HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002/02/04 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Regular 1
AGENDA - CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
February 4, 2002
7:30 p.m.
Economic Development Authority - Cancelled
1. Call to Order
a. Pledge of Allegiance
b. Roll Call
2. Presentations
3. Approval of Minutes
a. City Council Minutes of January 21, 2002
b. Study Session Minutes of January 14, 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 extend the completion dates of Professional Service Contracts #11-00,
#88-00, and 100-00
2. Motion to adopt the attached resolution that accepts this report, establishes this
Improvement Project, directs staff to sponsor an informational meeting with
2
abutting property owners, and sets a Public Hearing and Assessment Hearing
date of March 18, 2002.
3. Motion to adopt the attached resolution authorizing application for a Hennepin
County grant to fund the City’s curbside recycling program.
4. Motion to Approve Second Reading of Ordinance Amendments Reinstating
Language Regarding Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, Adopt
Ordinance, Approve Summary Ordinance and Authorize Publication.
5. Motion to accept the following report (s) for filing:
a. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of December 27, 2001
b. Vendor Claim Report
Action: Motion to approve Consent Items
5. Public Hearings
6. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public
7. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions
7a. Approval of 2002 Liquor License Renewals
Request of Council to approve year 2002 liquor license renewals for on-sale, off-
sale, Sunday-sale, club and wine intoxicating liquor and off-sale and on-sale 3.2%
malt liquor. License year to run March 1, 2002 through February 28, 2003.
Recommended Action: Motion to approve renewal of licenses
7b. Financial Assistance for Flood Mitigation Projects
Staff would like to submit two requests for financial assistance to the State of
Minnesota to help fun flood mitigation projects.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve a resolution in support of a request for
financial assistance for St. Louis Park Flood Mitigation Projects
7c. Second reading of an Ordinance amending Chapter 36 of the Code regarding
Post Office Customer Service – Case Nos. 01-61ZA
The ordinance amends 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.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the ordinance, approve the summary and
authorize summary publication
3
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
OFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
January 22, 2002
1. Call to Order
Mayor Pro Tem Latz called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
The following Councilmembers were present at roll call: Jim Brimeyer, Susan Sanger,
Sue Santa, and Sally Velick, and Mayor Pro Tem Latz.
Mayor Jeff Jacobs and Councilmember Chris Nelson were absent.
Also present were the Deputy City Manager (Mr. Pires); City Attorney (Mr. Brokl);
Community Development Director (Mr. Harmening); Planning and Zoning Supervisor (Ms.
Jeremiah): Planning Coordinator (Ms. Erickson); and Recording Secretary (Ms. Samson).
2. Presentations
2a. 2001 Board and Commission Recognition of Members Resigning in 2001.
The following individuals, resigning in 2001, were recognized for their service to various
Boards and Commissions.
Board of Zoning Appeals : Carl Robertson
Charter Commission: Norman Kirschner, Ruth Kirschner, Dorothea Moga, and
Christopher Smith
Human Rights Commission: Marc Berg, Lynn Littlejohn, Betty Merritt, Christopher
Smith, and Maya Winoker
Parks/Recreation Advisory Commission: Jeff Davidman, Layne Otteson, and David Peters
Planning Commission: Sally Velick
Police Civil Service Commission: Jim Lanenberg, Bryan Leary, and Linda Trummer
Telecommunications Advisory Commission: John Herbert
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. City Council Minutes of January 7, 2002
The minutes were approved as presented.
4. Approval of Agenda and Consent Items
5
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 Sanger requested an addition to Agenda Item 8 be made to reflect an
appointment to the Planning Commission.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to add to
Item 8 an appointment to the Planning Commission.
The motion passed 5-0.
4b. Approval of Consent Items
It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Velick, to approve the
following Consent Agenda Items.
The motion passed 5-0.
1. Approve Resolution No. 02-006 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. Adopt Resolution No. 02-007 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. Approve First Reading of Ordinance Amendments Reinstating Language
Regarding Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and Set Second Reading for
February 4, 2002.
4. Accept the following reports for filing:
a. Housing Authority 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
5. Public Hearings--None
6. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public--None
6
7. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions
Mayor Pro Tem Latz stated Items 7a, 7b, and 7c relate to the same general topic, and Judie
Erickson’s report will apply to all three items, however, in terms of Council action the
items will be addressed individually.
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. Resolution No. 02-008
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 and Case No. 01-54-Z.
Resolution No. 02-009
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.
Judie Erickson, Planning Coordinator, said Item 7b will be presented first. She stated a
change in land use from industrial to commercial may be more compatible with: future
residential land uses associated with Belt Line Blvd. and West 36th Street; the more
industrial type uses with large trucks; and the use of the distribution portion of the post
office, which would be located off of this property and onto an industrial area that would be
away from future residential land uses.
Mayor Pro Tem Latz asked if any other businesses would have to relocate if the land
definition changed from industrial to commercial, and Ms. Erickson responded, any
existing businesses that are not commercial would become nonconforming, e.g., the post
office would become nonconforming. She said text amendments would limit the types of
uses allowed in a commercial use area.
Councilmember Sanger asked if there will be a significant increase in truck traffic between
the industrial and commercial components of the post office buildings due to the relocation
of the distribution portion of the post office within the Belt Line area. Applicant John
McCain, 3440 Belt Line Blvd., said, given the proposed separation of the retail portion of
the postal service and its carrier annex, a boxed truck or van will be used to service the post
office boxes, and it is unlikely there would be semi-truck traffic.
Councilmember Sanger asked what allows Byerly’s to have an in-store postal service, and
Ms. Erickson replied that Byerly’s has a conditional use permit.
7
Councilmember Sanger asked if a development plan is currently in place for the Belt Line
development. Mr. McCain said approval from the City Council is a prerequisite for his
development plan to proceed.
Councilmember Sanger stated she is leery of changing the land use designation from
industrial to commercial and then having to depend upon the Plan by Neighborhood
Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan as a defense to avoid undesirable uses of the land, and
especially given the future residential properties of this neighborhood. She is concerned
about the legal basis on which to deny undesirable uses in a C2-General Commercial
district. Janet Jeremiah, Planning and Zoning Supervisor, said no building permits or
certificates of occupancy can be issued unless the proposals comply with the
Comprehensive Plan and, if there is a conflict, the conflict must be remedied before
approvals are granted. Councilmember Santa interjected she would favor delaying the
second reading.
Ms. Erickson stated nothing will be in place until the Metropolitan Council approves the
Comprehensive Plan. At this time, an option for Council is to approve the Comprehensive
Plan resolution, first reading, and delay second reading until an ordinance amendment is in
place that would change the big box to a conditional use. Mr. McCain said, safeguards are
in place such as: the big box issue is covered by the square footage maximum and single
retail use is limited to 20,000 square feet.
Councilmember Brimeyer asked if a barrage of conditional uses may come up due to the
change in land use designation; does the Plan by Neighborhood Chapter have the same
legal impact as strict zoning; and how will the Belt Line area change affect other C2
commercial districts in the City? Councilmember Brimeyer would like assurance that the
Plan by Neighborhood has the same control without coming back to the Council as regular
zoning.
Ms. Jeremiah responded other options would be overlay zoning or a Plan by Neighborhood
overlay zoning. She said the concern with conditional uses is that it would render existing
uses nonconforming because they don’t have a conditional use permit. An overlay zone is
basically another layer of zoning that specifies some particular criteria for the properties to
which it applies, and it has been used in St. Louis Park for flood zoning and for Traffic
Demand Management (TDM) at 394.
Mayor Pro Tem Latz has the same concerns as Councilmember Sanger, i.e., the Plan by
Neighborhood Chapter and the Comprehensive Plan may contain conflicting language.
Councilmember Velick asked about a timeframe between the first and second readings.
Ms. Jeremiah replied, if Council would like to ensure that the ordinance controls are in
effect to prevent undesirable uses, she suggests delay second reading until such time as the
ordinance controls are adopted and perhaps specify that in the motion. Ms. Jeremiah noted
there are deadlines for action and if the delay is greater than 120 days from the application
date, state law requires the applicant’s permission.
8
Mayor Pro Tem Latz asked: If Council does not secure the applicant’s permission, does
something automatically take effect? Mayor Pro Tem Latz commented, the Metropolitan
Council can’t change our zoning ordinance that way, can they? In unison, City Attorney,
Matthew Brokl, and Ms. Jeremiah replied, yes. Mayor Pro Tem Latz exclaimed, the
Metropolitan Council can change our zoning ordinance just by the City having made a
proposal for a change and not going through with it? Mr. Brokl added, unless the
application is denied, whatever is in the application is deemed approved. In any case, Mr.
Brokl stated the City would request Applicant Mr. McCain to sign a written waiver.
Mr. Brokl reported to the Council that one option tonight would be to approve the first
reading and the Comprehensive Plan amendments with the understanding that the
Comprehensive Plan amendments will probably not be in effect until the second reading of
the ordinance is approved and the Metropolitan Council grants its approval, and that would
allow additional time to research further with the City Attorney’s office and, at an
appropriate time, return a recommendation to the City for further continuance of second
reading or some other action.
Mr. McCain thinks Council is not in a situation of no return by approving first reading
tonight and the Comprehensive Plan amendments, and Mr. Brokl agreed. Mr. Brokl said, if
after first reading the ordinance for text amendments is deemed inappropriate, Council
could pull it—without a second reading it would not take effect.
Mayor Pro Tem Latz stated he is in favor of approving first reading with the understanding
that there will be proposed tightening of the zoning ordinance before a vote on second
reading.
Councilmember Sanger asked, What if the zoning was not changed and the process was
done by Planned Unit Development (“PUD”) to achieve the same result? Ms. Jeremiah
said that is not an option under current zoning, and Ms. Erickson replied a PUD is not a
zone, it is a process.
Councilmember Sanger asked Mr. Brokl, If Council moves ahead with this and the
Metropolitan Council approves the Comprehensive Plan change and, meanwhile, Council
decides not to go forward with changing the land use designation to C2, is Council in a
legal dilemma and, if so, how could it be resolved? Mr. Brokl responded that Council
would have to ask the Metropolitan Council to undo what they had just been asked to do,
which would take time.
Mayor Pro Tem Latz asked Mr. Brokl if Council would be asking the Metropolitan Council
to approve a Comprehensive Plan amendment or are they approving a zoning change as
well. Mr. Brokl said they are approving a Comprehensive Plan amendment only. Mr.
Brokl stated the general purpose of a Comprehensive Plan is what is at issue, it is a general
guiding tool and Comprehensive Plans are frequently changed.
Mr. McCain stated to the Council that his site is incapable of supporting some of the uses
Council deems undesirable, and big box is one.
9
Mr. Charlie McCain, 3440 Belt Line Blvd., displayed a concept drawing of the proposed
development.
Mayor Pro Tem Latz said, in anticipation of a second reading, it would be helpful if Staff
provided an analysis of the site as opposed to what potential exists on the site for uses
Council may not favor but are permitted under C2.
Councilmember Sanger stated it would be helpful if before second reading Council had
information about the future redevelopment of this industrial park and how it may tie in
with the Applicant’s proposal.
Mayor Pro Tem Latz asked Mr. McCain if the post office is planning to relocate its
distribution center on his property. Mr. McCain said yes because one of his buildings
within the industrial park has become available, and it is large enough to house the carrier
annex.
It was moved by Councilmember Brimeyer, seconded by Councilmember Velick, to adopt
Resolution 02-008 approving Comprehensive Plan 2000-2020 text amendments contingent
upon Metropolitan Council approval and authorize summary resolution publication.
The motion passed 5-0.
It was moved by Councilmember Brimeyer, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to approve
Resolution No. 02-009 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.
The motion passed 5-0.
Mayor Pro Tem Latz requested Consent Agenda items directly related to items on the
Regular Agenda be put on the Agenda for discussion ahead of time.
Mr. Brokl suggested the date for the second reading not be set at this time—leave it open.
Mr. Brokl said a written waiver will be asked of the Applicant in regard to the numerous
deadlines.
For the record, Mayor Pro Tem Latz said he would like to hear that agreement, to sign a
waiver, from the Applicant. Mr. McCain said he does not object to signing a waiver
provided progress moves along at a reasonable pace.
Mayor Pro Tem Latz suggested setting a date certain. Mayor Pro Tem Latz stated Mr.
McCain will waive the deadline on the condition that the extension is for no more than 60
days for the issues to be addressed by the Council. Mayor Pro Tem Latz asked, Is that
correct? Mr. McCain replied, absolutely.
10
It was moved by Councilmember Brimeyer, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to approve
first reading of ordinance and set second reading for a date yet to be determined but no
more than 60 days beyond 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 South, 3550, 3540, 3532 and the south 180 feet of 3510
Belt Line Boulevard subject to approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment.
The motion passed 5-0.
Staff stated based on the questions raised tonight, Staff can furnish information to the
Council at the February 11 Study Session in order for Council to make an informed
decision.
Mayor Pro Tem Latz suggested setting second reading for the first meeting in March and
ask Applicant to waive any applicable deadlines in order to permit that to occur. Mr.
McCain agreed. The waivers will apply to Items 7a, 7b, and 7c, including Consent Agenda
Item 3 from tonight’s agenda, if necessary.
It was moved by Councilmember Brimeyer, seconded by Councilmember Santa, 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 4, 2002.
The motion passed 5-0.
8. Boards and Committees
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer, to
appoint Phil Finkelstein to the Planning Commission.
The motion passed 5-0.
9. Communications
Councilmember Brimeyer reported that several Councilmembers will attend the National
League of Cities convention March 10-11. It was determined Councilmembers Brimeyer,
Nelson, Sanger, and Velick will be absent for the March 11 Study Session.
11. Adjournment
It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to adjourn
the meeting at 9:06 p.m.
The motion passed 5-0.
City Clerk Mayor
11
Item # 3b
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
Minutes of January 14, 2002
The meeting convened at 7:00 p.m.
Present at the meeting were Councilmembers Jim Brimeyer, Ron Latz, Susan Sanger, Sue Santa,
Sally Velick, and Mayor Jeff Jacobs.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Meyer), Director of Community Development (Mr.
Harmening), Planning and Zoning Supervisor (Ms. Jeremiah), Planning Coordinator (Ms.
Erickson), Assistant Zoning Administrator (Mr. Korman), Director of Inspections (Mr.
Hoffman), Environmental Health Official (Mr. Camilon), City Engineer (Ms. Hagen), and City
Clerk (Ms. Reichert).
1. Texa Tonka Study
Jeff Fine was in attendance at the meeting. Fred Dock of Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc.,
transportation consultant, was also in attendance.
Ms. Erickson gave a presentation on the progress of the Texa Tonka study.
Council discussed closing Virginia Avenue and the positive and negative impacts that would
cause. Increased parking was viewed as one of the more significant benefits.
Councilmember Sanger inquired about costs for improvements to the area and how costs would
be shared between private land owners and the City. Mr. Harmening described how cost sharing
could work in the case of the Texa Tonka study and informed Council that staff was looking at
incentive programs to encourage funding participation by property owners.
Councilmember Santa asked about cooperation with Hennepin County in regards to
improvements to Minnetonka Boulevard. Ms. Erickson responded that the proposed
improvements to the area were being viewed favorably by Hennepin county.
Councilmember Velick felt that this was a good start toward redevelopment in the area. She
added that more neighborhood involvement was needed.
Mr. Harmening stated that a larger study was being conducted in the area that focuses on re-use
and redevelopment rather than a complete overhaul of the entire area.
2. Residential Property Condition Assessment
Mr. Hoffman and Mr. Camilon gave a presentation on the Residential Property Condition
Assessment program. They spoke about the history of the inspections program and how changes
12
made with adoption of the new property maintenance standards would affect residents. The
survey will assist the city in identifying properties where improvements must be made.
Mayor Jacobs would like to see a community wide educational program about the city’s efforts
in this area. He felt outreach could occur via cable tv, newsletters and neighborhood meetings
and that perhaps a power point presentation could be put together for that purpose.
Councilmember Velick was concerned that a presentation that showed condition of homes in the
city may offend code violators by showing pictures of their houses at neighborhood meetings.
Council discussed the results of the program and how to achieve them without drawing negative
attention to the property owners whose homes are in violation.
Mr. Harmening outlined the tools that can be used to assist in funding for property repairs.
Council agreed that the use of housing rehabilitation funds is appropriate. Staff was directed to
bring forward a resolution regarding this to the next regular Council meeting.
Councilmember Sanger inquired as to whether there are sufficient resources to administer the
program and staff replied that they did not forsee any problems with funding.
Mr. Hoffman stated that his goal is to get the program going and then determine the pace at
which it can be followed.
Council approved of the program and its funding sources.
3. Non-Conforming Duplexes
Ms. Jeremiah outlined the issues in regard to consideration of an ordinance amendment changing
the status of nonconforming duplexes and requested Council input. Council agreed that each
case is individual with unique characteristics and different needs.
Councilmember Sanger stated that duplexes are needed throughout the city and that a duplex
arrangement can accommodate the needs of different types of families.
Mayor Jacobs questioned what the specific end result was going to be. Staff replied that the
results they were hoping for are to remove any obstacles to housing maintenance, to maintain the
number of housing units, and maintain zoning requirements.
Councilmember Latz suggested rezoning certain areas and added that a text amendment may be a
problem. Council agreed that staff should look at re-zoning only were appropriate.
4. Elmwood Study
Staff updated Council on the consultant selection process, stating that Hennepin County and city
staff narrowed the field to three consultants who were interviewed on January 9, 2002.
Council directed staff to continue with the negotiations underway.
5. Southwest Corner of Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue
13
Staff would like Council input on whether the redevelopment should be promoted and if so, the
type of process that staff should use in selecting a developer. Staff also would like to know what
type of use Council would like on this property.
Ms. Hagen spoke briefly about traffic signals in the area and the impacts that any development
on the site would cause.
Councilmember Nelson stated that he was inclined to go with a Request for Qualification process
or a Request for Proposal process to facilitate redevelopment of the property.
Staff will continue to work on tools to solicit development proposals for the area.
6. St. Louis Park Business Council
Council discussed and agreed to appoint Councilmember Chris Nelson to represent the City
Council at the St. Louis Park Business Council meetings. The Council chose to name Mayor Jeff
Jacobs as Councilmember Nelson’s alternate.
7. Communications
Council discussed the vacant seat on the Planning Commission and the interviews held earlier in
the evening. Council agreed to appoint Phil Finkelstein to the Planning Commission at the next
regular meeting.
8. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m.
City Clerk Mayor
14
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 7a
Meeting of February 4, 2002
7a. Approval of 2002 Liquor License Renewals
Request of Council to approve year 2002 liquor license renewals for on-sale, off-
sale, Sunday-sale, club and wine intoxicating liquor and off-sale and on-sale 3.2%
malt liquor. License year to run March 1, 2002 through February 28, 2003.
Recommended Action: Motion to approve renewal of licenses
Background:
Renewal applications, liquor liability insurance certificates and license fees have been received
from 28 of the City’s 33 establishments. Though all renewals have not yet been completed, staff
is presenting the first round of renewals to council for approval at this time. In the past renewals
have been presented to the city council only after receiving all renewal applications. During the
past three years this has left the staff with only 8-10 days to process the required paperwork,
submit to the MN Department of Public Safety for state approval, and issue the actual licenses to
the establishments. We are still nearly a full month ahead of the renewal date which gives us
ample time to complete the administrative work for the bulk of the renewals in a more timely
manner. It is our intent to present the remaining renewals to Council at the second meeting in
February.
City Ordinance requires property tax payments to be current prior to issuance of a liquor license
and all tax payments for establishments are current.
Enforcement Issues:
The number of liquor violations dropped significantly in 2002 and only two establishments were
cited for non-compliance as compared to six during the 2001 licensing year. The two
establishments were both off-sale stores, Texas-Tonka Liquors at 8242 Minnetonka Blvd and
Westwood Liquors at 2304 Louisiana Ave S. The violations have been reported to the MN Dept
of Public Safety and administrative hearings are scheduled to occur in March. The Police
Department continues to provide education services and other support to all of St. Louis Park’s
liquor establishments and does not feel the violations warrant withholding renewal of license for
either of the establishments.
Attachments: List of establishments presented for approval
Prepared by: Cynthia D. Reichert, City Clerk
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
15
Establishment Name Address 3-2 Off Sale 3-2 On Sale Intox On Sale Intox Off Sale Intox Sunday Club Wine
Total Per
Establishment
Al's 3912 Excelsior Blvd $7,500 $7,500
Applebee's Grill Bar 8332 Hwy 7 $7,500 $200 $7,700
Bennigan's #2415 6475 Wayzata Blvd $7,500 $200 $7,700
Bunny's 5916 Excelsior Blvd $7,500 $200 $7,700
Byerly's St. Louis Park 3777 Park Ctr Blvd $750 $2,000 $2,750
Byerly's Wine & Spirits 3785 Park Ctr Blvd $200 $200
Chili's Southwest Grill & Bar 5245 Wayzata Blvd $7,500 $200 $7,700
Costco Wholesale #377 5801 W 16th St $200 $200
Fuddruckers 6445 Wayzata Blvd $7,500 $200 $7,700
Jennings' Liquor Store 4631 Excelsior Blvd $200 $200
Knollwood Liquor 7924 State Hwy 7 $200 $200
Minneapolis Golf Club 2001 Flag Ave S $200 $650 $850
Olive Garden #1424 5245 Wayzata Blvd $7,500 $200 $7,700
Rainbow Foods 8950 State Hwy 7 $50 $50
Sam's Club #6318 3745 Louisiana Ave S $50 $200 $250
Santorini's 9920 Wayzata Blvd $7,500 $200 $7,700
Shelly's Woodroast 6501 Wayzata Blvd $7,500 $200 $7,700
St. Louis Park Liquors 6316 Minnetonka Blvd $200 $200
Super Valu/Cub 3620 Texas Ave S $50 $50
Taste of India 5617 Wayzata Blvd $750 $2,000 $2,750
Texas-Tonka Liquors 8242 Minnetonka Blvd $200 $200
TGI Friday's 5875 Wayzata Blvd $7,500 $200 $7,700
Timber Lodge Steakhouse 5500 Excelsior Blvd $7,500 $200 $7,700
Tom Thumb #103 8000 Minnetonka Blvd $50 $50
Vescio's Italian Restaurant 4001 State Hwy 7 $750 $2,000 $2,750
VFW 5605 36th St W $200 $650 $850
Westwood Liquors 2304 Louisiana Ave S $200 $200
Yangtze River Rest.5625 Wayzata Blvd $7,500 $200 $7,700
$200 $2,250 $90,000 $1,600 $2,600 $1,300 $6,000
2002 Revenues to Date $103,950
16
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 7b
Meeting of February 4, 2002
7b. Financial Assistance for Flood Mitigation Projects
Staff would like to submit two requests for financial assistance to the State of
Minnesota to help fun flood mitigation projects.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve a resolution in support of a request for
financial assistance for St. Louis Park Flood Mitigation Projects
Background: At it’s January 28, 2002 Study Session, the City Council was informed as to
staff’s interest in submitting two requests for financial assistance for completing the Flood
Improvements Projects.
Staff has initiated two requests for financial assistance from the State of Minnesota for
completing City-initiated Flood Improvement projects. The two funding sources are a request
for $2,507,000 to be included in the 2002 Capital Budget (Bond Bill) and an application for
$2,507,000 to the Department of Natural Resources Flood Grant Program. It is staff’s intent to
utilize one or both funding sources to obtain the $2,507,000, which is 50% of the estimated cost,
and the required matching funds for all future projects currently identified.
The handout booklet (which you received at the Study Session) will be given to the City’s State
Legislators and the Department of Natural Resources. The booklet includes a cover letter to Mr.
Lee Mehrken, the Capital Budget Coordinator in the Minnesota Department of Finance; the
Capital Budget Request; an overview of the proposed projects; Appendix B – the DNR Grant
Application; and a map showing the flood problem areas.
It is recommended the attached resolution be adopted supporting the request for financial
assistance. It is anticipated that a decision on both requests may be made by early April. Staff
will keep the Council informed of the status of the requests.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Carlton B. Moore, Superintendent of Engineering
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
17
RESOLUTION NO. 02-010
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF
FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION GRANT APPLICATION
AND NAMING “AUTHORIZED OFFICIAL” FOR THE PROJECT
BE IT RESOLVED THAT Charles W. Meyer, City Manager, hereinafter referred to as
“Authorized Official” acts as legal sponsor for the project contained in the
Flood Damage Reduction Grant Assistance Program Application submitted on February 5,
2002 and that Authorized Official is hereby authorized to apply to the Minnesota Department of
Natural Resource, hereinafter referred to as “State”, for funding of this project on behalf of the
applicant.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Applicant has the legal authority to apply for financial
assistance, and the institutional, managerial and financial capability to ensure adequate
acquisition, maintenance and protection of the proposed project.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Applicant has not incurred any construction costs or
has not entered into any written agreements to purchase property proposed by this project.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that upon approval of the application by the State, the
Authorized Official may enter into an Agreement with the State for the above-referenced project,
and that the applicant certifies that it will comply with all applicable laws and regulations as
stated in the contract agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Charles W. Meyer, City Manager, is hereby
authorized to execute such Agreements as are necessary to implement the project on behalf of
the Applicant.
I CERTIFY THAT the above resolution was adopted by the City Council of St. Louis Park on
February 4, 2002.
Attest: Adopted by the City Council February 4, 2002
City Clerk Mayor
Reviewed for Administration:
City Manager
18
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 7c
Meeting of February 4, 2002
7c. Second reading of an Ordinance amending Chapter 36 of the Code regarding
Post Office Customer Service – Case Nos. 01-61ZA
The ordinance amends 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.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the ordinance, approve the summary and
authorize summary publication
Background:
On January 22, 2002 the City Council held first reading of Ordinance amendments to Chapter 36
of the City Code (Zoning) to adopt a definition and standards for a “Post Office Customer
Service” land use. The Planning Commission on December 5, 2001 initiated these amendments.
These were prompted by a conceptual plan to redevelop the post office site on Beltline
Boulevard and West 36th Street and accompanying applications to change the Comprehensive
Plan and Zoning Map designations for the property. 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 add 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 second reading of the proposed
Municipal Code (Zoning) text amendments.
19
Attachments: Draft Ordinance
Summary Publication
Prepared By: Judie Erickson, Planning Coordinator
Approved By: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
20
ORDINANCE NO. 2219-02
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
POST OFFICE CUSTOMER SERVICE
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
21
(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.
22
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.
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
01-61-ZA:N\ord-res
23
SUMMARY
ORDINANCE NO. 2219-02
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
POST OFFICE CUSTOMER SERVICE
This ordinance states that Post Office Customer Service will be added to the Ordinance Code as
a new land use along with a definition, standards and parking requirements. The use is permitted
by conditional use permit in the C1, Neighborhood Commercial and C2, General Commercial
Districts, by PUD in the MX, Mixed-Use District, and as accessory in the O, Office District.
This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication.
Adopted by the City Council February 4, 2002
Jeffrey W. Jacobs /s/
Mayor
A copy of the full text of this ordinance is available for inspection with the City Clerk.
Published in St. Louis Park Sailor: February 13, 2002
01-61-ZAsum:N
24
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
February 4, 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 extend the completion dates of Professional Service Contracts #11-00,
#88-00, and 100-00
2. Motion to adopt the attached resolution that accepts this report, establishes this
Improvement Project, directs staff to sponsor an informational meeting with
abutting property owners, and sets a Public Hearing and Assessment Hearing date
of March 18, 2002.
3. Motion to adopt the attached resolution authorizing application for a Hennepin
County grant to fund the City’s curbside recycling program.
4. Motion to Approve Second Reading of Ordinance Amendments Reinstating
Language Regarding Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, Adopt
Ordinance, Approve Summary Ordinance and Authorize Publication.
5. Motion to accept the following report (s) for filing:
a. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of December 27, 2001
25
CONSENT ITEM # 1
St. Louis Park City Council
Meeting of February 4, 2002
1. Motion to extend the completion dates of Professional Service Contracts #11-00,
#88-00, and 100-00
Background: Engineering staff has reviewed the list of current Professional Services contracts
and has identified three contracts which have expired. The work associated with these contracts
is still progressing and, therefore, staff recommends extending the various contracts to reflect the
actual schedule for project completion. The contract amounts will not be increased.
Analysis:
Contract #11-00:
This contract was executed between the City and WSB and Associates, Inc. for the analysis and
design of 6 flood areas. Work is progressing on the various projects but not all of the
construction may be completed in 2002. Therefore, staff recommends extending this contract
until July 1, 2003.
Contract #88-00:
This contract was executed between the City and Short-Elliott-Hendrickson, Inc. for the design
and construction inspection of the traffic signal at 16th Street and Zarthan Avenue. Due to delays
by Xcel Energy, this project won’t be completed until the 2002 construction season. Therefore,
staff recommends extending this contract until December 31, 2002.
Contract #100-00:
This contract was executed between the City and WSB and Associates, Inc. for the analysis and
design of traffic signals and geometric improvements on Louisiana Avenue at Walker Street and
Lake Street. Work is progressing on the various projects but has encountered delays due to
additional discussion with the Minnesota Dept. of Transportation, therefore, staff recommends
extending this contract until December 31, 2002.
Contractor
Contract
Number
Contract Date
Original
Contract
Completion Date
Proposed
Contract
Completion Date
WSB & Assoc., Inc. 11-00 1/31/00 12/31/00 7/1/03
SEH, Inc. 88-00 10/2/00 11/2/01 12/31/02
WSB & Assoc., Inc. 100-00 10/9/00 12/31/01 12/31/02
Prepared By: Maria A. Hagen, City Engineer
Reviewed By: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved By: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
26
CONSENT ITEM # 2
St. Louis Park City Council
Meeting of February 4, 2002
2. Motion to adopt the attached resolution that accepts this report, establishes this
Improvement Project, directs staff to sponsor an informational meeting with
abutting property owners, and sets a Public Hearing and Assessment Hearing
date of March 18, 2002.
Background:
On December 3, 2001, the residents in the 4000 block between Toledo Avenue and Utica
Avenue submitted a petition to the City requesting the alley be paved in accordance with the
City’s standard for alleys. The petition was signed by more property owners (69%) than the 51%
needed to advance the project.
City Alley Paving Special Assessment Policy:
The City’s Alley Paving Special Assessment Policy is as follows:
A. The cost of alley improvements for residential properties shall be assessed as follows when
at least 51 percent (alley front feet) of the property owners petition for the improvement:
1. Thirty (30) percent of the cost of the improvement shall be assessed against all
properties abutting the alley. (INDIRECT BENEFIT)
2. Seventy (70) percent of the cost of the improvement shall be assessed against directly
benefited properties as defined in paragraph 5(B). (DIRECT BENEFIT)
B. A property is directly benefited if it has an existing garage with direct access to the alley, if
an access to the alley could be constructed from an existing garage, or if, no garage exists,
there is sufficient area on the lot to build a garage with access to the alley.
C. Commercial and multi-family property owners shall be assessed 100 percent of the cost of
the improvement.
D. Alleys shall be constructed of concrete and shall be assessed for a period of 20 years.
Discussion:
The City’s standard design for alley paving includes six (6)-inch thick concrete pavement 10 feet
in width with driveway apron connections between the paved alley and abutting paved
driveways. Private driveways outside the alley right-of-way are the responsibility of the property
owner. In accordance with City practice, the driveway connections will match existing materials
and grades. It is proposed that pavement grades be established to provide positive drainage
without requiring storm sewer construction.
Financial Considerations:
The City’s Policy for funding alley improvements requires the abutting property owners to pay
100% of the improvement costs. The Policy also provides for the assessments to be levied as
direct and indirect benefits based upon abutting frontage. Estimated assessments and an
estimated payment schedule have been attached for informational purposes. A summary of the
estimated costs and proposed assessments, based upon the City’s Assessment Policy for alley
improvements is as follows:
27
Estimated Costs:
Construction Costs $ 33,500
Contingency (10%) $ 3,350
Subtotal $ 36,850
Engineering & Administrative (12%) $ 4,422
TOTAL $ 41,272
Revenue Sources:
Special Assessments $ 41,272
Alley Improvement Project Timetable:
Should the City Council approve the City Engineer’s Report, it is anticipated that the following
schedule could be met:
• City Engineer’s Report to City Council, February 4, 2002
Council sets date for Public Hearing and Assessment Hearing
• Staff holds informational meeting with residents February 20, 2002
• City Council holds Public Hearing & Assessment Hearing March 18, 2002
• Advertise for bids March/April
• Bid Opening April 24, 2002
• End of 30 Day Appeal on Assessments April 18, 2002
• Bid Tab Report to Council, Council can award the bid and order
the project or delay the project if there are any assessment
appeals
May 6, 2002
• Construction June, 2002
Feasibility:
The project, as proposed herein, is necessary, cost effective, and feasible under the conditions
noted and at the costs estimated.
Public Involvement Process:
Staff will schedule an informational meeting for February 20, 2002, prior to the Public
Hearing/Assessment Hearing to inform residents of the process and review the preliminary plans.
The Council will be notified of the meeting place and time. Once the project is awarded, staff
will schedule another meeting with the affected property owners to discuss the construction
schedule.
Attachments: Resolution
Plan
Property owner list with estimated assessments
Prepared by: Maria Hagen, City Engineer
Reviewed by: Michael P. Rardin, Public Works Director
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
28
RESOLUTION NO. 02-011
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE CITY ENGINEER’S REPORT,
ESTABLISH THIS ALLEY PAVING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT,
IN THE 4000 BLOCK BETWEEN TOLEDO AND UTICA AVENUES
DIRECTING STAFF TO SPONSOR AN INFORMATIONAL MEETING,
AND SET A PUBLIC HEARING AND ASSESSMENT HEARING
DATE OF MARCH 18, 2002
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the
City Engineer related to the alley paving in the 4000 block between Toledo and Utica Avenues.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that:
1. The City Engineer’s Report regarding the alley paving in the 4000 block between Toledo
and Utica Avenues is hereby accepted.
2. This proposed alley paving improvement project is hereby established.
3. An improvement hearing and an assessment hearing are to be held on March 18, 2002 for
affected property owners.
4. Staff is authorized to hold a neighborhood meeting for those owners.
Attest: Adopted by the City Council February 4, 2002
City Clerk Mayor
Reviewed for Administration:
City Manager
29
CONSENT ITEM # 3
St. Louis Park City Council
Meeting of February 4, 2002
3. Motion to adopt the attached resolution authorizing application for a
Hennepin County grant to fund the City’s curbside recycling program.
Background: Since 1988 the City has received annual grants from Hennepin County as an aid
in supporting the residential curbside recycling program that serves all single family through
four-plex residential structures. From the beginning through 1992, the County’s recycling grant
program provided reimbursement of 50% to 80% of eligible costs based on the amount of
recyclable material diverted from the waste stream. In 1993 and again in 1994, the county
changed its program to provide an entitlement of $1.75 per household per month regardless of
the amount of recyclable material diverted from the waste stream.
The County’s current funding policy (grant program) covers the period from January 1, 2000
through December 31, 2004, and provides for the proportional distribution of SCORE funds,
which the County receives from the State of Minnesota. Although the County has established a
funding policy through 2004, the State of Minnesota may alter its SCORE funding after 2002.
SCORE (Select Committee On Recycling and the Environment) was established by Governor
Perpich to provide a funding source for solid waste programs throughout Minnesota. SCORE
funds are derived from a 6.5% tax on garbage collection and disposal fees. These funds are then
distributed to Counties for solid waste programs, particularly recycling collection.
Hennepin County’s share of SCORE funds for 2002 is $2,948,954, slightly more than in 2001.
This is divided evenly between Cities on a proportional basis by the number of households. St.
Louis Park’s share is about $106,000. Since we are competing with cities that are expanding in
the number of households, our share decreases proportionately, but not drastically.
In 1995 the City authorized a grant application and agreement for the duration of this program.
Since that time, staff has prepared grant applications and agreements for the Mayor’s signature
annually. In December of 1997, Hennepin County informed staff that a Council Resolution
authorizing each application and agreement would be necessary. This report and request is based
on that Hennepin County requirement.
Summary: Attached to this report is a resolution authorizing the application to Hennepin
County for a grant to fund the City’s curbside recycling program. The grant application and the
County funding Policy are attached for Council for information purposes only.
