HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002/05/20 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Regular 1
AGENDA - CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
May 20, 2002
7:30 p.m.
6:30 p.m. – Reception for Charlie Meyer, 3rd Floor Lobby
7:20 p.m. - Economic Development Authority
1. Call to Order
a. Pledge of Allegiance
b. Roll Call
2. Presentations
a. Minnesota City/County Management Association Proclamation to Charles Meyer
3. Approval of Minutes
a. City Council Minutes of May 6, 2002
b. Study Session Minutes of April 22, 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
2
1. Motion to adopt resolution accepting transfer of property from the St. Louis Park
EDA located northwest of the intersection of Walker Street and Louisiana
Avenue.
2. Motion to adopt a resolution revising the City of St. Louis Park Personnel Manual
by adding a Police Trainee Program to enhance the recruiting process for police
officers.
3. Motion to accept the following reports for filing:
a. Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes of March 1, 2002
b. Planning Commission Minutes of May 1, 2002
c. Housing Authority Minutes of April 10, 2002
d. Vendor Claims
Action: Motion to approve Consent Items
5. Public Hearings
6. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public
7. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions
7a. Albert O. Foster’s Request for a Major Amendment to a Continued Special
Permit for a 1,010 Square Feet Office in the R-4 District at 1425 Hampshire
Avenue South #113 (Park Point Apartments).
Case No. 02-22-CUP
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt a resolution approving the Special Permit
amendment subject to the conditions included in the resolution
as recommended by the Planning Commission.
7b. Request of Holle Construction on Behalf of Santorini’s Restaurant for a Major
Amendment to a Continued Special Permit for Rooftop Events at 9920 & 9908
Wayzata Blvd.
Case No. 02-05-CUP
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt a resolution approving the Special Permit
amendment subject to the conditions included in the resolution
7c. 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)
3
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.
7d. First reading of text amendments to Chapter 36 of the Municipal Code
(Zoning) to add “Mikvah” as an accessory use in Single Family Residential
Districts
Case No. 02-20-ZA Zoning text amendment
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve first reading of zoning text amendments to
allow a “Mikvah” as an accessory use in the R1 and R2 Single
Family Residential Districts subject to conditions as
recommended by staff and the Planning Commission and set
second reading for June 3, 2002.
7e. First reading of proposed text amendments to Chapter 36 of the Municipal
Code to change several land uses from permitted with conditions to
conditional uses in commercial zoning districts, to modify intensity
classification table threshold intensities and to lower the intensity thresholds
for requiring conditional use permits in the C1 district to those that exceed
Class 4. These proposed changes are to bring the Zoning Ordinance into
conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.
(Case No. 02-16-ZA and Case No. 02-23-ZA)
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve first reading of Ordinance amending Chapter
36 of the Municipal Code related to changing several land uses
from permitted with conditions to conditional uses in
commercial zoning districts, to amend the intensity classification
table threshold intensities, and to lower the intensity thresholds
for requiring conditional use permits in the C1 district to those
that exceed Class 4 and set second reading for June 3, 2002.
7f. Resolution establishing Louisiana Oaks Park ( 3280, 3500, 7400, 7450
Louisiana Avenue)
This resolution formally establishes a city park at the former Oak Park Village site,
located on the northwest corner of Hwy 7 and Louisiana Ave S
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt a resolution establishing Louisiana Oaks Park.
4
8. Boards and Commissions
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.
5
Item # 3a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
May 6, 2002
1. Call to Order
Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
The following Councilmembers were present at roll call: Jim Brimeyer, Chris Nelson, Ron
Latz, Susan Sanger, Sue Santa, Sally Velick, and Mayor Jeff Jacobs.
Also present were the City Manager (Mr. Meyer); City Attorney (Mr. Scott); Director of
Public Works (Mr. Rardin); City Assessor (Mr. Stepnick); Planning and Zoning Supervisor
(Ms. Jeremiah); Planning Coordinator (Ms. Erickson); and Recording Secretary (Ms.
Samson).
2. Presentations
Mayor Jacobs presented a proclamation to Mike Rardin, Director of Public Works, in
recognition of National Public Works Week.
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. City Council Meeting Minutes of April 15, 2002
The minutes were approved as presented.
3b. Council Executive Session Minutes of April 15, 2002
The minutes were approved as presented.
3c. Study Session Minutes of April 8, 2002
The minutes were approved as present.
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
6
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Velick, to approve
the agenda.
The motion passed 7-0.
4b. Approval of Consent Items
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to approve
the following Consent Agenda Items.
The motion passed 7-0.
1. Approve plans and specifications for the building at the Oak Park Village site and
authorize staff to solicit bids.
2. Amend and correct Resolution 02-002 granting approval of Final PUD and Plat for
Pointe West Commons One and Two by adopting Resolution No. 02-045 approving
Final PUD for Pointe West Commons One and Two with new legal description and a
separate Resolution No. 02-046 approving amendment to Final Plat for Pointe West
Commons One and Two.
3. Adopt Resolution No. 02-047 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. 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
5. Public Hearings
7
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. Resolution No. 02-048
Jeff Korman, Assistant Zoning Administrator, reported that ABRA Auto Body (“AAB”)
applied for a variance request to permit an auto body painting facility within approximately
235 feet of a residentially zone parcel. According to Staff, only two of the required seven
findings necessary to grant a variance could be met, and Staff recommended the Board of
Zoning Appeals (“BOZA”) deny the Applicant’s variance request. Staff recommends that
the City Council deny the Applicant’s request for a variance.
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing.
Rod Krass, Krass Monroe, 1650 West 82nd Street, Bloomington, represent AAB. Mr. Krass
stated a major highway separates the site from the residentially zoned properties and it
would act as a buffer. Mr. Krass asked Council to consider the alternative motion prepared
by Staff, which is to direct Staff to prepare findings with a resolution of approval.
Ron Fiscus, 215 North Adams, Mason City, Iowa, is a planner, and he stated it is difficult
to find a permitted use site for AAB. Mr. Fiscus displayed a site plan, and he addressed
traffic volume, the potential reconfiguration of the frontage road, and building aesthetics.
Councilmember Nelson asked about paint fumes and what AAB does to minimize fumes.
Mr. Fiscus said spray booths are within the building, and there are emission requirements
regarding spray booths, i.e., stacks are designed to mitigate emission.
Harvey McPhee, 3463 Zarthan Avenue South, addressed the Council, and he made it clear
that he does not represent the Sorensen neighborhood. Mr. McPhee said his property
would be adversely impacted if AAB were granted a variance. His objection is based on
information, which was reviewed with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, regarding
wind direction and windrose, lack of odor control equipment, wind calm, i.e., the lack of
wind, and insufficient dispersion area.
Meghan Phimister, 3451 Zarthan Avenue South, is concerned about fumes, odors, and
increased traffic volume; Ms. Phimister stated AAB would be incompatible with the
current mix of businesses.
Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing.
Janet Jeremiah, Planning and Zoning Supervisor, said if Council indicated all findings
could be met in order to issue the variance, Staff would like to look further at the traffic
issue to the extent of requesting a traffic study from the Applicant.
Councilmembers Nelson and Sanger are opposed to granting a variance to AAB.
8
Councilmember Latz asked if case law exists that provides a highway exception to the 300-
foot requirement, and Tom Scott, City Attorney, said no, not to his knowledge; for St.
Louis Park, the requirement is strictly 300 feet, regardless of what that 300 feet might be.
Councilmember Latz asked if highway noise might mitigate the circumstances, and Mr.
Scott said the Council has a fair amount of discretion, however, the focus is on the property
itself and applying the criteria to that use.
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to adopt
Resolution No. 02-048 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.
The motion passed 7-0.
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
Resolution No. 02-049
Mr. Korman presented a Staff report. He said the Applicant’s proposal does not meet the
condition requiring access to open space; the four proposed parking spaces meet zoning
code requirements with the exception of the required turnaround to prevent backing into the
public street (hereafter referred to as “backing out”). The proposal requires two variances:
one to allow vehicles to back out onto Brookside Avenue, which would require two
curbcuts; and relief from the requirement for access to open space. BOZA approved the
variance for backing out. Staff recommended BOZA deny the variance for access to open
space, however, on a 3-1 vote, BOZA approved the variance.
Mr. Korman reported that since the BOZA meeting, new information has been received,
i.e., Appellants recall a longtime owner of 4054 Brookside having spoken about the
existence of a driveway easement allowing access to a tuck-under garage at the rear of her
home, which is currently owned by Gail Goebel. The garage no longer exists, and the
current property owner typically parks on Brookside Avenue. If an easement exists or if
adverse possession has taken place, it may not allow construction of the Applicant’s
proposed building.
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing.
Ed Engelkes, 4058 Brookside Avenue, stated the variance for parking should not be
granted because tandem parking without an access drive would require backing out, which
would be unsafe; a two-unit apartment would require six off-street parking spaces; the
Applicant is incumbent to develop his lot in a manner suitable for the size of the parcel
without reducing the value of adjoining properties; the seven criteria are broad; and a
commercial designation is inappropriate due to the narrow and shallow dimensions of the
parcel.
9
Gail Goebel, 4054 Brookside Avenue, distributed a copy of her Abstract of Title showing
access to eight feet for use of a driveway at 4050 Brookside Avenue. Ms. Goebel stated
she occasionally uses the driveway to park her car.
Councilmember Sanger asked, if the easement is valid, would the proposed new building
infringe on the easement? Mr. Korman said the proposed building would have a three-foot
setback from the south property line and it would encroach five feet into the easement and,
he added, BOZA did not have knowledge of the easement at the time of the Applicant’s
request. Mr. Korman stated, even with a valid easement, a permitted use on the property
would be viable that could meet the required setbacks but the proposal would have to
change.
Councilmember Latz said, given the possibility of a valid easement, perhaps the
appropriate action would be to continue this matter.
Sandy Behnken, 4154 Xenwood Avenue, said there is major traffic congestion at the
Excelsior Blvd. and Brookside Avenue intersection; inadequate parking; and there is no
continuous sidewalk access to Jackely Park.
Beatrice Benda, 4187 Brookside Avenue, submitted a drawing from Nancy Coleman,
which depicted a dangerous curved corner of the intersection. Ms. Coleman’s concerns
regard traffic congestion and the lack of a turn around.
Ms. Benda is concerned about the proposed elimination of open space, i.e., green space.
She thinks a traffic study would be appropriate, and Ms. Coleman is requesting an accident
analysis.
Kim Hochstein, 4046 Brookside Avenue, is concerned that the new building is proposed to
be two stories, buildings on that side of the street are one story; and current parking is
inadequate.
The Applicant, Mr. Niaz, said a title search in February 2001 revealed no easement. Mr.
Niaz said the property will not be used for his Minneapolis West Taxi company. Mr. Niaz
offered his abstract to the Council for review. He would like to use the office for real estate
purposes.
Councilmember Latz asked how many units are planned for the property, and Mr. Niaz
responed it would be only one unit, approximately 1,100-1,200 square feet and the office
would be about 600 square feet, with two outdoor and two indoor parking spaces.
Ruby Erkeladean, 4063 Brookside Avenue, said cars were parked at the 4050 Brookside
address all winter, and she mentioned the Applicant lists his taxi business as being located
at 4050 Brookside.
Deb Danielson, 3217 Sumter, appeared on behalf of her mother, Betty Danielson, 4059
Brookside Avenue, and Ms. Danielson asked the Council to consider the concern for traffic
10
on Brookside. She thinks it would be inappropriate to allow vehicles to back out onto
Brookside.
Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Nelson said he agrees with Staff’s findings and recommendations, the
open space requirement is important and it would not work with residential on the second
floor, it is an extremely small lot, perhaps a small commercial would work.
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Santa, 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.
It is Councilmember Nelson’s understanding that two vehicles are allowed to park on the
property associated with commercial development.
Councilmember Sanger said she supports denying both variances.
Mr. Scott suggested deferring the matter to the next meeting, and Mr. Korman said in
regard to a timeline that would be doable.
Councilmember Nelson said he will vote to deny the variance regarding the open space.
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to amend the
motion; and deny the variance on the open space requirement.
Mr. Scott said no resolution was prepared to address just that issue, the current resolution
jointly addresses both variances. Mr. Scott suggested the motion be amended for a
resolution to be prepared denying the access to the public open space variance.
Councilmember Nelson said he made the motion because he will vote that Council follow
Staff recommendations and grant the variance on the parking, however, it may be better to
get a sense from the Council regarding the backing out of vehicles.
Councilmembers Brimeyer and Velick said they would vote to deny the whole thing.
Councilmember Latz said he would favor granting the backing out variance. With the
addition of a residential unit above the office building, Councilmember Latz thinks the
Applicant is creating his own hardship, and he sees no grounds to grant that variance.
Mayor Jacobs would vote to deny the open space variance, and he is gravely concerned
about the backing out, parking, and the impact of an easement. Mayor Jacobs favors
exploring deferment.
11
Councilmember Santa said it is valid to discuss open space and, for the Applicant, she
thinks other than on-street parking, the Applicant has little choice. She would like to have
the easement issue resolved before Council makes any decision, however, that puts the
Applicant in a position of having to wait longer. Councilmember Santa added, the Council
was asked to address open space and backing out, and people have a clear idea how they
feel about open space and backing out.
Councilmember Nelson said he does not want to risk a vote on a variance if the Applicant
must wait two years; he wants to split the motion and ask Staff to prepare findings
accordingly.
Councilmember Latz is concerned about not having a specific commercial proposal in front
of the Council when a decision is made to grant the variance, however, he does not want
the issue to be tied up for two years by denying the variance. Councilmember Latz
supports the backing out variance, and he is prepared to defer that variance for two weeks
or whatever is appropriate. He does, however, want a specific proposal specifying findings
in regard to any denial the Council would enter, therefore, he is not comfortable splitting
the motion. Councilmember Latz would like to defer the question for two weeks, e.g.,
come up with specific findings of denial on the open space and wait to see what will
happen in regard to the backing out variance.
Councilmember Nelson said specific findings are in the packet on Page 35.
Councilmember Nelson continued: Finding 5, A-E, deal with the open space appeal, and
Finding 6 deals with the backing out appeal, and Finding 7, 1-4, contains the standard
verbage. Councilmember Latz said, make the resolution that and he will be satisfied.
Mayor Jacobs said he understood Councilmember Nelson’s motion to be just that.
Councilmember Nelson said it was but he did not go to that specificity—but he will have
that as his motion.
Mr. Scott said his recommendation would be to have the motion include directing Staff to
prepare findings consistent with a denial of the variance relating to the access to open
space, and the findings and the document would then be presented to the Council.
Councilmember Latz said Finding 5, A-E, only cites the standards to be addressed and it
does not go into any specific facts that are being found.
Ms. Jeremiah said all facts in the Staff report become part of the resolution and the record.
Councilmember Latz said that is satisfactory to him in terms of details.
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to adopt
Resolution No. 02-049 denying the application of Niaz Real Estate Corporation for a
variance to eliminate the requirement of access to open space on the property located at
4050 Brookside Avenue, based upon findings included in the resolution.
The motion passed 6-1. (Councilmember Brimeyer opposed).
12
Mayor Jacobs suggested deferring action on the parking variance until June 17, 2002.
It was moved by Councilmember Latz, seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer, to defer
voting on the parking variance to allow vehicles to back into the public street until June 17,
2002 or sooner, if the Applicant wishes to come in and have Council decide something
sooner.
Councilmember Latz added, if the Applicant wishes to defer it longer than that, the
Applicant will have to agree in writing to an extension so that it will not become effective
without a decision from the Council.
The motion passed 7-0.
5c. Public Hearing: Alley Paving – 4000 Block between Toledo Avenue and Utica
Avenue. Resolution No. 02-050
City Engineer Maria Hagen stated Most Holy Trinity Church previously stated concerns
regarding the proposed project, i.e., an assessment; a turnaround being used by the public
and by city vehicles such as garbage trucks and snow plows; and storm water drainage as
related to a future expansion of their church. Staff met with the church and resolved
several of the issues. The City will pay for a temporary easement until such time the
church goes forward with an expansion.
Mayor Jacobs re-opened the public hearing.
Steve Anderson, 4065 Utica Avenue South, said 69% of the people want the alley to be
paved.
Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing.
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Velick, to adopt
Resolution No. 02-050 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.
Councilmember Sanger said she does not support the assessment structure.
The motion passed 7-0.
5d. Assessment Hearing for Alley Paving Project in the 4000 block between Toledo
Avenue and Utica Avenue. Resolution No. 02-051
City Assessor Bruce Stepnick reported the cul-de-sac turnaround associated with the
church is fairly unusual.
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing.
13
Mr. Anderson said for $865.00 he does not want the project to be held up.
Ms. Behnken said the City is receiving value, i.e., snow is dumped on the church property
rather than being hauled away, and the alley is of no benefit to the church.
Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing.
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer, to adopt
Resolution No. 02-051 ordering the assessment for alley paving improvement project in
the 4000 block between Toledo Avenue and Utica Avenue.
The motion passed 6-1. (Councilmember Sanger opposed).
6. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public: None
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)
Planning Coordinator Judie Erickson presented a Staff report. The single unresolved issue
is tree replacement.
Dennis Ormseff, Pastor of Lutheran Church of the Reformation, stated his concern is the
floodplain requirement, and it appears to him that a great deal of fill will be required.
Pastor Ormseff would like to know how that will impact the church’s property. He would
also like information on tree replacement; the isolation of the woods from the larger
wetlands to the northwest may constitute an environmental degradation of church land.
Jay Hill, John Oliver & Associates, announced he is available for questions.
Finlay Donesky, 2616 Vernon Avenue South, emphasized his neighborhood is very quiet,
and he is concerned about truck traffic and hours of operation. Mr. Donesky would like to
be the number of replacement trees increased. He also asked about the aesthetics of the
townhomes. Mr. Donesky would like to know if the wetland study is available to the
public and what its conclusions are. He asked, If all neighbors were opposed to the project,
would it make any difference?
Ms. Erickson said a copy of the wetland delineation, done by the developer’s consultant, is
available. Ms. Erickson said all resolutions are contingent upon the Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District’s approval. The site work is anticipated to take two weeks.
14
Ms. Erickson said the developer will have to return with a final plat design, which will
contain final landscape plans and final erosion plans.
Councilmember Sanger expressed concern regarding the duration of the project, and she is
uncomfortable supporting this proposal at this time.
Mr. Scott said he will explore if Council could condition the timeframe of the project.
Councilmember Sanger said she would like to make a motion to: Defer this for two weeks
to ask Staff to work out language with the developer to the effect that, with permits from the
Watershed District, the developer begin grading immediately, and all six permits for the
units would be applied for and work begun within two months of the Watershed District
permits.
Councilmember Velick asked Councilmember Sanger if she meant for all six permits to be
pulled at the same time. Councilmember Sanger replied yes. Councilmember Velick
seconded the motion.
Councilmember Latz does not favor the motion.
Councilmember Nelson does not support the motion.
City Manager Charlie Meyer suggested to defer this item for two weeks and ask Staff to
meet with the developer in order to develop conditions to address the issues raised by
Council tonight.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Nelson, to defer this
item for two weeks and ask Staff to meet with the developer to develop conditions to
address the issues raised by Council; and Councilmember Sanger added that no
construction traffic is to be allowed on West 25 ½ Street.
Councilmembers Brimeyer, Latz, and Nelson do not favor a timeframe to be placed on the
developer.
The motion passed 6-1. (Councilmember Brimeyer opposed).
8. Boards and Committees: None
9. Communications
From the City Manager—Mr. Meyer said St. Louis Park will host a contingent from the
Taste of Minnesota, and he requested available Councilmembers to be present on
Thursday, May 16th, at about 2:00 p.m., at Excelsior & Grand. On July 7th, St. Louis Park
will occupy a booth at the Taste of Minnesota.
15
From the Mayor—Mayor Jacobs announced the Children First Ice Cream Social will be
Saturday, May 11th, at Wolfe Park.
Mayor Jacobs thanked the Youth Development Committee for their involvement in the
Youth Summit of April 29th.
10. Adjournment
Mayor Jacobs adjourned the meeting at 11:17 p.m.
City Clerk Mayor
16
Item # 3b
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
April 22, 2002
The meeting convened at 7:01 p.m.
Present at the meeting were Councilmembers Jim Brimeyer, Ron Latz, Chris Nelson, Susan
Sanger, Sue Santa, Sally Velick, and Mayor Jeff Jacobs.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Meyer), Director of Community Development (Mr.
Harmening), Planning Coordinator (Ms. Erickson), Housing Supervisor (Ms. Schnitker),
Housing Programs Coordinator (Ms. Larsen), Public Works Director (Mr. Rardin), Public Works
Coordinator (Mr. Merkley), Public Works Intern (Ms. Hellekson), and Administration Secretary
(Ms. Olson).
1. Southwest Corridor Rail Transit Study
Katie Walker from Hennepin County and Lorin Polansky from URS were present at the meeting.
Mr. Polansky explained that the study is to be a year long with a final report in January 2003. He
spoke about concept design, downtown connections and the public process. He stated that the
public process would involve a technical advisory committee, news releases, community
meetings, a hotline, website and e-mail. He explained the study’s purpose, stating that it was to
define alignment, capital costs, ridership, and identify funding, implementation, and social and
ecological studies.
Councilmember Nelson indicated he would like presentations made both to the Planning
Commission and the City Council.
Councilmember Sanger expressed her concerns about the interaction with residents and
neighborhoods and felt they should be more aggressive in community participation.
Councilmember Latz suggested setting up interactive e-mail correspondence.
Mr. Meyer inquired if the routing would occur east of St. Louis Park. Ms. Walker replied that it
could be done through the Kenilworth alignment. Mr. Meyer also questioned if the overall
objective of the project was to establish an alignment and Ms. Walker responded that they were
looking to establish the alignment by the end of the study.
Councilmember Brimeyer asked about any legislation passed that affected the project. Ms.
Walker replied that legislation had been passed that prohibited the Metropolitan Council to move
forward with rail options in several surrounding cities.
Councilmember Velick inquired if it was possible that this alignment would connect to the
Hiawatha project and Ms. Walker replied that it could.
17
Councilmember Brimeyer wanted to know the cost of this study and Ms. Walker stated that it
would be $400,000.
Councilmembers Nelson and Sanger both expressed their opinions that the study does not have
early resident input and is lacking in neighborhood discussions. Mr. Meyer would like the
Council to define what is lacking in the process.
Council discussed the impact on traffic, freight, and surrounding properties. Councilmember
Latz stated that he did not want to see the exclusion of residents in the process and then having to
proceed with reactive measures to the issues. Councilmember Sanger felt more information
needed to be given to residents. Councilmember Nelson suggested having the City’s Community
Outreach Coordinator, Martha McDonell, involved.
2. Housing Improvement Area – Cedar Trails Condominium Association
Ms. Schnitker gave a brief update to Council stating that Cedar Trails has fulfilled their
requirements except the petition to Council and the improvements meet Vision St. Louis Park,
Comprehensive Plan, and Housing policies.
Ms. Schnitker introduced Mark Ruff and Stacie Kvilvang from Ehler’s and Associates.
Ms. Larsen reported that the intended improvements were to correct deferred maintenance
problems from the past and all improvements were qualified because they were common
improvements that can be used by the whole association. She stated that the condominiums are
qualified for such a loan because of the valuation of them compared to other housing in the city.
Bill Drusser, Cedar Trails Association Board President, Julia Bielawski, Vice-President, and
Kitty Francen, Board member at large, were also present at the meeting.
Councilmember Nelson inquired about the fees to repay the loan and what would happen if they
defaulted. Mr. Harmening said that it would be levied to the property taxes. Mr. Ruff explained
the two options for financing, G.O. bonds or an internal loan. He stated that Ms. McGann
preferred the internal funding. Council discussed the different options and the length of
repayment. Council would does not want to see maintenance deferred again on the property and
have this resource looked at again in fifteen and twenty years. Council also did not want this to
set precedence for others in the city. Councilmember Sanger did not feel that would be a
problem due to the fact that the majority of other properties are valued above the maximum
amount allowed for in the program.
Council agreed to move forward and Mr. Harmening stated that staff would work with the
association to bring forward the petition.
3. 2002 Sidewalk Improvement Projects
Mr. Rardin gave an overview of the eight sidewalks and trails projects for the year 2002 and the
State Aid involved. He discussed the public process that has been involved so far and
recommended moving on with the projects.
18
Council discussed issues such as narrower roads and side lots, parking, and cost. Council agreed
to authorize the projects.
4. Solid Waste Program Change
Mr. Rardin gave a brief overview of the suggested changes to the program and the possible
expansion of recycling collection to high-density residential buildings.
Councilmember Santa stated that she had received feedback from residents that recycling is not
offered in their multi-family building. Council discussed the options available to high-density
residential buildings in terms of recycling and the cost of such. Councilmember Nelson
suggested mandatory recycling with trash service and Councilmember Santa proposed including
it in the same category as commercial districts.
Mr. Meyer brought up the topic of providing incentives to recycle to the high-density residential
buildings. Council discussed the advantages and disadvantages to the issue. They spoke about a
public process and would like to further explore options for the commercial districts as well.
Councilmember Brimeyer suggested involving the St. Louis Park Business Council.
Mr. Rardin spoke about the degradation of the recycling product when single-stream recycling is
used. Council agreed not to move toward single-stream recycling.
Councilmember Nelson felt that curbside-only collection would be viable in some situations.
Councilmembers Velick and Sanger did not agree. The Council decided not to pursue curbside-
only collection as an option.
Council discussed the merits of providing carts to homeowners for their collection and would
like to move forward with that concept.
Council discussed reduced yardwaste service. Mr. Rardin explained that citizens could be given
the choice to sign up for the reduced yardwaste service. If residents chose this service, they
would receive a yearly credit on their bill for fifty dollars. Council discussed this option and it
was clarified for some members of the Council. Ms. Sanger expressed her concerns that some
residents may not sign up for the service and then not dispose of the yardwaste properly.
Councilmember Sanger inquired about a clean-up day for residents in the city and the staff that
would be needed to accommodate that effort. Council discussed means of funding the clean-up
and about different needs such as computer and hazardous waste removal. Council agreed to
move forward with a citywide clean-up day.
Council discussed opening the solid waste contract up to bids. Councilmembers Velick and
Sanger were in favor of receiving bids. Councilmember Brimeyer stated that he was not in
support of opening up the project to bids but would consider negotiating terms of the current
contract. Councilmembers Nelson and Santa felt that the new program should be put in place
with the service changes recommended by Council before any such action should be considered.
5. Building at Oak Park Village (Louisiana Oaks Park)
19
Councilmember Brimeyer expressed his concerns about the amount of storage space in the
building. He inquired if the associations were aware that funding would not allow for more
storage; Mr. Meyer replied that they were not as yet. Councilmember Sanger considered the
possibility that the associations could contribute to create more storage space if needed. Mr.
Meyer stated that staff felt that the cost per square foot of the building is too high to be using the
space for storage and that staff would work with the athletic programs to find more cost effective
alternatives for storage.
6. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 10:10 p.m.
City Clerk Mayor
20
City of St Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 7a
Meeting of May 20, 2002
7a. Albert O. Foster’s Request for a Major Amendment to a Continued Special
Permit for a 1,010 Square Feet Office in the R-4 District at 1425 Hampshire
Avenue South #113 (Park Point Apartments).
Case No. 02-22-CUP
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt a resolution approving the Special Permit
amendment subject to the conditions included in the resolution
as recommended by the Planning Commission.
Background:
On July 5, 1983 the City Council approved a Special Permit for a 132 unit apartment
development known as Park Point Apartments at 1425-35 Hampshire Avenue. The approval
included 264 parking spaces, which meets current parking requirements of two spaces per unit.
This portion of Hampshire Avenue can only be accessed by vehicle from the north, since a cul-
de-sac exists at the apartment entrance, which prevents access to and from the single-family
neighborhood to the south.
During a multifamily housing inspection last year, staff discovered that apartment unit #113 was
being used by Mr. Foster as an office for his American Plastics Exchange business. No one was
living in the unit, so the office could not be considered a home occupation. Mr. Foster was
advised that he would need to apply for a Conditional Use Permit to allow an office less than
2500 square feet in the R-4 District.
In researching the original approval, staff found that the property has an existing Special Permit.
Therefore, the application has been changed to a Major Amendment of the Continued Special
Permit. Bigos Management (incorporated as Park Point Limited Partnership) has assented to the
application as the current fee owner of the property (see attached application and letter).
The office use is described in the application materials as 100% telephone and internet
information about the recycled plastics market. It does not involve inventory or distribution,
signs, or customer visits. The office hours are from 7:30 am until 7:30 pm. The business
includes Mr. Foster and two to three part-time workers from time to time. One underground
parking space is included with the rental fee, and all employees have keys to the garage and front
entrance. Office workers also find available space in the area immediately in front of the
building. According to the manager, the office workers arrive when the lot is almost empty and
leave before most residents come home from work. The workers are quiet and don’t bother
residents.
21
On April 17, 2002, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and recommended approval
on a vote of 4-2 subject to the conditions recommended by staff and two additional conditions
(see analysis of issues). The additional conditions have been included in the proposed resolution.
Issues:
Does the proposal meet the conditions for amending Special Permits?
Would any improvements be necessary to meet Building Code?
What additional conditions are recommended by the Planning Commission?
Analysis of Issues:
Does the proposal meet the conditions for amending Special Permits?
Section 36-36 of the Zoning Code states that Special Permits issued for land uses that are now
conditional uses are continued in full force and effect. It also states that the property covered by
a Continued Special Permit shall comply with all provisions of the Special Permit that were in
effect at the time of adoption of our most recent Zoning Code (December 31, 1992). Assuming
such compliance, the property may be expanded, altered or modified provided such change
complies in all respects with applicable provisions of the Zoning Code and does not result in an
expansion or intensification of any existing non-conformities. Finally, any existing non-
conformities shall be brought into greater or complete compliance with other provisions of the
ordinance to the extent reasonable and possible, except that greater or complete compliance is
not required for non-conformities involving lot area, lot width, required yards, building height,
floor area ratio, ground floor area ratio, density, and usable open space.
Staff believes that the property is in compliance with the conditions of the original Special
Permit. However, if any noncompliance is discovered, the property will have to be brought into
compliance.
Parking: Current residential parking requirements of two spaces per unit are met. A stand-alone
office requires one space per 250 square feet of floor area. Therefore, the proposed 1,010 square
feet office would require four spaces or two additional compared to a residential use of the
apartment unit. However, joint parking provisions (Sec. 36-361(b)(2)m) allow off-street parking
requirements to be met collectively for more than one use if the zoning administrator finds that
because of the hours, size, and mode of operation of the respective uses, there will be an
adequate amount of parking available to each use during its primary hours of operation to meet
the needs of each use. If more than one property is involved, protective covenants for the
parking must be in place. That requirement does not apply in this case. Total parking cannot be
less than the minimum required for the use that requires the most parking. In this case, the
remaining 131 apartments require the most parking (262 spaces), and the existing 264 spaces
exceed the current requirements. Based upon evidence submitted by the property manager that
the hours of the use allow more than adequate sharing with the apartment parking, staff finds that
the conditions for allowing joint parking have been met. Therefore, staff is not recommending
additional parking for the proposed office use. However, staff and the Planning Commission are
22
recommending a condition of approval that would limit the office hours to 7:30 am to 7:30 pm
weekdays to prevent any potential future conflicts.
Office Conditions of Approval: Offices less than 2500 square feet are permitted by Conditional
Use Permit in the R-4 District provided certain conditions can be met (Sec. 36-166(d)(7)).
However, the conditions of approval for offices in the R-4 District were adopted with the
assumption that the office would be a stand-alone building. The requirements were in response
to an application to allow an office to occupy an entire building on Excelsior Boulevard that had
previously been a residence. Therefore, the conditions relate to maintaining the residential
character and ensuring that adjacent residential properties are not adversely effected. Since there
are no exterior changes proposed for the current proposal, staff finds that most of the conditions
do not apply. However, staff and the Planning Commission are recommending a condition
preventing any exterior changes for the office use such as signage.
Would any improvements be necessary to meet Building Code?
During the Planning Commission meeting, staff noted that the Building Official had determined
that some minor upgrades might be necessary to meet Fire Code. A Planning Commissioner
questioned if accessibility requirements could be met. Subsequent to the Planning Commission
meeting, the Chief Building Official inspected the site and found that it meets Fore Code.
However, the bathroom of this unit would have to be renovated to meet accessibility Code for
the office occupancy. This would require removing the shower to provide adequate accessibility
to the toilet. Staff has tried calling the property owners (Bigos Management) to determine if they
would be willing to make the improvements. As of this writing, staff has not yet heard back
from the owners. Given the Planning Commission’s recommendation that the approval would be
limited to this tenant (see below), staff is concerned that the owner will not find it worthwhile to
invest in the improvements. Staff has included the standard condition requiring both the owner
and applicant to sign the assent form agreeing to the conditions prior to the amendment taking
effect. If both parties agree, the Building Official will determine a reasonable timeframe for
completion of the Building Code improvements. If one or both parties do not agree to the
conditions, staff will initiate enforcement action to remove the office tenant.
What additional conditions are recommended by the Planning Commission?
Sunset clause: A neighbor raised a concern about maintaining affordable housing units and
requiring businesses to lease existing, vacant commercial space. Therefore, the Planning
Commission recommended adding a sunset clause stating that this would be the only business
allowed in the unit. In other words, if this business left, the unit would have to be converted
back to residential. Staff has included the condition in the proposed resolution. However, it
should be noted that this would require the owner to make Building Code improvements for this
tenant only. If the tenant left, additional costs would be incurred to convert the unit back to
residential (i.e., the accessibility improvements would have to be removed so that a shower could
be added back).
No storage of materials: A neighbor raised a concern that the business might store plastics on
the site that could result in hazardous fumes if there was ever a fire. A business representative
23
indicated that they only provide information and do not store any plastics on site. The Planning
Commission recommended adding a condition ensuring that there would be no on-site storage of
plastics. Staff has included this condition in the proposed resolution.
Recommendation:
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend adoption of a resolution approving the Major
Amendment to the Continued Special Permit to allow apartment unit #113 to be used as either
residential or a 1,010 square feet office. The conditions recommended by the Planning
Commission have been included in the proposed resolution.
Alternate Motion:
If the City Council wants to approve the office use without limiting it to this tenant, the Council
should adopt a modified resolution that deletes the condition requiring conversion back to
residential if American Plastics Exchange is no longer the tenant.
Attachments:
Proposed Resolution
Site Location Map
Application
Letter from Property Manager
Office Floor Plan
Approved Site and Landscape Plans
Prepared By: Janet Jeremiah, Planning & Zoning Supervisor
Approved By: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
24
RESOLUTION NO. ____
Amends and Restates Resolution 7421
A RESOLUTION AMENDING AND RESTATING RESOLUTION NO. 7421 ADOPTED
ON JULY 5, 1983 GRANTING A SPECIAL PERMIT UNDER SECTION 14-141 OF THE
ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING TO PERMIT A 132
UNIT APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE R-4
MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT AT 1425-35 HAMPSHIRE AVENUE
AND GRANTING AN AMENDMENT TO A CONTINUED SPECIAL PERMIT UNDER
SECTION 36-166(d)(7) OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO
ZONING TO ALLOW AN OFFICE TENANT IN ONE UNIT OF A 132 UNIT
APARTMENT BUILDING IN THE R-4 MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT
AT 1425 HAMPSHIRE AVENUE SOUTH
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park:
FINDINGS
WHEREAS, Brutger Companies, Inc. has made application to the City Council for a
special permit under Section 14-141 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code for the purpose of
permitting a 132 unit apartment development located at 1425-35 Hampshire Avenue for the legal
description as follows, to-wit:
Lot 6, Block 1, Lou Park Addition
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the
Planning Commission (Case No. 83-43-SP) and the effect of the proposed 132 unit apartment
development 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.
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the proposed 132 unit apartment
development 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 132 unit apartment development is in harmony
with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
WHEREAS, Albert O. Foster (Pointe Park Ltd. Partnership/Bigos Management) has
made application to the City Council for an amendment to a continued special permit under
Section 36-166(d)(7) of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code to allow a 1,010 square feet office in
Unit #113 at 1425 Hampshire Avenue South within a R-4 Multiple-Family Residence District.
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the information related to Planning Case
Nos. 83-43-SP and 02-22-CUP and the effect of the proposed 1,010 square feet office in Unit
25
#113 on the health, safety, and welfare of the occupants of the surrounding lands, existing and
anticipated traffic conditions, the effect on values of properties in the surrounding area and the
effect of the use on the Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, a special permit was issued regarding the subject property pursuant to
Resolution No. 7421 of the St. Louis Park City Council dated July 5, 1983 which contained
conditions applicable to said property; and
WHEREAS, due to changed circumstances, amendments to those conditions are now
necessary, requiring the amendment of that special permit; and
WHEREAS, it is the intent of this resolution to continue and restate the conditions of the
permit granted by Resolution No. 7421 to add the amendments now required, and to consolidate
all conditions applicable to the subject property in this resolution;
WHEREAS, the contents of Planning Case File 83-43-SP and 02-22-CUP are hereby
entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
CONCLUSION
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Resolution No. 7421 (document not filed)
is hereby restated and amended by this resolution which continues and amends a special permit
to the subject property for the purposes of permitting a 132 unit apartment development at the
location described subject to the following conditions:
1. The subject property be constructed, used and maintained in accordance with Exhibit A,
Site Plan and Site Section; Exhibit B, Grading Plan; Exhibit C, Landscape Plan; Exhibit
D, Floor Plans for general layout; and Exhibit E, Elevations, except as modified by the
following.
2. An east-west pedestrian/bikeway be constructed generally on or along the north property
line from Hampshire Avenue to north/south path shown on the site plan.
3. The construction of the path link extending into the public space at the east end of the site
is the responsibility of the applicant or the successors and assigns.
4. A pedestrian way be extended between the west parking lot and the building entrance
near the garage.
5. The project identification sign be at least 25 feet from the lot line.
6. All trash and all dumpsters be stored in the parking garage as shown on the plan.
26
7. All construction including buildings, parking, access drives, landscaping,
pedestrian/bikeways and all other elements shown on the exhibits be completed by
October 15, 1984.
8. The continued special permit shall be amended on May 20, 2002 (Case No. 02-22-CUP)
to incorporate all of the preceding conditions and to allow apartment unit #113 to be used
as either residential or a 1,010 square feet office; such office use shall be subject to the
following conditions:
a. The office hours shall be limited to weekdays between 7:30 am and 7:30 p.m.
b. The office use shall not result in any exterior changes to the building or site
design including signage.
c. The office occupancy shall meet any Building Code requirements.
d. The office occupancy is limited to the applicant’s American Plastics Exchange
business; in the event that American Plastics Exchange is no longer the tenant,
unit #113 shall be converted back to a residential unit.
e. American Plastics Exchange shall not store any plastics materials on site.
f. If any aspect of the property is found to be out of compliance with the Special
Permit approval, it shall be brought into compliance as soon as feasible.
g. Approval of this amendment is contingent upon the applicant and owner signing
the assent form agreeing to the conditions.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council May 20, 2002
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
02-22-CUP:N\res-ord
27
City of St Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 7b
Meeting of May 20, 2002
7b. Request of Holle Construction on Behalf of Santorini’s Restaurant for a Major
Amendment to a Continued Special Permit for Rooftop Events at 9920 & 9908
Wayzata Blvd.
Case No. 02-05-CUP
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt a resolution approving the Special Permit
amendment subject to the conditions included in the resolution
Background:
On May 7, 1990, the City Council approved a Special Permit for a “Class I Restaurant” at 9920
& 9908 Wayzata Blvd. At that time, the property was zoned “B-2” General Business. Two
nonconforming billboards already existed on the site. The Special Permit resolution noted that
the restaurant approval did not change the nonconforming status of the billboards. On June 4,
1990, Resolution No. 90-72 was adopted to correct the legal description. However, the
conditions of approval did not change.
The existing Santorini’s restaurant is now classified as a “Restaurant with Intoxicating Liquor
License”. The current zoning for the property is “O” Office District, which allows such
restaurants by Conditional Use Permit subject to certain conditions. The Comprehensive Plan
land use designation is also Office. The existing billboards, which are located on a freestanding
structure in the parking lot and near the west property line, are still nonconforming.
Last year, staff became aware that Santorini’s was using their rooftop for special events such as
weddings. The rooftop use had not been approved as part of the original Special Permit and was
not permitted under the Zoning Code provisions for temporary uses. Some Building Code issues
also needed to be addressed. Since the use is an intensification of the site involving off-site
impacts, such as overflow parking and noise, staff deemed the proposal a Major Amendment to
their Continued Special Permit.
In reviewing the application for the Major Amendment, staff found that the property is not
currently in compliance with the Continued Special Permit. Parking and landscaping
improvements required by the 1990 approval were never constructed. Staff and the applicant
have been working on potential solutions, and it appears that the conditions of the 1990 approval
can be met.
The Planning Commission opened the public hearing on February 6, 2002 and continued the
public hearing until February 20th. due to the unresolved Special Permit and Building Code
issues. On February 20th, staff provided an update to the Planning Commission regarding the
status of the application. At that time, the City had recently learned that the owner of the
property had not assented to the application. The Planning Commission reopened the public
hearing and heard testimony from a neighboring property manager. The Planning Commission
28
continued the public hearing indefinitely to allow staff and the applicant time to attempt to work
out all remaining issues. On March 26th, the City received a letter from the owner providing
conditional assent (see attached letter). The City Attorney noted some concern with accepting
applications that have only conditional assent of the owner. However, since the City had already
begun processing this application, the attorney agreed to allow further consideration. Despite the
fact that site compliance issues had not yet been resolved, the continued public hearing was
advertised for April 17th to meet State law deadline requirements. On April 16, 2002, the
applicant submitted a letter extending the review period for 45 days to allow additional time for
issues to be resolved (see attached letter). This allowed the Planning Commission to continue
the public hearing until May 1, 2002.
On April 29, 2002, the applicant submitted a new parking plan based upon a concept property
boundary. Assuming the property boundary is confirmed by a survey, it appears possible to meet
the requirements of the Special Permit. Therefore, on May 1, 2002, the Planning Commission
closed the public hearing and recommended approval on a vote of 4-0-1 subject to conditions.
One of the conditions required the applicant to submit revised site and landscape plans based
upon staff comments prior to City Council consideration. Although the applicant has not fully
complied with this condition, State law requires the Council to act on May 20, 2002 unless the
applicant agrees in writing to an additional extension. Rather than extending consideration
further or acting to deny the application, staff is suggesting modifying the conditions of approval
to allow final plans to be administratively approved subsequent to Council’s action on the matter.
The revised conditions have been included in the attached resolution.
Issues:
Does the proposal meet the conditions for amending Special Permits?
How would additional parking needs be addressed?
Have the Building Code issues been resolved?
Are there any other concerns?
Analysis of Issues:
Does the proposal meet the conditions for amending Special Permits?
Section 36-36 of the Zoning Code states that Special Permits issued for land uses that are now
conditional uses are continued in full force and effect. It also states that the property covered by
a Continued Special Permit shall comply with all provisions of the Special Permit that were in
effect at the time of adoption of our most recent Zoning Code (December 31, 1992). Assuming
such compliance, the property may be expanded, altered or modified provided such change
complies in all respects with applicable provisions of the Zoning Code and does not result in an
expansion or intensification of any existing non-conformities. Finally, any existing non-
conformities shall be brought into greater or complete compliance with other provisions of the
ordinance to the extent reasonable and possible, except that greater or complete compliance is
not required for non-conformities involving lot area, lot width, required yards, building height,
floor area ratio, ground floor area ratio, density, and usable open space.
29
In reviewing the applicant’s proposal, staff has found that the property is not in compliance with
the conditions of the 1990 Special Permit. Specifically, parking and landscaping were not
constructed as approved (see attached 1990 approved site plan in comparison with location
airphoto). If it is determined that a property is not in compliance with the provisions of a
Continued Special Permit, the owner has 12 months to bring it into compliance or the Special
Permit may be terminated by the City. Upon termination, the use must comply with all
applicable provisions of the Zoning Code. Therefore, the restaurant would need to be reviewed
as a new Conditional Use Permit under the current provisions of the Office District, parking
ordinance, nonconformities ordinance, etc. A new Conditional Use Permit could not be issued
unless the existing billboards were removed. The property owner has not agreed to that
condition (see attached letter from Restaurants No Limit, Inc.)
Parking: The approved Special Permit plan required parking on that portion of the roof where the
special events are proposed. It also required a redesign of the surface parking lot to add parking.
The Special Permit approval required 189 permanent on-site parking spaces, whereas current
parking requirements for the restaurant would be much higher. Therefore, staff believes the
existing parking is non-conforming. As noted above, Special Permits cannot be amended if they
would result in an expansion or intensification of existing non-conformities, so the permanent
parking cannot be reduced. In fact, the parking must be brought into compliance with current
requirements to the extent reasonable and possible.
In order to find that the amendment is in compliance with Code provisions, at a minimum, 189
permanent on-site parking spaces would have to be constructed. Since the restaurant would
remain open while a portion of the rooftop parking would be unavailable, additional surface
spaces must be constructed. On May 14, 2002, Santorini’s submitted a revised site plan (see
attached) showing retention of 10 parking spaces on the top of the roof, and a redesign of surface
parking for a total of 189 permanent on-site spaces. The proposed rooftop parking spaces will
require moving some existing equipment in that area and will limit the amount of space that can
be used for rooftop events. The proposed surface parking plan requires removal of an existing
accessory building, relocation of two existing light poles, removal of an existing island that was
to be removed in 1990, and restriping of several rows of parking for greater aisle room and
efficiency. Staff has found the proposed parking plan to be in conformance with the approved
Special Permit provided a boundary survey confirms the “boundary concept” shown. Staff has
included the requirement for a boundary survey as a condition of approval.
Landscaping: The revised site plan does not include landscaping in conformance with the
approved Special Permit. However, it appears that the required landscaping could be included if
existing curbs are realigned as shown to provide more green space along the south property line
as approved in 1990. Additional landscaping is also required along the north property line to
bring the property into conformance. There does not appear to be any impediment to conforming
with the landscaping requirement. Therefore, staff is recommending a condition of approval
requiring the landscape plan to be submitted and constructed in conformance with the 1990
approval.
How would additional parking needs for the rooftop events be addressed?
30
The applicant is proposing to use the office property at 500 Ford Road (see location airphoto) for
overflow event parking. Assuming the office property owner would be willing to formalize the
agreement in a manner acceptable to the City Attorney, staff believes the office property would
provide adequate evening/weekend parking for the rooftop events. Since the off-site event
parking would only be available during evenings and weekdays a limited time of the year, events
and other rooftop restaurant/bar use would have to be restricted to those times. Such a condition
has been included in the proposed resolution.
Have the Building Code issues been resolved?
According to the Chief Building Official, two exits in conformance with Building Code are
required from the rooftop. Currently, Santorini’s is proposing to add a set of stairs from the first
floor of the restaurant to the rooftop. However, this would not meet accessibility requirements,
so a ramp and/or elevator would also be required. Other improvements may also be necessary to
bring the building into conformance with Building Code. The applicant believes the Building
Code requirements can be met, so staff has included such conformance as a condition of
approval.
Are there any other concerns?
Some concerns have been raised regarding potential noise from the events. Any proposal would
need to comply with current noise ordinances. Such a condition has been included in the
proposed resolution.
Recommendation:
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of a major amendment to the Special
Permit to allow restaurant/event use of the rooftop subject to conditions. As noted, the Planning
Commission’s recommended conditions have been modified to allow administrative approval of
final plans, which will become the official exhibits.
Attachments:
Proposed Resolution
Location Airphoto
Letter from Property Owner
Letter Regarding Off-Site Event Parking
Letter of Extension from Applicant
Approved 1990 Site Plan
Proposed Parking Plan
Prepared By: Janet Jeremiah, Planning & Zoning Supervisor
Approved By: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
31
RESOLUTION NO. ____
Amends and Restates Resolution 90-72
A RESOLUTION AMENDING AND RESTATING RESOLUTION NO. 90-72 ADOPTED
ON JUNE 4, 1990, GRANTING A SPECIAL (CONDITIONAL USE) PERMIT UNDER
SECTION 14-156(17) OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO
ZONING TO PERMIT A CLASS I RESTAURANT FOR PROPERTY ZONED B-2,
GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT LOCATED AT 9920 WAYZATA BOULEVARD AND
GRANTING AN AMENDMENT TO A CONTINUED SPECIAL PERMIT UNDER
SECTION 36-36 OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO
ZONING TO ALLOW SPECIAL EVENTS ON THE ROOF OF AN EXISTING
RESTAURANT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE “O” OFFICE DISTRICT AT 9920
AND 9908 WAYZATA BOULEVARD
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park:
FINDINGS
WHEREAS Polo of Minnesota (Naegele Restaurants No Limit, Inc.) has made
application to the City Council for a special permit under Section 14-156(17) of the St. Louis
Park Ordinance Code for the purpose of a Class I Restaurant within a B-2, General Business
District located at 9920 Wayzata Boulevard for the legal description as follows, to-wit:
Parcel One
That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, Section 1, Township
117, Range 22, described as beginning at a point on the most Southerly line of Lot
1, Block 7, SHELARD PARK, distant 315.25 feet Easterly from the West line of
said Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter as measured along said most
Southerly line of Lot 1; thence North 87 degrees 41 minutes 54 seconds East
(assuming said West line has a bearing of South 1 degree 11 minutes 16 seconds
West) along said most Southerly line of Lot 1 and its Easterly extension a distance
of 317.55 feet to the Northerly extension of the West line of Lot 4, Block 7, of
said SHELARD PARK; thence South 2 degrees 03 minutes 09 seconds West,
along said Northerly extension of the West line of Lot 4 and the West line of said
Lot 4, a distance of 119.74 feet; thence South 64 degrees 01 minutes 24 seconds
West a distance of 197.53 feet; thence South 87 degrees 44 minutes 40 seconds
West a distance of 139.87 feet to the intersection with a line bearing South 1
degree 14 minutes 59 seconds West from the point of beginning; thence North 1
degree 14 minutes 59 seconds East, a distance of 198.98 feet to the point of
beginning.
The boundary lines of the above-described land have been marked by Judicial
Landmarks set pursuant to Torrens Case No. 19207.
32
Parcel Two
That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, Section 1, Township
117, Range 22, described as beginning at a point on the most Southerly line of Lot
1, Block 7, SHELARD PARK, distant 315.25 feet Easterly from the West line of
said Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter as measured along said most
Southerly line of Lot 1; thence South 87 degrees 41 minutes 54 seconds West
along said most Southerly line of Lot 1 to said West line (assuming said West line
has a bearing of South 1 degree 11 minutes 16 seconds West) a distance of 315.25
feet; thence South 1 degree 11 minutes 16 seconds West along said West line a
distance of 144.56 feet; thence South 77 degrees 38 minutes 16 seconds East a
distance of 214.20 feet; thence North 87 degrees 44 minutes 40 seconds East a
distance of 104.50 feet to the intersection with a line bearing South 1 degree 14
minutes 59 seconds West from the point of beginning; thence North 1 degree 14
minutes 59 seconds East, a distance of 198.98 feet to the point of beginning.
The boundary lines of the above described land have been marked by Judicial
Landmarks set pursuant to Torrens Case No. 17713; according to the Government
Survey thereof.
WHEREAS the City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the
Planning Commission (Case No. 90-19-SP) and the effect of the proposed Class I Restaurant 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.
WHEREAS the Council has determined that the Class I Restaurant 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 Class I Restaurant is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning
Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
WHEREAS the contents of Planning Case File 90-19-SP are hereby entered into and
made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
WHEREAS, Holle Construction and Tony Nicklow, B & A, Inc. dba Santorini
Restaurant with the consent of the property owner (Restaurants No Limit Inc.) have made
application to the City Council for an amendment to a continued special permit under Section
36-36 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code to allow special events on the roof of an existing
restaurant located at 9920 and 9908 Wayzata Boulevard within the “O” Office District.
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the information related to Planning Case
Nos. 90-19-SP and 02-05-CUP and the effect of the proposed special events on the roof of an
existing restaurant on the health, safety, and welfare of the occupants of the surrounding lands,
existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect on values of properties in the surrounding
area and the effect of the use on the Comprehensive Plan; and
33
WHEREAS, a special permit was issued regarding the subject property pursuant to
Resolution No. 90-72 of the St. Louis Park City Council dated June 4, 1990 which contained
conditions applicable to said property; and
WHEREAS, due to changed circumstances, amendments to those conditions are now
necessary, requiring the amendment of that special permit; and
WHEREAS, it is the intent of this resolution to continue and restate the conditions of the
permit granted by Resolution No. 90-72 to add the amendments now required, and to consolidate
all conditions applicable to the subject property in this resolution;
WHEREAS, the contents of Planning Case Files 90-19-SP and 02-05-CUP are hereby
entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
CONCLUSION
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Resolution No. 90-72 (document not filed)
is hereby restated and amended by this resolution which continues and amends a special permit
to the subject property for the purposes of permitting a Class I restaurant (restaurant with liquor)
at the location described subject to the following conditions:
1. That the site be developed and maintained in accordance with Exhibit A, Site plan and
Landscape Plan, except as modified by Condition Number 5 and Condition Number 7;
Exhibit B, First Floor Plan; and Exhibit C, Elevations. (amended on May 20, 2002)
2. That approval of the site plan shall not be construed as approval of the two
nonconforming billboards on the property, nor as a modification or elimination of the
nonconforming status of said billboards.
3. That all trash be stored entirely within a building.
4. That all lighting be directed perpendicular to the parking lot or surface of the ground and
designed so that no rays are directed toward highways, roadways, or abutting
development.
5. That Exhibit A be altered to include an additional 4 deciduous boulevard trees whose
mature height is not less than 50 feet. These trees shall be a minimum of 3 inches in
diameter at a distance of 1 foot above the ground plane when planted and are to be placed
within the front yard setback or right of way along the north frontage at a spacing no
greater than 50 feet.
6. All improvements shall be completed prior to December 31, 1990.
34
7. The continued special permit shall be amended on May 20, 2002 (Case No. 02-05-CUP)
to incorporate all of the preceding conditions and to allow special events on the roof of
the existing restaurant; subject to the following conditions:
a. Prior to use of the rooftop for events or as an outdoor extension of the bar or
restaurant, the applicant and owner shall comply with the following:
1) submit revised site and landscape plans based upon an accurate property
survey and including landscaping in conformance with the 1990 Special
Permit as approved by the Zoning Administrator; such approved plans
shall become amended official exhibits. (amends Condition Number 1)
2) the applicant and owner shall sign the assent form and approved official
exhibits.
3) complete all required site and Building Code improvements.
4) execute a parking agreement for off-site event parking as approved by the
Zoning Administrator and City Attorney.
5) obtain a tent permit from the City annually.
b. Use of the rooftop for events or as an extension of the bar/restaurant is restricted
to those times during which the approved parking agreement allows use of the
off-site parking.
c. Subject to any conditions of the tent permit, the tent is approved as a temporary
structure only and can remain for a maximum period of six months each year,
after which time it must be removed and stored in a manner that complies with
Code.
d. Approved rooftop parking, including the required handicap space, shall remain
open to the general public and clear of obstructions at all times.
e. The site shall comply with all City ordinances, including the noise ordinance, at
all times.
f. The restaurant or property owner shall pay an administrative fine of $750 per
violation of any conditions of approval.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council May 20, 2002
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
02-05-CUP:N/res-ord
35
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 7c
Meeting of May 20, 2002
7c. 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.
Background:
On May 6, 2002, the City Council considered these requests and after raising additional issues
related to completing the work in a timely manner, deferred both items to the May 20, 2002, City
Council Meeting. This report considers only the issues raised during the May 6th City Council
Meeting. A full background and analysis of other issues is included in the attached May 6, 2002
City Council report.
Analysis:
♦ Will development occur in a timely manner with minimum disruption of the
neighborhood?
The City Council requested staff to explore ways to limit the time that the subject property at
2601 Vernon would be under construction in order to minimize disruption to the adjacent
neighbors.
Staff has met with the developer (Marshall Keiffer) who has stated that like those homes on
Toledo Avenue, he would prepare the site for development, but would not be the builder of the
homes. He is not opposed to imposing a time limit for the site preparation, but intends to sell the
lots to another builder who will build the homes.
The owner and builder for the properties on Toledo Avenue is Steven Grant. Mr. Grant has
owned those properties since April 26, 2001. Mr. Keiffer did previously own the properties and
was responsible for the construction of the holding tanks. He has given a timeline of events that
occurred on the Toledo Avenue properties. That timeline is attached to this report.
36
As a response to City Council concerns, a condition has been added to the proposed resolution
granting the Conditional Use Permit that will require preliminary grading and site preparation to
be completed within 90 days from start to finish. In addition, the condition prohibiting
construction traffic on certain streets has been modified to include West 25 ½ Street.
City Code requires completion of each home, including required landscaping and exterior
finishes within one year of issuance of each building permit. Market factors will determine how
quickly each building permit is requested. Due to a strong demand for new single-family move-
up housing in St. Louis Park, staff anticipates completion of the 6 homes in a reasonable time.
The City Attorney has stated that since the request is not for a PUD and no City funds are
involved in this project, there is no authority to require additional conditions relative to
completion of the homes. Staff has included a condition that would withhold a portion of the
escrow until the final home is constructed to ensure proper maintenance of the property.
Recommendation:
Attachments: May 6 Staff report
Resolution to approve Conditional Use Permit with conditions.
Resolution to approve Preliminary Plat with conditions
Time Line for Toledo Properties
Prepared By: Judie Erickson, Planning Coordinator
Approved By: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
37
RESOLUTION NO. 02-052
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
38
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. Submit a statement providing a description of fill soils that meets the
requirements of the City.
f. Sign the assent form and official exhibits.
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, 27th Street west of Vernon Avenue, and 25 ½ 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.
39
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.
k. Preliminary grading and site preparation shall be completed within 90 days of its
approved commencement, including site stabilization according to provisions
required by Section 36-80 Erosion Control.
4. Prior to issuance of any building permits which may impose additional conditions the
developer and owner 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 20, 2002
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
02-19-CUP/N:res-ord
40
RESOLUTION NO. 02-053
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:
41
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. 10% of the escrow will be retained
until the final home is constructed to guarantee maintenance and upkeep of the
property.
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 and trail easement 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 and owner shall comply with the following:
a. Furnish the City with evidence of having recorded the final plat and trail
easements.
42
b. Developer and owner, if different, shall sign the assent form and official exhibits.
c. 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 an administrative fine of $750 per violation of any conditions of
this resolution.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council May 20, 2002
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
02-06-S-prelim/N:res-ord
43
Time Line for Projects at 2839 and 2843 Toledo Ave
(Reported by Developer)
April 16, 2001 CUP Approved by City Council
April 26, 2001 Ownership of both lots transferred to Steven M. Grant Homes
(home builder)
May 16,. 2001 Development Agreement Signed
June 18, 2001 Permit for Holding Tank issued
Permits for both houses issued
June 18, 2001 Excavation began
August 15, 2001 Inspections stopped project. Asked for new engineering plan for tank
September 1, 2001 New engineering firm hired for project
October 1, 2001 (Approx.) New Engineer plans submitted for tank
Mid October Plans approved, construction of holding tanks resumed
Mid November Construction of holding tanks completed
November 30, 2001 Foundation dug for south lot
Late April, 2002 Foundation dug for north lot
May 15, 2002 Backfill north lot
May 15-16, 2002 Installation of generator and pump
May 17, 2002 Finish electric installation for pump
Cap first floor of north house
Pour garage floor south house
May 20, 2002 Finish driveway to south house
May 24, 2002 Close on south house
Mid July, 2002 Complete north house
44
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 7d
Meeting of May 20,2002
7d. First reading of text amendments to Chapter 36 of the Municipal Code
(Zoning) to add “Mikvah” as an accessory use in Single Family Residential
Districts
Case No. 02-20-ZA Zoning text amendment
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve first reading of zoning text amendments to
allow a “Mikvah” as an accessory use in the R1 and R2 Single
Family Residential Districts subject to conditions as
recommended by staff and the Planning Commission and set
second reading for June 3, 2002.
Background:
On March 6, 2002, the Planning Commission held a public hearing for a request received from
Congregation Bais Yisroel for a Comprehensive Plan amendment to change the land use
designation for the property at 4624 Minnetonka Boulevard from “Residential Low Density” to
“Civic”. The request was to allow the construction of a religious facility to house a Mikvah
pool. This is a ceremonial pool that must be constructed to meet certain traditional requirements
to serve primarily Jewish women.
The Planning Commission continued the public hearing for up to 60 days and directed staff to
explore a zoning code amendment that would allow a Mikvah pool in a residential zoning district
rather than a Comprehensive Plan amendment. They argued that the use was dissimilar to the
land use description for “Religious Institution”. Taking direction from the Planning
Commission, the applicant withdrew the application and on April 3, 2002, the Planning
Commission closed the public hearing and accepted the letter of withdrawal.
On May 1, 2002, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to review a text amendment to
Chapter 36 (zoning) of the Municipal Code that will permit a Mikvah pool as an accessory use to
a single family dwelling. The Planning commission recommended approval on a vote of 5-0.
Staff has met with the representatives of the Ritualarium Society of Minneapolis, the new owner
for the property at 4624 Minnetonka Boulevard, and they concurred with the proposed
amendment. However, they submitted concept plans to the Planning commission that do not
meet Ordinance requirements regarding setbacks. Therefore, the plans would need to be revised
or they would need to apply for variances.
In addition, a representative testified during the Planning Commission meeting that the home
may not always be occupied. It is important to note that the Mikvah is proposed as accessory to
the single-family use. Therefore, the home would need to be occupied at all times that the
Mikvah is operating.
45
Issues:
• What are the anticipated effects of the proposed amendments?
• Would this accessory use require additional parking? How can this parking be
accommodated based upon restrictions for numbers of vehicles in residential zoning
districts?
Issues Analysis:
• What are the anticipated effects of the proposed amendments?
The proposed amendments would allow a Mikvah pool to be constructed within a single family
home. It would not be allowed in a separate accessory structure. The single-family portion of
the building would be required to occupy over 50% of the floor area. Since the use of the
Mikvah pool is limited to primarily women of the Jewish faith who use the pool only once per
month, the number of persons coming to the home to use the pool is not expected to create a
problem. In fact, the average number of women using the pool in any given day is expected to
be about three.
The requirement that the use be accessory ensures that there will be someone living on the
premises to maintain the property. Because the use is accessory and within the principal
structure, there are no additional requirements for increased setbacks than what are currently
required for a single family home. There is no desire to include signage for the use, but in the
event that changes, 2 square feet is the maximum size in the single family districts.
It is not expected that there be more than one or two Mikvahs developed in St. Louis Park. Since
they would be within structures meeting all requirements for single family houses, they should
not change the character of the neighborhood. They could also be included on a religious
institution property.
• Would this accessory use require additional parking? How can this parking be
accommodated based upon restrictions for numbers of vehicles in residential zoning
districts?
Staff understands that it is rare when more than three women visit the Mikvah on a single day.
The ritual requires that one person use the pool at a time by appointment only. This means that
even with overlap plus an attendant, the maximum number of parking spaces needed for the use
is three. Therefore, staff and the Planning Commission are recommending requiring three
additional off-street parking spaces. Since there are restrictions for parking of more than three
vehicles outside a building on a single-family lot, parking for the residence would have to be
accommodated within a garage. The three outdoor spaces would need to be paved in order to
meet code.
Recommendation:
46
♦ Staff and the Planning Commission recommend that the proposed text amendment to allow a
Mikvah as an accessory use in the R1 and R2 Single Family Residential District be approved
subject to conditions requiring it to be within the principal building and including three
additional parking spaces if accessory to a single family dwelling
Attachments: Draft Ordinance
Prepared By: Judie Erickson, Planning Coordinator
Approved By: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
47
ORDINANCE NO.______
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE
RELATING TO ZONING BY AMENDING SECTIONS 36-142(a), 36-163(e) and
36-164(e) PERMITTING A MIKVAH (RITUAL BATH HOUSE) AS AN
ACCESSORY USE IN THE R-1 and R-2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
DISTRICTS
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
Findings
Sec. 1. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning
Commission (Case No. 02-20-ZA).
Sec. 2. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Sections 36-142(c)(14), 36-163(e)(13) and
36-164(e)(13) are hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 36-142 (c) Descriptions
(14) Mikvah pool means a ceremonial pool that is constructed to meet certain traditional
requirements to serve primarily Jewish women. The use is characterized by very low traffic
volumes primarily during evening hours.
Sec. 36-163 (e) Accessory Uses (R-1)
(13) Mikvah pools are permitted accessory uses within an occupied single family detached
dwelling unit or on a religious institution property. If accessory to a single family dwelling the
use requires three additional off street parking spaces.
Sec. 36-164 (e) Accessory Uses (R-2)
(13) Mikvah pools are permitted accessory uses within an occupied single family detached
dwelling unit or on a religious institution property. If accessory to a single family dwelling the
use requires three additional off street parking spaces.
Sec. 3. The contents of Planning Case File 02-20-ZA are hereby entered into and
made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
Sec.4. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council June 3, 2002
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
48
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 7e
Meeting of May 20,2002
7e. First reading of proposed text amendments to Chapter 36 of the Municipal
Code to change several land uses from permitted with conditions to
conditional uses in commercial zoning districts, to modify intensity
classification table threshold intensities and to lower the intensity thresholds
for requiring conditional use permits in the C1 district to those that exceed
Class 4. These proposed changes are to bring the Zoning Ordinance into
conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.
(Case No. 02-16-ZA and Case No. 02-23-ZA)
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve first reading of Ordinance amending Chapter
36 of the Municipal Code related to changing several land uses
from permitted with conditions to conditional uses in
commercial zoning districts, to amend the intensity classification
table threshold intensities, and to lower the intensity thresholds
for requiring conditional use permits in the C1 district to those
that exceed Class 4 and set second reading for June 3, 2002.
Background:
On November 21, 2001, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to address applications
from Belt Line Industrial Park, Inc. to change the Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning
on several parcels located north of West 36th Street between Belt Line Boulevard and Raleigh
Avenue from industrial to general commercial. Staff and the Planning Commission identified
some land uses that are currently permitted in the C2-General Commercial district that would be
inappropriate at this location. In order to resolve this situation, Planning Commission initiated a
text amendment to the Plan By Neighborhood chapter of the Comprehensive Plan that would
limit some uses in this location. There was already precedent for using this method both in the
Plan By Neighborhood and the Redevelopment Chapters of the Comprehensive Plan.
On January 2, 2002, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Beltline
amendments and text amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. The City Council adopted the
Comprehensive Plan amendment on January 22, 2002, but asked that the subject be brought to
Study Session for discussion with the City Attorney.
The actual uses excluded by the Comprehensive Plan amendment for the Beltline area include
the following: Outdoor sales, restaurants with in-vehicle sales or service, motor fuel station,
motor vehicle service, repair, motor vehicle sales, uses that serve intoxicating liquor, shopping
centers over 50,000 square feet, and single retail uses/tenants in excess of 20,000 square feet.
The City Attorney stated that he would be more comfortable with using the Comprehensive Plan
in this manner (e.g. to prohibit certain uses in certain locations) if the uses that are restricted
were permitted by conditional use permit or PUD and the conditions included conformance with
the Comprehensive Plan.
49
On February 11, 2002, the City Council reviewed those land uses that are restricted in some form
by the Comprehensive Plan. It was determined that only three land uses that are restricted by the
Comprehensive Plan are permitted either outright or with conditions in zoning. These include
in-vehicle sales and service, single use retail over 20,000 square feet, and shopping centers over
50,000 square feet. The City Council directed staff to bring amendments to the Chapter 36 of
the Municipal Code (Zoning) that would change how these uses are permitted.
Staff reviewed how these uses are permitted in primarily three zoning districts: C1 –
Neighborhood Commercial, C2 – General Commercial, and O – Office. Making changes to the
C2 and O Districts were straight forward involving only changing how the particular use was
permitted from permitted with conditions to permitted by conditional use permit and adding a
condition that states the use must conform with the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning
Commission held a public hearing and recommended approval of these amendments on March
20, 2002.
The approach for the C1 is different from the C2 and O District. Currently, uses in the C1
District require a CUP if the land use intensity exceeds Class 5. Staff and the Planning
Commission are recommending modifications to both the intensity classification table and the
intensity class that would automatically require a CUP in the C1 District (from those exceeding
Class5 to those exceeding Class 4). This proposal addresses those uses restricted in the
Comprehensive Plan, e.g. single use retail over 20,000 square feet and shopping centers over
50,000 square feet. The Planning Commission held a public hearing recommended approval of
these amendments on May 1, 2002, on a vote of 4-0.
Issues:
♦ What are the anticipated effects of the proposed amendments?
♦ How is the C1-Neighborhood Commercial District different? How are uses currently
permitted in the C1-Neighborhood Commercial District?
♦ What modifications are being proposed to the Intensity Class Measures Table?
♦ How will modifications impact the C1 District regulations and properties?
Issues Analysis:
♦ What are the anticipated effects of the proposed amendments?
A number of use restrictions and performance standards are incorporated into the Comprehensive
Plan either in the Plan By Neighborhood or Redevelopment Chapters. Of this number, only the
following three land uses are currently permitted without a conditional use permit or PUD.
♦ In-vehicle sales or service (drive-through).
♦ Single-use retail over 20,000 square feet.
♦ Shopping centers in excess of 50,000 square feet
In-vehicle sales or service. The Zoning Ordinance currently allows this land use as permitted
with conditions in the C1-Neighborhood Commercial, C2-General Commercial, and O-Office
50
districts. The conditions require specific distance requirements from residential, minimum
stacking distances, and bufferyards. Most communities require CUPs for this land use due to
traffic, noise, and other potential off-site impacts. The proposed amendments would require that
all future in-vehicle sales and service uses be permitted by CUP, and those currently operating
without a CUP would become non-conforming.
Single Use Retail Over 20,000 Square Feet. Currently this use is permitted within various
zoning districts as follows:
C1 - Up to 250,000 square feet permitted with conditions
Over 250,000 square feet by PUD
C2 Permitted outright, no size limit.
O As part of another land use or by PUD, no size limit.
IP As accessory, limited to 15% of floor area or by PUD, no size limit.
IG As accessory, limited to 15% of floor area of the development.
MX By PUD
There are currently four single-use retail buildings in the City that are not considered part of a
shopping center and are over 20,000 square feet. All of these properties have existing special
permits that are still in effect.
Development Floor Area Site Area Has SP/CUP/PUD
Byerly’s 104,000 9.8 acres Yes
Target Park Commons 88,967 8.0 acres Yes
Hoigaards 52,147 4.8 acres Yes
Sam’s Club 107,056 8.5 acres Yes
The proposed amendments would require that all single-use retail buildings by CUP in the C2
District. The proposed modifications to the C1 District will also result in requiring a CUP, but
will also involve changes to the Intensity Class Table.
Shopping Centers over 50,000 square feet. There are currently seven shopping centers in the
City as defined by the existing zoning code that have floor areas in excess of 50,000 square feet.
Of those, only one (Texa-Tonka) does not have an existing special permit, conditional use
permit, or PUD.
Development Floor Area Site Area Has SP/CUP/PUD
Burlington Coat Factory 131,503 9.6 acres Yes
Target Knollwood 132,705 15.5 acres Yes
Rainbow 57,420 4.1 acres Yes
Knollwood 457,210 33.3 acres Yes
Texa-Tonka 51,960 3.3 acres No
Miracle Mile 111,960 6.7 acres Yes
Park Place Plaza Yes
If the proposed zoning code amendments to change shopping centers over 50,000 square feet and
single use retail uses over 20,000 square feet to be permitted by conditional use permit is
51
approved, only one existing property would become “non-conforming” as a result. However,
any new single use retail establishment over 20,000 square feet or new shopping center over
50,000 square feet would require Planning Commission review and Council approval.
The owner of the Texa-Tonka Shopping Center is aware of this change. He is currently working
with the City and may be requesting a PUD for the property.
The proposed amendments will insure that uses in the C2 and O districts that may be restricted
by the Comprehensive Plan are allowed only by CUP. Since the CUP requires conformance with
the Comprehensive Plan, the zoning will not be conflict with the Comprehensive Plan, thus
assuring that parcels are developed in concurrence to both. Changes to the C1 District will be
below and will involve modifications to the Intensity Class Table.
♦ How is the C1-Neighborhood Commercial District different? How are uses currently
permitted in the C1-Neighborhood Commercial District?
Currently the C1 District controls the way some land uses are permitted depending upon
Intensity Classification. The Intensity Classification table (attached) is an instrument
incorporated into the Zoning Ordinance to measure how a use may impact adjacent uses. This is
then used to determine bufferyards and other mitigating standards. In the C1, no use is permitted
without a conditional use permit that exceeds Intensity Classification 5. Therefore, uses with an
Intensity Class 5 are permitted outright without a public hearing or notification of neighbors.
When staff reviewed the thresholds for Intensity Class 5, they were found to be very high. For
example, Intensity Class 5 permits uses that are open 24 hours and buildings up to 250,000
square feet. Intensity Class 5 also does not require a CUP for those uses restricted by the
Comprehensive Plan, e.g. single use retail over 20,000 square feet and shopping centers over
50,000 square feet.
Staff and the Planning Commission are proposing several adjustments to the Intensity
Classification Table and lowering the threshold that would require a CUP in the C1 District to
Intensity Class 4.
♦ What modifications are being proposed to the Intensity Class Measures Table?
Currently, the Zoning Ordinance measures the intensity of a land use by using several factors
that have been found to impact adjacent streets or properties. These factors include density,
impervious surface, floor area ratio, building height, vehicle trips generated, building area, and
hours of operation. The Ordinance assigns a class number based upon threshold criteria for each
factor. This intensity class is then used to determine bufferyard requirements, and in the C1
District, to determine whether a use will require a conditional use permit.
After reviewing the intensity class thresholds, staff found an inconsistency between various
factors. For instance, the threshold for building size for Intensity Class 5 is 250,000 square feet,
the maximum trip per acre per day is 1,500, and the maximum density is 40 units/acre. The trips
generated by 40 dwelling units per acre would be 400 per acre per day while a shopping center
would generate the full 1,500 trips per acre per day. The building size threshold is very high and
could allow retail over 20,000 square feet without a CUP. Staff is therefore proposing lowering
some of these numbers. The attached table reflects the proposed changes. These changes in
52
conjunction with changing the C1 District threshold for requiring a CUP will accomplish the
stated goal of requiring those uses restricted by the Comprehensive Plan to be permitted only by
conditional use permit.
♦ How will modifications impact the C1 District regulations and properties?
In addition to lowering some thresholds in the Intensity Class Measures table, staff is proposing
to lower the Intensity Class measure that would require a CUP in the C1 District to those uses
that exceed Intensity Class 4.
The following is an analysis of the properties in the C1 District:
Number of Parcels in C1 72
Mean Parcel Size 14,921 Square Feet
Smallest Parcel 739 Square Feet
Largest Parcel 47,284
The minimum land area required to construct a 20,000 square foot single use one-story building
with surface is about an acre. This would consider the minimum retail parking standard of 1
space for each 500 square feet (used for sale of large of large items such as appliances) along
with some minimum setbacks. Being even more conservative, staff identified parcels in the C1
District with areas over 32,000 square feet (3/4 acre) and found there are only four. All of these
are currently developed with buildings less than 20,000 square feet or already have a CUP.
Number of parcels over 32,000 square feet 4
5101 Minnetonka Blvd (Fern Hill Place) has CUP
4835 Minnetonka Blvd. (12,334 square foot building on 2 levels)
7200 Minnetonka Blvd. (existing building – 11,066 square feet)
2625 Louisiana Ave. (existing building – 1140 square feet)
Therefore, changes to the Intensity Class Measures Table and to the C1 should not make any
existing C1 development non-conforming, unless it already is (e.g., the Lang Nelson building).
It is intended to bring the standards to reasonably reflect what is currently existing and what is
appropriate for a Neighborhood Commercial district.
Recommendation:
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of proposed text amendments to
Chapter 36 of the Municipal Code that change some uses to be permitted by conditional use
permit in order to ensure compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
Attachments: Draft Ordinance
Prepared By: Judie Erickson, Planning Coordinator
Approved By: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
53
ORDINANCE NO.______
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE
RELATING TO ZONING BY AMENDING SECTIONS 36-115, 36-115C, 36-193,
36-194, 36-223, AND 36-223(C) (16) TO CHANGE SEVERAL LAND USES FROM
PERMITTED WITH CONDITIONS TO CONDITIONAL USES IN
COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS AND TO MODIFY INTENSITY
CLASSIFICATION TABLE THRESHOLD INTENSITIES AND TO LOWER
THRESHOLDS FOR REQUIRING CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS IN THE C-1
DISTRICT TO CLASS 4
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
Findings
Sec. 1. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning
Commission (Case Nos. 02-16-ZA and 02-23-ZA).
Sec. 2. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Sections 36-115C, 36-193(b), 36-193(c), 36-
193(d), 36-194(b)(10), 36-194(c), 26-194(d), 36-223 (c), 37-223(d), and 36-223(e) are hereby
amended to read as follows:
Table 36-115C
Intensity
Class
Measure
s
Maxim
um
Density
Factor
(DU/Ac
re)
Maxim
um
Impervi
ous
Surface
Ratio
Maxim
um
Floor
Area
Ratio
Maxim
um
Height
(in feet)
Maxim
um
Trips/A
C./Day
Gross
Building
Area
Hours
of
Operat
ion
Resultan
t Land
Use
Intensity
Class
Residenti
al uses
9 -- -- 30 100 4,000
2,000
Class 1
All other
uses
-- 0.30 0.15 30 100 4,000
2,000
6:00
a.m./6:
00
p.m.
Residenti
al uses
15 -- -- 35 300 10,000
5,000
-- Class 2
All uses -- 0.40 0.25 35 300 10,000
5,000
6:00
a.m./1
0:00
p.m.
54
All uses 20 0.60 0.50 50 40 650 50,000
10,000
6:00
a.m./1
2:00
p.m.
Class 3
All uses 30 0.70 0.80 75 50 1,000 100,000
20,000
6:00
a.m./1
2:00
p.m.
Class 4
All uses 40 0.80 1.00 150 75 1,500 250,000
50,000
24
hours
Class 5
All uses 50 0.90 1.40 240 150 2,500 300,000
100,000
24
hours
Class 6
All uses 50+ 0.90+ 1.40+ 240
150+
2,500+ 300,000
100,000
+
Class 7
Sec. 36-193. C-1 neighborhood commercial district.
(b) Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted in the C-1 district if the use complies
with the commercial restrictions and performance standards of section 36-192 and does
not exceed intensity classification 4:
(8) Medical/Dental Office
(9) Funeral Home
(10) Banks
(11) Business/Trade Schools
(12) Office
(13) Retail
(c) Uses permitted with conditions. A structure or land in a C-1 district may be used for one
or more of the following uses if its use complies with conditions stated in section 36-192,
and those specified for the use in this subsection (c). None of the following uses shall
exceed intensity classification 5 4, except by conditional use permit:
(3) Medical/dental office. The condition for a medical/dental office is that is shall not exceed
intensity classification 5.
(4) Funeral home. The condition for a funeral home is that it shall not exceed intensity
classification 5.
55
(9) Banks. Banks shall not exceed intensity classification 5.
(10) Business/trade schools. Business/trade schools shall not exceed intensity classification 5.
(13) In-vehicle sales or service. The conditions are as follows:
a. Drive-through facilities and stacking areas shall not be within 100 feet of any lot
in an R district unless the entire facility and stacking areas are separated from the lot in
an R district by a building wall.
b. A bufferyard D shall be provided along the lot line between drive-through
facilities and stacking areas and adjacent streets and properties.
c. Stacking shall be provided for six cars per customer service point and shall
comply with all yard requirements.
d. This use shall only be permitted when it can be demonstrated that the operation
will not have a significant adverse effect on the existing level of service of adjacent
streets and intersections.
e. The drive-through facility shall be designed so it does not impede traffic or impair
vehicular and pedestrian traffic movement, or exacerbate the potential for pedestrian or
vehicular conflicts.
f. Access shall be to a roadway identified in the comprehensive plan as a collector
or arterial or shall be otherwise located so that access can be provided without generating
significant traffic on local residential streets.
g. Any canopy as part of this use shall be compatible with the architectural design
and materials of the principal structure.
(14) Office. An office shall not exceed intensity classification 5.
(15) Printing process. The conditions are as follows:
b. The intensity classification cannot exceed 5.
(18) Retail. The retail use shall not exceed intensity classification 5.
(d) Conditional uses. No structure or land in a C-1 district shall be used for the following
uses except by conditional use permit. These uses shall comply with the commercial
restrictions and performance standards of section 36-192, the requirements of all the
general conditions provided in section 36-365, with the specific conditions imposed in
this subsection (d), and with any other conditions the city council may impose.
56
(1) Motor fuel station. The conditions are as follows:
m. The use is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan including any
provisions of the Redevelopment Chapter and the Plan by Neighborhood policies for the
neighborhood in which it is located and conditions of approval may be added as a means
of satisfying this requirement.
(2) Exceeding classification 5 4. All of those uses which are permitted or permitted with
conditions, which exceed an intensity classification 5 4, shall be conditional uses. The
conditions are as follows:
a. Access shall be to a roadway identified in the comprehensive plan as a collector
or arterial or shall be otherwise located so that access can be provided without generating
significant traffic on local residential streets.
b. Buildings shall be located a minimum of 25 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 a school, religious institution or community center.
c. The use is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan including any provisions
of the Redevelopment Chapter and the Plan by Neighborhood policies for the
neighborhood in which it is located and conditions of approval may be added as a means
of satisfying this requirement.
(4) Residential/multifamily/cluster housing. The conditions are as follows:
g. The use is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan including any provisions
of the Redevelopment Chapter and the Plan by Neighborhood policies for the
neighborhood in which it is located and conditions of approval may be added as a means
of satisfying this requirement.
(NEW SECTION ) In-vehicle sales or service. The conditions are as follows:
a. Drive-through facilities and stacking areas shall not be within 100 feet of any lot
in an R district unless the entire facility and stacking areas are separated from the lot in
an R district by a building wall.
b. A bufferyard D shall be provided along the lot line between drive-through
facilities and stacking areas and adjacent streets and properties.
c. Stacking shall be provided for six cars per customer service point and shall
comply with all yard requirements.
d. This use shall only be permitted when it can be demonstrated that the operation
will not have a significant adverse effect on the existing level of service of adjacent
streets and intersections.
57
e. The drive-through facility shall be designed so it does not impede traffic or impair
vehicular and pedestrian traffic movement, or exacerbate the potential for pedestrian or
vehicular conflicts.
f. Access shall be to a roadway identified in the comprehensive plan as a collector
or arterial or shall be otherwise located so that access can be provided without generating
significant traffic on local residential streets.
g. Any canopy as part of this use shall be compatible with the architectural design
and materials of the principal structure.
h. The use is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan including any provisions
of the Redevelopment Chapter and the Plan by Neighborhood policies for the
neighborhood in which it is located and conditions of approval may be added as a means
of satisfying this requirement.
Sec. 36-194. C-2 general commercial district.
(b) Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted in the C-2 district if the use complies
with the commercial restrictions and performance standards of section 36-192:
(10) Retail shops up to 20,000 square feet.
(c) Uses permitted with conditions. A structure or land in a C-2 district, may be used for one
or more of the following uses if its use complies with conditions stated in section 36-192
and those specified for the use in this subsection (c):
(13) In-vehicle sales or service. The conditions are as follows:
a. Drive-through facilities and stacking areas shall not be located within 100 feet of
any lot in an R district unless the entire facility and stacking areas are separated from the
lot in an R district by a building wall.
b. A bufferyard D shall be provided along the lot line between drive-through
facilities and stacking areas and adjacent streets and properties.
c. Stacking shall be provided for six cars per customer service point and shall
comply with all yard and bufferyard requirements.
d. This use shall only be permitted when it can be demonstrated that the operation
will not have a significant adverse affect on the existing level of service on adjacent
streets and intersections.
58
e. The drive-through facility shall be designed so it does not impede traffic or impair
vehicular and pedestrian traffic movement, or exacerbate the potential for pedestrian or
vehicular conflicts.
f. Access shall be to a roadway identified in the comprehensive plan as a collector
or arterial or shall be otherwise located so that access can be provided without generating
significant traffic on local residential streets.
g. Any canopy constructed as part of this use shall be compatible with the
architectural design and materials of the principal structure.
(d) Uses permitted by conditional use permit. No structure or land in a C-2 district shall be
used for the following uses except by conditional use permit. Those uses shall comply
with the commercial restrictions and performance standards of section 36-192, all those
general conditions provided in section 36-367 and with the specific conditions imposed in
this subsection (d), and with any other conditions which may be imposed by the city
council.
(1) Motor fuel station. The conditions are as follows:
i. The use is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan including any provisions
of the Redevelopment Chapter and the Plan by Neighborhood policies for the
neighborhood in which it is located and conditions of approval may be added as a means
of satisfying this requirement.
(2) Motor vehicle sales. The conditions are as follows:
p. The use is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan including any provisions
of the Redevelopment Chapter and the Plan by Neighborhood policies for the
neighborhood in which it is located and conditions of approval may be added as a means
of satisfying this requirement.
(3) Motor vehicle service and repair. The conditions are as follows:
h. The use is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan including any provisions
of the Redevelopment Chapter and the Plan by Neighborhood policies for the
neighborhood in which it is located and conditions of approval may be added as a means
of satisfying this requirement.
(4) Restaurants with intoxicating liquor license. The conditions are as follows:
e. The use is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan including any provisions
of the Redevelopment Chapter and the Plan by Neighborhood policies for the
neighborhood in which it is located and conditions of approval may be added as a means
of satisfying this requirement.
59
(5) Clubs and lodges with intoxicating liquor license. The conditions are as follows:
e. The use is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan including any provisions
of the Redevelopment Chapter and the Plan by Neighborhood policies for the
neighborhood in which it is located and conditions of approval may be added as a means
of satisfying this requirement.
(7) Multiple-family dwelling and cluster housing. The conditions are as follows:
j. The use is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan including any provisions
of the Redevelopment Chapter and the Plan by Neighborhood policies for the
neighborhood in which it is located and conditions of approval may be added as a means
of satisfying this requirement.
(8) Elderly housing. The conditions are as follows:
f. The use is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan including any provisions
of the Redevelopment Chapter and the Plan by Neighborhood policies for the
neighborhood in which it is located and conditions of approval may be added as a means
of satisfying this requirement.
(9) Private entertainment (indoor) with intoxicating liquor license. The conditions are as
follows:
e. The use is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan including any provisions
of the Redevelopment Chapter and the Plan by Neighborhood policies for the
neighborhood in which it is located and conditions of approval may be added as a means
of satisfying this requirement.
(10) In-vehicle sales or service. The conditions are as follows:
a. Drive-through facilities and stacking areas shall not be located within 100 feet of
any lot in an R district unless the entire facility and stacking areas are separated from the
lot in an R district by a building wall.
b. A bufferyard D shall be provided along the lot line between drive-through
facilities and stacking areas and adjacent streets and properties.
c. Stacking shall be provided for six cars per customer service point and shall
comply with all yard and bufferyard requirements.
d. This use shall only be permitted when it can be demonstrated that the operation
will not have a significant adverse affect on the existing level of service on adjacent
streets and intersections.
60
e. The drive-through facility shall be designed so it does not impede traffic or impair
vehicular and pedestrian traffic movement, or exacerbate the potential for pedestrian or
vehicular conflicts.
f. Access shall be to a roadway identified in the comprehensive plan as a collector
or arterial or shall be otherwise located so that access can be provided without generating
significant traffic on local residential streets.
g. Any canopy constructed as part of this use shall be compatible with the
architectural design and materials of the principal structure.
h. The use is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan including any provisions
of the Redevelopment Chapter and the Plan by Neighborhood policies for the
neighborhood in which it is located and conditions of approval may be added as a means
of satisfying this requirement.
(11) Retail Stores over 20,000 square feet.
a. This use shall only be permitted when it can be demonstrated that the operation
will not have a significant adverse affect on the existing level of service on adjacent
streets and intersections.
b. Access shall be to a roadway identified in the comprehensive plan as a collector
or arterial or shall be otherwise located so that access can be provided without generating
significant traffic on local residential streets.
c. A bufferyard F shall be provided along all lot lines abutting property in an R
district.
d. All buildings and structures shall be set back a minimum of 25 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.
e. The use is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan including any provisions
of the Redevelopment Chapter and the Plan by Neighborhood policies for the
neighborhood in which it is located and conditions of approval may be added as a means
of satisfying this requirement.
(12) Shopping center between 50,000 and 200,000 square feet. The conditions are as follows:
a. The shopping center development shall not exceed 200,000 square feet of gross
floor area.
61
b. Access shall be to a roadway identified in the comprehensive plan as a collector
or arterial or shall be otherwise located so that access can be provided without generating
significant traffic on local residential streets.
c. A bufferyard F shall be provided along all lot lines abutting property in an R
district.
d. All buildings and structures shall be set back a minimum of 25 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.
e. The use is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan including any provisions
of the Redevelopment Chapter and the Plan by Neighborhood policies for the
neighborhood in which it is located and conditions of approval may be added as a means
of satisfying this requirement.
.
Sec. 36-223. O office district.
(c) Uses permitted with conditions. A structure or land in any O district may be used for one
or more of the following uses if it complies with the conditions stated in section 36-222
and those specified for the use in this subsection:
(12) In-vehicle sales or service. The conditions are as follows:
a. Drive-through facilities and stacking areas shall not be located within 100 feet of
any lot in an R district.
b. A bufferyard D shall be provided along the lot unless the entire facility and
stacking areas are separated from the lot in an R district by a building wall line between
drive-through facilities and stacking areas and adjacent streets and properties.
c. Stacking shall be provided for six cars per customer service point and shall
comply with all yard requirements.
d. This use shall only be permitted when it can be demonstrated that the operation
will not have a significant adverse affect on the existing level of service on adjacent
streets and intersections.
e. The drive-through facility shall be designed so it does not impede traffic or impair
vehicular and pedestrian traffic movement, or exacerbate the potential for pedestrian or
vehicular conflicts.
62
f. Access shall be to a roadway identified in the comprehensive plan as a collector
or arterial or shall be otherwise located so that access can be provided without generating
significant traffic on local residential streets.
g. Any canopy constructed as part of this use shall be compatible with the
architectural design and materials of the principal structure.
(16) Retail. The conditions are as follows:
a. No single use retail establishment over 20,000 square feet is permitted. The retail
facility shall be permitted only as a part of a larger development on a single parcel which
contains at least one other permitted principal use or as a part of a mixed use PUD .
c. Retail uses shall be integrated with other principal land uses which are within the
O district and shall not exceed ten percent of the gross floor area of the total development
parcel.
(d) Uses permitted by conditional use permit. No structure or land in an O district shall be
used for the following uses except by conditional use permit. These uses shall comply
with the office restrictions and performance standards of section 36-222 and all those
general conditions provided in section 36-367 and with the specific conditions imposed in
this subsection (d).
(1) Motor fuel station. The conditions are as follows:
h. The use is in conformance with the comprehensive Plan including any provisions
of the Redevelopment Chapter and the Plan by Neighborhood policies for the
neighborhood in which it is located and conditions of approval may be added as a means
of satisfying this requirement.
(2) Restaurants with intoxicating liquor license. The conditions are as follows:
g. The use is in conformance with the comprehensive Plan including any provisions
of the Redevelopment Chapter and the Plan by Neighborhood policies for the
neighborhood in which it is located and conditions of approval may be added as a means
of satisfying this requirement.
(3) Heliport. The conditions are as follows:
g. The use is in conformance with the comprehensive Plan including any
provisions of the Redevelopment Chapter and the Plan by Neighborhood policies for the
neighborhood in which it is located and conditions of approval may be added as a means
of satisfying this requirement.
(4) Offices where intensity classification exceeds 6. The conditions are as follows:
63
h. The use is in conformance with the comprehensive Plan including any provisions
of the Redevelopment Chapter and the Plan by Neighborhood policies for the
neighborhood in which it is located and conditions of approval may be added as a means
of satisfying this requirement.
(5) Medical and dental offices where intensity classification exceeds 6. The conditions are as
follows:
h. The use is in conformance with the comprehensive Plan including any provisions
of the Redevelopment Chapter and the Plan by Neighborhood policies for the
neighborhood in which it is located and conditions of approval may be added as a means
of satisfying this requirement.
(6) Clubs and lodges with intoxicating liquor license. The conditions are as follows:
e. The use is in conformance with the comprehensive Plan including any provisions
of the Redevelopment Chapter and the Plan by Neighborhood policies for the
neighborhood in which it is located and conditions of approval may be added as a means
of satisfying this requirement.
(7) More than one principal building. Uses where more than one principal building is located
on a single lot.
a. The use is in conformance with the comprehensive Plan including any provisions
of the Redevelopment Chapter and the Plan by Neighborhood policies for the
neighborhood in which it is located and conditions of approval may be added as a means
of satisfying this requirement.
(8) Private entertainment (indoor) with intoxicating liquor license. The conditions are as
follows:
e. The use is in conformance with the comprehensive Plan including any provisions
of the Redevelopment Chapter and the Plan by Neighborhood policies for the
neighborhood in which it is located and conditions of approval may be added as a means
of satisfying this requirement.
(9) In-vehicle sales or service. The conditions are as follows:
a. Drive-through facilities and stacking areas shall not be located within 100 feet of
any lot in an R district.
b. A bufferyard D shall be provided along the lot unless the entire facility and
stacking areas are separated from the lot in an R district by a building wall line between
drive-through facilities and stacking areas and adjacent streets and properties.
64
c. Stacking shall be provided for six cars per customer service point and shall
comply with all yard requirements.
d. This use shall only be permitted when it can be demonstrated that the operation
will not have a significant adverse affect on the existing level of service on adjacent
streets and intersections.
e. The drive-through facility shall be designed so it does not impede traffic or impair
vehicular and pedestrian traffic movement, or exacerbate the potential for pedestrian or
vehicular conflicts.
f. Access shall be to a roadway identified in the comprehensive plan as a collector
or arterial or shall be otherwise located so that access can be provided without generating
significant traffic on local residential streets.
g. Any canopy constructed as part of this use shall be compatible with the
architectural design and materials of the principal structure.
h. The use is in conformance with the comprehensive Plan including any
provisions of the Redevelopment Chapter and the Plan by Neighborhood policies for the
neighborhood in which it is located and conditions of approval may be added as a means
of satisfying this requirement.
(e) Uses permitted by PUD. No structure or land in any O district shall be used for the
following uses except by the PUD process. These uses shall comply with the
requirements of all the general conditions provided in section 36-222 and with the
specific conditions imposed in this subsection (e). Uses and structures which are
permitted by right, permitted with conditions, or permitted as conditional uses may also
be permitted by PUD. Provisions for the PUD and modifications to dimensional
standards and densities are provided under section 36-367.
(1) Multiple-family dwellings. The provisions are as follows:
j. The use is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan including any provisions
of the Redevelopment Chapter and the Plan by Neighborhood policies for the
neighborhood in which it is located and conditions of approval may be added as a means
of satisfying this requirement.
(2) Elderly housing. The provisions are as follows:
f. The use is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan including any provisions
of the Redevelopment Chapter and the Plan by Neighborhood policies for the
neighborhood in which it is located and conditions of approval may be added as a means
of satisfying this requirement.
(3) Shopping centers. The provisions are as follows:
65
j. The use is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan including any provisions
of the Redevelopment Chapter and the Plan by Neighborhood policies for the
neighborhood in which it is located and conditions of approval may be added as a means
of satisfying this requirement.
Sec. 3. The contents of Planning Case Files 02-16-ZA and 02-23-ZA are hereby entered
into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
Sec.4. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication.
Adopted by the City Council June 3, 2002
Reviewed for Administration
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
02-16-ZA and 02-23-ZA:N/res-ord
66
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 7f
Meeting of May 20, 2002
7f. Resolution establishing Louisiana Oaks Park, ( 3280, 3500, 7400, 7450
Louisiana Avenue)
This resolution formally establishes a city park at the former Oak Park Village site,
located on the northwest corner of Hwy 7 and Louisiana Ave S
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt a resolution establishing Louisiana Oaks Park.
Background
In the fall of 1997, the City Council appointed a task force to study overall land use in the area of
Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue South, including the vacant land in Oak Park Village and
property to the south and east. The task force completed its work and presented
recommendations to the City Council at a study session on May 11, 1998. One of the
recommendations made by that task force was that land to the north and west of the intersection
should be dedicated park land and that further study should take place to determine how the park
land would be used in the future.
On November 2, 1998, the City Council adopted Resolution number 98-143 guiding the use of
property commonly known as Oak Park Village to be park and open space.
Since that time a period of study has occurred during which recommendations of various
community groups and residents were given to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission
and the City Council. Various plans for a city park at the northwest corner of Highway 7 and
Louisiana Park have been reviewed and plans for various park amenities and facilities have been
created.
The Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission initiated a process where they solicited name
suggestions for the park to be located on the site. After several conversations and input from the
Children First Committee, the Commission made their recommendation to the City Council that
the park be named “Louisiana Oaks Park” and that the park be dedicated to the Children First
Initiative.
Recommended Action:
Council’s motion to adopt the resolution will formally dedicate “Louisiana Oaks Park” for the
enjoyment of the public.
Prepared by: Cynthia S. Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
67
RESOLUTION NO. 02-054
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING LOUISIANA OAKS PARK
3280, 3500, 7400, 7450 Louisiana Avenue South, St. Louis Park, Minnesota
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park believes that the City’s Parks
are of great benefit to the people of the community; and
WHEREAS, On November 2, 1998 in response to requests from the community and the
recommendation of a task force, the City Council adopted Resolution number 98-143 guiding the
use of property commonly known as Oak Park Village to be park and open space; and
WHEREAS, Ownership of the property has been transferred from the Economic
Development Authority to the City of St. Louis Park with the intent of establishing a city park on
the site; and
WHEREAS, The Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission has undergone a process
including soliciting suggestions from the public and from the Children First organization to name
a city park on the site;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park that the property formerly known as Oak Park Village is hereby renamed and established as
Louisiana Oaks Park, to be used and enjoyed by all.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council May 20, 2002
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
68
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
May 20, 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 adopt resolution accepting transfer of property from the St. Louis Park
EDA located northwest of the intersection of Walker Street and Louisiana
Avenue.
2. Motion to adopt a resolution revising the City of St. Louis Park Personnel Manual
by adding a Police Trainee Program to enhance the recruiting process for police
officers.
3. Motion to accept the following reports for filing:
e. Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes of March 1, 2002
f. Planning Commission Minutes of May 1, 2002
g. Housing Authority Minutes of April 10, 2002
h. Vendor Claims
69
CONSENT ITEM # 1
St. Louis Park City Council
Meeting of May 20,2002
1. Motion to adopt resolution accepting transfer of property from the St.
Louis Park EDA located northwest of the intersection of Walker Street and
Louisiana Avenue.
Background:
In October of 1988, the Housing Authority of the City of St. Louis Park conveyed to the St.
Louis Park Economic Development Authority property which it owned located generally
northwest of the intersection of Louisiana Avenue and Walker Street. This property had been
owned by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority for a number of years as a means to
encourage private redevelopment of the former Reilly Tar site.
The property which the Housing Authority owned, and subsequently the EDA, were parcels
platted specifically for redevelopment as well as property platted specifically for park and open
space use. During the time the Housing Authority owned the property, as well as the EDA, the
property was used generally for park and open space purposes. As a result of the 1998 Louisiana
Avenue/Trunk Hwy. 7 Study, it was determined that the property owned by the EDA, and set
aside for private redevelopment in the future, should be retained and continued to be used in the
future for park and open space purposes. Subsequently, the St. Louis Park City Council
amended the Comp Plan to guide the property in question for park purposes.
Given the fact the property in question has been guided for park purposes, and that the City of
St. Louis Park has begun making park improvements to the property, there is no longer any
reason for the EDA to continue ownership of this property. As such, the action contemplated in
this report is to authorize the transfer of the property from the EDA to the City of St. Louis Park.
The total monetary consideration for the transfer is $1.00
A title commitment was requested and received by the City Attorney for the subject property.
As part of this action, several memorials or exceptions were noted that are being researched.
A two-thirds majority vote of the City Council is required to accept the transfer of the land (state
statute requirement).
Attachments:
• Map of the property in question
• Resolution
Prepared By: Tom Harmening, Community Development Director
Approved By: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
70
RESOLUTION NO. 02-055
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE TRANSFER OF REAL PROPERTY
LOCATED IN OAK PARK VILLAGE
WHEREAS, Minn. Stat. § 465.03 requires a City to accept a transfer of real property by
resolution adopted by a two-thirds majority vote of its members:
WHEREAS, The St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (“Owner) proposes
to transfer to the City real property located in Oak Park Village, Hennepin County, Minnesota,
legally described on the attached Exhibit “A” (“Subject Property”) without any restrictions upon
its use:
WHEREAS, the City desires to accept Owner’s transfer of the Subject Property without
restrictions upon the City’s use of the Subject Property.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park,
Minnesota:
That the City Council for the City of St. Louis Park hereby accepts Owner’s
transfer of the Subject Property, without any restrictions upon its use. The total
monetary consideration to be given to the Owner for the transfer is $1.00.
ADOPTED this 20th day of May, 2002, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council May 20, 2002
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
71
EXHIBIT “A”
Resolution No. 02-055
Legal Description of Subject Property:
Park 1, Oak Park Village;
Park 2, Oak Park Village;
Lot 1, Block 2, Oak Park Village;
Lot 1, Block 5, Oak Park Village; and
Lot 1, Block, Oak Park Village, Hennepin County, Minnesota
72
CONSENT ITEM # 2
St. Louis Park City Council
Meeting of May 20, 2002
2. Motion to adopt a resolution revising the City of St. Louis Park Personnel
Manual by adding a Police Trainee Program to enhance the recruiting process
for police officers.
Background:
Recent recruiting processes for police officers by departments throughout our metro area have
brought police chiefs in this area to the unanimous conclusion that our candidate pool is
increasingly inadequate in meeting our needs. During the past few years, St. Louis Park Police
officer recruiting processes have attracted between 75 and 125 candidates who met our minimum
requirements. During our testing process, this pool shrinks quickly, and an alarming percentage
of our “Top 10” candidates are being disqualified during the background investigation process.
Currently, laws regarding licensing for Minnesota police officers are regulated by the Minnesota
P.O.S.T. (Peace Officers Standards and Training) Board and MNSCU (Minnesota State College
and University) system. This current system results in a candidate pool consisting almost
entirely of candidates who have received 2-year A.A. degrees in law enforcement from the
MNSCU system.
As a member of the Minnesota Chiefs of Police Education Foundation Board, I have been
participating in meetings with P.O.S.T. Board and MNSCU representatives for more than a year
discussing this problem. Our goal has been to create an opportunity for recipients of 4-year
degrees in any field to opt into policing as a career either after graduation or after gaining work
experience on a different career path.
In September of this year, a 4-month training academy is being offered on an experimental basis.
This academy has been approved by the P.O.S.T. Board and MNSCU and will be hosted by the
St. Paul Police Department. The only requirement for attendance is a 4-year degree from an
accredited college or university.
Analysis:
In order for the City of St. Louis Park to permit the police department to hire and place police
officer candidates in this academy or future academies which are similarly designed, the
following issues are raised for consideration:
• The police trainee program does not appear to fall under the tuition reimbursement
provisions currently described in the City Personnel Manual 14.4.
• The police trainee program would differ from the police cadet program described in Section
14.5 of the Personnel Manual in several significant ways.
• Approval of the police trainee program would require the addition of Section 14.6 to the City
Personnel Manual which would outline the development requirements associated with the
program.
73
Questions and Answers:
• How is the police trainee program different from the Cadet program?
The police cadets are temporary civilian positions and cadets attend college for 2-year A.A.
degrees in law enforcement on their own time. Cadets receive tuition reimbursement;
however, entry into the cadet program does not include a conditional job offer for a police
officer position. The trainee program will involve a conditional job offer for the position of
police officer, and candidates with 4-year degrees will earn full-time wages and benefits
while attending a 4-month training academy.
• Is there another path available for a person with a 4-year degree to achieve police
officer license eligibility in Minnesota?
Yes, but it is a slow and cumbersome process. Under the current system, a person with a 4-
year degree in Criminal Justice from the University of Minnesota-Duluth would attend
classes for 12-18 months to become eligible for a Minnesota police officers license.
• What costs would be associated with the police trainee program?
The following cost estimates have been developed for the proposed program:
Item Cost
Wages and benefits $15,100 (current year)
Tuition 4,200
Books 1,000
Uniforms 500
It should be noted that since the trainee would occupy a vacant patrol officer position for
budget purposes, no additional funding would be required for wages and benefits. Council
approval would permit the addition of Section 14-6 to the City Personnel Manual outlining
and approving the trainee program.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution which adds a Police
Training Program to the City of St. Louis Park Personnel Manual.
Attachments: Resolution Adding Police Training Program to the City of St. Louis Park
Personnel Manual.
Prepared by: John D. Luse, Chief of Police
Nancy Gohman, Human Resources Director
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
74
RESOLUTION NO. 02-02-056
RESOLUTION ADDING POLICE TRAINING PROGRAM
TO THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK PERSONNEL MANUAL
WHEREAS, The mission statement adopted by the City Council to guide the actions of
the City Council and City staff in conducting the City’s business is “Delivering responsive
municipal services to ensure a safe, welcoming and vital community now and in the future” and;
WHEREAS, The City Council recognizes that in order to carry out the mission statement,
the employees of the City of St. Louis Park must be provided with a safe and supportive working
environment; and
WHEREAS, The City Council wishes to adopt policies which ensure adequate
compensation, leave and benefits for city employees and which protect the ethical standards of
the City of St. Louis Park; and
WHEREAS, The City Council has conferred upon the City Manager the power to
establish and administer additional administrative policies and rules as may be appropriate to
administer the employment practices of the City.
NOW THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT, The City Council of the City of St.
Louis Park hereby adopts the following policy to be added to the personnel manual:
Police Trainee Program
The purpose of the police trainee program is to enhance the recruiting process for police officers
by offering employment and placing them in a training academy based on requirements and
successful performance as determined by the Chief of Police.
Individuals selected to participate and successfully perform in the Police Trainee program will
receive wages and benefits in accordance with provisions for a regular employee of the city.
Employees who successfully participate in the Police Training Program may be eligible for full
tuition, books required supplies and $500 for uniforms paid by the city as approved by the City
Manager.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council May 20, 2002
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
75
CONSENT ITEM # 3a
OFFICIAL MINUTES
PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY COMMISSION
MARCH 20, 2002 – 7:00 P.M.
REC CENTER BANQUET ROOM
MEMBERS PRESENT: Bruce Cornwall, Kirk Hawkinson, Nancy Nelson, Ashley
Tomoson, and Tom Worthington
MEMBERS ABSENT: Richard Johnson
STAFF PRESENT: Cindy Walsh, Stacy Voelker, Rick Birno, and Jenny Buskey
1. Call to order
Nancy Nelson, Chair, called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m.
2. Adjustments to the agenda
The order of business changed with New Business being presented first per Cindy Walsh.
3. Approval of Minutes of February 20, 2002
Tom Worthington moved to approve the minutes, Kirk Hawkinson seconded. The motion
passed 5-0.
4. Old Business
A. Youth Sports Summit Action Item Discussion
Tom Worthington advised a draft of the letter would be e-mailed to staff when
completed for review. Mr. Worthington and Ms. Nelson will attend the City
Council meeting in April to give an update. Mr. Worthington suggested including
a paragraph informing the public that the associations have links on the City’s
web site in future publications of the Parks and Recreation brochure. Bruce
Cornwall indicated he felt the associations were interested in having one web site
for all associations to have information on. Ms. Nelson felt this is a good start to
have one site with the links to all associations.
B. Discuss Staff Policy on Field Usage
Cindy Walsh distributed the City’s field usage policy for review by the
Commission due to the issue with the AAU and Little League. Rick Birno advised
staff has worked out usage this summer with the AAU and Little League and will
coordinate a meeting in fall to follow up on the issue. Tom Worthington inquired
if most organizations comply with the policy. Jenny Buskey indicated this is a
guide for all associations and they are good about complying. The Commission,
along with staff, discussed the policy and potential changes. These include
76
changes to #8 to make the statement more specific and addition to #1 to include
specific deadlines.
Mr. Worthington suggested the Commission be the facilitator if a conflict arose
for #8 and staff agreed. The Commission members agreed to change the policy to
state that conflicting associations would present their issue to the Parks and
Recreation Advisory Commission and the Commission would make
recommendations to the Director. The Commission would respond to the
associations and Director in writing.
Staff and the Commission also discussed priority usage, which was agreed, should
be included in the guidelines.
Staff will make changes to the guidelines and bring back to Commission at their
April meeting.
C. Oak Park Village Public Art Update
Rick Birno advised the Commission Request For Quotations for artists went out
on Tuesday. The RFQ’s asked for bids on the playground structure and entrance
monument. These RFQ’s will be submitted to Jack Becker at FORECAST
Artworks. Rick Birno, Nancy Nelson, Carol Humphrey, and Mike McGarvey will
review the proposals which are due on April 10, 2002. Ms. Walsh indicated a
similar process will take place in the future for the building. Ms. Walsh may ask
the artists that are selected to present their ideas at a PRAC meeting.
5. New Business
A. Vernon Town Home Proposal by Community Development (2601 Vernon)
Cindy Walsh introduced Judie Erickson, Planning Coordinator from Community
Development, and the Commission members introduced themselves. Ms.
Erickson advised the City received a request to split one lot into seven lots for a
condominium plat. The municipal code specifies that when this occurs, park
dedication is a must. Ms. Erickson distributed a council report that staff prepared
and discussed the handout which included the location of the lot and the park
dedication that is needed. The Commission discussed the parks in the area and
found the closest park is Birchwood Park. The plat shows a trail connection from
Vernon Avenue which would connect with the trail and pedestrian bridge.
Ms. Erickson advised the Commission needs to decide if they want the land or
cash in lieu. Mr. Worthington inquired what has been reasonably done in past.
Ms. Walsh indicated the Commission in the past has generally taken the cash
which goes into a park improvement fund to be used specifically for parks. Mr.
Worthington recommended taking the cash in which staff agreed. Mr. Cornwall
asked what the neighbors have said. Ms. Erickson advised she received a lot of
comments due to the tree removal and advised there is a tree replacement plan in
effect. Ms. Walsh also advised that if all trees cannot be replaced on the site, the
tree replacement plan calls for cash in lieu to be placed in a fund that is used only
for tree planting.
77
Mr. Worthington inquired on future plans for Birchwood Park. Ms. Walsh advised
playground equipment replacement is in the long-range master plan. Mr.
Worthington inquired if a certain amount of money has been earmarked for
Birchwood Park. Ms. Walsh advised the Commission that all money goes into the
Park Improvement Fund and gets spent within the year on parks. Ms. Nelson
inquired when the project would be completed. Ms. Erickson indicated
construction is scheduled to start this year but the money needs to be received
prior to the start of construction. Ms. Walsh indicated staff could consider
replacement of the playground equipment at Birchwood Park earlier than
proposed in the master plan. Mr. Hawkinson inquired if Birchwood Park was
scheduled for the storm water management plan. Mr. Birno advised he would
bring the answer back at the next Commission meeting.
Tom Worthington moved to accept the cash option of $5,400; Kirk Hawkinson
seconded. Motion passed 5-0.
6. Communications
A. Chair
Nancy Nelson reviewed a brochure she received titled “Cultural Compass” which
is a community event to be held on April 9th in which all members indicated they
received. Ms. Nelson also received a letter from Parktacular and inquired if the
Comission would like to participate in the event. Ms. Walsh advised the City
supplies an administrative support person and $5,000 for the event but the events
are run by volunteers from St. Louis Park.
B. Commissioners
Ashley Tomoson indicated that she will be resigning from the Commission as she
will be moving away for college. She thanked the Commission for the past three
years and the Commissioners thanked Ms. Tomoson. Ms. Wlash inquired if Ms.
Tomoson could recommend a replacement and Ms. Tomoson indicated she would
check into that, and submit a resignation letter.
Bruce Cornwall inquried on the status of the “bee hives” located on Highway 100.
Staff will inquire with Bridget Wynn, Historical Society liason, if there are plans
for them and will bring back to the Commission at a future meeting. Kirk
Hawkinson inquired if they might be incorporated into Oak Park Village.
Tom Worthington inquired if the Commission could plan a field trip to parks (as
done last year) or meet at the Nature Center. Staff agreed and suggested meeting
at Westwood April 17th with the meeting starting at 6:30 p.m.
C. Program Report – Jenny Buskey
Jenny Buskey briefed the Commission on activities and participation numbers.
Ms. Buskey indicated adult sports are similar as in past years with co-rec
volleyball increasing every year and broomball remaining the same. Adult softball
has leveled out and teams are being turned away. Also, Keystone field is not
available this year. Ms. Buskey indicated the Football Association is doing well
with their newly established organization.
78
Youth basketball has leveled out with the same number of kids as in past years;
rock climbing was a success; softy soccer started last week and this is it’s second
year hoping to expand every year.
Rick Birno indicated Ms. Buskey is now in charge of the Aquatic Park staff. Ms.
Buskey advised she attended an Aquatic Park Conference last week and updated
the Comission on items she learned. Tom Worthington inquired if the Department
is looking into having a defibrilator at the Aquatic Park. Ms. Walsh advised it is a
possibility and will inquire with the Chief of the Fire Department.
The Commission thanked Ms. Buskey.
D. Director’s report
Cindy Walsh advised the Commission that staff is hiring for the Park
Superintendent position and has it narrowed down to three individuals who are
going through PDI testing. Ms. Walsh briefly explained what the position entails
and that this position will work with Craig Panning on the outdoor buildings also.
Ms. Walsh informed members that bid packages have been sent out for the Wolfe
Park Amphitheater, Wolfe Park soil corrections and the Oak Park Village master
plan, which are all due by the end of March.
7. Adjournment
Moved by Kirk Hawkinson and seconded by Ashley Tomoson to adjourn. Motion passed
5-0. With no further business, the Commission adjourned at 8:42 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Stacy M. Voelker
Department Secretary
79
CONSENT ITEM # 3b
Official Minutes
PLANNING COMMISSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
May 1, 2002 -- 6:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Phillip Finkelstein, Michael Garelick, Ken Gothberg, Dennis
Morris, Carl Robertson
MEMBERS ABSENT: Michelle Bissonnette, Jerry Timian
STAFF PRESENT: Janet Jeremiah, Judie Erickson, Nancy Sells
1. Call to order - Roll Call
Chair Gothberg called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
2. Approval of Minutes of April 17, 2002
Commissioner Robertson moved approval of the minutes of April 17, 2002. The motion passed
4-0-1. Commissioner Gothberg 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.
A revised site plan regarding Santorini Restaurant’s request, dated April 29, 2002, and a
subsequent staff report were distributed to the Commissioners.
Janet Jeremiah, Planning and Zoning Supervisor presented a staff report. The revised plan shows
accommodation for 191 on-site parking spaces and, with a few changes, it appears the required
landscaping requirement can meet the 1990 approval. Existing light poles will need to be moved
to accommodate the proposed parking. A slight reduction in open space is proposed. Ms.
Jeremiah said two rooftop exits are required, and the building code official is still looking closely
at that issue; an elevator may be required or a stairway and ramp.
Staff recommends approval based on the six conditions listed in the revised staff report. Ms.
Jeremiah said the applicant must submit revised site and landscaping plans prior to City Council
consideration, and the applicant would be required to submit a boundary survey as opposed to a
boundary concept-only exhibit. The parking revisions, as recommended by staff, and the
landscape plans per the 1990 approval must be submitted to Ms. Jeremiah no later than May 13th.
Prior to use of the rooftop for rooftop events or use of an outdoor extension of the bar/restaurant
80
area, the applicant will be required to sign an assent form agreeing to the conditions of approval
as well as signing the final approved official exhibits with the new site and landscaping plans.
Completion of improvements including the site design improvements as well as the building
code improvements will also be required prior to use. Staff recommends requiring the applicant
to execute a parking agreement for the overflow off-site event parking, which has been agreed to
per the letter from a nearby property owner. Prior to use of the rooftop, the applicant must obtain
a tent permit to be approved only as a temporary structure. It will need to be removed after use
and stored indoors. Rooftop parking will have to remain open to the general public and clear of
obstructions at all times. The site will have to comply with the noise ordinance, and the
restaurant owner will pay an administrative fine of $750 per violation of any conditions of
approval.
Commissioner Robertson asked if the 1990 code would be grandfathered in and prevail over
current accessibility codes. Ms. Jeremiah said there are two issues: planning approval and
Building Code. Regarding planning, at a minimum, the site must remain in conformance with
the 1990 approval. Accessibility requirements are part of the building code and not the zoning
code. The building official would have to make an interpretation regarding whether or not the
rooftop use would trigger a new use of the property and, therefore, create some additional
handicap parking requirements.
Chair Gothberg opened the public hearing.
The applicant, Jeff Holle, for Santorini’s Restaurant, made himself available for questions.
Commissioner Garelick asked if any of the staff recommendations would be impossible to attain,
and Mr. Holle responded no.
Commissioner Garelick thanked Ms. Jeremiah and staff for their promptness in regard to moving
this item forward.
Chair Gothberg closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Morris approves of the staff recommendations, however, tents are accessory
structures and when the tent permit is issued, he asked that it would require a hard look by city
engineers, and by the applicant, to demonstrate that the tent will be securely anchored.
Commissioner Robertson said the property owner has been a long-time client of his firm and has
other business relationships with his partner, therefore, he excused himself from voting.
It was moved by Commissioner Garelick to recommend approval subject to the conditions
recommended by staff. The motion passed 4-0-1. (Commissioner Robertson abstained).
B. Case No. 02-20-ZA Public hearing to review text amendments to Chapter 36 of
the Municipal Code (Zoning) to add “Mikvah” as an accessory use in Single
Family Residential Districts
81
Judie Erickson, Planning Coordinator, presented a staff report. Staff anticipates no more than
three cars related to the Mikvah use at the 4624 Minnetonka Blvd. property at any one time.
Therefore, staff recommends requiring three additional off-street parking spaces on-site for a
total of five spaces. The required two spaces for single family parking will have to be
accommodated within a garage. Staff recommends approval of the proposed text amendments.
Commissioner Morris asked about the condition of the property, specifically, have any
inspections taken place or improvements made. Ms. Erickson said staff has received phone calls
saying improvements have been made.
Chair Gothberg opened the public hearing.
Naomi Pederman, 2725 Huntington Avenue South, circulated a revised site plan, and stated that
the applicant, the Ritualarium Society of Mpls., will be meeting with neighbors. Ms. Pederman
said the applicant would like to house the woman who oversees the Mikvah at the home.
Commissioner Robertson commented that the Mikvah makes sense as an accessory use but he
wondered if it was a compromise regarding privacy.
In response to a question about policy, Commissioner Morris said it is the policy of the
synagogue and not a zoning issue to determine if the Mikvah is for females only, males only or a
combination.
Mark Kutoff, 2724 Lynn Avenue South, said this Mikvah will be a community Mikvah strictly
for females. He said the property may remain empty for awhile but the property will be
maintained.
Chair Gothberg closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Garelick addressed the April 16, 2002 letter written by Earl Hipp, 2938 Monterey
Avenue. Commissioner Garelick dismissed Mr. Hipp’s comment that special interest groups are
taking power. Commissioner Garelick said the job of City staff is to address and clarify the
concerns of citizens and recommendations that the Planning Commission is considering.
Chair Gothberg said there has been strong neighborhood representation, and the Planning
Commission is aware of their interest. He stated the most recent plan will fit in better than the
previous plan, and he is pleased with the progress.
It was moved by Commissioner Morris to approve zoning text amendments to allow a “Mikvah”
as an accessory use in the R1 and R2 Single Family Residential Districts subject to conditions
recommended by staff. The motion passed 5-0.
Commissioner Finkelstein left the meeting at approximately 6:50 p.m.
C. Case No. 02-23-ZA Public hearing to review proposed zoning text amendments
to Chapter 36 of the Municipal Code to modify intensity classification table
82
threshold intensities and to lower the intensity thresholds for requiring conditional
use permits in the C1 district to Class 4.
Ms. Erickson presented a staff report regarding the proposed text amendments to Chapter 36 of
the Municipal Code.
Commissioner Robertson noted the changes in the gross building area from the existing intensity
class measure table to the proposed intensity class measure table are significant, i.e., most of the
areas are 20% of what they were and he asked if there is that much of a need for change. Ms.
Erickson said the existing intensity class measure table was originally created to measure
intensity of a use on a property, and it was used to determine bufferyards. It was also used in the
C1 District to determine whether a use requires a conditional use permit. At this time, there are
only four properties in the C1 district that are greater than ¾ of an acre in size, and clearly a
100,000 square foot building would not fit on a ¾ acre site which, incidentally, generates at least
1,000 trips per day in almost any land use, therefore, the proposal is to coordinate the numbers
across the board with what actually happens in a C1 district.
Commissioner Gothberg remarked that the proposed intensity class measure table will be used
relative to defining requirements for a conditional use permit. He asked about the 50% reduction
in Class I and Class II in the gross building area. Ms. Erickson said residential uses have the
lowest density factor and, therefore, a smaller gross building area, e.g., in Class I, a residential
use with a maximum of nine units per acre probably will not have a building greater than 2,000
square feet, and single family residential uses are exempt from bufferyard requirements. She
said the intensity classification has always been used in the C1 district but staff is modifying the
classification to state that any building greater than 20,000 square feet in a C1, given that C1 is a
neighborhood/commercial district, would require a Conditional Use Permit. The change will not
result in any additional non-conforming uses in the C1 district.
Chair Gothberg opened the public hearing. With no one wishing to speak Chair Gothberg closed
the public hearing.
It was moved by Commissioner Robertson to approve text amendments to Chapter 36 of the
Municipal Code related to the intensity classification table threshold intensities and to lower the
intensity thresholds for requiring conditional use permits in the C1 district to those that exceed
Class 4. The motion passed 4-0. (Note: Commissioner Finkelstein was not present for the
vote.)
4. Unfinished Business: None
5. New Business: None
A. Consent Agenda
B. Other New Business
6. Communications
83
A. Elmwood Study Update
Ms. Erickson reported on the Elmwood Study. She said there is a technical and a community
advisory group. The City does not intend to condemn any property—the study is a transportation
and land use study. Commissioner Robertson, the Planning Commission liaison to the
community advisory group, commented on the process.
B. Census Information
Ms. Erickson briefly discussed census information. Commissioner Morris said he would like to
see information regarding a comparison on the age of the housing stock. Ms. Erickson said she
will provide that information. She added that she will be compiling a census book which will
include data by neighborhood.
C. Discuss possible tour May 15
The annual tour of development project sites and other areas of interest in the City is tentatively
scheduled for May 15th to begin at about 5:00 p.m. The tour will be followed by a presentation
regarding the City’s home renewal programs. Ms. Jeremiah said at the June 5 meeting, the
Commissioners will hear from the Director of Inspections about the point-of-sale inspection
program and the housing maintenance program.
D. Board of Zoning Appeals agenda April 25
7. Miscellaneous
Commissioner Garelick will represent the City of St. Louis Park, through Commissioner
Dorfman’s office, on the Hennepin County Board of Equalization, which will meet this
summer.
8. Adjournment
Chair Gothberg adjourned the meeting at 7:20 p.m.
Minutes prepared by:
Linda Samson
Recording Secretary
Respectfully submitted by:
Nancy Sells
Administrative Secretary
84
CONSENT ITEM # 3c
MINUTES
Housing Authority
St. Louis Park, Minnesota
Wednesday, April 10, 2002
Westwood Room
5:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Catherine Courtney, Anne Mavity, Judith Moore and William
Gavzy (5:13 p.m.)
MEMBERS ABSENT: Shone Row
STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Anderson, Tamra Bokal, Michele Schnitker and Cindy
Stromberg
OTHERS PRESENT: None
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 5:10 p.m.
2. Approval of Minutes for March 13, 2002
Commissioner Moore moved approval of the minutes of March 13th, 2002.
Commissioner Mavity seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of
3-0, with Commissioners Courtney, Mavity and Moore voting in favor.
3. Public Hearing: None
4. Reports and Committees: None
5. Unfinished Business: None
6. New Business:
a. SEMAP Certification
Ms. Schnitker explained that the SEMAP Certification is a management tool that
HUD has put in place to measure the performance of local Housing Authorities in
administering the Section 8 program. Each Housing Authority is measured in 14
key areas. Ms. Schnitker explained that the measurements come from a
combination of information from the Housing Authority, from a national data
source called REAC (to which the Housing Authority transmits data on each
client) and from the audit report.
85
Ms. Schnitker stated that it appears we meet all of the indicators this year with the
exception of the HQS quality control inspections. She explained that the quality
control inspections are completed by Cindy who reinspects a certain number of
units after the HQS inspector inspects them to see if there are any violations the
inspector missed. Ms. Schnitker said that due to a miscommunication, a sample
size of six instead of ten led to not meeting this indicator. She stated that this
would not have a big impact on the overall score, and indicated she thought the
HA would receive a rating as a high performer this year.
Commissioner Mavity moved execution and transmittal of the SEMAP
Certification. Commissioner Moore seconded the motion, and the motion passed
on a vote of 4-0, with Commissioners Courtney, Gavzy, Mavity and Moore voting
in favor.
b. Action Plan Update - 2002
Ms. Schnitker stated that the Action Plan is based on the Mission Statement and
Vision Elements that the Board adopted in 1998. The Action Plan, she explained,
identifies one and five-year activities. The HA staff uses this as a guide in
carrying out initiatives and goals. Ms. Schnitker explained that the update is
brought back twice a year to inform the Board of the activities that have been
completed.
Ms. Schnitker talked about the Hollman units at Louisiana Court and that the
ACC had been in place for a year. Ms. Schnitker also added that the Cedar Trails
Condominium Association approached the City regarding using the Housing
Improvement Area Funds. She explained this project would be the first of its kind
to go before the City Council at an upcoming study session.
Ms. Schnitker explained that the HA submitted an application to MHFA and the
Federal Home Loan Association for funding to help homeowners to complete
repairs. The Inspections Department cited 170 homes in St. Louis Park most in
need of repairs. She said that these agencies indicated that the applications looked
promising. Commissioner Moore asked who would be working with the citizens.
Ms. Schnitker replied that initially Inspections would work with the citizens, but
that CEE (Center for Energy & Environment) will provide more extensive help to
them as this project moves along.
Ms. Schnitker stated that the HA would continue looking for homes for the Home
Renewal program.
Commissioner Moore asked about diversifying income source category listed
under the five-year plan. Ms. Schnitker replied that these income sources include
other revenues such as Shelter Plus Care and 4d monitoring. Through these
sources, the HA has earned substantial fees with little cost. She explained that
86
these profitable sources of income are the type that the HA needs to continue to
look for.
Commissioner Courtney asked about the goal of achieving adequate accounting
systems and internal control procedures. Ms. Schnitker responded that the HA
has had an audit finding each year. The finding for last year was the lack of the
separation of duties due to the small size of the HA. She further explained that
the Finance Department has taken on the accounting for the HA without having
experience in Housing Authority accounting, leading to a larger than anticipated
learning curve. Ms. Schnitker added that the new accountant, Brian Swanson, is
doing a terrific job and is very interested in learning the programs.
Ms. Schnitker stated that the HA staff is putting together a comprehensive report
regarding the state of affordable housing in St. Louis Park. She stated that this
report should be ready by the end of the summer and this information may be
good to take to the meeting between the Board and the City Council.
c. Elevator Contract
Ms. Anderson stated that the current contract with Minnesota Elevator is due to
expire on April 30th. The current contract amount is $235.37 per month and the
new contract amount will be $243.14. Otis elevator bid as well at a higher rate
and was willing to match the rate of Minnesota Elevator. Ms. Anderson
explained that because the HA has worked with Minnesota Elevator in the past
and has been very happy with their work, staff was recommending resigning a
contract with them.
Ms. Anderson also explained that Minnesota Elevator would be adding phones
that comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and additional door safety
devices in the elevators.
Commissioner Gavzy moved approval of the contract with Minnesota Elevator.
Commissioner Moore seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 4-
0, with Commissioners Courtney, Gavzy, Mavity and Moore voting in favor.
7. Communications from the Executive Director
a. Claims List No. 4-2002
Commissioner Mavity moved ratification of Claims List No. 4-2002.
Commissioner Gavzy seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 4-
0, with Commissioners Courtney, Gavzy, Mavity and Moore voting in favor.
b. Communications
87
Ms. Schnitker stated that she included an accomplishment list in the packets. She
also mentioned copies of the NAHRO brochures included for the upcoming state
conference. Commissioner Gavzy asked if the Commissioner training is offered
at all the state conferences. Ms. Schnitker replied she does not think this program
is offered at every conference. Commissioners Mavity and Moore indicated that
they would be interested in going to the spring conference.
8. Adjournment
Commissioner Mavity moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:25p.m. Commissioner Moore
seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 4-0 with Commissioners
Courtney, Gavzy, Mavity and Moore voting in favor.
Respectfully submitted,
________________________
Shone Row, Secretary