Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003/03/17 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - RegularAGENDA SUMMARY CITY COUNCIL MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA March 17, 2003 7:30 p.m. 7:15 p.m. – Economic Development Authority Immediate Following Meeting – Study Session, Westwood Room 1. Call to Order a. Pledge of Allegiance b. Roll Call 2. Presentations 3. Approval of Minutes a. City Council Minutes of March 3, 2003 Document b. City Council Study Session Minutes of Februay 10, 2003 Document c. Study Session Minutes of February 3, 2003 Document Action: Corrections/amendments to minutes - Minutes approved as presented 4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion. Action: Motion to approve the agenda as presented and to approve items listed on the consent calendar (Alternatively: Motion to add or remove items from the agenda, motion to move items from consent calendar to regular agenda for discussion and to approve those items remaining on the consent calendar). 5. Boards and Commissions 5a. Telecommunications Advisory Commission 2002 Annual Report The Telecommunications Advisory Commission prepares an annual report and submits a proposed work plan to keep the City Council informed. Recommended Action: Motion to receive Annual Report for filing. Document 6. Public Hearings 6a. Public Hearing on renewal of a natural gas utility franchise agreement with CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco Resources Corporation Document 031703 - 6a - CenterPoint Franchise Renewal.doc CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco has requested the City Council renew their natural gas utility franchise agreement. Recommended Action: Motion to close Public Hearing. Motion to adopt first reading of an Ordinance granting CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco a non exclusive natural gas utility franchise and set Second Reading for April 7, 2003. 7. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions 7a. Accept the FIN (Fishing In The Neighborhood) Program at Wolfe Lake Document This report considers the approval of the FIN program, which is sponsored by the DNR. The FIN program annually stocks a variety of fish in lakes, particularly Wolfe Lake, which creates a local fishing opportunity for residents and increases appreciation for our natural resources. Recommended Action: Motion to approve and accept the FIN (Fishing in the Neighborhood) program at Wolfe Lake sponsored by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). 7b. Shoreline Habitat Improvement Grant for Wolfe Lake provided by the Department of Natural Resources Document This report considers the approval of the Shoreline Habitat Improvement Grant. This grant will provide enhancements to the Wolfe Lake shoreline by planting native aquatic and terrestrial plants for increased aesthetic value, educational opportunities, habitat and reproduction areas for the stocked fish, and keeping the Canada Geese out of the lake. Recommended Action: To approve and accept the DNR Shoreline Habitat Improvement Grant for Wolfe Lake through the Department of Natural Resources. 7c. City Engineer’s Report: 2003 Sidewalk Improvement Project, City Project No. 03-01A Document This report considers the construction of various sections of new sidewalk and trail in accordance with the city’s sidewalk, trails, and bikeway plan Recommended Action: Motion to adopt the attached resolution to accept this report, establish the improvement project, and direct staff to sponsor informational meetings with affected property owners, for construction of various sections of concrete sidewalk and bituminous trail. 7d. Authorize 2003 General Obligation Bond Issue Document The City has expended funds as well as entered into contracts for Capital Projects and now needs to issue General Obligation Debt. Recommended Action: Authorize issuance of $4,145,000 General Obligation Bonds and approve reimbursement resolution for specific projects. 7e. Proposed Amendments to St. Louis Park Ordinance Code (Zoning) Relating to Retail Uses in the O-Office District, Planning Fee Refunds, and Abandoned or Cancelled Variance. Document Case Nos. 03-08-ZA First reading of proposed amendments to Chapter 36 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code (Zoning) Recommended Action: Motion to approve first reading of Ordinance Code text amendments (related to zoning) to modify conditions for approving retail uses in the O-Office District, Planning Fee Refunds, and Abandoned or Cancelled Variances and set second reading for April 7, 2003. 7f. Request of The Luther Company for a Comprehensive Plan Map change from Industrial to Commercial and a zoning map change from IP – Industrial Park and IG – General Industrial to C2 – General Commercial for property located at 2370 and 2440 State Highway 100 S. Document Case Nos. 03-06-Z and 03-07-CP Request of The Luther Company for a Comprehensive Plan Map change from Industrial to Commercial and a zoning map change from IP and IG to C2 for property located at 2370 and 2440 State Highway 100 S. to allow for the redevelopment of the property for motor vehicle sales. Recommended Action: Motion to adopt a resolution of approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment to change the land use designation from Industrial to Commercial subject to approval of the Metropolitan Council and authorize summary publication. Motion to approve first reading of a zoning map amendment to change the zoning designation from IG –General Industrial and IP – Industrial Park to C2 – General Commercial subject to approval of the Comprehensive Plan change by the Metropolitan Council, and set second reading for April 7, 2003. 7g. First reading of text amendments to Chapter 36 of the Municipal Code to exempt buildings and play areas for small educational facilities, limited to 20 students, in the R-4, Multifamily residential zoning district from the 50 foot setback requirements from other lots in the R-4, or R-C District. Document Case 03-05-ZA Recommended Action: • Motion to approve first reading of zoning text amendments for small schools in R4 as recommended by staff and the Planning Commission and corrections to the land use table and set Second Reading for April 7, 2003. • Direct staff to initiate ordinance amendments to require educational facilities to be considered as a conditional use in the C-1 Neighborhood Commercial and C-2 General Commercial Districts 8. Communications 9. Adjournment Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make arrangements, please call the Administration Department) at 952/924-2525 (TDD 952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting. ST. LOUIS PARK CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 17, 2003 SECTION 4: CONSENT CALENDAR NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion. 4a Motion to approve the attached agreement with Hennepin County for a Environmental Response Fund Grant for Edgewood Area Properties Document 4b Motion to adopt the attached resolution rescinding parking restrictions on Quentin Avenue north of Excelsior Boulevard to Park Commons Drive and adopting a new resolution for installation of new parking restrictions Document 4c Motion to adopt the attached resolutions rescinding Resolution No. 99-161 which authorized “One Hour Parking” restrictions on Louisiana Circle Document 4d Motion to adopt the attached resolution that declares the petition adequate for the purposes of preparing a formal City Engineer’s Report on the feasibility and costs associated with a proposed alley improvement project in the 2700 block of Raleigh and Salem Avenues Document 4e Motion to adopt the attached Resolution to approve St. Louis Park Lions Club's application for the placement of 7 temporary signs in the public right-of-way Document 4f Motion to accept for filing the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes of January 16, 2003 Document 4g Motion to accept for filing the Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of December 3, 2002 Document 4h Motion to accept for filing the Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of January 23, 2003 Document 4i Motion to accept Vendor Claims for filing (Supplement) AGENDA SUPPLEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 17, 2003 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 Agenda Item: 031703 - 3a- City Council Minutes of March 3, 2003 Page 1 of 8 UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA March 3, 2003 1. Call to Order Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. The following Councilmembers were present at roll call: Jim Brimeyer, Chris Nelson, Paul Omodt, Susan Sanger, Sue Santa, Sally Velick, and Mayor Jeff Jacobs. Also present were the City Manager (Mr. Meyer); City Attorney (Mr. Scott); Community Development Director (Mr. Harmening); Planning Coordinator (Ms. Erickson); Housing Programs Coordinator (Ms. Larsen); Housing Supervisor (Ms. Schnitker); City Clerk (Ms. Reichert); and Recording Secretary (Ms. Samson). 2. Presentations 3. Approval of Minutes 3a. City Council Minutes of February 18, 2003 From Councilmember Nelson: Item 8a, Page 4, at the end of the paragraph, which continues from the previous page, add: Councilmember Brimeyer asked a question that the figures were based on someone else acquiring the property, to which Staff agreed. From Councilmember Nelson: Item 8a, Page 5, Paragraph 6, add: Councilmember Nelson would like to see the creation of an historic zone for homes, and he would like Staff to continue to work on that. From Councilmember Santa: Item 8c, Page 7, Paragraph 3, add: Councilmember Sanger raised the issue of handbills, and Councilmember Santa raised the issue of littering. 3b. City Council Special Study Session minutes of February 18, 2003 From Councilmember Sanger: Page 1, Paragraph 1, add: Councilmember Sanger’s recollection is that the assumption the Council was asked to work with was not as stated in the first paragraph on Page 1, but rather that Council was asked to have the discussion without assuming that the administration’s proposed budget cuts would be enacted as originally proposed. 4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 3a- City Council Minutes of March 3, 2003 Page 2 of 8 NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion. 4a Adopt Resolution No. 03-026 authorizing the installation of stop signs on Northbound and Southbound Raleigh Avenue at W. 27th Street, Traffic Study No. 574. 4b Adopt Resolution No. 03-023 authorizing application for a Hennepin County grant to fund the City’s curbside recycling program 4c Adopt Resolution No. 03-027 approving Change Order No. 4 with S.M. Hentges & Sons, Inc. for the construction of additional storm sewer, sanitary sewer, and watermain on City Project Nos. 00-07, 01-08, and 01-09 – City Contract No. 111- 01 4d Adopt Resolution No. 03-028 reducing special assessments in Special Service District No. 1 4e Accept and file Planning Commission Minutes of January 8, 2003 4f Accept and file Human Rights Commission Minutes of January 15, 2003 4g Vendor Claims (Supplement) It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Velick, to approve the Agenda and items listed on the Consent Calendar. The motion passed 7-0. 5. Boards and Commissions 6. Public Hearings 6a. Public Hearing to consider allocation of 2003 Community Development Block Grant Funds. Resolution No. 03-024 Housing Programs Coordinator Kathy Larsen reported on the allocation of 2003 Community Development Block Grant Funds. Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 3a- City Council Minutes of March 3, 2003 Page 3 of 8 John Everett, Executive Director of Community Involvement Programs, 1600 Broadway Avenue NE, Minneapolis, thanked the Council for their consideration of these funds to benefit the supportive housing program in St. Louis Park, which began over 10 years ago. Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing. It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to adopt Resolution No. 03-024 approving proposed use of funds for 2003 Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant funds, reallocation of 2001 funds, and authorizing execution of Sub-recipient Agreement with Hennepin County and any related Third Party Agreements. The motion passed 7-0. 7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public - None 8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions 8a. Elmwood Area Land Use, Transit, and Transportation Study Case No. 01-29-CP Resolution No. 03-025 As requested by Council on February 18, 2003, Director of Community Development Tom Harmening has returned with a revised resolution, which includes Council’s and residents’ concerns regarding land use and density recommendations on the Quadion site. Mr. Harmening said Council requested Staff to prepare a resolution accepting the Elmwood Study with certain qualifiers identified in the resolution, which clarify the context of the Council’s action of acceptance. Mr. Harmening said the resolution includes a background of the study process and the assumptions that were used going into the study; the last page of the resolution states three specific understandings to which the study is subject: 1. The study consists of land use, transit, and transportation recommendations, project phasing, and planning principles and guidelines. The study shall serve as background information for future land use, transit, and transportation decisions including comprehensive plan amendments. 2. Additional studies and further analysis to test the assumptions and recommendations of the study are in the process of or will be undertaken. 3. The City Council is not bound now or in the future by either the study assumptions or the study recommendations, including but not limited to, density and infrastructure recommendations. Mr. Harmening said copies of the resolution were sent to all of the Community Advisory members, including representatives, property owners and business people, residents of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 3a- City Council Minutes of March 3, 2003 Page 4 of 8 the Elmwood neighborhood, and any one who requested a copy; the resolution is also posted on the St. Louis Park City website and Hennepin County website. David McBride, 4312 Alabama Avenue South, suggested that in the let it be resolved section, Item 1, the last four words, including comprehensive plan amendments, be deleted so that Council is not directing itself that it shall use it to change the Comprehensive Plan. Councilmember Nelson said a good job has been done on the resolution. He said the study documented in the resolution adequately addresses the bridge issue, and the study adequately addresses Council’s desires to minimize the impacts on commercial and residential properties, which will be studied in greater detail when funding is available and when actually needed. However, he continued, on the Quadion site, the language in the resolution simple states what is already known, that is, that Council is not bound by this document. The majority of the Council is troubled by the density recommendations. Councilmember Nelson said no one wants to mislead potential development companies. He would like to include language that states what Council is comfortable with, and Council is comfortable with something that is of a medium density. Councilmember Nelson is asking Staff for language on how to accomplish that. Additionally, he said the resolution should be bound with the study, i.e., when one requests a copy of the study, the resolution should be included with the report, otherwise, it gets lost. Councilmember Sanger said she cannot vote for the resolution because it does not reflect the strong concerns raised by Council, i.e., to prevent high density housing in that area. She said it is important to phrase the resolution to state “including but not limited to the high density housing proposal.” Councilmember Sanger agrees the resolution needs to be bound with the study, and she is especially concerned that it be done in a way that any potential developer will know up front how Council feels about high density housing. Councilmember Omodt agrees with Councilmembers Nelson and Sanger. He added that for the benefit of everyone’s review, more lead time was needed to review the resolution. Councilmember Omodt stated that the resolution does not reflect the concerns of the Council, and he does not support the resolution. Councilmember Brimeyer said he is dumbfounded. He thinks Mr. McBride’s suggestion to delete the four words in Item 1 would be a good move. Councilmember Brimeyer asked, Why not accept the resolution and be noncommittal? and the resolution is about as noncommittal as the Council can get. He said to do anything differently is to mislead the neighborhood, and he would rather table the resolution to give interested parties more time to review it. Councilmember Brimeyer moved to table the resolution. The motion died for lack of a second. St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 3a- City Council Minutes of March 3, 2003 Page 5 of 8 Mayor Jacobs said he partly agrees with Councilmember Brimeyer. Councilmember Nelson responded that it is not a noncommittal document, i.e., specific land uses have been identified as well as proposed future comprehensive plan changes, which would go hand in hand with zoning changes. Mayor Jacobs said the study is not necessarily a reflection of what the Council wants to do—the study is a feasibility study. Mayor Jacobs said no commitment has been made as to what Council wants. He agrees with Mr. McBride to strike the four words, including comprehensive plan amendments, from Item 1, because that would provide for greater options. Mayor Jacobs sees two issues: the issue of the study itself, which as he recalls is a feasibility study and does not bind the Council to a particular course of action; and he thinks the resolution provides the Council with flexibility. Mayor Jacobs wants to take care not to bind the City to any course of action. Councilmember Sanger does not want to bind on one particular issue, that is, one option not on the table is the high-density housing. She said flexibility is probably appropriate for some of the other issues. Councilmember Nelson said it is inaccurate for Mayor Jacobs and Councilmember Sanger to use the term binding. Because the resolution is not binding, Councilmember Nelson said the Council should be as accurate as it can be. He thinks an item numbered 11 should be added on Page 4, which would state: The City Council prefers medium and low density residential development on the Quadion site. This is what Councilmember Nelson will move when it is time to make a motion. Councilmember Velick supports Councilmember Nelson because she thinks the process has worked and it is a good study; and she stated the neighborhood does not want high density. Councilmember Brimeyer said if Councilmember Nelson’s number 11 paragraph were added, it would passively convey the message that everything else is okay, such as the bridge. He said markets and conditions change. Councilmember Brimeyer will not support Councilmember Nelson’s amendment because it is bad public policy, and it is not what was discussed with the neighborhood. City Attorney Tom Scott said there is nothing here that is binding. Mayor Jacobs said as long as a preference for medium or low density is not binding, he is supportive Councilmember Nelson’s amendment. Councilmember Santa is torn because she interprets the let it be resolved section, Item 3, as stating the Council is not bound and assumptions change. Councilmember Santa said the Council is not bound to any density or infrastructure recommendations. St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 3a- City Council Minutes of March 3, 2003 Page 6 of 8 Mayor Jacobs said the addition of Councilmember Nelson’s amendment would not necessarily change the substance or meaning of Item 3 on Page 5. Jim Voss represents Quadion. Mr. Voss said his observation regarding Councilmember Nelson’s amendment is that the amendment is not a study recommendation or a study assumption. Mr. Voss cautioned the Council on their choice of language regarding policy development. He said a pre-emptive guide plan change cannot be established without proper public policy. Councilmember Nelson addressed the following: He said the issue on the Quadion site is density; he thinks the comprehensive plan amendment language should remain; the Council is not making a statement as to what the land use should be in the Comprehensive Plan as that will be a future change and there will be a public hearing on that; and it is important for the Council to state a preference. It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to adopt Resolution No. 03-025 accepting the Elmwood Area Land Use, Transit and Transportation Study with the understanding that the Council is not bound now or in the future by the study assumptions or the study recommendations, including but not limited to, density and infrastructure recommendations, and with an amendment adding Number 11, on Page 4, which shall state as follows: The City Council prefers medium and low density residential development on the Quadion site. City Manager Charlie Meyer clarified that the only part of the Quadion site that is proposed for residential is the part west of Wooddale Avenue, there is Quadion property on the east side of Wooddale Avenue. The Council may want to add language to state on the Quadion site west of Wooddale Avenue. The suggestion from Mr. Meyer is acceptable to Councilmembers Nelson and Sanger. Councilmember Brimeyer asked if it is possible to accept the study as is, adopt the resolution as is, and move Councilmember Nelson’s motion as a separate motion as a statement of preference by this Council when this subject comes up. Councilmember Brimeyer’s concern is that Councilmember Nelson is adding something that is part of the discussion but not part of the study. If an exception to the study is to be made, then all concerns should be included in Council policy (for later, down the road). Councilmember Nelson does not agree. He stated that in Items 8, 9, and 10, the recommendations were reviewed by the Planning Commission and their comments were incorporated into the final report. The concerns were not adopted into the final report. Councilmember Brimeyer responded that it is unfair to single out one issue. St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 3a- City Council Minutes of March 3, 2003 Page 7 of 8 Mr. Scott said any wording the City Council has discussed would not have a binding legal precedent. The motion passed 6-1. (Councilmember Brimeyer opposed). 8b. Second reading of General Revisions to Chapter 20 and Chapter 8 regarding retail sales in parks and other general revisions to park regulations contained in Chapter 20 City Clerk Cindy Reichert clarified the deletion of handbills and litter. Councilmember Sanger asked about the wording of retail sales; she asked what “in conjunction with activities” means. She inquired about clarification regarding time limits. Councilmember Sanger suggested deleting except in Paragraph 22. Ms. Reichert agreed, and it should be unless in conjunction with. Mayor Jacobs said Paragraph 11, in the retail sales section, made sense to him, however, he suggested deleting and because it would exclude a non-Parks and Recreation department activity, such as Parktacular. Mayor Jacobs agrees with the deletion of except. Councilmember Santa said she understood it to mean that one could have a retail sale as part of a Park and Recreations activity, in conjuction with that activity, or if the Director of Parks and Recreation gave approval. She agrees to remove except in Paragraph 22. Councilmember Sanger suggested adding in conjunction as determined by the Director of Parks and Recreation. It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Velick, to approve the ordinance, approve the summary and authorize summary publication with a change to Paragraph 22, to delete except, and Paragraph 11 to remain unchanged. The motion passed 6-1. (Councilmember Sanger opposed). 9. Communications From the City Manager: Mr. Meyer reported that for 2003, St. Louis Park will lose $1,500,000 in local government aid (LGA), and for 2004 the amount will be $3,000,000. Mr. Meyer said St. Louis Park raises $14,000,000 in property taxes, and $3,000,000 is a substantial portion to lose. As a result of the proposal in the State budget, which is subject to legislative action, the impact to St. Louis Park is far more substantial than a 5% cut. St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 3a- City Council Minutes of March 3, 2003 Page 8 of 8 From the Mayor: Mayor Jacobs said today is Read Across America Day. Also from the Mayor, the Mayor’s third annual Youth Summit will take place on March 26th, from about 5:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m., at the St. Louis Park junior high school. From Councilmember Santa: The Remodeling Fair on February 23rd as a success. She thanked the several City Staff persons who were there to offer information and assistance. Of the 2,000 visitors, 42% were St. Louis Park residents. 10. Adjournment Mayor Jacobs adjourned the meeting at 8:27 p.m. City Clerk Mayor St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 3b - Study Session Minutes of Feb. 10, 2003 Page 1 of 3 UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION February 10, 2003 The meeting convened at 7:15 p.m. Present at the meeting were Councilmembers Jim Brimeyer, Paul Omodt, Sue Santa, Sally Velick, and Mayor Pro-tem Susan Sanger. Mayor Jeff Jacobs arrived at 8:00 p.m. Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Meyer), Director of Public Works (Mr. Rardin), Director of Community Development (Mr. Harmening), Housing Supervisor (Ms. Schnitker), Housing Coordinator (Ms. Larsen), Director of Inspections (Mr. Hoffman), Environmental Health Official (Mr. Camilon), and City Clerk (Ms. Reichert). 1. CenterPoint/Minnegasco Franchise Agreement Mr. Rardin gave a brief review of the franchise agreement and stated that staff has not identified any problems with the agreement. He added that staff felt it necessary to have a ten year agreement rather than a twenty year agreement due to the rapid changes in the utility business. Council agreed that it was a good proposal and directed staff to bring the agreement forward according to the schedule outlined. Mr. Rardin also stated that CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco is aware that the city could impose franchise fees in the future. 2. France Avenue Turnback Mr. Rardin summarized the offer made by Hennepin County to sell a portion of France Avenue back to the city. He stated that it was the same proposal they have made the last several times except they are offering a better buy back price. Councilmember Sanger inquired how well sharing a portion of the road with Minneapolis will work. Mr. Rardin replied that in most cases staff experience has been good though he added that it is helpful that it is only a small portion of road that would be shared. Mr. Rardin reported that Minneapolis has already accepted the turnback and he will work on an agreement with Minneapolis. Councilmember Sanger was concerned about requests for traffic control and the level of expectation for the city to do so. Mr. Rardin replied that MSA rules apply. Few traffic calming devices are allowed and any signals would be the city’s responsibility. He stated that he would look into other options. Councilmember Santa inquired if the city can resolve the existing traffic-flow problems. Mr. Meyer commented that not all the streets can easily turn left off of France Avenue during rush hour. Mr. Rardin stated that he would come back to Council with more information as well as a consent agreement with Minneapolis. St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 3b - Study Session Minutes of Feb. 10, 2003 Page 2 of 3 Councilmember Brimeyer it should be viewed from a maintenance, plowing, and traffic control point of view to determine whether they should agree to the turn back. 3. Update on Property Maintenance Inspection Programs Mr. Camilon and Mr. Hoffman gave an update to the council about progress make since changes in the program occurred. They reported that the results were very successful. Mr. Hoffman stated that the 2003 edition of the IPMC (International Property Maintenance Code) should be adopted this year along with any needed amendments. Mr. Camilon felt that the IPMC was a good tool for all property maintenance inspection programs. He outlined the program components for time of sale inspections, nuisance complaints, multi-family apartment inspections, and residential property maintenance inspections. The single family rental program was discussed. Mr. Hoffman stated that he would look for better tools for dealing with orders and posting. 4. Special Service District – Excelsior and Grand Mr. Harmenng explained that the Park Commons site is unique in terms of how maintenance to the area will be provided. He reported that TOLD is required by the development agreement to participate in Special Service District 3 as well as a district for internal streets in the Park Commons project. He stated that if the special service district process was used, it would cause a very heavy cost burden to the ground floor retailers as the statutes do not recognize vertical mixed-use buildings. Staff’s proposal would have the developer and the city enter into a contract that assigns the responsibility of the maintenance work to the developer as owner of the building. If the maintenance work is not done, the contract allows the city to do the work and assess the cost to the developer. Councilmember Sanger inquired what would happen if the proposed contract does not work as intended. Mr. Harmening replied that the first recourse would be to abate and assess the cost. The city could also go ahead and create the Special Service District. Another option would be to find TOLD in default and withhold TIF payments. Council agreed staff should develop the contract and bring it back to Council for formal approval. 5. 2003 Community Development Block Grant Funds Ms. Schnitker reported that staff still supports the ‘sticks and bricks’ approach of using CDBG funds to support capital hard cost activities. Councilmember Sanger inquired if there are waiting lists for the programs. Ms. Larsen confirmed that they do have waiting lists and assured Council that staff is working as hard as possible to get through the list. She added that it would be difficult to do more than they are at the moment. Council agreed that the programs offered are very good and they would like to continue with them. St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 3b - Study Session Minutes of Feb. 10, 2003 Page 3 of 3 Councilmember Sanger inquired if Blackstone Pilot Program could be re-opened with the leftover funds. Mr. Harmening replied that it could. Ms. Larsen stated that they could continue working on the established program components. Mr. Meyer felt the organization is working well on housing issues, stating that there is good cooperation between all departments involved Council directed staff to move forward with the proposed allocations and to set the public hearing for the March 3rd meeting. 6. Solid Waste Councilmember Brimeyer brought forward a concept to the council which he believed would provide incentives for service by the contractor. He felt that if there are problems with service, that the burden of proof should fall on the contractor. He suggested allowing customers to opt out of the city’s plan and find their own contractor. Mayor Jacobs expressed concern that such a program would be difficult to administer. Councilmember Sanger felt that the city should not be dealing with complaints on a daily basis. She suggested hiring a third party to deal with complaints. Councilmember Brimeyer stated that there is no way that service can be perfect. Mayor Jacobs felt that the city should hold privately contracted haulers to certain standards as a condition of licensing. Councilmember Santa commented that the haulers are not always at fault and that she has been hearing good things as well. Councilmember Brimeyer felt that quality is what the city is looking for and that any contract provision for an opt out option should be targeted toward ensuring good quality service. Another possibility would be penalizing the contractor each time a customer opts out. He added that the opt out option would be a relief for those customers who were overly upset with their service. Council directed staff to discuss the option with potential contractors and look for similar models that may exist in other municipalities. 7. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m. City Clerk Mayor St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 3c - Study Session Minutes February 3 Page 1 of 2 UNOFFICIAL MINUTES SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION February 3, 2003 The meeting convened at 8:10 p.m. Present at the meeting Councilmembers Jim Brimeyer, Chris Nelson, Paul Omodt, Susan Sanger, Sue Santa, Sally Velick and Mayor Jeff Jacobs. Staff: City Manager (Mr. Meyer), Director of Public Works (Mr. Rardin), City Engineer (Ms. Hagen), Director of Community Development (Mr. Harmening), City Assessor (Mr. Stepnick), and City Clerk (Ms. Reichert). 1. Legislators Senator Steve Kelley and Representative Ron Latz were present at the meeting. Representative Jim Rhodes was unable to attend. Senator Kelley informed the Council that Governor Pawlenty would release a broad outline of his budget proposal on February 11th. Council asked several questions specific to the Governor’s budget proposal. Council also asked Senator Kelley and Representative Latz to continue their efforts to minimize impacts of budget reductions on St. Louis Park and to work toward legislation that would allow local units of government to retain control over their jurisdictions. 2. Alley Assessment Mr. Stepnick reported that a resident at 4213 Salem Ave had requested alley paving for the alley at the 4200 block of Browndale and Salem. Staff had come up with various options that they felt would be more fair to those persons without garages on the alley. Staff recommended having the alley paid by the property owners with garages directly on the alley. Councilmember Sanger feels that a policy is needed that will address these more unusual assessment situations. Mr. Meyer felt that it would be important to determine under what circumstances the city makes a contribution to alley paving. He did not believe that the current policy always works. Councilmember Santa stated that the future use of the property should be considered. Mr. Meyer felt that a creative option would help the city’s goal of paving alleys throughout the city. Mr. Stepnick recommended that rather than changing to the policy to allow for this particular situation, a waiver of assessment could be done. St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 3c - Study Session Minutes February 3 Page 2 of 2 3. Flood Improvement Project Update Peter Willenbring from WSB was in attendance at the meeting. Ms. Hagan gave an update on the four remaining CIP flood projects and the recommendation from staff and WSB. Staff recommends construction of Project 2 at the same time as Project 4 as well as initiating flood-proofing measures behind the structures facing Texas Avenue. Councilmember Nelson questioned how the properties fit into the original plan that was adopted. Mr. Rardin replied that staff’s recommendation was the most feasible solution just as was Council’s direction. Councilmember Sanger raised the possibility of floodproofing the homes rather than completing the whole project. Mr. Willenbring replied that completion of the project would benefit the whole system. Councilmember Nelson stated that he understands the project meets the set criteria, but he is still uncomfortable about the cost per structure. Councilmember Santa inquired if it is possible to do the project in stages. Ms. Hagen replied that it is more cost effective to do the project all at once as well as the added benefit of reducing disruption to the neighborhood. Mr. Rardin stated that previous Council direction had set a certain level of protection for the structures in question. Councilmember Brimeyer felt they need to avoid short-sightedness in this project and plan for the future. Councilmember Nelson inquired about the larger benefits. Mr. Rardin replied that Lamplighter Pond has been in the Capital Improvement Plan for a very long time and it is time to complete the project. Councilmember Sanger asked how the project would be funded. Mr. Meyer replied that money has already been allocated through the stormwater utility fund. He added that some requests have been received by staff but Council has not approved them as they were not part of the original study. Councilmember Santa would like to begin the EAW for the Lamplighter project. Ms. Hagen felt that any correspondence with the neighborhood must be very clear. After some discussion, Council decided to move forward with the EAW and asked staff to provide them with more information at a future discussion. 4. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p.m. City Clerk Mayor St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 4a - Hennepin County ERF Grant Contract Page 1 of 1 4a. Motion to approve the attached agreement with Hennepin County for a Environmental Response Fund Grant for Edgewood Area Properties Background On October 21 2002, the Council approved a resolution authorizing application to Hennepin County for an Environmental Response Fund (ERF) grant. The grant request was to cover the costs associated with conducting Phase I & limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessments on 2501 Edgewood Avenue South (known as “the Boneyard”), 2643 Dakota Avenue South (known as “Dakota Park”), and 2301 Brunswick Ave. S. (privately owned by Christopher T. Dahl). Staff, in cooperation with Mr. Dahl, submitted an ERF grant application to Hennepin County, which requested $67,420 for the above purpose. Hennepin County subsequently approved the grant request in its entirety. The attached agreement sets forth the terms and conditions associated with the City’s acceptance of the grant. ERF GRANT AGREEMENT BUSINESS POINTS The following is a summary of the ERF grant agreement with Hennepin County: 1. The grant amount is for $67,420, which will be used for a Phase I environmental assessment and limited Phase II risk screening to be performed on the Boneyard, Dakota Park, and Dahl property. 2. The City agrees to keep accurate accounting records of the qualified expenditures. 3. The City is to pay project invoices and submit payment requests to Hennepin County in order to obtain reimbursement. 4. The City will be required to submit an annual progress report to Hennepin County along with copies of the assessment reports, Response Action Plan (if necessary) and associated MPCA approval letters. 5. Hennepin County can cancel the grant upon 60 days written notice without cause. 6. The City agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the County in the event of a loss arising from the testing procedure. 7. The City and its contractors will be required to provide proof of specified liability coverage. Recommendation Upon review and approval by the City’s legal counsel, staff recommends approval of the attached grant agreement with Hennepin County. Attachment: ERF Grant Agreement with Hennepin County Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator Reviewed by: Tom Harmening, Director of Community Development Approved by: Clint Pires, Deputy City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 4b - Quentin Ave Traffic Study Page 1 of 4 4b. Traffic Study No. 575: Motion to adopt the attached resolution rescinding parking restrictions on Quentin Avenue north of Excelsior Boulevard to Park Commons Drive and adopting a new resolution for installation of new parking restrictions. Background: In 1985 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 85-24 authorizing the installation of parking restrictions on Quentin Avenue between Excelsior Boulevard and West 38th Street (now Park Commons Drive). The parking restrictions included “No Parking 4 – 6 p.m. on the east and west sides of Quentin Avenue. In addition, parking was restricted at the intersections to allow visibility for turning movements. As part of the streetscape improvements on Excelsior Boulevard constructed in 2002, the east side of Quentin Avenue was reconstructed with a nine-stall parking bay, a ten-foot sidewalk, new street trees and new street lighting. With the completion of the construction of the parking bay, it is staff’s recommendation that the 4 to 6 p.m. parking restriction along the east side of Quentin Avenue is no longer needed. In 1993, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 93-170, which prohibited on-street parking along the west side of Quentin Avenue until the completion of the Park Nicollet Medical Center (PNMC) campus construction. The “No Parking” restriction along the west side of Quentin Avenue has remained in place even though the construction on the PNMC campus has been completed. There is no authority to keep this “No Parking” restriction in place. It is recommended the City Council rescind Resolution 93-170 and adopt the attached resolution authorizing the installation of “No Parking Anytime” signs along the west side of Quentin Avenue. Staff contacted the management at Bally’s and Park Nicollet Medical Center and they support the proposed change in the parking restrictions. Recommendation: It is recommended the City Council adopt the attached resolution rescinding Resolution Nos. 85-24 and 93-170, and adopt the second resolution providing for the installation of the following parking restrictions: No Parking on the east side of Quentin Avenue from Excelsior Boulevard to a Point 50 feet north and from West 38th Street to a point 25 feet south. No Parking on the west side of Quentin Avenue from Excelsior Boulevard to Park Commons Drive. St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 4b - Quentin Ave Traffic Study Page 2 of 4 Options: Staff has identified the following options available to the Council at this time: * 1. Approve the request. If so, the attached resolutions authorizing the rescinding and installation may be utilized. 2. Deny the request 3. Defer pending additional study *Staff recommendation Attachments: Map (Supplement) Resolutions Prepared by: Carlton Moore, Engineering Program Manager Reviewed by: Maria Hagen, City Engineer Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works Approved by: Clint Pires, Deputy City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 4b - Quentin Ave Traffic Study Page 3 of 4 RESOLUTION NO. 03-032 RESOLUTION RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 85-24 AND 93-170 RELATED TO PARKING RESTRICTIONS ON QUENTIN AVENUE NORTH OF EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD TO PARK COMMONS DRIVE TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 575 WHEREAS The City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota has studied and has determined that revised parking controls are necessary at this location; and WHEREAS Resolution Nos. 85-24 and 93-170 currently prescribe traffic controls in this location. NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that resolution No. 85-24 dated February 19, 1985 and resolution 93-170 dated October 18, 1993 be rescinded. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council March 17, 2003 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 4b - Quentin Ave Traffic Study Page 4 of 4 RESOLUTION NO. 03-033 ADOPTING INSTALLATION OF PARKING RESTRICTIONS ON QUENTIN AVENUE NORTH OF EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD TO PARK COMMONS DRIVE TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 575 WHEREAS The City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota has studied and has determined that revised parking controls are necessary at this location; and WHEREAS The City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota has determined that it is in the best interest of the City to establish parking restrictions on Quentin Avenue north of Excelsior boulevard to Park Commons Drive. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that the Director of Public Works is hereby authorized to install the following controls: No Parking on the east side of Quentin Avenue from Excelsior Boulevard to a Point 50 feet north and from West 38th Street to a point 25 feet south. No Parking on the west side of Quentin Avenue from Excelsior Boulevard to Park Commons Drive. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council March 17, 2003 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 4c - Louisiana Court Traffic Study Page 1 of 2 4c. Traffic Study No. 576: Motion to adopt the attached resolutions rescinding Resolution No. 99-161 which authorized “One Hour Parking” restrictions on Louisiana Circle Background: In December 1999, Health System Minnesota requested the City install “One Hour Parking” on the north side of Louisiana Circle to improve the short term parking for their building at 8900 Louisiana Circle. They have since purchased all of the buildings on Louisiana Circle and their parking needs have also changed. Park Nicollet Health Services is now requesting the removal of the “One Hour Parking” to accommodate changes in occupancy at the buildings. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution rescinding Resolution No. 99-161, removing the “One Hour Parking” restriction on the north side of Louisiana Circle. Options: Staff has identified the following options available to the Council at this time: * 1. Approve the request. If so, the attached resolutions rescinding Resolution No. 99-161 may be utilized. 2. Deny the request 3. Defer pending additional study * Staff recommendation Attachments: Map (Supplement) Resolution Prepared by: Carlton Moore, Engineering Program Manager Through: Maria Hagen, City Engineer Reviewed by: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works Approved by: Clint Pires, Deputy City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 4c - Louisiana Court Traffic Study Page 2 of 2 RESOLUTION NO. 03-034 RESOLUTION RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 99-161 RELATED TO “ONE HOUR” PARKING ON THE NORTH SIDE OF LOUISIANA CIRCLE TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 576 WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota has studied and has determined that revised parking and traffic controls are necessary at this location; and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 99-161 currently prescribes traffic controls in this area which are no longer needed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that Resolution No. 99-161 dated December 20, 1999 be rescinded. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council March 17, 2003 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 4d - Raleigh-Salem Ave Alley Paving Petition Page 1 of 3 4d. Motion to adopt the attached resolution that declares the petition adequate for the purposes of preparing a formal City Engineer’s Report on the feasibility and costs associated with a proposed alley improvement project in the 2700 block of Raleigh and Salem Avenues. Background: On March 5, 2003 the residents from the 2700 block of Raleigh and Salem Avenues, submitted a petition to the City requesting the alley be paved in accordance with the City’s standard for alleys, and that the cost of the improvements be assessed against all benefited properties. Brian and Deb McBride of 2737 Salem Avenue circulated the petition. The City’s Alley Paving Policy requires that at least 51% of the property owners (based on alley front feet) sign a petition for the improvement in order to investigate the feasibility and cost of construction. Analysis: Signatures, representing 52.8% of the alley footage, have been obtained. This represents 11 of the 19 assessable properties. Therefore, the petition is deemed adequate in order to prepare a City Engineer’s report for review by the City Council. Project Timing: Surveying and design will be undertaken sometime this spring. Once a preliminary design is completed, staff will hold a meeting with the affected residents to inform them of the project. A public hearing will also need to be held prior to approval. If the project proceeds, construction will likely occur sometime later this summer. Attachments: Petitioner List Resolution Petition (Supplement) Prepared by: Maria A. Hagen, City Engineer Reviewed by: Michael P.Rardin, Director of Public Works Approved by: Clint Pires, Deputy City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 4d - Raleigh-Salem Ave Alley Paving Petition Page 2 of 3 RESOLUTION NO. 03-035 RESOLUTION DECLARING ADEQUACY OF PETITION AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF A REPORT TO DETERMINE THE FEASIBILITY OF PAVING THE ALLEY LOCATED IN THE 2700 BLOCK OF RALEIGH AND SALEM AVENUES WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a petition signed by affected property owners related to alley paving in the 2700 block of Raleigh and Salem Avenues. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that: 1. The City’s Alley Paving Policy requires that a petition containing signatures from at least 51% of the affected property owners be received in order to investigate the feasibility and cost of construction. 2. A certain petition requesting the improvement of the alley in the 2700 block of Raleigh and Salem Avenues, filed with the Council on March 17, 2003, is hereby declared to be signed by the required percentage of owners of property affected thereby. This declaration is made in conformity to Minn. Stat. § 429.035. 3. The petition is hereby referred to the City Engineer and she is instructed to report to the Council with all convenient speed advising the Council in a preliminary way as to whether the proposed improvement is necessary, cost-effective, and feasible and as to whether it should best be made as proposed or in connection with some other improvement, and the estimated cost of the improvement as recommended. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council March 17, 2003 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 4d - Raleigh-Salem Ave Alley Paving Petition Page 3 of 3 Petition Signatures for Concrete Alley Paving in 2700 Block of Raleigh Avenue and Salem Avenue Address Alley Front Footage Petition Signed by Property Owners 2701 Salem Avenue South 76 2709 Salem Avenue South 50 * 2715 Salem Avenue South 50 * 2719 Salem Avenue South 60 2727 Salem Avenue South 53 * 2731 Salem Avenue South 53 * 2737 Salem Avenue South 54 * 2741 Salem Avenue South 40 * 2745 Salem Avenue South 40 * 2700 Raleigh Avenue South 36 2704 Raleigh Avenue South 40 2708 Raleigh Avenue South 60 2716 Raleigh Avenue South 60 * 2724 Raleigh Avenue South 80 * 2730 Raleigh Avenue South 80 * 2738 Raleigh Avenue South 70 * 2744 Raleigh Avenue South 70 5100 28th Street West 100 5118 28th Street West 120 Total 1,192 Petition signed by 52.8% of the alley front footage (630 feet / 1,192 feet) St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 4e - Lions Club Request Page 1 of 2 4e. Motion to adopt the attached Resolution to approve St. Louis Park Lions Club's application for the placement of 7 temporary signs in the public right- of-way. Background: On March 7, 2003, the City received an application from the St. Louis Park Lions Club for 7 signs to be temporarily placed within the public right of way. Section 36-362(e)(2) of the Zoning Code states that prohibited signs include, "Signs on or over the public rights-of-way unless the city council grants permission for a temporary sign on or over the public right-of-way for a period of time not to exceed ten days." Proposal: The Lions Club is a non-profit community based organization that provides services and resources to the people of St. Louis Park. The requested signs advertise the Lions Club's 46th Annual Pancake and Sausage Breakfast to be held on Sunday, April 13. This activity is a fund raiser intended to raise revenue to fund those services and resources provided to the residents of St. Louis Park. The signs will be displayed beginning April 5, 2003 and will be removed on April 13, 2003. # Sign Style Size Location 1 two-sided vertical type on wooden legs. 3' wide by 2' high. A 2 two-sided vertical type on steel legs. 8' wide by 4' high. B & C 1 two-sided sawhorse type on steel legs. 8' wide by 2' high. D 2 Two-sided sawhorse type on steel legs. 2.5' wide by 4' high. E & F 1 Light sign on wheels. 6' wide by 4' high. G If approved, all signs will be placed within the public right-of-way at the locations shown on the attached sign plan map. Staff will verify placement to avoid visibility-related issues. Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution approving the St. Louis Park Lions Club's request for the placement of 7 temporary signs in the public right-of-way as outlined within the Resolution. Attachments: Resolution Letter from Lions Club dated February 26, 2003 Sign plan Application for temporary signs. Prepared by: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator Approved by: Clint Pires, Deputy City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 4e - Lions Club Request Page 2 of 2 RESOLUTION NO. 03-036 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ST. LOUIS PARK LIONS CLUB'S APPLICATION FOR THE PLACEMENT OF 7 TEMPORARY SIGNS WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT- OF-WAY WHEREAS, The St. Louis Park Lions Club made application for the placement of 7 temporary signs within the public right-of-way; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 36-362(e)(2) of the St. Louis Park Zoning Ordinance, the City Council may approve the placement of temporary signs within the public right-of-way for a period not to exceed 10 days; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that the City Council approves the St. Louis Park Lions Club's application for the placement of 7 temporary signs within the public right-of-way beginning April 5, 2003, and to be removed immediately following the conclusion of the event on April 13, 2003. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the size and placement of the temporary signs are approved as follows: 1. One 3-foot wide by 2-foot high sign at the northeast corner of Louisiana Blvd & 14th St W. 2. One 8-foot wide by 4-foot high sign on the south side of Excelsior Blvd at Meadowbrook Lane. 3. One 8-foot wide by 4-foot high sign on the south side of Cedar Lake Rd at Zarthan Ave. 4. One 8-foot wide by 2-foot high sign on the east side of Texas Ave at the Westwood Junior High School. 5. One 2.5-foot wide by 4-foot high sign on the southeast corner of Beltline Blvd & State Highway #7. 6. One 2.5-foot wide by 4-foot high sign on the south side of Minnetonka Blvd at Flag Ave. 7. One 6-foot wide by 4-foot high sign on the southeast corner of Pennsylvania Ave & State Highway #7. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council March 17, 2003 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 4f - Park and Rec Commission Minutes Jan.16, 2003 Page 1 of 5 1 OFFICIAL MINUTES PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY COMMISSION JANUARY 16, 2003 – 7:30 P.M. ST. LOUIS PARK RECREATION CENTER MEMBERS PRESENT: Bruce Cornwall, Kirk Hawkinson, Dick Johnson, Sara Lindenberg, Nancy Nelson, Dana Strong, and Tom Worthington MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Rick Beane, Rick Birno, and Stacy Voelker 1. “Youth Sports Summit” Meeting – 6 p.m. 2. Call to order – Regular Meeting Nancy Nelson, Chair, called the meeting to order at 8:02 p.m. 3. Adjustments to the agenda The Commission members agreed to add the amended Park Reservation Permit Policy as an attachment to these minutes. The members voted via e-mail: Tom Worthington motioned to approve the amended Park Reservation Permit Policy, Nancy Nelson seconded. The motion passed 5-0. 4. Approval of Minutes of November 20, 2002 Tom Worthington moved to approve the minutes of the November 20, 2002 meeting, Dick Johnson seconded. The motion passed 7-0. 5. New Business A. Follow up Discussion from Youth Sports Philosophy Meeting The Commissioners expressed their satisfaction with the meeting and that everyone was open. They feel the meeting this year was much more positive than last year and people were more satisfied. They feel this is a growth opportunity for the associations and meetings should continue annually. Dick Johnson inquired on how the associations share participants, as that was an issue brought up at the meeting. Dana Strong agreed it is an issue as sports continue all year but does not know of a solution. Nancy Nelson feels it is hard on kids and their parents and suggested the only way to share kids is to assign a natural season to each association, not year long. Ms. Nelson suggested inviting the High School Athletic Director to attend the next Youth Sports Philosophy meeting in which the Commission members agreed. Mr. Johnson suggested all sports should be in-house to a certain age, then traveling after that. Mr. Strong advised he doesn’t think the City can do anything about the levels of opportunity. Mr. St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 4f - Park and Rec Commission Minutes Jan.16, 2003 Page 2 of 5 2 Cornwall indicated the kids might like this format as they can do the sport they enjoy year-round. Mr. Worthington suggested the department keep groups aware of the issue. Mr. Hawkinson suggested a brief statement of this issue be included in the code of ethics. Ms. Nelson confirmed that facilitating discussion is the best or most that can be done. Mr. Johnson commented on another issue that was brought up at the meeting which was conflict resolution training and suggested it be available. Mr. Strong indicated the Hockey Association had a grievance committee that he witnessed which worked very well. Commission members agreed it was a good idea. Mr. Johnson feels we must follow through to obtain code of conduct information from many sources and put together a consolidated package which can be sent out to all. Ms. Nelson agreed the City should post a code of conduct/ethics at all athletic facilities to assist in enforcement. Ms. Nelson added a code of conduct review to February’s agenda and indicated she will get the code of conduct from the High School. After reviewing, the Commission, with staff, will draft a code of conduct concept. Ms. Nelson suggested putting a compiled list of what others use in writing and send to associations with suggestions. Mr. Strong inquired if the Commission had in the past reviewed the department’s budget. Mr. Birno does not believe they had on a regular basis and informed the Commission of the time frame for when the budget is created and approved. Mr. Strong suggested adding the Parks and Recreation budget along with the CIP budget to each January agenda for the Commission to view. Mr. Hawkinson inquired on the success of the Adopt-a-Park program. Mr. Beane briefly explained to the Commission that the program has community based volunteers who clean up neighborhood parks and make recommendations for maintenance of equipment. Mr. Beane has received positive comments from people that get involved. This program has proved to be an asset from a maintenance perspective. Mr. Strong inquired if it could be advertised more and Mr. Beane indicated Sarah Krzesowiak in the volunteer office handles the volunteer requests. Mr. Johnson suggested the Commission should expand on thank you’s to individuals in the community for volunteer service. Ms. Nelson agreed and feels the Commission should begin discussing ideas on improving volunteer recognition. Ms. Nelson also inquired how the Commission could help if future budget cuts become a reality. Mr. Birno suggested having the Commission be educated on the services provided through the Parks and Recreation Department as well as the cost to deliver these services. Mr. Beane indicated our new financial system could track where maintenance money goes such as mowing, tree removal, etc. at each park. Ms. Nelson feels that if it comes to budget cuts, the Commission should know where the Parks and Recreation Department stands financially and have as much knowledge as possible. Mr. Hawkinson inquired if the Commission could find out what percentage of pull-tab money stays in the community. Mr. Birno indicated there is a City policy in place on pull-tab money disbursement. St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 4f - Park and Rec Commission Minutes Jan.16, 2003 Page 3 of 5 3 Mr. Birno advised Parktacular will be held June 18 through 22 and the Wolfe Park Amphitheater ribbon cutting will be held on June 21. The ribbon cutting will be in conjunction with the grand opening of Excelsior and Grand. Mr. Birno also advised that Parktacular is working with Bridget Gothberg on improving a working relationship between Parktacular and the City. Ms. Nelson advised a review of the code of conduct form submitted and budget will be on the February agenda. 6. Communications A. Chair None. B. Commissioners None. C. Program Report – Rick Beane Mr. Beane advised the Commission the department is finishing the Dutch elm disease program and 150 trees had to be removed in Westwood Hills Nature Center alone. Mr. Beane has discussed contaminated soils with ENSR and decided to develop a safety procedure plan on the impact the soils have. Quotes have been received for the lighting at Skippy ballfield and the lights should be installed by April. Mr. Beane advised Nelson Park’s new ice rink is up and running. The park maintenance division does weekend maintenance on ice rinks (shaving and flooding) and indicated they are in good shape. Demolition has begun on the tennis courts at Shelard Park which will be renovated this year. The street department along with STS have assisted Westwood Hills Nature Center in maintaining the trails and trees which has been great. Mr. Beane advised that Harlan Backlund, Operations Superintendent is retiring and a new person will be hired to replace him. Mr. Birno advised a second STS crew was added for the park department with Mr. Beane managing. Mr. Birno explained the difference between STS and Tree Trust and expressed both programs are beneficial to the City. D. Director’s Report None. 7. Adjournment Moved by Kirk Hawkinson and seconded by Tom Worthington to adjourn. Motion passed 7-0. With no further business, the Commission adjourned at 8:54 p.m. Minutes prepared and respectfully submitted by, Stacy M. Voelker Recording Secretary St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 4f - Park and Rec Commission Minutes Jan.16, 2003 Page 4 of 5 4 Purpose and Intent: The purpose of this policy, which establishes guidelines for the issuance of special park usage permits, is to provide for the health, safety and welfare of the public. It is the intent of the City of St. Louis Park to grant permits for exclusive or on-going use of municipal park property, without payment of the established fee for the use of such property, to those organizations which operate programs under the same general guidelines which govern public programs operated by the Parks and Recreation Department. Toward that end, organizations which request special permits to offer on-going programs on municipal park property without paying a usage fee to the City are required to comply with the following guidelines on an annual basis: 1. Organizations are to deposit a copy of all documents that govern their operation at the Parks and Recreation office along with their application so that those documents may be available for public review. 2. Organizations are to make all information concerning the governance of their programs available to City staff and program participants upon request. 3. Meetings of the organizations governing body, except those which deal with personnel issues or litigation, are to be publicized in advance and open to all program participants, City staff and the public. 4. The election of the organizations governing body is to be a process which is open to all adult program participants and to all parents of youth program participants. Elections will be conducted annually. 5. Head coaches working in youth sports organizations are to be trained and certified through a program deemed appropriate by the individual Athletic Association in consultation with the Parks and Recreation Department. 6. Organizations will allow participation regardless of economic, physical, or social needs. 7. Organizations are to comply with all local, state, and federal human rights laws which prohibit discrimination against program participants or applicants in any manner. 8. All organizations will submit league rosters or participant summaries to the Parks and Recreation Department annually to assist with future athletic facility development needs. Park Reservation Permit Policy St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 4f - Park and Rec Commission Minutes Jan.16, 2003 Page 5 of 5 5 9. When two or more organizations offer similar programs for similar age groups, they are expected to work together to develop the highest level of programming standards and to assure that children throughout the community are being offered equal opportunities for participation regardless of geographic considerations. 10. Any organization which fails to provide for and follow the guidelines set forth above is subject to payment of the established fees for use of park facilities or revocation of its permit at the discretion of the Director of Parks and Recreation. 11. Conflict Resolution: When two or more organizations are unable to resolve their differences regarding facility usage, they must use the following procedure: 1. The associations in conflict must submit a document proving compliance with policy items 1 – 8. 2. The associations in conflict must submit the following information in writing: a. Statement of conflict. b. Documentation of efforts to resolve the apparent conflict (the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission (“PRAC”) has the right to ask the associations to try again to resolve the issue among themselves). c. Their position statement. d. Their suggested resolution. 3. The Commission will then set a meeting date for the following: a. The association will present their position to the Commission. b. The presentation will be by a maximum of two association representatives. c. The presentation will last no more than 15 minutes with a 15-minute question and answer period following. 4. The Commission will render a decision within two weeks following the presentation which will be in effect for that calendar year, request more documentation, or suggest the associations continue their efforts to resolve the conflict. Priority Usage: 1. City sponsored recreation programs. 2. School District (Athletics Department and Community Education). 3. Organized St. Louis Park athletic associations, teams, or clubs that meet the guidelines. 4. Other St. Louis Park resident teams, individuals or neighborhood organizations. 5. Non-resident teams or other. Adopted by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission 02/08/95; Revised 12/20/95; Revised 4/17/02; Revised 1-6-03 St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 4g - BOZA Minutes of Dec. 3, 2002 Page 1 of 14 Board of Zoning Appeals/December 3, 2002 Page 1 of 13 MINUTES DECEMBER 3, 2002 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK The St. Louis Park Board of Zoning Appeals Committee conducted a regular meeting on Tuesday, December 03, 2002 at St. Louis Park City Hall, 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard, St. Louis Park, Minnesota. Members Present: Chair James Gainsley Vice Chair Susan Bloyer Commissioner Ryan Burt Commissioner Tom Powers (arrived at 7:10 p.m.) Commissioner Paul Roberts Members Absent: None Staff Present: Janet Jeremiah, Planning & Zoning Supervisor Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator Tara Olson, Community Development Secretary 1. CALL TO ORDER – ROLL CALL Chair Gainsley called the regular meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. APPROVE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMITTEE MINUTES Motion by Commissioner Roberts, seconded by Commissioner Bloyer, to approve the following minutes as presented with the following corrections: Page 1, amend Call to Order with Chair Gainsley and remove Vice Chair Bloyer. 1) Board of Zoning Appeals Committee public hearing and regular meeting minutes dated September 26, 2002. Motion by Commissioner Roberts, seconded by Commissioner Bloyer, that the regular meeting minutes dated September 26, 2002 are approved with the above corrections. Motion carried. Voting Yes: Gainsley, Bloyer, Burt and Roberts. Voting No: None. 3. CONSENT AGENDA None St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 4g - BOZA Minutes of Dec. 3, 2002 Page 2 of 14 Board of Zoning Appeals/December 3, 2002 Page 2 of 13 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS/COMMITTEE BUSINESS A. Case No. 02-58-VAR - The request of Paul Steen for a variance from the requirements of Section 36-162(c)(7)d 2 of the Ordinance Code relating to zoning to allow a 3 foot rear yard setback instead of the required 5 feet for a detached garage over 12 feet in height for property located in the “R-2” Single Family Residential District at 3755 Joppa Avenue South. Mr. Morrison presented the report and concluded that staff has been unable to identify a hardship that is unique to this property, in part, because city staff have identified two possible solutions that can bring the property into compliance: relocating the building to the five foot setback, or the lowering of the roof which will preserve the existing open space in the back yard. As a result, staff believes that only four of the seven criteria have been met. Therefore, staff recommends denial of Mr. Paul Steen’s request for a variance from the requirements of section 36-162(c)(7)d2 of the Ordinance Code relating to Zoning to allow a 3 foot rear yard setback instead of the required 5 feet for a detached garage over 12 feet in height for property located in the “R-2” Single Family Residential District at 3755 Joppa Avenue South. Commissioner Bloyer asked staff to verify that staff’s recommendation for the garage relocation would be to the west. Mr. Morrison stated that was correct, staff recommends the garage to be relocated to the west since the 5-foot rear yard setback is met to the north. With no more questions, Chair Gainsley opened the public hearing. Paul Steen, applicant of 3755 Joppa Avenue South stated that the previous garage location on the property was about 18 inches or less than 2 feet setback, whereas this proposal would locate the new garage 3 feet. Also, he feels the traffic on 38th Street can be noisy and a safety hazard. In addition, this garage has been designed for a specific work area and storage needs which would meet current codes if the position of the garage were 2-feet closer to the house which would make the back yard smaller and since the garage is almost constructed the relocating will become a financial hardship. Commission Roberts asked Mr. Steen why he constructed a garage of 13 feet? Mr. Steen responded that the extra height will be used for attic storage. Chair Gainsley asked Mr. Steen to clarify his reasoning of hardship due to the traffic on 38th Street St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 4g - BOZA Minutes of Dec. 3, 2002 Page 3 of 14 Board of Zoning Appeals/December 3, 2002 Page 3 of 13 Mr. Steen stated the garage would be used as noise abatement for the traffic. Chair Gainsley asked Mr. Steen what kind of building structures are located on the adjoining properties. Mr. Steen stated that the neighboring building structures are garages with smaller height than the 13-foot proposal. Jeffrey Wildstein, 3754 Inglewood Avenue stated that Mr. Steen’s property adjoins his and feels that this garage would not effect his property and would like to see the Board of Zoning Appeals to approve this variance. Also, the traffic along 38th Street is noisy and feels that if Mr. Steen were to continue constructing this garage it would provide back yard privacy. Janet Grangaard, 3751 Joppa Avenue South stated that she is an adjacent property owner to the north and would like to support Mr. Steen on the construction of his garage. Also, prior to Mr. Steen’s purchase of this home it was in disrepair and he has since made dramatic improvements to this property. Ron Greeve, 3730 Inglewood Avenue South stated he is not a adjacent neighbor but would like to state that the construction of this garage will make a great improvement to this property and is in favor of this variance. Claudia Johnston-Madison, 3931 Joppa Avenue South stated she is not an adjacent property owner but is in attendance as a representative of the neighborhood association. She stated that over the past weekend she spoke to a number of neighbor’s in the area, which are in favor of granting this variance. With no more questions, Chair Gainsley closed the public hearing. Commissioner Burt stated he understands the property owners’ difficulty and agrees with the comments that were made by the neighboring properties. Commissioner Roberts stated that the property is unique and the traffic along 38th Street is overwhelming and would be favor of granting this variance. Commissioner Powers asked staff if this proposal should be reviewed by City Council for a different perspective? Ms. Jeremiah stated that if appeared, the City Council would review this variance under the same city code provisions and the same seven findings. They may see different aspects of the situation and draw some different conclusions. This is the first time we are hearing testimony from others that there is a uniqueness to the lot, which can be considered as well by City Council, but they do St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 4g - BOZA Minutes of Dec. 3, 2002 Page 4 of 14 Board of Zoning Appeals/December 3, 2002 Page 4 of 13 act under the same ordinance. Commissioner Bloyer stated the applicants do have a narrow lot, which does restrict that back yard and a safety issue due to the heavily traveled 38th Street and feels these issues are a hardship and would be in favor of granting this variance. Chair Gainsley stated that he feels a mistake was made by city staff on the findings and feels this lot has enough uniqueness along with adjoining property’s not being affected by the size of this garage and is in favor of granting this variance. Motion by Commissioner Bloyer, seconded by Commissioner Burt, that the variance be granted to allow a 3 foot rear yard setback instead of the required 5 feet for a detached garage over 12 feet in height for property located in the “R-2” Single Family Residential District at 3755 Joppa Avenue South. Motion Carried. Voting Yes: Gainsley, Bloyer, Burt, Powers and Roberts. Voting No: None. B. Case No. 02-60-VAR – The request of Square Feet of Minnesota, LLC for a variance from the requirements of Section 36-361(c)(1)d 12 of the Ordinance Code relating to zoning to permit 24 parking spaces instead of the required 73 to allow a 2,695 square foot addition to an existing 2,6700 square foot office warehouse building without providing additional parking for property located in the “I-G” General Industrial District at 3300 Gorham Avenue. Mr. Morrison presented the report and concluded that none of the seven findings have been satisfied, and because an option does exist for the property owner to expand into the space of the existing building currently being leased by the applicant to another company, staff recommends that the request for a variance to Section 36-361(c)(1)d.12 of the ordinance code to construct a 2,695 square foot addition with 24 instead of the required 73 parking spaces be denied. Chair Gainsley asked staff that if the Board of Zoning Appeals were to find that findings have been met, then would staff advertise a public hearing for the setback variances. Mr. Morrison stated that was correct, an advertisement for a public hearing would occur for the setback variances. Commissioner Roberts asked staff how parking spaces were allocated and assigned for the municipal lot. Mr. Morrison stated that the cost of each parking space was assessed to various properties based on the number allocated to each property. This property under consideration was assessed for 9 spaces. All others were assessed to other property owners. St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 4g - BOZA Minutes of Dec. 3, 2002 Page 5 of 14 Board of Zoning Appeals/December 3, 2002 Page 5 of 13 Commissioner Roberts asked staff if there would be an opportunity for property owners to take over other property owners’ parking spaces? Mr. Morrison stated that other property owners are in the same situation. Chair Gainsley asked staff if the parking lot is completely occupied. Mr. Morrison stated that the spaces in the municipal lot are completely allocated, although a vehicle is not always occupying the parking spaces. Generally, the parking lot does sit more than half empty. Commissioner Bloyer asked staff why the parking lot isn’t being fully utilized? Has the City allocated too many parking spaces for the businesses’ use or are the businesses not open? Mr. Morrison stated that the ordinance breaks down the allocation of parking spaces required by the general land uses such as manufacturing and retail. The ordinance looks at the building square feet and its land use and justifies the amount of parking spaces required. Commissioner Bloyer asked staff if the parking space requirements for theses buildings will remain the way they presently are. Mr. Morrison stated that there may be changes to the code as time passes. At this time property values are increasing which may cause these properties to become more intensively used. For example, more building permits may be issued, property owners may increase productions, or a building may change uses. Mr. Morrison stated that at this time the businesses are not utilizing the parking spaces but if a business were to change uses or operations, then there is the ability of that company to use those spaces. Staff feels that city streets and the parking lot could become over-burdened with vehicles. Commission Bloyer stated that she feels each of these property owners may in the future be coming in for building permits to add onto their building and needing more parking spaces. Mr. Morrison agreed with Commission Bloyer and stated that is a concern. Mr. Morrison stated that the majority of these property owners would need variances if they were to add-on to their existing buildings. Chair Gainsley asked staff if these buildings were constructed prior to 1969? St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 4g - BOZA Minutes of Dec. 3, 2002 Page 6 of 14 Board of Zoning Appeals/December 3, 2002 Page 6 of 13 Ms. Jeremiah stated that the majority of the buildings are older and at that time, the parking requirements were probably much less. It also depends on the exact business and how many employees there are within the business. The city hasn’t done a study of this industrial area, but will be studying all of the industrial properties later next year to get a sense of whether some of our policies for preserving these industrial areas makes sense and whether there are other needs for them as we move into the future. We will know more about how this area operates a year from now, but right now per square foot, they just don’t have as many employees as a typical industrial area. That may be because there’s more storage in these buildings, but that could change. They have been each allocated a certain number of parking spaces in the municipal lot. Obviously, they are not all using them currently, but sometime in the future they might. Chair Gainsley asked staff if this would lead to a number of underutilized spaces in this day and age. Ms. Jeremiah stated that was correct. Commissioner Powers asked staff if the business community wanted to improve that parking site by constructing a ramp, which would increase parking? Ms. Jeremiah stated that a ramp is an option in the Industrial District. With no more questions, Chair Gainsley opened the public hearing. Nick Smaby, applicant of 3300 Gorham Avenue stated he feels encouraged by the Commissioners questions along with staff’s findings that parking is not an issue in the municipal parking lot. He stated that he has taken photographs everyday for a month at various times of the day and never has the parking lot been more than 1/3 full. The parking lot can handle about 100 cars and saw more than an average of 67 parking spaces available. If there is a parking problem it is a paper parking problem and not a parking problem that has anything to do with traffic or cars. Mr. Smaby continued to say that in 1982 parking spaces were allocated through assessments, and his business received only nine spaces while a neighboring business received 36 parking spaces. In addition, the formula used to determine parking requirements per usage dictates that he would need about 73 parking spaces total and would like the city to revisit those formulas since his business would only need to occupy 20 to 25 spaces for his business and staff. His business objective would be to stay in St. Louis Park and enjoy working in the city, but he would also like to improve his existing property and improve the city’s tax base. Mr. Smaby stated he would like to explain his plans, which at this time his business is a design/ build company with an architectural office along with a cabinet facility and a general contracting area. His proposal is to build a design studio on top of the existing building for the architects. Currently his business employs five architects who are presently working in a back hallway. He would like to create a nice, pleasant and a well-light space for them to work in. In addition, by St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 4g - BOZA Minutes of Dec. 3, 2002 Page 7 of 14 Board of Zoning Appeals/December 3, 2002 Page 7 of 13 adding this addition he would not be creating more traffic in the area, only to improve working conditions. Commissioner Roberts asked Mr. Smaby how many employees does he currently have on site? Mr. Smaby stated he has 36 carpenters but they work in the field, a cabinet company that employees 15 but five are out in the field so collectively 75 employees but less than half work in the office building. Chair Gainsley stated to Mr. Smaby that variances travel with the property which means that if you were to move out of 3300 Gorham Ave. the next owner is entitled to the same variance that you may have received which could be a more intensive business causing the need for more employee parking. Also, the Board of Zoning Appeals Commissioners are not engineers, and we can’t pass value judgements on how many parking places are needed for a particular type of business. Otherwise, the Commissioners would never be able to get a case out of the meetings. The Planning Commission has access to this and that’s what they do when they write the ordinances. We have to pretty much look at these cases for a hardship, which is our jurisdiction. That says we should give you a variance because there is some difference in this property. Commissioner Bloyer asked Mr. Smaby if he agreed with staff’s assessment that his business is 18,200 square feet of manufacturing, 5,000 office and 3,500 warehouse. Mr. Smaby stated that those measurements are very close. Mr. Burt stated that in the staff report staff mentioned the possibility of Mr. Smaby taking over the building lease, is that still an option? Mr. Smaby stated that in two-years that option will become available but if his company is unable to add-on to the existing building he will need to relocate his business. Commissioner Powers asked staff if Mr. Smaby would be able to work with neighboring businesses to re-divide the municipal lot. Ms. Jeremiah stated that is an option. Staff have suggested to Mr. Smaby that he speak with adjacent property owners and see if any of them feel that parking space allocation in the municipal lot is in excess. Although, that would be excess per code not excess per what they feel they need. Staff hasn’t had the chance to do a full analysis of all of the business parking in the area. Rather, staff have left that for the applicants to explore if they have the opportunity to do so. However, staff senses that there probably isn’t excess parking overall when you look at the area and the allocations. Staff would be surprised if anyone had received more spaces in the municipal lot then they needed to meet code. The issue here seems to be that there is an under utilization just by the way that these businesses are operating. Staff just isn’t sure if that will St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 4g - BOZA Minutes of Dec. 3, 2002 Page 8 of 14 Board of Zoning Appeals/December 3, 2002 Page 8 of 13 prolong into the future. At the time we do our industrial study, we may know more and may have recommendations for ordinance changes or something that may address this better, but presently we are limited to looking at this property and its allocations. Mr. Powers asked staff how the applicants would go about talking to adjacent business owners. Ms. Jeremiah stated that would be up to the applicant but staff could help facilitate. The properties were assessed for those spaces when they were initially allocated, so the City may not be able to reallocate them unless it is per an agreement of all the property owners. Mark McClellan, applicant of 3300 Gorham Ave. stated he has never seen the municipal parking lot filled with cars and feels that if his business is unable to construct an addition he may need to relocate his business. With no more questions, Chair Gainsley closed the public hearing. Commissioner Bloyer asked if a sunset provision could take place and at this time is unable to formulate a provision. Commissioner Powers stated he would like to keep the business located in the city but feels that by approving this variance would only avoid the parking space problem. In addition, he doesn’t feel that a variance is the way to deal with this problem. Chair Gainsley stated he feels that maybe City Council should review this application and reorganize and allocate parking spaces to the businesses and feels that denial of this variance is needed. Commissioner Roberts stated that he feels problems may occur in this Industrial area due to the land use issues and feels that a variance isn’t a tool to use to fix this problem especially if it effects several properties. Although, there is a possibility of tying the applicants request into a sunset policy but that is not a good policy to tie to a use either. Commissioner Burt asked staff to calculate the total amount of parking spaces the Industrial District is currently lacking. Ms. Jeremiah stated that staff has not done an analysis on each of the businesses but due to our current ordinance, all of the properties are probably short-parked, even though we have excess spaces in the municipal lot. Commissioner Burt asked staff if they are completely sure that parking spaces are short. Ms. Jeremiah stated that staff is not completely sure at this time if all the businesses are short but St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 4g - BOZA Minutes of Dec. 3, 2002 Page 9 of 14 Board of Zoning Appeals/December 3, 2002 Page 9 of 13 we do know that the applicant’s property is substantially short. If we look at the amount of building area compared to lot area of the adjacent properties and south east of 1st Street, they are in a similar situation. Commissioner Burt stated he has concern with the future of the parking spaces if this variance were granted although this property is unique in it has a use for a very small space and not enough parking to support the use that it is zoned. Also, he would dislike seeing the business leave the city especially a business that is interested in improving their building. Commissioner Powers asked staff if the applicant would be better off asking for a continuance on this hearing which would give staff and the applicant time to find other options? Commissioner Powers stated that he feels uncomfortable granting this variance based on a lack of information, the effects this may cause adjoining properties and any future plans for this Industrial District. Ms. Jeremiah stated to the Commissions that if they felt a continuance would provide additional information that would affect their decision on the variance, it is appropriate to continue. However, if you don’t think that it would really affect your decision, it may just be delaying the applicant unnecessarily. If you think information is missing that would pertain to your variance decision, then be clear on the information you would like staff to bring back to the continued hearing, and that would be helpful for staff and the applicant. Chair Gainsley stated he would not be in favor of continuing this case and feels staff has provided plenty of information and would like City Council to proceed with findings. Motion by Chair Gainsley, seconded by Commissioner Powers, that the variance be denied based on the seven findings and because an option does exist for the property owner to expand into the space of the existing building currently being leased by the applicant to another company, staff recommends that the request for a variance to Section 36-361(c)(1)d.12 of the ordinance code to construct a 2,695 square foot addition with 24 instead of the required 73 parking spaces be denied. Motion carried. Voting Yes: Gainsley, Powers and Roberts. Voting No: Bloyer and Burt. C. Case No. 02-61-VAR – The request of Burlington Coat Factory for variances from the requirements of Section 36-362(f)(20) of the Ordinance Code relating to zoning to permit a sign height of 40 feet instead of the required minimum 25 feet for a free standing sign and requirements of Section 36-362(f)(20) of the Ordinance Code relating to zoning to permit total sign area of 666 square feet instead of the required maximum of 400 square feet and requirements of Section 36-362(f)(4) if the Ordinance Code relating to zoning to permit two freestanding signs on a single street frontage St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 4g - BOZA Minutes of Dec. 3, 2002 Page 10 of 14 Board of Zoning Appeals/December 3, 2002 Page 10 of 13 instead of the maximum of one for property located in the “C-2” General Commercial District at 3700 T.H. Highway 100 South. Mr. Morrison presented the report and concluded that since 6 of the 7 findings have not been satisfied for any of the variances, the following is recommended for the property located in the “C-2” District at 3700 Highway 100 South: 1. The request for a variance from the requirements of Section 36-362(f)(20) of the ordinance code relating to zoning to permit a sign height of 40 feet instead of the required minimum 25 feet for a free-standing sign be denied. 2. The request for a variance from the requirements of Section 36-362(f)(20) of the ordinance code relating to zoning to permit total sign area of 666 square feet instead of the allowed maximum of 400 square feet be denied. 3. The request for a variance from the requirements of Section 36-362(f)(4) of the ordinance code relating to zoning to permit two freestanding signs on a single street frontage instead of the maximum of one be denied. Chair Gainsley asked staff to clarify the total amount of square feet of signage would be allowed if the applicants were to place their sign on the Micro Center pylon? Mr. Morrison stated that the Micro Center sign uses all of the total allowable square footage for the property, which is a total of 400 square feet. Mr. Morrison explained that a permit was issued to Micro Center allowing the property with a total of allowable signage of 400 square feet but also the Burlington Coat Center sign already existed with 266 total square feet so the sign for Micro Center should have been smaller. Ms. Jeremiah stated that Micro Center and Burlington Coat Factory are both tenants. Often property owners get involved in allocating the allowable square footage of signs to the different tenants so staff would ask that the property owner assist in coordinating this problem with the two tenants. Also, there is adequate visibility with the location and height of the existing Micro Center sign. Even if they were to hang a Burlington Coat sign below the existing Microcenter sign it would be visible. Chair Gainsley asked staff if a variance could be given for the additional square footage with a provision that the signs be located on the same pylon? Ms. Jeremiah stated that it is possible if you feel that 400 square feet was minimal for this property due to physical configurations or something else speaking to the findings. Chair Gainsley stated we can’t make any variances that will take something away from somebody when they already have it, we can give them a variance to add to the pylon. St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 4g - BOZA Minutes of Dec. 3, 2002 Page 11 of 14 Board of Zoning Appeals/December 3, 2002 Page 11 of 13 Ms. Jeremiah stated that if these variances were denied that would be an option for Burlington to pursue as to reducing the Micro Center signage and co-locate on that sign. If you were to grant an area variance then the option would be to co-locate and hang an additional sign. Chair Gainsley asked staff if Micro Center would agree to co-locate an additional sign onto its pylon. Ms. Jeremiah stated she is unsure if the property owner or if Micro Center has paid for the existing sign pole, the city is not partied to those kinds of agreements. Commissioner Powers asked staff if there were conditions applied to the height variance that was issued to Micro Center, if so wouldn’t they need to remove all free standing signs? Ms. Jeremiah stated that the removal of all free standing signs should have been a condition of the permit, then the only free standing sign would be the Micro Center which would have used all of the allowable area. Unfortunately, staff did not make that a condition when issuing the Micro Center permit. That is where the error occurred. Staff may have assumed that the Burlington Coat sign would come down or forgot the sign was there. Chair Gainsley asked if a variance was given to Micro Center? Ms. Jeremiah stated that a height variance was issued. The size of the Micro Center sign was not addressed. Had they put up a smaller Micro Center sign that would have addressed the area but instead they took the entire allotted area which made the Burlington Coat sign non- conforming. Commissioner Burt asked staff that when Micro Center put in their 400 square foot sign did that exceed the allowable amount on the property? Ms. Jeremiah stated that was correct, Burlington Coat sign should have been counted in that 400 square feet. The 400 square feet is total allowable for a property. If there is a multi tenant retail building, we do not count wall signs, but they are still only allowed one pylon sign per street frontage. Commissioner Burt asked staff to clarify that the variance that was granted to Micro Center was only granted for the height and when they put that sign up which was 400 square feet, that act was in violation of ordinance? Ms. Jeremiah stated that was correct, the height of the sign was not in violation but the size of the sign is. St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 4g - BOZA Minutes of Dec. 3, 2002 Page 12 of 14 Board of Zoning Appeals/December 3, 2002 Page 12 of 13 Commissioner Burt asked staff if a remedy would be to inform Micro Center that their sign is in violation of city ordinance and clarify that a variance was given to height not sign area. Ms. Jeremiah stated that staff would like to go back and correct the Micro Center sign and make it smaller and co-locate the Burlington sign. Commissioner Burt stated he feels that the city should require removal. Ms. Jeremiah stated that the city can require them to bring the property into conformance. However, it could be the option of the property owner to remove the Burlington Coat sign. Staff would give the property owner the option of how the property is brought into compliance. At this point, they have chosen to apply for multiple variances. With no more questions, Chair Gainsley opened the public hearing. David Brandell, attorney for Burlington Coat Factory stated that his applicants presently have a 25-foot high sign on a single pylon and would like the Commissioners to consider allowing the same sign to be located to the height of 44 feet. In addition, he feels that visibility of the sign is difficult from Highway 100 and would like the same consideration as Micro Center did in June of 2000. Commissioner Powers stated to Mr. Brandell that variances are assigned to the property and feels that granting this variance would only enhance an error that has already happened. In addition, he feels the property owner needs to address this problem. Chair Gainsley stated to Mr. Brandell that there is a requirement to allow identification of a property but not 100% identification is required and feels that visibility is not a hardship for this property. In addition, he feels that a property representative would be able to allocate proper signage. Mr. Brandell stated that he doesn’t know how the property owner would be able to expect Micro Center and Burlington Coat to reduce their existing sign areas to half in order to place them on one pylon. Chair Gainsley stated to Mr. Brandell that the property owner allowed the Micro Center sign to be installed and now he can remedy this problem. Mr. Brandell stated that the first variance was granted to Micro Center and feels that if it were not granted this would not be an issue at this time. Chair Gainsley stated that the Micro Center variance was granted for height, not square footage. St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 4g - BOZA Minutes of Dec. 3, 2002 Page 13 of 14 Board of Zoning Appeals/December 3, 2002 Page 13 of 13 With no more questions, Chair Gainsley closed the public hearing. Commissioner Bloyer stated she is not in favor of granting 40 feet of height and feels the signs should be located on one pole with that stated she would be in favor of granting a variance for the 666 square feet and the two businesses can work out their own hardship. Commissioner Roberts stated that when Micro Center’s variance was granted it was due to a visual hardship. That is why a height variance was granted, but at this time no hardship is determined. Commissioner Burt stated he is having difficulty granting this variance and feels that the property owner needs to bring Micro Center into compliance and address this issue at the same time. In addition, he would like to point out the unique designation because this isn’t the first time that the Commission has had issues with signage along Highway 100 corridor and he understands that presently the size and other issues with these signs along Highway 100 are being phased out and are supposed to be reduced. Commissioner Powers stated he believes that a 400 square foot sign is adequate for this property and would like to deny this variance. Motion by Commissioner Powers, seconded by Commissioner Burt, that the variance be denied based on the seven findings staff recommends for denial of the following variances: 1. The request for a variance from the requirements of Section 36-362(f)(20) of the ordinance code relating to zoning to permit a sign height of 40 feet instead of the required minimum 25 feet for a free-standing sign. 2. The request for a variance from the requirements of Section 36-362(f)(20) of the ordinance code relating to zoning to permit total sign area of 666 square feet instead of the allowed maximum of 400 square feet. 3. The request for a variance from the requirements of Section 36-362(f)(4) of the ordinance code relating to zoning to permit two freestanding signs on a single street frontage instead of the maximum of one. Motion Carried. Voting Yes: Gainsley, Burt, Powers and Roberts. Voting No: Bloyer. 5. Old Business: None 6. New Business: None St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 4g - BOZA Minutes of Dec. 3, 2002 Page 14 of 14 Board of Zoning Appeals/December 3, 2002 Page 14 of 13 7. Communications: None 8. Miscellaneous: None 9. Adjournment: Commissioner Roberts moved and Commissioner Powers seconded the motion for adjournment. The regular meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals adjourned at 8:58 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Tara Olson Community Development Secretary St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 4h - BOZA Minutes of Jan. 23, 2003 Page 1 of 2 Board of Zoning Appeals/January 23, 2003 Page 1 of 2 MINUTES JANUARY 23, 2003 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK The St. Louis Park Board of Zoning Appeals Committee conducted a regular meeting on Thursday, January 23, 2003 at St. Louis Park City Hall, 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard, St. Louis Park, Minnesota. Members Present: Chair James Gainsley Vice Chair Susan Bloyer Commissioner Ryan Burt Commissioner Tom Powers Commissioner Paul Roberts Members Absent: None Staff Present: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator Tara Olson, Community Development Secretary 1. CALL TO ORDER – ROLL CALL Chair Gainsley called the regular meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. APPROVE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMITTEE MINUTES Motion by Commissioner Bloyer, seconded by Commissioner Roberts, to approve the following minutes as presented. 1) Board of Zoning Appeals Committee public hearing and regular meeting minutes dated October 24, 2002. Motion Carried. Voting Yes: Gainsley, Bloyer, Burt, Powers and Roberts. Voting No: None. 3. CONSENT AGENDA None 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS/COMMITTEE BUSINESS A. Case No. 03-01-VAR – The request of Walser Ford for a variance from the requirements of Section 36-362(f)(20) of the Ordinance Code relating to zoning to permit 759 square feet St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 4h - BOZA Minutes of Jan. 23, 2003 Page 2 of 2 Board of Zoning Appeals/January 23, 2003 Page 2 of 2 of sign area instead of the required maximum of 400 square feet for property located in the “C-2” General Commercial District at 3555 S. Highway 100. Mr. Morrison stated that staff has received a letter from Walser Ford requesting a continuation of the public hearing until February 27, 2003. Motion by Commissioner Burt, seconded by Commissioner Bloyer that Walser Ford continues the public hearing until February 27, 2003. Motion carried. Voting Yes: Gainsley, Bloyer, Burt, Powers and Roberts. Voting No: None. 5. Old Business: None 6. New Business: None 7. Communications: Mr. Gainsley informed the Commissioners of their re-appointment status and also corrected a clerical error on the agenda which was Commissioner Paul Roberts being re-appointed and should be corrected to Commissioner Tom Powers. In addition, the Commissioner re-appointed for 2003 are James Gainsley, Susan Bloyer and Tom Powers. Commissioners have reviewed the Board of Zoning Appeals by-laws and had no comments. 8. Miscellaneous: None 9. Adjournment: Commissioner Burt moved and Commissioner Powers seconded the motion for adjournment. The regular meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals adjourned at 7:08 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Tara Olson Community Development Secretary St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 5a - Telecommunications Commission Annual Report Page 1 of 6 5a. Telecommunications Advisory Commission 2002 Annual Report The Telecommunications Advisory Commission prepares an annual report and submits a proposed work plan to keep the City Council informed. Recommended Action: Motion to receive Annual Report for filing. Background: In 2002 the Telecommunications Commission held 5 regular meetings and met with the Council at a Study Session May 13. Some Commissioners attended conferences held by the Minnesota Association of Community Television Advisors (MACTA) in May, July and October. Chair Dale Hartman met with staff periodically to monitor progress on Commission issues. Time Warner Cable (TWC) Franchise Fee Audit In January, 2002 Dale Hartman participated in the Audit Review Selection Committee with City staff Clint Pires, Jean McGann, Reg Dunlap and John McHugh. The audit took longer than expected so the Commission was updated on the audit’s progress at each meeting during the year. The final report in December detailed underpaid franchise fees of $11,470, and in January, 2003 the company was sent an invoice for that amount plus reimbursement for conducting the audit. The company has reimbursed the City for the audit and submitted an additional payment of $2,746. City staff continues to work with the auditor and TWC to resolve the dispute over the remaining $8,724. FCC reclassifies cable modem service, resulting in lost franchise fees In March the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) ruled that cable modem revenues were an information service, not a cable service, and most cable companies, including Time Warner, stopped paying franchise fees on those revenues after the first quarter. The Commission supported staff’s recommendation to participate in ongoing lobbying efforts to overturn the FCC’s ruling. For 2002 the City lost about $17,000 in franchise fees, and paid $4,000 to lobby to recover these lost revenues. To date, FCC rules on this issue have not changed. Legislative Issues The Minnesota State Legislature was busy with budget issues, leaving little time for telecommunications reform. MACTA’s lobbyist couldn’t get an amendment passed late in the Session which would have required cable companies to continue paying cable modem franchise fees until future resolution by the courts. The summer MACTA conference included fact-finding and consensus building among members on the changes needed for State Chapter 238, which contains timelines for franchise transfers that are quite different than federal law. St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 5a - Telecommunications Commission Annual Report Page 2 of 6 School District Funding In May a motion passed to fully fund the District’s request for $73,000. The motion recommended an increased operations grant of $35,000, and for one-half of the requested $38,000 equipment grant to be paid immediately and one-half later, contingent on the District submitting the required quarterly programming reports. (The reports were received as requested, and the remaining half was paid in January of 2003). Metro Cable Network Channel 6 In July, City received a complaint concerning TWC’s practice of charging some multiple dwelling unit buildings (MDUs) a monthly fee for deleting Regional Channel 6 (and replacing it with entryway security camera video) based on total units in the building, not on actual units subscribing to TWC. While the complaint was resolved, the larger issue of TWC "leasing out a channel" by deleting a programming service required, by state statute, to be delivered to all their metro area subscribers, remained unresolved and was reviewed by the Commission. The review was carried forward into 2003. Renewal of Time Warner Cable Franchise A May 24 letter from TWC formally started the renewal process of the current franchise, which expires February 27, 2005. Public notice, published November 14 and 21, 2002 started the renewal proceeding. The proceeding will be extended or closed at the August 5, 2003 City Council meeting. In October, staff worked with TwinWest Chamber of Commerce, Sunrise Rotary and other parties, distributing a questionnaire concerning the present and future telecommunications needs for city businesses. Based on the response, an actual survey was designed, with additional input from Community Development. DRL will implement the survey in Q1 of 2003. Council & School Board Meeting Replays on Civic Channel 17 Councilmember Nelson had received comments that Council meetings weren’t replayed often enough since staff revised the program schedule in August of 2001 to accommodate Planning Commission meeting coverage. The Commission consensus was to: • add Council replays to Time Warner’s channel 16 again, if possible (done immediately) • have Educational Channel 14 run school events and add School Board meetings • add Council replays on Sundays, which is a day more people are watching television The School District used some of the franchise fee equipment grant to buy cameras and other equipment for their Board Room, so beginning in January 2003, School Board meetings can run live and be replayed on Educational Channel 14 (KDXL). Civic Channel 17 discontinued running School Board meetings on January 1, 2003, and the schedule was revised to add Thursday and Sunday replays of Council meetings. St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 5a - Telecommunications Commission Annual Report Page 3 of 6 Time Warner Cable Restructuring The Commission discussed staff’s summary of the Time Warner Cable restructuring proposal and a conference call with the City Attorney, but a written City Attorney report wasn’t available at meeting time so the Commission could not recommend specific action. The City Council reviewed the Attorney’s report and acted without input from the Commission on November 4, 2002. Telecommunications Commission Attendance: 2002 Commissioner 2/21 5/9 5/13 Joint mtg. with Council 8/8 10/17 12/5 Total meetings attended Dale Hartman (Chair) YES YES YES - YES YES 5 Bruce Browning (Vice Chair) - YES - YES - YES 3 Ken Huiras YES YES YES YES YES YES 6 Rick Dworsky YES - YES YES YES YES 5 Bob Jacobson YES YES - YES YES YES 5 Mary Jean Overend YES YES - YES YES YES 5 Rolf Peterson* YES YES YES 3 *Appointed 5/28/02 by the School Board Attachments: Work Plan for 2003 Time Warner System Changes in 2002 Prepared by: Reg Dunlap & John McHugh, Cable TV Coordinators Approved by: Clint Pires, Deputy City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 5a - Telecommunications Commission Annual Report Page 4 of 6 2003 Telecommunications Commission Work Plan work2003 Annual meeting January 23 Westwood Room ¤ Elected Ken Huiras Chair and Bruce Browning as Vice Chair for 2003. ¤ Channel 6 update: Written proposal from Time Warner & City Attorney’s response. A special meeting was set for February 20, 2003 to focus on the consensus discussion points and the responses to them. ¤ School District funding: Reviewed program reports for 4th Quarter of 2002 and passed 2 motions: 1. To provide background for new funding, from 2003 City cable TV budget franchise fees, the Commission requests: A report to be discussed at the May 8, 2003 Commission meeting that includes an accounting of the grant funds for 2002, and an updated inventory 2. To approve the remaining $19,000 in grant funds which come from the 2002 City budget. ¤ Reviewed Lewis & Associates audit of Time Warner. ¤ The annual report was deferred to the next meeting. ¤ Grants from Telecommunication Commission for specific programs was deferred to a future meeting. February 20 Westwood Room Special Meeting CANCELED ¤ Review Channel 6 Discussion Points & responses ¤ Review draft work plan and revise Presentation, annual report to City Council March 17 ¤ Commission presentation & report to City Council ¤ Review Work Plan for 2003 May 8 Westwood Room or Senior High School ¤ School District funding for 2003 ¤ Review: School District using interns for extra experience & to produce programming ¤ Cable TV coverage for Telecommunications or other Commissions August 14 Westwood Room ¤ Review Time Warner Annual Filings ¤ Customer service update ¤ Franchise renewal progress report St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 5a - Telecommunications Commission Annual Report Page 5 of 6 October 9 Westwood Room ¤ Staff Report due: informal survey of other TW cities and other MSP cities regarding converter rates and what TW cities have done about the increases over last few years ¤ Steps to roll back equipment rates (if needed) December 4 Westwood Room ¤ Time Warner presentation on new cable rates and/or changes in the channel line up ¤ Set meetings for 2004 ¤ Work Plan for 2004 St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 5a - Telecommunications Commission Annual Report Page 6 of 6 Time Warner System Changes in 2002 3/11/02 Notice of additions to the digital tier, effective 3/31/02. Add Biography (235), History International (236), Fine Living (237), Lifetime Real Women (238), CNBC World (239), UPN 9 digital/HDTV (1090) and WFTX 29 digital/HDTV (1290). Rates unchanged. March 27: received certified letter re: FCC cable modem ruling, asking for response within 10 days. May 6: EarthLink & AOL Broadband now available as high speed ISP’s on TWC network. May 24: Received renewal notice intent via certified mail. May 30: TWC expects to launch VOD in July Beginning June 27: Inter.net available as the fourth high speed ISP option on the TWC network. July 31 notice: Elimination of fees to upgrade or downgrade service, or transfer “cable and high-speed Internet service within our cable systems” September: The second Educational Access channel (#98) displaying NASA-TV was added at the School District’s request. September 17, 2002 letter from Eric Brown: • Roadrunner ranked highest in customer satisfaction among high-speed ISP’s by J.D. Power & Associates 2002 study. • AOL, EarthLink & inter.net available. • New PVR’s (personal video recorders) expected later this year. November 26 letter from Arlen Mattern: Price and lineup changes for 2003, includes creating new digital tiers for movies and sports. December 24 & 27, 2002 Letters from Arlen Mattern: Notice about stalemate in negotiations to continue providing Fox Sports Net, and copy of Eric Brown’s letter that will be sent to subscribers. January 1 Fox Sports Net replaced by ESPN News; negotiations are ongoing. St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 6a - CenterPoint Franchise Renewal Page 1 of 9 6a. Public Hearing on renewal of a natural gas utility franchise agreement with CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco Resources Corporation CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco has requested the City Council renew their natural gas utility franchise agreement. Recommended Action: Motion to close Public Hearing. Motion to adopt first reading of an Ordinance granting CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco a non exclusive natural gas utility franchise and set Second Reading for April 7, 2003. BACKGROUND: The City currently has a Franchise agreement with Minnegasco – it expires June 30, 2003. CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco officials approached City staff during 2002 requesting the City adopt a new Franchise agreement. At staff request, the City Attorney prepared a draft franchise agreement for consideration (attached). Various City staff have reviewed and provided input during the development of this draft agreement. This topic and draft Franchise agreement was presented to the City Council at the February 10, 2003 study session for review and comment. Minnegasco staff has also been involved in the development and review of this draft agreement. PROPOSED AGREEMENT: The following 11 sections and brief descriptions comprise this agreement: A. Section 1. Definitions. B. Section 2. Franchise – grants non-exclusive franchise; determines effective and termination dates; establishes conditions for default; and, provides for possible continuation of franchise. C. Section 3. Conditions of Use – establishes utility location and mapping requirements; requires permits for utility work; and, establishes notice, protection, and restoration requirements. D. Section 4. Relocations – establishes relocation requirements and provides for vacation of public right of ways. E. Section 5. Defense and Indemnification – requires indemnification and defense by franchisee for negligence on their part F. Section 6. Successors in Interest – allows franchise to be continued by a Successor Company. G. Section 7. Franchise Fee – allows for the establishment by separate ordinance of a franchise fee by the City. H. Section 8. Limitation on Applicability – franchise applies only to the City and Minnegasco. I. Section 9. Previous Franchises Superseded – replaces previous franchise on effective date. J. Section 10. Amendments – allows agreement to be amended by ordinance agreed to by Minnegasco. K. Section 11. Severability. The proposed Franchise is the same as the current one except for the following changes: St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 6a - CenterPoint Franchise Renewal Page 2 of 9 1. Term of agreement is reduced from 20 to 10 years. 2. Franchise Fee (Section 7) replaced with a simpler provision that reserves our right to impose a fee in the future. 3. Allows for the imposition of a fee for GIS mapping by the City. 4. Requires utility to remove their abandoned infrastructure at their cost. 5. Requires City to provide two week written notice of Vacation of Public Ways. 6. Requires City to provide utility easements, if needed by company, when Public Ways are vacated. ISSUES: City staff has identified no issues associated with the adoption of this new Franchise agreement, other than Minnegasco desires a 20-year term versus the proposed 10-year term. Past franchise agreements typically have had 20-year terms. Staff feels that due to the rapid pace of change in the utility business that more frequent franchise reviews are necessary. ADOPTION PROCESS AND SCHEDULE: The following is the proposed process and schedule for adoption of this Franchise agreement. Study Session Feb 10 Submit Public Hearing Notice to Sun Sailor Feb 13 Public Hearing Notice Published Feb 20 First reading and Public Hearing March 17 Second reading (adopt ordinance, approve summary and authorize summary publication) April 7 Submit Summary to Sun Sailor April 10 Summary Publication April 17 First date ordinance COULD be effective May 2 The current Franchise agreement is effective through June 30, 2003. The planned effective date of the new Franchise agreement is July 1, 2003. Attachment: Franchise Ordinance Prepared by: Mike Rardin, Director of Public Works Approved by: Clint Pires, Deputy City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 6a - CenterPoint Franchise Renewal Page 3 of 9 FRANCHISE ORDINANCE FOR CENTERPOINT ENERGY MINNEGASCO ORDINANCE NO. ______ CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE GRANTING TO CENTERPOINT ENERGY MINNEGASCO, A NATURAL GAS UTILITY, A DIVISION OF CENTERPOINT ENERGY RESOURCES CORPORATION, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, A NONEXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE TO CONSTRUCT, OPERATE, REPAIR AND MAINTAIN FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT FOR THE TRANSPORTATION, DISTRIBUTION, MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF GAS ENERGY FOR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE USE AND TO USE PUBLIC WAYS AND PUBLIC GROUNDS OF THE CITY FOR SUCH PURPOSES; AND PRESCRIBING CERTAIN TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF. THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN : SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS. For purposes of this Ordinance, the following capitalized terms shall have the following meanings: 1.1. City. The City of St. Louis Park, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota. 1.2. City Utility System. Facilities used for providing public utility service owned or operated by the City or agency thereof. 1.3. Commission. The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, or any successor agency or agencies, including an agency of the federal government that preempts all or part of the authority to regulate gas retail rates now vested in the Commission. 1.4. Company. CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco, a Division of CenterPoint Energy Resources Corporation, its successors and assigns, including successors to assignees of those portions of the Company that constitute any part or parts of the Gas Facilities subject to this franchise. 1.5. Effective Date. The date on which the ordinance becomes effective under Section 2.2. 1.6. Gas. Natural gas, manufactured gas, mixture of natural gas and manufactured gas or other forms of gas energy. 1.7. Gas Facilities. Gas transmission and distribution pipes, mains, lines, ducts, fixtures, and all necessary facilities, equipment and appurtenances owned, operated or otherwise used by the Company for the purpose of providing gas energy for public use. 1.8. Non-Betterment Costs. Costs incurred by the Company from relocation, removal or rearrangement of Gas Facilities that do not result in an improvement to the Facilities. St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 6a - CenterPoint Franchise Renewal Page 4 of 9 1.9. Notice. A writing served by a party or parties on another party or parties. Notice to Company must be mailed to: CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco V.P., Regulatory & Supply Service 800 LaSalle Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55402 Notice to City must be mailed to: City Manager City of St. Louis Park 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard St. Louis Park, MN 55416 1.10.Public Way. Any street, alley or other public right-of-way within the City. 1.11. Public Ground. Land owned or otherwise controlled by the City for parks, open space or other public purposes. SECTION 2. FRANCHISE. 2.1 Grant of Franchise. The City grants the Company, for a period of ten (10) years from the Effective Date, the right to import, manufacture, transport, distribute and sell Gas for public and private use within and through the limits of the City. This right includes the provision of Gas that is (i) manufactured by the Company or its affiliates and delivered by the Company, (ii) purchased and delivered by the Company or (iii) purchased from another source by the retail customer and delivered by the Company. For these purposes, the Company may construct, operate, repair and maintain Gas Facilities in, on, over, under and across the Public Way and Public Ground subject to the provisions of this ordinance. The Company may do all things reasonably necessary or customary to accomplish these purposes, subject to other applicable ordinances, permit requirements and to further provisions of this ordinance. 2.2 Effective Date. This franchise is effective July 1, 2003 and after acceptance by the Company, but in no event less than fifteen (15) days after its passage and publication by the City. Written acceptance or rejection of the franchise by the Company must be filed with the City Clerk within ninety (90) days after written submission of a draft of this ordinance to the Company. 2.3 Non exclusive Franchise. This ordinance does not grant an exclusive franchise. 2.4 Legal Fees. Each party is responsible for its own legal fees incurred related to granting of this franchise. St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 6a - CenterPoint Franchise Renewal Page 5 of 9 2.5 Publication Expense. The expense of publication of this ordinance must be paid by the Company. 2.6 Default: Dispute Resolution. If the City or Company asserts that the other party is in default in the performance of any obligation hereunder, the complaining party must notify the other party in writing of the default and the desired remedy. Representatives of the parties must promptly meet and attempt in good faith to negotiate a resolution of the dispute. If the dispute is not resolved within thirty (30) days after service of the notice, the parties may jointly select a mediator to facilitate further discussion. The parties will equally share the fees and expenses of the mediator. If a mediator is not used or if the parties are unable to resolve the dispute within thirty (30) days after first meeting with the mediator, either party may commence an action in District Court to interpret and enforce this franchise or for such other relief as may be permitted by law or equity. 2.7 Continuation of Franchise. If this franchise expires and the City and the Company are unable to agree on the terms of a new franchise, the existing franchise will remain in effect until a new franchise is agreed upon, or until ninety (90) days after the City or the Company serves written Notice to the other party of their intention to allow the franchise agreement to expire. SECTION 3. CONDITIONS OF USE. 3.1 Location of Facilities. Gas Facilities must be located, constructed, installed and maintained so as not to interfere with the City Utility System or the safety and convenience of ordinary travel along and over Public Ways. Gas Facilities may be located on Public Grounds as determined by the City. The Company’s construction, reconstruction, operation, repair, maintenance and location of Gas Facilities is subject to other ordinances and regulations of the City. 3.2 Field Location. Upon request by the City, the Company must provide field locations for any of its Gas Facilities within the period of time required by Minnesota State Statute 216D. At the request of the City, the Company shall provide existing data on its existing facilities within the public right-of-way in the form maintained by the Company at the time the request was made, if available. 3.3 Permit Required. The Company may not open or disturb the surface of any Public Way or Public Ground without first having obtained a permit from the City, for which the City may impose a reasonable fee. Company will comply with all permit conditions established by the City. The permit conditions imposed on the Company may not be more burdensome than those imposed on other utilities for similar facilities or work. The Company may, however open and disturb the surface of any Public Way or Public Ground without a permit if (i) an emergency exists requiring the immediate repair of Gas Facilities and (ii) the Company St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 6a - CenterPoint Franchise Renewal Page 6 of 9 gives notice to the City before, if possible, commencement of the emergency repair. Within two (2) business days after commencing the repair, the Company must apply for any required permits and pay the required fees. Except in the case of emergency work, work undertaken without a permit by the Company or its agents shall be subject at the discretion of the City to a penalty in the amount of twice the established permit fees in addition to any other remedy or penalty specified or allowed in City Code or State Rules. 3.4 Restoration. After completing work requiring the opening of a Public Way or Public Ground, the Company must restore the same, including paving and its foundation, to the condition specified in the permit which must not be inconsistent with Minnesota Rules 7819.1100, and maintain the restored areas in good condition for two (2) years thereafter. The work must be completed as promptly as weather permits. If the Company does not promptly perform and complete the work, remove all dirt, rubbish, equipment and material, and restore the Public Way or Public Ground, the City may, after demand to the Company to cure and the passage of a reasonable period of time not less than five calendar days following the demand, make the restoration at the expense of the Company. The Company must pay to the City the cost of such work done for or performed by the City, including administrative expense and overhead, plus ten percent of cost and administrative expense. This remedy is in addition to any other remedies available to the City for noncompliance with this section. In all other aspects, Company shall comply with the terms of Minnesota Rules 7819.1100 for restoration of Public Ways and Grounds, and Minnesota Rules 7819.3000 and 7819.0100 regarding posting of a construction bond, or any successor rules or City Code requirements. 3.5 Company Protection of Gas Facilities in Public Ways. The Company must take reasonable measures to prevent the Gas Facilities from causing damage to persons or property. The Company must take reasonable measures to protect the Gas Facilities from damage that could be inflicted on the Facilities by persons, property or the elements. The Company and the City will comply with all applicable laws and codes when performing work near the Gas Facilities. 3.6 Notice of Improvements. The City must give the Company reasonable notice of plans for improvements to Public Ways or Public Ground. The notice must contain; (i) the nature and character of the improvements, (ii) the Public Ways or Public Grounds upon which the improvements are to be made, (iii) the extent of the improvements, (iv) the time when the City will start the work, and, (v) if more than one Public Way or Public Ground is involved, the order in which the work is to proceed. The notice must be given to the Company a sufficient length of time in advance of the actual commencement of the work to permit the Company to make any necessary additions, alterations, or repairs to its Gas Facilities. If streets are at final width and grade and the City has installed underground sewer and water mains and service connections to the property line abutting the streets prior to a permanent paving or resurfacing of such streets, and the Company’s main is located under such street, the City may require the Company to install gas service connections prior to such paving or resurfacing, if it is apparent that gas service will be required during the five years following the paving or resurfacing. St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 6a - CenterPoint Franchise Renewal Page 7 of 9 SECTION 4. RELOCATIONS. 4.1 Relocation of Gas Facilities in Public Ways. If the City determines by the proper exercise of its police power to vacate a Public Way for a City improvement project, or to grade, regrade or change the alignment of any Public Way, or construct or reconstruct any City Utility System in any Public Way, the City may order the Company to relocate its Gas Facilities at the Company’s own expense. The City must give the Company sufficient notice of plans to vacate for a City improvement project, or to grade, re-grade, or change the alignment of any Public Way or to construct or reconstruct any City Utility System. If a relocation is ordered within five (5) years of a prior relocation of the same Gas Facilities, which was made at Company expense, the City will reimburse the Company on a time and material basis for Non-Betterment Costs. If any subsequent relocation is required because of the extension of a City Utility System to a previously unserved area, the City may require the Company to make the subsequent relocation at the Company’s expense. Nothing in this ordinance requires the Company to relocate, remove, replace or reconnect its Facilities at the Company’s expense where such relocation, removal, replacement or reconstruction is solely for the convenience of the City. The provisions of this section 4.1 apply only to Gas Facilities constructed in reliance on this franchise and the Company does not waive its rights under an easement or prescriptive right in the Public Way. Company will comply with the provisions of State Rules, including 7819.3300, regarding abandonment of its facilities. 4.2 Relocation of Gas Facilities in Public Ground. The City may, by the proper exercise of its police power, require the Company to relocate the Gas Facilities within or remove the Gas Facilities from Public Ground, upon a finding by City that the Gas Facilities have become or will become a substantial impairment of the public use or enjoyment to which the Public Ground is or will be put. The relocation or removal will be at the Company’s expense. The provisions of this Section 4.2 apply only to Gas Facilities constructed in reliance on this franchise and the Company does not waive its rights under an easement or prescriptive right in the Public Ground. Company will comply with the provisions of State Rules, including 7819.3300, regarding abandonment of its facilities. 4.3 Vacation of Public Ways. The City must give the Company at least two-weeks’ Notice of the proposed vacation of a Public Way. Except where required for a City street or other improvement project or as otherwise provided in Section 4.1, the vacation of a Public Way, after the installation of Gas Facilities, does not deprive the Company of its rights to operate and maintain the Gas Facilities until the reasonable cost of relocating the same and the loss and expense resulting from such relocation are first paid to the Company. Upon request of the Company, and if the City in its sole discretion determines that the vacation of Public Way does not require the relocation of existing Gas Facilities, the City shall reserve a utility easement to the Company, created by and within the document establishing the vacation. St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 6a - CenterPoint Franchise Renewal Page 8 of 9 In no case will the City be liable to Company for failure to specifically preserve a right-of- way under Minnesota Statutes, Section 160.29. 4.4 Projects with Federal Funding. Relocation, removal or rearrangement of any Gas Facilities made necessary because of the extension into or through the City of a federally-aided highway project shall be governed by the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 161.46, if funds for these purposes are available. SECTION 5. DEFENSE AND INDEMNIFICATION. 5.1 Terms. The Company shall indemnify, keep and hold the City, its elected officials, officers, employees, and agents free and harmless from any and all claims and actions on account of injury or death of persons or damage to property occasioned by the construction, maintenance, repair, removal, on or across the Public Ways and the Public Grounds. The City will not be indemnified for losses or claims alleged to be the result of negligence of the City, its elected officials, employees, officers, or agents, except for those arising out of the issuance of permits for, or inspection of the Company’s plans or work. The City shall not be entitled to reimbursement for its costs incurred prior to notification to the Company of claims or actions and a reasonable opportunity for the Company to accept and undertake the defense. 5.2 Litigation. If such a suit is brought against the City under circumstances where the agreement in this Section 5 to indemnify applies, the Company at its sole cost and expense will defend the City in such suit if Notice thereof is promptly given to the Company within a reasonable period. If the Company is required to indemnify and defend, it will thereafter have control of such litigation, but the Company may not settle such litigation without the consent of the City, which consent will not be unreasonably withheld. This section is not as to third parties a waiver of any defense or immunity otherwise available to the City; and the Company, in defending any action on behalf of the City is entitled to assert in any action every defense or immunity that the City could assert in its own behalf. SECTION 6. SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST. 6.1 This ordinance and the rights and obligations conferred hereby, is binding on and inures to the benefit of the City and its successors and on the Company and its successors and permitted assigns. SECTION 7. FRANCHISE FEE. 7.1 Separate Ordinance. The City reserves all rights under Minnesota Statutes, Section 216B.36 or other law to require a franchise fee at any time during the term of this franchise. In addition to the franchise fee, the Company shall be required to pay only such other fees, St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 6a - CenterPoint Franchise Renewal Page 9 of 9 charges, costs or taxes which are generally required to be paid by other businesses or persons in the City. The franchise fee must be imposed by a separate ordinance adopted by the City Council, which ordinance may not be adopted until at least sixty (60) days after Notice enclosing such proposed ordinance has been served upon the Company by certified mail. A fee imposed under this section does not become effective until sixty (60) days after Notice enclosing the adopted ordinance has been served upon the Company by certified mail. SECTION 8. LIMITATION ON APPLICABILITY. 8.1 Limitation on Applicability. This Ordinance constitutes a franchise agreement between the City and the Company. No provision of this franchise inures to the benefit of any third person, including the public at large, so as to constitute any such person as a third-party beneficiary of the agreement or of any one or more of the terms hereof, or otherwise give rise to any cause of action for any person not a party hereto. SECTION 9. PREVIOUS FRANCHISES SUPERSEDED. 9.1 Previous Franchises superseded. This franchise supersedes and replaces previous franchises granted to the Company or its predecessors, including but not limited to Ordinance Number 2089-97. SECTION 10. AMENDMENTS. 10.1 Amendments. This ordinance may be amended at any time by the City. An amendatory ordinance becomes effective upon the filing of the Company’s written consent thereto. SECTION 11. SEVERABILITY. 11.1 Severability. If any portion of this franchise is found unenforceable for any reason, the validity of the remaining provisions will not be affected. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council City Manager Mayor Attest: Approved as to form and execution: City Clerk City Attorney St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 7a - DNR Agmt for FIN program at Wolfe Lake Page 1 of 1 7a. Accept the FIN (Fishing In The Neighborhood) Program at Wolfe Lake This report considers the approval of the FIN program, which is sponsored by the DNR. The FIN program annually stocks a variety of fish in lakes, particularly Wolfe Lake, which creates a local fishing opportunity for residents and increases appreciation for our natural resources. Recommended Action: Motion to approve and accept the FIN (Fishing in the Neighborhood) program at Wolfe Lake sponsored by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). Background: The FIN (Fishing in the Neighborhood) Program is a relatively new program sponsored by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to expand and enhance Twin Cities Metro fishing opportunities. The DNR determined that St. Louis Park and Wolfe Lake, in particular, would be a prime location. At no cost to the City, the DNR will annually stock fish, Sunfish and Bluegills, in Wolfe Lake. During the first and into the second year, the DNR will monitor the fish density in Wolfe Lake to assure that people are fishing the lake. As initial fish goals are achieved, stocking of several other types of fish will occur. Staff believes that residents will be very pleased with the opportunity to fish in the City. Program Goals: The FIN program goals are to provide fishing opportunities to underserved populations such as seniors and children. By providing this fishing experience, we hope participants will gain a basic understanding and appreciation for our natural resources and a potential lifelong interest in fishing. The Wolfe Lake site is an ideal FIN site, surrounded by a diverse and dense population, and situated in a high profile area. Issues: There is a potential for winter fish kill due to the lack of oxygen that occurs as a small lake (i.e. Wolfe Lake) freezes during the winter. The City and DNR are planning on installing an aerator in the winter of 2004 to combat this potential problem. By installing an aerator, we may be able to expand our variety of species of fish being stocked in the lake. The DNR is planning to pay for half of the cost of the aerator, which makes the City's portion $2,000. This is a one time cost as long as the aerator is working. Staff estimates the aerator to last for approximately seven years. Jim Vaughan, Environmental Coordinator, has been working with the DNR on this project and will be present at the Council meeting to answer any questions the City Council may have about this project. Recommendation: Staff recommends acceptance and approval of the FIN program for Wolfe Lake. We think the addition of fishing to Wolfe Park will complement the other activities that are going on in the park and surrounding area. Prepared By: Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation Jim Vaughan, Environmental Coordinator Approved By: Clint Pires, Deputy City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 7b - DNR Shoreline Habitat Improvement Grant Page 1 of 1 7b. Shoreline Habitat Improvement Grant for Wolfe Lake provided by the Department of Natural Resources. This report considers the approval of the Shoreline Habitat Improvement Grant. This grant will provide enhancements to the Wolfe Lake shoreline by planting native aquatic and terrestrial plants for increased aesthetic value, educational opportunities, habitat and reproduction areas for the stocked fish, and keeping the Canada Geese out of the lake. Recommended Action: To approve and accept the DNR Shoreline Habitat Improvement Grant for Wolfe Lake through the Department of Natural Resources. Background: The Shoreline Habitat Improvement Grant, equal to approximately $11,280, will provide an opportunity to plant the shoreline of Wolfe Lake with native vegetation. Through the grant, the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) will install several blocks for fishing points as well as native plantings. The plantings would consist of aquatic, emergent and upland plants. The majority of Wolfe Lake shoreline would be converted to a variety of shrubs and ground covers (on the south end of the lake), prairie grasses and wildflowers (around the north and east sides). The intent of the plantings would be to increase the aesthetic value, provide educational opportunities, return the shoreline to native plants, provide habitat and reproduction areas for the stocked fish, and keep the Canada Geese out of the lake (and hopefully the surrounding park area). Accepting this grant does not require any out of pocket expense from the City. The only costs to the City related to this grant will include $4,000 of in-kind City labor, administration and support. Issues: City staff will have some increased maintenance to the shoreline for the first two years, with maintenance requirements declining in later years. Any native wildflower plantings take one to two years for their deep roots to establish. The first two years of wildflower and prairie grass growth takes place underground, thereby allowing some weeds to establish and compete with these plants. Jim Vaughan, Environmental Coordinator, is the lead staff person on this project and has filled out the necessary paperwork to receive the grant. Jim will be present at the Council meeting to answer any questions the City Council may have regarding the grant or anticipated plant growth. Recommendation: To approve and accept the Shoreline Habitat Improvement Grant for Wolfe Lake. Prepared by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation Jim Vaughan, Environmental Coordinator Approved by: Clint Pires, Deputy City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 7c - 2003 Sidewalk Improvement Project Page 1 of 6 7c. City Engineer’s Report: 2003 Sidewalk Improvement Project, City Project No. 03-01A This report considers the construction of various sections of new sidewalk and trail in accordance with the city’s sidewalk, trails, and bikeway plan Recommended Action: Motion to adopt the attached resolution to accept this report, establish the improvement project, and direct staff to sponsor informational meetings with affected property owners, for construction of various sections of concrete sidewalk and bituminous trail. Background: Making the City a safer and more pedestrian-friendly community was one of the recommendations of Vision St. Louis Park. In response to this suggestion, a city-wide Sidewalk, Trail, Bikeway and Crossing Plan was developed. This Plan, which has been incorporated into the city’s Comprehensive Plan, identifies areas of the City in need of additional sidewalk, trails or bikeways; and, busy roadway or railroad crossings where pedestrian safety improvements can be made. Substantial public involvement and input was solicited during the development of this program. A Sidewalk and Trail Task Force, made up of concerned citizens, assisted in the development of the Plan. To understand residents’ concerns, a random opinion survey was conducted. As the Plan was developed, meetings were held with neighborhood associations, the City Council, Parks and Recreation Commission and other community groups. Two open houses were conducted as well as numerous publications and community newspaper articles. The final Plan was adopted on July 5, 2000 with the Council requesting that the proposed new sidewalk and trail segments be constructed within a 3-year time period. Two-thirds of this work has been completed. This is the last year of the basic implementation effort. Analysis: Twelve (12) segments of street were identified for the installation of sidewalk within the Year 3 area. Of these, Wooddale Avenue from 44th Street south to the City limits was included in the 2002 project and Walker Street, from Louisiana Ave. to Texas Ave., was eliminated through a neighborhood process due to the presence of other walks in the area. Also, a portion of the sidewalk along Wooddale Avenue near the Quadion site has been put on hold pending the redevelopment of that area in the near future, (see discussion below). Six (6) segments of trail were identified for construction in 2003 as a part of the sidewalk project. The first, on Flag Avenue, from 36th Street north to Knollwood Green Park, was requested through a petition from the neighborhood. The second is the connection from Bass Lake Trail east to the Cedar Lake regional trail at the north end of France Avenue in the Minikahda Oaks neighborhood. A section of trail along the west side of Wooddale Avenue was identified in the 2002 project but will be built with the 2003 project. A new trail was planned from Wooddale St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 7c - 2003 Sidewalk Improvement Project Page 2 of 6 Avenue west along 36th Street to Jorvig Park and one connecting the existing Lake Street trail to the Southwest LRT trail behind Edgewood Avenue. Preliminary plans for each of the above sidewalk and trail segments have been developed by Engineering Division staff based upon the guidelines established for the program. These guidelines indicate a preferred design of a 6’-wide concrete sidewalk with a 7’-wide grass boulevard. When necessary to protect trees, where existing yard slopes are significant, or other physical conditions warrant, the boulevard or the sidewalk width may be narrowed. Funding for the 2003 sidewalk and trail segments was anticipated to come from State Aid funds for those segments along State Aid-designated routes, and from GO Bonds for the other segments. Due to budget concerns, this report only considers those segments along State aid routes. No GO Bond projects are included herein. 6 of the 10 remaining sidewalk segments, and portions of 2 of the 6 trail segments, are located on designated State Aid routes. The plans for these segments must be routed through the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) for review and approval. A permit from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District may also be required. Public Involvement: The proposed schedule for property owner review and communication is summarized in the following table. Task/Step Time Prior to Construction Notice of proposed project 1 year Request for information from adjacent property owners 6-9 months Feasibility Report to City Council (consider preliminary plans) 4-6 months Resident meeting to discuss preliminary plans 3-4 months Project approval/final plan approval by City Council (noticed to residents) 2 months Pre-construction meeting with residents 2-4 weeks Construction - In early February 2003, an informational letter and a questionnaire was mailed to all affected property owners informing them about the upcoming project. The questionnaire asked residents to inform the City of any special circumstances or issues that might impact the project, i.e. sprinkler systems, special plants, etc. Of the 90 questionnaires mailed out, 30 have been returned, (33%). If Council desires to forward this project, the next step will be to hold informational meetings with the affected property owners to solicit input on the designs and to answer questions about construction. These meetings could be scheduled for mid- to late-April. A summary of the comments received from all approaches, (neighborhood meetings, questionnaire, and through telephone conversations), will be prepared for the City Council at the time of final plan approval. St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 7c - 2003 Sidewalk Improvement Project Page 3 of 6 Design/Construction Considerations – Sidewalk: Alabama Avenue (36th Street to 39th Street): Most of this street, between Excelsior Boulevard and 36th Street already has sidewalk, so new walk will only be installed where there is none currently. This will require the removal of several trees, however, the large tree near 5925 Goodrich Avenue, will remain. Some retaining wall will be necessary to address steep grades. Texas Avenue (36th Street to Minnetonka Blvd.): No significant issues were encountered in designing this segment. Again, most of this street has walk so only in-fill segments will be constructed. Some trees will need to be removed. Retaining wall is necessary near the corner of 34th Street and north of 31st Street. High retaining walls (5 feet +/-) will be needed for approximately 3 properties north of 31st Street. Fencing may be required on top of the high retaining walls. Aquila Avenue-North (34th Street to 36th Street): No significant issues were encountered in designing this segment. Some trees will need to be removed. Power poles need to be relocated. Aquila Avenue-South (adjacent to Knollwood Mall): Installing walk in the existing boulevard area would involve the loss of a significant number of trees. Therefore, staff has designed this segment by installing sidewalk on the parking lot side of the boulevard area thus preserving the trees and boulevard width. Staff has verified that this can be done on public right-of-way and without the loss of parking stalls in Knollwood Mall. However, it will require re-striping the stalls and the loss of one or two trees near the corner of Highway 7. Staff will need to contact the management of Knollwood Mall to discuss this design further. Wooddale Avenue/36th Street (Oxford Street to Highway 100 ramp): This segment runs adjacent to the Quadion property on the south side of 36th Street and along Wooddale Avenue south to the entrance/exit ramp of Highway 100. Due to the potential for redevelopment at this site in the near future, staff is recommending that this segment not be constructed at this time. Instead, it is recommended that the sidewalk be installed as a part of any future development that occurs. Portions of the walk, south of the Quadion site to the Highway 100 ramp will be constructed with this project. Brookside Avenue (42nd Street to Yosemite Avenue): This segment was originally intended to be designed so that the sidewalk lay in the existing right-of-way behind the curb. In January 2003, the City received a petition signed by several residents along Brookside Avenue expressing concern over the loss of very large, mature trees as a result of the sidewalk installation. Subsequently, staff prepared a design for Brookside that would narrow the street by 6 feet in order to install the new walk without the loss of the largest trees. The street narrowing would begin at approximately 4253 Brookside Avenue (at the curve) and continue south to the intersection of Brookside with Yosemite Ave. One 18” diameter tree and two 8” diameter trees, north of 4253 Brookside would still need to be removed. Portions of the area of narrowing is already designated for “No Parking”, however, some further parking restrictions from the curve east to Yosemite Avenue would need to be enacted. Narrowing the road will increase the cost of constructing this segment. St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 7c - 2003 Sidewalk Improvement Project Page 4 of 6 Design/Construction Considerations – Trail: Wooddale Avenue/W. 36th Street (36th Street to Highway 7): No significant issues were encountered in designing this segment. An 8-foot wide trail will be constructed on the west side of Wooddale Ave. from Highway 7 south to 36th Street and then along 36th Street west to Alabama Avenue. The State Aid route is along 36th Street to Alabama Avenue, so the trail cannot be constructed all the way to Jorvig Park. Portions of the existing trail, north of Highway 7 will also be repaired with this project. Financial Considerations: All of the segments are anticipated to be funded using Municipal State Aid funds. Some minor items such as fencing in places where high retaining walls are needed, may not be eligible for State Aid funding. Estimated costs, based upon the proposed plans, are higher than originally anticipated when the program was developed. $361,573 was budgeted in 2003 for these sidewalk segments. The total estimated cost, at this time, is $559,604. This is primarily due to higher than anticipated retaining wall quantities and costs, and the narrowing of Brookside Avenue. These costs will be refined as the plans are finalized. A summary of the anticipated construction costs and design elements follows: Estimated Costs: Street From To Side Walk Width Blvd. Width Cost Alabama Ave. 36th Street 39th Street West/ East 6’ 0’ $72,829 Texas Ave. 36th Street Minnetonka Blvd. East 5’ 3’ $158,147 Aquila Ave.- North 36th Street 34th Street West 6’ 0’ to 3’ $69,733 Aquila Ave.- South Highway 7 Existing walk East 5’ 3’ to 9’ $43,186 Wooddale Ave. Oxford Street Highway 100 ramp West 6’ 0’ $9,224 Brookside Ave. 42nd Street Yosemite Ave. East 6’ 0’ $80,355 Wooddale Ave.- trail Highway 7 36th Street West 8’ 0’ $17,645 36th Street-trail Wooddale Ave. Alabama Ave. North 8’ 0’ $3,105 Sub-Total $454,224 Contingency $ 45,422 Subtotal $499,646 Engineering & Admin. $ 59,958 TOTAL $559,604 Revenue Sources: Municipal State Aid Funds $559,604 St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 7c - 2003 Sidewalk Improvement Project Page 5 of 6 Parking Removal: As mentioned previously, a portion of Brookside Avenue, from the curve east to Yosemite Avenue will need to be restricted to “No Parking” as a result of this project. Project Timeline: Should the City Council approve the City Engineer’s Report, it is anticipated that the following schedule could be met: • City Engineer’s Report to City Council March 17, 2003 • Neighborhood meetings Mid- to Late-April • Finalize plans May • Plan approval & authorization to advertise for bids June 2 • Advertise for bids June • Bid Opening June 26 • Bid Tab Report to City Council July 7 • Construction Late-July through October Summary of Feasibility: The proposed project is cost-effective and feasible under the conditions noted and at the prices estimated. Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution accepting the City Engineer's report, establishing a project for these improvements, and authorizing staff to hold informational meetings with the affected property owners. Attachment: Map (Supplement) Resolution Prepared by: Maria A. Hagen, City Engineer Reviewed by: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works Approved by: Clint Pires, Deputy City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 7c - 2003 Sidewalk Improvement Project Page 6 of 6 RESOLUTION NO. 03-029 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE CITY ENGINEER’S REPORT, ESTABLISHING AN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AND AUTHORIZING STAFF TO SPONSOR INFORMATIONAL MEETINGS WITH AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF SIDEWALKS AND TRAILS WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the City Engineer related to the construction of various segments of concrete sidewalk and bituminous trail in the area of the city identified as Year 3 in the Sidewalk, Trail, Bikeways and Crossing plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that: 1. The City Engineer’s Report regarding the construction of various segments of sidewalk and trail within the city is hereby accepted. 2. The proposed project, designated as Project No. 03-01A, is hereby established. 3. The City Engineer is authorized to hold informational meetings with affected property owners and residents for the purposes of reviewing the proposed plans and soliciting input. Reviewed for Adminstration: Adopted by the City Council March 17, 2003 City Manager Mayor Attest; City Clerk St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 7d - Authorize 2003 GO Bond Issue Page 1 of 1 7d. Authorize 2003 General Obligation Bond Issue The City has expended funds as well as entered into contracts for Capital Projects and now needs to issue General Obligation Debt. Recommended Action: Authorize issuance of $4,145,000 General Obligation Bonds and approve reimbursement resolution for specific projects Background: Issues: (or other titles as appropriate) Recommendation: Attachments: Prepared By: Approved By: (Leave blank for CM Signature) St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 7d - GO bond issue Page 1 of 9 7d. Authorize 2003 General Obligation Bond Issue The City has expended funds as well as entered into contracts for Capital Projects and now needs to issue General Obligation Debt. Recommended Action: Authorize issuance of $4,145,000 General Obligation Bonds and approve reimbursement resolution for specific projects. Background: On March 6, 2003, a memo was included in the City Manager’s Digest related to the necessity of issuing General Obligation debt at this time. Within that memo was a list of projects for which dollars had been spent or the City may be contractually obligated to complete. Further review of this listing has been completed and this list has been somewhat modified. The modified listing of projects that will be funded with the 2003 General Obligation bond issue can be found on the Pre-Sale Report that is included as an attachment to this report. Of these projects, there is one project for which all contracts have not yet been entered into. Staff is requesting that Council hold a Special Meeting on March 31, 2003 for the purpose of approving the General Contractor contract for the Recreation Center Roof. Once this is approved, there will only be one outstanding contract for all of the projects listed on the Pre-Sale report. This is for the coolant/refrigeration unit at the Recreation Center. This issue has been discussed with Kennedy & Graven and we do not yet know if it will present an issue. The total contract amount is estimated at $200,000. The bonding legislation is changing almost on a daily basis. The latest information as presented by Ehlers and Associates is as follows: Ehler’s Excerpt: In the last week, Rep. Abrams has introduced HF751 which also affects debt levies and operating levies. The applicable section is attached. The Abrams bill is the Governor's proposal - it is still fuzzy to me but it is different than the Pogemiller bill in many ways. There are new levy limits for taxes payable 2004. Any increase in the tax levy for taxes payable in 2005 and after, including new debt levies, would be subject to reverse referenda (5% of voters in last general election signing a petition triggers a vote) at the time of the truth in taxation hearing with an election in January. If the tax increase is defeated, new debt would still be paid but the operating budget would be reduced. We are checking with rating agencies to see if these changes somehow have credit implications as a "limited G.O." It is unlikely that any new debt would be issued before the reverse referendum period is passed. The timing of the bill is confusing. It does not grandfather in any existing contracts or expenditures. The only grandfather is debt with contracts if bonds are issued by May 1, 2003. Obviously, the timing of bidding construction and awarding contracts is made very restrictive. No contracts can be awarded until the reverse referendum time is passed and any increases in project costs above estimates in a budget would also be subject to a future annual referendum. The reverse referenda do not kick in until taxes payable 2005, which leaves a question about what we do for 1.75 years. It appears that increases above new levy limits for taxes payable in St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 7d - GO bond issue Page 2 of 9 2004 are only allowed by a direct referendum, which for capital projects would trigger market value taxes. Another problem seems to be at least one bond counsel is concerned that if any bonds that have been sold in the past year do not have contracts signed, the tax levy for these bonds are not special levies outside of levy limits. This is all a preliminary review. We are meeting on Friday as MIPF to discuss the issues further. Again, your contacts with local legislators explaining the difficulties that these restrictions present are the most effective means of influence. No doubt that these proposals will change in the future. Let us know if you are hearing different interpretations of the language. Issues: As the legislative session continues, there could be some adjustments to make with this bond issue. At this time it appears the City is following all proposed legislative requirements. The only projects being proposed for bonding are those in which the City has already expended dollars on or is contractually obligated to do. This represents follow-up research to questions raised by Council at the March 10 study session with respect to bonding limits and eligible projects. Recommendation: Staff recommends approving the attached resolution authorizing sale of the 2003 General Obligation Bond issue and setting the sale date of April 21, 2003 for these bonds. Staff also recommends approval of the Reimbursement Resolution for specific projects. This resolution must be approved for any project that will use GO Bonds as a revenue source within 60 days of the first contract payment. Attachments: § Resolution providing for the Sale of $4,145,000 of GO Bonds, Series 2003A § Resolution authorizing the reimbursement of cost through the issuance of GO Bonds § Pre-Sale Report § Sources and Uses Schedule Prepared by: Jean D. McGann, Director of Finance Approved by: Clint Pires, Deputy City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 7d - GO bond issue Page 3 of 9 City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota Pre-Sale Report March 17, 2003 Proposed Issue: $4,145,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2003A Purpose: To fund approximately $3,951,000 of trails, parks and other recreational improvements in the City. See below: Description Project # Project Budget Trail Improvements 2001 1999 0800 $ 23,869 Trail Improvements 2002 2002 0200 152,500 Louisiana Oaks Park 2002 266 0 1,000,000 Oak Park Village Building 2002 268 0 450,000 Rec. Center Roof Replacement 2003 314 0 2,300,000 Ballfield Lights/Skippy Fd(Carpenter Park) 2004 420 0 25,000 Total General Obligation Bonding $ 3,951,369 Term/Call Feature: The total term of the Bonds will be 10 years of payments with the first partial year of interest payments funded with capitalized interest. Therefore, the first levy will be in 2003 for taxes payable in 2004. The Bonds can be callable on February 1, 2011. The Bonds are expected to be rated by Moody’s Investors Service at a “AA1” level. Funding Sources: The Bonds will be paid with a tax levy beginning with taxes payable in 2004. The levy will be a debt levy outside of levy limits, under current law, but will be within the City’s total debt limit for tax supported debt. Bank Qualification: The proposed Park Nicollet bond issue in 2003 will put the City over its $10M bank qualification limit. Park Nicollet has preliminarily agreed to cover any increase in interest rates due to the loss of the bank qualification. In today’s interest rate market for bonds less than 11 years, the difference in rate is very small. Discussion Issues: Two pending bills at the legislature may affect cities’ ability to issue bonds for any projects involving property tax levy increases. HF 751 and SF 330 each have different dates regarding projects which are currently underway. At the current time, the projects involved in this bond issue would meet both legislative deadlines because construction contracts will be in place by March 31, 2003 and the bonds will have been sold by May St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 7d - GO bond issue Page 4 of 9 1, 2003. Changes in this legislation could affect the bond issue and future city issues. Schedule: Pre-Sale Review: March 17, 2003 Distribute Official Statement: Week April 7, 2003 Conference with Rating Agency: Week of April 14 , 2003 Bond Sale: April 21, 2003 Estimated Closing Date: Week of May 5, 2003 Attachments: Sources and Uses of Funds Proposed Debt Service Schedule Resolution authorizing Ehlers to proceed with bond sale Ehlers Contacts: Financial Advisor: Mark Ruff (651) 697-8505 Bond Analysts: Diana Lockard (651) 697-8534 Debbie Holmes (651) 697-8536 Bond Sale Coordinator: Connie Kuck (651) 697-8527 The Official Statement for this financing will be mailed to the Council Members at their home address for review prior to the sale date. St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 7d - GO bond issue Page 5 of 9 St Louis Park, MN $4, 145, 000 G. O. Bonds, Seri es 2003A NET DEBT SERVICE SCHEDULE Payable Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I CIF Net New D/S FISCAL TOTAL EST. TAX LEVY 5/01/2003 ------- 2/01/2004 --103,706.25 103,706.25 (103,706.25)-- 8/01/2004 --69,137.50 69,137.50 -69,137.50 - 2004 2/01/2005 365,000.00 2.000%69,137.50 434,137.50 -434,137.50 503,275.00 528,438.75 8/01/2005 --65,487.50 65,487.50 -65,487.50 - 2005 2/01/2006 370,000.00 2.300%65,487.50 435,487.50 -435,487.50 500,975.00 526,023.75 8/01/2006 --61,232.50 61,232.50 -61,232.50 - 2006 2/01/2007 380,000.00 2.500%61,232.50 441,232.50 -441,232.50 502,465.00 527,588.25 8/01/2007 --56,482.50 56,482.50 -56,482.50 - 2007 2/01/2008 390,000.00 3.250%56,482.50 446,482.50 -446,482.50 502,965.00 528,113.25 8/01/2008 --50,145.00 50,145.00 -50,145.00 - 2008 2/01/2009 400,000.00 3.400%50,145.00 450,145.00 -450,145.00 500,290.00 525,304.50 8/01/2009 --43,345.00 43,345.00 -43,345.00 - 2009 2/01/2010 415,000.00 3.600%43,345.00 458,345.00 -458,345.00 501,690.00 526,774.50 8/01/2010 --35,875.00 35,875.00 -35,875.00 - 2010 2/01/2011 430,000.00 3.700%35,875.00 465,875.00 -465,875.00 501,750.00 526,837.50 8/01/2011 --27,920.00 27,920.00 -27,920.00 - 2011 2/01/2012 445,000.00 3.900%27,920.00 472,920.00 -472,920.00 500,840.00 525,882.00 8/01/2012 --19,242.50 19,242.50 -19,242.50 - 2012 2/01/2013 465,000.00 4.000%19,242.50 484,242.50 -484,242.50 503,485.00 528,659.25 8/01/2013 --9,942.50 9,942.50 -9,942.50 - 2013 2/01/2014 485,000.00 4.100%9,942.50 494,942.50 -494,942.50 504,885.00 530,129.25 Total 4,145,000.00 -981,326.25 5,126,326.25 (103,706.25)5,022,620.00 -5,273,751.00 St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 7d - GO bond issue Page 6 of 9 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK RESOLUTION NO. ________ DECLARING THE OFFICIAL INTENT OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK TO REIMBURSE CERTAIN EXPENDITURES FROM THE PROCEEDS OF BONDS TO BE ISSUED BY THE CITY WHEREAS, the Internal Revenue Service has issued Treas. Reg. § 1.150-2 (the “Reimbursement Regulations”) providing that proceeds of tax-exempt bonds used to reimburse prior expenditures will not be deemed spent unless certain requirements are met; and WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park (“City”) expects to incur certain expenditures that may be financed temporarily from sources other than bonds, and reimbursed from the proceeds of the tax-exempt bond; WHEREAS, the City has determined to make this declaration of official intent (“Declaration”) to reimburse certain costs from proceeds of bonds in accordance with the Reimbursement Regulations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK AS FOLLOWS: 1. The City proposes to undertake the following projects (the “Project”) Recreation Center Roof Replacement 2003 3140 Ballfield Lights/Skippy Field (Carpenter Park) 2004 4200 Trail Improvements 2002 2002 0200 Trail Improvements 2001 1999 0800 2. The City reasonably expects to reimburse the expenditures made for certain costs of the Project from the proceeds of bonds in an estimated maximum principal amount of $2,501,369. All reimbursed expenditures will be capital expenditures, costs of issuance of the bonds, or other expenditures eligible for reimbursement under Section 1.150-2(d)(3) of the Reimbursement Regulations. 3. This Declaration has been made not later than 60 days after payment of any original expenditure to be subject to a reimbursement allocation with respect to St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 7d - GO bond issue Page 7 of 9 the proceeds of bonds, except for the following expenditures: (a) costs of issuance of bonds; (b) costs in an amount not in excess of $100,000 or 5 percent of the proceeds of an issue; or (c) “preliminary expenditures” up to an amount not in excess of 20 percent of aggregate issue price of the issue or issues that finance or are reasonably expected by the City to finance the project for which the preliminary expenditures were incurred. The term “preliminary expenditures” includes architectural, engineering, surveying, bond issuance, and similar costs that are incurred prior to commencement of acquisition, construction or rehabilitation of a project, other than land acquisition, site preparation and similar costs incident to commencement of construction. 4. This Declaration is an expression of the reasonable expectations of the City based on the facts and circumstance known to the City as of the date hereof. The anticipated original expenditures for the Project and the principal amount of the bonds described in paragraph 2 are consistent with the city’s budgetary and financial circumstances. No sources other than proceeds of bonds to be issued by the City are, or are reasonably expected to be, reserved, allocated on a long-term basis, or otherwise set aside pursuant to the City’s budget or financial policies to pay such Project expenditures. 5. The Declaration is intended to constitute a declaration of official intent for purposes of the Reimbursement Regulations. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council March 17, 2003 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 7d - GO bond issue Page 8 of 9 RESOLUTION NO. Councilmember ______________ introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE SALE OF $4,145,000 G.O. BONDS SERIES 2003A A. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, has heretofore determined that it is necessary and expedient to issue the City’s $4,145,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2003A (the “Bonds”), to finance improvement to various trails, parks and other recreational facilities in the City; and B. WHEREAS, the City has retained Ehlers & Associates, Inc. in Roseville, Minnesota (“Ehlers”), as its independent financial advisor for the Bonds and is therefore authorized to solicit proposals in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.60, Subdivision 2(9); NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of St. Louis Park , Minnesota as follows: 1. Authorization; Findings. The city council hereby authorizes Ehlers to solicit proposals for the sale of the Bonds. 2. Meeting; Proposal Opening. The City Council shall meet at 7:30 p.m. on April 21, 2003, for the purpose of considering sealed proposals for and awarding the sale of the bonds. 3. Official Statement. In connection with said sale, the officers or employees of the City are hereby authorized to cooperate with Ehlers and participate in the preparation of an official statement for the Bonds and to execute and deliver it on behalf of the City upon its completion. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council Member _____ and, after full discussion thereof and upon a vote being taken thereof the following Council Member voted in favor thereof. And the following voted against the same: Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 7d - GO bond issue Page 9 of 9 Dated this 17th day of March, 2003 Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council ________________ City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 7e - Misc. Zoning Ord. Amendments Page 1 of 6 7e. Proposed Amendments to St. Louis Park Ordinance Code (Zoning) Relating to Retail Uses in the O-Office District, Planning Fee Refunds, and Abandoned or Cancelled Variance. Case Nos. 03-08-ZA First reading of proposed amendments to Chapter 36 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code (Zoning) Recommended Action: Motion to approve first reading of Ordinance Code text amendments (related to zoning) to modify conditions for approving retail uses in the O-Office District, Planning Fee Refunds, and Abandoned or Cancelled Variances and set second reading for April 7, 2003. Background: Staff administers the zoning code on a daily basis, analyzes many diverse land use applications, and answers numerous code-related questions. During this process, issues arise where some areas of the code seem inconsistent or where there is ambiguity. Whenever these issues arise, staff makes an effort to correct or simplify the language. The proposed code amendments deal with three separate sections of the code to clarify language. The Planning Commission held a public hearing relative to the proposed amendments and recommended approval with several minor changes. These are included in the attached proposed ordinance. Proposed Amendments: Modification of conditions permitting Retail in the O-Office District. The Office zoning district is one of several districts where office uses are permitted. It was established especially for areas in the City where multi-story, high density office buildings could locate. The O-Office district covers about 3% of the total land area in St. Louis Park. The Comprehensive Plan description for the office designations states, “This category allows for concentrated areas of fairly intensive office and mixed use development, with high floor area ratios and building heights….(it) also allows other limited uses such as hotels, parking ramps, residential, day care, retail and restaurants when part of a larger development. The purpose of the office district as stated in the zoning code is as follows: 1. Provide opportunities for high-density office development in areas outside of commercial districts; 2. Establish and maintain in portions of the city the high standards of site planning; architecture, and landscape design sought by many business and professional enterprises; St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 7e - Misc. Zoning Ord. Amendments Page 2 of 6 3. Provide adequate space to meet the needs of modern offices, including off-street parking of automobiles and, where appropriate, off-street loading of trucks; 4. Provide space for semipublic facilities and institutions that may be located in office districts appropriately; 5. Minimize traffic congestion; 6. Allow functionally related uses to be located in relatively close proximity to one another to provide efficient and optimum use of the land; 7. Provide for the coordination of development plans with plans for transportation, open space, housing, shopping and for the conducting of business and related activities; 8. Permit flexibility in the placement of the height of buildings, to allow the use of air rights over streets and other easements; 9. Permit joint use of parking facilities; 10. Achieve coordinated and harmonious development based on performance standards; and 11. Ensure proper provisions for open space, transit, vehicular and pedestrian accessibility to properties, and for ingress and egress to major transportation facilities and to protect offices from the noise, disturbance, traffic hazards, safety hazards, and other objectionable influences incidental to certain commercial uses. The two large office districts in St. Louis Park are Interchange Office Park (Shelard) and the area southwest of the intersection of I-394 and TH 100 (Minneapolis West Office Park). A number of uses other than office, such as hotels, convention halls and restaurants, are permitted in office districts. However, most require that the use is in conjunction with other uses, such as office. The intent of the office district is not to allow freestanding retail, and these uses are more appropriate within other commercial districts (C1 or C2). Retail is currently allowed within the office district with the following conditions: 1. No single use retail establishment over 20,000 square feet is permitted. The retail facility shall be permitted only as part of a larger development on a single parcel which contains at least one other permitted principal use or as a part of a mixed use PUD. 2. These uses shall not result in any exterior building modifications, including truck docks or freestanding signage, overnight truck parking or similar features. 3. Retail uses shall be integrated with other principal land uses which are within the O district and shall not exceed ten percent of the gross floor area of the parcel. 4. If the land upon which the retail use is to be located is immediately adjacent to and is able to share parking with an office building, it shall be deemed to have complied with subsections 1 and 3 of this section. Number 4 above in the past has resulted in allowing a large single use retail (big box) where the retail use allowed an adjacent office building to share 10 parking spaces without even a formal parking agreement. This is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan statement about the intent of the office district. The retail use (Office Depot) has since vacated the site and an office (Stahl Construction) is re-occupying the building. Staff and the Planning Commission are St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 7e - Misc. Zoning Ord. Amendments Page 3 of 6 recommending the removal of number 4 above to avoid other single use retail uses to locate on parcels in the office district. Abandoned/Cancelled Variances: Currently, the Board of Zoning Appeals or the City Council approve variances to provisions of the Zoning Code when they feel an application meets the criteria established by State Statute and the Zoning Code. Typically, variances are requested to required setbacks, and other provisions related to a building or structure. Once a variance is issued for a property, the variance is recorded on the parcel and remains forever. After discussing this with the City Attorney, staff and the Planning Commission are proposing an amendment to the Zoning Code that would state that any variance approved for a property would be revoked and cancelled if the building or structure for which the variance was granted is removed. Therefore, any new structure would have to comply with the code or apply for a new variance. The following provision would also be added to all resolutions approving variances. 36-33 (b)(8) .”…the conditional use permit or variance shall be revoked and cancelled upon the occurrence of any of the following events: (g). The building or structure for which a variance was granted is removed. Refund of Planning Fees The Zoning Code makes provisions for the return of fees associated with Conditional Use Permit and Variance applications in cases where an application is withdrawn by the applicant. The return schedule for conditional use permits was established prior to when public hearings were held by the Planning Commission. A significant portion of the fee is associated with costs to publish public hearing notices and mail notices to persons within the notice area. Also, there are no provisions to return fees associated with the other applications, such as PUD, zoning amendments, and subdivisions. As a policy, staff has been returning those fees in accordance with the Code for variances and CUPs. Staff and the Planning Commission are proposing to amend this section of the Code to reduce the percentage of fees returned when an application is withdrawn either before or after it was reviewed by the Planning Commission and to also include refunds for other types of applications. (e) Refund of fees. If any application for a conditional use permit, or variance, zoning amendment, PUD, continued special permit, Comprehensive Plan amendment, subdivision, or vacation is withdrawn in writing by the applicant or is not processed by the city for any other reason so that a final decision is not made by the city, the applicant is entitled to a refund of the application fees paid to the city according the following schedule: St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 7e - Misc. Zoning Ord. Amendments Page 4 of 6 (1) 75 percent of the application fee and 100 percent of the recording fee shall be refunded if the request is withdrawn before the deadline for rescinding the public hearing publication. (1) (2) For a conditional use permit application, 75 50 percent of the application fee and 100 percent of the recording fee shall be refunded if the request is withdrawn before the request has been considered by the planning commission or board of zoning appeals. (2) (3) For a conditional use permit application, 50 25 percent of the application fee and 100 percent of the recording fee shall be refunded if the request is withdrawn before the request is considered by the city council. (3) For a variance application, 50 percent of the application fee and 100 percent of the recording fee shall be refunded if the request is withdrawn before the request is considered by the board of zoning appeals. Attachments: Proposed Ordinance Prepared By: Judie Erickson, Planning Coordinator Approved By: Clint Pires, Deputy City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 7e - Misc. Zoning Ord. Amendments Page 5 of 6 ORDINANCE NO.______ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING BY AMENDING SECTIONS 36-223(c), 36-33(b), and 36-33(e) THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN: Findings Sec. 1. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission (Case No. 03-08-ZA). Sec. 2. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Sections 36-223(c), 36-33(e), and 36-33(b) is hereby amended by deleting stricken language and adding underscored language. Section breaks are represented by ***. *** Section 36-223(c)(16) Retail. The conditions are as follows: a. No single use retail establishment over 20,000 square feet is permitted. The retail facility shall be permitted only as part of a larger development on a single parcel which contains at least one other permitted principal use or as a part of a mixed use PUD. b. These uses shall not result in any exterior building modifications, including truck docks or freestanding signage, overnight truck parking or similar features. c. Retail uses shall be integrated with other principal land uses which are within the O district and shall not exceed ten percent of the gross floor area of the parcel. d. If the land upon which the retail use is to be located is immediately adjacent to and is able to share parking with an office building, it shall be deemed to have complied with subsections 1 and 3 of this section. Section 36-33 (b)(8) .”…the conditional use permit or variance shall be revoked and cancelled upon the occurrence of any of the following events: (g). The building or structure for which a variance was granted is removed. Section 36-33 (e) Refund of fees. If any application for a conditional use permit, or variance, zoning amendment, PUD, continued special permit, Comprehensive Plan amendment, subdivision, or vacation is withdrawn in writing by the applicant or is not processed by the city for any other reason so that a final decision is not made by the city, the applicant is entitled to a refund of the application fees paid to the city according the following schedule: St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 7e - Misc. Zoning Ord. Amendments Page 6 of 6 (1) 75 percent of the application fee and 100 percent of the recording fee shall be refunded if the request is withdrawn before the deadline for rescinding the public hearing publication. (1) (2) For a conditional use permit application, 75 50 percent of the application fee and 100 percent of the recording fee shall be refunded if the request is withdrawn before the request has been considered by the planning commission or board of zoning appeals. (2) (3) For a conditional use permit application, 50 25 percent of the application fee and 100 percent of the recording fee shall be refunded if the request is withdrawn before the request is considered by the city council. (3) For a variance application, 50 percent of the application fee and 100 percent of the recording fee shall be refunded if the request is withdrawn before the request is considered by the board of zoning appeals. Sec.3. The contents of Planning Case File 03-08-ZA are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case. Sec.4. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication. Adopted by the City Council April 7, 2003 Reviewed for Administration City Manager Mayor Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution: City Clerk City Attorney 03-08-ZA:n\res-ord St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 7f - Luther Co. Comp Plan & Zoning change Page 1 of 10 7f. Request of The Luther Company for a Comprehensive Plan Map change from Industrial to Commercial and a zoning map change from IP – Industrial Park and IG – General Industrial to C2 – General Commercial for property located at 2370 and 2440 State Highway 100 S. Case Nos. 03-06-Z and 03-07-CP Request of The Luther Company for a Comprehensive Plan Map change from Industrial to Commercial and a zoning map change from IP and IG to C2 for property located at 2370 and 2440 State Highway 100 S. to allow for the redevelopment of the property for motor vehicle sales. Recommended Action: Motion to adopt a resolution of approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment to change the land use designation from Industrial to Commercial subject to approval of the Metropolitan Council and authorize summary publication. Motion to approve first reading of a zoning map amendment to change the zoning designation from IG –General Industrial and IP – Industrial Park to C2 – General Commercial subject to approval of the Comprehensive Plan change by the Metropolitan Council, and set second reading for April 7, 2003. Site Information: Current Zoning: 2370 State Hwy 100 S IG –General Industrial FP-Floodplain 2440 State Hwy 100 S IP – Industrial Park FP - Floodplain Comprehensive Plan Designation: Industrial Parcel Size 2370 2440 Current Land Use Auto Dealership Proposed Land Use Auto Dealership Other required approvals: CUP or PUD Background: The subject property is located on the west side of State Highway 100 S. with frontage road access. The property received special permits to operate a motor vehicle sales lot (Stephens Buick) in 1962 and 1964 under an existing industrial zoning classification. Industrial uses are located north and west of this property and a medical office use is located to the south. A portion of the property is located in a flood zone and the sales lot on the 2440 property frequently floods. St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 7f - Luther Co. Comp Plan & Zoning change Page 2 of 10 The property owner wishes to move the Buick dealership to another location and redevelop this site. The plan is to remove the existing building on the north property and replace it with a new building to house the Volkswagen dealership that is currently located on the east side of TH 100 at Cedar Lake Road. The building on the south lot would likely remain as the used car VW sales office/car wash, although removal of the canopies and other site improvements are proposed. The applicant has stated that due to the popularity of the Volkswagen, the Cedar Lake Road site is too small to handle the sales volumes. This has resulted in employee vehicle parking in neighborhoods and other related issues. The existing VW site would likely be reused for a small dealership, possibly Jaguar. Since motor vehicle sales is not a permitted use in industrial zoning districts, the property owner is proposing to change the Comprehensive Plan and zoning map to allow the redevelopment of the site and the relocation of the Volkswagen dealership. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 19, 2003, and recommended approval of the requests. The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment was submitted to the Metropolitan Council on March 7, 2003, for their review. The proposed zoning change cannot become effective until the Metropolitan Council approves the Comprehensive Plan amendment. The Zoning Code will not allow the city to accept a request for CUP or PUD for this property until the zoning change is effective. Issues: ¤ What is the Comprehensive Plan & Zoning History of the properties? The zoning on the subject properties at the time of the original special permit approvals for automobile sales was I-1 Industrial. At that time automobile sales was permitted by special permit in the I-1. In 1977 a land use plan known as “diversified development district” (DDD) was adopted that encompassed this site. The district had a land use plan associated with it. Within that plan the 2370 property was guided for industrial use and the 2440 property was guided for commercial use. The DDD was abandoned in 1991 and replaced by an Industrial Comprehensive Plan designation and regular zoning districts. The 2370 property was zoned IG – General Industrial and the 2440 property was zoned IP – Industrial Park. Prior to 1992 motor vehicle sales was permitted by special permit in industrial zoning districts. With the adoption of a new zoning ordinance in 1992, the land use became non-conforming. The motor vehicle sales can continue indefinitely as a non-conforming use provided it complies with the approved special permit. ¤ What is the Current Status of Existing Special Permit A cursory review of the approved special permit indicates that the use of the site is not in conformance with the approved site plan. It also indicates non-conformance with signage and the extent of the sales lots approved by the special permit resolution. The desire of the applicant to redevelop the site would remove all of the existing non-conforming conditions. The applicant is interested in the PUD approach since both properties could be planned and developed as one. St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 7f - Luther Co. Comp Plan & Zoning change Page 3 of 10 It is not possible to combine the properties because of the roadway right of way that separates them. If the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning amendments are adopted, the applicant is still subject to the conditions in the approved special permits until a redevelopment occurs. ¤ What Other Uses Would Be Permitted Under the Proposed Rezoning? The applicant is proposing a rezoning of the property to C2-General Commercial. This is the most flexible commercial district, allowing the most varied uses, a floor area ratio of 2.0 and a 75-foot maximum building height. The C2 District is also the only zoning district that allows motor vehicle sales, and only CUP or PUD allows the use. In the C2 District, uses are permitted either outright, with conditions, by conditional use permit (CUP), or by planned unit development (PUD) process. Those uses permitted outright or with conditions (including small retail, service, restaurants without liquor) do not require Planning Commission review or City Council approval and our City Attorney has advised that these cannot be prohibited by text amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. Uses permitted by CUP or PUD (including retail shopping centers over 50,000 square feet, single use retail over 20,000 square feet, and restaurants with liquor) do require Planning Commission review and City Council approval. Since these uses are approved at the discretion of the City Council, one condition of approval is that they conform to the Comprehensive Plan. These uses could then be prohibited in this area by adding text to the Comprehensive Plan. Because of access issues and surrounding land uses, staff views this area as a destination retail site rather than one conducive to a retail strip mall or restaurant. The combined land area for the proposed change is about 7.2 acres. The total size plus the extent of the floodplain limits the type of commercial development likely to occur. Staff and the Planning Commission are comfortable that the C2 zoning is appropriate, given the history of land use. However, if the City Council is uncomfortable about rezoning the site due to the impact of some of the C2 uses, the City Council could initiate text amendments to the Comprehensive Plan that would limit some of those uses. Attachments: Current Conditions aerial (dated April 2000) (The floodplain reflected by this map is general). The applicant has indicated that the actual floodplain affects a much smaller area.) Existing and Proposed Comprehensive Plan (supplement) Existing and Proposed Zoning Maps (supplement) Proposed Resolution Approving Comprehensive Plan Map amendment Summary Resolution Proposed Ordinance Approving Zoning Map amendment Prepared by: Judie Erickson, Planning Coordinator Approved by: Clint Pires, Deputy City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 7f - Luther Co. Comp Plan & Zoning change Page 4 of 10 Current Conditions Note: The extent of the floodplain indicated on this map is greater than that identified by an actual survey of the property. Future changes to the site must comply with floodplain regulations. Subject Subject TH 100 Floodzone 2370 2440 St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 7f - Luther Co. Comp Plan & Zoning change Page 5 of 10 RESOLUTION NO. 03-031 A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2000 TO THE YEAR 2020 FOR THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTES 462.351 TO 462.364 2370 and 2440 STATE HIGHWAY 100 SOUTH And described as follows: Tract 1: That part of the South 310 feet of the North 340 feet of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 31, Township 29, Range 24, lying West of State Highway No. 100 and lying east of a line drawn at a right angle to the North line of said quarter quarter and from a point therein distant 375.18 feet East of the Northwest corner of said quarter quarter. Abstract Property Tract II: Parcel 1: That part of Tracts A and B, Registered Land Survey No. 493, Files of Register of Titles, County of Hennepin, lying Easterly and Southerly of a line parallel with and 22.5 feet Easterly and Southerly of a line described as beginning at a point in the South line of said Tract B, distant 443.3 feet Easterly as measured along said South line, from the Southwest corner of said Tract B; thence North 2 degrees 24 minutes East, 298.84 feet to an intersection with a line parallel with and 242.5 feet Southerly of the Southerly right of way line of the Great Northern Railroad right of way, thence North 73 degrees 08 minutes East along last said parallel to the Easterly line of Tract C in said Registered Land Survey and there terminating; except the East 50 feet of the above described property. For the purposes of this description the West line of said Tract A is assumed to bear due North and South. Parcel 2: That part of the Easterly 50 feet of Tracts A and B which lies Southerly of the Southerly line of Tract C and of the Westerly extension of said Southerly line, all in Registered Land Survey No. 493. Files of Registrar of Titles, County of Hennepin. Parcel 3: That part of the Northwest ¼ of the Northwest ¼ of Section 31, Township 29, Range 24, lying south of the Great Northern Railway right of way and West of State Highway #100, except that part described as follows, to-wit: Commencing at the point of intersection of the Southerly right of way line of the Great Northern Railway with the Westerly right of way line of State Highway No. 100; thence Southerly along said Westerly right of way line of State Highway No. 100, 377.6 feet; thence Westerly parallel with said Southerly right of way line of Great Northern Railway, a distance of 400 feet; thence at right angles St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 7f - Luther Co. Comp Plan & Zoning change Page 6 of 10 Northerly 250 feet to the Southerly right of way line of Great Northern Railway; thence Easterly along said right of way line 220 feet; thence at right angles Northerly along Great Northern Railway right of way 80 feet; thence Easterly along the Southerly right of way line of Great Northern Railway 364 feet to the point of beginning, also except that part thereof embraced in Registered Land Survey No. 493. WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan 2000-2020 was adopted by the City Council on May 17, 1999 (effective September 1, 1999) and provides the following: 1. An official statement serving as the basic guide in making land use, transportation and community facilities and service decisions affecting the City. 2. A framework for policies and actions leading to the improvement of the physical, financial, and social environment of the City, thereby providing a good place to live and work and a setting conducive for new development. 3. A promotion of the public interest in establishing a more functional, healthful, interesting, and efficient community by serving the interests of the community at large rather than the interests of individual or special groups within the community if their interests are at variance with the public interest. 4. An effective framework for direction and coordination of activities affecting the development and preservation of the community. 5. Treatment of the entire community as one ecosystem and to inject long range considerations into determinations affecting short-range action, and WHEREAS, the use of such Comprehensive Plan will insure a safer, more pleasant, and more economical environment for residential, commercial, industrial, and public activities and will promote the public health, safety, and general welfare, and WHEREAS, said Plan will prepare the community for anticipated desirable change, thereby bringing about significant savings in both private and public expenditures, and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan has taken due cognizance of the planning activities of adjacent units of government, and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan is to be periodically reviewed by the Planning Commission of the City of St. Louis Park and amendments made, if justified according to procedures, rules, and laws, and provided such amendments would provide a positive result and are consistent with other provisions in the Comprehensive Plan, and St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 7f - Luther Co. Comp Plan & Zoning change Page 7 of 10 WHEREAS, amendments to the Comprehensive Plan may be initiated by petition of the owners of the actual property, the guiding of which is proposed to be changed, and WHEREAS, the owners of property at 2370 and 2440 State Highway 100 South petitioned the City to change the Comprehensive Plan land use designation from Industrial to Commercial in order to allow the redevelopment of the existing commercial use, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of St. Louis Park held a public hearing to consider the request to amend the Comprehensive Plan 2000-2020 land use designation on February 19, 2003, and recommended adoption, based on statutes, the Metropolitan Regional Blueprint, research and analyses involving the interests of citizens, property owners, and public agencies; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of St. Louis Park that the Comprehensive Plan, as previously adopted by the Planning Commission and City Council, is hereby amended as follows: Change the land use designation of 2370 and 2440 State Highway 100 South shown on attached map from Industrial to Commercial. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council March 17, 2003 Contingent upon approval of the Metropolitan Council City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk 03-07-CP:n\res-ord St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 7f - Luther Co. Comp Plan & Zoning change Page 8 of 10 SUMMARY RESOLUTION NO. 03-031 A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2000 TO THE YEAR 2020 FOR THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTES 462.351 TO 462.364 2370 and 2440 STATE HIGHWAY 100 SOUTH This resolution states that the land use designation of 2370 and 2440 State Highway 100 South will be changed from Industrial to Commercial. Adopted by the City Council March 17, 2003 Contingent upon approval of the Metropolitan Council Jeffrey W. Jacobs /s/ Mayor A copy of the full text of this resolution is available for inspection with the City Clerk. Published in St. Louis Park Sailor: March 28, 2003 03-07-CPsum:N/res-ord St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 7f - Luther Co. Comp Plan & Zoning change Page 9 of 10 ORDINANCE NO.__________ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE CHANGING BOUNDARIES OF ZONING DISTRICTS 2370 and 2440 STATE HIGHWAY 100 SOUTH THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. The St. Louis Park Zoning Ordinance adopted December 28, 1959, Ordinance No. 730; amended December 31, 1992, Ordinance No. 1902-93, amended December 17, 2001, Ordinance No. 2216-01, as heretofore amended, is hereby further amended by changing the zoning district boundaries by reclassifying the following described lands from their existing land use district classifications to the new land use district classification as indicated for the tract as hereinafter set forth, to wit: Tract 1: That part of the South 310 feet of the North 340 feet of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 31, Township 29, Range 24, lying West of State Highway No. 100 and lying east of a line drawn at a right angle to the North line of said quarter quarter and from a point therein distant 375.18 feet East of the Northwest corner of said quarter quarter. Abstract Property Tract II: Parcel 1: That part of Tracts A and B, Registered Land Survey No. 493, Files of Register of Titles, County of Hennepin, lying Easterly and Southerly of a line parallel with and 22.5 feet Easterly and Southerly of a line described as beginning at a point in the South line of said Tract B, distant 443.3 feet Easterly as measured along said South line, from the Southwest corner of said Tract B; thence North 2 degrees 24 minutes East, 298.84 feet to an intersection with a line parallel with and 242.5 feet Southerly of the Southerly right of way line of the Great Northern Railroad right of way, thence North 73 degrees 08 minutes East along last said parallel to the Easterly line of Tract C in said Registered Land Survey and there terminating; except the East 50 feet of the above described property. For the purposes of this description the West line of said Tract A is assumed to bear due North and South. Parcel 2: St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 7f - Luther Co. Comp Plan & Zoning change Page 10 of 10 That part of the Easterly 50 feet of Tracts A and B which lies Southerly of the Southerly line of Tract C and of the Westerly extension of said Southerly line, all in Registered Land Survey No. 493. Files of Registrar of Titles, County of Hennepin. Parcel 3: That part of the Northwest ¼ of the Northwest ¼ of Section 31, Township 29, Range 24, lying south of the Great Northern Railway right of way and West of State Highway #100, except that part described as follows, to-wit: Commencing at the point of intersection of the Southerly right of way line of the Great Northern Railway with the Westerly right of way line of State Highway No. 100; thence Southerly along said Westerly right of way line of State Highway No. 100, 377.6 feet; thence Westerly parallel with said Southerly right of way line of Great Northern Railway, a distance of 400 feet; thence at right angles Northerly 250 feet to the Southerly right of way line of Great Northern Railway; thence Easterly along said right of way line 220 feet; thence at right angles Northerly along Great Northern Railway right of way 80 feet; thence Easterly along the Southerly right of way line of Great Northern Railway 364 feet to the point of beginning, also except that part thereof embraced in Registered Land Survey No. 493. from IG-General Industrial (2370 State Highway 100 South) and IP-Industrial Park (2440 State Highway 100 South) to C-2 General Commercial. Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect upon Metropolitan Council approval of associated Comprehensive Plan amendment and 15 days following publication. Adopted by the City Council April 7, 2003 Reviewed for Administration City Manager Mayor Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution: City Clerk City Attorney 03-06-Z:n/res-ord St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 7g - Small Education Facilities Zoning Change Page 1 of 10 7g. First reading of text amendments to Chapter 36 of the Municipal Code to exempt buildings and play areas for small educational facilities, limited to 20 students, in the R-4, Multifamily residential zoning district from the 50 foot setback requirements from other lots in the R-4, or R-C District. Case 03-05-ZA Recommended Action: • Motion to approve first reading of zoning text amendments for small schools in R4 as recommended by staff and the Planning Commission and corrections to the land use table and set Second Reading for April 7, 2003. • Direct staff to initiate ordinance amendments to require educational facilities to be considered as a conditional use in the C-1 Neighborhood Commercial and C-2 General Commercial Districts Background: Daniel Yavner recently purchased the property at 3390 Library Lane with the intent of leasing the space to the Metropolitanpolitan Open School. The school is a small private K-8 school that has been in operation in St. Louis Park for 30 years. They have never had more than 20 students. Metropolitanpolitan Open School currently leases space within the Perspectives building at 3381 Gorham Ave. Perspectives would like to expand their facility; thus the lease with the school was not renewed. Metropolitanpolitan Open school initially received an ordinance amendment to allow them to locate in the Perspectives building, which is zoned C-2. Metropolitanpolitan Open School would now like to move into an existing single-family house that is zoned R-4, Multifamily residential. It is located on the southeast side of Library Lane, just northeast of Lake Street. It is bounded by an alley and C-2, Commercial properties on two sides and an apartment building on the third (See attached location map). Single-family homes and a high school are located across the street. Educational facilities are permitted in residential zoning districts with conditions. Upon reviewing the conditions Mr. Yavner found that he could not meet the requirements that a building be 50 feet from abutting residential properties. The existing building is approximately 20 feet from the lot line of its multi-family residential neighbor. Mr. Yavner and Metropolitanpolitan Open School are proposing to allow small educational facilities, limited to 20 students, to be exempt from the 50 foot setback requirement as long as the adjoining lot is zoned multifamily residential. Because the school does not provide any on- site outdoor play equipment, they are also requesting they be exempt from the 25 foot setback of play areas from residential lots (see attached application). On February 19, 2003 the Planning Commission held a public hearing to review the requested text amendment. The Planning Commission voted 6-0 to approve the proposed ordinance recommendation; however, the Commission added a recommendation that schools of this type require a conditional use permit in the R4 and commercial zoning districts. This change was St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 7g - Small Education Facilities Zoning Change Page 2 of 10 proposed so that individual education facilities could be regulated site by site. Staff is comfortable with the recommendation, and do not feel that it will lead to numerous applications for conditional use permits. However, after the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant expressed concern with the timing that would be required with a conditional use permit. Issues: • What properties would be affected? • What changing conditions make this amendment necessary? • What are the anticipated effects? • Are there any additional changes proposed to the ordinance amendment? Analysis of Issues: Ø What properties would be affected? Mr. Yavner is proposing that these small schools be exempt from certain setback requirements when the adjoining lot is also zoned R4, multifamily residential. Staff is recommending including adjacent R-C Multi-Family lots as well. In other words a school would not be required to meet the 50-foot setback from other residential lots if the school were under 20 students and the adjoining residential lot was also zoned multi-family. Such a school would have to meet the 50-foot setback if it is located adjacent to a single-family residential lot. Under the applicant’s proposed amendment play areas would also be exempt from the 25-foot setback and bufferyard requirements if the adjoining lot is also multi-family and no play equipment is installed. See the attached zoning and R4 property maps to determine what properties would be affected by the proposed amendment. Staff is aware that this proposed amendment could potentially open the door for a small school to be located in an apartment, but find it unlikely due to the current apartment demand and the remodeling that may be necessary for such schools to meet food service code requirements. Even so, staff believes the effects would be similar to day care facilities, which are currently permitted in multi-family districts provided the drop off and outdoor recreational conditions could be met. Ø Are there any concerns with impacts on surrounding properties? Traditionally schools have many more students and are in larger facilities on large parcels which provide plenty of room to accommodate setback requirements, outdoor recreational equipment and play areas, parking and other needs associated with these facilities. Metropolitan Open School operates on a smaller scale. It is proposed to provide one classroom, a study area, an office, and a multipurpose lunch and library area for no more than 20 students. Students would be brought to the nearest park for outdoor recreational activities. The school anticipates using the open space for school related outdoor educational activities. Staff does not anticipate that a school of this size would generate the same impacts as those of larger educational facilities. In many respects schools of the size proposed would have the same impacts as family home day cares. Family day cares, serving 14 or fewer persons, are permitted as an accessory use St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 7g - Small Education Facilities Zoning Change Page 3 of 10 in all residential districts. Day cares provide care to children ranging from infants to school age. Day cares must provide indoor/outdoor activities, developmental activities and supervision as regulated by state law. Staff suggests limiting the proposed schools of 20 students to grades K-8 to help ensure that impacts on neighbors are minimized. Since high-school students often want to drive independently to school, parking and traffic impacts are a concern. Staff and the Planning Commission recommend adding a condition that the school building must be residential in character. This is similar to an existing Code requirement for small offices in the R-4 District. In order to maintain the residential character of the multi-family districts, Mr. Yavner’s proposed amendments would allow outdoor play areas that do not have recreational equipment to be exempt from setback and bufferyard requirements. As with children in family day care, staff would expect there may be time when students will play outside on the property even if play equipment is not provided. As a means of ensuring that any noise impacts are minimized, staff recommends that the bufferyard requirements remain with the addition of a requirement that a fence also be installed along the lot line abutting the R, residential, district. Given the proposed conditions limiting the size of the facility, the age of the students, and requiring the bufferyard, staff does not have any concerns with impacts on surrounding properties. Ø Are the other requirements for educational facilities met? A draft concept plan was submitted for subject property (See attachment). One of the conditions for educational facilities requires an off-street bus pickup/drop-off area be provided. Two sides, the rear and a side yard, of the subject property abut an alley. Properties on the other side of the alley are commercial. The sketch plan proposed to provide a drop-off area along the rear of the building accessed off of the alley. The parking ordinance requires two (2) parking stalls for each class room. It appears that parking and drop off requirements can be met on-site with some modifications. Ø Are there any other issues? The property currently contains a one bedroom apartment in the basement. The applicant has indicated he would like to rent this unit to a tenant not necessarily related to the school provided the apartment can meet all building codes, parking codes and other applicable codes. Initially staff did not believe there would be an issue with the proposed apartment, however, upon further analysis of the zoning code staff realized a basement apartment would not be permitted on this site. This correction was not discussed at the Planning Commission. The applicant has been made aware of this and stated he would use the space for storage. The Planning Commission did express concern with the amount of green space provided on the property in question. The concern was that the addition of a new garage as proposed on the concept plan would decrease the amount of open space that could otherwise be used for St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 7g - Small Education Facilities Zoning Change Page 4 of 10 outdoor activities. The garage was proposed to meet parking requirements for a potential basement apartment. Since the basement apartment is not allowed, an additional garage would not be needed thereby leaving this space open. In 1997 the Metropolitan Open School requested an amendment to permit small schools, under 20 students in the C-2, General Commercial district. The amendment was approved. It is staff’s belief that Metropolitan Open School is the only educational facility located in this zoning district. When this amendment went through the process there had been concern over the types of commercial buildings schools could be located in. For example, there could be potential safety issues for schools located within some commercial buildings, such as Knollwood Mall. Due to such concerns and the fact that Metropolitan Open School was the only school ever to locate in a commercial district, staff recommended that the Planning Commission consider eliminating small schools as permitted in the commercial district. The Planning Commission is recommending that small schools, under 20 students, in commercial districts would require conditional use permits. This would not affect adult trade and business schools, which would remain permitted outright in the commercial districts. The proposed ordinance corrects the Land Use table to show the current status of educational facilities in the commercial district (PC, Permitted with Conditions). It also corrects the table to show the current status of in-vehicle sales and service (drive-throughs) in the commercial and office districts. These changes were adopted by previous ordinances, but the table was not updated at that time. Ø Recommendation: Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the attached ordinance amendment to allow small schools in the R4 district to be exempt from certain conditions provided it is approved as a conditional use. The Planning Commission further recommends initiation of ordinance amendments to make small schools a conditional use in the Commercial Districts. Attachments: • Proposed ordinance amendments • Unofficial Planning Commission Minutes • Application (supplement) • Location map • R-4 property Map • Draft site plan (supplement) Prepared by: Julie Grove, Associate Planner, 952-928-2841 Approved by: Clint Pires, Deputy City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 7g - Small Education Facilities Zoning Change Page 5 of 10 ORDINANCE NO.______ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING BY AMENDING SECTIONS 36-115A, 36-166(c)(6), (d) THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN: Findings Sec. 1. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission (Case No. 03-05-ZA). Sec. 2. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Sections 36-115A, 36-166(c)(6),(d) is hereby amended to read as follows by deleting stricken language and adding underscored language. Section breaks are represented by ***. *** Section 36-115. Land use by zoning district; interpretation of land use tables. *** TABLE 36-115A Zoning Districts R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-C C-1 C-2 O I-P I-G M-X Institutional Uses Educational/acade mic PC PC PC PC/CU PC N PC N PC N N N PUD Commercial uses In-vehicle sales/service N N N N N PC CU PC CU PC CU N N N *** Section 36-166. R-4, multiple-family residence district *** (c) Uses permitted with conditions. *** (6) Educational (academic). The conditions are as follows: a. Buildings shall be located a minimum of 50 feet from a lot in an R district, unless approved as a conditional use. St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 7g - Small Education Facilities Zoning Change Page 6 of 10 b. An off-street school bus pickup and drop-off area shall be provided in order to maintain vehicular and pedestrian safety. c. Outdoor recreational and play areas shall be located a minimum of 25 feet from any lot in an R district, and shall be buffered from such residential use with a bufferyard C, unless approved as a conditional use. *** (d) Uses permitted by conditional use permit. (8) Educational (academic). The conditions are as follows: a. The school is limited to 20 or fewer students ; and b. The school is limited to grades k-8. c. An off-street school bus pickup and dropoff area shall be provided in order to maintain vehicular and pedestrian safety. d. Outdoor open space that may be used for recreational or other outdoor activities must provide a bufferyard C along any abutting lot located within an R district. This bufferyard shall include an F3 fence. e. The school property shall not adjoin any R-1, R-2 or R-3 property that is used or subdivided for residential. f. The school building must be residential in character. Sec. 3. The contents of Planning Case File 03-05-ZA are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case. Sec.4. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication. Adopted by the City Council April 7, 2003 Reviewed for Administration City Manager Mayor Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution: City Clerk City Attorney St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 7g - Small Education Facilities Zoning Change Page 7 of 10 Excerpts Unofficial Minutes – Planning Commission February 19, 2003 3. Hearings: A. Case No. 03-05-ZA—Request to review text amendments to Chapter 36 of the Municipal Code to exempt buildings and play areas for small educational facilities, limited to 20 students, in the R-4, Multifamily residential zoning district from the 50 foot setback requirements from other lots in the R-4, or R-C District. Planning and Zoning Supervisor Janet Jeremiah presented a report regarding applicant Daniel Yavner and Metropolitanpolitan Open School’s request to allow small educational facilities, limited to 20 students and for students through the eighth grade, to be exempt from the 50-foot setback requirement provided the adjoining lot is zoned multifamily residential. Ms. Jeremiah stated that the applicants are also requesting exemption from the 25-foot setback of play areas from residential lots because the school does not provide any on-site outdoor play equipment. Staff believes parking requirements can be met on-site with some modifications. Staff is recommending the Planning Commission consider eliminating schools as a permitted use in a C-2 Commercial District, however the recommendation would not effect adult “trade schools.” Chair Gothberg opened the public hearing. Daniel Yavner thanked the staff for their guidance. Mr. Yavner said the school has, for a number of years, escorted their students to the nearby Freedom Park for outdoor activities. He stated that the existing school is just one block away from the 3390 Library Lane property. Mr. Yavner anticipates having only 15 students. Currently two students walk to school and the remainder would most likely be transported by their parents. In response to questions about bus and car traffic, Ruth Carp, Director of Metropolitanpolitan Open School said that no students are being bused this year. She stated that some families have more than one child in the school. This fact, along with car pooling and walking, means that there is very little car traffic. Ms. Carp said that the school utilizes the Recreation Center and also has special outdoor activities such as cross country skiing. Jacqueline McMillan, 3340 Brownlow, said her family moved to St. Louis Park to be near the school. As a neighborhood resident, Ms. McMillan is requesting the Planning Commission support the proposal. St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 7g - Small Education Facilities Zoning Change Page 8 of 10 Chair Gothberg closed the public hearing. Commissioner Morris said he is torn because he commends the use but he opposes changing the ordinance. He said to change the ordinance would make it available to anyone who would want to do the same, specifically, his concern is the 25-foot setback request. He suggested that a Conditional Use Permit might be the answer, and perhaps such uses could be looked at individually. Commissioner Morris does not support the amendment as proposed but he would be inclined to support it if it was crafted in a manner that would allow staff and the Planning Commission to regulate the individual education facility as it is being proposed. There was a discussion about pursuing the request with a variance, and Ms. Jeremiah responded that because there is no hardship a variance is not under consideration. Commissioner Basill expressed concern about green space on the property, and he wondered if there might be another condition regarding any proposed rental unit in the same structure as the school. Chair Gothberg commented that this lot is one of the larger lots in the area. He asked Ms. Jeremiah about a Conditional Use Permit as a solution. Ms. Jeremiah said it is a reasonable suggestion if the Planning Commission is concerned about how the amendment may be utilized on other lots, and staff would be comfortable with a Conditional Use Permit category. Ms. Jeremiah said staff is recommending a fence and a bufferyard for the school property. Commission Finkelstein favors a Conditional Use Permit, and asked how this would affect the applicant’s schedule. Mr. Yavner said a Conditional Use Permit timeline would be acceptable. Chair Gothberg said perhaps the Planning Commission should recommend a Conditional Use Permit for the C-2 as well. Commissioner Morris moved that the Planning Commission forward the proposed ordinance amendment to the City Council with a recommendation that a Conditional Use Permit be adopted for this type of property use for the R-4 and C-2 districts. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Finkelstein. The motion passed 6-0. Ms. Jeremiah said this request could probably move through the Conditional Use Permit process by July 2003. St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 7g - Small Education Facilities Zoning Change Page 9 of 10 K LE AF D R 35TH ST W WALKER ST WO O D D A L E A V E2ND ST NWID A H O A V E S LIB R A R Y LA N E B R O W N L O W AV E R E P U BLIC A V EGORHAM AVE1ST ST NWG E O R GIA A V E S 33RD ST W 33RD ST W DAKOTA AVE SLIC ARY FREEDOM PARK LAKE STREET PARKSENIOR HIGH SCHOOL PARKVIEW PARK CENT COMM CEN IG IG R2 R2 C2 C2R4 R4 R2 C2 C2 C2 3390 Library Ln Munibndy.shp Slparzoning.shpC1C2IGIPMXOR1R2R3R4RC Parks.shpTextDxf N EW S Location Map St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 031703 - 7g - Small Education Facilities Zoning Change Page 10 of 10 Munibndy.shpSlparzoning.shpR4 R4 Properties