Attachments: Resolution
2001 Municipal Recycling Final Report / 2002 Grant Application
Hennepin County Residential Recycling Funding Policy (on file in Clerk’s office)
Prepared by: Scott Merkley, Public Works Coordinator
Mike Rardin, Public Works Director
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
30
RESOLUTION NO. 02-012
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR A GRANT AND EXECUTION
OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK AND HENNEPIN
COUNTY FOR FUNDING ASSISTANCE FOR RESIDENTIAL CURBSIDE
RECYCLING PROGRAM
WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statute 115A.552, Counties shall ensure that
residents have an opportunity to recycle; and
WHEREAS, Hennepin County Ordinance 13 requires each City to implement a
recycling program to enable the County to meet its recycling goals; and
WHEREAS, the County has adopted a funding assistance policy for source separated
recyclables to distribute funds to Cities for the development and implementation of waste
reduction and recycling programs; and
WHEREAS, to be eligible to receive these County funds, Cities must meet the
conditions set forth in the funding policy;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that the City Council authorizes the submittal of the 2002 Hennepin County
grant application for municipal source separated recyclables and that the Mayor, City Manager
and City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to execute on behalf of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota an agreement in its entirety which covers the furnishing of a recycling program
during 2002.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that as a condition to receive funds under the Hennepin
County funding assistance policy, the City agrees to implement a waste reduction and recycling
program as committed to by its submission of the 2002 Hennepin County recycling grant
application and that the City will use such County funds for the limited purpose of implementing
the City’s waste reduction and recycling program and that the City Clerk is hereby directed to
file a certified copy of this resolution with the agreement with the Hennepin County Contract
Compliance Officer.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council February 4, 2002
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
31
Hennepin County 2000 Municipal Recycling Grant Application
City of St. Louis Park
Part IV. Description of Recycling Program
St. Louis Park has an organized citywide municipal recycling program. All single through four-
plex households have weekly recycling collection of two categories:
1. Mixed Paper: newspaper, junk mail, magazines, cardboard, boxboard, catalogs, phone
books, books (hard/soft cover), loose paper;
2. Commingled containers: glass, aluminum, bimetal, tin, PET, HDPE, plastic bottles with
“necks”.
There is also special collection of appliances for recycling.
The recycling participation of St. Louis Park residents has fallen in the past year, while refuse
tonnage has slightly increased. The City Council and staff have recently developed a purpose,
goals and objectives for the Solid Waste Program in order to better serve the residents of St.
Louis Park.
The Purpose of the St. Louis Park Solid Waste Program is to provide solid waste services
responsive to citizens’ needs to ensure a vital community.
The Solid Waste Program Goals include high quality service, environmental stewardship,
cost effective services, effective communication and a continual evaluation of our program
and the industry.
In keeping with these goals and the objectives established by staff, the City of St. Louis Park is
developing a solid waste public education campaign that will focus on the idea of “Reduce,
Reuse, Recycle.” The City of St Louis Park will be working with residents, the solid waste
contractor, the St. Louis Park schools and possibly other organizations in the community to
promote waste reduction and recycling. We are currently setting goals of increased recycling
participation in our community.
One of our objectives under the goal of environmental stewardship is to encourage citizens to
take responsibility for the environmentally sound management of their solid waste. We hope to
do this by educating residents about recycling through various media, encouraging them with
incentives and by involving the children of the community.
32
CONSENT ITEM # 4
St. Louis Park City Council
Meeting of February 4, 2002
#4. Motion to Approve Second Reading of Ordinance Amendments Reinstating
Language Regarding “Registraton of Land Use” and required compliance with
the Comprehensive Plan, Adopt the Ordinance, Approve Summary Ordinance
and Authorize Publication.
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. On January
22, 2002, the City Council approved First Reading of the proposed ordinance amendments and
set Second Reading for February 4, 2002.
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.
33
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
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 and the Planning Commission recommend including the requirements for Comprehensive
Plan compliance in the new Registration of Land Use section. This would involve amending
Section 36-32(d) – Approval of the Registration of Land Use 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 and the Planning Commission also recommend including a new Section 36-39 –
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. Those amendments are not included at this time but will be discussed
further at the February 11, 2002 City Council Study Session.
34
Recommendation:
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of ordinance amendments reinstating
language regarding Comprehensive Plan compliance as described above.
Attachments:
Proposed Ordinance
Proposed Summary Ordinance
Prepared By: Janet Jeremiah, Planning & Zoning Supervisor
Approved By: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
35
ORDINANCE NO. 2218-02
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
COMPLIANCE WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
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 Sections 6-67(a)(4) and 6-69(a) are hereby amended to read as
follows:
Sec. 36-32. Registration of land use.
(d) Approval of the registration of land use. The City shall approve the
Registration of Land Use provided that the use is legal per this chapter 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.
Sec. 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
36
(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.
Sec. 6-69. Certificate of occupancy.
(a) Required. Before any building or structure shall be occupied or used, in whole or in
part, for any purpose whatsoever, a certificate of occupancy must be issued by the
city pursuant to requirements of the state 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
37
SUMMARY
ORDINANCE NO. 2218-02
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
COMPLIANCE WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
This ordinance reinstates and clarifies language in the Zoning Code regarding compliance with
the Comprehensive Plan. References to this language are also being added to related building
code sections.
This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication.
Adopted by the City Council February 4, 2002
Jeffrey W. Jacobs /s/
Mayor
A copy of the full text of this ordinance is available for inspection with the City Clerk.
Published in St. Louis Park Sailor: February 13, 2002
01-62-ZAsum:N
38
CONSENT ITEM # 5a
MINUTES DECEMBER 27, 2001
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
The St. Louis Park Board of Zoning Appeals Committee conducted a regular meeting on
Thursday, December 27, 2001, at St. Louis Park City Hall, 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard, St.
Louis Park, Minnesota.
Members Present: Chairperson James Gainsley
Vice Chair Susan Bloyer
Commissioner Tom Powers
Members Absent: Commissioner Paul Roberts
Staff Present: Janet Jeremiah, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Jeff Korman, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Tara Olson, Community Development Secretary
1. CALL TO ORDER – ROLL CALL
Chairperson Gainsley called the regular meeting to order at 7:01 p.m.
2. APPROVE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMITTEE MINUTES
Motion by Commissioner Powers, seconded by Commissioner Bloyer, to approve the following
minutes as presented with corrections to Commissioners’ names:
1) Board of Zoning Appeals Committee public hearing and regular meeting minutes dated
October 24, 2001.
Motion Carried. Voting Yes: Gainsley, Powers and Bloyer. Voting No: None.
3. CONSENT AGENDA
None
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS/COMMITTEE BUSINESS
A. Case No. 01-59-VAR - The request of Greg Lawrence for variances from the
requirements of Sections 14:5-5.1(A)(12) and 14:6-1.2(C)(2) [2002 recodified
Sections 36-192(12) and 36-361(b)(3)b] of the Ordinance Code relating to zoning
to eliminate the requirement for a separate pedestrian access between the principal
39
building and the public street and to allow a parking lot width of 60 feet instead of
the required 61 feet for a new office building on property located in the “C-1”
Neighborhood Commercial District at 7825 Wayzata Boulevard.
Mr. Korman presented a report – and concluded that since 7 of the 7 criterion have been
satisfied, it is recommended the request to allow a parking lot width of 60 feet instead of the
required 61 feet be granted.
Commissioner Bloyer asked staff if there was a possibility of using the 75-degree angle, which
would then allow the applicant the width of 59 feet, which would be permitted.
Mr. Korman stated that he believes the 75-degree angle would only allow for one-way traffic and
does not believe the configuration or the lot would accommodate that.
Commissioner Bloyer asked staff if the applicant is meeting all current parking requirements for
the number of parking stalls.
Mr. Korman stated that all parking stall requirements are being met, the applicant is required to
have six stalls.
Commissioner Bloyers asked staff if the requirements are one stall per 250 square feet.
Mr. Korman stated affirmative, but that is calculating the office space and the plan includes
storage space which is not included in that parking requirement.
Chairperson Gainsley asked staff if there were any easements on this property.
Mr. Korman stated that the survey does not indicate any easements.
With no more questions, Chairperson Gainsley opened the public hearing.
Greg Lawrence, applicant, of 7825 Wayzata Boulevard, stated that he was in agreement with
staff’s report.
Chairperson Gainsley asked Mr. Lawrence if he could construct a smaller building, which then
would not require the one-foot difference in parking lot size.
Mr. Lawrence stated that he has been located at his existing 1,000 square foot office building for
eight years and in that time his business has grown which could utilize the new office building
space of 2,000 square feet.
Chairperson Gainsley closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Powers stated that he feels this building fits well within the guidelines of this
Commercial District and is in favor of granting the variance request for the parking lot width of
60 feet instead of the required 61 feet.
40
Motion by Chairperson Gainsley, seconded by Commissioner Bloyer, that the variance be
granted based on the staff report.
Motion Carried. Voting Yes: Gainsley, Bloyer and Powers. Voting No: None.
Ms. Jeremiah informed Commissioners of the second variance request that is part of this
application. She stated that the seven findings were addressed separately in the staff report, so it
is fine to make a motion separately.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that Mr. Korman is willing to go through the findings again. However,
they’re very similar to the findings for the parking lot variance.
Ms. Janet Jeremiah explained to the Commissioners that the applicant is asking for a variance
eliminating the need for a separate pedestrian access from the frontage road into the building.
The ordinance requires a sidewalk that is separated from the parking area by curbing and a
landscape area that is at least 20 feet in width. Staff pointed out that this has been implemented
on the neighboring property to City Hall, which is a much larger property. On the applicant’s
property, the same difficulty is encountered due to the narrow width of the property. To meet the
ordinance, he would have to have an addition to the width of the parking lot for a separate
pedestrian access. Again, Mr. Korman can address the findings, you will notice they are similar
and are addressed in the report.
Chairperson Gainsley stated that all Commissioners have read the report and understand the
similarities of the two variances.
Motion by Commissioner Powers, seconded by Commissioner Bloyer, that the variance be
granted based on the staff report.
Motion Carried. Voting Yes: Gainsley, Powers and Bloyer. Voting No: None.
5. Old Business:
Chairperson Gainsley asked staff to update the Commissioners on Case No. 01-46-VAR, tabled
on October 4, 2001 meeting.
Ms. Janet Jeremiah informed the Commissioners that a letter of withdrawal had been received by
Ms. Julie Rappaport for a variance to permit a rear yard fence higher than 6 feet and having the
finished side facing inward for property located in the “R-2” Single Family District at 8530 West
35th Street South.
Ms. Janet Jeremiah stated that city staff assisted Ms. Rappaport in uncovering her corner irons.
She has been made aware that the retaining wall and the fence were partially on her neighbor’s
property. Ms. Rappaport tried to speak to her neighbor in regards to granting her the easement
but had difficulty in reaching him. Ms. Rappaport has decided to remove the fence and retaining
41
wall in the spring and install the fence inside her yard on top of the retaining wall. In addition,
she will have the good side of the fence facing out.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that since a formal letter of withdrawal has been submitted from Ms.
Rappaport, no formal action is required of the Commission. Although, the Commission can
certainly clarify public records and make a motion to accept Ms. Rappaport’s letter of
withdrawal.
Motion by Chairperson Gainsley, seconded by Commissioner Bloyer, that variance Case No. 01-
46-VAR - The request of Julie Rappaport for a variance from the requirements of Section 14:4-
4(D)(1) and 14:4-4(F)(1) of the Ordinance Code relating to zoning to permit a rear yard fence
higher than 6 feet and having the finished side facing inward for property located in the “R-2”
Single Family District at 8530 West 35th Street be official withdrawn from the Board of Zoning
Appeals.
Motion Carried. Voting Yes: Gainsley, Bloyer and Powers. Voting No: None.
6. New Business:
None
7. Communications:
Chairperson Gainsley asked staff if the Commission were to have granted Ms. Rappaport a
variance on October 4, 2001, would City staff have located her property irons and made a
determination of improper placement of the retaining wall and fence? Also would the effect of
the Commission granting her a variance be a written law?
Ms. Jeremiah responded that granting this variance would have created a situation that would run
with her property and only her property, in other words she would have been able to have a taller
fence on her property if you had indeed granted the variance. Although she would have the same
legal issues which is a civil matter and the fact that the fence and the retaining wall were not on
her property.
Ms. Jeremiah stated she believed the Commission acted appropriately. Now she can bring the
fence entirely onto her property and will meet all City Code and not have the same grade issues
and have nearly the same amount of enjoyment in her yard.
Ms. Jeremiah also responded to Chairperson Gainsley regarding, would staff have checked?
Janet responded that generally no, unless a building permit is required we don’t do inspections of
fences or even retaining walls. When the applicant comes into City Hall we have the applicant
sign an affidavit stating that they guarantee that the structure is entirely on their property and ask
that they locate their property irons. City staff generally will not do an on-site inspection unless
there’s a neighbor dispute and then staff will help to resolve those issues.
42
8. Miscellaneous:
None
9. Adjournment:
Commissioner Bloyer moved and Commissioner Powers seconded the motion for
adjournment. The regular meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals adjourned at 7:30
p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Tara Olson
Community Development Secretary