HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003/07/07 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - RegularAGENDA SUMMARY
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
July 7, 2002
7:30 p.m.
***7:00 p.m. – Economic Development Authority***
1. Call to Order
a. Pledge of Allegiance
b. Roll Call
2. Presentations
3. Approval of Minutes
a. City Council Minutes of June 16, 2003 Document
b. City Council Study Session Minutes of June 23, 2003 Document
c. City Council Study Session Minutes of June 9, 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
6. Public Hearings
6a. Public Hearing - Wolfe Lake Commercial Tax Increment Finance District
Document
This report considers a resolution establishing the Wolfe Lake Commercial Tax
Increment Financing District (a redevelopment district) within Redevelopment
Project No. 1.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to close the public hearing. Motion to adopt the
resolution modifying Redevelopment Project No. 1 and
establishing the Wolfe Lake Commercial Tax Increment
Financing District and adopting a Tax Increment Financing Plan
therefor.
6b. Public Hearing - Belt Line Industrial Park Inc. Business Subsidy Agreement/
Contract for Private Redevelopment Document
This report considers a resolution approving a redevelopment agreement and
related Business Subsidy Agreement with Belt Line Industrial Park Inc. (Belt Line)
for the redevelopment of 4.86 acres at the northwest quadrant of West 36th Street
and Belt Line Boulevard and the construction of Wolfe Lake Professional Center
and Wolfe Lake Professional Center West.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to close public hearing. Motion adopt the resolution
approving a Contract for Private Redevelopment by and between
the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority and Belt
Line Industrial Park Inc. and the related Business Subsidy
Agreement contained therein.
6c. Public Hearing for Petition to vacate an alley easement
2701 Brunswick Ave. S.
Case Nos. 03-27-VAC
Document
Petition to vacate an existing alley easement where an alley was relocated
Recommen
ded Action:
Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to adopt 1st reading of
Ordinance to vacate existing alley easement, and set 2nd reading for
July 21, 2003.
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public - None
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions
8a. 1st Reading of an ordinance establishing the St. Louis Park Police Advisory
Commission and adoption of a resolution appointing members Document
This ordinance creates the Police Advisory Commission and grants powers and
authorities similar to other advisory commissions of the City.
Recommended
Action:
1. Motion to approve first reading and set second reading for
July 21, 2003.
2. Motion to approve a resolution appointing members to the
commission effective August 14, 2003
8b. Solid Waste Contract Award Document
This report considers designating Waste Management, Inc. as the City’s service
provider and awarding them a solid waste collection service contract.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the resolution, which designates Waste
Management, Inc. as the residential solid waste collection
service provider, subject to execution of an acceptable contract
and authorizes the Mayor and City Manager to execute a five
year contract for services commencing October 1, 2003.
8c. Request by Troy Mathwig for preliminary and final plat approval with Variances
to the subdivision ordinance to reduce the minimum lot width for a corner lot
from 70 feet to 68 feet and reduce the sidewalk width and boulevard width to an
unspecified number Document
Case Nos. 03-17-S and 03-18-VAR
4256 Quentin Ave S
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt resolution denying the preliminary and final plat
and variances for Mathwig Addition based upon the findings set
forth in the resolution.
8d. Request of SLP Motors, LLC for a Preliminary PUD with variances from Section
36-194(c)(21)(a), (b), and (d) of zoning code to reduce the building height
restriction for a parking ramp located within 200 feet of residential, to reduce the
setback requirement for a parking ramp located within 200 feet of residential
from 50 feet to 12 feet on the south side and 6 feet on the west side and to reduce
bufferyard requirement from a Bufferyard F to a Bufferyard E on the south side
and a Bufferyard D on the west side and to eliminate the requirement for a bern
wall in order to redevelop the Win Stephen Buick Pontiac property for Westside
Volkswagen Document
2370 and 2440 State Highway 100 S
Case Nos. 03-14-PUD and 03-23-VAR
Preliminary PUD with variances to allow the redevelopment of an automobile
dealership, including replacing the building at 2370 TH 100, remodel the building at
2440 TH 100 and add a parking ramp.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt resolution approving Preliminary PUD with
variances from Sections 36-194(c)(21) (a), (b), and (d) of the zoning
code.
8e. Agreement between the City of St. Louis Park and Intermediate School District
287 for school liaison services Document
This agreement provides a full time police officer to Intermediate School District 287
during the school year with the school district paying for the cost of the services.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve agreement and authorize execution by Mayor
and City Manager
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 JULY 7, 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 adopt the attached resolution authorizing the installation of parking restrictions
on the east side of Raleigh Avenue 60 feet north and south of the entrance to the Police
Department parking lot Document
4b Motion to adopt the attached resolution authorizing the installation of parking restrictions
on W. 35th Street from a point 15 feet east of the westerly driveway to 4906-4920 W. 35th
Street to a point 15 feet west of the easterly driveway to 4930-4940 W. 35th Street and
along the south side of W. 35th Street from the driveway of 3510 Belt Line Boulevard
westerly a distance of 100 feet Document
4c Motion to designate Allied Blacktop Company the lowest responsible bidder and
authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of $128,809.00 for the 2003
Street Sealcoat Project, No. 03-08 Document
4d Motion to approve agreement between the City of St. Louis Park and Cornerstone
Advocacy Service for Domestic Violence Services Document
4e Motion to approve Encroachment Agreement with the Andersons, 3056 Kentucky
Avenue South, for use of City street right-of-way for placement of fence Document
4f Motion to adopt the attached Resolution to enter into an Agreement with the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources for a Flood Hazard Mitigation Grant Document
4g Motion to accept for filing the Planning Commission Minutes of June 4, 2003 Document
4h Motion to accept for filing the Planning Commission Minutes of June 18, 2003
Document
4i Motion to accept for filing the Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of April 24, 2003
Document
4j Motion to accept Vendor Claims for filing (Supplement)
AGENDA SUPPLEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
July 7, 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: 070703 - 3a - City Council Minutes of 6-16-03
Page 1 of 8
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
June 16, 2003
1. Call to Order
Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Mayor Jacobs welcomed the newest Councilmember John Basill.
The following Councilmembers were present at roll call: John Basill, Jim
Brimeyer, Paul Omodt, Susan Sanger, Sue Santa, Sally Velick, and Mayor Jeff
Jacobs.
Also present were the City Manager (Mr. Meyer); City Attorney (Mr. Scott);
Community Development Director (Mr. Harmening); Economic Development
Coordinator (Mr. Hunt); Planning and Zoning Supervisor (Ms. Jeremiah);
Associate Planner (Ms. Grove); City Clerk (Ms. Reichert); and Recording
Secretary (Ms. Samson).
2. Presentations: None
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. City Council Minutes of June 2, 2003
The minutes were 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.
4a Motion to approve payment to the School District of an operations grant of
$35,000 for 2003
4b Motion to accept for filing the Planning Commission Minutes of May 21,
2003
4c Motion to accept for filing the Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of March
27, 2003
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 3a - City Council Minutes of 6-16-03
Page 2 of 8
4d Motion to accept for filing the Housing Authority Minutes of May 14,
2003
It was moved by Councilmember Velick, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to
approve the Agenda and items listed on the Consent Calendar.
The motion passed 7-0.
5. Boards and Commissions
5a. Reappointment to Housing Authority
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to
reappoint Anne Mavity to the Housing Authority.
The motion passed 7-0.
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
City Clerk Cindy Reichert said McCoy’s Public House is expected to open
approximately on October 1, 2003.
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. With no one wishing to speak, Mayor
Jacobs closed the public hearing.
It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Velick, to
approve an on-sale intoxicating and Sunday sale liquor license effective July 1,
2003.
The motion passed 7-0.
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
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. With no one wishing to speak, Mayor
Jacobs closed the public hearing.
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 3a - City Council Minutes of 6-16-03
Page 3 of 8
It was moved by Councilmember Velick, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to
approve an on-sale intoxicating and Sunday sale liquor license effective July 1,
2003.
The motion passed 7-0.
6c. Public Hearing for Westwind Private Activity Revenue Bonds
Finance Director Jean McGann presented a report on the consideration of
refunding private activity revenue bonds for Westwind Apartments and approving
a preliminary resolution for this bond refunding in an amount of approximately
$5.7 million dollars.
John Utley, bond counsel from Kennedy and Graven, said the unusual aspect of
this transaction is that it is a forward purchase transaction. Mr. Utley said the two
aspects of the financing are: 1) it is a tax exempt refunding bond, and 2) a taxable
conventional loan is being undertaken at the same time by this developer with
respect to this project. Mr. Utley reported that the tax exempt piece is proposed to
be a variable rate obligation and that it is expected to close in October of 2003;
simultaneously, and as a condition to the closing on the conventional loan, this tax
exempt financing would take place. Mr. Utley continued: The conventional
financing is a fixed rate transaction and it has a forward transaction, which would
allow the developer to lock into a taxable rate today. The buyer of the bond for
the conventional loan would place significant penalties on the developer for
failure to close on a date specific. Mr. Utley said there are no implications for
arbitrage because there are no investments, and it would have no impact on the
City’s side of the transaction.
City Manager Charlie Meyer said the developer is precluded from doing the
refinancing prior to October 1, 2003. From the City’s side of the transaction, Mr.
Utley said if the transaction were not completed, then, in Councilmember Santa’s
words “it would die a natural death.”
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. With no one wishing to speak, Mayor
Jacobs closed the public hearing.
It was moved by Councilmember Velick, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to
approve preliminary resolution.
The motion passed 7-0.
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public: None
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 3a - City Council Minutes of 6-16-03
Page 4 of 8
8a. License Agreement between the City of St. Louis Park, Christopher T.
Dahl and Tetra Tech, EM, Inc. for Edgewood Area Properties
Economic Development Coordinator Greg Hunt presented a report. Mr. Hunt
said that Christopher T. Dahl requested the City agree to write a side letter
indicating its willingness to seek additional Earth Grant Funds in the event such
funds become necessary as required by the MPCA. Mr. Hunt reported that the
terms of the agreement appear to be acceptable to Mr. Dahl. Mr. Hunt said
Robert Lindahl of Kennedy and Graven is available for questions.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer,
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.
The motion passed 7-0.
8b. Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for Methodist Hospital
Campus Expansion
Case No. 03-21-MISC
Planning and Zoning Supervisor Janet Jeremiah presented a report. Ms. Jeremiah
said Methodist Hospital was previously approved as a Special Permit, and it
would have to be amended or a new PUD applied for before the expansion could
be approved. She said Park Nicollet and Methodist Hospital have indicated that
they will apply for a new PUD. Staff and the Planning Commission are
recommending approval of the EAW, finding no need for an Environmental
Impact Statement (“EIS”).
Beth Bartz, SRF Consulting Group, Inc., presented the EAW findings.
Councilmember Basill asked if truck traffic is routed by design or redesign of the
main entrance to deter truck traffic from the main entrance, will the intersections
at Louisiana and Lake and Louisiana and Oxford, which are projected to
breakdown in 2007-2013, break down sooner, and is there a contingency that
could be put in place for such a break down?
Marie Coty, SRF Consulting Group, Inc., responded that those intersections today
are operating at acceptable levels, and in 2007 the first set of improvements would
need to be done. Ms. Coty said the analysis assumes the level of truck traffic
would be “current” to what it is today, i.e., as the percentage of passenger vehicles
increases so, too, would the percentage of truck traffic.
Councilmember Sanger asked about Methodist Hospital’s contribution to traffic
mitigation. Community Development Director Tom Harmening said that issue
was recently raised with Park Nicollet executives but there is no agreement yet.
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 3a - City Council Minutes of 6-16-03
Page 5 of 8
Councilmember Omodt asked about the protocol on the shadow study, if it is
determined that too much daylight would be blocked, then what? Ms. Jeremiah
said the shadow analysis would be part of the preliminary PUD discussions.
Randy Manthey, 3979 Dakota Avenue South, would like to have hearings for the
preliminary and the final plats, and he would like specific exhibits.
It was moved by Councilmember Basill, seconded by Councilmember Santa, 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.
The motion passed 7-0.
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
Mr. Harmening distributed a revised resolution regarding this item to the Council.
Associate Planner Julie Grove presented a report. Ms. Grove said the Planning
Commission is recommending the removal of one of Staff’s conditions that the
building elevations for the one-story retail building be revised, and the Planning
Commission expressed concerned about the potential impact of heavy screening
on pedestrian safety.
Ms. Grove discussed the modifications to the conditions and the revised
resolution. She said Staff is recommending approval based on the resolution.
The Applicant, John McCain, said he is concerned about some of the items being
listed in the plat resolution versus the PUD resolution. Ms. Jeremiah said because
variance issues are involved, Staff is no longer comfortable extending deferment.
Mr. McCain asked about the newly numbered item 5, Prior to any site work, the
developer/owner shall meet the following requirements, in the final plat
resolution. He would like to know if the language could be changed to prior to
the City signing the plat. Ms. Jeremiah said such a change would be a concern.
Mr. McCain stated that it appears the trail easement has been put back on his
shoulders again, and he is not pleased.
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 3a - City Council Minutes of 6-16-03
Page 6 of 8
Councilmember Sanger asked about the stacking of cars at the post office mailbox
drop-off.
Councilmember Sanger does not support deviations from the architectural code
requirements; and she said the City’s current architectural code requirements are
too weak and minimal as they are. She will propose an amendment to the plat and
PUD when a motion is made.
Councilmember Basill stated that the Planning Commission removed the higher
architectural standard because of the high level of Class I material.
Councilmember Santa agrees with Councilmember Sanger on architectural
standards, and she inquired of the applicant: What earth tones and how many
colors?
Paul Meyer, Paul Meyer Architects, addressed the design of the building.
Councilmember Sanger stated her amendment: In addition to the resolution for
the plat and PUD, paragraph 3, plans shall be revised to fully comply with
architectural code requirements as approved by the Community Development
Director or his designee.
Like Councilmember Sanger, Councilmember Velick thinks it should go back to
Staff to review and work out with the applicant; and Councilmember Omodt
agrees. Councilmember Omodt prefers to defer this item for two or four weeks.
Ms. Jeremiah said this can be deferred to an administrative approval.
Mayor Jacobs said he is uncomfortable with that, and he would like to have it
return to Council.
Mr. Harmening said if the applicant is unhappy with Staff’s decisions, the
applicant can return to the Council for review.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Velick, to
adopt a resolution approving the final plat and final PUD for Wolfe Lake
Professional Center, subject to the conditions in the proposed resolutions; and in
addition to the resolution for the plat and PUD, paragraph 3, plans shall be
revised to fully comply with architectural code requirements as approved by the
Community Development Director or his designee.
The motion passed 7-0.
8d. Request by for a minor amendment to an existing Special Permit to
allow changes to parking configuration at 7005 Wayzata Blvd.
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 3a - City Council Minutes of 6-16-03
Page 7 of 8
Case No. 02-64-CUP
Ms. Grove presented a report on the request of Amoco gas station to modify the
parking plan, which was approved in 1997, and amend landscape plans, which
were approved in 1997. Ms. Grove said Staff is recommending approval subject
to the conditions in the resolution.
It was moved by Councilmember Velick, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to
adopt a resolution approving the minor amendment to the continued Special
Permit subject to the conditions in the resolution.
The motion passed 7-0.
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
Ms. Jeremiah reported on the proposed Ordinance Code Text amendments.
Councilmember Sanger said she is concerned about the proposed changes for
shopping centers in the C-1 or neighborhood/commercial areas and changes in
parking requirements; changing what is permitted with conditions in some areas;
and why changes to some definitions are being made. Councilmember Sanger
would like to discuss this at a Study Session with real life examples as opposed to
reading the dry text of it.
Ms. Jeremiah said it would be easier for Staff to hold the entire item over as
opposed to pulling out pieces.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to
defer this item to a Study Session.
The motion passed 7-0.
9. Communications
From the City Manager: Mr. Meyer made several announcements regarding
Parktacular events.
From Councilmember Velick: She announced the Senior Summit to take place
on Monday, June 30th, at 6:15 p.m., at the Lenox Center.
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 3a - City Council Minutes of 6-16-03
Page 8 of 8
From Councilmember Basill: He mentioned the Meadowbrook Collaborative,
which held its 10th year recognition event.
10. Adjournment
Mayor Jacobs adjourned the meeting at 9:41 p.m.
___________________________________ ___________________________________
City Clerk Mayor
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 3b - Study Session Minutes of 6-23-03
Page 1 of 5
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
Minutes of June 23, 2003
The meeting convened at 7:00 p.m.
Present at the meeting were Councilmembers John Basill, Jim Brimeyer, Paul Omodt, Susan
Sanger, Sally Velick and Mayor Jeff Jacobs.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Meyer), Director of Community Development (Mr.
Harmening), Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Hunt); Director of Public Works (Mr.
Rardin); Public Works Coordinator (Mr. Merkley); Public Works Administrative Specialist (Ms.
Hellekson); Finance Director (Ms. McGann); and City Clerk (Ms. Reichert).
(It was noted at the beginning of the meeting that item 3, Update on Wolfe Lake Commercial
TIF District was inadvertently listed as a discussion item. This was intended to be a written
report and was therefore removed from discussion)
1. 2002 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR)
Ms. McGann introduced Jennifer Thienes of Kern, DeWenter, Viere, Ltd. to present an overview
of the report.
Ms. Thienes summarized information contained in the Management Report and stated that the
City’s financial picture was good and that the CAFR would once again be recommended to
receive the Certificate of Excellence in Financial Reporting for fiscal year 2002. She also
commended staff for their organization and cooperation during the audit.
Councilmember Brimeyer asked if the city was prepared for the new GASB 34 reporting
requirements. Ms. McGann responded that the conversion process was well underway and that
the conversion was going relatively smoothly.
2. Proposed Purchase Agreement with Anderson Builders regarding the sale of 3501
Louisiana Ave S
Mr. Hunt outlined the proposal and stated that staff was comfortable with the pro-forma as it was
presented. He also introduced Mr. Gary Anderson of Anderson Builders.
Councilmember Sanger asked if the contamination on the property posed any risk of on-going
liability for the City. Mr. Hunt responded that the purchase agreement would hold the city
harmless. The city and the applicant were also moving forward with participation in the VIC
program, administered by the MPCA, which would provide additional protection to the city.
Councilmember Sanger also asked whether the Park Tavern would be interested in purchasing
the remnant currently leased for parking from the city. She questioned why the entire parcel was
not being sold to the applicant which would relieve the city of responsibility for negotiating the
sale of the remnant.
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 3b - Study Session Minutes of 6-23-03
Page 2 of 5
Mr. Harmening responded that Park Tavern is interested in purchasing the leased space and that
there would be no significant hardship to the city in moving forward with negotiating that
transaction.
Councilmember Santa asked if there would be an increase in traffic volume. Mr. Harmening
responded that the new signals and improvements at the Hwy 7/Louisiana intersection would
allow for increased volume in the area.
Staff informed council that they would return at a future meeting with a negotiated purchase
agreement for council approval.
4. Solid Waste
Mr. Rardin presented a brief overview of the process stating that:
Proposals had been issued in April which allowed the vendors 30 days to respond. Following
receipt of the proposals another week was allowed for staff review. A presentation to staff was
then made by the vendors with both vendors supplying additional information over the following
week. Staff did identify a cut-off date for input in early June. At that time an email was sent to
the vendors requesting their final information. On June 6th the input process was locked.
Mr. Rardin also spoke about the difficulty in comparing proposals. He felt that since the total
package price for each vendor was remarkably similar, the differences between the two was in
the customer service and transition components. Staff felt the customer service package
proposed by Waste Management was superior to that presented by BFI and also felt that there
would be fewer transition issues if the contract was awarded to our current vendor. Therefore,
Mr. Rardin stated that it was staff’s recommendation to award the contract to Waste
Management.
Mr. Rardin also informed council that a data practices request had been received from BFI to
review the entire proposal submitted by WM and that the attorney was currently reviewing the
document to determine its status under the data practices statute.
Mayor Jacobs commended staff for the excellent work done in creating the solid waste program
and in the vendor solicitation process. Other councilmembers echoed the Mayor’s comments.
Councilmember Brimeyer asked for clarification as to the purpose of the discussion. Mr. Meyer
responded that staff was asking council to provide direction as to which proposal to present for
final approval.
Councilmember Sanger questioned the fact that WM’s proposal did not include charges for
special pickups. She reminded staff that council had directed that special pickup charges be
included. Mr. Rardin responded that there would be no problem in identifying a charge in the
final contract documents, no matter which vendor council chose to award the contract to.
Councilmember Omodt asked about reference checks and if that had been done. Mr. Rardin
responded that over the course of the past 18 months there have been numerous conversations
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 3b - Study Session Minutes of 6-23-03
Page 3 of 5
with other cities about each of the vendors. There had been good and bad comments made about
each.
Councilmember Brimeyer commented that there had been no transition plan in place at the time
of the last vendor change and that had been very detrimental.
Councilmember Santa said that planned changes to the solid waste program itself coupled with a
change in vendor could be disruptive. Given the changes in the program it may be beneficial to
remain with the current contractor.
Councilmember Sanger asked about differences in the proposals regarding recycling credit. Ms.
Hellekson stated that the recycling credit for BFI for the year 2001 was $8,000 and $17,000 for
2002 based on Chicago Pricing for recyclables. Mr. Rardin responded that the figures given on
recycling rebates fluctuated based on market from one year to another and that figures stated in
the proposal cannot be confirmed.
Councilmember Velick stated that council had earlier agreed that cost alone would not be the
deciding factor in making a vendor choice. Service considerations were more important than
cost.
Councilmember Sanger asked about a service component proposed by BFI where a 3rd party
contract would be let to monitor service calls. She asked where in the analysis that component
was included.
Mr. Rardin stated that the 3rd party component by BFI would have been at added cost to the city.
He also stated that BFI had been reluctant to utilize the city’s database already in operation at
WM.
Mayor Jacobs asked a BFI representative to clarify their position on the 3rd party contract and
use of the city’s database. The representative stated that BFI was willing to do anything the City
wanted.
Councilmember Omodt stated that he had personally done some calling to get information
regarding service provided to other jurisdictions. He had also personally experienced a recent
missed pickupe from the current provider. Mr. Meyer clarified that it is not a missed pickup
unless they don’t get back by the deadline time. Mr. Omodt asked that staff check references
further.
Mr. Rardin stated that over the course of the past 18-24 months there had been a great amount of
research already done on service and performance.
Councilmember Velick pointed out that the WM proposal provided a much better package in
terms of missed pickups and penalties. She felt that the WM proposal seemed to be “banking
on” good service. She felt that spoke well to the WM proposal.
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 3b - Study Session Minutes of 6-23-03
Page 4 of 5
Mr. Rardin commented that it was a good idea to look at the proposals in terms of what they say
each will do. It is difficult to determine how well they will perform by calling other cities, as the
SLP solid waste program that will be instigated is different than programs the vendors deal with
in other cities. He felt that if they perform well and do what they say they can, the WM
proposal is better than the BFI proposal.
Councilmember Basill asked about reporting procedures for service problems and how each
contractor handled their reporting. He asked how we could be sure of the integrity of the
reporting process.
Mr. Merkley explained the database and system currently in operation with WM that had been
designed by the city in cooperation with WM. The system has been in place for some time and
improvements are being made all the time. The system proposed by BFI involved reports
submitted in paper format that would need to be reviewed by staff. It would take some time for a
new vendor to transition into using the city-designed system.
Mr. Meyer added that the city has been monitoring service performance by WM for some time
and that our program compares very favorably to national standards.
Mayor Jacobs asked the council to come to a consensus on where to go from here.
Councilmember Velick stated that if other councilmembers felt they needed further research she
was ok with that, but was ready to recommend that the city go forward with awarding a contract.
Councilmember Santa also felt that more research was ok and suggested that results of all
research done over the past several months would be valuable in helping the city to put together
the educational component for residents.
Mr. Meyer offered that staff could try to get answers to questions regarding references council
was asking for and include that information in the report for the meeting of the 7th when council
is expecting to award the contract.
Councilmember Omodt insisted that the information be provided in advance of that and Mr.
Meyer suggested a staff memo with the information be sent to councilmembers with their mail
prior to their receiving the agenda packet for the 7th. Councilmember Omodt agreed with that
approach.
This item will return for a council decision at the meeting of July 7th.
5. Communications
Mr. Meyer asked council if they were supportive of a new initiative where The Jewish Family
and children’s Service and Sholom Home would receive grant funds to create a program similar
to children first which would be directed toward seniors in the community. Council was
supportive and directed staff to prepare a letter stating their intent to support the program.
Mr. Meyer also pointed out that councilmembers had received a packet of information from
Sojourner Project regarding a change in vendors for the services they have been providing.
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 3b - Study Session Minutes of 6-23-03
Page 5 of 5
Councilmember Sanger shared with council a letter that had been distributed in the Fern Hill
neighborhood in response to pamphlet that had been distributed there. She felt distribution of the
material in the original pamphlet constituted a hate crime and suggested that those persons who
responded with the subsequent letter should be commended. Mr. Meyer suggested that staff
refer the matter to the Human Rights Commission.
Ms. Reichert asked council to review the applications that had been receiving in response tot he
city’s advertisement for planning commissioner, and to forward to her the names of three persons
each felt should be named as a finalist. Following receipt of the names staff would schedule
interviews. It was agreed that a committee of staff and Councilmembers would meet to review
the city’s current appointment process and to suggest changes to the council for how this could
be done more efficiently.
6. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 9:16 p.m.
Mayor City Clerk
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 3c - Study Session Minutes of 6-9-03
Page 1 of 3
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
Minutes of June 9, 2003
The meeting convened at 7:00 p.m.
Present at the meeting were Councilmembers John Basill, Jim Brimeyer, Paul Omodt, Susan
Sanger, Sally Velick and Mayor Jeff Jacobs.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Meyer), Director of Inspections (Mr. Hoffman), and City Clerk
(Ms. Reichert).
1. Smoking Task Force Recommendation
Mr. Hoffman gave an overview of the efforts that had been made to inform the public about the
proposed recommendation. He reported that there had been a low response rate with the
comment cards that were send out as well as very low attendance to the public meetings despite
their advertisements.
Mayor Jeff Jacobs arrived at 7:05 p.m.
Mr. Hoffman displayed the draft signage. He gave Council an estimate of the staff time and cost
to operate the program as well as the expenditures involved for labs and equipment. He added
that education opportunities would need to be offered for restaurant employees as well as the
public patronizing the restaurants. Mayor Jacobs would like to see the signs made bigger. He
suggested that an award be given to those establishments that did not allow smoking.
Councilmember Velick inquired if the non-smoking sections of establishments would be
monitored as well and Mr. Hoffman replied that they would.
Councilmember Sanger was not in favor of the ordinance, but if it was passed, on-going studies
of the results of the program would need to be done. She had concerns about the cost of the
program. She stated that she would prefer no ordinance at all be passed rather than passing this
ordinance which she felt was inadequate. She stated she would not support the ordinance.
Councilmember Omodt commended the work of the committee though he felt that disclosing the
level of secondhand smoke would not capture the attention of the public when they visit
establishments.
Councilmember Brimeyer stated that the proposal was slightly flawed but it was better than
banning smoking in establishments. He felt there was a two-fold purpose for the ordinance, to
point out the danger of secondhand smoke while not harming the business community. He felt
that the proposal would work to accomplish both goals. Mayor Jacobs agreed that he would not
support a smoking ban and felt that the conclusion they had arrived at could prove useful for
research purposes. Councilmember Brimeyer would like to move forward with the ordinance.
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 3c - Study Session Minutes of 6-9-03
Page 2 of 3
Councilmember Sanger would like to see an on-going study set up to monitor what effect the
ordinance has on the behavior of restaurant patrons. Mr. Hoffman stated that if some restaurants
become smoke free, it will ensure that a difference was made with their approach to secondhand
smoke. He explained that if comparisons are made of the current number of smoking restaurants
versus what may happen as a result of this ordinance, it may in the future indicate that more
restaurants have gone smoke free because they have the knowledge that they can go smoke free
without harming their business.
Councilmember Brimeyer commented that the objective of the task force was to reduce
secondhand smoke and this plan will work towards that goal.
Councilmember Basill thinks that the disclosure will help restaurant owners to make a better
decision.
Councilmember Santa felt that the ordinance proposal respects the residents’ intelligence and
freedom to choose where they visit.
Councilmember Omodt was concerned that the city may be providing a false sense of security.
Councilmember Velick stated her respect for the task force and their recommendation and felt
that with the ordinance in place residents could make an informed choice about where they visit.
She voiced her support for the ordinance.
Mayor Jacobs agreed.
Councilmember Brimeyer again stated that the ordinance may also pave the way to more smoke
free establishments.
Mr. Hoffman stated that he will present the signs to the council again before a public hearing is
held.
Councilmember Santa wanted to see statistics kept on the results. Councilmember Brimeyer
would like to see this ordinance added to the community survey process.
2. Budget
Mr. Meyer updated the Council on the recent Local Government Aid developments. Council
discussed the issue and decided to reinstate clerical help for City Hall, a fire position,
contributions to the STEP program, mediation funding, sidewalk and curb and gutter repairs, and
alley improvements. Council discussed implementing a street light utility fee as well as doing a
modest employee wage increase. Council felt that a street light utility fee should be brought
back for further discussion.
3. Carry and Conceal Gun Control
Council discussed the possibility of passing a resolution or ordinance prohibiting guns within the
city limits. Staff referred to the ordinances passed in Duluth, St. Cloud and Hennepin County
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 3c - Study Session Minutes of 6-9-03
Page 3 of 3
and suggested that the city attorney look at the issue. Council would like more discussion on the
item at a future meeting.
4. Skating
Councilmember Omodt raised the issue of kids skate boarding at the Senior High. He asked
what enforcement efforts were being undertaken by the Police Department. Following
discussion, Council agreed that the addition of the new skate park may relieve the situation at the
Senior High.
5. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 10:04 p.m.
Mayor City Clerk
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 4a - Raleigh Ave Parking Restrictions
Page 1 of 2
4a. Traffic Study No. 580: Motion to adopt the attached resolution authorizing the
installation of parking restrictions on the east side of Raleigh Avenue 60 feet
north and south of the entrance to the Police Department parking lot.
Background: The Police Department has requested parking restrictions be placed on the east
side of Raleigh Avenue for a distance of 60 feet north and south of the entrance to the Police
Department parking lot. The concern expressed by the Police is the lack of visibility when
emergency vehicles exit the driveway. Due to the steep grades coming from the parking area, it
is difficult for drivers on Raleigh Avenue to see these incoming vehicles. This creates a
potentially hazardous situation and has prompted the request.
In response to this request Engineering staff met with the Police Department and took field
measurements to insure adequate visibility. The proposed parking restrictions will eliminate
approximately four (4) parking spaces on the east side of Raleigh Avenue. Staff contacted the
owner of the Garden Village apartment complex for input on the proposed parking restrictions.
The owner does not object to the removal of on-street parking at this location and agrees that this
is a potentially dangerous driveway with poor visibility.
Recommendation: Staff recommends adopting the attached resolution authorizing installation
of “no parking” restriction on the east side of Raleigh Avenue 60 feet north and south of the
entrance to the police department.
Attachments: Map (Supplement)
Resolution
Prepared by: Carlton B. Moore, Superintendent of Engineering
Through: Maria A. Hagen, City Engineer
Reviewed by: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 4a - Raleigh Ave Parking Restrictions
Page 2 of 2
RESOLUTION NO. 03-074
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING INSTALLATION
OF “NO PARKING” RESTRICTION ON THE EAST SIDE
OF RALEIGH AVENUE 60 FEET NORTH AND SOUTH
OF ENTRANCE TO POLICE DEPARTMENT
TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 580
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, has been requested, has studied, and
has determined that traffic controls are necessary at this location.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of St.
Louis Park, Minnesota, that:
1. The Director of Public Works is hereby authorized to install “No Parking” restrictions on
the east side of Raleigh Avenue for a distance of 60 feet north and south of the entrance
to the Police Department parking lot.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council July 7, 2003
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 4b - W. 35th St. Parking Restrictions
Page 1 of 2
4b. Traffic Study No. 581: Motion to adopt the attached resolution authorizing the
installation of parking restrictions on W. 35th Street from a point 15 feet east of
the westerly driveway to 4906-4920 W. 35th Street to a point 15 feet west of the
easterly driveway to 4930-4940 W. 35th Street and along the south side of W. 35th
Street from the driveway of 3510 Belt Line Boulevard westerly a distance of 100
feet.
Background: The City has received a request from Belt Line Industrial Park for the installation
of parking restrictions on W. 35th Street from a point 15 feet east of the westerly driveway to
4906-4920 W. 35th Street to a point 15 feet west of the easterly driveway to 4930-4940 W. 35th
Street and along the south side of W. 35th Street from the driveway of 3510 Belt Line Boulevard
westerly a distance of 100 feet. Belt Line Industrial Park owns the three (3) buildings and
initiated this request due to the difficulty for trucks maneuvering when cars are parking on the
street at these locations. The proposed parking restrictions will eliminate approximately six (6)
on-street parking spaces.
Staff has reviewed this request with Belt Line Industrial Park and observed the maneuvering
difficulties the trucks encounter. Staff also observed that sufficient off-street parking was
available for each of the properties noted.
Recommendation: It is recommended the City Council adopt the attached resolution providing
for the installation of parking restrictions on W. 35th Street from a point 15 feet east of the
westerly driveway to 4906-4920 W. 35th Street to a point 15 feet west of the easterly driveway to
4930-4940 W. 35th Street and along the south side of W. 35th Street from the driveway of 3510
Belt Line Boulevard westerly a distance of 100 feet.
Attachments: Map (Supplement)
Resolution
Prepared by: Carlton B. Moore, Superintendent of Engineering
Through: Maria A. Hagen, City Engineer
Reviewed by: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 4b - W. 35th St. Parking Restrictions
Page 2 of 2
RESOLUTION NO. 03-075
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING INSTALLATION
OF PARKING RESTRICTIONS ON W. 35TH STREET
FROM A POINT 15 FEET EAST OF THE WESTERLY DRIVEWAY TO
4906-4920 W. 35TH STREET TO A POINT 15 FEET WEST OF THE
EASTERLY DRIVEWAY TO 4930-4940 W. 35TH STREET AND ALONG
THE SOUTH SIDE OF W. 35TH STREET FROM THE DRIVEWAY OF
3510 BELT LINE BOULEVARD WESTERLY A DISTANCE OF 100 FEET
TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 581
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, has been requested, has studied, and
has determined that traffic controls are necessary at this location.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of St.
Louis Park, Minnesota, that the Director of Public Works is hereby authorized to install the
following controls:
1. Parking restrictions W. 35th Street from a point 15 feet east of the westerly driveway to
4906-4920 W. 35th Street to a point 15 feet west of the easterly driveway to 4930-4940
W. 35th Street and along the south side of W. 35th Street from the driveway of 3510 Belt
Line Boulevard westerly a distance of 100 feet.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council July 7, 2003
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 4c - Sealcoating Contract
Page 1 of 2
4c. Bid Tabulation: Motion to designate Allied Blacktop Company the lowest
responsible bidder and authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the
amount of $128,809.00 for the 2003 Street Sealcoat Project, No. 03-08
Background: Sealcoating is the surface application of an asphalt material followed by
the placement of aggregate (rock) which is embedded into the asphalt material while it is
liquid. The purpose of this treatment is to add surface friction to the pavement,
facilitating vehicle traction, and to seal the surface from oxidation and the effects of
moisture. Sealcoating can extend the life of a pavement, in good condition, by 5-9 years.
Area 4 of the Pavement Management Program is the area scheduled for sealcoating in
2003. Area 4 comprises the streets in the Bronx Park, Birchwood, and Sorenson
neighborhoods. These streets were last sealcoated in the early 1980’s.
Not all streets in this area will be sealcoated. Based on the computerized pavement
management software that the City utilizes, and visual inspections by City staff, several
streets in the area were determined to be in need of more aggressive maintenance.
Sealcoating these streets would be a waste of resources. Therefore, staff has eliminated
them from the project with the understanding that they will be evaluated and considered
for higher levels of maintenance or rehabilitation at some time in the future, as part of the
overall Pavement Management Program.
Bid Analysis: Bids for the project were received on July 1, 2003. An Advertisement for
Bids was published in the St. Louis Park Sun-Sailor on June 12 & 19, 2003 and in the
Construction Bulletin on June 13 & 20, 2003.
A summary of the bid results is as follows:
Contractor Alt. A Alt. B
Allied Blacktop Company $121,672.40 $128,809.00
Pearson Brothers, Inc. $121,902.92 $131,847.92
ASTECH Corporation $156,474.80 $169,734.80
Engineer’s Estimate $157,500.00 $163,500.00
In the past, City staff has swept the excess aggregate from the streets and hauled the
material to the Municipal Service Center for later use. Due to the costs associated with
hauling, storing and washing the aggregate, along with environmental considerations, staff
included an alternate bid to have the contractor provide sweeping and disposal of the excess
aggregate applied to the streets.
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 4c - Sealcoating Contract
Page 2 of 2
A total of three (3) contractors submitted bids. A review of the bids indicates Allied
Blacktop Company submitted the lowest bid, based on either Alternate A or B. Since the
difference in the bids is in line with staff’s estimate for sweeping and disposal, staff
would recommend Alternate B be used and require the contractor to sweep and dispose of
the excess aggregate.
Therefore, staff has determined that Allied Blacktop Company submitted the lowest
responsible bid and recommends that a contract be awarded to the firm in the amount of
$128,809.00, (Alternate B bid).
Financial Considerations: All costs of this sealcoating project will be paid from the
Citywide Public Works Operations budget.
Project Timing: This work will take place sometime between July 14 and August 30.
The entire process on a given street takes approximately 72 hours. Streets will be posted
for “No Parking” beginning the day before work is to occur.
Prepared By: Maria A. Hagen, City Engineer
Reviewed By: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved By: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 4d - Cornerstone Contract
Page 1 of 9
4d. Motion to approve agreement between the City of St. Louis Park and Cornerstone
Advocacy Service for Domestic Violence Services
Background:
For approximately 14 years the City of St. Louis Park has maintained a contractual relationship
with Sojourner to provide prevention, advocacy and intervention services in the area of domestic
violence. This contract is intended to provide the basis for a partnership between the police
department, Sojourner, the City Prosecutor, Hennepin County Corrections, the Public Defenders
Office, and others within the system.
The St. Louis Park Police Department, based upon our philosophical commitment to community
policing, implemented a new domestic violence service delivery model in the fall of 2002. The
Domestic Violence Intervention (DVI) model is designed to increase our effectiveness as
partners in the prosecution and prevention of domestic violence. St. Louis Park is the first
Hennepin County community to implement a DVI program.
With the addition of St. Louis Park, Cornerstone Advocacy Service represents all communities
assigned to Southdale Court (St. Louis Park, Edina, Richfield, Bloomington and Eden Prairie) in
the area of domestic violence services. The staff at Cornerstone has expressed enthusiasm for the
DVI program in St. Louis Park, and Cornerstone is universally praised by the communities and
criminal justice partners based at Southdale Court.
Cornerstone’s presence at Southdale Court and its enthusiasm for the DVI program position
them to be effective partners to the St. Louis Park Police Department and servants to our
community. Sojourner representatives have agreed that switching to Cornerstone may be in the
best interest of our community.
The attached agreement, if approved by the Council, formally acknowledges and defines a new
partnership between Cornerstone Advocacy Service and the City of St. Louis Park. The
agreement defines duties for both parties, outlines termination and miscellaneous considerations,
and incorporates the reduction in payment proposed during the 2004 budget analysis process.
This agreement was drafted by the St. Louis Park City Attorney's Office and has been reviewed
by Cornerstone representatives. Staff recommendation is that this agreement be approved by
Council on July 7, 2003, with an effective date retroactive to July 1, 2003.
Attachments: Agreement between Cornerstone Advocacy Service and the City of St. Louis
Park.
Prepared by: John D. Luse, Chief of Police
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 4d - Cornerstone Contract
Page 2 of 9
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
ST. LOUIS PARK AND
CORNERSTONE ADVOCACY SERVICE
THIS AGREEMENT, is made and entered into this 1st day of July, 2003, by and
between the CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, a Minnesota municipal corporation located at 5005
Minnetonka Boulevard, St. Louis Park, Minnesota 55416 (hereinafter referred to as the “City”),
and CORNERSTONE ADVOCACY SERVICE, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation located at
9730 Irving Avenue South, Bloomington, Minnesota 55431 (hereinafter referred to as
“Cornerstone”),
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park recognizes the need for priority services that
focus on supporting families and extended families with low-income, older adults, immigrants
and individuals with disabilities and that have the characteristics of being community-based,
culturally-relevant, focus on prevention and early intervention, build on strengths and resources
of families and are results-oriented; and
WHEREAS, Cornerstone provides community-based, results-oriented, advocacy
services and intervention services to victims of domestic abuse and their families to cities in
Hennepin County; and
WHEREAS, the City finds that the availability of such services to its residents is
desirable;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements herein
contained and for consideration, the parties hereto agree as follows:
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 4d - Cornerstone Contract
Page 3 of 9
Article I. TERM OF THE AGREEMENT
Cornerstone shall render services to City in accordance with its Domestic Assault
Intervention Project, for a period beginning July 1, 2003 and ending December 31, 2004 and
continuing thereafter on an annual basis under the same terms and conditions unless either party
gives written notice to the other by November 30 of any year of its intent to terminate the
contract at year end.
Article II. DUTIES OF CORNERSTONE
Cornerstone shall provide the following services:
A. Administer and supervise its Criminal Justice Intervention Program in the City of
St. Louis Park, as more fully described in Exhibit “A” attached hereto.
B. Work with the City Attorney and the court system to seek court outcomes that
offer maximum safety for victims and hold assailants accountable for violent
behavior. Assist the City Attorney in the development and annual review of a
domestic assault prosecution plan. Work with the City’s Police Department as set
forth in this Agreement.
C. Recruit, train, and supervise volunteers in accordance with its Criminal Justice
Intervention Program.
D. Upon notification by the City Police Department, trained volunteers, interns,
or Cornerstone staff will follow domestic assault arrests with telephone
contact with the victim. All reasonable efforts will be made to contact the
victim within one hour of receiving notice from the City. If the victim does
not have a telephone, Cornerstone shall make reasonable efforts to contact the
victim; taking into consideration the safety of the victim and availability of
Cornerstone staff and volunteers.
E. Throughout the arrest and court process, trained volunteers or Cornerstone
staff will provide domestic assault victims with information concerning
emergency shelter, protective orders, legal services, and support/educational
groups available to domestic assault victims.
F. Maintain a twenty-four hour telephone service to be staffed by trained
volunteers or Cornerstone staff. Cornerstone through its twenty-four hour
telephone service shall (1) provide information to callers regarding services
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 4d - Cornerstone Contract
Page 4 of 9
and alternatives available to victims of domestic assault, and (2) contact the
appropriate Cornerstone staff or volunteers as soon as domestic assaults are
called in by the City Police Department.
G. Provide support/educational groups for victims. Provide community
education designed to inform residents about the problem of domestic assault
and the services available through Cornerstone.
H. Develop and provide a training program to the City Police Department on the
Domestic Assault Intervention Project, if requested by the City Police
Department. The training program shall include policy/procedure updates,
judicial and legislative actions affecting domestic assault arrests.
I. Cornerstone staff and volunteers may not advocate to the Court or to the City
Attorney on behalf of any individual who is identified as a suspect or
defendant in any criminal matter involving the City. Cornerstone may contact
another advocacy organization regarding said individual. If Cornerstone is
unable to arrange advocacy through another individual or organization, a
Cornerstone representative who is not a primary advocate assigned to City
cases may be present in court to support a defendant in a criminal matter
involving the City. The volunteer shall not publicly announce their presence
or affiliation with Cornerstone. Cornerstone shall not use its relationship with
the City, the City Police Department, or the City Attorney's office to obtain
information on a defendant in a criminal matter involving the City. If
Cornerstone desires public data on such defendant, the request shall be in
writing, and shall disclose that it is on behalf of such defendant.
J. Act as a support network for City domestic assault victims and their children.
K. Provide quarterly reports to the City within 30 days after the end of each
quarter. The quarterly reports must contain data on referrals from the City
Police Department, actual service numbers, staff time, studies and other data
requested by City Staff to verify that the funding provided by the City is used
for City residents. Upon request, Cornerstone will allow City staff reasonable
access to all of its records for the purpose of verifying information submitted
in quarterly reports.
L. The Community Team Coordinator of Cornerstone shall meet at least
annually with designated City staff. Additional meetings may be held as
deemed necessary.
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 4d - Cornerstone Contract
Page 5 of 9
All of the above duties shall be performed by Cornerstone in consultation with the
City Police Chief or designee.
M. Cornerstone shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its officials,
volunteers, employees, and agents, from any and all claims, causes of action,
lawsuits, damages, losses, or expenses, including attorney fees, arising out of
or resulting from Cornerstone’s (including its officials, agents, volunteers or
employees) performance of the duties required under this Agreement,
provided that any such claim, damages, loss, or expense is attributable to
bodily injury, sickness, disease, or death or to injury to or destruction of
property including the loss of use resulting therefrom and is caused by any
negligent act or omission or willful misconduct of Cornerstone including its
officials, agents, volunteers or employees.
N. During the term of this Agreement, Cornerstone shall maintain general
comprehensive liability insurance in the following amounts:
Bodily injury in the amount of at least $300,000 per individual and
$1,000,000 for injuries or death arising out of each occurrence.
O. During the term of this Agreement, Cornerstone shall maintain property
damage liability insurance in the amount of $100,000 for each occurrence.
P. Cornerstone further agrees to name the city as additional insured on the
general comprehensive liability and property damage liability insurance
policies and to provide the City with certificates of said insurance.
Q. Cornerstone shall carry Worker’s Compensation Insurance as required by the
Minnesota Statute, Section 176.181, Subdivision 2. Cornerstone agrees to
provide the City with a certificate of said insurance.
R. Cornerstone agrees to maintain professional liability insurance in at least the
amount of $1,000,000 during the term of this Agreement. Cornerstone agrees
to provide the City with a certificate of said insurance.
S. Cornerstone agrees that said insurance policies are non-cancelable and the
policy shall not be cancelable until documents have been supplied to the City
Clerk for policies to replace those being canceled. The canceling and/or
replacing company shall be responsible for all work completed prior to the
cancellation of policies. Cornerstone agrees to notify the City at least twenty-
five (25) days prior to cancellation or a change in any of the aforementioned
insurance policies by the insurance company or by Cornerstone.
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 4d - Cornerstone Contract
Page 6 of 9
Article III. DUTIES OF CITY
A. Consideration. The total annual obligation of the City for all reimbursement
to Cornerstone in the year 2003 will be in the amount of Nineteen Thousand
Five Hundred Seventy-Nine and 50/100 Dollars ($19,579.50). For the year
2004 and any automatic renewal year thereafter the amount shall not exceed
Thirty-one Thousand Six Hundred Eight-five and No/100 Dollars
($31,685.00).
B. Terms of Payment. Consideration for all services performed by Cornerstone
pursuant to this Agreement shall be paid by the City as follows:
1. Reimbursement for the year 2003 will be as follows: Two payments of
Nine Thousand Seven Hundred Eighty-Nine and 75/100 Dollars
($9,789.75).
2. Reimbursement for the year 2004 and thereafter shall be four
payments of Seven Thousand Nine Hundred Twenty-one and 25/100
Dollars ($7,921.25).
3. Payments shall be made by the City within thirty (30) days after
Cornerstone’s presentation of invoices for services performed.
4. Invoices shall be submitted to the City by Cornerstone quarterly, no
later than the 10th day of the month following the end of the quarter.
Article IV. MISCELLANEOUS
A. Independent Contractor. It is agreed that nothing herein contained is intended
or should be construed in any manner as creating or establishing the
relationship of copartners between the parties hereto or as constituting
Cornerstone as the agent, representative, or employee of the City for any
purpose or in any manner whatsoever. Cornerstone is to be and shall remain
as independent contractor with respect to all services performed under this
Agreement. Cornerstone represents that it has, or will secure at its own
expense, all personnel required in performing services under this Agreement.
Any and all personnel of Cornerstone or other persons, while engaged in the
performance of any work or services required by Cornerstone under this
Agreement, shall have no contractual relationship with the City and shall not
be considered employees of the City, and all claims that may or might arise
under the Workers’ Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota on behalf of
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 4d - Cornerstone Contract
Page 7 of 9
said personnel or other persons while so engaged, and any and all claims
whatsoever on behalf of any such person or personnel arising out of employment
or alleged employment including, without limitation, claims of discrimination
against Cornerstone, its officers, agents, contracts, volunteers, or employees, shall
in no way be the responsibility of the City and Cornerstone shall defend,
indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents, volunteers and
employees harmless from any and all such claims regardless of any determination
of any pertinent tribunal, agency, board, commission, or court. Such personnel or
other persons shall not require nor be entitled to any compensation, rights, or
benefits of any kind whatsoever from the City, including, without limitations,
tenure rights, medical and hospital care, sick and vacation leave, Workers'
Compensation, Unemployment Compensation, disability, severance pay, and
PERA.
B. Laws. Cornerstone agrees that Cornerstone or anyone acting on behalf of
Cornerstone will comply with all federal, state, and. local laws, rules, and
regulations in performance of the services. The parties agree that this document
shall be governed by the laws of the State of Minnesota.
C. Human Rights. Cornerstone shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations
including the following:
1. The Minnesota State Human Rights Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 363.
2. Federal, state, and local affirmative action and equal employment
opportunity principles.
D. ADA. Cornerstone agrees to comply with the Americans With Disabilities Act
(ADA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and not to discriminate on
the basis of disability in the admission or access to, or treatment of employment in
its services, programs, or activities. Cornerstone agrees to hold harmless and
indemnify the City from costs, including but not limited to damages, attorney's
fees, and staff time, in any action or proceeding brought alleging a violation of
ADA and/or Section 504 caused by Cornerstone. Upon request, accommodation
will be provided to allow individuals with disabilities to participate in all services,
programs, and activities. The City has designated coordinators to facilitate
compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as required by
Section 35.107 of the U.S. Department of Justice regulations, and to coordinate
compliance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as mandated by
Section 8.53 of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
regulations.
E. TTY Requirements. Cornerstone agrees to utilize their own text telephone, the
Minnesota TTY Relay Service or Statewide *711 Service in order to comply with
accessibility requirements.
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 4d - Cornerstone Contract
Page 8 of 9
F. Data Practices. Cornerstone will comply with all applicable provisions of the
Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Chapter 13 of the Minnesota Statutes.
G. Sublet/Assign. Cornerstone may not assign or otherwise dispose of any portion of
this Agreement except with the written consent of the City. The consent to assign
or otherwise dispose of any portion of this Agreement shall not be construed to
relieve Cornerstone of any responsibility for the completion of the Agreement.
H. Audit. The books, records, documents, and accounting procedures and practices
of Cornerstone relevant to this Agreement, are subject to examination by the City
and either the legislative or state auditor as appropriate, pursuant to Minnesota
Statute 16C.05, Subdivision 5.
I. Entire Agreement. This Agreement represents the entire Agreement between
Cornerstone and the City and supersedes and cancels any and all prior agreements
or proposals, written or oral, between the parties relating to the subject matter
hereof; any amendments addenda, alterations, or modifications to the terms and
conditions of this Agreement shall be in writing and signed by both parties.
Article V. TERMINATION
A. This Agreement maybe terminated by the City upon the giving of thirty (30) days
written notice by the City of St. Louis Park to Cornerstone, for reasons of
Cornerstone's nonperformance or documented unsatisfactory performance, or
shortfalls in City revenues. The Agreement may be terminated by either party for
any reason pursuant to Article I.
B. Upon expiration or termination of this Agreement, any unexpended and
unencumbered funds provided to Cornerstone under the terms of this Agreement
shall be repaid to the City, such amount to be agreed upon by the
Chairperson(s)/Director of Cornerstone and the City’s Finance Director.
C. Upon termination of services, Cornerstone shall be compensated for the services
performed prior to notice of termination except for those services which
Cornerstone failed to satisfactorily perform.
D. The City reserves the right to cancel this Agreement at any time in event of
default or violation by Cornerstone of any provision of this Agreement. The City
may take whatever action at law or in equity that may appear necessary or
desirable to collect damages arising from a default or violation or to enforce
performance of this Agreement.
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 4d - Cornerstone Contract
Page 9 of 9
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have set forth their hands as of the day and year
first written above.
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK CORNERSTONE ADVOCACY SERVICE
By: By:
Jeffrey W. Jacobs, Mayor Its Coordinator/Director
By:
Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 4e - Encroachment Agreement, 3056 Kentucky
Page 1 of 1
4e. Motion to approve Encroachment Agreement with the Andersons, 3056 Kentucky
Avenue South, for use of City street right-of-way for placement of fence.
Background: The Andersons own the single family home at 3056 Kentucky Avenue South and
wish to construct a decorative wood fence along the south side of their property which would
encroach into the City street right-of-way by five (5) feet. The Andersons admit they do not
have a hardship but do have several reasons for their request. First, their property line is six (6)
feet from the house leaving little room for anything except for their stoop and walkway. Second,
they are asking for only a five (5) foot encroachment, which does not interfere with the
intersection sight triangle. And third, there are many homes along W. 31st Street that have
existing encroachments of fences, hedges and trees so they would have similar side yards as
others in the neighborhood.
City staff has reviewed this request and find no conflicts with utilities, snow storage or other
public facilities. The proposed encroachment agreement also allows the City to give a thirty (30)
day notice to remove any facilities (fence) which encroach on the public right-of-way as needed.
Encroachment Agreement Review: City Attorney, Tom Scott has prepared similar generic
agreements for Public Works for requests such as this. The intent is to have the encroachment
agreements documented so they can be monitored.
Attachment: Map (Supplement)
Prepared by: Carlton B. Moore, Superintendent of Engineering
Through: Maria A Hagen, City Engineer
Reviewed by: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 4f - DNR Flood Mitigation Grant
Page 1 of 2
4f.
Motion to adopt the attached Resolution to enter into an Agreement with the
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources for a Flood Hazard Mitigation
Grant
Background: In 1997, the City experienced very heavy rainstorms which resulted in
numerous buildings and homes being flooded. In response to this, the City Council ordered
a study of 22 flood problem areas and in 2000 adopted the Storm Water Utility to fund
proposed flood mitigation projects. Since the initial study, an additional 10 projects have
been requested but no additional funding was identified for them.
In January 2001, City staff initiated two requests for financial assistance from the State of
Minnesota to partially fund proposed flood improvement projects. The two potential
funding sources were: 1) a request for $2.5M to be included in the 2002 Capital Budget
(Bonding Bill) and, 2) an application for $2.5M to the Department of Natural Resources
(DNR) Flood Grant Program.
The City was successful in securing $1.6M from the DNR’s Flood Grant Program in 2002.
However, these funds were placed “on hold” by then Governor Ventura. In recent months,
working through local legislators, these funds were released and have now become
available to the City. The grant provides “matching” dollars in that for each dollar spent by
the City, an additional dollar will be provided towards these projects by the grant.
Discussion: DNR staff have prepared an agreement outlining terms and conditions for
release of the grant dollars. Important aspects of the agreement include the following:
• The proceeds of the grant are to be used solely for the projects identified in the original
grant proposal to the DNR, (see attached list). This project list can be modified by the
City, if approved by the DNR.
• The City is required to match the State share of the costs of these projects.
• The City agrees to acknowledge the State’s financial support of the project in any press
release or bid request; and, display a sign stating such wording at all construction sites.
• The grant shall remain in effect until June 30, 2006. This is date by which the DNR
wishes to have all projects completed.
The City Attorney has reviewed the agreement and has no recommended changes.
Attachment: Resolution
Project List & Map (Supplement)
Prepared By: Maria A. Hagen, City Engineer
Reviewed By: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved By: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 4f - DNR Flood Mitigation Grant
Page 2 of 2
RESOLUTION NO. 03-076
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT WITH
THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES FOR
A FLOOD HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has requested financial
assistance from the State of Minnesota through the Department of Natural Resources’ Flood
Grant Program to construct various flood improvement projects throughout the City, and
WHEREAS, the Department of Natural Resources has indicated its willingness to
provide funding to the City for the installation and construction of various flood
improvement projects under the terms and conditions outlined in a grant agreement, and
WHEREAS, the City Council may enter into such agreements as authorized by its
Charter, and
WHEREAS, the City will act as legal sponsor for the projects contained in the
Flood Damage Reduction Grant Assistance Program Application, now therefore
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park that the Mayor
and City Manager are authorized to execute the Flood Hazard Mitigation Grant agreement
with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources in accordance with the terms and
conditions listed therein.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council July 7, 2003
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 4g - Planning Commission Minutes of 6-4-03
Page 1 of 7
OFFICIAL MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
June 4, 2003 -- 6:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Ken Gothberg, Dennis Morris, Carl Robertson
Michelle Bissonnette arrived at 6:18 p.m.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Phillip Finkelstein, Jerry Timian
STAFF PRESENT: Judie Erickson, Julie Grove, Nancy Sells
1. Call to order - Roll Call
Chair Robertson called the meeting to order at 6:06 p.m.
Chair Robertson noted that John Basill has resigned from the Planning Commission to fill
a vacancy on the City Council.
2. Approval of Minutes of May 21, 2003
Approval of the minutes occurred after Item No. 5 New Business. Commissioner
Bissonnette moved to approve the minutes of May 21, 2003. The motion passed 4-0.
3. Hearings:
A. Case Nos. 03-17-S and 03-18-VAR—Request by Troy Mathwig for preliminary
and final plat approval with variances to the subdivision ordinance to reduce the
minimum lot width for a corner lot from 70 feet to 68 feet and reduce the sidewalk
width and boulevard width to an unspecified number --4256 Quentin Avenue S.
(continued from May 21, 2003)
Planning Coordinator Judie Erickson presented a staff report regarding Mr. Mathwig’s
request for variances from the subdivision ordinance’s minimum corner lot width
requirement, minimum boulevard width requirement, and minimum sidewalk width
requirement. Ms. Erickson stated that a plat is required because the property consists of
three previously platted 40-foot lots. The preliminary plat does not show a sidewalk and
would need to be corrected to reflect one prior to potential approval of the request. Ms.
Erickson said staff is recommending denial of the variances and, subsequently, denial of
the preliminary and final plat.
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 4g - Planning Commission Minutes of 6-4-03
Page 2 of 7
Commissioner Morris asked what the required rear yard setback is. Ms. Erickson said it
is 25 feet, as shown on the plat, however, the average setback on Quentin Avenue is 35
feet, which adds an additional requirement for open space on the proposed east lot.
Commissioner Morris said perhaps a variance on the rear yard setback would make more
sense as opposed to a variance for the front yard. He added, in addition to utility and
drainage easements perhaps staff could consider sidewalk and drainage easements and not
a public right-of-way dedication for road width. Commissioner Morris said, if there is
room for manipulation on the plan, perhaps this could be reviewed again rather than
denying it.
Ms. Erickson said it is more a policy decision whether the Comprehensive Plan and
ordinances should be changed to allow this, and it is difficult to find legitimate grounds
for variances for this project. Staff is willing to take some sort of policy direction as a
recommendation from the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Morris said he would make that recommendation.
Commissioner Gothberg asked if both lots meet green space requirements, and Ms.
Erickson replied yes.
Troy Mathwig, applicant, said to divide the lot into two lots would not make the lots any
smaller than any other two lots. Mr. Mathwig said the tree coverage is mainly brush and
old trees, which are in poor shape. He said the addition of the two homes to be built
would increase the appeal of the whole block. Mr. Mathwig perceives the issue to be the
two feet and he would be happy to amend the house size.
Chair Robertson opened the public hearing.
Charlotte Paulson, 4244 Quentin Avenue South, has lived in her home since 1965. Ms.
Paulson said the corner of Morningside Road and Quentin Avenue has been varianced to
death. Ms. Paulson said neighbors do not have much of a backyard, and only single car
garages—overflow cars are parked on the street, which congests the street. She said the
other side of the street experiences the same problems. Ms. Paulson stated that the lots
are deep but narrow. Ms. Paulson pointed out to Mr. Mathwig that he is in violation of
the long grass ordinance; his grass is probably 12 inches high and the ordinance states
grass to be no higher than four inches. She wants to maintain a well-kept area, and she
stated that she is being cemented in. Ms. Paulson does not want someone to come in for
a fast buck and put up two homes.
Phil Nelson, 4248 Quentin Avenue South, asked about drainage and retaining wall. Ms.
Erickson said staff would need to go back to the City Engineer. Ms. Erickson said the
applicant would be exempt from some of the on-site ponding requirements because it is a
small lot. Mr. Nelson wonders if snow removal from Mr. Mathwig’s driveway would
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 4g - Planning Commission Minutes of 6-4-03
Page 3 of 7
cause problems for him; he said if there is icing, there will be a huge water dam in the
spring regardless of drainage. Mr. Nelson said he does not want homes to be moved
further back, and he would like to keep as much green space between the properties as
possible.
Robert Stoltz, 4261 Browndale, hopes the water will drain onto Morningside Road and
not west, where he is. Mrs. Stoltz prefers to minimize shading from a tree on the corner
lot so that her flower garden can be nourished with plenty of sunshine. Mr. Stoltz asked
if the house will be a single or double story. Chair Robertson said staff will provide
elevations of the buildings. Ms. Erickson added that it is graded so the drainage would go
to the street.
Dana Ecklund, 4255 Quentin Avenue South, said she views the trees as being lovely. Ms.
Ecklund stated that she is not happy about the prospect of two homes being crowded at
that site. She wishes that the City had been stricter about variances in the past.
Patsy Monson, president of the Browndale Neighborhood Association, said neighbors
have come to her with concerns mainly regarding drainage issues and the shoehorning of
two homes in this area. Ms. Munson characterized her neighborhood as a small house
neighborhood.
Chair Robertson closed the public hearing
Commissioner Morris said he realizes that sidewalk easements would dead end at the
property lines, therefore, he withdraws his request. He said the Planning Commission is
not denying anybody the use of their property, but he encourages staff to see if anything
can be tweaked to make it possible without being contrary to our existing variance
ordinances and platting plans. He supports staff’s recommendations.
It was moved by Commissioner Gothberg to recommend denial of the preliminary and
final plat and variances for Mathwig Addition based upon the findings set forth in the
staff report. He added, essentially following staff recommendations.
Commissioner Morris made a friendly amendment to vote in favor of Commissioner
Gothberg’s motion with a condition that staff look at some possibilities of adapting this
site whether it means smaller homes, as the applicant indicated he may be able to do, just
to give it another look prior to Council.
Commissioner Gothberg accepted Commissioner Morris’ amendment provided it
stipulates that if staff finds a way that working with Mr. Mathwig does not require any
variances at all, then, obviously, it would come to the Planning Commission again as a
different, final plat.
Commissioner Morris said that was his intent, and to vote on the matter if it comes back.
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 4g - Planning Commission Minutes of 6-4-03
Page 4 of 7
The motion passed 4-0.
B. Case Nos. 03-19-PUD and 03-20-S—Public hearing on request of TOLD
Development Company for Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD approval for
Phase II of Excelsior & Grand (Phase NE, Park Commons East)
Ms. Erickson said a continuance of the public hearing is being requested until plan
revisions are received, and that would be June 18, 2003 at the earliest.
Chair Robertson opened the public hearing. Chair Robertson said the public hearing will
continue until plans are reviewed by staff.
C. Case No. 03-14-PUD and 03-23-VAR—Request of The Luther Company for a
Preliminary PUD with variances from the Section 36-194(c)(21)(a), (b), and (d) of
zoning code to reduce the building height restriction for a parking ramp located within
200 feet of residential, to reduce the setback requirement for a parking ramp located
within 200 feet of residential from 50 feet to 7 feet and to reduce the bufferyard
requirements for a parking ramp from a Bufferyard F to a Bufferyard B and from
Sections 36-194(d)(2)(m) and (n) to reduce bufferyard requirements along public
ways from a Bufferyard C to a bufferyard B and to reduce bufferyard requirements
adjacent to residential uses from a Bufferyard F to a Bufferyard B for property located
at 2370 and 2440 State Highway 100 S.
Ms. Erickson presented a staff report. An Addendum No. 1 to the report, which
withdraws a variance that was initially requested that would have reduced the size of the
landscape bufferyard along public ways along the perimeters of the property, was
distributed to the Commissioners at the meeting. Ms. Erickson said the hardship
condition is the floodplain that occupies about 1/3 (one third) of the southern property.
Staff has received a revised landscape plan from the applicant.
Ms. Erickson discussed the parking ramp and its associated variances. The maximum
height of the proposed parking ramp would be about 35 feet. Ms. Erickson said the
ordinance requires the parking ramp height to be below an imaginary line that extends
from the residential property line at a slope of 1 vertical foot for each 5 horizontal feet.
Ms. Erickson discussed landscaping and buffering. She said the applicant is providing
sidewalk and trails as has been requested.
Ms. Erickson summarized the variance requests. She said staff thinks the criteria for
variances are being met, and staff is recommending approval of the variances and,
ultimately, approval of the Planned Unit Development (“PUD”). She said the applicant is
proposing to store the 100-year flood event under the parking ramp.
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 4g - Planning Commission Minutes of 6-4-03
Page 5 of 7
Ms. Erickson said, absent a major amendment to the PUD, auto body and painting, as an
accessory use, would be prohibited on this site, and staff would like to add this as a
condition of approval to Addendum No. 1. Staff would also like to add that construction
hours are prohibited between 10:00 p.m. – 7:00 a.m. on weekdays, and 10:00 p.m. – 9:00
a.m. on weekends and holidays.
Commissioner Gothberg said the issue of the flood plain does not justify a variance for
the height of the ramp. He said the Planning Commission by-laws require that materials
be provided to Commissioners 5 days in advance. He said he doesn’t believe the
Planning Commission can take action yet as materials were provided too late.
Commissioner Morris agreed.
Commissioner Morris asked how many employees The Luther Company employs. Tim
O’Dougherty, applicant, responded there are about 100-125 employees. Commissioner
Morris asked about provisions for mass transit, new employees, and a lighting plan. Ms.
Erickson said conditions of approval require a lighting plan both for the site and for the
ramp roof.
Commissioner Morris asked about a pedestrian crossing for employees. Ms. Erickson
said internal sidewalks and crosswalks can be added as a condition. Commissioner
Morris mentioned having a handicapped accessible sidewalk installed in conjunction with
a pedestrian crosswalk.
Jonathan Baker, architect for The Luther Company, discussed the applicant’s plans for
sidewalks, ADA curb ramps, green space, retaining walls, decorative fences, and
aggressive landscaping. Employee parking would be situated on the main level of the
garage, which would be two stories not three, and the first level is at grade. Handicapped
parking would also be available in the garage. He added that he misinterpreted landscape
bufferyards and that is why materials were submitted late. Mr. Baker said that a lot of
details have been provided for a preliminary PUD approval and the applicant would like
to proceed to final approval quickly.
Commissioner Gothberg commented that he likes the project, but prior to preliminary
plat approval, he needs to understand the basis for a variance.
Mr. O’Dougherty said The Luther Company is not converting the use and is diminishing
the size of the main building. The attempt is to better the appearance, and the proposed
current plans would dramatically improve the current facility.
Chair Robertson opened the public hearing.
Raleigh Henning 2460 State Highway 100 South, is the owner of a medical building to
the south of The Luther Company. Mr. Henning asked how one builds in a floodplain.
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 4g - Planning Commission Minutes of 6-4-03
Page 6 of 7
Mr. Baker responded that construction is elevated on posts. Chair Robertson stated a
floodplain site can be built upon with engineering and planning to accommodate water
flow. Ms. Erickson confirmed that the applicant will have to construct the parking ramp
on stilts.
Mr. Henning said there will be changes to the freeway in 2005, what about cars exiting
the freeway? Ms. Erickson said freeway changes are not slated until 2010 so a detailed
design is not available and the City cannot analyze that impact on the Luther plan (west
side). Mr. O’Dougherty stated that crosswalks can be added wherever they are needed.
Commissioner Morris recommends the Public Works Department look at the pedestrian
access safety issues on Stephen’s Drive. Chair Robertson said a good place for a second
crosswalk would be on the south side of the south curb cuts.
Mr. Henning asked if the applicant can build 12 feet from his commercial lot. Chair
Robertson said the 12 foot requirement regards the setback from the residential use.
Chair Robertson said he agreed with other commissioners that because of the timing of
materials provided to commissioners, the request needs to be continued.
Commissioner Morris asked if a preliminary and final can be presented simultaneously at
the next meeting, and Ms. Erickson said no. Ms. Erickson said staff will pursue bringing
the preliminary PUD request to the Council on July 7, 2003.
Commissioner Gothberg recommends staff make changes to the language to include how
issues relative to the no net change in total parking spaces on site and the parking ramp
actually deals with the two issues, the floodplain as well as accommodating all of the
requirements for landscaping, and combine all into one report.
Commissioner Gothberg moved to continue to June 18, 2003 and have a final vote at that
time. The motion passed 4-0.
4. Unfinished Business
5. New Business
A. Consent Agenda
B. Other New Business
i. Consideration of resolution stating that establishment of Wolfe Lake
Commercial Tax Increment Financing District and the Modification of
Redevelopment Project No. 1 is in compliance with the City’s
Comprehensive Plan.
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 4g - Planning Commission Minutes of 6-4-03
Page 7 of 7
Economic Development Coordinator Greg Hunt reported on the Wolfe Lake Commerical
Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District.
It was moved by Commissioner Gothberg to adopt Resolution No. 66 finding the
proposed establishment of the Wolfe Lake Commercial Tax Increment Financing District
and the modification of Redevelopment Project No. 1 to be in conformance with the
Comprehensive Plan of the City of St. Louis Park. The motion passed 4-0.
6. Communications
A. Recent City Council Action – June 2
B. Other
Chair Robertson requested that a resolution of appreciation be provided for John Basill’s
service on the Planning Commission.
It was noted that Mr. Basill’s departure creates a vacancy on the Housing Summit
Steering Committee.
Commissioner Morris suggested that Carl Robertson be the primary representative on the
Housing Summit Steering Committee.
Chair Robertson nominated Commissioner Morris to be the alternate representative to the
Housing Committee.
It was moved by Commissioner Gothberg that Chair Robertson be the primary
representative and Commissioner Morris be the alternate representative to the Housing
Summit Steering Committee. The motion passed 4-0.
7. Miscellaneous
8. Adjournment
Chair Robertson adjourned the meeting at 8:05 p.m.
Minutes prepared by: Respectfully submitted by:
Linda Samson Nancy Sells
Recording Secretary Administrative Secretary
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 4h - Planning Commission Minutes of June 18, 2003
Page 1 of 5
OFFICIAL MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
June 18, 2003 -- 6:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Phillip Finkelstein, Ken Gothberg, Dennis Morris, Carl Robertson
MEMBERS ABSENT: Michelle Bissonnette, Jerry Timian
STAFF PRESENT: Judie Erickson, Julie Grove, Nancy Sells
1. Call to order - Roll Call
Chair Robertson called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m.
2. Approval of Minutes of June 4, 2003
It was moved by Commissioner Gothberg to approve the minutes of June 4, 2003 as
presented. The motion passed 4-0.
3. Hearings:
A. Case No. 03-14-PUD and 03-23-VAR—Request of The Luther Company for a
Preliminary PUD with variances from the Section 36-194(c)(21)(a), (b), and (d) of
zoning code to reduce the building height restriction for a parking ramp located
within 200 feet of residential, to reduce the setback requirement for a parking
ramp located within 200 feet of residential from 50 feet to 7 feet and to reduce the
bufferyard requirements for a parking ramp from a Bufferyard F to a Bufferyard B
and from Sections 36-194(d)(2)(m) and (n) to reduce bufferyard requirements
along public ways from a Bufferyard C to a bufferyard B and to reduce bufferyard
requirements adjacent to residential uses from a Bufferyard F to a Bufferyard B
for property located at 2370 and 2440 State Highway 100 S.
(continued from 6/4)
Planning Coordinator Judie Erickson said this item is a continuance of the public hearing
of June 4, 2003, and she presented background information on the continuance and
reviewed the applicant’s proposal. Ms. Erickson said staff thinks all of the criteria for a
variance for the parking ramp are being met, and staff is recommending approval of the
preliminary PUD with variances. Ms. Erickson said staff would like to make a minor
change to the conditions listed in the staff report. On page 17, item 14, add the following:
and the nonconforming signage shall be removed prior to issuance of a building permit.
In regard to condition 12e, on page 17 of the staff report, i.e., test driving is prohibited on
local residential streets, Commissioner Gothberg asked: What is considered a local
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 4h - Planning Commission Minutes of June 18, 2003
Page 2 of 5
resident street? He added that some test drivers may be leery of test driving on Highway
100.
Ms. Erickson said it is possible to get from the site to Cedar Lake Road without going on
Highway 100, and staff may propose that the car dealership direct test drivers in this
manner. Ms. Erickson stated that staff has talked about making a requirement that the
applicant provide maps of areas where they would prefer people test drive.
Commissioner Morris asked if anyone has brought up the issue of renaming Stephens
Drive. Ms. Erickson replied yes, and the applicant is aware of the history of the name.
She said a renaming would require approval by ordinance by the Council.
Chair Robertson asked if staff has received information about an additional pedestrian
crossing on Stephens Drive. Ms. Erickson said staff has not seen a drawing yet, however,
it would be a condition of approval.
Commissioner Finkelstein asked: What is the shortest distance the parking ramp would
be to an apartment building or office building? Ms. Erickson replied that in various
locations it would be six to twelve feet from the property line and that the apartment
building was an additional 130 feet away.
Chair Robertson asked if the applicant has concerns with the recommendations or if the
applicant is in agreement with the recommendations.
Jonathan Baker, architect for the project, said they have reviewed staff’s
recommendations and are in agreement with the staff report and have agreed to work
through additional issues that have been brought up at tonight’s meeting. Mr. Baker said
the nonconforming signs are not a problem. Mr. Baker reported that the parking ramp
height will be 28’6”, and it will be two levels above ground.
Chair Robertson closed the public hearing.
It was moved by Commissioner Gothberg, seconded by Commissioner Morris, to
recommend approval of the Preliminary PUD with variances from Sections 36-194(c)
(21) (a), (b), and (d) of the zoning code subject to the conditions in the staff report and
with the additional modification of item 14. The motion passed 4-0.
B. Case No. 03-24-ZA—Proposed amendments to St. Louis Park Zoning Code
relative to clarifying sign standards, providing consistency between ordinance
sections, providing standards for signs on canopies and awnings, allowing
additional total sign area for permanent real estate signs, and amending standards
for signs approved under old sign plans
Ms. Erickson said staff is recommending a continuance of this item until July 2, 2003.
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 4h - Planning Commission Minutes of June 18, 2003
Page 3 of 5
Chair Robertson opened the public hearing.
Mary Van Pilsum, 2930 Quentin Avenue South, asked about permanent real estate signs.
Ms. Erickson said no specific request has been made in regard to permanent real estate
signs. Ms. Erickson explained that staff is attempting to determine appropriate limits on
what would be allowable, and draft language will be provided shortly.
Ms. Van Pilsum asked about enforcement of violations to the sign ordinance. Ms.
Erickson responded that after violations are reported or noted, warnings and citations will
be made if the sign is not removed.
It was moved by Commissioner Morris to continue the public hearing until July 2, 2003.
The motion passed 4-0.
C. Case No. 03-25-CUP—Request by DEH Properties LLC for Major Amendment to
an existing Special Permit for construction of a storage, parking and restroom
addition to an existing office building at 500 Ford Road
Planning Associate Julie Grove presented a staff report regarding the request of DEH
Properties, LLC, for an amendment to construct a garage and storage addition of
approximately 1,700 square feet. Ms. Grove said she received landscape plans on June
18, 2003, and the applicant is close to meeting the bufferyard requirements and some of
the other requirements for the tree preservation plan. Ms. Grove is working with the
applicant to meet those requirements. Ms. Grove stated that staff is recommending a
condition that the plans would have to be submitted and approved by the Zoning
Administrator prior to Council consideration. Ms. Grove said the fire department stated
that the automatic fire sprinkler system would have to be extended into the addition,
which would be a condition of approval.
Commissioner Morris asked what this property is zoned, and Ms. Grove said it is
commercial zoning. Commissioner Morris asked about vehicle maintenance or repair in
this area. Ms. Grove responded that under a Special Permit the applicant may not have
repairs, and she referred to condition 5, on page 3, of the staff report.
Bill Rambo, Denny Hecker Automotive Group, said they are not seeking to do any repairs
in the building, it is strictly for the owner’s cars and it would not be for long-term storage.
Mr. Rambo added there will not be any signage and the deck will be removed. Mr.
Rambo stated that the bufferyard D plan will be submitted to staff by the end of the week,
and it will conform with staff’s specifications.
Chair Robertson opened the public hearing.
Gary Steffen, Holiday Inn West, 9970 Wayzata Blvd. asked where the addition will be
located. Ms. Grove responded with the aid of a location map contained in the staff report.
Chair Robertson closed the public hearing.
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 4h - Planning Commission Minutes of June 18, 2003
Page 4 of 5
In regard to recommendation 2 in the staff report, Chair Robertson asked if it is yet
known if a Watershed District permit is required, and Ms. Grove said staff does not yet
know if such a permit shall be required.
It was moved by Commissioner Finkelstein to recommend approval of the Conditional
Use Permit subject to conditions as recommended by staff. The motion passed 4-0.
4. Unfinished Business
5. New Business
A. Consent Agenda
B. Other New Business
i. Case No. 03-27-VAC – Request by Robert and Mary Norby to vacate an
alley easement at 2701 Brunswick Avenue S.
Ms. Erickson presented a report regarding Robert and Mary Norby’s request to
vacate an alley easement. Ms. Erickson said the Public Works staff and the City
Attorney have worked with the petitioners on the procedure.
Commissioner Morris said he speculates that the pavement was put in and now
the easement is being aligned to match the pavement and, if not that, then, it
would not make sense to make this minor realignment for an alley without taking
the curb out and without aligning it to the north/south.
Ms. Erickson said all agreements were worked out with Public Works Dept. and
the City Attorney.
It was moved by Commissioner Morris to recommend approval of ordinance
vacating the alley easement at 2701 Brunswick Avenue South. The motion passed
4-0.
ii. Resolution of Appreciation – John Basill
A Resolution of Appreciation for Commissioner Basill’s service was circulated
for signatures.
6. Communications
A. Recent City Council Action – June 16, 2003
B. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes – March 27, 2003
C. Other
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 4h - Planning Commission Minutes of June 18, 2003
Page 5 of 5
Commissioner Morris announced the dedication of the sculpture, “The Allegory of
Excelsior,” will take place at 6:15 p.m. on Thursday, June 19th, on Excelsior and Grand,
at the Town Green.
7. Miscellaneous
8. Adjournment
Chair Robertson adjourned the meeting at 6:50 p.m.
Minutes prepared by: Respectfully submitted by:
Linda Samson Nancy Sells
Recording Secretary Administrative Secretary
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 4i - BOZA Minutes of 4-23-03
Page 1 of 3
MINUTES APRIL 24, 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, April 24, 2003, at St. Louis Park City Hall, 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard, St.
Louis Park, Minnesota.
Members Present: Chair James Gainsley
Vice Chair Susan Bloyer
Commissioner Ryan Burt
Commissioner Tom Powers
Commissioner Paul Roberts
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Tara Olson, Community Development Secretary
1. CALL TO ORDER – ROLL CALL
Chair Gainsley called the regular meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
2. APPROVE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMITTEE MINUTES
Motion by Commissioner Bloyer, seconded by Commissioner Gainsley, to approve the following
minutes as presented with the following corrections:
Page 4, Correct spelling error
1) Board of Zoning Appeals Committee public hearing and regular meeting minutes dated
March 27, 2003.
Motion Carried. Voting Yes: Gainsley, Bloyer, Burt, Powers and Robert. Voting No: None.
3. CONSENT AGENDA
None
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS/COMMITTEE BUSINESS
A. Case No. 02-25-VAR - The request of Jeffrey Hickstein for variances from the
requirements of Section 36-163(f) of the Ordinance Code relating to zoning for an
attached garage to be located within required yards and open spaces. The current
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 4i - BOZA Minutes of 4-23-03
Page 2 of 3
proposal is for the garage to front on Sunset, however, the original hearing that
proposed the garage to front off of France is still open. This hearing is for the property
located in the “R-1” Single Family Residential District at 2856 France Avenue South.
Mr. Morrison presented the report and concluded that all seven findings have been met and
recommends that the Board of Zoning Appeals approves the applicants’ request for variances to
permit an attached garage with a 7 foot interior side yard setback, and a 19 foot front yard
setback, instead of the required 9 feet for the interior side yard setback, and 41 feet for the front
yard setback subject to the following conditions:
1. These variances apply only to the garage as proposed to be constructed below grade and
on the south side of the home.
2. Removal of the existing garage on the north side of the home prior to occupancy of the
new garage.
3. Removal of the existing driveway to the north garage. This does not preclude potential
future approval of a circular driveway to allow drop-off from France Ave. to the main
home entrance.
Commissioner Bloyer asked staff if the existing driveway curb cut would be removed.
Mr. Morrison stated that the existing curb cut will likely remain and incorporated into the
horseshoe driveway but an additional driveway curb cut will be made.
With no more questions, Chair Gainsley opened the public hearing.
Jeffrey Hickstein, applicant of 2856 France Avenue, stated he agrees with staff’s findings and
feels the staff report is complete.
With no more questions, Chair Gainsley closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Bloyer stated she is in support of the variance based on staff’s findings.
Commissioner Powers stated he agrees with staff’s recommendations.
Chair Gainsley stated he feels the applicant has submitted great plan alternatives which is viable
in a difficult situation.
Commissioner Roberts stated he agrees with staff’s recommendation.
Commissioner Burt stated he agrees with staff’s findings.
Motion by Commissioner Burt, seconded by Commissioner Powers, to approve Resolution #03-
03 for variances to permit an attached garage with a 7 foot interior side yard setback, and a 19
foot front yard setback, instead of the required 9 feet for the interior side yard setback, and 41
feet for the front yard setback subject to the following conditions:
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 4i - BOZA Minutes of 4-23-03
Page 3 of 3
1. These variances apply only to the garage as proposed to be constructed below grade and
on the south side of the home.
2. Removal of the existing garage on the north side of the home prior to occupancy of the
new garage.
3. Removal of the existing driveway to the north garage. This does not preclude potential
future approval of a circular driveway to allow drop-off from France Ave. to the main
home entrance.
Motion Carried. Voting Yes: Gainsley, Bloyer, Burt, Powers and Roberts. Voting No: None.
5. Old Business
None
6. New Business None
7. Communications
Mr. Morrison informed the Commissioners that Walser Ford variance appeal was presented to
City Council on April 21, 2003. City Council decided to table the application for further
discussion which will be held in May.
8. Miscellaneous None
9. Adjournment
Commissioner Bloyer moved and Commissioner Roberts seconded the motion for adjournment.
The regular meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals adjourned at 7:16 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Tara Olson
Community Development Secretary
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 6a - Wolfe Lake TIF District
Page 1 of 8
6a. Public Hearing - Wolfe Lake Commercial Tax Increment Finance District
This report considers a resolution establishing the Wolfe Lake Commercial Tax
Increment Financing District (a redevelopment district) within Redevelopment
Project No. 1.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to close the public hearing. Motion to adopt the
resolution modifying Redevelopment Project No. 1 and
establishing the Wolfe Lake Commercial Tax Increment
Financing District and adopting a Tax Increment Financing Plan
therefor.
Background:
Belt Line Industrial Park, Inc. is proposing to redevelop 4.86 acres at the northwest quadrant of
West 36th Street and Belt Line Boulevard. Plans call for the construction of a one-story, 9,872
square foot commercial building on the vacant portion of the property along West 36th Street.
Shortly after completion, the existing 32,845 square foot multi-tenant building on the site would
be demolished and a two-story, 54,742 square foot office building would be constructed in its
place. These two buildings would have a total of 64,614 square feet and cost approximately
$11,035,000 to construct. The buildings would be called respectively: Wolfe Lake Professional
Center West and Wolfe Lake Professional Center.
Planning Approvals:
The City Council approved a comprehensive plan amendment to change the land use designation
on the subject site from industrial to commercial on January 22, 2002. A Zoning Map
amendment to change the zoning map designation of the parcels from IP (Industrial Park) to C2
(General Commercial) received Council approval on March 4, 2002. The Council then reviewed
and approved the preliminary PUD and Plat for the Wolfe Lake Professional Center project at its
July 15, 2002 meeting. The Planning Commission reviewed and approved the Final PUD and
Plat at its May 21, 2003 meeting which were subsequently approved by the Council on June
16th. When the City Council approved the Final PUD, it required that the developer work with
staff to upgrade the architecture of the retail building. Subsequent to the City Council meeting,
staff met with the architect/developer and suggested various architectural changes. The
developer has incorporated the changes into its plans. However, these modifications have
increased the cost of the retail building by as much as $40,000 (both hard and soft costs). The
developer has requested additional TIF assistance to help offset these costs (see Synopsis of the
Proposed TIF District in this report).
TIF District Approvals:
The EDA/Council reviewed a preliminary TIF application from Belt Line Industrial Park at its
March 10 study session where it received general support. At the May 5, 2003 study session
staff presented the EDA/Council with Belt Line’s final TIF application which was favorably
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 6a - Wolfe Lake TIF District
Page 2 of 8
received. At its May 19th meeting, the Council set a public hearing date of July 7, 2003 for the
proposed TIF Redevelopment District.
The Planning Commission reviewed the Tax Increment Financing Plan on June 4th and found
that it was in conformance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
Attached is a copy of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the establishment of Wolfe Lake
Commercial Tax Increment Financing District within Redevelopment Project No. 1.
Synopsis of the Proposed TIF District:
The Wolfe Lake Commercial TIF District consists of three parcels of land and a portion of a
fourth (soon to be replatted and recorded as a single parcel) at the northwest corner of West 36th
Street and Belt Line Boulevard. A map of the TIF district is provided in the Project Plan which
is attached to this report. Belt Line Industrial Park is now requesting $996,000 in TIF assistance
for a period not to exceed 18 years (whichever comes first). At the May 5th Study Session, the
developer’s request of $976,000 was discussed and favorably received. Since that time, the
developer’s costs have increased approximately $40,000 due to architectural changes. Given the
fact that these additional costs were not anticipated the developer requested additional TIF
assistance. As the developer’s proforma illustrates a modest 9.5% return, staff felt the
developer’s request had merit and recommends splitting the costs evenly. The result of adding
$20,000 in TIF would likely add no more than one-half year to the payback schedule and the
proposed 18-year maximum term would remain unaffected. Also, it should be noted that when a
modest 2% appreciation factor is incorporated into the Tax Increment Cash Flow schedule, the
payback could be completed within approximately 14 years.
It is estimated that the market value of the site will increase from approximately $1.7 million to
$9.3 million by implementing this project.
Duration of the District:
As authorized by statute, the duration of redevelopment districts is 25 years after receipt of the
first increment by the City (a total of 26 years of tax increment). The date of receipt by the City
of the first full tax increment is expected in 2006. Thus, it is estimated that the District would
terminate after 2031, or when the TIF plan is satisfied. If increment is received in 2005, the term
of the District will be 2030. The EDA and City have the right to decertify the District prior to
the legally required date.
Fiscal Disparities Election:
In keeping with the City’s TIF Policy, the District will contribute to fiscal disparities.
Findings:
In meeting the statutory criteria the EDA and City can rely on the following facts and findings:
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 6a - Wolfe Lake TIF District
Page 3 of 8
• The District is a redevelopment district consisting of three full parcels and a part of a fourth
parcel.
• A physical site analysis was undertaken and certified, as required by Minnesota Statutes, that
a new district could be created. LHB Engineers & Architects conducted the TIF inspection
and evaluated the existing property. According to the report, “the property was inspected and
evaluated and found to meet the qualification tests for tax increment eligibility, parcel
occupied site coverage and condition of building, as required by Minnesota Statute Section
469.174, Subdivision 10, clause (a) (1)”. Thus, the results of the inspection confirm that the
subject site qualifies as a Redevelopment TIF District.
• The District does not contain any parcel that was delinquent for taxes payable in any of the
five calendar years before the filing of the request for certification of the District.
Recommendation:
Upon review and approval of the EDA’s financial and legal consultants, staff recommends
approval of the attached resolution establishing the Wolfe Lake Commercial TIF District as
presented
Attachments:
• Resolution
• TIF Plan
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Tom Harmening, Community Development Director
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 6a - Wolfe Lake TIF District
Page 4 of 8
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 03-077
RESOLUTION ADOPTING A MODIFICATION TO THE
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1
AND ESTABLISHING THE WOLFE LAKE COMMERCIAL TAX
INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT THEREIN AND ADOPTING A
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN THEREFOR.
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the "Council") of the City of St. Louis Park,
Minnesota (the "City"), as follows:
Section 1. Recitals.
1.01. The Board of Commissioners (the "Board") of the City of St. Louis Park (the
"EDA") has heretofore established Redevelopment Project No. 1 and adopted a Redevelopment
Plan therefor. It has been proposed by the EDA and the City that the City adopt a Modification
to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the "Redevelopment Plan
Modification") and establish the Wolfe Lake Commercial Tax Increment Financing District (the
"District") therein and adopt a Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "TIF Plan") therefor (the
Redevelopment Plan Modification and the TIF Plan are referred to collectively herein as the, the
''Plans"); all pursuant to and in conformity with applicable law, including Minnesota Statutes,
Sections 469.090 to 469.1082, Sections 469.124 to 469.134, and Sections 469.174 to 469.1799,
all inclusive, as amended, (the "Act") all as reflected in the Plans, and presented for the Council's
consideration.
1.02. The City has investigated the facts relating to the Plans and has caused the Plans
to be prepared.
1.03. The City has performed all actions required by law to be performed prior to the
establishment of the District and the adoption and approval of the proposed Plans, including, but
not limited to, notification of County of Hennepin and Independent School District No. 283
having taxing jurisdiction over the property to be included in the District, a review of and written
comment on the Plans by the City Planning Commission, and the holding of a public hearing
upon published notice as required by law.
1.04. Certain written reports (the ''Reports") relating to the Plans and to the activities
contemplated therein have heretofore been prepared by staff and consultants and submitted to the
Council and/or made a part of the City files and proceedings on the Plans. The Reports include
data, information and/or substantiation constituting or relating to the basis for the other findings
and determinations made in this resolution. The Council hereby confirms, ratifies and adopts the
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 6a - Wolfe Lake TIF District
Page 5 of 8
Reports, which are hereby incorporated into and made as fully a part of this resolution to the
same extent as if set forth in full herein.
1.05 The City is not modifying the boundaries of Redevelopment Project No. 1.
Section 2. Findings for the Adoption and Approval of the Plans.
2.01. The Council hereby finds that the Plans, are intended and, in the judgment of this
Council, the effect of such actions will be, to provide an impetus for development in the public
interest and accomplish certain objectives as specified in the Plans, which are hereby
incorporated herein.
Section 3. Findings for the Establishment of the Wolfe Lake Commercial Tax Increment
Financing District.
3.01. The Council hereby finds that the District is a "redevelopment district" under
Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subd. 10 (a)(1).
3.02. The Council further finds that the proposed redevelopment would not occur solely
through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and that the increased
market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax
increment financing would be less than the increase in the market value estimated to result from
the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for
the maximum duration of the District permitted by the TIF Plan, that the Plans conform to the
general plan for the development or redevelopment of the City as a whole; and that the Plans will
afford maximum opportunity consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the
development or redevelopment of the District by private enterprise.
3.03. The Council further finds, declares and determines that the City made the above
findings stated in this Section and has set forth the reasons and supporting facts for each
determination in writing, attached hereto as Exhibit A.
3.04. The City elects to calculate fiscal disparities for the District in accordance with
Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, Subd. 3, clause b, which means the fiscal disparities
contribution would be taken from inside the District.
Section 4. Public Purpose
4.01. The adoption of the Plans conforms in all respects to the requirements of the Act.
The Plans will help remove substandard buildings, facilitate redevelopment that will create new
commercial uses, provide employment opportunities, and improve the tax base. The City
expressly finds that any private benefit to be received by the developer is incidental, as the tax
increment assistance is provided solely to make the redevelopment financially feasible and thus
produce the public benefits described. Therefore, the City finds that the public benefits of the
Plans exceed any private benefits.
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 6a - Wolfe Lake TIF District
Page 6 of 8
Section 5. Approval and Adoption of the Plans.
5.01. The Plans, as presented to the Council on this date, including without limitation
the findings and statements of objectives contained therein, are hereby approved, ratified,
established, and adopted and shall be placed on file in the office of the Economic Development
Coordinator.
5.02. The staff of the City, the City's advisors and legal counsel are authorized and
directed to proceed with the implementation of the Plans and to negotiate, draft, prepare and
present to this Council for its consideration all further plans, resolutions, documents and
contracts necessary for this purpose.
5.03 The Auditor of Hennepin County (the "Auditor") is requested to certify the
original net tax capacity of the District, as described in the TIF Plan, and to certify in each year
thereafter the amount by which the original net tax capacity has increased or decreased; and the
City is authorized and directed to forthwith transmit this request to the Auditor in such form and
content as the Auditor may specify, together with a list of all properties within the District, for
which building permits have been issued during the 18 months immediately preceding the
adoption of this resolution.
5.04. The Economic Development Coordinator is further authorized and directed to file
a copy of the Plans with the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Revenue pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes 469.175, Subd. 4a.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council July 7, 2003
_________________________________ ____________________________________
City Manager Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________________ (Seal)
City Clerk
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 6a - Wolfe Lake TIF District
Page 7 of 8
EXHIBIT A
RESOLUTION NO. ___________
The reasons and facts supporting the findings for the adoption of the Tax Increment Financing
Plan for the Wolfe Lake Commercial Tax Increment Financing District, as required pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subdivision 3 are as follows:
1. Finding that the Wolfe Lake Commercial Tax Increment Financing District is a
redevelopment district as defined in M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 10(a)(1).
The District consists of three full parcels and a portion of a fourth parcel, with plans to
redevelop the area for commercial purposes. At least 70 percent of the area in the parcels in
the District are occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other
similar structures and more than 50 percent of the buildings in the District, not including
outbuildings, are structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or
clearance. (See Appendix F of the TIF Plan.)
2. Finding that the proposed development, in the opinion of the City Council, would not
reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably
foreseeable future and that the increased market value of the site that could reasonably be
expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase
in the market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the
present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of the Wolfe Lake
Commercial Tax Increment Financing District permitted by the TIF Plan.
The proposed development, in the opinion of the City, would not reasonably be expected to
occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future:
This finding is supported by the fact that the site is occupied by a substandard building, and
is characterized by significant soil problems. The proposed development requires
demolition of the existing structure and construction of an approximately 10,000 square-foot
commercial building on part of the site, and an approximately 55,000 square-foot office
building on another portion of the site. The City has analyzed a proforma submitted by the
developer, which, in the City’s opinion, demonstrates that the cost of demolition, soil
correction, and site improvements make the proposed redevelopment infeasible without the
tax increment assistance provided under this plan. The developer has owned the property
for some time, but has further represented to the City that it would not proceed with the
redevelopment described above absent tax increment assistance.
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 6a - Wolfe Lake TIF District
Page 8 of 8
The increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without
the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in market value estimated
to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected
tax increments for the maximum duration of the TIF District permitted by the TIF Plan:
This finding is supported by the fact that the site is now occupied by a substandard building
that has long been owned by the developer. The only way that the market value of the site
would increase is through substantial redevelopment similar to that proposed in this plan.
Any such redevelopment would need to address the same demolition, relocation and soil
correction costs that confront the proposed developer. Therefore, the City concludes as
follows:
a. The City’s estimate of the amount by which the market value of the site will
increase without the use of tax increment financing is $0.
b. If all development which is proposed to be assisted with tax increment were to
occur in the District, the total increase in market value would be up to $8,225,964.
c. The present value of tax increments from the District for the maximum duration
of the district permitted by the TIF Plan is estimated to be $1,153,025. (See
Appendix G in the TIF Plan)
d. Even if some development other than the proposed development were to occur,
the Council finds that no alternative would occur that would produce a market
value increase greater than $7,072,939 (the amount in clause b less the amount in
clause c) without tax increment assistance.
3. Finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Wolfe Lake Commercial Tax
Increment Financing District conforms to the general plan for the development or
redevelopment of the municipality as a whole.
The Planning Commission reviewed the TIF Plan and found that the TIF Plan conforms to
the general development plan of the City.
4. Finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Wolfe Lake Commercial Tax Increment
Financing District will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the
City as a whole, for the development or redevelopment of Redevelopment Project No. 1 by
private enterprise.
The project to be assisted by the District will result in the preservation and enhancement of
the tax base, the redevelopment of substandard areas, improvement of public safety, and
provide employment opportunities in the City.
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 6b - Wolfe Lake Business Subsidy Agmt
Page 1 of 7
6b. Public Hearing - Belt Line Industrial Park Inc. Business Subsidy Agreement/
Contract for Private Redevelopment
This report considers a resolution approving a redevelopment agreement and related
Business Subsidy Agreement with Belt Line Industrial Park Inc. (Belt Line) for the
redevelopment of 4.86 acres at the northwest quadrant of West 36th Street and Belt
Line Boulevard and the construction of Wolfe Lake Professional Center and Wolfe
Lake Professional Center West.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to close public hearing. Motion adopt the resolution
approving a Contract for Private Redevelopment by and between
the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority and Belt
Line Industrial Park Inc. and the related Business Subsidy
Agreement contained therein.
Background:
The EDA/Council reviewed a preliminary TIF application from Belt Line Industrial Park at its
March 10, 2003 study session where it received general support. At the May 5th study session
staff reviewed with the EDA/Council Belt Line’s final TIF application. Staff also presented the
proposed business points for a development agreement with Belt Line, which were favorably
received. At its May 19th meeting, the Council set a public hearing date of July 7, 2003 for the
proposed TIF Redevelopment District. Since that time, Belt Line received Final PUD and Plat
approval from the Council on June 16th for its development and staff has been working out the
development agreement business points related to the project.
Architectural Modifications to Project:
At the time the City Council approved the Final PUD, it required that the developer work with
staff to upgrade the architecture of the retail building. Subsequent to the City Council meeting,
staff met with the architect/developer and suggested various modifications. The developer has
incorporated the changes into its plans. However, these modifications have increased the cost of
the retail building by as much as $40,000 (both soft and hard costs). The developer has requested
additional TIF assistance to offset these costs. Given the fact that the developer’s pro-forma
illustrates a modest 9.5% return, staff felt the developer’s request had merit and recommends
splitting the cost evenly. This would increase the level of TIF assistance from $976,000 to
$996,000. This increase will not necessitate an increase in the payback period of 18 years as
originally agreed.
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 6b - Wolfe Lake Business Subsidy Agmt
Page 2 of 7
Development Agreement/Business Subsidy Agreement:
The EDA/Council is being asked to consider approval of the final development agreement
between the EDA and Belt Line Industrial Park for the construction of a one-story, 9,872 square
foot commercial building on the vacant portion of the property along West 36th Street, the
demolition of the existing 32,845 square foot multi-tenant building on the site, and the
subsequent construction of a two-story, 54,742 square foot office building. These two, new
buildings would have a total of 64,614 square feet and cost approximately $11,035,000 to
construct. A summary of the business points in the development agreement is attached. The
authorizing resolution allows for modifications to the agreement that do not alter the substance of
the transaction without bringing the agreement back to the EDA/Council.
Business Subsidy Agreement
As part of the Business Subsidy Act (Minnesota Statutes 116J.993-116J.995), the EDA/Council
is required to hold a public hearing before granting a business subsidy. This hearing will be held
prior to action on the establishment of the Wolfe Lake Commercial Tax Increment Finance
District. The EDA/Council is required to enter into a Business Subsidy Agreement with each
individual business to which it grants a subsidy. A copy of the Business Subsidy Agreement
with Belt Line Industrial Park is located in the development agreement as Section 3.5.
As noted previously, the proposed project satisfies numerous public purpose criteria contained
within the City’s recently amended Business Subsidy Policy including:
• Increases the property tax base.
• Retains and creates quality jobs.
• Reduces safety concerns (by reducing congestion and enhancing traffic flow as result of
improved ingress and egress).
• Promotes neighborhood revitalization.
• Conforms to principles of Livable Communities (i.e. high quality urban design and pedestrian
oriented environments).
• Develops underutilized properties.
• Encourages the full utilization of existing infrastructure.
The subsidy proposed to Belt Line consists of payments on the TIF Note, each of which represents
a forgivable loan that is repayable by the Redeveloper. The Note is payable from a portion of the
Tax Increment from the TIF District, a redevelopment tax increment financing district.
The public purposes of the subsidy are to redevelop an area occupied by substandard and obsolete
buildings, implement the City’s land use goals identified in the comprehensive plan, and increase
employment and tax base, and reduce traffic safety concerns created by existing access conditions
on the site.
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 6b - Wolfe Lake Business Subsidy Agmt
Page 3 of 7
The goals for the subsidy are: to secure the timely development of the Minimum Improvements on
the Redevelopment Property and to maintain such improvements as commercial facilities for at
least five years.
Approval of the development agreement will constitute approval of the Business Subsidy
Agreement.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution approving the Redevelopment Agreement
with Belt Line Industrial Park and the Business Subsidy Agreement contained therein.
Attachments:
• Redevelopment Agreement Summary
• Redevelopment Agreement (See EDA Attachment)
• Resolution
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Tom Harmening, Community Development Director
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, Executive Director
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 6b - Wolfe Lake Business Subsidy Agmt
Page 4 of 7
Business Points of Redevelopment Agreement
with Belt Line Industrial Park
The primary business points for the Redevelopment Agreement between the EDA and Belt Line
Industrial Park are as follows:
• Belt Line agrees to construct a one-story, 9,872 square foot commercial building on the
vacant portion of the property at the northwest quadrant of West 36th Street and Belt Line
Boulevard. Shortly after completion, Belt Line agrees to demolish the existing 32,845 square
foot multi-tenant building and construct a two-story, 54,742 square foot office building and
related parking etc. in its place. The total estimated project cost of both buildings would
equal approximately $11,035,000.
• Belt Line Industrial Park Inc. must receive all necessary approvals from the City e.g. permits,
licenses, etc.
• The City agrees to establish a Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing District to assist with
such activities as soil correction, demolition, site design, engineering, and utility relocations
associated with the proposed project. The TIF note would be structured on the following
basis:
Ø Issue total: $996,000
Ø Type: Pay-as-you -go note
Ø Term: Up to 18 years or until $996,000 is reached whichever
comes first.
Ø Interest Rate: 7.5%
Ø Admin Fee: 5%
Ø Fiscal Disparities: Paid from within the district
• Belt Line or a subsequent purchaser must continue operations as commercial facilities for at
least five years after completion.
• Belt Line agrees to comply with the reporting requirements necessary for fulfilling the
obligations under the Business Subsidy Act.
• In the event Belt Line decides to sell the redeveloped property within 5 years after the
buildings have been completed, it is required to pay the Authority 50 percent of any “Excess
Percentage” it achieves as a result of the sale upon closing.
• Belt Line agrees to construct the required improvements in accordance with approved
construction plans, the PUD, and Planning Contract.
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 6b - Wolfe Lake Business Subsidy Agmt
Page 5 of 7
• Belt Line agrees to commence construction on the West Commercial Building by September 1,
2003, and substantially complete the construction by March 31, 2004. Belt Line agrees to
commence construction of the Office Building by January 1, 2004 and substantially complete it
by May 31, 2005.
• Belt Line agrees to provide the EDA with proof of proper insurance
• Belt Line agrees to sign an Assessment Agreement with the City specifying an assessor's
minimum market value for the Redevelopment Property together with the Minimum
Improvements. The minimum market value will be established at $9,500,000 as of January 2,
2005.
• Belt Line represents that it intends to construct the required improvements and does not
intend to transfer the property before both buildings have been constructed.
• Belt Line is also responsible for and agrees to indemnify the City/EDA for any tenant
relocation claims or costs stemming from the project.
• Belt Line agrees that no portion of the Redevelopment Property be used for a sexually-oriented
business, a pawnshop, a check-cashing business, or a tattoo business.
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 6b - Wolfe Lake Business Subsidy Agmt
Page 6 of 7
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
RESOLUTION NO. 03-078
RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONTRACT FOR
PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT BETWEEN THE ST. LOUIS PARK
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND
BELT LINE INDUSTRIAL PARK INC.
BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council ("Council") of the City of St. Louis Park,
Minnesota ("City") as follows:
Section 1. Recitals.
1.01. The St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (“Authority”) has determined a
need to exercise the powers of a housing and redevelopment authority, pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes, Sections. 469.090 to 469.108 ("EDA Act"), and is currently administering Redevelopment
Project No. 1 ("Redevelopment Project") pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to
469.047 ("HRA Act").
1.02. Among the activities to be assisted by the Authority in the Redevelopment Project is
redevelopment of the area in the City known as the Wolfe Lake Professional Center (the “Wolfe
Lake Project”).
1.03. There has been presented before the Council a Contract for Private Redevelopment
(the “Contract”) between the Authority and Belt Line Industrial Park Inc. (the “Redeveloper"),
setting forth the terms and conditions of development of the Wolfe Lake Project and the Authority’s
and City’s participation in that effort.
1.04. The Contract provides for certain financial assistance by the City and the Authority
that constitutes a “business subsidy” exceeding $100,000 within the meaning of Minnesota
Statutes, Section 116J.993 to 116J.995 (the “Business Subsidy Act”).
1.05. The “business subsidy agreement” as required under the Business Subsidy Act is
included as Section 3.5 of the Contract, and the City (on behalf of both the City and Authority) has
on this date conducted a duly noticed public hearing regarding the business subsidy agreement at
which all interested persons were give an opportunity to be heard.
1.06. The Council has reviewed the Contract and finds that the business subsidy agreement
is in the best interest of the City and its residents.
Section 2. Authority Approval; Further Proceedings.
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 6b - Wolfe Lake Business Subsidy Agmt
Page 7 of 7
2.01. The Contract as presented to the Council, including without limitation the business
subsidy agreement, is hereby in all respects approved, subject to modifications that do not alter the
substance of the transaction and that are approved by the Mayor and City Manager, provided that
execution of the documents by such officials shall be conclusive evidence of approval.
2.02. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute on behalf of the City
any documents needed to carry out the Contract or the business subsidy agreement requiring
execution by the City.
Approved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota this 7thth day of July,
2003.
Reviewed for Administration:
_____________________________________ ____________________________________
City Manager Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 6c - 2701 Brunswick Vacation
Page 1 of 4
6c. Public Hearing for Petition to vacate an alley easement
2701 Brunswick Ave. S.
Case Nos. 03-27-VAC
Petition to vacate an existing alley easement where an alley was relocated
Recommended
Action:
Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to adopt 1st reading of
Ordinance to vacate existing alley easement, and set 2nd reading for
July 21, 2003.
Background:
Robert and Mary Norby, the property owners at 2701 Brunswick Avenue South made a
request to relocate an existing alley that crosses their property and splits the rear yard.
The City Engineer reviewed the request and found that by realigning the alley, it would
be easier to plow and otherwise maintain. It would also be easier for other service
vehicles. The relocation would also allow the resident more room to maneuver vehicles
in and out of their garage. The alley has been reconstructed in accordance with the
request.
The petition to vacate is part of the legal documentation necessary to move the alley
location. The Planning Commission reviewed the request on June 18, 2003, and
recommended approval.
The petition to vacate the alley has been signed by a majority of adjacent property owners
as required. In this case, it affects only the one property. Following vacation and the
filing of the vacation of the existing alley easement, the new easement will be filed. This
procedure is being directed by the City Attorney.
Recommendation:
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend adoption of ordinance vacating alley at
2701 Brunswick Avenue South.
Attachments: Petition to vacate alley supplement
Survey of existing and proposed easements supplement
Aerial photo (dated 2000)
Draft Ordinance
Prepared By: Judie Erickson, Planning Coordinator (952) 924-2574
Approved By: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 6c - 2701 Brunswick Vacation
Page 2 of 4
SITE PHOTO:
Subject
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 6c - 2701 Brunswick Vacation
Page 3 of 4
ORDINANCE NO.___________
AN ORDINANCE VACATING AN ALLEY EASEMENT
2701 BRUNSWICK AVENUE SOUTH
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. A petition in writing signed by a majority of all of the owners of all
property abutting upon both sides of the alley easement proposed to be vacated has been
duly filed with the City Clerk, requesting vacation of the alley easement, and the City
Clerk has furnished a copy of said petition to the City Manager who has required filing of
same to the newspaper, the St. Louis Park Sailor, on June 26, 2003 as directed by the said
notice and has conducted a public hearing upon said petition and has determined that the
alley easement is not needed for public purposes, and that it is for the best interest of the
public that said alley easement be vacated.
Section 2. The following described alley easement as now dedicated and laid
out within the corporate limits of the City of St. Louis Park, is vacated:
That part of Lots 29 and 30, Block 3, "Park Manor Hennepin County, Minn."
described as follows: Six feet on either side of a center line described as follows:
Commencing at a point in the South line of said Lot 29 which is 12 feet west of
the southeast corner of said Lot 29, thence extending to a point on the north line
of said Lot 29, which point is 21 feet west of the northeast corner of said Lot 29;
thence extending to a point on the north line of said Lot 30 which point is 38 feet
west of the northeast corner of said Lot 30.
Together with an easement to construct slopes in connection with the grading of
said alley adjacent to the westerly line of said alley over said Lots 29 and 30, the
westerly limit of said slope easement being described as follows: Commencing at
a point in the south line of Lot 29, which point is 24 feet west of the southeast
corner of said Lot; thence extending to a point on the north line of said Lot 29,
which point is 38 feet west of the northeast corner of said Lot 29; thence to a
point on the north line of said Lot 30, which point is 54 feet west of the northeast
corner of said Lot 30.
These proceedings do not vacate or in any way impact the validity of the
following described easement which is specifically reserved.
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 6c - 2701 Brunswick Vacation
Page 4 of 4
A 12.00 foot perpetual easement for street purposes over, under and across the following
described property:
Lots 29 and 30, Block 3, "Park Manor Hennepin County, Minn."
The centerline of said easement is described as follows:
Commencing at the southeast corner of said Lot 29; thence on an assumed bearing
of South 0 degrees 35 minutes 17 seconds East, along the East line of Lots 28, 27
and 26, a distance of 100.90 feet; thence South 89 degrees 24 minutes 43 seconds
West a distance of 6.22 feet to the point of beginning of the centerline to be
described; thence North 0 degrees 27 minutes 40 seconds West a distance of
50.00 feet; thence northerly a distance of 49.89 feet, along a tangential curve,
concave to the west having a radius of 309.98 feet and a central angle of 9 degrees
13 minutes 18 seconds; thence North 9 degrees 40 minutes 58 seconds West,
tangent to said curve a distance of 43.72 feet; thence northerly a distance of 32.38
feet, along a tangential curve, concave to the West having a radius of 126.48 feet
and a central angle of 14 degrees 40 minutes 06 seconds, to a point of compound
curvature; thence northerly, northweserly, and westerly a distance of 44.38 feet,
along said compound curve, concave to the southwest having a radius of 38.65
feet and a central angle of 65 degrees 47 minutes 24 seconds and said centerline
there terminating. The side lines of said easement shall terminate in the south line
of said Lot 29 and the north line of said Lot 30.
Section 3. The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this
ordinance in the Office of the Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles
as the case may be.
Sec.4. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication.
Adopted by the City Council July 21, 2003
Reviewed for Administration
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 8a - Police Advisory Commission
Page 1 of 5
8a. 1st Reading of an ordinance establishing the St. Louis Park Police Advisory
Commission and adoption of a resolution appointing members.
This ordinance creates the Police Advisory Commission and grants powers and
authorities similar to other advisory commissions of the City.
Recommended
Action:
1. Motion to approve first reading and set second reading for
July 21, 2003.
2. Motion to approve a resolution appointing members to the
commission effective August 14, 2003
Background:
On February 5, 2001 Council adopted Resolution No. 01-008 abolishing the Police Civil Service
Commission. At that time, council also put into motion a citizen input process designed to create
the structure of an advisory board which would focus on broad policy matters and, more
importantly, ways to enhance the citizen-police relationship.
This input group was formed later in 2001 and has been working since that time on
contemplating the purpose of the commission and determining how the commission should be
structured. On May 12, 2003, members of the input group met with the City Council to present
the culmination of their work which included the proposed mission, vision, values and goals, as
well as the draft by-laws to be adopted by the commission.
At the meeting of May 19, 2003, the City Council formally accepted the input group’s report and
directed staff to prepare documentation to formally establish the St. Louis Park Police Advisory
Commission.
Documentation:
The City Charter grants Council the authority to form various boards and commissions by
ordinance. The attached ordinance creates the St. Louis Park Police Advisory Commission
(PAC) and grants them authorities and powers similar to other advisory commissions such as the
Human Rights Commission and the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission. The PAC will
operate under the council’s boards and commissions policy which was adopted by resolution No.
01-023 on March 19, 2001.
The board will consist of eleven regular members. Initially, the terms will be for one year, two
years, and three years to establish a rotation, with subsequent terms be three years in length.
Council may also appoint one voting youth member who must be a high school student of a
private or public school located in the city. The youth member would serve a term of one year.
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 8a - Police Advisory Commission
Page 2 of 5
A resolution is attached for that appoints three persons to the commission and identifies one of
the appointees to serve as Interim Chair until such time as elections can be held. The resolution
also directs the commission to work with staff on the recruitment process to complete the
appointments to the commission. The resolution will be effective August 14, 2003 which is the
same effective date as the ordinance (fifteen days following summary publication).
The Police Chief will serve as staff liaison to the commission. Duties of the staff liaison are, in
general, to facilitate or assist in the meetings, to record attendance and to provide information
and direction as requested by the commission. It is also the responsibility of the staff liaison to
inform the city manager of any problems or issues that may arise within the commission.
The PAC by-laws have been reviewed by the council and are scheduled for adoption by the PAC
within the next few months. At the time of final adoption the by-laws will be forwarded to the
council and will be deemed approved unless the council takes action to modify the bylaws within
30 days after their submission.
Attachments: Ordinance
Resolution
Submitted by: Cynthia Reichert, City Clerk
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 8a - Police Advisory Commission
Page 3 of 5
ORDINANCE NO. _______-03
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK
ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION BY
ADDING ARTICLE IV DIVISION 7: POLICE ADVISORY COMMISSION
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
Sec. 1. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of Police
Advisory Task Force.
Sec. 2. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Chapter 2, Article IV: Boards, Commissions and
Committees is hereby amended to add Division 7 as follows:
DIVISION 7 POLICE ADVISORY COMMISSION
Sec. 2-321. Membership; terms.
(a) Function; composition. The police advisory commission shall be an advisory commission
to the city council. It shall consist of eleven regular members and one youth member, all
appointed as set forth in this section.
(b) Regular members. The City Council shall appoint four regular members of the
commission for terms to expire on December 31, 2004, four regular members for terms to
expire on December 31, 2005, and three regular members for terms to expire on
December 31, 2006. All subsequent appointments shall be for three-year terms which
shall expire on December 31 of the third year of such term and until a successor is duly
appointed and qualified. In the event of a vacancy, the city council shall appoint a person
to complete the unexpired term. A member of the commission may be removed with or
without cause by the city council.
(c) Youth member. One voting youth who shall be a high school student of a private or public
school located in the city may be appointed by the city council and serve a term of one
year.
(d) Qualifications. Regular members of the police advisory commission shall be qualified
voters and residents of the city. A vacancy shall deem to exist if a member ceases to
meet the residency requirements. All members of the commission shall be appointed
from persons who have demonstrated an interest in the police advisory commission by
submission of appropriate city forms.
Sec. 2-322. Organization.
(a) A staff liaison to the police advisory commission shall be appointed by the city manager
and shall be subject to the administrative rules and regulations of the city.
(b) The commission shall elect its own chair and vice-chair. Subject to such limitations as
may be imposed by the city council at any time, the commission shall provide its own
rules and procedure, determine the date and time of meetings and, upon proper notice,
shall call public hearings when necessary and desirable and in accordance with all
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 8a - Police Advisory Commission
Page 4 of 5
requirements of local and state laws. The bylaws of the commission and amendments
shall be submitted to the city council upon their adoption. Such bylaws and any
amendments shall be deemed to be approved by the city council unless the city council
takes action to modify such bylaws or amendments within 30 days after submission. No
member of the commission shall consider or vote upon any question in which the
member is directly or indirectly interested.
(c) The commission shall keep proper records of its proceedings, and such records shall be
maintained by the staff liaison or the liaison's designee.
Sec. 2-323. Expense of members.
The members of the police advisory commission shall serve without pay but may be
reimbursed for actual expenses to the extent that funds therefor are provided in the annual city
budget adopted by the city council. The commission shall properly account for its receipts and
expenditures of monies in accordance with established city procedures.
Sec. 2-324. Powers and duties.
Under the direction of the city council, the police advisory commission shall perform
those functions and duties necessary to
(a) carry out their stated mission to enhance the awareness of police department capabilities
and services; provide an opportunity for citizen involvement in police services and to
encourage exchange between the police department and the community.
(b) Submit to the city council by April 1 of each year an annual report of the activities of the
commission during the previous year; and
(c) Perform other functions as needed to carry out these duties and responsibilities as
directed by the city council and to act in an advisory capacity to the city council.
Sec.3. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council July 21, 2003
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 8a - Police Advisory Commission
Page 5 of 5
RESOLUTION NO. 03-_____
RESOLUTION APPOINTING MEMBERS TO
THE POLICE ADVISORY COMMISSION
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has approved Ordinance No.
_________ creating the Police Advisory Commission, whose mission is to enhance the
awareness of police department capabilities and services, provide an opportunity for citizen
involvement in police services and to encourage exchange between police department and the
community; and
WHEREAS, the ordinance calls for the council to appoint eleven regular members and
one youth member who are residents of St. Louis Park to the commission; and
WHEREAS, the council has identified persons in the community that it feels are
qualified to serve in the capacity of Commissioners of the Police Advisory Commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that the Linda Trummer, Claudia Madison-Johnston, and Rebeccas Kes are
hereby appointed to the Police Advisory Commission for terms to expire on December 31, 2004;
and that Linda Trummer is appointed as Interim Chair until such time as elections can be held
and that the effective date of the appointments shall be August 14, 2004..
LET IT BE FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Commissioners identified above, in
cooperation with the City Manager, be directed to undertake recruitment activities to assist the
council in completing the initial appointments to the Police Advisory Commission.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council July 21, 2003
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 8b - Solid Waste Contract
Page 1 of 5
8b. Solid Waste Contract Award
This report considers designating Waste Management, Inc. as the City’s service
provider and awarding them a solid waste collection service contract.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the resolution, which designates Waste
Management, Inc. as the residential solid waste collection
service provider, subject to execution of an acceptable contract
and authorizes the Mayor and City Manager to execute a five
year contract for services commencing October 1, 2003.
Background: On October 7, 2002, Council authorized a twelve-month extension to the current
solid waste collection contract to allow time for staff to develop and complete the program changes
and Request for Proposal (RFP) package. On December 2, 2002, the Council approved solid waste
collection program changes and directed staff to prepare draft contract documents incorporating
these changes. On January 27, 2003, Council reviewed and commented on the draft contract
agreement and RFP documents. On April 7, 2003, Council reviewed final contract and RFP
documents and directed staff to solicit proposals from Waste Management, Inc. and BFI for
residential solid waste collection services. A summary of those proposed contract changes is
attached (Attachment “A”). On April 17, 2003, staff solicited proposals from Waste Management,
Inc. and BFI for residential solid waste collection services. The proposals were due May 17, 2003.
Waste Management, Inc. and BFI each presented oral versions of their respective proposals to staff
on May 29, 2003. Each vendor was allowed the opportunity to revise their proposal until June 6 at
which time negotiations with each vendor were concluded.
At the June 23, 2003 study session staff provided the City Council with a detailed report outlining
the final solid waste collection proposals submitted by BFI and Waste Management. This included
a cost summary, proposal comparison, the City’s Request for Proposal that the vendors responded
to, pertinent sections of the vendor’s proposals, and staff’s recommendation. Staff recommended
that the contract be awarded to Waste Management based upon cost, customer service,
performance, and potential transition issues. Several Council members expressed concern over
Waste Management service delivery and questioned BFI’s ability to handle transition issues.
Council directed staff to request references from the cities and organizations listed in the proposals
for both vendors and present the information to Council to assist them in making their decision on
selecting a vendor.
Summary of References: The letters of reference submitted in the vendor proposals are attached
(Attachment “C”) as well as a summary of the references and responses to the staff’s recent request
for information (Attachment “B”). The references are similar for both vendors and depend upon the
unique issues and factors experienced by the individual cities or organizations. Based on the
communications received during the current reference process and informally over the past eighteen
(18) months, both Waste Management and BFI appear to provide acceptable services; both appear
to handle transition issues satisfactorily.
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 8b - Solid Waste Contract
Page 2 of 5
Communications: Staff received a letter from BFI (Attachment “F”) via email late Tuesday
July 1, 2003 apparently revising their proposal by guaranteeing rebates of at least $50,000 per year.
This in effect would undercut Waste Management proposed costs by about $14,000/year or $70,000
over the life of the contract. Staff supports the RFP negotiation process used by the City and
recommends Council award a contract based on the final proposals submitted by the vendors on
June 6. If Council desires negotiations be reopened with the vendors, staff will be pleased to do so.
However, Council should be aware a contract award decision needs to be made on July 7 to allow
time to notify and sign up residents for the changed collection services, and to order and deliver
carts before Christmas. If a contract can not be awarded on July 7, implementation of the cart
collection system will have to be delayed until at least February.
Next Steps: Staff is preparing rate changes and revisions to the City’s ordinance and expects to
present them at the July 14, 2003 Study Session for discussion with any other remaining issues.
First and second readings of the ordinance changes are expected to be held in September, 2003.
Summary: Staff recommends that Council adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment “D”),
reviewed by the City Attorney, which reaffirms the Residential Solid Waste Organized Collection
System, designates a service provider and authorizes execution of the Agreement for Residential
Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Services (Attachment “E”).
Attachments:
Attachment “A” Summary of Contract Changes
Attachment “D” Resolution Designating Service Provider and Authorizing Contract
Prepared By: Scott Merkley, Sarah Hellekson
Through: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved By: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 8b - Solid Waste Contract
Page 3 of 5
Attachment “A”
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CONTRACT CHANGES
FOR RESIDENTIAL SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SERVICES
Eliminated Items:
• Vague contract reference to undefined “special items”
• Elimination of bio-degradable bag requirement
• Elimination of recycling incentive to hauler
• Elimination use of large one-pass truck for collection of refuse and recycling
• Elimination of allowing residents to store collection items in underground vaults
Modified Items:
• Revised and added definitions for items available for collection
• Defined disposal locations
• Clearly defined walkup service eliminating any reference to medical need for service
• Better defined the collection day during a Holiday week
• Modify routes to match revised collection truck fleet due to elimination of one-pass trucks
(collection days will be required to stay the same)
• Enhanced public education requirements
• Revised language addressing cleanup of any spilled material during collection
• Revised requirements for hauler to “tag” (written notice to residents) when collection items
don’t conform to contract requirements
• Revised hours of collection, existing 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., proposed 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
• Enhanced customer service requirements including increased hours of service, use of email,
quicker response time to residents, data recording in City database
• Increased penalty for non-compliant missed pickups
• Changed refuse disposal location of refuse from landfill to the HERC
• Increased specificity in fleet requirements
New Items:
• Required use of City provided carts
• Added four size options for Pay-as-You-Throw volume based refuse collection (30, 60, 90,
unlimited)
• Added an option for yard waste collection that minimizes grass clipping collection for the
benefit of the environment and for resident cost savings
• Required haulers to carry list of households identifying yard waste option selection
• Required sticker for collection of all items outside of City cart
• Require separate trucks for collection of refuse, recycling, and yard waste
• Specified size limit of trucks
• Required all trucks to carry current collection routing maps for each type of collection
• Required full-time field supervisor for improved quality control (being done by hauler but
outside of the contract)
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 8b - Solid Waste Contract
Page 4 of 5
• Added a penalty for area wide (one city block) missed pickup (even if the pickup occurs
within the allowing non-compliant timeframe) and administrative penalty for
non-compliance customer service, performance, and faulty equipment issues
• Required hauler to provide GPS / AVL on trucks (upon City request) for quality control
tracking
• Added the option allowing the City to cancel the recycling services portion of the contract
upon ninety (90) days written notice should the City choose to change method of collection
(i.e. single sort)
• Added the requirement that City amend ordinance requiring residents set out carts by 7:00
a.m. to minimize missed picked issues
• Included electronics with hazardous materials list
• Included a requirement for reporting of all hydraulic spills
• Increased and specified the public education required by hauler
• Requires contractor to charge residents directly for special collections at the rate established by
the City.
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 8b - Solid Waste Contract
Page 5 of 5
Attachment “D”
RESOLUTION NO. 03-080
RESOLUTION DESIGNATING SERVICE PROVIDER
AND AUTHORIZING CONTRACT
WHEREAS, the City Council discussed possible solid waste collection service providers over the
past two years; and
WHEREAS, based on various criteria, the City Council identified Waste Management, Inc. and
BFI as providers they desired to respond to the City’s Request for Proposals (RFP); and
WHEREAS, on April 17, 2003, the City issued the Request for Proposals for the City’s residential
solid waste collection services to Waste Management, Inc. and BFI; and
WHEREAS, on June 23, 2003, the City reviewed the proposals received from Waste Management,
Inc. and BFI for solid waste collection services; and
WHEREAS, the proposal received from Waste Management, Inc. appears to be in the best interests
of the City considering cost, customer service and performance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park,
Minnesota, that:
1) The City reaffirms that its method of organizing residential solid waste collection shall be by
ordinance and by contract using one collector.
2) The City designates Waste Management, Inc. as the service provider for residential solid waste
collection services in the City of St Louis Park, subject to the execution of a contract.
3) The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized, on behalf of the City Council, to execute a
five-year agreement with Waste Management, Inc. for residential solid waste collection services
commencing on October 1, 2003 in the City in conformance with the general terms and
conditions considered by Council.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council July 7, 2003
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 8c - Mathwig Prelim & Final Plat
Page 1 of 14
8c. Request by Troy Mathwig for preliminary and final plat approval with Variances
to the subdivision ordinance to reduce the minimum lot width for a corner lot
from 70 feet to 68 feet and reduce the sidewalk width and boulevard width to an
unspecified number.
Case Nos. 03-17-S and 03-18-VAR
4256 Quentin Ave S
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt resolution denying the preliminary and final plat
and variances for Mathwig Addition based upon the findings set
forth in the resolution.
Zoning: R2, Single-Family Residential
Comprehensive Plan Designation: Low Density Residential
Lot Area Lot 1
Proposed 7,200 Square Feet
Required 7,200 Square Feet
Lot 2
Proposed 8,150 Square Feet
Required 7,200 Square Feet
Lot Width Lot 1
Proposed 60 Feet
Required 60 Feet
Lot 2
Proposed 68 Feet
Required 70 Feet
Boulevard Width
Existing 5 ½ feet on Quentin, 3 ½ feet on Morningside
Required 5 feet between the sidewalk and street.
Sidewalk Width
Existing 0
Required 5 feet along all street frontages
Background:
Troy Mathwig is applying for preliminary and final plat approval to split the above property into
two single-family lots with front yards facing Morningside Rd.. Variances are being requested
from the subdivision ordinance’s minimum width requirement, minimum boulevard width
requirement, and minimum sidewalk width requirement.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing and reviewed the request on June 4, 2003. The
Planning Commission recommended denial of the request on a vote of 4 – 0, based upon the lack
of findings for the variance request. An amendment was added to the motion that if the applicant
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 8c - Mathwig Prelim & Final Plat
Page 2 of 14
could find a way to accomplish the subdivision that did not require variances, the Planning
Commission would like to review it. Unless the design standards of the Subdivision Ordinance
are amended, this request cannot be processed without variances. Several residents spoke at the
public hearing indicating concern with the proposed subdivision and current maintenance of the
property.
Existing Conditions:
The parcel is a corner lot located on the northwest corner of Morningside Rd. and Quentin Ave S
in the southeast quadrant of the City with one existing single-family home facing Quentin. This
block of Quentin is west of Wooddale. Browndale Park is located on the south side of
Morningside Rd., directly across the street from the subject site. Single family homes are located
on the east, north, and west of the subject property. A plat is required because the property
consists of 3 previously platted 40-foot lots, so it does not meet the criterion for a subdivision
exemption (can involve only 2 lots). The underlying plat, Wooddale Park, was filed in 1910 and
does not meet a number of design standards of the current subdivision ordinance. These include
minimum lot width, minimum lot area, right of way width, and requirements for sidewalks,
boulevards, and street trees.
Issues:
• Are the proposed preliminary and final plat acceptable?
• Do the proposed variances to the Subdivision Ordinance meet the required findings?
• Are Zoning Ordinance requirements met for the plat?
• Are there any other issues regarding the final plat?
Issues Analysis:
• Are the proposed preliminary and final plat acceptable?
As shown on the plat documents, the subdivision proposes to divide a single-family parcel
(consisting of three underlying lots oriented to Quentin Avenue) into two lots and reorienting
these to front on Morningside Road. The western parcel would have a driveway on Morningside
in a location similar to the existing driveway location. The eastern parcel would have a new
driveway on Quentin Avenue. The Subdivision Ordinance states that the City may agree to
review the preliminary and final plats simultaneously. Staff believes that it is appropriate in this
case to combine the approval process as it involves the subdivision of one existing parcel located
on improved streets. The request does involve variances to the design standards of the
subdivision ordinance. The Planning Commission reviewed the variances and found these did
not meet the required findings and, therefore also recommended denial of the preliminary and
final plat.
Submittal requirements: The Subdivision Ordinance outlines the specific data requirements for
final plats, including name of the subdivision; location of all monuments; location, width, and
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 8c - Mathwig Prelim & Final Plat
Page 3 of 14
type of all easements to be dedicated; statement dedicating easements; owner’s policy of title
insurance; and the type of certification required. Title insurance must name the City to insure
that the city’s interests, such as easements are secure. If all of the easements are dedicated on the
plat, title insurance naming the City can be waived. Currently, the Mathwig Addition
preliminary and final plat drawings do not reflect the sidewalk easement or right of way
necessary to accommodate the requirements for sidewalk and boulevards set forth in the
subdivision ordinance. Additional right of way would reduce the lot size below minimum
requirements. Therefore, if the subdivision is approved, a sidewalk easement would be required
prior to the City signing the final plat.
Grading and utility plan: The Public Works Director reviewed the grading and utility plans and
returned the following comments. There is no sanitary sewer located in Morningside Road. In
order to serve the western lot (Lot 1), a sanitary sewer line will have to be constructed across the
north side of the eastern lot (Lot 2) to Quentin Avenue. The proposed 25-foot drainage and
utility easement along the northern portion of Lot 2 is wide enough to accommodate this. Also, a
more detailed erosion and sediment control plan will be required to be approved by the Public
Works Department prior to any site work.
Design standards: The Subdivision Ordinance requires certain design standards related to lots,
blocks, streets, and landscaping. The proposed plat does not meet several of these standards:
§ Lot Width. The required lot width of a corner lot is required to be 10 feet wider than the
width required for an interior lot. In this case, Lot 2 is required to be 70 feet wide. The
applicant is requiring a variance to reduce the lot width to 68 feet.
§ Right of Way width. The minimum right of way width for a single family detached
subdivision is 50 feet. In this case, the underlying plat dedicated only 40 feet for the right of
way. The applicant is proposing a subdivision that would maintain this width.
§ Sidewalks: The Subdivision Ordinance requires that a 5-foot sidewalk be constructed along
all public ways adjacent to new subdivisions. There is currently only about 5 ½ feet between
the curb and property line along Quentin Avenue and only 3 ½ feet between the curb and
property line along Morningside Road. The applicant has asked for a variance to reduce the
sidewalk width. However, the preliminary plat does not show a sidewalk and would need to
be corrected to reflect one prior to potential approval of the request.
§ Boulevards: The Subdivision Ordinance requires a 5-foot boulevard between the required
sidewalk and street to allow for snow storage and for boulevard trees. As indicated above,
the lack of space between the property line and street prohibit this requirement unless an
easement is granted or additional right of way is dedicated. The applicant is requesting a
variance to reduce boulevard width.
Tree Preservation plan: The tree preservation plans and tree replacement proposal (which are
incorporated into the landscaping plans) do not reflect the required sidewalk, boulevard, and
boulevard trees. The plan does shows that over 80% of the trees on the site will be removed to
accommodate new home construction and associated driveways. The tree replacement
requirement is for 100 caliper inches and the landscape plan show 42 caliper inches of new trees.
The remaining 58 inches would need to be replaced either off site or the applicant would be
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 8c - Mathwig Prelim & Final Plat
Page 4 of 14
required to provide a cash in lieu of $90 per caliper inch. Corrected landscape plans would be
required prior to the City signing the plat drawings. If approved, a financial surety will also be
required to insure the landscape plan is implemented.
The applicant has stated that one tree originally slated for removal, a 24 inch honey locust, would
be preserved by relocating the driveway. If this tree were not removed, the tree replacement
requirements would be recalculated.
Park and trail dedication: Since the proposed replatting does involve creation of one additional
lot, park and trail dedication fees in the amount of $1125.00 are required. If the subdivision is
approved, the fees would be required prior to issuing a building permit for new construction.
• Do the proposed variances to the Subdivision Ordinance meet the required findings?
The applicant is requesting several variances to the subdivision ordinance in order to
accommodate this plat. These include the following and will be analyzed individually according
to required criteria:
§ A variance from the 10-foot additional minimum width requirement for a corner lot
subdivided for residential use.
§ A variance from the minimum sidewalk width requirement.
§ A variance from the minimum boulevard width requirement.
Variance from the subdivision ordinance to allow a 68-foot wide corner lot instead of the
required 70 feet for a corner lot subdivided for residential use.
The Zoning Ordinance standards for lot width do not distinguish between interior and corner lots.
The minimum width requirement of the zoning ordinance for R2, single family lots is 60 feet
wide. There is, however, a larger building setback (15 feet instead of 7 or 5 feet) required for
side yards abutting a street on corner lots. The extra lot width required by the subdivision
ordinance does accommodate this extra setback required by the zoning ordinance, thereby
providing for consistency in the buildable area for all lots along a block front.
The apparent inconsistency in corner lot width requirements between the zoning ordinance and
the subdivision ordinance may have been the rational alternative to numerous non-conformities.
If the requirement was only in the subdivision ordinance, it would apply only to newly created
lots. If the standard was incorporated in the zoning ordinance a significant number of corner lots
would become non-conforming. (For clarity in code administration, it may be prudent to either
amend the zoning ordinance to require the extra width to new lots only or to amend the
subdivision ordinance to eliminate the requirement.)
The applicant is proposing a corner lot that is 68 feet wide. This is two (2) feet short of the
subdivision ordinance width requirement. The applicant asserts that the proposed variance is
reasonable and desirable because the proposed subdivided lots would be similar in size to other
lots in the neighborhood. He states that the corner lot across Quentin Avenue is smaller than the
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 8c - Mathwig Prelim & Final Plat
Page 5 of 14
proposed corner lot. The proposed corner lot will be 8,160 square feet and the other lot will be
the required 7,200 square feet, which meet zoning ordinance minimum requirements.
Provisions of the code require that all of the following criteria must be met to make findings for
granting a variance.
1. That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property such that the
strict application of the provisions of this Subdivision Ordinance would deprive the
applicant/owner of the reasonable use of the land.
The property is currently developed with one single family home that meets all of the required
setbacks and lot requirements. It is the proposed subdivision that is creating the need for the
variance, not any other special circumstances or conditions of the land itself.
Staff and the Planning Commission find this criterion is not met.
2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and
welfare or injurious to other property in the territory in which property is situated.
The property is located in a single family neighborhood. The proposed subdivision would
demolish the existing single family home and create two new lots, both with driveway access at
the required distance from the intersection of Quentin Avenue and Morningside Road.
Staff and the Planning Commission find that this criterion is met.
3. That the variance is to correct inequities resulting from an extreme physical hardship
such as topography, etc.
The property for which the variance is sought currently has an economic use as a single lot. The
land is not subject to characteristics or inequities that result in a hardship to the property owner.
The land is relatively flat as is much of the surrounding land. The need for a variance is caused
by the applicant’s desire to subdivide the land.
Staff and the Planning Commission find this criterion is not met.
4. That the variance is not contrary to the intent of the Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed subdivision is consistent with the density requirements of the Comprehensive Plan
assuming additional right-of-way is not needed. Other goals of the Comprehensive Plan include
the desire for move-up single family housing. The proposed subdivision would allow for an
additional housing unit.
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 8c - Mathwig Prelim & Final Plat
Page 6 of 14
Staff and the Planning Commission find this criterion to be satisfied provided additional right-of-
way is not needed.
Since the variance request only meets two of the four criteria, staff and the Planning Commission
recommend denial of the proposed request.
Staff is interested in City Council direction regarding a potential ordinance amendment to
remove the extraordinary width for new corner lots in the Subdivision Ordinance. Otherwise,
staff will initiate an amendment to clarify the Zoning Ordinance for consistency.
Variance from the minimum sidewalk width requirement.
The underlying subdivision, Wooddale Park, was filed in 1910. This subdivision, consisting of
numerous 40-foot lots and 40-foot wide rights of way, would not be approved today. The old
subdivision does not meet the current zoning ordinance requirements for lot width and area and it
does not meet the subdivision ordinance design standards for right of way width, lot width, lot
area, provision for sidewalks, boulevards, and street trees. Three of the lots, Lots 8, 9, and 10,
Block 6, created in this subdivision were combined and one single family home was constructed
in 1932. These lots are the subject of the proposed subdivision.
The property owner is requesting a replat of the three lots into two new lots and to reorient them
to face Morningside Road and Browndale Park. The applicant is not proposing to dedicate more
right of way or to necessarily provide additional easements for sidewalk purposes. The right of
way along both street rights of way that abut the proposed plat are 40 feet in width. The current
subdivision standards require a minimum right of way of 50 feet. This problem results in a
boulevard width (distance between the proposed property line and curb) of only 5 ½ feet along
Quentin Avenue and 3 ½ feet along Morningside Road. This is not wide enough to
accommodate the 5-foot sidewalk required by the subdivision ordinance. The applicant could
either dedicate more right-of-way or provide easements to accommodate the required sidewalk.
A right-of-way dedication would reduce the buildable area of the proposed lots and would
require the need for an additional lot width reduction variance for the corner lot.
In the variance request, the applicant requested a reduction in the sidewalk width, but did not ask
for a specific reduction. The City Engineer has stated that a reduction in sidewalk width to 4 feet
would be acceptable, but that a boulevard also would need to be preserved for snow storage. A
sidewalk of any width will require additional right of way or a sidewalk easement. Additional
right-of-way would result in an undersized lot. A sidewalk easement cannot be shown on the plat
drawings but would need to be recorded separately prior to the City signing the final plat.
1. That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property such that the
strict application of the provisions of this Subdivision Ordinance would deprive the
applicant/owner of the reasonable use of the land.
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 8c - Mathwig Prelim & Final Plat
Page 7 of 14
The property is currently developed with one single family home that meets all of the required
setbacks and lot requirements. There are no sidewalks required by the zoning ordinance for
single-family home construction. The Comprehensive Plan does call for a sidewalk along
Quentin Avenue to connect an existing trail to the north to Browndale Park to the south. The
proposed subdivision is creating the need for the variance, since a sidewalk is required in the
design standards of the subdivision ordinance and the proposed does not meet those
requirements. There are no other special circumstances or conditions of the land itself.
The applicant has stated in the variance request that providing the required sidewalk and
boulevard would result in the loss of a 24 inch honey locust tree. The tree removal/landscape
plan shows this tree being removed to accommodate a future driveway, but the property owner
has stated that those plans will be modified to preserve the tree.
Staff and the Planning Commission find this criterion is not met.
2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and
welfare or injurious to other property in the territory in which property is situated.
The property is located in a single family neighborhood directly across the street from a park.
Residents in the surrounding area do walk to the park and a sidewalk would provide for
pedestrian safety. A reduction of the sidewalk to 4 feet would still accommodate pedestrians, but
would make passing less effortless.
Staff and the Planning Commission find that this criterion is met.
3. That the variance is to correct inequities resulting from an extreme physical hardship
such as topography, etc.
The property for which the variance is sought currently has an economic use as a single lot. The
land is not subject to characteristics or inequities that result in a hardship to the property owner.
The land is relatively flat as is much of the surrounding land. The need for a variance is caused
by the applicant’s desire to subdivide the land.
Staff and the Planning Commission find this criterion is not met.
.
4. That the variance is not contrary to the intent of the Comprehensive Plan.
Chapter R of the Comprehensive Plan contains goals related to pedestrian safety and pedestrian
oriented connections throughout the City. Chapter U specifically states that a neighborhood
sidewalk is desired along Quentin Avenue since it would connect an existing trail with
Browndale Park. A reduction in sidewalk width will not significantly compromise this goal,
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 8c - Mathwig Prelim & Final Plat
Page 8 of 14
however, elimination of the required sidewalk on Quentin Avenue would be inconsistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
Staff and the Planning Commission find this criterion to be met.
Since staff and the Planning Commission find the variance request to reduce sidewalk width only
meets two of the four criteria, staff and the Planning Commission recommend denial of the
proposed request.
Variance from the minimum boulevard width requirement.
As stated above, the underlying subdivision, Wooddale Park, filed in 1910 does not meet either
current zoning ordinance or subdivision ordinance requirements. The deficiency in right of way
width that prohibits the ability to provide the required public realm amenities was not corrected
in the current preliminary and final plat request. The applicant is requesting a variance for a
reduction in boulevard width in order to accommodate the proposed 2-lot subdivision. The
proposed reduction would hamper the ability to provide adequate snow storage and ability to
provide required street trees. The current preliminary and final plat drawings and landscape plan
do not reflect the subdivision design standards for sidewalks and boulevards.
1. That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property such that the
strict application of the provisions of this Subdivision Ordinance would deprive the
applicant/owner of the reasonable use of the land.
The property is currently developed with one single family home that meets all of the required
setbacks and lot requirements. There are no boulevards required by the zoning ordinance. It is
the proposed subdivision that is creating the need for the variance, since the proposal does not
meet the design requirements of subdivision ordinance. There are no other special circumstances
or conditions of the land itself.
The applicant has stated in the variance request that providing the required sidewalk and
boulevard would result in the loss of a 24 inch honey locust tree. The tree removal/landscape
plan shows this tree being removed to accommodate a future driveway. The applicant has stated
that the plan would be corrected in order to save the tree.
Staff and the Planning Commission find this criterion is not met.
2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and
welfare or injurious to other property in the territory in which property is situated.
Boulevards are required in the subdivision ordinance in order to accommodate boulevard trees
and snow storage. A reduction in boulevard width compromises its function to store snow,
especially during years of heavy snowfall. Boulevard trees, when planted in narrow boulevards,
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 8c - Mathwig Prelim & Final Plat
Page 9 of 14
have less soil mass for their root systems. Under these circumstances the trees often do not
flourish, or if they do, cause sidewalk damage as the root systems expand. However, the minimal
boulevard already exists and boulevard trees do not currently exist in this area, so the proposal is
not more detrimental than the existing condition.
Staff finds that this criterion is met.
3. That the variance is to correct inequities resulting from an extreme physical hardship
such as topography, etc.
The property for which the variance is sought currently has an economic use as a single lot. The
land is not subject to characteristics or inequities that result in a hardship to the property owner.
The land is relatively flat as is much of the surrounding land. The need for a variance is caused
by the applicant’s desire to subdivide the land.
Staff and the Planning Commission find this criterion is not met.
4. That the variance is not contrary to the intent of the Comprehensive Plan.
Chapter R of the Comprehensive Plan contains goals related to the need for an adequate public
realm. A reduction in boulevard width does compromise the ability to provide boulevard trees
and other amenities.
Staff and the Planning Commission find this criterion is not satisfied.
Since staff and the Planning Commission find the variance request meets only one of the four
criteria, staff and the Planning Commission recommend denial of the proposed request.
Are Zoning Ordinance requirements met for the Plat?
The property is zoned R-2, Single Family Residential. Final building and site plans will be
submitted with the building permit and will have to be approved by the Zoning Administrator as
meeting all ordinance requirements including setbacks, height, ground floor area, usable open
space, etc.
One provision of the zoning ordinance that applies to lots where the rear yard of one lot abuts the
side lot of another requires an extraordinary open area within the rear yard. That situation is
being proposed for this proposed subdivision since the rear yard of Lot 2 abuts the side yard of
the lot to the north. The required open area is 30 feet by 30 feet along the northeast corner of Lot
2. This requirement is not reflected on the preliminary plat drawing. The drawing must be
corrected to reflect this condition prior to City Council consideration. Otherwise, another
variance application must be submitted.
• Are there any other issues regarding the final plat?
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 8c - Mathwig Prelim & Final Plat
Page 10 of 14
The subdivision ordinance typically requires a development agreement. If this plat is ultimately
approved and financial sureties are received relative to tree replacement, landscape
implementation, and sidewalk installation, staff does not believe a development agreement is
warranted in this case. Assuming the City Attorney concurs, staff recommends waiving the
development agreement requirement if the plat is approved. Since this is a procedural
requirement, a variance is not necessary.
A permit may also be required from Minnehaha Creek Watershed District.
Recommendation:
Based on the analysis that the proposed variances do not meet the required findings, staff and the
Planning Commission recommend denial of the variances to allow the reduction in required
width of a corner lot, reduction in width of the required sidewalk, and reduction in the width of
the required boulevard. Since the denial of these variances would prohibit the proposed
preliminary and final plat from being implemented, staff and the Planning Commission also
recommend denial of the preliminary and final plat.
If the City Council decides to approve the variance requests, staff would recommend that the
preliminary and final plat be deferred so that corrections in the preliminary and final plat
drawings and landscape plan can be made that reflect problems that have been identified. Also, a
motion is needed to direct staff the draft a resolution approving the subdivision.
A deferral of the request will also require additional time beyond the 120 days. This deadline
will occur on July 23. Staff would request a letter from the applicant extending the time period
for approval.
Attachments:
§ Resolution
• Variance Applications supplement
• Existing Conditions Airphoto
• Existing plat (street names have changed) supplement
• Proposed Preliminary Plat supplement
• Proposed Final Plat supplement
• Proposed Landscape/Tree Replacement Plan supplement
Prepared by: Julie Grove, Associate Planner, 952-928-2841
Judie Erickson, Planning Coordinator, 952-924-2574
Approved By: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 8c - Mathwig Prelim & Final Plat
Page 11 of 14
RESOLUTION NO. 03-081
A RESOLUTION OF DENIAL REGARDING THE APPLICATION OF
TROY AND MELISSA MATHWIG FOR PROPOSED PRELIMINARY AND
FINAL PLAT (MATHWIG ADDITION) WITH VARIANCES TO THE SUBDIVISION
ORDINANCE FOR REDUCTION OF MINIMUM LOT WIDTH,
SIDEWALK WIDTH, AND BOULEVARD WIDTH
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of St. Louis Park:
Findings
1. Troy and Melissa Mathwig, owners and subdividers of the land proposed to be platted as
Mathwig Addition have submitted an application for approval of preliminary and final plat of
said subdivision with variances to the subdivision ordinance requirements for minimum lot
width, sidewalk width, and boulevard width, in the manner required for platting of land under
the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, and all proceedings have been duly had hereunder.
a. The subdivision proposes to divide one legally conforming single-family parcel
(consisting of three underlying lots) developed with a single family home into two lots
including a corner lot, and
b. The required lot width of a corner lot is required to be 10 feet wider than the width
required for an interior lot to accommodate increased setbacks required by the zoning code,
and.
c. The minimum lot width required by the Zoning Code is 60 feet wide, and
d. The proposed corner lot is required by of the Subdivision Ordinance to be 70 feet wide,
and
e. Section 26-153 (s) of the Subdivision Ordinance requires a 5-foot boulevard between the
required sidewalk and street to allow for snow storage and for boulevard trees, and
f. Section 26-153 (s) of the Subdivision Ordinance requires that a 5-foot sidewalk be
constructed along all public ways adjacent to new residential subdivisions, and
g. The applicant is seeking a variance from Section 26-152(b)(2) of the Subdivision
Ordinance to reduce the lot width of a corner lot from 70 feet to 68 feet, and
h. The applicant is seeking a variance from Section 26-153 (s) to narrow the required
sidewalk width, and
i. The applicant is seeking variances from Section 26-153 (s) to reduce the width of the
required boulevards.
2. The proposed plat is situated upon the following described lands in Hennepin County,
Minnesota, to-wit:
Lots 8, 9, and 10, Block 6, Wooddale Park
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 8c - Mathwig Prelim & Final Plat
Page 12 of 14
3. On May 21, 2003, the Planning Commission opened a public hearing, and acknowledged
the applicant's request for additional variances and the need for subsequent republishing of the
public hearing notice, and on a vote of 5-0 moved to continue the public hearing until June 4,
2003. On June 4, 2003, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing, received
testimony from the public, discussed the applications, and on a vote of 4-0 moved that the
Planning Commission recommend denial of the proposed plat and variances to the subdivision
ordinance based upon findings of the staff report.
4. The City Council has reviewed the proposed preliminary and final plat and variances to
the subdivision ordinance for accordance and conformity with all ordinances, City Plans and
regulations of the City of St. Louis Park and the laws of the State of Minnesota, considered the
advise and recommendation of the Planning Commission testimony and evidence presented
(Case Nos. 03-17-S and 03-18-VAR), and finds the following:
a. Section 26-42 of the Subdivision Ordinance allows for variances from its design standards
if the proposal meets all of the established criteria, and
b. The criterion that requires special circumstances or conditions affecting the property such
that the strict application of the provisions of this Subdivision Ordinance would deprive the
applicant/owner of the reasonable use of the land is not met for any of the requested variances
because the property is currently developed with one single family home that meets all of the
required setbacks and lot requirements. The proposed subdivision is creating the need for the
variance, not any other special circumstances or conditions of the land itself.
c. The criterion that the requires the granting of a variance to correct inequities resulting
from an extreme physical hardship such as topography, etc.is not met for any of the requested
variances because the property for which the variance is sought currently has an economic
use as a single lot. The land is flat as is much of the surrounding land and is not subject to
characteristics or inequities that result in a hardship to the property owner. The need for a
variance is caused by the applicant’s desire to subdivide the land, and
d. The criterion that the variance is not contrary to the intent of the Comprehensive Plan is
not met for the variance to reduce boulevard width because a reduction in boulevard width is
contrary to goals related to providing an adequate public realm since it would not allow for
the provision of boulevard trees and other amenities.
5. The contents of Planning Case Files 03-17-S and 03-18-VAR are hereby entered into
and made the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
Conclusion
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park:
The applicant's requests for variances from the subdivision ordinance requirements to
allow a reduction of minimum lot width, sidewalk width, and boulevard width do not meet the
necessary criteria for approval as set forth above and the variances are hereby denied. The
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 8c - Mathwig Prelim & Final Plat
Page 13 of 14
request for preliminary and final approval of the Mathwig Addition is hereby denied based upon
the denial of the variances and that the proposed Mathwig Addition does not meet the
requirements of the subdivision ordinance.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council July 7, 2003
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
03-17-S & 03-18-VAR:n
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 8c - Mathwig Prelim & Final Plat
Page 14 of 14
Existing Conditions
2000 Photo
Subject
Browndale Park
Morningside Road Quentin Ave
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 8d - Luther Preliminary PUD
Page 1 of 21
8d. Request of SLP Motors, LLC for a Preliminary PUD with variances from Section
36-194(c)(21)(a), (b), and (d) of zoning code to reduce the building height
restriction for a parking ramp located within 200 feet of residential, to reduce the
setback requirement for a parking ramp located within 200 feet of residential
from 50 feet to 12 feet on the south side and 6 feet on the west side and to reduce
bufferyard requirement from a Bufferyard F to a Bufferyard E on the south side
and a Bufferyard D on the west side and to eliminate the requirement for a bern
wall in order to redevelop the Win Stephen Buick Pontiac property for Westside
Volkswagen
2370 and 2440 State Highway 100 S
Case Nos. 03-14-PUD and 03-23-VAR
Preliminary PUD with variances to allow the redevelopment of an automobile
dealership, including replacing the building at 2370 TH 100, remodel the building at
2440 TH 100 and add a parking ramp.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt resolution approving Preliminary PUD with
variances from Sections 36-194(c)(21) (a), (b), and (d) of the zoning
code.
Current Zoning: C2 – General Commercial
F2 - Floodplain
Comprehensive Plan Designation: Commercial
Background:
The subject property is located on the west side of State Highway 100 S. with frontage
road access. The property received special permits to operate a motor vehicle sales lot
(Stephens Buick) in 1962 and 1964 under a previous industrial zoning classification and
prior to the delineation of the flood plain or adoption of flood plain regulations. There
are currently a number of non-conformities on the site including parking setbacks,
signage, and bufferyards. Industrial uses are located north and west of this property and a
medical office use and a residential use are located to the south. About a third of the
southwest portion of the southern lot is located in a flood zone and the existing sales lot
on this property frequently floods resulting in damage to the vehicles displayed there.
The requested use is permitted by Conditional Use Permit. The applicant is requesting a
PUD so that the two parcels can be considered together as one overall development.
On February 19, 2003, the Planning Commission recommended approval of a
Comprehensive Plan Map amendment to reguide the site to Commercial and a Zoning
Map amendment to rezone the property to C2 - General Commercial. These actions were
requested by the property owner in order to accommodate the proposed PUD. The City
Council approved these amendments on April 7, 2003.
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 8d - Luther Preliminary PUD
Page 2 of 21
On June 4, 2003, the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding the PUD with
variances. The Planning Commission continued the public hearing until June 18, when it
recommended approval of the request on a vote of 4 to 0. The owner of the medical
office building to the south provided the only public comment during the hearing.
Site Data:
PUD Size (2 lots): 6.96 Acres
Current Land Use Auto Dealership
Proposed Land Use Auto Dealership
Other required approvals: Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District
Variances Requested 3
Building Area existing 63,693 square feet
Proposed 59,666 square feet
Parking
Existing 720 approx.
Proposed 727
STEPHENS DR
2 3 R D S T W
(/100
Subject
Subject
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 8d - Luther Preliminary PUD
Page 3 of 21
Description of Request:
The applicant proposes to remove the existing building on the north property and replace
it with a new building to house the Volkswagen dealership and service that is currently
located on the east side of TH 100 at Cedar Lake Road. The building on the south lot is
being retained and rehabilitated for the used car VW sales office and car wash. The
existing canopies will be removed and other site improvements are proposed including a
3-level parking ramp along the west property line of the south property. The parking
ramp is being proposed as a remedy for the current flooding problem. Storage of the
100-year flood will occur under the ramp. The applicant is proposing to use the lower two
levels of the parking ramp to store inventory and the upper level for employee parking.
This will allow for snow removal without relocating the car inventory.
The applicant has stated that due to the popularity of the Volkswagen, the Cedar Lake
Road site is too small to handle the sales volumes and the improvements proposed for
this site are in keeping with the corporate image established for Volkswagen.
The property abuts commercial and industrial property to the north, south and west,
except that a portion of property in the southwest corner of the southerly lot abuts a
residential parking lot. The actual apartment building is located 130 feet from the
property line. The applicant is proposing to locate a 3-level parking ramp along the
western lot line of the southerly lot over the existing floodplain. The existing flood plain
area is far more extensive than what occurs on the subject parcel, extending to the south
and west. The applicant is requesting three variances to accommodate the placement of
the parking ramp due to the residential adjacency. These include reductions to setbacks
from residentially developed parcels, the parking ramp height, and bufferyard. These
requests will be discussed below.
Issues:
• Are the requirements of the PUD ordinance met, including all of the submittal
requirements?
• Is the Preliminary PUD plan consistent with zoning ordinance requirements?
• Are the criteria for the Variances met?
Issue Analysis:
• Are the requirements of the PUD ordinance met, including all of the submittal
requirements?
A. The design shall consider the whole of the project and shall create a unified
environment within project boundaries by ensuring architectural compatibility of
all structures, efficient vehicular and pedestrian circulation, aesthetically
pleasing landscape and site features, and design and efficient use of utilities.
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 8d - Luther Preliminary PUD
Page 4 of 21
The applicant is requesting a PUD in order that the two properties can be
considered together as one development. The proposal is to replace an existing
building on the northerly parcel and to remodel the existing building on the
southerly lot and add a parking ramp. The exterior design of the buildings will
use similar materials, decorative motif, and colors. In addition, all of the existing
canopies will be removed, the parking reorganized with a new circulation pattern
and a reduced number of curb cuts. The proposal adds sidewalk along all the
public ways and adds extensive landscaping, both internal and along the
perimeters.
The PUD requires a “higher standard” of development than would be required
under a conditional use permit. Several features of the proposal are of a higher
standard. These include:
§ Building materials: Proposed building materials exceed the code requirements
for 60% class 1 materials for the proposed new building and for 3 sides of the
existing building. The 4th side of the existing building is concrete block, and
will not be visible from off-site. The 60% Class 1 requirement does not apply
to building elevations that are not visible from off-site. The proposal is to
paint the block to match the existing brick and to add a pre-finished aluminum
band across the top to match the new building.
§ Parking ramp: A parking structure is considered a higher standard than a
surface parking lot. The proposed building materials for the parking ramp
exceed the requirements for parking ramps; the proposal is to use a brick
veneer for the entire ramp.
Staff and the Planning Commission find that all of these improvements meet the
intent of this section.
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 affects of the surrounding land uses on the PUD.
The proposed parking ramp will be located on the west part of the southern lot.
The walls that are visible from the residential uses to the south will not have
openings and will be covered with a brick veneer that matches the main building
on the north property. The parking ramp wall will buffer the activity associated
with the dealership from view. A bufferyard E is proposed between the south
parking ramp wall and adjacent residential use. The proposed bufferyards around
the periphery of the development will buffer this use from all of the adjacent
streets and uses.
C. The design shall take into account any modifications of ordinance requirements
permitted by Section 36-367(d) of this ordinance and provide appropriate
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 8d - Luther Preliminary PUD
Page 5 of 21
solutions to eliminate the adverse impacts of any modification required for
approval of the PUD.
The applicant is not seeking any modifications from Section 36-367(d). The PUD
is requested so that both properties can be considered as one when applying limits
on used car sales (see motor vehicle sales conditions below).
The applicant has submitted all of the necessary drawings and application materials to
evaluate the proposed development. Public Works has found that the preliminary
grading, drainage and erosion control plan and storm water calculations are acceptable.
The site plan and landscape plans indicate that the proposal intends to meet all of the
ordinance requirements, except three of the requirements for the parking ramp. The
applicant has requested three variances from those requirements. These will be discussed
below.
• Is the Preliminary PUD plan consistent with zoning ordinance requirements?
The zoning code permits motor vehicle sales by conditional use permit in the C2—
General Commercial district. There are a number of conditions listed that need to be met
in order to approve the use. Parking ramps are also permitted in the C2 district and have
additional requirements related to height, setbacks, and landscaping when located within
200 feet of a lot with a residential or institutional use. The southwest portion of the
southern lot is located within the 100-year floodplain, which requires additional
conditions.
Floodplain. About a third of the southern lot is located within the regulatory flood plain.
The Zoning Code prohibits any fill in the floodplain unless compensating storage is
provided. The applicant is proposing to fill a portion of the floodplain between the
existing building and the southern lot line and to provide the compensating storage under
the parking ramp. Public Works has reviewed the proposal and finds it an acceptable
solution. No actual calculations have been submitted that show the balance of cut and
fill. These will be required prior to final PUD approval.
Motor vehicle sales conditions:
a. No previously registered but currently unlicensed or nonoperable vehicles shall
be stored on premises.
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend this as a condition of approval.
b. A minimum of 50% of the vehicles for sale on the premises shall be new vehicles.
This condition is met as a whole for the PUD site. The plans submitted indicate
that 54.2% of the sales display area of the combined sites will be for new
vehicles, while 45.8% will be for used vehicles. Staff and the Planning
Commission recommend that this be made a condition of approval.
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 8d - Luther Preliminary PUD
Page 6 of 21
c. All open sales or rental lots shall be operated in conjunction with a building or
buildings containing the same or similar materials as displayed on the open sales
or rental lot.
This condition is met. Two sales buildings are proposed to contain new and used
vehicle sales office and display.
d. The building and the sales or rental lot shall be on one contiguous site.
This condition is being met through the PUD. The subject properties are actually
two properties that are divided by Stephens Drive. Through the PUD they would
operate as one site.
e. All parking and paved areas shall meet all of the landscaping and design
requirements of section 36-361.
The preliminary PUD landscape plan indicates that this condition is met.
f. String lighting shall be prohibited.
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend this as a condition of approval.
g. The area of open sale or rental lot used for storage and display of merchandise
shall not exceed two square feet for every one square foot of building on the site
devoted to the same or similar use or accessory use.
This condition is met. The total square footage of building area on both sites
equals 59,666 square feet. Thus, an open sales lot of 199,322 square feet is
allowable under this condition. The plans proposed 91,484 square feet of open
sales and display. Staff also recommends this provision be added as a condition
of approval.
h. No test driving shall be permitted on local residential streets.
Staff acknowledges that it may be difficult to enforce this requirement. Therefore
staff suggests that the property owner or Volkswagen develop a list of potential
test driving routes for employees and customers to follow. Staff and the Planning
Commission also recommend this as a condition of approval.
i. No outdoor public address system shall be permitted.
The existing buildings do currently have an outdoor public address system. In
fact, staff recently received a complaint that a loud speaker was being used on
site. Staff and the Planning Commission recommend that this be dismantled
during the redevelopment of this property. Today, there are numerous
alternatives to outdoor loudspeakers such as pagers and mobile phones. Staff and
the Planning Commission recommend this as a condition of approval.
j. All customer and employee parking shall be clearly designated and signed.
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend this as a condition of approval.
k. No motor vehicle transport loading or unloading shall be permitted on any minor
residential street.
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend this as a condition of approval.
l. No display or storage of motor vehicles shall be permitted on any public right-of-
way.
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend this as a condition of approval.
m. A bufferyard C shall be provided along all public ways and along an abutting O
district.
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 8d - Luther Preliminary PUD
Page 7 of 21
The Zoning Code also requires a 6-foot setback for parking lots from a public
right of way in addition to the above requirement. The Preliminary PUD
landscape plan indicates that the applicant intends to meet this provision. Some
minor adjustments are still required for sidewalk placement and the parking lot
curb. Staff and the Planning Commission propose that this be a condition of
approval and that the Final PUD landscape plan be modified to show these
adjustments.
n. A bufferyard F shall be installed and maintained along all property lines of an R
use.
A variance is being requested from this requirement. See the analysis below.
o. The storage lot shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from an R use.
Currently the site plan indicates that outdoor display of vehicles along the south
side of the southerly lot is located within about 80 feet of an R district. The
zoning code requirement is that the storage lot be located a minimum of 100 feet
from an R district. The applicant has agreed to remove 2 outdoor storage spaces
in order to meet this requirement. This modification has already been reflected on
the most current landscape plan and the site plan will be modified prior to final
PUD approval.
p. The use is in conformance with the comprehensive plan including any provisions
of the redevelopment chapter and the plan by neighborhood policies for the
neighborhood in which it is located and conditions of approval may be added as a
means of satisfying this requirement.
The Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map were recently amended to permit this
use.
Parking ramp. The applicant is proposing to construct a three level parking ramp along
the west property line of the southern lot. Parking ramps are permitted as accessory uses
in the C2—General Commercial District, however these are subject to the same
conditions as parking ramps as principal uses.
The southwest portion of the south lot abuts the parking lot for an apartment building as
is shown on the aerial photo. The actual apartment building is about 130 feet from the
property line (142 feet from the parking structure).
The south and west elevations of the parking ramp do not show any openings so that
these elevations more closely resemble a building than a typical parking ramp. The ramp
façade is proposed to be covered with a brick veneer using a decorative motif and
patterns that match the proposed new building on the north lot. The proposed ramp does
not include building wall deviations that would be required by the zoning code for
buildings. Since the parking ramp is considered a structure and not a building, these are
not specifically required. If this were a building, it would require a setback from
residential equal to the building height. Architecturally, additional use of the decorative
motif pattern along the west building facade would improve its appearance and more
closely resemble the wall deviations required for a building.
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 8d - Luther Preliminary PUD
Page 8 of 21
Ingress and egress from the parking ramp occur on the east side, away from the
residential uses. Noise and activity associated with the parking ramp will be shielded
from the residential property by the parking ramp structure itself. There are specific
requirements that limit lighting on the roof of the parking ramp so it is not visible from
neighboring residential uses. The applicant will be required to show how this is resolved
prior to building permit being issued.
Conditions for approval of a parking ramp include:
a. The height of any parking ramp located within 200 feet of 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, may not penetrate the height of a line commencing at and
perpendicular to said parcel and extending upward away from said parcel at a
slope of five horizontal feet for each vertical foot.
A variance is being requested from this condition. See the analysis below.
b. The minimum yard requirement for any parking ramp located within 200 feet of
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, shall be 50 feet.
A variance is being requested from this condition. See the analysis below.
c. Access shall be from a roadway identified in the comprehensive plan as a
collector or arterial or otherwise located so that access can be provided without
conducting significant traffic on local residential streets.
The proposed parking ramp meets this requirement.
d. The parking ramp shall be screened from view from any abutting property located
within an R district with a bufferyard F. This bufferyard shall include a B4 berm
or Bw3 berm wall if the parking ramp is above ground.
A variance is being requested from this condition. See the analysis below.
e. If the parking ramp is located within 400 feet of 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, all light sources on the top deck of a parking ramp shall be
below the sight lines drawn from a point one foot about the light source to any
pint within said parcel ten feet lower than the maximum structure height of that
use district at a distance of 400 feet from the wall of the parking ramp nearest to
said parcel.
An analysis of the lighting will be required prior to issuance of a building permit
and Staff and the Planning Commission recommend this as a condition of
approval.
Other Ordinance Code Requirements:
Parking Standards
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 8d - Luther Preliminary PUD
Page 9 of 21
The proposed plan exceeds the ordinance parking requirements. Open sales lots require 1
space for each 2500 square feet of land used for sales and display. Under motor vehicle
service and repair, the ordinance also requires 4 parking spaces for each service bay, each
bay can be a maximum of 400 square feet in size. The developer is proposing to use
91,482 square feet for display and 42 service bays are proposed in the new Volkswagen
building on the northern site. Thus requiring a total of 205 parking spaces. 727 stalls in
total are proposed on site; 110 customer parking stalls, 20 employee stalls on the surface
lot, 99 employee stalls on the 3rd level of the parking ramp, 300 vehicle display stalls, 198
inventory parking stalls on the 1st and 2nd levels of the ramp.
The applicant has stated that there are 720 stalls existing on the site and that the 727 stalls
proposed would only replace what is currently existing. The proposed site plan
reorganizes the site adding curbs, drive aisles, and landscaping. The parking ramp
displaces a number of at-grade parking places.
Tree removal/replacement. There are no existing trees on the site and thus no tree
replacement is required.
Sidewalks and Trails. The Zoning Ordinance requires that sidewalks be provided along
all public ways of commercial development. There is a need for a sidewalk/trail
connection from the neighborhood to the south to the regional trail north of this site just
south of the Burlington Northern railroad property. The applicant has agreed to provide
sidewalks and trails and these are reflected on the site plan. The site plan indicates that a
portion of these sidewalks and trails are on private property. Staff has informed the
applicant that an easement will be required over that area of private property where the
sidewalks are shown. It may also be possible to move some portions of the sidewalk
along the southern lot to be completely within the public right of way. This would allow
a greater distance between the sidewalk and parking lot, thus allowing additional
landscaping.
The site plan shows a pedestrian crossing on Stephens Drive, located fairly close to the
exit ramp from TH 100. Vehicle speeds on the ramp are fairly fast, so this crossing may
not be the safest location. The Planning Commission suggested that this crossing be
retained, but that other crossing locations further west also be identified. The City
Engineer and met with the applicant’s engineer and identified the best location for the
crosswalks. These will be reflected on the final plat.
Grading and Utility Plan
Generally the grading and utility plans are found to be adequate.
Other Issues
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 8d - Luther Preliminary PUD
Page 10 of 21
The Demolition Plan shows the removal of all of the canopies as well as the existing
building on the north lot. There are several issues related to the demolition of the
existing building related to utility services that will need to be addressed.
Recently, the land use “Autobody/painting” was added as a permitted accessory use to
“Motor vehicles sales”. The proposed PUD does not include “Autobody/painting”.
Since this accessory use may have off-site impacts, staff and the Planning commission
recommend a condition be added to the PUD that would require the applicant to amend
the PUD before this accessory use could be added to the current operation.
§
• Are the criteria for the Variances met?
Variance from Section 36-194(c)(21) (a) The height of any parking ramp located within
200 feet of 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, may not penetrate the height of a line commencing
at and perpendicular to said parcel and extending upward away from said parcel at a
slope of five horizontal feet for each vertical foot. And Variance from Section 36-
194(c)(21) (b) The minimum yard requirement for any parking ramp located within 200
feet of 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, shall be 50 feet.
As a remedy to the flood plain, the applicant is proposing to build a 3-level parking ramp
along the west edge of the property with setbacks of 6 feet from the west property line
and 12 feet from the south property line. The applicant is proposing to accommodate the
100-year flood plain under the proposed ramp and to fill the remaining parking lot area so
that all of the surface parking is located above the flood plain elevation. The existing
floodplain is located in the southwest portion of the property that directly abuts the
residential parking lot, which is also in the flood plain. The grading plan and flood
storage solution have been reviewed and found acceptable by Public Works provided that
these meet the total replacement required. The ramp does not meet the height
requirements of the zoning code that requires a graduated setback from residential
property. In addition to the height restrictions for parking ramps abutting residentially
used property, there is also a setback requirement. The applicant is seeking a variance
from both provisions. The height of the proposed parking ramp from grade at the
southwest corner is 35 feet. The Planning Commission recommended approval of these
variances, finding all of the following criteria were met. The City Council must also
consider the following criteria in order to recommend approval of these variances.
1. Where by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of the lot, or where by
reason of exceptional topographic or water conditions or other extraordinary and
exceptional conditions of such lot, the strict applications of the terms of this
ordinance would result in a peculiar and practical difficulties or exceptional or
undue hardship upon the owner of such lot in developing or using such lot in a
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 8d - Luther Preliminary PUD
Page 11 of 21
manner customary and legally permissible within the zoning district in which said
lot is located.
The applicant has stated that the flood plain in the southwest corner of the
property creates difficulties in providing sufficient parking without subjecting
new automobiles to the potential for flooding. Approximately a third of the south
lot is located within the regulatory flood plain. Significant damage has been
sustained in the past when flood events occur. In order to provide the same
number of parking spaces that currently exist out of the floodplain, the parking
structure is required. A location anywhere else on the lot would be impractical
given the desire to retain the existing building and the location of the floodplain.
Staff and the Planning Commission consider this criterion to be met.
2. Conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such
property or immediately adjoining property and do not apply generally to other
land or structures in the district in which said land is located.
The applicant states that the peculiar circumstances are the location of the flood
plain and the short boundary it shares with the residential parking lot. Most other
land in the C2 district is not hampered with flood plain issues.
Staff and the Planning Commission consider this criterion to be met
3. The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
a substantial property right of the applicant.
The applicant states that “the proposed variance is necessary to redevelop the
property in compliance with the current performance standards for motor vehicle
sales, which is an allowed use within the zoning district.” Motor vehicle sales is a
conditional use in the C2 district. The applicant is proposing to do major site
improvements including interior landscaping and bufferyards and the proposed
number of parking spaces, according to the applicant, is equal to what currently
exists.
Staff and the Planning Commission consider this criterion to be met
4. The granting of the variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air
to the adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in the public
streets, increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety.
The applicant states “The parking deck will not have a direct access to public
streets. The deck will be approximately 130 feet to the north of the apartment
building to the south, and therefore will not cast any shadows on or interfere with
the supply of air to the apartment building.”
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 8d - Luther Preliminary PUD
Page 12 of 21
Staff and the Planning Commission agree with the applicant’s statement, and find
this criterion to be met.
5. The granting of the variance will not unreasonably impact on the character and
development of the neighborhood, unreasonably diminish or impair the
established property values in the surrounding area, or in any other way impair
the health, safety, comfort, or morals of the area.
The applicant states that the granting of the variance will enable the property to be
redeveloped and brought into conformance with the zoning ordinance. The
parking ramp will be constructed using decorative brick with no openings along
the entire south and west walls. The parking ramp will screen the automobiles
from the apartment building that is located about 140 feet from the proposed
parking ramp. It would be difficult to build an addition to the apartment that
would be any closer to the parking ramp due to the floodplain in that area. The
property to the west, also in the floodplain, is zoned industrial and is part of the
Novartis property. Novartis’ ability to expand would not be impacted by this
development. Therefore, it doesn’t limit the use of the adjacent property.
Staff and the Planning Commission consider this criterion to be met.
6. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the intent of the Zoning
Ordinance or Comprehensive Plan.
Motor vehicle sales is a use permitted as a conditional use in the C2 zoning
district. The Comprehensive Plan designation for the property is “Commercial”.
The apartment building is 130 feet away from the property line and views of
outdoor storage would be mitigated by the architecturally embellished parking
structure.
Staff and the Planning Commission consider this criterion to be met.
7. The granting of the variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the
applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable undue hardship or difficulty.
The applicant claims that the parking deck is necessary to remove vehicle storage
from the floodplain and to replace the parking that is lost in order to provide
bufferyards, interior landscaping, sidewalks and trail. Staff would agree that in
order to provide the existing level of parking on the site a parking ramp is
necessary.
Staff and the Planning Commission consider this criterion to be met.
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 8d - Luther Preliminary PUD
Page 13 of 21
In that staff and the Planning Commission consider all of the above criteria to be met,
staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the above variances to allow
a parking ramp setback of 6 feet instead of the required 50 feet from a residential lot and
to allow a parking ramp height of 35 feet within 6 feet of a residential lot.
Variance from Section 36-194 (c)(21) (d) and 36-194(d)(2)(n) The parking ramp shall be
screened from view from any abutting property located within an R district with a
bufferyard F. This bufferyard shall include a B4 berm or BW3 berm wall if the parking
ramp is above ground.
The proposed PUD site plan shows the parking ramp located 12 feet from the south
property line and 6 feet from the west property line where it abuts a short segment of a
residential parking lot. The parking ramp will be covered with a decorative brick veneer
and will not have any openings along its south and west elevations. In this respect the
parking ramp will resemble a building. Bufferyard F requires 135 plant units and 330
total units per 100 feet. Since the ramp wall will screen all of the parking within the
ramp, the wall itself could be considered an F6 wall, yielding 150 of the required units.
The applicant is proposing to meet the point requirements for a Bufferyard E along the
south property line and a Bufferyard D along the west property line, but cannot provide
either a B4 berm or a BW3 berm wall because either of these would impede floodwaters,
and thus would be contrary to floodplain regulations. The proposed Bufferyard D along
the south 25 feet of the west ramp wall meets the total units but does not meet the
required plant units. A variance is requested from this provision because this area of the
site is within the floodplain and frequently floods. Whatever plants are used must
tolerate standing in water and cannot impede floodwaters.
The southwest portion of the south property where the Bufferyard F is required
frequently floods, and requires plant materials that can tolerate standing in water and not
impede flood waters. The pallet of materials is very limited. The landscape plan shows
river birch and black chokeberry shrubs along the south wall and black chokeberry shrubs
along the west elevation. The west wall elevation is not visible from the apartment
building.
1. Where by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of the lot, or where by reason
of exceptional topographic or water conditions or other extraordinary and
exceptional conditions of such lot, the strict applications of the terms of this
ordinance would result in a peculiar and practical difficulties or exceptional or
undue hardship upon the owner of such lot in developing or using such lot in a
manner customary and legally permissible within the zoning district in which said lot
is located.
The applicant has stated that the flood plain in the southwest corner of the property
creates difficulties in providing sufficient parking without subjecting new
automobiles to the potential for flooding. Approximately a third of the south lot is
located within the regulatory flood plain. Relocating the parking ramp to any other
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 8d - Luther Preliminary PUD
Page 14 of 21
portion of the property would defeat the solution of providing storage of the 100-year
flood underneath the ramp, and would require the loss of a number of surface spaces.
The required berm or bermwall would block the free flow of flood waters so would
violate floodplain regulations.
Staff and the Planning Commission consider this criterion to be met.
2. Conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property
or immediately adjoining property and do not apply generally to other land or
structures in the district in which said land is located.
The applicant states that the peculiar circumstances are the location of the flood plain
and the short boundary it shares with the residential parking lot. Most other land in
the C2 district is not hampered with flood plain issues.
Staff and the Planning Commission consider this criterion to be met
3. The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant.
The applicant states that “the proposed variance is necessary to redevelop the
property in compliance with the current performance standards for motor vehicle
sales, which is an allowed use within the zoning district.” Motor vehicle sales is a
conditional use in the C2 district. In order to provide the required structure and plant
materials required for a Bufferyard F, the parking ramp would need to be located out
of the floodplain. This would be contrary to the proposed solution to provide flood
under the parking ramp. The proposed parking ramp is replacing parking currently on
the site that the applicant says is needed so that the entire motor vehicle sales
operation can occur on the private lot. The applicant has stated that reducing the
parking spaces to the degree that is required to meet all of the code requirements
would render the project unfeasible.
Staff and the Planning Commission consider this criterion to be met.
4. The granting of the variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to
the adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in the public streets,
increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety.
The applicant states “The parking deck will not have a direct access to public streets.
The deck will be approximately 130 feet to the north of the apartment building to the
south, and therefore will not cast any shadows on or interfere with the supply of air to
the apartment building.” A reduction in the bufferyard requirements will not impair
the supply of light and air or increase the danger to adjacent properties.
Staff and the Planning Commission consider this criterion to be met.
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 8d - Luther Preliminary PUD
Page 15 of 21
5. The granting of the variance will not unreasonably impact on the character and
development of the neighborhood, unreasonably diminish or impair the established
property values in the surrounding area, or in any other way impair the health,
safety, comfort, or morals of the area.
The applicant states that the granting of the variance will enable the property to be
redeveloped and brought into conformance with the zoning ordinance. The parking
ramp will be constructed using decorative brick with no openings along the entire
south wall. The parking ramp will screen the automobiles from the apartment
building that is located about 130 feet from the proposed parking ramp and replace
the existing surface display area. It would be difficult for the apartment to build an
addition close to the parking ramp due to the floodplain on that area. However, a
similar parking ramp solution could be constructed. The location of the parking ramp
does not hamper the ability for the industrial property owner to the west to expand
that use. Therefore, it doesn’t limit the use of the adjacent properties.
Staff and the Planning Commission consider this criterion to be met.
6. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the intent of the Zoning
Ordinance or Comprehensive Plan.
Motor vehicle sales is a use permitted as a conditional use in the C2 zoning district.
The Comprehensive Plan designation for the property is “Commercial”. The intent of
the Zoning Ordinance performance standards that require bufferyards is to screen
from abutting residential uses the noise, activities and building bulk associated with
the operation of a parking ramp. The proposal is to construct a parking ramp that is
fully enclosed with no openings along the portion of the structure that abuts the
residential, thereby screening the noise and activities associated with both the parking
ramp and the motor vehicle use. The zoning ordinance also contains provisions for
protecting property from flooding and for retaining floodplain. The applicant is
requesting a variance to reduce the requirement for plant materials on the west side of
the building and to decrease the bufferyard requirement to a bufferyard E on the south
side of the building and also eliminate the requirement for a berm. This reduction of
landscape materials is directly related to the flooding that occurs along this portion of
the property during heavy rains. Granting of the variance is in conformance with
floodplain regulations.
Staff and the Planning Commission consider this criterion to be met.
7. The granting of the variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant,
but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable undue hardship or difficulty.
The applicant claims that the parking deck is necessary to remove vehicle storage
from the floodplain and to replace the parking that is lost in order to provide
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 8d - Luther Preliminary PUD
Page 16 of 21
bufferyards, interior landscaping, sidewalks and trail. Staff would agree that in order
to provide the existing level of parking on the site a parking ramp is necessary and
that its location on the lot provides a solution to ordinance requirements to preserve
flood plain on the property. The parking ramp does provide the intended screening of
parking from abutting residential uses. The flood storage that is being provided under
the parking ramp is required by code, and the ramp allows for the replacement of the
current number surface parking spaces being lost due to improved circulation,
landscaping, sidewalks, and that being displaced by the ramp structure itself. The
applicant is proposing a level of landscaping along the south building wall that will
partially screen the building wall from the apartment use.
Staff and the Planning Commission consider this criterion to be met.
Since staff and the Planning Commission consider all of the criteria for the variances to
be met, staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance.
Recommendation: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Preliminary PUD with
variances based on the findings and subject to the conditions in the attached resolution:
Attachments: Resolution approving Preliminary PUD with variances
Preliminary PUD plans supplement
Variance applications supplement
Prepared by: Judie Erickson, Planning Coordinator (952) 924-2574
Approved By: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 8d - Luther Preliminary PUD
Page 17 of 21
RESOLUTION NO. 03-082
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
(PUD) UNDER SECTION 36-367 OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE
RELATING TO ZONING WITH VARIANCES FROM SECTION 36-194(c)(21)(a), (b),
AND (d) OF THE ZONING CODE TO REDUCE THE BUILDING HEIGHT
RESTRICTION FOR A PARKING RAMP LOCATED WITHIN 200 FEET OF
RESIDENTIAL, TO REDUCE THE SETBACK REQUIREMENT FOR A PARKING
RAMP LOCATED WITHIN 200 FEET OF RESIDENTIAL FROM 50 FEET TO 7 FEET
AND TO REDUCE THE BUFFERYARD REQUIREMENTS ADJACENT TO
RESIDENTIAL USES FROM A BUFFERYARD F TO A BUFFERYARD E WITHOUT A
BERM OR BERM WALL FOR PROPERTY ZONED C2-GENERAL COMMERCIAL
LOCATED AT 2370 and 2440 STATE HIGHWAY 100 SOUTH
WHEREAS, an application for approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) with
variances was received and deemed complete on May 19, 2003, from the applicant, and
WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing on the Preliminary PUD with variances was
mailed to all owners of property within 350 feet of the subject property plus other affected
property owners in the vicinity and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the Preliminary PUD concept with
variances at the meeting of June 4, 2003 , and
WHEREAS, notice of public hearing on the Preliminary PUD with variances was
published in the St. Louis Park Sailor on May 22, 2003, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing at the meeting of June
4, 2003, and on a vote of 4-0 moved to continue the public hearing to June 18, 2003, and
WHEREAS, on June 18, 2003, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the
Preliminary PUD with variances on a 4-0 vote with all members present voting in the
affirmative, and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the staff reports, Planning Commission
minutes and testimony of those appearing at the public hearing or otherwise including comments
in the record of decision.
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park:
Findings
1. SLP Motors, LLC (The Luther Company) has made application to the City Council for a
Planned Unit Development under Section 36-367 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code with
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 8d - Luther Preliminary PUD
Page 18 of 21
variances from Section 36-194(c)(21)(a), (b), and (d) of the zoning code to allow a parking ramp
height in accordance with approved Preliminary PUD elevation exhibits, to reduce the setback
requirement for a parking ramp located within 200 feet of residential from 50 feet to 6 feet and to
reduce the bufferyard requirements adjacent to residential uses from a Bufferyard F to a
Bufferyard D and E without a berm or berm wall within the C-2 General Commercial district
located at 2370 and 2440 State Highway 100 South for the legal description as follows, to-wit:
Tract I:
That part of the South 310 feet of the North 340 feet of the Southwest Quarter of the
Northwest Quarter of Section 31, Township 29, Range 24, lying West of State Highway
No. 100 and lying East of a line drawn at a right angle to the North line of said quarter
quarter and from a point therein distant 375.18 feet East of the Northwest corner of said
quarter quarter. Abstract
Tract II:
Parcel 1:
That part of Tracts A and B, Registered Land Survey No. 493, Files of Registrar of Titles,
County of Hennepin, lying Easterly and Southerly of a line parallel with and 22.5 feet
Easterly and Southerly of a line described as beginning at a point in the South line of
said Tract B, distant 443.3 feet Easterly as measured along said South line, from the
Southwest corner of said Tract B; thence North 2 degrees 24 minutes East, 298.84 feet to
an intersection with a line parallel with and 242.5 feet Southerly of the Southerly right of
way line of the Great Northern Railroad right of way, thence North 73 degrees 08
minutes East along last said parallel to the Easterly line of Tract C in said Registered
Land Survey and there terminating; except the East 50 feet of the above described
property. For the purposes of this description the West line of said Tract A is assumed to
bear due North and South.
Parcel 2:
That part of the Easterly 50 feet of Tracts A and B which lies Southerly of the Southerly
line of Tract C and of the Westerly extension of said Southerly line, all in Registered
Land Survey No. 493. Files of Registrar of Titles, County of Hennepin.
Parcel 3:
That part of the Northwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 31, Township 29, Range
24, lying south of the Great Northern Railway right of way and West of State Highway
No. 100, except that part described as follows, to-wit: Commencing at the point of
intersection of the Southerly right of way line of the Great Northern Railway with the
Westerly right of way line of State Highway No. 100; thence Southerly along said
Westerly right of way line of State Highway No. 100, 377.6 feet; thence Westerly parallel
with said Southerly right of way line of Great Northern Railway, a distance of 400 feet;
thence at right angles Northerly 250 feet to the Southerly right of way line of Great
Northern Railway; thence Easterly along said right of way line 220 feet; thence at right
angles Northerly along Great Northern Railway right of way 80 feet; thence Easterly
along the Southerly right of way line of Great Northern Railway 364 feet to the point of
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 8d - Luther Preliminary PUD
Page 19 of 21
beginning, also except that part thereof embraced in Registered Land Survey No. 493.
Torrens
2. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning
Commission (Case Nos. 03-14-PUD and 03-23-VAR) and the effect of the proposed PUD with
variances 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 with variances 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 with
variances 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 Nos. 03-14-PUD and 03-23-VAR are hereby entered into
and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
Conclusion
The Preliminary Planned Unit Development with variances 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 approved plan changes through the final PUD process.
2. Prior to final PUD consideration by the Planning Commission, applicant shall
submit complete final PUD application materials, which shall comply with
conditions of approval of the preliminary PUD and with issues identified in the
staff report including landscaping, building elevations and materials, site lighting,
and signage plans and as listed below:
a. Supply calculations that show the area being removed from the 100-year
flood plain is replaced within the area under the parking ramp
b. Supply revised drawings for the west elevation of the parking lot that
shows greater use of the pattern motif.
c. Work out any landscape plan revisions that may be identified by staff after
further analysis to meet the intent of the zoning code and PUD
requirements.
d. Revise the site plan to correspond with the final landscape plan that
indicates the final placement of sidewalks, addresses required parking lot
setbacks, removes any parking stalls located closer than 100 feet from a
residentially used parcel.
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 8d - Luther Preliminary PUD
Page 20 of 21
e. Submit a list of proposed test driving routes for consideration.
3. Final PUD approval and development is contingent upon developer meeting all
conditions of final approval including all Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
requirements.
4. Prior to any site work, the applicant shall comply with the following
requirements:
a. Pursuant to Section 36-367(e)(6) of the Zoning Ordinance, a development
agreement shall be executed between the developer and the City which covers at a
minimum, sidewalk and construction and maintenance, repair and cleaning of
public streets.
b. Submit financial security in the form of cash escrow or letter of credit in
the amount of 125% of the costs of sidewalk installation and
repair/cleaning of public streets.
c. Reimbursement of City attorney’s fees in drafting/reviewing such
documents.
d. Record an easement for the required sidewalk/trail where it is located on
the private property.
e. A copy of the Watershed District permit shall be forwarded to the City.
f. Any other necessary permits from other agencies shall be obtained.
g. Sign assent form and official exhibits.
h. Obtain the required erosion control permits, utility permits and other
permits required by the City.
i. Meet any other conditions of final PUD approval.
5. Prior to issuance of any building permits, which may impose additional
requirements, the developer shall comply with the following:
a. Meet any Fire Department emergency access requirements for during
construction.
b. The applicant shall furnish the City with evidence of recording of the
sidewalk and trail easement.
c. Building materials samples shall be submitted to and approved by City.
d. A lighting plan and photometrics and irrigation plan meeting the ordinance
regulations shall be submitted to and approved by the community
development department. These shall include lighting plans and details
for the roof of the parking ramp.
e. Remove all non-conforming signs from the property.
6. The variance request to allow a bufferyard D and F between the PUD site and
abutting residentially used property as shown on the approved preliminary PUD
exhibits is contingent upon final PUD approval.
7. The variance request to allow setbacks for the parking ramp as shown on the
approved preliminary PUD exhibits is contingent upon final PUD approval.
8. The variance request to allow the height of the parking ramp as shown on the
approved preliminary PUD exhibits is contingent upon final PUD approval.
9. The developer shall comply with the following conditions during construction:
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 8d - Luther Preliminary PUD
Page 21 of 21
a. All City noise ordinances shall be complied with, including that there be
no construction activity between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. on
weekdays and 10 p.m. and 9 a.m. on weekends and holidays.
b. Loud equipment shall be kept as far as possible from residences at all
times.
c. The site shall be kept free of dust and debris that could blow onto
neighboring properties.
d. Public streets shall be maintained free of dirt and shall be cleaned as
necessary.
e. The Zoning Administrator may impose additional conditions if it becomes
necessary in order to mitigate the impact of construction on surrounding
properties.
10. During operation of the motor vehicle sales the property owner shall comply with
the following:
a. No previously registered but currently unlicensed or nonoperable vehicles
shall be stored on premises.
b. A minimum of 50% of the vehicles for sale on the PUD premises shall be
new vehicles.
c. String lighting is prohibited.
d. The area of open sale or rental lot used for storage and display of
merchandise shall not exceed two square feet each square foot of building
area.
e. Test driving is prohibited on local residential streets.
f. Outdoor public address systems are prohibited.
g. All customer and employee parking shall be clearly designated and signed.
h. The display or storage of motor vehicles is prohibited on any public right-
of-way.
i. No motor vehicle transport loading or unloading shall be permitted on any
minor residential street.
11. Autobody/painting is not permitted as an accessory use to the PUD without a
major amendment to it.
12. All signage on the site shall comply with the current zoning code including
removal if existing rooftop and other non-conforming signs prior to issuance of building
permit and applying for permits for any new permanent or temporary signs.
13. The developer or owner shall pay an administrative fee of $750 per violation of any
condition of this approval.
14. Under the Zoning Ordinance Code, these variances shall be revoked and cancelled if the
building or structure for which variances are granted is removed.
(Signature Block)
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 8e - ISD 287 Contract
Page 1 of 2
8e. Agreement between the City of St. Louis Park and Intermediate School District
287 for school liaison services
This agreement provides a full time police officer to Intermediate School District 287
during the school year with the school district paying for the cost of the services.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve agreement and authorize execution by Mayor
and City Manager
Background:
During the past 10 years, the St. Louis Park Police Department has enjoyed a very successful
partnership with St. Louis Park School District 283 and Intermediate School District 287 in
sharing the services of a police officer. The cost of this position was divided proportionally
among the 3 partners, with the school districts sharing the services during the school year and the
officer returning to uniform patrol duties in the summer months.
Based upon our previous contract, Intermediate School District 287 paid 65% of the position
cost, St. Louis Park District 283 paid 16%, and the City of St. Louis Park paid 19%. However,
during the past few years, the need for police service at the Intermediate District 287 building on
Cedar Lake Road has evolved into a full-time commitment during the school year. This growing
need has made it increasingly difficult for this police liaison officer to provide services to St.
Louis Park Junior High School.
Under the new agreement, Intermediate District 287's request for a full time police officer during
the school year is accommodated. The new agreement is between the City of St. Louis Park and
Intermediate District 287 and, in this agreement, District 287 pays for a full-time police officer
during the school year.
Several meetings have been held with St. Louis Park School District Superintendent, Barbara
Pulliam and her staff to discuss this change. District 283 will no longer be paying 16% of the
liaison officer's salary and will no longer receive services from this officer outside emergency
circumstances. However, the junior high school would like to continue receiving liaison services
from the police department. We presented the option of taking the DARE program out of the
elementary schools and replacing it with a junior high DARE program and liaison officer.
Superintendent Pulliam shares my belief that the elementary school DARE program adds
tremendous value for kids, so eliminating it was not a viable option.
For the 2003-2004 school year, the elementary school DARE officer will be attempting to
provide services to St. Louis Park Junior High. Because of curriculum changes, the elementary
school DARE officer will have a little bit more discretionary time than under the old curriculum.
Because the DARE officer uses non-classroom time to provide liaison services to the elementary
schools, time spent in the junior high may reduce the amount of time spent in elementary
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 070703 - 8e - ISD 287 Contract
Page 2 of 2
schools. This new arrangement has been discussed with junior high school principal, Les Bork,
and will be evaluated at the end of the 2003-2004 school year.
This agreement was drafted by the St. Louis Park City Attorney's Office and has been reviewed
by Intermediate School District 287 representatives.
Recommendation: Staff recommends that Council approve the agreement and authorize
execution by the Mayor and City Manager. The agreement will be retroactive to July 1, 2003.
Attachments: School Liaison Services Contract with Intermediate School District 287
(Supplement)
Prepared By: John D. Luse, Chief of Police
Approved By: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager