The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2002/01/22 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Regular 1 AGENDA - CITY COUNCIL MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA Tuesday, January 22, 2002 7:30 p.m. 1. Call to Order a. Pledge of Allegiance b. Roll Call 2. Presentations a. 2001 Board and Commission Recognition of Members Resigning in 2001. 3. Approval of Minutes a. City Council Minutes of January 7, 2002 Action: Corrections/amendments to minutes - Minutes approved as presented 4. Approval of Agenda and Consent Items NOTE: Consent items are 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. a. Approval of Agenda Action: Motion to approve (Alternatively, motion to add or remove items from the agenda, motion to move items from consent to regular agenda for discussion). b. Approval of Consent Items 1. Motion to approve a resolution supporting the City of St. Louis Park’s application to the Minnesota Housing and Finance Agency and Federal Home Loan Bank for assistance in funding a pilot home improvement program 2. Motion to adopt a resolution approving the request of Meadowford, LLC (Gary Wood) and the City of St. Louis Park for approval of Preliminary and Final Plat for Wellington Windows Addition including variances to the subdivision ordinance for reduced sidewalks, reduced perimeter lot easements, and to waive 2 the requirement for a Grading, Erosion Control and Development Agreement. (Case No. 01-58-S Property at 3938 and 3900 Meadowbrook Road) 3. Motion to Approve First Reading of Ordinance Amendments Reinstating Language Regarding Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and Set Second Reading for February 4, 2002 4. Motion to accept the following reports for filing: a. Housing Minutes of November 14, 2001 b. Housing Authority Minutes of December 12, 2001 c. Planning Commission Minutes of January 2, 2002 d. Charter Commission Minutes of November 14, 2001 e. Human Rights Commission Minutes of December 19, 2001 (Note: Due to financial program conversion, the vendor claims report will not be available until the meeting of February 4th.) Action: Motion to approve Consent Items 5. Public Hearings 6. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public 7. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions 7a. Resolution to amend the Plan By Neighborhood chapter of the Comprehensive Plan 2000-2020 to address changes to land northwest of Beltline Boulevard and West 36th Street Planning Commission initiated amendment to Comprehensive Plan 2000 – 2020 to provide specific guidelines and limit commercial land uses in area northwest of Beltline Boulevard and West 36th Street (Case Nos. 01-60-CP) Recommended Action: Motion to adopt Resolution approving Comprehensive Plan 2000 – 2020 text amendments contingent upon Metropolitan Council approval and authorize summary resolution publication. 7b. Request of Belt Line Industrial Park, Inc. (John D. McCain) to amend the Comprehensive Plan Designation for parcels along West 36th Street and Belt Line Boulevard from Industrial to Commercial and First reading of Ordinance to amend the Zoning map for the same area from IP-Industrial Park to C2-General Commercial 3533 Raleigh Avenue South, 3550, 3540, 3532 and the south 180 feet of 3510 Belt Line Boulevard Case No. 01-53-CP Case No. 01-54-Z 3 Recommended Action: ♦ South, 3550, 3540, 3532 and the south 180 feet of 3510 Motion to approve Resolution adopting a Comprehensive Plan land use designation change from Industrial to Commercial for properties located at 3533 Raleigh Avenue South, 3550, 3540, 3532 and the south 180 feet of 3510 Belt Line Boulevard subject to approval of the Metropolitan Council. ♦ Motion to approve first reading of ordinance and set second reading for February 4, 2002 for a Zoning Map amendment to change the zoning map designation from IP-Industrial Park to C2-General Commercial for properties located at 3533 Raleigh Avenue Belt Line Boulevard subject to the approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment. 7c. First Reading of Ordinance for text amendments to Chapter 36 of the Municipal Code to add a new land use called “Post Office Customer Service” along with a definition, standards and parking requirements (Case Nos. 01-61-ZA) Recommended Action: Motion to approve first reading of Ordinance to amend Chapter 36 of the Municipal Code to add “Post Office Customer Service” as a new land use along with a definition, standards, and parking requirements and set second reading for February 3, 2002. 8. Boards and Committees 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. 4 Item # 3a UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA January 7, 2002 1. Call to Order Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m. The following Councilmembers were present at roll call: Jim Brimeyer, Chris Nelson, Susan Sanger, Sue Santa, Sally Velick, and Mayor Jeff Jacobs. Councilmember Latz was absent. Also present were the City Manager (Mr. Meyer); City Attorney (Mr. Scott); Community Development Director (Mr. Harmening); Planning and Zoning Supervisor (Ms. Jeremiah); Community Outreach Coordinator (Ms. McDonell); and Recording Secretary (Ms. Samson). (Item 2a preceded the roll call) 2. Presentations 2a. Judge Oleisky to swear in Susan Sanger, Chris Nelson, Sue Santa and Sally Velick The following Councilmembers were sworn in by Judge Oleisky: Susan Sanger (Ward 1); Chris Nelson (Ward 2); Sue Santa (Ward 3); and Sally Velick (Ward 4). 2b. Human Rights Award Human Rights Commissioners were present to witness the presentation of Human Rights Awards to the following: Arc of Hennepin and Carver counties, Ms. Nancy Soucier, Dr. Sabina Zimering, and Ms. Linda Trummer. 3. Approval of Minutes 3a. City Council Minutes of December 17, 2001 Councilmember Santa pointed out on Page 11, second to the last line, the Councilmember is not identified. The sentence reads: “Councilmember asked if neighbors” and it should read: “Councilmember Santa asked if neighbors”. 3b. Study Session Minutes of December 10, 2001 The minutes were approved as presented. 5 4. Approval of Agenda and Consent Items NOTE: Consent items are 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. Approval of Agenda Councilmember Santa requested Item 3 be moved from the Consent Agenda to the Regular Agenda. It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to move Consent Item 3 to the Regular Agenda. The motion passed 6-0. 4b. Approval of Consent Items It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to approve the following Consent Agenda Items as amended. The motion passed 6-0. 1. Approve 2002 City Council meeting dates 2. Adopt Resolution No. 02-004 designating the St. Louis Park Sun-Sailor as the City’s Official Newspaper for 2002 3. Moved to the regular agenda as Item 7c. 4. Accept the following reports for filing: a. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of October 4, 2001 b. Planning Commission Minutes of December 5, 2001 5. Public Hearings--None 6. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public--None 7. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions 7a. Appointment of Mayor Pro Tem Resolution No. 02-001 6 It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to aprove Resolution No. 02-001 appointment of Councilmember Latz as Mayor Pro Tem. The motion passed 6-0. 7b. Request by CSM/Rottlund for a major amendment to the approved Planned Unit Development for Pointe West Commons to allow additional occupancy prior to roadway and signal improvements. Northwest quadrant of 16th Street and Zarthan Avenue, Case No. 01-57-PUD. Resolution No. 02-002 Janet Jeremiah, Planning and Zoning Supervisor, reported the developer is requesting a PUD amendment to allow occupancy of all five townhome buildings to be occupied prior to completion of the roadway and signal improvements. Staff deems the developer’s request to be a major amendment. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the amendment with the conditions that: only four of the five townhome buildings be occupied prior to the completion of the roadway and signal improvements, that residents could continue to use Zarthan Avenue, that the developer would work with the City with regard to the timing of the improvements and completion of the fifth building, and the developer shall abide by any conditions imposed by the Fire Marshal. The following St. Louis Park residents express their continuing concerns regarding the Pointe West Commons project: Mr. Dan Hulke, 1600 Alabama Avenue South; Mr. Hans Widmer, 1601 Alabama Avenue South; and Mr. Gary Berscheid, 1604 Blackstone Avenue South. The residents voiced concerns regarding vulgar language from construction workers; delays; construction vehicles parked on 16th Street; the use of 16th Street as an exit; early starts; construction materials being blown into residents’ yards; and OSHA horns sounding every day. Mr. Berscheid would like to know if the developer faces a penalty if the project is not completed by December 31, 2002. Tom Harmening, Community Development Director, responded the Economic Development Authority’s (“EDA”) contract with Rottlund indicates the buildings and site improvements must be done by December 31, 2002, and if that deadline is not met they would be in default of the development contract. The City would then write to Rottlund asking how they intend to remedy the default, and Rottlund would have 30 days to remedy the default or inform the City as to how they propose to remedy the default. The City Council or the EDA will need to determine if the proposed remedy is a reasonably satisfactory response to the default situation; if reasonable, a later completion date may be appropriate or if unreasonable, the tax increment payment to Rottlund could be withheld until the default is remedied. If the default is not remedied within three years of January 1, 2003, the EDA may cancel the development contract and withhold any tax increment payment. Mr. Berscheid asked the Council to table CSM/Rottlund’s request. He believes adequate legal notice was not provided to residents—he received his letter of notice just hours before tonight’s meeting. Ms. Jeremiah stated the legally advertised public hearing was 7 announced at the Planning Commission meeting and, as a courtesy, the City mailed letters of notice to some residents. Mr. Michael Noonan, Vice President of Rottlund Homes & David Bernard Builders & Developers, 3065 Centre Pointe Drive, Roseville, addressed the Council. Mr. Noonan said he addressed the use of vulgar language with the site supervisor immediately; construction on the last building will begin before the summer; there are more than six people working on the site; and Xcel’s delay greatly impacted Rottlund’s progress. Mr. Noonan stated to table the motion would mean greater delay and expense. He is confident the project will be in a good position to be completed by December 31, 2002. Councilmember Sanger underscored the urgency to get this project completed. She is concerned about the timeframe for the completion of the fifth building, and asked about its completion date. Mr. Noonan said he anticipates construction of the fifth building to start in April or May. Councilmember Sanger suggested adding an additional condition to the PUD amendment, and she would like the resolution to reflect that “the Rottlund company has agreed to initiate the construction of the last building in this project by no later than the last day of May 2002”. Mr. Noonan said he can agree to that date. Councilmember Sanger asked City Manager, Charlie Meyer, why the park, which was scheduled to be completed in July, 2001, is still unfinished. Mr. Meyer said it is his understanding CSM is to complete final grating as soon as weather permits crews onto the park site to remove top soil and lay seed. In regard to parking vehicles on 16th Street, Ms. Jeremiah said the Fire Marshal and Staff have indicated the need to keep a fire lane open, therefore, construction workers may park their personal vehicles on 16th Street but heavy equipment vehicles are prohibited, and only a limited amount of activity will be allowed in the fronts of some of the townhome buildings in order to complete construction. Ms. Jeremiah said she will check on parking prohibitions on Zarthan Avenue. Councilmember Sanger commented that perhaps parking could be redirected to the excess parking spaces on hotel properties just north of this project. It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Nelson, to approve Resolution No. 02-002, a major amendment to the Pointe West Commons PUD to allow occupancy of up to four buildings (66 units) prior to completion of roadway improvements and subject to the conditions included in the resolution-- and that the Rottlund company has agreed to initiate the construction of the last building in this project by no later than the last day of May 2002. The motion passed 6-0. 7c.: A resolution authorizing parking restrictions along the south side of Wayzata Boulevard from Pennsylvania Avenue to a point 75 feet west. Traffic Study No. 560 8 Resolution No. 02-005 Councilmember Santa provided feedback regarding Traffic Study 560. She stated Ember’s restaurant was notified; and parking is now restricted 75 feet west of the intersection. It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Velick, to adopt Resolution No. 02-005 authorizing restricting parking along the south side of Wayzata Boulevard from Pennsylvania Avenue to a point 75 feet west. The motion passed 5-0. (Councilmember Nelson was absent). 8.Boards and Committees 8a. Term ending reappointments for boards and commissions It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to reappoint Paul Roberts, Ashley Tomoson, Dennis Morris, Michael Garelick, Rick Dworsky, Ken Hurias, and Dale Hartman to their respective boards and commissions. The motion passed 6-0. 8b. Appointment of Commissioners to the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission. Resolution No. 02-003 It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to adopt Resolution No. 02-003 appointing Ken Gothberg, Commissioner and Sally Velick, Alternate Commissioner to the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission. The motion passed 6-0. 9. Communications--None 11. Adjournment Mayor Jacobs adjourned the meeting at 8:36 p.m. City Clerk Mayor 9 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 7a Meeting of January 22, 2002 7a. Resolution to amend the Plan By Neighborhood chapter of the Comprehensive Plan 2000-2020 to address changes to land northwest of Beltline Boulevard and West 36th Street Planning Commission initiated amendment to Comprehensive Plan 2000 – 2020 to provide specific guidelines and limit commercial land uses in area northwest of Beltline Boulevard and West 36th Street (Case Nos. 01-60-CP) Recommended Action: Motion to adopt Resolution approving Comprehensive Plan 2000 – 2020 text amendments contingent upon Metropolitan Council approval and authorize summary resolution publication. Background: (Also see related reports regarding Beltline Industrial Park applications and Post Office text amendments.) On November 21, 2001, and on December 5, 2001, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to address applications from Belt Line Industrial Park, Inc. to change the Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning on several parcels located north of West 36th Street between Belt Line Boulevard and Raleigh Avenue. The request is to reguide the properties from Industrial to Commercial and to rezone the properties from IP-Industrial Park to C2-General Commercial. After discussion of the issues raised by the Planning Commission and staff, the Planning Commission continued the public hearings and initiated text amendments to the Plan By Neighborhood chapter of the Comprehensive Plan 2000 – 2020. The text amendments are proposed to prohibit several undesirable uses in the area proposed for rezoning that are permitted in some form in the C2- General Commercial Districts. The proposed Comprehensive Plan text amendment is attached. The text amendment would allow for the applicant’s proposed zoning change by excluding the questionable commercial uses within the language of the Comprehensive Plan. The Council is considering reinstating language in Chapter 36 (Zoning) of the Municipal Code to require conformance with the Comprehensive Plan (see separate report). Staff has discussed using the Comprehensive Plan to limit land uses with the City Attorney. More discussions will be held to determine whether further text changes are required in the Chapter 36 (Zoning) to accommodate this method. The proposed amendment also addresses the future of the rest of the industrial area north of West 36th Street, acknowledging that a change in land use designation from industrial to commercial may be forthcoming for property on the west side of Raleigh Avenue immediately north of 36th Street. 