HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002/07/15 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Regular 1
AGENDA - CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
July 15, 2002
7:30 p.m.
There will NOT be an Economic Development Authority meeting.
1. Call to Order
a. Pledge of Allegiance
b. Roll Call
2. Presentations
a. Proclamation for Duck Soup Day
b. Presentation of Annual Report by St. Louis Park Charter Commission
3. Approval of Minutes
a. City Council Minutes of July 1, 2002
b. City Council Study Session minutes of June 24, 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 zoning ordinance text amendments
to allow garage sales in residential districts, approve summary ordinance
and authorize publication.
2
2. Motion to Accept Housing Authority Minutes of June 12, 2002 for filing
3. Motion to accept BOZA minutes of May 23, 2002 fr filing
4. Motion to adopt the attached resolution approving Change Order No. 2
with Hardrives, Inc. for the construction of additional streetscape
improvements for the West 38th Street entrance into the Minikahda Vista
Neighborhood. Contract No. 85-02 with Hardrives, inc. in the amount of
$67,997.20.
5. Motion to accept vendor claim report for filing
Action: Motion to approve Consent Items
5. Public Hearings
6. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public
7. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions
7a City Engineer’s Report: 2002 Sidewalk & Trail Improvement Project–Project
No. 02-01
This report considers the construction of various sections of new sidewalk in
accordance with the City’s sidewalk, trails, and bikeway plan
Recommended
Action:
1. Motion to adopt the attached resolution accepting this report,
establishing and ordering an improvement project, approving
plans and specifications and authorizing advertisement for
bids for construction of various sections of concrete
sidewalk.
2. Motion to adopt the attached resolutions relating to
installation of parking restrictions on W. 28th Street, from
Texas Avenue to Louisiana Avenue (south side), Louisiana
Avenue to Dakota Avenue (north side), and Blackstone to
Brunswick Avenue (north side).
7b. Request of Vernon Partnership LLC for Final Plat (Homes of Vernon Oaks)at
2601 Vernon Avenue S
Case No. 02-06-S
Proposal is to develop 6 single-family homes using a condominium plat.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt a resolution granting final plat subject to
conditions included in the resolution.
7c. The request of Costco Wholesale for a minor amendment to the approved
Planned Unit Development for Park Place Plaza to permit a minor expansion
of the Costco liquor store at 1625 Zarthan Avenue
3
Case No. 95-51-PUD (Amended)
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve a resolution amending the Park Place Plaza
Planned Unit Development to allow a minor expansion of the
Costco liquor store subject to the conditions included in the
resolution.
7d. Request by Beltline Industrial Park, Inc. for Preliminary Plat approval for
Wolfe Lake Professional Center and Preliminary Planned Unit Development
approval to redevelop the northwest quadrant of Beltline Boulevard and West
36th Street for two office/retail buildings
Case Nos. 02-32-S and 02-31-PUD
Northwest quadrant of Beltline Boulevard and West 36th street
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt resolutions approving the preliminary PUD, and
Preliminary Plat, subject to conditions included in the
resolutions.
7e. Request of Bruce Dachis for a zoning ordinance text amendment regarding
pool houses in the R-1 single-family district.
Case No. 02-24-ZA
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve First Reading of the zoning ordinance text
amendment and set Second Reading for August 5, 2002.
7f. Second Reading of zoning ordinance text amendments regarding detached
garages and other accessory structures/uses.
Case No. 02-24-ZA
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve second reading of the zoning ordinance text
amendments regarding detached garages and other accessory
structures/uses, approve the summary ordinance and authorize
publication.
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
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 2b
Meeting of July 15, 2002
2a. Charter Commission Annual Report and Work Plan Presentation
The current Charter Commission Chair is Mr. Paul Carver.
Background:
Each year, the St. Louis Park Charter Commission reports to the City Council with its previous
year’s annual report as well as the upcoming work plan. Current Commission Chair, Paul Carver,
will be present to review both last year’s activities and the current work plan. Each of these items
is presented below for Council review, questions, and suggestions at the meeting. The 2001
annual report has been submitted to Hennepin County Chief Judge, the Honorable Kevin Burke,
consistent with state law. The current Charter Commission roster is also attached.
ST. LOUIS PARK CHARTER COMMISSION
ANNUAL REPORT
CALENDAR YEAR ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2001
The following summarizes the activities and accomplishments of the St. Louis Park Charter
Commission for the calendar year ending December 31, 2001 for submission to the district court
in conformance with Minnesota Statute Section 410.05, Subdivision 2. Copies of the year’s
meeting agendas and minutes are attached for detail information.
January 10
• Recognized George Beck (Chair) for his seven years of service on the Commission. He
resigned only because of a new rule promulgated by the Board of Judicial Standards that
prohibited his continued membership
• Based on Commissioner Beck’s resignation and the fact that he was Chair, the Commission
unanimously approved the slate of officers: Cynthia Ahrens (Chair), Paul Carver (Vice
Chair), and Mike Sixel (Secretary)
• Amended purchasing language to include on-going consistency with state law (instead of the
need to amend Charter text with every state law change)
• Amended Charter’s civil service language, following study in 2000
5
March 14
• Elected officers as traditionally done at this annual meeting
• Reviewed and agreed to include in an orientation package for new members, information
provided at the recent Boards and Commissions recognition event
• Continued monitoring citizen input mechanism on Police policy and staffing
• Reviewed potential 2001 projects and work plan
July 11
• Reviewed status of recent Home Rule Charter amendments
• Reviewed status of Fire Civil Service legislation
• Provided an update on the City’s recodification project
• Reviewed 2001 work plan items and work of Charter Review Task Force
• Highlighted the 50th anniversary of the Home Rule Charter, which will occur in 2004, and
briefly discussed options for recognition of this event
September 12
• Received presentation on initiative and referendum (IR) from League of Minnesota Cities
• Provided update on citizen input mechanism on Police policy and staffing
• Provided notification of Fire Civil Service Commission rule changes
• Provided update on 2000 Commission Annual Report
November 14
• Received presentation on initiative and referendum (IR) from City Attorney Joel Jamnik
• Provided update on citizen input mechanism on Police policy and staffing
• Provided update on Fire Civil Service Commission rule changes
• Reviewed commission vacancies and strategies for filling them
• Reviewed strategies for scheduling presentations from pro-IR groups
Clint Pires
Staff Liaison
March 29, 2002
6
ST. LOUIS PARK CHARTER COMMISSION
2002 – 2003 WORK PLAN
1. General Charter Commissioner orientation to the Charter, its provisions and purposes.
Commissioners view this as an on-going activity.
2. Analysis of continued legislative initiatives to prohibit governing board members from
serving on charter commissions.
3. Somewhat related to item 2, investigation of dual service (e.g., people simultaneously
serving on more than one City commission or board).
4. This July 15 presentation to the City Council during a regular City Council meeting. The
presentation could include highlights of the Charter Commission’s annual report; solicitation
of ideas from the City Council on projects or topics they would like the Commission to
study; or projects that the Commission is presently pursing. In addition, presentation at a
regular Council meeting makes the work of the Charter Commission more accessible to more
constituents.
5. The 50th Anniversary of the Home Rule Charter will take place in 2004. The anniversary
celebration would likely require a steering committee, and partnership with St Louis Park
Library and St Louis Park Historical Society, to plan citywide events or activities to promote
the 50th anniversary.
6. Charter Commission members will recommend additional items in response to Council
requests and environmental conditions (e.g., proposed legislation) as the year progresses.
The term of current officers expires in March 2003.
CHARTER COMMISSION ROSTER
July 15, 2002
Officers: Carver, Paul Chair
Sixel, Michael Vice Chair
Walsh, Carol Secretary
Commissioners:
Ahrens, Cynthia
Busch, Nathan
Ernst, Cheryl
Fiderlein, Brian
Hoeft, Marilyn
Jennings, Linda
Johnson, Christopher
Johnson, David
Leary, Bryan
Loftus, Janice
Ornstein, David
Schaefer, James
Others Interested Parties: Burke, Kevin Chief Judge
Pires, Clint Staff Liaison
Andersen, Celia SLP League of Women Voters
7
Item 3a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
July 1, 2002
1. Call to Order
Mayor Pro Tem Latz called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m.
The following Councilmembers were present at roll call: Jim Brimeyer, Susan Sanger, Sue
Santa, Sally Velick, and Mayor Pro Tem Latz.
Mayor Jeff Jacobs and Councilmember Chris Nelson were absent.
Also present were the City Manager (Mr. Meyer); City Attorney (Ms. Poehler); Community
Development Director (Mr. Harmening); Planning and Zoning Supervisor (Ms. Jeremiah);
Director of Inspections (Mr. Hoffman); and Recording Secretary (Ms. Samson).
2. Presentations--None
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. City Council Minutes of June 17, 2002
Mayor Pro Tem Latz noted the title for Item 7c was inserted into the minutes for June 17,
2002, and copies of the corrected minutes were distributed to Councilmembers.
On behalf of Councilmember Nelson, City Manager Charlie Meyer reported that for Item 7c,
Paragraph 14, Line 4 the following change should be made: change southbound Zarthan to
read northbound Zarthan. “The crosswalk warnings should be on eastbound Wayzata Blvd.
and northbound Zarthan Avenue.” The minutes stated the direction for Zarthan Avenue as
southbound Zarthan Avenue.
In regard to Item 2a, Councilmember Sanger pointed out that Human Rights Commissioner
Shep Harris was also in attendance for the Abigail Burkhart presentation.
3b. Study Session Minutes of June 10, 2002
The minutes were approved as presented.
4. Approval of Agenda and Consent Items
8
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 Velick, to approve the
agenda.
The motion passed 5-0.
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 5-0.
1. Approve authorization of the execution of the MHFA Community Revitalization
Fund Program Fund Availability, Disbursement and Loan/Grant Agreement
between the City of St. Louis Park and the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency
for assistance in funding the pilot home improvement program and the Contract
for the Administration of the program with the Center for Energy and
Environment.
2. Adopt Ordinance No. 2227-02 regulating Sale and Application of Phosphorous
Fertilizer, approve the summary and authorize summary publication.
3. Designate American Liberty as the lowest responsible bidder and to authorize
execution of a contract for the construction of the building in Louisiana Oaks Park
at a cost not to exceed $376,586.
4. Designate Central States Fire Apparatus, LLC as the lowest responsible bidder for
one (1) Pumper (1250 gpm) Fire Apparatus for Rescue/Fire Suppression and to
authorize execution of a purchase agreement with Central States Fire Apparatus,
LLC in the amount of $224,244.00.
5. Adopt Resolution No. 02-065 accepting this report, establishing Project No.’s 00-
19 and 02-11, ordering Project No.’s 00-19 and 02-11, approving plans and
specifications, and authorizing receipt of bids for entrance/identity signs at Trunk
Highway 169 and Cedar Lake Road and on the south side of Excelsior Boulevard,
east of Meadowbrook Road.
6. Adopt Resolution No. 02-066 regarding TS: 563 authorizing the installation of a
stop sign on south-bound Zarthan Avenue at W. 27th Street.
7. Accept the following reports for filing:
a. Human Rights Commission Minutes of April 17, 2002
9
b. Telecommunications Advisory Commission Minutes of December 6, 2001
c. Telecommunications Advisory Commission Minutes of February 21, 2002
d. Planning Commission Minutes of June 5, 2002
e. Vendor Claims
5. Public Hearings--None
6. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public--None
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 Seasonal, Evening and Weekend
Rooftop Use at 9920 & 9908 Wayzata Blvd.
Case No. 02-05-CUP
Jeff Holle,1855 Melrose Avenue South, of Holle Construction and on behalf of Santorini’s
Restaurant, withdrew the application for the Special Use Permit.
Mayor Pro Tem Latz said the withdrawal does not relieve Santorini’s Restaurant or the
building owner from the obligation to comply with all of the terms and conditions of the
Special Permit; the withdrawal means Council will not address any changes or amendments
to it.
7b. First reading of zoning ordinance text amendments to allow garage sales in
residential districts
Planning and Zoning Supervisor Janet Jeremiah said standards for garage sales had been
identified in the licensing section of the City’s ordinance, and currently they are stated in the
Community Handbook. With re-codification, garage sale language was deleted from the
licensing section and, at that time, it was not adopted into the zoning ordinance.
Ms. Jeremiah said, according to the zoning ordinance, if a use is not called out as being
permitted, then it is not permitted. Staff has made some clarifications and has addressed
some issues that were raised at the June 5, 2002, Planning Commission meeting and public
hearing. The Planning Commission wants real estate and garage sale signs to be treated
equitably from an enforcement perspective, and to ensure residentially zoned uses such as
religious institutions, schools, and community centers are treated equitably.
Ms. Jeremiah said the proposed amendments would codify the existing policies for allowing
garage sales of household goods and crafts from all residentially zoned and residentially used
properties, and would clarify standards for signs and their permitted locations. Ms. Jeremiah
stated the proposal is to adopt garages sales in residential areas into the zoning ordinance.
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval.
10
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to approve first
reading of ordinance to amend Chapter 36 of the Municipal Code to add “Garage Sales” as
a temporary use with a definition and standards and set second reading for July 15, 2002.
The motion passed 5-0.
7c. First Reading of zoning ordinance text amendments regarding detached garages
and other accessory structures/uses.
Case No. 02-24-ZA
Ms. Jeremiah said this item was heard at the Planning Commission on June 5 and June 19,
2002. She said Council initiated the review of the size, placement, and use of detached
garages and other accessory structures, and Council directed Staff to prepare some ordinance
revisions for a public hearing and Planning Commission recommendation. Ms. Jeremiah
continued: The intent of the ordinance is how to measure height, to simplify measurement,
and to look at height and setback requirements, particularly, for larger detached garages in
order to determine how to minimize impacts, to balance the need for storage space, and for
move-up housing needs.
Staff is recommending some additional ordinance revisions, which went through the
Planning Commission and public hearing process. Ms. Jeremiah reported that Staff has
modified the definition of accessory building height and how it would be interpreted in
certain unusual instances, and to ensure consistency of Staff’s intentions. The definition now
references the building code’s first story language rather than the slab or first floor.
Ms. Jeremiah summarized the proposed ordinance revisions: to simplify the accessory
building height measurement; to add more stringent requirements to control the impacts of
two-story and tall detached garages and other accessory structures over 15 feet to the peak; to
control the impacts of accessory buildings with flat roofs; to improve consistency between
the building code and zoning code; to codify policies that would prohibit plumbing for
kitchens and bathrooms in detached garages and other accessory buildings; to codify policies
that allow driveways, sidewalks, and retaining walls as encroachments in setback areas; to
clarify language regarding window wells; to clarify setbacks for swimming pools and tennis
courts; and to clarify that rooms for boarders and roomers, as well as living quarters for
household and domestic staff, are not allowed in accessory buildings and cannot constitute a
separate dwelling unit within the principal building.
Ms. Jeremiah said Staff is recommending an amendment regarding easements to clarify that
encroachments are not allowed in easements—unless encroachment agreements have been
approved. Staff has added language to alley setbacks that would allow Staff to look at each
case individually by stating that garages on alleys must be located and designed to provide
adequate visibility and vehicle turning movements. In regard to principal building height,
Staff has not typically counted rooftop equipment, and Staff and the Planning Commission
are comfortable recommending that that language be deleted from the principal building
definition. In regard to accessory building height, there has been some modification to the
11
actual language to ensure consistency in the building code. Ms. Jeremiah said for accessory
buildings, the intent has always been to measure from the slab height, at the main entry door,
to the tallest point of the structure, generally, the peak, but anything added to the top was
counted as well. In some cases, grade differences will affect the measurement, i.e., per the
building code, if less than six feet are exposed for less than 50% of the perimeter of the
structure, then it will not be counted in the base height. If more than six feet of a foundation
are exposed for 50% or more of the perimeter of the structure, then the first story would be
counted as the low point. Mr. Jeremiah said Staff is recommending a change to require
larger garages, greater than 15 feet to the peak, to maintain the same setback requirements as
a home.
City Attorney Adrea Poehler said the Court of Appeals recently made a decision that would
require the City to enforce its existing ordinance, and the City will continue to enforce that
decision.
Mayor Pro Tem Latz restated that if larger garages are on an alley, the setback is less as
opposed to complying with the principal structure setback or the rear yard setback, and Ms.
Jeremiah responded that is correct, the setback to the alley would be two feet provided there
is adequate visibility and vehicle turning movement.
Mayor Pro Tem Latz requested each person limit their address to 10 minutes, and written
presentations may be submitted for the record and for Council to review prior to the second
reading.
John Miller, 3550 France Avenue South, addressed the Council. Mr. Miller asserted the
problems are with the interpretation by Staff and the Inspections Department.
Mayor Pro Tem Latz asked Mr. Miller if he is present on behalf of any particular individuals.
Mr. Miller said he has an interest for the Mohler’s, and he is present to represent the Mohlers.
Mr. Miller distributed three photos to the Council. He said he will submit some of his
propositions to the Council before the second reading.
Bill Thibault, 8100 Wayzata Blvd., is present because Mr. Miller asked him to review draft
materials that were presented to the Planning Commission regarding the subject matter, and
Mr. Miller asked him to make some comments tonight.
Mr. Thibault has four points he would like to make. Mr. Thibault has the impression that
there is something wrong with the current ordinance in terms of its clarity and in terms of
garages being too large or not well situated. Mr. Thibault said the three salient features of
the ordinance are: It allows garages to be increased in height; it allows the square footage of
the garage to be increased substantially, in fact, almost to no limit; and it states one may add
sewer and water to the garage. According to Mr. Thibault, with the proposed text
amendments (and he referenced the illustration on the back page of the ordinance) one could
have a 2 1/3 level, with a roof, accessory building or detached garage and still be in
compliance with the ordinance. Mr. Thibault interprets the proposed ordinance to allow a
12
garage in excess of 800 square feet and, with the exception of the placement of a toilet, a
garage could fit the definition of a dwelling space.
John Mohler, 4313 Brook Avenue South, addressed the Council. Mr. Mohler said:
“Throughout this thing that we’ve been through here, I feel that we haven’t been treated right
but maybe one day we will get an apology from the City for having put us through this. Bill
[Thibault] and John [Miller] were on board when the thing first started and they were right.”
Mr. Mohler thinks the wrong message is being sent to St. Louis Park citizens regarding
water, sewage, and being able to go to the center of yards to put up bigger garages.
Mayor Pro Tem Latz asked if Staff would like to respond to the remarks made by the
speakers.
Ms. Jeremiah responded that this is a policy issue and, to a large degree, it is a policy change
that is recommended by the Planning Commission. She said in regard to Mr. Thibault’s
points, the increase in height was from a midpoint measurement to a peak measurement. In
regard to smaller garages being closer to property lines, the ordinance is more stringent with
the peak measurement; previously, one could have had a taller garage closer to the property
line. The biggest shift, going 15 feet to the peak or 22 feet to the peak for larger garages, is
that the larger garages would have to meet the principal structure setback, and that is a large
change from the current ordinance, e.g., one could have a large garage, well in excess of 15
feet to the peak, as close as five feet to a neighbor’s property line. Staff thinks this has been
corrected in the ordinance. In regard to increase in square footage, the 800 square foot
maximum ground floor area for all accessory structures is included in this ordinance. The
reason for referencing ground floor area is that for garages and accessory structures that
would meet the principal structure setbacks, it might be possible in those cases to get a
second story in. In regard to Mr. Mohler and preserving open space and, perhaps to provide
an incentive to add on to homes, Staff thinks the proposed ordinance is a vast improvement
over the last ordinance. Additionally, the proposed ordinance is more stringent in regard to
the prohibition of plumbing. Ms. Jeremiah said an objective consultant has been involved in
the process, proposals, and review of language.
Ms. Jeremiah said the building code would rule out any three-story garage or accessory
building in any regard. Ms. Jeremiah added: anything over 15 feet to the peak would have to
mete the setbacks of 7-9 feet from the side yard and 25 feet to the rear yard.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer, to approve
first reading of the zoning ordinance text amendments regarding detached garages and other
accessory structures/uses and set second reading for July 15, 2002.
Mr. Meyer said Council must bear in mind that zoning ordinances must be clear and
understandable for all, and if there are too many “what ifs” the clarity of the ordinance will
be diminished.
13
Mayor Pro Tem Latz said an ordinance was passed limiting storage for recreational vehicles
and other vehicles, and accessory structures and garages should have the possibility to
enclose those types of vehicles on lots that are large enough to accommodate that, and this
does serve that purpose.
Councilmember Santa supports the sewer hook-up wholeheartedly because it will help
prevent oil and other contaminants from getting into the waterways when people are cleaning
the messes and spills in their garages.
The motion passed 5-0.
8. Boards and Commissions--None
9. Communications
From the City Manager—Mr. Meyer said Ashley Tomoson sent a note to the Council
thanking the Council for their recognition.
Mr. Meyer said the Study Session for Monday, July 8, 2002, has been cancelled.
From Mayor Pro Tem--Mayor Pro Tem Latz said fireworks will take place at Aquila Park
on July 4th.
11. Adjournment
Mayor Pro Tem Latz adjourned the meeting at 8:49 p.m.
____________________________________ ____________________________________
City Clerk Mayor
14
Item 3b
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
June 24, 2002
The meeting convened at 7:04 p.m.
Present at the meeting were Councilmembers Jim Brimeyer, Ron Latz, Chris Nelson, Susan
Sanger, Sally Velick, and Mayor Jeff Jacobs.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Meyer), Deputy City Manager, (Mr. Pires); Public Works
Director (Mr. Rardin), Parks and Recreation Director (Ms. Walsh); Finance Director (Ms.
McGann; and City Clerk (Ms. Reichert)
1. 2001 Audit Presentation
Ms. Jean McGann and a representative of the Audit firm of Kern, DeWenter, Viere, Ltd.
presented an overview of the 2001 Comprehensive Annul Financial Report to the city Council.
The city’s audit report had earn an “unqualified opinion” from the auditors which was the
highest rating possible. Council asked various questions about the report and the city’s fund
balances.
Ms. McGann also informed the council that the GASB 34 reporting format was in the process of
being implemented and explained that though there would be major changes in how the city
reports financial information, the format would be easier for members of the general public to
understand.
There was concern expressed by the council that the GASB 34 format would be used by the
public to compare cities. Mr. Meyer said that while people may be tempted to do just that, there
are enough differences in how cities are operated that comparisons drawn based on financial
reports would be incomplete. He suggested that performance measurements are a better tool for
comparisons.
2. Parks Master Plan Summary
Ms. Walsh gave an overview of the park system and value of the parks to our residents. She
pointed out that we need to be able to assess resident needs and be open new trends in park
systems and structures.
Councilmember Sanger asked how we will assess interests and concerns city-wide. Ms. Walsh
responded that we have not done a good job in the past at soliciting resident input, but that they
will be working to put together a series of tools that will be used to assess community-wide
needs.
15
Councilmember Velick expressed concern that there may be unmet expectations if we ask
residents what they want and then are not able to fulfill their request for various reasons.
Councilmember Latz stated that he was not concerned about the unmet expectations and felt that
we needed the input whether we are able to fulfill residents’ requests or not.
Mayor Jacobs agreed and felt that residents understood the concept of not being able to afford
everything they want, but still felt the council needed the input.
Mr. Meyer informed the council that staff would be moving forward designing components of
the citizen input process and would keep the council aprised as the process develops.
3. Draft 2003-2007 Capital Improvement Program
Mr. Pires presented the Draft 2003-2007 Capital Improvement Program and stated that the intent
of the CIP was to provide a tool to assist in the decision making prosess that would take into
account the complete picture of the city’s capital expenditure needs. The document and process
will provide a thorough analysis of future needs through the implementation process and also
work with the city’s financial system to track costs of capital projects.
Councilmember Brimeyer commended Mr. Pires on a job well done and stated that the format
was very clear and well-thought out.
Councilmember Nelson asked about some specific projects including deteriorating railroad
crossings. Mr. Rardin said that it may be possible to schedul a meeting between the council and
railroad personnel to discuss the issue. Councilmember Nelson requested that Mr. Rardin
proceed with setting that meeting.
Councilmember Velick asked about the status of flood project funding. Mr. Meyer said that
there was still some question as to whether funds through the bonding bill would be coming
forward to the city.
Councilmember Latz said that he felt the CIP was very well put together.
Ms. McGann covered various options for funding the CIP and showed two scenarios that could
be used by the Council to bond for the project.
Councilmember latz felt the parks portion of the CIP were very high priority and that there was
no question that the pavement management project needed to be funded in perpetuity.
Mr. Meyer said that the council needs to consider timing issues as well as what project they want
to fund. He shared an overhead that depicted a comparison of local property taxes collected by
metro cities. He believed that the fact that SLP was so low in the amount of tax collected really
translates into an underfunding of city needs. He informed council that staff would be back in
the near future with concept plans for various funding options. That way council can get a beter
16
idea of choices that could be made and how each choice would affect the long term success of
the city.
