The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2003/06/16 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - RegularAGENDA SUMMARY CITY COUNCIL MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA June 16, 2003 7:30 p.m. 1. Call to Order a. Pledge of Allegiance b. Roll Call 2. Presentations 3. Approval of Minutes a. City Council Minutes of June 2, 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 a. Reappointment to Housing Authority Action Motion to reappoint Anne Mavity to the Housing Authority for a term expiring June 30, 2008 6. Public Hearings 6a. Public Hearing to consider granting an on-sale intoxicating and Sunday sale liquor license to McCoy’s of Minneapolis, Inc DBA McCoy’s Public House, 3801 Grand Way, St. Louis Park MN Document Recommended Action: Mayor to close the public hearing. Motion to approve an on-sale intoxicating and Sunday sale liquor license effective October 1, 2003. 6b. Public Hearing to consider granting an on-sale intoxicating and Sunday sale liquor license to Boykin Management Company LLC, DBA Holiday Inn Minneapolis West at 9970 Wayzata Blvd, St. Louis Park MN Document Recommended Action: Mayor to close the public hearing. Motion to approve an on-sale intoxicating and Sunday sale liquor license effective July 1, 2003 6c. Public Hearing for Westwind Private Activity Revenue Bonds Document Public hearing for consideration of refunding private activity revenue bonds for Westwind Apartments and approving preliminary resolution for this bond refunding Recommended Action: Hold public hearing and approve preliminary resolution 7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public - None 8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions 8a. License Agreement between the City of St. Louis Park, Christopher T. Dahl and Tetra Tech, EM, Inc. for Edgewood Area Properties Document This report considers the adoption of a License Agreement between the City of St. Louis Park, Christopher T. Dahl and Tetra Tech, EM, Inc. for Edgewood Area Properties Recommended Action: Motion to approve the attached License Agreement between the City of St. Louis Park, Christopher T. Dahl and Tetra Tech, EM, Inc. for Edgewood Area Properties. 8b. Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for Methodist Hospital Campus Expansion Document Case No. 03-21-MISC Northeast quadrant Excelsior Blvd. and Louisiana Avenue Recommended Action: Motion to adopt a resolution approving the EAW, finding no need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and requiring certain mitigation as described in the EAW. 8c. Request by Beltline Industrial Park, Inc. for Final Plat approval for Wolfe Lake Professional Center and Final Planned Unit Development approval to redevelop the northwest quadrant of Beltline Boulevard and West 36th Street for two commercial buildings Document Case Nos. 02-32-S and 02-31-PUD Northwest quadrant of Beltline Boulevard and West 36th street Recommended Action: Motion to adopt a resolution approving the final plat and final PUD for Wolfe Lake Professional Center, subject to the conditions in the proposed resolutions. 8d. Request by for a minor amendment to an existing Special Permit to allow changes to parking configuration at 7005 Wayzata Blvd. Document Case No. 02-64-CUP Recommen ded Action: Motion to adopt a resolution approving the minor amendment to the continued Special Permit subject to the conditions in the resolution 8e. First Reading of proposed amendments to St. Louis Park Ordinance Code (Zoning) relating to creating consistency in standards relative to setbacks from residential districts, clarifying parking standards for restaurants in shopping centers, correcting retail and shopping center descriptions and approval categories, requiring conditional use permits for small schools in commercial districts, and clarifying motor vehicles sales accessory uses. Document Case Nos. 03-16-ZA Recommended Action: Motion to approve First Reading of proposed Ordinance Code text amendments related to zoning and set Second Reading for July 7, 2003. 9. Communications 10. Adjournment Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make arrangements, please call the Administration Department) at 952/924-2525 (TDD 952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting. ST. LOUIS PARK CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 16, 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 payment to the School District of an operations grant of $35,000 for 2003 Document 4b Motion to accept for filing the Planning Commission Minutes of May 21, 2003 Document 4c Motion to accept for filing the Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of March 27, 2003 Document 4d Motion to accept for filing the Housing Authority Minutes of May 14, 2003 Document 4e Motion to accept vendor claims for filing (Supplement) AGENDA SUPPLEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 16, 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: 061603 - 3a - Council Minutes of June 2, 2003 Page 1 of 9 UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA June 2, 2003 1. Call to Order Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:30 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); Deputy City Manager (Mr. Pires); Community Development Director (Mr. Harmening); Planning and Zoning Supervisor (Ms. Jeremiah); Director of Public Works (Mr. Rardin); City Engineer (Ms. Hagen); City Assessor (Mr. Stepnick); Associate Planner (Ms. Grove); and Recording Secretary (Ms. Samson). 2. Presentations--None 3. Approval of Minutes 3a. City Council Minutes of May 19, 2003 The minutes were approved as presented. 3b. City Council Study Session Minutes of April 21, 2003 The minutes were approved as presented. 3c. City Council Study Session Minutes of May 5, 2003 The minutes were approved as presented. 3d. City Council Study Session Minutes of May 19, 2003 From Councilmember Santa: Page 3, item 2, sentence 1, add: (Chief Stemmer was delayed because he was fighting a fire). From Councilmember Sanger: Page 2, item 1, last paragraph, delete US and replace with State. From Councilmember Sanger: Page, item 2, paragraph 3, immediately after to pay for dispatch add by Hennepin County. St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 3a - Council Minutes of June 2, 2003 Page 2 of 9 From Councilmember Nelson: Page 3, item 2, last paragraph, delete: to phase in fee increases on quarterly bills as opposed to, for example, 10% at one time and replace with a one-time fee increase and, perhaps, make it less if done earlier. 4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion. 4a Approve continuation of Walser Ford's application to appeal the Board of Zoning Appeals decision to the June 16, 2003 City Council meeting. Case No. 03-01- VAR: Walser Ford 4b Adopt Resolution No. 03-066 accepting work on storm sewer and utility improvements city project Nos. 00-07, 01-08, 01-09 Contract No. 111-01 4c Accept for filing Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes of April 23, 2003 4d Adopt Resolution No. 03-067 authorizing installation and special assessment of a fire sprinkler system at 5600 Excelsior Boulevard and directing the Mayor and City Manager to execute a special assessment agreement with the property owner 4e Adopt Resolution No. 03-068 authorizing the installation of stop signs at Dakota Avenue and Walker Street ATraffic Study No. 577 4f Motion to accept for filing the Planning Commission Minutes of May 7, 2003 4g Motion to accept for filing the vendor claim report (supplement) It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to approve the Agenda and items listed on the Consent Calendar. The motion passed 7-0. 5. Boards and Commissions--None 6. Public Hearings 6a. Public Hearing: Alley Paving – 2900 Block between Salem Avenue and Toledo Avenue. Resolution No. 03-059 City Engineer Maria Hagen presented a report regarding the alley paving in the 2900 block between Salem and Toledo Avenues. Ms. Hagen stated that Staff is recommending the catch basin be upsized in conjunction with the Highway 100 project. At 2908 Salem Avenue South, a garage protrudes into the right-of-way, and Ms. Hagen reported that Staff has tried to work around the garage by scootching the alley slightly to the west. Ms. Hagen said Staff would like to obtain easements from two property owners to the west rather than relocate the garage in order to get a 10-foot alley in that location, and if the two property owners are not amenable to that, Staff would like to narrow the alley to St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 3a - Council Minutes of June 2, 2003 Page 3 of 9 eight feet, which would suffice for vehicular traffic. Staff consulted with the City Attorney on this matter. Ms. Hagen said Staff is recommending a public hearing be held. After tonight’s meeting, there is a 30-day period for appeals to be made to the assessment. Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. Bill Krawchuk and Kimberly Mvistoe, 2934 Salem Avenue South, said when they moved into their home last December, they were aware of the possibility of the alley paving. Mr. Krawchuk said the assessment fee would be a burden. Anthony W. Geier, 2901 Toledo Avenue South, is concerned about the easement on the west side of the two property owners mentioned earlier tonight. Mr. Geier asked: Why does the alley need to be so far away from that garage and so close to the garage at 2913? Ms. Hagen said a retaining wall and curb will need to be built up to hold the garage in place. Mr. Geier said there is a foundation under that garage and, perhaps, the retaining wall could be built on the property owner’s foundation, although a telephone pole is in the way. Ms. Hagen said the pole can be moved and relocated at the City’s request by Xcel Energy. Ms. Hagen said Staff will investigate the matter. Mr. Geier said his retaining wall, as it is currently, crosses the common ground property line and he would like for Staff to be aware that Staff need not build around it; he plans to install a new retaining wall. Mr. Geier said Staff or he can tear it out. Melinda Hutchinson, 2913 Toledo Avenue South, has the same thoughts as Mr. Geier. Ms. Hutchinson is concerned that an eight-foot alley may not be wide enough for large vehicles such as garbage trucks. She favors taking less space on her property and making a deeper cut into the proposed four-foot space. Paul Rosholt, 2925 Toledo Avenue South, asked if the catch basin will be redone under the alley and centered, and Ms. Hagen responded yes. Mr. Rosholt said much of the hill that appears to be holding up the garage is actually a mulch pile. Mr. Rosholt said he would like to see the current property lines maintained and, perhaps, remove the power pole; he added, some of his neighbors agree with him. A resident of 2938 Toledo Avenue South asked if the alley will remain a one-way. Ms. Hagen said yes, it will remain a one-way, and he was pleased to hear that. Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing. Councilmember Sanger asked if the plans can be modified even with the changes suggested if the Council moves forward with this item tonight? Ms. Hagen said yes. Councilmember Sanger said the contingencies, i.e., to obtain the easements or modify the alley to be eight feet wide, are not reflected in the resolution, and she thinks that should St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 3a - Council Minutes of June 2, 2003 Page 4 of 9 be stated in the resolution. Councilmember Sanger is also proposing that a third point be stated in the resolution, which is the garage protruding into the alley will not be required to be moved. It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Nelson, to adopt Resolution No. 03-059 ordering the construction of a concrete alley in the 2900 block between Salem Avenue and Toledo Avenue, approving plans and specifications and authorizing receipt of bids, subject to the acquisition of easements as amended. The motion passed 7-0. 6b. Assessment Hearing for Alley Paving Project 2900 Block between Toledo and Salem Avenues. Resolution No. 03-060 City Assessor Bruce Stepnick said 17 parcels are involved in this project, and 14 parcels have garages with a direct benefit. Mr. Stepnick stated the interest rate is 5.80% for a 20- year assessment. Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. Mr. Geier asked if the amounts assessed would be changed due to incoming bids. Mr. Stepnick said the amounts sent to property owners represent the maximum amount that would be assessed, therefore, no additional amounts would be assessed without a public hearing. Mr. Rosholt asked how an assessment could be determined if a property owner were to derive a future direct benefit. Mr. Stepnick said Staff does not have a mechanism to re- assess the project because a fixed cost is involved and it is allocated 100%. Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing. It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to adopt Resolution No. 03-060 establishing the assessment for Alley Paving Project in the 2900 block between Toledo and Salem Avenues. The motion passed 7-0. 7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public--None 8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions 8a. 2003 Sidewalk & Trail Improvement Project–Project No. 03-01A Resolution No. 03-061 Ms Hagen presented a report on the construction of various sections of new sidewalk and trail in accordance with the City’s sidewalk, trails, and bikeway plan. St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 3a - Council Minutes of June 2, 2003 Page 5 of 9 LaVonne Blount, 3543 Texas Avenue South, asked if the City will discontinue snow removal from sidewalks. City Manager Charlie Meyer said the maintenance and snowplowing of city sidewalks will continue. It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Velick, to adopt Resolution No. 03-061 approving plans and specifications and authorizing advertisement for bids for construction of various sections of concrete sidewalk and bituminous trail. The motion passed 7-0. 8b. Wendy’s request for a Conditional Use Permit for in-vehicle sales/service (drive-through use). Case 03-03 CUP, 5001 Excelsior Blvd. Resolution No. 03-062 Associate Planner Julie Grove presented a Staff report on Wendy’s request for a Conditional Use Permit (“CUP”). Planning and Zoning Supervisor Janet Jeremiah said the project requires a CUP due to the drive through element. Ms. Jeremiah said a traffic and parking analysis by SRF Consulting Group (“SRF”) reveals there is not adequate parking in the Miracle Mile parking lot near the Wendy’s site to accommodate the proposed use during peak times, and some on-site circulation issues in regard to the blocking of circulation aisles, parking spaces, as well as potentially interfering with the fire lane to the fire hydrant. Ms. Jeremiah said Wendy’s has stated that they cannot agree to the conditions as proposed. The Planning Commission recommended denial on a vote of 7-0. Ms. Jeremiah said the Applicant has requested a continuance until June 16, 2003 to allow time to submit revised plans. Tony Gleekel, 100 Washington Avenue South, who represents Wendy’s, introduced himself. Councilmember Nelson immediately suggested the Applicant address if any of the conditions are acceptable now. Mr. Gleekel said Wendy’s is willing to reduce the drive through closing time to midnight, and he said the landlord has agreed to sign, i.e., to post signs, the 36 spaces west of Wendy’s from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. for Wendy’s-only customers. Mr. Gleekel would like to have the conditions narrowed down. Councilmember Nelson asked if the Applicant would be amenable to a 10:00 p.m. or 11:00 p.m. closing time. Mr. Gleekel turned around to face Richard P. Janssen, Real Estate Director, Wendy’s International, 5440 West Broadway, Crystal, who was sitting in the audience, and Mr. Janssen nodded that an 11:00 p.m. closing time would be acceptable. Wendy Freshman and her son, Noam Freshman, 3912 Natchez Avenue South, do not want a Wendy’s restaurant because it would generate too much traffic. Ms. Freshman inquired if the drive through could be abolished. Mr. Freshman said there is too much traffic now, and 700 people are expected to move in to the new condominiums. Lyn Wik, 3965 Quentin Avenue South, presented photographs of the proposed Wendy’s site, and provided photographic perspectives from adjacent property owners’ homes. Ms. St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 3a - Council Minutes of June 2, 2003 Page 6 of 9 Wik said the noise and hours are inseparable issues. She said a drive through is in opposition to the Comprehensive Plan. Councilmember Nelson asked Ms. Wik if she could provide Ms. Grove a copy of the photographs for the record, and she responded yes. James Buchkosky, 4960 West 40th Street, questions SRF’s information and supporting evidence, and he referenced the Staff report, page 12, item 4. Mr. Buchkosky said the traffic counter in front of his home had been disabled for a time. Jeff Johnson, 4964 West 40th Street, said his two primary concerns are noise and traffic. Claudia Johnston-Madison, 3931 Joppa Avenue South, said she hopes the Council will deny the Special Use Permit [Conditional Use Permit] for reasons stated by the Planning Commission. Ms. Johnston-Madison has talked to most of the business owners on the east end of the Miracle Mile Shopping Center and they expressed concern about losing their parking spaces. She said an 11:00 p.m. closing time is unacceptable. Ms. Johnston- Madison said the drive through lane, where the cars will stack, and the exit lane are side- by-side, and that will cause problems. Mark Banishek, 4956 West 40th Street, said this use is not conducive to a walkable community. Carol Ham, 4967 West 40th Street, said her main concerns are traffic and noise. Rose Dohorty, 4968 West 40th Street, said she has personal, livability issues with this project, and the overall community goals that have been set would be undermined. Ms. Dohorty said she has no objection to a Wendy’s restaurant but she doe object to the drive through and the late hours of its operation. Ms. Dohorty said the drive through is too close to a residential area. She said traffic is heavy now, and she wants to maintain a pedestrian-friendly environment. Christine Moss, from Landform, 510 First Avenue North, Suite 650, Minneapolis, works on behalf of Wendy’s. Ms. Moss referred to a letter by Kendra Lindahl regarding the specifics of Wendy’s request. Ms. Moss thinks Wendy’s meets the conditions and the application complies and conforms to the Zoning Ordinance requirements for the approval of a CUP to allow a drive through restaurant. Ms. Moss stated that no variances are being requested. She said the parking and traffic analysis, which was prepared by SRF, reiterates that the application complies with all traffic and parking standards. Ms. Moss addressed points A, B, C, and D, on page 9 of 30. Ms. Moss stated that Wendy’s has submitted revised plans as requested by Staff and addressed at the May 23, 2003 Planning Commission meeting. Ms. Moss stated that there is adequate parking. Margaret Tiffany, 4972 West 40th Street, said she is most concerned with pedestrian safety and being able to have a pedestrian-friendly environment—and the drive through will not accomplish that goal for her neighborhood. The proximity of the drive through to the residential properties, and noise and pollution concerns her. Ms. Tiffany said a Wendy’s with a drive through is not a match for this site. She said some customers may become phantom customers, i.e., drive onto the site and seeing that it is busy, decide to St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 3a - Council Minutes of June 2, 2003 Page 7 of 9 pass through, which will add to the congestion. She said lighting would be problematic. Ms. Tiffany said bare trees during the wintertime will not offer any buffer. Mr. Gleekel said he is a steward for Wendy’s, and he highlighted that Wendy’s presence in the neighborhood would be innocuous upon the residents. Mr. Gleekel said although the City may want to apply stricter standards to Wendy’s, there are limitations. Councilmember Brimeyer said the parking is right, the traffic is right, Wendy’s is a good company but this is not the right thing to do. He said a ton of money and a ton of time has been invested across the street (Park Commons) to promote the concepts of walkability, livability, and compatibility. Because Councilmember Brimeyer thinks it is not the right thing to do, he cannot approve it. Councilmember Sanger agrees with Councilmember Brimeyer that this is not the right project but she does not necessarily agree with his reasoning. She thinks some of the conditions have not been met. Councilmember Sanger is most concerned about traffic circulation from the drive through and the impact of stacked vehicles. She is also concerned about pedestrian access. She stated that the drive through is not compatible with the Comprehensive Plan for the neighborhood. Councilmember Sanger will not support Wendy’s request. She said the Planning Commission did an admirable job in laying out the rational for why this request is not in compliance with City requirements. Councilmember Omodt concurs with Councilmember Sanger, and thanked the Planning Commission for doing a great job. He said this is not the right use and this site is the wrong place for a drive through. Councilmember Omodt is concerned about traffic flow through the parking lot. He does not approve of the request. Councilmember Velick said not all of the conditions have been met, and it would be a hardship for the neighbors. She would like to see Wendy’s in St. Louis Park but not in this location. Councilmember Santa said, from her Ward 3 perspective, the same issues arise from similar projects regarding car noises, radios, and headlights, which are intrusive, and those irritants are especially intrusive after 10:00 p.m.—it becomes a livability issue. Councilmember Santa cannot support the request because it would be detrimental to the neighborhood. Mayor Jacobs said he thinks the conditions have not been met. Mayor Jacobs said comparisons to McDonald’s on the north side of Excelsior Blvd. from the proposed site do not work because McDonald’s is not in close proximity to a residential area. Mayor Jacobs is fearful that traffic would back up onto Excelsior Blvd. and he has additional traffic concerns. He said the noise issue is problematic. Mayor Jacobs said Wendy’s does not fit at this location, and it is not a good land use for this site. Councilmember Nelson said a drive through within 100 feet of a residential area would exceed the ambient noise level. St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 3a - Council Minutes of June 2, 2003 Page 8 of 9 Councilmember Nelson pointed out that on page 9 of the Resolution, 3d, it should state does not comply, which will be part of his motion, and Staff agreed. Councilmember Nelson is concerned about the internal parking circulation at Miracle Mile. He said the Planning Commission did an excellent job, and he has no problem adopting their findings, especially their first three findings. It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to adopt Resolution No. 03-062 denying the Conditional Use Permit in accordance with the findings included in the resolution as modified by Councilmember Nelson. The motion passed 7-0. 8c. Resolution confirming the appointment of Clint Pires to the position of Director of Technology and Support Services. Resolution No. 03-063 Mr. Meyer provided background information on this appointment and on Deputy City Manager Clint Pires. Mr. Meyer thanked Mr. Pires for his outstanding work as Deputy City Manager. It was moved by Councilmember Brimeyer, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to adopt Resolution No. 03-063 confirming the appointment of Clint Pires to the position of Director of Technology and Support Services effective June 16, 2003. The motion passed 7-0. 8d. Confirmation of Appointment of Tom Harmening as Deputy City Manager. Resolution No. 03-064 Mr. Meyer reported that Community Development Director Tom Harmening will continue as the City’s Community Development Director but will take on additional responsibilities as Deputy City Manager. It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Velick, to adopt Resolution No. 03-064 confirming the appointment of Tom Harmening as Deputy City Manager effective June 16, 2003. The motion passed 7-0. 8e. Resolution declaring a vacancy in Council - Ward Two, appointing an eligible person to fill the vacancy and calling for a special election to be held November 4, 2003. Resolution No. 03-065 Mayor Jacobs declared a vacancy on the Council, Ward Two, and John Basill has been appointed to fill the vacancy. A special election shall be held on November 4, 2003. Mayor Jacobs said applications were solicited from residents of Ward 2. St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 3a - Council Minutes of June 2, 2003 Page 9 of 9 It was moved by Councilmember Brimeyer, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to adopt Resolution No. 03-065 declaring a vacancy in Council--Ward Two, appointing an eligible person, John Basill, to fill the vacancy and calling for a special election to be held November 4, 2003. The motion passed 7-0. Mayor Jacobs said Councilmember Nelson represents the best of what a public official is and should be. Councilmember Nelson said it has been a pleasure and a privilege to serve the City. 8f. Executive Session--Pending Litigation ASK Properties At 10:10 p.m. the Council exited the Council Chambers to convene an Executive Session in the Westwood Room. Councilmembers present in the executive session were Jim Brimeyer, Chris Nelson, Paul Omodt, Susan Sanger, Sue Santa, Sally Velick, and Mayor Jeff Jacobs. Staff members present were the city Manager (Mr. Meyer); City Clerk (Ms. Reichert); City Attorney (Mr. Scott); Community Development director (Mr. Harmening); Planning and Zoning Supervisor (Ms. Jeremiah). Discussion regarding pending litigation between the City and ASK properties was held. A 10:35 p.m. a motion to reconvene the regular meeting of council was mde by Councilmember Santa and seconded by Councilmember Nelson. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Communications (Note: Because Council was convening to executive session, communications occurred prior to item 8f.) Councilmember Nelson announced that the St. Louis Park Historical Society is seeking volunteers. 10. Adjournment Mayor Jacobs adjourned the meeting at 10:35 p.m. _____________________________ _________________________________ City Clerk Mayor St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 4a - School District Grant Page 1 of 5 4a. Motion to approve payment to the School District of an operations grant of $35,000 for 2003. Background: The School District has received funding from Cable TV franchise fees since 1982, and since 1996 the Telecommunications Commission has reviewed the District’s request and recommended action to the City Council. The Commission has traditionally felt that franchise fees should be used to produce programming and District videotext display for Educational Access Channel 14, a benefit available to all Cable TV viewers. Since 1998, the Commission has recommended separate grants for operations and equipment, basing the equipment grants on District proposals. These grants are just a part of the budget for educational access; the School District also financially supports cable TV efforts. In 2001, at the request of the School District and Commission, the Council increased the operations grant to $35,000, which covers most of the District Video Technician’s salary and benefits. At the May 8, 2003 meeting, the Telecommunications Commission passed a motion to approve the District’s request for a $35,000 operations grant for 2003. No equipment grant was requested. City Council authority over franchise fees: During budget discussions the question was raised as to whether the City Council has full legal authority to spend franchise fees without making grants to the School District. Staff asked City Attorney Joel Jamnik and he replied, “Yes, unless the franchise itself limits the Council.” Staff has researched the cable television franchise ordinance and finds nothing to limit the City Council’s authority for spending franchise fees, so the grants to the School District are discretionary. The amount proposed as a grant to the school district is consistent with the budget plans recently discussed. The only limiting reference in the franchise refers to the equipment grant provided by the cable company every five years: In addition, Company shall contribute the following sums to City to be used to acquire equipment in support of public, educational and governmental access: (a) on acceptance of this Franchise Ordinance $60,000.00 (etc.) The next franchise equipment grant of $100,000 is due January 1, 2004. Franchise fee revenues and cable customers: Time Warner stopped paying franchise fees on cable modem services in the second quarter of 2002 after the Federal Communications Commission reclassified these services as “information services.” The City collected $37,000 on cable modem services in 2001and $22,500 in 2002 before the reclassification. St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 4a - School District Grant Page 2 of 5 Total customers have dropped to 2000 levels, after peaking in 2001. Digital cable customers have leveled off this year after continuous increases since they were introduced in June, 2000. The marketing battle with satellite companies continues, so subscriber growth will probably remain modest in 2003, except for Roadrunner, with the possibility that Time Warner will introduce telephone service in the second half of the year. Time Warner Cable Customer Growth Date Total customers Basic only Roadrunner Digital Cable 5/00 12,925 1,683 - - 5/01 13,165 1,774 1,706 2,600 5/02 13,071 1,434 2,841 3,374 5/03 12,986 1,852 3,670 3,422 Recent School District Grant History Year Operations Grant Equipment Grant Total Grant to School District Total Franchise Fees Franchise Fees from cable services 1997 25,000 - 25,000 233,781 1998 25,000 8,000 33,000 255,387 255,387 1999 25,000 7,500 32,500 279,970 279,970 2000 25,000 12,900 37,900 310,713 301,143 2001 35,000 15,000 50,000 379,000 342,000 2002 35,000 38,000 73,000 382,033 *359,000 2003 Propose 35,000 None requested 35,000 Estimate 358,000 Estimate 358,000 *2002 Franchise fees include reimbursements for underpayments discovered by the franchise fee audit. Equipment Grant Descriptions Recent past equipment grants (in addition to a $25,000 operations grant) 1998 $8,000 for an automatic playback system 1999 $7,500 for digital camcorders/tripods 2000 $12,900 for district to use for personnel and equipment 2001 $15,000 used for Apple G4 computer + a 21” monitor, 2 digital cameras, a teleprompter, a Videonics digital video switcher, a tripod + other accessories. 2002 $38,000 for 4 remote control camera system, microphones & mixers for improved School Board meeting coverage; studio equipment racks and furniture, 3 mini DV camcorders 2003 None requested or recommended. Recommendation Motion to approve payment to the School District of an operations grant of $35,000 for 2003. Prepared by: Reg Dunlap and John McHugh, TV Coordinators St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 4a - School District Grant Page 3 of 5 Through: Clint Pires, Deputy City Manager Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager Attachments: Unapproved Telecommunications Minutes of May 8, 2003 (excerpt) St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 4a - School District Grant Page 4 of 5 UNOFFICIAL MINUTES ST. LOUIS PARK TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION (TAC) MEETING OF MAY 8, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. ST. LOUIS PARK SENIOR HIGHSCHOOL, ROOM 206 MEMBERS PRESENT: Bruce Browning, Dale Hartman, Ken Huiras, Bob Jacobson, Mary Jean Overend, and Rolf Peterson MEMBER ABSENT: Rick Dworsky STAFF PRESENT: Reg Dunlap, Civic TV Coordinator and John McHugh, Community TV Coordinator/Recording Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Tom Marble, ISD 283 Technology Director; Charlie Fiss, ISD 283 Video Technician (Relevant section) 6B-C-D Review Criteria for School District Funding, School District Grant Funding, Review: School District using interns for extra experience and to produce programming. Tom Marble handed out an addendum of programming and equipment checkout information to supplement the report mailed to the Commission. Commissioner Jacobson stated he like the information presented and it should make the criteria doable. Mr. Marble asked if a three-year record of equipment inventory will meet Telecommunications Commission needs. Chair Huiras and Commissioner Browning agreed it was reasonable. Mr. Marble briefly reviewed the historical funding of Educational Access at $25,000 with increases starting in 2000. Commissioner Overend asked about paid interns. Mr. Marble said they are developing a volunteer intern program for post-secondary students, and the paid-secondary student positions have been discontinued as a result of automated programming and school policies on unsupervised casual employees. He described the levy Technology Fund which remains separate from general fund budget concerns, is ongoing and covers both support and capital. He described the zoned security areas now in place, and that after 4:30 p.m. use would present security issues and must be a registered Community Education use. Mr. McHugh distributed the April 21 email discussion draft of “Community Access to equipment funded by the Telecommunications Commission.” Mr. Marble said that eligible adults must supervise use, that students cannot. Commissioner Jacobson said liability was a concern and then suggested Educational Access guidelines be drafted. Mr. Marble said he, Charlie Fiss, Reg Dunlap and John McHugh could meet to do this. Commissioner Peterson said he was a member of the Community Education Advisory Council, and that fee hikes were coming. Mr. Fiss said there were 450 iMacs in the Senior High School and a lab of 25 run iMovie for student instruction and use. St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 4a - School District Grant Page 5 of 5 Mr. Marble stated that the funds for 2003 will apply to both the “live meeting room” installation and equipment racks/furniture for the studio control room. He said that the image and operation quality of live school board meetings is a problem they will address by adding lighting and having Mr. Fiss cover the board meeting of Tuesday, May 27 to show TWC’s employees the standard expected. It was moved by Commissioner Peterson, seconded by Commissioner Browning to approve the $35,000 operation grant for 2003-2004 Educational Access. Discussion followed. Commissioner Jacobson asked about channel 14 summer programming and Mr. Fiss described “end of the year” specials. Mr. Marble described how Beth Johnson of the District Communications Department planned to produce programming (such as NWEA test summaries) to supplement the newspaper features, and better reach parents at home. Mr. Fiss described how the channel display is no longer the SCALA program, but Microsoft PowerPoint which means that many teachers and staff can submit slides for channel display. Mr. Marble and Commissioner Peterson agreed that 15-18% of city households have school-age children. The motion passed 6-0. Minutes prepared by: Respectfully submitted by: John McHugh Reg Dunlap Recording Secretary Civic TV Coordinator St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 4b - Planning Commission Minutes of 5-21-03 Page 1 of 8 OFFICIAL MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA May 21, 2003 -- 6:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: John Basill, Michelle Bissonnette, Phillip Finkelstein, Ken Gothberg, Carl Robertson MEMBERS ABSENT: Dennis Morris, Jerry Timian STAFF PRESENT: Julie Grove, Janet Jeremiah, Nancy Sells 1. Call to order - Roll Call Chair Robertson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 2. Approval of Minutes of May 7, 2003 From Commissioner Basill: Item B: He would like the minutes to reflect that he asked Mr. Yavner about the use of the rental property and if it had been discontinued, and Mr. Yavner responded yes. From Commissioner Gothberg: Item A, page 2: standing in a parking lane should be changed to fire lane. It was moved by Commissioner Gothberg to approve the minutes of May 7, 2003 as amended. The motion passed 5-0. 