional requirements, the applicant shall: 1) Meet all Public Works Department/Utility requirements as recommended by staff. 2) The developer shall supply the City with copies of all necessary permits from other governmental agencies or bodies prior to any site work, including the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and MPCA. 3) Building materials samples & colors must be submitted to and approved by Zoning Administrator. 4) Meet any Fire Department emergency access requirements during construction. 5) A revised parking and access agreement, as reviewed and approved by the city attorney, be entered into by Target Corp and Gator Knollwood Properties (Owners of the Super Target and Knollwood Village Shopping Center properties). A signed and recorded copy of the agreement shall be submitted to the zoning administrator. d. The developer shall comply with the following conditions during construction 1) All City noise ordinances shall be complied with, including that there be no construction activity between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. on weekdays and 10 p.m. and 9 a.m. on weekends and holidays. 2) Loud equipment shall be kept as far as possible from residences at all times. 3) The site shall be kept free of dust and debris that could blow onto neighboring properties. 4) Public streets shall be maintained free of dirt and shall be cleaned as necessary. 5) The Zoning Administrator may impose additional conditions if it becomes necessary in order to mitigate the impact of construction on surrounding properties. e. Prior to issuance of any occupancy permit: 1) Fire lanes shall be in accordance with the signed Official Exhibits. 2) Landscaping and irrigation shall be in accordance with the signed Official Exhibits and approved irrigation plan except that a temporary C of O can be issued prior to completion of landscaping and irrigation improvements provided an irrevocable, automatically renewable letter of credit is submitted in the amount of 125% of all landscaping and irrigation improvements. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 8c - SuperTarget Special Permit Amendment Page 24 3) Exterior building improvements shall be completed in accordance with the signed Official Exhibits and approved materials and colors except that signs shall be approved as part of a sign plan. 4) Prior to receiving a Certificate of Occupancy, as-built drawings of the relocated public utilities shall be submitted to and approved by the Public Works Department. 5) The developer shall provide the required number of replacement trees on site unless off-site trees are approved by the Community Development Director and Parks and Recreation Director and cash-in-lieu of trees have been paid. 6) All roof top equipment must be painted to match the color of the roof top, which is to be an earth tone color as approved by the zoning administrator. 7) Plans for improving the canoe access to Minnehaha Creek be submitted to the City Parks & Recreation Department for approval. The cost of the improvements shall be included in the required letter of credit. 8) An irrevocable agreement, as reviewed and approved by the city attorney, be entered into between Target Corp. and the current owner of the apartment building at 3601 Phillips Parkway to allow the planting of the required bufferyard materials along the shared property line as illustrated in the approved landscaping plan. A copy of the signed and recorded document shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator. 9) Upon approval of the Zoning Administrator, Chief Building Official, and City Engineer, a certificate of occupancy may be issued prior to completion of certain site improvements if an automatically renewing letter of credit in the amount of 125% of all unfinished site improvements is first submitted to the city. f. Prior to the installation of any signs, including temporary signs or new sign faces, a sign plan must be approved by the Zoning Administrator and sign permits must be obtained. g. The developer or property owners(s) shall pay an administrative fine 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 special 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. (Signature Block) res-ord/2004/04-32-C St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 8c - SuperTarget Special Permit Amendment Page 25 VARIANCES RESOLUTION NO. 04-150 A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES FROM SECTIONS 36- 364(f)(4) AND 36-362(g)(4)c OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO PERMIT A REDUCTION IN THE REQUIRED BUFFERYARD AND A LARGER SIGN FACE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE C-2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT AT 8900 STATE HIGHWAY 7 BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of St. Louis Park, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. Target Corporation has applied for variances from Sections 36-364(f)(4) and 36- 362(g)(4)c of the Ordinance Code relating to zoning to permit a reduction in bufferyard F requirements from 2706 to 801 points and to allow two signs to exceed 150 square feet for property located in the C-2 General Commercial District at the following location, to- wit: Lot 3, Block 1, Target Second Addition (Torrens) 2. On September 1, 2004, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, received testimony from the public, discussed the application and recommended approval of variances to permit a reduction in bufferyard F requirements from 2706 to 516 points and to allow two signs to exceed 150 square feet. 3. The Planning Commission has considered the effect of the proposed variances upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on values of property in the surrounding area, and the effect of the proposed variances upon the Comprehensive Plan. 4. Because of conditions on the subject property and surrounding property, it is possible to use the property in such a way that the proposed variances will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety, unreasonably diminish or impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. 5. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property and do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which such land is located. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 120604 - 8c - SuperTarget Special Permit Amendment Page 26 6. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. It will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. 7. The contents of Planning Case File 04-33-VAR are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision of this case. 8. Under the Zoning Ordinance, the variances shall be deemed to be abandoned, revoked, or canceled if the holder shall fail to complete the work on or before one year after the variances are granted. 9. Under the Zoning Ordinance, the variances shall be revoked and cancelled if the building or structure for which the variances are granted is removed. CONCLUSION The application for the variances to permit a reduction in the bufferyard F requirements from 2706 to 801 points and to allow one sign not to exceed 300 square feet, and a second sign not to exceed 170 square feet instead of the required maximum sign face of 150 square feet, is granted based upon the finding(s) set forth above. 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 December 6, 2004 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk Res-ord/2004/04-33-VAR