HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002/06/03 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Regular 1
AGENDA - CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
June 3, 2002
7:30 p.m.
Economic Development Authority has been cancelled
6:40 p.m. – Bassett Creek Watershed Commission Interviews, Westwood Rm.
A Study Session will follow the regular meeting, Westwood Rm.
1. Call to Order
a. Pledge of Allegiance
b. Roll Call
2. Presentations
3. Approval of Minutes
a. City Council Minutes of May 20, 2002
b. Study Session Minutes of May 13, 2002
Action: Corrections/amendments to minutes - Minutes approved as presented
4. Approval of Agenda and Consent Items
NOTE: Consent items are those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or
which need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is
desired by either a Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to
an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion.
a. Approval of Agenda
Action: Motion to approve (Alternatively, motion to add or remove items from
the agenda, motion to move items from consent to regular agenda for
discussion).
b. Approval of Consent Items
1. Motion to approve second reading of text amendments to Chapter 36 of the
Municipal Code (Zoning) to add “Mikvah” as an accessory use in Single Family
Residential Districts, adopt the ordinance, approve summary and authorize
publication. (Case No. 02-20-ZA)
2
2. Motion to approve second 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, approve ordinance, approve summary, and authorize
publication.
(Case No. 02-16-ZA and Case No. 02-23-ZA)
3. Traffic Study No. 564: Motion to adopt the attached resolution authorizing the
restriction of parking to “No Parking 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. Weekdays” on the east
side of Colorado Avenue from Excelsior Boulevard to 80 feet south of Excelsior
Boulevard.
4. Bid Tabulation: Motion to designate Thomas & Sons Construction, Inc. the
lowest responsible bidder and authorize execution of a contract with the firm in
the amount of $583,444.84 for the 2001 Sidewalk Improvement Project-Phase B
– City Project No. 99-07B
5. Motion to adopt the attached resolution that declares the petition adequate for the
purposes of preparing a formal City Engineer’s Report on the feasibility and
costs associated with a proposed alley improvement project in the 2900 block
between Florida and Edgewood Avenues, north of Minnetonka Boulevard.
6. Motion to accept the following reports for filing:
a. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of April 25, 2002
b. Vendor Claims
7. Motion to approve settlement in the amount of $90,000 relating to the Wolfe park
grading lawsuit against Close landscape, et al and authorize the Mayor, City
Manager and City Attorney to execute any necessary settlement documents.
Action: Motion to approve Consent Items
5. Public Hearings
6. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public
7. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions
7a. 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 Motion to defer consideration until June 17, 2002 to allow time
3
Action: for the applicant to address the feasibility of meeting Building
and Health Code requirements.
7b. 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.
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.
4
Item # 3a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
May 20, 2002
1. Call to Order
Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:36 p.m.
The following Councilmembers were present at roll call: Jim Brimeyer, Chris Nelson,
Susan Sanger, Sue Santa, Sally Velick, and Mayor Jeff Jacobs.
Also present were the City Manager (Mr. Meyer); City Attorney (Mr. Scott); Community
Development Director (Mr. Harmening); Planning and Zoning Supervisor (Ms. Jeremiah);
Planning Coordinator (Ms. Erickson); Director of Parks and Recreation (Ms. Walsh); and
Recording Secretary (Ms. Samson).
2. Presentations
Mayor Jacobs presented the Minnesota City/County Management Association
Proclamation to City Manager Charles Meyer. The proclamation recognizes Mr. Meyer as
the Dr. Robert A. Barrett “Manager of the Year.”
State Senate Representative Jim Rhodes presented a proclamation to Mr. Meyer from the
House of Representatives.
On behalf of the Minnesota City/County Management Association, Curt Boganey, City
Manager of Brooklyn Park, presented the “Manager of the Year” plaque to Mr. Meyer.
Mr. Meyer expressed his appreciation for the honor and for the support he receives from
the council and staff..
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. City Council Minutes of May 6, 2002
From Councilmember Nelson--Item 5a, Paragraph 5, add the following as the first
sentence: Councilmember Nelson discussed emails and a letter he received from the
president of the Sorensen Neighborhood Association, who could not be in attendance, but
stated he is opposed to the variance.
From Councilmember Sanger—Item 7a, Paragraph 4, second sentence: change be to see.
5
3b. Study Session Minutes of April 22, 2002
From Councilmember Sanger—Item 1, Paragraph 7: change rail to busway.
From Councilmember Sanger—Item 1, Paragraph 11, add the following at the end of the
paragraph: Councilmember Sanger also asked Ms. Walker if the study could include
possible purchase of any additional right-of-way to permit both freight rail and LRT in the
SW corridor, and she agreed to do that.
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
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to approve
the agenda.
The motion passed 6-0.
4b. Approval of Consent Items
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to approve
the following Consent Agenda Items.
The motion passed 6-0.
1. Adopt Resolution No. 02-055 accepting transfer of property from the St. Louis
Park EDA located northwest of the intersection of Walker Street and Louisiana
Avenue.
2. Adopt Resolution No. 02-056 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
5. Public Hearings--None
6. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public--None
6
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
Planning and Zoning Supervisor Janet Jeremiah presented a Staff report.
Councilmember Velick asked Ms. Jeremiah to clarify the changes the Applicant has
requested. Ms. Jeremiah said Staff asked the chief building official if there is latitude in
regard to the limited number of employees in this office use, and the ZBO indicated there is
no such exemption in the State building code, therefore, the changes to meet accessibility
requirements for the office use would have to be made.
Councilmember Nelson questioned why the Council would want to allow a business in a
residential building. He said he will vote to deny a Special Permit amendment.
Councilmember Brimeyer expressed agreement with Councilmember Nelson.
Councilmember Nelson asked about the Planning Commission vote of 4-2 on April 17,
2002 in regard to Mr. Foster’s request. Commissioners Garelick and Morris were opposed.
Commissioner Garelick opposed because he is concerned a precedent will be set for
bypassing commercial rent rates, and due to a shortage of affordable housing.
Commissioner Morris opposed because approval may set a bad precedent, i.e., residential
being traded for office, and the Planning Commission does not know if the residents of the
apartment building have been notified and what their concerns may be.
Councilmember Sanger asked if the inclusion of a sunset clause would be problematic for
other locations.
Councilmember Velick thinks the Applicant’s cost would be prohibitive, and she is
concerned about setting a precedent for businesses to occupy residential unites.
City Attorney Tom Scott said a sunset provision gives him some concern. Mr. Scott said,
typically, a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) will run with the land and it would not be
specific to a particular business. Mr. Scott recommends Staff come back with findings
consistent with a denial.
It was moved by Councilmember Velick, seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer, to defer
this item to the City Council meeting of June 3, 2002; and to direct Staff to prepare a
resolution of denial.
The motion passed 6-0.
7
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
Ms. Jeremiah presented a Staff report. Ms. Jeremiah said a landscape plan was submitted
last Friday, May 17, 2002, and Staff will review it.
Jeff Holle said Mr. Nicklow and he would like additional time to review the documents and
letter regarding the conditions.
Councilmember Nelson said his concern is that the 1990 landscape changes have not been
made, and Council has not yet seen the revised landscape plan. He asked about a money
deposit to guarantee that the changes will be made. Ms. Jeremiah said there is a substantial
lack of landscaping compared to the 1990 plans.
Councilmember Sanger asked if with an existing Special Permit, and one not in full
compliance, must the property be brought strictly into compliance with the requirements of
the Special permit or, also, into compliance with current laws or does the Council pick and
choose? Ms. Jeremiah said the code states that they should be brought into compliance
with current code to the extent reasonable and possible, which provides some latitude to the
Council to determine what is reasonable.
Councilmember Sanger asked if 189 parking spaces are adequate. Mr. Nicklow, owner of
Santorini’s Restaurant, said there will be valet parking.
Councilmember Sanger raised concern about future nonconforming billboards on other
properties.
Councilmember Velick is concerned about parking and the improvements that have not
been made. She would like to continue this item.
Councilmember Brimeyer said he would like to get rid of the billboards. Councilmember
Brimeyer said he will vote against the resolution if the Applicant is unwilling to put up
money for the landscaping and building improvements in exchange for rooftop use.
Councilmember Nelson agrees.
Mr. Scott asked, if Council agrees to continue, i.e., waive the time limits, is the Applicant
agreeable to signing a waiver? The Applicant responded in the affirmative.
It was moved by Councilmember Velick, seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer, to defer
this item to the City Council meeting of June 3, 2002.
The motion passed 6-0.
8
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) Resolution No.’s 02-052 and 02-053
Planning Coordinator Judie Erickson presented a Staff report. Ms. Erickson said several
conditions have been added to the resolution regarding the Conditional Use Permit: the
preliminary grading and site preparation must be completed within 90 days; construction
traffic will be prohibited on West 25 ½ Street; and an escrow will be held until the final
home is constructed.
Darrel McIntosh, 2551 Xenwood Avenue South, stated his concern about the history of
flooding in this area, specifically behind Stephen’s Buick. Mr. McIntosh and his neighbors
are concerned about the size of the homes and the number of homes to be built on this
small lot.
Ms. Erickson responded that there have been several changes in the drainage area just north
of 25 ½ Street. She said a drainage pond will be constructed on the Vernon Oaks property,
and the City’s Public Works Department has approved the engineering report regarding
storm water on this property.
Mr. Harmening added that the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) must issue a
permit for this site, and that will provide another look at how the water runoff is being
handled. Mr. Harmening said the Public Works Department would be happy to meet with
residents to explain the current situation and how it will work under the proposed situation.
Councilmember Santa left at approximately 8:30 p.m.
Mr. McIntosh said he and his neighbors were not notified of tonight’s meeting because they
are just outside of the 300-foot notice area. Ms. Erickson said notice is sent to those within
350 feet of the property, and a sign is placed on the site stating that the City has received an
application; for those who would like more information, a telephone number is posted on
the sign.
Councilmember Sanger asked if the tree replacement issue has been resolved. Ms.
Erickson said it has. Staff has received an amended landscape plan, and the Council will
see a final landscape plan relative to the final plat. Ms. Erickson said the final plat will
have a time schedule for landscaping.
Councilmember Sanger asked if the Council may have any grounds to deny the request,
and Mr. Scott said the Council’s discretion on a subdivision is quite limited; if the
Applicant meets the standards, there is no basis to deny.
Applicant Marshall Kieffer, Vernon Properties, introduced himself. Mr. Kieffer said he
met with Ms. Erickson to discuss the length of time to construct the homes, marketability,
and custom design.
9
Kenneth Dubbe, 2550 Webster Avenue, asked about the impact of this project in regard to
the drainage from the nearby apartment buildings and parking lots. Mr. Harmening said
the City Engineering Staff reviewed and approved the plans, and Staff is available to meet
with neighbors to answer questions.
Reluctantly, Councilmember Sanger will make the motion, and Councilmember Brimeyer
will reluctantly second the motion.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer to adopt
Resolution No. 02-052 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; and
adopt Resolution No. 02-053 granting preliminary plat subject to conditions included in the
resolution, and Councilmember Sanger added: subject to all of the conditions and subject
to having a neighborhood meeting within the next two weeks or so.
The motion passed 5-0.
Mayor Jacobs reiterated that City Staff will meet with the residents prior to the final plat.
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
Ms. Erickson presented a Staff report.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Velick, 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.
The motion passed 5-0.
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)
Ms. Erickson presented a Staff report regarding text amendments. Councilmembers Sanger
and Brimeyer complemented Ms. Erickson and Staff for their diligence on this complex
undertaking.
10
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer, 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.
The motion passed 5-0.
7f. Resolution establishing Louisiana Oaks Park ( 3280, 3500, 7400, 7450 Louisiana
Avenue)
Director of Parks and Recreation Cindy Walsh said this resolution formally establishes a
city park, to be named Louisiana Oaks Park, at the former Oak Park Village site.
It was moved by Councilmember Brimeyer, seconded by Councilmember Velick, to adopt
Resolution No. 02-054 establishing Louisiana Oaks Park.
The motion passed 5-0.
8. Boards and Commissions--None
9. Communications
From the City Manager—Mr. Meyer offered the Council the option to cancel the Study
Session scheduled for Tuesday, May 28th. The Council’s consensus was to cancel the
Study Session for May 28th.
From the Mayor—Mayor Jacobs thanked the committee who put together the Children
First Ice Cream social on May 11th.
11. Adjournment
Mayor Jacobs adjourned the meeting at 9:17 p.m.
City Clerk Mayor
11
Item # 3b
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
Minutes of May 13, 2002
The meeting convened at 7:00 p.m.
Present at the meeting were Councilmembers Jim Brimeyer, Susan Sanger, Sue Sanger, and
Mayor Jeff Jacobs.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Meyer), Director of Community Development (Mr.
Harmening), Planning and Zoning Supervisor (Ms. Jeremiah), Planning Coordinator (Ms.
Erickson), Director of Public Works (Mr. Rardin), City Engineer (Ms. Hagen), Civic Television
Coordinator (Mr. Dunlap), Community Television Coordinator (Mr. McHugh), and City Clerk
(Ms. Reichert).
1. Telecommunications Commission Annual Report for 2001 and Work Plan for 2002
Rick Dworsky, Dale Hartman, and Ken Huiras from the Telecommunications Advisory
Commission were present at the meeting and were introduced to the Council.
St. Louis Park resident, Brian Johnson, addressed the Council with a complaint about Time
Warner Cable. Mr. Meyer suggested that the commission review performance issues for the next
franchise renewal. Mr. Dunlap stated that there were several specifics the commission would
like to discuss such as the legislation proposed by Senator Steve Kelley. He also stated that the
commission is recommending approval of the grants to the School District.
Mr. Dunlap reported that City Attorney. Joel Jamnick, has been working with the commission on
franchise agreement issues and that Council will receive more information as they move forward.
Mr. Huiras, Telecommunications Advisory Commission Chair, stated that complaints have
decreased and the digital cable service is stabilizing.
Mayor Jacobs inquired about youth members on the commission.
Councilmember Nelson wanted to know frequently Council meetings are aired on cable
television. Mr. Dunlap replied that they are splitting the air time between the Council , Planning
Commission, and School Board.
Councilmember Nelson stated that he was supportive of other programming, but did not want
other programming to pre-empt council meetings, which many people at home watch regularly.
12
2. Highway 100 Reconstruction Update
Terry Johnson, Tom O’Keefe, and Wayne Norris from the Minnesota Department of
Transportation (MnDot) were present at the meeting. They presented a large drawing of the
preliminary design layout for Council review.
Councilmember Sanger inquired how many of the houses neighboring the highway would be
removed. A representative from MnDot replied that the exact number is not known yet but could
possibly be up to twenty-two homes.
Mr. Rardin stated that the public meeting for the residents along Highway 100 was held and
reported that the owners were aware of the project. He added that the greatest fear among those
present was that some homes would be left and will be too close to the highway.
Council questioned the representatives from MnDot about the specifics of the plan and details
such as bridges, signals, exits, etc.
3. South Excelsior Boulevard Study
Stephen Wensman of Ingraham and Associates was present at the meeting.
Mr. Wensman shared concepts of what could be developed on the site and reported his
preliminary findings. He stated that the study showed three limiting factors to potential
development on the south side of Excelsior Blvd. which are lot depth and size, parking
requirements, and uses allowed in the C-1 zoning district. The largest factor is the limitations in
parking.
Council was to asked to discuss and advise on private development requests, multi-family
residential development, and if the Minnekahda Vista neighborhood should be re-engaged. Staff
gave some examples of concerns expressed by current commercial property owners regarding
zoning limitations for development.
Councilmember Sanger thought town homes would be appropriate for the site.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that staff would look at rezoning options.
Councilmember Nelson did not agree that town homes would be an appropriate use and stated
that it is his belief that the current businesses could be rehabilitated as needed and the are could
continue to be viable, as it already is. He added that he believes the C-1 zoning is the correct
zoning for the site. Councilmember Brimeyer agreed with Councilmember Nelson.
Council decided to leave the site at its current zoning and would like staff to communicate with
the neighborhood.
4. Texa-Tonka Study
Ms. Erickson reported that they held a neighborhood meeting on February 21, 2002 to discuss
with the affected neighborhood the possibility of vacating a portion of Virginia Ave. She
13
reported that the feedback from the twenty people was nearly split in half between those who are
in favor and those who are not.
Council discussed traffic concerns in the neighborhood and whether the intersection should be
signaled. Councilmember Santa felt that that the street closing would be good for the
neighborhood. Councilmember Brimeyer felt that it would be good for the whole community,
especially in the future.
Council directed staff to continue working with the neighborhood and building owners and to
move forward with the street closure.
Mr. Harmening suggested holding a joint neighborhood and Council meeting some time later in
the summer on a Monday evening.
5. Skate Park
Councilmember Nelson questioned whether it is appropriate for the city to provide a service such
as this that is already available in the private sector in several places in surrounding
communities.
Councilmember Sanger felt that there was not enough data on which to discuss the issue. Ms.
Walsh stated that the intent of the discussion was to determine whether council wanted her to
move forward to collect that data. If so, she would begin a study process so that council could
make a more informed decision.
Mayor Jacobs expressed his enthusiasm about the possibility of a skate park.
Councilmember Brimeyer felt that a full service youth facility with a skate park component
would be a better idea than a stand-alone skate park.
Councilmember Santa thought that equal consideration be given to the needs of the female youth
population.
Councilmember Nelson suggested that staff and council consider the trends in youth activities
and felt that a market study was important prior to investing public dollars.
6. City Promotion
Councilmember Brimeyer wanted feedback on whether or not any of the other Councilmembers
would be interested in a promotion of the City by a professional firm. He believes the cities need
to do a better job at promoting themselves.
Several Councilmembers were concerned about a glitzy publication could make the public
suspicious.
Councilmember Sanger suggested that the current communication practices be reviewed and
then determine if there are problems.
14
7. Communications
Councilmember Nelson inquired about the organization development program. Mr. Meyer
replied that it has been very successful.
Councilmember Sanger would like to look at options for city phosphorous ordinances based on
recently passed state legislature.
8. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
City Clerk Mayor
15
City of St Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 7a
Meeting of June 3, 2002
7a. 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 defer consideration until June 17, 2002 to allow time
for the applicant to address the feasibility of meeting Building
and Health Code requirements.
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.
In 1995, the previous Zoning Administrator in the Inspections Department issued a Certificate of
Occupancy for Santorini’s to use the first floor as a restaurant with the basement for storage
only. The idea of rooftop use was not raised at that time. 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 or
Occupancy Permit and was not permitted under the Zoning Code provisions for temporary uses.
Some Building and Health 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.
16
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
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. On May 17, 2002, the applicant
submitted a landscape plan. While it does not include as much landscaping as the 1990 approved
plan, it still appears possible to comply with the 1990 approval. A survey has not yet been
submitted.
On May 20, 2002, the Council considered the application. The applicant stated that he and the
restaurant owner would like more time to review the documents and proposed conditions of
approval. The applicant agreed in writing to an additional extension (see attachment). Council
members noted concerns that the 1990 landscaping and other improvements were not installed,
parking does not seem adequate, and the nonconforming billboards continue to remain. It was
suggested that the applicant deposit money for the landscaping and building improvements. The
Council deferred consideration until June 3, 2002.
Staff and a State Building Code official have continued to work on the Building Code issues and
have made some determinations on what needs to be done (see analysis). The existing restaurant
requires some Health Code improvements, and the owner has been given until the end of August
to make those improvements. If Santorini’s desires to use the rooftop for more than a limited
number of events each year, Health Code improvements on the rooftop will also be necessary.
Each event will require a temporary food license. The tent requires an annual permit, and the
parking structure requires an annual license based upon an Engineer’s report.
Staff has tried contacting the applicant regarding the status of the Building and Health Code
review, but as of this writing, has not heard back from him. Staff has some concerns regarding
17
the ability of the existing restaurant to accommodate the required Building and Health Code
improvements. Rather than approve the use subject to conditions that may not prove feasible,
staff is recommending an additional continuance. This will allow the applicant time to meet
further with staff and address the feasibility of meeting the requirements.
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.
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
18
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. Continued use of the structured and rooftop parking also requires an
annual parking lot license based upon an Engineer’s report that must be submitted by the
applicant. 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 and landscape plans do not include landscaping in conformance
with the approved Special Permit. Some required plantings are not shown at all. Others are
shown, but a note indicates that they have not been included in the schedule of plantings to be
installed. However, it appears that the required landscaping could be included. One of the
proposed plants from 1990 (Russian Olive) is no longer recommended due to disease problems.
However, a substitute could easily be made. Therefore, staff is recommending a condition of
approval requiring the landscape plan to be submitted and constructed in conformance with the
1990 approval. During the May 20th consideration, staff had recommended installation of the
landscaping prior to allowing the rooftop use. However, the Council suggested requiring a
monetary deposit for the landscaping and other improvements. This has been included in the
revised resolution and could potentially allow the applicant more time to make the site and
landscaping improvements. Therefore, staff has amended the draft resolution to allow until
September 15, 2002 for the site and landscaping improvements to be installed. However, due to
the concerns of the Chief Building Official regarding the feasibility of meeting the Building
Code, staff is recommending a continuance at this time.
How would additional parking needs for the rooftop events be addressed?
The applicant is proposing to use the office property at 500 Ford Road (see location airphoto) for
overflow event parking. During the May 20th consideration, the applicant indicated that a valet
service would be used for the off-site parking. The Council could consider requiring such a
service, but it is not currently included in the conditions of approval. 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.
19
Have the Building Code issues been resolved?
The City’s Chief Building Official and a State Building Code official have determined that the
following requirements must be met in order to use the rooftop for events:
1) The restaurant building must have an elevator to the roof or an interior accessible ramp to the
roof.
2) The rooftop must also have two Code complying exits. One of the required exits may be the
interior accessible ramp, if such a ramp is deemed feasible to construct. If it is not feasible to
construct the ramp and an elevator is used instead, there must be two sets of stairs in addition
to the elevator.
Currently, Santorini’s is proposing to add a set of stairs from the first floor of the restaurant to
the rooftop. If they could also build an elevator and an exterior set of stairs, they would meet the
requirements. Although the applicant previously indicated that they thought they could meet
Building Code requirements, they also indicated that it would be difficult or impossible to
construct an elevator. Staff also believes it would be nearly impossible to construct an interior
ramp. Therefore, staff is concerned that it may not be feasible to make the Building Code
improvements necessary to use the rooftop, and variances to State Building Code are not
possible. Staff would like to ensure that the applicant could meet those requirements before
recommending approval of the request to use the rooftop for events. The applicant will need to
submit a design set of plans prepared by a registered architect and showing compliance with the
change in occupancy classification of the rooftop from just parking to parking and assembly.
Are there any other concerns?
Noise Ordinance: 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.
Health Code: There are some existing deficiencies with the restaurant venting, and the owner
has been given until the end of August to correct those deficiencies. In order to use the rooftop
for events a limited number of times each year, a temporary food permit is also required for each
event. The Environmental Health Inspector is checking limitations on the number of special
events that are allowed before more permanent Health Code improvements would need to be
made. If Santorini’s desires to use the rooftop more frequently than the temporary provisions
allow, permanent rooftop kitchen and bar facilities in conformance with Health Codes would
need to be installed.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends deferral until at least June 17th to allow the applicant time to address the
feasibility of meeting Building Code requirements. If the applicant believes more time will be
required, staff is amenable to granting additional time. However, Santorini’s will not be able to
20
use the rooftop for events or as an exterior bar or restaurant until the Special Permit amendment
is granted and the Building and Health Code issues are satisfactorily resolved.
Attachments:
Draft Resolution
Waiver of Deadline Requirements Signed by Applicant
Location Airphoto
Letter from Property Owner
Letter Regarding Off-Site Event Parking
Approved 1990 Site Plan
Proposed Parking Plan
Proposed Landscape Plan (if a reduced copy is available; otherwise, a full-scale copy is
available in the Community Development Department)
Prepared by: Janet Jeremiah, Planning & Zoning Supervisor
Approved by: Clint Pires, Deputy City Manager
21
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.
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
22
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
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
23
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.
7. The continued special permit shall be amended on _________ (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 any event, 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
24
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 or submit a
cash escrow or letter of credit in an amount of 125% of the estimated cost
of those improvements not completed unless certain improvements must
be completed prior to use of the rooftop as determined by the Chief
Building Official.
4) execute a parking agreement for off-site event parking as approved by the
Zoning Administrator and City Attorney.
5) obtain a temporary food permit prior to each event.
6) obtain a tent permit from the City prior to the first event and annually.
7) submit an Engineer’s report and obtain a parking lot license prior to the
first event and annually.
b. By September 15, 2002, complete all required site and building improvements
including all landscaping in accordance with a landscape plan approved by the
Zoning Administrator.
c. 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.
d. Use of the rooftop for events or as an extension of the bar/restaurant is restricted
to those times for which temporary food permits have been obtained. Any
proposed use that exceeds the threshold for issuing temporary food permits shall
only be permitted if Health Codes for permanent facilities can be met.
e. 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.
f. Approved rooftop parking, including the required handicap space, shall remain
open to the general public and clear of obstructions at all times.
g. The site shall comply with all City ordinances, including the noise ordinance, at
all times.
h. 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
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
25
City of St Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item #7b
Meeting of June 3, 2002
7b. 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 denying the Special Permit
amendment in accordance with the findings included in the
resolution.
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.
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 and the business includes several employees, 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 Pointe Park Ltd. Partnership) has assented to the
application as the current fee owner of the property.
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 attached Planning Commission excerpts). The additional conditions include a prohibition
against any on-site storage of plastics and a sunset clause preventing any business other than the
current tenant from using the apartment as an office.
On May 16, 2002, the applicant submitted an e-mail correspondence indicating that he would be
unable to attend the Council Meeting on May 20th. He noted that if the Council was unwilling to
approve his application on May 20th, he would prefer that the Council delay action. He waived
the State law deadlines for consideration of his application (see attachment).
On May 20, 2002, the City Council considered the application and raised the following concerns:
1) potential impacts on residents of the apartments;
26
2) effects on the availability of housing (affordable or otherwise);
3) setting a negative precedent for allowing businesses to occupy residential units; and
4) the proposal is not in keeping with the intent of the ordinance (i.e., the ordinance allowing
consideration of offices in the R-4 District was intended for stand-alone offices).
The Council directed staff to prepare findings for a resolution of denial, which they would
consider on June 3, 2002. The City Attorney noted that the deferral would give the applicant the
opportunity to address the Council prior to final action on the matter. Subsequently, staff
contacted the applicant and made him aware of the Council’s direction. Mr. Foster indicated that
he would attend the Council meeting on June 3rd.
Attachments:
Resolution of Denial
Excerpts from April 17, 2002 Planning Commission
E-Mail from Applicant
May 20, 2002 Report to the City Council
Prepared by: Janet Jeremiah, Planning & Zoning Supervisor
Approved by: Clint Pires, Deputy City Manager
27
RESOLUTION NO. _____
A RESOLUTION OF DENIAL REGARDING THE APPLICATION OF ALBERT O.
FOSTER (POINTE PARK LTD. PARTNERSHIP/BIGOS MANAGEMENT) FOR 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 of St. Louis Park:
FINDINGS
1. WHEREAS, on July 5, 1983 the City Council approved 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 South for the following legal description, to wit: Lot 6, Block 1, Lou Park
Addition; and
2. WHEREAS, on March 26, 2002, Albert O. Foster (Pointe Park Ltd. Partnership/Bigos
Management) filed an application seeking 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; and
3. WHEREAS, on April 17, 2002, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, received
testimony from the public, reviewed the application, and on a vote of 4-2 moved approval of the
amendment subject to conditions; and
4. WHEREAS, on May 20, 2002, the City Council considered the request for amendment to
a continued special permit, and on a vote of 6-0 moved that staff prepare findings for a resolution
of denial to be considered on June 3, 2002.
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of St. Louis Park, Minnesota
1. The City Council has considered the information related to Planning Case 02-22-CUP
and the effect of the proposed 1,010 square feet office in Unit #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 finds the following:
a. the application is not in compliance with the general purpose and intent of the
Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan;
b. the proposed office could have adverse impacts on residents of the apartment
building;
c. the proposed office would have an adverse impact on the availability of housing;
28
d. the proposed office is more in keeping with a Commercial or Office Zoning
District and leasable space is available in such districts.
2. The contents of Planning Case 02-22-CUP amendment to a continued special permit are
hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this
case.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park:
The applicant’s request for an amendment to a continued special permit to permit a 1,010
square feet office in Unit #113 at 1425 Hampshire Avenue South is hereby denied based on the
findings set forth above.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council June 3, 2002
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
02-22-CUPdenial:n/res-ord
29
Excerpts
Planning Commission Minutes
April 17, 2002
B. Case No. 02-22-CUP Public Hearing on Albert O. Foster’s Request for a Major
Amendment to a Continued Special Permit for a 1,010 sq. ft. office in the R-4
District at 1425 Hampshire Ave. S., #113 (Park Point Apartments)
Ms. Jeremiah presented a staff report. She said Bigos Management, owner of the
apartment building at 1425 Hampshire Avenue South, has assented to the application.
On April 16th, Ms. Jeremiah received a phone call from a nearby property owner, Clifford
King, 1455 Hampshire Avenue South, and he stated his concerns regarding the
application: namely, the shortage of affordable housing and losing such a unit to the
office; vacant commercial space in the City that could be leased by this office; and the
potential for fire with a plastics business. Ms. Jeremiah said application materials
indicate no on-site storage of plastics, but the Planning Commission may want to add
such a condition. Also, Mr. King indicated that some neighbors are concerned about the
impact to their property values. Ms. Jeremiah said the property owner, Bigos
Management, was notified and they are responsible for providing notice to their tenants,
however, she does not know if the tenants were notified of Mr. Foster’s request.
Commissioner Robertson asked if the current building code requirements are met,
specifically, in regard to accessibility. Ms. Jeremiah said the building official has raised
the issue of fire separation, but she assumes the building official has also taken
accessibility into consideration.
Co Vice-Chair Bissonnette opened the public hearing.
Marilyn Hoeft, 7020 West 24th Street, is an employee of American Plastics Exchange.
She stated that no one may enter the secured building without calling first and there are
only two or three individuals in the unit at one time. Ms. Hoeft said the owner is a full-
time employee, and there are three part-time employees who work a combined total of
50-60 hours per week. She said there is no on-site storage. APE is a membership
association for buyers and sellers of recycled plastics, and it is not a broker.
Commissioner Robertson asked if in the recommendation it should be stated that if APE
ceases business, the unit must revert to a residence. Ms. Jeremiah responded that the
Planning Commission may want to consider that, however, per staff recommendations
this particular unit may be used for residential or for a 1,010 square foot office.
Commissioner Morris noted that the City can’t control what type of office this unit could
be used for, for example telemarketing or internet adult entertainment, and he noted there
is affordable office space available in St. Louis Park. He is not in favor of the proposal
because it may set a bad precedent, i.e., residential is being traded for office, and the
30
Planning Commission does not know if the residents have been notified and what their
concerns may be.
Co Vice-Chair Bissonnette asked if the City can regulate other businesses in an office
setting. Ms. Jeremiah said the City defines land uses per the City code, and an office
would be required to meet the definition for an administrative office. If, for example, an
office met a definition for adult use, then clearly the occupancy permit would not be
continued, it would be an illegal use.
Commissioner Robertson said he could support the proposal with the following
recommendations: a sunset clause stating this is the only business allowed in the unit,
and no materials would be stored on the premise. He is doubtful that this request could
meet building code requirements.
Co Vice-Chair Bissonnette closed the public hearing.
It was moved by Commissioner Robertson to approve the major amendment to a
continued special permit subject to the conditions recommended by staff, and the two
additional recommendations noted above. The motion passed 4-2. Commissioners
Garelick and Morris opposed.
Commissioner Garelick is opposed because he is concerned a precedent will be set for
bypassing commercial rent rates. He also opposes the application due to a shortage of
affordable housing.
Co Vice-Chair Bissonnette stated this item will be heard by the City Council on May 20,
2002.
Ms. Hoeft stated in her 2 ½ year employment at APE, she has always seen for rent signs
at the Park Point Apartments and at surrounding apartment buildings.
31
From: Bert Foster [bert@apexq.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 6:14 PM
To: Janet Jeremiah
Subject: Bert Foster CUP
Hi Janet,
Thank you for the call back.
Confirming our phone call.
• I will not be able to attend because I am flying to St. Louis to be with my 90 year old
mother who has to go in for cancer surgery.
• I would like the CUP to be approved at this meeting if it can be done with out my
attendance
• If there is some problem and the Council is not willing to approve it Monday, I would
respectfully request that the council delay action until the next council meeting which I
can attend.
• I hereby wave the 60 day requirement so action can be delayed until I can attend.
I understand there is a question about the handicap requirements. This unit is equipped with a
qualifying "residential" handicap bathroom. It has;
• the wide door
• handicap toilet
• side grab rails
The unit does not completely qualify for a "commercial" handicap because the commercial
requirement calls for side access to the toilet by a wheelchair person, which requires 42 inches of
clearance on one side of the toilet and a rear mounted grab bar. We do not have the clearance
because the sink is next to the toilet and the wall is on the other side.
I have been advised that we would be exempt from this requirement because we are a small
business under 10 people. The space could accommodate up to 7 desks and 7 people. We
currently have 3 employees each working approximately 20 per week plus me full time and my
wife 5 hours per week.
Therefore, it seems the council could approve our CUP request and stipulate no more than 7
people. It would be nice if the space were approved for commercial business in general as long
as it met our same requirements so if we left, the landlord could rent it to another small dot.com
business like ours, although that general approval is not mandatory.
Regards,
Albert O. Foster
President
American Plastics Exchange
1425 Hampshire Ave S. Suite 113
Minneapolis, MN 55426
Ph (952) 544-1100
Fax (952) 544-9811
32
City of St Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 7b
Meeting of May 20, 2002
7b. 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.
33
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
34
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
35
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: Clint Pires, Deputy City Manager
36
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
37
#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.
38
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 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
39
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
June 3, 2002
ITEMS TO BE ACTED UPON BY CONSENT
Consent items are those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which need
no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a
Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section
of the regular agenda for discussion.
1. Motion to approve second reading of text amendments to Chapter 36 of the
Municipal Code (Zoning) to add “Mikvah” as an accessory use in Single Family
Residential Districts, adopt the ordinance, approve summary and authorize
publication.
(Case No. 02-20-ZA)
2. Motion to approve second 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, approve ordinance, approve summary, and authorize publication.
(Case No. 02-16-ZA and Case No. 02-23-ZA)
3. Traffic Study No. 564: Motion to adopt the attached resolution authorizing the
restriction of parking to “No Parking 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. Weekdays” on the east side
of Colorado Avenue from Excelsior Boulevard to 80 feet south of Excelsior
Boulevard.
4. Bid Tabulation: Motion to designate Thomas & Sons Construction, Inc. the
lowest responsible bidder and authorize execution of a contract with the firm in
the amount of $583,444.84 for the 2001 Sidewalk Improvement Project-Phase B –
City Project No. 99-07B
5. Motion to adopt the attached resolution that declares the petition adequate for the
purposes of preparing a formal City Engineer’s Report on the feasibility and costs
associated with a proposed alley improvement project in the 2900 block between
Florida and Edgewood Avenues, north of Minnetonka Boulevard.
6. Motion to accept the following reports for filing:
c. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of April 25, 2002
d. Vendor Claims
7. Motion to approve settlement in the amount of $90,000 relating to the Wolfe park
grading lawsuit against Close landscape, et al and authorize the Mayor, City
Manager and City Attorney to execute any necessary settlement documents.
Action: Motion to approve Consent Items
40
CONSENT ITEM # 1
St. Louis Park City Council
Meeting of June 3, 2002
1. Motion to approve second reading of text amendments to Chapter 36 of the
Municipal Code (Zoning) to add “Mikvah” as an accessory use in Single Family
Residential Districts, adopt the ordinance, approve summary and authorize
publication. (Case No. 02-20-ZA)
Background:
On May 20, 2002, the City Council approved first reading of an amendment to Section 36 of the
Municipal Code (Zoning) to allow a Mikvah pool as an accessory use in the R1 and R2 Single
Family Residential zoning districts. A Mikvah pool is a ceremonial pool that must be constructed
to meet certain traditional requirements to serve primarily Jewish women on a monthly basis.
The zoning amendment was initiated by the Planning Commission as a response to a request by
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 Planning Commission contended that the proposed use is dissimilar to the land use
description for “Religious Institution” and did not require a Comprehensive Plan amendment.
Furthermore, the Planning Commission felt that the use could be permitted by amending the
Zoning Code.
The applicant withdrew the application and 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. The owner plans to remove the
existing single family home and replace it with a new home that will include the Mikvah as an
accessory use. If the City Council approves second reading, staff will meet with representatives
of the Ritualarium Society of Minneapolis and their architect to ensure the new building meets
the requirements of the Zoning Code.
Recommendation:
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: Ordinance
Summary Ordinance
Prepared by: Judie Erickson, Planning Coordinator
Approved by: Clint Pires, Deputy City Manager
41
ORDINANCE NO. 2225-02
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
42
SUMMARY
ORDINANCE NO._____________
AN ORDINANCE PERMITTING A MIKVAH (RITUAL BATH HOUSE)
AS AN ACCESSORY USE IN THE
R-1 AND R-2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICTS
This ordinance states that “Mikvah” (ritual bath house) will be added as an accessory use subject
to conditions in Single Family Residential Districts.
This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication.
Adopted by the City Council June 3, 2002
Jeffrey W. Jacobs /s/
Mayor
A copy of the full text of this ordinance is available for inspection with the City Clerk.
Published in St. Louis Park Sailor: June 12, 2002
02-20-ZAsum:N\res-ord
43
CONSENT ITEM # 2
St. Louis Park City Council
Meeting of June 3, 2002
2. Motion to approve second 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, approve ordinance, approve summary, and authorize publication.
(Case No. 02-16-ZA and Case No. 02-23-ZA)
Background:
On May 20, 2002, the City Council approved first reading of the proposed amendments to
Chapter 36 of the Municipal Code. These amendments were initiated to ensure compliance with
the Comprehensive Plan in those cases where the Comprehensive Plan prohibits or limits some
uses that are otherwise permitted within a zoning district.
The need for these amendments surfaced as a result of a request to change zoning on properties
northwest of West 36th Street and Belt Line Boulevard from Industrial to C2 – 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.
The City Council adopted the requested zoning changes to the properties as well as the
amendment to the Plan By Neighborhood chapter of the Comprehensive Plan that was initiated
by the Planning Commission, but asked that the subject be brought to Study Session for
discussion with the City Attorney. 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.
Upon investigation it was found that there are only three land uses that are restricted in certain
locations by the Comprehensive Plan that are not permitted by zoning as a conditional use or
PUD. Those uses are “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. As a result of these changes, several uses that have drive-up facilities will
become non-conforming. Only one other property, the Texa-Tonka Shopping Center, will
44
become non-conforming as a result of these changes. The property owner has been made aware
of these proposed amendments.
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.
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: Clint Pires, Deputy City Manager
45
ORDINANCE NO. 2226-02
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 by deleting stricken language and adding underscored language:
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.
46
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.
47
(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.
48
(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.
49
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.
50
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.
51
(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.
52
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.
53
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.
54
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:
55
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.
56
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:
57
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
58
SUMMARY
ORDINANCE NO. 2226-02
MISCELLANEOUS TEXT AMENDMENTS TO INSURE
ZONING ORDINANCE CONFORMANCE
WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
This ordinance states that the land uses in-vehicle sales or service, single use retail over 20,000
square feet and shopping centers over 50,000 square feet will be changed from permitted with
conditions to conditional uses in commercial zoning districts, modifies intensity classification
table threshold intensities and lowers 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.
This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication.
Adopted by the City Council June 3, 2002
Jeffrey W. Jacobs /s/
Mayor
A copy of the full text of this ordinance is available for inspection with the City Clerk.
Published in St. Louis Park Sailor: June 12, 2002
02-16 and 02-23-ZAsum:N\res-ord
59
CONSENT ITEM # 3
St. Louis Park City Council
Meeting of June 3, 2002
3. Traffic Study No. 564: Motion to adopt the attached resolution authorizing
the restriction of parking to “No Parking 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. Weekdays” on the
east side of Colorado Avenue from Excelsior Boulevard to 80 feet south of
Excelsior Boulevard.
Background: The St. Louis Park Bus Company provides the school bus service for the St.
Louis Park School District. The bus company contacted the City regarding the on-street parking
on Colorado Avenue south of Excelsior Boulevard. The school buses access the neighborhood
by heading eastbound on Excelsior Boulevard then turn south onto Colorado Avenue. Due to
on-street parking on the east side of Colorado Avenue the buses sometimes need to back up into
Excelsior Boulevard to make the turn.
Analysis: Staff has reviewed this request and contacted the adjacent property owner at 4065
Colorado Avenue. The property owner and staff support adoption of parking restrictions from the
driveway at 4065 Colorado Avenue to Excelsior Boulevard. A letter of support was received
from the property owner. This will allow the school buses to facilitate the turn without backing
up. It appears that there are adequate day-time parking options in the area even with this
restriction.
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following parking
restrictions:
• “No Parking 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. Weekdays” along the east side of Colorado Avenue from
Excelsior Boulevard to a point 80 feet south.
It is recommended the parking restriction become effective immediately.
Attachments: Map
Resolution
Prepared by: Carlton B. Moore, Public Works
Reviewed by: Maria A. Hagen, City Engineer
Michael P. Rardin, Public Works
Approved by: Clint Pires, Deputy City Manager
60
RESOLUTION NO. 02-057
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING “NO PARKING 7 A.M. TO 6 P.M. WEEKDAYS”
COLORADO AVENUE FROM EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD TO 80 FEET SOUTH
TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 564
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota has been requested, has studied, and
has determined that traffic controls are necessary at this location.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that the Director of Public Works is hereby authorized to install the following
controls:
1. “No Parking – 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. Weekdays” on the east side of Colorado Avenue from
Excelsior Boulevard to 80 feet south of Excelsior Boulevard to facilitate school bus
service access to the neighborhood.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council June 3, 2002
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
61
CONSENT ITEM # 4
St. Louis Park City Council
Meeting of June 3, 2002
4. Bid Tabulation: Motion to designate Thomas & Sons Construction, Inc.
the lowest responsible bidder and authorize execution of a contract with
the firm in the amount of $583,444.84 for the 2001 Sidewalk Improvement
Project-Phase B – City Project No. 99-07B
Background: This project was initiated in order to construct new sidewalk segments
recommended in the Sidewalk, Trail, Bikeway and Crossings Plan. This is the second phase of
the first year’s program. Because these segments will be financed with State Aid funds,
Mn/DOT review was necessary and resulted in delaying bidding and construction until this year.
The following sidewalk segments will be built under this contract:
Street From To Side
Flag Avenue Cedar Lake Rd. Franklin Ave. West
Texas Avenue Franklin Ave. I-394 frontage road East
Pennsylvania Avenue W. 14th Street I-394 frontage road East
West 26th Street Salem Ave. Monterey Ave. North
West 26th Street Monterey Ave. France Ave. South
France Avenue W. 26th Street Cedar Lake Ave. West
Bid Analysis: Bids for the Phase B project were received on May 22, 2002. An Advertisement
for Bids was published in the St. Louis Park Sun-Sailor on May 1, and 8, 2002 and in the
Construction Bulletin on May 3, 10, and 17, 2002. A summary of the bid results is as follows:
Contractor Bid Amount
Thomas & Sons Construction, Inc. $583,444.84
Engineer’s Estimate $672,000.00
Although only one bid was received, from Thomas & Sons Construction, staff has analyzed it
and feels it is a responsible bid. Therefore, staff recommends that a contract be awarded to the
firm in the amount of $583,444.84.
Prepared By: Maria A. Hagen, City Engineer
Reviewed By: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved By: Clint Pires, Deputy City Manager
62
CONSENT ITEM # 5
St. Louis Park City Council
Meeting of June 3, 2002
5. Motion to adopt the attached resolution that declares the petition adequate
for the purposes of preparing a formal City Engineer’s Report on the
feasibility and costs associated with a proposed alley improvement project in
the 2900 block between Florida and Edgewood Avenues, north of
Minnetonka Boulevard.
Background:
On May 24, 2002 the residents in the 2900 block between Florida and Edgewood Avenues,
submitted a petition to the City requesting the alley be paved in accordance with the City’s
standard for alleys, and that the cost of the improvements be assessed against all benefited
properties. Mr. John Helberg of 2925 Florida Avenue South circulated the petition. This alley is
a “T” alley located between Florida and Edgewood Avenues, and north of Minnetonka
Boulevard to W. 29th Street.
The City’s Alley Paving Policy requires that at least 51% of the property owners (based on alley
front feet) sign a petition for the improvement in order to investigate the feasibility and cost of
construction.
Analysis:
61% of the property owners (14 of 23 affected properties) have signed the petition. Therefore,
the petition is deemed adequate in order to prepare a City Engineer’s report for review by the
City Council.
Attachments: Resolution
List of petition executors
Petition
Prepared By: Maria A. Hagen, City Engineer
Reviewed By: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved By: Clint Pires, Deputy City Manager
63
RESOLUTION NO. 02-058
RESOLUTION DECLARING ADEQUACY OF PETITION AND ORDERING
PREPARATION OF A REPORT TO DETERMINE THE FEASIBILITY OF PAVING
THE ALLEY LOCATED IN THE 2900 BLOCK BETWEEN FLORIDA AND
EDGEWOOD AVENUES, NORTH OF MINNETONKA BOULEVARD
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a petition signed
by affected property owners related to alley paving in the 2900 block between Florida and
Edgewood Avenues, north of Minnetonka Boulevard.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Cou ncil of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that:
1. The City’s Alley Paving Policy requires that a petition containing signatures from at least
51% of the affected property owners be received in order to investigate the feasibility and
cost of construction.
2. A certain petition requesting the improvement of the alley in the 2900 block between
Florida and Edgewood Avenues, filed with the Council on June 3, 2002, is hereby
declared to be signed by the required percentage of owners of property affected thereby.
This declaration is made in conformity to Minn. Stat. § 429.035.
3. The petition is hereby referred to the City Engineer and she is instructed to report to the
Council with all convenient speed advising the Council in a preliminary way as to
whether the proposed improvement is necessary, cost-effective, and feasible and as to
whether it should best be made as proposed or in connection with some other
improvement, and the estimated cost of the improvement as recommended.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council June 3, 2002
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
64
Petition Signatures
for Concrete Alley Paving in
2900 Block between Florida and Edgewood Avenues
Address
Petition Signed by Property
Owners
2901 Florida Avenue
2913 Florida Avenue *
2917 Florida Avenue *
2921 Florida Avenue *
2925 Florida Avenue *
2929 Florida Avenue *
2933 Florida Avenue *
2937 Florida Avenue
2941 Florida Avenue *
2900 Edgewood Avenue *
2904 Edgewood Avenue
2908 Edgewood Avenue
2910 Edgewood Avenue *
2920 Edgewood Avenue
2924 Edgewood Avenue *
2932 Edgewood Avenue
2940 Edgewood Avenue
6504 Minnetonka Boulevard *
6508 Minnetonka Boulevard *
6512 Minnetonka Boulevard
6516 Minnetonka Boulevard
6520 Minnetonka Boulevard *
6524 Minnetonka Boulevard *
Petition signed by 14 of 23 properties (61%)
65
CONSENT ITEM # 6a
MINUTES APRIL 25, 2002
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
The St. Louis Park Board of Zoning Appeals Committee conducted a regular meeting on
Thursday, April 25, 2002, at St. Louis Park City Hall, 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard, St.
Louis Park, Minnesota.
Members Present: Chair James Gainsley
Commissioner Tom Powers
Commissioner Paul Roberts
Members Absent: Vice Chair Susan Bloyer
Commissioner Ryan Burt
Staff Present: Jeff Korman, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Tara Olson, Community Development Secretary
1. CALL TO ORDER – ROLL CALL
Chair Gainsley called the regular meeting to order at 7:01 p.m.
2. APPROVE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMITTEE MINUTES
Motion by Commissioner Roberts, seconded by Commissioner Gainsley, to approve the
following minutes as presented with the following corrections: Page 1, April 2, 2002 meeting
minutes replace Commissioner Powers name with Commission Roberts on motion carried for
approval of February 28, 2002 meeting minutes.
1) Board of Zoning Appeals Committee public hearing and regular meeting minutes dated April
2, 2002.
Motion by Commissioner Roberts, seconded by Commissioner Gainsley, that the regular
meeting minutes dated April 2, 2002 are approved with the above stated corrections.
Motion Carried. Voting Yes: Gainsley, Powers, and Roberts. Voting No: None.
3. CONSENT AGENDA
None
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS/COMMITTEE BUSINESS
66
A. Case No. 02-21-VAR - The request of Lawrence and Ina Gravitz for a variance from the
requirements of Section 36-163(f)(3) of the Ordinance Code relating to zoning to permit a
setback of 8.6 feet instead of the required 15 feet for side yard abutting a public street for
construction of a screened porch on the property located in the “R-1” Single Family
Residential District at 2337 France Avenue South.
Mr. Korman presented a report and concluded that since only 5 of 7 findings have been satisfied
for a variance to reduce the setback for a side yard abutting a public street from 15 feet to 8.6
feet, staff recommends denial of that variance. However, staff would recommend that any
variance approval should reduce the required width of a side yard abutting a public street to 9
feet, instead of the 8.6 feet requested by the applicant.
Chair Gainsley asked staff if there are any other variances associated with the applicant’s
property.
Mr. Korman stated that he is unaware of any other variance for this property.
Chair Gainsley asked if staff knew of how this property could be plotted in such a non-
conforming way.
Mr. Korman stated that the property division did not contradict code at that time of when it was
built.
Chair Gainsley asked staff if he knew the year the home was constructed.
Mr. Korman was unsure of the year that the home was built.
Mr. Gainsley asked staff if there was an existing porch that the applicants will be screening in or
if this proposal will be a new construction.
Mr. Korman stated that this porch would be a new construction.
Commissioner Powers asked if staff’s proposal of a 9 foot setback is to keep within the zoning of
an R-2 District.
Mr. Korman stated that there is not a provision within the R-1 district that allows a reduction of
the side yard abutting a street setback to 9 feet for small properties generally because the
properties in a R-1 District are larger. Since this is considered undersized in the same manner as
would the property in an R-2, staff felt that would be in the spirit of the code.
With no more questions, Chair Gainsley opened the public hearing.
Lawrence Gravitz, applicant of 2337 France Avenue South, stated that he enjoys living in St.
Louis Park and would like to begin enjoying the summer evenings on a screened porch. For the
past years he and his family have had several uncomfortable evenings due to the mosquito
67
population in his area, which is credited to the wetlands near his home. He would like to build a
porch with minimal impact on others.
Mr. Gravitz showed the Commission several overhead drawings of roof dimensions and exterior
finishes and would like to make sure the Commission is informed on the nice appearance of the
proposed addition.
Commissioner Powers asked Mr. Gravitz if he would be fine with staff’s recommendation of
allowing only a 9-foot setback instead of the 8.6-foot setback.
Mr. Gravitz responded that the he would be fine with staff’s recommendation of a 9-foot setback.
Richard Sferra, 2333 France Avenue South, stated that he lives on the north side of the applicant
and would like the Commissioners to understand that the applicant’s property layout makes
building a screen porch very difficult.
Chairman Gainsley asked Mr. Sferra if he knows the distance between the closet point of his
home and the applicant’s home.
Mr. Sferra stated that it is about a 4 or 5 foot distance.
Mr. Korman pointed out that the survey states there is 8.9 feet at the maximum distance, and
about 7 feet at the minimum.
Chair Gainsley asked staff if a porch were to be constructed on the backyard would he be within
the setback requirements?
Mr. Korman stated the applicant would not meet the setback requirement.
Mr. Gainsley would like to point out that there is not a building to the south so the applicant’s
proposal would not bring the property within any normal distance of any building adjacent to the
house, since it is a roadway.
Chair Gainsley closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Powers stated he feels that having a porch should be a substantial property right.
He stated that there is more to just being inside a home. For example, interaction among
neighbors and protection from the mosquitos are reasons why a porch should be a substantial
property right. He entertained granting this variance.
Commissioner Roberts stated that he doesn’t agree with Commissioner Powers regarding a porch
being a substantial property right and feels that in the past the Commission has modified the
property rights by allowing a double car garage as a property right.
Commissioner Power would like to grant the variance because the applicant has a difficult
property layout and zoning.
68
Chair Gainsley stated he would be inclined in granting the variance since the placement of the
proposed porch will not impact the surrounding properties and the lot is narrow. He feels that
the variance is justified.
Commissioner Roberts would like to grant the variance based on staff findings with regard to the
shape and size of the property and no legally permissible alternative for another location with the
condition of allowing a 9-foot setback.
Motion by Commissioner Roberts, seconded by Chair Gainsley, that the variance be granted to
permit a 9-foot side yard setback abutting a public street in the R-2 District.
Motion Carried. Voting Yes: Gainsley, Powers and Roberts. Voting No: None.
5. Old Business:
None
6. New Business:
None
7. Communications:
Mr. Korman informed the Commissioners that both applicants of the April 2, 2002 Board of
Zoning Appeals meetings were approved but have been appealed to City Council by the area
residents. He stated City Council will conduct a public hearing on May 6, 2002 and the
Commissioners are invited to attend.
8. Miscellaneous:
None
9. Adjournment:
Commissioner Roberts moved and Commissioner Powers seconded the motion for adjournment.
The regular meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals adjourned at 7:25 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Tara Olson
Community Development Secretary