3. Hearings: A. Case No. 03-21-MISC —Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for Methodist Hospital Campus Expansion Planning and Zoning Supervisor Janet Jeremiah presented a staff report. Ms. Jeremiah said SRF Consulting was hired by the City to prepare the EAW and are here to present a summary and answer questions. To date, comments have been received from two residents. A letter from Randy Manthey is in the Commissioners’ packets, and an e-mail communication from Chris Kasic with questions received on May 20, 2003 was distributed. All substantive comments will be responded to in writing prior to City Council consideration. Ms. Jeremiah said staff looked at what the criteria are for the decision on the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS); if other anticipated future projects have been St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 4b - Planning Commission Minutes of 5-21-03 Page 2 of 8 included in the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) analysis; and if the City will have the ability to ensure implementation of recommended mitigation measures. Ms. Jeremiah stated that other anticipated projects east and west of Hwy. 100 have been included in the traffic analysis and staff believes the criteria for a negative declaration on the need for an EIS have been met. Park Nicollet has decided to pursue a planning application for a Planned Unit Development for the project. Because it appears to be possible to mitigate impacts through the PUD process, staff is recommending approval of the EAW, finding no need for an environmental impact statement and requiring certain mitigation as described in the EAW, and the recommendation is subject to satisfactory response to comments received. The comment period closes on May 28, 2003 and the EAW is expected to be considered by the City Council on June 16, 2003. Beth Bartz, Senior Associate with SRF, worked on completing the EAW for this project. Ms. Bartz said the purpose of an EAW is to understand the broad environmental impacts associated with the anticipated expansion of Methodist Hospital through 2013. Ms. Bartz summarized the expansion plans and EAW. Commissioner Gothberg said Randy Manthey’s comments and concerns are welcomed, and it would be important to respond to his concern about parking structure height. Commissioner Gothberg thinks it is an erroneous assumption to state that ambulance traffic will not increase as a result of construction. He thinks if the number of patients and hospital staff increase, so too will ambulance traffic to the emergency room. Chair Robertson asked how SRF models the traffic studies for worst case and best case scenarios. Marie Coty, SRF, said the traffic study was based on a trip generation manual (ITE). Ms. Coty said SRF used existing hospital parking information in comparison to existing square footage and extrapolated that into the future by using the same ratio. Commissioner Finkelstein asked if there are any changes proposed for employee parking during Phase I and Phase II, i.e., during construction. Duane Spiegle, Vice President Real Estate Park Nicollet, said employees will park in the “purple” lot, which is the Golden Auto site; a temporary overlay will provide 400 parking spaces. Mr. Spiegle said it is an evolving process and not all phased details have been developed. Commissioner Basill asked about the number of parking spaces for the various phases, and Mr. Spiegle said Park Nicollet would like to bring the “purple” lot staff back to the campus. Chair Robertson opened the public hearing. St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 4b - Planning Commission Minutes of 5-21-03 Page 3 of 8 Randy Manthey, 3979 Dakota Avenue South, said one issue is to define maximum development. From his memorandum, dated May 15, 2003, regarding Review Comments Related to Methodist Hospital Campus Expansion EAW, Mr. Manthey pointed out some comments in more detail. He listed parking numbers on the north side; he would like to know more about the parking structure on the south side; site capacity in regard to wetland inclusion—Are parking structures included in the floor area ratio calculations in terms of defining what that density is?; he wants to know the long term understanding of what maximum development would be with a PUD; define criteria; EAW is vague in regard to the Phase II development; lighting is important; and landscaping buffer of many layers is very important. Chair Robertson closed the public hearing. Commissioner Basill commented that the City should promote public involvement early on, and the goal needs to be something better for everyone. Ms. Jeremiah stated that Park Nicollet, the City and neighborhoods began meeting early in the process. Three neighborhood meetings plus a traffic scoping meeting have been held to date. She understands Park Nicollet is willing to continue the neighborhood involvement process. Ms. Jeremiah said the public comments are extremely pertinent to the PUD criteria and conditions of approval Commissioner Bissonnette is pleased to hear about the PUD process. She said the EIS is a tool to say where is the alternative site for this facility, and there is not much room to move around on this site. She asked that the public and neighborhood be kept informed. Chair Robertson is comfortable with the EAW and the finding that an EIS is unnecessary. It was moved by Commissioner Gothberg, seconded by Commissioner Basill, to recommend approval of the EAW, finding no need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and requiring certain mitigation as described in the EAW subject to satisfactory response to all substantive and timely comments. The motion passed 4-0-1. (Commissioner Finkelstein abstained stating that he represents the nurses at the hospital). B. Case Nos. 03-17-S and 03-18-VAR—Request of Troy Mathwig for Preliminary and Final Plat Approval (Mathwig Addition) with variances at 4256 Quentin Avenue South Ms. Jeremiah requested this item be continued to June 4, 2003 due to the request of an additional variance and its subsequent re-advertisement. Chair Robertson opened the public hearing. St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 4b - Planning Commission Minutes of 5-21-03 Page 4 of 8 Robert Stolz, 4261 Browndale, asked if plans exist depicting what he will see from his property. Ms. Jeremiah said staff will mail the plans the City has to date to Mr. Stolz. It was moved by the Planning Commission to continue this item and public hearing to June 4, 2003. The motion passed 5-0. C. Case No. 03-16-ZA--Proposed amendments to St. Louis Park Ordinance Code (Zoning) relating to creating consistency in standards relative to setbacks from residential districts, clarifying parking standards for restaurants in shopping centers, correcting retail and shopping center descriptions and approval categories, requiring conditional use permits for small schools in commercial districts, clarifying the motor vehicles sales description. (continued from May 7) Ms. Jeremiah presented a staff report. She said the City will re-advertise for the sign ordinance standards, which are not a part of the action before the Planning Commission tonight. The sign ordinance standards will be heard on June 18, 2003. Commissioner Finkelstein asked if Metro Open School met the requirements for outdoor play area. Ms. Jeremiah responded that the proposed language refers to when outdoor play areas are provided, not that they must be provided. She explained that Metro Open School uses parks for its outdoor activities. She added that the City defers to State statute regarding whether outdoor play areas are required for educational facilities. For motor vehicle sales and associated accessory uses, Chair Robertson said warehousing of 49% seems excessive, and he would like to see a definition that would retain the motor vehicle sales as the use, perhaps, 25-30%. Commissioner Basill agreed with Chair Robertson. He said if the intent is to make sure it is a secondary use and complements sales of cars, then the amendment should be drafted in such a way that that does occur. Commissioner Finkelstein stated more research is needed to determine what the typical ratio of motor vehicle sales to auto body (associated accessory use) is. He said he believes most dealerships have larger service areas than showrooms. Ms. Jeremiah said auto body/painting is a separate use from other motor vehicle service. The latter is already permitted in association with the use and there are no restrictions, it can be a side-by-side principal use. Autobody/painting is not currently permitted in the C-2 District. However, staff believes it’s appropriate as an accessory use to motor vehicle sales with conditions including setback from residential. She concurs with a percentage limit. St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 4b - Planning Commission Minutes of 5-21-03 Page 5 of 8 Commissioner Finkelstein said he does not know if 30% is the right number. Ms. Jeremiah said she will look at existing examples, e.g., Walser Ford, Luther Motors. She stated that as the Planning Commission is the recommending body, staff will look at the issues raised and report them at first reading of the ordinance to the City Council. Chair Robertson closed the public hearing. It was moved by Commissioner Bissonnette to recommend approval of Ordinance Code text amendments, requesting that staff review motor vehicle sales and include a maximum percentage for associated autobody/painting as an accessory use. The motion passed 4-1. (Commissioner Finkelstein opposed). 4. Unfinished Business: None 5. New Business A. Consent Agenda B. Other New Business i. Case Nos. 02-31-PUD and 02-32-S—Request by Beltline Industrial Park, Inc. for Final Plat approval for Wolfe Lake Professional Center and Final Planned Unit Development approval to redevelop the northwest quadrant of Beltline Boulevard and West 36th Street for two commercial buildings Planning Associate Julie Grove presented a staff report. Ms. Grove said the applicant is requesting a final plat and final PUD with a few ordinance modifications being requested with the PUD for reduced parking and for some reduced setbacks. Ms. Grove said some changes to the final plans compared to preliminary approval are: combine two sites into one site; in regard to a 15-foot right-of-way dedication, the property line is being moved north 15 feet; and revised plans for a mailbox drop off north of the PUD site on Beltline Blvd. Staff is recommending to bring the mailbox drop off driveway further north to directly line up with the south side of the existing parking lot driveway for the tennis court. Ms. Grove said the Public Works Department suggested incorporating a sidewalk easement with a drainage and utility easement, and staff is trying to determine if an easement exists and, if not, staff recommends recording the sidewalk easement prior to signing the final plat. Staff also recommends all landscaping be brought up to Code prior to Council, revisions to grading and storm water calculations be approved by Public Works prior to Council, and revised elevations for the small retail building, meeting the architectural ordinance intent for building wall deviations, be submitted for Council consideration. St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 4b - Planning Commission Minutes of 5-21-03 Page 6 of 8 Ms. Grove stated that staff is recommending approval of the final plat and final PUD subject to conditions included in the staff report. John McCain, applicant, and Paul Meyer, project architect, introduced themselves. Mr. McCain stated that he believes the overall project is adequately landscaped and bufferyard requirements are met and he would like consideration to accept as submitted, and later said, he would like Condition 2e removed. He proposes to relocate the north entrance or exit of the drop boxes for the post office to the south, closer to the entrance, rather than north. He does not believe such a long driveway is necessary. Mr. McCain will submit a revised plan for the drop boxes. Mr. McCain said he is unclear about the easement (Condition 7b). Mr. McCain would also like clarification on trees. Ms. Jeremiah said staff will work with him on the specifics. Mr. Meyer commented on the loading area landscaping, and he would like to discuss it further with staff. Mr. Meyer would like clarification on some of the building offset dimensions, e.g., rather than a three or four foot offset, accept a two-foot offset which they do provide on the north and south sides. Mr. Meyer would like clarification on Condition 13 (roof top equipment screening), and he asked if there is a definition for offsite views for screening. Mr. Meyer asked about standards for parapets. Mr. Meyer asked for clarification regarding item 14a conversion of use. Ms. Jeremiah provided clarification to Mr. Meyer’s questions. She noted that there is latitude to consider alternatives to the exact requirements of the architectural ordinance via Council approval. However, the PUD requires the site to be held to a higher standard of site and building design. There is no latitude with the landscape and bufferyard requirements. If they cannot be met, a variance is required. Commissioner Gothberg said he agrees with the staff recommendation for additional architectural embellishments on the small retail building. Commission Basill thinks the Class I material is high class, and he complimented staff for a thorough report; he added, in this case, vehicular circulation will improve and he is pleased with the design of the building. Chair Robertson said he is comfortable with the recommended bufferyard revisions. He thinks the proposed buildings of the project look good and are superior buildings. Chair Robertson said the offsets should do one of two things: line up or not line up. There was discussion regarding the wall near the loading area. Staff noted that although a wall was required at preliminary approval, staff is no longer recommending it due to sidewalk connections in that area. Rather, staff is recommending that they meet the bufferyard requirement with landscaping. Staff will work with the applicant on a plan that meets requirements and does not reduce pedestrian security. St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 4b - Planning Commission Minutes of 5-21-03 Page 7 of 8 Ms. Jeremiah read her notes regarding changes to the conditions the Planning Commission may want to consider: 6g, add to end of condition: or other approved location; 7b, change parking easement to access easement; and 14a, a clarification is requested, 3,000 square foot post office to retail conversion is allowed provided the post office drop box driveway is removed. Ms. Jeremiah stated that one Commissioner prefers architectural embellishments as recommended by staff, and two Commissioners are fine with as is. Ms. Jeremiah said the status of staff recommendation at this time is that the applicant will submit revised elevations of the one-story retail building, per staff recommendations, prior to Council consideration, and staff said the applicant would not necessarily need to change the original packet but show it as an alternative so the Council can see some options. Ms. Jeremiah stated that for item 2e, Chair Robertson suggested the mailbox drive should be included. The Chair requested item 2c be revisited (revised elevations of the one-story retail building). Chair Robertson said he suggested it as a friendly suggestion but not a requirement; he said, personally, he would strike it. Mr. Meyer said the applicant’s concern is increasing the standard of the one-story building. Mr. Meyer would like item 2c to be clarified or stricken. Commissioner Finkelstein asked if it would work to remove item 2c and add it as item 17; stating that staff recommends submission of revised elevations for the one story retail building for Council consideration as an alternative. Ms. Jeremiah said that would be one option. Mr. McCain said he would like the Planning Commission to view the design as presented as being adequate, meeting and exceeding most of the requirements needed, or resolve issues now rather than going through the process of submitting alternatives. Chair Robertson said he would be fine with stating that for the architecture, and as Ms. Jeremiah pointed out, the landscaping and screening needs further revision to meet Code. Commission Gothberg asked: What if the post office wants to move to a different building but they like the drive through that has been put in? Ms. Jeremiah said if that were the case, and as it currently reads, they would have to convert it back to a landscape area. It was moved by Commissioner Gothberg to recommend approval of the final plat and final PUD subject to the conditions recommended by staff with the following changes: Changes to conditions 7b and, 6g as recommended by staff. Removal of condition 2c, and request close review of the requirements that include security issues relative to people feeling safe walking on the new sidewalks. St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 4b - Planning Commission Minutes of 5-21-03 Page 8 of 8 Commisssioner Finkelstein added a friendly amendment: change to condition 14a to read drop box driveway. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Finkelstein. The motion passed 5-0. Commissioner Gothberg requested a discussion take place regarding bufferyards and its definitions, and relative to security. Chair Robertson that requested staff and the Planning Commission discuss architectural review. He said some things are very open-ended, and he would like stronger guidelines to be developed. 6. Communications A. Recent City Council Action – May 5, May 19 B. Other 7. Miscellaneous 8. Adjournment Chair Robertson adjourned the meeting at 8:35 p.m. Minutes prepared by: Respectfully submitted by: Linda Samson Nancy Sells Recording Secretary Administrative Secretary St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 4c - BOZA Minutes of 3-27-03 Page 1 of 7 MINUTES MARCH 27, 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, March 27, 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 Members Absent: Commissioner Paul Roberts 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 7:08p.m. 2. APPROVE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMITTEE MINUTES Motion by Commissioner Bloyer, seconded by Commissioner Powers, to approve the following minutes as presented with the following corrections: Page 4, Correct spelling error on bottom of page last sentence from quest and replace with guest. Page 7, Under Communications correct name of handout from The Standard Code of Par of Proceedings by Alice Sturgeon and replace with Sturgis Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure. 1) Board of Zoning Appeals Committee public hearing and regular meeting minutes dated February 27, 2003. Motion Carried. Voting Yes: Gainsley, Bloyer Burt and Powers. Voting No: None. 3. CONSENT AGENDA None St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 4c - BOZA Minutes of 3-27-03 Page 2 of 7 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 more square feet of signage than allowed by code for property located in the “C-2” General Commercial District at 3555 S. Highway 100. (Continued from January 23, 2003 and February 27, 2003) Mr. Morrison presented the report and concluded that 6 of 7 criterion have not been satisfied for the proposed variance and the following is recommended: The request for a variance from the requirements of Sections 36-362(f)(20) of the Ordinance code relating to zoning to allow 759 square feet of sign area instead of the required maximum 400 square feet for property located in the General Commercial “C-2” zoning district at 3555 S. Highway 100 be denied based upon the findings in the report. Commissioner Bloyer asked staff how Walser Ford was able to become non-compliant. Did the City change the code on them? Mr. Morrison explained that this property was originally developed under a PUD District. At that time a sign plan was required and was submitted to City Council whom approved some of the existing signage but minus a reader board. In 1992 zoning changed for that property and it is no longer zoned PUD; it is zoned C-2. Also sign criteria changed which currently allows only 400 square feet. Chair Gainsley stated that at that time he thinks that the property was two separate properties and uses. Mr. Morrison stated that he has researched past property files and found the car dealership was approved and there was amendment to a special permit which was approved by City Council but also required submittal of a sign plan. Mr. Morrison stated that there were no sign standards for the PUD District only a sign plan was required. Chair Gainsley asked staff if this property become non-conforming as soon as the PUD designations was removed. Mr. Morrison stated he was correct, this property became C-2 and the zoning standards for signs changed. However, it does not appear that the property was ever in conformance with the sign plan, which did not allow the reader board. Commissioner Bloyer asked Mr. Morrison if he felt this met his definition of multi-tenants as one sales and one service and one collision would that allow them to have more signage? St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 4c - BOZA Minutes of 3-27-03 Page 3 of 7 Mr. Morrison stated that the ordinance reads that the automobile sales and services is one use. Commissioner Bloyer stated that multi-tenant is not defined in the definitions. Mr. Morrison stated that multi-tenant means that it is a separate use and a separate entity within itself. Commissioner Bloyer asked staff if they had three separate legal entities Walser Service, Walser Sales and Walser Collision that would still not be considered separate uses? Mr. Morrison stated that staff did look at the possibilities of allowing a lot split so that they could have signage for two separate properties but in order for that to happen every aspect of that building would need to be separated such as water and sewer. Commissioner Bloyer stated that the only thing holding this up is them having the common wall and adjoining water and sewer? Mr. Morrison stated that would potentially allow them more wall signage but the reader board would still need to be removed. He stated that the property is approved as a automotive dealership (motor vehicle sales). There are several aspects of motor vehicle sales such as outdoor, display showroom area and the auto repair. Commissioner Bloyer stated she read the definitions and believes there is separate code sections for service, showroom and collision work. Mr. Morrison stated that the definition for automotive sales states that it can be in conjunction with automobile repair but if you look at the C-2 District when it talks about automobile sales it states that it is required in a building and auto showroom uses are therefore a required part of the motor vehicle sales use. The showroom is not a separate tenant from the automobile sales. That is the problem that we are running into. Commissioner Bloyer asked staff if the retail outlets across Highway 100 are those multi-tenants, so they have separate walls, sewer and water. Mr. Morrison stated that yes they’re shopping center multi-tenants. In this case, the automobile sales use includes showroom and repair but they are not separate tenants. With no more questions, Chair Gainsley opened the public hearing. Don Schilling, representing Walser Ford and Director of Facilities, stated that presently the dealership has 1,200 square feet of signage. At one time the auto body shop was operated by a ABRA franchise which was located in the rear third of the building but later sold back to ABRA corporate which later relocated to another site once the two-year lease had ended. At this time a St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 4c - BOZA Minutes of 3-27-03 Page 4 of 7 lease has not been signed with Walser Collision & Glass because of the uncertainty of the signage due to that portion of the building. Walser Collision & Glass is a separate company and a separate legal entity. They have there own P and L statement and are required to be profitable on there own. The service department is a function of the sales department and is owned and operated by other owners while another individual owns the property. Mr. Schilling stated that he feels that Walser has more than one entity since there is a separate individual that owns the property, the LLC that owns the Ford business, which pays rent to Jack Walser Realty. Also, just recently Ford Motor Company offered Walser a sign incentive to remove the existing flag and replace with a attractive oval sign so when Ford Motor Company applied for the sign permit that is when Walser was inform that the property was not in compliance. At this time, City Staff and I have research past files which showed that Walser was operating under a different type of a arrangement that allowed a 1,500 square foot allowance for signs which limits to five pylons and the reader board sign permit hasn’t been located by staff at this time. Chair Gainsley asked Mr. Schilling to verify if the request is 104 square feet or 179.9 square feet? Mr. Schilling stated that in his handout it would show the corrections that are the calculation adjustments made to make allocations of signage under the showroom definitions. Chair Gainsley asked Mr. Schilling if he feels that there are two separate tenants? Mr. Shilling stated yes. Commissioner Powers asked staff if they would consider this property a single entity? Mr. Morrison stated that staff has received a application for a variance for additional signage not an interpretation appeal. The applicant is trying to put together a argument for this variance which is the concept of exempting certain wall signage from the allowable square footage. That comes from a section in the sign ordinance for shopping centers and multi-tenants buildings. If those buildings contain certain tenants (which includes showroom but does not include auto body, auto repair or dealerships-generally it’s a retail type use), the square footage for those wall signs can be excluded. Commissioner Powers stated that staff has decided this property is a single entity and would like to know if the Board of Zoning Appeals has any authorizations to look at it any other way, or over rule that ruling. Chair Gainsley stated he feels that the City can’t accept that as an argument which means the Board of Zoning Appeal can’t either. St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 4c - BOZA Minutes of 3-27-03 Page 5 of 7 Mr. Schilling stated he would like to point out that the scenarios that have been presented to staff and the Commissioners have been more of a exercise to come up with a reasonable allotment for signage that Walser can feel good about asking for over the allowance based on some other definitions or some other intentions in City Code. The difficulty of the problem is presently Walser has 1,200 square feet of signage and to eliminate two-thirds of that existing signage does create a problem due to expenses. Chair Gainsley stated that Commissioner Powers makes a great point in that the Board of Zoning Appeals can’t do what we’re not powered to do so making a finding is difficult which would require the Commissioners to find that this property is two separate entities or two separate multi-tenants. Chair Gainsley pointed out that a hardship is needed in order for the Board of Zoning Appeal to approve this variance request. Mr. Schilling stated he feels that a hardship to the property is the bridge deck that lies over which restrict the site lines from the property along with a railroad bridge on the opposite side so when you are traveling on Highway 100 you have a limited amount of time to see the site. Commissioner Bloyer stated she disagrees with staffs and the Commissioners in that the Board of Zoning Appeals doesn’t have cause to interpret the ordinance particularly since there isn’t a definition for multi-tenant building. Commission Bloyer asked Mr. Schilling to explain the amount of visibility from 36th Street? Mr. Schilling stated that when traveling on 36th Street heading east the front of the building is visible and the only part of the body shop is visible which is the south side of the back corner. Presently a three-sided pylon sign at the entrance helps to identify. When traveling on 36th Street west you will see the three-sided pylon sign which is the entrance sign but once you pass the property and if you look to the rear of the property you will then be able to see the body shop. When traveling on Highway 100 you are only able to see the building once you’re about to travel under 36th Street bridge. Commissioner Burt asked staff if multi-tenant allowances that are permitted for retail uses is the usage termed multi-tenant specifically related to a section of the ordinances that applies only to retail? Mr. Morrison stated that two uses are being discussed, auto body and auto dealership (which includes outside sales, indoor showroom and auto repair) not retail. Signage would only be exempted for retail, private entertainment indoors, restaurants with liquor, restaurants without liquor, services, food services, printing process, banks, studios and showrooms. Those are the only uses that qualify for the exemption. Commissioner Burt stated that this is where the argument of showroom becomes an issue. St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 4c - BOZA Minutes of 3-27-03 Page 6 of 7 Mr. Morrison stated that finding a separate showroom tenant becomes the problem. A showroom is a required part of the auto dealership. It is not a separate tenant. Commissioner Burt stated that each of us understands that this property is nonconforming and feels this is a awkward situation where we’re taking a existing large nonconformance and possibly through granting a variance turning it into a much reduced nonconformance. Are there other alternatives for reducing or completely doing away with the nonconformance on this property? Will this variance stay with the property forever? Does the grandfather period run out after a set amount of time? What can we do to make this property somewhat into conformance with code? Mr. Morrison stated that for any signs that were legal before the 1992 changes, even if they were not asking for changes 2005 is the year where the property must be brought into compliance. Commissioner Bloyer asked staff how many properties are in this 300,000 square foot range? Mr. Morrison stated that Target and Burlington Coat Factory are just less than 300,000 square feet. Walser is potentially one of the largest properties in the area. With no more questions, Chair Gainsley closed the public hearing. Chair Gainsley stated he hasn’t heard an argument for a hardship and feels that the multi-tenant aspect is something that the Board of Zoning Appeals can’t decide and would like to have City Council review this variance. Commissioner Bloyer stated she disagrees with Chair Gainsley and feels that there is a hardship with this property which is the unusually large size and the property encompasses three street sides so additional signage is needed and would be in favor of granting the variance. Commissioner Powers stated he feels that the ordinance is clear and feels that the Board of Zoning Appeals doesn’t have jurisdiction on the argument of the applicant and doesn’t feel there are any unique features for this property and recommends denial. Commissioner Burt stated he feels that by approving this variance it would be directly conflicting with the ordinance and the decisions made by the Highway 100 corridor to enforce theses issues and recommends denial for this variance. Motion by Commissioner Burt, seconded by Commissioner Powers that request for a variance from the requirements of Sections 36-362(f)(20) of the Ordinance code relating to zoning to allow 759 square feet of sign area instead of the required maximum 400 square feet for property located in the General Commercial “C-2” zoning district at 3555 S. Highway 100 be denied based upon the findings in the report. St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 4c - BOZA Minutes of 3-27-03 Page 7 of 7 Motion carried. Voting Yes: Gainsley, Burt and Powers. Voting No: Bloyer. 5. Old Business: None 6. New Business: None 7. Communications: Commissioners have reviewed the handout on Sturgis Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedures and had no comments. 8. Miscellaneous: None 9. Adjournment: Commissioner Bloyer moved and Commissioner Burt seconded the motion for adjournment. The regular meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals adjourned at 7 :58 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Tara Olson Community Development Secretary St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 4d - Housing Authority Minutes of 5-14-03 Page 1 of 3 MINUTES Housing Authority St. Louis Park, Minnesota Wednesday, May 14, 2003 Westwood Room 5:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Catherine Courtney, William Gavzy, Judith Moore, Shone Row Commissioner Anne Mavity arrived at 5:15 p.m. MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Anderson, Jane Klesk, Michele Schnitker 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 5:10 p.m. 2. Approval of Minutes for April 9, 2003 The April 9, 2003 minutes were unanimously approved, with the following amendment to Page 2, 6(c.) Approval of Home Renewal "Lite" Development Agreement: Ms. Larsen added that the finished house would be a "show house" and that after its completion an open house would be held. 3. Hearings – None 4. Reports and Committees – None 5. Unfinished Business – None 6. New Business a. Approval of Collection Loss Write-Off – Resolution 514 Ms. Anderson stated that the amount of collection loss for FY 2003 was $2,405.00, and recommended that the Board approve Resolution No. 514. Commissioner Moore moved to approve Resolution No. 514, Designating Damages, Unpaid Rents, and Other Charges as Collection Losses in the Public Housing Program, and Commissioner Row seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0, with Commissioners Courtney, Gavzy, Mavity, Moore and Row voting in favor. b. Approval of Public Housing Assessment System Certification – Resolution 515 St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 4d - Housing Authority Minutes of 5-14-03 Page 2 of 3 Ms. Schnitker provided a brief overview of the PHAS. Commissioner Courtney moved to approve Resolution 515, Approving the Submission of the Public Housing Assessment System (PHAS) Management Operations Certification for FY 2003, and Commissioner Moore seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0, with Commissioners Courtney, Gavzy, Mavity, Moore and Row voting in favor. c. Approval of Section Eight Management Assessment Program Certification Ms. Schnitker explained that there are fourteen indicators for SEMAP, and stated it was anticipated that St. Louis Park HA would receive a score of 105% this year. Commissioner Courtney moved to approve and transmit the Section Eight Management Assessment Program Certification, and Commissioner Row seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0, with Commissioners Courtney, Gavzy, Mavity, Moore and Row voting in favor. d. Amendment to the Public Housing Leasing and Occupancy Plan – Approval of Fees for Late Rents and Utility Surcharge – Resolution 516 Ms. Anderson reported that an increased utility surcharge of $12.00 per month for air conditioning would result in an additional $364.00 in annual revenue. The fee for Late Rents is proposed to be $20.00 if rent is not paid by the 10th of the month. Commissioner Mavity moved to approve Resolution 516, Amendment to the Public Housing Leasing and Occupancy Plan, contingent that no comments are received prior to the end of the comment period. Commissioner Moore seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 5-0, with Commissioners Courtney, Gavzy, Mavity, Moore and Row voting in favor. e. Proposed Use of Affordable Housing Incentive Funds by the Hennepin County Housing Redevelopment Authority – Resolution 517 Commissioner Gavzy excused himself from discussion of the topic. Ms. Schnitker explained that the resolution states that the Housing Authority approves the Hennepin County HRA acting within the HA jurisdiction, with respect to use of the AHAP funds for the Wayside project. Commissioner Moore moved to approve Resolution 517, Proposed Use of Affordable Housing Incentive Funds by the Hennepin County Housing Redevelopment Authority, and Commissioner Courtney seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 4-0 with Commissioners Courtney, Mavity, Moore and Row voting in favor. f. Selection of Steering Committee Member Ms. Schnitker stated that the HA Board must appoint a primary member, and one alternate member, to serve on the Housing Summit Steering Committee. There will be five Steering Committee meetings, with the first meeting held the third week in June. After some discussion, Commissioner Moore moved that Chairman Gavzy be the primary St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 4d - Housing Authority Minutes of 5-14-03 Page 3 of 3 representative and Commissioner Courtney be the alternate. Commissioner Courtney indicated that availability could be an issue for her. Chairman Gavzy then suggested that Commissioner Mavity instead act as the alternate representative. Commissioner Courtney seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 5-0, with Commissioners Courtney, Gavzy, Mavity, Moore and Row voting in favor. 7. Communications from Executive Director a. Claims List No. 5-2003 Commissioner Courtney moved to ratify Claims List No. 5-2003, and Commissioner Moore seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0, with Commissioners Courtney, Gavzy, Mavity, Moore and Row voting in favor. b. Communications (1) Monthly Report for May, 2003 (2) Scattered Site Houses and Hamilton House (3) Draft Financial Statement 8. Other 9. Adjournment Commissioner Moore moved for adjournment. Commissioner Courtney seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 5-0 with Commissioners Courtney, Gavzy, Mavity and Row voting in favor. The meeting was adjourned at 6:20 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Shone Row, Secretary St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 6a - McCoy's of Mpls, Inc. Liquor Page 1 of 1 6a. Public Hearing to consider granting an on-sale intoxicating and Sunday sale liquor license to McCoy’s of Minneapolis, Inc DBA McCoy’s Public House, 3801 Grand Way, St. Louis Park MN Recommended Action: Mayor to close the public hearing. Motion to approve an on-sale intoxicating and Sunday sale liquor license effective October 1, 2003. Background: McCoy’s of Minneapolis, Inc. and its officers, Martin Mitchell Collins, and Thomas James Collins have made application to the City for an on-sale intoxicating liquor license with Sunday Sales. The establishment, McCoy’s Public House, will target a demographic of 25 years of age and older and will operate adjacent to the Town Green at 3801 Grand Way in St. Louis Park. The Police Department has conducted an investigation of the corporation, it’s officers and Store Manager. Because the establishment is in the process of being built, the effective date of the license is October 1, 2003. It is anticipated that the establishment will open after that date upon receipt of a certificate of occupancy issued by the city. Staff recommends approval of the application. Prepared By: Cynthia Reichert, City Clerk Approved By: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 6b - Boykin Mgmt Holiday Inn Liquor Page 1 of 1 6b. Public Hearing to consider granting an on-sale intoxicating and Sunday sale liquor license to Boykin Management Company LLC, DBA Holiday Inn Minneapolis West at 9970 Wayzata Blvd, St. Louis Park MN Recommended Action: Mayor to close the public hearing. Motion to approve an on-sale intoxicating and Sunday sale liquor license effective July 1, 2003 Background: Holiday Inn Minneapolis West has operated as a hotel in St. Louis Park for many years and, as is typical with many hotels, the license for sale of liquor is not held by Holiday Inn, but by the management company responsible for business operations at the hotel. The current license is held by Capstar BK Company. A transfer of all management operations to Boykin Management Company LLC is occuring on July 1, 2003. This transfer is treated under MN statutes and our ordinances as an entirely new license. The Police Department has conducted an investigation of Boykin Management Company LLC, its officers and the Store Manager, Mr. Gary Steffen. Staff recommends approval of the application. Prepared By: Cynthia Reichert, City Clerk Approved By: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 6c - Westwind PARB Public Hearing Page 1 of 5 6c. Public Hearing for Westwind Private Activity Revenue Bonds Public hearing for consideration of refunding private activity revenue bonds for Westwind Apartments and approving preliminary resolution for this bond refunding Recommended Action: Hold public hearing and approve preliminary resolution Background: In 1993, the City of St. Louis Park issued Private Activity Revenue Bonds on behalf of Westwind Apartments Multi-Family Housing project. The original maturity date of these bonds is in the year 2023. The total refunding issue is for $5,700,000. These private activity revenue bonds are subject to the City administrative fee of 1/8th of 1% of the unpaid principal of the bonds on an annual basis. This item was discussed at the May 12, 2003 Study Session Issues: When this item was presented to Council on May 12, 2003, the request was to enter into a normal refunding issue of these bonds. Since that time, CSM Corporation, on behalf of Westwind Apartments has voiced some concerns about interest rates between now and October, the original date for doing this refunding. Due to this, CSM is requesting that a forward purchase contract be entered into. A forward purchase contract requires that the lender commits to make the taxable loan at a fixed interest rate determined as of the date of the execution and delivery of the forward purchase contract. This is expected to occur between June 16 and July 7, 2003. If the Borrower fails to close on the Taxable Loan, there is a substantial penalty. The taxable loan cannot be closed unless the Bonds are issued. In order to eliminate all potential contingencies to a closing on the Taxable Loan in October, the Borrower has requested that the City consider a resolution authorizing the issuance of the Bonds on either July 7th or July 21st, 2003. If the City Council consents to authorize the issuance of these bonds, then the execution and delivery of bond documents by the City will occur on October 3, 2003 (or a mutually agreeable date after October 3, 2003). Other items: As indicated on May 12, 2003, Westwind Apartments is completing a needs assessment. This needs assessment must be reviewed by staff before issuance of these bonds. Recommendation: Based on the opinion of John Utley, Kennedy & Graven, staff recommends approval of the forward purchase contract and also recommends that Council approve the preliminary resolution authorizing issuance of these bonds. St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 6c - Westwind PARB Public Hearing Page 2 of 5 Attachments: Resolution authorizing preliminary approval of the proposed issuance of Multifamily Housing Variable Rate Revenue Refunding Bonds. Prepared by: Jean D. McGann, Director of Finance Approved by: Clint Pires, Deputy City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 6c - Westwind PARB Public Hearing Page 3 of 5 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. _________ GIVING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO THE PROPOSED ISSUANCE OF MULTIFAMILY HOUSING VARIABLE RATE REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS (WESTWIND APARTMENTS PROJECT), SERIES 2003, IN THE APPROXIMATE AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF $5,700,000 UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTES, CHAPTER 462C, AS AMENDED BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park (the “City”) as follows: Section 1. Recitals. 1.01. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C, as amended (the “Act”), the City is authorized to carry out the public purposes described in the Act by providing for the issuance of revenue bonds to provide funds to finance or refinance multifamily housing developments located within the City or another municipality. The governing body of the municipality or redevelopment agency must conduct a public hearing on the proposal to undertake and finance the project. Notice of the time and place of hearing, and stating the general nature of the project and an estimate of the principal amount of bonds or other obligations to be issued to finance the project, must be published at least once not less than fifteen (15) days prior to the date fixed for the hearing in a newspaper of general circulation in the municipality. 1.02. The City previously issued its Multifamily Housing Revenue Refunding Bonds (Briarwood West Project), Series 1985, in the original principal amount of $8,000,000 (the “Series 1985 Bonds”), under the Act, to finance a 186-unit multifamily rental housing development and certain related facilities now known as Westwind Apartments located at 275 Shelard Parkway in St. Louis Park, Minnesota (the “Project”). 1.03. On December 22, 1993, the City issued its Multifamily Housing Revenue Refunding Bonds (GNMA Mortgage Loan/Westwind Apartments Project), Series 1993 in the principal amount of $6,290,000 to redeem and prepay the Series 1895 Bonds. 1.04. The Project is owned and operated by GHH Investments, a Wyoming general partnership (the “Borrower”). The Borrower has requested that the City issue its Multifamily Housing Variable Rate Revenue Refunding Bonds (Westwind Apartments Project), Series 2003 (the “Bonds”), in the approximate original aggregate principal amount of $5,700,000. The St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 6c - Westwind PARB Public Hearing Page 4 of 5 proceeds of the Bonds will be applied to the redemption and prepayment of the Series 1993 Bonds. 1.05. Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and the regulations promulgated thereunder, require that prior to the issuance of tax-exempt bonds, the City Council of the City approve the bonds after conducting a public hearing thereon. 1.06. Prior to consideration of this resolution, the City Council of the City has conducted a public hearing on the date hereof with respect to the proposal to issue the Bonds, as requested by the Borrower. Section 2. Preliminary Approval Granted. 2.01. The issuance of the Bonds to redeem and prepay the Series 1993 Bonds is hereby preliminarily approved subject to the mutual agreement of the City, the Borrower and the initial purchaser of the Bonds as to the details of the Bonds and provisions for their payment. In all events, it is understood, however, that the Bonds shall not constitute a charge, lien or encumbrance, legal or equitable, upon any property of the City except the City’s interest in the loan or revenue agreement with respect to the Bonds and the Project, and the Bonds, when, as, and if issued, shall recite in substance that the Bonds, including interest thereon, are payable solely from the revenues received from the Project and property pledged to the payment thereof, and shall not constitute a general or moral obligation of the City. 2.02. The law firm of Kennedy & Graven, Chartered is authorized to act as Bond Counsel and to assist in the preparation and review of necessary documents relating to the Project and Bonds issued in connection therewith. The Mayor, City Manager and other officers, employees and agents of the City are hereby authorized to assist Bond Counsel in the preparation of such documents. 2.03. The Borrower has agreed to pay directly or through the City any and all costs incurred by the City in connection with the Project. The Borrower has also agreed to pay the administrative fee of the City in the event the Bonds are issued. 2.04. All commitments of the City expressed herein are subject to the condition that by June 1, 2004, the City, the Borrower and the initial purchaser of the Bonds will have agreed to mutually acceptable terms and conditions of the loan or revenue agreement, the Bonds and of the other instruments and proceedings relating to the Bonds and their issuance and sale. If the events set forth herein do not take place within the time set forth above, or any extension thereof, and the Bonds are not sold within such time, this Resolution will expire and be of no further effect. 2.05. The adoption of this Resolution does not constitute a guaranty or firm commitment that the City will issue the Bonds as requested by the Borrower. The City retains the right in its sole discretion to withdraw from participation and accordingly not to issue the Bonds, or issue the Bonds in an amount less that the amount referred to herein, should the City at any time prior to issuance thereof determine that it is in the best interest of the City not to issue St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 6c - Westwind PARB Public Hearing Page 5 of 5 the Bonds, or to issue the Bonds in an amount less than the amount referred to in paragraph 1.04 hereof, or should the parties to the transaction be unable to reach agreement as to the terms and conditions of any of the documents required for the transaction. Section 3. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage. Approved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park this 16th day of June, 2003. CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA Jeff Jacobs, Mayor (SEAL) Charles W. Meyer, City Manager SA140-71 (JU) 232616v1 St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8a - Dahl License Agreement Page 1 of 12 8a. License Agreement between the City of St. Louis Park, Christopher T. Dahl and Tetra Tech, EM, Inc. for Edgewood Area Properties This report considers the adoption of a License Agreement between the City of St. Louis Park, Christopher T. Dahl and Tetra Tech, EM, Inc. for Edgewood Area Properties Recommended Action: Motion to approve the attached License Agreement between the City of St. Louis Park, Christopher T. Dahl and Tetra Tech, EM, Inc. for Edgewood Area Properties. Background On October 21 2002, the Council approved a resolution authorizing application to Hennepin County for a 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 a ERF grant application to Hennepin County which requested $67,420 for the above purpose. Hennepin County subsequently approved the grant request in its entirety. In order to conduct the various assessments on the Dahl property, a license agreement must be signed granting the City and its consultant, Tetra Tech, access to the Dahl property and permission to perform the necessary fieldwork. The attached document sets forth the terms and conditions associated with the agreement. License Agreement Business Points The following is a summary of the License Agreement between the City of St. Louis Park (City), Christopher T. Dahl (Dahl) and Tetra Tech, EM, Inc. (Consultant). : 1. The agreement grants the City access to the Dahl property for the limited purpose of conducting an environmental investigation of the property. The City will provide Dahl with a copy of the work plans for the Work prior to entering the Property to implement the work. Other than the Work and the activities described in the Agreement, The City agrees not to use the Property or perform any other acts on the Property without the prior written consent of Owner. 2. The term of the agreement is one year. 3. City agrees to notify Dahl at least three (3) days in advance before entering the Property to conduct any component of the work. St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8a - Dahl License Agreement Page 2 of 12 4. City agrees that the work will be performed by its consultant, Tetra Tech. The City is responsible for obtaining all necessary permits and approvals relating to the work. The City is responsible for making all necessary contacts with utilities to determine the location of underground utilities and avoid damaging all underground objects identified to Tetra Tech by Dahl, utility companies or Gopher One Call. However, Dahl is to notify City and Tetra Tech in writing regarding the existence and location of utilities and underground equipment on the property which are known to Dahl. 5. The City, Tetra Tech and their employees/agents agree not to cause any unnecessary damage to the Dahl property and agree to promptly restore the property to substantially the same condition as existed prior to any work being performed on the property, at its sole cost and expense. 6. City and Tetra Tech agree to minimize any disruption to or interference with the business and operations of Dahl on the Property. 7. City and Tetra Tech agree to provide Dahl an advance copy of all submittals and correspondence to the MPCA and other governmental entities, pertaining to the environmental conditions of the Property. The City and Tetra Tech agree not to meet with the MPCA about the work or the results of the work without first providing written notice to Dahl. offering him the opportunity to attend the meeting. Except for submission to MPCA and Hennepin County Environmental Services, City and Tetra Tech shall maintain the confidentiality of all information relating to the Work to the extent that it relates to the Property and such confidentiality is permitted by law. 8. Before commencing the Work, the City and Tetra Tech agree to provide Dahl with evidence of general liability, automobile, and worker’s compensation insurance issued to City and Tetra Tech, in amounts reasonably acceptable to Dahl, as well as evidence of professional liability insurance for each consultant performing the work in an amount reasonably acceptable to Dahl. Dahl and City shall be included as additional insureds with respect to the commercial general liability insurance and automobile liability insurance. 9. The City and its consultants agree to release Dahl and waive any and all claims with respect to, any personal injury or property damage relating to the performance of the Work, except if caused by or contributed to by the negligent or willful acts or omissions of the Dahl. The City and its consultants agree to indemnify, defend, protect and hold harmless Dahl, against any expenses (including reasonable attorney's fees and expenses) losses, liabilities, fines, damages, injuries, penalties, response costs or claims asserted against Dahl which result from or are attributed to the negligent or willful acts or omissions of City and its consultants with respect to their access to, presence on or use of the Property. 10. Dahl agrees, by the City or its consultants entering the Property and performing the authorized tests, that they would not become liable for remediation of any release or threatened release of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants not caused by them which may be present on the Property. St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8a - Dahl License Agreement Page 3 of 12 11. The City would not be obliged to perform any work under this Agreement which would cause it to expend more than the amount of the Grant. While not formally part of the License agreement, Dahl requested that the City agree to write a side letter indicating its willingness to seek additional ERFgrant funds should it become necessary. (A draft of that letter is attached). The City’s legal counselor in this matter, Robert Lindall, Kennedy & Graven, has indicated that the City can not be held liable for releases which it did not cause on the Dahl property and believes that the Agreement, as negotiated, substantially protects the City from any claim by Dahl for contribution to the cost of any required cleanup. The City’s legal counselor is comfortable with the City approving the proposed License Agreement. Recommendation Upon review and approval by the City’s legal counsel, staff recommends approval of the attached License Agreement between the City of St. Louis Park, Christopher T. Dahl and Tetra Tech, EM, Inc. and a side letter indicating the City’s willingness to seek additional ERF grants should they be necessary. NEXT STEPS 1. Finalize and approve access agreement with Christopher Dahl. 2. Conduct Phase I Environmental Site Assessments for the City’s & Dahl’s property. 3. Modify Phase I & Health Risk Screening Work Plan and prepare a Health & Safety Plan. 4. Submit plans to MPCA for its approval. 5. Perform fieldwork assessments. 6. Analyze results of fieldwork and conduct chemical analysis. 7. If the soils on the sites are found to be innocuous - finish reports & prepare Remedial Action Plan (RAP) for MPCA approval. 8. If the soils on the site are not found to be innocuous, and additional assessment is determined to be necessary then the City and Mr. Dahl will need to evaluate options. 9. If the City wishes to proceed with further testing, then it will need to submit a second application to Hennepin County for additional funding. 10. Obtain ERF grant approval from Hennepin County. 11. Prepare a Phase II work plan. 12. Submit plan to MPCA for its approval. 13. Perform more extensive Phase II assessment. 14. Prepare RAP & obtain MPCA approval. PROJECT TIMETABLE Once the access agreement with Mr. Dahl has been signed and the appropriate reports have been submitted it will take approximately 4 months to complete steps 2-7 noted above. St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8a - Dahl License Agreement Page 4 of 12 Attachment: License Agreement between the City of St. Louis Park, Christopher T. Dahl and Tetra Tech, EM, Inc. Side letter of Agreement to Mr. Dahl Prepared By: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator Reviewed By: Tom Harmening, Director of Community Development Approved By: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8a - Dahl License Agreement Page 5 of 12 LICENSE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made this ____ day of _____, 2003, by and between the City of St. Louis Park, a municipal corporation under the laws of Minnesota (“Licensee”), and Christopher T. Dahl (“Owner”) and Tetra Tech, EM, Inc. (“Consultant”). WHEREAS, Owner is the owner of certain real property located in the City of St. Louis Park, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto, and depicted by crosshatching on Exhibit B attached hereto “(Property”); and WHEREAS, Licensee owns certain real properties located in the City of St. Louis Park, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota (“Licensee’s Properties”) adjacent to the Property; and WHEREAS, both Licensee and Owner have applied to and been accepted into the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s (MPCA) Voluntary Investigation and Cleanup (VIC) Program for their respective properties covered by this agreement; and WHEREAS, both Licensee and Owner have a mutual interest in assessing environmental conditions on their respective properties; and WHEREAS, both Licensee and Owner have agreed to have an environmental investigation performed on their respective properties; and WHEREAS, Licensee has secured a grant in the amount of $67,420 (“Grant”) from Hennepin County which it believes will be sufficient to cover the costs of said environmental investigations on both Licensee’s Properties and the Property; and WHEREAS, at the Owner’s request, Licensee agrees to access the Property for the limited purpose of conducting an environmental investigation of the Property. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises of the parties contained herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. Grant of License. Owner hereby grants to Licensee and its consultants, representatives and agents a limited, temporary and nonexclusive license (“License”) to enter upon the Property for the limited purposes of (a) conducting a limited health risk screening and, if necessary, a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, both following work plans approved by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (“MPCA”), (b) preparing the work plans and resultant reports, and (c) developing an MPCA approved Response Action Plan (collectively, the “Work”), subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. Licensee agrees to provide Owner with a copy of the work plans for the Work prior to entering the Property to implement said Work. Other than the Work and the activities described in this Agreement, Licensee, Consultant and their consultants, representatives and agents shall not use the Property or perform any other acts on the Property without the prior written consent of Owner. 2. Term. The term of this Agreement and the License shall commence on the date hereof and shall terminate on the first anniversary of the date hereof, or upon the completion of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8a - Dahl License Agreement Page 6 of 12 the Work, whichever occurs earlier. Notwithstanding the above, in the event of default under this Agreement by Licensee or Consultant and failure to cure such default within 10 days after written notice of such default by Owner to Licensee and Consultant, Owner may terminate this Agreement and the License upon written notice to Licensee. The term of this Agreement may be extended if such extension is in writing and executed by all parties hereto. 3. Notice of Work. Licensee or Consultant shall notify Owner at least three (3) days in advance before entering the Property to conduct any component of the Work. Such notice shall be given to Owner at the notice address set forth in Section 16 below. 4. Performance of Work. Licensee agrees that, if Licensee elects to proceed with the Work, the Work will be performed by Consultant. Licensee shall be responsible for obtaining, at its sole expense, all necessary permits and approvals relating to the Work. All Work, including, but not limited to the storage, treatment, transportation and disposal of any soil and/or water samples, hazardous substances, pollutants, contaminants or free product which result from the Work, will be performed by Licensee and Consultant in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations. Licensee shall make all necessary contacts with utilities to determine the location of underground utilities and avoid damaging all underground objects identified to Consultant by Owner, utility companies or Gopher One Call. However, Owner shall notify Licensee and Consultant in writing regarding the existence and location of utilities and underground equipment on the Property which are known to Owner. 5. Restoration of Property. Licensee, Consultant and their employees, agents, consultants and contractors shall maintain their equipment and other materials in an orderly manner while located on the Property, complete the Work as promptly as possible, remove all debris, trash, equipment and other materials of any kind used or caused by Licensee or Consultant when the Work on the Property is completed. Licensee, Consultant and their employees, agents, consultants and contractors, shall do no unnecessary damage to the Property and shall promptly restore the Property to substantially the same condition as existed prior to any Work being performed on the Property, at its sole cost and expense. If removal, transportation and disposal of materials, debris and waste are not done by Licensee and Consultant in accordance with this Agreement, the Owner may do so at Licensee's expense. Notwithstanding any provision of this Agreement to the contrary, neither Licensee nor Consultant shall have any liability to Owner under this Agreement for conditions on the Property not caused or created by Licensee, Consultant, their agents, employees, consultants or contractors. 6. Minimize Interference. Licensee and Consultant shall conduct the Work so as to minimize any disruption to or interference with the business and operations of Owner on the Property. 7. Intentionally Omitted. 8. Information, Reporting and Confidentiality. Licensee and Consultant, at their sole cost and expense, will provide to Owner in advance of submittal thereof to MPCA: (a) a copy of all data derived from the Work on the Property, (b) a copy of all final reports derived from, analyzing or including data derived from the Work on the Property, and (c) a copy of all correspondence to and from the MPCA and other governmental entities, pertaining to the St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8a - Dahl License Agreement Page 7 of 12 environmental conditions of the Property. Licensee and Consultant shall not meet with the MPCA about the Work or the results of the Work without first providing written notice to Owner of the time, place and purpose of any such meeting and providing Owner and his consultants with the opportunity to attend the meeting. Except for submission to MPCA and Hennepin County Environmental Services, Licensee and Consultant shall maintain, and shall cause their consultants, representatives, and agents to maintain, the confidentiality of all records, reports, and information relating to or obtained in connection with the Work to the extent that it relates to the Property and such confidentiality is permitted by law. Licensee hereby agrees that Owner and his consultants, representatives, and agents shall have the right to discuss the Work and the implementation thereof with Consultant, with notice to Licensee and its attorney and an opportunity for them to participate in such discussion. 9. Insurance. Before commencing the Work, Licensee and Consultant shall furnish to Owner evidence of general liability, automobile, and worker’s compensation insurance issued to Licensee and Consultant, in amounts reasonably acceptable to Owner, as well as evidence of professional liability insurance for each consultant performing the Work in an amount reasonably acceptable to Owner. Owner and Licensee shall be included as additional insureds with respect to the commercial general liability insurance and automobile liability insurance. 10. Liability. (a) Licensee, Consultant and their respective successors and assigns, and all persons claiming under or through them, hereby release and forever discharge Owner, his agents and contractors from, and waive any and all claims with respect to, any personal injury or property damage relating to, arising out of, or in any manner connected with the performance of the Work, except if caused by or contributed to by the negligent or willful acts or omissions of the Owner. Licensee and Consultant shall indemnify, defend, protect and hold harmless Owner, his contractors and agents from and against any and all costs, expenses (including reasonable attorney's fees and expenses) losses, liabilities, fines, damages, injuries, penalties, response costs or claims of any and every kind whatsoever paid, incurred or asserted against or threatened to be asserted against Owner which result from or are attributed to the negligent or willful acts or omissions of Licensee or Consultant or their respective officers, directors, employees, agents, contractors, subcontractors or representatives with respect to their access to, presence on or use of the Property or the means of ingress thereto or egress therefrom. (b) INTENTIONALLY OMITTED. (c) Owner agrees that, by Licensee or Consultant or their agents, assigns, contractors, subcontractors or employees (collectively, the “Working Parties”) entering the Property and performing testing and other tasks authorized in or contemplated by this Agreement, the Working Parties shall not become liable for remediation of any release or threatened release of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants not caused by the Working Parties which may be present on the Property. (d) The provisions of this Paragraph 10 shall survive the cancellation, termination or expiration of this Agreement. St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8a - Dahl License Agreement Page 8 of 12 11. No Interest in Real Estate. This Agreement is not intended to constitute and shall not be construed to constitute, a public dedication or grant of an easement or any other interest in real estate. 12. Condition of Property Not Warranted. Owner does not represent or warrant that the Property is safe or suitable for the purposes for which the Property is permitted to be used under the terms of this Agreement. 13. Entire Agreement; Amendment. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties hereto with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes any oral or written agreements between the parties with respect thereto. This Agreement may only be amended by the parties hereto by written instrument executed with the same procedures and formality as were followed in the execution of this Agreement. 14. Assignment; Successors. This Agreement and the License granted hereunder shall not be assignable by Licensee or Consultant without the prior written consent of Owner, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. Subject to the foregoing, this Agreement shall be binding upon the parties hereto and their respective heirs, successors and assigns. 15. No Liens. Licensee and Consultant shall not permit any lien to be filed against the Property for any labor or materials in connection with the Work. In the event any such lien attaches to the Property, Licensee and Consultant shall cause the lien to be removed not later than thirty (30) days thereafter. 16. Notices. All notices, demands and requests required or permitted to be given under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be sent by confirmed electronic email, confirmed facsimile transmission, deposit in U.S. mail, postage paid, registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, or by deposit, prepaid, for overnight delivery by a reputable overnight courier service, in all cases addressed as follows: If to Owner: Christopher T. Dahl 2662 Hamel Road Medina, MN 55340 with a copy to: David H. Mason Briggs and Morgan, P.A. 2400 IDS Center 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 334-8607 Facsimile: (612) 334-8650 If to Licensee: City of St. Louis Park Attention: Greg Hunt 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Telephone: 952-924-2197 St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8a - Dahl License Agreement Page 9 of 12 Facsimile: 952-924-2663 with a copy to: Robert J. Lindall Kennedy & Graven, Chartered 470 Pillsbury Center 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: 612-337-9219 Facsimile: 612-337-9310 If to Consultant: Tetra Tech, EM, Inc. Attn: Scott Tracy 11300 Rupp Drive #100 Burnsville, MN 55337 Telephone: 952-736-2770 Facsimile: 952-736-2774 Each party may change its address for notice hereunder by notice given in accordance with the provisions hereof at least ten (10) days prior to the effective date of the address change. 17. Other Terms. This Agreement shall be governed by the substantive law of the State of Minnesota. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original but which together shall constitute one and the same Agreement. The waiver by one party of the performance of any covenant or condition under this Agreement shall not invalidate this Agreement nor shall it be considered a waiver by it of any other covenant or condition under this Agreement. 18. Maximum Cost. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement to the contrary, Licensee shall not be obliged to perform any work under this Agreement which shall cause it to expend more than the amount of the Grant, including amounts incurred on the Property and Licensee’s Properties, in the aggregate. St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8a - Dahl License Agreement Page 10 of 12 19. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused these presents to be made as of the date first above written. LICENSEE: CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK By: ______________________________________ Its: ______________________________________ CONSULTANT: TETRA TECH EM, INC. By: ______________________________________ Its: ______________________________________ OWNER: __________________________________________ Christopher T. Dahl St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8a - Dahl License Agreement Page 11 of 12 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION That part of South 240 feet of North 790 feet of Tract F lying West of East 60 feet thereof and that part of Tract F lying South of North 790 feet thereof, Registered Land Survey No. 916, According to the files of the Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota Tax Property Identification No. 09-117-21-22-0004 2301 Brunswick Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8a - Dahl License Agreement Page 12 of 12 June ___, 2003 Mr. Christopher Dahl 2662 Hamel Road Medina, MN 55340 RE: License Agreement between the City of St. Louis Park , Christopher T. Dahl and Tetra Tech EM, Inc. 2301 Brunswick Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN Property Identification No.: 09-117-21-22-0004 Dear Mr. Dahl: Thank you for entering into the license agreement between the City of St. Louis Park, yourself and Tetra Tech EM, Inc. so as to allow us to jointly conduct environmental investigations on our respective properties. As you know, these investigations are being performed pursuant to a grant from the Hennepin County Environmental Response Fund (ERF) in the amount of $67,420. That grant was limited strictly to investigation and analysis and did not include any funds for remediation of any conditions which may be found on your or the City’s property. The findings from these tests will determine what, if any, subsequent actions need to occur. If, in response to the above investigations, the MPCA should require additional testing be performed or specific remedial actions be taken relative to the City’s property or your property, the City will consider reapplying to Hennepin County’s ERF program for the amount necessary to fulfill the MPCA’s requirements. In any subsequent grant application, the City would be willing to include whatever required investigative or remedial costs may be applicable to your property along with those required of the City should you wish for the City to do so. It should be understood, however, that there are no guarantees as to the availability of these grant funds or the extent to which Hennepin County may award them in whole or in part. Please note that while the City did not provide matching funds in its initial ERF application, the possibility exists that the City may be required to do so in a subsequent application. In that event, to the extent the Work contemplated by the subsequent application would relate to your property, the City would require that you participate financially as well. The City of St. Louis Park appreciates your joining with us in this joint property investigation and welcomes your continued participation. The more knowledgeable we are about the actual conditions on our respective properties, the better our ability to placate concerns. Very truly yours, Charlie Meyer City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8b - Methodist EAW Page 1 of 35 8b. Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for Methodist Hospital Campus Expansion Case No. 03-21-MISC Northeast quadrant Excelsior Blvd. and Louisiana Avenue Recommended Action: Motion to adopt a resolution approving the EAW, finding no need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and requiring certain mitigation as described in the EAW. Background: On November 18, 2002, the City Council approved a contract with SRF Consulting Group to complete an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for a proposed expansion of the Methodist Hospital Campus. The EAW is mandatory, because the proposed net increase in building area is over 300,000 square feet (the threshold set by State Law). The State Environmental Quality Board administers the EAW rules. However, the City of St Louis Park is the Regulating Government Unit (RGU) responsible for making a determination regarding the adequacy of the EAW and potential need for a more in-depth environmental review (an EIS). An EIS is not mandatory for this project because the net increase in building area is less than 750,000 square feet. However, according to the rules, “An EIS shall be ordered for projects that have the potential for significant environmental effects.” (4410.1700 Subpart 1) On November 19 and 21, 2002, Park Nicollet held neighborhood meetings to discuss their proposed expansion of Methodist Hospital as well as future expansion of the Park Nicollet clinic site (Park Center). A smaller neighborhood meeting was held by the City on December 11, 2002 to discuss the scope of the traffic studies associated with the expansions. Adjustments were made to analyze traffic issues raised by the neighborhood. On March 27, 2003, an additional full-scale neighborhood meeting was held to discuss preliminary findings of the EAW and to discern if anything additional needed to be addressed. On April 24, 2003, the EAW was completed and authorized by City staff for publication and distribution. The EAW was distributed to all of the required agencies as well as neighborhood presidents south of Hwy 7, individuals who requested them during the March 27th neighborhood meeting, the Planning Commission, and City Council during its April 28 Study Session. The EAW has also been made available at the public library as well as on the City’s Web site (www.stlouispark.org/). The required notice was published in the EQB Monitor on April 28, 2003. Once the notice is published and the EAW is distributed to certain agencies, a mandatory 30-day review period begins. The review period ended on May 28, 2003. EAWs do not require a public hearing or mailed notice to neighbors. However, staff determined that a public hearing was appropriate in this case. Therefore, notice for a public hearing before the Planning Commission was published in the Sun Sailor, and all property owners within 350 feet as well as all neighborhood presidents south of Hwy 7 were informed of the EAW availability and hearing. On May 21, 2003, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8b - Methodist EAW Page 2 of 35 considered written comments submitted by that date, and heard testimony from a neighboring resident. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the EAW, finding no need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and requiring certain mitigation as described in the EAW subject to satisfactory response to all substantive and timely comments. The City Council makes the final determination on the need for an EIS (a more detailed environmental review normally reserved for much larger projects). The City Council must make its determination within 30 days after the close of the review period, unless the Council believes there is insufficient information to make such a determination. In that case, the Council may postpone the decision for up to 30 days in order to obtain the lacking information. Comments on the EAW have been received from the Metropolitan Council, MNDOT, Chris Kasic and Randy Manthey. SRF and the City have responded in writing to all comments (see attachments). SRF has also prepared the required record of decision (see attachment). The comments and responses become part of the EAW record of decision. SRF Consulting will attend the City Council meeting to present the Methodist Hospital Expansion plans and to summarize the EAW findings. Issues: Ø What are the criteria for the decision on the need for an EIS? Ø Have other anticipated future projects been included in the EAW analysis? Ø Will the City have the ability to ensure implementation of recommended mitigation measures? Analysis of Issues: Ø What are the criteria for the decision on the need for an EIS? The EQB rules include the following criteria for the RGU’s decision regarding the potential for significant environmental effects (4410.1700 Subp. 7): A. type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects; B. cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects; C. the extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority; and D. the extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of other available environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer, including other EISs. The City Council should address the criteria in its findings supporting its decision. The criteria have been referenced in the proposed resolution. Ø Have other anticipated future projects been included in the EAW analysis? St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8b - Methodist EAW Page 3 of 35 The EAW includes the effects of Methodist Hospital’s imminent plans to build a new Heart and Vascular Center as well their longer term plans for additional expansion of the Methodist Campus (the project and phasing is described in detail in the EAW). The EAW (particularly the traffic analysis) also accounts for other anticipated development in the area, including a future project at Hwy 7/Louisiana Avenue, Elmwood area redevelopment, and additional development in the Park Commons area, most notably expansion of the Park Nicollet campus. The anticipated scale and timing of the future development is detailed in the EAW. The Park Nicollet campus expansion is also being reviewed by a separate EAW, which will include effects of the Methodist expansion and other anticipated development. That EAW will include more detailed traffic analysis of the Park Commons and Elmwood area roadways. Ø Will the City have the ability to ensure implementation of recommended mitigation measures? The Methodist Hospital Campus was previously approved by Special Permit. The proposed expansion would require either a major amendment to the continued Special Permit with a height variance or a new Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval. Recommended mitigation can be required as a condition of PUD or Special Permit approval. Park Nicollet/Methodist staff have indicated that they will apply for a new PUD. A meeting with neighborhood representatives, City staff, and Park Nicollet representatives to discuss the PUD process and issues was held on June 10, 2003. Additional meetings to discuss the PUD and potential conditions for neighborhood mitigation are planned for June 16 and 24, 2003. The PUD will also require a public hearing before the Planning Commission and approval by the City Council. Recommendation: Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the EAW, finding no need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and requiring certain mitigation as described in the EAW. Since the comment period was not yet over, the Planning Commission made their recommendation subject to satisfactory response by SRF to all substantive and timely comments. Staff recommends acceptance of the responses as satisfactory. Attachments: Ø Proposed Resolution Ø Record of Decision Including Finding of Fact and Responses to Comments Received Ø Copies of Comments Received (Supplement) Ø Transmittal Record (Supplement) Ø Revised Site Plan (Supplement) Prepared By: Janet Jeremiah, Planning & Zoning Supervisor St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8b - Methodist EAW Page 4 of 35 Approved By: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8b - Methodist EAW Page 5 of 35 RESOLUTION NO. 03-070 A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW), FINDING NO NEED FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT, AND REQUIRING CERTAIN MITIGATION FOR METHODIST HOSPITAL CAMPUS EXPANSION (NORTHWEST QUADRANT EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD AND LOUISIANA AVENUE) WHEREAS, Minnesota Rules Part 4410.4300 requires mandatory preparation of an EAW for institutional facilities of this scale in a second class city; and WHEREAS, on November 18, 2002, the City Council authorized preparation of an EAW for the Methodist Hospital expansion and approved a contract with SRF Consulting, Inc. to prepare the EAW; and WHEREAS, on March 27, 2003, a neighborhood meeting was held to discuss preliminary findings; and WHEREAS, on April 24, 2003, an EAW for an addition of approximately 453,500 net square feet to the existing hospital and construction of two parking ramps to increase campus parking by 751 net spaces was completed by SRF Consulting Group, Inc. on behalf of the City and authorized for publication and distribution by the City Planning and Zoning Supervisor; and WHEREAS, on April 28, 2003, a copy of the EAW was distributed to the City Council at a study session for their review; and WHEREAS, on April 28, 2003, copies of the EAW were distributed to all persons and agencies on the official Environmental Quality Board (EQB) distribution list and other interested parties; copies of the EAW were made available for review at City Hall and the public library; and WHEREAS, on April 28, 2003, notice of the availability of the EAW was published in the EQB Monitor and the thirty (30) day comment period commenced; and WHEREAS, on May 8, 2003, notice of the availability of the EAW and public hearing of the EAW before the Planning Commission of the City of St. Louis Park was published in the St. Louis Park Sun Sailor; and WHEREAS, on May 21, 2003, the Planning Commission of the City of St. Louis Park held a public hearing, heard testimony, considered the EAW and recommended approval of the EAW finding no need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and requiring certain St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8b - Methodist EAW Page 6 of 35 mitigation as described in the EAW on a vote of 4-0-1 as set forth in the minutes of their meeting; and WHEREAS, the thirty (30 ) day comment period officially ended on May 28, 2003 and the City of St. Louis Park responded to comments received by that date and will continue to respond to any additional comments for the project; and WHEREAS, on June 16, 2003, during its regular meeting, the City Council considered the contents of the EAW, written and verbal comments on the EAW, responses to comments, and findings of fact supporting a negative declaration on the need for an Environmental Impact Statement and requiring certain mitigation; and WHEREAS, the contents of Planning Case File 03-21-MISC become a part of the official record for the EAW. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT: 1. The City Council deems the Environmental Assessment Worksheet to be complete and adequate; 2. The EAW, the permitting process, and comments received on the EAW have generated information adequate to determine whether the proposed development has the potential for significant environmental effects. 3. Areas where the potential for significant environmental effects may have existed have been identified, and appropriate mitigative measures will be incorporated into the project design and permits. The Methodist Hospital Campus Expansion is expected to comply with all the City of St. Louis Park standards and review agency standards. 4. Based on the criteria established in Minnesota R.4410.1700, this project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects. 5. An Environmental Impact Statement is not required. 6. The St. Louis Park City Council hereby adopts these findings and conclusions as such. (Insert signature block) St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8b - Methodist EAW Page 7 of 35 RECORD OF DECISION Including Findings of Facts and Responses to Comments Received Methodist Hospital Campus Expansion CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK MINNESOTA June 16, 2003 EAW/Record of Decision Prepared By: SRF Consulting Group, Inc. SRF No. 0024649 St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8b - Methodist EAW Page 8 of 35 RECORD OF DECISION METHODIST HOSPITAL CAMPUS EXPANSION CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MN Introduction Under Minnesota law, the need for the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement must be based upon the objective analysis of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) prepared pursuant to Minnesota Rules pt. 4410.4300 Subp. 19.D. An EAW was prepared as the proposed expansion of the Methodist Hospital Campus met threshold criteria for institutional facilities as described in 4410.4300 Subpart 14. The City of St. Louis Park was determined to be the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU). A Notice of Availability of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet and Notice of Public Hearing was published in the April 28, 2003 issue of the EQB Monitor. A press release was sent to the Sun Sailor to inform the public that an EAW had been prepared for the proposed expansion and that written comments on the project were being received by the City of St. Louis Park. The City of St. Louis Park distributed the Notice of Availability and Public Hearing Notice to 150 area residents. The EAW was made available for public review at the City of St. Louis Park City Hall and at the following public libraries: the Minneapolis Public Library and the St. Louis Park Public Library. A public hearing sponsored by the St. Louis Park Planning Commission was held on May 21, 2003, 6:00 p.m. at St. Louis Park City Hall. The public comment period closed on May 28, 2003. Written comments received are included in Appendix A. In Appendix A, comments have been numbered in the margins. Responses to substantive comments included in Appendix B correspond to these numbers. Minutes of the public hearing are provided in Appendix C. Appendix D contains a record of transmittals. This Record of Decision and Findings of Fact document summarizes the environmental effects of the proposed project as required under Minnesota Rules pt. 4410.1700 Subp. 4. Findings of Fact I. Project and Site Description Park Nicollet, owner of Methodist Hospital in the City of St. Louis Park, proposes construction of additions to the existing hospital (453,500 net sq. ft.) and structured parking (751 net spaces in two ramps.) Site boundaries are Louisiana Avenue and Minnehaha Creek on the west, Excelsior Boulevard on the south, the Brooklawns residential neighborhood on the east and Canadian Pacific railroad tracks to the north. St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8b - Methodist EAW Page 9 of 35 The Methodist Hospital project consists of the demolition of the 32,500-square foot Tourtellotte Building and the addition of 486,000 square feet to the existing hospital. Some existing surface parking will be replaced with two parking structures. Two phases of redevelopment are planned for Methodist Hospital as part of their Campus Master Plan. Phase I, which includes demolition of the Tourtellotte Building, construction of a Heart and Vascular Center and one 473-space parking structure (Blue Ramp), expansion of the surgery center and additional internal renovation and reconfiguration is programmed for completion by 2006. Phase II, scheduled for 2006 – 2012, would include vertical expansion of the existing East and West Towers, expansion of the Meadowbrook Medical Building, construction of new Laboratory Facilities, construction of a 1,700-space parking structure (Orange Ramp) and further internal renovation and reconfiguration. II. Type, Extent and Reversibility of Environmental Effects The type and extent of potential environmental impacts resulting from the project are discussed below. Measures to avoid, minimize and/or mitigate potential impacts have been identified for each type of environmental impact. Final determinations regarding mitigation measures for several potential impacts will be finalized during the City approvals process as city requirements and final design are determined. There are no significant impacts anticipated to wildlife, threatened or endangered species, or archaeological, historical or architectural resources due to the nature of this project and its location. Erosion and Sedimentation Exposure of soils to erosion will increase during construction activities. Best Management Practices for erosion/sedimentation control will be incorporated into construction plans to comply with MPCA’s requirement for its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit for construction sites. Water Quality and Surface Water Runoff Construction of the proposed improvements will result in a decrease in impervious surface, decreasing surface water runoff from existing conditions. Structural and non-structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) are being studied and discussed with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and the City of St. Louis Park as opportunities for further improvement of water quality. Park Nicollet will work with the City staff to establish the allowable discharge rates and appropriate overflow systems. Storm water treatment plans will be documented in a Storm Water Management Plan for the project. Wetlands A wetland on the west side of the Methodist Hospital Campus is a fringe area of Minnehaha Creek and part of its associated floodplain. Based on current designs, the project is not expected St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8b - Methodist EAW Page 10 of 35 to substantively impact any wetland areas. The existing structures and surface parking lots do not meet existing 35-foot wetland buffer requirements of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, but are “grandfathered” into new regulations. The proposed expansions adjacent to the wetland will comply with the 35-foot buffer requirement. In addition, Park Nicollet will restore native vegetation within the wetland buffer areas as redevelopment along the wetland occurs. No significant impacts to the wetland will occur as a result of construction activity or wetland buffer expansion and restoration. Floodplain Impacts Portions of the Methodist Hospital Campus lie within the 100-year floodplain requiring analysis to determine potential stage impacts. The proposed Phase I construction (Heart and Vascular Center, Blue Ramp and Surgery Expansion is outside the Flood Fringe boundary, and therefore will have no significant floodplain impacts. Based on current conceptual plans for Phase II expansions, some fill within the Flood Fringe area may be proposed for construction of new structures. No measurable stage increase, flooding, or restriction of the flood flow is expected to result from the construction. As plans for construction during Phase II are finalized, Park Nicollet will continue to work with the City regarding floodplain impacts and, if necessary, design strategies and mitigation will be coordinated with the City and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Hospital-owned property on Louisiana Circle has been identified as a feasible floodplain mitigation site. Traffic Impacts Traffic and parking analysis has been completed for the site taking into account future anticipated adjacent development. The proposed expansion will require the construction of 751 additional parking spaces to meet projected demand. Under future year Build conditions, three intersections, TH 7/Louisiana Avenue, Lake Street/Louisiana Avenue, and Oxford Street/Louisiana Avenue, will operate at a LOS F during peak conditions without improvements. Recommended intersection improvements include constructing dual eastbound and westbound left-turn lanes along TH 7 at Louisiana Avenue, and monitoring the need for a traffic signal at the intersection of Oxford Street and Louisiana Avenue in addition to planned roadway improvements. With the above improvements, the above intersections will operate at a Level of Service D or better. Air Quality, Stationary Source Emissions The project has the potential to increase stationary source and vehicle emissions. Potential increases in carbon monoxide concentrations were modeled based on the increased traffic volumes and predicted traffic operations resulting from the traffic analysis completed for the EAW. Results of the modeling show that CO concentration at the receptor locations are well below state standards. St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8b - Methodist EAW Page 11 of 35 Due to expanded heating and cooling systems, each phase of construction will likely require an amendment to the hospital’s existing air quality permit. However, no significant air quality impacts are anticipated. Dust, Odors and Noise Dust normal to construction will occur as a result of this project. Dust production related to the demolition of the Tourtellotte Building will be minimized through the use of hydraulic equipment and watering of the construction site. A temporary noise permit will be required for construction equipment producing noise impacts during construction activities. Measures will be taken to reduce noise impacts during construction such as limiting the hours of operation, and locating the equipment away from residential areas. Traffic noise modeling performed for the impacts of the project indicated that noise levels due to traffic generated by the expansion (based on comparison of the No Build and Build noise levels) would not increase by perceptible levels (less than 3 decibels). Contaminated Soils The site of the Purple Lot (off-site surface parking facility leased by Park Nicollet) was contaminated by its previous use as a lead processing plant. The lot was previously listed as a Superfund site; however, remediation goals have been fully achieved. The site was delisted from the EPA’s National Priorities list in May of 1998. Temporary improvements to this lot during its use as an interim parking facility during ramp construction will be coordinated with the City and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Wastewaters, Solid Wastes, and Hazardous Wastes Net wastewater production associated with the Phase I expansion is estimated at approximately 43,000 gallons per day; net increase associated with Phase II is 42,000 gallons per day. Total existing usage plus future usage for Phases I and II is estimated at 235,000 gallons per day. Park Nicollet will be required to meet with the City and Met Council prior to final approvals of each construction element to discuss capacity issues and determine appropriate mitigation. Solid waste production would increase from 1,027 tons currently to 1,513 tons upon completion of Phase II. Biohazardous waste would increase from 41,500 pounds to 61,150 pounds, and sharps waste from 237,500 pounds to 349,955 pounds. Disposal of hazardous wastes associated with Hospital services and operations is performed in accordance with the Hazardous Waste Generator License for Methodist Hospital issued by the Hennepin County Environmental Protection Division and Park Nicollet’s Hazardous Waste Management Plan prepared in accordance with local, state and federal rules as well as the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Health Care Organization’s Environment of Care standards. St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8b - Methodist EAW Page 12 of 35 Visual Impacts No significant adverse visual impacts resulting from the project have been identified. However, neighboring residents have expressed concerns regarding impacts to views from their property and blocking of sunlight due to proposed vertical expansion. The City approvals process will include review of aesthetic treatments, lighting, landscape buffering, and building height as well as a shadow study. Compatibility with Local Plans The project is generally consistent with the City of St. Louis Park’s Comprehensive Plan, and the Metropolitan Council’s regional plan. III. Cumulative Potential Effects of Related or Anticipated Future Projects The City of St. Louis Park is aware of the potential cumulative impacts that redevelopment on the Methodist Hospital site, as well as other sites within the City, such as the Park Center Campus expansion (near TH 100 and Excelsior Boulevard) and redevelopment of the Elmwood neighborhood, may have on environmental quality and local and regional infrastructure. Due to a stringent regulatory framework and close coordination with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, there is little or no potential for cumulative impacts resulting from water resource issues in the study area. The EAW included analysis of potential traffic impacts resulting from Methodist Hospital expansion, in addition to other study area development including the expansion of Park Nicollet’s Park Center campus including a Year 2020 analysis to determine longer term effects. Intersection improvements recommended as part of the EAW traffic study will mitigate anticipated longer term impacts. A separate EAW will be prepared for proposed expansion of the Park Nicollet Park Center Campus, located in St. Louis Park just east of Trunk Highway 100. Cumulative impacts resulting from expansion at this campus as well as area development will be evaluated in this EAW as well. IV. Extent to Which the Environmental Effects are Subject to Mitigation by Ongoing Public Regulatory Authority The mitigation of water quality impacts and other environmental impacts associated with the project will be designed and implemented in compliance and subject to the permitting process listed in the EAW. Close coordination with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, the City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8b - Methodist EAW Page 13 of 35 St. Louis Park and the Metropolitan Council will occur to avoid, minimize and mitigate any floodplain impacts. V. Extent to Which Environmental Effects can be Anticipated and Controlled as a Result of Other Environmental Studies The anticipated environmental effects of Methodist Hospital expansion are common for this type of project. They are considered predictable and do not pose significant concerns in terms of regulating long-term effects of the project. As noted, impacts from this expansion will also be reviewed as part of a separate EAW for Park Nicollet’s Park Center campus (the clinic site east of Hwy. 100 in St. Louis Park). CONCLUSIONS The following conclusions have been reached regarding the proposed Methodist Hospital Expansion: The City of St. Louis Park, as the Responsible Government Unit, has fulfilled all relevant procedural requirements of law or rule applicable to determination of the need for an Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed expansion of the Methodist Hospital campus. The EAW process completed for the project has generated information sufficient to determine whether the project has the potential for significant environmental effects. The EAW generated written comments from state and regional public agencies, as well as members of the general public. Based on the criteria in Minnesota Rules Part 4410.1700, the project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects. Based on the above information, the St. Louis Park City Council determined through Resolution No. ______, adopted on June 16, 2003, that an Environmental Impact Statement is not required for Methodist Hospital Expansion construction. For the City of St. Louis Park Janet Jeremiah Planning & Zoning Supervisor [copy of resolution to be attached] St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8b - Methodist EAW Page 14 of 35 Appendix A Copies of Comments Received St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8b - Methodist EAW Page 15 of 35 Appendix B Responses to Comments Responses to Comments 1. Metropolitan Council: Letter received from the Metropolitan Council dated May 28, 2003. Comment 1 “The proposal includes 5.1 acres of landscaping. The extensive use of native vegetation can help slow down, filter and infiltrate storm water. Native vegetation does not require the watering and lawn chemicals associated with traditional turf and thereby can have cleaner and reduced runoff.” Response to Comment 1 Comment noted. The Best Management Practices currently under consideration include vegetative approaches such as rain gardens. Comment 2 “The site currently has a high percentage of impervious surfaces that drains to Minnehaha Creek. The proposal could benefit the natural environment more if it included some ecological restoration of the natural area on the site including removal of exotic plants and replanting with native vegetation. This includes the existing and proposed wetland buffer areas.” Response to Comment 2 St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8b - Methodist EAW Page 16 of 35 Park Nicollet does intend to restore native vegetation within the wetland buffer area surrounding the hospital campus, as noted on pages 13 and 61 of the EAW. Comment 3 “Stormwater management is critical to the health of Minnehaha Creek and the associated regional park facilities. Green roof technology could also be considered as a potential BMP to protect water quality. This may be the easiest to provide on the proposed parking ramps and it could also address the neighbor’s light pollution issues on the top of the parking ramps.” Response to Comment 3 Comment noted. Comment 4 “Recycling building material from the Tourtelotte Building demolition to the extent possible will reduce the need for raw materials and reduce the need for some of the demolition material to use landfill space.” Response to Comment 4 Comment noted. Comment 5 “The EAW does not adequately address existing or future transit service or evaluate how transit could be used to reduce traffic to the hospital, particularly for employees.” Response to Comment 5 Existing transit usage was accounted for in traffic forecasts as a “tailored” trip generation rate (as opposed to one using trip generation rates established by the Institute of Traffic Engineers) was developed for Methodist Hospital based on existing parking demand. This methodology is explained in detail in the Methodist EAW Traffic Study. It was recommended in the Methodist EAW Parking Study that Methodist Hospital pursue an employee Travel Demand Management Plan to reduce the number of single-occupant vehicles arriving at the campus. Furthermore, the potential of this program to decrease parking demand by increasing transit usage, and the resultant decrease in the amount of parking necessary for the hospital to provide, was also detailed in this study. Comment 6 “It is important to maintain a good, safe and attractive pedestrian connection between the complex and bus stops on Excelsior Boulevard.” St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8b - Methodist EAW Page 17 of 35 Response to Comment 6 As this project moves forward to implementation through the City of St. Louis Park’s Planned Unit Development (PUD) permitting process, these issues will be resolved in detail. The City is in agreement with the Metropolitan Council regarding the desirability of pedestrian improvements along Excelsior Boulevard, as noted in the City’s Brooklawns Neighborhood Plan. Streetscaping improvements along Excelsior Boulevard will be implemented during reconstruction planned to occur between the years 2005 and 2010. The City will continue to identify needed pedestrian improvements in this area and look for means of implementation. Comment 7 “The hospital should also make sure that the replacement sidewalk is well lit. Additionally, there are currently shelters in both directions on Excelsior Boulevard and their continued existence as well as the sidewalk connection should be reflected in any redevelopment plan.” Response to Comment 7 See response to Comment 6. Comment 8 “The hospital is served by Routes 12, 664 on Excelsior Boulevard and by Route 604 (Louisiana Crosstown)…a continuous roadway through the hospital complex from Excelsior Boulevard and Louisiana Avenue designed to handle 25-foot up to 60-foot transit buses will be needed along with well placed bus stops in both directions near the back door.” Response to Comment 8 As the site planning process moves forward, the hospital will take this comment into consideration and accommodate the movement of buses through the campus insofar as they are able. Comment 9 “Methodist Hospital is not a participant in the MetroPass program of Metro Transit…The EAW should evaluate these programs for use by the hospital staff as a way to reduce traffic to the hospital.” Response to Comment 9 See response to Comment 5. St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8b - Methodist EAW Page 18 of 35 Comment 11 “Minnehaha Creek and its adjacent wetlands are located on the hospital property. Minnehaha Creek is a major regional natural resource feature…Maintaining and improving the water quality in the creek is critical to the health and attractiveness of these regional park units.” Response to Comment 11 Comment noted. Stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be incorporated to improve water quality were feasible. 2. Minnesota Department of Transportation: Letter received from the Minnesota Department of Transportation dated May 27, 2003. Comment 1 “The improvements on Trunk Highway (TH) 7 at Louisiana Avenue are neither programmed nor funded. Only the improvements to Louisiana Avenue (dual left turn lanes in the north and south directions) are scheduled and funded by the City…Mn/DOT considers the Methodist Hospital to be a large traffic generator (8,156 total average daily traffic after Phase II is completed in 2013: page 29 of the EAW). Therefore, the volume of traffic projected over the long term must be accommodated in a manner that works as well as possible for both Mn/DOT and the City of St. Louis Park.” Response to Comment 1 The City of St. Louis Park will continue to partner with Mn/DOT, and with other stakeholders, to ensure a mutually agreeable solution to regional traffic issues in the vicinity of the Methodist Hospital site is identified and implemented. Comment 2 “The proposed expansion will reduce impervious surfaces at the site. If the proposal increases impervious surfaces on Trunk Highway (TH) 7, Mn/DOT must see final grading plans and storm computations for 10 and 100-year storms for existing and proposed conditions.” Response to Comment 2 When final plans are developed, they will be submitted to Mn/DOT in accordance to Mn/DOT requirements. All relevant permits will also be submitted to or sought from Mn/DOT in a timely fashion. Comment 3 St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8b - Methodist EAW Page 19 of 35 “A site plan and preliminary plat (if replatting is required) must be provided to Mn/DOT Metro.” Response to Comment 3 All site plans and plats will be provided to Mn/DOT Metro in a timely fashion consistent with their requirements. Comment 4 “Mn/DOT has previously advised the City…that signalizing the Lake Street and Walker Street intersections with Louisiana Avenue does not conform to Mn/DOT traffic engineering standards.” “In addition, Mn/DOT may have more specific comments in the near future on the traffic forecasting and traffic modeling included in the EAW…” Response to Comment 4 Existing traffic operations along TH 7 were reviewed with the Minnesota Department of Transportation, to ensure that current signal timing and traffic volumes were accurately accounted for in the Methodist EAW traffic analysis. Further coordination was conducted by discussing with a consulting firm, WSB & Associates, under contract to the City of St. Louis Park to analyze traffic operations at the intersection of TH 7 and Louisiana Avenue as part of a city plan to redevelop parcels on the northwest quadrant of that intersection. As a result of discussions with WSB and the City, it was assumed that signalization of the intersection of Lake Street and Louisiana Avenue would occur, and these improvements were assumed as part of future year Build and No Build analysis. It was further assumed that interconnection of the traffic signals currently in place at TH 7 and Louisiana Avenue with those planned to be in place at Lake Street and Louisiana Avenue was key to future intersection operations. As implementation of improvements at TH 7 and Louisiana Avenue proceeds, the City will continue to work closely with Mn/DOT to ensure acceptable intersection operations. On June 9, 2003 the City held a meeting with Mn/DOT Metro traffic staff to discuss the traffic forecasting and modeling process used in the EAW and the proposed signals at the Lake Street and Walker Street intersections with Louisiana Avenue. From these discussions a schedule is being developed which should provide an indication during the formal planning approval process for the Methodist project as to whether these signal improvements can be made. Comment 5 “Additional details on access proposals, and drainage must be provided to determine if any permits are needed. Any use of, or work within Mn/DOT right-of-way requires a permit.” St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8b - Methodist EAW Page 20 of 35 Response to Comment 5 At such time as any changes to existing access or drainage that affects a Mn/DOT facility is known in sufficient detail, these plans will be forwarded to the appropriate staff person at the Metro District. Comment 6 “Mn/DOT policy regarding development adjacent to existing highways prohibits the expenditure of highway funds for noise mitigation measures in such areas. The project proposer should assess the noise situation and take the action deemed necessary to minimize the impact of any highway noise.” Response to Comment 6 Comment noted. 