10 Planning Commission held a public hearing and recommended approval on January 2, 2002 on a vote of 6-0. The proposed language is attached. The underlined text is proposed to be added. Attachments: Resolution amending Comprehensive Plan 2000-2020 Plan By Neighborhood (Neighborhood 25) Chapter and summary resolution for publication Prepared by: Judie Erickson, Planning Coordinator Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 11 Plan By Neighborhood Neighborhood Name: Wolfe Park Major Neighborhood Features: Park Commons, Rec Center Neighborhood Park: Wolfe Park, Bass Lake Major Neighborhood Streets: Excelsior Blvd; Monterey; W 36th St.; Belt Line Blvd; Park Center Blvd. 1996 Average Weekday Traffic Counts: Excelsior - 20,600; Monterey - 8,000; W 36th St. - 14,000; Belt Line Blvd - 10,500; Park Center - % Change From 1980: Excelsior - 4% decrease; Monterey - +3%; W 36th St. - 4% decrease Pedestrian Issues: Crossings at Excelsior Boulevard and TH. 100 Housing Condition: See Chapter P Anchoring Businesses and Institutions: Rec Center, Post Office, Park Commons, Health Systems Neighborhood Character: This neighborhood is distinguished by its diversity, containing a mixture of housing, commercial, medical, office, and industrial uses. New, intense mixed-use development is proposed for the area located northeast of Excelsior Boulevard and Highway 100. This area, named Park Commons, is proposed to be a new town center for St. Louis Park. Park Commons will feature a new town green and Wolfe Park as important civic features. Wolfe Lake and Bass Lake provide major recreational and visual amenities, and function as storm sewer and ponding areas. A pedestrian trail has been developed around Bass Lake which connects Bass Lake with Wolfe Park, the Recreation Center, the new Park Commons, Excelsior Boulevard, Park Center Boulevard and Highway 7. High-density residential uses exist on the north side of Bass Lake and on the south, east and west sides of Wolfe Park. Industrial uses are located on the west side of Beltline Boulevard and along the northeast corner of the neighborhood except that portion immediately adjacent and north of West 36th Street where commercial uses are proposed. Mixed medium and high-density residential uses are existing along the south side of Bass Lake. Most of the commercial area and those areas south and west of Monterey and 36th Street are part of the proposed Park Commons and are included in the City's Redevelopment District. The Redevelopment Plan identifies land use and sets forth development goals and objectives. See also the Chapter P, Redevelopment and Chapter R, Livable Communities. Specific Development Guidelines: An urban design for Park Commons is included in Chapter P. All redevelopment of the Park Commons area shall comply with the Redevelopment Plan for the area. Any expansion of commercial uses north of Excelsior Boulevard and east of Monterey Drive shall provide 12 aesthetic barriers and transitions from the commercial front on Excelsior Boulevard to residential uses being mindful of scale, density, quality, aesthetics, land use intensity, and vehicle access. Commercial uses that complement the area with limited impacts on adjacent residential districts are permitted on properties abutting and north of W 36th Street : Outdoor sales, restaurants with in-vehicle sales and service, motor fuel stations, motor vehicle service, repair, motor vehicle sales, uses that serve intoxicating liquor, shopping centers over 50,000 square feet, and single retail uses/tenants in excess of 20,000 square feet are prohibited. Any redevelopment of this area will require buildings to front on West 36th Street with parking on the north side of buildings and access points at least 150 feet from the Beltline/West 36th Street intersection. Desired Neighborhood Improvements: Trees; adult recreational programs; improved transit; improved winter sidewalk maintenance; affordable senior housing; sidewalks especially on Park Glen Road; improved pedestrian crossings; pedestrian lighting; noise reductions. 13 (Please see color attachment for Item 7b) Subject Area #1 is north of Excelsior Blvd. at France. The propertywas previously commercial, but has been reguided to commercial/mixed-use. Subject Area #2 includes four parcels along W 16 1/2 St. which werepreviously guided for commercial use, but the land use is residential.The properties have been reguided for medium density residential. Proposed Changes N EW S Wolfe Park Proposed Land Use Designations Land Use Designations CivicCivic Mixed UseCommercial Mixed Use CommercialIndustrial OfficePark High Density ResidentialLow Density Residential Medium Density ResidentialRight of Way Railway #1 #2 14 RESOLUTION NO. 02-008 A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2000 TO THE YEAR 2020 FOR THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTES 462.351 TO 462.364 TEXT CHANGES CHAPTER U, PLAN BY NEIGHBORHOOD NEIGHBORHOOD #25 WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan 2000-2020 was adopted by the City Council on May 17, 1999 (effective September 1, 1999) and provides the following: 1. An official statement serving as the basic guide in making land use, transportation and community facilities and service decisions affecting the City. 2. A framework for policies and actions leading to the improvement of the physical, financial, and social environment of the City, thereby providing a good place to live and work and a setting conducive for new development. 3. A promotion of the public interest in establishing a more functional, healthful, interesting, and efficient community by serving the interests of the community at large rather than the interests of individual or special groups within the community if their interests are at variance with the public interest. 4. An effective framework for direction and coordination of activities affecting the development and preservation of the community. 5. Treatment of the entire community as one ecosystem and to inject long range considerations into determinations affecting short-range action, and WHEREAS, the use of such Comprehensive Plan will insure a safer, more pleasant, and more economical environment for residential, commercial, industrial, and public activities and will promote the public health, safety, and general welfare, and WHEREAS, said Plan will prepare the community for anticipated desirable change, thereby bringing about significant savings in both private and public expenditures, and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan has taken due cognizance of the planning activities of adjacent units of government, and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan is to be periodically reviewed by the Planning Commission of the City of St. Louis Park and amendments made, if justified according to 15 procedures, rules, and laws, and provided such amendments would provide a positive result and are consistent with other provisions in the Comprehensive Plan, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of St. Louis Park recommended adoption of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan 2000-2020 on January 2, 2002, based on statutes, the Metropolitan Regional Blueprint, extensive research and analyses involving the interests of citizens and public agencies; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of St. Louis Park that the Comprehensive Plan, as previously adopted by the Planning Commission and City Council, is hereby amended as follows: The underlined text is added to Chapter U, Plan By Neighborhood, Neighborhood 25 Wolfe Park. Neighborhood Character: This neighborhood is distinguished by its diversity, containing a mixture of housing, commercial, medical, office, and industrial uses. New, intense mixed-use development is proposed for the area located northeast of Excelsior Boulevard and Highway 100. This area, named Park Commons, is proposed to be a new town center for St. Louis Park. Park Commons will feature a new town green and Wolfe Park as important civic features. Wolfe Lake and Bass Lake provide major recreational and visual amenities, and function as storm sewer and ponding areas. A pedestrian trail has been developed around Bass Lake which connects Bass Lake with Wolfe Park, the Recreation Center, the new Park Commons, Excelsior Boulevard, Park Center Boulevard and Highway 7. High-density residential uses exist on the north side of Bass Lake and on the south, east and west sides of Wolfe Park. Industrial uses are located on the west side of Beltline Boulevard and along the northeast corner of the neighborhood except that portion immediately adjacent and north of West 36th Street where commercial uses are proposed. Mixed medium and high-density residential uses are existing along the south side of Bass Lake. Most of the commercial area and those areas south and west of Monterey and 36th Street are part of the proposed Park Commons and are included in the City's Redevelopment District. The Redevelopment Plan identifies land use and sets forth development goals and objectives. See also the Chapter P, Redevelopment and Chapter R, Livable Communities. Specific Development Guidelines: An urban design for Park Commons is included in Chapter P. All redevelopment of the Park Commons area shall comply with the Redevelopment Plan for the area. Any expansion of commercial uses north of Excelsior Boulevard and east of Monterey Drive shall provide aesthetic barriers and transitions from the commercial front on Excelsior Boulevard to residential uses being mindful of scale, density, quality, aesthetics, land use intensity, and vehicle access. Commercial uses that complement the area with limited impacts on adjacent residential districts are permitted on properties abutting and north of W 36th Street : Outdoor sales, restaurants with 16 in-vehicle sales and service, motor fuel stations, motor vehicle service, repair, motor vehicle sales, uses that serve intoxicating liquor, shopping centers over 50,000 square feet, and single retail uses/tenants in excess of 20,000 square feet are prohibited. Any redevelopment of this area will require buildings to front on West 36th Street with parking on the north side of buildings and access points at least 150 feet from the Beltline/West 36th Street intersection. Desired Neighborhood Improvements: Trees; adult recreational programs; improved transit; improved winter sidewalk maintenance; affordable senior housing; sidewalks especially on Park Glen Road; improved pedestrian crossings; pedestrian lighting; noise reductions. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council January 22, 2002 Contingent upon approval of the Metropolitan Council City M anager Mayor Attest: City Clerk 01-60-CP:n\res-ord 17 SUMMARY RESOLUTION NO. 02-008 A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2000 TO THE YEAR 2020 FOR THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTES 462.351 TO 462.364 TEXT CHANGES CHAPTER U, PLAN BY NEIGHBORHOOD NEIGHBORHOOD #25 This resolution modifies the Neighborhood Character land use descriptions and Specific Development Guidelines for the Wolfe Park neighborhood for the area north of 36th Street and west of Belt Line Boulevard. Adopted by the City Council January 22, 2002 Contingent upon approval of the Metropolitan Council Jeffrey W. Jacobs /s/ Mayor A copy of the full text of this resolution is available for inspection with the City Clerk. Published in St. Louis Park Sailor: January 30, 2002 01-60-CPsum:N\res-ord 18 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 7b Meeting of January 22, 2002 7b. Request of Belt Line Industrial Park, Inc. (John D. McCain) to amend the Comprehensive Plan Designation for parcels along West 36th Street and Belt Line Boulevard from Industrial to Commercial and First reading of Ordinance to amend the Zoning map for the same area from IP-Industrial Park to C2-General Commercial 3533 Raleigh Avenue South, 3550, 3540, 3532 and the south 180 feet of 3510 Belt Line Boulevard Case No. 01-53-CP Case No. 01-54-Z Recommended Action: ♦ South, 3550, 3540, 3532 and the south 180 feet of 3510 Motion to approve Resolution adopting a Comprehensive Plan land use designation change from Industrial to Commercial for properties located at 3533 Raleigh Avenue South, 3550, 3540, 3532 and the south 180 feet of 3510 Belt Line Boulevard subject to approval of the Metropolitan Council. ♦ Motion to approve first reading of ordinance and set second reading for February 4, 2002 for a Zoning Map amendment to change the zoning map designation from IP-Industrial Park to C2-General Commercial for properties located at 3533 Raleigh Avenue Belt Line Boulevard subject to the approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment. Background: On November 21, 2001, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to address applications from Belt Line Industrial Park, Inc. to change the Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning on several parcels located north of West 36th Street between Belt Line Boulevard and Raleigh Avenue. The applicant submitted the requests in order to accommodate a tentative redevelopment of the property. The property involved contains the post office, paint store, a vacant storefront, and a vacant parcel. The proposal is to construct a two-story bank and office building with drive-through facility and a single story medical office or office/service building. The proposal also includes as a tenant the retail and customer service function of the post office. This area is currently guided Industrial in the Comprehensive Plan and zoned IP – Industrial Park. The proposed bank use would require a change to both. Other City approvals would be necessary to redevelop the property according to the plan submitted. The proposed post office use is not currently permitted in the C2- General Commercial District. The proposed plan would also require a plat and possibly a conditional use permit 19 After discussion of issues raised staff and the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission continued the public hearings to allow time to resolve those issues. The issues raised by the Planning Commission related to wanting a broader look at the entire industrial area with its land uses and overall viability, new development complementing Park Commons, and whether this action could be construed as spot zoning. The Planning Commission on December 5, 2001 again addressed the proposals, in a continued public hearing. Staff had suggested that a way to address the issue of restricting some undesirable uses allowed within the General Commercial zoning district could be resolved by adopting language in the Plan By Neighborhood chapter of the Comprehensive Plan that restricted some uses. The Planning Commission continued the public hearing until January 2, 2002, and initiated amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission expressed a desire to look at the effects of this change more broadly and to identify the uses currently within the area. The Planning Commission also initiated amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to allow Post Office Retail/Customer Service as a separate use in commercial zoning districts. On January 2, 2002, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Comprehensive Plan land use designation amendment and Zoning map amendment. The Planning Commission also recommended text amendments to the Comprehensive Plan to address future changes to the property and the post office ordinance amendments. Those changes are addressed in separate reports to the City Council for consideration on January 22, 2002. The draft ordinance is attached to this report, however, the legal description may need amending. This will be done before second reading of the ordinance. Issues: ♦ What changes have occurred either within the subject property or to surrounding properties that would warrant a change in land use on this property? ♦ If a land use change is warranted, what are the merits of the proposed land use? • Do the proposed amendments conform to the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan regarding industrial land? • What are the anticipated effects of the proposed amendments? • How will the amendments affect neighboring properties? What is the impact on future development across Belt Line Boulevard? • Will the change encourage more properties in this industrial district to change? What is the future of this particular industrial area? • Will adding commercial in this location dilute the town center commercial potential? • Where would the post office locate? • Would this change constitute “spot zoning”? • How will the undesirable commercial uses be limited if the tentative plan fails? • How will changes to the Elmwood Area land uses impact the 36th Street corridor on either side of Highway 100? • Will future transit on the Southwest Corridor impact the industrial area? Issues Analysis: 20 ♦ What changes have occurred either within the subject property or to surrounding properties that would warrant a change in land use on this property? The Comprehensive Plan 2000 – 2020 was adopted by the City Council on May 17, 1999. The land use designation assigned to the subject property at that time was Industrial. This conformed to the previous designation and the land uses within the industrial area. The land use designations for several of the surrounding properties did change with this Comprehensive Plan. The land use designation for property to the east of Belt Line Boulevard changed from “Park” to “High Density Residential” to accommodate a future townhouse project. The land use designation for property at 3601 Park Center Boulevard changed from “Office” to “High Density Residential” to allow for a future apartment building. Given the addition of residential uses in close proximity to the area and the nuisance characteristics of some industrial uses, a less intensive land use designation may be warranted. ♦ If a land use change is warranted, what are the merits of the proposed land use? The applicant is requesting that the Comprehensive Plan designation be changed from “Industrial” to “Commercial” and the zoning map be changed from IP-Industrial Park to C2- General Commercial. The changes are being requested in order to accommodate a plan that includes redevelopment of the post office property to a 50,000 square foot 2-story bank/service/office building with a drive-through and the development of the vacant property as a 10,000 square foot medical office/office/service building. The proposed land use would provide a more attractive development for the area and would eliminate some of the traffic problems currently experienced on that property. The proposed office and bank uses do have limited evening hours and would be compatible with the area. The concern of rezoning the property to C2-Commercial is that if the proposed redevelopment project is not constructed, any other use allowed in the C2 district could potentially occupy the existing buildings or a new building on the property. One way to limit commercial uses on the property with a C-2 zoning would be to amend the text in the Plan By Neighborhood chapter of the Comprehensive Plan to limit the commercial uses. This type of land use limitation has been used previously in the Lenox, Sorensen, and Minikahda Oaks neighborhoods. Staff and Planning Commission have recommended reinstating zoning ordinance language to require conformance with the Comprehensive Plan (see Consent Agenda report). The City Attorney has stated that he would be more comfortable with this approach if the uses that are restricted were permitted by conditional use permit and the conditions included conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff is considering further changes to address the City Attorney’s recommendations. • Do the proposed amendments conform to the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan regarding industrial land? 21 Currently Goal B of Chapter E (Commercial/Industrial) of the Comprehensive Plan states “Maintain the integrity of the industrial areas allowing for necessary expansion of individual companies. Protect industrial areas from encroachment.” The Belt Line Industrial area is part of a larger industrial area that extends irregularly from West 36th Street to Highway 7 (Hennepin Co. 25) and from Highway 100 to the eastern municipal boundary with a total of about 110 acres. It includes two industrial zoning districts and a variety of industrial uses. The proposal would move the industrial boundary away from West 36th Street and Belt Line Boulevard converting about 6 acres to a commercial classification. The current land uses on the property being considered include the post office, a wholesale paint store, and a vacant parcel. The post office use is permitted in both industrial zones, as an accessory use in the Office district and by PUD in the Mixed Use District. The wholesale paint store also sells some paint retail. Retail sales are currently permitted as accessory uses (up to 15% of the floor area) in the Industrial Park District. There is also a vacant storefront previously occupied by a showroom, which is also a permitted use. Since the existing uses are already fairly commercial in nature, staff does not believe this particular change is in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan industrial goals. Furthermore, several industrial uses that could locate on this corner would not be considered compatible with proposed future residential uses. Goal A of Chapter O (Economic Growth and Employment) states “Retain St. Louis Park’s diverse base of industry.” The Comprehensive Plan also speaks to business retention. The proposed change could allow an existing bank as well as the post office to remain in the same neighborhood in St. Louis Park. • What are the anticipated effects of the proposed amendments? Currently, the post office generates a significant number of vehicle trips with access points very close to the intersection of Belt Line Boulevard and West 36th Street. If the property were redeveloped as proposed, the property would be replatted and reconfigured moving access points away from the intersection to create a safer situation. A bank drive-through also generates significant vehicle trips, but relocating access would greatly improve the current condition. The proposed 10,000 square foot office/service building on Raleigh Avenue would not be expected to generate significant traffic increases. If the property is not redeveloped other retail or service uses could also locate within the existing buildings without changing the driveway access. Many uses permitted in the C2 generate heavy traffic and/or are open 24 hours. Future residential uses across Beltline Boulevard and W 36th Street would be impacted unless additional controls are adopted. Staff and the Planning Commission recommend text amendments to the Comprehensive Plan to help address these concerns (see separate report). As noted, additional changes recommended by the City Attorney are also being considered. • How will the amendments affect neighboring properties? What is the impact on future development across Belt Line Boulevard? 22 The proposed bank with post office service and office uses would complement the future residential across Beltline Boulevard as well as the future residential across West 36th Street. However, staff is concerned that some uses permitted within the C2-General Commercial district would be inappropriate in this location. These include those uses that generate large traffic volumes, have extended hours of operation, or compete with Park Commons uses. The Planning Commission initiated a text amendment to Chapter U, Plan By Neighborhood of the Comprehensive Plan to limit those uses. The proposed text amendments also include language to ensure any redevelopment complements the Park Commons area. • Will the change encourage more properties in this industrial district to change? What is the future of this particular industrial area? The Planning Commission requested information that takes a broader look at the industrial area of which the subject request is a part. There is concern that if the future of the whole industrial area is considered, the requested commercial designation may not be appropriate. Attached is a map that shows transportation connections around the subject area along with the most current daily traffic counts. It is clear from the image that Monterey and West 36th Street form an alternative route connecting the area south of Excelsior Boulevard with westbound Highway 7. Monterey and Beltline connect to eastbound Highway 7. The subject property is located strategically along these routes making it desirable for commercial use. One other property on the west side of Raleigh could also conceivably redevelop with a small commercial use. The car dealership further west is already commercial. The 36th St. and Wooddale area west of Hwy 100 is being studied in detail over the next year. The City has legislative authority over the Comprehensive Plan land use and zoning designations. This gives broad control over any potential request to change other properties. The following table shows the types of uses identified by “Standard Industrial Classification” codes as defined by the Federal government that are located within the industrial areas within the Beltline Industrial Park and south of Highway 7. Business Type # of Businesses Construction 10 Finance/Insurance/Real Estate 10 Manufacturing 14 Retail (Includes Showrooms) 13 Services 44 Transportation/Public Utilities 3 Wholesale 24 Unclassified 3 Total 121 23 The most common use is “Services”. This use category includes a number of individual uses and most would be described within the Zoning Ordinance land use category as “Office”. Offices are permitted uses in industrial areas with certain conditions. There are also a number of “Retail” uses shown. Many of these uses, especially furniture stores, would be described as “Showroom” uses within the SLP Zoning Ordinance. Showroom uses are also permitted in industrial areas. • Will adding commercial in this location dilute the town center commercial potential? Currently most retail service uses in this portion of the City are located on Excelsior Boulevard. A change in zoning on this property would expand the commercial zoning into an area not previously zoned commercial. The commercial uses located here may either be very automobile oriented, such as the paint store and bank with a drive-through or they could serve a neighborhood purpose given the number of residential uses existing or planned in close proximity. The 2001 traffic volumes (13,906 on Beltline Boulevard and 17,913 on W. 36 Street) are below those on Excelsior Boulevard (21,000). The applicant has stated that because of the limited traffic volumes, many retail uses that would cause staff concern would not choose this location. The Planning Commission has initiated a text amendment to the Plan By Neighborhood chapter of the Comprehensive Plan that would prohibit some uses with heavy traffic volumes and long hours from locating here. The City Attorney has reviewed this approach. In order to ensure that it is easily enforceable, he has recommended that any uses prohibited by the Comprehensive Plan be conditional uses or allowable by PUD in the Zoning Ordinance. This would require changing several uses currently permitted outright or permitted with conditions to become uses permitted by conditional use permit or PUD. Staff is considering ordinance amendments to further tighten the Zoning Code. Currently, City Ordinance language is being reinstated preventing occupancy permits and building permits from being issued if there is a conflict with the Comprehensive Plan (See separate report). • Where would the post office locate? The post office is interested in finding a new location for its “annex” use – the distribution portion of the facility. The latest site plan presented by the applicant shows splitting the post office functions and relocating the distribution portion to another industrial site while retaining the retail/customer service portion within the redeveloped building at this site. This does pose a problem with zoning because the use “post office” is only permitted within industrial districts. A group of Zoning Ordinance text amendments were initiated by the Planning Commission that would permit the retail/customer service portion of a post office to locate within commercial districts. Currently such language exists only in the MX – Mixed Use District. • Would this change constitute “spot zoning”? The subject proposal is to reguide and rezone several properties totaling about 6 acres. Spot zoning is generally a concern when the request to rezone is for a single parcel or small area that could not be considered an expansion of an existing zoning district. In this case, the change 24 involves several parcels and 6 acres. By State law, rezoning of 5 acres or more is considered a comprehensive rezoning for purposes of noticing and would not constitute spot zoning. • How will the undesirable commercial uses be limited if the tentative plan fails? Staff has met with the applicant and discussed Comprehensive Plan text amendments that would limit the types of uses that could occur within this area and address the Planning Commission concerns for creating a redevelopment plan that would be compatible with some of the standards in the Park Commons area. Uses proposed to be excluded include automobile service uses, uses that occur outside a building such as outdoor sales, uses with late night impacts such as restaurants with liquor, and uses that may already be overbuilt and compete with existing/planned uses such as shopping centers and “big box” uses. The actual uses proposed to be excluded include the following: Outdoor sales, restaurants with in-vehicle sales or service, motor fuel station, motor vehicle service, repair, motor vehicle sales, uses that serve intoxicating liquor, shopping centers over 50,000 square feet, and single retail uses/tenants in excess of 20,000 square feet. The applicant has concurred that the uses staff and the Planning Commission have concerns with are uses they did not consider for this site. The City Attorney has recommended that any uses that are restricted by the Comprehensive Plan “Plan By Neighborhood” chapter be uses permitted by conditional use permit or PUD in the Zoning Ordinance. Many of the above named uses are permitted by conditional use permit. Uses that are not include in-vehicle service, retail over 20,000 square feet and shopping centers over 50,000 square feet. These are currently permitted with conditions. Staff will consider the City Attorney’s recommendations further and will likely propose additional amendments to the Zoning Code. However, as noted, other Code language is being reinstated to prohibit building permits from being issued if there is a conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. The redevelopment plan originally submitted by the applicant shows building placement close to West 36th Street. This complements the Park Commons area and prevents a sea of parking along West 36th Street. It also shows access that is reasonably far from the intersection. Staff and the Planning Commission are proposing an amendment to the Plan By Neighborhood section of the Comprehensive Plan that would require buildings to front on West 36th Street with parking to the north and access at least 150 feet from the Beltline/West 36th Street intersection. This proposal would allow parking along Beltline Boulevard north of the new bank building. Staff believes this is appropriate because it moves access away from the intersection and puts the parking adjacent to the industrial uses to the north. • How will changes to the Elmwood Area land uses impact the 36th Street corridor on either side of Highway 100? The City is currently working in conjunction with Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority in the process of selecting a consultant to study the Elmwood Area. This area includes a mixture of commercial, industrial, religious, and residential uses. The Comprehensive Plan states that this area should be studied to determine what future land uses would be most desirable given its location, and proximity to multi-modal transportation. A map that is attached shows the current zoning of the Elmwood Study Area and the zoning in proximity to the subject application area. 25 It is very likely that the conclusions of the Elmwood study will recommend land use changes to guide any potential future redevelopment. It may also result in a new alignment for the Hwy 100/W 36th St. intersection, making access to the area easier. It is conceivable that a request to change the land use designation for the property west of Raleigh Ave. will occur. However, the office and industrial uses still dominate this industrial area and most could not be considered “ripe” for redevelopment at this time. • Will future transit on the Southwest Corridor impact the industrial area? Transit on the Southwest Corridor will enhance public transportation in St. Louis Park. The type of vehicle and date of installation are still unknown, but are probably at least 10 years away. The Elmwood Study is seeking to define what type of uses would support transit on this corridor. We know that both work place and home are typical destinations for persons using transit. Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority does own vacant property on Beltline Boulevard just south of the rail corridor. This was purchased for a park and ride lot for LRT. Another future transit station was identified at Wooddale Avenue. The City does not foresee within a 10 to 20 year timeframe any redevelopment of the industrial properties near the rail corridor at Beltline. Recommendation: Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of both requests along with approvals of text amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance also presented on this agenda. Approval would need to be contingent upon Metropolitan Council approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment. The Metropolitan Council application is being processed. Attachments: Resolution approving Comprehensive Plan Map amendments Ordinance Draft Ordinance amending Zoning Map Photo Current zoning Existing Plan By Neighborhood Transportation Map Larger Area Zoning Map Prepared By: Judie Erickson, Planning Coordinator Approved By: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 26 ORDINANCE NO.__________ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE CHANGING BOUNDARIES OF ZONING DISTRICTS 3533 RALEIGH AVENUE SOUTH 3550, 3540, 3532 BELT LINE BOULEVARD AND THE SOUTH 180 FEET OF 3510 BELT LINE BOULEVARD FROM IP -INDUSTRIAL PARK TO C2 COMMERCIAL THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. The St. Louis Park Zoning Ordinance adopted December 28, 1959, Ordinance No. 730; amended December 31, 1992, Ordinance No. 1902-93; amended December 17, 2001, Ordinance No. 2216-01, as heretofore amended, is hereby further amended by changing the zoning district boundaries by reclassifying the following described lands from their existing land use district classification to the new land use district classification as indicated for the tract as hereinafter set forth, to wit: That part of Lot 3, Block 2, BELT LINE INDUSTRIAL PARK, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying south of a line drawn easterly, perpendicular to the west line of said Lot 3, from a point on said west line, distant 150.00 feet southerly from the northwest corner of said Lot 3, as measured along said west line. plus That part of Lot 1, Block 2, Belt Line Industrial Park 2nd Addition, which lies Northeasterly of a line drawn Southeasterly at right angles to the Northwesterly line of said Lot 1 from a point in said Northwesterly line distant 429 feet Northeasterly from the intersection of the Southwesterly extension of said Northwesterly line with the South line of Block 3, “Westmoreland Park”, according to the recorded plat thereof, except for the Northeastern 450 feet thereof. (Torrens) plus Those parts of Lots 13, 14, 15 and 16, Block 2, that part of the vacated alley in Block 2, that part of Lot 2, Block 3, that part of the vacated alley in Block 3, and that part of vacated Westmoreland Avenue (now known as Princeton Avenue), all in “Westmoreland Park” described as beginning at the Southwest corner of said Lot 2; thence North along the West line of said Lot 2 and its extension to the center line of the vacated alley in said Block 3; thence East along said center line, and its extension, to the center line of vacated Westmoreland Avenue; thence Northerly along the last mentioned center line to the Southeasterly line of Lot 1, Block 2, Belt Line Industrial Park 2nd Addition; thence 27 Northeasterly along the Southeasterly line of said Lot 1 to its intersection with a line drawn Southeasterly at right angles to the Northwesterly line of said Lot 1 from a point on said Northwesterly line distant 429 feet Northeasterly from the intersection of the Southwesterly extension of said Northwesterly line with the South line of Block 3, “Westmoreland Park”, thence Southeasterly along said right angle line to its intersection with the Southwesterly extension of the Southeasterly line of said Lot 1 having a bearing of South 29 degrees 29 minutes 30 seconds West; thence Southwesterly along the last described extension to the South line of said Block 3; thence West along said South line to the point of beginning. plus That part of Lot 1, Block 2, Belt Line Industrial Park 2nd Addition, which lies Southwesterly of a line drawn Southeasterly at right angles to the Northwesterly line of said Lot 1 from a point in said Northwesterly line distant 429 feet Northeasterly from the intersection of the Southwesterly extension of said Northwesterly line with the South line of Block 3, “Westmoreland Park” according to the recorded plats thereof. (Torrens) plus Lot 1 and Lots 3 to 9 inclusive, Block 3, “Westmoreland Park”, according to the recorded plat thereof; and That part of the vacated Westerly half of Westmoreland Ave., now known as Princeton Avenue, adjoining Lot 1, Block 3, Westmoreland Park, which lies between the extensions across it of the Northwesterly line of said Lot 1 and the center line of the alley in said Block 3; the North half of the vacated alley in said Block 3 adjoining Lot 1 in said Block 3 and lying between the extensions across it of the Northwesterly line of said Lot 1 and the Easterly line of said Lot 1; the South half of the vacated alley in said Block 3 adjoining Lots 3 to 6 inclusive, in said Block 3, and lying between the extensions across it of the Northwesterly line of said Block 3 and the Easterly line of Lot 3 in said Block 3. (Torrens) plus Those parts of Lots 15 and 16, Block 2, and of vacated Westmoreland Avenue (now known as Princeton Avenue), all in “Westmoreland Park”, which lie Northeasterly of a line drawn Southeasterly at right angles to the Northwesterly line of Lot 1, Block 2, Belt Line Industrial Park 2nd Addition from a point in said Northwesterly line distant 429 feet Northeasterly from the intersection of the Southwesterly extension of said Northwesterly line with the South line of Block 3, “Westmoreland Park”, according to the recorded plats thereof. (Abstract) from IP-Industrial Park to C2-General Commercial. 28 Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect upon Metropolitan Council approval of associated Comprehensive Plan amendment. Adopted by the City Council February 4, 2002 Reviewed for Administration City Manager Mayor Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution: City Clerk City Attorney 01-54-Z:n\res-ord 29 Existing Plan by Neighborhood Neighborhood Name: Wolfe Park Major Neighborhood Features: Park Commons, Rec Center Neighborhood Park: Wolfe Park, Bass Lake Major Neighborhood Streets: Excelsior Blvd; Monterey; W 36th St.; Belt Line Blvd; Park Center Blvd. 1996 Average Weekday Traffic Counts: Excelsior - 20,600; Monterey - 8,000; W 36th St. - 14,000; Belt Line Blvd - 10,500; Park Center - % Change From 1980: Excelsior - 4% decrease; Monterey - +3%; W 36th St. - 4% decrease Pedestrian Issues: Crossings at Excelsior Boulevard and TH. 100 Housing Condition: See Chapter P Anchoring Businesses and Institutions: Rec Center, Post Office, Park Commons, Health Systems Neighborhood Character: This neighborhood is distinguished by its diversity, containing a mixture of housing, commercial, medical, office, and industrial uses. New, intense mixed use development is proposed for the area located northeast of Excelsior Boulevard and Highway 100. This area, named Park Commons, is proposed to be a new town center for St. Louis Park. Park Commons will feature a new town square and Wolfe Park as important civic features. Wolfe Lake and Bass Lake provide major recreational and visual amenities, and function as storm sewer and ponding areas. A pedestrian trail has been developed around Bass Lake which connects Bass Lake with Wolfe Park, the Recreation Center, the new Park Commons, Excelsior Boulevard, Park Center Boulevard and Highway 7. High density residential uses exist on the north side of Bass Lake and on the south, east and west sides of Wolfe Park. Industrial uses are located on the west side of Beltline Boulevard and along the northeast corner of the neighborhood. Mixed medium and high density residential uses are exist along the south side of Bass Lake. Most of the commercial area and those areas south and west of Monterey and 36th Street are part of the proposed Park Commons and are included in the City's Redevelopment District. The Redevelopment Plan identifies land use and sets forth development goals and objectives. See also the Chapter P, Redevelopment and Chapter R, Livable Communities. Specific Development Guidelines: An urban design for Park Commons is included in Chapter P. All redevelopment of the Park Commons area shall comply with the Redevelopment Plan for the area. Any expansion of commercial uses north of Excelsior Boulevard and east of Monterey Drive shall provide 30 aesthetic barriers and transitions from the commercial front on Excelsior Boulevard to residential uses being mindful of scale, density, quality, aesthetics, land use intensity, and vehicle access. Desired Neighborhood Improvements: Trees; adult recreational programs; improved transit; improved winter sidewalk maintenance; affordable senior housing; sidewalks especially on Park Glen Road; improved pedestrian crossings; pedestrian lighting; noise reductions. 31 RESOLUTION NO. 02-009 A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2000 TO THE YEAR 2020 FOR THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTES 462.351 TO 462.364 3533 RALEIGH AVENUE SOUTH 3550, 3540, 3532 BELT LINE BOULEVARD AND THE SOUTH 180 FEET OF 3510 BELT LINE BOULEVARD WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan 2000-2020 was adopted by the City Council on May 17, 1999 (effective September 1, 1999) and provides the following: 1. An official statement serving as the basic guide in making land use, transportation and community facilities and service decisions affecting the City. 2. A framework for policies and actions leading to the improvement of the physical, financial, and social environment of the City, thereby providing a good place to live and work and a setting conducive for new development. 3. A promotion of the public interest in establishing a more functional, healthful, interesting, and efficient community by serving the interests of the community at large rather than the interests of individual or special groups within the community if their interests are at variance with the public interest. 4. An effective framework for direction and coordination of activities affecting the development and preservation of the community. 5. Treatment of the entire community as one ecosystem and to inject long range considerations into determinations affecting short-range action, and WHEREAS, the use of such Comprehensive Plan will insure a safer, more pleasant, and more economical environment for residential, commercial, industrial, and public activities and will promote the public health, safety, and general welfare, and WHEREAS, said Plan will prepare the community for anticipated desirable change, thereby bringing about significant savings in both private and public expenditures, and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan has taken due cognizance of the planning activities of adjacent units of government, and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan is to be periodically reviewed by the Planning Commission of the City of St. Louis Park and amendments made, if justified according to 32 procedures, rules, and laws, and provided such amendments would provide a positive result and are consistent with other provisions in the Comprehensive Plan, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of St. Louis Park recommended adoption of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan 2000-2020 on January 2, 2002, based on statutes, the Metropolitan Regional Blueprint, extensive research and analyses involving the interests of citizens and public agencies; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of St. Louis Park that the Comprehensive Plan, as previously adopted by the Planning Commission and City Council, is hereby amended as follows: Change the land use designation of 3533 Raleigh Avenue South, 3550, 3540, and 3532 Belt Line Boulevard, and the south 180 feet of 3510 Belt Line Boulevard from Industrial to Commercial (as shown on attached maps). Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council January 22, 2002 Contingent upon approval of the Metropolitan Council City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk 01-53-CP:n\res-ord 33 SUMMARY RESOLUTION NO. 02-009 A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2000 TO THE YEAR 2020 FOR THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTES 462.351 TO 462.364 3533 RALEIGH AVENUE SOUTH 3550, 3540, 3532 BELT LINE BOULEVARD AND THE SOUTH 180 FEET OF 3510 BELT LINE BOULEVARD This resolution states that the land use designation of 3533 Raleigh Avenue South, 3550, 3540, 3532 Belt Line Boulevard, and the south 180 feet of 3510 Belt Line Boulevard shall be changed from Industrial to Commercial. Adopted by the City Council January 22, 2002 Contingent upon approval of the Metropolitan Council Jeffrey W. Jacobs /s/ Mayor A copy of the full text of this resolution is available for inspection with the City Clerk. Published in St. Louis Park Sailor: January 30, 2002 01-53-CPsum:N/ord-res 34 Subject Area #1 is north of Excelsior Blvd. at France. The propertywas previously commercial, but has been reguided to commercial/mixed-use. Subject Area #2 includes four parcels along W 16 1/2 St. which werepreviously guided for commercial use, but the land use is residential.The properties have been reguided for medium density residential. Proposed Changes N EW S Wolfe Park Proposed Land Use Designations Land Use Designations CivicCivic Mixed UseCommercial Mixed UseCommercialIndustrialOfficeParkHigh Density ResidentialLow Density ResidentialMedium Density ResidentialRight of WayRailway #1 #2 35 Subject Area Belt Line Blvd. West 36th St. IP C2 RC R3 R3 IG Subject Current Zoning 36 Transportation Map r #Wooddale # W 36th #Beltline # Monterey #Excelsior Blvd #Hwy 100 # Hwy 7 13938 6875 15328 17913 13906 10577 14887 108000 100000 34500 25700 19900 # Southwest CorridorFuture Transit 37 Larger area zoning map W 36th St # Beltline Blvd # SubjectElmwood Study Area Park Commons IP IG R3 R3 RC C2 IP R4 O IG RC IP R2R2 R2 R4RC C2 IG 38 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 7c Meeting of January 22, 2002 7c. First Reading of Ordinance for text amendments to Chapter 36 of the Municipal Code to add a new land use called “Post Office Customer Service” along with a definition, standards and parking requirements (Case Nos. 01-61-ZA) Recommended Action: Motion to approve first reading of Ordinance to amend Chapter 36 of the Municipal Code to add “Post Office Customer Service” as a new land use along with a definition, standards, and parking requirements and set second reading for February 3, 2002. Background: On December 5, 2001, the Planning Commission initiated an amendment to Chapter 36 of the Municipal Code related to Zoning to adopt a definition and standards for a “Post Office Customer Service” land use. This was prompted by a conceptual plan to redevelop the post office site on Beltline Boulevard and West 36th Street and accompanying applications to change zoning. The post office is considering the possibility of relocating the more industrial component of the post office function that includes mail distribution to another site. The redevelopment concept includes provisions to retain the retail/customer service component within a redeveloped building on the same site on Beltline Boulevard north of 36th Street. The owner of this property has requested a zoning change from I-P Industrial Park to C2 – General Commercial. Currently the post office use is not permitted in commercial zoning districts. Chapter 36 of the City Code (Zoning) currently allows the customer service portion of a post office to locate in the Mixed-Use district by PUD and in the Office district as an accessory use. The proposed amendments will added Post Office Customer Service as a conditional use in the C1 – Neighborhood Commercial and C2 – General Commercial zoning districts. The Planning Commission held a public hearing and recommended approval of the text amendments on January 2, 2002, on a vote of 6-0 with some minor changes to the staff recommendation. The Planning Commission’s recommendations have been included in the proposed ordinance. Proposed Language: The proposed language is included on the attached draft ordinance. Recommendation: Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed Municipal Code (Zoning) text amendments. Attachments: Draft Ordinance Prepared By: Judie Erickson, Planning Coordinator Approved By: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 39 ORDINANCE NO.______ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING BY AMENDING SECTIONS 36-142, 36-193(d)(5), 36-194(d)(10), 36-361(c)(1)d AND TABLE 36-115A IN SECTION 36-115 THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN: Findings Sec. 1. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission (Case No. 01-61-ZA) Sec. 2. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Sections 36-142, 36-193(d)(5), 36- 194(d)(10), 36-361(c)(1)d, and Table 36-115A in Section 36-115 are hereby amended to read as follows: Section 36-142 Land Use Descriptions Post Office Customer Service. The retail/customer service portion of the post office function that includes customer drop off of packages and mail; sale to the public of stamps, money orders, insurance, envelopes and packaging materials, and other mail services; and post office boxes. Characteristics include hours similar to offices and Saturday mornings, high volumes of automobile traffic and some truck traffic. Mail sorting for mail route delivery and distribution are not part of this land use. Section 36-115 Table 36-115A Amendments as follows: Add subsection 36-193 (d)(5) (C1 Neighborhood Commercial conditional use) Zoning Districts R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-C C-1 C-2 O I-P I-G M-X Commercial Uses Post Office Customer Service N N N N N CUP CUP A N N PUD Industrial Uses Parcel delivery service/post office N N N N N N N N P P N 40 (5) Post Office Customer Service a. The use shall only be permitted when it can be demonstrated that the operation will not have a significant adverse effect on the existing level of service and safety of adjacent streets and intersections. b. Access shall be to a roadway identified in the Comprehensive Plan as a collector or arterial or shall be otherwise located so that access can be provided without generating significant traffic on local residential streets. c. The use, including access, parking and any proposed drive through component, shall be designed so it does not impede traffic or impair vehicular and pedestrian traffic movement, or exacerbate the potential for pedestrian or vehicular conflicts. d. Outdoor mailboxes intended for in-vehicle service shall be located to allow in-vehicle mail drop-off by the vehicle’s driver. Each mail drop-off location shall allow for the on-site stacking of 6 vehicles or more. e. A bufferyard D shall be provided along the lot line between the drive through facilities and stacking areas and adjacent streets and properties, but shall not interfere with visibility at the intersection of the exit drive and adjacent street as required by Section 36-76. f. Drive through and stacking areas shall not be within 100 feet of any lot in an “R” use district unless the entire facility and stacking areas are separated from the lot in an “R” use district by a building wall or bufferyard F. Add subsection 36-194 (d)(10) (C2 General Commercial conditional use) (10) Post Office Customer Service a. The use shall only be permitted when it can be demonstrated that the operation will not have a significant adverse effect on the existing level of service and safety of adjacent streets and intersections. b. Access shall be to a roadway identified in the Comprehensive Plan as a collector or arterial or shall be otherwise located so that access can be provided without generating significant traffic on local residential streets. c. The use, including access, parking and any proposed drive through component, shall be designed so it does not impede traffic or impair vehicular and pedestrian traffic movement, or exacerbate the potential for pedestrian or vehicular conflicts. d. Outdoor mailboxes intended for in-vehicle service shall be located to allow in-vehicle mail drop-off by the vehicle’s driver. Each mail drop-off location shall allow for the on-site stacking of 6 vehicles or more. 41 e. A bufferyard D shall be provided along the lot line between the drive through facilities and stacking areas and adjacent streets and properties, but shall not interfere with visibility at the intersection of the exit drive and adjacent street as required by Section 36-76. f. Drive through and stacking areas shall not be within 100 feet of any lot in an “R” use district unless the entire facility and stacking areas are separated from the lot in an “R” use district by a building wall or bufferyard F. Section 36-361 (c)(1)d Add the following Parking Requirements: 8. Food Service, Bakeries, Post Office Customer Service One (1) parking space for each twenty-five (25) square feet of customer floor area. Sec. 3. The contents of Planning Case File 01-61-ZA are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case. Sec.4. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication. Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council February 4, 2002 City Manager Mayor Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution: City Clerk City Attorney 01-61-ZA:N\ord-res 42 CITY COUNCIL MEETING January 22, 2002 ITEMS TO BE ACTED UPON BY CONSENT Consent items are 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. 1. Motion to approve a resolution supporting the City of St. Louis Park’s application to the Minnesota Housing and Finance Agency and Federal Home Loan Bank for assistance in funding a pilot home improvement program 2. Motion to adopt a resolution approving the request of Meadowford, LLC (Gary Wood) and the City of St. Louis Park for approval of Preliminary and Final Plat for Wellington Windows Addition including variances to the subdivision ordinance for reduced sidewalks, reduced perimeter lot easements, and to waive the requirement for a Grading, Erosion Control and Development Agreement. (Case No. 01-58-S Property at 3938 and 3900 Meadowbrook Road) 3. Motion to Approve First Reading of Ordinance Amendments Reinstating Language Regarding Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and Set Second Reading for February 4, 2002 4. Motion to accept the following reports for filing: f. Housing Minutes of November 14, 2001 g. Housing Authority Minutes of December 12, 2001 h. Planning Commission Minutes of January 2, 2002 i. Charter Commission Minutes of November 14, 2001 j. Human Rights Commission Minutes of December 19, 2001 43 CONSENT ITEM # 1 St. Louis Park City Council Meeting of January 22, 2002 1. Motion to approve a resolution supporting the City of St. Louis Park’s application to the Minnesota Housing and Finance Agency and Federal Home Loan Bank for assistance in funding a pilot home improvement program Background: At the Study Session of January 14, 2002 the Council discussed the findings of the recently completed housing condition survey which identified 170 properties as exhibiting significant deferred maintenance. The Council discussed action steps to address these properties. Council supported a pilot home improvement program that would leverage City, state and private investment to address the rehabilitation needs of the identified properties. See attached program overview. The MHFA application is due February 14, 2002 and the Federal Home Loan Bank application is due March 1, 2002. The applications will follow the discussed program project cost estimations, however the forgiveness period of the deferred loan may be extended beyond the 10-year period if deemed necessary to enhance award possibilities. Staff would alert Council of this revision. Recommendation: Staff recommends that Council approve a resolution supporting the City’s application to the MHFA and Federal Home Loan Bank. The City’s financial commitment if the project is fully funded by partners is anticipated to be $403,000. The Housing Rehabilitation Fund is the proposed funding source. Attachments: Targeted Pilot Program Overview Resolution Prepared by: Kathy Larsen, Housing Program Coordinator Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 44 Proposed Targeted Home Improvement Program Overview Scope of Proposed Program 1. 170 properties identified through residential property assessment. 2. Estimated cost per home for all improvements is $10,000. The estimated cost per home for improvements noted in the assessment is $6,200. However, one of the goals of this program is to move beyond minimum improvements and encourage owners of targeted properties to make additional exterior improvements. 3. Residents with the financial wherewithal to make improvements are expected to do so when faced with the consequence of citation of violations by the City. Residents with limited financial resources to make improvements will be assisted with financing options. 4. Residents will be advised about rehab improvements and financial tools in a two-step process. Inspections staff will meet individually with owners to identify needed improvements. This meeting will be followed up by an onsite meeting with an advisor that would assist with rehab and financial advice. 5. The MHFA income guidelines will be followed for this program, not only to provide consistency with other city rehab programs, but also to increase potential for MHFA funding. MHFA dollars are restricted to homeowners with incomes at, or below 115% of the Median Area Income, (MAI) in 2002 this is $85,905. Since actual household incomes are currently unknown, the incomes of the 170 households have been estimated as follows: • 10% of the owners or 17 residents at 115% MAI ($85,905) • 40% of the owners or 68 residents at 80% MAI ($59,760) • 50% of the owners or 85 residents at 50% MAI ($37,350) Tools 1. Discount MHFA loans to 4% and 3% for targeted owners with incomes at 115% of MAI and 80% MAI respectively. Currently the City discounts MHFA loans to 6% and 4% for residents with incomes at 115% of MAI and 80% MAI respectively. 2. Deferred “forgiven” loans for owners with incomes at 50% or less of MAI. This loan would be a separate application to the MHFA and Federal Home Loan Bank with costs shared by the City, MHFA and Federal Home Loan Bank. 3. Sub prime MHFA loans will be available to owners with “credit risk”. The sub prime loan has just been made available through the MHFA, the interest rate is 1% higher than traditional MHFA loans, and the underwriting criteria are more flexible. 4. Existing City rehab low-income grants and loans. 45 Project Costs The table below shows the estimated project costs. The total estimated cost of improvements for all properties is $1,700,000, an average of $10,000 per home. Residents receiving the discounted home improvement loans would be borrowing $850,000. The remainder of the improvements would be financed with deferred loans. The cost to the City and MHFA to discount loans is estimated to be $108,920. Table 1. Estimated Project Costs Cost Total Total Cost of Improvements $1,700,000 Administrative Costs $65,000 Cost to Discount Loans $108,920 Total Project Costs $1,873,920 Table 2. Estimated Public Costs Type of Cost Number Cost per loan Total Deferred Loans 85 $10,000 $850,000 Cost to buy down interest rate to 3% 68 $1,098 $74,665 Cost to buy down interest rate to 4% 17 $2,015 $34,255 Administrative Costs 170 $382 $65,000 Total $1,023,920 The table below provides a breakdown of public costs leveraged among the City, MHFA and the Federal Home Loan Bank. The City, MHFA and Federal Home Loan Bank would equally fund the deferred loan costs. The cost to discount MHFA loans would be a 1:1 match by the City and MHFA, with the City funding the administrative costs. Table 3. Funding Sources Partner Deferred Loans* Discount Loans Admin Cost Total City of St. Louis Park Costs $283,333 $54,460 $65,000 $402,793 MHFA Costs $283,333 $54,460 0 $337,793 Federal Home Loan $283,333 0 0 $283,333 Homeowner Investment (MHFA Loans) 0 $850,000 0 $850,000 Total $850,000 $958,920 $65,000 $1,873,920 *Repayment of deferred loans would be repaid if residents move before the 10-year forgiveness period expires. The amount noted above does not include these anticipated repayments. 46 RESOLUTION NO. 02-006 A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK’S APPLICATION TO THE MINNESOTA HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY AND THE FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK FOR ASSISTANCE FUNDING A PILOT HOME IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM. WHEREAS, the City Council has established the following housing goals: provide a balanced and sustainable housing stock to meet diverse needs now and in the future, and to ensure all housing is safe and well maintained; and WHEAREAS the proposed home improvement program is an implementation step to meet housing needs identified in the City Comprehensive Plan and Strategic Housing Plan; and WHEREAS, the City will leverage city housing rehabilitation funds with other funds to ensure that low-income homeowners can implement deferred maintenance improvements; and WHEARES, the City’s total contribution to the pilot program if fully funded by the MHFA and Federal Home Loan Bank is estimated to be $403,000; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the St. Louis Park City Council, Minnesota, supports the pilot home improvement program application to the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency and Federal Home Loan Bank. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council January 21, 2002 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk 47 CONSENT ITEM # 2 St. Louis Park City Council Meeting of January 22, 2002 2. Motion to adopt a resolution approving the request of Meadowford, LLC (Gary Wood) and the City of St. Louis Park for approval of Preliminary and Final Plat for Wellington Windows Addition including variances to the subdivision ordinance for reduced sidewalks, reduced perimeter lot easements, and to waive the requirement for a Grading, Erosion Control and Development Agreement. (Case No. 01-58-S Property at 3938 and 3900 Meadowbrook Road) Background: In 2000, the applicant submitted a petition to purchase an unbuildable parcel of City owned land directly north of his property. This acquisition would allow for a future building addition and business expansion of Wellington Windows. The Planning Commission reviewed the petition on August 2, 2000, and recommended that the City Council find no current or future public need for the parcel. The City Council approved an Ordinance allowing the sale on December 17, 2001, subject to the combination of the two parcels. The current requests for preliminary and final plat meet that condition. The purchase agreement for the parcel will not allow the sale to be finalized until the final plat is filed. The applicant is not proposing a building addition at this time. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Preliminary and Final Plats on January 2, 2002, with the requested variances to the subdivision ordinance. Zoning: IG, General Industrial District Comprehensive Plan Designation: IND, Industrial Issues: • Are the proposed preliminary and final plats acceptable? • Do the proposed variances to the Subdivision Ordinance meet the required findings? Issues Analysis: Are the proposed preliminary and final plats acceptable? As shown on the plat documents, the replatting proposes to combine the current Wellington Windows parcel (Lots 1, 2, and 3, Carlson’s Creekside Addition) with the City owned parcel (unplatted) into one lot (Lot 1, Block 1, Wellington Windows Addition). 48 Preliminary plat: The preliminary plat application did not include a preliminary grading plan, erosion control plan, tree preservation plan, or landscape plan. There is currently no plan for a building expansion that would change any of the existing conditions. At such time as the applicant develops plans for a future building expansion, all of these plans will be required prior to receiving a building permit. Subdivision Ordinance variances requested: The applicant is requesting the following variances from the subdivision ordinance: Sidewalks: The Subdivision Ordinance requires minimum five foot wide concrete sidewalk to be installed along all property lines abutting a public street, when a property is platted or replatted. The applicant is requesting not to install any sidewalk along Meadowbrook Road. There currently is no sidewalk along this street and the subject property frontage contains the driveway entrance to the business. See attached aerial photo. In order to meet the requirement of the Ordinance the applicant would be required to install a 45- foot section of sidewalk that would not connect to any existing or planned sidewalk along Meadowbrook Road. Easements: The Subdivision Ordinance requires ten foot perimeter easements for utility and drainage purposes to be dedicated along all lot lines as part of a plat. (The ten feet can be met through two contiguous five-foot easements on adjacent lots.) The applicant is requesting to dedicate easements as shown on the preliminary plat instead, i.e. five-foot drainage and utility easements along all lot lines except the southwest property line. The location of the existing building prohibits an easement in this location. The final plat also shows the dedication of easements over a previously vacated section of Meadowbrook Road. Currently, there are existing City utilities within this easement area (see preliminary plat drawing). Final Plat document: The proposed final plat is consistent with the preliminary plat drawing and meets the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance, provided the requested variances are approved Grading and utility plan: The preliminary plat drawing shows existing utilities. The utilities are already in place and no new grading is being proposed. Staff finds the plans acceptable. Park and trail dedication: As the proposed replatting does not involve creation of additional lots, park and trail dedication fees do not apply. Do the proposed variances to the Subdivision Ordinance meet the required findings? Following is a summary of the applicant’s statements and staff’s analysis regarding the requested variances for no new sidewalks, and modified drainage and utility easements as proposed on the plat. The City Council may grant variances from the Subdivision Ordinance if four findings are met. 49 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. Sidewalks: There are no sidewalks along Meadowbrook Road currently, and the City’s recently adopted trail and sidewalk plan does not call for sidewalks to be installed in the near future. The applicant has stated that it would be unreasonable to require the owner to install a single 45-foot long sidewalk segment that would not connect to other existing or planned segments, and staff agrees. Easements: The Subdivision Ordinance requires that perimeter easements be dedicated on plats. City staff has reviewed the proposed final plat and agrees that easements shown on the proposed plat would be sufficient in this instance for drainage and utility purposes. In addition, the plat was routed to utility companies, who all responded that the plat and proposed easements were adequate for their purposes. A 33-foot wide utility easement is proposed within the vacated portion of Meadowbrook Road where City owned utilities currently exist. 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. Sidewalks: Meadowbrook Road is a street that serves one of the City’s industrial areas. Installing a short, disconnected sidewalk segment would not create any additional opportunities for pedestrians. Staff does not believe that this variance would be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare or injurious to other nearby properties. Easements: Based upon the discussion noted above and acceptance by utility companies of the proposed easements, staff believes the variance will meet this criterion. 3. That the variance is to correct inequities resulting from an extreme physical hardship such as topography, etc. Sidewalks: Requiring the owner to install a disconnected 45-foot long sidewalk segment would create inequities, given that there are no other sidewalks along Meadowbrook Road, nor any planned in the near future. Easements: The existing built condition of the property makes it a hardship to provide an easement across the southwest property line. Other easements proposed on the plat abut either previously platted land or land owned by the railroad or the public. Staff agrees that it would be a hardship to require the full 10-foot wide easements in this case, especially as they are not necessary. 4. That the variance is not contrary to the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. Sidewalks: The City’s trail and sidewalk plan, which is part of the Comprehensive Plan, does not show a sidewalk or trail along Meadowbrook Road or Oxford Street. While the Comprehensive Plan does call for sidewalks to be installed wherever possible to promote 50 walkability, a sidewalk segment built in this location would not contribute to that goal. While the City may at some future time reevaluate this area for sidewalks, no need has been identified at this time. Easements: Staff believes the variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as we believe the proposed easements will allow for adequate utility service and adequate provisions for drainage. Recommendation: Staff and the Planning Commission are recommending approval of the combined preliminary and final plat and variances to the Subdivision Ordinance, subject to the following conditions: 1. Variances are approved from the Subdivision Ordinance for no sidewalks along Meadowbrook Road and drainage and utility easements as shown on the final plat: a) That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property such that the strict application of the provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance would deprive the applicant/owner of the reasonable use of the land. b) That the granting of the variances will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to other property in the territory in which property is situated. c) That the variances are to correct inequities resulting from extreme physical hardship; d) That the variances are in harmony with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Before the City signs a final plat, the developer shall submit to the City a copy of owner’s policy of title insurance which insures the City’s interest in the plat, in an amount to be determined by the City. 3. Concurrent with the signing of the final plat, Meadowford, LLC shall close on the City owned land. 4. Within 6 months of final plat approval by the City Council, the subdivider shall record the final plat with the County Recorder. The subdivider shall, immediately upon recording, furnish the City Clerk with a print and reproducible tracing of the final plat showing evidence of the recording. The subdivider shall also provide a copy of the final plat on disc in an electronic data format. Attachments:Resolution Proposed preliminary plat Proposed final plat Aerial photos Prepared by: Judie Erickson, Planning Coordinator Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 51 RESOLUTION NO. 02-007 RESOLUTION GIVING APPROVAL FOR PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT OF WELLINGTON WINDOW ADDITION WITH VARIANCES TO THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE FOR REDUCED SIDEWALKS, REDUCED PERIMITER LOT EASEMENTS, AND TO WAIVE THE REQUIREMENT FOR A GRADING, EROSION CONTROL AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of St. Louis Park: Findings 1. Meadowford L.L.C (Gary Woods), owner and subdivider of the land proposed to be platted as Wellington Window Addition has submitted an application for approval of preliminary and final plat of said subdivision, with variances to the subdivision ordinance for reduced sidewalks, reduced perimeter lot easements, and to waive the requirement for a grading, erosion control and development agreement, in the manner required for platting of land under the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, and all proceedings have been duly had thereunder. 2. The proposed preliminary and final plat has been found to be in all respects consistent with the City Plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and the ordinances of the City of St. Louis Park. 3. The proposed plat is situated upon the following described lands in Hennepin County, Minnesota, to-wit: Parcel 1: Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1, CARLSON’S CREEKSIDE ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, and that part of vacated Meadowbrook Road dedicated in the plat of CARLSON’S CREEKSIDE ADDITION which lies north of a line drawn perpendicular to the West line of said road and passing through a point marking the most southerly corner of Lot 7, Block 1, PARK INDUSTRIAL ADDITION. Parcel 2: Part of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 20, Township 117, Range 21, which lies northeast of the plat of CARLSON’S CREEKSIDE ADDITION, southeast of the southeasterly right of way line of the former Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railway and northeast of the northwesterly extension of the southwesterly line of the plat of CARLSON’S CREEKSIDE ADDITION. 52 Conclusion 1. The proposed preliminary and final plat of Wellington Window Addition is hereby approved and accepted by the City as being in accord and conformity with all ordinances, City plans and regulations of the City of St. Louis Park and the laws of the State of Minnesota, subject to the following conditions: a. Variances are approved from the Subdivision Ordinance for no sidewalks along Meadowbrook Road and drainage and utility easements as shown on the final plat: i) That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property such that the strict application of the provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance would deprive the applicant/owner of the reasonable use of the land. ii) That the granting of the variances will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to other property in the territory in which property is situated. iii) That the variances are to correct inequities resulting from extreme physical hardship; iv) That the variances are in harmony with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. b. Prior to the City signing the Final Plat, the City Attorney shall approve the owner’s policy of title insurance, which insures the City’s interest in the plat, and ensure resolution of any issues related to the exception piece. c. Concurrent with the signing of the Final Plan, Meadowford L.L.C shall close on the City owned property. d. Prior to issuance of any building permit, which may impose additional conditions, the applicant shall submit evidence of recording the final plat and easements. e. Within 6 months of final plat approval by the City Council, the subdivider shall record the final plat with the County Recorder. The subdivider shall, immediately upon recording, furnish the City Clerk with a print and reproducible tracing of the final plat showing evidence of the recording. The subdivider shall also provide a copy of the final plat on disc in an electronic data format. provided, however, that this approval is made subject to the opinion of the City Attorney and Certification by the City Clerk. 2. The City Clerk is hereby directed to supply two certified copies of this Resolution to the above-named owner and subdivider, who is the applicant herein. 53 3. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute all contracts required herein, and the City Clerk is hereby directed to execute the certificate of approval on behalf of the City Council upon the said plat when all of the conditions set forth in Paragraph No. 1 above have been fulfilled. 4. Such execution of the certificate upon said plat by the City Clerk, as required under Section 26-123(1)j shall be conclusive showing of proper compliance therewith by the subdivider and City officials charged with duties above described and shall entitle such plat to be placed on record forthwith without further formality. The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this resolution in the Office of the Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council January 22, 2002 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk 01-58-S:N\res-ord 54 City Owned Parcel POWELL RD OXFORD STMEADOWBROOK RD 2000 Photo of Wellington Windows plat area. 55 CONSENT ITEM # 3 St. Louis Park City Council Meeting of January 22, 2002 3. Motion to Approve First Reading of Ordinance Amendments Reinstating Language Regarding Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and Set Second Reading for February 4, 2002 Background: On August 20, 2001, the City Council adopted amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to establish a Registration of Land Use. The Registration of Land Use section replaced a Zoning Code section that dealt primarily with issuing Certificates of Occupancy. The Certificate of Occupancy language was moved to another section of the Ordinance Code, section 6-69. The Zoning Code amendments establishing the Registration of Land Use became effective January 2, 2002. When the Certificate of Occupancy section was moved out of the Zoning Code and replaced with the Registration of Land Use, language prohibiting the issuance of building permits unless the use complies with the Comprehensive Plan was inadvertently deleted. Staff is proposing to reinstate that language, clarify that it also applies to the new Registration of Land Use, and reference it in the Building Code chapter of the Ordinance Code (Chapter 6). On January 2, 2002, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the Zoning Code amendments. The Planning Commission recommended approval on a vote of 6-0. Issues:  Why is the Comprehensive Plan language necessary?  How would the requirements be reinstated?  Are any other Ordinance Code amendments recommended? Analysis of Issues:  Why is the Comprehensive Plan language necessary? The Comprehensive Plan provides land use policy direction for a period of 20 years into the future. It also provides direction for maintaining and improving the character of neighborhoods. As such, the Comprehensive Plan anticipates future changes and provides direction regarding minimizing neighborhood impacts and achieving the best overall future development. Comprehensive Plan direction for future development may be different from what is currently allowed. For example, Novartis currently leases warehouse space on Park Place Boulevard. The property is guided in the Comprehensive Plan for future office development. However, redevelopment of the property for office is not imminent. Therefore, the current zoning is Industrial, which allows the warehouse use. The Comprehensive Plan indicates that this is appropriate for the existing building. However, at such time that the property redevelops, the zoning should be changed to Office. At that time, Industrial use of the property will be 56 prohibited. However, without the Comprehensive Plan language in the Zoning Code, it might be difficult to deny a building permit for a future redevelopment to another Industrial Use. Sometimes the Comprehensive Plan includes a fairly detailed redevelopment plan for an area. This has been done in Park Commons as well as the Highway 7/Louisiana area. The redevelopment plan may provide guidance regarding uses that are not appropriate in the future as well as guidance regarding physical design standards. Again, it may be difficult to deny permits or approvals for future land uses that are in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan unless this language is included in the Zoning Code.  How would the requirements be reinstated? Staff recommends including the requirements for Comprehensive Plan compliance in the new Registration of Land Use section. This would involve amending Section 14:8-2.3 – Approval of the Registration of Land Use (recodified section 36-32(d)) to read as follows: The City shall approve the Registration of Land Use provided that the use is legal per the Zoning Ordinance and complies with the Comprehensive Plan and all state codes and licensing requirements. Staff also recommends including a new Section 14:8-9.0 – Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan (recodified section 36-39) to read as follows: No building permit, Certificate of Occupancy or Registration of Land Use shall be issued unless the proposal complies with the Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of this ordinance. If a conflict exists between the zoning ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan on land for which an approval is requested, such approval cannot be issued unless the conflict is resolved.  Are any other Ordinance Code amendments recommended? Since building permits and Certificates of Occupancy are addressed in another section of the Ordinance Code, staff recommends adding language to those sections referring to this requirement in the Zoning Code. This involves adding references to Chapter 6, Article III Building Code regarding issuing building permits and Certificates of Occupancy (Sec. 6-67(a)(4) and Sec. 6-69(a)). Staff is also considering additional amendments based upon recommendations of the City Attorney. However, those amendments are not included at this time. Recommendation: Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of ordinance amendments reinstating language regarding Comprehensive Plan compliance as described above. Attachments: Proposed Ordinance Prepared By: Janet Jeremiah, Planning & Zoning Supervisor Approved By: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 57 ORDINANCE NO. ______ - 02 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING BY AMENDING SECTIONS 36-32(d) and 36-39 and CHAPTER 6, ARTICLE III. BUILDING CODE, SECTIONS 6-67, 6-69 REGISTRATION OF LAND USE THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN: Findings Sec. 1. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission (Case No. 01-62-ZA) Sec. 2. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Sections 36-32(d) and 36-39 and Chapter 6, Article III. Building Code are hereby amended to read as follows: SECTION 36-32(d) APPROVAL OF THE REGISTRATION OF LAND USE The City shall approve the Registration of Land Use provided that the use is legal per the Zoning Ordinance and complies with the Comprehensive Plan and all state codes and licensing requirements. Once the Registration of Land Use has been approved, the use shall be permitted to occupy the land or building. SECTION 36-39 COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN No building permit, Certificate of Occupancy or Registration of Land Use shall be issued unless the proposal complies with the Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of this ordinance. If a conflict exists between the zoning ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan on land for which an approval is requested, such approval cannot be issued unless the conflict is resolved. CHAPTER 6, ARTICLE III. BUILDING CODE: Sec. 6-67. Permits. (a) Required (4) No person shall perform any work or allow work regulated by the state building code to occur without first obtaining a permit from the city for such work. No building permit shall be issued unless the proposal complies with section 36-39 of this ordinance. 58 Sec. 6-69. Certificate of occupancy. (a) Required. Before any building or structure shall be occupied or uses, in whole or in part, for any purpose whatsoever, a certificate of occupancy must be issued by the city pursuant to requirements of the building code. No certificate of occupancy shall be issued unless the proposal complies with section 36-39 of this ordinance. Sec. 3. The contents of Planning Case File 01-62-ZA are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case. Sec.4. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication. Adopted by the City Council February 4, 2002 Reviewed for Administration City Manager Mayor Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution: City Clerk City Attorney 01-62-ZA:n\res-ord 59 CONSENT ITEM # 4a MINUTES Housing Authority St. Louis Park, Minnesota Wednesday, November 14, 2001 Westwood Room 5:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Catherine Courtney, William Gavzy, Judith Moore and Anne Mavity MEMBERS ABSENT: Shone Row STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Anderson, Tamra Bokal, Michele Schnitker OTHERS PRESENT: None 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 5:04 p.m. 2. Approval of Minutes for October 10, 2001 Commissioner Courtney moved approval of the amended minutes of October 10th, 2001. Commissioner Moore seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 4-0 with Commissioners Courtney, Gavzy, Mavity and Moore voting in favor. 3. Hearings: None 4. Reports and Committees: None 5. Unfinished Business: None 6. New Business: a. Section 8 Project Basing Allocation Approval - Resolution No. 498 Ms. Schnitker stated that staff was requesting an increase in the amount of project-based units from 40 to 45. She explained this increase would allow Vail Place to project-base 7 units. Ms. Schnitker also stated that she would revise the Agency Plan for the upcoming January meeting. Commissioner Gavzy asked what 20% of the total Section 8 allocation would be. Ms. Schnitker responded 54 units. Commissioner Mavity asked if it would make 60 sense to increase the number of units to 54 at this time so that if someone else were to apply for project-based units, the allocation would already be in place. Ms. Schnitker responded that any application would be brought before the Board for approval anyway and that increasing the number of project-based units can easily be accomplished at the same time. Commissioner Moore stated that she would prefer that the number of units remain at 45 instead of increasing it to 54 at this point. Commissioner Courtney moved approval of Resolution No. 498. Commissioner Mavity seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 4-0 with Commissioners Courtney, Gavzy, Mavity and Moore voting in favor. b. Approval of Hamilton House Caretaker Contract Ms. Anderson talked about Alphonso Jones who applied to provide caretaker services at Hamilton House. She stated that Mr. Jones did not have a criminal history and is studying law enforcement. The contract would go through March 31, 2002 at the same rate as the previous caretaker. Staff recommended approval of the contract with Alphonso Jones for the caretaker beginning November 15, 2001. Commissioner Moore moved to approve the contract with Alphonso Jones as caretaker. Commissioner Mavity seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 4-0 with Commissioners Courtney, Gavzy, Mavity and Moore voting in favor. c. Home Renewal Program Modification Ms. Schnitker explained that the HA was looking to expand this program to include purchasing blighted homes that could be remodeled. This program would be in addition to the original program that is used to purchase homes that are in such poor condition that they must be torn down and rebuilt. Ms. Schnitker explained that the funds would come from housing rehab monies as it would not be an eligible expense under CDBG funds. She added that the City Council had authorized modifying the program to remodel one home as a test case and then bring it back for further discussion and approval. Ms. Schnitker stated that the City Council also authorized the HA Board to administer this program. No action was required. d. Public Housing Reserve Level Ms. Schnitker talked about the reserve report that she and Ms. Anderson put together for the Board. Ms. Schnitker mentioned that the HUD funds are program specific, and HUD monitors the budget for these programming funds. The HUD 61 funds are made up of the Public Housing Reserve, Louisiana Court Reserve and the Section 8 Operating Reserve. Ms. Schnitker explained that the Public Housing Reserve monies are excess operating funds, while Louisiana Court Reserve funds are held in escrow for the use in operating and maintaining these 12 units. The Section 8 Reserves are from excess administrative fees earned. Ms. Schnitker went on to explain the General Reserve funds which up until 1997 only included the Mill Levy fund and Retained Earnings. When the bonds for Hamilton House were paid off, the HA petitioned to have $185,000 of the excess bond funds placed into discretionary reserves instead of being used to offset operations as required by HUD. Ms. Schnitker explained that all reserve accounts are used to calculate the score under the Public Housing Assessment System (PHAS) Reserve Level Standard, and that a total of nine points could be earned in this category. The scoring system is based on the number of months that the total reserves could support the public housing program. All nine points could be earned if the reserve level falls between 4.5 and 10.6 months. Ms. Schnitker explained that the number of months for the HA at fiscal year end 2000 was 14.7, therefore 1.5 points were deducted. Commissioner Courtney left at 6:35p.m. Commissioner Gavzy asked the staff to come back with some general proposals for the reserve funds including amounts for enhancing existing programs, proper reserve balances and new programs. Commissioner Mavity also stated she would like the recommendations of staff as well as the bigger picture of everything that could be done. Commissioner Moore expressed that she would prefer to use grants to fund any new programs. Ms. Schnitker responded that the additional maintenance items not currently budgeted are known and have been previously discussed. In addition, she said that she could come to the Board with other additional maintenance items not previously included as well. Ms Schnitker stated that the HA would bring any other needs to the Board as they occur. Commissioner Gavzy commented that during next year's budgeting process, he would like to see what total maintenance needs are, and not just the amount the Capital Fund monies will support. Ms. Schnitker agreed that staff would bring this additional information to the Board during the budgeting process. No action was required. 7. Communications from the Executive Director a. Claims List No. 11-2001 62 Commissioner Moore moved ratification of Claims List No. 11-2001. Commissioner Mavity seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 3- 0 with Commissioners Gavzy, Mavity and Moore voting in favor. b. Communications Ms. Schnitker mentioned that Finance did a key on the financial statements. Commissioner Moore stated that the key was unclear and asked if Finance could includes boxes for easier reading and break out the reserve amounts. Ms. Schnitker responded that she would ask Finance to make these adjustments. Ms. Schnitker explained that the City Clerk asked to postpone the changes to the Bylaws and Administrative Policy until December or January. Ms. Schnitker stated that she would bring the Section 8 Home Ownership program to the December meeting. Ms. Anderson mentioned an upcoming termination due to unreported income. 8. Adjournment Commissioner Moore moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:00p.m. Commissioner Mavity seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 3-0 with Commissioners Gavzy, Mavity and Moore voting in favor. Respectfully submitted, ________________________ Shone Row, Secretary 63 CONSENT ITEM #4b MINUTES Housing Authority St. Louis Park, Minnesota Wednesday, December 12, 2001 Westwood Room 5:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Judith Moore, Shone Row and Anne Mavity (5:28 p.m.) MEMBERS ABSENT: Catherine Courtney and William Gavzy STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Anderson, Tamra Bokal, Kathy Larsen, Michele Schnitker and Tanya Warren OTHERS PRESENT: None 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 5:17 p.m. 2. New Business: a. Fiscal Year 2001 Section 8 Management Assessment Program Score (SEMAP) Ms. Schnitker explained that the HA was notified by HUD that the final Section 8 SEMAP score was determined. The score totaled 84% which qualifies the HA as a standard performer. A score of 90% or higher would qualify as a high performer. Ms. Schnitker stated there are 14 indicators, 12 in which the HA was given the maximum score. For the remaining two, the HA received a lowered score. These areas included utilization and calculation of correct rents. Ms. Schnitker explained that the Section 8 utilization would need to be at 98% to receive a perfect score of 20 and between 95% and 98% to receive a score of 15. Ms. Schnitker also explained that for the first time in over two years, the Section 8 utilization is now over 95%. In regard to incorrect rents, staff is unsure of how this was determined by HUD and HUD has been unable to provide any information on the determinations or on which files were calculated incorrectly. No action was required on this item. b. Section 8 Homeownership Ms. Schnitker asked to table this item until the January board meeting when all the commissioners were present due to the importance of this issue. 64 c. Annual and 5 Year Agency Plan Amendment Ms. Schnitker explained that the Agency Plan includes and one-year and five-year component. The one-year plan includes details about the programs and operations. The five-year plan provides the HA's mission, long-range goals and objectives. Ms. Schnitker stated that some residents will be reviewing the policy and the annual public meeting will be held at the January board meeting. Ms. Schnitker mentioned that most changes were administrative and the most significant change would include completing criminal background checks for the Section 8 program applicants, which is now required by HUD regulations. Commissioner Mavity asked about the guidelines for criminal records and who might be denied housing. Ms. Schnitker responded that drug activity is one of the categories considered, and that she would bring back the HUD guidelines regarding denial of housing for criminal activity to the January meeting. Commissioner Row asked if the HA would bear the cost of the background checks. Ms. Anderson responded that the local checks are not currently charged but if fingerprints need to be taken for a national check, the cost would be paid by the HA. Ms. Schnitker also commented that she would like to consider a policy for Section 8 that if a national check would need to be done, the applicant would request the information and pay the cost. 3. Approval of Minutes for November 14, 2001 Commissioner Mavity moved approval of the amended minutes of November 14th, 2001. Commissioner Moore seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 3-0 with Commissioners Mavity, Moore and Row voting in favor. 4. Hearings: None 5. Reports and Committees: None 6. Unfinished Business: None 7. New Business (cont.): d. Approval of Purchase - 4247 Wooddale Ave Ms. Larsen stated that she had included a map of the location of the home to be purchased through the Home Renewal program. She explained that the purpose of the Home Renewal program is to remove blighted properties from St. Louis Park and provide move-up housing. Ms. Larsen stated that the purchase price would be $65,000 and the assessed value of the land is $64,000. She explained that the house has been on the market since early 2001. Ms. Larsen explained the 65 house has not sold because of a sizable foundation issue that would cost a minimum of $30,000 to repair. Ms. Larsen stated the newly constructed house would be sold for 125% or more of the current average neighborhood values. Commissioner Mavity moved approval of the purchase of the property at 4247 Wooddale Ave. Commissioner Moore seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 3-0 with Commissioners Mavity, Moore and Row voting in favor. 8. Communications from the Executive Director c. Claims List No. 11-2001 Commissioner Moore moved ratification of Claims List No. 11-2001. Commissioner Mavity seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 3- 0 with Commissioners Mavity, Moore and Row voting in favor. d. Communications Commissioner Mavity asked if there is a joint meeting held annually with the City Council. Ms. Schnitker responded that in the past there have been meetings with the City Council but none were held in 2001. She said she would talk with the City Clerk to find out if a joint meeting was held annually in the past and when another meeting could be set up. Commissioner Moore asked that the financial statement break out all of the reserve balances. Ms. Schnitker replied that she would ask finance if they could provide that information. 9. Adjournment Commissioner Moore moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:18 p.m. Commissioner Mavity seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 3-0 with Commissioners Mavity, Moore and Row voting in favor. Respectfully submitted, ________________________ Shone Row, Secretary 66 CONSENT ITEM # 4c Official Minutes PLANNING COMMISSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA January 2, 2002-- 6:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Michelle Bissonnette, Michael Garelick, Ken Gothberg, Dennis Morris, Carl Robertson Jerry Timian arrived at 6:02 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Judie Erickson, Janet Jeremiah, Nancy Sells 1. Call to order - Roll Call Vice-Chair Gothberg called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 2. Approval of Minutes of December 5, 2001 Commissioner Robertson moved approval of the minutes of December 5, 2001. The motion passed 5-0. 3. Hearings: A. Public Hearing to review request of Meadowford, LLC (Gary Wood) and the City of St. Louis Park for Preliminary and Final Plat approval including variances to the subdivision ordinance for reduced sidewalks, reduced perimeter lot easements, and to waive the requirement for a Grading and Erosion Control Plan and Development Agreement – 3938 and 3900 Meadowbrook Road Case Nos. 01-58-S and 01-63-VAR Judie Erickson, Planning Coordinator, presented a staff report. Commissioner Timian asked if a need for a sidewalk might surface in the future, and Ms. Erickson replied if the Comprehensive Plan’s trail and sidewalk plan were to be amended to show a trail or sidewalk along Meadowbrook Road, the Planning Commission could consider a sidewalk request. It was moved by Commissioner Morris to approve the combined preliminary and final plat with variances to the subdivision ordinance for reduced sidewalks, reduced perimeter lot easements, and to waive the requirement for a Grading and Erosion Control Plan and Development Agreement. The motion passed 6-0. 67 Vice-Chair Gothberg stated the remaining public hearings are interrelated and he requested that items 3B-3E be discussed in the following order: 3E, 3D, 3C and 3B. Commissioners agreed to the change. E. Public Hearing on zoning ordinance text amendments to reinstate language regarding the Comprehensive Plan Case No. 01-62-ZA Janet Jeremiah, Planning and Zoning Supervisor presented a staff report. Vice-Chair Gothberg opened the public hearing. With no one present wishing to speak, Vice-Chair Gothberg closed the public hearing. It was moved by Commissioner Bissonnette to approve zoning ordinance text amendments to reinstate language regarding the Comprehensive Plan. The motion passed 6-0. D. Public Hearing to review request of Planning Commission for text amendments to Chapter 36 of Municipal Code to add a new land use called “Post Office Customer Service” along with a definition, standards and parking requirements Case No. 01-61-ZA Ms. Erickson presented a staff report. Vice-Chair Gothberg opened the public hearing. Mr. John McCain, Belt Line Industrial Park, addressed the Planning Commission. Mr. McCain asked if Item 3B is not approved, will the post office/customer use be rendered a non-conforming use? Ms. Erickson said the post office/customer service facility is allowed in the C-1 and C-2 District, as an accessory use in the Office District, as part of a PUD in the mixed-use district, and a fully developed post office is a permitted use in the IP and the IG. Ms. Jeremiah responded to Mr. McCain’s question saying the only way the post office use would become non- conforming would be if it was changed to commercial and if the distribution facility was moved elsewhere so that then it is just a post office/customer service facility in an Industrial District. Mr. McCain asked if the carrier annex and the customer service component are moved to another Industrial District property, would that be a permitted use? Staff responded that it would be a permitted use. Vice-Chair Gothberg closed the public hearing. Commissioner Morris asked if the definition of post office/customer service related only to the U.S. Postal Service or if other mail services would be included. 68 Ms. Jeremiah responded the definition would include other types of mail services. Vice-Chair Gothberg said that he wished to add language to items (5) d. and (10) d of the proposed amendment stating that the mailbox would be designed so that drop off can be accomplished without the occupant having to leave the vehicle. Commissioner Morris asked if that is inherent in the words in-vehicle drop off? Vice-Chair Gothberg replied to a certain extent it could be interpreted that way but he would like to clarify in-vehicle drop off; he added he is aware of one situation where it is not working that way, hence, his suggestion. Vice-Chair Gothberg suggested adding language to items (5) e. and (10) e. of the proposed amendment to the effect that visibility is not to be compromised by those exiting the drive thru area, as a large bufferyard may contribute to poor visibility and traffic problems. Ms. Jeremiah stated the visibility concern can be addressed by referencing the section of the zoning code which requires a clear view triangle from any intersection. Commissioner Morris asked the Vice-Chair for specific language regarding mailbox drop-off. Ms. Jeremiah proposed the following: Outdoor mailboxes shall allow for in-vehicle drop off. Commissioners Morris and Gothberg agreed with the suggestion. It was moved by Commissioner Morris to approve text amendments to Chapter 36 of the Municipal Code to add a new land use called “Post Office Customer Service” along with a definition, standards and parking requirements subject to the changes proposed to items (5) d.,e. and (10) d.,e. The motion passed 6-0. C. Public Hearing to review request initiated by Planning Commission to amend the Plan by Neighborhood chapter of the Comprehensive Plan 2000-2020 to address changes to land northwest of Beltline Boulevard and West 36th Street Case No. 01-60-CP Ms. Erickson presented a staff report. Vice-Chair Gothberg opened the public hearing. Vice-Chair Gothberg stated that from his viewpoint, the key issue relative to the amendment is to consider what direction the neighborhood development should proceed, aside from the specifics of the Belt Line proposal. 69 Commissioner Morris stated that he believes the proposed amendment will be positive for the upcoming changes to the neighborhood and that he would support the amendment whether or not the Belt Line request was approved. Vice-Chair Gothberg closed the public hearing. It was moved by Commissioner Robertson to amend the Plan by Neighborhood chapter of the Comprehensive Plan 2000-2020 to address changes to land northwest of Beltline Boulevard and West 36th Street. The motion passed 6-0. B. Continued Public Hearing to review the request of Belt Line Industrial Park, Inc. (John D. McCain) to amend the Comprehensive Plan Designation for parcels along West 36th Street and Belt Line Boulevard from Industrial to Commercial and continued Public Hearing to review proposed amendment to the Zoning map from IP-Industrial Park to C2-General Commercial - 3533 Raleigh Avenue South, 3550, 3540, 3532 and the south 180 feet of 3510 Belt Line Boulevard Case Nos. 01-53-CP and 01-54-Z Ms. Erickson presented a staff report. Commissioner Garelick asked Ms. Erickson when the SW transportation corridor will come about. Ms. Erickson responded that an LRT study will probably begin on the SW corridor in the coming year, and the timeline for the corridor may depend on the reception the Legislature gives to the Hiawatha corridor. Commissioner Garelick asked if the SW corridor has competing lines, and Ms. Erickson’s answer included an explanation regarding competition of a NW busway versus a SW busway. Commissioner Garelick asked if there are additional large landowners besides Quadion in the Elmwood Area, and Ms. Erickson said there are three large property owners in the Elmwood Area. Commissioner Morris stated he has several questions regarding the Elmwood Area Study and he suggested setting the topic aside as an agenda item at the next meeting. Commissioner Bissonnette asked if all six acres are owned by the developer, John McCain, and Mr. McCain responded that he owns all six acres. Mr. McCain addressed the Planning Commission. He said the lot to the northeast will be split and will not be included in the redevelopment project due to issues such as flood plain and soil type. Mr. McCain presented a concept drawing of the redevelopment project. Commissioner Bissonnette commented Mr. McCain’s proposal is an improvement in regard to the safety of the Belt Line Blvd. and 36th Street intersection and is a good fit for the changing neighborhood. 70 With no one else wishing to speak, Vice-Chair Gothberg closed the public hearing. It was moved by Commissioner Robertson to approve the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change designation from Industrial to Commercial. The motion passed 6-0. It was moved by Commissioner Robertson to approve the zoning amendment to change the zoning map designation from IP-Industrial Park to C2-General Commercial. The motion passed 6-0. 4. Unfinished Business: None 5. New Business A. Consent Agenda: None B. Other New Business i. Elect New Officers It was moved by Commissioner Morris, seconded by Commissioner Garelick, to nominate Vice-Chair Gothberg as Chair. The motion passed 5-0-1 with Vice-Chair Gothberg abstaining. It was moved by Commissioner Morris to nominate Commissioner Bissonnette as Vice Chair; and Commissioner Garelick nominated Commissioner Robertson as Vice Chair. An oral vote produced three votes for Commissioner Bissonnette and three votes for Commissioner Robertson. Commissioner Morris suggested there be co-vice chairs, unless the City Attorney considers having two vice chairs as problematic. Ms. Jeremiah said if it is problematic, she will report back to the Planning Commission. ii. Resolution of Appreciation – Sally Velick A resolution of appreciation was presented in recognition of former Chair Sally Velick’s service to the Planning Commission. 6. Communications A. Board of Zoning Appeals agenda – December 27, 2001 7. Miscellaneous Commissioner Garelick reported the Board of Realtors stated in their newsletter that the St. Louis Park City Council has amended the point-of-sale housing inspection program and replaced it with a maintenance code. 71 Ms. Jeremiah said staff’s understanding is that the change was to bring inspections in- house to ensure consistency in inspections and that the standards have not changed. Commissioner Morris asked staff about implementation of a proof of parking plan at Sam’s Club. Commissioner Morris requested an update from staff regarding traffic circulation issues with Costco and Home Depot. Ms. Jeremiah said that Home Depot is finalizing its plans regarding traffic flow and cart corals. She added that Costco has indicated it will begin construction on the fueling facility in the spring. Costco has submitted all of its plans, including sign and building permit plans. 8. Adjournment Chair Gothberg adjourned the meeting at 7:35 p.m. Minutes prepared by: Respectfully submitted, Linda Samson Recording Secretary Nancy Sells Administrative Secretary 72 CONSENT ITEM # 4d MINUTES CHARTER COMMISSION MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA November 14, 2001 City Hall, Westwood Room 1. Call to Order Chair Ahrens called the meeting to order at 7:12 p.m. 2. Introductions and Attendance It was moved by Commissioner Carver and seconded by Commissioner Busch to excuse the absence of the following members: Bryan Leary and Carol Walsh. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. A. Members Present: Cynthia Ahrens, Paul Carver, Mike Sixel, Nathan Busch, Cheryl Ernst, Brian Fiderlein, Christopher Johnson, David Ornstein, and James Schaefer. B. Members Excused: Bryan Leary and Carol Walsh. C. Members Unexcused: None. D. Staff and Guests Present: City Staff Liaison Clint Pires, City Attorney Joel Jamnik, League of Minnesota Cities Staff Eric Hedtke, League of Women Voters Staff Celia Anderson. E. Vacancies: Four. 3. Approval of Minutes It was moved by Commissioner Carver and seconded by Commissioner Fiderlein that the minutes of September 12, 2001 be approved as presented. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. Initiative and Referendum (IR) Presentation from Joel Jamnik – City Attorney’s Office Joel Jamnik and Eric Hedtke joined the Commission for a further discussion on initiative and referendum. Joel referenced the attached documents and also summarized a couple of recent books on IR, stating that they were primarily negative towards IR, in that activist groups and groups with money have won most votes. However, there is evidence that IR at the local level is not affected much by money, more by passion for an issue. Several questions and comments were then presented: 73 Mr. Jamnik was asked whether the Council re-pass laws repealed by referendum? He indicated, yes, if they make substantial changes in the law. Roseville voters recently defeated a new city Charter, some say because IR was in there. The League of Women Voters is against IR; they believe we elect our representatives for the purpose of passing and repealing laws. Commissioner Busch stated that IR gives voters another mechanism to have their voices heard. Sometimes the Council does what they think is right, and don't listen to the people. Commissioner Sixel stated that he'd like to see if someone could come in and present a case for IR, as so far, he had heard no argument for IR. He also stated that he agreed with the League's position on this issue. Commissioner Johnson stated that he was concerned about usurping the power of the Council. Elections work, so why let people fight Council decisions? They should try to elect new Council members if they disagree with their decisions. Commissioner Fiderlein stated that he fell in the middle ground. He is inclined to like IR, but sees many risks. Other Commissioners echoed Commissioner Fiderlein’s opinion. Commissioner Ornstein stated that there have been many issues that could have split the community if they had been left to IR. IR would have a negative impact on the City's ability to function. He's confident voters would vote the "right" way if there was IR. IR also leads to elections outside of normal election times, leading to non-representative votes, as only the passionate will show and vote. Property rights and zoning issues could be a big problem. He can see the pros, but the cons outweigh them. Councils do listen, but at times, there are reasons other than popular opinion to vote a certain way. Commissioner Carver asked how much the Charter could limit IR if we put it in. The Charter can be crafted to limit IR, but this would potentially create legal challenges by those meeting and not meeting the definitions in the Charter. Also, Councils do a lot by resolution and resolution is not subject to referendum. The Charter could limit when IR elections can be held, to overcome one problem. He too would like to hear a proponent of IR speak. He does not believe IR creates another layer of government. IR allows someone who doesn't want to be on the Council, but who is passionate about an issue, to really pursue his/her position. He believes that is a good thing. Commissioner Busch stated that some people have an unreasonable fear of IR. The Commission decided to request a speaker be sought to present an arguement in favor of IR at the next meeting. 74 5. Status of Police Citizens Advisory Committee and Fire Civil Service Commission Rule Changes Mr. Pires reported that some 40-50 applications to serve on the input committee to form the Police Citizens Advisory Committee had been received. He stated that the City Manager and Police Chief would now be reviewing the applications. He also suggested that those applicants not selected to serve on this Committee be invited to apply for openings on the Charter Commission. Mr. Pires also indicated that legislation enabling St. Louis Park the option to eliminate the Fire Civil Service Commission is on the City’s legislative agenda for the 2002 session. In the meantime, the Fire Civil Service Commission continues to work with a recently revised set of rules designed to help streamline and simplify many of its processes, though the perception is that hiring decisions continue to be delayed due to procedures inherent in the nature of Civil Service Commissions. 6. Status of Commission Vacancies Mr. Pires reported that four vacancies now exist on the Commission. These represent the seats previously occupied by Commissioners N. Kirschner, R. Kirschner, Moga, and Smith. In addition to Sun-Sailor articles, commissioners identified other potential sources of candidates, including other City commissions (as people can serve on both the Charter Commission and other City commissions), League of Women Voters, School Board candidates, and applicants to the Police Citizens Advisory Committee. Other possible sources of promotion included providing some “headline” advertising on the City’s web site, brochures in public buildings, and information in neighborhood and religious organization newsletters. 7. Meeting Schedule The Commission agreed to meet next on January 16, 2002 and consider future meetings at that time. Mr. Pires was asked to invite representatives of the League of Women Voters to this meeting, as well as representatives of pro-IR groups (if any can be identified). 8. Adjournment As there was no other business, at 8:35 p.m., Commissioner Sixel moved and Commissioner Carver seconded adjournment. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Respectfully submitted, Mike Sixel, Secretary and Clint Pires, Staff Liaison 75 CONSENT ITEM # 4e City of St. Louis Park Human Rights Commission Meeting Minutes - December 19, 2001 Westwood Room - City Hall ______________________________________________________________________________ ____ Present Commission Members: Marc Berg, Cassandra Boddy, Jake Feldman, Herb Isbin, Paul Pyykkonen and Kristin Siegesmund Staff: Martha McDonell, Commission Liaison and Lynn Schwartz, Recording Secretary Guest: John Headlee, West Metro Education Program Call to Order Chairperson Kristin Siegesmund called the meeting to order at 7:08 p.m. Commissioners introduced themselves to new commissioner Paul Pyykkonen. November Minutes: Moved by Herb Isbin and seconded by Marc Berg to approve the November minutes. Motion passed unanimously. December Agenda: Members agreed to hear the West Metro Education Program presentation before discussing other agenda items. New Business West Metro Education Program: John Headlee briefed commissioners on the proposal to build a West Metro Education Program (WMEP) school in St. Louis Park. The WMEP school would be a state-of-the-art inter-district magnet school designed to provide voluntary integration for participating districts. The proposal calls for an academically rigorous K-8 school with a world cultures/world languages theme. The building would house 500 to 600 students and would also house year-round community learning programs such as English as a Second Language, youth enrichment and adult basic education. At this time, two sites are under consideration: 1) Eliot Center and 2) the intersection of Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue. The proposal and a request for $27 million in bonds will be brought to the Minnesota Legislature this winter. Commission members expressed their support for the proposal and offered to be a vocal supporter should it face NIMBY (not in my back yard) resistance. Commissioners asked Headlee to alert them if their attendance would be helpful at community meetings. They also said they would like to have input into the curriculum, if the facility is built in St. Louis Park. Reports Staff Reports: Martha McDonell reported that the Human Rights Information Line received a call from a woman concerning her sister who is in adult foster care. Kristen Siegesmund referred 76 the caller to Family Care ombudsman. McDonell also reported that Debra Strege, Police Liaison, placed the Human Rights pledge in the department’s most recent Block Captains newsletter. McDonell then asked commissioners to complete an anonymous diversity survey. The results will be used to measure the City’s progress in meeting a Vision St. Louis Park diversity goal (“elected and appointed officials represent the community’s diversity”). Commissioner Reports: Herb Isbin reported that a League of Minnesota Human Rights Commission meeting on understanding and countering hate crimes will be held in Golden Valley on January 24th. He also noted that the forward to the book, “The Compassionate Rebel” was written by St. Louis Park Human Rights Commission member Kristi Rudelius-Palmer. Isbin suggested that the City purchase a copy of the book for commission use. Kristen Siegesmund reported on the Human Rights Day conference and summarized some recent state law changes. Old Business Awards: Kristen Siegesmund read the letter she drafted for mailing to the individuals who were nominated—but did not win—the Human Rights Commission Award. Commissioners complimented Siegesmund on the letter and thanked her for her efforts. Martha McDonell will make sure the letter is mailed to all nominees. McDonell will also contact all winners about the award presentation which is tentatively set for the January 7 City Council meeting. Marc Berg will send any notable comments he gathered about the award winners to McDonell so that these can be incorporated into the presentation comments. Herb Isbin offered to contact the people who nominated the winners to ensure they can attend the presentation. Commission Recruiting Flier: Martha McDonell shared a draft flier that was created by City staff member Kelli Burrows. Members liked the look of the flier but suggested using a more readable typeface. Moved by Kristen Siegesmund and seconded by Cassandra Boddy to accept the flier as revised. Motion passed unanimously. Hate Crimes Response Plan: Martha McDonell circulated the revisions discussed at the November meeting. McDonell noted that she is also circulating the revisions to the Police Department to ensure they are in agreement with the plan. She then suggested that commissioners take the revised plan to a City Council study session before adopting the revised plan. Herb Isbin reminded commissioners that the network of resources that accompany this response plan must also be updated. Marc Berg distributed a draft of a letter that could be sent to victims. The letter would be adapted to each situation, explained Berg, but the draft provides a starting point. New Business Human Rights Essay Contest: Members discussed the timing of the contest. Essays must be submitted by March 1 so the commission would have to notify schools in January. Members felt a cover letter is needed and then personal calls should be made to classroom teachers to 77 encourage them to participate. Then commissioners can vote on the winning essay at its February meeting. Martha McDonell agreed to get the paperwork ready so that material could be mailed in January. She noted that members should be prepared to discuss their outreach plans at the January meting. End of the Year Report: Kristen Siegesmund offered to draft the report and bring it to an upcoming meeting. Once the commission approves of the report, it will be submitted to the City Council. Set Agenda Herb Isbin will chair the January meeting since Kristen Siegesmund will not be able to attend.  Election of officers  Hate Crime Response Plan network  Human Rights Essay Contest outreach Adjournment Moved by Jake Feldman and seconded by Kristen Siegesmund to adjourn. Motion passed unanimously. With no further business, the commission adjourned at 8:58 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lynn Schwartz Recording Secretary