Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002/05/06 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - RegularAGENDA - CITY COUNCIL MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA May 6, 2002 7:30 p.m. 1. Call to Order a. Pledge of Allegiance b. Roll Call 2. Presentations a. Proclamation for National Public Works Week 3. Approval of Minutes a. Council Meeting Minutes of April 15, 2002 b. Council Executive Session Minutes of April 15, 2002 c. Study Session Minutes of April 8, 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 plans and specifications for the building at the Oak Park Village site and authorize staff to solicit bids. 2. Motion to amend and correct Resolution 02-002 granting approval of Final PUD and Plat for Pointe West Commons One and Two by adopting a resolution approving Final PUD for Pointe West Commons One and Two with new legal description and a separate resolution approving amendment to final Plat for Pointe West Commons One and Two. 3. Motion to adopt the attached resolution authorizing the restriction of parking on the south and north sides of Excelsior Boulevard from Park Center Boulevard/Wooddale Avenue to Yosemite Avenue. Traffic Study No. 562 4. Motion to designate Minnesota Electric Supply Company the lowest responsible bidder and authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of $346,574.43 for supplying street lighting fixtures and poles for the Excelsior Boulevard Streetscape, Project No. 99-05. 5. Motion to designate C.S. McCrossan, Inc. the lowest responsible bidder for bituminous mixture No. 2340 Type 41B, and Midwest Asphalt Corporation the lowest responsible bidder for mixture No. 2340 Type 41A and bituminous cold patch material and authorize execution of contracts with the firms in the amount of $11,500.00 and $53,900.00, respectively. 6. Motion to adopt the following reports for filing: a. Planning Commission Minutes of April 17, 2002 b. BOZA Minutes of April 2, 2002-05-01 c. Human Rights Commission Minutes of February 20, 2002 d. Housing Authority Minutes of March 13, 2002 e. Vendor Claims Action: Motion to approve Consent Items 5. Public Hearings 5a. Appeal of Dan Motzko of Board of Zoning Appeals’ April 2 Decision to Grant a Variance to ABRA Auto Body for an Auto Body / Painting Facility Within Approximately 235 Feet of a Residentially-Zoned Property at 5925 State Hwy. 7. Case #02-18-VAR Staff Recommended Action: Motion to adopt a resolution denying the variance request to allow an auto body / painting facility within approximately 235 feet of a residentially-zoned property based upon the findings included in the resolution. 5b. Appeal by Carol Engelkes and Betty Danielson of Board of Zoning Appeals Decisions of April 2 to Grant Variances to Niaz Real Estate Corporation for a Proposed Office and Apartment at 4050 Brookside Ave. Case #02-17-VAR Staff Recommended Action: Motion to adopt a resolution denying the variance to eliminate need for access to open space based upon findings included in the resolution and approving the variance to allow vehicles to back into public street, subject to conditions included in the resolution. 5c Public Hearing: Alley Paving – 4000 Block between Toledo Avenue and Utica Avenue The Public Hearing is to consider paving the alley in the 4000 block between Toledo and Utica Avenues. Recommended Action: Mayor to re-open Public Hearing, and then close it. Motion to adopt the attached Resolution ordering the construction of a concrete alley in the 4000 block between Toledo Avenue and Utica Avenues, approving plans and specifications and authorizing receipt of bids. 5d. Assessment Hearing for Alley Paving Project in the 4000 block between Toledo Avenue and Utica Avenue Following Council’s action to establish the project a separate public hearing is required to order the assessment to affected property owners Recommended Action: Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to adopt a resolution ordering the assessment 6. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public 7. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions 7a. Request of Vernon Partnership LLC for Conditional Use Permit to place over 400 cubic yards of fill and fill in a floodplain and for a Preliminary Plat (Townhomes of Vernon Oaks) at 2601 Vernon Avenue S Case No. 02-19-CUP 02-06-S) Proposal is to develop 6 single-family homes using a condominium plat. Recommended Action: ♦ Motion to adopt a resolution granting a Conditional Use Permit to allow over 400 cubic yards of fill and fill in a floodplain subject to conditions included in the resolution. ♦ Motion to adopt a resolution granting preliminary plat subject to conditions included in the resolution. 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. Item # 3a UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA April 15, 2002 1. Call to Order Mayor Pro Tem Latz called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The following Councilmembers were present at roll call: Jim Brimeyer, Chris Nelson, Susan Sanger, Sue Santa, Sally Velick, and Mayor Pro Tem Latz. Mayor Jeff Jacobs was absent. Also present were the City Manager (Mr. Meyer); City Attorney (Mr. Scott); Community Development Director (Mr. Harmening); Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Hunt); Planning and Zoning Supervisor (Ms. Jeremiah); Director of Public Works (Mr. Rardin); Director of Finance (Ms. McGann); City Engineer (Ms. Hagen); City Clerk (Ms. Reichert); Community Outreach Coordinator (Ms. McDonell); and Recording Secretary (Ms. Samson). 2. Presentations--None 3. Approval of Minutes 3a. City Council Minutes of April 1, 2002 The minutes were approved as presented with the following change: Councilmember Nelson would like to make the following re-clarification regarding charitable gambling: Councilmember Nelson said he opposes charitable gambling and, if he were consistent, he would make it as tough as possible to comply with this ordinance and strengthen the TAR in order to drive out gambling, but that would be inappropriate; he opposes the imposition of the TAR restrictions. 3b. Study Session Minutes of March 25, 2002 The minutes were approved as presented with the following changes: In reference to Page 16, Paragraph 4, Councilmember Sanger would like to clarify that the carts for refuse collection, single stream recycling collection, and spring cleanup were discussed but not approved. Councilmember Sanger would like the Study Session minutes to reflect that she is opposed to adding any components as a required element of the solid waste contract when that particular element would only be available from one possible vendor, particularly, when the vendor is an incumbent vendor, and she supports opening the process to multiple vendors for solid waste collection. Councilmember Nelson interjected that Council liked the concept of carts for refuse collection, single stream recycling, and spring cleanup. He stated Council reached a consensus--however--no contracts are being approved at a Study Session. Councilmember Sanger responded she does not agree with any position stating that there is a consensus on single stream recycling. City Manager Charlie Meyer stated the Council only gave the okay to continue discussion on these items and not that any programs were being approved. Councilmember Santa reported that she was listed as being present at the Study Session meeting and she was not. 3c. City Council/Park Nicollet Minutes of March 18, 2002 The minutes were 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. 4a. Approval of Agenda City Manager Charlie Meyer clarified that Staff has distributed a slightly amended agenda for Item 7e, which now contains a technical amendment. It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Velick, to approve the 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. The motion passed 6-0. 1. Designate Glenn Rehbein Excavation, Inc. as the lowest responsible bidder and to authorize execution of a contract for the construction in the Oak Park Village site at a cost not to exceed $ 1,128,322.50. 2. Designate Park Construction Company the lowest responsible bidder and authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of $130,469.00 for Storm Sewer Improvements in area #13a (W. 36th Street and Wyoming Avenue) – City Project No. 01-07. 3. Designate Spalj Construction, Inc. (d/b/a Tjader & Highstrom, Inc.) as the lowest responsible bidder and authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of $139,193.12 for the Water Main Improvement Project, City Project No. 02-10. 4. Designate Hardrives, Inc. the lowest responsible bidder and authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of $1,766,900.35 for Excelsior Boulevard Reconstruction Project – Quentin Avenue to Monterey Avenue and Monterey Avenue from Excelsior Boulevard to W. 38th Street – Phase III (City Project Nos. 99-05 – Roadway/Streetscape and 01-04 – Signals). 5. Authorize execution of a contract with Calgon Carbon Corporation for the purchase of Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) Supply Contract in the amount of $53,600. 6. Adopt Resolution No. 02-044 appointing Carlton Moore, Member and Maria Hagen and Jim Vaughan, Alternate Members to the Technical Advisory Commission of the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission. 7. Adopt Resolution No. 02-036 adopting changes to the Bias/Hate Crime Response Plan as amended and dated April 2002. 8. Adopt the following reports for filing: a. Charter Commission minutes of January 16, 2002 b. Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes of February 28, 2002 c. Planning Commission Minutes of March 20, 2002 d. Vendor Claims 5. Public Hearings 5a. Public Hearing – West Suburban Housing Partners Private Activity Revenue Bond. Resolution No. 02-037 Jean McGann, Finance Director, said there has been an increase in the dollar amount of the bond issue, and the increase only affects the taxable portion of the bond issue. The bank rating is at an A-, which is lower than the City’s bond rating. Ms. McGann said some site plan issues have yet to be resolved prior to the sale of the bond. Councilmember Sanger asked if the City is at risk because the bank rating of the bond is lower than the City’s bond rating, and Ms. McGann replied no. Councilmember Nelson referred to the bond resolution, Page 22, Section I, which states a minimum of 20% of affordable housing units is required for a tax exempt status, however, there is no expression of a maximum percentage in the bond resolution; conversely, the Staff report expresses a 26% maximum. John Utley, bond counsel from Kennedy & Graven, said the statutory requirement of 20% was included as a minimum to meet legal requirements, and a maximum would be stated in the documentation, which would be part of the bond issue; it would be part of the transaction and no closing will take place until the transaction meets the requirements of the City in that regard. It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to add “but no more than 27% of the dwelling units in the project” immediately after “at least 20%” on Page 22, Section I, of the resolution. Councilmember Nelson added: I will move the project as I amended it. Councilmember Sanger seconded the amendment. Mr. Meyer asked what the consequences would be if the Applicant were to transgress the minimum or exceed a maximum. Mr. Utley said the consequence of falling below the minimum is the potential loss of the tax exemption on the bonds, and that would affect the bondholders. Mr. Utley said exceeding the maximum, if there was a maximum, would violate the contract with the City and would be enforceable by the City, but would not affect bondholders. Councilmember Santa is adamantly opposed to Councilmember Nelson’s amendment but will very reluctantly support the amendment because she wants this project to go forward. Mayor Pro Tem Latz thinks the percentage of affordable housing units should be at least 40% based on a 60% median income. Mayor Pro Tem Latz said he will stand in the way of this project if the amendment is a part of it; the amendment is unfair and punitive to the Applicant, and there is a natural economic limit to the number of affordable housing units this building can support. Mayor Pro Tem Latz referred to the project as workforce housing, meaning a family of four must have an income of $35,000 per year. The renters would be paying the median rent of St. Louis Park. Councilmember Sanger supports the amendment because she opposes an over concentration of affordable housing in one particular building, and the amendment reflects what the Applicant has already stated he will build, and it reflects Council’s prior discussion and position with the exception of Mayor Pro Tem Latz’ position. Councilmember Sanger will not support the motion unless the amendment is included. Councilmember Nelson said the intent of his amendment is to incorporate the ratio of 25% or 26% into the bond resolution so that there is no question that it will appear in the City’s documents later. He added, if it is true that it doesn’t make economical sense for the developer at the 50% ratio, then one wouldn’t do it anyway. Councilmember Nelson doesn’t perceive a maximum, stated in writing, to be problematic. He said if 25% works, and six votes can be achieved, let’s do it, and if that doesn’t work, the resolution should be voted down. Applicant Todd Urness, 2630 Countryside Drive, Orono, stated he agreed with both sides. Mr. Urness said the compromise that had been reached was 25% but he is willing to have in the resolution that the opportunity is available to have 23 units of affordable housing with no City or county subsidies. Mr. Urness addressed the Council: Is the project good enough to create 23 units of affordable housing at 50% of the median income without subsides and, if it is good enough, set aside philosophical differences and issues, which will not be productive for this project any further, and support this resolution. Councilmember Brimeyer said to send the Applicant away without six votes would be unfair. Mayor Pro Tem Latz asked Mr. Urness if he would have the flexibility to reduce rents on one or two units if a family of four were close to meeting the market rate rent payments. Mr. Urness said the federal requirement is 20% and that is what West Suburban Housing Partners (“WSHP”) is striving for, but WSHP has requested 25% because if a renter falls off, one way or another, or if a file is lost, a 5% margin has been built in, and he is comfortable with 26%. He said he is committed to work with the City. Mayor Pro Tem Latz said given the Applicant’s position that he will not feel constrained by the proposed 27% cap and that it fits within the Applicant’s anticipated uses of the property, he will not stand in the way of this project, however, the City is missing a great opportunity and, more importantly, some of the working people who would otherwise live here will be losing an opportunity and the City will lose the benefit of having those people here as part of the community. Mayor Pro Tem Latz will vote very reluctantly in favor of this resolution because he would rather see the project go forward than die. Like Mayor Pro Tem Latz, Councilmember Brimeyer said he is not voting his conscience on this matter. Councilmember Brimeyer said the term low income should not be used, Mr. Urness responded the term is workforce housing. Mr. Meyer said there is a difference between subsidized housing (Section 8) and workforce housing. It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to approve Resolution No. 02-037 authorizing the issuance, sale, and delivery of multifamily housing revenue bonds for West Suburban Housing Partners. The motion passed 6-0. 5b. Public Hearing to Consider Resolution Authorizing Renewal of Gambling Premises Permit for the St. Louis Park Hockey Boosters Association at Bunny’s Bar and Grill located at 5916 Excelsior Boulevard. Resolution No. 02-038 City Clerk Cindy Reichert said this is a renewal for a two-year premises permit for the St. Louis Park Hockey Boosters Association, and all requirements have been met. It was moved by Councilmember Brimeyer, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to approve Resolution No. 02-038 authorizing renewal. The motion passed 5-1. (Councilmember Nelson opposed). 5c. Public Hearing to Consider Resolution Authorizing Gambling Premises Permit for the Hopkins Raspberry Festival Association Inc, at Al’s Bar located at 3912 Excelsior Boulevard. Resolution No. 02-039 Ms. Reichert said this is a new premises permit application to fill a vacancy, and the Applicant has fulfilled all requirements of the ordinance. It was moved by Councilmember Brimeyer, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to approve Resolution No. 02-039 authorizing renewal. The motion passed 5-1. (Councilmember Nelson opposed). 6. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public--None 7. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions 7a. Neighborhood Revitalization Grant Awards. Resolution No. 02-040 Community Outreach Coordinator Martha McDonell addressed the Council regarding annual community building grants. Ms. McDonell reported that Council makes about $40,000 available in grant awards to neighborhoods, and $45,000 had been requested by the neighborhoods. After some reductions were made to individual neighborhood requests, a small surplus is on hand. Mayor Pro Tem Latz asked Ms. McDonell how Council should proceed with the Committee’s recommendations for changes to future criteria. Ms. McDonell said the guidelines are updated yearly due to the nature of the grants process and based on neighborhood feedback; information will be passed on to Council, and grant awards will be discussed at Study Sessions. Councilmember Nelson commented on the funding or non-funding for activities associated with religious holidays and, as a guideline, if the City can do it, then it is acceptable for the neighborhoods to do it—if they are using grant money. Councilmember Sanger asked when will the City clarify its plans for a citywide dumpster day or clean up day. Mike Rardin, Director of Public Works, said it could be done as soon as next year. Bob Kusnetz, 2530 Inglewood Avenue South, co-chair of the Fern Hill Steering Committee, thanked the Council for the grants program and for the entire neighborhood association program, which brings the issues of government to the residents’ level. Mr. Kusnetz submitted an amended budget for the Fern Hill Neighborhood Grant. Chris Johnson, 6206 Cedar Lake Road, President of the Blackstone neighborhood, thanked the Council for their support. It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer, to adopt Resolution No. 02-040 approving the 2002 neighborhood revitalization grants and authorizing the City Manager to execute grant agreements with the neighborhoods. Councilmember Sanger asked about adding $400 to the Fern Hill grant and Ms. McDonell said she would recommend the addition but she stated she thinks the grant should remain within the $4,000 grant limit, the Grant Review Committee had granted $3,600 to Fern Hill. Rick Person, a citizen representative on the Grant Review Committee, said $4,000 is granted to a neighborhood without regard for its size, and that may be something the Council would like to consider in the future, i.e., perhaps larger neighborhoods should receive more money. It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Nelson, to add $400 for the Fern Hill Association. At a future Study Session, Councilmember Brimeyer would like to discuss the acquisition of playground equipment and who pays for it, and the purpose of grants and how grant monies are spent. He does not favor using neighborhood grant funds for the purchase of playground equipment. Councilmember Nelson asked, when neighborhoods match grants with fundraising efforts, is it tax deductible, can the City be a fiscal agent so that neighborhood donors can receive a tax deduction? Ms. McDonell said very little cash is put up towards the match for the grants. City Attorney Mr. Scott stated he believes donations directly to the City are tax deductible. The motion passed 6-0. 7b. Second reading of an ordinance reconfiguring ward boundaries and resolution establishing precincts. Ordinance No. 2223-02 and Resolution No. 02-041 City Clerk Cindy Reichert reported the City is at the last stage in the redistricting process. Ms. Reichert said the legal description regarding railroad lines has been changed slightly. The precinct lines have changed and there are fewer precincts to save costs. The new polling places will be Benilde-St. Margarets High School, Groves Learning Center, and Aldersgate United Methodist Church. It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Velick, to approve Ordinance No. 2223-02 reconfiguring ward boundaries, authorize publication of the ordinance in its entirety; and to adopt Resolution No. 02-041 reconfiguring precinct boundaries. The motion passed 6-0. 7c. City Engineer’s Report: 2002 Sidewalk Improvement Project, City Project No. 02-01 Mayor Pro Tem Latz reported the absence of the Staff report in regard to this item. Charlie Meyer recommended placing this item on the Study Session agenda for Monday, April 22 for discussion and direction; and place this item on the City Council agenda for Monday, May 6 for formal approval. Councilmembers agreed with Mr. Meyer. 7d. Request by J. Evan Johnson (Thermetics, Inc.) for Preliminary and Final Plat approval including a variance to the subdivision ordinance sidewalk requirements for the Evan Johnson Addition at 1401-1413 Colorado Avenue South. Case No. 02-13-S and 02-14-VAR Resolution No. 02-042 Planning and Zoning Supervisor Janet Jeremiah said the Applicant has stated he is willing to install the required sidewalk along Colorado Avenue and 14th Street but he is concerned about having to remove some bufferyard plantings that had been required when he built the building addition several years ago. Staff thinks a development agreement is not warranted in this case as long as financial sureties are received for the sidewalk improvement and any repair and cleaning of public streets, which is required to accommodate construction. Ms. Jeremiah said the remaining issue, to incorporate some landscaping in the parking lot, can be accommodated with some design adjustments, and Staff will continue to work with the Applicant on that. Applicant J. Evan Johnson said, if given a choice, he would not pay for the sidewalk but he is aware of its necessity, and he agrees with Staff’s recommendation to deny the variance to the sidewalk requirements. It was moved by Councilmember Velick, seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer, to adopt Resolution No. 02-042 approving the preliminary and final plat, denying the variance to the sidewalk requirements, and waiving the requirement for a development agreement subject to the conditions and findings in the proposed resolution. The motion passed 6-0. 7e. Consideration of the establishment of Special Service District #3 (along Excelsior Boulevard between Quentin Avenue and Monterey Drive) and the imposition of a service charge within the District. Ordinance No. 2224-02 and Resolution No. 02-043 Mr. Hunt noted some refinements were made to the resolution based on new information provided by the City’s consultants: There was a miscalculation of the sidewalk area in front of the Lang-Nelson building and a corresponding reduction in the budget was made; and minor adjustments were made to most properties’ assessments, i.e., for the most part, the adjustments were less than $20.00 per property. Mr. Hunt said the refinements are presented in the revised resolution, however, the ordinance remains the same. It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to approve 2nd reading of the ordinance to create Special Service District #3, adopt Ordinance No. 2224-02, approve summary, and authorize summary publication. The motion passed 6-0. It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to approve Resolution No. 02-043 imposing a service charge for Special Service District #3. The motion passed 6-0. 8. Boards and Committees It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to appoint Shepard Harris and Julie Kirsch to the Human Rights Commission. The motion passed 6-0. 9. Communications From the City Manager—Mr. Meyer announced that in the current edition of City Business, Best in Real Estate 2001, Park Commons is listed as the winner for Multi-Family Housing Project Best of Real Estate in the Twin Cities, Excelsior and Grand project. Mr. Harmening attended the ceremony to witness the award presentation by City Business, Best in Real Estate. From the Mayor—Mayor Pro Tem Latz reminded everyone of the Second Annual Mayor’s Youth Summit, which will be held Monday, April 29th, 5:30 p.m.-8:30 p.m. at the St. Louis Park Junior High School. Dinner will be served, and there is no cost to attend. 10. Adjournment It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Nelson, to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed 6-0. Mayor Pro Tem Latz adjourned the meeting at 9:14 p.m. City Clerk Mayor Item # 3b CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SESSION UNOFFICIAL MINUTES April 15, 2002 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Mayor Pro-tem Latz at 6:45 p.m. Present at the meeting were Councilmembers Jim Brimeyer, Chris Nelson, Susan Sanger, Sue Santa, Sally Velick, and Mayor Pro-tem Ron Latz. Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Meyer), City Attorney (Mr. Scott), Director of Parks and Recreation (Ms. Walsh), and City Clerk (Ms. Reichert). 2. Wolfe Park Soil Corrections Council met in executive session to discuss litigation surrounding soil corrections at Wolfe Park. 3. Adjournment It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed 6-0 and the meeting was adjourned at 7:09 p.m. City Clerk Mayor Item # 3c UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION Minutes of April 8, 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), City Engineer (Ms. Hagen), Director of Inspections (Mr. Hoffman), Director of Parks and Recreation (Ms. Walsh), and City Clerk (Ms. Reichert). 1. Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Update Nancy Nelson, Commission Chair, and Tom Worthington, Commissioner, were present at the meeting. Ms. Nelson reviewed the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission’s activities for the past year. She stated that the Commission had organized a meeting for all St. Louis Park Youth Athletic Associations to discuss issues with staff and the Commission, adding that the Commission would like to meet with Association representatives annually. Athletic Associations’ website addresses are all linked and posted on the City’s website. Ms. Nelson stated that the Commission has been reviewing and advising on park development projects and recommends to Council the name of “Louisiana Oaks Park” for the Oak Park Village site. The “Roll into Spring” Bike and Blade Event will be held on May 11th and the Commission has been assisting in that effort as well. She reported that the Commission is continuing to look for funding sources for the Fee Assistance/Scholarship Fund. Councilmember Sanger stated that she would like to have a bike parade in conjunction with the opening of the new trail. Councilmember Brimeyer agreed with encouraging participation among the youth associations, but also cautioned against losing focus in the programs offered. Mayor Jacobs would like to be sure that youth could participate on some level in the programs, especially youth that may not be long term residents of St. Louis Park. Ms. Nelson stated that the Commission is also working on a field use policy. 2. Detached Garages Greg Ingraham, Planning Consultant, was present at the meeting. Mr. Ingraham presented Council with the various options for addressing detached garages as well as the staff recommendation for garage setbacks and height restrictions. Councilmember Nelson spoke about the issues that have been brought up in regard to measurement clarification. Councilmember Latz did not want a policy that was tailored to address a specific neighbor conflict and felt that a balance of resident’s needs has to be achieved. Councilmember Nelson agreed with staff’s suggestion of measuring from the slab to peak but felt that large garages should meet the same setback requirements as principal structures. Councilmember Sanger stated that she did not want windows and gables looking over neighboring structures. Mayor Jacobs felt that both the height and the setback should be simplified. Councilmember Brimeyer believed that the placement of windows in a garage structure makes for architectural interest. Councilmember Velick agreed. Council came to the consensus that two-story garages should be allowed but with certain parameters for setback and height. They also agreed that pitch limitations under fifteen feet could use the two foot setback and those over fifteen feet had to meet the same setback requirements as those for principal structures. Ms. Jeremiah added that literature to help residents better understand height and setback requirements was needed. 3. Review of Sidewalk/Trail Design Guidelines Council discussed a letter from Christie Stephanson dated April 8th. Councilmember Brimeyer said that guiding principles were already in place and does not want to see every sidewalk rediscussed as we move forward with implementation. Several councilmembers were concerned that revisiting this issue for this particular project would open the floodgate to speculation and appear to the public that the previously adopted plan is being adhered to inconsistently. Mr. Rardin stated that he had enough information to move forward and make adjustments based on the guiding principles. 4. Lawful Gambling – Trade Area Restriction The Trade Area Restriction on lawful gambling was discussed in terms of the outcome council wished to achieve. That outcome remains the same as when originally adopted, and is intended to ensure that profits derived from local residents gaming in local establishments supported local organizations and charities. Representatives of the SLP Hockey Assn and SLP Traveling Basketball Assn were present and agreed with that premise. Also discussed was the option of limiting licenses to those organizations who were based within the city limits of St. Louis Park. After discussion it was agreed that the TAR which allowed organizations in neighborhing communities to operate in SLP was reasonable and did achieve council’s objectives. Councilmember Nelson stated his opposition to lawful gambling. City Clerk, Cindy Reichert, also informed council that she would soon be meeting with representatives of the gambling associations currently operating to discuss forms and paperwork required by the ordinance. 5. Redistricting – Precincts and Polling Places Ms. Reichert presented a plan for precinct boundaries and polling locations to the City Council and indicated that if the plan as presented was acceptable to the council, it would be brought forward at the next regular meeting. Council asked questions specific to polling locations and voter access and after discussion indicated that they were in agreement with the proposed precinct configuration. 6. Developer Compliance Councilmembers Sanger and Velick felt that developer compliance was not what it should be and would like staff to look at the issue and options the city may have for gaining compliance. 7. Architectural Standards The item was deferred to a meeting sometime in the future. 8. Communications Mr. Meyer spoke of the upcoming Cultural Competency Forum to be held on Tuesday, April 9, 2002. Mr. Meyer also reported that former Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Barak, is to speak at Beth El Synagogue at 7:30 p.m. on Sunday, April 28. 9. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 10:32 p.m. City Clerk Mayor City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 5a Meeting of May 6, 2002 5a. Appeal of Dan Motzko of Board of Zoning Appeals’ April 2 Decision to Grant a Variance to ABRA Auto Body for an Auto Body / Painting Facility Within Approximately 235 Feet of a Residentially-Zoned Property at 5925 State Hwy. 7. Case #02-18-VAR Recommended Action: Motion to adopt a resolution denying the variance request to allow an auto body / painting facility within approximately 235 feet of a residentially-zoned property based upon the findings included in the resolution. Subject: ABRA Auto Body has applied for a variance from the requirements of Section 36-244(c)(7)(b) of the Ordinance Code relating to zoning to permit an auto body/painting facility within approximately 235 feet of a residentially-zoned parcel instead of the required 300 feet on the property located at 5925 State Hwy. No. 7 in the “I-G” General Industrial District. Proposal: The applicant proposes to lease an existing warehouse to create an auto body / painting facility. A parking lot would be built to the east of the building and would be screened from view from residential properties and the public right-of-way. Site Data: Zoning IG General Industrial Owner Moussa Soomekh 9229 Wilshire Blvd. Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Applicant ABRA Auto Body 6601 Shingle Creek Pkwy, #200 Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 Lot Shape Irregular Effective Width 486 feet Effective Depth 202 feet Lot Area 93,955 square feet Adjacent Zoning: North (across Hwy 7): R2-Single Family Residential R4-Multi-Family Residential West: MX-Mixed Use South: C2-General Commercial IG-General Industrial IP-Industrial Park East: IG-General Industrial Background: On February 28, 2002, ABRA Auto Body filed a variance request for the property at 5925 State Hwy. 7, owned by Moussa Sommekh and currently used as an oriental rug warehouse. ABRA proposed to renovate the existing building and add a parking lot area to the east of it to use as an auto body / painting facility. This use is permitted with conditions in the I-G General Industrial District. ABRA requested a variance to City Code Sec. 36-244(c)(7)(b), which states: “The facility shall be located a minimum of 300 feet from any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers.” 5925 S ta te H w y 7 Wo o d d ale A v e. R-4 MFR IG The existing 21,600 square foot building is currently used to warehouse oriental rugs. In 2000, the owner attempted to use most of the building for retail. In the General Industrial District, retail is limited to 15% of the building area, and the building did not meet Building Code requirements for retail. The city required the owner to either make the code improvements and limit retail to 15% of the area or cease retail operations from the site. The owner decided to cease retail operations and returned to using the building for warehouse only. The nearest properties zoned and used as residential, at 6005 W. 35th St. and 3480 Zarthan Ave., are about 235 feet from the proposed facility to the north across Highway 7. The property at 6010 Hwy. 7 is zoned R-4 and is about 220 feet from the proposed facility. However, it is used as an office, which is a legal use because it existed prior to 1992. The Cityscape apartment building to the east is over 300 feet from the subject property. The property to the west across Wooddale was reguided and re-zoned in 1999 as Civic-Mixed Use, in order to accommodate a potential southwest corridor transit station and other uses. That property owner, the Dworsky Family Trust, is interested in redevelopment. The current zoning of the Dworsky property would allow residential in association with other uses. The southwest railroad corridor immediately south of the subject property may involve a future LRT commuter rail line or dedicated bus way. A regional trail has already been developed on this corridor and is expected to remain. The subject property is included in the Elmwood Area study recently commenced by the City of St. Louis Park with the aid of Hennepin County. Staff and SRF Consultants are working with a Community Action Committee consisting of property owners, business tenants, and residents to examine land use and transportation issues and recommend strategies for dealing with changes affecting the area. The study is expected to be complete by the end of the year. It may lead to some Comprehensive Plan and possibly zoning changes for the area in the future. However, property owners can continue to operate and develop their properties under the current zoning. Potential improvements to the traffic flow in this area include a re-routing of the Highway 7 frontage road. Currently the frontage road is directly adjacent to Highway 7, just 50 feet to the south. The proximity of the Highway 7 and frontage road intersections prevent some truck turning movements and cause stacking problems. Proposed plans involve running the frontage road to the south of the subject property and also south of the property at the southwest quadrant of this intersection. This will be considered in detail during the Elmwood Area Study. The Board of Zoning Appeals met at a public hearing on April 2, 2002 to consider the variances. A representative of the applicant testified. Staff reasoned that only two of the required seven findings necessary to grant a variance could be met and recommended that BOZA deny the applicant’s variance request. BOZA voted to approve the variance by a 4-0 vote. The minutes from that meeting are included among the consent agenda for this City Council meeting. On April 10, staff received a letter from Dan Motzko requesting that the City Council review the BOZA’s decision per Sec. 36-33(d)(6) of the Zoning Code. Mr. Motzko is a property owner with 350 feet, who was unable to attend the BOZA meeting. Analysis: Section 36-33(d) of the Zoning Ordinance states that the Board of Zoning Appeals may grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and impose conditions and safeguards provided that: 1. Where by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of the lot, or where by reason of exceptional topographic or water conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional conditions of such lot, the strict applications of the terms of this ordinance would result in a peculiar and practical difficulties or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such lot in developing or using such lot in a manner customary and legally permissible within the zoning district in which said lot is located. The applicant states that a hardship exists due to the lot being platted and developed. Therefore, there is no practical way to meet the 300-foot setback requirement. However, nothing about this lot is peculiar other than that it is closer than 300 feet to residentially zoned properties. There are numerous permitted uses in the IG district for this property that would not require a variance. Therefore, staff does not find any hardship in developing the lot in a manner customary and legally permissible with the zoning district. It could continue as a warehouse or be converted to other legally permissible uses. Staff believes that this finding has not been satisfied. 2. Conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property and do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. The applicant feels that proximity to residential uses is peculiar to this property and does not apply in general to other land or structures in this district. Out of approximately 115 properties zoned I-G in the City of St Louis Park, staff found 36 located more than 300 feet from the closest residentially-zoned property. The remaining properties, including nearly every one within one- half mile of this site, are located within 300 feet of residential uses. Therefore, the proximity to residential properties is not peculiar to this property. It is a condition that applies to many properties in the IG district. Staff believes that this finding has not been satisfied. 3. The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The applicant states that the current warehousing use of the property represents an under- utilization of the site. They propose a more active commercial use for the property, with low volumes of traffic, to enhance the property and neighborhood. The property is at a busy intersection. While there may be more intense uses of the property, the current warehouse use is permitted in the IG district. The auto body / paint use may not generate as much traffic as some intensive commercial uses. However, it will generate more traffic than most industrial uses, including the current warehouse use. Undoubtedly, the proposed refurbishing of the property would enhance the aesthetics of neighborhood and upgrade the property. However, this could also be accomplished through any number of permitted uses that do not require a variance. In the I-G, General Industrial District, there are 14 permitted principal uses, including the warehouse and storage use currently occupying the site. In addition, it appears that 11 of the 15 uses permitted with conditions in the I-G district could be conducted at this site without need of a variance. Therefore, staff does not find that the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right. Staff believes that this finding has not been satisfied. 4. The granting of the variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety. Staff agrees with the applicant that this proposal will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties. The applicant has given thought to possible changes in the area and has submitted site plans for two scenarios: the present day situation with access from the existing service road, and a plan in case the service road is re-routed south of the property. In 2000, the owner sought re-zoning of the property to C2-Commercial to allow retail sales in excess of 15% of the building area. As a first step towards re-zoning, the owner applied for a Comprehensive Plan amendment to re-designate the property as COM-Commercial, a request that was ultimately denied. In consideration of this amendment request, city staff conducted a traffic analysis of the area. The section of Wooddale Avenue adjacent to this property carries over 17,000 vehicles per weekday. An active railroad line is located 330 feet south of Highway 7, leaving a very short stacking distance between the railroad crossing and the highway. A regional bike trail and access to the frontage road is also included in this 330-foot distance, further shortening this stacking distance. All access to this property from Highway 7 requires a left turn from Wooddale. When traffic volumes are high, turning movements could potentially cause traffic to back up onto Highway 7. Staff believes that this use would generate substantially more traffic than the current warehouse use. It would bring customers to an undesirable intersection at peak a.m. and p.m. traffic times. Therefore, the variance could unreasonably increase congestion in the public streets and further diminish the public safety, at least until such time as the traffic improvements are completed. Staff believes that this finding has not been satisfied. 5. The granting of the variance will not unreasonably impact on the character and development of the neighborhood, unreasonably diminish or impair the established property values in the surrounding area, or in any other way impair the health, safety, comfort, or morals of the area. Staff agrees that the applicant’s plans for the property, including screening and landscaping, would improve the property and appearance of the neighborhood. The noise and air quality impacts on residential properties that are closer than 300 feet should be mitigated by the presence of a busy state highway between the uses. However, the use would have some adverse impacts on the neighborhood and safety by exacerbating an undesirable traffic situation. This could potentially be mitigated by requiring traffic improvements prior to approving a different use of the property. Staff believes this finding has been satisfied, provided traffic impacts are adequately mitigated. 6. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Ordinance or Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan guides this property as an industrial use. However, the Comp. Plan also recommends a study to review issues related to land use, a possible high speed bus route, LRT or the existing rail corridor, local access issues related to the proximity of the frontage road to Highway 7, and other issues. As a result, the Elmwood Area study mentioned previously has recently been undertaken. Although the study could possibly recommend future changes to the Comp. Plan and zoning for the property, the current Industrial guiding and zoning is still in effect. The proposed use is permitted with conditions under the Comp. Plan and zoning. The applicant argues that the zoning ordinance intends to create compatibility among adjoining land uses, and that this is accomplished through the buffers mentioned above, and through the general improvements to the property. Staff feels that the applicant’s plans certainly represent an aesthetic improvement of the property and will help to buffer the noise and screen inoperable cars from view. The intent of the zoning ordinance in locating the auto body / painting use 300 feet or more from residential properties is to mitigate its impacts on those properties by placing them at least a half block away from residential uses. Staff believes the highway separation accomplishes this intent with regard to noise and odors. However, customer traffic is also an impact of the proposed use that would be mitigated by the required setback. Staff believes that this finding has been satisfied, provided traffic impacts can be adequately mitigated. 7. The granting of the variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable undue hardship or difficulty. The applicant feels that the imposition of a 300-foot distance requirement creates an undue hardship or difficulty in reusing the property. While that distance prevents the use of this property for auto body and painting work, it does not prevent the property from being used in any number of permitted manners. It also does not necessarily prevent the applicant from locating its business in St. Louis Park as there are several properties zoned IG that are more than 300 feet away from residential uses. Therefore, staff does not find demonstrable undue hardship or difficulty under the current zoning. Staff believes that this finding has not been satisfied. Staff Recommendation: Staff believes that only two of the required seven findings can be met. Therefore, staff recommends that the City Council deny the applicants’ request for a variance to permit an auto body/painting facility within approximately 235 feet of a residentially-zoned parcel instead of the required 300 feet. Alternate Motion: If the Council believes all of the findings can be met and the variance should be approved, staff believes that the council should direct staff to prepare findings for a resolution of approval with the condition that traffic impacts from the proposed use in this location can be adequately mitigated. Further discussions would need to take place to determine an equitable solution. Otherwise, the Council can move to uphold the BOZA’s decision, and an unconditional resolution of approval will be signed by Chair Gainsley. Attachments: Proposed Resolution Application Site plans and elevations Appeal letter Prepared By: Jeff Korman, Assistant Zoning Administrator Approved By: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. 02-048 A RESOLUTION OF DENIAL REGARDING THE APPLICATION OF ABRA AUTO BODY FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 36- 244(C)(7)(B) OF THE ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING TO PERMIT AN AUTO BODY/PAINTING FACILITY WITHIN APPROXIMATELY 235 FEET OF A RESIDENTIALLY-ZONED PARCEL INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 300 FEET ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE “I-G” GENERAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, AT 5925 STATE HIGHWAY 7. BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of St. Louis Park, Minnesota FINDINGS 1. On February 28, 2002, ABRA Auto Body filed an application seeking a variance to permit an auto body/painting facility within approximately 235 feet of a residentially- zoned parcel instead of the required 300 feet on the property located in the I-G General Industrial District, at 5925 State Highway 7 for the following legal description, to wit: See Attached Exhibit “A” 2. On April 2, 2002, the Board of Zoning Appeals held a public hearing, received testimony from the public, discussed the application and approved a resolution of approval. 3. On April 10, 2002, staff received an appeal of the Board of Zoning Appeals’ decision to the City Council. 4. On May 6, 2002, the City Council held a public hearing, received testimony from the public, discussed the application and approved a resolution of denial. 3. Based on the testimony, evidence presented, and files and records, the City Council makes the following findings: a. The requested variance does not meet the requirements of Section 36-33(d) of the Zoning Ordinance necessary to be met for the Board of Zoning Appeals to grant variances. There are no existing conditions, where by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of the lot, or where by reason of exceptional topographical or water conditions or other extraordinary and exception conditions of the lot, the strict application of the terms of this chapter would result in peculiar and practical difficulties or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of the lot in developing or using the lot in a manner customary and legally permissible within the use district in which such lot is located. b. Conditions applying to the structure or land are not peculiar to the property or immediately adjoining property, and do apply, generally, to other land or structures in the use district in which the land is located. c. Granting of the variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. d. Granting of the variance would unreasonably increase the congestion in the public streets and endanger public safety. e. Granting of the variance will merely serve as a convenience to the applicant and is not necessary to alleviate a demonstrable undue hardship or difficulty. Therefore, conditions necessary for granting the requested variance do not exist. 4. The contents of variance Case File 02-18-VAR are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case. CONCLUSION The applicant’s request for a variance to permit an auto body/painting facility within approximately 235 feet of a residentially-zoned parcel instead of the required 300 feet is hereby denied based on the findings set forth above. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council May 6, 2002 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk Resolution No. 02- Exhibit “A” That part of Lot 6, Block 23, St. Louis Park; also of Lots 11 to 15 inclusive, Block 23, Lots 19 to 28 inclusive, Block 23 Lot 5, Block 24 and of Block 20 vacated in “Rearrangement of St. Louis Park” and also of Zarthan Avenue (formerly Earle Street), Walker Street (formerly Broadway) St. Louis Avenue and of alley in Block 23, and Rearrangement and of any vacated portion of said Rearrangement included in the following description: Beginning at a point on Northerly right of way line of the Minnesota and St. Louis Railway Company (which right of way line is parallel with and distant 50 feet at right angles from the center line of the Southbound main track of said Railway Company as there now located), said point being 600 feet Southwesterly from intersection of said right of way with Southwesterly boundary line of Auditor’s Subdivision No. 249, Hennepin County, Minnesota; thence Northwesterly at right angles to said right of way 29 feet to a Judicial Landmark established in Torrens Case No. 7986; thence continuing Northwesterly on the last described course a distance of 166.5 feet to a Judicial Landmark established in Torrens Case No. 7986, the point of beginning of Line A to be described; thence Southwesterly on an extension of a line drawn between the last described Judicial Landmark and another Judicial Landmark to an intersection of said extended line with the Westerly line of Lot 6, Block 23, St. Louis Park, the termination of said Line A, the second Judicial Landmark above described being located as follows; Commencing at a point in the Southwesterly boundary line of Auditor’s Subdivision No. 249, Hennepin County, Minnesota, said point being distant Northwesterly 29 feet, measured at right angles from the Northerly right of way line of the Minneapolis and St. Louis Railway Company (which right of way line is parallel with and distant 50 feet at right angle from the center line of the South-bound main track of said Railway Company as there now located), thence Northwesterly along said Southwesterly line and the same extended 168.4 feet to the Judicial Landmark being described; thence Southerly to the most Westerly corner of Block 20 vacated, “Rearrangement of St. Louis Park”, thence Southeasterly along Southwesterly line of said vacated Block 20 to the Northwesterly line of said right of way; thence Northeasterly along said right of way line to point of beginning; Except that part of Lot 6, Block 23, St. Louis Park and that part of Lots 19 to 25 inclusive, Block 23, “Rearrangement of St. Louis Park” which lies Northwesterly of a line drawn from a point in the West line of Lot 6 distant 35 feet South of the termination of said Line “A” to a point in said Line “A” distant 194 feet Northeasterly of the West line of said Lot 6. Subject to the drainage easement created by deed of record in Book 1691 of Deeds, page 23, relating to the title to the portion of the premises located in what was formerly said Block 20, now vacated, “Rearrangement of St. Louis Park” and to the drainage easement created by deed of record in Block 1691 of Deeds, page 113 relating to the title to the portion of the premises located in what was formerly Lots 11 to 15, Block 23, and Lot 5, Block 24, “Rearrangement of St. Louis Park” and adjoining streets and alleys; Subject to minerals and mineral rights reserved by the State of Minnesota; (relating to the title of Lots 19 to 28 inclusive, Block 23, “Rearrangement of St. Louis Park”) Subject to a right of way and easement for public highway purposes for State Highway No. 7 as shown in deed Doc. No. 958827. City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 5b Meeting of May 6, 2002 5b. Appeal by Carol Engelkes and Betty Danielson of Board of Zoning Appeals Decisions of April 2 to Grant Variances to Niaz Real Estate Corporation for a Proposed Office and Apartment at 4050 Brookside Ave. Case #02-17-VAR Recommended Action: Motion to adopt a resolution denying the variance to eliminate need for access to open space based upon findings included in the resolution and approving the variance to allow vehicles to back into public street, subject to conditions included in the resolution. Subject: Niaz Real Estate Corporation has applied for a variance from the requirements of Section 36- 194(c)(25)(c) and Section 36-361(b)(3)(d) of the Ordinance Code relating to zoning to eliminate the requirement of access to usable open space for a residential housing unit and to allow vehicles to back into the public street. The variances would allow construction of a new office and apartment on the property located at 4050 Brookside Ave. in the “C-2” General Commercial District. Proposal: The applicant proposes to demolish an existing, non-conforming single family dwelling in a commercial district, and build a 608 square foot office with a 1488 square foot second-story C2 C2 R2 R2 RC E x c e ls io r B lv d .Brookside Ave.4050 apartment. The first floor would also include a two-stall parking garage and two additional parking stalls partially sheltered by the living area. Residential uses are allowed over commercial in the C2 District, provided certain conditions are met. The proposal does not meet the condition requiring access to open-space, plazas, and pedestrianways. The four proposed parking spaces meet zoning code requirements except for the required turnaround to prevent backing into the public street. Site Data: Zoning C2, General Commercial Owner Niaz Real Estate Corporation Lot Shape Rectangle Lot Width 40 feet Lot Depth 52 feet Lot Area 2080 square feet Background: On February 28, 2002, Mr. Dost Niaz filed a request for two variances on behalf of Niaz Real Estate Corporation. The corporation purchased the property in March 2001. The property is zoned C2-General Commercial and currently has a vacant non-conforming single family dwelling on it. Upon receiving orders recently from the Inspections Division, the owner boarded up the house to prevent vandalism. The properties to the north, west, and northeast are commercial. The properties to the east and south are residential. The house immediately south is also zoned C2 and is also a nonconforming use. However, it is occupied as a residence. Mr. Niaz proposes to demolish the house, which is in disrepair, and build a 608 square foot first- floor office, with a 1488 square foot apartment above it. His proposal requires two variances. The first variance is to City Ordinance Sec. 36-361(b)(3)(d) to allow vehicles to back into Brookside Ave., a public street. His proposal would require two curb cuts to access the proposed parking from the street. The additional curb cut would eliminate an existing on-street parking space. The second variance is to City Ordinance Sec. 36-194(c)(25)(c), which requires residential that is part of a larger commercial development to provide “access to open space, plazas, and pedestrianways.” The Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA) held a public hearing on April 2, 2002 to consider the variances. One business owner and several nearby residents testified (see approved BOZA minutes). Staff reasoned that all seven findings for approving variances were met for the request to allow vehicles to back into a public street and recommended that BOZA approve the variance, which it did on a 4-0 vote. In order to maintain on-street parking, staff is recommending a condition prohibiting more than one curb cut to the property. Staff found that only two of the required seven findings for approving variances were met for the request to eliminate the need for access to open space and recommended that BOZA deny the variance. Instead, BOZA approved the variance on a 3-1 vote. The minutes from that meeting are included among the consent agenda for this City Council meeting. On April 8, the city received a letter from Carol Engelkes and Betty Danielson appealing the BOZA’s decision per Sec. 36-33(d)(6) of the Zoning Code (see attachment). Notice of the appeal was advertised in the paper on April 24 and has been mailed to the applicant and all property owners within 350 feet. Since the BOZA hearing, some information has arisen that was not available for BOZA to consider at its hearing. The appellants recalled that the longtime owner of 4054 Brookside Ave., a Mrs. Spafford, had spoken about the existence of a driveway easement on 4050 Brookside Ave. that allowed her access to a tuck-under garage on the rear of her house. The garage no longer exists, and the current owner typically parks on Brookside Ave. Debbie Danielson, daughter of one of the appellants, researched records at Hennepin County and found that documents from the early 1980’s (Mrs. Spafford passed away in 1986) showed the existence of an easement on 4050 Brookside to the benefit of 4054 Brookside Ave. She found that more recent deeds do not show that easement carried over. However, no record was found to vacate that easement. Therefore, the lack of records on the current deed may be due to a clerical error. In the above photo, the curb cut for the driveway that formerly served 4054 Brookside can be seen. The GIS program distorts the lot lines slightly in relation to the aerial photo. The dwelling on 4054 Brookside actually is set back 3 feet from the north property line. If an easement exists, or adverse possession has taken place, it might not allow construction of Mr. Niaz’s proposed building. The proposed building would have a three-foot setback from the south property line, while the house at 4054 Brookside is three feet from the property line, leaving only six feet between the buildings. 404640504054Driveway Analysis: Section 36-33(d) of the Zoning Ordinance states that the Board of Zoning Appeals may grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and impose conditions and safeguards provided that: 1. Where by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of the lot, or where by reason of exceptional topographic or water conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional conditions of such lot, the strict applications of the terms of this ordinance would result in a peculiar and practical difficulties or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such lot in developing or using such lot in a manner customary and legally permissible within the zoning district in which said lot is located. The size of this lot makes development of the property virtually impossible without need of at least one variance. When 4050 and 4054 Brookside Ave. were zoned commercial, the thought was probably that they would be re-developed together. A larger redevelopment would probably eliminate the need for both variances. However, the city must still look at proposals to re- develop the properties individually. Mr. Niaz originally proposed a three-story office / condo building, but this plan had trouble meeting setbacks, parking, and floor area ratio requirements. The current plan meets every dimensional and numeric requirement, but can’t meet the need for access to open space or to prevent backing up into the public street. Staff believes the conditions of the lot cause the need for the variance to allow backing into the public street, since it would not be possible to develop a reasonable amount of parking and turnaround on the property. However, it is not customary to have two curb cuts on a 40-foot wide lot, and the second curb cut would further reduce safety and eliminate needed on-street parking. In addition, the proposed residential causes the need for the open space variance, and the residential is not necessary for reasonable use of the lot. Therefore, staff believes that this finding has been satisfied for the turnaround variance, provided only one curb cut is included to provide access to the property. Staff believes the finding is not met for the open space variance. 2. Conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property and do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. Most properties in the C2 zoning district are significantly larger. The size of this property prevents construction of a standard parking lot. Therefore, one driveway with a limited amount of backing into the public street seems warranted. However, the need for the proposed variance for open space is generated by the proposed residential second story and not by the lot. Staff believes that this finding has been satisfied for the turnaround variance, provided only one curb cut is included to provide access to the property. Staff believes the finding is not met for the open space variance. 3. The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. In light of staff comments, the applicant modified his proposal several times until he conformed to every building and zoning code, except for the two from which he seeks a variance. Staff looked at other possible uses of the property, to see if these variances would be avoidable. The access to open space is only required for the residential portion of a mixed-use development. The applicant could build a stand-alone office. An office of up to 1124 square feet would require the same four parking spaces. Staff recommends reconfiguring them so they could be accessed from one curb cut to prevent additional traffic conflicts and preserve needed on-street parking. Vehicles would still need to back into the public right-of-way, as the property is neither wide enough nor deep enough to accommodate a building, four parking stalls and a turnaround per city ordinance specifications. Yet, this represents a reasonable use of the property and eliminates the need for a variance that the inclusion of living space requires. Staff believes that this finding has been satisfied for the turnaround variance, provided only one curb cut is included to provide access to the property. Staff believes the finding is not met for the open space variance. 4. The granting of the variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety. Staff agrees with the applicant that the granting of the variances will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent property. The proposed two-story building is well within guidelines for the C2 district. The proposed building meets all applicable setbacks and building / fire code requirements. Staff reported to BOZA that the granting of the variances would not increase congestion in the public streets or endanger the public safety. The applicant’s proposal provides four required off- street parking spaces. And while vehicles would need to back into the street, they previously did so under the residential use. While this is less than desirable, staff believes the limited number of vehicles proposed to back out of this property is acceptable given the lack of options to correct the situation. Several commercial properties in the area are unable to meet off-street parking requirements, and do not have room to provide turnarounds for the little off-street parking that they can accommodate. However, in the variance report to BOZA, staff neglected to note that the proposed parking spaces would require a second curb cut in addition to the existing one. The narrow width of the property (40 feet) would eliminate the possibility of parking a vehicle on street between the two curb cuts. Including the width of the second curb cut, its presence would eliminate at least one and possible two spaces currently used for on-street parking. Public Works staff, residents and business owners in the area have all expressed their concerns about the congested nature of this area and need for all existing on-street parking. The proposed second curb cut would also increase conflicts with cars backing into the street in close proximity Staff believes that this finding has been satisfied for both variances, provided only one curb cut is included to provide access to the property. 5. The granting of the variance will not unreasonably impact on the character and development of the neighborhood, unreasonably diminish or impair the established property values in the surrounding area, or in any other way impair the health, safety, comfort, or morals of the area. The applicant proposes to replace a dilapidated house with a new office and apartment, and a non-conforming use with a mixed use. The granting of the variances will enable the applicant to make these improvements and will not unreasonably impact the character of the neighborhood or impair the health, safety, comfort, or morals of the area, provided the proposal does not increase traffic conflicts or reduce existing on-street parking. Staff believes that this finding has been satisfied for both variances, provided only one curb cut is included to provide access to the property. 6. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Ordinance or Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan guides this property as a commercial use, for which it is currently zoned. The Commercial guiding and zoning does allow some residential uses subject to certain conditions. The variances would allow the applicant to remove a non-conforming use and provide a new building housing a mixed use. As mentioned above, the intent of the zoning ordinance is to provide access to open space for all dwelling units. In the general commercial zoning district, this open space need not be provided on-site. However, the code stipulates that “access to open space, plazas, and pedestrianways is provided.” The closest park areas are Justad Park, 5917 Cambridge St., and Jackley Park, 4215 Brookside Ave. There are both accessible by sidewalk the entire distance from 4050 Brookside. Therefore, they meet a necessary condition of accessible open space. However, they are both over 1/4 -mile from the applicant’s property, so they do not meet the distance requirement for being considered accessible. Staff has used 1/8 mile as a reasonable walking distance in considering access to open space. The M-X district, which allows for mixed use buildings such as the applicant’s proposed building, codifies the measurement as 600 feet, or just under 1/8 mile. Therefore, a residential use in this location does not meet the intent of the Comprehensive Plan or zoning. The intent of the zoning ordinance with regard to turnarounds for off-street parking is to promote safety by eliminating the need for vehicles to back into the public street. Single-family residential properties are exempt from this requirement due to the limited traffic. Since the size of this property prevents any use that would generate substantially more traffic than a single- family residence, staff believes the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and zoning is met for the turnaround variance, provided the number of potential conflict points are limited and needed on- street parking is preserved. Staff believes that this finding has been satisfied for the turnaround variance, provided only one curb cut is included to provide access to the property. Staff believes the finding is not met for the open space variance. 7. The granting of the variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable undue hardship or difficulty. As mentioned earlier in the report, staff investigated other possible uses of the property with the applicant, and concluded that any redevelopment of this property alone would require a variance to allow vehicles to back into the public street. While the proposed use is an upgrade over the existing, non-conforming use, staff feels that the variance to eliminate the requirement of access to open space is being requested out of convenience. The property could be developed as an office up to 1124 square feet without an apartment above it. Staff believes that this finding has been satisfied for the turnaround variance, provided only one curb cut is included to provide access to the property. Staff believes the finding is not met for the open space variance. Staff Recommendation: Since seven of the seven findings have been met for the variance to allow backing into the public street, staff recommends approval of that variance with the condition that the parking be designed with no more than one curb cut in a location that preserves all existing on-street parking. Since only two of the seven findings have been met for the open space variance, staff recommends denial of that variance. Alternative Motions: If the Council believes both variances should be approved without any conditions, the Council should move to uphold BOZA’s decision, and an unconditional resolution of approval will be signed by Chair Gainsley. If the Council believes both variances should be denied, the Council should direct staff to prepare a resolution with findings for denial of both variances, which could be considered at the next regular Council meeting. Attachments: Proposed Resolution Application Site plans and elevations Appeal letter Prepared By: Jeff Korman, Assistant Zoning Administrator Approved By: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. 02-___ A RESOLUTION DENYING THE APPLICATION OF NIAZ REAL ESTATE CORPORATION FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 36- 194(C)(25)(C) TO ELIMINATE THE REQUIREMENT OF ACCESS TO OPEN SPACE AND APPROVING THE VARIANCE FROM SECTION 36-361(B)(3)(D) OF THE ORDINANCE CODE TO ALLOW VEHICLES TO BACK INTO THE PUBLIC STREET SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE “C-2” GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, AT 4050 BROOKSIDE AVENUE. BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of St. Louis Park, Minnesota FINDINGS 1. On February 28, 2002, Niaz Real Estate Corporation filed an application seeking a variance to eliminate the requirement of access to open space and to allow vehicles to back into the public street on the property located in the C-2 General Commercial District, at 4050 Brookside Avenue for the following legal description, to wit: The South 40 feet of Lot 1, Brookside Subdivision No.2, Hennepin County, Minnesota 2. On April 2, 2002, the Board of Zoning Appeals held a public hearing, received testimony from the public, discussed the application and approved a resolution. 3. On April 8, 2002, staff received a letter appealing the Board of Zoning Appeals’ decision to the City Council. 4. On May 6, 2002, the City Council held a public hearing, received testimony from the public, discussed the application and approved a resolution. 5. Based on the testimony, evidence presented, and files and records, City Council makes the following findings on the variance to the requirement for access to open space: a. The requested variance does not meet the requirements of Section 36-33(d) of the Zoning Ordinance necessary to be met for the Board of Zoning Appeals to grant variances. There is no existing condition, where by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of the lot, or where by reason of exceptional topographical or water conditions or other extraordinary and exception conditions of the lot, the strict application of the terms of this open space requirement would result in peculiar and practical difficulties or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of the lot in developing or using the lot in a manner customary and legally permissible within the use district in which such lot is located, since other uses would not require the open space variance. b. Conditions applying to the structure or land are peculiar to the property or immediately adjoining property, and do not apply, generally, to other land or structures in the use district in which the land is located; however, it is the proposed residential use and not such conditions that create the need for the open space variance. c. Granting of the open space variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. d. Granting of the open space variance will be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan. e. Granting of the open space variance will merely serve as a convenience to the applicant and is not necessary to alleviate a demonstrable undue hardship or difficulty. Therefore, conditions necessary for granting the requested open space variance do not exist. 6. Based on the testimony, evidence presented, and files and records, City Council makes the following findings on the variance to eliminate the parking lot turnaround requirement and allow vehicles to back into the public street: a. The requested variance does meet the requirements of Section 36-33(d) of the Zoning Ordinance necessary to be met for the Board of Zoning Appeals to grant variances. Where by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of the lot, or where by reason of exceptional topographical or water conditions or other extraordinary and exception conditions of the lot, the strict application or the terms of this parking lot turnaround requirement would result in peculiar and practical difficulties or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of the lot in developing or using the lot in a manner customary and legally permissible within the use district in which such lot is located. b. Conditions applying to the structure or land are peculiar to the property or immediately adjoining property, and do not apply, generally, to other land or structures in the use district in which the land is located; such conditions create the need for the turnaround variance. c. Granting of the variance to the turnaround requirement is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. d. Granting of the variance to the turnaround requirement would not impair an adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, or endanger public safety, provided only one curb cut is included and all existing on-street parking is preserved. e. Granting of the variance to the turnaround requirement will not unreasonably impact on the character and development of the neighborhood, unreasonably diminish or impair established property values in the surrounding area, or in any other way impair the health, safety, and comfort of the area, provided only one curb cut is included and all existing on-street parking is preserved. f. Granting of the variance to the turnaround requirement will not be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan, provided only one curb cut is included and all existing on-street parking is preserved. g. Granting of the variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable undue hardship or difficulty. Therefore, conditions necessary for granting the requested variance do exist, provided only one curb cut is included and all existing on-street parking is preserved. 7. The contents of variance Case File 02-17-VAR are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case. CONCLUSION The applicant’s request for a variance to eliminate the requirement of access to open space is hereby denied and the applicant’s request for a variance to allow vehicles to back into the public street is hereby approved, with the condition that only one curb cut is included to provide access to the property, and all existing on-street parking is preserved, based on the findings set forth above. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council May 6, 2002 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item #5c Meeting of May 6, 2002 5c Public Hearing: Alley Paving – 4000 Block between Toledo Avenue and Utica Avenue This report considers paving the alley in the 4000 block between Toledo and Utica Avenues. Recommended Action: Mayor to re-open Public Hearing, and then close it. Motion to adopt the attached Resolution ordering the construction of a concrete alley in the 4000 block between Toledo Avenue and Utica Avenues, approving plans and specifications and authorizing receipt of bids. Background: At its February 4, 2002 meeting, the City Council approved the City Engineer’s Report for construction of a concrete alley in the 4000 block between Toledo and Utica Avenues, and scheduled a Public Hearing and Assessment Hearing for March 18, 2002. At the March 18th meeting, representatives from Most Holy Trinity Catholic Church appeared at the meeting to: 1) discuss the need for possible storm water improvements to their property that might impact the alley project, 2) object to their assessment, and 3) question the continued use of their property as a turn-around area for the alley. Based on these concerns, staff recommended continuing the public hearing until May 6th in order to meet with Most Holy Trinity to discuss their issues. General background information on the alley project is summarized below: Location: 4000 block between Toledo Avenue and Utica Avenue, (bordered by Wooddale Avenue and W. 41st Street) Proposed Project: Paving existing gravel alley with concrete Estimated Cost: $41,272 Assessment Data: 100% of the cost for the concrete alley paving is proposed to be assessed to the abutting property owners. The costs will be apportioned in accordance with the City’s special assessment policy with direct and indirect benefits. The estimated assessment for a typical 40 foot lot is $1,416.00 payable over 20 years. Parcels Within Assessment District: 29 Neighborhood Meeting Comments: On Wednesday, February 20, 2002 staff held a neighborhood meeting for abutting property owners to discuss the proposed project. A notice of this meeting was sent to all property owners adjacent to this project. A total of six (6) residents representing five (5) properties attended the meeting. Staff reviewed the proposed project, construction issues and schedule along with the assessment costs. Staff responded to residents’ questions and had the preliminary plans available for their review. No particular design issues were raised at the meeting. Notification: Abutting property owners received written notice of the initial public hearing and assessment hearing and of tonight’s continued public hearing. Analysis-Most Holy Trinity Concerns: Expansion/storm water drainage: The Church plans to expand its facilities within the next several years. In order to accommodate storm water drainage, one of the options would be to drain the water to 41st Street via a pipe below the alley. As staff discussed this with Church representatives, they determined that since no design work had been started yet and due to the uncertainty of other storm water requirements (i.e. ponding), it was too soon to consider adding this pipe at this time. Assessment objection: Due to the grade differential and their lack of access from the alley, Church representatives feel that the assessment to their property is unjustified. The City’s policy states that, “… thirty (30) percent of the cost of the improvement shall be assessed against all properties abutting the alley…” as an indirect benefit. This wording does not allow properties to be excluded from the assessment. Turn-around Area on Church Property: Since this is a dead-end alley, many vehicles, including garbage trucks, use some of the Church’s property that is adjacent to the alley as a turn-around area. Staff feels it is beneficial to provide these turn-around areas when there is room available. Due to their impending expansion plans, the Church does not wish to grant a permanent easement over this area, but is willing to give the City a temporary easement in consideration of the cost of their assessment. The City’s Assessor feels that this is a reasonable cost for the easement. Staff recommends that the easement be granted for a period of five (5) years in order to recoup the cost of the temporary easement. Project Timetable: Due to the unanticipated concerns by the church, staff has revised the project schedule as follows: • City Engineer’s Report to City Council, February 4, 2002 • Staff holds informational meeting with residents February 20, 2002 • City Council holds Public Hearing & Assessment Hearing March 18, 2002 • City Council continues Public Hearing & Assessment Hearing May 6, 2002 • Advertise for bids May/June • Bid Opening June 5, 2002 • End of 30 Day Appeal on Assessments June 6, 2002 • Bid Tab Report to Council, Council can award the bid and order June 17, 2002 the project or delay the project if there are any assessment appeals • Construction July, 2002 Recommendation: Staff recommends holding the public hearing and then proceeding with this project as outlined above and in the City Engineer’s Report dated February 4, 2002. Staff will draft a temporary easement agreement between the Church and the City for roadway access and egress purposes over a portion of the Church’s property for a period of five (5) years at a cost of approximately $864.00. Attachments: Resolution Neighborhood Meeting Attendance List City Engineer’s Report Assessment Role Prepared by: Maria A. Hagen, City Engineer Reviewed by: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager RESOLUTION NO. 02-050 RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING AND ORDERING AN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A CONCRETE ALLEY IN THE 4000 BLOCK BETWEEN TOLEDO AVENUE AND UTICA AVENUE, AND APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS & AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR THE SAME WHEREAS, pursuant to a resolution passed by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park on the 4th day of February, 2002, the City Engineer has prepared plans and specifications for the construction of a concrete alley in the 4000 block between Toledo Avenue and Utica Avenue and has presented such plans and specification to the City Council for approval; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that: 1. The proposed project is hereby established and ordered. 2. The plans and specifications for the making of the improvement, as prepared under the direction of the City Engineer, are approved. 3. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted at least two weeks in the official newspaper and at least one week in the Construction Bulletin, an advertisement for bids for the making of said improvement under said-approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall appear not less than twenty one (21) days prior to the date and time of receipt of bids, and specify the work to be done, state the date and time bids will be received by the City Clerk, and that no bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the City Clerk and accompanied by a cashier’s check, bid bond, or certified check payable to the City for five (5) percent of the amount of the bid. 4. The bids shall be tabulated by the City Engineer who shall report her tabulation and recommendation to the City Council at the June 17, 2002 regular City Council meeting. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council May 6, 2002 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING 2/20/02 ATTENDANCE LIST 4000 BLOCK TOLEDO/UTICA AVENUES: CONCRETE ALLEY PAVING Name Address Susan Bachman 4037 Utica Ave. So. Steve Anderson 4065 Utica Ave. So. Wade Gulbransen 4056 Toledo Ave. So. Mischel Peacock 4085 Utica Ave. So. Jim & Tiffany Frank 4069 Utica Ave. So. REPORT FROM MEETING OF FEBRUARY 4, 2002 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: Estimated Costs: Construction Costs $ 33,500 Contingency (10%) $ 3,350 Subtotal $ 36,850 Engineering & Administrative (12%) $ 4,422 TOT AL $ 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 Utica Avenue/Toledo Avenue/41st Street/Wooddale Avenue Alley Paving Assessment ESTIMATED COST: $41,272 A. 70% DIRECT BENEFIT (garage or access) B. 30% INDIRECT BENEFIT (dust, noise, mud and service) total $41,272 direct $28,890 indirect $12,382 INDIRECT DIRECT TOTAL Address Feet % Allocation Feet % Allocation ALLOCATIO N 4029 Utica Ave S 60 4.65 $576 60 5.36 $1,548 $2,124 4033 Utica Ave S 40 3.10 $384 40 3.57 $1,032 $1,416 4037 Utica Ave S 40 3.10 $384 40 3.57 $1,032 $1,416 4041 Utica Ave S 40 3.10 $384 40 3.57 $1,032 $1,416 4045 Utica Ave S 40 3.10 $384 40 3.57 $1,032 $1,416 4049 Utica Ave S 40 3.10 $384 40 3.57 $1,032 $1,416 4053 Utica Ave S 40 3.10 $384 40 3.57 $1,032 $1,416 4057 Utica Ave S 60 4.65 $576 60 5.36 $1,548 $2,124 4065 Utica Ave S 40 3.10 $384 40 3.57 $1,032 $1,416 4069 Utica Ave S 40 3.10 $384 40 3.57 $1,032 $1,416 4073 Utica Ave S 40 3.10 $384 40 3.57 $1,032 $1,416 4077 Utica Ave S 40 3.10 $384 40 3.57 $1,032 $1,416 4081 Utica Ave S 40 3.10 $384 40 3.57 $1,032 $1,416 4085 Utica Ave S 40 3.10 $384 40 3.57 $1,032 $1,416 4089 Utica Ave S 40 3.10 $384 40 3.57 $1,032 $1,416 4093 Utica Ave S 40 3.10 $384 0 0.00 $0 $384 4044 Toledo Ave S 40 3.10 $384 40 3.57 $1,032 $1,416 4048 Toledo Ave S 40 3.10 $384 40 3.57 $1,032 $1,416 4052 Toledo Ave S 40 3.10 $384 40 3.57 $1,032 $1,416 4056 Toledo Ave S 40 3.10 $384 40 3.57 $1,032 $1,416 4060 Toledo Ave S 40 3.10 $384 40 3.57 $1,032 $1,416 4064 Toledo Ave S 40 3.10 $384 40 3.57 $1,032 $1,416 4068 Toledo Ave S 40 3.10 $384 40 3.57 $1,032 $1,416 4072 Toledo Ave S 40 3.10 $384 40 3.57 $1,032 $1,416 4076 Toledo Ave S 40 3.10 $384 40 3.57 $1,032 $1,416 4080 Toledo Ave S 40 3.10 $384 40 3.57 $1,032 $1,416 4084 Toledo Ave S 40 3.10 $384 40 3.57 $1,032 $1,416 4088 Toledo Ave S 40 3.10 $384 40 3.57 $1,032 $1,416 4092 Toledo Ave S 40 3.10 $384 0 0.00 $0 $384 4017 Utica Ave S 90 6.98 $864 0 0.00 $0 $864 Total 1290 100.00 $12,382 1120 85.71 $28,890 $41,272 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 5d Meeting of May 6, 2002 5d. Assessment Hearing for Alley Paving Project in the 4000 block between Toledo Avenue and Utica Avenue Following Council’s action to establish the project a separate public hearing is required to order the assessment to affected property owners Recommended Action: Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to adopt a resolution ordering the assessment Background: The assessment hearing scheduled March 18, 2002 was continued because Most Holy Trinity Church and the City needed to further discuss the project. A notice of meeting was mailed to all residents to inform them of this assessment hearing. At its February 4, 2002 meeting, the City Council approved the City Engineer’s Report for construction of a concrete alley for the 4000 block between Toledo Avenue S. and Utica Avenue. The City’s assessment policy (Res. #00- 078) for funding alley improvements requires abutting property owners to pay 100 % of the improvement costs. A petition, signed by at least 51% of the benefited property owners, has been submitted to the City. A petition was received in the Assessing Division that was signed by 69% of the benefited property owners. A neighborhood meeting attended by 6 property owners was held February 20, 2002. Staff reviewed the proposed construction, assessment costs and construction schedule. The property owners who attended the meeting favored the construction project and assessments. The purpose of holding the assessment hearing prior to completion of the project is to allow the City to consider any objections to the assessment or the project - before it is built. Most Holy Trinity is included in the benefited property owners but the City will be covering the cost in lieu of an easement. Estimated cost: $41,272 Total Assessment: $41,272 Number of parcels: 30 Assessment Period: 20 years Interest rate: 6.75% Assessment Charge for a 40 front foot lot: $1,416 Annual Payment: Principal $71 Interest $96 Total Payment: $167 Attachments: Assessment SpreadSheet Map Resolution Prepared by: Bruce Stepnick, City Assessor Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager RESOLUTION NO. 02-051 RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT FOR ALLEY PAVING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT IN THE 4000 BLOCK BETWEEN TOLEDO AVENUE AND UTICA AVENUE. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park as follows: 1. Notice of hearing on this improvement project was duly mailed on March 1, 2002 and published in the official City newspaper, the St. Louis Park Sailor, on March 6, 2002 and March 13, 2002 as required by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429. 2. A public hearing having been held on this date and opportunity having been given at the hearing to all persons to make known their objections to the proposed assessment, and the Council being fully advised of the pertinent facts, the proposed assessment as it deems just is adopted and shall constitute the special assessment levied against the respective lands therein described, and each tract of land is found to be specifically benefited by the improvements in the amount of assessment levied against it. 3. The assessment shall be payable, unless prepaid, in equal annual installments extending over the period of 20 years. The first installment shall be payable concurrently with general taxes levied in the year 2002, and payable in the year 2003 , and shall bear interest at the rate of 6.75 percent per annum. To the first installment shall be added interest on the entire assessment from November 1, 2002, until December 31, 2002, the year in which the assessment will be levied. For subsequent installments, interest shall be added for one year on the total of all unpaid installments. No interest will be charged as to any parcel if the entire assessment is paid at the Office of the Treasurer within 30 days from the date of adoption of the assessment resolution. 4. The location of the construction improvement over which installments are to be extended for a period of 20 years is as follows: Project Number Improvement Location 02-XX Alley Paving 4000 block between Toledo and Utica Avenues. 5. The Assessor’s Office shall transmit a certified copy of this assessment to the county auditor to be extended on the proper tax lists of the county, and such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council May 6, 2002 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk ESTIMATED COST: $41,272 A. 70% DIRECT BENEFIT (garage or access) B. 30% INDIRECT BENEFIT (dust, noise, mud and service) total 41272 direct 28890 indirect 12382 ********* Indirect ******************** Direct **********Total Indirect Direct Direct & Address Ind feet % Indirect Allocation Dir feet % Direct Allocation Indirect 4029 Utica Ave S 60 4.65 $576 60 5.36 $1,548 $2,124 4033 Utica Ave S 40 3.10 $384 40 3.57 $1,032 $1,416 4037 Utica Ave S 40 3.10 $384 40 3.57 $1,032 $1,416 4041 Utica Ave S 40 3.10 $384 40 3.57 $1,032 $1,416 4045 Utica Ave S 40 3.10 $384 40 3.57 $1,032 $1,416 4049 Utica Ave S 40 3.10 $384 40 3.57 $1,032 $1,416 4053 Utica Ave S 40 3.10 $384 40 3.57 $1,032 $1,416 4057 Utica Ave S 60 4.65 $576 60 5.36 $1,548 $2,124 4065 Utica Ave S 40 3.10 $384 40 3.57 $1,032 $1,416 4069 Utica Ave S 40 3.10 $384 40 3.57 $1,032 $1,416 4073 Utica Ave S 40 3.10 $384 40 3.57 $1,032 $1,416 4077 Utica Ave S 40 3.10 $384 40 3.57 $1,032 $1,416 4081 Utica Ave S 40 3.10 $384 40 3.57 $1,032 $1,416 4085 Utica Ave S 40 3.10 $384 40 3.57 $1,032 $1,416 4089 Utica Ave S 40 3.10 $384 40 3.57 $1,032 $1,416 4093 Utica Ave S 40 3.10 $384 0 0.00 $0 $384 4044 Toledo Ave S 40 3.10 $384 40 3.57 $1,032 $1,416 4048 Toledo Ave S 40 3.10 $384 40 3.57 $1,032 $1,416 4052 Toledo Ave S 40 3.10 $384 40 3.57 $1,032 $1,416 4056 Toledo Ave S 40 3.10 $384 40 3.57 $1,032 $1,416 4060 Toledo Ave S 40 3.10 $384 40 3.57 $1,032 $1,416 4064 Toledo Ave S 40 3.10 $384 40 3.57 $1,032 $1,416 4068 Toledo Ave S 40 3.10 $384 40 3.57 $1,032 $1,416 4072 Toledo Ave S 40 3.10 $384 40 3.57 $1,032 $1,416 4076 Toledo Ave S 40 3.10 $384 40 3.57 $1,032 $1,416 4080 Toledo Ave S 40 3.10 $384 40 3.57 $1,032 $1,416 4084 Toledo Ave S 40 3.10 $384 40 3.57 $1,032 $1,416 4088 Toledo Ave S 40 3.10 $384 40 3.57 $1,032 $1,416 4092 Toledo Ave S 40 3.10 $384 0 0.00 $0 $384 4017 Utica Ave S 90 6.98 $864 0 0.00 $0 $864 Total 1290 100.00 $12,382 1120 85.71 $28,890 $41,272 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 7a Meeting of May 6, 2002 7a. Request of Vernon Partnership LLC for Conditional Use Permit to place over 400 cubic yards of fill and fill in a floodplain and for a Preliminary Plat (Townhomes of Vernon Oaks)at 2601 Vernon Avenue S Case No. 02-19-CUP 02-06-S) Proposal is to develop 6 single-family homes using a condominium plat. Recommended Action: ♦ Motion to adopt a resolution granting a Conditional Use Permit to allow over 400 cubic yards of fill and fill in a floodplain subject to conditions included in the resolution. ♦ Motion to adopt a resolution granting preliminary plat subject to conditions included in the resolution. Zoning: R1-Single Family Residential FP-Floodplain Comprehensive Plan Designation: RL-Low Density Residential Parcel Size 58,958 (net area after street dedication) Floodplain Elevation: 169 (City datum) Flood Protection Elevation: 171 (City Datum) Proposed Number of Units 6 Proposed Density 4.4 units per acre Maximum Density allow by Zoning 4.8 units per acre Park Dedication Requirement 13% of Land or $900 per unit cash in lieu. (7,665 square feet/0.18 acre or $5,400 for 6 units) Trail Dedication Requirement $225 per unit, or $1,350. Background: Vernon Partners LLC made application for a preliminary plat and conditional use permit for over 400 cubic yards of fill in order to develop a vacant 1.35-acre parcel with 6 detached townhouses. The Zoning Ordinance interprets the application as single family detached housing units utilizing a condominium plat. Single family detached housing does not require a conditional use permit. However, the request does require a conditional use permit to allow fill in the floodplain and fill of over 400 cubic yards. The proposed development will require between 5,000 and 8,000 cubic yards of fill. The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the proposal on March 20, 2002, and recommended cash in lieu of park dedication. The Planning Commission held a public hearing and recommended approval of the request on April 3, 2002, with conditions recommended by staff and an additional condition that the landscape plan be augmented to show a greater percentage of tree replacement. Issues: • Are the requirements for a Conditional Use Permit for fill met? • What if wetlands are located on the property? • What other approvals are necessary? • Does the request comply with all zoning requirements? # Subject Property # Pedestrian Bridge Hwy 100 25 1/2 St. 26th St. • Are the proposed preliminary plat and accompanying plans acceptable? Does the proposed Preliminary Plat meet the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance? • Is the proposal in conformance with Comprehensive Plan goals? Issue Analysis: • Are the requirements for a Conditional Use Permit for fill met? Section 36-79 of the Municipal Code requires a conditional use permit for the placement of over 400 cubic yards of fill on a property whether or not the property is within a floodplain. The following requirements must be met as conditions of a conditional use permit. Submittal requirements. 1. A site, grading, and erosion control plans that show the following: a. The finished grade of the reclaimed land b. The proposed use of the land after fill is placed c. Controls to be employed to limit the effect of wind or other elements on the fill material d. The effect of the proposed reclamation upon the community and the adjacent land e. Implementation measures to guarantee the safety of the site and adjacent and other animal control, fire control, general maintenance of the site and adjacent area. 2. Additional Information: a. A soil analysis of the type of fill material to be used b. The type of equipment to be used c. The period of time the reclamation operation will be conducted d. Provisions for control of material hauled to or from the site e. Truck routes moving to and from the site to deposit fill material to the site The application has included a proposed site plan and grading plan that meet the requirements of this section. In addition the developer has stated that the site preparation work for the project will take no more than 2 weeks and that with a relatively small site, no large equipment is anticipated. Public Works has established the required truck routes for bringing equipment and fill materials to the site. The routes for bringing construction equipment, supplies, and hauling of are Highway 100 Frontage Road to West 27th Street to Vernon Avenue. Construction vehicles will be prohibited from using Vernon Avenue south of W. 27th Street or 27th Street west of Vernon Avenue. The total fill is estimated to be between 5,000 and 8,000 cubic yards. The developer has soil borings from the site and does not think any soil will have to be removed. Staff has listed several conditions of approval to comply with Code requirements. Section 36-294 of the Municipal Code provides standards for filling and building in a floodplain. These standards include provisions for building placement and a one for one replacement for any land taken out of a floodplain. The proposed grading plan does meet the requirements of this section of the Code. The lowest floor elevations are shown to be 171.0 feet with the lowest opening elevations at 174.0 feet, garage floor elevations at 179.0 feet. Fill elevations at the building wall and for 15 feet beyond is required to be at 172 feet (City Datum). Storm water calculations have been submitted and analyzed for the site. Public Works has found that the proposed pond has the capacity to sufficiently handle all storm water currently draining to the site plus the additional capacity required for the proposed development. The developer has submitted an erosion control plan that will be implemented during construction. In addition to City approval, this plan will also require Minnehaha Creek Watershed District approval. • What if wetlands are located on the property? Chapter 26 of the Municipal Code (Subdivision) requires the applicant to identify any wetlands located on the site. This property historically was a part of a larger wetland that covered other property to the east and north. Over the years the property has been modified with fill and development has occurred on abutting property to the east and north. The determination of whether a wetland exists on the property could not be made prior to Planning Commission consideration because the ground was still frozen. The applicant’s consultant has now completed the delineation and found that the once existing wetland has been degraded to a point where it is no longer considered a wetland. This report will be submitted to the MCWD for final wetland determination. The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District is the governing body that regulates wetlands that are located in St. Louis Park. The applicant is required to seek several permits from MCWD in order to move forward with this project. The MCWD will also be reviewing erosion control, floodplain, and wetland regulations prior to issuing the required permits. The City will require MCWD permit approvals as a condition of approval of both the conditional use permit and the subdivision. • What other approvals are necessary? As stated above, permits are required from Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Following approval by the City Council of the preliminary plat, the Planning Commission will review and City Council must also approve a final plat. • Does the request comply with all zoning requirements? The proposed plan for detached townhouses will be evaluated as single family homes when applying Zoning Ordinance standards. The conditions of approval for the conditional use permit and plat will include compliance with all code requirements. • Are the proposed preliminary plat and accompanying plans acceptable? Does the proposed Preliminary Plat meet the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance? Submittal Requirements: The Subdivision Ordinance requires that a preliminary plat document meeting certain design and information requirements. In addition, preliminary grading, utility, tree preservation, and landscape plans are required as part of the application submittal. Preliminary grading, utility, tree preservation, and landscape plans were submitted with the application and accepted by City staff. The Planning Commission has recommended changes to the landscape plan to increase tree replacement. Staff has included a condition of approval requiring the revised landscape plan as part of the final plat. In addition, storm water calculations have been submitted and accepted by the Public Works Department. Appropriate City departments, the City attorney, and utility companies have reviewed the proposed plat and have raised no objections. The fire department has requested that existing and proposed fire hydrant locations acceptable to the fire department be identified on the final utility plan. Preliminary Plat. The preliminary plat drawing reflects required utility and drainage easements as well as requested trail easements and right of way dedication. The trail easements cannot be dedicated on a plat, and the developer will be required to provide separate easement documents prior to signing the final plat. The preliminary plat also shows the required sidewalk along Vernon Avenue. No variances are being requested. Other documents will be required prior to final plat approval. These include condominium documents, title information, title insurance, final grading and landscape plans, surety to guarantee performance by the subdivider, and a development agreement if not waived by the City Council. Title Insurance: The developer will be required to provide a copy of the owner’s title insurance which insures the City’s interests in the plat (in this case for drainage and utility easements, trail easements, and right of way), in an amount to be determined by the City prior to City Council approval of the final plat. Financial Security: Financial security will be required to insure site improvements, including utilities, ponding, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalks, trails, tree replacement, landscaping, and repair/cleaning of public streets during and after construction. The financial security will be required in the form of cash escrow or a letter of credit and must be provided prior to the City signing the final plat. Grading and utility plans: The preliminary grading and utility plans show the location of a drainage pond as well as utility locations. According to the developer, the existing overhead line along the east property line will be placed underground according to the requirements of the subdivision ordinance. A utility and drainage easement will be placed over the entire common lot 7. Staff finds the plans acceptable. Sidewalks and Trails. The preliminary plat shows a 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk along Vernon Avenue. In addition, an 8-foot wide bituminous trail is proposed along the southern boundary of the proposed subdivision. These are in conformance with the requirements of the subdivision ordinance. Park and trail dedication: The proposed preliminary plat shows a 7-lot condominium plat including 6 building lots and a common lot. Since the proposed replatting does involve creation of additional lots, park and trail dedication does apply. The Park and Recreation Commission met on March 20, 2002, and made a recommendation to accept cash in lieu of park dedication. The cash contribution will be required in the amount of $900 per unit for park dedication plus a trail dedication fee of $225 per unit. Tree Replacement. The application included a tree inventory and tree removal plan. According to the plan, the developer will be required to replace a total of 962 caliper inches of trees. The proposed preliminary landscape plan shows a replacement of 194 caliper inches. The plan indicates the developer intends to pay cash in lieu replacement for the remaining 768 caliper inches. The current fee for tree replacement is $90/caliper inch. The Planning Commission recommended augmenting the landscape plan so that more tree replacement would occur on site. The applicant has agreed to explore this option. The landscape plan required as part of the final plat submission is required to include additional on-site tree replacement. Landscape Plans: The preliminary landscape plans show general tree replacement locations for the proposed project. A final landscape plan with additional replacement and more specificity is being required as part of the final plat. • Is the proposal in conformance with Comprehensive Plan goals? The Comprehensive Plan designates this site as Low Density Residential. The proposal to create 6 single-family homes is consistent with that designation. The applicant has stated that the proposed units will be owner-occupied and will contain about 1,900 square feet on the first floor plus an optional second floor. This does meet the goal of the Comprehensive Plan to create more move-up housing. The proposal to create a condominium plat for detached single-family dwelling units will create a housing option that currently does not exist in St. Louis Park. Recommendation: Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed resolutions granting conditional use permit and preliminary plat subject to the conditions listed in the resolutions. Attachments: Proposed Resolutions Preliminary Plat Preliminary Grading, Drainage, Erosion Control Plan Preliminary Utility Plan Tree Inventory Plan Preliminary Landscape Plan Prepared By: Judie Erickson, Planning Coordinator Approved By: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager RESOLUTION NO. 02-_____ A RESOLUTION GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT UNDER SECTION 36-79 AND 36-294 OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING TO PERMIT PLACEMENT OF OVER 400 CUBIC YARDS OF FILL AND FILL IN A FLOODPLAIN FOR PROPERTY ZONED R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AND FLOOD FRINGE OVERLAY DISTRICT LOCATED AT 2601 VERNON AVENUE SOUTH BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park: Findings 1. Vernon Partnership, L.L.C. has made application to the City Council for a Conditional Use Permit under Section 36-79 and 36-294 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code for the purpose of placement of up to 8,000 cubic yards of fill and fill in a floodplain within a R-1 Single Family Residential District and Flood Fringe Overlay District located at 2601 Vernon Avenue South for the legal description as follows, to-wit: That part of the West 150 feet of the following described tract lying Southerly of a line parallel with and 150 feet Southwesterly of the Northeasterly line of the following described tract to-wit: That part of the Southwest One-quarter of the Northwest One-quarter (SW ¼ of NW ¼) of Section Thirty-one, Township Twenty-nine, Range Twenty-four, lying North of the South 336.2 feet thereof, as measured along the West line of said Northwest One-quarter (NW ¼), Westerly of State Highway No. 100 and Southerly of a line bearing South 57°23’18” East from a point in the West line of said Southwest One-quarter (SW ¼) (said West line at this point assumed to be North) 340.01 feet South, as measured along said West line from the Northwest corner of the Southwest One-quarter of the Northwest One-quarter (SW ¼ of NW ¼) 764.35 feet more or less, to the Westerly right of way line of State Highway No. 100 according to the U.S. Government Survey thereof and situated in Hennepin County, Minnesota Abstract 2. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission (Case No. 02-19-CUP) and the effect of the proposed placement of up to 8,000 cubic yards of fill and fill in a floodplain on the health, safety and welfare of the occupants of the surrounding lands, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect on values of properties in the surrounding area, the effect of the use on the Comprehensive Plan, and compliance with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. The Council has determined that the placement of up to 8,000 cubic yards of fill and fill in a floodplain will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community nor will it cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards, nor will it seriously depreciate surrounding property values, and the proposed placement of up to 8,000 cubic yards of fill and fill in a floodplain is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. 4. The contents of Planning Case File 02-19-CUP are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case. Conclusion The Conditional Use Permit to permit placement of up to 8,000 cubic yards of fill and fill in a floodplain at the location described is granted based on the findings set forth above and subject to the following conditions: 1. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with Exhibit A, Preliminary Grading, Drainage, Erosion Control Plan and Exhibit B, Tree Inventory Plan such documents incorporated by reference herein. 2. Prior to any site work, the developer shall comply with the following requirements: a. Submit a copy of the Watershed District permit and evidence of approval of any other relevant agencies or jurisdictions. b. Receive City Council approval of the final plat, including a final landscape plan that includes additional on-site tree replacement. c. Provide evidence of filing of the final plat or meeting all Subdivision Ordinance requirements for issuing erosion control and utility permits including an agreement on the part of the applicant that such site work is at the applicant’s own risk. d. Meet all requirements for the City to sign the final plat. e. A statement providing a description of fill soils that meets the requirements of the City. 3. The developer shall comply with the following conditions during construction: a. The routes for bringing construction equipment, supplies, and hauling of fill shall be Highway 100 Frontage Road to West 27th Street to Vernon Avenue. b. Construction vehicles shall be prohibited from using Vernon Avenue south of W. 27th Street or 27th Street west of Vernon Avenue. c. All City noise ordinances shall be complied with, including that there be no construction activity between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. weekdays and 10 p.m. and 9 a.m. weekends and holidays. d. Loud equipment shall be kept as far as possible from residences at all times. e. Daily sweeping of all City streets along the haul route shall be required. f. The site shall be kept free of dust and debris that could blow onto neighboring properties. g. The site shall be maintained according to erosion control provisions of City Code. h. The Zoning Administrator may impose additional conditions if it becomes necessary in order to mitigate the impact of construction on surrounding properties. i. No hauling shall occur when weight restrictions are in place. j. All trees designated to remain on the site shall be fenced and protected from root and trunk damage during construction according to provisions of the City Code. 4. Prior to issuance of any building permits which may impose additional conditions the developer shall comply with the following: a. The subdivider shall furnish the City with evidence of recording of the final plat and trail easements. b. The building permit plans shall comply with all City Ordinances. c. The developer and owner, if different, shall sign the assent form and official exhibits. 5. The development shall comply in all respects with any conditions of final plat approval and all other City Ordinances. 6. The developer shall pay an administrative fine of $750 per violation of any conditions of this resolution. 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 May 6, 2002 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk 02-19-CUP/N:res-ord RESOLUTION NO. 02-____ RESOLUTION GIVING APPROVAL FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT OF TOWNHOMES OF VERNON OAKS BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of St. Louis Park: Findings 1. Vernon Partnership, LLC, owners and subdividers of the land proposed to be platted as Townhomes of Vernon Oaks have submitted an application for approval of preliminary plat of said subdivision in the manner required for platting of land under the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, and all proceedings have been duly had thereunder. 2. The proposed preliminary plat has been found to be in all respects consistent with the City Plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and the ordinances of the City of St. Louis Park. 3. The proposed plat is situated upon the following described lands in Hennepin County, Minnesota, to-wit: That part of the West 150 feet of the following described tract lying Southerly of a line parallel with and 150 feet Southwesterly of the Northeasterly line of the following described tract to-wit: That part of the Southwest One-quarter of the Northwest One-quarter (SW ¼ of NW ¼) of Section Thirty-one, Township Twenty-nine, Range Twenty-four, lying North of the South 336.2 feet thereof, as measured along the West line of said Northwest One-quarter (NW ¼), Westerly of State Highway No. 100 and Southerly of a line bearing South 57°23’18” East from a point in the West line of said Southwest One-quarter (SW ¼) (said West line at this point assumed to be North) 340.01 feet South, as measured along said West line from the Northwest corner of the Southwest One-quarter of the Northwest One-quarter (SW ¼ of NW ¼) 764.35 feet more or less, to the Westerly right of way line of State Highway No. 100 according to the U.S. Government Survey thereof and situated in Hennepin County, Minnesota Abstract Conclusion 1. The proposed preliminary plat of Townhomes of Vernon Oaks is hereby approved and accepted by the City as being in accord and conformity with all ordinances, City plans and regulations of the City of St. Louis Park and the laws of the State of Minnesota, subject to the following conditions: 2. Prior to Final Plat consideration by the Planning Commission the developer shall submit the following: a. Final grading, utility, and erosion and sediment control, and landscaping plans. The utility plans shall include the locations of both existing and proposed fire hydrants and are subject to approval by the Fire Department. The landscape plans shall include additional on-site tree replacement. b. A copy of the owner’s policy of title insurance which insures the City’s interests in the plat, in an amount to be determined by the City. c. A copy of townhouse association by-laws and covenant documents, to be approved by the City Attorney. 3. Prior to the City signing the final plat the developer shall provide the following: a. Financial security in the form of cash escrow or a letter of credit in an amount equal to 125% of the cost of site improvements, including utilities, ponding, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalks, trails, tree replacement, landscaping, and an amount determined by the City for repair/cleaning of public streets, utilities, and potential damage to neighboring properties. b. Park and trail dedication fees based upon a 6-unit development in the amount $6,750 as recommended by the Park and Recreation Commission. c. Cash in lieu of tree replacement fees, the exact amount to be determined by the total replacement requirement less the trees replaced on site per the approved final landscape plan. Fees shall be based upon the rate of $90 per caliper inch. d. Financial security in the form of cash escrow in the amount of $1,000 to ensure the City receives a reproducible tracing of the final plat showing evidence of recording; such escrow to be returned upon receipt of the reproducible tracing (mylar). e. A development agreement in a form approved by the City Attorney. 4. Within 120 days of the final plat approval, the subdivider shall record the final plat with the County Recorder. The subdivider shall immediately following recording provide the City 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. No building permits shall be issued for the project until evidence is provided to the City of recording of the final plat. 5. Prior to or simultaneously with recording of the final plat, a trail easement shall be recorded. 6. Prior to any site work the developer shall meet the following requirements: a. Submit a copy of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District permit. b. Sign the assent form and all official exhibits, as approved by the City. c. Execute the Development Agreement and meet all Subdivision Ordinance requirements for issuing erosion control and utility permits. 7. Prior to issuing any building permits, which may impose additional requirements, the developer shall comply with the following: a. Furnish the City with evidence of having recorded the final plat and trail easements. b. Meet any other conditions as required by the Development Agreement. 8. The development shall comply in all respects with any conditions for CUP approval and all other City Ordinances. 9. The developer shall pay any administrative fine of $750 per violation of any conditions of this resolution. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council May 6, 2002 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk 02-06-S-prelim/N:res-ord CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 6, 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 plans and specifications for the building at the Oak Park Village site and authorize staff to solicit bids. 2. Motion to amend and correct Resolution 02-002 granting approval of Final PUD and Plat for Pointe West Commons One and Two by adopting a resolution approving Final PUD for Pointe West Commons One and Two with new legal description and a separate resolution approving amendment to final Plat for Pointe West Commons One and Two. 3. Motion to adopt the attached resolution authorizing the restriction of parking on the south and north sides of Excelsior Boulevard from Park Center Boulevard/Wooddale Avenue to Yosemite Avenue. Traffic Study No. 562 4. Bid Tabulation: Motion to designate Minnesota Electric Supply Company the lowest responsible bidder and authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of $346,574.43 for supplying street lighting fixtures and poles for the Excelsior Boulevard Streetscape, Project No. 99-05. 5. Bid Tabulation: Motion to designate C.S. McCrossan, Inc. the lowest responsible bidder for bituminous mixture No. 2340 Type 41B, and Midwest Asphalt Corporation the lowest responsible bidder for mixture No. 2340 Type 41A and bituminous cold patch material and authorize execution of contracts with the firms in the amount of $11,500.00 and $53,900.00, respectively. 6. Motion to accept the following reports for filing: a. Planning Commission Minutes of April 17, 2002 b. BOZA Minutes of April 2, 2002-05-01 c. Human Rights Commission Minutes of February 20, 2002 d. Housing Authority Minutes of March 13, 2002 e. Vendor Claims CONSENT ITEM # 1 St. Louis Park City Council Meeting of May 6, 2002 1. Motion to approve plans and specifications for the building at the Oak Park Village site and authorize staff to solicit bids. Background The City Council approved an agreement for professional design and architectural services with the firm of Bentz/Thompson/Rietow, Inc. (BTR) at their December 3, 2001 meeting. Since that time, staff has been working with Bruce Cornwall from BTR on the design of the building. Timelines Pending Council approval tonight, the project will be bid in May. Bids will be due and opened in late May. The Council will be asked to accept the lowest responsible bidder at their meeting on June 3, 2002. The project would then begin in June as the contractor's construction timelines allow. The building contractor will be working closely with Glenn Rehbein Excavating, Inc., the site contractor, to ensure that both projects work cooperatively. Environmental Concerns Bill Gregg from ENSR is the City's environmental consultant for the project. Mr. Gregg and others from ENSR will be on site as necessary to monitor the soil that is excavated for the building footings. Public Art Staff is working with Jack Becker from FORECAST Public Artworks to contract with various artists to incorporated elements of public art into the park. Artists have begun working on the playground area and the entrance feature at the corner of Highway 7 and Walker Street. An artist will be selected to work with Bruce Cornwall on the window/glass component of the building. All of the art at this park will have a children theme involved in the design. Cost Estimate As you are aware, we have scaled down the design of the park. Staff believes it will be functional in the revised design. We will work with the youth associations on building storage space in another location on site at a later date if the associations believe it is necessary. At this time, staff is unclear what the storage need is and what ability they may have to raise money. Although we don't know what the bids are for the construction, we anticipate that the cost will be in the $490,000-$520,000 range. Prepared by: Cynthia S. Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager CONSENT ITEM # 2 St. Louis Park City Council Meeting of May 6, 2002 2. Motion to amend and correct Resolution 02-002 granting approval of final PUD and Plat for Pointe West Commons One and Two by adopting a resolution approving final PUD for Pointe West Commons One and Two with new legal description and a separate resolution approving amendment to final Plat for Pointe West Commons One and Two. Background: On January 7, 2002, the City Council approved Resolution No. 02-002 granting a major amendment to the final PUD for Pointe West Commons One and Two. Procedurally, the City Attorney’s office files planning resolutions with Hennepin County following City Council adoption. Hennepin County follows certain procedures for accepting resolutions for filing. For instance, they will not accept resolutions where the legal description has been changed or is incorrect and they will not accept a resolution approving or amending a plat after the plat itself has been filed. The County rejected Resolution 02-002 for both of these reasons. The attached resolutions separate the Pointe West Commons PUD approval from the plat approval. It also changes the property description on the PUD resolution to reflect the new description created by the plat. This will enable the City Attorney’s office to file the PUD resolution. The new resolution approving the plat will not be filed since the plat has already been filed. However, it will become part of the City’s records. In the future, whenever a plat is involved with a PUD, these will be brought to the Council on separate resolutions. Attachments: Resolution approving final PUD for Pointe West Commons One and Two Resolution approving final plat for Pointe West Commons One and Two Prepared by: Janet Jeremiah, Planning and Zoning Supervisor Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 2197:n RESOLUTION NO. 02-045 Amends and Restates Resolutions 00-060, 00-075, 00-118, 01-015, 01-079, 02-002 A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION 02-002 APPROVED ON JANUARY 7, 2002 APPROVING FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) UNDER SECTION 14:6-7 OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING FOR PROPERTY ZONED “O” OFFICE AND R-4 MILTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOCATED AT NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF WEST 16TH STREET & ZARTHAN AVENUE WHEREAS, the City Council approved the Preliminary PUD on May 1, 2000, Resolution No. 00-060; and WHEREAS, an application for approval of a Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) was received on May 22, 2000 from the applicant, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the Final PUD at its meeting of June 7, 2000, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Final PUD on a 4- 0 vote with all members present voting in the affirmative, and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 00-075 on June 19, 2000 approving the Final PUD, and WHEREAS, on August 7, 2000 an application was received for a major amendment to the approved Planned Unit Development, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, reviewed the amendment at its meeting of September 6, 2000 and recommended approval of amendment on a vote of 6-0 with all members present voting in the affirmative, and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 00-118 on September 18, 2000 approving a major amendment to the approved Planned Unit Development, and WHEREAS, on January 11, 2001 an application was received for a minor amendment to the approved Planned Unit Development to increase the setbacks and elevations of two townhome buildings on 16th Street, and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 01-015 on February 20, 2001 approving a minor amendment to the approved Planned Unit Development to increase the setbacks and elevations of two townhome buildings on 16th Street, and WHEREAS, on June 18, 2001 an application was received for a major amendment to the approved Planned Unit Development to add two townhomes onto an existing building, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, reviewed the amendment at its meeting of August 1, 2001 and recommended approval of the amendment on a vote of 5-1 with five members voting in the affirmative, and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 01-079 on August 20, 2001 approving a major amendment to the Planned Unit Development to add two townhomes onto an existing building, and WHEREAS, on November 5, 2001 an application was received for a major amendment to the approved Planned Unit Development to allow additional occupancy prior to roadway and signal improvements, and WHEREAS the Planning Commission held a public hearing, reviewed the amendment at its meeting of December 5, 2001 and recommended approval of the amendment on a vote of 4-0 with four members voting in the affirmative, and WHEREAS the City Council adopted Resolution No. 02-002 on January 7, 2002 approving a major amendment to the approved Planned Unit Development to allow additional occupancy prior to roadway and signal improvements, and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the staff reports, Planning Commission minutes and testimony of those appearing at the public hearing or otherwise including comments in the record of decision. BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park: Findings 1. CSM Hospitality, Inc. and Rottlund Companies have made application to the City Council for a Planned Unit Development under Section 14:6-7 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code within the “O” Office and R-4 Multiple Family Residential districts located at the Northwest quadrant of West 16th Street and Zarthan Avenue for the legal description as follows, to-wit: Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Pointe West Commons One and Lots 1, 2, 3, Block 1; Lot 1, Block 2; Lot 1, Block 3; and Outlot A and Outlot B, Pointe West Commons Two 2. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission (Case No. 01-39-PUD ) and the effect of the proposed PUD on the health, safety and welfare of the occupants of the surrounding lands, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect on values of properties in the surrounding area, the effect of the use on the Comprehensive Plan, and compliance with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. The City Council has determined that the PUD will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community nor with certain contemplated traffic improvements will it cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards, nor will it seriously depreciate surrounding property values. The Council has also determined that the proposed PUD is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan and that the requested modifications comply with the requirements of Section 14:6-7.2(E). 4. The contents of Planning Case File 01-39-PUD are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case. Conclusion The Final Planned Unit Development at the location described is approved based on the findings set forth above and subject to the following conditions: A. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with the Official Exhibits A through M. Exhibit L, building elevations shall be revised to show only approved materials, i.e. brick, glass, Hardiplank and rock face block, rather than vinyl on the fronts of the townhouses and brick and rock face block on side townhouse elevations. Exhibit E, grading plan shall be subject to further refinements on the park site as approved by Public Works and Park and Rec Directors. Exhibit G, tree replacement plan to be revised to reflect correct number of existing trees on site and trees to be removed. Exhibit M, building material samples shall be submitted and approved. Exhibits B and E are replaced by revised plat and plans per the approved plat and PUD amendments on September 18, 2000. Exhibits E and F are replaced by revised grading and utility plans as approved on February 20, 2001. Exhibits A, E and F are modified by revised site, grading and utility plans as approved on August 20, 2001. B. Final PUD approval and development is contingent upon developer meeting all conditions of final plat approval including all MNDOT requirements. C. Prior to any site work, the developer and property owner(s) shall meet the following requirements: 1. A drainage permit shall be obtained from MNDOT, if required. 2. A copy of the Watershed District permit(s) shall be forwarded to the City. 3. Any other necessary permits from other agencies shall be obtained. 4. Sign assent form and all official exhibits, as approved by the City. 5. Meet conditions of City signing final plat. 6. Meet any other conditions as required by the Development Agreement. D. The developer shall comply with the following conditions during construction: 1. Construction vehicles shall be prohibited from using Zarthan Avenue south of W. 16th Street, Alabama Avenue, and Blackstone Avenue. 2. All City noise ordinances shall be complied with, including that there be no construction activity between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. 3. Loud equipment shall be kept as far as possible from residences at all times. 4. The site shall be kept free of dust and debris that could blow onto neighboring properties. 5. Public streets shall be maintained free of dirt and shall be cleaned as necessary. 6. The Zoning Administrator may impose additional conditions if it becomes necessary in order to mitigate the impact of construction on surrounding properties. E. Prior to issuance of any building permits, which may impose additional requirements, the developer shall comply with the following: 1. Meet any Fire Department emergency access requirements for during construction. 2. The subdivider shall furnish the City with evidence of having submitted the final plat and cross-parking easement agreement for recording. 3. Lighting plans to be submitted to and approved by the Zoning Administrator for the entire development. Lighting design is to be compatible throughout the development, and shall meet all City standards. 4. Signage plans to be submitted and approved by the Zoning Administrator (a sign permit is required). 5. Meet any other conditions as required by the Development Agreement. F. Assuming other conditions have been met, a maximum of four buildings (66 units) may be occupied prior to completion of public roadway and signal improvements. Residents’ access to and from the first three townhome buildings shall be via the Zarthan Avenue entrance, unless the Zarthan entrance must be temporarily closed to accommodate completion of public improvements. When the fourth building is completed, residents may use the 16th Street entrance, unless the 16th entrance must be temporarily closed to accommodate public improvements. The fifth building at the intersection at 16th and Zarthan may not be occupied until all roadway improvements are complete and the new traffic signal is operational. (amended September 18, 2000 and January 7, 2002) G. A PUD ordinance modification to allow 465 parking stalls rather than the required 466 stalls and building and sign setbacks as shown on the approved site plan are contingent upon final PUD approval. H. Should the Zoning Administrator determine that parking is a problem in the future, the City may require proof of parking to be converted to parking. I. The developer shall attempt to obtain a written agreement to share parking during off-peak hours with the bank across Zarthan Avenue as overflow parking for the hotels. J. Hardiplank is approved for this development on a trial basis as a Class II material and may be used as shown on the Official Exhibits. K. The Final Planned Unit Development shall be amended on September 18, 2000 to incorporate all of the preceding conditions and add the following conditions: 1. Conditions A and F are modified as noted above. 2. If the CP Rail parcel does not become part of the publicly owned park, the developer shall pay an additional $28,000 in park dedication fees to the City. 3. Construction vehicles shall be prohibited from using 16th Street except for construction related to the park, 16th Street roadway improvements and other improvements adjacent to 16th St (e.g. sidewalks). The developer shall observe all local and state weight restrictions on roads within the City. Construction vehicles shall be permitted to use the townhouse entrance on Zarthan Avenue, provided signage is placed on northbound and southbound Zarthan Avenue and westbound 16th Street in accordance with the MN Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, to be approved by the Public Works Department. If the City determines that construction activity is causing traffic conflicts, it may require the developer to provide flag people to facilitate safe traffic on the adjacent roads. 4. If the property is part of the Parade of Homes prior to realignment of Zarthan Avenue, flag people shall be required to direct Parade traffic to and from the Zarthan Avenue entrance, and Parade traffic shall be prohibited from using 16th Street. If Parade parking cannot be accommodated on site, or is interfering with fire lanes, traffic circulation, etc., the Zoning Administrator may require the developer to provide alternative parking on nearby private property. L. The Final Planned Unit Development shall be amended on February 20, 2001 to incorporate all of the preceding conditions and add the following conditions: 1. Condition A is modified as noted above. 2. The materials for the retaining walls being constructed along West 16th Street shall be similar to the materials used on adjacent retaining walls along West 16th Street east of Zarthan Avenue. These materials shall be submitted and approved by the Zoning Administrator prior to the construction of the walls. M. The developer shall pay an administrative fine of $750.00 per violation of any conditions set forth in this resolution. N. The Final Planned Unit Development shall be amended on August 20, 2001 to incorporate all of the preceding conditions and add the following conditions: 1. Both CSM and Rottlund must sign the amended official exhibits and new assent form. 2. The developers shall install signs at each project entrance indicating the approved times for construction. 3. Rottlund shall provide the Blackstone Neighborhood president and City staff with the site supervisor’s home telephone number. 4. In the event that City staff determines that construction activity continues outside of approved hours, Rottlund shall provide an on-site night security guard at Rottlund’s expense, to ensure that such violations do not continue. 5. Conditions A and M are modified as noted above. O. The Final Planned Unit Development shall be amended on January 7, 2002 to incorporate all of the preceding conditions and add the following conditions: 1. Condition F. is modified as noted above. 2. The developer is required to coordinate private improvements with the future schedule for public improvements, which may include the temporary closing of certain project entrances and other disruptions. 3. The developer is required to accommodate any emergency access requirements of the Fire Marshall. 4. The Rottlund Company agrees to initiate the construction of the last townhouse building in this project by no later than May 31, 2002. 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 May 6, 2002 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 02-046 Amends and Restates Resolutions 00-060, 00-075, 00-118, 01-015, 01-079, 02-002 A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION 02-002 APPROVED ON JANUARY 7, 2002 APPROVING FINAL PLAT – POINTE WEST COMMONS ONE AND TWO WHEREAS, the City Council approved the Preliminary Plat on May 1, 2000 Resolution No. 00-060; and WHEREAS, an application for approval of Final Plat for Pointe West Commons One and Two was received on May 22, 2000 from the applicant, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the Final Plat at its meeting of June 7, 2000, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Final Plat on a 4- 0 vote with all members present voting in the affirmative, and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 00-075 on June 19, 2000 approving the Final Plat – Pointe West Commons One and Two, and WHEREAS, on August 7, 2000 an application was received for an amendment to the preliminary and final plat for Pointe West Commons One, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, reviewed the amendment at its meeting of September 6, 2000 and recommended approval of the amendment on a vote of 6-0 with all members present voting in the affirmative, and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 00-118 on September 18, 2000 approving an amendment to the preliminary and final plat for Pointe West Commons One and Two, and WHEREAS, on January 11, 2001 an application was received for a minor amendment to the approved Planned Unit Development to increase the setbacks and elevations of two townhome buildings on 16th Street, and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 01-015 on February 20, 2001 approving a minor amendment to the approved Planned Unit Development to increase the setbacks and elevations of two townhome buildings on 16th Street, and WHEREAS, on June 18, 2001 an application was received for a major amendment to the approved Planned Unit Development to add two townhomes onto an existing building, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, reviewed the amendment at its meeting of August 1, 2001 and recommended approval of the amendment on a vote of 5-1 with five members voting in the affirmative, and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 01-079 on August 20, 2001 approving a major amendment to the Planned Unit Development to add two townhomes onto an existing building, and WHEREAS, on November 5, 2001 an application was received for a major amendment to the approved Planned Unit Development to allow additional occupancy prior to roadway and signal improvements, and WHEREAS the Planning Commission held a public hearing, reviewed the amendment at its meeting of December 5, 2001 and recommended approval of the amendment on a vote of 4-0 with four members voting in the affirmative, and WHEREAS the City Council adopted Resolution No. 02-002 on January 7, 2002 approving a major amendment to the approved Final Planned Unit Development and Final Plat to allow additional occupancy prior to roadway and signal improvements, and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the staff reports, Planning Commission minutes and testimony of those appearing at the public hearing or otherwise including comments in the record of decision. BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park: Findings 1. CSM Hospitality, Inc. and Rottlund Companies, owners and subdividers of the land proposed to be platted as Pointe West Commons One and Two have submitted an application for approval of final plat of said subdivision in the manner required for platting of land under the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, and all proceedings have been duly had thereunder; for the legal description as follows, to-wit: See Attached Legal Description 2. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission (Case No. 01-39-PUD ) and the effect of the proposed Plat on the health, safety and welfare of the occupants of the surrounding lands, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect on values of properties in the surrounding area, the effect of the use on the Comprehensive Plan, and compliance with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. The City Council has determined that the proposed subdivision will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community nor with certain contemplated traffic improvements will it cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards, nor will it seriously depreciate surrounding property values. The Council has also determined that the proposed subdivision is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. 4. The contents of Planning Case File 01-39-PUD are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case. Conclusion The Final Plat at the location described is approved based on the findings set forth above and subject to the following conditions: A. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with the Pointe West Commons One and Two Final PUD Official Exhibits which may be amended by City approval. B. Final plat approval and development is contingent upon developer meeting all conditions of final approval including all MNDOT requirements and all conditions of Final PUD approval. C. Before a final plat is signed by the City, the developer shall comply with the following requirements: 1. Building elevations to be revised per Final PUD approval. 2. 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. A development agreement shall be executed or amended between the developer and the City/EDA which covers at a minimum, dedication of Outlot A, Pointe West Commons Two, as City park land, grading of the park, cash in-lieu of additional park and trail dedication, realignment of Zarthan Avenue and installation of a traffic signal at 16th Street and Zarthan Avenue, conditions under which site work may occur and/or building permits be issued for hotels and townhouse site, sidewalk construction and maintenance, tree replacement, and repair and cleaning of public streets. The development agreement shall also cite the approved ordinance modifications. 4. Submit financial security in the form of cash escrow or letter of credit in the amount of 125% of the costs of on-site tree replacement, public sidewalk installation, utility repair, and repair/cleaning of public streets. 5. Execute formal agreement with City to allow park patrons to share on-site guest parking for townhomes. 6. Submit cross-easement agreement(s) for shared parking between the two hotels and the townhomes, to be approved by City attorney. 7. Submit townhouse association by-laws and covenant documents, to be approved by the City attorney. 8. Submit cash in lieu of on-site tree replacement to the City. The exact amount shall be determined by the number of off-site tree replacement inches required and shall be approved by the Park and Recreation Director and the Community Development Director, based upon a rate of $60 per caliper inch. 9. Submit cash reimbursement of City attorney’s fees in drafting/reviewing such documents. 10. Submit cash park and trail dedication fee of $13,040.67. D. Within 90 days of final plat approval by the City Council, the subdivider shall record the final plat and easements with the County Recorder. The subdivider shall, immediately upon recording, furnish the City Clerk with a print and reproducible tracing of the final plat and copies of easement documents showing evidence of the recording. The subdivider shall also provide a copy of the final plat on disc in an electronic data format. E. Prior to any site work, the developer and property owner(s) shall meet the following requirements: 1. A drainage permit shall be obtained from MnDOT, if required. 2. A copy of the Watershed District permit(s) shall be forwarded to the City. 3. Any other necessary permits from other agencies shall be obtained. 4. Sign assent form and all official exhibits, as approved by City. 5. Meet conditions of City signing final plat. 6. Meet any other conditions as required by the Development Agreement F. The developer shall comply with the following conditions during construction: 1. Construction vehicles shall be prohibited from using Zarthan Avenue south of W. 16th Street, Alabama Avenue, and Blackstone Avenue. 2. All City noise ordinances shall be complied with, including that there be no construction activity between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. 3. Loud equipment shall be kept as far as possible from residences at all times. 4. The site shall be kept free of dust and debris that could blow onto neighboring properties. 5. Public streets shall be maintained free of dirt and shall be cleaned as necessary. 6. The Zoning Administrator may impose additional conditions if it becomes necessary in order to mitigate the impact of construction on surrounding properties. G. Prior to issuance of any building permits, which may impose additional requirements, the developer shall comply with the following: 6. Meet any Fire Department emergency access requirements for during construction. 7. The subdivider shall furnish the City with evidence of having submitted the final plat and cross-parking easement agreement for recording. 8. Lighting plans to be submitted to and approved by the Zoning Administrator for the entire development. Lighting design is to be compatible throughout the development, and shall meet all City standards. 9. Signage plans to be submitted and approved by the Zoning Administrator (a sign permit is required). 10. Meet any other conditions as required by the Development Agreement. H. The Preliminary and Final Plat for Pointe West Commons One and Two shall be amended on September 18, 2000 to incorporate all of the preceding conditions and add the following conditions: 1. The official exhibits are amended as noted in the Final PUD resolution, Condition A. 5. If the CP Rail parcel does not become part of the publicly owned park, the developer shall pay an additional $28,000 in park dedication fees to the City. 6. Construction vehicles shall be prohibited from using 16th Street except for construction related to the park, 16th Street roadway improvements and other improvements adjacent to 16th St (e.g. sidewalks). The developer shall observe all local and state weight restrictions on roads within the City. Construction vehicles shall be permitted to use the townhouse entrance on Zarthan Avenue, provided signage is placed on northbound and southbound Zarthan Avenue and westbound 16th Street in accordance with the MN Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, to be approved by the Public Works Department. If the City determines that construction activity is causing traffic conflicts, it may require the developer to provide flag people to facilitate safe traffic on the adjacent roads. 7. If the property is part of the Parade of Homes prior to realignment of Zarthan Avenue, flag people shall be required to direct Parade traffic to and from the Zarthan Avenue entrance, and Parade traffic shall be prohibited from using 16th Street. If Parade parking cannot be accommodated on site, or is interfering with fire lanes, traffic circulation, etc., the Zoning Administrator may require the developer to provide alternative parking on nearby private property. I. The Preliminary and Final Plat for Pointe West Commons One and Two shall be amended on February 20, 2001 to incorporate all of the preceding conditions and add the following conditions: 1. The official exhibits are amended as noted in the Final PUD resolution, Condition A. 2. The materials for the retaining walls being constructed along West 16th Street shall be similar to the materials used on adjacent retaining walls along West 16th Street east of Zarthan Avenue. These materials shall be submitted and approved by the Zoning Administrator prior to the construction of the walls. J. The developer shall pay an administrative fine of $750.00 per violation of any conditions set forth in this resolution. K. The Preliminary and Final Plat for Pointe West Commons One and Two shall be amended on August 20, 2001 to incorporate all of the preceding conditions and add the following conditions: 1. Both CSM and Rottlund must sign the amended PUD official exhibits and new assent forms. 2. The developers shall install signs at each project entrance indicating the approved times for construction. 3. Rottlund shall provide the Blackstone Neighborhood president and City staff with the site supervisor’s home telephone number. 4. In the event that City staff determines that construction activity continues outside of approved hours, Rottlund shall provide an on-site night security guard at Rottlund’s expense, to ensure that such violations do not continue. 5. The official exhibits are amended as noted in the Final PUD resolution, Condition A, and Condition J is modified as noted above. L. The Preliminary and Final Plat for Pointe West Commons One and Two shall be amended on January 7, 2002 to incorporate all of the preceding conditions and add the following conditions: 1. The developer is required to coordinate private improvements with the future schedule for public improvements, which may include the temporary closing of certain project entrances and other disruptions. 2. The developer is required to accommodate any emergency access requirements of the Fire Marshall. 3. The Rottlund Company agrees to initiate the construction of the last townhouse building in this project by no later than May 31, 2002. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council May 6, 2002 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk CONSENT ITEM #3 St. Louis Park City Council Meeting of May 6, 2002 3. Traffic Study No. 562: Motion to adopt the attached resolution authorizing the restriction of parking on the south and north sides of Excelsior Boulevard from Park Center Boulevard/Wooddale Avenue to Yosemite Avenue Background: At its regular meeting of April 1, 2002, the City Council approved the preliminary design layout, prepared by Hennepin County, for the redecking and widening of the bridge on Excelsior Boulevard (CSAH 3) from Xenwood Avenue to Park Center Boulevard, over Highway 100. This improvement was identified in the City’s Comprehensive Plan, in response to the anticipated increase in regional traffic volumes and the more intense development planned for the Town Center and Park Commons areas. At this meeting, Hennepin County was authorized to proceed with the development of final plans and specifications in preparation for submittal to the Minnesota Department of Transportation for review and approval. One of the submittal requirements is a current resolution restricting parking on the bridge and adjacent roadway approaches. Analysis: No parking is currently allowed on the bridge or on the adjacent roadways in the area proposed to be affected by this restriction, however, staff was unable to locate a resolution restricting the parking in this area. Therefore, the proposed resolution will simply sanction the current conditions. Hennepin County staff has also reviewed the resolution and approve of its wording. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following parking restrictions:  “No-parking anytime” along the north side of Excelsior Boulevard from Park Center Boulevard to Yosemite Avenue.  “No-parking anytime” along the south side of Excelsior Boulevard from Wooddale Avenue to Yosemite Avenue. It is recommended that these parking restrictions become effective immediately. Attachments: Map Resolution Prepared By: Maria A. Hagen, Engineering Reviewed By: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works Approved By: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager RESOLUTION NO. 02-047 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PARKING RESTRICTIONS ON THE NORTH SIDE OF EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD FROM PARK CENTER BOULEVARD TO YOSEMITE AVENUE; AND, ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD FROM WOODDALE AVENUE TO YOSEMITE AVENUE TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 562 WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota has studied and has determined that traffic controls are necessary at this location. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that the Director of Public Works is hereby authorized to install the following controls: 1. “No-parking anytime” along the north side of Excelsior Boulevard from Park Center Boulevard to Yosemite Avenue. 2. “No-parking anytime” along the south side of Excelsior Boulevard from Wooddale Avenue to Yosemite Avenue. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council May 6, 2002 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk CONSENT ITEM #4 St. Louis Park City Council Meeting of May 6, 2002 4. Bid Tabulation: Motion to designate Minnesota Electric Supply Company the lowest responsible bidder and authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of $346,574.43 for supplying street lighting fixtures and poles for the Excelsior Boulevard Streetscape, Project No. 99-05. Background: Bids were received on April 17, 2002 for the purchase of street lighting fixtures and poles for the Excelsior Boulevard Streetscape from Quentin Avenue to Monterey Drive, City Project No. 99-05. Advertisement for bids were published in the St. Louis Park Sun-Sailor on April 3, 2002 and in the Construction Bulletin on March 29, April 5, and 12, 2002. A summary of the bid results is as follows: Bidder Bid Amount Minnesota Electric Supply Company $346,574.43 Carlo Lachman Singh Sales, Inc. $351,987.83 Graybar Electric Company $354,975.15 Xcel Energy $400,725.42 Engineer’s Estimate: $353,712.06 Evaluation of Bids: A total of four (4) companies submitted bids. A review of the bids indicates Minnesota Electric Supply Company (Minnesota Electric) submitted the lowest bid. Minnesota Electric is the same company under a new name that previously supplied the City’s fixtures and poles for the Streetscape projects. Staff has determined that Minnesota Electric is the lowest responsible bidder and recommends a contract be awarded to the firm in the amount of $346,574.43. Financial Considerations: The Streetscape fixtures and poles are part of the Excelsior Boulevard Streetscape project and is proposed to be funded through expenditure of Tax Increment Funds. Prepared by: Carlton Moore, Superintendent of Engineering Maria Hagen, City Engineer Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager CONSENT ITEM # 5 St. Louis Park City Council Meeting of May 6, 2002 5. Bid Tabulation: Motion to designate C.S. McCrossan, Inc. the lowest responsible bidder for bituminous mixture No. 2340 Type 41B, and Midwest Asphalt Corporation the lowest responsible bidder for mixture No. 2340 Type 41A and bituminous cold patch material and authorize execution of contracts with the firms in the amount of $11,500.00 and $53,900.00, respectively. Background: Bids were received on April 24, 2002 for furnishing bituminous patching materials used for street repair as provided in the Street Division’s 2002 Operating Budget. An advertisement for bids was published in the St. Louis Park Sun-Sailor on April 10, 2002 and in the Construction Bulletin on April 12, 2002. A summary of the bid results is as follows: Plant Mix Bituminous Mixtures (Price Per Ton) Vendor Bituminous Mix 2340 Type 41B Bituminous Mix 2340 Type 41A Bituminous Cold Patch * Midwest Asphalt $ 24.00 $ 24.50 $ 49.00 * C.S. McCrossan, Inc. $ 23.00 $ 24.00 No Bid Bituminous Roadways $ 23.00 $ 24.00 $ 48.00 Commercial Asphalt $ 26.20 $ 27.30 No Bid 2001 Price $ 22.50 23.50 $49.00 Basis of Bids 500 tons 2,000 tons 100 tons * Recommended Low Bid based on bid price and travel time (see financial considerations) Financial Considerations: As stipulated in the bid documents, travel time to and from the asphalt plant is significant to the bid award. Current rates for a truck and operator are $56.97 per hour. Following is an analysis of the bids considering plant location: 1. Round trip drive time from Louisiana Avenue and Minnetonka Boulevard to: Midwest Asphalt 36 minutes = 0.60 hour C.S. McCrossan, Inc. 43 minutes = 0.72 hour Commercial Asphalt Company 45 minutes = 0.75 hour Bituminous Roadways, Inc. 46 minutes = 0.77 hour 2. Cost per trip: Midwest Asphalt 0.60 hour x $56.97/hour = $34.18 C.S. McCrossan, Inc. 0.72 hour x $56.97/hour = $41.02 Commercial Asphalt Company 0.75 hour x $56.97/hour = $42.73 Bituminous Roadways, Inc. 0.77 hour x $56.97/hour = $43.87 3. Total cost per ton: Basis of calculation - 8 tons per trip. Vendor Bituminous Mix 2340 Type41B 500 tons Bituminous Mix 2340 Type 41A 2000 tons Bituminous Cold Patch 100 tons * Midwest Asphalt Corp. $28.27 $28.77 $53.27 (($24.00x8)+$34.18)÷8) (($24.50x8)+$34.18÷8) (($49.00x8)+$34.18)÷8) * C.S. McCrossan, Inc $28.13 $29.13 No Bid (($23.00x8)+$41.02)÷8) (($24.00x8)+$41.02)÷8) -- Bituminous Roadways, Inc. $28.48 $29.48 $53.48 (($23.00x8)+$43.87)÷8) (($24.00x8)+$43.87)÷8) (($48.00x8)+$43.87)÷8) Commercial Asphalt Co. $31.54 $32.64 No Bid (($26.20x8)+$42.73)÷8) (($27.30x8)+$42.73)÷8) -- * Lowest Cost in Bold Based upon the information provided, the lowest total cost for the two (2) 2340 specification bituminous mixtures is when the mixtures are picked up at C.S. McCrossan, Inc. and Midwest Asphalt Corporation facilities. The lowest total cost for bituminous cold patch is when the material is picked up at the Midwest Asphalt Corporation facility. Accordingly, staff recommends the mixture No. 2340 Type 41B specification bituminous mixture supply contract be awarded to C.S. McCrossan, Inc. and bituminous mixture No. 2340 Type 41A and bituminous cold patch supply contract be awarded to Midwest Asphalt Corporation. If the contracts are awarded as recommended, the total 2340 Type 41B specification for bituminous mixture cost for 2002 will be $11,500.00, as bid by C.S. McCrossan, Inc., the bituminous mixture No. 2340 Type 41A will be $49,000.00, and the total bituminous cold patch material will be $4,900.00, as bid by Midwest Asphalt Corporation. When the 2340 specification bituminous mixture cost is combined with the cost of bituminous cold patch material, the 2002 estimated bituminous material expenditures would be approximately $65,400.00. The 2002 Street Division Operating Budget for the bituminous materials is $53,900. The bid amount is derived using the estimated quantities and the bid unit price. The actual quantity to be used shall be reduced so as not to exceed the budget amount. If this is not possible, a budget revision will be requested to cover the additional expenses. Prepared by: Scott Merkley, Public Works Coordinator Through: Michael Rardin, Public Works Director Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager CONSENT ITEM # 6a Official Minutes PLANNING COMMISSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA April 17, 2002 -- 6:00 p.m. Council Chambers MEMBERS PRESENT: Michelle Bissonnette, Phillip Finkelstein, Michael Garelick, Dennis Morris, Carl Robertson, Jerry Timian MEMBERS ABSENT: Ken Gothberg STAFF PRESENT: Janet Jeremiah, Julie Grove, Nancy Sells 1. Call to order - Roll Call Co Vice-Chair Bissonnette called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. Janet Jeremiah introduced Julie Grove, Associate Planner. 2. Approval of Minutes of April 3, 2002 Commissioner Morris moved approval of the minutes of April 3, 2002. The motion passed 4- 0-2. Commissioners Bissonnette and Timian abstained. 3. Hearings: A. Case No. 02-05-CUP Continued Public Hearing on Santorini Restaurant’s Request for a Major Amendment to a Continued Special Permit for Rooftop Events at 9920 & 9908 Wayzata Blvd. Planning and Zoning Supervisor Janet Jeremiah reported that the applicant has submitted a letter requesting a 45-day extension, and staff recommends continuance of this public hearing until May 1, 2002; the City Council could hear this request on May 20th in order to accommodate the requested 45-day extension. Commissioner Garelick stated he has met with the applicant on site several times in regard to the parking situation, and he favors the applicant’s request for additional summer activities on the rooftop. Ms. Jeremiah said limiting circulation through the site with a one-way design may be a solution for additional parking. She said Denny Hecker’s letter regarding parking has been taken into consideration, which would accommodate the additional parking spaces needed for the rooftop use; currently, the applicant is short 33 parking spaces of the required 189 parking spaces for the permanent restaurant use according to their most recent submittal and the requirements of the approved Special Permit. Ms. Jeremiah said an option may be to reduce the parking space widths to 8 ½ feet wide if a complete redesign of the lot is considered. She said there are no compact parking spaces allowed for restaurants and retail due to high volume turnover and uncertainty whether customers would have compact cars. Commissioner Robertson asked what would happen if the applicant cannot comply with the 1990 Special Permit. Ms. Jeremiah said if the applicant cannot comply, they are given one year to come into compliance, and if they are unable to comply, the restaurant would become a nonconforming use. The restaurant could apply for a new conditional use permit with variances to the parking requirements. However, a new Conditional Use Permit would require removal of the non-conforming billboards. The property owner, who is not the applicant, stated he is not amenable to that idea. Commissioner Garelick said an outdoor restaurant would attract customers and positively impact the quality of life in St. Louis Park. Applicant Tony Nicklow, said business volume during the summer, especially weekends, drops 20-40%, and Mr. Nicklow perceives no parking problem due to the drop in summer business. Mr. Nicklow’s involvement with this site began in 1995, and he said some present day problems should have been taken care of before; in some ways, he is disappointed because his objectives to help his business and employees are being impeded. It was noted that the March 2001 letter of Mr. Steven Loe, of Restaurants No Limit which is the owner of Santorini’s, contained a typographical error, and the date should be March 2002. When asked if the letter from a nearby office owner regarding overflow event parking is adequate, Ms. Jeremiah said the City Attorney would be asked to review a formal parking agreement. Arnold Schecker, Santorini Restaurant bartender, stated the restaurant’s business drops off dramatically in the summer due, in part, to the absence of outdoor eating and drinking. Kathy Jensen, Santorini Restaurant employee, stated summer business drops significantly for the same reason Mr. Schecker cited. Applicant Jeff Holle said he submitted the current plan to his surveyors, and they are working on redesigning the parking lot. Mr. Holle said at this time they are 4-10 parking spaces short, but they have nearly reached the required 189 parking space requirement of 1990. The most recent plan will be submitted to Ms. Jeremiah shortly. Ms. Jeremiah said she consulted with the City Attorney and we must find that the property is in conformance with the approved Special Permit, which includes 189 on-site permanent parking spaces for the restaurant. Even if an applicant is within a few spaces, no variance may be granted to a Continued Special Permit that was adopted under a previous code. She said the direction from the City Attorney is, if the applicant cannot meet the Special Permit requirements, it would be a new application under current code requirements and it would require a Conditional Use Permit. Under a CUP, any additional nonconformities would have to be removed or brought into compliance—and that is where the billboards come in. Commissioner Robertson asked if the parking problem is the removal of 10 spaces from the rooftop. Ms. Jeremiah said that is correct to a certain extent, the rooftop use will displace some spaces. Current plans show displacement of 20 spaces but the applicant thinks they can reduce that. Also, the site was not improved to conform with the parking and landscape design of the approved Special Permit. That design would have increased the number of surface spaces and they should still be able to make those improvements. Commissioner Morris said he understood the rooftop use would be for special events but he thinks the property owner’s intention would be to use the rooftop on a daily basis. Commissioner Morris asked if the use of the rooftop would be for a seasonal daily use. Ms. Jeremiah said staff considers the Santorini’s Restaurant use to be up to a six-month long use, and after six months temporary structures, such as a tent, must be taken down. She said the applicant is amenable to a six-month use. Ms. Jeremiah added that staff is amenable to weekend and evening use as long as the shared parking arrangement with the nearby office building owners can accommodate a daily use during the six-month period. Staff can address that condition in the special permit, which would be tied in to the event parking. Commissioner Morris mentioned that parking spaces are used, on a temporary basis, in malls and shopping centers to accommodate produce and garden stands, which results in a temporary loss of parking spaces during that timeframe, and Santorini’s Restaurant is in a similar situation. Commissioner Timian asked how often the parking lot is totally filled on a year-round basis. Mr. Nicklow said it is filled mostly on Fridays, otherwise, it is not totally full; and special events take place mostly in the evenings. Mr. Nicklow asked why he should be dealing with the 1990 plan. Ms. Jeremiah responded she thinks an operating restaurant preceded his restaurant between 1990 and 1995, and his request was probably similar to his predecessor, and the site improvements may not have been closely scrutinized when he took over the restaurant. She said she will look into the matter. Commissioner Robertson asked if valet parking would be recognized by the City as meeting a requirement. Ms. Jeremiah said staff could explore that as an option, but the bottom line from the attorney’s office is conformance with the approved Special Permit. It was mentioned that during busy times, Santorini Restaurant employees park in a ramp next door to the restaurant. Commissioner Garelick said the ramp could be used for overflow parking too. Mr. Nicklow said he can secure additional parking from the Health Club. Commissioner Garelick moved for a 45-day extension from April 17th for the City to review and for Santorini’s Restaurant to submit an acceptable plan to satisfy the parking and other restrictions that may be on this specific site, and to continue the public hearing until May 1, 2002. Commissioner Timian asked if the rooftop is currently closed. Ms. Jeremiah said on a recent visit to the site, a gate was up and the rooftop is currently not open to the public. She said, the rooftop can be opened to allow parking as approved but not for special events. Ms. Jeremiah stated that in addition to planning issues there are also building code issues. She believes they have found a way to address the building code issues with certain improvements. The motion passed 6-0. B. Case No. 02-22-CUP Public Hearing on Albert O. Foster’s Request for a Major Amendment to a Continued Special Permit for a 1,010 sq. ft. office in the R-4 District at 1425 Hampshire Ave. S., #113 (Park Point Apartments) Ms. Jeremiah presented a staff report. She said Bigos Management, owner of the apartment building at 1425 Hampshire Avenue South, has assented to the application. On April 16th, Ms. Jeremiah received a phone call from a nearby property owner, Clifford King, 1455 Hampshire Avenue South, and he stated his concerns regarding the application: namely, the shortage of affordable housing and losing such a unit to the office; vacant commercial space in the City that could be leased by this office; and the potential for fire with a plastics business. Ms. Jeremiah said application materials indicate no on-site storage of plastics, but the Planning Commission may want to add such a condition. Also, Mr. King indicated that some neighbors are concerned about the impact to their property values. Ms. Jeremiah said the property owner, Bigos Management, was notified and they are responsible for providing notice to their tenants, however, she does not know if the tenants were notified of Mr. Foster’s request. Commissioner Robertson asked if the current building code requirements are met, specifically, in regard to accessibility. Ms. Jeremiah said the building official has raised the issue of fire separation, but she assumes the building official has also taken accessibility into consideration. Co Vice-Chair Bissonnette opened the public hearing. Marilyn Hoeft, 7020 West 24th Street, is an employee of American Plastics Exchange. She stated that no one may enter the secured building without calling first and there are only two or three individuals in the unit at one time. Ms. Hoeft said the owner is a full- time employee, and there are three part-time employees who work a combined total of 50-60 hours per week. She said there is no on-site storage. APE is a membership association for buyers and sellers of recycled plastics, and it is not a broker. Commissioner Robertson asked if in the recommendation it should be stated that if APE ceases business, the unit must revert to a residence. Ms. Jeremiah responded that the Planning Commission may want to consider that, however, per staff recommendations this particular unit may be used for residential or for a 1,010 square foot office. Commissioner Morris noted that the City can’t control what type of office this unit could be used for, for example telemarketing or internet adult entertainment, and he noted there is affordable office space available in St. Louis Park. He is not in favor of the proposal because it may set a bad precedent, i.e., residential is being traded for office, and the Planning Commission does not know if the residents have been notified and what their concerns may be. Co Vice-Chair Bissonnette asked if the City can regulate other businesses in an office setting. Ms. Jeremiah said the City defines land uses per the City code, and an office would be required to meet the definition for an administrative office. If, for example, an office met a definition for adult use, then clearly the occupancy permit would not be continued, it would be an illegal use. Commissioner Robertson said he could support the proposal with the following recommendations: a sunset clause stating this is the only business allowed in the unit, and no materials would be stored on the premise. He is doubtful that this request could meet building code requirements. Co Vice-Chair Bissonnette closed the public hearing. It was moved by Commissioner Robertson to approve the major amendment to a continued special permit subject to the conditions recommended by staff, and the two additional recommendations noted above. The motion passed 4-2. Commissioners Garelick and Morris opposed. Commissioner Garelick is opposed because he is concerned a precedent will be set for bypassing commercial rent rates. He also opposes the application due to a shortage of affordable housing. Co Vice-Chair Bissonnette stated this item will be heard by the City Council on May 20, 2002. Ms. Hoeft stated in her 2 ½ year employment at APE, she has always seen for rent signs at the Park Point Apartments and at surrounding apartment buildings. 4. Unfinished Business: None 5. New Business: None A. Consent Agenda B. Other New Business 6. Communications A. Park Commons Update Bob Cunningham, TOLD Development, provided a construction and leasing update on Park Commons. B. Recent City Council Action – April 15, 2002 C. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes Feb. 28, 2002 7. Miscellaneous Commissioner Garelick stated that the Sun Sailor reported on Councilmember Ron Latz’s announcement that he will run for the State Representative seat in House 44B. He asked how the Council seat would be filled. Ms. Jeremiah said the City Clerk could answer that question. Commissioner Morris stated the Star Tribune reported MNDot would consider the widening or redevelopment of the Highway 100/36th Street corridor and, if funding is available, they may bump it into the year 2005. Commissioner Morris asked if the City Council is aware of the need for lobbying to our legislators or local representatives in order to find additional funds to spur MNDot into quicker development of the Highway 100 corridor. He said 36th Street is a choke point in St. Louis Park and it seriously impacts the development taking place in the Elmwood neighborhood. Co Vice-Chair Bissonnette and Commissioner Morris suggested communication with Representative Rhodes regarding St. Louis Park’s transportation needs. Ms. Jeremiah stated the design of the Highway 100/36th Street interchange is very much a part of the Elmwood Study. 8. Adjournment Co Vice-Chair Bissonnette adjourned the meeting at 7:40 p.m. Minutes prepared by: Respectfully submitted by: Linda Samson Nancy Sells Recording Secretary Administrative Secretary CONSENT ITEM # 6b Official Minutes BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APRIL 2, 2002 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK The St. Louis Park Board of Zoning Appeals Committee conducted a regular meeting on Tuesday, April 2, 2002, at St. Louis Park City Hall, 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard, St. Louis Park, Minnesota. Members Present: Chair James Gainsley Vice Chair Susan Bloyer Commissioner Ryan Burt Commissioner Paul Roberts Members Absent: Commissioner Tom Powers Staff Present: Janet Jeremiah, Planning and Zoning Supervisor Jeff Korman, Assistant Zoning Administrator Tara Olson, Community Development Secretary 1. CALL TO ORDER – ROLL CALL Chair Gainsley called the regular meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. 2. APPROVE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMITTEE MINUTES Motion by Commissioner Roberts, seconded by Commissioner Burt, to approve the following minutes as presented. 1) Board of Zoning Appeals Committee public hearing and regular meeting minutes dated February 28, 2002. Motion by Commissioner Roberts, seconded by Commissioner Burt, that the regular meeting minutes dated February 28, 2002 are approved. Motion Carried. Voting Yes: Gainsley, Bloyer, Burt and Roberts. Voting No: None. 3. CONSENT AGENDA None 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS/COMMITTEE BUSINESS A. Case No. 02-17-VAR - The request of Niaz Real Estate Corporation for variances from the requirements of Section 36-194(c)(25)(c) and Section 36-361(b)(3)(d) of the Ordinance Code relating to zoning to eliminate the requirement of access to usable open space for a residential housing unit and to allow vehicles to back into the public street. The variances would allow construction of a new office and apartment building on the property located in the “C-2” General Commercial District at 4050 Brookside Avenue. Mr. Korman presented a report and concluded that since 7 of the 7 findings have been satisfied for the variance to allow backing into the public street, staff recommends approval of that variance. Since only 2 of 7 findings have been satisfied for the open space variance and all findings must be met, staff recommends denial of that variance. Chair Gainsley asked staff to explain the access to open space in regards to other properties, which is generally available in St. Louis Park. Do we have several situations where access to open space involving some distance of 1/8 of a mile is a relevant issue. Mr. Korman stated that residential developments are required to provide open space on site. In a mixed-use development where one component is residential, access to open space within that 1/8 mile walking distance connected by sidewalks is an acceptable standard. Chair Gainsley asked staff if the 1/8 requirement is written in City Code. Ms. Jeremiah stated that the 1/8-mile is considered a reasonable walking distance and has been used for several years with regards to access to transit. For example, a transit station located within 1/8 mile of your home or office is considered a reasonable walking distance. That same standard has been carried over for walkability to open space and has been used consistently as a policy throughout the City to meet that criteria. The C-2 District states that access to open space, plazas, and pedestrian ways must be provided for residential uses, so staff used accepted standards for reasonable access. Commissioner Bloyer questioned the primary use of the building, residential or commercial. Mr. Korman stated that the residential square feet would be twice the amount of the commercial. Commissioner Bloyer questioned if that would still meet the requirements of Section 36- 194(c)(25)(a) that specifies the commercial area should be larger. Ms. Jeremiah stated that staff has made a determination that the commercial development on the property meets the criteria of being part of a larger commercial development. We have not interpreted that as meaning that the commercial portion on one property must necessarily have more square footage. Although, staff is recommending denial of the variance to allow the residential in this case because other criteria are not being met. Commissioner Roberts asked staff to explain the formula being used to determine the maximum square footage for the office space with four parking spaces. Mr. Korman stated that in the parking ordinance under office use it requires one parking space for every 250 square feet. The proposed plans show 4 parking spaces. A stand-alone office of 1,124 square feet would require just under 4 ½ spaces, which rounds down to 4 spaces. Commissioner Bloyer asked staff if additional parking spaces could be met by the existence of transit. Mr. Korman stated that proximity to transit will allow a reduction of parking spaces of up to 10%. Since there are only 4 spaces involved, it’s not a realistic reduction (it does not eliminate a space). With no more questions, Chair Gainsley opened the public hearing. Dost Niaz, applicant of 4050 Brookside Avenue, stated that he would like to build a new building that would be acceptable to his mortgage company. In addition, he doesn’t feel that traffic will increase due to his proposal, nor will parking be an issue. He also stated that the upper level of the proposed building would be rental, which will be rented to only adult professionals or students. Kim W. Hochstein, 4046 Brookside Avenue, stated that he has owned the property directly north of the applicant for 25 years and would like to express concerns to backing into the street, open space and allowable parking. Backing into the street would require the applicant to use the sidewalk, which is very dangerous to pedestrians because of a severe blind spot. The open space concerns him due to the residential area and the parking that is available is very limited which may then cause damage to his building. In addition, he feels that a two-story building doesn’t fit in the neighborhood. Edwin Engelkes, 4058 Brookside Avenue, stated that he has concerns with the amount of space available for parking, the amount of traffic in this area, and the amount that will be created by the applicant. Gail Goebel, 4054 Brookside Avenue, stated that she is the property owner directly south of the applicant with a 3-foot side yard along their shared property line. She is concerned that this two- story building will create a large brick wall that would block all outside light from entering her home. In addition, off-street parking is an issue, along with the increased amount of traffic this proposal will cause, since the business will be a cab company. She also fears that if this variance is approved, it may decrease her property value. Dost Niaz, applicant of 4050 Brookside Avenue, explained to the Commissioners that he is involved in providing public transportation to the International airport and the City of Minneapolis. He stated that the properties on both sides of his property are located in a C-2 district along with his property line setbacks are 0 feet except the front is 5-feet and stated that his use of a cab business will be limited to the property. Chair Gainsley asked staff to explain the property setbacks and the proposed use of this business. Mr. Korman stated that the proposed use for this building is an administrative office use which would be the applicant’s real estate office. A taxi cab-dispatch office is not a permitted use in this area. The taxi cab business would generate more traffic, which could not be handled in this area. The minimum setback requirements are 5-foot front yard (or an average of other properties may apply), no required side yard and a rear setback is only required if the property abuts a residential district, which this property does not. However, the applicant is proposing to have building setbacks of 3-feet on the south side of second floor, 8-feet on the north side of the second floor and 3 feet in the rear which are building code requirements to allow window openings. Chair Gainsley asked staff if the proposed building would be on the lot lines of neighboring properties. Mr. Korman stated that the second floor will be 7 feet from the north lot line. There are two outdoor parking spaces partially under the building overhang, which have a proposed width of 8- ½ feet plus two 6 inch curbs on each side. Two other tandem spaces will be in an enclosed garage. Chair Gainsley asked staff if a tandem parking spot is considered a legal parking spot. Mr. Korman stated that only two parking spaces need to be provided for the commercial use. Ms. Jeremiah stated that for public or customer-oriented type uses such as retail/service, we would not allow tandem spaces, except there are certain provisions for car service uses to have some tandem spaces. Tandem spaces are allowed for single-family residential. Small offices are not specifically addressed. However, staff has deemed it acceptable in this particular case, since the number of parking spaces required for the proposed office is the same as single-family residential, and use of the spaces can be controlled by the office owner. Chair Gainsley asked staff if this code might be compromised, which is probably caused by the lot sizes and the C-2 district. Ms. Jeremiah stated that this property is an extremely small lot by any standards, even by a single-family residential standard. The code with regard to most design standards anticipates larger parking lots. Many of the standards, including landscaping and other amenities in the parking lot, apply only when more spaces are required. The design standards relate to typical commercial lots that have a drive aisle with 90 degree spaces on either side, angled parking or parallel parking. With this lot, there is no room to even design that type of parking lot. The need for a turnaround variance clearly relates to the limited amount of room on this lot. Ms. Jeremiah stated that staff understands the need to allow reasonable use of this lot but does not feel the residential is necessary to accommodate reasonable use. With regard to the C-2 zoning of this very small lot, Ms. Jeremiah noted that the property to the south is also zoned C-2 commercial. There may have been some anticipation that the lots would have been combined prior to any redevelopment. Clearly that hasn’t happened, since the lot to the south is still being used as residential. Commissioner Burt asked the applicant if he had explored other design options with staff. Mr. Niaz stated that he feels the best use for the property is two separate living quarters above the office that would be suitable for the neighborhood. A business office would require more office space and parking. Chair Gainsley asked the applicant to explain why this development is necessary to support his mortgage. Mr. Niaz stated that he met with a banking official who would support his former plans which had included an office unit and a two unit apartment. Chair Gainsley asked the applicant if he would be the occupant of the apartment. Mr. Niaz stated he would be the occupant in the office. In the future he might live in the apartment, but at this time will rent it out to adult students or professionals. Mr. Korman stated that the second floor could be owner occupied or rental. However, it could not be entirely converted into additional office space, because we would require more off-street parking. Chair Gainsley asked staff if the board were to approve this variance could conditions be applied to the variance stating that the second story could not be used as office space. Mr. Korman stated conditions could be imposed. However, the city requires a Registration of Land Use application to be completed by the property owner if there is a change in occupancy or a sale in property. This application allows the city to review for compliance and to keep accurate data for our records. If the applicant were to request a change in the use of the second story, it would be denied due to the limited parking. Ms. Goebel asked city staff how many feet the building would be from the south property lot line. Mr. Korman stated that the proposed setback is 3 feet from the property line. The zoning ordinance does not require a setback for commercial property, but the 3-foot setback is being planned because the building code requires that for the second story. Chair Gainsley stated to Ms. Goebel that a 0-foot setback could be proposed. Ms. Goebel stated that her house is only 3 feet from the lot line which would only leave 6 feet between the applicant and her home. Mr. Niaz stated that his proposal would be a positive change to the area. Chair Gainsley closed the public hearing. Commissioner Burt stated he was troubled by the lack of open space, feels that the property is non-functional, and would like to hear the other Commissioner’s reactions to the proposal. Commissioner Roberts stated that the property is challenging to develop and staff has shown a reasonable alternative use for the property without the residential. He agrees with staff of granting the one variance to allow backing into the public street but not the open space variance to allow residential in addition to the office. Commissioner Bloyer stated that she does not agree with the parking situation, but feels that the choice is not given since the property is zoned General Commercial. In regards to the open space requirements, she feels that the distance being used is not codified. She also stated that she is not inclined to say that a ¼ of a mile away is insufficient to access for open space and would like to motion that the variances are approved. Ms. Jeremiah stated that the Mixed-Use District section of city code provides specific standards for residential in a mixed use setting. That section says accessible usable open space must be within 600 feet, which is a little less than 1/8 of a mile and is consistent with staff’s findings. In fact, the Mixed Use District provides a slightly more stringent standard than staff has used in considering the findings in this case. Therefore, the Code does provide a basis for staff’s determination. Chair Gainsley stated he feels that the applicant is entitled to develop his land and agrees with Commissioner Bloyer to allow backing into the public street and to allow the open space variance because it is a more nebulous thing given that the zoning ordinance contemplates developing spaces like this. He thinks it is incumbent upon the Commission to approve both variances. Commissioner Burt stated that with regards to his earlier question, the applicant wasn’t able to provide other alternatives to the residential area. Commissioner Burt asked staff what would happen if the board were to approve the variance with regard to allow vehicles to back into the public street but deny the requirement of access to open space. Would these variances remain with the property even if the applicant is no longer utilizing the building for a business? Mr. Gainsley stated that if the variance is not acted upon within one year it would become void. Motion by Commissioner Bloyer, seconded by Commissioner Roberts, that the variance be granted to allow backing into the public street. Motion Carried. Voting Yes: Gainsley, Bloyer, Burt and Roberts. Voting No: None. Motion by Commissioner Bloyer, seconded by Commissioner Roberts, that the variance be granted to allow for access to useable open space given that it is nebulous and there is usable open space within ¼ of a mile. Motion Carried. Voting Yes: Gainsley, Bloyer and Burt. Voting No: Roberts. B. Case No. 02-18-VAR- The request of ABRA Auto Body for a variance from the requirements of Section 36-244(c)(7)(b) of the Ordinance Code relating to zoning to permit an auto body/painting facility within approximately 235 feet of a residentially- zoned parcel instead of the required 300 feet on the property located in the “I-G” General Industrial District at 5925 State Highway No. 7. Mr. Korman presented a report and concluded that since only 2 of the 7 findings have been satisfied and all findings must be met, staff recommends that the Board of Zoning Appeals deny the applicants’ request for a variance to permit an auto body/painting facility within approximately 235 feet of residentially-zoned parcel instead of the required 300 feet. Chair Gainsley asked staff under various scenarios planned for redevelopment of this area-along with changes to the Comprehensive Plan, how many of those scenarios would make this use a further non-conforming use if the board was to grant the variance for what they are doing in terms with the distance for the required 300 feet. Mr. Korman stated that at this time he does not know of any proposed scenarios for this property, any rezoning would make this property non-conforming. Chair Gainsley asked staff if the rezoning or changing the surrounding environment would make this usage a further non-conforming use even if the board was to grant the variance of 300 feet. Mr. Korman stated that he feels the only affected change could be more residentially zoned properties within 300 feet, but in general, staff is not able to speculate on any changes in that area until the Elmwood Area study is completed. Chair Gainsley asked staff to clarify that redevelopment of this area would not impact the property adversely other than how it already is impacted. Ms. Jeremiah stated that was incorrect. Any changes would likely make it more non- conforming. There could either be more residential introduced into the area or the zoning on this parcel could potentially change. So, almost any potential changes would lead to more of a non- conforming status. Chair Gainsley asked staff if railroad rights-of-way are always zoned residential. Ms. Jeremiah stated that railroad rights-of-way are always zoned the less intense of the adjacent zones. At this time, there are currently no residential uses immediately adjacent to the railroad track in this particular location, so it is not zoned residential immediately adjacent to this property. Commissioner Bloyer asked staff how the property was measured to obtain the 235 feet since the lot is very odd shaped. Mr. Korman stated that measurements were taken at all points along the north property line with a compass point of 300 feet. Also, there were points along the adjoining properties that intersected by the corners. Commissioner Bloyer asked staff if a measurement was taken from the properties on the NE corner of Highway 7 and Woodale Avenue intersection. Mr. Korman stated that the north east corner along with several other small areas are within 300 feet of the proposed use. Commissioner Bloyer asked staff if the property at the northeast corner of Highway 7 and Woodale Avenue was a non-conforming use. Mr. Korman stated he was unsure at this time. Chair Gainsley asked staff if measurements were taken at the property lines or by the buildings. Mr. Korman stated that the distance is measured from the facility to any residentially zoned property or residential use. Chair Gainsley asked staff if that would include the property line. Mr. Korman stated yes, it would include the property lines. Ms. Jeremiah stated that the term facility includes the entire operation, which includes the parking and any other portion of the property developed for the use (including bufferyards). Mr. Korman stated that the property immediately to the east is also currently zoned General Industrial. That property is in excess of 400-feet wide, so the apartment further east is not considered. However, the residential properties to the north are definitely within the 300-foot area. With no more questions, Chair Gainsley opened the public hearing. Ron Fiscus, Representative of Yaggy-Colby Associates, applicant of 5925 State Highway 7, stated his clients, ABRA Auto Body, are currently located in the city and need to find a new building to move into because their present landlord will be needing the space. He stated that he understands this area is in the process of being studied from a land use standpoint and would like to point out that the present building structure is deteriorating, but the proposal would provide reinvestment in the building and the property. In addition, he would like to point out that the city does not have many properties zoned General Industrial and the properties that are zoned General Industrial are not all located 300 feet away from a residential area. Also, he does not think there will be an increase in traffic intensity. Mr. Fiscus presented to the Commission several colored site plan drawings of the building and the landscape plans. Mr. Fiscus stated that he feels this proposal will make this highly visible property more attractive and would allow them to use the existing parking lot (in addition to a parking lot expansion to the east), so they would not need to remove (more) mature trees for other parking lot alternatives. However, he does agree with staff that there may be an increase in noise. He feels the landscaping will help screen additional noise created by the business and feels Highway 7 may create more noise than the business. Commissioner Bloyer asked the applicant if relocating the existing building several feet south would be an option. Mr. Fiscus stated that the building was existing and his clients were not interested in changing the footprint. Landscaping will be added to make it feel further away from the residential neighborhood and the highway. Chair Gainsley asked the applicant if he knew the general noise levels this business generates. Chair Gainsley asked the Commissioners to recall a recent case that involved the Shotwell Company. He stated that he and the Commission are extremely familiar with the entire building, which is a very flimsy structure and which will not provide adequate noise screening. Mr. Fiscus stated that he didn’t have information available pertaining to the decibel levels of noise that will get outside of the building but stated that the doors are generally closed, as opposed to other automotive businesses. Also, the service doors are located on the south side of the building, which is opposite of the residential areas. The doors located on the east side are detailing and estimating bays, which do not generate very much noise. Ms. Jeremiah stated that staff was unable to provide decibel levels for this particular use, but they are controlled by local ordinance, which means the applicant would need to meet the limits on noise. Clearly the required setback from residential would improve that situation. However, this is not the reason why staff is recommending denial of this variance. Staff is recommending denial because there is nothing unique to this property that prevents reasonable use. There are many reasonable uses, including the current warehousing of the facility, that are permitted without any variances. In addition, the proposal would exacerbate an already difficult traffic situation in the area, so these are the main findings for staff’s denial. The 300 feet setback from residential is intended to mitigate all impacts of the use, including test driving on residential streets and other customer traffic that is not typical of industrial uses. Chair Gainsley stated that the applicant’s hardship is not met and appears the temporary noise levels that are set by ordinance were considered in the Comprehensive Plan and figured that 300 feet away would minimize whatever the maximum levels permitted by city code could allow the business to provide. In addition, he feels that auto body work will be loud. Mr. Fiscus stated his clients have thought of that a great deal, but feel the noise generated from Highway 7 will be louder. Mr. Korman stated that staff does agree with the applicant that Highway 7 probably creates a sufficient buffer to meet the intent of the ordinance in regards to the noise. Chair Gainsley asked staff if they felt Highway 7 would mask the auto body noise from the residential area. Mr. Korman stated that was correct. The Industrial uses are required to meet noise and vibration codes and other standards. If there are any issues, staff could monitor those and require compliance. (However, staff has found that the required findings for issuing the variance are not met). Commissioner Burt inquired on the hours of operation for ABRA Auto Body. Mr. Fiscus stated the hours of operation for customer service are Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m., Saturday 9:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m. the technician hours are Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m.– 4:30 p.m. No hours of operation on Sundays. Chair Gainsley closed the public hearing. Commissioner Bloyer stated that this area is a bad traffic area, but would like to disagree with staff on the reason for denying the variance because she feels staff is talking about the use and the Commissioners are talking about a variance regarding the number of feet from a residential area. Also, this lot is oddly sized and the parking lot is close to residential. Staff does show that this use is not permitted within 300 feet, but would consider the highway to be a mitigating factor. Although she is troubled that the business is located within 235 feet of an R-4 district and stated that it is located at a busy intersection which should be considered a mitigating factor whether it is required within 300 feet. She feels that with a variance approval, the applicant should be required to stick with the buffer yard plans, which will help mitigate any noise made by the business and is in favor of granting the variance. Commission Roberts stated that this property is unique, and the surrounding companies are an assortment of different business such as a coffee plant on one side of the proposed area, Minnesota Rubber Company to the south, and the non-conforming uses in the residential area like the restaurant broker located at Highway 7 and Woodale Avenue. He feels that the applicant is taking advantage of Highway 7 as a buffer, and the proposal is not against the Comprehensive Plan for the property. Commissioner Burt agreed with statements made by Commissioner Bloyer and Commissioner Roberts and would support this variance. He feels this proposal will not increase traffic in that area and also feels noise will not be an issue. Chair Gainsley stated the Comprehensive Plan probably did not contemplate that there would be a very noisy intersection within the 300-foot setback area, which was designed to prevent noise and odors. He also established that ordinances that govern those issues related to industrial uses are a mitigating factor. Also, a 60-foot difference between this proposal and what they would need to not require a variance is very minimal and would merit the mitigation of Highway 7 to granting this variance. Motion by Chair Gainsley, seconded by Commissioner Bloyer, that the variance be granted to permit an auto body/painting facility within approximately 235 feet of a residential zoned parcel instead of the required 300 feet. Motion Carried. Voting Yes: Gainsley, Bloyer, Burt and Roberts. Voting No: None. 5. Old Business: None 6. New Business: None 7. Communications: Chair Gainsley asked staff if there was any action taken from the City Council in regards to the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting of February 28, 2002. Ms. Jeremiah stated no action was taken from City Council (there were no appeals). 8. Miscellaneous: None 9. Adjournment: Commissioner Bloyer moved and Commissioner Roberts seconded the motion for adjournment. The regular meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Tara Olson Community Development Secretary CONSENT ITEM # 6c City of St. Louis Park Human Rights Commission Minutes - February 20, 2002 Westwood Room - City Hall ______________________________________________________________________________ Present Commission Members: Herb Isbin, Patrick Rogers, Kristi Rudelius-Palmer and Kristin Siegesmund Staff: Martha McDonell, staff liaison, and Lynn Schwartz, recording secretary Guests: Eddie Fletcher, Angela Gilchrist, Julie Kirsh, and Ruben and Sabina Zimering Call to Order Chairperson Kristin Siegesmund called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. Guests were introduced and commissioners congratulated Sabina Zimering on her Human Rights Award. January Minutes: Moved by Herb Isbin and seconded by Patrick Rogers to accept the January minutes. Motion passed unanimously. February Agenda: Members agreed to add the Children First Ice Cream Social to the agenda. Reports Commissioner Reports: Herb Isbin announced that the League of Minnesota Human Rights Commissions board will meet on February 24. Kristi Rudelius-Palmer announced that a Women’s Health and Human Rights conference will be held on March 7 and a Women’s International Rights Day event will be held on March 8 at the University of Minnesota’s St. Paul campus. Staff Report: Martha McDonell reported that she has had six inquiries about serving on the commission and one application has been submitted. Herb Isbin asked if staff is doing anything to encourage the School District to appoint a representative to the commission. McDonell replied that the School District does not actively recruit applicants for the commission; however, the City does forward applications to the district for consideration. Old Business Essay Contest: Martha McDonell told commissioners that only one person submitted an essay—an argument against abortion—for the annual Human Rights Essay Contest. A number of commissioners said they did not agree with the writer’s premise or felt the “facts” were skewed. Nonetheless, commissioners said that the essay is, by definition, an opinion piece, not a scholarly report. Kristi Rudelius-Palmer noted that the issue of theoretical (unborn) human rights has not been determined for inclusion or exclusion in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. All commissioners said the essay was exceedingly well written and the writer’s argument was well presented. Members agreed that it was inappropriate to expect essay writers to state only the commissioners’ beliefs and felt it would be contrary to the commission’s mission to exclude an entry because it takes a different view on a controversial issue. Members agreed to award the prize to the essay writer but not take any action to publish the essay. Moved by Herb Isbin and seconded by Patrick Rogers to award a $25 book store gift certificate to Abigail Burkhart, an eighth grader at St. Louis Park Junior High, and forward her name to the City Council for recognition at an upcoming meeting. Commissioners then discussed what could be done to improve the contest for next year. Martha McDonell reported that a teacher suggested that outreach efforts be directed toward eighth grade teachers during their winter curriculum world cultures component. The teacher also suggested that information be sent out earlier. Kristi Rudelius-Palmer suggested that a packet about the contest be sent to schools in November instead of January. Members also felt it was important to follow through on Emily Wallace-Jackson’s suggestion to reword the promotional materials to make the content more understandable and appealing to young people. In order to promote a number of commission activities, commissioners suggested sending letters to teachers in September (or during the teacher orientation program in August) about all commission events that may be of interest to students. Annual Report: Kristin Siegesmund circulated a draft of the commission’s annual report and asked that commissioners get revisions to her before the March meeting. Members agreed to finalize the report at the March meeting. Hate Crimes Response Plan: Members discussed the option of presenting their revised plan to the City Council at the March 25 City Council meeting. Martha McDonell will try to place these items on the Council agenda and will get back to the commission with a firm date. Commission Appointment Process: Patrick Rogers reported that he was not able to draft a letter to the City Council about the appointment process. He will draft a letter for the commission’s review and route it to commissioners via e-mail Diversity Week: Commissioners questioned whether the commission should do something to help students enhance the annual Human Mosaic Diversity Week program at the High School. Members felt Human Mosaic could benefit from help in getting good speakers who encourage student participation. Martha McDonell suggested that a commission member attend one of Human Mosaic’s planning meetings or speak with the group’s faculty advisory to offer some help. Members agreed that it was appropriate to offer help, but not to take over or organize Diversity Week: responsibility should remain with the student organizers. McDonell will call the group’s advisor to discuss how the commission could best offer its assistance. Work Plan: Members agreed to try to develop a realistic plan that doesn’t assume large funding. For example, the commission might not be able to do a survey but they could do random opinion poll and gather existing statistics to get a sense of the community’s current needs. Kristi Rudelius-Palmer suggested a human rights peace garden, street theater events, coffee house debates, a display at the library, and murals in public places such as schools, Rec Center, City Hall or the Police Station. Kristen Siegesmund suggested that the peace garden could be located in Park Commons. She also suggested that the commission advise the City Council on how to make Park Commons “human rights friendly.” Siegesmund noted that Park Commons should be welcoming for the entire community and not be solely a commercial enterprise. Instead of a mural, she suggested that people could submit ideas or paint their own tile for a diversity mosaic. Members agreed that they would devote most of the next meeting to the work plan so it would be ready to present to the City Council. Siegesmund told commissioners that each category of the work plan should have a chair who will coordinate that effort. Martha McDonell was asked to mail out a calendar of community events along with a draft of work plan ideas so members would be prepared to discuss the plan at the March meeting. New Business Ice Cream Social: Members were reminded that Betty Merritt —who is no longer on the commission—took charge of the Commission’s involvement with the Children First Ice Cream Social and a new volunteer is needed to organize and staff this community event. Set Agenda For Next Meeting  Finalize the annual work plan  Finalize the commission’s annual report to the City Council  Plan involvement in the Children First Ice Cream Social. Adjournment Moved by Herb Isbin and seconded by Patrick Rogers to adjourn. Motion passed unanimously. With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:08 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lynn Schwartz, Recording Secretary CONSENT ITEM # 6d MINUTES Housing Authority St. Louis Park, Minnesota Wednesday, March 13, 2002 Westwood Room 5:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: William Gavzy, Judith Moore and Shone Row MEMBERS ABSENT: Catherine Courtney and Anne Mavity STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Anderson, Tamra Bokal and Michele Schnitker OTHERS PRESENT: Carl Lindstrom, Professional Risk Management 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 5:20 p.m. 2. Approval of Minutes for February 13, 2002 Commissioner Row moved approval of the minutes of February 13th, 2002. Commissioner Moore seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 3-0, with Commissioners Gavzy, Moore and Row voting in favor. 3. Public Hearing: None 4. Reports and Committees: None 5. Unfinished Business: None 6. New Business: a. Insurance Award Ms. Anderson introduced Carl Lindstrom who consults with the HA on the insurance contracts. Mr. Lindstrom explained that because of the 9/11 disaster, insurance costs are escalating and some insurers have stopped providing commercial insurance. Mr. Lindstrom explained that out of all of the proposals sent out, only two came back. These included proposals from State Farm Insurance and Housing Authority Insurance. Although the coverage is not exactly the same, Mr. Lindstrom recommended the State Farm policy at a cost of $29,416 compared with $38,897 through Housing Authority Insurance. The total cost of insurance for 2001 was $19,459. Mr. Lindstrom also recommended that the flood insurance be moved from the current insurance company to State Farm for ease of administration. He explained that the cost is the same with every insurance provider. Ms. Anderson explained that the worker's compensation insurance and the coverage for errors and omissions would continue to be included with the City's policy. Commissioner Moore requested that next year the quotes be prepared point by point in chart form. Mr. Lindstrom replied that he would provide that type of comparison for the Board. Commissioner Moore moved approval of the Insurance Award with State Farm. Commissioner Row seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 3-0, with Commissioners Gavzy, Moore and Row voting in favor. b. Section 8 Utility Allowance - Resolution 502 Ms. Schnitker stated that the Utility Allowances are reviewed annually and are adjusted for May 1st. She explained that the allowances are based on the most current three-year average. Ms. Schnitker also stated that in some cases, the utility allowances are going down because the gas rates were much lower this winter. Commissioner Gavzy moved approval of the Section 8 Utility Allowance. Commissioner Moore seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 3- 0, with Commissioners Gavzy, Moore and Row voting in favor. c. Action Plan Update Commissioner Gavzy asked that this item be tabled until the April meeting when the other Commissioners return. d. Capital Improvement Work Bid Awards Ms. Anderson stated that the HA was awarded $232,924, with $210,684 to work with after the architectural fee to Studio Five. She went on to explain that the asphalt work was bid separately, and the bids came back much lower than anticipated. The lowest bid was $8,125 from Omann Brothers. Commissioner Moore asked why the HA was replacing concrete drives with asphalt, since asphalt requires annual maintenance. Ms. Anderson responded that asphalt was less expensive. Commissioner Gavzy added that the Minnesota DOT always obtains bids for both when redoing roadways because the cost difference is similar enough and the prices fluctuate daily. Ms. Schnitker stated that in the future, the HA would obtain bids for both asphalt and concrete. Ms. Anderson explained that the low bidder for the main bid package was Merit Building, with a base bid of $56,765 and an alternate bid of $49,725 for a total of $106,490. The alternate bid includes residing and reroofing four additional residences that would have been put off until a later date. Ms. Anderson also discussed a change order to be completed since the bids came in lower than anticipated. The change order would involve replacing 110 shower assemblies, 35 bathroom stacks and 35 kitchen stacks at Hamilton House. Ms. Anderson stated that the shower assemblies would have shut off valves so when a plumbing repair needs to be completed, the water in the entire building would not have to be shut off. Ms. Anderson stated that the cost of the change order would be $70,320. Ms. Anderson requested that $10,000 be added back to the Public Housing operating budget to cover the unexpected mold remediation expenses that occurred recently. The remaining $15,749, she added, would be set aside as a contingency. Commissioner Gavzy asked whether HUD allows housing authorities to put Capital Fund money back into the operating budget. Ms. Schnitker replied that HUD allows small housing authorities to utilize this money in anyway that operating funds can be used. Commissioner Moore moved approval of the contracts with Merit Building Company and Omann Bros., Inc. for the capital improvements and asphalt work, respectively. Commissioner Row seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 3-0 with Commissioners Gavzy, Moore and Row voting in favor. e. Agreement for Accounting Services Ms. Schnitker explained that the contract is in its third year and the only significant change is a cost increase. She stated that Brian Swanson is a new accountant in the Finance department that was hired to work with the Housing Authority and Community Development. Ms. Schnitker said that service is already improving with the addition of Brian. She explained that the fee for services was increasing to $38,250. Commissioner Gavzy asked what this figure translated to in terms of a full-time employee. Ms. Schnitker replied she thought it might equate to 3/5ths of an accountant's salary. Commissioner Gavzy commented that this amount still seems like a good bargain. Commissioner Gavzy requested that in the future with any contract changes, that the changes be highlighted so that the Commissioners could easily recognize them. Ms. Schnitker responded that staff would be happy to do that. Commissioner Moore moved approval of the Accounting Contract with the City of St. Louis Park. Commissioner Row seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 3-0, with Commissioners Gavzy, Moore and Row voting in favor. f. Trash Hauling Contract Award Ms. Anderson explained that the Authority has contracted with Waste Management for trash hauling at Hamilton House for the last few years. She explained the new contract would begin April 1, 2002 and terminate on March 31, 2003. Ms. Anderson explained that the lowest bidder, Atlas Truck did not come out to visit the site. When she contacted them, she explained that it is a rear- loading site, which they indicated they were not able to accommodate. Ms. Anderson stated that the second lowest bidder was BFI at $292.94 per month, and that staff was recommending approval of the contract to begin on April 1, 2002. Commissioner Gavzy moved approval of the contract with BFI to provide Trash Hauling for Hamilton House. Commissioner Row seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 3-0 with Commissioners Gavzy, Moore and Row voting in favor. g. Caretaker Contracts Ms. Anderson explained the current contracts expire on March 31, 2002. The new contracts would be for one year and would increase the monthly fee from $380 to $400. She also stated that Alphonso was requesting to add his new wife to his contract. Commissioner Moore moved approval of the one-year contracts with the Hamilton House Caretakers. Commissioner Row seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 3-0 with Commissioners Gavzy, Moore and Row voting in favor. 7. Communications from the Executive Director a. Claims List No. 3-2002 Commissioner Moore moved ratification of Claims List No. 3-2002. Commissioner Row seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 3-0, with Commissioners Gavzy, Moore and Row voting in favor. b. Communications Ms. Schnitker mentioned that HUD approved the Section 8 Project-Basing for Wayside. She said that the vouchers would be issued in April. Ms. Schnitker stated that HUD had not yet approved Vail Place. Ms. Schnitker said that HUD announced they would be issuing additional vouchers soon, however, the HA would not be able to apply at this time according to the requirements that must be met. The requirements include utilization of 97% in the Section 8 program in Fiscal Year 2001. She also explained that the awards will be based on need compared with other housing authorities in the state, and according to the chart provided by HUD, the HA would not rank well in this category. Ms. Schnitker also stated that right now staff is at capacity with the new project-based units coming on board, but could certainly look at increasing our allocation of Section 8 vouchers once all the Project-Based units are under contract. Commissioner Gavzy asked about a tenant that was mentioned in February who may be evicted. Ms. Anderson replied that the individual worked with Legal Aid and an agreement was being signed that would allow her to stay until the end of May so that her children can finish the school year. Commissioner Moore asked about the vacancy at Hamilton House. Ms. Anderson responded that she had a difficult time filling this vacancy because the apartment is on the first floor near the area where the garbage truck picks up the garbage. She stated that she has a new resident to fill this vacancy and is waiting for the paperwork to come back. 8. Adjournment Commissioner Moore moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:43p.m. Commissioner Row seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 3-0 with Commissioners Gavzy, Moore and Row voting in favor. Respectfully submitted, ________________________ Shone Row, Secretary