4. Legislative Budget Update
Council directed staff to leave the legislative budget as is and that if an adjustment is needed
prior to year-end, that adjustment could be made at that time. In regard to the 2003 budget, if
additional funding is needed in certain line items, those adjustments could also be made at a later
date.
5. Communications
Mr. Michael Hindin expressed concern about sidewalk projects currently underway. Council
suggested that it would be more appropriate and effective if Mr. Hindin were to speak to staff
about hs concerns. Mr. Rardin offered to discuss the issue with Mr. Hindin right away.
6. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 9:32 p.m.
City Clerk Mayor
17
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item No. 7a
Meeting of July 15, 2002
7a City Engineer’s Report: 2002 Sidewalk & Trail Improvement Project–Project
No. 02-01
This report considers the construction of various sections of new sidewalk in
accordance with the City’s sidewalk, trails, and bikeway plan
Recommended
Action:
3. Motion to adopt the attached resolution accepting this report,
establishing and ordering an improvement project, approving
plans and specifications and authorizing advertisement for
bids for construction of various sections of concrete
sidewalk.
4. Motion to adopt the attached resolutions relating to
installation of parking restrictions on W. 28th Street, from
Texas Avenue to Louisiana Avenue (south side), Louisiana
Avenue to Dakota Avenue (north side), and Blackstone to
Brunswick Avenue (north side).
Background:
Making the City a safer and more pedestrian-friendly community was one of the
recommendations of Vision St. Louis Park. In response to this suggestion, a city-wide Sidewalk,
Trail, Bikeway and Crossing Plan was developed. This Plan, which has been incorporated into
the city’s Comprehensive Plan, identifies areas of the city in need of additional sidewalk, trails or
bikeways; and, busy roadway or railroad crossings where safety improvements can be made.
Substantial public involvement and input was solicited during the development of this program.
A Sidewalk and Trail Task Force, made up of concerned citizens, assisted in the development of
the Plan. To understand residents’ concerns, a random opinion survey was conducted. As the
Plan was developed, meetings were held with neighborhood associations, the City Council, Parks
and Recreation Commission and other community groups. Two open houses were conducted as
well as numerous publications and community newspaper articles. The final Plan was adopted
on July 5, 2000 with the Council requesting that the proposed new sidewalk, trail and bikeway
segments be constructed within a 3-year time period.
Public Involvement:
The methods used on this project for property owner review and communication are summarized
in the following table:
Task/Step Approx. Date
Notice of proposed project Jan. 2002
Mailed request for information from adjacent property
owners
Jan. 2002
18
Feasibility Report to City Council (consider
preliminary plans)
April 2002
Resident meetings to discuss preliminary plans March-May 2002
Project approval/final plan approval by City Council
(noticed to residents)
July 2002
Pre-construction meeting with residents September 2002
Construction Sept.-Nov. 2002
In January, 2002, an informational letter and a questionnaire was mailed to all affected property
owners informing them about the upcoming sidewalk project. The questionnaire asked residents
to inform the City of any special circumstances or issues that might impact the project, i.e.
sprinkler systems, special plants, etc. Of the 183 mailed out, 56 have been returned, (31%). A
summary of the comments received from the questionnaires is attached.
Informational meetings were held on May 21, 22, & 23, 2002 with the affected property owners
to solicit input on the designs and to answer questions about the construction. Other meetings
have been held with individual property owners and groups (i.e. Coach Homes of Shelard) to
discuss the project and attempt to satisfy their concerns. Following is a summary of the number
of attendees at each meeting:
Meeting Date Segment # of Attendees
May 21 W. 28th Street 13
May 21 Walker Street 1
May 22 W. 16th Street 24
May 22 Shelard Pkwy/Ford Road 5
May 23 W. 38th Street 5
May 23 Wooddale Avenue 0
The majority of the attendees were interested in reviewing the proposed design and determining
how it would affect their individual property. However, the W. 16th Street residents questioned
the need for the sidewalk in light of their poor roads. They also expressed a feeling of
“separateness” from the rest of the City which they feel results in poorer service, i.e.
snowplowing, police presence, etc. Based on these comments, staff is recommending that the
sidewalk construction on 16th Street be temporarily delayed so that a larger discussion, about the
overall needs of the neighborhood, can be held.
Analysis:
Eight (8) segments of street were identified for the installation of sidewalk within the Year 2
area. Of these, Lake Street from Dakota Avenue to Webster Avenue, has been postponed until
more details on TH 100 reconstruction and the City’s Pavement Management Program become
19
certain. One segment, along Wooddale Avenue at 44th Street, has been moved from 2003 to
2002 since the adjacent property owners have requested it be installed as soon as possible and, it
is less than 100 feet long. Also, as a result of concerns expressed at the neighborhood meeting,
sidewalk construction on 16th Street has been postponed to allow for further analysis of the
sidewalk & trail needs in the Kilmer neighborhood.
Each of the sidewalk segments were designed, by Engineering Division staff, based upon the
guidelines established for the program. These guidelines indicate a preferred design of a 6’-wide
concrete sidewalk with a 7’-wide grass boulevard. When necessary to protect trees, where
existing yard slopes are significant, or other physical conditions warrant, the boulevard was
narrowed or the sidewalk width was narrowed. In two cases, along W. 28th Street, the roadway
is proposed to be narrowed in order to accommodate the sidewalk installation.
Most of the proposed sidewalk segments are located on designated State Aid routes and,
therefore, the plans must be routed through the Minnesota Department of Transportation
(Mn/DOT) for their review and approval. Permits from the Bassett Creek Watershed
Management Organization and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District may also be required.
Design/Construction Considerations:
Ford Road/Shelard Parkway: Very limited right-of-way exists in this area due to the widening of
the roads in the mid-1990’s. Within the right-of-way, several fire hydrants and street lights
interfere with the placement of the walk. These will be relocated, where needed, or the sidewalk
will be widened to accommodate them in their current location.
At the intersection of Ford Road and Shelard Parkway, near Coach Homes of Shelard I,
installation of the sidewalk will necessitate the removal of several large stands of lilac bushes.
Although the bushes are located on public right-of-way, staff has agreed to replace these bushes
with an equivalent length of fencing. That is because Coach Homes installed the lilacs as a
screen from the lights at the Holiday Station Store, not merely for aesthetic purposes. Staff has
had several meetings with the Board of Coach Homes in an attempt to dispel their fears about
this project. Although they are still not convinced of its merits, they are working with the City to
make the project fit as best as it can.
Staff is still investigating the possibility of installing an additional walk on the east side of the
road from Ford Lane to Shelard Parkway. An easement would be required from the office
building owner to do this. The daily traffic on this section of Ford Road is so high that sidewalks
on both the west and east sides of the street appear warranted. Several phone calls from staff
have not been returned. Staff will continue to attempt the property owner and work with them to
install a walk. If resolution cannot be reached, staff will bring this item back before the City
Council for further discussion and direction.
Along the west side of Shelard Parkway, from the southerly entrance to the Holiday Inn north to
the existing park path, an 8-foot wide bituminous trail was proposed. Based on this design, 18
trees would need to be removed to allow for this installation. Rather than removing all of these
trees, staff is proposing to narrow the trail in certain locations (no less than 6’ wide) in order to
avoid some trees where possible. The trail will also be striped, so that each lane is delineated for
20
passing traffic. “Trail Narrows” signs will also be installed to warn pedestrians and bicyclists.
This action will avoid having to remove a number of trees and at least one of the signs for Coach
Homes of Shelard II.
This area abuts Coach Homes of Shelard II. A representative from this organization attended the
neighborhood meeting and expressed concern about loss of trees, lack of need for sidewalk in
area, costs to their group for sprinkler relocation, and loss of privacy. At that time, staff offered
to meet with their entire Board to review the project, (similar to Coach Homes I). Staff has
arranged a meeting with the property manager for July 15th.
W. 28th Street, Texas Avenue to Dakota Avenue: This project will narrow the road from 40 feet
to 34 feet to allow a 6-foot walk to be installed behind the curb. Staff is proposing to mill the
entire width of the pavement from Texas Avenue to Kentucky Avenue and install a new
bituminous surface since the street is in poor condition and a significant portion of the road will
need to be milled to accommodate the new curb & gutter and sidewalk. This project will likely
be bid separately since it involves significant utility and roadway work.
In order to accommodate the road narrowing, parking will need to be removed from one side of
the street. Since the walk was being installed on the north side, the parking was proposed to be
removed from the north side. Comments from residents who attended the informational meeting
suggested that parking be removed from the south side instead. They claimed that the need for
parking at the park, synagogue, and Texa-Terrace Care Center, warranted parking on the north
side. In response to this comment, staff sent a letter to all property owners on both sides of 28th
Street from Texas to Louisiana Ave. and requested feedback on their preferred side for parking.
The comments received by July 9th have all been in favor of retaining parking on the north side
of the street. Therefore, staff would recommend that the parking, between Texas and Louisiana,
be removed from the south side of the street. From Louisiana to Dakota, the design will remain
as proposed, with no parking on the north side of the street.
W. 28th Street, Dakota Avenue to Zarthan Avenue: In this segment, the sidewalk is proposed to
be installed behind the existing curb. Due to the variation in grades of some yards, significant
retaining wall work will be necessary in some locations. One neighbor, whose front door faces
28th Street, has requested that alternatives be sought, so that the sidewalk does not come within 3
feet of his front stoop. Staff has determined that the roadway could be narrowed by
approximately 4 feet for this block. This would not only place the sidewalk further from his
front door, but it would also save two mature pine trees, would facilitate drainage near the
railroad, and improve the railroad crossing. However, this would require removal of parking
from the north side of the street for the area between Brunswick and Blackstone Avenues. Staff
has met with this resident and he is amenable to the parking restrictions. A letter has been
mailed asking for feedback from the two other affected property owners. To date no comments
have been received.
W. 38th Street: Residents who attended the informational meeting were, for the most part,
amenable to the design. However, one resident did question the need for walk on both sides of
the street. The boulevard was proposed to be narrowed for one block to avoid trees. 3-4 trees
will still need to be removed for the remainder of the segment, including one very large tree in
21
front of 4305 W. 38th Street. Staff discussed this removal with the property owner and
confirmed that no other design was possible that would be able to save the tree.
Reliant Energy is planning to install a new gas main along W. 38th Street this year. Staff will
attempt to coordinate with Reliant so that the main can be installed below the walk. However,
the presence of tree roots may require that the main be installed in the street instead.
Walker Street: No significant issues were encountered in designing this segment. All of this
walk abuts commercial property. Some minor adjustments in the boulevard width were
necessary to avoid trees and some large, landscaped areas.
Wooddale Avenue: No significant issues were encountered in designing this segment. The
boulevard will be 14 feet wide in order to match the existing walk. A recent pedestrian accident
at this intersection, has prompted staff to install painted crosswalks at this intersection in advance
of the sidewalk installation.
Parking Removals:
Areas where the street will be narrowed, require the removal of parking to accommodate
sidewalk construction. Areas affected are:
W. 28th Street: Louisiana Avenue to Texas Avenue. Parking is proposed to be removed
from the south side, for the reasons stated previously.
W. 28th Street: Louisiana Avenue to Dakota Avenue. Parking is proposed to be removed
from the north side for the reasons stated previously.
W. 28th Street: Blackstone to Brunswick Avenue. Parking is proposed to be removed from
the north side for the reasons stated previously.
Financial Considerations: All of the segments, except 28th Street, east of Dakota Avenue, are
anticipated to be funded using Municipal State Aid funds. 28th Street, east of Dakota Avenue, is
not a State Aid-designated route and, therefore, this segment will be funded from General
Obligation bond funds.
Estimated costs, based upon the proposed plans, are higher than originally anticipated when the
program was developed. $714,286 was budgeted in 2002 for these sidewalk segments. The total
estimated cost, at this time, is $1,064,643. This is primarily due to higher than anticipated
retaining wall quantities and costs, additional road work on W. 28th Street, and the need to
relocate utilities (street lights and hydrants). A summary of the anticipated construction costs
and design elements follows:
22
Estimated Costs:
Street From To Side Walk Width Blvd. Width Cost
Ford Road Frontage road Shelard
Parkway
West 5’ Varies,
0’ to 6’
$114,585
Shelard Pkwy Hotel driveway Park path East 6’-8’ 0’ $54,308
Shelard Pkwy Park path Ford Road East/
South
6’ 0’ $47,115
W. 28th Street Texas Avenue Dakota Ave. North 6’ 0’ $470,450
W. 28th Street Dakota Avenue Zarthan Ave. North 6’ 0’ $102,217
Walker Street Republic Ave. Lake Street North 6’ 3’ or 7’ $18,561
W. 38th Street Lynn Avenue France Ave. South 6’ 0’ or 6’ $61,018
Wooddale Ave. W. 44th Street City limits West 6’ 14’ $4,404
Sub-Total $872,658
Contingency $ 87,266
Subtotal $959,924
Engineering &
Admin.
$104,719
TOTAL $1,064,643
Revenue Sources: Municipal State Aid Funds $938,712
General Obligation Bonds $125,931
Project Timeline: Should the City Council approve the City Engineer’s Report, it is anticipated
that the following schedule could be met:
• Approval of Plans/Authorization to Bid by City Council July 15, 2002
• Advertise for bids July/August
• Bid Opening August 27, 2002
• Bid Tab Report to City Council September 3, 2002
• Construction Sept. thru Nov., 2002
Summary of Feasibility: The proposed project is necessary, cost effective, and feasible under
the conditions noted and at the costs estimated.
Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution
approving the City Engineer's report, approving and ordering a project for these improvements,
approving the plans and specifications, and authorizing staff to solicit bids for this work.
Attachment: Property Owner Comments Summary
Map
Resolutions
Prepared by: Maria A. Hagen, City Engineer
Reviewed By: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
23
RESOLUTION NO. 02-069
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE CITY ENGINEER’S REPORT,
ESTABLISHING AND ORDERING AN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF SIDEWALKS, AND
APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS & AUTHORIZING
ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR THE SAME
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the
City Engineer related to the need for construction of various segments of concrete sidewalk in the
area of the city identified as Year 2 in the Sidewalk, Trail, Bikeways and Crossing plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that:
1. The City Engineer’s Report regarding the construction of various segments of sidewalk
within the city right-of-way is hereby accepted.
2. The proposed project, designated as Project No. 02-01, is hereby established and ordered.
3. The plans and specifications for the making of the improvement, as prepared under the
direction of the City Engineer, are approved.
4. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted at least two weeks in the official
newspaper and in the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids for the making of
said improvement under said-approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall
appear not less than ten (10) days prior to the date and time bids will be received by the
City Clerk, and that no bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the City Clerk
and accompanied by a cashier’s check, bid bond, or certified check payable to the City
for five (5) percent of the amount of the bid.
5. The bids shall be tabulated by the City Engineer who shall report her tabulation and
recommendation to the City Council at the September 3, 2002 City Council meeting.
Attest: Adopted by the City Council July 15, 2002
City Clerk Mayor
Reviewed for Administration:
City Manager
24
RESOLUTION NO. 02-070
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PARKING RESTRICTIONS
ON WEST 28TH STREET
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota has studied and has determined that
traffic controls are necessary at the following locations to allow for the installation of community
sidewalks.
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” along the south side of West 28th Street from Texas Avenue to
Louisiana Avenue
2. “No Parking” along the north side of West 28th Street from Louisiana Avenue to
Dakota Avenue
3. “No Parking” along the north side of West 28th Street from Blackstone Avenue to
Brunswick Avenue
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council July 15, 2002
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
25
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item #7b
Meeting of July 15, 2002
7b. Request of Vernon Partnership LLC for Final Plat (Homes of Vernon Oaks)at
2601 Vernon Avenue S
Case No. 02-06-S
Proposal is to develop 6 single-family homes using a condominium plat.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt a resolution granting final plat subject to
conditions included in the resolution.
Zoning: R1-Single Family Residential
FP-Floodplain
Comprehensive Plan Designation: RL-Low Density Residential
Parcel Size 58,958 (net area after street dedication)
Floodplain Elevation: 169 (City datum)
Flood Protection Elevation: 171 (City Datum)
Proposed Number of Units 6
Proposed Density 4.4 units per acre
Maximum Density allow by Zoning 4.8 units per acre
Park Dedication Requirement $900 per unit cash in lieu or $5,400
Trail Dedication Requirement $225 per unit, or $1,350.
Background:
Vernon Partners LLC made application for a final plat to develop a vacant 1.35-acre parcel with
6 detached townhouses. The Zoning Ordinance interprets the application as single family
detached housing utilizing a condominium plat. Single family detached housing does not require
a conditional use permit.
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the preliminary plat on April 3, 2002, and
the City Council approved preliminary plat on May 20, 2002. The Planning Commission
recommended approval of the final plat on June 19, 2002. A conditional use permit was also
approved for this property on May 20 to allow fill in the floodplain and fill of over 400 cubic
yards. The proposed development will require between 5,000 and 8,000 cubic yards of fill. The
conditions of the conditional use permit addressed such things as truck routes, street
maintenance, and overall property maintenance.
A neighborhood meeting was held on June 18, 2002, to discuss issues related to drainage.
Approximately 7 people attended the meeting. Staff from Public Works and Community
Development as well as the developer and developer’s engineer were present to take questions.
The questions focused upon whether or not the proposed development would change the water
table in the area which could affect several properties on West 25 ½ Street that were constructed
26
on peat soils without a structural basement floor. Some of these properties have experienced
damage to basement and garage floors. There were no neighborhood representatives present at
the June 16, 2002, Planning Commission meeting.
#
Subject Property
#
Pedestrian Bridge
27
Issues:
• Are the proposed final plat and accompanying plans acceptable? Does the proposed
Final Plat meet the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance?
• Is the proposal in conformance with Comprehensive Plan goals?
• Does the request comply with all zoning requirements?
• What if wetlands are located on the property?
• What other approvals are necessary?
• Will this development negatively impact other homes in the area?
Issue Analysis:
• Are the proposed Final Plat and accompanying plans acceptable? Does the proposed
Final Plat meet the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance?
Submittal Requirements: The Subdivision Ordinance requires that a final plat application meet
certain design and information submission requirements. In addition, final grading, utility, tree
preservation, and landscape plans are required as part of the application submittal. Final grading,
utility, tree preservation, and landscape plans were submitted with the application and accepted
by City staff. The Planning Commission recommended changes to the preliminary landscape
plan to increase tree replacement. The final landscape plan does increase the amount of tree
replacement on the site. The Planning Commission did recommend another increase in plant
materials. Staff has required the addition of boulevard trees. This requirement did increase tree
replacement and is reflected on the attached landscape plan. Storm water calculations have been
submitted and accepted by the Public Works Department. Townhouse association bylaws and
covenants and title information have been received and forwarded to the City Attorney for his
review. Appropriate City departments, the City Attorney, and utility companies have reviewed
the proposed final plat and associated drawings and have raised no objections.
Final Plat. The final plat drawing reflects required utility and drainage easements as well as
requested trail easements and right of way dedication. The trail easements cannot be dedicated
on a plat, and the developer will be required to provide separate easement documents prior to
signing the final plat. The plans also show the required sidewalk along Vernon Avenue. No
variances are being requested.
Title Insurance: The developer has provided a copy of the owner’s title insurance which insures
the City’s interests in the plat (in this case for drainage and utility easements, trail easements, and
right of way). This document has been forwarded to the City Attorney’s office for his review.
The title insurance must be in an amount as determined by the City to cover those items listed
above.
Financial Security: Financial security will be required to insure site improvements, including
utilities, ponding, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalks, trails, tree replacement, landscaping, and
repair/cleaning of public streets during and after construction. The financial security will be
28
required in the form of cash escrow or a letter of credit and must be provided prior to the City
signing the final plat.
Grading and utility plans: The final grading and utility plans show the location of a drainage
pond as well as utility locations. According to the developer, the existing overhead line along
the east property line will be placed underground according to the requirements of the
subdivision ordinance. A utility and drainage easement is being placed over the entire common
lot 7.
Questions have been raised by neighboring property owners about whether the creation of the
proposed pond will affect ground water levels and thus negatively impact existing structural
problems on those neighboring properties. The project engineer and public works have stated
that based upon the best engineering data known today, the pond will not affect local ground
water levels. The pond will be constructed using a clay barrier to contain water and will release
water to an existing storm sewer. The pond has been sized to replace all of the stormwater
drainage that currently flows to a low area on the subject parcel plus additional capacity to
compensate for impervious surfaces proposed to be developed on the property.
In addition, the plan proposes a new catch basin at the corner of West 25 ½ Street and Vernon
Avenue. This catch basin will direct water from the street directly into the pond. This will
improve street drainage. Staff finds the plans acceptable.
Sidewalks and Trails. The final plat shows a 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk along Vernon
Avenue. In addition, an 8-foot wide bituminous trail is proposed along the southern boundary of
the proposed subdivision. These are in conformance with the requirements of the subdivision
ordinance.
Park and trail dedication: The proposed final plat shows a 7-lot condominium plat including 6
building lots and a common lot. Since the proposed replatting does involve creation of
additional lots, park and trail dedication does apply. The Park and Recreation Commission met
on March 20, 2002, and made a recommendation to accept cash in lieu of park dedication. The
cash contribution will be required in the amount of $900 per unit for park dedication plus a trail
dedication fee of $225 per unit.
Tree Replacement. The application included a tree inventory and tree removal plan. According
to the plan, the developer will be required to replace a total of 962 caliper inches of trees. The
proposed final landscape plan shows a replacement of 276 caliper inches. The plan indicates the
developer intends to pay cash in lieu replacement for the remaining 686 caliper inches. The
current fee for tree replacement is $90/caliper inch. The final landscape plan does reflect an
increase in tree replacement as recommended by the Planning Commission. The Environmental
Coordinator (former City Forester) has reviewed and made recommendations relative to tree
species and placement. Those recommendations have been incorporated in the landscape plan.
The landscape plan also reflects a monument sign. The developer indicated at the Planning
Commission meeting that the sign was inadvertently left on the plans from the initial townhome
proposal and the sign will not be used for the single-family proposal.
29
• Is the proposal in conformance with Comprehensive Plan goals?
The Comprehensive Plan designates this site as Low Density Residential. The proposal to create
6 single-family homes is consistent with that designation. The applicant has stated that the
proposed units will be owner-occupied and will contain about 1,900 square feet on the first floor
plus an optional second floor. This does meet the goal of the Comprehensive Plan to create more
move-up housing. The proposal to create a condominium plat for detached single-family
dwelling units will create a housing option that currently does not exist in St. Louis Park.
• Does the request comply with all zoning requirements?
The proposed plan for detached townhouses will be evaluated as single family homes when
applying Zoning Ordinance standards. The plan does meet the required density standards and
setback requirements of the R1-Single Family District. Building permits will be required for
each building and all ordinance requirements will be checked before issuing individual permits.
• What if wetlands are located on the property?
This property historically was a part of a larger wetland that covered other property to the east
and north. Over the years the property has been modified with fill and development has occurred
on abutting property to the east and north. The applicant’s consultant completed a wetland
delineation for the property as required by City codes and found that the once existing wetland
has been degraded to a point where it is no longer considered a wetland. This report was
submitted to the MCWD for final wetland determination.
The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District is the governing body that regulates wetlands that are
located in St. Louis Park. The applicant is required to seek several permits from MCWD in
order to move forward with this project. The MCWD explored the site in late June and did
determine that a small wetland does exist on the property. However, wetlands less than 2,000
square feet are exempt from requirements for replacement, so this should not affect the proposed
plan.
The MCWD will also be reviewing erosion control and floodplain prior to issuing the required
permits. The City did require MCWD permit approvals as a condition of approval of the
conditional use permit approved on May 20, 2002 for fill of over 400 cubic yards and will also
require MCWD permit approvals as a condition of subdivision approval.
• What other approvals are necessary?
Several permits are required from Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. The applicant has
applied for the required permits. Final approvals of the final plat will be conditioned upon a
MCWD permit approval.
• Will this development negatively impact other homes in the area?
30
Homes constructed north of 25 ½ Street during the early 1960’s were constructed utilizing
pilings due to the existing peat soils in the location. The basement and garage floors of these
homes are not structural. They were poured on the grade at the time of construction. Over the
years the peat soils have continued to decompose. A concern of the property owners on 25 ½
Street is that the construction of the new pond will affect the water table in the area thus
contributing to possible damage to their properties. The best engineering standards available
have been used to develop the proposed grading plan. The plan does accommodate the amount
of storm water retention required by the City. Water tables vary in any given area from year to
year and season to season depending upon precipitation cycles. The proposed new pond will be
clay lined to hold water and should not impact water tables in the area.