3. E-Mail from Chris Kasic: to Janet Jeremiah, City of St. Louis Park on May 20, 2003. Comment 1 “Page 37 discusses a city consideration of closing the Brunswick Avenue crossing between Brookview and Cambridge. Why is the city considering this, and how did this issue arise on the city’s radar?” Response to Comment 1 Discussion of closing the Brunswick Avenue at-grade railroad crossing began in December 2002, in response to an offer by the Canadian Pacific railroad to pay for upgrades to some existing crossings provided some of the lesser crossing were closed. The idea is for the City to become a whistle-free community by upgrading all of the remaining crossings so that it is not possible for a vehicle to be on the tracks when a train is crossing. On March 5, 2003, a neighborhood meeting was held and 26 Brunswick Avenue property owners and 11 other neighborhood representatives were invited to attend. Apparently, most of the attendees favored closing the Brunswick crossing provided that turnarounds, landscaping, and other pedestrian amenities such as pedestrian crossings were provided. The City Council approved the Brunswick closing on May 5, 2003 subject to certain concessions that the railroad is supposed to provide. Comment 2 “Page 55 talks about a Hennepin County Bicycle Plan, and some goals surrounding that. Goal 1 says that bicyclists can access the LRT from Louisiana. I ride that trail frequently to work and for recreation, and I have never seen an access point at Louisiana.” St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8b - Methodist EAW Page 21 of 35 Response to Comment 2 There is a connection to the trail in the Louisiana Avenue area but it is not a direct connection. A bicyclist would have to take Lake Street just west of Louisiana and then take the trail through Edgebrook Park. Due to the grades, this was apparently the best solution that could be provided for trail access in that area. The Edgebrook Trail will also connect to other trails in the future. 4. Letter from Randy Manthey: Letter received from Randy Manthey dated May 15, 2003. Comment 1 “Duane Spiegle’s address in incorrect. It should be 3800 Park Nicollet Blvd.” Response to Comment 1 Correction noted. Comment 2 “Correct the site boundaries. Add the east boundary to the Methodist Hospital Campus which is Brooklawns Residential Neighborhood. Add the City of St. Louis Park property at the northeast corner of the campus (it is my understanding that the City still owns this parcel and has granted an easement to the hospital to use it as a parking lot). The west boundary is Louisiana Avenue. The actual northern boundary to the property owned by Park Nicollet (the Red Parking Lot) is Oxford Street not the railroad tracks.” Response to Comment 2 Addition of east boundary noted. Site boundary was defined by the area potentially affected by the project. The Brown Lot is owned by the City of St. Louis Park and leased to Methodist Hospital on a long-term basis. Comment 3 “Add the timing and the duration of all the construction activities as defined in the instructions. Clarify in the final total number of parking spaces how many will be in the two parking structures and how many will be in surface parking lots.” Response to Comment 3 Demolition of the Tortelotte Building is anticipated to commence on December 1, 2003 and be complete by February 1, 2004, at which time construction work will begin on the Heart and Vascular Center. The Blue Ramp will be constructed concurrently. Completion of the Heart and Vascular Center is anticipated by September 1, 2005. Other elements of the construction St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8b - Methodist EAW Page 22 of 35 discussed in this EAW are not currently programmed and specific information regarding timing is not known at this time. Specific timing of all construction elements will be finalized during the City approvals process. As summarized in the EAW, there will be a total of 473 parking spaces in the proposed Blue Ramp, a total of 1,700 in the proposed Orange Ramp, and a total of 904 surface parking spaces distributed both on- and off-campus Comment 4 “In the Phase I summary add the parking structure and surgery expansion construction schedule information. It would help to better understand where all the changes are being planned on the campus by adding more detailed labels to Figure 3 – “Proposed Expansion by Phase” with the Phase I and II components as they are listed on pages 3, 4, and 5. For example label the Surgery Expansion and also show on the existing hospital building exactly where the vertical expansion is being planned. Is it possible to make the plan graphics on Figure 3 consistent with the text descriptions? For example the text says the Blue lot parking structure is two bays wide but Figure 3 shows a three bay wide structure. A question: Figure 3 shows a lab building and roads on what I thought is City owned land at the northeast corner. What happened to the City owned pump building? Is the proposed development shown on Figure 3 really what Park Nicollet is intending to do?” Response to Comment 4 See response to Comment 3 above regarding scheduling. An updated Site Plan showing corrected Blue Ramp configuration was distributed at the public hearing on May 21 and is attached to these comments. Specific details regarding later phase expansions are not available at this time. This EAW attempts to identify broad environmental impacts associated with a proposed scale of expansion. Detailed review of the expansion design would be addressed during a future city approvals process. City-owned pump building will remain in place and will not be affected by the proposed expansion. See response to Comment 33 regarding site plan. Comment 5 “Provide more specific information about the surgery expansion (height, timing, What happens to the loading docks and the helicopter landing area?).” Response to Comment 5 No more specific information regarding the vertical expansion is available at this time. Relocation of the existing landing pad is not anticipated at this time. If relocation is required, impacts to the adjacent neighborhood from a new landing site would be evaluated as part of the city approvals process. Comment 6 St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8b - Methodist EAW Page 23 of 35 Describe the height in feet of the structured parking. Particularly the side that will be viewed from the residential neighborhood.” Response to Comment 6 Specific height, in feet, is not available at this time. Parking ramp heights will be finalized during final design in coordination with the City approvals process. Comment 7 “Describe the size of the structured parking (height, number of levels, number of bays, spaces per level). Clarify in what quantities and where the surface parking will be on-site (not remote lots) at the completion of Phase II after the Orange parking structure is constructed. What happens to the Gold, East Free, Brown, Meadowbrook and Cancer Center parking? Will the parking demand calculations still need the existing 70 spaces on the City owned land (Brown lot) or can this be converted back to green space? The numbers shown on Table 6 page 28 do not agree with the numbers shown on Figure 3.” Response to Comment 7 See response to Comment 6 regarding parking ramp heights. Specific height of these structures (as measured in feet) will be reviewed and may change as designs are finalized through the City approvals process. The parking study included in the EAW calculates that 3,013 parking spaces will be needed at the full build condition to satisfy the parking demand for Methodist Hospital. The EAW assumes that the existing parking spaces in the Gold, East Free, Brown, Meadowbrook and Cancer Center lots will remain in addition to the proposed structure parking, providing a parking supply of 3,077 spaces, exceeding demand by 64 spaces. Adjustments in specific numbers of spaces provided in each of the lots may change as designs are finalized and approved by the City. This EAW provides a “worst case” analysis of the impacts of all surface lots by assuming that all will remain, with the exception of the Purple Lot. Comment 8 “Will the parking structures being constructed in Phase I and Phase II be designed and engineered to allow for expansion or is what is being built the final construction with no additions possible?” Response to Comment 8 This EAW assumes no expansion of these ramps through 2013. The present design of the ramp structures does not provide for future vertical expansion. Comment 9 St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8b - Methodist EAW Page 24 of 35 “Consider changing the answer to “yes”. With this being a medical facility the reality is change is always occurring in some form or another to update the delivery of heath care. Development changes on the campus are continuous. It is just a matter of the magnitude of the change and this is ultimately related to medical business decisions. The residents of Brooklawns Neighborhood have watched this facility continue to grow by the addition of building square footage and on-site parking spaces since 1957 when the hospital was originally constructed.” Response to Comment 9 While the continually evolving nature of any structure is recognized, the appropriate answer to the question is “no” as no further expansions beyond those addressed in the EAW is planned or anticipated at this time. Comment 10 “”What are the calculations for the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for the facility at the end of Phase I and Phase II? What is the maximum FAR that is allowed on the site by the City of St. Louis Park?” Response to Comment 10 Floor Area Ratios will be calculated and addressed during the City approvals process. Comment 11 “Clarify the parking quantities by adding line items for all the surface parking lots to differentiate them from the spaces located in structured parking. How many surface parking spaces will be on-site at the completion of Phase II and where will they be located? It is important to define how many spaces will be on-site in order to understand the intensity of development on the north portion of the property. As asked earlier, does Figure 3 show all the proposed on-site parking quantities at the completion of Phase II?” Response to Comment 11 The EAW assumes that the Purple Lot is eliminated after the construction of the Orange Ramp; otherwise all existing surface parking lots remain as presently configured. Should any of these lots be improved, specific numbers of parking spaces, lot configuration and amenities would be determined through the City approvals process. As stated in responses to previous comments, the proposed site plan has been updated. Comment 12 “Add the height of the proposed Phase I and Phase II parking structures. The single- family homes are both “one” and two story. Is it appropriate in this section to address the St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8b - Methodist EAW Page 25 of 35 fact here that the Phase II addition will cast a shadow on the homes in the adjacent residential neighborhood and this is a negative impact? See page 50 for Shadow Study information.” Response to Comment 12 See response to Comment 6 specific ramp heights. A shadow study will be conducted during the City approvals process. The variable height of adjacent single-family homes is noted. Comment 13 “The adjacent single-family residential neighborhood is “Brooklawns Neighborhood” not Elmwood.” Response to Comment 13 Comment noted. Comment 14 “Not all portions of the site are fully developed. 21.1 acres of the site are undeveloped wetlands as shown in the table on page 11. It is more accurate to say the site is in a suburban area rather than an urban area.” Response to Comment 14 In general, it is appropriate to characterize the area as a fully developed urban area. Comment 15 “There are City of St. Louis Park owned water wells at the north end of the site. How does the development shown on Figure 3 impact the existing pump house facility?” Response to Comment 15 The proposed expansion will not impact the pump house facility. Comment 16 “Is the Phase I surgery expansion in the floodplain?” Response to Comment 16 As stated in the EAW, analysis shows no impacts to the floodplain resulting from Phase I construction. St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8b - Methodist EAW Page 26 of 35 Comment 17 There is actually an existing bermed rock barrier at the west edge of the Green Lot that filters the surface run off coming from that parking area. Response to Comment 17 Comment noted. Comment 18 “Flooding of the streets in the Brooklawns Neighborhood occurs during a heavy rain event when the storm drains do not have the capacity to accept the high volume of water. For this reason it is essential that the storm line running across the hospital property to the discharge point at the creek be separated from the storm sewer piping that serves the hospital site as was suggested by the City of St. Louis Park.” Response to Comment 18 Comment noted. Utility requirements will be determined through the City approvals process. Comment 19 “Please provide me with a copy of the Methodist Hospital Expansion Parking Study Memorandum. Send to Randy Manthey at the address shown at the beginning of this memo.” Response to Comment 19 Copy provided to Mr. Manthey by SRF Consulting Group, Inc. on June 5, 2003. Comment 20 “The text states that the proposed parking would require a variance to the City parking code. Please explain how the proposed parking be in nonconformance with the City’s code?” Response to Comment 20 A variance or PUD approval is required. Conformance to City code will be determined and resolved through the City approvals process. Comment 21 St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8b - Methodist EAW Page 27 of 35 “Since the existing surface parking lots are also a significant part of the redevelopment plans will they need to be redone to bring them into compliance with the City’s codes? This includes such things as the landscaping, screening and lighting. This may have an impact on the number of parking spaces. In general the entire topic of how exactly the surface parking will be dealt in the redevelopment beyond basic quantities has not been adequately addressed in the EAW.” Response to Comment 21 Improvements to existing parking facilities will be determined through the City approvals process. Comment 22 “Clarify the surface parking for Phase II. What is happening with the parking spaces in the Meadowbrook and Cancer Center parking lots at the completion of Phase II. Table 6 suggests that these lots will remain unchanged but the proposed buildings additions are occurring on a portion of both of them thus eliminating parking spaces. According to Figure 3 the East Free lot has either been reconfigured or eliminated. Should the hospital be allowed to continue to use the City owned Brown Lot? What are the terms of the easement agreement? Is the City currently getting any reimbursement for the use of the land the hospital is using for the Brown parking lot?” Response to Comment 22 See response to Comment 7. Methodist Hospital has a long-term lease for parking on the Brown Lot parcel with the City of St. Louis Park. Comment 23 “What is the current status of the potential closing of the street at the railroad crossing on Brunswick Avenue?” Response to Comment 23 The St. Louis Park City Council approved the closing of Brunswick Avenue on May 5, 2003 providing specific conditions are met by the railroad. The traffic study performed for this EAW considered the impacts of this street closure on local traffic. Comment 24 “The residents of Brooklawns Neighborhood are “already” having to use the signalized intersection at Alabama/Brookside Avenue because of the difficulty of making a left turn onto Excelsior Blvd. at peak traffic times of the day.” St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8b - Methodist EAW Page 28 of 35 Response to Comment 24 Comment noted. Comment 25 “A contact name from Park Nicollet and the City needs to be provided to the residents of Brooklawns Neighborhood if they have questions, concerns or complaints during the demolition or construction. Define who the contacts will be.” Response to Comment 25 Specific contact persons will be identified through the City approvals process. Comment 26 “Is the creek and associated wetlands a “scenic view” of a natural setting?” Response to Comment 26 For the purposes of the EAW, views to the creek and associated wetlands were not considered a significant scenic view. omment 27 “The east service entrance to the golf course is off of Meadowbrook Blvd. not Colorado Boulevard.” Response to Comment 27 Correction noted. Comment 28 “The adjacent neighborhood is Brooklawns Neighborhood not Elmwood. Be more specific as to when the shadow study will be done and when the results provided to the residents of Brooklawns Neighborhood.” Response to Comment 28 Correction noted. The Shadow Study will be performed during the City approvals process. Timing will be determined by the Planning & Zoning Supervisor. Comment 29 St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8b - Methodist EAW Page 29 of 35 “The lighting in the surface parking lots also needs to be addressed with an additional paragraph. The comments applied to the parking garage should also apply to the surface parking lots. It is assumed that all the existing old dropped lens light fixtures in the north parking lots will be replaced with flat glass (no bulb below the fixture) non-glare fixtures on shorter poles. Lighting of streets, parking structures, surface parking lots and buildings needs to be carefully dealt with to minimize the visual impact to the adjacent residential neighborhood. Chapter E: Provide a written description of the architectural design and building materials used on the hospital campus.” Response to Comment 29 Improvements to existing parking facilities and specific design details for the proposed new structures will be addressed during the city approvals process. Comment 30 “Who makes the decision as to how the project will be processed by the City of St. Louis Park (Amendment to the existing Special Permit, a new Conditional Use Permit or a new Planned Unit Development?)? When will the decision be made? Clarify what this sentence means in the context of a Planned Unit Development -- “However a higher quality site and building design is required to obtain such flexibility.” Response to Comment 30 Decisions regarding the types of planning approvals needed will be made by the City of St. Louis Park Planning Coordinator. Some types of permits allow for greater flexibility with provision of additional amenities or public improvements. When more than one option is available, the property owner decides which option to pursue. Park Nicollet staff have indicated they will apply for PUD approval. Comment 31 “This EAW does not in any way address the issue of medical helicopters landing at the facility. As the hospital expands will the number of helicopter landing increase compared to the current number. Is a plan in place to deal with the impact to the residential neighborhood? Where will the landing pad go if the surgery addition is constructed in the area of the existing landing pad.” Response to Comment 31 An increase in helicopter traffic is not anticipated with the types of services to be provided in proposed expansion. Relocation of the existing landing pad is not anticipated at this time. If relocation is required, impacts to the adjacent neighborhood from a new landing site would be evaluated as part of the city approvals process. St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8b - Methodist EAW Page 30 of 35 Comment 32 “Add how the visual impacts of the surface parking lots on the adjacent residential neighborhood will be dealt with.” Response to Comment 32 This EAW does not anticipate substantial changes to the existing surface parking lots other than the replacement of the Blue and Orange Lots with parking structures and elimination of the Purple Lot following ramp construction. Any required improvements to the existing parking lots will be determined during the city approvals process. Comment 33 “Several comments have already been made about the accuracy of the drawing and the clarity of labeling. Label the property lines, label Brooklawns Neighborhood since it is referred to in the text, the parking deck is not drawn consistent with the text, the phased parts are not labeled clearly and consistent with the text, the City owned parcel should be identified (I am assuming the parcel at the northeast corner of the site is owned by the City), there is a lab building and access roads on the City owned property, the City owned pump building is missing, the parking quantities shown on the plan are not consistent with the parking quantity tables and the precise locations of the vertical building expansions are not shown. The simple question is this: Does Figure 3 truly represent what the site will look like at the conclusion of the Phase II work.” Response to Comment 33 A revised site plan was presented at the public hearing on May 21, 2003. This is a conceptual site plan illustrating the assumptions used in the preparation of the EAW representing present information regarding future improvements. It is anticipated that this site plan will continue to evolve over time within the overall site improvement parameters (building square footage, building footprint placement in relationship to the wetlands/floodplain, number of parking spaces required, etc.). As specific elements of the plan are proposed for construction, City staff will compare the proposed construction against this assumption of this EAW and determine if the conclusions of this EAW remain valid or if additional analysis is needed to determine specific environmental impacts. Comment 34 “This figure shows the existing storm sewer piping that is shared by the hospital site and the adjacent neighborhood that should be separated to eliminate flooding of the streets due to perhaps inadequate capacity as noted in the Page 17 comment.” Response to Comment 34 St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8b - Methodist EAW Page 31 of 35 Specific utility requirements will be determined during the City approvals process. Comment 35 “What does the box drawn around the Methodist Hospital building represent? This is also shown on Figure 7.” Response to Comment 35 The box indicated on Figure 5 and Figure 7 in Appendix A was part of an earlier site plan developed by Ellerbe Beckett and its inclusion on this figure was unintentional. Appendix C Public Hearing Minutes St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8b - Methodist EAW Page 32 of 35 Excerpts Case No. 03-21-MISC OFFICIAL MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA May 21, 2003 -- 6:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: John Basill, Michelle Bissonnette, Phillip Finkelstein, Ken Gothberg, Carl Robertson MEMBERS ABSENT: Dennis Morris, Jerry Timian STAFF PRESENT: Julie Grove, Janet Jeremiah, Nancy Sells 3. Hearings: A. Case No. 03-21-MISC—Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for Methodist Hospital Campus Expansion Planning and Zoning Supervisor Janet Jeremiah presented a staff report. Ms. Jeremiah said SRF Consulting was hired by the City to prepare the EAW and are here to present a summary and answer questions. To date, comments have been received from two residents. A letter from Randy Manthey is in the Commissioners’ packets, and an e-mail communication from Chris Kasic with questions received on May 20, 2003 was distributed. All substantive comments will be responded to in writing prior to City Council consideration. Ms. Jeremiah said staff looked at what the criteria are for the decision on the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS); if other anticipated future projects have been included in the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) analysis; and if the City will have the ability to ensure implementation of recommended mitigation measures. Ms. Jeremiah stated that other anticipated projects east and west of Highway 100 have been included in the traffic analysis and staff believes the criteria for a negative declaration on the need for an EIS have been met. Park Nicollet has decided to pursue a planning application for a Planned Unit Development for the project. Because it appears to be possible to mitigate impacts through the PUD process, staff is recommending approval of the EAW, finding no need for an environmental impact statement and requiring certain mitigation as described in the EAW, and the recommendation is subject to satisfactory response to comments received. The comment period closes on St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8b - Methodist EAW Page 33 of 35 May 28, 2003 and the EAW is expected to be considered by the City Council on June 16, 2003. Beth Bartz, Senior Associate with SRF, worked on completing the EAW for this project. Ms. Bartz said the purpose of an EAW is to understand the broad environmental impacts associated with the anticipated expansion of Methodist Hospital through 2013. Ms. Bartz summarized the expansion plans and EAW. Commissioner Gothberg said Randy Manthey’s comments and concerns are welcomed, and it would be important to respond to his concern about parking structure height. Commissioner Gothberg thinks it is an erroneous assumption to state that ambulance traffic will not increase as a result of construction. He thinks if the number of patients and hospital staff increase, so too will ambulance traffic to the emergency room. Chair Robertson asked how SRF models the traffic studies for worst case and best case scenarios. Marie Coty, SRF, said the traffic study was based on a trip generation manual (ITE). Ms. Coty said SRF used existing hospital parking information in comparison to existing square footage and extrapolated that into the future by using the same ratio. Commissioner Finkelstein asked if there are any changes proposed for employee parking during Phase I and Phase II, i.e., during construction. Duane Spiegle, Vice President Real Estate Park Nicollet, said employees will park in the “purple” lot, which is the Golden Auto site; a temporary overlay will provide 400 parking spaces. Mr. Spiegle said it is an evolving process and not all phased details have been developed. Commissioner Basill asked about the number of parking spaces for the various phases, and Mr. Spiegle said Park Nicollet would like to bring the “purple” lot staff back to the campus. Chair Robertson opened the public hearing. Randy Manthey, 3979 Dakota Avenue South, said one issue is to define maximum development. From his memorandum, dated May 15, 2003, regarding Review Comments Related to Methodist Hospital Campus Expansion EAW, Mr. Manthey pointed out some comments in more detail. He listed parking numbers on the north side; he would like to know more about the parking structure on the south side; site capacity in regard to wetland inclusion—Are parking structures included in the floor area ratio calculations in terms of defining what that density is?; he wants to know the long term understanding of what maximum development would be with a PUD; define criteria; EAW is vague in regard to the Phase II development; lighting is important; and landscaping buffer of many layers is very important. St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8b - Methodist EAW Page 34 of 35 Chair Robertson closed the public hearing. Commissioner Basill commented that the City should promote public involvement early on, and the goal needs to be something better for everyone. Ms. Jeremiah stated that Park Nicollet, the City and neighborhoods began meeting early in the process. Three neighborhood meetings plus a traffic scoping meeting have been held to date. She understands Park Nicollet is willing to continue the neighborhood involvement process. Ms. Jeremiah said the public comments are extremely pertinent to the PUD criteria and conditions of approval Commissioner Bissonnette is pleased to hear about the PUD process. She said the EIS is a tool to say where is the alternative site for this facility, and there is not much room to move around on this site. She asked that the public and neighborhood be kept informed. Chair Robertson is comfortable with the EAW and the finding that an EIS is unnecessary. It was moved by Commissioner Gothberg, seconded by Commissioner Basill, to recommend approval of the EAW, finding no need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and requiring certain mitigation as described in the EAW subject to satisfactory response to all substantive and timely comments. The motion passed 4-0-1. (Commissioner Finkelstein abstained stating that he represents the nurses at the hospital). St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8b - Methodist EAW Page 35 of 35 Appendix D Transmittal Record St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8c - Wolke Lake Professional Center, final pud & plat Page 1 of 22 8c. Request by Beltline Industrial Park, Inc. for Final Plat approval for Wolfe Lake Professional Center and Final Planned Unit Development approval to redevelop the northwest quadrant of Beltline Boulevard and West 36th Street for two commercial buildings Case Nos. 02-32-S and 02-31-PUD Northwest quadrant of Beltline Boulevard and West 36th street Recommended Action: Motion to adopt a resolution approving the final plat and final PUD for Wolfe Lake Professional Center, subject to the conditions in the proposed resolutions. Zoning: C2, General Commercial Comprehensive Plan Designation: Commercial Background: The property is located in the northwest quadrant of Beltline Boulevard and West 36th Street with a portion extending west to Raleigh Avenue South. The site is also bordered by industrial sites to the north and west. In October 2001, Beltline Industrial Park, Inc. submitted applications to change the comprehensive plan designation and the zoning map on the subject parcels. These applications were intended to accommodate redevelopment of the property. The subject property contains the post office, a paint store, a showroom and a vacant parcel. On January 22, 2002, the City Council approved a comprehensive plan amendment to change the land use designation from industrial to commercial. Text changes to the Plan By Neighborhood chapter of the Comprehensive plan were also approved. These amendments limit the following commercial uses: outdoor sales, restaurants with in-vehicle sales or service, motor fuel station, motor vehicle service and repair, motor vehicle sales, uses that serve intoxicating liquor, shopping centers over 50,000 square feet, and single retail uses/tenants in excess of 20,000 square feet. The Metropolitan Council approved this amendment in February 2002. On March 4, 2002 the City Council approved a Zoning Map amendment to change the zoning map designation from IP-Industrial Park to C2- General Commercial on the subject property. In June 2002, Hennepin County approved a minor lot line adjustment to coincide with the new C2 zoning border. The resultant lot is the applicant's proposed Lot 1, Wolf Lake Professional Center. On July 15, 2002, the City Council approved the Preliminary PUD and Plat for Belt Line to redevelop the subject property subject to conditions. St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8c - Wolke Lake Professional Center, final pud & plat Page 2 of 22 On May 7, 2003, the Planning Commission reviewed the final PUD and Plat request and recommended approval on a vote of 5-0, subject to most of the conditions as recommended by staff. The Planning Commission recommended the removal of staff’s recommended condition that the building elevations of the one-story retail building be revised to meet architectural code requirements. The Planning Commission also requested a close review of the plans to ensure adequate security relative to pedestrian safety. The proposal is to construct two new buildings on site. The existing building would be demolished after the first new building was built and partially occupied (see phasing). The proposed final PUD plans have been modified slightly from the plan approved with preliminary PUD. These changes are highlighted throughout the report. A 54,742 sq. ft. (change from 49,302 per preliminary plans) office/bank building with in-vehicle sales and service is proposed to be located on the northwest corner of Beltline Boulevard and West 36th Street, and a 9,872 sq.ft. retail/post office building is proposed to be on the northeast corner of Raleigh Avenue and West 36th Street. The office is proposed to be approximately 41 feet tall, while the retail building is proposed to be 21.5 feet tall. The project proposes to close two existing access points onto Beltline Boulevard and creates a full access driveway approximately 350 feet north of the intersection. Additional access includes a right in/out only off of West 36th Street and a full access driveway off of Raleigh Avenue South. If post office customer service were included, the mailboxes would be placed along a one-way driveway at the north end of the site parallel to Belt Line Blvd. The driveway would extend onto the neighboring property owned by Belt Line and exit onto Belt Line Blvd. north of the PUD site. This is a change from preliminary PUD approvals when the mailbox locations were proposed in the parking lot just northwest of the retail building. The project would include two surface parking lots that are proposed to be shared between the two buildings. Final plat and final planned unit development approval are being requested at this time. Ordinance modifications were requested through the Preliminary PUD process for reduced parking and setbacks. Architectural ordinance modifications are also requested through the PUD process. The latter was not addressed at preliminary. The plans do not currently meet all bufferyard requirements, and it is not possible to approve landscape modifications though the PUD process. Therefore, the bufferyards will either have to be brought up to code or the applicant will need to apply separately for variances. Issues: • Is the final plat acceptable? • Are Zoning Ordinance requirements met? • Are the PUD Ordinance requirements met, including the acceptability of the proposed ordinance modifications? • What is the proposed construction phasing? Issues Analysis: Is the final plat acceptable? St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8c - Wolke Lake Professional Center, final pud & plat Page 3 of 22 A final plat for Wolfe Lake Professional Center has been submitted. The proposal involves the creation of one lot. It does not create any additional lots. A street easement and right-of-way as shown on the plans was vacated in 1967. Staff did not have evidence that this document was properly recorded, therefore the vacation documents were submitted to Hennepin County for recording. It has since been determined that the vacated land was added to the Certificate of Title. The existing 15-foot roadway easement located on the southern property line, along the north side of West 36th Street, is proposed to be dedicated as street right-of-way. The subdivision ordinance also requires drainage and utility easements of 10 feet in width be provided along the perimeter of all lot lines. These easements are provided on the proposed final plat. The existing bituminous trail is located partially over the newly proposed property line. The Public Works Department indicated that the proposed drainage and utility easement should also incorporate a trail easement for the existing trail if no such easement currently exists. Staff does not believe one currently exists, therefore recommends that a trail easement be recorded. Trail and sidewalk easements cannot be shown on the final plat and must be recorded separately. The preliminary plat originally proposed the creation of two lots, one per building. To resolve some issues with lot line placement, financing, and phasing, the developer is now proposing to combine these into one lot. The City Attorney has indicated that this would be acceptable as more than one building may be placed on one lot in a PUD, and the final plat may show fewer lots compared to preliminary approval. Sidewalks: There is an existing bituminous trail along the north side of West 36th street. The applicant is proposing a 6-foot concrete sidewalk on the west side of Beltline and Raleigh Ave. S. The subdivision ordinance requires sidewalks 6-8 feet in width along all property lines abutting streets. With the preliminary PUD and Plat the City recommended extending the sidewalk the entire length of the property along Beltline Boulevard and Raleigh Avenue South. The applicant has complied. Sidewalks/trails are proposed along all property lines abutting streets. Park Dedication: The applicant is proposing to replat the property into one lot and vacate the underlying plat. No new lots are to be added to the site, thus it is exempt from park and trail dedication requirements. Tree Replacement & Landscaping: A tree preservation plan has been submitted. Most of the trees within the northern open area will be preserved. The majority of existing trees to be removed are located along the perimeter of the parking lots. There is a discrepancy between the proposed landscape plan and grading plans. The proposed grading plan appears to take out more trees than indicated on the tree preservation plan. This is reinforced by the proposed grading limits, which are within the dripline of some of the trees indicated to be saved. Staff met with the applicant on June 9th to discuss this issue. The applicant stated that they intend to save these trees and will protect them during construction. St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8c - Wolke Lake Professional Center, final pud & plat Page 4 of 22 The grading plans need to be revised to reflect this change and the tree protection fence installed prior to grading. Some revisions are needed on the proposed plans to meet bufferyard requirements. The plans need to be revised to incorporate a bufferyard “F” along Belt Line Blvd. adjacent to the proposed office service and loading area. In addition, the proposed bufferyard “D” for post office drive/drop-off does not meet the total unit requirements. These requirements will be discussed further below. A plant schedule indicating the planting sizes and root conditions must also be added to the revised landscape plan. An irrigation plan must also be submitted with the building permit application for staff to review. Drainage, grading & utilities: Revised storm water calculations, and revised drainage and grading plans were submitted and approved by the Public Works Director. As noted, these will need to be revised to accommodate the proposed tree preservation. The Public Works Director and Inspections Department have reviewed the proposed final PUD plans and provided comments. Some of these include the following. The existing bituminous trail along 36th St. must be protected from construction vehicles. Street lighting in the 36th St. boulevard and the signal at the 36th St/Belt Line Blvd. intersection may have hardware (signal timing wires and equipment) behind the curb. This will have to be verified prior to construction. All existing utilities that are not going to be used must be capped off at the City main and the plans must show the disconnect. Staff and the Planning Commission recommend that the final plans incorporate all of the Public Works and Inspections Departments comments prior to any site work. Copies of these comments have been forwarded to the applicant. Architectural design The office/bank building is proposed to be a combination of brick, stucco, stone, glass and metal flashing at the roof in a variation of earth tones (approximately 90-95% class I materials). Samples of building materials/colors will be required for approval prior to issuance of building permits. The office is proposed to be the main visual focus at the intersection of Belt Line Blvd and 36th St.. Variations in wall depth and height appear to provide shadowing effects along all building facades and lend interest to the building. The proposed office meets all requirements of the architectural ordinance. The retail building is proposed to be one story with brick masonry at the base and piers with stucco spandrels between the piers. The colors are also proposed to be earth tones. Canopies are proposed above the windows on all exteriors. The center sections of the north and south elevations are proposed to be set in two feet from the ends of the building. To fully comply with the architectural ordinance, two additional offsets are needed in each center section. With the PUD, the City Council may approve a building design that deviates from the architectural standards if they find the quality of the building will substantially enhance the aesthetics of the site, is compatible with all structures, and provides a higher standard of building design. The applicant believes this has been met and that the proposed building provides a high quality design with approximately 95% class I exterior materials, variations in heights and canopies that break up the elevations. Staff agrees that the amount of Class I materials is superior to the St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8c - Wolke Lake Professional Center, final pud & plat Page 5 of 22 ordinance requirements. However, the proposed height deviations are minimal and canopies do not meet requirements for architectural wall deviations. Staff recommended as a condition to the Planning Commission that adding an entry feature, raising the height in the center portion of the building, or adding more of a corner feature like that proposed on the office building would provide more interest to the building in keeping with the architectural Code requirements. This could ultimately help screen rooftop equipment, which will be required to be fully screened with parapet walls as part of the PUD. The Planning Commission recommended the approval of the building design as proposed and the removal of staff’s condition for architectural revisions. This condition was removed in the attached resolution. The Planning Commission was not aware at the time that the project was requesting financial assistance. Lighting Lighting plans have been submitted and appear to meet Zoning Ordinance standards regarding light levels. Staff will review the lighting during the development of this property to ensure that all standards are met with regards to illumination projections and glare. Signage The applicant has not submitted a separate signage plan, however the plans indicate two monument signs are proposed. The monument sign along Belt Line Blvd appears to be approximately 5 feet from the property line and 1-2 feet from the existing trail. A two (2) foot clearance is required from the trail. Therefore, the monument sign may have to be moved north to meet this requirement. The anticipated location of wall signs is also indicated on the elevation plans. This property is permitted one freestanding sign per street frontage and a maximum 400 square feet in total area for all signage. Prior to the installation of any sign, the applicant must obtain sign permits. Additional Requirements of other agencies A watershed district permit is required. A permit was obtained with the preliminary PUD, however the watershed would have to approve any changes. Are other Zoning Ordinance requirements being met? The current zoning on the subject property is “General Commercial”. The retail, bank, and office portion of the proposed development are permitted uses. The bank drive through portion is permitted with conditions, while the post office customer service is permitted by conditional use permit. A conditional use permit would also be required for more than one building on a lot. All of the proposed uses can be approved by PUD in the General Commercial District. As noted, the applicant is requesting parking and setback modifications through the PUD process, which were approved during preliminary approval. Following are the applicable zoning ordinance standards and what is proposed for this project: Compliance Table C2 Ordinance Allowed by PUD Proposed Height 6 stories or 75 feet NA Office/two story: 41’ St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8c - Wolke Lake Professional Center, final pud & plat Page 6 of 22 Retail/one story: 21.5’ Building Setbacks Building Setbacks continued: Front: 5 feet Street Side: 15 feet Side & Rear: none for buildings under 35’ No required yards except when abutting residentially zoned or used properties Office: Front 21.3’* St. Side 15’ Retail: Front 15’* St. Side 13.8’ Sign Setbacks Building Setback or 20’ whichever is less No required yards Approximately 5’ form property line Parking stalls Max required 294. 265 after 10% transit reduction 225 after 15% allowable PUD reduction 240 stalls Usable Open Space 0 NA 33,600 sq. ft. Landscape Buffers Bufferyard D required for drive thru & mailboxes. Bufferyard F required for service area Short on plant units Floor Area Ratio 2.0 max NA 0.31 * Setbacks are measured from the new right-of-way. Setbacks: The preliminary approval included modification to allow building setbacks as shown on the signed official exhibits. The modification is for the retail buildings street side yard which is proposed to be 13.8 feet instead of 15 feet. There is also a proposed monument sign that does not meet setback requirements from 36th Street. As noted, staff believes the monument sign may have to be moved slightly north to accommodate adequate trail clearance. The proposed resolution reflects these modifications. Loading and trash areas: The ordinance requires that off-street loading and refuse handling facilities be completely contained within a building and be screened with a bufferyard F, a minimum of ten feet high when installed. Preliminary PUD plans proposed an at grade, drive up, loading area on the northeast corner of the office building. A condition of Preliminary PUD stated that final PUD plans shall provide a bufferyard F with a 10 foot high architectural wall that matches the exterior of the building. Such wall could be eliminated if the trash service were moved to the west side of the building and the loading area served from a parking lot curb with a continuous sidewalk along the building. Subsequently, the applicant has proposed to move all trash areas inside both buildings. The service/loading area for the office was modified with the final plans. A continuous curb is proposed in the front of the building. Based on the proposed office uses it is anticipated that this service/loading area will receive trash pick up a couple times a week and delivery by way of courier and delivery vans daily. This service area is not proposed to be used by semi-trucks. St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8c - Wolke Lake Professional Center, final pud & plat Page 7 of 22 A bufferyard C is proposed between the service area and Belt Line Blvd. Staff believes that due to the proximity of future residential uses east of Belt Line Blvd. the required Bufferyard F, a minimum of 10 feet high when installed, is appropriate. Due to the location of the sidewalks and necessity for pedestrian access to these sidewalks, staff proposes to omit the requirement that a architectural wall be installed provided the buffer include plantings that are a minimum of ten feet tall when installed per ordinance. Evergreens are also required at a ratio of at least 40% of the required plantings. The Planning Commission was concerned with the safety issues associated with heavy screening, particularly with pedestrian traffic. Because the ordinance requires the Bufferyard F for any off-street loading and refuse handling facility, anything less than the ten feet tall Bufferyard F screening would require a variance. Staff believes Bufferyard F requirements can be met while accommodating safety by using deciduous overstory trees and low growing evergreens. Therefore, staff does not support a variance. If the applicant wishes to apply for any Bufferyard variances they would have to be considered separately. Pedestrian Access: The ordinance does require that separate pedestrian access be provided between the building and the public street on all sides of the lot that abuts a public right-of-way. Sidewalks are proposed along the north and east side of the 1 story retail building and connect to the street sidewalk. A sidewalk is located next to parking stalls to the west of the 2-story office building. This sidewalk provides access to a rear employee entrance and is not intended to be used by the greater public, thus does not connect to the street sidewalk. This was approved with the preliminary PUD & Plat submittal. The sidewalk along the east side of this building provides access to a second main entrance. It runs north along the building and adjacent to the service area at which point a connection is made to the street and to the sidewalk in front of the building. Vehicular Access: Vehicular circulation is proposed to be enhanced considerably. Currently, the post office located on site generates a significant number of vehicle trips with access points very close to the intersection of Belt Line Boulevard and West 36th Street. This development proposes to reconfigure the access points away from the intersection creating a safer situation. A bank drive- through also generates significant vehicle trips, but relocating access would greatly improve the current condition. The proposed site layout appears to provide adequate circulation to accommodate traffic generated from the post office and bank. Drive-through stacking impacts are analyzed later in this report. Two curb cuts along Belt Line Boulevard are proposed to be removed, which are very close to the intersection with 36th Street and currently cause traffic conflicts. The proposed plans provide an access 350 feet north of the intersection at West 36th Street and Belt Line Boulevard. The majority of parking will be north of the office building. Staff and the Planning Commission believe this is appropriate because it moves access away from the intersection and puts the parking adjacent to the industrial uses to the north. The existing access onto 36th Street West is approximately 275 feet from the centerline of Belt Line Boulevard, and is not proposed to change. A new entrance is proposed on Raleigh Avenue South at the north end of the property. The post office mailbox drive through is analyzed later in this report. St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8c - Wolke Lake Professional Center, final pud & plat Page 8 of 22 Parking: Parking is proposed to be shared between the two lots via the PUD approval. The proposed amount of parking spaces has been increased since the preliminary PUD. Originally, 234 parking stalls were proposed. Currently, 240 stalls are proposed to serve both the retail and office/bank buildings. This increase reflects a slight increase in the proposed square footage of the office/bank building as indicated earlier. Based on the final PUD plans the ordinance requires a total of 225 stalls after the 15% PUD parking reduction and 10% transit reduction have been factored in. The proposed parking areas meet design standards including the internal landscaping requirements. Conditions for bank in-vehicle service in the C2, General Commercial District. All of the conditions are met except for: b. A bufferyard D shall be provided along the lot line between drive-through facilities and stacking areas and adjacent streets and properties. The bank drive through is proposed on the west side of the Wolfe Lake Professional Center near the interior side lot line. It appears the bufferyard shown on the preliminary landscape plan falls a little short of the requirement. Staff met with the applicant on June 9, 2003. They stated they would work on revisions and plan to meet this bufferyard requirement. Revised plans were received on Wednesday, June 11, 2003, and are included as an attachment. Staff will review these plans and provide a verbal update at the Council meeting. c. Stacking shall be provided for six cars per customer service point and shall comply with all yard and bufferyard requirements. Three drive-through teller points are proposed for the bank. Each are proposed to provide stacking room for six vehicles as required by ordinance. If six vehicles stack in any lane of the drive-through, the sixth vehicle would project into the drive aisle to the north of the office building. Staff is concerned that if this occurred, circulation through this aisle would be difficult. The applicant has indicated that it is unlikely that at any one time six vehicles would stack in any of the drive-through lanes. Staff does acknowledge the design of the parking lot provides alternative routes for vehicles. Vehicles could circulate through the parking lot and around the drive-through using the western drive aisle adjacent to the internal property line. Since the total drive-through includes stacking for 18 vehicles and an alternate route provides adequate circulation if a portion of the drive aisle is blocked, staff and the Planning Commission find the proposal acceptable. Conditions for post office customer service in the C2, General Commercial District: The proposed plans appear to meet the zoning requirements for post office customer service. A future drive/drop-off for post office dropboxes is proposed north of the office parking lot adjacent to Belt Line Blvd. This is a change from the preliminary PUD, which proposed dropboxes near the retail building. Vehicles would access the drive aisle from the north parking lot and exit from an existing curb cut north of the new access on Belt Line Blvd. Staff believes this location will provide better circulation and will be a substantial improvement from what St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8c - Wolke Lake Professional Center, final pud & plat Page 9 of 22 exists on site. Initially, the applicant intended to use an existing driveway apron approximately 220 feet north of the subject site. However, due to potential vehicular conflicts at this location the applicant is working on revisions to the plans that would bring the mailbox drop-off exit south (closer to the new access on Belt Line Blvd). As indicated previously, revised concept plans were received on Wednesday, June 11, 2003, and are included as an attachment. Staff will review these plans and provide a verbal update at the Council meeting. Staff and the Planning Commission recommend that final plans be submitted and approved by the Zoning Administrator and Public Works Director prior to their installation. Such plans shall include a ‘Wrong Way, Do Not Enter’ sign at the mailbox drive exit visible from Belt Line Blvd. Also, the proposed bufferyard must be revised to meet the minimum total unit requirements for a Bufferyard D as required per ordinance. Anything less than a Bufferyard D would require a variance. Are the PUD Ordinance requirements met, including the acceptability of the proposed ordinance modifications? The Ordinance states the PUD project shall meet certain objectives outline below. These objectives were reviewed as part of the preliminary PUD, but are reviewed again with regard to detailed building elevations, landscape plans, and final proposed site features. A. The design shall consider the whole of the project and shall create a unified environment within project boundaries by insuring architectural compatibility of all structures, efficient vehicular and pedestrian circulation, aesthetically pleasing landscape and site features, and efficient design and use of utilities. Staff and the Planning Commission believe this condition is met. Architectural compatibility is achieved through the use of similar materials and colors. The site design is consistent, with the buildings proposed to front along the public streets and parking less visible from the public right-of-way. As mentioned with the preliminary PUD, pedestrian circulation is good throughout the site and vehicular circulation is adequate. Regarding the landscaping and site features, a significant amount of landscaping is proposed on site and along the street. The development is intended to minimize tree removal, particularly in the northern region of their site where a mature stand of trees exists. Thus exceeding green space standards. As noted, the grading and tree preservation plans need to be revised to ensure protection of all trees intended to be saved. Some bufferyard requirements need to be revised to meet ordinance requirements. B. The design of the PUD shall achieve the maximum compatibility of the project with surrounding land uses, both existing and proposed and shall minimize the potential adverse impacts of the PUD on surrounding land uses and the potential adverse effects of the surrounding land uses on the PUD. The proposed PUD is compatible with the surrounding land uses and consistent with the uses envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan for this site. The proposed bank with post office service and office and limited retail uses would complement the future residential St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8c - Wolke Lake Professional Center, final pud & plat Page 10 of 22 uses across Beltline Boulevard and W 36th Street as well as other retail, restaurant and office uses nearby. C. The design shall take into account any modifications of Ordinance requirements permitted by Section 14:6-7.4 of this Ordinance and provide appropriate solutions to eliminate the adverse impacts of any modification required for approval of the PUD. Ordinance modifications were granted as part of the preliminary PUD for parking and setback. The parking modification was deemed appropriate given the close proximity of the development to a nearby transit line, regional trail, and possible future LRT. Staff and the Planning Commission believe that parking requirements have been met. The building setback modification was deemed appropriate because it brought the building closer to the street which is in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan’s Livable Community principles. The City Council must determine if the propose architectural code modifications are in keeping with the purpose of the PUD ordinance to provide a higher standard of architectural design. The Planning Commission recommends approval of the architecture as submitted, so any change would require an amendment to the proposed resolution. • What is the proposed construction phasing? Phase I proposes to construct the retail building and the majority of the western parking lot, approximately 54 spaces (see phasing plan). Upon completion of phase I, this lot would be accessed via the existing driveway on 36th St. W. and the new drive on Raleigh Ave. Phase II is proposed to begin the same month as Phase I is completed. This would involve the demolition of the existing building and parking lot and construction of the new office building and site improvements. A portion of the retail building (approximately 7,800 sq. ft) is proposed to be occupied once phase I is complete. The remainder is proposed to be vacant until the existing building is demolished. Based on the proposed uses occupied in phase I the proposed parking would meet ordinance parking requirements. Staff and the Planning Commission recommend as a condition of approval that the remainder of the retail building be vacant until the parking lot improvements in phase I are complete. Recommendation: Staff and the Planning Commission are recommending approval of the final PUD and Plat, subject to the conditions in the resolutions. Attachments: • Proposed Resolution • Location Map • Proposed development plans and plat (supplement) • Revised site & landscape plans (supplement) St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8c - Wolke Lake Professional Center, final pud & plat Page 11 of 22 Prepared by: Julie Grove, Associate Planner Approved By: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8c - Wolke Lake Professional Center, final pud & plat Page 12 of 22 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION GIVING APPROVAL FOR FINAL PLAT OF WOLFE LAKE PROFESSIONAL CENTER BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of St. Louis Park: Findings 1. Belt Line Industrial Park, Inc., owners and subdividers of the land proposed to be platted as Wolfe Lake Professional Center have submitted an application for approval of final plat of said subdivision in the manner required for platting of land under the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, and all proceedings have been duly had thereunder. 2. The proposed final plat has been found to be in all respects consistent with the City Plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and the ordinances of the City of St. Louis Park. 3. The proposed plat is situated upon the following described lands in Hennepin County, Minnesota, to-wit: That part of Lot 1, Block 2, BELT LINE INDUSTRIAL PARK 2ND ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, which lies southwesterly of the northwesterly 450 feet of said Lot 1, Block 2, and That part of “WESTMORELAND PARK”, according to the recorded plat thereof, which lies westerly of the southwesterly extension of the southeasterly line of Block 2, said BELT LINE INDUSTRIAL PARK 2ND ADDITION, and northerly of the south line of Block 3, said “WESTMORELAND PARK”, and its easterly extension, and Lot 3, Block 2, Belt Line Industrial Park, except that part described as follows: Commencing at the Northwest corner of Lot 3, Block 2; thence Southerly along Westerly line 150 feet; thence Easterly at right angles to Westerly of said Lot to Easterly line thereof; thence Northerly along Easterly line of said Lot to Northeast corner thereof; thence Westerly along Northerly line of said Lot to point of beginning. St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8c - Wolke Lake Professional Center, final pud & plat Page 13 of 22 Conclusion 1. The proposed final plat of Wolfe Lake Professional Center is hereby approved and accepted by the City as being in accord and conformity with all ordinances, City plans and regulations of the City of St. Louis Park and the laws of the State of Minnesota, subject to the following conditions: 2. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with the Official Exhibits, subject to approved plan changes through the final plat and PUD approval process. 3. Final plat and PUD approval and development is contingent upon developer meeting all conditions of final approval, including all Minnehaha Creek Watershed District requirements. 4. Before a final plat is signed by the City, the developer shall comply with the following requirements: a. Landscaping plans shall be revised to meet bufferyard requirements (a Bufferyard F for the office service and loading area, a Bufferyard D for the post office mailbox drive/drop-off and the bank drive through) as approved by the Zoning Administrator, unless variances are applied for and approved. b. Final plans for the post office mailbox drop-off locations, curb cut, signage, and bufferyards must be submitted and approved by the Zoning Administrator and Public Works Director. Final sidewalk plans and construction specifications must be approved by the Public Works Director. c. Final grading and tree replacement plans must be submitted and approved by the Public Works Director. d. Recording of a trail easement along 36th Street as approved by the City Attorney, if one does not currently exist. e. A development agreement shall be executed between the developer and the City, as approved by the City Attorney, which covers at a minimum, sidewalk construction and maintenance; tree replacement; restoration of curbs, boulevards and trails; repair and cleaning of public streets; and phasing including completion of improvements and submittal of any additional financial security prior to occupancy of each building. The development agreement shall also cite the approved ordinance modifications and allowable administrative amendments to the PUD. The Mayor and City Manager are authorized to execute the agreement. f. Submit financial security in the form of cash escrow or letter of credit in the amount of 125% of the costs of landscaping; tree replacement; restoration of curbs, boulevards and trails; sidewalk installation, and repair/cleaning of public streets. g. Financial security in the form of cash escrow in the amount of $1000 to ensure the City receives a reproducible tracing of the final plat showing St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8c - Wolke Lake Professional Center, final pud & plat Page 14 of 22 evidence of recording; such escrow to be returned upon receipt of the reproducible tracing (mylar). h. Access easement for post office driveway must be approved by the City Attorney and recorded as necessary. i. Reimbursement of City attorney’s fees in drafting/reviewing such documents. 5. Within 60 days of final plat approval by the City Council, the subdivider shall record the final plat with the County Recorder. The subdivider shall, immediately upon recording, furnish the City Clerk with a print and reproducible tracing of the final plat showing evidence of the recording. The subdivider shall also provide a copy of the final plat on disc in an electronic data format. 6. Prior to any site work, the developer/owner shall meet the following requirements: a. A copy of the Watershed District permit shall be forwarded to the City. b. Any other necessary permits from other agencies shall be obtained. c. Sign assent form and official exhibits. d. Meet conditions of City signing final plat. e. Meet any Public Works or Inspections Department requirements including but not limited to protection of trail from construction vehicles, verification of street/signal hardware locations and approval of any necessary modifications, capping of any existing utilities that are not going to be used at the City Main. f. Required erosion control permits utility permits and other required permits shall be obtained from the City. g. Required tree protection and erosion control fencing shall be in place prior to commencing any grading activities. h. Meet any Fire Department emergency access requirements for during construction. 7. Prior to issuance of any building permits, which may impose additional requirements, the developer shall comply with the following: a. Meet all conditions of City signing Final Plat. b. The subdivider shall furnish the City with evidence of recording of the final plat trail and access easement. c. Building materials samples to be submitted to and approved by Zoning Administrator. d. An irrigation plan and final lighting plan meeting the ordinance regulations shall be submitted to and approved by the Zoning Administrator. e. Rooftop equipment shall be shown to be fully screened from off-site views wit parapet walls as approved by the Zoning Administrator. 8. The developer shall comply with the following conditions during construction: a. All City noise ordinances shall be complied with, that there be no construction activity between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. on weekdays and 10 p.m. and 9 a.m. on weekends and holidays. St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8c - Wolke Lake Professional Center, final pud & plat Page 15 of 22 b. The site shall be kept free of dust and debris that could blow onto neighboring properties. c. Public streets shall be maintained free of dirt and shall be cleaned as necessary. d. Tree protection and erosion control fencing shall remain in place until all construction impacts are completed. e. The Zoning Administrator may impose additional conditions if it becomes necessary in order to mitigate the impact of construction on surrounding properties. 9. Prior to issuance of temporary and final occupancy permits, all condition of the development agreement, relative to phased completion of improvements and submittal of financial sureties must be met. 10. A six foot concrete sidewalk along the west side of Belt Line Boulevard and the east side of Raleigh Avenue adjacent to the subject parcel are to be installed and maintained by the developer per the approved final site plan, and specifications unless the City chooses to install and/or maintain the sidewalks. 11. The developer shall provide the required number of replacement trees on site or a combination of on-site trees and cash in lieu of trees. The Community Development Director and Parks and Recreation Director shall approve the cash equivalent amount. 12. Drop-off mailboxes may not be installed in any locations except those specifically approved by the Zoning Administrator and Public Works Director. 13. Signage is not approved as part of the PUD. Prior to the installation of any signs, including temporary signs or new sign faces, the applicant shall obtain sign permits in accordance with ordinance requirements. 14. The development shall comply in all respects with any conditions for PUD approval and all other City Ordinances. 15. The developer or owner shall pay an administrative fine of $750 per violation of any condition of this approval. provided, however, that this approval is made subject to the opinion of the City Attorney and Certification by the City Clerk. 2. The City Clerk is hereby directed to supply two certified copies of this Resolution to the above-named owner and subdivider, who is the applicant herein. 3. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute all contracts required herein, and the City Clerk is hereby directed to execute the certificate of approval on behalf of the City Council upon the said plat when all of the conditions set forth in Paragraph No. 1 above and the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code have been fulfilled. 4. Such execution of the certificate upon said plat by the City Clerk, as required under Section 26-123(1)j of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, shall be conclusive showing of proper compliance therewith by the subdivider and City officials St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8c - Wolke Lake Professional Center, final pud & plat Page 16 of 22 charged with duties above described and shall entitle such plat to be placed on record forthwith without further formality. The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this resolution in the Office of the Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council June 16, 2003 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8c - Wolke Lake Professional Center, final pud & plat Page 17 of 22 RESOLUTION NO._____________ A RESOLUTION APPROVING A FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) UNDER SECTION 36-367 OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING FOR PROPERTY ZONED C-2 COMMERCIAL LOCATED AT 3532, 3540, and 3550 BELT LINE BOULEVARD and 3533 RALEIGH AVENUE WHEREAS, the City Council approved the Preliminary PUD on July 15, 2002 Resolution No. 02-074; and WHEREAS, an application for approval of a Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) was received on May 20, 2002 from the applicant, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the Preliminary PUD concept at the meeting of June 19, 2002, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Final PUD on a 5-0 vote with all members present voting in the affirmative, and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the staff reports, Planning Commission minutes and testimony of those appearing at the public hearing or otherwise including comments in the record of decision. BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park: Findings 1. Belt Line Industrial Park, Inc. (John D. McCain) has made application to the City Council for a Planned Unit Development under Section 36-367 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code within the C-2 Commercial district located at 3532, 3540, and 3550 Belt Line Boulevard and 3533 Raleigh Avenue for the legal description as follows, to-wit: That part of Lot 1, Block 2, BELT LINE INDUSTRIAL PARK 2ND ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, which lies southwesterly of the northwesterly 450 feet of said Lot 1, Block 2, and That part of “WESTMORELAND PARK”, according to the recorded plat thereof, which lies westerly of the southwesterly extension of the southeasterly line of Block 2, said BELT LINE INDUSTRIAL PARK 2ND ADDITION, and northerly of the south line of Block 3, said “WESTMORELAND PARK”, and its easterly extension, and St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8c - Wolke Lake Professional Center, final pud & plat Page 18 of 22 Lot 3, Block 2, Belt Line Industrial Park, except that part described as follows: Commencing at the Northwest corner of Lot 3, Block 2; thence Southerly along Westerly line 150 feet; thence Easterly at right angles to Westerly of said Lot to Easterly line thereof; thence Northerly along Easterly line of said Lot to Northeast corner thereof; thence Westerly along Northerly line of said Lot to point of beginning. 2. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission (Case No. 02-31-PUD) and the effect of the proposed PUD on the health, safety and welfare of the occupants of the surrounding lands, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect on values of properties in the surrounding area, the effect of the use on the Comprehensive Plan, and compliance with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. The City Council has determined that the PUD will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community nor with certain contemplated traffic improvements will it cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards, nor will it seriously depreciate surrounding property values. The Council has also determined that the proposed PUD is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan and that the requested modifications comply with the requirements of Section 36-367(b)(5). 4. The contents of Planning Case File 02-31-PUD are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case. Conclusion The Final Planned Unit Development at the location described is approved based on the findings set forth above and subject to the following conditions: 1. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with the Official Exhibits, subject to the approved changes through the final plat and PUD approval process. 2. Final plat and PUD approval and development is contingent upon developer meeting all conditions of final approval, including all Minnehaha Creek Watershed District requirements. 3. Prior to any site work, the developer/owner shall meet the following requirements: a. A copy of the Watershed District permit shall be forwarded to the City. b. Any other necessary permits from other agencies shall be obtained. c. Sign assent form and official exhibits. d. Meet conditions of City signing final plat. e. Meet any Public Works or Inspections Department requirements including but not limited to protection of trail from construction vehicles, verification of street/signal hardware locations and approval of any necessary modifications, capping of any existing utilities that are not going to be used at the City Main. f. Required erosion control permits utility permits and other required permits shall be obtained from the City. St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8c - Wolke Lake Professional Center, final pud & plat Page 19 of 22 g. Landscaping plans shall be revised to meet bufferyard F for the office service and loading area, and a Bufferyard D for the post office drive through and post office mailbox drop-off as approved by the Zoning Administrator unless a variance is obtained. h. Required tree protection and erosion control fencing shall be in place prior to commencing any grading activities. i. Meet any Fire Department emergency access requirements for during construction. 4. Prior to issuance of any building permits, which may impose additional requirements, the developer shall comply with the following: a. Meet all conditions of City signing Final Plat. b. The subdivider shall furnish the City with evidence of recording of the final plat trail and access easement. c. Building materials samples to be submitted to and approved by Zoning Administrator. d. An irrigation plan and final lighting plan meeting the ordinance regulations shall be submitted to and approved by the Zoning Administrator. e. Rooftop equipment shall be shown to be fully screened from off-site views wit parapet walls as approved by the Zoning Administrator. 5. The developer shall comply with the following conditions during construction: a. All City noise ordinances shall be complied with, that there be no construction activity between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. on weekdays and 10 p.m. and 9 a.m. on weekends and holidays. b. The site shall be kept free of dust and debris that could blow onto neighboring properties. c. Public streets shall be maintained free of dirt and shall be cleaned as necessary. d. Tree protection and erosion control fencing shall remain in place until all construction impacts are completed. e. The Zoning Administrator may impose additional conditions if it becomes necessary in order to mitigate the impact of construction on surrounding properties. 6. Prior to issuance of temporary and final occupancy permits, all condition of the development agreement, relative to phased completion of improvements and submittal of financial sureties must be met. 7. A six foot concrete sidewalk along the west side of Belt Line Boulevard and the east side of Raleigh Avenue adjacent to the subject parcel are to be installed and maintained by the developer per the approved final site plan, and specifications unless the City chooses to install and/or maintain the sidewalks. 8. The developer shall provide the required number of replacement trees on site or a combination of on-site trees and cash in lieu of trees. The Community Development Director and Parks and Recreation Director shall approve the cash equivalent amount. 9. Drop-off mailboxes may not be installed in any locations except those specifically approved by the Zoning Administrator and Public Works Director. 10. All roof top equipment must be screened from off site views using a parapet wall incorporating the architectural features of the building. St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8c - Wolke Lake Professional Center, final pud & plat Page 20 of 22 11. The following conversions of uses are allowed without amending the PUD: a. The 3,000 sq. ft. post office to retail provided the post office drop-box driveway is removed, curb and boulevard restored, and disturbed areas are seeded. b. The 19,700 sq. ft. bank to administrative offices provided the drive-through is closed and landscaped as approved by the Zoning Administrator. 12. A PUD ordinance modification to allow: a. 240 parking stalls rather than the required 264 stalls; b. A PUD modification to allow setbacks on the retail/post-office building as shown on the approved (signed) Final PUD official exhibits; c. A PUD modification to allow a monument sign a minimum 2 feet north of the trail along 36th Street; d. An architectural ordinance interpretation per Zoning Code Section 36-367(b)(14) to allow architectural wall deviations on the retail/post-office building as shown on approved (signed) Final PUD official exhibits. 13. Signage is not approved as part of the PUD. Prior to the installation of any signs, including temporary signs or new sign faces, the applicant shall obtain sign permits in accordance with ordinance requirements. 14. The development shall comply in all respects with any conditions for Plat approval and all other City Ordinances. 15. The developer or owner shall pay an administrative fine of $750 per violation of any condition of this approval. Pursuant to Section 36-367(e)(6) of the Zoning Ordinance, the City will require execution of a development agreement as a condition of approval of the Final P.U.D. The development agreement shall address those issues which the City Council deems appropriate and necessary. The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this resolution in the Office of the Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council June 16, 2003 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8c - Wolke Lake Professional Center, final pud & plat Page 21 of 22 Site Data: Parcel Size: Lot 1: 211,800 S.F (4.86 acres) Proposed Building Size: Two Story Office: 54,742 S.F. One Story Retail: 9,872 S.F. Proposed Building Height: Two Story Office: 41 feet One Story Retail: 21.5 feet Proposed Ground Floor Area: Two Story Office: 24,370 S.F One Story Retail: 9,872 S.F. Proposed Uses: Office . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . + 35,035 S.F. Bank + 19,707 S.F. Retail . . . . . . . . . . . . . + 6,910 S.F. Post Office Customer Service + 2,962 S.F Parking: Office: 140 stalls Bank: 79 stalls Retail: 38 stalls Post Office Customer Service: 37 stalls Total Proposed 240 stalls Required 225 (after PUD and transit reduction) Usable Open Space: Proposed 33,640 S.F. Required none Comprehensive Plan Designation: Commercial Zoning Designation: General Commercial St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8c - Wolke Lake Professional Center, final pud & plat Page 22 of 22 Location Map UTICA AVE SWEBSTER AVE36TH ST W P A R K G L E N R O A D BELT LINE BLVDRALEIGH AVE S3 5 T H S T W M O N T E 36 1/2 ST W LYNN AVE SP A R K C ENTER BLVDTE HIGHWAY NO 1003 5 T H S T W ST. LOUIS PARK REC. CENTER WOLFE PARK BASS LAKE Hwy 100Subject Site St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8d - Amoco Special Permit Page 1 of 8 8d. Request by for a minor amendment to an existing Special Permit to allow changes to parking configuration at 7005 Wayzata Blvd. Case No. 02-64-CUP Recommended Action: Motion to adopt a resolution approving the minor amendment to the continued Special Permit subject to the conditions in the resolution Background: In 1997, resolution number 97-127 was adopted approving a conditional use permit that allowed new pump islands and a minor expansion of the existing building at the Amoco located at 7005 Wayzata Blvd. Three new pump islands were installed and a 612 square foot building addition was approved. A total of 19 parking spaces were required to meet off-street parking requirements. Fifteen stalls were accommodated on site and four spaces were to be provided at a remote parking lot within 500 feet of the station. One of the conditions required a shared parking agreement be executed and recorded with the County. A letter was submitted in 1997 by the applicant and station manager, Dave Libert, agreeing to provide shared parking on a remote lot that he owned, however a parking agreement was never executed. Subsequently, the operation of Amoco is under new management, and Dave Libert is no longer willing to allow Amoco to use the 4 parking spaces on the remote lot that he owns. This has resulted in Amoco parking vehicles in the public boulevard and street. The City has sent repeated letters requiring Amoco to rectify this situation (See attached letters). The applicant, BP Amoco, is now requesting a minor amendment to modify the parking plan under the approved conditional use permit. An amendment to the landscape plan is also being requested. The new parking plan provides 17 parking spaces on site and take advantage of an allowable parking reduction to transit. Issues: Ø Does the proposed parking meet the Zoning Code Requirements? Ø Do other changes to the original conditional use permit meet requirements? Analysis: Ø Does the proposed parking meet the Zoning Code Requirements? Under the 1997 Zoning Ordinance, a total of 19 parking spaces were required for this site. In 1998, the ordinance was amended to allow parking reductions of 10% for “any parcel which is located within ¼ mile of a frequently operating transit line” (Section 36-361(2)(q)). The Metro Transit park and ride facility is directly across the frontage road (Wayzata Blvd) from the subject site, and a transit route does run along Wayzata Blvd (route #59). Therefore, under today’s ordinance, 17 parking spaces are required for the subject site. St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8d - Amoco Special Permit Page 2 of 8 The applicant is proposing to modify the site plan to accommodate the 17 required parking spaces on-site. A 38 foot wide curb cut along Wayzata Boulevard is proposed to be narrowed to 30 feet wide (thus meeting ordinance maximum width requirements) and two new parking spaces are proposed along the western property line. See the attached proposed site plan and the site plan approved in 1997. One handicap parking space was originally approved along the east side of the building. To meet current ADA Code requirements, this parking space had to be modified. This modification resulted in the loss of a parking space, thus an additional space was added along the north property line (see the attached site plan). Per staff’s recommendation, a curb is proposed between this new parking space and the two previously approved spaces to clearly identify the spaces. This Amoco station has two repair service bays. The Zoning Ordinance permits 50% percent of the required parking for the service bays to be “stacked” in stalls which have a minimum dimension of 7.5’ x 16’. The proposed site plan does provide 4 stacked stalls that meet this requirement. Ø Do other changes to the original conditional use permit meet requirements? Landscaping The application is proposing a modification to the approved landscape plan. Junipers were originally approved along the southern property line behind the existing building. This property line abuts an office building and parking lot and the area is mostly bituminous or concrete. The landscaping was never installed and the applicant is requesting that it not be required. Staff is comfortable with this because there is not a bufferyard requirement along this property line. In order to conform with the bufferyard requirements along both street frontages, the applicant is proposing to amend the previous landscape plan to install additional landscaping on both the north and east sides of the property. Staff believes the proposed landscaping meets bufferyard requirements. Access There are currently two 30 foot wide curb cuts on the eastern property line along Jersey Avenue. Only one was shown on the plans approved in 1997. The applicant has indicated that both of these curb cuts are needed for the fuel delivery trucks to maneuver in and out of the site. The Public Works Director has reviewed and approved the new plans. Upon reviewing this proposal and conducting site visits, staff found that cars are parking in the right-of-way directly south of the southern most curb cut along Jersey Avenue. The applicant has indicated that this would be eliminated. Staff does recommend the replacement of the curb to deter people from parking in this area. There is a small decorative wooden post fence along the northern curb cut. Staff recommends a similar fence be added south of the curb cuts to further deter parking in the right-of-way. Recommendation: St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8d - Amoco Special Permit Page 3 of 8 Staff recommends approval of the minor amendment to the existing Special Permit, subject to the conditions in the resolution. (The amendments to the original resolution are underlined.) Attachments: Proposed Resolution Location Map Letters from the City (Supplement) Proposed Plans (Supplement) 1997 Approved Plan (Supplement) Prepared By: Julie Grove, Associate Planner Approved By: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8d - Amoco Special Permit Page 4 of 8 RESOLUTION NO. 03-072 Amends and Restates Resolution 97-127 A RESOLUTION AMENDING AND RESTATING RESOLUTION NO. 97-127 ADOPTED ON OCTOBER 6, 1997, AND GRANTING AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT UNDER SECTION 36-33 OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING TO ALLOW A PARKING AMENDMENT TO A MOTOR FUEL STATION AND MOTOR VEHICLE SERVICE AND REPAIR FOR PROPERTY ZONED C-2, GENERAL COMMERCILAL DISTRICT AT 7005 WAYZATA BOULEVARD FINDINGS WHEREAS, Amoco Oil Company has made application to the City Council for an amendment to an existing conditional use permit under Section 36-33 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code to amend parking at a motor fuel station and motor vehicle service and repair at 7005 Wayzata Boulevard within a C-2 General Commercial District having the following legal description: Par 1: That part of Lots 235, 236, 347 and 348, lying Southeasterly of the following described line: Beginning at the southwest corner of Lot 346, Richmond; thence run northeasterly to the point of intersection of the westerly line of Lot 234, said Richmond, with the southerly right of way line of Trunk Highway No. 12 as the same is now located and established. Par 2: Lots 237 and 238, “Richmond”, according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the Register of Deeds in and for said Hennepin County. Lot 347, “Richmond” is subject to the restrictions created by deed of record in Book 864 of Deeds, page 560. Also Lot 348, “Richmond” is subject to the restrictions created by deed of record in Book 986 of Deeds, page 355. Also Subject to minerals and mineral rights reserved by the State of Minnesota in Doc. No. 222170, Files of Registrar of Titles, as to Lots 237 and 238. Also Subject to such restrictions, if any, as may exist as to said Lots 235 and 236 under and by virtue of restrictive covenants appearing in deed of record in Book 864 of Deeds, page 285 in the office of the Register of Deeds in and for Hennepin County, Minnesota. (Torrens) St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8d - Amoco Special Permit Page 5 of 8 WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the information related to Planning Cases 97-20-CUP and 02-64-CUP and the effect of the proposed parking at a motor fuel station and motor vehicle service and repair on the health, safety, and welfare of the occupants of the surrounding lands, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect on values of properties in the surrounding area and the effect of the use on the Comprehensive Plan; and compliance with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, a conditional use permit was issued regarding the subject property pursuant to Resolution No. 97-127 of the St. Louis Park City Council dated October 6, 1997 which contained conditions applicable to said property; and WHEREAS, due to changed circumstances, amendments to those conditions are now necessary, requiring the amendment of that conditional use permit; and WHEREAS, it is the intent of this resolution to continue and restate the conditions of the permit granted by Resolution No. 97-127 to add the amendments now required, and to consolidate all conditions applicable to the subject property in this resolution; WHEREAS, the contents of Planning Case File 02-64-CUP are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case. CONCLUSION NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Resolution No. 97-127 (document not filed) is hereby restated and amended by this resolution which continues and amends a conditional use permit to the subject property for the purposes of permitting a motor fuel and motor vehicle service and repair station within the C-2 General Commercial District at the location described above based on the following conditions: 1. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with Exhibit A – Site Plan, Exhibit B – Landscape Plan, Exhibit C – Elevations and Exhibit D – Canopy Elevation; except that the landscaping plan and canopy elevations shall be revised to conform with the pump island/canopy configuration that is shown on the site plan; such documents incorporated by reference herein. (Amended by Condition 5a approved 6-16- 03) 2. The applicant shall submit a Letter of Credit in an amount equal to 150% of the cost of the landscaping improvements prior to issuance of a building permit. (Amended by Condition 5c approved 6-16-03) St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8d - Amoco Special Permit Page 6 of 8 3. Amoco and the operator of the station who also owns the remote lot shall execute a shared parking agreement in a form acceptable to the City Attorney prior to issuance of an occupancy permit. This lot shall be improved in accordance with the parking lot design requirements in Section 14:6-1.2 C of the St. Louis Park Zoning Code. (Amended by Condition 5b approved 6-16-03) 4. Assent form and official exhibits must be signed by applicant (or applicant and owner if applicant is different from owner) prior to issuance of a building permit. This lot shall be improved in accordance with the parking lot design requirements in Section 14:6-1.2 C of the St. Louis Park Zoning Code. 5. The conditional use permit shall be amended on June 16, 2003 to incorporate all of the preceding conditions and add the following conditions: a. Exhibits A, Site Plan and B, Landscape Plan, as provided for in Condition No. 1 are amended as shown on Exhibit E. b. Condition 2 is amended to require a letter of credit in the amount of 125% the estimated cost of landscape, curb and fence improvements, and cleaning/repair of right-of-way by July 15, 2003. c. Condition 3 is hereby deleted. d. The curb must be replaced in the right-of-way along the southernmost curb cut on Jersey Avenue as approved by the Public Works Director. A fence must be installed along the southern curb cut on Jersey Avenue that is similar to the existing fence to the north as approved by the Zoning Administrator. These improvements must be completed by September 2, 2003. d. Assent form and official exhibits must be signed by applicant (or applicant and owner if applicant is different from owner) by June 23, 2003. e. Permits for work in the public right-of-way and fence installation shall be obtained from the City prior to beginning site work. Such permits may impose additional conditions. f. All permanent and temporary signage must meet ordinance requirements per section 36-362. g. Vehicles owned by the station, employees, and those left for service shall not be parked in the public right-of-way. h. Vehicles shall not be sold on the property or public right-of-way. St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8d - Amoco Special Permit Page 7 of 8 i. The developer or owner shall pay an administrative fee of $750 per violation of any condition of this approval. j. In the event of repeated violations, the CUP shall be rescinded. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council June 16, 2003 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8d - Amoco Special Permit Page 8 of 8 Site Map W ayzata B lvdJersey Ave394 Kentucky AveSubject Site St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8e - Misc. Zoning Ordinance Amendments Page 1 of 25 8e. First Reading of proposed amendments to St. Louis Park Ordinance Code (Zoning) relating to creating consistency in standards relative to setbacks from residential districts, clarifying parking standards for restaurants in shopping centers, correcting retail and shopping center descriptions and approval categories, requiring conditional use permits for small schools in commercial districts, and clarifying motor vehicles sales accessory uses. Case Nos. 03-16-ZA Recommended Action: Motion to approve First Reading of proposed Ordinance Code text amendments related to zoning and set Second Reading for July 7, 2003. Background: In the process of daily administering the zoning code, staff is required to analyze many diverse land use applications and answer numerous questions. During this process, issues arise where some areas of the code seem inconsistent or ambiguous. Whenever these issues arise, staff makes an effort to rectify or simplify the code language. The proposed code amendments deal with several sections of the code to clarify standards and simplify and unify language. On May 21, 2003 the Planning Commission held a public hearing and considered the zoning ordinance amendments. No one from the public attended. The Planning Commission discussed the open space provisions for small schools and accessory uses for motor vehicle sales. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed ordinance amendments, on a vote of 4-1, requesting that staff review motor vehicle sales and include a maximum percentage for associated autobody/painting as an accessory use. The Assistant Zoning Administrator reviewed existing motor vehicle sales uses and found that autobody/painting generally encompasses approximately 25-30% of existing motor vehicle sales/service buildings. Therefore, staff is proposing that accessory autobody/painting be limited to no more than 30% of the gross floor area of the motor vehicle sales/service building. The use could not be placed in a stand-alone building, since it is not allowed as a principal use in the Commercial Districts. Other conditions for accessory autobody/painting, such as a minimum 300 feet setback from residential, would also have to be met. Proposed Amendments: Clarifying consistency in setbacks from residential districts: On February 5, 2001, the City Council approved miscellaneous zoning ordinance amendments including a change to the standard for applying extraordinary setbacks from residential districts. The change was in response to several variances that had been approved because the uses were across a road or railroad from an actual residential use, but the residential district included the St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8e - Misc. Zoning Ordinance Amendments Page 2 of 25 right-of-way or railroad property. Thus, the setback was determined from the right-of-way or railroad rather than the use itself. The amended language states that the setback is “from any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers.” This language was amended in 57 places in the Code. However, many other sections that should have been changed were missed. Those sections are included in the attached ordinance amendments as recommended by the Planning Commission. Clarifying parking standards for restaurants in shopping centers. There are two issues related to applying this code that staff and the Planning Commission are proposing to address. One is defining “less than full-service” restaurant, and the other is related to applying the definition of shopping center that states more than one building and property would be considered part of the shopping center if planned, developed and/or managed as a unit. This definition means there could be a single use in a stand alone building on a separate parcel that could still be considered part of the shopping center. If the property were sold, it would likely become non-conforming with parking requirements. Sharing parking between uses within a shopping center generally makes sense because often people tend to visit more than one business establishment per visit and often use a food service as part of a shopping trip. However, in those instances where a restaurant is located within a separate out-building people often make a separate trip to visit the restaurant. Examples include McDonald’s at Park Towers (Park Nicollet Campus) and Arby’s at Park Place Plaza (Home Depot Shopping Center). Restaurants with drive-throughs (in-vehicle sales/service) or intoxicating liquor licenses also tend to generate separate trips. In these instances, it is more reasonable to require the same parking standard as would be required for a stand-alone restaurant. In order to correct these problems, staff and the Planning Commission propose the following amendment to the shopping center definition: Section 36-142 (d)(30) Shopping Center Definition Shopping Center means a group of commercial uses planned, owned and managed as a unit that has common parking facilities. Shopping centers may include more than one building and more than one contiguous property and owner if approved under a single conditional use permit or planned unit development. Section 36-361 (d)(20) of the Ordinance Code requires the following parking standard for shopping centers. Staff and the Planning Commission are proposing to exclude stand-alone restaurants, restaurants with intoxicating liquor license, and restaurants with drive-throughs from qualifying for the lower parking standard via the following amendments: i. One space for each 220 gross square feet. ii. Grocery stores within shopping centers would require one space for each 180 gross square feet of floor area. St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8e - Misc. Zoning Ordinance Amendments Page 3 of 25 iii. Parking requirements for full service restaurants and theaters shall be figured separately except that restaurants and food services, including shared seating areas within malls, meeting all of the following requirements shall require one parking space per 220 square feet of gross floor area: a. The use does not have wait staff serving food directly to the customer while seated b. The use does not have an intoxicating liquor license or in-vehicle sales/service c. The combined total of the use and other restaurants and food services constitute less than 50% of the gross floor area of the building and shopping center iv. Restaurants which provide less than full service and food services including designated seating areas located within shopping centers shall require one space per 220 square feet of gross floor area when restaurants constitute less than 50 percent of the gross floor area of the shopping center. If restaurants and food service constitute 50 percent or more of the gross floor area of the shopping center, the area exceeding 50 percent shall require one space for each 25 square feet of customer service area. Modifying how shopping centers are permitted in the C1 and C2 Zoning Districts: In June 2002, the City Council adopted amendments to Chapter 36 of the Municipal Code (Zoning) to change how retail shopping centers over 50,000 square feet are allowed in the C2 General Commercial district as follows: Shopping Centers less than 50,000 Sq. Ft. Permitted with Conditions Shopping Centers 50,000 to 200,000 Sq. Ft. Permitted by CUP Shopping Centers over 200,000 Sq. Ft. Permitted by PUD At the time, the shopping center size listed in “permitted with conditions” section was inadvertently overlooked. That section of the code still lists shopping centers up to 200,000 square feet as permitted with conditions. Staff and the Planning Commission are proposing the following amendment to Section 36-194(c)(19): (19) Shopping Center. The conditions are as follows: a. The shopping center development shall not exceed 200,000 shall be less than 50,000 square feet of gross floor area. Shopping centers are currently not permitted in the C1-Neighborhood Commercial district. The reason for this is that the old definition for a shopping center included a 50,000 square foot minimum size imbedded within it. The definition has since changed to drop the size descriptor. However, since uses permitted in the C1 district are restricted in size, the old definition exceeded the size permitted in the C1. Staff and the Planning Commission are proposing to add shopping centers as a use permitted with conditions in the C1. St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8e - Misc. Zoning Ordinance Amendments Page 4 of 25 Section 36-193 (c) Uses permitted with conditions. (38) Shopping Centers. The condition for shopping centers is that these cannot exceed intensity classification 4. This prevents the gross building area from exceeding 20,000 square feet. Table 36-115A of the Zoning Code would have to be amended to reflect this change as well. Description for Motor Vehicle Sales and Associated Accessory Uses Staff has found that the definition for motor vehicle sales does not include an indoor showroom facility, although one is required and some sales facilities are completely indoors. Also, the definition does not include autobody/painting, which is a typical accessory use. The following are proposed changes to the land use description for Motor Vehicle Sales (Section 36-142 (d)(18) as recommended by staff and the Planning Commission: (18) Motor vehicle sales means display, sale, and rental of automobiles, trucks and recreational vehicles from an indoor showroom facility and may include an outdoor sales lot; motor vehicle service and repair and autobody/painting often occur in conjunction with this use. Characteristics may include outdoor activity, banners and lights for promotion and advertising, outdoor sound systems, truck deliveries, night and weekend operating hours, and test driving on nearby streets. Autobody/painting is a use that is currently only permitted in the IG Industrial District. This use is often found as an accessory use to motor vehicles sales, which is only permitted in the C2- General Commercial District. The proposal is to add autobody/painting as an accessory use to motor vehicle sales in the C2 – General Commercial District with conditions similar to those in the IG except that inoperable vehicles could not be stored outside, since outdoor storage is not permitted in the C-2 District. The Planning Commission also recommended limiting the percentage of floor area that could be occupied by the autobody use based upon typical existing car dealerships. A 30% limit has been included in the proposed ordinance. Section 36-194 (f) Accessory uses. (9) Autobody/painting is permitted as an accessory use to motor vehicle sales if: a. Inoperable vehicles are stored indoors. b. The facility is located a minimum of 300 feet from any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions and community centers. c. A bufferyard F is installed and maintained adjacent to any public way. St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8e - Misc. Zoning Ordinance Amendments Page 5 of 25 d. The use shall be incorporated into the motor vehicle sales/service building and shall not exceed 30% of the gross floor area of said building. Reclassifying Uses in C1 Neighborhood Commercial District All of the uses listed as “permitted” in the C1 District are, according to the Code, only permitted if the use does not exceed “intensity classification 4”. Thus, in actuality, all of the uses are “permitted with conditions”. Staff and the Planning Commission are proposing to eliminate the list of “permitted” uses, except for parks/open space, and change these to “permitted with conditions”. In this manner, it will be less likely to miss the condition limiting the intensity. (b) Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted in the C-1 district if the use complies with the commercial restrictions and performance standards of section 36-192 and does not exceed intensity classification 4: (1) Libraries. (2) Museums. (3)(1) Park/open space. (4) Police/fire stations. (5) Transit stations. (6) Parking business. (7) Parking lot. (8) Medical/dental office. (9) Funeral home. (10) Banks. (11) Business/trade schools. (12) Office. (13) Retail. (14) Large item retail. (c) Uses permitted with conditions. A structure or land in a C-1 district may be used for one or more of the following uses if its use complies with conditions stated in section 36-192, and those specified for the use in this subsection (c). None of the following uses shall exceed intensity classification 4, except by conditional use permit: (25) Libraries. The condition for libraries is that these cannot exceed intensity classification 4 (26) Museums. The condition for museums is that these cannot exceed intensity classification 4 (27) Police/fire stations. The condition for police/fire stations is that these cannot exceed intensity classification 4 (28) Transit stations. The condition for transit stations is that these cannot exceed intensity classification 4 (29) Parking business. The condition for parking business is that these cannot exceed intensity classification 4 St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8e - Misc. Zoning Ordinance Amendments Page 6 of 25 (30) Parking lot. The condition for parking lot is that these cannot exceed intensity classification 4 (31) Medical/dental office. The condition for medical/dental office is that these cannot exceed intensity classification 4 (32) Funeral home. The condition for funeral home is that these cannot exceed intensity classification 4 (33) Banks. The condition for banks is that these cannot exceed intensity classification 4 (34) Business/trade schools. The condition for business/trade schools is that these cannot exceed intensity classification 4 (35) Office. The condition for office is that these cannot exceed intensity classification 4 (36) Retail. The condition for retail is that these cannot exceed intensity classification 4 (37) Large item retail. The condition for large item retail is that these cannot exceed intensity classification 4. Table 36-115A of the Zoning Code would be amended to reflect these changes as well. Requiring conditional use permits for small schools in the Commercial Districts: On April 7, 2003, the City Council approved a zoning text amendment to allow small schools, under 20 students, located in an R4 district to be exempt from certain setbacks subject to the approval of a conditional use permit. This was prompted by Metropolitan Open Schools request. At this time the City Council also directed staff to initiate an ordinance amendment to require educational facilities to be considered as a conditional use in the C-1 Neighborhood Commercial and C-2 General Commercial Districts so that any potential safety and location issues could be addressed site by site. In 1997, Metropolitan Open School had requested an amendment to permit small schools in the commercial districts. Currently, small schools are permitted with conditions in both the C1 and C2 districts. Staff and the Planning Commission are proposing to change this to a conditional use. Following are the proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance: 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/CUP PC CU CUP CU CUP N N N PUD Section 36-193. C-1 neighborhood commercial district. (c) Uses permitted with conditions. St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8e - Misc. Zoning Ordinance Amendments Page 7 of 25 (23) Educational (academic). a. When outdoor play areas are provided, a minimum of 40 square feet of outside play space per pupil must be provided and such space shall be screened with a bufferyard D. This bufferyard shall include, as a minimum, an F3 fence as described in section 36-364. b. Outdoor areas designated from group activities shall be located a minimum of 25 feet from a lot in an R district. c. Pickup/dropoff areas shall not conflict with other on-site or abutting land uses and shall not create congestion on public streets. Only automobiles and passenger vans shall be allowed to use an alley for pickup and dropoff of students. d. The size of the school shall be limited to 20 students. e. In multitenant buildings, the school shall have at least one separate building entrance or shall have an interior entrance that is within 50 feet of a common building entrance. (d) Conditional uses. (7) Educational (academic). The conditions are as follows: a. When outdoor play areas are provided, a minimum of 40 square feet of outside play space per pupil must be provided and such space shall be screened with a bufferyard D. This bufferyard shall include, as a minimum, an F3 fence as described in section 36-364. b. Outdoor areas designated from group activities shall be located a minimum of 25 feet from a lot in an R district. c. Pickup/dropoff areas shall not conflict with other on-site or abutting land uses and shall not create congestion on public streets. Only automobiles and passenger vans shall be allowed to use an alley for pickup and dropoff of students. d. The size of the school shall be limited to 20 students. e. In multitenant buildings, the school shall have at least one separate building entrance or shall have an interior entrance that is within 50 feet of a common building entrance. Section 36-194. C-2 general commercial district. (c.) Uses permitted with conditions. St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8e - Misc. Zoning Ordinance Amendments Page 8 of 25 (24) Educational (academic) a. When outdoor play areas are provided, a minimum of 40 square feet of outside play space per pupil must be provided and such space shall be screened with a bufferyard D. This bufferyard shall include, as a minimum, an F3 fence as described in section 36-364. b. Outdoor areas designated from group activities shall be located a minimum of 25 feet from a lot in an R district. c. Pickup/dropoff areas shall not conflict with other on-site or abutting land uses and shall not create congestion on public streets. Only automobiles and passenger vans shall be allowed to use an alley for pickup and dropoff of students. d. The size of the school shall be limited to 20 students. e. In multitenant buildings, the school shall have at least one separate building entrance or shall have an interior entrance that is within 50 feet of a common building entrance. (d) Uses permitted by conditional use permit. (14) Educational (academic). The conditions are as follows: a. When outdoor play areas are provided, a minimum of 40 square feet of outside play space per pupil must be provided and such space shall be screened with a bufferyard D. This bufferyard shall include, as a minimum, an F3 fence as described in section 36-364. b. Outdoor areas designated from group activities shall be located a minimum of 25 feet from a lot in an R district. c. Pickup/dropoff areas shall not conflict with other on-site or abutting land uses and shall not create congestion on public streets. Only automobiles and passenger vans shall be allowed to use an alley for pickup and dropoff of students. d. The size of the school shall be limited to 20 students. e. In multitenant buildings, the school shall have at least one separate building entrance or shall have an interior entrance that is within 50 feet of a common building entrance. Attachment: Ø Proposed Ordinance Prepared by: Julie Grove, Gary Morrison, Judie Erickson, and Janet Jeremiah, Planning Div. Approved by: Clint Pires, Deputy City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8e - Misc. Zoning Ordinance Amendments Page 9 of 25 ORDINANCE NO.______ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING BY AMENDING SECTIONS 36-115A, 36-142, 36-163 – 167, 36-193 – 194, 36-223, 36-242 – 244, and 36-361 RELATING TO CREATING CONSISTENCY IN STANDARDS RELATIVE TO SETBACKS FROM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, CLARIFYING PARKING STANDARDS FOR RESTAURANTS IN SHOPPING CENTERS, CORRECTING RETAIL AND SHOPPING CENTER DESCRIPTIONS AND APPROVAL CATEGORIES, REQUIRING CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR SMALL SCHOOLS IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS, AND CLARIFYING THE MOTOR VEHICLES SALES ACCESSORY USES 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. 03-16-ZA). Sec. 2. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Sections 36-115A, 36-142, 36-163 – 167, 36- 193 – 194, 36-223, 36-242 – 244, and 36-361 is hereby amended by deleting stricken language and adding underscored language. Section breaks are represented by ***. R-1 Single Family Residence District. *** 36-163(c)(2)a. (Communication Centers) The building shall not be located within 50 feet of any lot line of any a lot in an R district parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers. *** Section 36-163(c)(2)c. (Communication Centers) Outdoor areas intended for group activities shall be located at least 25 feet from any lot in an R district, parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use, or has an St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8e - Misc. Zoning Ordinance Amendments Page 10 of 25 occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers, and shall be buffered from any such residential lot with a bufferyard D. *** Section 36-163 (d)(2)b. (Public Service Structures) All structures shall be located a minimum of 15 feet from any lot in an R district parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers. *** Section 36-163 (d)(3) (Golf Courses) Golf courses. The condition for a golf course is that all structures on the golf course shall be located a minimum of 30 feet from any adjacent lot in an R district parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers. Section 36-163 (d)(4) (Country Clubs) Country clubs. The condition for country clubs is that all structures shall be located a minimum of 30 feet from any adjacent lot in an R district parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers. *** R-2 Single Family Residence District. *** Section 36-164 (d)(2)b. (Public Service Structures) All structures shall be located a minimum of 15 feet from any lot in an R district parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers. *** R-3 Two Family Residence District. *** 36-165(d)(2)b. (Public Service Structures) St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8e - Misc. Zoning Ordinance Amendments Page 11 of 25 All structures shall be located a minimum of 15 feet from any lot in an R district. parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers. *** R-4 Multiple Family Residence District. *** 36-166(d)(2)b. (Public Service Structures) All structures shall be located a minimum of 15 feet from any lot in an R district. parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers. *** 36-166(d)(7)f. (Office Less Than 2,500 Square Feet) The parking areas shall be set back at least five feet from any abutting lot located within an R district parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers, and shall conform with all provisions of section 36-361. *** 36-166(f)(13)a. (Parking Ramps, Accessory Use, Height) The height of any parking ramp located within 200 feet of any R-1, R-2 or R-3 district parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers.may not penetrate the height of a line commencing at and perpendicular to the use district said parcel line and extending upward and away from the R-1, R-2 or R-3 district line said parcel at a slope of five horizontal feet for each vertical foot. 36-166(f)(13)b. (Parking Ramps, Accessory Use, Structure) The minimum required yard for any parking ramp located within 200 feet of an R district any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers, shall be 50 feet. *** 36-166(f)(13)d. (Parking Ramps, Accessory Structures, Lighting) St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8e - Misc. Zoning Ordinance Amendments Page 12 of 25 If the parking ramp is located within 400 feet of any property in an R district, parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers, all light sources on the top deck of a parking ramp shall be below the sight lines drawn from a point one foot above the light source to any point within the R district said parcel ten feet lower than the maximum structure height of that use in the R district at a distance of 400 feet from the wall of the parking ramp nearest to the R district. said parcel. *** R-C High Density Multiple Family Residence District. *** 36-167(d)(3)b. (Public Service Structures) All structures shall be located a minimum of 15 feet from any lot in an R district. parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers. *** 36-167(f)(12)a. (Parking Ramps, Accessory Use, Height) The height of any parking ramp located within 200 feet of any R-1, R-2 or R-3 district parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers.may not penetrate the height of a line commencing at and perpendicular to the use district said parcel line and extending upward and away from the R-1, R-2 or R-3 district line said parcel at a slope of five horizontal feet for each vertical foot. 36-167(f)(12)b. (Parking Ramps, Accessory Use, Structure) The minimum required yard for any parking ramp located within 200 feet of an R district any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers, shall be 50 feet. *** 36-167(f)(12)d. (Parking Ramps, Accessory Structures, Lighting) If the parking ramp is located within 400 feet of any property in an R district, parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers, all light sources on the top deck of a parking ramp shall be below the sight lines drawn from a point one foot above the light source to any point within the R district said parcel ten feet lower than the St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8e - Misc. Zoning Ordinance Amendments Page 13 of 25 maximum structure height of that use in the R district at a distance of 400 feet from the wall of the parking ramp nearest to the R district. said parcel. *** C-1 Neighborhood Commercial District *** 36-193(d)(5)f. (Post Office Customer Service) Drive through and stacking areas shall not be within 100 feet of any lot in an "R" use district parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers, unless the entire facility and stacking areas are separated from said parcel the lot in an "R" use district by a building wall or bufferyard F. *** 36-193(d)(6)a. (In-vehicle Service & Sales) Drive-through facilities and stacking areas shall not be within 100 feet of any lot in an R district parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers, unless the entire facility and stacking areas are separated from said parcel the lot in an R district by a building wall. *** C-2 General Commercial District *** 36-194(c)(21)a. (Parking Ramps, Height) The height of any parking ramp located within 200 feet of any R-1, R-2 or R-3 district parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers.may not penetrate the height of a line commencing at and perpendicular to the use district said parcel line and extending upward and away from the R-1, R-2 or R-3 district line said parcel at a slope of five horizontal feet for each vertical foot. 36-194(c)(21)b. (Parking Ramps, Structure) The minimum required yard for any parking ramp located within 200 feet of an R district a parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers, shall be 50 feet. St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8e - Misc. Zoning Ordinance Amendments Page 14 of 25 *** 36-194(c)(21)e. (Parking Ramps, Lighting) If the parking ramp is located within 400 feet of any property in an R district, parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers, all light sources on the top deck of a parking ramp shall be below the sight lines drawn from a point one foot above the light source to any point within the R district said parcel ten feet lower than the maximum structure height of that use in the R district at a distance of 400 feet from the wall of the parking ramp nearest to the R district. said parcel. *** 36-194(d)(2)o. (Motor Vehicle Sales) The storage lot shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from an R district. any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers. *** 36-194(d)(3)e. (Motor Vehicle Service & Repair) The building housing the use shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from any lot in an R district. parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers. In the case of an automatic carwash where the vehicular entrance and exit doors do not face said parcel the R district within 100 feet, the building shall be located a minimum of 95 feet from said the R district. parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers. *** 36-194(d)(10)f. (Post Office Customer Service) Drive through and stacking areas shall not be within 100 feet of any lot in an "R" use district parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers, unless the entire facility and stacking areas are separated from said parcel the lot in an "R" use district by a building wall or bufferyard F. *** 36-194(d)(11)a. (In-vehicle Sales or Service) Drive-through facilities and stacking areas shall not be located within 100 feet of any lot in an R district parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use, or has an St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8e - Misc. Zoning Ordinance Amendments Page 15 of 25 occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers, unless the entire facility and stacking areas are separated from said parcel the lot in an R district by a building wall. *** 36-194(e)(1)c.1. (Shopping Centers, In-vehicle Sales or Service) Drive through facilities and stacking areas shall not be located within 100 feet of any lot in an R district parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers, unless the entire facility and stacking areas are separated from said parcel the lot in an R district by a building wall. *** 36-194(g)(1)a. (Dimensional Standards, Height) The building shall be at least 200 feet from any residentially zoned property. parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers. *** O Office District *** 36-223(d)(3)d. (Heliport) The helicopter pad shall not be located within 300 feet of any parcel in an R district that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers. *** 36-223(d)(9)a. (In-vehicle Sales or Service) Drive-through facilities and stacking areas shall not be located within 100 feet of any lot in an R district. parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers. *** 36-223(f)(2)a. (Parking Ramps, Accessory Use, Height) The height of any parking ramp located within 200 feet of any R-1, R-2 or R-3 district parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers.may not penetrate the height of a line commencing at and perpendicular to the use district said parcel St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8e - Misc. Zoning Ordinance Amendments Page 16 of 25 line and extending upward and away from the R-1, R-2 or R-3 district line said parcel at a slope of five horizontal feet for each vertical foot. 36-223(f)(2)b. (Parking Ramps, Accessory Use, Structure) The minimum required yard for any parking ramp located within 200 feet of an R district any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers, shall be 50 feet. *** 36-223(f)(2)e. (Parking Ramps, Accessory Structures, Lighting) If the parking ramp is located within 400 feet of any property in an R district, parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers, all light sources on the top deck of a parking ramp shall be below the sight lines drawn from a point one foot above the light source to any point within the R district said parcel ten feet lower than the maximum structure height of that use in the R district at a distance of 400 feet from the wall of the parking ramp nearest to the R district. said parcel. *** Industrial restrictions and performance standards; general provisions *** 36-242(10)g. Employee parking during temporary operations shall be located on the site as far as possible from the abutting R district. any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers. *** I-P Industrial Park District *** 36-243(d)(1)d. (Heliport) The helicopter pad shall not be located within 300 feet of any parcel in an R district. that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers. *** 36-243(g)(4) (Height Limitations) St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8e - Misc. Zoning Ordinance Amendments Page 17 of 25 …For properties abutting an R district, any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers, the building height limitations are modified as follows: Within 100 feet of an R district, said parcel, the building heights shall not penetrate a line commencing at a point 15 feet above the ground level at the required yard depth and sloping upward at a rate of one vertical foot for each two feet of horizontal distance. Structures further than 100 feet from said parcel from an R district are subject to the general height limitations in this district. *** I-G General Industrial District *** 36-244(c)(2)a. (Public Service Structures) Outdoor storage areas shall be located a minimum of 25 feet from any property located in an R district. parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers. *** 36-244(c)(5)b. (Animal Handling) Where animals are boarded, the facility shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from any abutting properties located within an R district. parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers. *** 36-244(c)(10)e. (Motor Vehicle Service & Repair) No building shall be located within 100 feet of any lot in an R district. parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers. *** 36-244(d)(2)d. (Heliport) The helicopter pad shall not be located within 300 feet of any parcel in an R district. that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers. *** St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8e - Misc. Zoning Ordinance Amendments Page 18 of 25 36-244(f)(4) (Height Limitations) …For properties abutting an R district, any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers, the building height limitations are modified as follows: Within 100 feet of an R district, said parcel, the building heights shall not penetrate a line commencing at a point 15 feet above the ground level at the required yard depth and sloping upward at a rate of one vertical foot for each two feet of horizontal distance. Structures further than 100 feet from said parcel are subject to the general height limitations in this district. *** Off-street parking areas, paved areas, and loading spaces *** 36-361(d)(2)b. Location. All loading berth curb cuts shall be located 25 feet or more from the intersection of two street rights-of-way. No loading berth shall be located less than 50 feet from an R district any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers, unless it is entirely within a building. Loading facilities shall not occupy the required front yard. In situations where access to the loading berth is directly from the street and no other practicable means of access exist, this screening requirement shall not apply. *** Section 36-142 (d)(30) Shopping Center Definition Shopping Center means a group of commercial uses planned, owned and managed as a unit that has common parking facilities. Shopping centers may include more than one building and more than one contiguous property and owner if approved under a single conditional use permit or planned unit development. *** Section 36-361 (d)(20) Shopping Centers i. One space for each 220 gross square feet. ii. Grocery stores within shopping centers would require one space for each 180 gross square feet of floor area. St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8e - Misc. Zoning Ordinance Amendments Page 19 of 25 iii. Parking requirements for full service restaurants and theaters shall be figured separately except that restaurants and food services, including shared seating areas within malls, meeting all of the following requirements shall require one parking space per 220 square feet of gross floor area: a. The use does not have wait staff serving food directly to the customer while seated b. The use does not have an intoxicating liquor license or in-vehicle sales/service c. The combined total of the use and other restaurants and food services constitute less than 50% of the gross floor area of the building and shopping center iv. Restaurants which provide less than full service and food services including designated seating areas located within shopping centers shall require one space per 220 square feet of gross floor area when restaurants constitute less than 50 percent of the gross floor area of the shopping center. If restaurants and food service constitute 50 percent or more of the gross floor area of the shopping center, the area exceeding 50 percent shall require one space for each 25 square feet of customer service area. *** Section 36-194(c)(19): (19) Shopping Center. The conditions are as follows: a. The shopping center development shall not exceed 200,000 shall be less than 50,000 square feet of gross floor area. *** Section 36-193 (c) Uses permitted with conditions. *** (38) Shopping Centers. The condition for shopping centers is that these cannot exceed intensity classification 4. *** 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 Commercial Uses Shopping Center N N N N N N PC PC PUD N N N St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8e - Misc. Zoning Ordinance Amendments Page 20 of 25 *** Section 36-142 (d)(18) Motor vehicle sales (18) Motor vehicle sales means display, sale, and rental of automobiles, trucks and recreational vehicles from an indoor showroom facility and may include an outdoor sales lot; motor vehicle service and repair and autobody/painting often occur in conjunction with this use. Characteristics may include outdoor activity, banners and lights for promotion and advertising, outdoor sound systems, truck deliveries, night and weekend operating hours, and test driving on nearby streets. *** Section 36-194 (f) Accessory uses. (9) Autobody/painting is permitted as an accessory use to motor vehicle sales if: a. Inoperable vehicles are stored indoors. b. The facility is located a minimum of 300 feet from any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions and community centers. c. A bufferyard F is installed and maintained adjacent to any public way. d. The use is incorporated into the motor vehicle sales/service building and does not exceed 30% of the gross floor area of said building. *** 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 Industrial uses Auto body/paint PC N N N N N N A N N PC N *** Section 36-193. C-1 neighborhood commercial district (b) Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted in the C-1 district if the use complies with the commercial restrictions and performance standards of section 36-192 and does not exceed intensity classification 4: (1) Libraries. St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8e - Misc. Zoning Ordinance Amendments Page 21 of 25 (2) Museums. (3)(1) Park/open space. (4) Police/fire stations. (5) Transit stations. (6) Parking business. (7) Parking lot. (8) Medical/dental office. (9) Funeral home. (10) Banks. (11) Business/trade schools. (12) Office. (13) Retail. (14) Large item retail. (c) Uses permitted with conditions. A structure or land in a C-1 district may be used for one or more of the following uses if its use complies with conditions stated in section 36-192, and those specified for the use in this subsection (c). None of the following uses shall exceed intensity classification 4, except by conditional use permit: (25) Libraries. The condition for libraries is that these cannot exceed intensity classification 4 (26) Museums. The condition for museums is that these cannot exceed intensity classification 4 (27) Police/fire stations. The condition for police/fire stations is that these cannot exceed intensity classification 4 (28) Transit stations. The condition for transit stations is that these cannot exceed intensity classification 4 (29) Parking business. The condition for parking business is that these cannot exceed intensity classification 4 (30) Parking lot. The condition for parking lot is that these cannot exceed intensity classification 4 (31) Medical/dental office. The condition for medical/dental office is that these cannot exceed intensity classification 4 (32) Funeral home. The condition for funeral home is that these cannot exceed intensity classification 4 (33) Banks. The condition for banks is that these cannot exceed intensity classification 4 (34) Business/trade schools. The condition for business/trade schools is that these cannot exceed intensity classification 4 (35) Office. The condition for office is that these cannot exceed intensity classification 4 (36) Retail. The condition for retail is that these cannot exceed intensity classification 4 (37) Large item retail. The condition for large item retail is that these cannot exceed intensity classification 4. St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8e - Misc. Zoning Ordinance Amendments Page 22 of 25 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 Human care uses Medical/dental offices N N N N CU PC P PC N N PUD Funeral home N N N N N PC P N N N N Institutional uses Libraries PC PC PC PC PC P PC P PC N N PUD Museums/art galleries N N N N N P PC P PC N N PUD Police/fire PC PC PC PC PC P PC P P P P PUD Commercial uses Bank N N N N N PC P P N N PUD Business/trade school N N N N N PC P P P P N Office N N N A PUD/PC PC P PC CU/A CU/A PUD Retail N N N A A P PC P PC A A PUD Retail, large item N N N N N P PC P N A A N Transportation Parking lot A A A A A A PC A A A A A Parking business N N N N N P PC P P N N N Transit station PC PC PC P P P PC P P P P PUD *** St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8e - Misc. Zoning Ordinance Amendments Page 23 of 25 Requiring conditional use permits for small schools in the Commercial Districts: 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 P PC CU CUP CU CUP N N N PUD Section 36-193. C-1 neighborhood commercial district. (c) Uses permitted with conditions. (23) Educational (academic). a. When outdoor play areas are provided, a minimum of 40 square feet of outside play space per pupil must be provided and such space shall be screened with a bufferyard D. This bufferyard shall include, as a minimum, an F3 fence as described in section 36-364. b. Outdoor areas designated from group activities shall be located a minimum of 25 feet from a lot in an R district. c. Pickup/dropoff areas shall not conflict with other on-site or abutting land uses and shall not create congestion on public streets. Only automobiles and passenger vans shall be allowed to use an alley for pickup and dropoff of students. d. The size of the school shall be limited to 20 students. e. In multitenant buildings, the school shall have at least one separate building entrance or shall have an interior entrance that is within 50 feet of a common building entrance. (d) Conditional uses. (7) Educational (academic). The conditions are as follows: a. When outdoor play areas are provided, a minimum of 40 square feet of outside play space per pupil must be provided and such space shall be screened with a bufferyard D. This bufferyard shall include, as a minimum, an F3 fence as described in section 36-364. St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8e - Misc. Zoning Ordinance Amendments Page 24 of 25 b. Outdoor areas designated from group activities shall be located a minimum of 25 feet from a lot in an R district. c. Pickup/dropoff areas shall not conflict with other on-site or abutting land uses and shall not create congestion on public streets. Only automobiles and passenger vans shall be allowed to use an alley for pickup and dropoff of students. d. The size of the school shall be limited to 20 students. e. In multitenant buildings, the school shall have at least one separate building entrance or shall have an interior entrance that is within 50 feet of a common building entrance. *** Section 36-194. C-2 general commercial district. (c.) Uses permitted with conditions. (24) Educational (academic) a. When outdoor play areas are provided, a minimum of 40 square feet of outside play space per pupil must be provided and such space shall be screened with a bufferyard D. This bufferyard shall include, as a minimum, an F3 fence as described in section 36-364. b. Outdoor areas designated from group activities shall be located a minimum of 25 feet from a lot in an R district. c. Pickup/dropoff areas shall not conflict with other on-site or abutting land uses and shall not create congestion on public streets. Only automobiles and passenger vans shall be allowed to use an alley for pickup and dropoff of students. d. The size of the school shall be limited to 20 students. e. In multitenant buildings, the school shall have at least one separate building entrance or shall have an interior entrance that is within 50 feet of a common building entrance. (d) Uses permitted by conditional use permit. (14) Educational (academic). The conditions are as follows: a. When outdoor play areas are provided, a minimum of 40 square feet of outside play space per pupil must be provided and such space shall be screened with a bufferyard D. This bufferyard shall include, as a minimum, an F3 fence as described in section 36-364. St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 - 8e - Misc. Zoning Ordinance Amendments Page 25 of 25 b. Outdoor areas designated from group activities shall be located a minimum of 25 feet from a lot in an R district. c. Pickup/dropoff areas shall not conflict with other on-site or abutting land uses and shall not create congestion on public streets. Only automobiles and passenger vans shall be allowed to use an alley for pickup and dropoff of students. d. The size of the school shall be limited to 20 students. e. In multitenant buildings, the school shall have at least one separate building entrance or shall have an interior entrance that is within 50 feet of a common building entrance. Sec. 3. The contents of Planning Case File 03-16-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 July 7, 2003 Reviewed for Administration City Manager Mayor Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution: City Clerk 03-16-ZA/N:res-ord City Attorney St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 -4a - School District Grant Page 1 of 4 4a. Motion to approve payment to the School District of an operations grant of $35,000 for 2003. Background: The School District has received funding from Cable TV franchise fees since 1982, and since 1996 the Telecommunications Commission has reviewed the District’s request and recommended action to the City Council. The Commission has traditionally felt that franchise fees should be used to produce programming and District videotext display for Educational Access Channel 14, a benefit available to all Cable TV viewers. Since 1998, the Commission has recommended separate grants for operations and equipment, basing the equipment grants on District proposals. These grants are just a part of the budget for educational access; the School District also financially supports cable TV efforts. In 2001, at the request of the School District and Commission, the Council increased the operations grant to $35,000, which covers most of the District Video Technician’s salary and benefits. At the May 8, 2003 meeting, the Telecommunications Commission passed a motion to approve the District’s request for a $35,000 operations grant for 2003. No equipment grant was requested. City Council authority over franchise fees: During budget discussions the question was raised as to whether the City Council has full legal authority to spend franchise fees without making grants to the School District. Staff asked City Attorney Joel Jamnik and he replied, “Yes, unless the franchise itself limits the Council.” Staff has researched the cable television franchise ordinance and finds nothing to limit the City Council’s authority for spending franchise fees, so the grants to the School District are discretionary. The amount proposed as a grant to the school district is consistent with the budget plans recently discussed. The only limiting reference in the franchise refers to the equipment grant provided by the cable company every five years: In addition, Company shall contribute the following sums to City to be used to acquire equipment in support of public, educational and governmental access: (a) on acceptance of this Franchise Ordinance $60,000.00 (etc.) The next franchise equipment grant of $100,000 is due January 1, 2004. Franchise fee revenues and cable customers: Time Warner stopped paying franchise fees on cable modem services in the second quarter of 2002 after the Federal Communications Commission reclassified these services as “information services.” The City collected $37,000 on cable modem services in 2001and $22,500 in 2002 before the reclassification. St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 -4a - School District Grant Page 2 of 4 Total customers have dropped to 2000 levels, after peaking in 2001. Digital cable customers have leveled off this year after continuous increases since they were introduced in June, 2000. The marketing battle with satellite companies continues, so subscriber growth will probably remain modest in 2003, except for Roadrunner, with the possibility that Time Warner will introduce telephone service in the second half of the year. Time Warner Cable Customer Growth Date Total customers Basic only Roadrunner Digital Cable 5/00 12,925 1,683 - - 5/01 13,165 1,774 1,706 2,600 5/02 13,071 1,434 2,841 3,374 5/03 12,986 1,852 3,670 3,422 Recent School District Grant History Year Operations Grant Equipment Grant Total Grant to School District Total Franchise Fees Franchise Fees from cable services 1997 25,000 - 25,000 233,781 1998 25,000 8,000 33,000 255,387 255,387 1999 25,000 7,500 32,500 279,970 279,970 2000 25,000 12,900 37,900 310,713 301,143 2001 35,000 15,000 50,000 379,000 342,000 2002 35,000 38,000 73,000 382,033 *359,000 2003 Propose 35,000 None requested 35,000 Estimate 358,000 Estimate 358,000 *2002 Franchise fees include reimbursements for underpayments discovered by the franchise fee audit. Equipment Grant Descriptions Recent past equipment grants (in addition to a $25,000 operations grant) 1998 $8,000 for an automatic playback system 1999 $7,500 for digital camcorders/tripods 2000 $12,900 for district to use for personnel and equipment 2001 $15,000 used for Apple G4 computer + a 21” monitor, 2 digital cameras, a teleprompter, a Videonics digital video switcher, a tripod + other accessories. 2002 $38,000 for 4 remote control camera system, microphones & mixers for improved School Board meeting coverage; studio equipment racks and furniture, 3 mini DV camcorders 2003 None requested or recommended. Recommendation: Motion to approve payment to the School District of an operations grant of $35,000 for 2003. Attachments: Unapproved Telecommunications Minutes of May 8, 2003 (excerpt) Prepared by: Reg Dunlap and John McHugh, TV Coordinators Through: Clint Pires, Deputy City Manager Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 -4a - School District Grant Page 3 of 4 UNOFFICIAL MINUTES ST. LOUIS PARK TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION (TAC) MEETING OF MAY 8, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. ST. LOUIS PARK SENIOR HIGHSCHOOL, ROOM 206 MEMBERS PRESENT: Bruce Browning, Dale Hartman, Ken Huiras, Bob Jacobson, Mary Jean Overend, and Rolf Peterson MEMBER ABSENT: Rick Dworsky STAFF PRESENT: Reg Dunlap, Civic TV Coordinator and John McHugh, Community TV Coordinator/Recording Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Tom Marble, ISD 283 Technology Director; Charlie Fiss, ISD 283 Video Technician (Relevant section) 6B-C-D Review Criteria for School District Funding, School District Grant Funding, Review: School District using interns for extra experience and to produce programming. Tom Marble handed out an addendum of programming and equipment checkout information to supplement the report mailed to the Commission. Commissioner Jacobson stated he like the information presented and it should make the criteria doable. Mr. Marble asked if a three- year record of equipment inventory will meet Telecommunications Commission needs. Chair Huiras and Commissioner Browning agreed it was reasonable. Mr. Marble briefly reviewed the historical funding of Educational Access at $25,000 with increases starting in 2000. Commissioner Overend asked about paid interns. Mr. Marble said they are developing a volunteer intern program for post-secondary students, and the paid-secondary student positions have been discontinued as a result of automated programming and school policies on unsupervised casual employees. He described the levy Technology Fund which remains separate from general fund budget concerns, is ongoing and covers both support and capital. He described the zoned security areas now in place, and that after 4:30 p.m. use would present security issues and must be a registered Community Education use. Mr. McHugh distributed the April 21 email discussion draft of “Community Access to equipment funded by the Telecommunications Commission.” Mr. Marble said that eligible adults must supervise use, that students cannot. Commissioner Jacobson said liability was a concern and then suggested Educational Access guidelines be drafted. Mr. Marble said he, Charlie Fiss, Reg Dunlap and John McHugh could meet to do this. Commissioner Peterson said he was a member of the Community Education Advisory Council, and that fee hikes were coming. Mr. Fiss said there were 450 iMacs in the Senior High School and a lab of 25 run iMovie for student instruction and use. Mr. Marble stated that the funds for 2003 will apply to both the “live meeting room” installation and equipment racks/furniture for the studio control room. He said that the image and operation quality of live school board meetings is a problem they will address by adding St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item: 061603 -4a - School District Grant Page 4 of 4 lighting and having Mr. Fiss cover the board meeting of Tuesday, May 27 to show TWC’s employees the standard expected. It was moved by Commissioner Peterson, seconded by Commissioner Browning to approve the $35,000 operation grant for 2003-2004 Educational Access. Discussion followed. Commissioner Jacobson asked about channel 14 summer programming and Mr. Fiss described “end of the year” specials. Mr. Marble described how Beth Johnson of the District Communications Department planned to produce programming (such as NWEA test summaries) to supplement the newspaper features, and better reach parents at home. Mr. Fiss described how the channel display is no longer the SCALA program, but Microsoft PowerPoint which means that many teachers and staff can submit slides for channel display. Mr. Marble and Commissioner Peterson agreed that 15-18% of city households have school-age children. The motion passed 6-0. Minutes prepared by: Respectfully submitted by: John McHugh Reg Dunlap Recording Secretary Civic TV Coordinator