Recommendation:
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed final plat with the
conditions listed in the resolution.
Attachments: Proposed Resolution Approving Final Plat
Proposed Final Plat
Final Grading, Drainage, Erosion Control Plan
Final Utility Plan
FinalTree Inventory Plan
Final Landscape Plan
Prepared By: Judie Erickson, Planning Coordinator
Approved By: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
31
RESOLUTION NO.02-071
RESOLUTION GIVING APPROVAL FOR FINAL PLAT OF
HOMES OF VERNON OAKS
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of St. Louis Park:
Findings
1. Vernon Partnership, LLC, owners and subdividers of the land proposed to be
platted as Homes of Vernon Oaks have submitted an application for approval of final plat of said
subdivision in the manner required for platting of land under the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code,
and all proceedings have been duly had thereunder.
2. The proposed final plat has been found to be in all respects consistent with the
City Plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and the
ordinances of the City of St. Louis Park.
3. The proposed plat is situated upon the following described lands in Hennepin
County, Minnesota, to-wit:
That part of the West 150 feet of the following described tract lying Southerly of
a line parallel with and 150 feet Southwesterly of the Northeasterly line of the
following described tract to-wit: That part of the Southwest One-quarter of the
Northwest One-quarter (SW ¼ of NW ¼) of Section Thirty-one, Township
Twenty-nine, Range Twenty-four, lying North of the South 336.2 feet thereof, as
measured along the West line of said Northwest One-quarter (NW ¼), Westerly
of State Highway No. 100 and Southerly of a line bearing South 57°23’18” East
from a point in the West line of said Southwest One-quarter (SW ¼) (said West
line at this point assumed to be North) 340.01 feet South, as measured along said
West line from the Northwest corner of the Southwest One-quarter of the
Northwest One-quarter (SW ¼ of NW ¼) 764.35 feet more or less, to the
Westerly right of way line of State Highway No. 100 according to the U.S.
Government Survey thereof and situated in Hennepin County, Minnesota
Abstract
Conclusion
1. The proposed final plat of Homes of Vernon Oaks is hereby approved and
accepted by the City as being in accord and conformity with all ordinances, City plans and
regulations of the City of St. Louis Park and the laws of the State of Minnesota, subject to the
following conditions:
32
A. Prior to the City signing the final plat the developer shall provide the following:
i. Financial security in the form of cash escrow or a letter of credit in an amount
equal to 125% of the cost of site improvements, including utilities, ponding,
paving, curb and gutter, sidewalks, trails, tree replacement, landscaping, and
an amount determined by the City for repair/cleaning of public streets,
utilities, and potential damage to neighboring properties.
ii. Park and trail dedication fees based upon a 6-unit development in the amount
$6,750 as recommended by the Park and Recreation Commission.
iii. Cash in lieu of tree replacement fees, the exact amount to be determined by
the total replacement requirement less the trees replaced on site per the
approved final landscape plan. Fees shall be based upon the rate of $90 per
caliper inch.
iv. Financial security in the form of cash escrow in the amount of $1,000 to
ensure the City receives a reproducible tracing of the final plat showing
evidence of recording; such escrow to be returned upon receipt of the
reproducible tracing (mylar).
v. Financial security in the form of cash escrow to ensure the final landscape
plan is implemented following construction of the homes.
vi. A development agreement in a form approved by the City Attorney.
vii. A copy of the owner’s policy of title insurance which insures the City’s
interests in the plat.
viii An easement for the trail along the south property ling and along the west
property north of 25 ½ Street.
B. Within 120 days of the final plat approval, the subdivider shall record the final
plat with the County Recorder. The subdivider shall immediately following recording
provide the City with a print and reproducible tracing of the final plat showing evidence
of the recording. The subdivider shall also provide a copy of the final plat on disc in an
electronic data format. No building permits shall be issued for the project until evidence
is provided to the City of recording of the final plat.
C. Prior to or simultaneously with recording of the final plat, a trail easement shall
be recorded.
D. Prior to any site work the developer shall meet the following requirements:
i. Submit a copy of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District permit.
ii. Sign the assent form and all official exhibits, as approved by the City.
iii. Execute the Development Agreement and meet all Subdivision Ordinance
requirements for issuing erosion control and utility permits.
E. During grading and construction of the proposed pond the developer shall provide
to the City copies of all soil reports that identify and profile soils located in the vicinity of
the proposed pond.
F. Prior to issuing any building permits, which may impose additional requirements,
the developer shall comply with the following:
i. Furnish the City with evidence of having recorded the final plat and trail
easements.
ii. Meet any other conditions as required by the Development Agreement.
33
G. The development shall comply in all respects with any conditions for CUP
approval and all other City Ordinances.
H. The developer shall pay any administrative fine of $750 per violation of
any conditions of this resolution.
provided, however, that this approval is made subject to the opinion of the City Attorney and
Certification by the City Clerk.
2. The City Clerk is hereby directed to supply two certified copies of this Resolution
to the above-named owner and subdivider, who is the applicant herein.
3. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute all contracts
required herein, and the City Clerk is hereby directed to execute the certificate of approval on
behalf of the City Council upon the said plat when all of the conditions set forth in Paragraph
No. 1 above and the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code have been fulfilled.
4. Such execution of the certificate upon said plat by the City Clerk, as required
under Section 26-123(1)j of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, shall be conclusive showing of
proper compliance therewith by the subdivider and City officials charged with duties above
described and shall entitle such plat to be placed on record forthwith without further formality.
The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this resolution in the Office of the
Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council July 15, 2002
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
02-06-S final:N/res-ord
34
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item #7c
Meeting of July 15, 2002
7c. The request of Costco Wholesale for a minor amendment to the approved
Planned Unit Development for Park Place Plaza to permit a minor expansion
of the Costco liquor store at 1625 Zarthan Avenue
Case No. 95-51-PUD (Amended)
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve a resolution amending the Park Place Plaza
Planned Unit Development to allow a minor expansion of the
Costco liquor store subject to the conditions included in the
resolution.
Background:
On June 3, 1996, the St. Louis Park City Council adopted Resolution #96-89 approving a final
Planned Unit Development (PUD) and plat for the redevelopment of the former Honeywell site
into a shopping center.
On April 3, 2000, the Council approved a major amendment to the final PUD to allow Costco to
build a 139,144 square feet wholesale retail and tire service facility on two lots within the
shopping center subject to certain conditions of approval.
On August 20, 2001, the Council approved another major amendment to the PUD to allow
Costco to develop a fueling facility on Lot 9 of the PUD (between PetSmart and Arby’s). Traffic
improvements near the Costco warehouse and Home Depot will be implemented as part of the
fueling facility construction. Curbed, landscaped cart corrals will also be constructed on the
Home Depot property.
Costco is now requesting another amendment to allow a 1900 square feet addition to the liquor
store on the north side of the wholesale building. An existing 928 square feet vestibule on the
east end of the liquor store would also be converted to store space. Overall, this increases the
building area by 1.35% and is not anticipated to result in any off-site impacts. Therefore, staff
has deemed it a minor amendment, which requires only notification of the PUD property owners
and approval by the Council. However, as a courtesy, staff has notified the Blackstone
neighborhood representative and all property owners within 350 feet that the Council is
considering this request at their July 15th meeting. Also, the proposal was discussed during a
recent Planning Commission tour, which included this site. The Planning Commission did not
express any concerns with the proposal.
35
Issues:
How would the proposed addition effect the site design and building appearance?
Are there any other issues?
Analysis of Issues:
How would the proposed addition effect the site design and building appearance?
Open space and landscaping: The proposed addition would be on the north side of the building
and would expand the existing liquor store to the west. Currently, there is a green space with
some trees (planted by Costco) in this area. The open space is not required by Code. The only
open space that has been required in the shopping center is the outdoor plaza near the center of
the site and the wide planted bufferyards between the shopping center and residential uses across
Zarthan and Cedar Lake Road. The existing landscaping in the area of the addition would be
relocated per the proposed landscape plan.
Sidewalks: The proposed addition would effect the design of an existing accessible sidewalk on
the north side of the building. The revised sidewalk on the submitted plans does not quite meet
accessibility requirements as shown. However, the City Engineer has indicated that it could
easily be redesigned to meet the requirements by changing the slope of different sections in the
proposed location. Based upon initial staff comments, Costco has also included a more direct
stairway access to the public sidewalk along 16th Street. However, staff believes the stairs would
be more convenient if they were moved further east, closer to the Costco entrance and transit
stop. Staff believes these details can be worked out prior to issuing the building permit for the
addition. This has been included as a condition of approval.
Building design: The existing liquor store projects about 34 feet north of the warehouse portion
of the building. The addition would project the same distance to the north and would expand the
building further west toward the service truck entry drive. The addition would be the same
height as the liquor store, which is somewhat lower than the majority of the building. The
appearance of the building from the east, west and south would remain unchanged. The
appearance from the north would change somewhat, but staff believes it is still in keeping with
the original approval. The proposed materials and proportions are the same used on the existing
liquor store, which coordinates with the remainder of the building and shopping center.
36
Are there any other issues?
Building Code: The proposed addition would require the relocation of an existing exit from the
warehouse. Costco has submitted a Building Code analysis, and the Building Official has
determined that the revised exit location meets Code.
Plat and as-builts: Public Works noted that the City has not yet received the required electronic
file of the plat or as-built drawings for this PUD. Staff is recommending requiring these to be
submitted before the liquor store addition can be occupied.
Traffic signal bases: Public Works has also noted that there is some question regarding the
placement of the signal bases at the 16th Street entrance. They may not be located on right-of-
way. Staff will provide an update at the meeting if possible.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed PUD amendment subject to the conditions included
in the attached resolution (the new conditions for this amendment are included as #12 in the
attached resolution).
Attachments:
Proposed Resolution
Proposed Plans
Prepared By: Janet Jeremiah, Planning & Zoning Supervisor
Approved By: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
37
RESOLUTION NO. 02-072
Amends and Restates Resolutions 96-89, 96-158, 97-3, 97-39, 98-23,
00-037, 00-133, 01-080
A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 00-133 APPROVED ON
NOVEMBER 6, 2000 APPROVING A FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD)
UNDER SECTION 14:6-7 OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE RELATING
TO ZONING FOR PROPERTY ZONED C-2, GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT,
LOCATED AT 5600, 5640, 5680, 5700, 5800 and 5900 CEDAR LAKE ROAD; AND
1620, 1650, 1690 AND 1700 PARK PLACE BOULEVARD; AND
5601, 5699 AND 5799 WEST 16TH STREET AND1625 ZARTHAN AVENUE
(TOTAL SITE FORMERLY KNOWN AS 1625 ZARTHAN AVENUE)
WHEREAS, the St. Louis Park City Zoning Ordinance permits shopping centers in
excess of 200,000 square feet by Planned Unit Development (PUD) under certain conditions in
the C-2 Commercial Zoning District, and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 96-38 approving the Preliminary
PUD on March 18, 1996, and
WHEREAS, the City staff were informed on April 12, 1996 that certain environmental
remediation would be necessary and such remediation would affect the timing process of
demolition of the existing building and resulted in the need to amend the conditions of
preliminary approval, and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 96-71 rescinding Resolution No.
96-38 and approving the Preliminary PUD subject to certain revised conditions on May 6, 1996,
and
WHEREAS, a complete application for a Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) was
received on April 26, 1996, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the Final PUD application at the
meeting of May 1, 1996, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Final PUD subject
to 17 conditions of approval on a 3-1 vote with three members present voting in the affirmative
and one member voting against, and
WHEREAS, the City Council received an overview from City staff and the City Attorney
of the necessary agreements related to the PUD at its May 13, 1996 Study Session, and
WHEREAS, the applicant and current and prospective property owners have entered into
a development agreement, supplemental development agreements, sidewalk easements
agreement, reciprocal easement and operation agreement, and a reversion agreement, which
38
agreement nullifies and voids without any further action required on the part of the City Council
the preliminary and final approval if certain conditions are not met, and
WHEREAS, on March 3, 1997 Franchise Associates, Inc. (current owner of 1690 Park
Place Boulevard) and Ryan Construction Company of Minnesota, Inc. as developer and with the
consent of Honeywell, Inc. (fee owner of 1625 Zarthan Avenue) submitted an application for a
minor amendment to the approved Final PUD to allow the use of neon on the building at 1690
Park Place Boulevard and to revise the Landscape Plan for 1625 Zarthan Avenue and 5600, 5640
and 5680 Cedar Lake Road, and
WHEREAS, certain amendments to the approved Final PUD have been approved by the
City Council on 10/22/96 (Res. 96-158) and 1/6/97 (Res 97-3), and 3/17/97 (Res 97-39), and
WHEREAS, on December 11, 1997 Office Max (current owner of 5600 Cedar Lake
Road) and Ryan Construction Company of Minnesota, Inc. as developer and with the consent of
Honeywell, Inc. (fee owner of 1625 Zarthan Avenue) submitted an application for a minor
amendment to the approved Final PUD to allow the placement of a new 12.8 s.f. flat wall
identification sign on the east face of the building at 5600 Cedar Lake Road.
WHEREAS, on February 22, 2000 CostCo Wholesale and Ryan Companies US, Inc as
developer with the consent of Honeywell, Inc. submitted an application for a major amendment
to the approved Final PUD to allow the construction of a 139,444 square foot wholesale, retail
and tire service facility at 5801 West 16th Street.
WHEREAS, on October 23, 2000 CostCo Wholesale and Ryan Companies US, Inc. as
developer with the consent of Honeywell, inc. submitted a minor amendment to the approved
Final PUD to allow changes to the traffic improvements at 16th Street and the main access into
the site.
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 01-133 on November 6, 2000
approving a minor amendment to the approved Final PUD to allow changes to the traffic
improvements at 16th Street and the main access into the site, and
WHEREAS, on April 16, 2001, Costco Wholesale filed an application seeking a major
amendment to the approved Planned Unit Development for Park Place Plaza to construct a
fueling facility on Lot 9, and
WHEREAS, on June 20, 2001, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, received
testimony from the public, reviewed the application, and on a vote of 4-0 moved that the
Planning Commission deny the proposed major amendment to the PUD, and
39
WHEREAS, on July 16, 2001, the City Council considered the request for a major
amendment, and on a vote of 7-0 moved to continue to the request, and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 01-080 on August 20, 2001
approving a major amendment to the approved Planned Unit Development for Park Place Plaza
to construct a fueling facility on Lot 9, and
WHEREAS, on June 7, 2002, Costco Wholesale filed an application seeking a minor
amendment to the approved Planned Unit Development for Park Place Plaza to construct a
wholesale liquor addition on Lot 1.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park:
A. Recitals
The recitals set forth above are incorporated herein and made part of this resolution.
B. Findings
1. Ryan Construction Company of Minnesota, Inc., as developer with the consent of the
property owner Honeywell, Inc., has made application to the City Council for approval of a Final
Planned Unit Development (“Final PUD”) within the C-2 General Commercial Zoning District
under Section 14:6-7 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance for property formerly known as 1625
Zarthan Avenue for the legal description as follows, to-wit:
Lots 1-9 and Outlots A, B and C; Block 1, Park Place Plaza (Torrens)
2. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning
Commission (Case No. 95-51-PUD) and the effect of the proposed Final PUD and amendments
thereto 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, with specific consideration given to the Plan By
Neighborhood Section of the Comprehensive Plan, and compliance with the provisions of the
Zoning Ordinance.
3. The City Council has determined that approval of a Final PUD and the proposed amendments
thereto will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community nor with
certain contemplated traffic improvements will it cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards,
nor will it seriously depreciate surrounding property values. The Council has also determined
that the proposed Final PUD and amendments thereto is in harmony with the general provisions,
purpose and intent of the City’s Zoning Ordinance and its Comprehensive Plan and that the
requested modifications comply with the requirements of Section 14:6-7.2(E).
4. The contents of Planning Case File 95-51-PUD are hereby entered into and made part of the
public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
40
C. Conditions and Approval
A Final PUD at the location described in paragraph 1 of the above findings is approved based on
the recitals and the findings set forth above, the Approved Final Plans, and subject to the
following conditions:
1. Issuance of demolition and erosion control permits shall be subject to the following
conditions as required in the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Resolution
and subsequently modified on March 18, 1996 and May 6, 1996 as follows:
a. Demolition, hauling and construction activities shall be limited to the hours
between 7:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. on weekdays and 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. on
weekends and holidays.
b. Trucks and construction equipment shall be prohibited from using Zarthan
Avenue between Cedar Lake Road and 16th Street and shall enter and exit the site
from 16th Street and Park Place Boulevard only.
c. During demolition of the existing building, the western wall of the building shall
be left intact as a sound barrier for as long as practicable.
d. Use of explosives shall be prohibited.
e. All demolition and construction equipment shall utilize state of the art muffler
systems.
f. On-site crushing and recycling operations shall be located as far from existing
residential land uses as practicable.
2. Approval of the Preliminary and Final Planned Unit Development and Plat shall be
subject to the following conditions as required in the EAW Resolution and subsequently
modified on March 18, 1996 and by this resolution as follows:
a. Installation of all roadway improvements associated with anticipated traffic from
the proposed use and dedication of public right-of-way to accommodate public
infrastructure .
b. Adjustments to existing traffic lights, street lights and other utilities.
c. Installation of sidewalks along the length of Cedar Lake Road, Park Place
Boulevard, 16th Street, and Zarthan Avenue adjacent to the project and
connecting to public plaza areas within the site.
d. Dedication of drainage and utility easements to a depth of 10 feet back from
planned right-of-way and execution of a sidewalks easement agreement. Such
sidewalk easements shall extend 1 foot beyond required perimeter sidewalks.
e. Installation of on-site directional signs to I-394 and Highway 100 to prevent
unnecessary traffic in residential neighborhoods.
f. Delivery and garbage service trucks shall be prohibited from using Zarthan
Avenue between Cedar Lake Road and 16th Street and shall be limited to
servicing the uses between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on weekdays
and 9:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on weekends and holidays. Unoccupied delivery
and garbage trucks shall be prohibited from idling on site during nighttime hours
as defined by Section 11-507(3)(a).
41
g. Overnight parking of vehicles, semi-trailers, refrigeration units and the like shall
be prohibited unless parked wholly within any of the enclosed loading dock bays.
h. Openings of rooftop fans and air circulation equipment shall be required to face
away from residential neighborhoods and all exhaust openings except bathroom
fans shall be prohibited on exterior walls facing residential neighborhoods. In the
event bathroom fan exhausts exceed the maximum nighttime allowable noise
limits, operation of these fans shall be terminated until compliance with the City
of St. Louis Park Noise Ordinance is achieved.
i Compliance with ordinance provisions relating to exterior lighting and prevention
of unnecessary nighttime site lighting.
j. Compliance with all applicable City ordinance provisions shall be required unless
modifications are specifically authorized by this Final Planned Unit
Development approval or by more stringent requirements of the development
agreement or supplemental development agreements.
3. The following modifications to ordinance requirements are authorized as part of this
Final PUD approval:
a. Bufferyards are not required between drive through facilities and adjacent
properties that are part of the Final PUD.
b. The temporary hoop structures associated with Home Depot’s “Garden Center”
outdoor sales area are not required to be architecturally integrated with the
principal building (utilize same building materials) provided masonry walls
surrounding the outdoor sales area are provided as shown on the Approved Final
Plans.
c. A Bufferyard “D” may be substituted for the required Bufferyard “F” between the
truck circulation and loading areas for the Retail/Service/Restaurant building on
Lot 5 and Park Place Boulevard.
d. Buildings are not required to utilize at least 60% brick or other natural stone on
each building face but are approved with percentages of brick and other materials
as shown on the Approved Final Plans.
e. Buildings on Lots 2 and 3 may have more than 5% bright, pure accent colors on
each facade and are approved with the percentages of accent colors shown on
colored elevations “stamped” as received by the City on March 15, 1996 and on
April 19, 1996 (Exhibits B2 and B3 of the Approved Final Plans).
f. The area of all wall signs may exceed 7% of the building wall area but may not
exceed the wall sign area shown on the Approved Final Plans. Exhibit A7 of the
Approved Final Plans shall be revised to reduce cumulative wall signage by at
least 37 square feet in accordance with the Preliminary PUD approval.
g. Individual wall signs may exceed 150 square feet but may not exceed the
individual wall sign areas shown on the Approved Final Plans.
h. Two free standing “off-premise signs”, advertising uses on properties within the
PUD only, are allowed as shown on the Approved Final Plans. Such signs are
denoted on the Approved Final Plans as “Center Pylon Signs” and also as
“Monument Signs”. Such signs may also be referenced as “Project Identification
Signs” or “Tenant Identification Signs”.
42
i. The maximum size of the “Center Pylon Sign” faces may exceed 300 square feet
and may be 320 square feet each as shown on the Approved Final Plans.
j. The maximum total sign area of the “Center Pylon Signs” may exceed 400 square
feet and may be 1,280 square feet as shown on the Approved Final Plans.
k. One Monument Sign measuring no more than 4 feet 4 inches in height and 16
feet in width and identifying only the name of the Shopping Center may be placed
in Outlot A as shown on the Approved Final Plans. Such sign shall include
seating on one side, shall be faced primarily with brick, and shall not be counted
toward the total approved sign areas.
l. Exterior lighting spillover may exceed 1.0 footcandle at property lines that abut
other properties within the Final PUD but may not exceed ordinance restrictions
at property lines that abut properties that are not within the PUD.
m. The Bufferyard “D”s separating the in-vehicle sales and service uses (drive-
throughs) on Lots 4,5,6,7 and 8 of the Plat from 16th Street and Park Place
Boulevard are not
required to include a minimum of 95 plant units per 100 linear feet and may
include a total of 225 fewer plant units than required as shown on the Approved
Final Plans.
n. Certain canopy trees may be installed at sizes less than 2-1/2” caliper as shown
on the Approved Final Plans and such trees shall be given full plant unit credits.
o. Certain evergreen trees may be installed at sizes less than 6 feet (height) as shown
on the Approved Final Plans and such trees shall be given full plant unit credits.
4. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with the Approved Final
Plans, which are incorporated herein as Exhibits P1, P2, S1, S2, C1, C2, C3, L1, L2, L3,
L4, L5, A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6, A7 as revised by condition 3f of this resolution, A8,
A9, F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6 (“Park Place Plaza” Monument Sign Detail), B1, B2 and B3,
and the following conditions:
a. MPCA approval of the remediation plan relating to environmental contamination
on the site and conformance with the conditions of the approved remediation plan.
b. Final PUD approval is contingent upon the developer and current/prospective
property owners, including Home Depot, signing the required agreements and
conforming with all provisions of the executed special assessment agreements for
construction of required off-site improvements, executed development agreement
and executed supplemental development agreements that cover all on-site
improvements within the PUD in accordance with Section 14:6-7.5(F), executed
sidewalk easements agreement, executed reciprocal easements and operation
agreement, and the executed reversion agreement. Wherever there is a conflict
between the requirements of any of said documents, City Code, and/or this
resolution, the more stringent requirements shall apply.
c. The type and colors of all exterior building materials (including building facades,
canopies, screen walls, fences, trash enclosures, and permanent exterior signage)
throughout the Final PUD must match those adopted as part of the Approved
Final Plans, and no exterior building materials other than doors may be surface
painted (this requirement does not prohibit the use of standing seam metal with a
baked enamel finish, as approved). Said doors shall be painted to match the
43
approved brick or rock face block color. All exterior building materials must be
maintained in an aesthetic manner as determined in the sole discretion of the City.
d. Wherever brick is denoted on the Approved Final Plans, a full 4” thick face brick
must be applied in a masonry technique except that an alternative brick
application, face brick cast in structural panels, is specifically approved for the
Home Depot building on Lot 2. The alternative brick application for Lot 2 must
match the color, texture and visual aesthetics of the brick used throughout the
remainder of the PUD.
e. Permanent exterior signage is limited to that shown on the Approved Final Plans.
Additional window signage, temporary banners and the like are restricted in
accordance with the terms of the “Maintenance and Operational Restrictions”
Exhibit of the development agreement and supplemental development
agreements.
f. All light poles must be included within curbed areas.
g. All rooftop equipment must be screened from ground level view using parapet
walls and all rooftop equipment must be painted to match the color of the rooftop
to ensure that it is minimally visible from nearby office towers.
h. Prior to issuance of any building permits, the developer must reimburse the City
for all costs incurred by the City in connection with processing the applicant’s
PUD, and preparation and implementation of the development agreements and
associated agreements.
i. In lieu of meeting certain bufferyard requirements as waived in Paragraph 3l
above, the developer shall donate 225 plant units to the City in the form of twenty
2-1/2” canopy trees by June 1, 1997 for use on nearby lands to provide screening
of the project.
j. The subsequent phase of the PUD is approved in concept only as including
110,000 square feet of gross retail building area, 495 parking spaces and 55 proof
of parking spaces on Lot 1. The details of the subsequent phase shall be reviewed
as a minor amendment to the approved Final PUD, unless additional off-site
impacts or modifications to Code or PUD requirements are anticipated, in which
case, the details of the subsequent phase shall be reviewed as a major amendment.
In either case, the City Council reserves the right to hold a public hearing
regarding the subsequent phase. The subsequent phase shall require amendment
to the development agreement and/or supplemental development agreement for
Lot 1.
k. No administrative subdivision of any property within the PUD shall be granted
due to the interrelatedness of the PUD, plat, and Approved Final Plans.
l. The developer and/or property owner shall dedicate, at no expense to the City,
any right-of-way which may be necessary and required in the future to facilitate
improvements at the intersection of 16th Street and Zarthan Avenue and/or to
provide access from Cedar LakeRoad into the PUD. Developer and/or property
owner shall be responsible for the costs associated with these potential future
improvements based upon the benefit to the project and/or the demands the
project has placed on the roadway system. Any such improvements would
require a major amendment to the Approved Final Plans for the PUD
44
m. The developer and/or owner shall obtain all necessary permits to complete any
further required environmental remediation of the site and undertake said
remediation pursuant to local, state and federal regulations, as applicable.
n. The developer shall receive all other necessary permits and approvals from the
City including, but not limited to sanitary sewer, water tapping permit, demolition
permit, building permits, and erosion control permit.
o. The developer shall obtain approval by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
as well as any other approvals required by state and federal agencies, including
the required Indirect Source Permit, and the developer shall comply with all
conditions of said approvals and permits.
p. The Final Plat shall be submitted to the County for recording prior to initiating
any site work relating to construction of the PUD project; evidence of filing of
the final plat or other assurances pertaining to required easements shall be
presented to the City prior to issuance of any permits other than demolition and
associated temporary noise permits.
q. The Preliminary and Final Plat are inherent components of the Preliminary and
Final PUD approvals and are subject to the conditions of Preliminary and Final
PUD approval and the Approved Final Plans. Access to the platted properties
shall be limited to the means provided in the Approved Final Plans.
r. No certificate of occupancy for any building in the PUD shall be issued until all
the circulation drives and internal sidewalks throughout the PUD and all the
improvements, other than landscaping and wear coat of asphalt, for that building’s
lot, have been installed and accepted by the City. All landscaping on the lot shall
be completed within one (1) year from the date the certificate of occupany is
issued.
s. The general public shall have the right to utilize the internal sidewalks for
pedestrian access, including walking bicycles, through the PUD property and for
access to the outdoor seating plaza, which shall remain available to the general
public in perpetuity
for passive recreational use that is not disruptive to the operation of the shopping
center. No provision of the reciprocal easement and operations agreement shall be
interpreted as overriding this requirement.
t. The Approved Final Plan Exhibits may be revised to include a 4,450 square feet
Arby’s restaurant on Lot 4 in accordance with the plans reviewed by the Planning
Commission on May 1, 1996, and further revised as follows: to clarify building
materials; to ensure that building materials match materials used throughout the
remainder of the development; and to reduce the width of the metal door on the
rear elevation to a maximum of 8 feet.
u. The obligations and conditions herein imposed on the developer by this Final PUD
shall also apply to any property owner, successor or assign.
v. The City may enforce any provision of this resolution in the same manner as
provided for a violation of the City’s Zoning Ordinance and/or as provided in the
development agreement or supplemental development agreements.
45
5. The Final PUD shall be amended on October 22, 1996 to incorporate all of the preceding
conditions and add the following condition:
a. The height of the future Retail 1 tenant space at 5680 Cedar Lake Road may be
reduced from 30’8” to not less than 20’0”.
6. The Final PUD shall be amended on January 6, 1997 to incorporate all of the preceding
conditions and add the following condition:
a. The rear door configuration in the tenant space on the south end of the 1650 Park
Place Boulevard building (Bruegger’s Bagels) is revised in accordance with
Exhibit A5.1 - Exterior Elevations dated 12-23-96
7. The Final PUD shall be amended on March 17, 1997 to incorporate all of the preceding
conditions and add the following conditions:
a. The building at 1690 Park Place Boulevard (Arby’s) may utilize neon lighting in
accordance with Exhibits A4.1, A4.2 and A4.3, Arby’s Exterior Elevations
provided said exhibit and assent form are signed by Franchise Associates, Inc.
b. The Landscape Plan may be revised in accordance with Exhibit L.1, Landscape
Plan revised 2/28/97 and stamped received 3/3/97 provided the following
conditions are met.
i) a revised Grading Plan that accurately reflects the proposed retention of
existing berms shall be submitted and approved by the City Engineer and
Zoning Administrator. The Zoning Administrator shall ensure that the plan
meets requirements relating to minimum berm heights adjacent to truck
circulation areas.
ii) Prior to implementing the changes, Ryan Construction Company, Inc. and
the current fee owner of 1625 Zarthan Avenue must sign the Assent form
and revised exhibits.
8. The Final PUD shall be amended on January 5, 1998 to incorporate all of the preceding
conditions and add the following conditions:
a. An Office-Max sign may be installed on the east facade of the building located at
5600 Cedar Lake Road (Office-Max) in the location shown on the Exhibit A3.1
Elevation.
b. Prior to issuance of a sign permit, Ryan Construction Company, Inc. and Office
Max must sign the Assent Form and revised exhibit.
9. The Final PUD shall be amended on April 3, 2000 to incorporate all of the preceding
conditions, find no need for a new EAW, and add the following conditions:
a. The Costco site (Lots 1 and 8) shall be developed, used and maintained in
accordance with the official exhibits, which shall be amended to address the
following conditions: (Amended on July 15, 2002 by Condition 12.a.)
i) The plans shall be amended as determined necessary by the Director of
Public Works to show dedication of right-of-way near 16th/Zarthan as
anticipated in the original development agreement sketch. Landscape
plans shall be amended as necessary and approved by the Zoning
46
Administrator to accommodate future improvements to this intersection
while preserving existing berming/screening to the extent feasible.
ii) The plans shall be amended to include proof of parking in excess of
minimum requirements as approved by the Zoning Administrator. If
excess proof of parking is shown, details of the proposed curb cuts and
effects on existing landscaping shall be submitted and approved by the
Zoning Administrator.
iii) Elevation drawings shall be amended to show screen wall heights of 12
feet as measured from the main service drive elevation unless evidence is
approved by the Zoning Administrator that the proposed heights will
adequately screen service vehicles.
iv) Elevation drawings and sign details shall be amended to comply with
ordinance requirements unless a variance for proposed signage has been
approved.
b. Prior to beginning any site work, the following conditions shall be met:
i) a copy of the required Watershed District permit shall be submitted to the
City.
ii) an erosion and sediment control plan shall be submitted and approved by
Public Works.
iii) a letter from the MPCA shall confirm no need for a new ISP based upon
the final traffic study by SRF.
iv) The official exhibits and assent form shall be signed by the applicant,
owner, and City.
c. Costco shall adhere to the restrictions on construction times and routes as
included in the final PUD approval for Park Place Plaza except that additional
restrictions may be imposed as necessary to prevent conflicts with customers
during peak restaurant times.
d. Costco shall adhere to restrictions on temporary signage as included in the Final
PUD approval for Park Place Plaza.
e. Prior to issuance of a building permit, which may impose additional restrictions,
the following conditions shall be met:
i) The development agreement shall be amended and executed and shall
address, at a minimum, land dedication, design, construction, financial
sureties for on- and off-site improvements, and maintenance.
ii) A revised light distribution plan, landscape irrigation plan, and all building
material samples and colors shall be submitted and approved by the
Zoning Administrator.
f. Prior to issuance of an Occupancy Permit, the following conditions shall be met:
i) the required traffic improvements at 16th Street and the main access drive,
including installation of a traffic signal paid for by the applicant, shall be
complete and operational; the applicant shall also pay its share of a traffic
signal at 16th and Zarthan, which may be installed at a later date.
ii) the entire PUD site shall be found to be in compliance with the conditions
of final PUD approval, or a Letter of Credit shall be submitted in the
amount of 125% of the cost of any outstanding improvements, including
but not limited to completion of improvements near the intersection of
47
Park Place Boulevard and 16th Street, public transit improvements on 16th
Street as approved by Metro Transit, and all conditions of the final PUD
resolution and executed development agreement.
g. Costco shall adhere to restrictions on delivery and garbage service hours and
routes as included in the final PUD approval for Park Place Plaza except that
additional restrictions on garbage service may be imposed on Costco as necessary
to prevent conflicts with customers during peak restaurant hours.
h. All sidewalks throughout the PUD site shall be maintained in a clear, walkable
condition at all times during which one or more buildings within the PUD are
open to the public.
10. The Final PUD shall be amended on November 6, 2000 to incorporate all of the
preceding conditions and add the following condition:
a. Temporary Certificate of Occupancy may be issued prior to the signal at 16th and
the main access drive being operational provided CostCo installs a stop sign at the
exit to 16th Street and employs off-duty police officers to direct traffic from the
date of opening until such time as the traffic signal is operational or the City
agrees it is no longer necessary.
11. The final PUD shall be amended on August 20, 2001 to incorporate all of the preceding
conditions and add the following conditions:
a. The Costco fueling facility site (Lot 9) shall be developed, used and maintained in
accordance with the official exhibits which shall be amended to address condition
11.f.iv. Previously approved official exhibits for Lots 1, 2 and 8 shall be
amended to include traffic improvements noted in condition 11.g.
b. Costco shall adhere to the Fire Department’s requirements for the fueling facility
including:
i) An employee must be available on-site while the fueling station is open.
ii) A key-actuated manual reset switch shall be installed inside the attendant
building.
iii) A fire department access key box shall be installed on the exterior of the
attendant building.
iv) Instructions shall be provided in English and Spanish.
v) Spill control equipment and supplies to contain and dispose of a 30-gallon
(150% of customer limit) fuel spill. Include storm drain covers, absorbent
materials, containers and tools. Protective clothing and equipment to be
provided for trained attendants.
vi) Dispensing nozzles shall be UL 842 listed.
vii) One 40-B:C fire extinguisher shall be located outside the attendant
building with a cabinet tamper switch to automatically activate emergency
shut-off controls.
c. Prior to beginning any site work, the following conditions shall be met:
i) A copy of the required Watershed District permit or letter from the
Watershed District indicating no need for a permit shall be submitted to
the City.
48
ii) An erosion and sediment control plan shall be submitted and approved by
Public Works.
iii) The MPCA shall confirm that an ISP amendment is not necessary.
d. Costco shall adhere to the restrictions on construction times and routes as
included in the final PUD approval for Park Place Plaza except that additional
restrictions may be imposed as necessary to prevent conflicts with customers
during peak restaurant times.
e. Costco shall adhere to restrictions on temporary signage as included in the Final
PUD approval for Park Place Plaza.
f. Prior to issuance of a building permit, which may impose additional restrictions,
the following conditions shall be met:
i) The development agreement shall be amended and executed and shall
address, at a minimum, design, construction, financial sureties for on-site
improvements, including a letter of credit for 125% of the required
internal traffic improvements, and maintenance.
ii) A dimensional signage plan, landscape irrigation plan, and all building
material samples and colors shall be submitted and approved by the
Zoning Administrator.
iii) All lights shall be completely recessed in the canopy.
iv) Revised site and landscaping plans shall be submitted to and approved by
the Zoning Supervisor showing the curb locations around the gasoline
storage tanks and the reduced landscaping island.
g. Prior to issuance of a permanent Occupancy Permit for the Costco warehouse
facility or temporary Occupancy permit for the fueling facility, the entire PUD
site shall be found to be in compliance with the conditions of final PUD approval,
the applicant shall implement traffic improvements recommended by SRF for the
internal Costco warehouse intersection and eliminate three internal access points
to Home Depot as shown on TD & A Layout 3, and shall change the sign at the
16th Street customer entrance to direct service vehicles to the 16th Street service
drive.
h. Service trucks shall use the service entrance on 16th Street and shall be prohibited
from using Zarthan Avenue between Cedar Lake Road and 16th Street and shall be
limited to servicing the fueling facility between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00
p.m. on weekdays and 9:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on weekends and holidays and as
recommended by the traffic study.
i. Violation of any condition of PUD approval, including these amendments, shall
result in a fine of $750 per day.
12. The final PUD shall be amended (Case No. 02-38-PUD) on July 15, 2002 to incorporate
all of the preceding conditions and add the following conditions:
a. The Costco warehouse building site (Lot 1) shall be developed, used and
maintained in accordance with the official exhibits, which shall be amended as
approved by the Zoning Administrator to provide an accessible sidewalk and
convenient stair location. (Amends Condition 9.a.).
49
b. Prior to issuance of a building permit, which may impose additional conditions,
the following conditions shall be met:
i) the official exhibits and assent form shall be signed by the
applicant/owners.
ii) the development agreement shall be amended if necessary, as determined
by the City Attorney.
iii) an additional letter of credit shall be submitted for 125% of the cost of the
site improvements.
iv) building material samples and colors shall be submitted and approved by
the Zoning Administrator.
c. Costco shall adhere to the restrictions on construction times and routes as
included in the final PUD approval for Park Place Plaza except that additional
restrictions may be imposed as necessary to prevent conflicts with customers
during peak restaurant times.
d. Prior to issuance of an occupancy permit for the liquor store addition, the
applicant shall submit an electronic file and print and reproducible copy of the
plat and as-built drawings for the PUD site.
e. Violation of any condition of PUD approval, including these amendments, shall
result in a fine of $750 per day.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council July 15, 2002
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk 02-38-PUD:N/res-ord
50
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 7d
Meeting of July 15, 2002
7d. Request by Beltline Industrial Park, Inc. for Preliminary Plat approval for
Wolfe Lake Professional Center and Preliminary Planned Unit Development
approval to redevelop the northwest quadrant of Beltline Boulevard and West
36th Street for two office/retail buildings
Case Nos. 02-32-S and 02-31-PUD
Northwest quadrant of Beltline Boulevard and West 36th street
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt resolutions approving the preliminary PUD, and
Preliminary Plat, subject to conditions included in the
resolutions.
Zoning: C2, General Commercial
Comprehensive Plan Designation: Commercial
Background:
In October 2001, Beltline Industrial Park, Inc. submitted applications to change the
comprehensive plan designation and the zoning map on the subject parcels. These applications
were intended to accommodate redevelopment of the property. The subject property contains a
post office, a paint store, a showroom and a vacant parcel.
On January 22, 2002, the City Council approved a comprehensive plan amendment to change the
land use designation from industrial to commercial. Text changes to the Plan By Neighborhood
chapter of the Comprehensive plan were also approved. These amendments limit the following
commercial uses: outdoor sales, restaurants with in-vehicle sales or service, motor fuel station,
motor vehicle service and repair, motor vehicle sales, uses that serve intoxicating liquor,
shopping centers over 50,000 square feet, and single retail uses/tenants in excess of 20,000
square feet. The Metropolitan Council approved this amendment in February 2002.
On March 4, 2002 the City Council approved a Zoning Map amendment to change the zoning
map designation from IP-Industrial Park to C2- General Commercial on the subject property.
In May 2002 the applicant proposed to shift a lot line 180 feet north of what is currently Lot 1,
Block 2, Beltline Industrial Park 2nd Addition to coincide with the new C2 zoning border.
Hennepin County approves minor lot line adjustments. On June 12, the City received a letter
from Hennepin County, dated June 6, 2002, that approved the proposed adjustment. The
resultant lot is the applicant's proposed Lot 1, Wolf Lake Professional Center.
Beltline Industrial Park, Inc. is currently proposing to redevelop approximately 5.05 acres in the
Beltline Industrial Park. The property is located in the northwest quadrant of Beltline Boulevard
and West 36th Street with a portion extending west to Raleigh Avenue South. The site is also
51
bordered by industrial sites to the north and west. The proposal is to demolish the existing
building and construct two buildings on site. The applicants intends to lease the space in each
building. The potential users include a bank with a drive-through teller, a post office customer
service facility as well as office and retail users. A preliminary plat and preliminary planned unit
development approval are being requested at this time. Ordinance modifications are being
requested through the PUD process for reduced parking and setbacks.
The Planning Commission considered the proposal at the June 19, 2002 meeting and voted 5-0 to
recommend approval subject to the conditions recommended by staff.
Site Data:
Parcel Size: Lot 1: 175,111 S.F (4.02 acres)
Lot 2: 45,302 S.F. (1.04 acres)
Proposed Building Size: Lot 1: 49,302 S.F.
Lot 2: 9,872 S.F.
Proposed Building Height: Lot 1: 2 stories
Lot 2: 1 story
Proposed Ground Floor Area: Lot 1: 24,866 S.F
Lot 2: 9,872 S.F.
Proposed Uses:
Lot 1: Office . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24,732 S.F.
Bank 25,000S.F.
Lot 2: Retail . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,872 S.F.
Post Office Customer Service 4,000 S.F
Parking:
Office: 99 stalls
Bank: 100 stalls
Retail: 33 stalls
Post Office Customer Service: 43 stalls
Total Proposed 228 stalls + 11 proof of parking
Required 234 (after 15% PUD reduction)
Usable Open Space:
Proposed 37,206 S.F.
Required none
Comprehensive Plan Designation: Commercial
Zoning Designation: General Commercial
Issues:
• Is the Proposed Development consistent with the Comprehensive Plan?
• Is the preliminary plat acceptable?
• Are Zoning Ordinance requirements met?
• Are the PUD Ordinance requirements met, including the acceptability of the proposed
ordinance modifications?
• What is the proposed construction phasing?
52
Is the Proposed Development consistent with the Comprehensive Plan?
The Comprehensive Plan description for the “Commercial ” land use designation states, “The
commercial designation encompasses most commercial property in the City such as retail,
service, entertainment, and office.” The total percentage of land in St. Louis Park designated for
Commercial is 10%.
The proposed project is for a 2-story office/bank building and a 1-story retail/post office
building.
Plan By Neighborhood
“This neighborhood is distinguished by its diversity, containing a mixture of housing,
commercial, medical, office, and industrial uses.” Recent zoning amendments and comp plan
amendments limit the types of commercial uses that would be incompatible with the surrounding
area. These are automobile service uses, outdoor sales or uses that occur outside a building, uses
with late night impacts such as restaurants with liquor, and uses such as shopping centers and big
box uses. The proposed uses are compatible with this neighborhood plan.
Is the preliminary plat acceptable?
A preliminary plat for Wolfe Lake Professional Center has been submitted. The proposal
involves the creation of a new plat and a vacation of an existing underlying plat. It does not
create any additional lots. An existing street easement and right-of-way located where Lot 1 is
proposed were vacated in the past, however were not properly recorded. This will have to be
done prior to final plat approval.
A 15-foot roadway easement is located on the southern property line, along the north side of
West 36th Street. Staff has had discussions with the applicant to dedicate that portion of their lot
to the City for street right-of-way. Since setbacks are measured from roadway easements or
right-of-way, this easement would not affect the placement of the applicant’s buildings or
parking lot. Staff and the Planning Commission recommended that the plat be amended and the
right-of-way be dedicated to the City. The applicant has amended the plat to dedicate this right-
of-way.
The preliminary plat requires the following revisions to meet City standards. Staff and the
Planning Commission recommended a condition that the revisions be made prior to City Council
consideration of the preliminary plat and PUD. The applicant has indicated that the following
revisions to the plat will be submitted prior to the Council meeting. At the time this staff report
was written the revisions have not been submitted. Staff will provide an update at the meeting.
• Revise zoning classification on preliminary plat from IP to C2.
• Revise the legal descriptions to accurately reflect the lots on the new plat.
• Revise plat to show all drainage and utility easements adjacent to all lot lines.
Sidewalks:
53
There is an existing sidewalk along the north side of West 36th street. The applicant originally
proposed a 6-foot sidewalk on the west side of Beltline along a portion of the property. The
subdivision ordinance requires sidewalks 6-8 feet in width along all property lines abutting
streets. Therefore, staff and the Planning Commission recommended extending the sidewalk the
entire length of the property along Beltline Boulevard and Raleigh Avenue South. The applicant
has complied. Sidewalks are located along all property lines abutting streets.
Park Dedication:
The applicant is proposing to replat the property into two separate lots and vacate the underlying
plat. No new lots are to be added to the site. Property that is replatted with the same number of
lots is exempt from park and trail dedication requirements.
Tree Replacement:
A tree preservation plan has been submitted. Most of the trees within the northern open area will
be preserved. The majority of existing trees to be removed are located along the perimeter of the
parking lots. Based on the ordinance, approximately 93 caliper inches must be replaced. On the
landscape plan the developer is proposing to provide 239.5 caliper inches. A more detailed
review of the landscape plan will be completed as part of the final PUD.
Drainage, grading & utilities:
Storm water calculations, and revised drainage and grading plans have been submitted. The
Public Works Department has reviewed the proposed plans and has approved them as meeting
requirements.
Easements:
The subdivision ordinance requires drainage and utility easements of 10 feet in width be
provided along the perimeter of all lot lines. These easements are not provided on the
preliminary plat submitted. Staff and the Planning Commission recommend as a condition of
approval that the easements be added to the plat. As stated previously the applicant is working
to make the changes to the plat prior to the Council meeting.
Response from utility companies & watershed district:
All utility companies have no objections to the preliminary plat. A watershed district permit is
required.
Other standards:
Architectural design, lighting, signage, and final landscaping will be reviewed as part of the final
PUD.
Are other Zoning Ordinance requirements being met?
The current zoning on the subject property is “General Commercial”. The retail, bank, and
office portion of the proposed development are permitted uses. The bank drive through portion
is permitted with conditions, while the post office customer service is permitted by conditional
use permit. The proposed development is permitted by PUD in the General Commercial District.
54
Following are the applicable zoning ordinance standards and what is proposed for this project:
Compliance Table
C2 Ordinance Allowed by PUD Proposed
Height 6 stories or 75 feet NA Lot 1: 2 stories
Lot 2: 1 story
Setbacks Front: 5 feet,
Street Side: 15 feet
Side & Rear: none for
buildings under 35’
No required yards Lot 1:
Front 25’*
St. Side 15’
Lot 2:
Front 10’*
St. Side 15’
Parking stalls Max required 275 15% reduction (234)
228 stalls + 11 proof
of parking
Usable Open Space 0 NA 37, 206 sq. ft.
Landscape Buffers Bufferyard D required
for drive thru &
mailboxes
?
Floor Area Ratio 2.0 max NA 0.27
* Setbacks are measured from the roadway easements.
Loading and trash areas:
Two outdoor trash areas were initially proposed with this development. After discussions with
staff, the applicant has proposed to move the trash inside of the larger building on Lot 1. The
applicant is also proposing to screen the exterior trash area on Lot 2 with landscaping. Staff and
the Planning Commission recommend screening this with architectural screening to match the
building.
A service area for the larger building on Lot 1 is shown to be located on the east property line
along Beltline Boulevard. The applicant has indicated that due to the interior design of the
building, this is the only location for the service area. The service area is at grade and will utilize
swing doors instead of an overhead door. The applicant has indicated that only smaller delivery
trucks and garbage trucks would use this area to supply the office uses. The ordinance does
require that trash facilities and service/loading areas utilize a Bufferyard F for screening and that
the materials used to screen be a minimum of 10’ high when installed. Staff believes that due to
the proximity of future residential uses and the ability of future tenants to use the at grade
service/loading area for larger delivery trucks a screen wall extended from the building and
matching the exterior of the building is appropriate. This type of screening would provide a
buffer from the garbage trucks and possible future semi-trucks. If the trash facility were moved
to an interior area on site, away from the future residential property across Beltline, staff believes
that the required Bufferyard F 10’ high could be met with landscaping and would be adequate to
screen smaller delivery trucks unloading from a designated parking space at the curb with a
continuous sidewalk along the building. However, with the proposed at grade service/trash area
staff and the Planning Commission recommend architectural screening be provided.
55
Pedestrian Access:
The ordinance does require that separate pedestrian access be provided between the building and
the public street on all sides of the lot that abuts a public right-of-way. Sidewalks are proposed
along the north and east side of the 1 story building and connect to the street sidewalk. A
sidewalk is located next to parking stalls to the west of the 2-story building. This sidewalk
provides access to a rear employee entrance and is not intended to be used by the greater public,
thus does not connect to the street sidewalk. Staff is in agreement with this. The sidewalk along
the east side of this building provides access to a second main entrance. It runs north along the
building and the length of the service area at which point a connection is made to the street and
to the sidewalk in front of the building. There is not a continuous curb in front of the building as
the service drive interrupts the sidewalk. A description of the use of this service area was
submitted. Based on the proposed office uses the service/loading area is proposed to receive
trash pick up two times a week, and delivery by way of UPS/courier and delivery step vans two
times a day. This service area is not proposed to be used by semi-trucks. Based on this proposed
limited use staff is comfortable with the pedestrian access in this location. However, the at grade
service area could provide the potential for future semi use. Therefore, it would be preferable to
move it away from the future residential uses. If the bank drive through is not included, the
loading can be moved to the west side of the office building. If, at a minimum, the trash service
can be moved, van delivery trucks can load from the parking lot curb and a continuous sidewalk
can be constructed along the north side of the building. Staff will continue working on these
details with the applicant prior to Final PUD/Plat approval.
Vehicular Access:
The redevelopment plan shows building placement close to West 36th Street. This complements
the Park Commons area and prevents a sea of parking along West 36th Street. It also provides
access 350 feet from the intersection at West 36th Street and Beltline Boulevard. The majority of
parking will be north of the building on Lot 1. Staff believes this is appropriate because it moves
access away from the intersection and puts the parking adjacent to the industrial uses to the
north. The existing access onto 36th Street West is approximately 275 feet from the centerline of
Beltline Boulevard, and is not proposed to change. A new entrance is proposed on Raleigh
Avenue South at the north end of Lot 2.
Currently the post office located on site generates a significant number of vehicle trips with
access points very close to the intersection of Beltline Boulevard and West 36th Streets.
This development proposes to reconfigure the access points away from the intersection creating a
safer situation. A bank drive-through also generates significant vehicle trips, but relocating
access would greatly improve the current condition.
Parking:
Parking is proposed to be shared between the two lots via PUD approval. Without such sharing
and the allowable PUD reduction, Lot 2 does not meet parking requirements. Therefore, staff is
concerned with the proposed phasing plan (see analysis below), unless adequate parking can be
accommodated for Lot 2 prior to Lot 1’s redevelopment. This could possibly involve
constructing temporary parking or showing adequate proof of parking.
56
Conditions for bank in-vehicle service in the C2, General Commercial District. All of the
conditions are met except one:
b. A bufferyard D shall be provided along the lot line between drive-through facilities and
stacking areas and adjacent streets and properties.
The bank drive through is proposed on the west side of the Wolfe Lake Professional
Center on Lot 1 along the interior side lot line. It appears the bufferyard shown on the
preliminary landscape plan falls short of the requirement. Staff recommends additional
landscaping and bufferyard structures along the west side of the drive through.
Conditions for post office customer service in the C2, General Commercial District:
The post office mailboxes are proposed to be located on an island north of the parking area
between the two buildings. The plans meet the zoning requirements for post office customer
service uses except one. Condition (e) requires a bufferyard D be provided along the lot line
between the drive through facilities and stacking areas. It appears that this condition can be met
by adding landscaping along the north lot line, or by obtaining credit from planting on the
property to the north. Staff and the Planning Commission recommend adding a condition that
additional landscaping and bufferyard structures be planted along the north of the mailbox
stacking area. In addition, staff and the Planning Commission suggest that striping and painted
arrows be incorporated to clearly direct vehicles through the parking lot and mailbox drop-off.
The arrows should be similar to those shown on the sketch plan (see Attachment) with a
centerline stripe throughout. A stripe should also be painted off the end of the mailbox island,
and signage stating “mailbox drop off only” should be used to direct vehicles to the mailboxes.
Are the PUD Ordinance requirements met, including the acceptability of the proposed
ordinance modifications?
An office/bank building is proposed to be located on Lot 1 (he northwest corner of Beltline
Boulevard and West 36th Street), and a retail/post office building is proposed to be on Lot 2 (the
northwest corner of Raleigh Avenue and West 36th Street). The project proposes to close two
existing access points onto Beltline Boulevard and create a full access driveway approximately
350 feet north of the intersection. Additional access includes a right in/out only off of West 36th
Street and a full access driveway off of Raleigh Avenue South. The project has two surface
parking lots that are proposed to be shared between the two buildings. One is located to the
north and east of the building on Lot 2, and the other is along Beltline Boulevard north of the
building on Lot 1.
A. The design shall consider the whole of the project and shall create a unified environment
within project boundaries by insuring architectural compatibility of all structures,
efficient vehicular and pedestrian circulation, aesthetically pleasing landscape and site
features, and efficient design and use of utilities.
Architectural compatibility: The site design is consistent, with the buildings proposed to
front along the public streets and parking less visible from the public right-of-way.
Building elevations have not been submitted, however, building sketch plans and
57
descriptions were. A project narrative submitted by the developer proposes materials to
be brick masonry at the base and piers with stucco spandrels spanning between the piers.
Colors are proposed to fall within the earth tones. The smaller building is designed to
have canopies consisting of a single color. It appears the architecture and building
materials of both buildings are consistent. In addition, the landscaping plan shows a high
level of landscaping along the street.
Efficient vehicular and pedestrian circulation: The proposed vehicle circulation appears
to be a great improvement to the existing conditions on this site. Two existing driveway
accesses are proposed to be closed and the new driveway access has been moved north,
further away from the intersection at Beltline Boulevard and West 36th Street. The Fire
Department has stated that the proposed plan meets their requirements for emergency
vehicle access. The pedestrian circulation is adequate on the interior of the site. In
addition, sidewalks will be located along all street rights-of-way.
Aesthetically pleasing landscape and site features: Preliminary landscape plans have
been submitted which show the required amount of parking throughout the parking lot
and on site. It appears bufferyard requirements will need to be revised for in-vehicle
stacking areas, service areas & mailbox locations. A thorough review of landscaping
plan will be provided with the final PUD when revised plans are submitted.
B. The design of the PUD shall achieve the maximum compatibility of the project with
surrounding land uses, both existing and proposed and shall minimize the potential
adverse impacts of the PUD on surrounding land uses and the potential adverse effects of
the surrounding land uses on the PUD.
The current land use on the property being considered includes the post office, a whole
sale paint store, and a vacant parcel. This site was rezoned from industrial to commercial
in anticipation of this request. The land use designations surrounding this property
include the following. To the east of Belt Line Boulevard is designated as High Density
Residential to accommodate a future residential project. The proximity of residential
zoning to the east makes screening of the service area on Lot 1 very important. The land
use designation for property at 3601 Park Center Boulevard is also designated as High
Density Residential to allow for a future apartment building. The City Rec Center is
located south of West 36th Street, while industrial sites are to north and west. Existing
uses are fairly compatible in nature. The proposed uses with this PUD are compatible
with the surrounding land uses and they are consistent with those envisioned by the
Comprehensive Plan. The proposed bank with post office service and office and limited
retail uses would complement the future residential uses across Beltline Boulevard and W
36th Street as well as other retail, restaurant and office uses nearby.
C. The design shall take into account any modifications of Ordinance requirements
permitted by Section 14:6-7.4 of this Ordinance and provide appropriate solutions to
eliminate the adverse impacts of any modification required for approval of the PUD.
Parking:
58
Proposed uses for the buildings in this development are retail and possibly a post office in
the smaller 1 story building, and office with a possible bank in the larger 2-story building.
To ensure that there would be adequate parking, the developer has provided enough
parking for the worst case scenario. The scenario that would require the most parking
would be if the smaller building included retail with a 4000 square foot post office
customer service and the larger building had bank and office uses. Ordinance
requirements in this case, with the 15% PUD reduction, would require 234 parking stalls.
A total of 239 parking stalls are provided with this plan including proof of parking. The
proposed parking lot provides 43 stalls on Lot 2 and 185 on Lot 1, with an additional 11
stalls as proof of parking. The proof of parking does overlap onto an existing lot west of
this development. Beltline Industrial Park currently owns this lot. The applicant is
seeking a 15% reduction in parking. This reduction is deemed appropriate given the
close proximity of the development to a nearby transit line, regional trail, and possible
future LRT. It is staff’s belief that parking requirements have been met. Staff and the
Planning Commission recommend that a parking easement be developed for the proof of
parking in case of future sale of the property.
What is the proposed construction phasing?
The applicant is proposing to construct the Wolf Lake Professional Center West building (1 story
building) and parking lot improvements on Lot 2 as the first phase of development. Upon
completion of Phase 1, the next step would be the demolition of the existing building and
parking lot surface on Lot 1. The final phase of the project construction will be to construct the
proposed Wolfe Lake Professional Center building (2 story building) on Lot 1 and construct the
associated site improvements. It appears that at least a portion of the existing building would
have to be demolished or temporary parking be provided to accommodate an adequate amount of
parking for the retail building in phase one. Staff and the Planning Commission recommend as a
condition of approval of the final plat that a more detailed phasing plan be submitted.
Recommendation:
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the preliminary plat and preliminary
PUD, subject to the conditions in the resolutions.
Attachments:
• Proposed Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD resolutions
• Unapproved Minute Exerpts
• Location Map
• Project narrative
• Proposed preliminary plat/ PUD
• Sketch plan of mailboxes
Prepared By: Julie Grove, Associate Planner
Approved By: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
59
RESOLUTION NO. 02-073
RESOLUTION GIVING APPROVAL FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT OF
WOLFE LAKE PROFESSIONAL CENTER
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of St. Louis Park:
Findings
1. Belt Line Industrial Park, Inc., owners and subdividers of the land proposed to be
platted as Wolfe Lake Professional Center have submitted an application for approval of
preliminary plat of said subdivision in the manner required for platting of land under the St.
Louis Park Ordinance Code, and all proceedings have been duly had thereunder.
2. The proposed preliminary plat has been found to be in all respects consistent with
the City Plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and the
ordinances of the City of St. Louis Park.
3. The proposed plat is situated upon the following described lands in Hennepin
County, Minnesota, to-wit:
Lot 3, Block 2, Belt Line Industrial Park, 2nd and Parcel B (a portion of Lot 1,
Block 2 of Belt Line Industrial Park 2nd Addition)
Conclusion
1. The proposed preliminary plat of Wolfe Lake Professional Center is
hereby approved and accepted by the City as being in accord and conformity with all
ordinances, City plans and regulations of the City of St. Louis Park and the laws of the
State of Minnesota, subject to the following conditions:
2. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with the official exhibits,
subject to approved plan changes through the final PUD and plat process.
3. Prior to final plat consideration, applicant shall submit complete final plat application
materials, which shall comply with the following:
a. Final grading, utility, and erosion and sediment control, and tree
replacement/landscaping plans.
b. Final plat documents shall show dedication of West 36th Street as right-of-way.
c. A phasing plan for demolition and redevelopment that provides required parking
for the construction of the building in phase 1.
d. Drainage and utility easements in conformance with the Subdivision Ordinance.
e. Other requirements of the subdivision ordinance and Preliminary Plat approval.
60
4. Final plat approval and development is contingent upon developer meeting all conditions
of final approval including all Minnehaha Creek Watershed District requirements.
5. Before a final plat is signed by the City, the developer shall comply with the following
requirements:
a. A development agreement shall be executed between the developer and the City
which covers at a minimum, sidewalk construction and maintenance, tree
replacement, repair and cleaning of public streets, and financing of the
development’s share of required traffic improvements. The development
agreement shall also cite the approved ordinance modifications. The Mayor and
City Manager are authorized to execute the agreement.
b. Submit financial security in the form of cash escrow or letter of credit in the
amount of 125% of the costs of tree replacement, landscaping, sidewalk
installation, and an amount determined by the City for repair/cleaning of public
streets.
c. Reimbursement of City attorney’s fees in drafting/reviewing such documents.
d. Street vacation documents shall be recorded with the County
e. Dedication of West 36th Street easement as right-of-way shall be correctly
documented on the plat.
f. Parking access easement shall be approved by the City Attorney.
6. Within 60 days of final plat approval by the City Council, the subdivider shall record the
final plat with the County Recorder. The subdivider shall, immediately upon recording,
furnish the City Clerk with a print and reproducible tracing of the final plat showing
evidence of the recording. The subdivider shall also provide a copy of the final plat on
disc in an electronic data format.
7. Prior to any site work, the developer shall meet the following requirements:
a. A copy of the Watershed District permit shall be forwarded to the City.
b. Any other necessary permits from other agencies shall be obtained.
c. Sign assent form and official exhibits.
d. Meet conditions of City signing final plat.
e. Required erosion control permits, utility permits and other required permits shall
be obtained from the City.
8. Prior to issuance of any building permits, which may impose additional requirements, the
developer shall comply with the following:
a. Meet any Fire Department emergency access requirements for during
construction.
b. The subdivider shall furnish the City with evidence of recording of the final plat
and parking easement.
c. Building materials samples to be submitted to and approved by City.
d. A lighting plan and photometrics and irrigation plan meeting the ordinance
regulations shall be submitted to and approved by the community development
department.
9. The developer shall comply with the following conditions during construction:
a. All City noise ordinances shall be complied with, including that there be no
construction activity between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. on weekdays and 10
p.m. and 9 a.m. on weekends and holidays.
61
b. The site shall be kept free of dust and debris that could blow onto neighboring
properties.
c. Public streets shall be maintained free of dirt and shall be cleaned as necessary.
d. The Zoning Administrator may impose additional conditions if it becomes
necessary in order to mitigate the impact of construction on surrounding
properties.
10. A six foot concrete sidewalk along the west side of Beltline Boulevard adjacent to the
subject parcel are to be installed by the developer per the approved preliminary site plan,
and construction plans to be submitted and approved by Public Works. The property
owner will be responsible for maintaining the sidewalks.
11. The developer shall provide the required number of replacement trees on site or a
combination of on-site trees and cash in lieu of trees. The Community Development
Director and Parks and Recreation Director shall approve the cash equivalent amount.
12. The developer or owner shall pay an administrative fee of $750 per violation of any
condition of this approval.
13. The development shall comply in all respects with any conditions for PUD approval and
all other City Ordinances.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council July 15, 2002
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
02-32-Sprelimplat:N/res-ord
62
RESOLUTION NO. 02-074
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
(PUD) UNDER SECTION 36-367 OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE
RELATING TO ZONING FOR PROPERTY ZONED C-2 COMMERCIAL LOCATED
AT 3532, 3540, and 3550 BELT LINE BOULEVARD and 3533 RALEIGH AVENUE
WHEREAS, an application for approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) was
received on May 20, 2002 from the applicant, and
WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing on the Preliminary PUD was mailed to all owners
of property within 350 feet of the subject property plus other affected property owners in the
vicinity and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the Preliminary PUD concept at the
meeting of June 19, 2002, and
WHEREAS, notice of public hearing on the Preliminary PUD was published in the St.
Louis Park Sailor on June 5, 2002, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing at the meeting of June
19, 2002, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Preliminary PUD
on a 5-0 vote with all members present voting in the affirmative, and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the staff reports, Planning Commission
minutes and testimony of those appearing at the public hearing or otherwise including comments
in the record of decision.
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park:
Findings
1. Belt Line Industrial Park, Inc. (John D. McCain) has made application to the City Council for
a Planned Unit Development under Section 36-367 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code within
the C-2 Commercial district located at 3532, 3540, and 3550 Belt Line Boulevard and 3533
Raleigh Avenue for the legal description as follows, to-wit:
Lot 3, Block 2, Belt Line Industrial Park, 2nd and Parcel B (a portion of Lot 1,
Block 2 of Belt Line Industrial Park 2nd Addition)
2. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning
Commission (Case No. 02-31-PUD) and the effect of the proposed PUD on the health, safety and
welfare of the occupants of the surrounding lands, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the
63
effect on values of properties in the surrounding area, the effect of the use on the Comprehensive
Plan, and compliance with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance.
3. The City Council has determined that the PUD will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or
general welfare of the community nor with certain contemplated traffic improvements will it
cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards, nor will it seriously depreciate surrounding property
values. The Council has also determined that the proposed PUD is in harmony with the general
purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan and that the requested
modifications comply with the requirements of Section 36-367(b)(5).
4. The contents of Planning Case File 02-31-PUD are hereby entered into and made part of the
public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
Conclusion
The Preliminary Planned Unit Development at the location described is approved based on the
findings set forth above and subject to the following conditions:
1. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with the official exhibits,
subject to approved plan changes through the final PUD process.
2. Prior to final PUD consideration, applicant shall submit complete final application
materials, which shall comply with the following:
a. Final PUD plans shall address issues as noted in the staff report including
landscaping, building elevations and materials, tree replacement, site lighting, and
signage plans.
b. Final plat documents shall show dedication of West 36th Street as right-of-way.
c. A phasing plan for demolition and redevelopment that provides required parking
for the construction of the building in phase 1.
d. Final PUD plans shall provide plans for the required bufferyards between the
mailbox and the adjacent property and the bank drive through and the adjacent
property.
e. Final PUD plans shall include pavement striping, and directional arrows and
directional signage for the mailbox locations.
f. Final PUD plans shall provide screening of the trash/service area on the east side
of the bank/office building that includes a bufferyard F with a 10’ high
architectural wall the matches the exterior of the building. Such architectural wall
can be eliminated if the trash service can be moved to the west side of the
building and the service/loading can be moved or served from the parking lot curb
with a continuous sidewalk along the north side of the building.
3. Final PUD approval and development is contingent upon developer meeting all
conditions of final approval including all Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
requirements.
4. Prior to any site work, the developer shall meet the following requirements:
a. A copy of the Watershed District permit shall be forwarded to the City.
b. Any other necessary permits from other agencies shall be obtained.
64
c. Sign assent form and official exhibits.
d. Meet conditions of City signing final plat.
e. Required erosion control permits, utility permits and other required permits shall
be obtained from the City.
5. Prior to issuance of any building permits, which may impose additional requirements, the
developer shall comply with the following:
a. Meet any Fire Department emergency access requirements for during
construction.
b. The subdivider shall furnish the City with evidence of recording of the final plat
and parking easement.
c. Building materials samples to be submitted to and approved by City.
d. A lighting plan and photometrics and irrigation plan meeting the ordinance
regulations shall be submitted to and approved by the community development
department.
6. A PUD ordinance modification to allow 239 parking stalls, including proof of parking
stalls, rather than the required 275 stalls is contingent upon final PUD approval.
7. Should the Zoning Administrator determine that parking is a problem in the future, the
City may require proof of parking to be converted to parking.
8. A PUD ordinance modification to allow setbacks as shown on the approved preliminary
PUD exhibits is contingent upon final PUD approval.
9. The developer shall comply with the following conditions during construction:
a. All City noise ordinances shall be complied with, including that there be no
construction activity between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. weekdays and 10
p.m. and 9 a.m. weekends and holidays.
b. The site shall be kept free of dust and debris that could blow onto neighboring
properties.
c. Public streets shall be maintained free of dirt and shall be cleaned as necessary.
d. The Zoning Administrator may impose additional conditions if it becomes
necessary in order to mitigate the impact of construction on surrounding
properties.
10. A six foot concrete sidewalk along the west side of Beltline Boulevard adjacent to the
subject parcel are to be installed by the developer per the approved preliminary site plan,
and construction plans to be submitted and approved by Public Works. The property
owner will be responsible for maintaining the sidewalks.
11. The developer shall provide the required number of replacement trees on site or a
combination of on-site trees and cash in lieu of trees. The Community Development
Director and Parks and Recreation Director shall approve the cash equivalent amount.
12. The following conversions of uses are allowed without amending the PUD:
a. Post office to retail/service or administration offices.
b. Bank to administrative offices.
13. The developer or owner shall pay an administrative fee of $750 per violation of any
condition of this approval.
14. The development shall comply in all respects with any conditions for Plat approval and
all other City Ordinances.
65
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council July 15, 2002
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
02-31-PUDprelim:N/res-ord
67
Excerpts
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
Planning Commission
June 19, 2002
B. Case Nos. 02-31-PUD and 02-32-S—Request by Beltline Industrial Park, Inc. for
Preliminary Plat approval for Wolfe Lake Professional Center and Preliminary
Planned Unit Development approval to redevelop the northwest quadrant of
Beltline Boulevard and West 36th Street for two office/retail buildings.
Associate Planner Julie Grove presented a staff report. Ms. Grove said the applicant has
applied for a preliminary plat and preliminary PUD approval. Ms. Grove said the site is
now zoned C-2, General Commercial. The applicant intends to re-plat the development.
Ms. Grove said staff is adding a condition that a drainage and utility easement be added
to the plat. Ms. Grove reported that the number of required parking spaces would be 234
stalls on site, and an additional 11 spaces would be proof of parking. Staff recommends
that a phasing plan be submitted as a condition of approval of the final plat.
Ms. Grove reported that the developer has supplied a new set of plans regarding the
proposed location of mailboxes.
A revised recommendation of approval and conditions sheet was distributed to the
Commissioners. Ms. Grove explained a handout which proposed the following revisions
to the recommended conditions of the staff report: delete condition 1; add condition 2, h;
add condition 4, d, e; and the addition of offices to 16a. Ms. Grove stated that prior to
Council consideration, the applicant must meet the following conditions: the 100-year
flood elevation and elevations at each building opening on the grading plan will be
required to be clearly denoted in the preliminary plat; submit a revised sidewalk to
provide a continuous connection along the west side of Beltline Blvd. and along Raleigh
Avenue South; submit a tree replacement plan; and revise the legal descriptions to
accurately reflect the lots on the new plat.
Commissioner Robertson asked if the trash enclosures were moved internal to the
building, and Ms. Grove replied yes, however, the trash enclosure for the smaller
building will remain outside and it will be screened with a building material.
Chair Gothberg opened the public hearing.
John McCain, applicant, mentioned concerns about a loading dock versus a delivery
entrance. He said the easement that is being asked to be dedicated is associated with
several issues that need to be resolved, and he is not sure that that will happen tonight.
Ms. Jeremiah responded that it is not unusual for changes to be made between the
preliminary and final platting, and staff will need to determine if the proposed changes
result in off-site impacts. If that is the case, staff would prefer to advertise for another
public hearing.
68
Commissioner Morris raised the issue of proof of parking and he asked if there will be an
easement agreement. Ms. Jeremiah said there will need to be an easement agreement.
Commissioner Morris asked if a PUD provides the City with regulatory control over a
property in the event a property is sold. Ms. Jeremiah said one benefit of a PUD is that a
development agreement is required, which is recorded against the properties, and the
PUD would ensure that the property continues to be subject to conditions of approval.
However, the proof of parking is outside of the PUD, so an easement is recommended to
ensure the parking remains available if the property is sold. Commissioner Morris thinks
that the current parking requirement for this development is about 10-15% excessive. He
wondered if additional proof should be considered.
In regard to parking, Mr. McCain would like to continue the proposed parking as
submitted. Mr. McCain said in an office situation, one does not want to be underparked.
Commissioner Robertson asked why the loading dock is so close to the road. Paul
Meyer, architect for the proposal, said the loading area is close to the road because the
building is located toward the street and two street frontages will be used; and a potential
bank also impacted the decision. There was a discussion about swing doors versus an
overhead device.
Commissioner Timian left at 6:40 p.m.
As no others were present who wished to speak, Chair Gothberg closed the public
hearing.
Commissioner Morris said he will not add an amendment regarding parking.
Commissioner Morris moved to approve the preliminary plat and PUD, subject to
conditions as recommended by staff, including revised conditions per the handout.
Motion passed 5-0.
69
City Council Agenda Item #7e
Meeting of July 15, 2002
City of St. Louis Park
7e. Request of Bruce Dachis for a zoning ordinance text amendment regarding
pool houses in the R-1 single-family district.
Case No. 02-24-ZA
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve First Reading of the zoning ordinance text
amendment and set Second Reading for August 5, 2002.
Background:
Bruce Dachis has been constructing a pool and “pool house” accessory building on his property
at 4000 West 25th Street in the R-1 single-family district. Mr. Dachis has one of the largest
single-family lots in the City. When he submitted an application for a building permit for the
pool house, he found out that he could not construct a bathroom in the building, due to the City
policy of prohibiting plumbing in accessory structures. The policy is intended to prevent
accessory structures from being converted to accessory dwelling units or used for home
occupations in violation of ordinance. The plumbing policy is being clarified via the proposed
accessory structure ordinance amendments considered by the Planning Commission on June 5th
and 19th. That proposed ordinance would clarify that hose bibs, utility sinks, and floor drains are
allowed, while plumbing for bathrooms and kitchens is still prohibited.
Mr. Dachis is proposing to allow pool house buildings with bathrooms subject to certain
conditions. He is proposing that they would be allowed in the R-1 District only, since the R-1
District has the largest required lot size of 9,000 square feet. Other conditions would require an
in-ground pool of a minimum size, restrict the size of the pool house to 400 square feet and one
story, require the pool house to meet the same setbacks and design as the principal building, and
prohibit kitchen facilities (see attached application). Staff and the Planning Commission are
recommending some minor modifications to the proposed ordinance language.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 19, 2002. The applicant was the only
person to testify during the hearing (see attached unapproved Planning Commission minutes
excerpts). The Planning Commission recommended approval of the amendments as
recommended by staff on a vote of 5-0.
Summary of Issues:
Are there any concerns with impacts on surrounding properties?
Is there any concern with conversion to an accessory dwelling unit?
70
Analysis of Issues:
Are there any concerns with impacts on surrounding properties?
Given the proposed conditions of requiring the same setbacks as the principal structure and
limiting height to one story, staff does not have any concerns with impacts on surrounding
properties. The larger size of R-1 properties also helps ensure that impacts on neighbors are
minimized.
Is there any concern with conversion to an accessory dwelling unit?
Staff has some concern that there may be a temptation to convert a pool house to an accessory
dwelling unit if a bathroom is allowed. However, the maximum size of 400 square feet should
help limit the desirability of converting the building to an accessory dwelling unit. Requiring an
in-ground swimming pool that is larger in area than the pool house will also limit construction of
“pool houses” that may actually be intended for other purposes. As a means of ensuring that the
restriction is understood and enforceable, staff and the Planning Commission recommend adding
a condition that clearly states the building cannot be designed or used as a dwelling unit or for
any business use. The latter is already prohibited by the home occupation ordinance, which
prevents any accessory structure from being used for a home occupation.
Recommendation:
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend adoption of the attached ordinance amendments
to allow pool houses in the R-1 District subject to certain conditions.
Attachments:
Unapproved Excerpts from the June 19, 2002 Planning Commission meeting
Proposed Ordinance
Dachis Application
Prepared By: Janet Jeremiah, Planning & Zoning Supervisor
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
71
Excerpts
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
Planning Commission
June 19, 2002
3. Hearings:
A. Case No. 02-29-ZA—Public hearing on Bruce Dachis’ proposed zoning
ordinance text amendments regarding pool houses in the R-1 single family
district.
Planning and Zoning Supervisor Janet Jeremiah presented a staff report. Ms. Jeremiah
said Mr. Dachis is proposing that pool house buildings with bathrooms be allowed in the
R-1 District only, subject to certain conditions. The R-1 District has the largest required
lot size of 9,000 square feet. Pool houses would be required to meet the same setbacks
and design as the principal building, and kitchen facilities would be prohibited.
Commissioner Morris and Ms. Jeremiah discussed restrictions in other residential
districts. Ms. Jeremiah stated that a similar change to the Multi-Family Residential
District would require a separate hearing. However, pool houses in multi-family have
been approved by Special Permits in the past. Commissioner Morris said he was
comfortable with the discretionary use of language for the ordinance.
Chair Gothberg asked for a definition of kitchen and Ms. Jeremiah responded that a
kitchen must include cooking facilities.
Chair Gothberg opened the public hearing.
Bruce Dachis, 4000 West 25th Street, said he is constructing the pool house specifically
for guests, friends, and family who may want to shower after swimming. Mr. Dachis said
the pool house resembles a porch with windows, and it was designed to be unobtrusive.
As no others were present who wished to speak, Chair Gothberg closed the public
hearing.
It was moved by Commissioner Robertson to recommend approval of the zoning
ordinance text amendments for pool houses in the R-1 District subject to certain
conditions. Motion passed 5-0.
Commissioner Garelick arrived at 6:15 p.m.
Ms. Jeremiah said this item will go to the City Council for consideration of first reading
on July 15, 2002.
72
ORDINANCE NO.______
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK
ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING BY
AMENDING SECTION 36-163
POOL HOUSE BUILDINGS IN THE R-1 SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT
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. 02-29-ZA).
Sec. 2. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Section 36-163 is hereby amended by adding
underscored language. Section breaks are represented by ***.
Sec. 36-163. R-1 single-family residence district.
***
(e) Accessory uses
***
(3) private swimming pool and tennis court in conformance with Sec. 36-73; pool house building
in conformance with the following conditions:
a. property must have an in-ground swimming pool that is larger in area than the pool house
building.
b. the pool house cannot exceed 400 square feet in area and one story in height.
c. notwithstanding Sec. 36-162(c)7, the pool house must meet all principal building yard
requirements of subsection (f) of this section.
d. the building design and materials shall be consistent with the principal building.
e. the building may include a bathroom but shall not include kitchen facilities.
f. the building cannot be designed or used as a dwelling unit or for any business use.
***
Sec. 3. The contents of Planning Case File 02-29-ZA are hereby entered into and
made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
73
Sec.4. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication.
Adopted by the City Council August 5, 2002
Reviewed for Administration
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
02-29-ZA:N\res-ord
74
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item #7f
Meeting of July 15, 2002
7f. Second Reading of zoning ordinance text amendments regarding detached
garages and other accessory structures/uses.
Case No. 02-24-ZA
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve second reading of the zoning ordinance text
amendments regarding detached garages and other accessory
structures/uses, approve the summary ordinance and authorize
publication.
Background:
Staff has been working with Greg Ingraham of Ingraham and Associates in analyzing potential
changes to the ordinance regulating detached garages and other accessory structures in
residential districts. Over the course of several study sessions, the City Council discussed issues
pertaining to the size, placement and use of detached garages. The review was initiated by the
Council in response to issues raised by residents about construction of some detached garages
permitted under the existing code standards. The Council directed staff to continue working out
the details and to prepare ordinance revisions for a public hearing and Planning Commission
recommendation.
The intent of the proposed ordinance revisions is to revise the height and setback requirements
for larger garages to minimize the impact, while balancing the need to allow storage space for
move-up housing needs. In reviewing accessory structure ordinances, staff also found some
inconsistencies in the Code and sections needing clarification to ensure uniform enforcement.
Therefore, staff and the Planning Commission are also proposing some changes to the yard
encroachments and accessory uses sections of the Code.
On June 5, 2002 the Planning Commission held a public hearing and discussed the proposed
ordinance amendments. The Planning Commission continued the public hearing until June 19th
and asked staff to consider some minor changes/clarifications. On June 19, 2002, the Planning
Commission reopened the public hearing and discussed the changes proposed by staff (see
Analysis section of report). The Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed
ordinance amendments on a vote of 4-1-0.
On July 1, 2002 the City Council considered First Reading of the proposed ordinance and
additional citizen testimony. The Council discussed whether the 800 square feet restriction on
accessory building footprints was adequate or whether total square footage should be limited in
cases where principal structure setbacks can be met and a second story may be feasible. The
Council approved First Reading on a vote of 5-0 and set Second Reading for July 15, 2002. The
75
Council asked staff to provide further analysis regarding the accessory building area restrictions
for consideration at Second Reading. This has been included at the end of the analysis section of
the report. However, the proposed ordinance has not been amended since First Reading. If the
Council would like to consider any significant changes, staff recommends deferring the item so
that potential changes could be discussed at an upcoming Study Session.
Proposed Ordinance Revisions:
The intent of the ordinance changes is to:
1. Simplify accessory building height measurement.
2. Add more stringent requirements to control the impacts of:
a. Two story and tall detached garages/accessory buildings (over 15 feet to the
peak).
b. Accessory buildings with flat roofs.
3. Improve consistency between the Building Code and Zoning Code by clarifying that
building eaves/overhangs are not allowed in the minimum 2 feet setback area.
4. Codify policies prohibiting plumbing for kitchens and bathrooms in detached garages and
other accessory buildings.
5. Codify policies that allow driveways, sidewalks and retaining walls in setback areas, and
clarify regulations for window wells.
6. Clarify setbacks for swimming pools and tennis courts.
7. Clarify that rooms for boarders and roomers as well as living quarters for
domestic/medical household staff are not allowed in accessory buildings and cannot
constitute a separate dwelling unit within the principal building.
The only changes proposed for smaller garages involve the change in measuring height and the
clarification regarding eave/overhang setbacks. It should be noted that the proposed change in
height measurement does result in a slightly more stringent standard for garages at the minimum
2 feet setback from neighboring properties. This was intended as a means of ensuring that two-
story garages cannot be built at the minimum setback.
An information sheet summarizing detached garage/accessory building regulations will also be
prepared to improve understanding and compliance with regulations.
Summary of Issues:
What are the concerns with measuring the height of detached buildings such as garages and
what is proposed?
How would the impacts of taller accessory buildings be minimized for neighboring
properties?
What are the reasons for regulating plumbing in accessory structures and what is proposed?
How have other accessory structures and uses been regulated and what clarifications are
proposed?
How have the Planning Commission’s concerns been addressed?
How has the definition of accessory building height been modified to ensure consistent
interpretation?
76
Should the 800 square feet limit on ground floor area be changed?
Analysis of Issues:
What are the concerns with measuring the height of detached buildings such as garages
and what is proposed?
Revised height definition – There is a need to simplify the way the zoning code defines the
measurement of height for detached garages.
Building height is currently defined as measured from the mean curb elevation or the lowest
ground elevation within 5 feet of the accessory building foundation to the midpoint of hip and
gable roofs or the top of mansard or flat roofs. The use of a roof midpoint height measurement
has little relationship to the perceived height or mass at the property line. Midpoint height has
also been a difficult measurement to make due to variables in truss configuration, garage width,
eave and sidewall height, etc. The combination of the potential variables at the grade and roof
elevations makes height measurement somewhat complex and open to interpretation. For one
case in which there was a dispute, the Council made an interpretation regarding measuring
garage height from the side facing the street to the midpoint of the gable including eave
overhang. However, the standard cannot easily be applied in all cases.
For detached garages and other slab-on-grade accessory structures, measurement from the
finished slab elevation at the main entrance door opening (e.g, the vehicular entrance to a garage)
is a more appropriate measuring point and is easier for staff and applicants to use and
understand. Measurement from the garage floor slab to the highest point on the peak of the roof
is a more understandable measurement of garage height. It is also easier for the Building
Inspectors and builders to confirm during construction. Staff and the Planning Commission
recommend revising the height measurement definition to a slab to peak dimension for detached
garages and accessory buildings in the residential districts. The exact language is proposed to be
tweaked to ensure consistent interpretation (see last section of Analysis below).
In order to prevent construction of second-story space at the minimum setback, staff and the
Planning Commission recommend a slightly more stringent height limit for garages at the
minimum setback (15 feet to the peak instead of 16 feet to the peak allowed under the current
height definition and standard). This may require some homeowners to use a lower pitch on
their garage than their home or build the garage with a greater setback.
How would the impacts of taller accessory buildings be minimized for neighboring
properties?
Increased setback for increased height - The current Code requires a minimum two (2) foot
setback for smaller garages (up to 12 feet in height to midpoint and 26 feet wide) located in the
rear yard (+60 foot front setback) and a five (5) foot setback (except to an alley) for garages in
excess of 12 feet and less than 15 feet tall (at the midpoint) and/or greater than 26 feet wide.
77
If the height definition is revised to measure to the peak, the maximum height dimension will
change. The primary issue seems to be the distance of tall and two-story garages to neighboring
property. Since the effects of these structures on neighboring properties are similar to the
principal structure, staff believes the setback to a two-story garage should be similar to the
setback for a primary dwelling.
Require tall garages to have the same setbacks as the principal dwelling - Staff feels that tall
garages with the potential for second floor space occupancy (i.e. over 15 feet tall to the peak)
should have the same minimum setbacks as a principal dwelling of a similar height unless the
garage is built close to an alley.
Rear yard setbacks for taller garages should match the principal structure setback of 25 feet,
except when they access an alley. Taller garages on alleys do not seem to generate complaints,
and the Board of Zoning Appeals recently granted a variance for a garage with living space
above it setback only 2 ½ feet from an alley. The current rear yard setback for lower garages is
two (2) feet and five (5) feet for taller garages except on an alley. Staff believes the minimum
setback for garages accessing an alley should continue to match the current two-foot minimum
setback requirement. The Planning Commission recommended some additional language to
ensure adequate access and visibility (see analysis of Planning Commission concerns below).
Lower single story garages do not appear to be a problem adjacent to neighboring properties, so
staff and the Planning Commission believe the current two-foot side and rear setback should be
retained for garages that are 60 feet or more from the front property line.
It should be noted that this recommendation would not prevent anyone from building a
reasonable-size garage (up to 15 feet tall and 26 feet wide) within 2 feet of their property lines.
It may encourage larger garages to be attached to the house or located close to an alley.
78
Recommended standards for detached garages over 15 feet in height (slab to peak) and/or
26 feet in width.
District Min. Side Yard Min. Rear Yard Min. to Alley
R-1 9 feet 25 feet 2 feet
R-2 7 feet 25 feet 2 feet
R-3 9 feet 25 feet 2 feet
Notes:
1. No detached garage shall exceed 22 feet in height to peak or the height of the principal dwelling which ever is
less.
2. Non garage accessory structures shall not exceed 15 feet in height at the peak and shall not exceed a ten-foot
sidewall height.
3. A minimum roof slope of 3/12 (rise/run) is required for all detached garages.
Table 1. Comparison of existing and proposed setback/height requirements
Current
maximum
height
(midpoint
or flat)
Current
minimum
setback
Maximum
height
equivalent
to peak
Recommended
maximum
height to peak
category
Recommended
minimum side
yard setbacks
Recommended
minimum rear
yard setbacks
12 feet 2 feet 16 feet 15 feet and
lower
2 feet 2 feet
15 feet 5 feet 22 feet Above 15 feet
up to 22 feet
Same as
principal
dwelling
setback. 7-9
feet depending
upon the
zoning district.
Same as principal
structure (25
feet), unless on
an alley (2 feet).
Table 2 - Comparison of existing and proposed setbacks for detached garages at various
heights
Current
height to
midpoint
Current
setback
requirement
Equivalent
measurement to
peak (roof pitch)
Proposed side yard
setback
requirement
Proposed rear
yard setback
10 feet 2 feet 12 feet (4/12) 2 feet 2 feet
11 feet 2 feet 14 feet (6/12) 2 feet 2 feet
11.5 feet 2 feet 15 feet (7/12) 2 feet 2 feet
12 feet 2 feet 14 feet (6/12) 2 feet 2 feet
12 feet 2 feet 16 feet (8/12) 7-9 feet 25 feet
14 feet 5 feet 20 feet (12/12) 7-9 feet 25 feet
15 feet 5 feet 22 feet (12/12+) 7-9 feet 25 feet
79
Shading indicates potential usable two-story space.
Note: Table 2 assumes a typical two-car garage width of 24 feet and a sidewall height of eight feet, except for the
22 foot peak height which assumes either a taller sidewall or a wider garage.
No eaves/overhangs in 2 feet setback area – The Building Code does not generally allow
eaves/overhangs within 2 feet of property lines due to fire concerns. The allowable yard
encroachments section addresses this for principal buildings by allowing eaves to project no
more than 3 feet into the required setback. Since the setback is a minimum of 5 feet for principal
buildings in residential districts, a 2 feet setback for eaves is maintained. However, since
garages have been allowed within 2 feet of property lines, the Zoning Code currently implies that
garage eaves could project to the property line. Staff and the Planning Commission recommend
clarifying this by prohibiting any eaves/overhangs in the minimum 2 feet setback area.
Require a minimum roof pitch of 3/12 – Detached garages with a peak height of 15 feet and a
flat roof could potentially still have a 7.5 foot second floor height that could be a legally
occupiable room. The top of garages with flat roofs could also be used as tall decks, which is not
in keeping with current limits on deck height at minimum setbacks. To prevent these potential
impacts and help meet requirements for detached buildings to resemble the principal buildings,
which almost always have pitched roofs in residential districts, staff and the majority of the
Planning Commission believe a minimum 3/12 roof pitch should be required. The one
dissenting Planning Commissioner believes design standards should be more flexible to allow
architectural creativity.
What are the reasons for regulating plumbing in accessory structures and what is
proposed?
Current City policy is to not allow plumbing in garages and other accessory buildings. The
reason behind this policy is to limit the potential conversion of detached garages and other
accessory buildings into illegal accessory dwelling units. The policy currently prevents any
water or sanitary service to detached accessory structures.
No plumbing for kitchens or bathrooms - Community Development and Inspections staff have
discussed this issue and don’t believe the policy was intended to prevent hose bibs, utility sinks
and floor drains in garages, sheds, etc. Therefore, staff and the Planning Commission are
recommending clarifying the policy in ordinance to state that plumbing for bathroom and kitchen
facilities is prohibited. This would prevent the creation of accessory dwelling units that could
potentially be rented or occupied by family members. However, it would allow hose bibs and
utility sinks.
Floor drains hooked up to sanitary - With regard to floor drains, staff has discussed the potential
environmental merits of requiring the drains to be hooked up to the sanitary system. Without
such an ordinance, Inspections staff would interpret State Plumbing Code as permitting floor
drains to be “daylighted” in some instances. This means any potential oil, fertilizer, etc. in the
drain water could eventually end up in ponds, lakes, etc via the stormwater system. It is not
unusual for cities to require such drains to lead to sanitary, so that the effluent is treated and the
potential for undesirable materials in the public waters is reduced. Planning and Public Works
80
staff believe there is public benefit to this requirement. The Planning Commission agreed with
the recommendation to clarify this in the Zoning Code.
How have other accessory structures and uses been regulated and what clarifications
are proposed?
The Zoning Code includes a section called “Yard encroachments” (Sec. 36-73) that is intended
to exempt certain structures from meeting the same setbacks as the principal structure. The
Zoning Code defines structure very broadly as including “anything constructed or erected, the
use of which requires a location on the ground, or attached to something having a location on the
ground, including but not limiting the generality of the foregoing, advertising signs, billboards
and fences.” Due to the general definition, such things as driveways, sidewalks, retaining walls,
swimming pools, and window wells as well as decks, flag poles and bird baths are structures.
While the Zoning Code specifically addresses exceptions to setback requirements for many
structures, including bird baths, some are not mentioned. If they are not mentioned, they are
supposed to be held to the principal structure setback. While staff believes this was probably the
intent for structures such as swimming pools and tennis courts that have off-site impacts, staff
believes some structures were inadvertently missed from the setback exemptions.
Driveways and sidewalks – The Zoning Code does not specifically exempt driveways and
sidewalks from meeting the principal structure setbacks. However, by policy, driveways and
sidewalks leading from the public right-of-way to homes or garages have been allowed in the
setback areas. Staff and the Planning Commission would like to Codify this policy as an
allowable encroachment to the yard (setback) requirements.
Retaining walls – The Zoning Code does not specifically exempt retaining walls from meeting
the principal structure setbacks. However, it is sometimes necessary to construct retaining walls
in setback areas to correct grades, and this has been allowed by policy. One example is a
retaining wall that is constructed to allow egress basement windows for expanded lower level
living area. This could help meet move-up housing goals. Staff and the Planning Commission
would like to Codify this policy as an allowable encroachment to the yard (setback) requirements
as long as the retaining walls are the minimum height necessary and drainage is not adversely
effected. By policy, retaining walls with fences constructed on them are counted as part of the
total fence height.
Window wells – The Zoning Code does not specifically exempt window wells from meeting the
principal structure setbacks. However, bay windows are allowed to encroach two feet into the
setback area as long as they are no more than 20 square feet in area. Staff has been using this as
a commensurate standard to apply to window wells. However, the standard does not align with
Building Code requirements for egress basement windows. Such egress window wells must
project a minimum of 3 feet from the principal building and be a minimum of 9 square feet in
area. The way the Zoning Code is currently being interpreted, it prevents homes at minimum
existing setbacks from adding egress window wells to expand living area into the basement.
While staff does not believe this is in keeping with move-up housing goals, staff is concerned
that a complete exemption could lead to some situations where window wells on neighboring
properties are constructed so close together that adequate drainage does not exist between the
81
permanent structures. In some cases, drainage and utility easements may exist. Therefore, staff
and the Planning Commission are proposing allowing window well encroachments up to 3 feet
into the yard area and up to 20 square feet in area provided drainage is not adversely effected and
the structures do not encroach on any existing utility or drainage easements.
Swimming pools and tennis courts – The residential districts specifically allow swimming pools
and tennis courts as accessory uses. However, they are not listed as allowable encroachments in
setback areas. Staff believes this was intended, since the uses have off-site impacts, such as
noise. However, this has not always been clear to staff issuing permits, and it may be somewhat
onerous to expect such structures to meet the 25 feet rear yard setback. Staff and the Planning
Commission recommend requiring such structures to meet side yard requirements and a
minimum 5 feet rear yard setback. There are likely some existing non-conforming swimming
pools within about 3 feet of property lines that could apply for variances if there is a hardship in
rebuilding them at some future date.
Boarders, roomers and domestic/medical household staff – The residential districts allow the
“keeping of not more than two boarders or roomers by a resident family” as an accessory use.
The residential districts also allow “living quarters of persons employed for domestic or medical
purposes on the premises” as an accessory use. Due to limitations on anything that could lead to
the creation of accessory dwelling units, staff believes the intent was to have these accessory
uses within the principal building and prevent them from including full kitchen and bath facilities
that would make them separate dwelling units. Therefore, staff and the Planning Commission
are proposing to clarify the ordinance to state that such accessory uses shall not be in accessory
buildings or be designed to create a separate dwelling unit.
How have the Planning Commission’s concerns been addressed?
Easements: Staff recommends adding language to the yard encroachments section of the Code
stating that such encroachments are not allowed in easements unless encroachment agreements
have been approved. Staff recommends similar language in the accessory structures section.
These changes were reviewed at the continued Planning Commission hearing and have been
included in the attached ordinance.
Alley setbacks: Staff recommends adding language to the detached garage location section
noting that garages on alleys must be located and designed to provide adequate visibility and
vehicle turning movements. This will allow staff to look at each case individually and determine
if the minimum 2 feet setback is adequate based upon the proposed entry to the garage and
existing alley clearance. The language has been added to the attached ordinance.
Principal building height: Staff recommends deleting the reference to rooftop equipment, since
staff believes, by policy, the City has not been measuring to the top of such equipment.
However, the City would continue to require screening. Parapet walls are preferred, and while
counted in the height definition, they are exempted from the maximum height allowed in the
district as long as the parapet is three feet or less in height.
82
How has the definition of accessory building height been modified to ensure consistent
interpretation?
During the June 19th Planning Commission hearing, staff pointed out that accessory building
height would generally be measured from the slab elevation to the highest point of the structure.
In cases where the accessory building doesn’t have a slab floor (e.g., a shed without a poured
concrete floor) or in cases where a grade change allows some accessible space below a
“Spancrete” (reinforced concrete) garage floor, staff would use the Building Code definition of
first floor to determine the point from which to begin measuring height. In most cases, there
would be no incentive for homeowners to change the grade in an attempt to gain some lower
level space, because the driveway would still need to be at the higher grade, and the amount of
lower level space allowed would be limited by the Building Code. If the space met the definition
of first floor, it would be counted in the height measurement.
Subsequent to the Planning Commission meeting, staff asked the Inspections Department to
confirm the Building Code definition of “first floor”. Inspections staff found that the Uniform
Building Code defines “first story” and “story” as follows:
STORY, FIRST, is the lowest story in a building that qualifies as a story, as defined
herein, except that a floor level in a building having only one floor level shall be
classified as a first story, provided such floor level is not more than 4 feet (1219 mm)
below grade, as defined herein, for more than 50 percent of the total perimeter, or not
more than 8 feet (2438 mm) below grade, as defined herein, at any point.
STORY is that portion of a building included between the upper surface of any floor and
the upper surface of the floor next above, except that the topmost story shall be that
portion of a building included between the upper surface of the topmost floor and the
ceiling or roof above. If the finished floor level directly above a usable or unused floor
space is more than 6 feet (1829 mm) above grade, as defined herein, for more than 50
percent of the total perimeter or is more than 12 feet (3658 mm) above grade, as defined
herein, at any point, such usable or unused under-floor space shall be considered as a
story.
Since the Building Code defines “first story” instead of “first floor”, staff recommends using
the phrase term “first story elevation, as defined by Building Code”, in the ordinance. In
most cases, this will be the slab height. However, since slab is not defined by the Building or
Zoning Code, staff recommends eliminating that reference from the ordinance.
The sketches shown at Planning Commission included a drawing of a gazebo as an example
of an accessory structure that is not a building. However, the Zoning Code defines
“building” as “any structure having a roof which may provide shelter or enclosure of persons,
animals or personal property”. Therefore, gazebos are actually buildings and would be
measured the same way as garages and sheds (from the floor elevation). Play equipment and
other residential accessory structures would be measured from the lowest grade at the base of
the structure to the highest point of the structure.
83
Should the 800 square feet limit on ground floor area be changed?
Currently, the Zoning Code regulates the “footprint” or ground floor area of accessory buildings
on single-family residential properties in the following three ways:
1) By definition, the footprint of an accessory building cannot be larger than the principal
structure.
2) The total ground floor area of all accessory buildings cannot exceed 25% of the area
between the house and the rear lot line.
3) The total ground floor area of all accessory buildings cannot exceed 800 square feet.
In the case of two-family residential properties, the current Code limits the total ground floor
area of all accessory structures to 25% of the rear yard and 1200 square feet, and no single
accessory building can exceed 800 square feet.
Staff and the Planning Commission are not proposing any changes to these area regulations.
Assuming the back yard of the property is at least 3200 square feet so that the 25% ground
coverage is not exceeded first, the 800 square feet limit potentially allows construction of a
three-car detached garage. Staff and the Planning Commission believe this is consistent with the
goal of providing life-cycle housing and preventing people from having to move out of St. Louis
Park to find such amenities. Therefore, no changes are proposed.
Under the current and proposed ordinance, the total floor area of accessory buildings on single-
family properties could exceed 800 square feet if there is either a basement or a second story.
Under the current policy of measuring accessory building height from the side facing the street to
the midpoint of the gable, it is possible to construct a basement in an accessory building, and the
basement would not be counted in the area limitations (or height). However, it is very expensive
to construct a basement under a garage because it requires a Spancrete (reinforced concrete)
garage floor, and the potential space below the garage is rarely considered desirable enough to
warrant such cost. The proposed ordinance would continue the policy of not counting such
basement space. However, if 50% or more of the “basement” level is 6 feet or more above
grade, it will be counted as the first floor and will be included in the proposed height limitation.
In such cases, it would only be possible to have such lower level space if the structure meets the
required principal structure setbacks. This is more stringent than the current policy of ignoring
such lower level space as long as it does not face the street.
With regard to potential second story space that could be used either as storage or additional
living space, the current ordinance allows a second story on an accessory building that is only 2
feet from side and rear property lines as long as the height of the structure to the midpoint of the
gable does not exceed 12 feet. It is relatively easy to get some extra storage space from a second
level under the current scenario. By using a steep roof pitch and dormers, it is also currently
possible to construct second level living space and still meet the 12 feet midpoint height
limitation. The proposed ordinance would eliminate the possibility of having second story living
space within 2 feet of the side and rear property lines by changing the height limit to 15 feet to
the peak and requiring the minimum 3:12 roof pitch. It would still be possible to have some
limited storage space at the minimum setback.
84
The current ordinance allows a midpoint height of up to 15 feet with a 5 feet setback from
neighboring properties. This easily allows a second story to be constructed only 5 feet from
neighboring properties and the second story is not currently counted in the area limitations. The
proposed ordinance would only allow such second story space if the accessory building meets
the same required setbacks as the principal building. Staff and the Planning Commission believe
this makes sense, because the impacts of such space would be similar to the principal structure.
The Council could consider further limits on second story space in accessory buildings.
However, staff is not clear what problem would be solved, since the proposed ordinance would
require such space to meet the same setbacks as the principal building.
The more onerous setback requirement for larger accessory structures should provide an
incentive for people to add space onto their homes rather than include it in an accessory building.
However, there are cases where it is difficult to add on to the home to gain such space, due to
structural limitations, the way the home is laid out, or physical characteristics of the lot (it may
be impossible to provide access and adequate vehicle maneuverability to an attached garage).
Therefore, the proposed ordinance would provide some flexibility in the means by which people
meet their family needs, as long as the impacts are mitigated by meeting the principal structure
setback.
Recommendation:
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of ordinance amendments regarding
detached garages and other accessory structures and uses according to the analysis in the staff
report.
Alternative Action:
If the Council would like to consider any significant changes, staff recommends deferring the
item to allow further discussion at a Study Session before approving Second Reading.
Attachments:
Proposed Ordinance
Proposed Height Sketches (to be inserted into ordinance)
Proposed Summary Ordinance
Prepared By: Janet Jeremiah, Planning & Zoning Supervisor
Approved By:Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
85
ORDINANCE NO.______
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK
ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING BY AMENDING SECTIONS
36-4, 36-73, 36-162, 36-163, 36-164, 36-165, 36-166, AND 36-167
DETACHED GARAGES AND OTHER ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND USES
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. 02-24-ZA).
Sec. 2. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Sections 36-4, 36-73, 36-162, 36-163, 36-
164, 36-165, 36-166, and 36-167 is hereby amended by deleting stricken language and adding
underscored language. Section breaks are represented by ***.
Sec. 36-4 Definitions.
***
Building Height – Principal Building. A distance to be measured from the mean curb level
along the front lot line or from the finished grade level for all that portion of the structure having
frontage on a public right-of-way whichever is higher to the top of the parapet or rooftop
equipment, whichever is higher, of a flat roof; to the deck line of a mansard roof; to a point on
the roof directly above the highest wall of a shed roof; to the upper most point on a round or
other arch type roof; or to the mean distance of the highest gable on a pitched or hip roof.
INSERT SKETCH EXAMPLES – See Attachment
Height – Accessory Building. A distance to be measured from the first story elevation, as
defined by Building Code, to the highest point of the structure.
Height – Accessory Structure. A distance to be measured from the lowest exterior grade at the
base of the structure to the highest point of the structure.
INSERT SKETCH EXAMPLES – See Attachment
***
86
Sec. 36-73. Yard encroachments.
(a) The following shall not be encroachments on yard requirements provided no permanent
structure is placed in an easement without first obtaining approval of an encroachment
agreement:
***
(7) driveways, parking areas, and pedestrian sidewalks subject to the requirements of Sec. 36-
162 and Sec. 36-361.
(8) fences and retaining walls subject to the requirements of Sec 36-74 and provided the
retaining walls are necessary to correct grade differences and height is minimized via terracing
where feasible. Where a fence is attached to a retaining wall structure, the retaining wall shall be
included in the fence height measurement.
(b) The following shall not be encroachments on yard requirements for principal buildings
provided no permanent structure is placed in an easement without first obtaining approval of an
encroachment agreement:
(1) Bays and window wells not exceeding a depth of two three feet or containing an area of more
than 20 square feet.
***
(4) Uncovered porches, stoops, patios or decks which do not extend above the height of the
ground floor level of the principal building and are a minimum of two feet from any interior side
or rear lot line and 15 feet from any front lot line and do not encroach on any side yard abutting a
street.
***
(c) The following shall not be encroachments on rear and side yard requirements for accessory
buildings: cornices, eaves and gutters; provided they do not extend more than eight inches into a
required yard; and provided such encroachment is no closer than 16 two feet from all lot lines.
Building overhangs shall also comply with the state building code.
(d) The following shall not be encroachments on side and rear yard requirements provided no
permanent structure is placed in an easement without first obtaining approval of an
encroachment agreement:
***
(e) The following shall not be encroachments on rear yard requirements provided no permanent
structure is placed in an easement without first obtaining approval of an encroachment
agreement:
87
(1) balconies, detached outdoor picnic shelters, and recreational equipment.
(2) swimming pools, whirlpools, saunas and tennis courts provided they are a minimum of 5 feet
from the rear lot line, are enclosed by a privacy fence that screens the view from neighboring
properties, and any associated accessory structures such as the required fence, decks, patios, and
heating equipment meet all Code requirements including subsections (a), (b), and (d) of this
section, Sec. 36-74, and Sec.36-162.
***
36-162 RESTRICTIONS AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
***
(b) Definitions. For the purpose of subsections (c)7, c(8, (c)9 and (c)10 of this section, the listed
terms are defined as follows:
***
(c) General Provisions
***
(7) Accessory structures shall comply with the following regulations:
a. No accessory building shall be erected or located within a yard other than the rear yard,
except that a detached accessory building, designed and used as a garage, may be
located within a side yard unless it abuts a street. No accessory building shall be located
between the front building wall and the front lot line.
b. No accessory building erected in the rear yard of a comer lot shall be located within 15
feet of any property line abutting a street except that in an R-2 or R-3 district an
accessory building may be located within nine feet of a property line abutting a street on
a lot of record which is at least 40 feet wide but less than 60 feet wide.
c. All detached garages and other accessory structures shall be compatible in design and
materials to the principal structure on the parcel.A detached garage located 60 feet or
more from the front lot line shall meet the following locational provisions:
1. Garages where the building dimensions do not exceed 12 feet in height and/or 26 feet in
width shall be located a minimum of two feet from any lot lines.
2. Garages where the building dimensions exceed 12 feet in height and/or 26 feet in
width shall be located a minimum of two feet from a lot line abutting an alley
and five feet from any other lot lines.
e. The total ground floor area of all accessory buildings shall not exceed 25 percent of the
area between the principal structure and rear lot line and in the R-1, R-2 or R-3 districts
88
and it shall not exceed 800 square feet. Except in the R-3 district, the total ground floor
area of all accessory buildings shall not exceed either 1,200 square feet or 25 percent of
the area between the principal structure and rear lot line for a two-family dwelling unit.
No single accessory building may exceed 800 square feet.
f. The height of an accessory building measured from the lowest level on the ground
within five feet of the foundation, in accordance with section 36-4, shall not exceed 15
feet, except parking ramps whose height is regulated by sections 36-166 and 36-167.
g. No accessory building other than a garage shall be located within three feet of any lot
line abutting lots in an R district.
h. Accessory buildings located less than six feet from a principal building on the same lot
shall be considered part of the principal building for the purpose of applying provisions
of this chapter.
j. An accessory structure 120 square feet or less in area shall obtain a zoning permit prior
to its installation and must be anchored in a manner approved by the city.
k. All detached garages and other accessory buildings shall have a minimum 3/12 roof
pitch or greater.
a. Location -
1. Accessory buildings shall be erected or located within the back yard as defined in
subsection (b) above, except that a detached accessory building, designed and used as a
garage and meeting the provisions of subsections 2 and 3 below, may be located within a
side yard unless it abuts a street. No accessory building shall be located in the front yard
as defined in subsection (b) above.
2. A detached garage located 60 feet or more from the front lot line shall meet the
following locational provisions:
i. Garages where the building dimensions do not exceed 15 feet in height and/or 26
feet in length or width shall be located a minimum of two feet from any lot lines; No
eaves, overhangs or other portion of the structure are allowed in the two feet setback
area.
ii. Garages where the building dimensions exceed 15 feet in height and/or 26 feet in
length or width shall be located the following minimum distances from any lot lines:
District Min. Interior Side Yard Min. Rear Yard Min. to Alley
R-1 9 feet 25 feet 2 feet
R-2 7 feet 25 feet 2 feet
R-3 9 feet 25 feet 2 feet
89
iii. Garages on alleys shall be located and designed to maintain adequate visibility and
vehicle turning movements.
3. No accessory building, including a detached garage, shall be located within a side or
rear yard abutting a street.
4. No accessory building other than a detached garage meeting the requirements of
subsection 2 above shall be located within three feet of any lot line.
5. All accessory buildings and structures shall be located to comply with the principal
building yard requirements unless exempt by this section or Sec. 36-73.
6 No accessory building or permanent structure shall be located in a drainage or utility
easement without first obtaining approval of an encroachment agreement.
b. Size –
1. Accessory buildings on single-family lots in the R-1, R-2 and R-3 Districts and on
non-conforming two-family lots:
i. The total cumulative ground floor area of all accessory buildings (detached
garages, storage sheds and other accessory buildings) shall not exceed 25 percent of
the area between the principal structure and rear lot line.
ii. the total cumulative ground floor area of all accessory buildings shall not exceed
800 square feet.
2. Accessory buildings on conforming two-family lots in the R-3 or R-4 District:
i. The total cumulative ground floor area of all accessory buildings shall not
exceed either 1,200 square feet or 25 percent of the area between the principal
structure and rear lot line.
ii. No single accessory building may exceed 800 square feet.
3. The total cumulative ground floor area of all accessory buildings shall be smaller than
the ground floor area of the principal building on the lot.
c. Height –
90
1. Detached garages – Shall not exceed 15 feet or 22 feet in height as measured in
accordance with section 36-4 depending upon the location as specified in Sec.36-
162(c)7a above.
2. Parking ramps – Height is regulated by sections 36-166 and 36-167.
3. Other accessory buildings and structures hall not exceed 15 feet in height as measured
in accordance with Sec. 36-4 unless exempt by Sec. 36-78.
4. The height of all accessory buildings and structures shall be lower than the highest
point of the principal building unless exempt by Sec. 36-78.
d. Design -
1. All detached garages and other accessory buildings shall be compatible in design and
materials to the principal building on the parcel.
2. All detached garages and other accessory buildings shall have a minimum 3/12 pitch
on any roof section.
3. No plumbing for kitchen or bathroom facilities (including but not limited to toilets and
showers) is allowed in any detached garage or other accessory building. Hose bibs and
utility sinks are allowed.
4. Floor drains in garages and other accessory buildings must be connected to sanitary
sewer as approved by the City.
e. Accessory buildings as part of the principal buildings - Accessory buildings located less than
six feet from a principal building on the same lot shall be considered part of the principal
building for the purpose of applying provisions of this chapter.
f. Garages below grade level - Where the natural grade of a lot at the building line of a house is
eight feet or more above the established curb level, a private garage may be erected within any
yard provided one-half or more of its height is below grade level and it is located a minimum of
ten feet from any street line and five feet from any side lot line.
g. Permit required – All accessory buildings (including storage buildings 120 square feet or less
in area) shall obtain a zoning or building permit prior to installation and must be anchored in a
manner approved by the city.
***
36-163 R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT
91
***
(e) Accessory uses. The following uses shall be permitted accessory uses in an R-1 district:
(1) Garages and other accessory buildings in conformance with Sec. 36-162. Private garages no
to exceed 800 square feet or 25 percent of the rear lot area, which ever is less.
(2) Off-street parking areas in conformance with Sec 36-162 and 36-361.
(3) Private swimming pool and tennis court in conformance with Sec 36-73.
***
(6) Keeping of not more than two boarders or roomers by a resident family provided the living
area for the boarders/roomers is within the principal building and does not constitute a separate
dwelling unit.
(7) Living quarters of persons employed for domestic or medical purposes on the premises
provided the living area for the domestic/medical household staff is within the principal building
and does not constitute a separate dwelling unit.
36-164 R-2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT
***
(e) Accessory uses. The following uses shall be permitted accessory uses in an R-2 district:
(1) Garages and other accessory buildings in conformance with section 36-162. Private garages
no to exceed 800 square feet or 25 percent of the rear lot area, which ever is less.
(2) Off-street parking areas in conformance with Sec 36-162 and 36-361.
(3) Private swimming pool and tennis court in conformance with Sec 36-73.
***
(6) Keeping of not more than two boarders or roomers by a resident family provided the living
area for the boarders/roomers is within the principal building and does not constitute a separate
dwelling unit.
(7) Living quarters of persons employed for domestic or medical purposes on the premises
provided the living area for the domestic/medical household staff is within the principal building
and does not constitute a separate dwelling unit.
***
36-165 R-3 TWO-FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT
92
***
(e) Accessory uses. The following uses shall be permitted accessory uses in an R-3 district:
(1) Garages and other accessory buildings in conformance with section 36-162. Private garages
no to exceed 800 square feet or 25 percent of the rear lot area, which ever is less.
(2) Off-street parking areas in conformance with Sec 36-162 and 36-361.
(3) Private swimming pool and tennis court in conformance with Sec 36-73.
***
(6) Keeping of not more than two boarders or roomers by a resident family provided the living
area for the boarders/roomers is within the principal building and does not constitute a separate
dwelling unit.
(7) Living quarters of persons employed for domestic or medical purposes on the premises
provided the living area for the domestic/medical household staff is within the principal building
and does not constitute a separate dwelling unit.
***
36-166 R-4 MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT
***
(e) Accessory uses. The following uses shall be permitted accessory uses in an R-4 district:
(1) Private garages and parking spaces, provided they meet the requirements of Sec. 36-162 and
36-361.
(2) Tennis court in conformance with Sec. 36-73.
(3) Private swimming pool in conformance with Sec. 36-73.
***
(8) Keeping of not more than two boarders or roomers by a resident family provided the living
area for the boarders/roomers is within the principal building and does not constitute a separate
dwelling unit.
(9) Living quarters of persons employed for domestic or medical purposes on the premises
provided the living area for the domestic/medical household staff is within the principal building
and does not constitute a separate dwelling unit.
***
93
36-167 RC, HIGH DENSITY MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT
***
(f) Accessory uses. The following uses shall be permitted accessory uses in an R-C district:
(1) Private garage and parking space, provided they meet the requirements of section 36-162 and
36-361.
(2) Tennis court in conformance with Sec. 36-73.
(3) Private swimming pool in conformance with Sec. 36-73.
***
(7) Keeping of not more than two boarders or roomers by a resident family provided the living
area for the boarders/roomers is within the principal building and does not constitute a separate
dwelling unit.
(8) Living quarters of persons employed for domestic or medical purposes on the premises
provided the living area for the domestic/medical household staff is within the principal building
and does not constitute a separate dwelling unit.
***
Sec. 3. The contents of Planning Case File 02-24-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 July 15, 2002
Reviewed for Administration
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
94
SUMMARY
ORDINANCE NO._____________
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK
ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING BY AMENDING SECTIONS
36-4, 36-73, 36-162, 36-163, 36-164, 36-165, 36-166, AND 36-167
DETACHED GARAGES AND OTHER ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND USES
The amendments are relative to clarifying and amending definitions and performance standards
for the height and placement of detached garages and other accessory uses and structures in the
single-family, two-family and multiple family residential zoning districts.
This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication.
Adopted by the City Council July 15, 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: July 24, 2002
02-24-ZAsum:N/res-ord
95
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JULY 15, 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 zoning ordinance text amendments
to allow garage sales in residential districts, approve summary ordinance
and authorize publication.
2. Motion to Accept Housing Authority Minutes of June 12, 2002 for filing
3. Motion to accept BOZA minutes of May 23, 2002 fr filing
4. Motion to adopt the attached resolution approving Change Order No. 2
with Hardrives, Inc. for the construction of additional streetscape
improvements for the West 38th Street entrance into the Minikahda Vista
Neighborhood. Contract No. 85-02 with Hardrives, inc. in the amount of
$67,997.20.
5. Motion to accept vendor claim report for filing
96
Consent Item #1
St. Louis Park City Council
Meeting of July 15, 2002
1. Motion to approve second reading of zoning ordinance text amendments to
allow garage sales in residential districts, approve summary ordinance and
authorize publication.
Background: Standards for garage sales were once identified in the licensing section of the
ordinance and the same standards were incorporated into the current Community Handbook.
Because the licensing language actually exempted garage sales from the licensing requirements,
the licensing section was deleted from city ordinance during recodification. It has come to the
City’s attention that despite the fact that it has always been city policy to allow garage sales in
residential areas, corresponding language clarifying standards for conduct of the sales is not
included in the zoning chapter of the code.
The rules of construction in the zoning ordinance state that unless a use is not specifically
allowed in the chapter, that use is prohibited. Because garage sales are not currently addressed in
zoning, staff is proposing to codify amended language permitting garage sales as a temporary use
on residentially zoned and residentially used properties and also clarify standards for garage sale
signage.
On June 5, 2002, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this item. During the
discussion several issues were raised. One was a concern that real estate signs and garage sale
signs fall under the same degree of enforcement. Another issue was in regards to the proposed
language that specifically addressed religious institutions without addressing other uses such as
schools and community centers. The Planning Commission voted to delay action until June 19,
2002 to allow staff time to address the comments made by the Commission. Staff made changes
addressing these concerns.
On June 19, 2002, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and recommended approval of
the text amendments on a vote of 4-0, one Commission member abstained. On July 1, 2002, the
City Council approved the First Reading of the proposed ordinance amendment.
Recommendation: Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the attached
ordinance amendment. If the City Council approves the proposed ordinance, it will be published
on July 24, 2002 and will become effective on August 8, 2002.
Attachments: Proposed Ordinance
Proposed Summary Ordinance
Prepared by: Julie Grove
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
97
ORDINANCE NO. 2228-02
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK
ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING BY
AMENDING SECTIONS 36-142(a), 36-82(b) and TABLE 36-115A IN SECTION 36-115
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
Findings
Sec. 1. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning
Commission (Case No. 02-30-ZA)
Sec. 2. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Sections 36-142(a), 36-82(b), and Table 36-
115A in Section 36-115 are hereby amended by adding underscored language. Section breaks
are represented by ***.
Section 36-82 (b)(9) (Authorized Temporary Uses)
***
(9) Garage Sales. Garage sales shall be permitted in all residentially zoned and/or used
properties subject to the following conditions.
a. Activities relating to the sales, including any outdoor display/storage shall be
limited to no more than two (2) sales events in each calendar year, each for a
period not to exceed 72 consecutive hours.
b. Garage sale signs are regulated as follows:
1. On single family and two family residential properties are limited to 2
square feet in area per street frontage.
2. Garage sale signs on other residentially zoned and/or used properties shall
be regulated by the temporary sign area allowed under Table 36-362A for
the zoning and size of the property in question except that in no case may
a sign exceed 25 square feet per street frontage.
3. All garage sale signs must comply with Section 36-262(e).
4. Garage sale signs are exempt from sign permit requirements provided such
signs are posted no more than two days prior to the sale and are removed
immediately after the end of the sale.
***
Section 36-115
***
Table 36-115A
Zoning Districts R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-C C-1 C-2 O I-P I-G M-X
Temporary Uses
***
Garage Sales
T T T T T T T T N N T
***
98
***
Section 36-142 Land Use Descriptions
a. Residential Uses
***
8. Garage Sales: means the temporary sale of home-crafted items and used household goods
by the owner, resident and/or neighbors of a property. Garage sales include estate, rummage,
basement, yard, porch or similar sales conducted at a residentially zoned and/or used property.
Sec. 3. The contents of Planning Case File 02-30-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 July 15, 2002
Reviewed for Administration
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
99
SUMMARY
ORDINANCE NO. 2228-02
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK
ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING BY AMENDING
SECTIONS 36-142(a), 36-82(b) and TABLE 36-115A IN SECTION 36-115
GARAGE SALES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
Amendments will codify existing policies for allowing garage sales of household goods and
crafts from all residentially zoned and residentially used properties. Garage sales will be added
as a temporary use with a definition and standards.
This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication.
Adopted by the City Council July 15, 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: July 24, 2002
100
Consent Item #2
MINUTES
Housing Authority
St. Louis Park, Minnesota
Wednesday, June 12, 2002
Westwood Room
5:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: William Gavzy, Anne Mavity, Shone Row, Judith Moore (5:16
p.m.) and Catherine Courtney (5:34 p.m.)
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Anderson, Tamra Bokal and Michele Schnitker
OTHERS PRESENT: None
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 5:05 p.m.
2. Approval of Minutes for May 8, 2002
Commissioner Mavity moved approval of the minutes of May 8th, 2002. Commissioner
Row seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of
3-0, with Commissioners Gavzy, Mavity and Row voting in favor.
3. Public Hearing: None
4. Reports and Committees: None
5. Unfinished Business: None
6. New Business:
a. Training and Resources for Individual Long-Term Success (TRAILS) Contract
Renewal
Ms. Schnitker stated that she revised the amendment according to Commissioner
Courtney's suggestion via a phone call. The amendment would renew the contract
from July 2002 through June 2003.
101
Ms. Schnitker explained that the number of contracts is down because they run a
maximum of five years and this is the sixth year that TRAILS has been in
existence, therefore a number of people have graduated from the program.
Ms. Schnitker stated that the total program size is 70 participants, with 60% of the
slots allocated to St. Louis Park and the remaining 40% to Plymouth. She
explained that Norma, the new coordinator, is actively recruiting new participants.
Commissioner Gavzy commented that the number of St. Louis Park participants is
now at 50%. Ms. Schnitker responded that Norma is actively trying to recruit and
that her efforts will be monitored to make sure that the participant numbers climb.
Ms. Schnitker also stated that she would meet with Norma and her supervisor at
Employment Action Center if necessary and talk about what steps need to be
taken to increase participation.
Commissioner Mavity moved approval of the TRAILS Contract Renewal.
Commissioner Row seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 3-0,
with Commissioners Gavzy, Mavity and Row voting in favor.
b. Revision to PH and Section 8 Occupancy and Administrative Plans: Change
Threshold Requirement for Reporting Additional Income - Resolution No. 506
Ms. Schnitker explained that the HA staff is requesting an increase in the
threshold requirement of tenants in the reporting of additional income. The
change in the threshold would increase from $100 to $300 per month. Ms.
Schnitker stated that currently, an increase in gross income of $100 or greater
requires the tenant to come in and recertify. Increasing the threshold amount
would cut down on the number of recertifications, which are very time
consuming. She also said that the number of recertifications completed each year
runs anywhere from 400 to 700.
Commissioner Gavzy asked if a family, who does not report an increase, is
required to pay the additional rent retroactively. Ms. Schnitker replied that they
would be required to do so if the gross amount met or exceeded the monthly
threshold.
Commissioner Mavity asked how income of children is counted. Ms. Anderson
replied that the income of children under 18 is not counted. She also added that
102
for children over 18 who are full-time students, only $480 of their income is
included.
Commissioner Mavity moved approval of Resolution Number 506 to change the
threshold requirement for reporting additional income. Commissioner Moore
seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 4-0, with
Commissioners Gavzy, Mavity, Moore and Row voting in favor.
c. Development Agreement Amendment - Windwood Company, Inc., 4247
Wooddale
Ms. Schnitker explained that the Developer has asked that the HA amend the
agreement so that the HA would purchase the property back if, during excavation,
it is discovered that that the soil is contaminated. She stated that staff
recommended amending this agreement to purchase the property back at a
discounted price of $60,000. Ms. Schnitker further explained that demolition has
already taken place and it appears that the soil is good and is unlikely to be
contaminated.
Commissioner Moore asked why the soil is not tested prior to the sale. Ms.
Schnitker replied that the HA would not want to bear the cost of this testing,
especially since it is unlikely that there would be any soil problems.
Commissioner Mavity also added that it is not typical to test soil for single-family
residential construction.
Commissioner Moore moved approval of the development agreement amendment
with Windwood Company, Inc. Commissioner Row seconded the motion, and
the motion passed on a vote of 4-0, with Commissioners Gavzy, Mavity, Moore
and Row voting in favor.
7. Communications from the Executive Director
a. Claims List No. 6-2002
Commissioner Courtney moved ratification of Claims List No. 6-2002.
Commissioner Row seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 5-0,
with Commissioners Courtney, Gavzy, Mavity, Moore and Row voting in favor.
b. Communications
103
Ms. Schnitker mentioned that the joint meeting to be held with the City Council
would probably not be held until September due to scheduling conflicts.
Ms. Anderson talked about a termination that took place on June 1st and that the
turnover of this unit would be costly. Commissioner Gavzy asked what the cost
would be. Ms. Anderson responded that the bid came back at $16,000 from the
contractor plus additional costs. Ms. Schnitker added that some of this amount
would be charged to the former tenant.
Ms. Anderson also mentioned a vacate notice received from a tenant that is
leaving to purchase a house. Ms. Anderson also described another tenant who
will be vacating because of a reduction in her family size.
8. Adjournment
Commissioner Moore moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:14 p.m. Commissioner Mavity
seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 5-0 with Commissioners
Courtney, Gavzy, Mavity, Moore and Row voting in favor.
Respectfully submitted,
________________________
Shone Row, Secretary
104
Consent Item #3
MINUTES MAY 23, 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, May 23, 2002, at St. Louis Park City Hall, 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard, St.
Louis Park, Minnesota.
Members Present: Chair James Gainsley
Vice Chair Susan Bloyer
Commissioner Ryan Burt
Commissioner Tom Powers
Commissioner Paul Roberts
Members Absent: None
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 7:04 p.m.
2. APPROVE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMITTEE MINUTES
Motion by Commissioner Roberts, seconded by Commissioner Powers, to approve the following
minutes as presented with the following corrections: Page 4, April 25, 2002 meeting minutes
remove Commissioner Powers name and replace with Chair Gainsley on motion seconded for
granting approval of Lawerence and Ina Gravitz request.
1) Board of Zoning Appeals Committee public hearing and regular meeting minutes dated April
25, 2002.
Motion by Commissioner Roberts, seconded by Commissioner Powers, that the regular meeting
minutes dated April 25, 2002 are approved with the above stated corrections.
Motion Carried. Voting Yes: Gainsley, Bloyer, Burt, Powers, and Roberts. Voting No: None.
3. CONSENT AGENDA
None
105
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS/COMMITTEE BUSINESS
A. Case No. 02-25-VAR - The request of Jeffrey Hickstein for variances from the
requirements of Section 36-163(f)(4) and 36-163(f)(5) of the Ordinance Code relating to
zoning to permit an attached garage in a restricted square due to a rear lot line being common
to a side lot line of an adjacent property, and to reduce the required rear yard depth. The
applicant seeks an 8.8 foot rear yard setback and a 23.2 foot setback for a side yard abutting a
public street, instead of the required 25 foot rear setback and 30 foot dimension for the
restricted square on the property located in the “R-1” Single Family Residential District at
2856 France Avenue South.
Mr. Korman presented a report and concluded that since only 2 of 7 findings have been met and
recommends that the Board of Zoning Appeals deny the applicants’ request for variances to
permit an attached garage with an 8.8 foot rear yard setback and 23.2 foot setback for a side yard
abutting a public street, instead of the required 30 feet for both yards due to a rear lot line being
common to a side lot line of an adjacent property.
Commissioner Powers asked staff to display the attached garage proposal and staffs
recommended alternative proposal on the overhead projector.
Mr. Korman displayed staffs recommended alternative proposal which shows the placement of
the garage pulled back out of the 30 by 30 foot restricted area and allowing a 24 by 24 garage
which would still meet the rear yard setback and wouldn’t require the second variance.
Commissioner Powers asked staff if the applicants were planning to reconstruct the mudroom or
remove.
Mr. Korman stated that the owner’s intentions are to add-on to the mudroom, which would be 10
by 10 feet with the garage. The mudroom would provide access from both the garage and from
the exterior of the home.
Commissioner Burt asked staff to repeat the open space requirements for the backyard and the
east side of the attached garage.
Mr. Korman stated that the required dimension for open space in the rear yard is 600 square feet
with a minimum of 20 feet in each direction and the restricted area is 30 by 30 foot due to the
property front yard setback of 30 feet.
Commissioner Burt stated he thought he heard the size of the open remaining space in the back.
Mr. Korman stated that under the applicant’s proposal it is an estimated size of 29 by 30 feet.
Commissioner Powers asked staff if the applicants only alternative for building a two-car garage
without requiring a variance would be to construct a detached two-car garage.
106
Mr. Korman stated that there are two alternatives that would not require a variance. One,
building a detached two-car garage is allowable as long as it is 6-feet away from the principal
dwelling and 2-feet away from the property line. Second, building a tandem garage (estimated at
15 feet x 40 feet), condense the size of the mudroom would be allowable if the structure is
setback 30-feet from the street.
Commissioner Powers asked staff if the applicant has any options of building a side by side
garage that would allow them to stay within the City Ordinance.
Mr. Korman stated that the applicant would be required to receive a variance to build a attached
side by side garage because the structure would be too close to the rear yard. In addition, the
garage would need to be 7-feet from the side yard to preserve the 30-foot open space
requirement.
Commissioner Powers asked staff if a variance could be given for the side by side garage and be
considered as one variance?
Mr. Korman stated that was correct.
Mr. Korman stated that if it were to be moved out of the restricted area then it would just be a
variance for the rear yard setback.
Commissioner Powers asked staff if he were to deny both proposed variances the property
owners could still build detached garage and remain only 2 feet from the property line? If so,
wouldn’t that have a bigger impact on the neighbor?
Mr. Korman stated that the granting either the two variances or just the one would have an equal
impact on the neighbor and they do acknowledge the difficulty.
Chair Gainsley asked staff if the current owner built this home?
Mr. Korman stated the home was constructed in 1948, no the present owner did not build this
home.
With no more questions, Chair Gainsley opened the public hearing.
Jeffrey Hickstein, applicant of 2856 France Avenue, stated that he purchased his home 11 years
ago knowing he didn’t have a backyard. Now, married with two children the yard has become
an issue along with a single car garage. Last year, the home was placed on the real estate market
for two months and received no offers but a few prospective buyers were interest with the
intentions of adding on to the existing home and garage. After the interested buyer’s researched
the city ordinances they found that several variances would be needed to add-on, which at that
time the home was removed from the real estate market and they were going to pursue applying
for the variances needed to build a two-car garage and mud room. Recently, after extensive
research, Mr. Korman discovered several other alternatives that could benefit the property
107
owners that wouldn’t require variances. Mr. Hickstein feels the alternatives presented would
impact the neighbors greatly compared to his proposal.
Mr. Hickstein presented several overhead slides showing the neighbors home and neighbors
view looking out a picture window at staffs recommended garage placement. Staffs
recommended placement would completely impair the neighbors’ view of Sunset Boulevard and
France Avenue.
Mr. Hickstein stated that most importantly his family needs a backyard and by relocating the
present garage would do that along with building a two-car garage. He feels his proposal would
be similar to staff with regards to the neighbors’ view and setback restrictions. Another option
would be to abut the garage to the existing home and relocate the mudroom and entrance to the
rear of the garage. This alternative would give a 23-foot setback from France Avenue.
Although, this proposal would cause us to remove a existing kitchen window and basement
window. This would still require two variances but would be further away from the neighboring
property and slightly increase their angle of view. He feels the tandem option would not benefit
him plus the exterior brick is difficult to match.
In addition, another option would be to propose a tuck under garage on the basement level of the
south side of the home, which would require only one variance. The reason for the one variance
is due to the elevation, which is 6-feet, and the requirement is 8-feet. This could also create a
deck on top of the garage and also save money on having to restore the exterior of the home.
The neighbor’s views would not be impaired but the down side would be having to enter the
garage through the basement.
Chair Gainsley asked staff if a variance would be required since the elevation is not 8 feet in
height.
Mr. Korman stated the variance would be to reduce the front yard setback. For example, if the
garage was 24 feet deep the front yard setback would 21 feet. If there was a 8 foot grade
elevation it would effectively put half of the garage wall or more under ground, and there is an
exception in code which allows an encroachment in the front yard if more than half of the
building wall is buried.
Chair Gainsley asked staff of the distance.
Mr. Korman stated that if there were a 24-foot garage the closest point would be 21 feet from the
property line.
Chair Gainsley asked staff to clarify the amount of feet needed for the variance.
Mr. Korman stated that he is unsure at this time since this proposal was just introduced by the
applicant but guesses a 15-foot variance would be needed.
Mr. Hickstein presented to the Commissioners several overhead photographs that he had taken of
similar homes within the City of St. Louis Park that have tuck under garages.
108
Commissioner Powers asked staff if the Commission is able to make comments to a completely
different variance then presented in the staff report, would the Commission be able to consider
that tonight without submission of new plans?
Mr. Korman stated that he believed the Commission would be able to consider an alternative
variance for the rear yard but suggests that the Commission have a continuation, which would
allow re-notification of the area residents.
Chair Gainsley agreed with Mr. Korman.
Chair Gainsley asked Mr. Hickstein if he would like to resubmit plans for the tuck under garage
or would he like the Commission to continue with the original staff report and the two variances
requested.
Mr. Hickstein stated he would like to hear the Commissions opinion on the original proposal.
Chair Gainsley stated to Mr. Hickstein that the Commission would not have a discussion on the
original proposal if he were interested in resubmitting new plans for a completely different plan.
Commissioner Powers asked Chair Gainsley and staff if the Commission could discuss the
original proposal and if denial was granted the applicant could resubmit another plan along with
another application.
Mr. Hickstein clarified that he is able to either continue with the original application or receive
Commissions decision, if denied, resubmit a new application and fee with alternate plans. Or, he
can ask for a continuation that will give him time to submit alternate plans which will give the
Commissioners alternatives for the garage addition.
Chair Gainsley stated that was correct.
Mr. Korman stated that Mr. Hickstein can choose to continue his variance request along with
alternative plans for the tuck under garage that would require a variance for the front yard
setback for the June 27, 2002 Board of Zoning Appeals meeting. In addition, city staff will re-
notify area residents June 27, 2002.
Mr. Hickstein stated he would like to continue discussing the variance and have alternative plans
available for the June 27th meeting.
Motion by Commissioner Bloyer, seconded by Commissioner Powers, that the variance be
continued to Board of Zoning Appeals meeting of June 27, 2002.
Motion Carried. Voting Yes: Gainsley, Bloyer, Burt, Powers and Roberts. Voting No: None.
B. Case No. 02-26-VAR - The request of Burlington Coat Factory, Inc. for a variance from
the requirements of Section 36-362(g)(4)(c) of the Ordinance Code relating to zoning to
109
permit a 246 square foot sign face instead of the required 180 square feet maximum for a
wall sign on a multi-tenant building on the property located in the “C-2” General
Commercial District at 3700 U.S. Highway 100 South.
Mr. Korman informed the Commissioners that the representative from Burlington Coat Factory
has submitted a new plan. This plan is requesting to permit 193 square foot sign instead of the
original plan of 246 square foot sign.
Mr. Korman presented a report and concluded that since only 2 of 7 findings have been met and
recommends that the Board of Zoning Appeals deny the applicants’ request for a variance to
permit a 193 square foot sign face instead of the required 180 square foot maximum for a wall
sign on a multi-tenant building.
With no more questions, Chair Gainsley opened the public hearing.
Charles Hollenhorst, representative for Burlington Coat Factory of 3700 U.S. Highway 100
South, stated that this particular property has received a variance in the past due to the
uniqueness of the property and would like the Commissioners to permit a 193 square foot sign in
a commercial neighborhood.
Commissioner Powers asked Mr. Hollenhorst if the sign still needs to be built.
Mr. Hollenhorst responded that they have not been constructed yet.
Commissioner Powers asked Mr. Hollenhorst why the sign couldn’t be lowered 13 square feet.
Mr. Hollenhorst stated that he believed the sign company has standard sizes as opposed to having
to be a custom size.
With no more questions, Chair Gainsley closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Powers asked staff if neighboring company MicroCenter sign size was known.
Mr. Korman stated he believed the existing wall sign size of MicroCenter is 160 square feet.
Commissioner Bloyer stated she was not in favor of the MicroCenter sign size and feels there is
not hardship for Burlington Coat Factory.
Commissioner Powers stated he agrees with Commissioner Bloyer that there is not a hardship,
MicroCenter sign is far too large and is unsure of the manufacturing process but feels that the
applicant should reduce the proposed sign 13 feet.
Commissioner Roberts stated that the pylon for MicroCenter was a variance request due to
visibility hardship from the public right-of-way and feels Burlington Coat Factory can’t justify a
hardship.
110
Commissioner Burt stated he agrees with each of the Commissioners that a hardship is not met.
Chair Gainsley stated he agrees there is not a hardship.
Motion by Commissioner Bloyer, seconded by Commissioner Roberts, that the variance to
permit a 193 square foot sign face instead of the required 180 square foot maximum for a wall
sign on a multi-tenant building be denied based on staff’s findings.
Motion Carried. Voting Yes: Gainsley, Bloyer, Burt, Powers and Roberts. Voting No: None.
C. Case No. 02-27-VAR - The request of Paul Nygren for a variance from the requirements of
Section 36-163(f)(5) of the Ordinance Code related to zoning to permit a rear yard setback of
13.5 feet instead of the required 25 feet for an attached garage addition on the property
located in the “R-1” Single Family Residential District at 3030 Cavell Avenue South.
Mr. Korman presented a report and concluded that all 7 findings have been met and recommends
that the Board of Zoning Appeals approve the applicants’ request for a variance to permit a rear
yard setback of 13.5 feet instead of the required 25 feet for an addition to an attached garage.
With no questions, Chair Gainsley opened the public hearing.
Mr. Korman stated that the applicant is not present, nor a representative.
With no questions, Chair Gainsley closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Burt stated he feels this is a good example of where a variance is warranted.
Commissioner Roberts stated he is in favor of granting the variance.
Motion by Commissioner Roberts, seconded by Commissioner Burt, that the variance to permit a
rear yard setback of 13.5 feet instead of the required 25 feet for an addition to an attached garage
is granted.
Motion Carried. Voting Yes: Gainsley, Bloyer, Burt, Powers and Roberts. Voting No: None.
111
D. Case No. 02-28-VAR - The request of George Murray for a variance from the requirements
of Section 36-164(f)(5) of the Ordinance Code related to zoning to permit a side yard setback
of 2 feet instead of the required 5 feet for an attached garage addition on the property located
in the “R-2” Single Family Residential District at 2837 Ottawa Avenue South.
Mr. Korman presented a report and concluded that only 2 of the 7 findings have been met and
recommends that the Board of Zoning Appeals deny the applicants’ request for a variance to
permit a side yard setback of 2 feet instead of the required 5 feet for an attached garage and
living space addition.
Commission Bloyer asked staff if the Fire Department has been able to comment on this
proposal due to difficult access for the fire vehicles.
Mr. Korman stated that he had informed City staff of proposal during a Development Review
Committee but did not receive comment from the fire department due to their absence.
Commission Bloyer asked staff if the applicant could build a usable two-car garage with a 3-foot
setback instead of the proposed 2-foot.
Mr. Korman stated he didn’t feel it would be a usable two-car garage due to the placement of the
existing chimney.
Chair Gainsley asked staff if the Commissioner were to grant this variance, what would be the
action of the fire department?
Mr. Korman stated he feels there is sufficient fire department room through the rear of the
applicant’s home and the neighboring property to the north. In addition, this property is 55 feet
from the property line and the grade is steep.
Chair Gainsley asked staff to clarify that access for fire trucks on this particular property would
not be a hazard.
Mr. Korman stated there is alternative access through the rear yard.
Commissioner Powers asked Mr. Korman if this variance is for a complete addition and not just
for a two-car garage.
Mr. Korman responded that this was for a complete addition on the first and second floor and a
two-car garage. An attached garage can be turned into a living space also.
Commissioner Powers asked staff if the applicants proposed two-car attached garage could be
made into a living space legally.
112
Mr. Korman responded yes, an attached garage could be made into a living space with a
provision that two vehicles should be able to be park behind the front property line.
With no questions, Chair Gainsley opened the public hearing.
George Murray, applicant of 2837 Ottawa Avenue South, stated that when he purchased this
property his intention was to remove the existing garage and add an addition onto the existing
home. During the application review process an easement was found on his property which
would require him to pay $20,000 to dig up the easement and encase it. Mr. Korman presented
alternatives to him, such as building a garage in the back yard. He stated that building the garage
in the back yard would take a large amount of space and would also impact the drainage flow
between him and his neighbors, which would create a swamp.
Mr. Murray stated that there is another alternative but it would still require a 2-foot setback.
Rather than building an addition onto the side of the home he would consider adding onto the
back of the home which would create an attached garage but would require a 2 foot setback since
the attached garage is considered a living space. In addition, he could raise the grade in the
backyard.
Chair Gainsley asked Mr. Murray if he was aware that if he were to pour concrete in the back
area he would completely cover up the easement, which he doesn’t feel, would be allowed.
Mr. Korman stated that the applicant could pour a concrete slab with the understanding that it
may be torn up due to an emergency and paid for by the applicant.
Commissioner Powers asked staff if a 2-foot variance would be needed for the applicant’s
alternative suggestion.
Mr. Korman stated that a 2-foot variance would be needed.
Commissioner Powers asked Mr. Murray if he would accept the alternative plan.
Mr. Murray stated he would need to perform several measurements in order to verify that the
alternative would work.
Commission Bloyer stated that she doesn’t believe the Commission can grant a variance only
specific to the garage it would need to be the entire side lot line.
Commissioner Powers stated that in the past variances have been granted limiting it to the
structure and not the whole property line. For example, Edgewood Avenue and Minnetonka
Boulevard.
Mr. Korman stated that was correct. The language in it should be for the principal dwelling as an
attached garage because it could be a living space.
113
Marvin Marshak, neighboring resident of 2855 Ottawa Avenue South, stated he has filed a
written statement with the Board of Zoning Appeals Commissioners. He stated he is concerned
with the size of the proposed home and garage addition and suggested several alternatives could
be made to the original submitted plan.
With no questions, Chair Gainsley closed the public hearing.
Mr. Murray asked the Commissioners if he could continue his application for the Board of
Zoning Appeals meeting of June 27, 2002, because he was unaware of the neighbors concern and
would like to address his neighbors to receive alternative ideas.
Motion by Commissioner Powers, seconded by Commissioner Roberts, that the variance to
permit a side yard setback of 2 feet instead of the required 5 feet for an attached garage and
living space addition be continued until June 27, 2002.
Motion Carried. Voting Yes: Gainsley, Burt, Powers and Roberts. Voting No: Bloyer.
5. Old Business:
None
6. New Business:
None
7. Communications:
Mr. Korman informed the Commissioners that both applications of the April 2, 2002 Board of
Zoning Appeals meetings were appealed and heard on May 6, 2002, by the City Council. The
result of 5925 State Highway 7 to allow Abra Auto Body within 235 feet of a residential district
was denied. With regard to 4050 Brookside Avenue, a proposal for a small mixed-use building,
the City Council denied the variance for access to open space and continued the variance to
allow vehicles to back into public street with a directive that the applicant attend the meeting
with a new plan that eliminates the residential use at City Council meeting June 17, 2002.
8. Miscellaneous:
None
9. Adjournment:
114
Commissioner Bloyer moved and Commissioner Roberts seconded the motion for adjournment.
The regular meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals adjourned at 8:38 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Tara Olson
Community Development Secretary
115
CONSENT ITEM #4
St. Louis Park City Council
Meeting of July 15, 2002
4. Motion to adopt the attached resolution approving Change Order No. 2 with
Hardrives, Inc. for the construction of additional streetscape improvements for
the West 38th Street entrance into the Minikahda Vista Neighborhood. Contract
No. 35-02 with Hardrives, inc. in the amount of $67,997.20.
Background: During numerous meetings with the Minikahda Vista Neighborhood regarding
the proposed “Excelsior & Grand” redevelopment project, residents consistently requested
beautification at the West 38th Street intersection with Excelsior Boulevard. In response to the
residents’ request, staff met with area representatives to develop a plan that creates a
neighborhood entrance through the use of additional landscaping, planters and an entrance
monument for the neighborhood sign, (see attached schematic).
The neighborhood has also expressed concern about the potential increase in traffic, on W. 38th
Street, as a result of the Excelsior & Grand development. These concerns are being addressed
through the Streetscape project in a number of ways including: 1) construction of dual left-turn
lanes from south-bound Monterey Drive to east-bound Excelsior Blvd; 2) modification of the
traffic signal timing at Monterey Drive/38th Street to facilitate movement along Excelsior Blvd;
and, 3) installation of wiring along Excelsior Boulevard so that all of the signals can be
synchronized to work as a system. The goal of these modifications is to facilitate traffic
movement along Excelsior Blvd. and reduce any perceived time savings from “cutting through”
the Minikahda Vista neighborhood along 38th Street.
In addition, staff has discussed with the neighborhood the potential for reducing illegal right-turn
movements from east-bound Excelsior Blvd. to 38th Street by modifying the driveway into S&D
Cleaners from 38th Street. Currently, vehicles, which don’t want to wait for the green arrow to
turn from east–bound Excelsior Blvd. to 38th Street, cut through the cleaner’s private parking lot
onto 38th Street. This creates a safety hazard both for the vehicles attempting this movement and
for patrons of the cleaners.
The existing entrance would be modified by making it a one-way “entrance only” point and
closing the center median opening on 38th Street. Modification to the cul-de-sac on Lynn
Avenue would also need to be done in order to achieve the desired design, (see attached
schematic).
The proposed plan has been presented to the owner of S & D Cleaners, residents on Lynn
Avenue and the neighborhood association.
The only questions staff has received were regarding what the specific plant species were and if
the one-way entrance design will really work. The plan species, although not finalized, will be
similar to those on Excelsior Boulevard with taller overstory trees along with lower shrubs and
annual/perennial plants. The one-way entrance drive into S & D Cleaners is designed to restrict
116
eastbound access to West 38th Street. However, if vehicles are observed continually driving over
sidewalks and plantings, staff would consider the installation of additional bollards and other
obstacles to further prohibit that movement.
Financial Considerations: It is proposed that the construction of additional streetscape
improvements for the West 38th Street entrance be funded through expenditure of tax increment
funds. Following is a summary of the streetscape contract:
Original Contract Amount $1,766,900.35
Change Order No. 1 10,349.00
Subtotal $1,777,249.35
Change Order No. 2 $67,997.20
Total $1,845,246.55
Recommendation: It is recommended the City Council adopt the attached resolution approving
Change Order No. 2 to Contract No. 35-02 with Hardrives, Inc. in the amount of $67,997.20.
Attachments: Schematic Drawings
Resolution
Prepared By: Carlton B. Moore, Superintendent of Engineering
Maria A. Hagen, City Engineer
Reviewed By: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved By: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
117
RESOLUTION NO. 02-068
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCION OF ADDITIONAL
STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE WEST 38TH STREET ENTRANCE INTO
MINIKAHDA VISTA NEIGHBORHOOD AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF
CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 TO CONTRACT NO. 35-02
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota has been requested, has studied and
determined that modifications at the entrance of the Minikahda Vista Neighborhood are
necessary to reduce “cut-through” traffic and that beautification of the entrance be included in
the change order.
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 proceed with Change
Order No. 2 to Contract No. 35-02 with Hardrives, Inc. in the amount of $67,997.20, to construct
entrance monuments and roadway modifications at Excelsior Boulevard and West 38th Street and
to create a one-way entrance into the private parking lot at the southeast corner.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk