Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001/02/20 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - RegularREVISED 2/20/01 AGENDA - CITY COUNCIL MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA February 20, 2001 7:30 p.m. Cancelled - Economic Development Authority 1. Call to Order a. Pledge of Allegiance b. Roll Call 2. Presentations 3. Approval of Minutes a. City Council Minutes of February 5, 2001 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 adopt second reading of an ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance to change the zoning requirements for restaurants and other uses with wine and beer licenses, approve summary ordinance, and authorize publication. Case No. 00-62-ZA 2 2. Motion to adopt the attached resolution authorizing restricting parking in front of the easterly half of 7515 Wayzata Boulevard and limiting parking to one (1) hour along the westerly half of 7515 Wayzata Boulevard -Traffic Study 555 3. Motion to adopt the attached resolution authorizing staff to implement the terms of a reciprocal arrangement with Hopkins on a one-year trial basis for joint use of the Skate Park in Hopkins and the Family Aquatic Park in St. Louis Park 4. Motion to authorize Mayor and City Manager to renew a one-year contract with West Suburban Mediation Center for mediation, conciliation, information and referral, and public education services. 5. Motion to approve final payment to E I M, EVP Signal System for the amount of $6,963.40 --Contract #00-08 6. Motion to accept the following reports for filing a. Charter Commission Minutes of November 8, 2000 b. Planning Commission Minutes of January 2, 2001 c. Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes of January 10, 2001 d. Housing Authority Minutes of January 10, 2001 Action: Motion to approve Consent Items 5. Public Hearings 5a. Competitive Cable TV System Franchises Public Hearing On January 16, 2001 the Council continued this Public Hearing to February 20, 2001 to allow further negotiations with Everest Connections Corporation (Everest) and Wide Open West LLC (WOW). Recommended Action: Motion to continue the public hearing to March 19, 2001. 5b. Proposed Amendments to the City Home Rule Charter Public hearing and first reading of an ordinance to amend Table of Contents, Chapters 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, and Index of the City Home Rule Charter. One proposed amendment maintains consistency with the City Council resolution adopted on February 5, 2001 regarding police and fire Civil Service Commissions. Other proposed amendments relate to recodification and study conducted over the past year by the Charter Commission. Recommended Action: Conduct public hearing and following the hearing, motion to waive first reading of the ordinance to amend St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter: Table of Contents, Chapters 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, and Index and set second reading for March 5, 2001 (7 affirmative votes required for adoption on March 5) 3 6. Requests and Communications from the Public a. Petition from Sharon Abelson to cease deer removal efforts 7. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions 7a. The request by CSM Corporation and Rottlund Companies for a minor amendment to the approved Planned Unit Development. Case # 00-15-PUD Recommended Action: Motion to adopt the Resolution granting the minor amendment to the approved PUD, subject to the conditions in the resolution and authorize the execution for the First Amendment to Declaration of Easements. 7b. Proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to add land use definitions for Liquor Licenses and update the Land Use Table. Case No. 00-62-ZA Recommended Action: Motion to approve 1st reading of staff’s proposed text amendment adding land use definitions for liquor licenses and updating the Land Use table and set second reading for the March 5, 2001 City Council meeting. ADDED 2/20/01 7c. Consideration of a citizen petition requesting an Environmental Assessment Worksheet prior to continuing deer removal in the City. Sam Abelson of 4340 Cedarwood Road in St. Louis Park has submitted a petition on behalf of a group of citizens to the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board requesting completion of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet prior to the removal of deer from the lake Forest and Fern Hill Neighborhoods. Recommended Action: Motion to adopt a resolution determining not to order the preparation of an Environment Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the proposed implementation of the deer management plan in the Lake Forest and Fern Hill neighborhoods. 8. Boards and Committees 9. Communications 10. Adjournment 4 Item # 3a UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA FEBRUARY 5, 2001 1. Call to Order and Roll Call Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The following Councilmembers were present at roll call: Jim Brimeyer, Ron Latz, Chris Nelson, Susan Sanger, Sue Santa, Robert Young, and Mayor Jeff Jacobs. Also present were the Deputy City Manager (Mr. Pires); City Attorney (Mr. Foli); Planning Manager (Ms. Peterson); Environmental Health Official (Mr. Camilon); and Recording Secretary (Ms. Olson). 2. Presentations - None 3. Approval of Minutes a. Study Session Minutes of January 22, 2001 The minutes were approved as presented with the following change. Item 6, Last Paragraph, Add: “Mr. Hoffman also indicated that the City might consider developing a housing court program as some other communities have done”. b. City Council Minutes of January 16, 2001 The minutes were approved as presented with the following changes. Item 7d, Last Paragraph, Move Councilmember Nelson's comments before the motion (The motion passed 5-0), because his comments were made before motion was put to a vote and also change them to read: "Councilmember Nelson disagreed with sending the matter to the City Attorney because he believed the act of referring the issue to the City Attorney speaks to the mindset of the City Council. He stated that a violation had occurred and he felt by directing this to the City Attorney it was direction to pursue the issue". Item 7d, Paragraph 21 Add: “Councilmember Sanger also indicated that economic hardship was not a valid criteria for a variance”. c. Study Session Minutes of January 8, 2001 The minutes were approved as presented. 5 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. Agenda It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to approve the agenda. The motion passed 6-0 b. Approval of Consent Items It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Latz, to approve the following Consent Items. The motion passed 6-0. 1. Approve 2nd reading of miscellaneous zoning ordinance amendments, adopt Ordinance No. 2188-01, approve the summary, and authorize publication. 2. Adopt Resolution No. 01-010 amending final plat resolution and extending plat filing deadline to March 20, 2001 for Marshall Kieffer and to adopt Resolution No. 01-011 amending variance resolution to include the property address 2621 Virginia Avenue South 3. Approve second reading of Zoning Ordinance Map, adopt Ordinance No. 2189-01 relating to changing the designation on property located at 6009 Wayzata Boulevard R-4, Multiple Family Residential to C-2, General Commercial, approve the summary, and authorize publication. Approve second reading of an ordinance vacating a portion of W. 14th Street, subject to the condition described in the ordinance, adopt Ordinance No. 2190-01, approve the summary, and authorize publication. 4. Approve second reading of ordinance to increase the water and sewer utility rates by 2%, effective February 26, 2001, adopt Ordinance No. 2191-01, approve the summary, and authorize publication. 5. Adopt Resolution No. 01-012 authorizing application for a Hennepin County grant to fund the City’s curbside recycling program. 6. Accept the following reports for filing a. Vendor Claims b. Human Rights Commission Minutes of December 20, 2000 5. Public Hearings - None 6. Requests and Communications from the Public - None 7. Requests and Communications from the Public 7a. Civil Service Commissions Resolution No. 01-008 6 It was moved by Councilmember Brimeyer, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to adopt Resolution No. 01-008 abolishing the Police Civil Service Commission (7 affirmative votes required); continue pursuit of enabling State legislation allowing Council the option to abolish the Fire Civil Service Commission only in St. Louis Park; and seek citizen input on matters of police and fire related citizen concern as deemed advisable. Councilmember Sanger stated that she was in support of abolishing the Civil Service Commission, but questioned if there was any need to consider setting up some different sort of public process input in dealing with policy matters rather than individual personnel matters that would impact on law enforcement or fire safety. Mayor Jacobs stated this will be topic of a discussion in the future. He stated that abolishing the Police Civil Service Commission would eliminate an extra hoop that the City was required to jump through. Councilmember Brimeyer stated that he was thinking of some sort of citizen advisory group that would revolve around policy issues dealing with public safety that would go beyond just the hiring and selection process. He believed that working with the staff, human resources, the organizational development person and the police department we could get input ideas on how the City can do this. Clint Pires, Deputy City Manager stated that this idea would be consistent with other communities that are contemplating this kind of change and are in fact substituting some sort of advisory committee in its place to look at broader policy issues with respect to public safety. Mayor Jacobs commended the members of the Police Civil Service Commission for their work and efforts. The motion passed 7-0. 7b. Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments to change the zoning requirements for restaurants and other uses with wine and/or beer liquor licenses Case No. 00-62-ZA Janet Jeremiah, Planning Manager presented a staff report and recommended approval. Councilmember Latz questioned the definition of “weekend’ and the hours of operation for the purpose of the ordinance. Ms. Jeremiah stated that staff could more clearly define weekend in the ordinance and add this for second reading. Councilmember Sanger asked why the hours of operation for a restaurant with wine and beer is more limited than a restaurant with a full intoxicating liquor license. 7 Ms. Jeremiah stated that the intent was to be more strict with regard to the hours since they would not have to meet the extraordinary set back from residential. She stated that this would not prohibit a restaurant from operating later, but would put them through the public hearing process. Councilmember Sanger asked if there were any other properties where this request was either currently pending or would have been applicable in the last couple of years. Ms. Jeremiah stated that she was not aware of any restaurant recently that would have benefited from this change, but believed the City would foresee getting more requests as a result of it. Councilmember Latz stated that he envisioned a potential enforcement issue and a problem with private parties. He recommended that staff review these matters and make suggestions on how to address these issues at second reading. It was moved by Councilmember Latz, seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer, to adopt first reading of an ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance to change the zoning requirements for restaurants and other uses with wine and beer license and set second reading for February 20, 2001. The motion passed 7-0. 7c. Resolution Entering Into Agreement With MDA For Food Inspection Resolution No. 01-009 Manny Camilon, Environmental Health Official, presented a staff report and recommended approval. It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer, to approve Resolution No. 01-009 entering into delegation agreement with the Minnesota Department of Agriculture for inspection of certain food facilities within St. Louis Park. The motion passed 7- 0. 8. Board and Committees 8a. Reappointments It was moved by Councilmember Young, seconded by Councilmember Nelson, to reappoint Carl Robertson to BOZA, Tom Powers to BOZA, Chris Smith to Human Rights Commission, Ashley Tomoson to Parks and Recreation, Jeff Davidman to Parks and Recreation, David Peters to Parks and Recreation, Michelle Bissonnette to Planning Commission and Ken Gothberg to Planning Commission. The motion passed 7-0. 9. Communications From the City Manager – None 8 From the Mayor – Mayor Jacobs noted the Board and Commission Reception to be held on February 15, 2001 at 6:45 p.m. at the Rec Center and the Home Remodeling Fair on Sunday, February 25, 2001 at Eisenhower at 10:30 a.m. Councilmember Nelson noted that a Park Commons Open House would be held on February 22, 2001 at the Rec Center from 6:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m. He also expressed his sorrow of the passing of the former School District Chief Executive, Carl Holmstrom. 10. Adjournment Mayor Jacobs adjourned the meeting at 8:05 p.m. City Clerk Mayor 9 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 5a Meeting of February 20, 2001 5a. Competitive Cable TV System Franchises Public Hearing On January 16, 2001 the Council continued this Public Hearing to February 20, 2001 to allow further negotiations with Everest Connections Corporation (Everest) and Wide Open West LLC (WOW). Recommended Action: Motion to continue the public hearing to March 19, 2001. Purpose of Report To brief Council on the status of applications from, and negotiations with, the two current applicants for cable television franchises. Everest Connections Corporation (Everest) Staff has requested further meetings with Everest, but has been told that all talks are temporarily suspended because of merger talks between Everest and Seren (a subsidiary of Xcel Energy Systems, formerly NSP). Wide Open West (WOW) WOW representatives are busy following up on their many applications in the Twin Cities metro area and elsewhere, and have not made any new information available to staff as yet. Recommendation Staff recommends that Council continue this public hearing to March 19, 2001, with the hope that by then Everest and WOW have been able to make enough progress to continue substantive negotiations with the City of St. Louis Park. Prepared by: Reg Dunlap, Cable TV Office John McHugh, Cable TV Office Approved by: Clint Pires, Deputy City Manager 10 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 5b Meeting of February 20, 2001 5b. Proposed Amendments to the City Home Rule Charter Public hearing and first reading of an ordinance to amend Table of Contents, Chapters 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, and Index of the City Home Rule Charter. One proposed amendment maintains consistency with the City Council resolution adopted on February 5, 2001 regarding police and fire Civil Service Commissions. Other proposed amendments relate to recodification and study conducted over the past year by the Charter Commission. Recommended Action: Conduct public hearing and following the hearing, motion to waive first reading of the ordinance to amend St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter: Table of Contents, Chapters 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, and Index and set second reading for March 5, 2001 (7 affirmative votes required for adoption on March 5) Background: Amendments to the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter have been made periodically since its original adoption in December 1954. Minnesota statutes provide for four methods to amend the Charter, which are summarized below: 1. Upon submission of a petition, the Charter Commission submits amendment to voters. 2. Charter Commission directly submits amendment to referendum at regular or special election. 3. City Council proposes amendment, subject to Charter Commission review, and submits to referendum. 4. Charter Commission recommends amendment to the City Council for unanimous enactment by ordinance. After notice, public hearing, no petition calling for a referendum, and necessary waiting period, the ordinance/amendment takes effect. This is the method proposed for current proposed amendments, and the method historically used in St. Louis Park. Charter Commission’s Proposed Amendments: During 2000, the Charter Commission studied and approved several recommendations for modifications to the City Charter. Many of these proposed changes are fairly minor and are designed to maintain consistency with the City’s current recodification project; others have to do with updates to make the Charter more consistent with current State law (e.g., Chapter 5 – Administration of City Affairs / Purchases and Contracts, Chapter 9 – Franchises). Finally, Commission members, staff and others suggested some minor editing corrections and language intended to simplify and clarify the Charter. These proposed corrections include properly titling Section 7.04, correction of the last word of Section 11.02, and completion of the Minnesota Statute citation in Section 11.04. 11 In addition to year 2000 proposed modifications already approved by the Commission, the Charter Commission approved proposed language modifications regarding the purchasing and civil service commission sections at its January 10, 2001 meeting. These changes are more significant, and warrant additional explanation as provided below. Civil Service Commissions: The 1999 Legislature adopted a law allowing cities to abolish police civil service commissions by a unanimous vote of the city council. Previously, a commission could only be abolished by a citizen vote. In February 2000, the Council requested the Charter Commission to study and make recommendations regarding both the police and fire civil service commissions. At its study session on November 13, 2000, the City Council discussed the Charter Commission’s report and recommendations. Council took action to abolish the police Civil Service Commission at its February 5, 2001 meeting. Parallel to the above-described Council action, on November 13 Council requested the Charter Commission to consider related language changes to the Charter. The Charter Commission drafted and approved such proposed language changes at its January 10, 2001 meeting. These changes are included in the proposed ordinance and, in effect, remove references to only fire and police civil service commissions. The Charter Commission rationale was that (1) the scope of the Charter Commission study included only fire and police civil service, and not civil service in general and (2) the Council ought to retain the option to establish civil service or merit systems in future. The Commission felt that to suggest deletion of all references to civil service and merit systems in the Charter would have exceeded the scope of the Charter Commission’s study and informed recommendations. Purchases and Contracts: In the mid-1990’s, concurrent with the last competitive bidding threshold change to Minnesota Statute 471.345, most Charter cities changed their charters to “refer to” rather than adopt Statute wording. St. Louis Park last revised the Charter in this area in 1996. At that time, the primary concern was increasing the competitive bidding threshold from the then $15,000 to the $25,000 of the Statute. In its 2000 session, the State legislature again revised the competitive bid threshold for cities and counties. For cities greater than 2,500 population, the threshold was increased from $25,000 to $50,000. It is anticipated that the statutes will continue to be modified over the next several years due to increased use of electronic bidding, new product specification rules, and other technology advances. On August 9 and November 8, 2000 and January 10, 2001, the Charter Commission reviewed various staff recommendations regarding suggested modifications to Charter language related to purchasing. The recommended language approved by the Charter Commission on January 10, 2001 is included in the proposed ordinance. Staff recommends the adoption of this language to refer only to statute instead of specific dollar amount, thereby obviating the need to amend the Charter each time the legislature changes Minnesota Statute 471.345. All proposed 2000 and 2001 changes have been published and included in the attached Council ordinance per state law. The public notice is also attached. The entire City Home Rule Charter is available for review in the City Clerks Office, or may be e-mailed to Councilmembers as requested. 12 Summary: The City Attorney has reviewed the proposed amendments. It is recommended that Council approve the proposed amendments. The proposed schedule for enactment is as follows: January 24 two weeks public notice of hearing published in official newspaper February 20 public hearing, first reading of ordinance March 5 second reading of ordinance (7 affirmative votes required) March 14 publication of ordinance in official newspaper June 12 amendment effective date (90 days after passage and publication) Submitted by: Clint Pires, Deputy City Manager Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager Attachments: Proposed Ordinance Notice of Public Hearing 13 ORDINANCE NO. ______ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK HOME RULE CHARTER TABLE OF CONTENTS, CHAPTERS 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, AND INDEX THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN: SECTION 1. The St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter TABLE OF CONTENTS is hereby amended to delete references to subchapters 5.07, 9.03, 9.04, 9.05, 9.06, 9.07, 9.08, and 9.09. SECTION 2. The St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter Section 1.02, paragraph 7, is hereby amended to read: Section 1.02. Powers of the City. The City of St. Louis Park: may grant franchises or licenses for the construction, operation and maintenance of public utilities in, over, upon and under the streets and public places in the City, and shall have power to fix and regulate the fares, tolls or charges which may be collected, the extensions which shall be made, and for the services which shall be rendered by any owner or operator of a public utility franchise or license; SECTION 3. The St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter Section 2.06 is hereby amended to read: Section 2.06. The Mayor. The Mayor shall be the presiding officer of the Council, except that the a Mayor Pro Tem shall be Mayor in case of the Mayor’s disability, absence from the City, or in the case of vacancy in the office of Mayor until a successor is appointed and qualified chosen to hold office at the pleasure of the Council who shall act as Mayor in case of the Mayor’s disability or absence from the City. The Mayor shall vote as a member of the Council. The Mayor shall exercise all powers and perform all duties conferred or imposed upon the Mayor by this Charter, the ordinances of the City and laws of the State. The Mayor shall be recognized as the official head of the City for all ceremonial purposes, by the courts for the purpose of serving civil process, and by the governor for the purposes of martial law. SECTION 4. The St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter Section 2.08 is hereby amended to read: Section 2.08. Investigation of City Affairs. The Council shall have power to make investigations into the City’s affairs including, but not limited to, neglect, dereliction of duty or waste on the part of any officer or department of the City, to subpoena witnesses, administer oaths and compel the production of books, papers, and other documentary evidence. The Council may provide for an examination or audit of the accounts of any officer or to department of the City government, or it may direct a survey or research study of any problem affecting the City or its inhabitants at any time. Each such investigation shall be authorized by resolution of the Council. SECTION 5. The St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter Section 3.01 is hereby amended to read: 14 Section 3.01. Council Meetings. On the first (lst) regularly scheduled meeting of a new year following a municipal election as specified in Sections 4.02 and 4.04 of this Charter, the Council shall meet at the City Hall at the usual time for the holding of Council meetings. At this time, the newly-elected members of the Council shall assume their duties. Thereafter, the Council shall meet at such times as may be prescribed by resolution, except that it shall meet at a fixed time not less than once a month. The Mayor or any three (3) members of the Council may call special meetings of the Council upon at least twelve (12) hours’ notice to each member of the Council. Such notice shall be delivered personally to each member or be left in a conspicuous place at the residence if no such person be found there. The presence of any member of the Council at a special meeting shall constitute a waiver of any formal notice unless the Councilmember appears for the special purpose of objecting to the holding of such meeting. The Council may provide by ordinance a means by which a minority of the Councilmembers may compel the attendance of absent members. All meetings of the Council shall be public and any person shall have access to the minutes and records thereof at all reasonable times. The Mayor and Councilmembers shall each have one vote. SECTION 6. The St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter Section 3.03 is hereby amended to read: Section 3.03. Rules of Procedure and Quorum. The Council shall determine its own rules and order of business, and shall keep a record of its proceedings. A majority of all the Councilmembers shall constitute a quorum. SECTION 7. The St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter Section 3.07. Signing and Publication of Ordinances and Publication of Minutes, Resolutions, and Administrative Rules and Regulations subsection (d) is hereby amended to read: (d) Any administrative rule or regulation of any department of the State of Minnesota affecting the City, any statute of the State of Minnesota, any published code, specification, or regulation prepared by an official or unofficial organization for general circulation and use may be adopted and incorporated in an ordinance by reference thereto by marking three (3) copies thereof a copy “official copies copy” and filing them it for reference and inspection in the City offices of the City Clerk. The publication requirements of this Charter shall be deemed to be fully satisfied in such cases by use of this reference method. SECTION 8. The St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter Section 5.05 is hereby amended to read: Section 5.05. Purchases and Contracts. The City Manager is the chief purchasing agent of the City. All purchases on behalf of the City shall be made, and all purchases and contracts shall be let, by the City Manager, provided that the approval of the Council must be given whenever the amount of such purchase or contract exceeds $25,000 the amount at which competitive bids are required by law. Except for purchases and contracts made by the City Manager as set forth herein, All contracts, bonds, and instruments of every kind to which the City is a party must the shall be executed in the name of the City and shall be signed by the Mayor and City Manager on behalf of the City. 15 SECTION 9. The St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter Section 5.06 is hereby amended to read: Section 5.06. Contracts - How Let. City contracts must be made in compliance with law. When competitive bids are submitted the contract must be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder. The City Council may reject any and all bids. (a) In all cases of contracts for the purchase of supplies, merchandise or materials, for the purchase or rental of equipment, or for any kind of construction, alteration, repair or maintenance work undertaken by the City, which are estimated to require an expenditure of more than $25,000 unless the Council shall by emergency ordinance otherwise provide, the City Manager shall advertise for bids by at least one (1) week’s published notice in the official newspaper. Contracts and purchases in excess of $25,000 shall be let to the lowest responsible bidder as determined by the Council. The Council may, however, reject any and all bids. (b) In all cases of purchases or contracts that are estimated to require an expenditure of more than $10,000 but not more than $25,000, the City Manager may make the purchase or contract either through competitive sealed bidding or through direct negotiation. The City Manager may reject any and all bids. In the case of any contract to be made upon direct negotiation, the City Manager shall obtain two or more quotations for the purchase or contract whenever possible, but advertising for bids and otherwise complying with competitive bidding procedures shall not be required. (c) In all cases of purchases or contracts that are estimated to require an expenditure of $10,000 or less, the City Manager may make the purchase or contract either upon direct negotiation, as provided in subsection (b) or in the open market, in the discretion of the City Manager. (d) Nothing contained in this section shall prevent the Council from contracting for work with patented processes or from the purchasing of patented appliances. (e) All public improvements which require that the City issue bonds to secure funds to pay the costs of construction of the improvements shall be ordered and approved in the manner provided in Chapter 7 of this Charter. SECTION 10. The St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter Section 5.07 is hereby deleted in its entirety: Section 5.07. Further Purchase Regulations. Further regulations for the making of bids and the letting of contracts may be made by ordinance. SECTION 11. The St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter Section 7.04 is hereby amended to read: Section 7.04. Local Governments Improvements. The Council may prepare and adopt an ordinance, prescribing the procedure which shall be followed in making all local improvements and levying assessments. Such ordinance, when adopted, shall supersede all other municipal provisions of the law on the same subject and may be amended only by an affirmative vote of at 16 least five (5) members of the Council. Until the adoption of such an ordinance, and in absence of such ordinance, all local improvements may be made and assessments levied as prescribed by applicable law. SECTION 12. The St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter Section 9.02 is hereby amended to read: Section 9.02. Franchise Ordinances. The Council may grant franchises by ordinance. Every ordinance granting a franchise shall contain all the terms and conditions of the franchise and shall be adopted in the manner prescribed by Chapter 3 of the Charter, except that no franchise will be granted by emergency ordinance. In addition to the requirements of Chapter 3 of the Charter, no franchise ordinance shall be granted until a public hearing has been held by the City Council. Notice of the public hearing must be published at least once in the City’s official newspaper at least twenty (20) days prior to the public hearing. The Council may grant franchises by ordinance adopted by an affirmative vote of at least five (5) members of the Council, but in no case shall a franchise be granted by an emergency ordinance, nor within twenty (20) days or later than sixty (60) days after a public hearing has been held as provided in Section 9.09. Franchise rights shall always be subject to the superior right of the public to the use of streets and public places. All corporations, co-partnerships, persons or other entities desiring to make an especially burdensome use of the streets or public places, inconsistent with the public’s right in such places, or desiring the privilege of placing any permanent or semi- permanent fixtures in, over, upon or under any street or public place for the purpose of constructing or operating street or other railways, or for telephoning or telegraphing or transmitting electricity, or transporting by pneumatic tubes, or for furnishing to the City or its inhabitants or any portion thereof transportation facilities, water, light, heat, power or any other public utility, or for any other purpose, shall be required to obtain a franchise before proceeding to put such fixtures in place. Every ordinance granting or extending any franchise shall contain all the terms and conditions of the franchise. A franchise shall not be valid until it has been unconditionally accepted in all its terms, property executed by the grantee, filed with the City Clerk and approved by all other governmental agencies whose approval is required by applicable laws. SECTION 13. The St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter Sections 9.03 through 9.09 are hereby deleted in their entirety: Section 9.03. Cost of Publication of Franchise. The grantee shall bear the cost of publication of the franchise ordinances and shall make a deposit with the City Clerk in a sufficient amount to guarantee the publication before the ordinance is passed. Section 9.04. Power of Regulation Reserved. The City shall have the right and power to regulate and control the exercise by any corporation, co-partnership, person or other entity, of any franchise however and whenever acquired. Section 9.05. Rates and Charges. Every franchise making use of the streets or public places within the City shall give courteous, efficient and adequate service at reasonable rates. A reasonable rate shall be construed to be one which will, with efficient management, normally yield a fair return on all property used and useful in furnishing service to the City and its 17 inhabitants. This shall not be construed as a guaranty of a return and, in no case, shall there be any return upon the value of the franchise. Within these limits, the determination of maximum rates, fares or charges to be charged by a franchisee for service rendered to the City or to any person, persons, firm or corporation within the City shall be made, if possible, by direct negotiations between the franchisee and the City. Section 9.06. Provisions of Franchises. (a) Every franchise shall contain, among other things, provisions relating to the following: (1) The term of the franchise granted, which shall not exceed twenty-five (25) years. (2) Rates, fares and charges to be charged by the franchisee in compliance with the terms and provisions of Section 9.05. (3) The rights reserved to the City in connection with the erection of poles, masts, or other fixtures in the streets or public places and the attachment or wires thereto, the laying of tracks in or of pipes or conduits under the streets or public places, and the placing in the streets or other public places of any permanent or semi- permanent fixtures or equipment by the franchisee. (4) The prompt repair by the franchisee of all damages to the public streets, alleys, and public property occasioned by the acts or omissions of the franchise. (5) The rights of the City to have access to all books, records, and papers of the franchisee which in any way deal with, affect or record its operations within and pertaining to the City. (b) Every franchise may contain, among other things, provisions relating to the following: (1) The power and right of the City to submit to arbitration the fixing of any rates, fares or charges to be made by the franchisee. (2) The right of the franchisee to receive compensation for its franchise or the value thereof, if any, upon condemnation proceedings brought by the City to acquire the assets of the franchisee. Section 9.07. Further Provisions of Franchises. The enumeration and specification of particular matters which must be provided for in every franchise, renewal or extension thereof shall not be construed to impair the right of the City to provide in any franchise, renewal, extension or such other conditions and restrictions as the Council may deem proper to protect the City’s interests, nor shall anything contained in this Charter limit any right or power possessed by the City over existing franchises. 18 Section 9.08. Renewals or Extensions of Franchises. Every extension, renewal or modification of any existing franchise or of any franchise granted hereunder shall be subject to the same limitations and shall be granted in the same manner as a new franchise. Section 9.09. Public Hearings. Before any franchise ordinance is adopted or any rates, fares or charges to be charged by a public utility are fixed, a public hearing shall be held by the Council. Notice of such public hearing shall be published at least once in the official newspaper not less than twenty (20) days prior to the date of the public hearing. Additional notice of such public hearing may be given in such manner as the Council shall determine. SECTION 14. The St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter Section 11.02 is hereby amended to read: Section 11.02. Sale of Real Property. No real property of the City shall be sold or disposed of except by ordinance or resolution. The proceeds of any such sale shall be used as far as possible to retire any outstanding indebtedness incurred by the City in the purchase, construction or improvement of this or other property used for the same public purpose. If there is no such outstanding indebtedness, the Council may, by a resolution adopted by an affirmative vote of at least five (5) members of the Council, designate some other public use for such process proceeds. SECTION 15. The St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter Section 11.04 is hereby amended to read: Section 11.04. Damage Suits. The State of Minnesota has regulated actions for the recovery of damages for injuries to persons and property by Statute. Therefore, the Minnesota Tort Claims Act, applicable to Minnesota municipalities as it may be amended from time to time, Minnesota Statute Section 3.736, is hereby adopted by reference. The City expressly preserves all rights and defenses accorded to it by law, including the right to bring claims for contribution or indemnity. SECTION 16. The St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter Section 11.05 is hereby amended to read: Section 11.05. Civil Service Commission. Subject to Minnesota statutes and the provisions of this Charter, the City Council may establish, alter from time to time, or abolish, by ordinance, a civil service or merit system for all permanent City employees or for such classifications as may be deemed advisable. The City Council may create and appoint a civil service commission to administer and supervise such civil service or merit system. The civil service commissions for police and firefighters shall be continued in force pursuant to the laws under which they are organized, and the amendments thereto from time to time, until abolished according to law. Subject to the Minnesota statutes governing police and firefighters and the provisions of this Charter in regard thereto, the City Council may establish by ordinance, and alter from time to time, a civil service or merit system for all permanent City employees or for such classifications as may be deemed advisable. The City Council may create and appoint a civil service commission to administer and supervise such civil service or merit system. 19 SECTION 17. The St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter INDEX is hereby amended to delete the following references: Contracts - Regulations by Ordinance 5.07 Franchises - Arbitration 9.05 - 9.06 Franchises - Change 9.07 Franchises - Contents 9.06 Franchises - Power 9.04 Franchises - Publication, Cost 9.03 Franchises - Rates 9.05 Franchises - Renewal 9.07 - 9.08 Ordinances - Franchise Costs 9.03 Public Property - Damage by Utility 9.06 Regulation - Utilities 9.04 Streets - Utilities, Facilities 9.06 Streets - Utilities Repair 9.06 Utilities - Books Inspected 9.06(5) Utilities - Facilities 9.06 SECTION 18. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be in force and take effect in the City Home Rule Charter ninety (90) days after its passage and publication. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council March 5, 2001 City Manager Mayor Attest: Approved as to form and execution: City Clerk City Attorney 20 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON ST. LOUIS PARK CHARTER AMENDMENTS – TABLE OF CONTENTS; CHAPTERS 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11; AND INDEX NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the St. Louis Park City Council will meet at City Hall on Tuesday, February 20, 2001 at 7:30 p.m. and will conduct a public hearing on the following proposed amendments to City Charter: Table of Contents; Chapters 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11; and Index as recommended by the St. Louis Park Charter Commission Auxiliary Aides for persons with disabilities to assist in participation at this meeting are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please call 952/924-2520 or TDD 952/924-2518 to make arrangements. If you have questions, please contact City Administration at 952/924-2525. TABLE OF CONTENTS Delete references to subchapters 5.07, 9.03, 9.04, 9.05, 9.06, 9.07, 9.08, and 9.09. Chapter 1 – Name, Boundaries, Powers and Construction Section 1.02. Powers of the City. Amend paragraph 7 to read as follows: “may grant franchises or licenses for the services which shall be rendered by any owner or operator of a franchise or license;” Chapter 2 – Government and Officers Section 2.06. The Mayor. Amend the first sentence to read as follows: “The Mayor shall be the presiding officer of the Council, except that the Mayor Pro Tem shall be Mayor in case of the Mayor’s disability, absence from the City, or in the case of vacancy in the office of Mayor until a successor is appointed and qualified.” Section 2.08. Investigation of City Affairs. Amend second sentence to read as follows: “The Council may provide for an examination or audit of the accounts of any officer or department of the City government, or it may direct a survey or research study of any problem affecting the City or its inhabitants at any time.” Chapter 3 – Procedure of Council Section 3.01. Council Meetings. Amend last sentence to read as follows: “The Mayor and Councilmembers shall each have one vote.” Section 3.03 Rules of Procedure and Quorum. Amend entire section to read as follows: “The Council shall determine its own rules and order of business, and shall keep a record of its proceedings. A majority of the Council shall constitute a quorum.” Section 3.07. Signing and Publication of Ordinances and Publication of Minutes, Resolutions, and Administrative Rules and Regulations. Amend subsection (d) to read as follows: “Any administrative rule or regulation of any department of the State of Minnesota affecting the City, any statute of the State of Minnesota, any published code, specification, or regulation prepared by an official or unofficial organization for general circulation and use may be adopted 21 and incorporated in an ordinance by reference thereto by marking a copy “official copy” and filing it for reference and inspection in the City offices. The publication requirements of this Charter shall be deemed to be fully satisfied in such cases by use of this reference method.” Chapter 5 – Administration of City Affairs Section 5.05. Purchases and Contracts. Amend entire section to read as follows: “The City Manager is the chief purchasing agent of the City. All purchases on behalf of the City shall be made, and all purchases and contracts shall be let, by the City Manager, provided that the approval of the City Council must be given whenever the amount of such purchase or contract exceeds the amount at which competitive bids are required by law. Except for purchases and contracts made by the City Manager as set forth herein, contracts, bonds and instruments to which the City is a party must be signed by the Mayor and the City Manager on behalf of the City.” Section 5.06. Contracts – How Let. Amend entire section to read as follows: “City contracts must be made in compliance with law. When competitive bids are submitted the contract must be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder. The City Council may reject any and all bids.” Section 5.07. Further Purchase Regulations. Delete this section in its entirety. Chapter 7 – Public Improvements and Special Assessments Section 7.04. Local Governments. Amend title of this section to read as follows: “Local Improvements” Chapter 9 – Franchises Section 9.02. Franchise Ordinances. Amend entire section to read as follows: “The Council may grant franchises by ordinance. Every ordinance granting a franchise shall contain all the terms and conditions of the franchise and shall be adopted in the manner prescribed by Chapter 3 of the Charter, except that no franchise will be granted by emergency ordinance. In addition to the requirements of Chapter 3 of the Charter, no franchise ordinance shall be granted until a public hearing has been held by the City Council. Notice of the public hearing must be published at least once in the City’s official newspaper at least twenty (20) days prior to the public hearing.” Sections 9.03 through 9.09. Delete these sections in their entirety. Chapter 11 – Miscellaneous Provisions Section 11.02. Sale of Real Property. Amend first sentence by adding “or resolution” at the end of the sentence. Amend last sentence by substituting “proceeds” for “process”. Section 11.04. Damage Suits. Amend second sentence by adding, “Section 3.736” immediately after “Minnesota Statute”. Section 11.05. Civil Service Commission. Amend entire section to read as follows: 22 “Subject to Minnesota statutes and the provisions of this Charter, the City Council may establish, alter from time to time, or abolish, by ordinance, a civil service or merit system for all permanent City employees or for such classifications as may be deemed advisable. The City Council may create and appoint a civil service commission to administer and supervise such civil service or merit system.” INDEX Delete the following references: Contracts - Regulations by Ordinance 5.07 Franchises - Arbitration 9.05 - 9.06 Franchises - Change 9.07 Franchises - Contents 9.06 Franchises - Power 9.04 Franchises - Publication, Cost 9.03 Franchises - Rates 9.05 Franchises - Renewal 9.07 - 9.08 Ordinances - Franchise Costs 9.03 Public Property - Damage by Utility 9.06 Regulation - Utilities 9.04 Streets - Utilities, Facilities 9.06 Streets - Utilities Repair 9.06 Utilities - Books Inspected 9.06(5) Utilities - Facilities 9.06 23 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item 7a Meeting of February 20, 2001 7a. The request by CSM Corporation and Rottlund Companies for a minor amendment to the approved Planned Unit Development. Case # 00-15-PUD Recommended Action: Motion to adopt the Resolution granting the minor amendment to the approved PUD, subject to the conditions in the resolution and authorize the execution for the First Amendment to Declaration of Easements. Background: On January 11, 2001, CSM/Rottlund applied for a minor amendment to their approved Planned Unit Development (PUD) for a hotel and townhouse project. The City Council approved the final PUD on June 19, 2000. The PUD permitted the construction of 233 hotel units, 84 townhomes, and a one-acre neighborhood park. The minor amendment is to permit additional fill to be placed on the southerly two townhouse sites in order to raise the lowest opening into the building above the regulatory flood protection elevation. As well, they are requesting a new easement for a private watermain that is being installed along the easterly portion of the neighborhood park. Staff would also like to include an administrative fine in the event the applicant does not comply with the conditions of approval as setforth in the adopted resolution. Although minor amendments do not require public hearings or notice to nearby property owners, staff has contacted the neighborhood president and closest single-family home owner to inform them of the proposal. Issues: • Why is the additional fill necessary and how does the grade change affect the site and surrounding properties? • How does the new watermain easement affect the proposed park area? • Can the City impose an administrative fine if the conditions of approval setforth in the adopted Resolution are not complied with? Analysis of Issues: • Why is the additional fill necessary and how does the grade change affect the site and surrounding properties? The fill is required in order to raise the two southerly townhouse structures to the flood protection elevation, which is 2 feet above the flood plain elevation. The Watershed District and the City’s storm water management plan require that the lowest opening into a building be 24 elevated to this level. The lowest openings into these buildings are the entrances into the underground parking. In order to prevent the flooding of the underground parking areas, additional fill must be brought onto the site to raise the entrances to the flood protection elevation. By doing this, the entire site will be raised the additional 4-6 feet. From the intersection of Alabama Avenue and West 16th Street, the buildings will be approximately 11-12 feet above the street level. Whereas in the previous plan, the buildings were 5-6 feet above the street level. From the intersections of Blackstone Avenue and West 16th Street and Zarthan Avenue and West 16th Street, the building will be about 2-3 feet above the street elevation where the previous plan had the buildings at street level. This additional fill will not have a significant negative impact upon the surrounding properties. It will not be increasing the flooding potential in the area since the project must manage its storm water on site. The only impact to the neighborhood will be visually with the building being elevated as much as 6 feet in some places. Although this is not ideal, since the buildings will be substantially above the street level, it is the only way to reasonably address the flood plain regulation requirements. By City Ordinance, the height of the buildings is not changed since the height is measured either from the curb or grade surrounding the building, whichever is higher. Due to the distance of the townhomes from the single-family residences, the impact should be slight. In order to accommodate the grade changes, a retaining wall and two different sidewalks are being installed. One sidewalk will be along the street to accommodate public circulation to the park and neighborhood, and the other one will be at a higher elevation and behind the retaining wall to accommodate access to the townhouse units. The retaining wall will vary in height from 1-5 feet and will have stairways so that the two different sidewalks are accessible to one another. • How does the new watermain easement affect the proposed park area? The new watermain to be installed will be a private 8 inch line, and will run along the south east side of the new proposed park area. The watermain is to be located along the common property line between the park and townhouse and it will also cut across a small part of the park to where it will then run into the adjacent cul-de-sac. The Park and Recreation Director has reviewed the proposed easement, did not see any issues or concerns with the proposal and therefore has approved the location of the easement. The City Attorney’s office has also reviewed the proposed easement, and with some minor technical corrections believes the easement can be approved. • Can the City impose an administrative fine if the conditions of approval setforth in the adopted Resolution are not complied with? In order to address neighborhood concerns relating to truck/construction traffic and hours of operation, staff raised the questions as to whether an administrative fine could be imposed in the event a condition of approval in an adopted resolution was not complied with. Specifically in this case, there have been issues with construction vehicles using prohibited routes and starting work before the listed times. In the past, staff has had a hard time with after the fact enforcement with issues of this nature. First, staff, or other city official must be present to notice the 25 violation, and second, even if a violation was observed, our methods of enforcement are very limited. One enforcement method is to issue a citation at the time the violation occurred. Again, staff or other city official must be present to verify the violation. This citation is like a normal speeding ticket that a person receives. However, since there is no set fine for violations of this nature, the fine is normally very low, so the ticket does not ensure that the same violation does not occur again. More citations can be written until it is deemed that the next step must be taken. The next step is the filing of a formal complaint which takes months to process. A judge makes the final decision as to what the fine may be. If that same condition is violated again, the second penalty is normally more severe since it is now a violation of a court order. The last method of our current enforcement process is to completely shut a project down, prohibiting continuation of work. In order to streamline this process, and try to gain greater compliance, staff is proposing to administer a larger fine than what would normally be imposed with a regular citation. This fine is to be $750.00, which is consistent with the maximum fine for a misdemeanor. The code already states that any person or company found guilty of violating the Zoning Ordinance is guilty of a misdemeanor. The City Attorney’s office believes that a condition like this can be incorporated into a resolution. However, they mentioned that in the event the fine is not paid, the existing legal process would have to be followed (i.e. formal complaint). Staff believes that by putting a condition of this nature in the resolution, anyone obtaining a CUP or PUD would be aware of the potential for this fine. They will have to sign the assent form by which they state that they agree to the terms of the resolution, including the additional fine in the event there is a violation. Since they formally agreed to the terms, staff believes compliance will be improved. Staff would like to discuss this issue with the Council to determine whether it is appropriate to establish this condition within every resolution that is granted. In this instance, staff does believe it is appropriate, but it may not be the case in all instances. Staff will bring this issue forward at the March 12, City Council Study Session to discuss the merits and possible citywide implications. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the minor amendment to the approved PUD, subject to the conditions in the resolution and to authorize the execution for the First Amendment to Declaration of Easements Attachments: Amended Development Plans Easement Site Plan (on file with City Clerk) Proposed Resolution Prepared by: Scott Moore, Assistant Zoning Administrator, 952-924-2592 Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 26 RESOLUTION NO. 01-015 Amends Resolutions 00-060, 00-075 AND 00-118 A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION 00-118 APPROVED ON SEPTEMBER 18, 2000 APPROVING FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) UNDER SECTION 14:6-7 OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING FOR PROPERTY ZONED “O” OFFICE AND R-4 MILTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOCATED AT NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF WEST 16TH STREET & ZARTHAN AVENUE AND FINAL PLAT – POINTE WEST COMMONS ONE AND TWO WHEREAS, the City Council approved the Preliminary PUD and Preliminary Plat on May 1, 2000 Resolution No. 00-060; and WHEREAS, an application for approval of a Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Final Plat for Pointe West Commons One and Two was received on May 22, 2000 from the applicant, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the Final PUD and Plat at its meeting of June 7, 2000, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Final PUD and Plat on a 4-0 vote with all members present voting in the affirmative, and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 00-075 on June 19, 2000 approving the Final PUD and Final Plat – Pointe West Commons One and Two, and WHEREAS, on August 7, 2000 an application was received for an amendment to the preliminary and final plat for Pointe West Commons One and Two and a major amendment to the approved Planned Unit Development, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, reviewed the amendments at its meeting of September 6, 2000 and recommended approval of amendments on a vote of 6-0 with all members present voting in the affirmative, and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 00-118 on September 18, 2000 approving an amendment to the preliminary and final plat for Pointe West Commons One and Two and a major amendment to the approved Planned Unit Development, and WHEREAS, on January 11, 2001 an application was received for a minor amendment to the approved Planned Unit Development to increase the setbacks and elevations of two townhome buildings on 16th Street, and 27 WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the staff reports, Planning Commission minutes and testimony of those appearing at the public hearing or otherwise including comments in the record of decision. BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park: Findings 1. CSM Hospitality, Inc. and Rottlund Companies have made application to the City Council for a Planned Unit Development under Section 14:6-7 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code within the “O” Office and R-4 Multiple Family Residential districts located at the Northwest quadrant of West 16th Street and Zarthan Avenue: and CSM Hospitality, Inc. and Rottlund Companies, owners and subdividers of the land proposed to be platted as Pointe West Commons One and Two have submitted an application for approval of final plat of said subdivision in the manner required for platting of land under the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, and all proceedings have been duly had thereunder; for the legal description as follows, to-wit: See Attached Legal Description 2. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission (Case Nos. 00-14-S and 00-15-PUD) and the effect of the proposed PUD and Plat on the health, safety and welfare of the occupants of the surrounding lands, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect on values of properties in the surrounding area, the effect of the use on the Comprehensive Plan, and compliance with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. The City Council has determined that the PUD and Plat 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 and Plat is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan and that the requested modifications comply with the requirements of Section 14:6-7.2(E). 4. The contents of Planning Case Files 00-14-S and 00-15-PUD are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case. Conclusion The Final Planned Unit Development and Final Plat at the location described are approved based on the findings set forth above and subject to the following conditions: A. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with the Official Exhibits A through M. Exhibit L, building elevations shall be revised to show only approved materials, i.e. brick, glass, Hardiplank and rock face block, rather than vinyl on the fronts of the 28 townhouses and brick and rock face block on side townhouse elevations. Exhibit E, grading plan shall be subject to further refinements on the park site as approved by Public Works and Park and Rec Directors. Exhibit G, tree replacement plan to be revised to reflect correct number of existing trees on site and trees to be removed. Exhibit M, building material samples shall be submitted and approved. Exhibits B and E are replaced by revised plat and plans per the approved plat and PUD amendments on September 18, 2000. Exhibits E and F are replaced by revised grading and utility plans as approved on February 20, 2001 B. Final plat and PUD approval and development is contingent upon developer meeting all conditions of final approval including all MNDOT requirements. C. Before a final plat is signed by the City, the developer shall comply with the following requirements: 1. Building elevations to be revised as stated above. 2. Submit to the City a copy of owner’s policy of title insurance which insures the City’s interest in the plat, in an amount to be determined by the City. 3. A development agreement shall be executed or amended between the developer and the City/EDA which covers at a minimum, dedication of Outlot A, Pointe West Commons Two, as City park land, grading of the park, cash in-lieu of additional park and trail dedication, realignment of Zarthan Avenue and installation of a traffic signal at 16th Street and Zarthan Avenue, conditions under which site work may occur and/or building permits be issued for hotels and townhouse site, sidewalk construction and maintenance, tree replacement, and repair and cleaning of public streets. The development agreement shall also cite the approved ordinance modifications. 4. Submit financial security in the form of cash escrow or letter of credit in the amount of 125% of the costs of on-site tree replacement, public sidewalk installation, utility repair, and repair/cleaning of public streets. 5. Execute formal agreement with City to allow park patrons to share on-site guest parking for townhomes. 6. Submit cross-easement agreement(s) for shared parking between the two hotels and the townhomes, to be approved by City attorney. 7. Submit townhouse association by-laws and covenant documents, to be approved by the City attorney. 8. Submit cash in lieu of on-site tree replacement to the City. The exact amount shall be determined by the number of off-site tree replacement inches required and shall be approved by the Park and Recreation Director and the Community Development Director, based upon a rate of $60 per caliper inch. 9. Submit cash reimbursement of City attorney’s fees in drafting/reviewing such documents. 10. Submit cash park and trail dedication fee of $13,040.67. D. Within 90 days of final plat approval by the City Council, the subdivider shall record the final plat and easements with the County Recorder. The subdivider shall, immediately upon recording, furnish the City Clerk with a print and reproducible tracing of the final plat and copies of easement documents showing evidence of the recording. The subdivider shall also provide a copy of the final plat on disc in an electronic data format. E. Prior to any site work, the developer and property owner(s) shall meet the following requirements: 29 1. A drainage permit shall be obtained from MNDOT, if required. 2. A copy of the Watershed District permit(s) shall be forwarded to the City. 3. Any other necessary permits from other agencies shall be obtained. 4. Sign assent form and all official exhibits, as approved by the City. 5. Meet conditions of City signing final plat. 6. Meet any other conditions as required by the Development Agreement. F. The developer shall comply with the following conditions during construction: 1. Construction vehicles shall be prohibited from using Zarthan Avenue south of W. 16th Street, Alabama Avenue, and Blackstone Avenue. 2. All City noise ordinances shall be complied with, including that there be no construction activity between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. 3. Loud equipment shall be kept as far as possible from residences at all times. 4. The site shall be kept free of dust and debris that could blow onto neighboring properties. 5. Public streets shall be maintained free of dirt and shall be cleaned as necessary. 6. The Zoning Administrator may impose additional conditions if it becomes necessary in order to mitigate the impact of construction on surrounding properties. G. Prior to issuance of any building permits, which may impose additional requirements, the developer shall comply with the following: 1. Meet any Fire Department emergency access requirements for during construction. 2. The subdivider shall furnish the City with evidence of having submitted the final plat and cross-parking easement agreement for recording. 3. Lighting plans to be submitted to and approved by the Zoning Administrator for the entire development. Lighting design is to be compatible throughout the development, and shall meet all City standards. 4. Signage plans to be submitted and approved by the Zoning Administrator (a sign permit is required). 5. Meet any other conditions as required by the Development Agreement. H. A maximum of three 16-unit townhouse buildings may obtain Certificates of Occupancy, provided other conditions are met, prior to the completion of the Zarthan Avenue realignment and the traffic signal becoming operational at Zarthan Avenue and 16th Street. Residents’ access to said townhomes shall be via 16th Street until the realignment of Zarthan Avenue is complete unless flag people are directing traffic on Zarthan Avenue. (amended September 18, 2000) I. A PUD ordinance modification to allow 465 parking stalls rather than the required 466 stalls and building and sign setbacks as shown on the approved site plan are contingent upon final PUD approval. J. 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. K. The developer shall attempt to obtain a written agreement to share parking during off-peak hours with the bank across Zarthan Avenue as overflow parking for the hotels. L. Hardiplank is approved for this development on a trial basis as a Class II material and may be used as shown on the Official Exhibits. M. The Preliminary and Final Plat for Pointe West Commons One and Two and the Final Planned Unit Development shall be amended on September 18, 2000 to incorporate all of the preceding conditions and add the following conditions: 30 1. Conditions A and H are modified as noted above. 2. If the CP Rail parcel does not become part of the publicly owned park, the developer shall pay an additional $28,000 in park dedication fees to the City. 3. Construction vehicles shall be prohibited from using 16th Street except for construction related to the park, 16th Street roadway improvements and other improvements adjacent to 16th St (e.g. sidewalks). The developer shall observe all local and state weight restrictions on roads within the City. Construction vehicles shall be permitted to use the townhouse entrance on Zarthan Avenue, provided signage is placed on northbound and southbound Zarthan Avenue and westbound 16th Street in accordance with the MN Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, to be approved by the Public Works Department. If the City determines that construction activity is causing traffic conflicts, it may require the developer to provide flag people to facilitate safe traffic on the adjacent roads. 4. If the property is part of the Parade of Homes prior to realignment of Zarthan Avenue, flag people shall be required to direct Parade traffic to and from the Zarthan Avenue entrance, and Parade traffic shall be prohibited from using 16th Street. If Parade parking cannot be accommodated on site, or is interfering with fire lanes, traffic circulation, etc., the Zoning Administrator may require the developer to provide alternative parking on nearby private property. N. The Preliminary and Final Plat for Pointe West Commons One and Two and the Final Planned Unit Development shall be amended on February 20, 2001 to incorporate all of the preceding conditions and add the following conditions: 1. Condition A is modified as noted above. 2. The materials for the retaining walls being constructed along West 16th Street shall be similar to the materials used on adjacent retaining walls along West 16th Street east of Zarthan Avenue. These materials shall be submitted and approved by the Zoning Administrator prior to the construction of the walls. O. The developer shall pay an administrative fine of $750.00 per violation of any conditions set forth in this resolution. The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this resolution in the Office of the Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council February 20, 2001 City Manager Mayor Attest: 00-14-S-00-15-PUD-AMEND2/N/res/ord City Clerk 31 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 7b Meeting of February 20, 2001 7b. Proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to add land use definitions for Liquor Licenses and update the Land Use Table. Case No. 00-62-ZA Recommended Action: Motion to approve 1st reading of staff’s proposed text amendment adding land use definitions for liquor licenses and updating the Land Use table and set second reading for the March 5, 2001 City Council meeting. Background: On February 7, 2001 The Planning Commission considered a text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to define and distinguish between restaurants and other uses with a full liquor license and restaurants with a wine and beer license. Staff noted that the Land Use Table (Section 14:5- 2.1, Table 5-2.1A) should also be updated to reflect the new language. The Commission recommended approval of the proposed amendment with a vote of 5-0. The City Council approved first reading of an ordinance amendment on February 5, 2001 establishing where the two differing uses can be located, and what the appropriate conditions of approval are for each. The second reading of the ordinance is also being considered at tonight’s Council meeting and is on the consent agenda. Since the two separate land uses are listed within the Zoning Ordinance, staff believes that the two new land use classifications should be defined in the ordinance as well. Issues: • What are the proposed definitions? • Are the definitions compatible with other amendments being considered and the City’s liquor license ordinance? • How will the Land Use Table be updated? Issues Analysis: What are the proposed definitions? Staff is proposing that the following definitions be added to the land use definitions: SECTION 14:3-1 DEFINITIONS Intoxicating liquor license (On-sale): An on-sale liquor license issued by the City Council which permits sale and consumption on the licensed premises of all types of legal liquor including spirits, wine, and malt liquor. 32 Wine and/or beer license (On-sale): An on-sale liquor license issued by the City Council which permits the sale and consumption on the licensed premises, of wine not exceeding 14% alcohol by volume; and/or 3.2 percent malt liquor; and/or intoxicating malt liquor. Are the proposed terms and definitions consistent with the other amendments being considered and the City’s liquor license ordinance? Per the Planning Commission’s comments on January 3, 2001 regarding some discomfort with the term “nonintoxicating liquor license” to describe a wine and beer license, staff examined the City’s liquor license ordinance further and changed the proposed terms to “intoxicating liquor license” and “wine and/or beer license.” The liquor license ordinance basically issues three types of on-sale liquor licenses: 1) a full liquor license which is referred to as an “intoxicating liquor license”; 2) a wine and beer license, which allows the sale and consumption of wine up to 14% alcohol by volume and “intoxicating” malt liquor or beer; and 3) a liquor license for 3.2% malt liquor or beer. [However, there are currently no separate on-sale 3.2 beer licenses issued in the City.] The term “intoxicating liquor license” is intended to coincide with the full on-sale liquor license, and the term “wine and/or beer license” is intended to include a wine and beer license and/or a 3.2 malt liquor license. Staff believes that these terms are most consistent with the liquor license ordinance, and the proposed amendment has been changed to include these terms. • How will the Land Use Table be updated? Table 5-2.1A is proposed to be updated to include the new language regarding restaurants and similar uses with intoxicating liquor licenses and restaurants and similar uses without an intoxicating liquor license. The updated table will show that the restaurants, clubs and lodges, and private entertainment (indoor) without an intoxicating liquor license are permitted with conditions in the C-1, C-2, and O Districts, and require a PUD in the M-X District. The updated table will also show that restaurants, clubs and lodges, and private entertainment (indoor) with the intoxicating liquor license are not permitted in the C-1 District, require a CUP in the C-2 and O Districts, and require a PUD in the M-X District. Recommendation: Staff and the Planning Commission are recommending approval of the Zoning Ordinance text amendment to add land use definitions for liquor licenses and update the Land Use Table as proposed in the attached ordinance. Attachments: Proposed Ordinance (includes revised Land Use Table) Prepared by: Scott Moore, Assistant Zoning Administrator, 952-924-2592 Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 33 ORDINANCE NO.______ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING BY AMENDING SECTION 14:3-1 and TABLE 5-2.1A IN SECTION 14:5-2.1 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. 00-62-ZA) Sec. 2. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Section 14:3-1 and Table 5-2.1A in Section 14:5-2.1 are hereby amended to add the following: SECTION 14:3-1 DEFINITIONS Intoxicating liquor license (On-sale): An on-sale liquor license issued by the City Council which permits sale and consumption on the licenses premises of all types of legal liquor including spirits, wine, and malt liquor. Wine and/or beer license (On-sale): An on-sale liquor license issued by the City Council which permits the sale and consumption on the licensed premises, of wine not exceeding 14% alcohol by volume; and/or 3.2 percent malt liquor; and/or intoxicating malt liquor. TABLE 5-2.1A COMMERCIAL USES Restaurants w/o Intoxicating Liquor License R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-C C-1 C-2 O I-P I-G M-X N N N N N PC PC PC N N PUD Clubs and Lodges w/o Intoxicating Liquor License R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-C C-1 C-2 O I-P I-G M-X N N N N N PC PC PC N N PUD 34 Private Entertainment (indoor) w/o Intoxicating Liquor License R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-C C-1 C-2 O I-P I-G M-X N N N N N PC PC PC N N PUD Restaurants with Intoxicating Liquor License R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-C C-1 C-2 O I-P I-G M-X N N N N N N CUP CUP N N PUD Clubs and Lodges with Intoxicating Liquor License R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-C C-1 C-2 O I-P I-G M-X N N N N N N CUP CUP N N PUD Private Entertainment (indoor) with Intoxicating Liquor License R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-C C-1 C-2 O I-P I-G M-X N N N N N N CUP CUP N N PUD Sec. 3. The contents of Planning Case File 00-62-ZA are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case. Sec.4. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication. Adopted by the City Council March 5, 2001 Reviewed for Administration City Manager Mayor Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution: City Clerk City Attorney 00-62-definitions/N/res/ord 35 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 7c Meeting of February 20, 2001 7c. Consideration of a citizen petition requesting an Environmental Assessment Worksheet prior to continuing deer removal in the City. Sam Abelson of 4340 Cedarwood Road in St. Louis Park has submitted a petition on behalf of a group of citizens to the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board requesting completion of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet prior to the removal of deer from the lake Forest and Fern Hill Neighborhoods. Recommended Action: Motion to adopt a resolution determining not to order the preparation of an Environment Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the proposed implementation of the deer management plan in the Lake Forest and Fern Hill neighborhoods. Background: The Environmental Quality Board (EQB) has received a petition submitted by Sam Abelson of 4340 Cedarwood Rd in St. Louis Park, on behalf of a group of citizens who are requesting that an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) be completed prior to continuing with the deer removal program. The EQB has determined that the City of St. Louis Park is the appropriate governmental unit to decide the need for an EAW. Staff has evaluated the issues brought forth in the petition and has solicited input from the following sources: • Department of Natural Resources - Kathy DonCarlos, Urban Wildlife Manager Reviewed in terms of impact on wildlife, wildlife impact on environment, DNR practices and recommendations • Minnehaha Creek Watershed District - Eric Evanson, District Administrator Reviewed in terms of wetland restoration and management, impact of wildlife on environment, MCWD position • SLP Parks and Recreation Dept - Jim Vaughan, Manager of Grounds and Natural Resources Reviewed in terms of wildlife management, impacts of wildlife on environment, impact of deer removal on wetland and impact of deer overbrowsing on urban environment, impact of noise on neighborhood and animals • SLP Police Department - Lt. Kirk Dilorenzo Reviewed in terms of safety, procedures to be used, noise considerations, disruption to neighborhood 36 • SLP Westwood Nature Center - Mark Oestreich, Naturalist/Manager Reviewed in terms of wildlife management, impacts of wildlife on environment, impact of deer removal on wetland and impact of deer overbrowsing on urban environment, impact of noise on neighborhood and animals, impact of loss of does on fawns, rise in deer population • SLP Public Works Department - Mike Rardin, Director of Public Works Reviewed in terms of impact on wetland restoration All parties have stated that they believe removal of deer in these areas will have no negative impacts on the environment. Each agency/staff member has further determined that failure to effectively manage the deer population in the area will result in significant damage to the environment. A resolution stating that preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet is not warranted for deer removal in the City has been prepared for Council consideration. Attachment: Resolution Electronic Corres from L. Eric Evenson, MCWD District Administrator Electronic Corres from Jim Vaughan, Mgr Grounds and Nat Resources 37 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION DETERMINING NOT TO ORDER THE PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENT ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW) FOR THE PROPOSED IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CITY’S DEER MANAGEMENT PLAN IN LAKE FOREST AND FERN HILL NEIGHBORHOODS RECITALS • The City of St. Louis Park (City) received notice on February 20, 2001 that a petition had been filed with the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) requesting that the City be required to prepare an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) regarding the proposed implementation of the St. Louis Park Deer Management Plan in the Lake Forest and Fern Hill neighborhoods. A copy of the petition was received by the City on February 20, 2001. • The EQB has determined that the City is the appropriate responsible governmental unit (RGU) to decide the need for an EAW. • The procedures to be followed in making the determination of whether an EAW is needed are set forth in Minnesota Rules Part 4410.1100. • These rules provide that the RGU shall order the preparation of an EAW “if the evidence presented by the petitioners, proposers, and other persons or otherwise known to the RGU demonstrates that, because of the nature or location of the proposed project, the project may have the potential for significant environmental effects,” (Minnesota Rules Part 4410.1100, Subpart 6). • The City is charged with protection of the health, welfare and safety of its citizens, including assisting these citizens in the protection and preservation of their property and managing the wildlife population within the City in a safe and humane manner. • The City in carrying out its responsibilities and in responding to citizen complaints and concerns has studied the issues surrounding the deer population in and around the Lake Forest and Fern Hill neighborhoods and other areas of the city through a task force composed of community members, and the City prepared a report of the task forces’ deliberations, findings and resulting staff recommendations dated February 7, 1994 adopted by City Council Resolution No. 94-22. • On February 3, 1997, the City Council adopted Resolution 93-13 updating its February 7, 1994 Deer Management Program, and further resolving as follows: 38 AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of St. Louis Park has determined that the use of DNR-approved methods for the removal of deer from private property in conformance with the City’s revised Deer Management Program will benefit the public health, safety and welfare and does hereby rescind Resolution Number 94-155, thereby lifting the moratorium on requests for the removal of deer from private property within City limits. • The City Council has considered the issues raised in the February 20, 2001 EAW petition in light of the City’s Deer Management Program and its supporting data, the City staff report dated February 20, 2001 and all other information known to the Council. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The proposed project is as follows: The City of St. Louis Park intends to remove 6 deer in the Lake Forest/Fern Hill neighborhoods and 6 deer near the Westwood Nature Center. Traps will be set on public property during evening hours between February 15 and March 15. Before dawn a police officer and supervising lieutenant will visit the site and if an animal is trapped, a tarp will be placed over the trap and the animal will be dispatched. All clean-up will be done at that time. The EAW petition relates only to the Lake Forest/Fern Hill neighborhoods. 2. Deer removal generally in the Lake Forest and Fern Hill neighborhoods. A reduction of the deer population by up to six deer does not have the potential for significant environmental effects. The City of St. Louis Park has done significant research in the area of deer management. Prior to adopting the Deer Management Policy the city worked closely with the DNR, wildlife managers and environmentalists. Also prior to implementation of the removal program the City enlisted the help of a citizen Task Force to study the issue and make recommendations to the Council. City staff has continued to maintain a close working relationship with the DNR. Deer counts are conducted annually and communicated to the City. On-going deer management activities have occurred since plan adoption in 1994. City staff stays current with issues surrounding wildlife management in urban areas and practices currently in use throughout the metropolitan area. The deer management activities conducted by the City since 1994 have resulted in partial restoration of the understory of the wooded areas of the Nature Center. The City policy of maintaining herd size in the range of 15-25 deer per square mile was developed in consultation with the Department of Natural Resources and is being applied in the same manner in the Lake Forest and Fern Hill neighborhoods. The expectation is that there should be a comparable benefit to vegetative species. The plan to remove 6 deer would leave the herd at the high end of the range of the policy. Mortality from human causes is an every day occurrence in urban areas mainly due to deer/car accidents. Other losses regularly occur due to weather and sickness. Fawns are generally 39 capable of fending for themselves and are adaptable. In areas with suitable habitat fawns are regularly bred and give birth during their first year of life. Though fawns and does travel in pairs for extended periods of time, a weaned fawn is no longer dependent on its mother. The increasing deer population has caused significant overbrowsing and depletion of plant material. Severe overbrowsing will result in non-native species such as buckthorn and stinging nettle taking hold in the remaining wetland and natural areas. These species are not suitable forage for deer and other native animals will result in loss of suitable habitat for the existing deer population. 3. Claimed impact on wetland area from trapping process. The physical presence of the trap and the personnel accessing the traps does not have the potential for significant environmental impact on the wetland restoration area. Due to heavy snow cover combined with deep frost (over 20 inches), the damage that would occur to any perennial plant material (non-woody species) would be nominal at worst. Currently, all “ground vegetation” plants are in a state of dormancy, with their rooting structures intact under the snow cover, with few plants exhibiting viable foliage (most plants produce new foliage each year, which is the food producing foliage for the plant). The plantings which were installed, as part of the Clean Water Partnership project, were placed around the perimeters of Twin Lakes, the new pond to the south of Twin Lakes (in Twin Lakes Park) and Cedar Meadows. No plant material, as part of the Partnership project, was placed in the wooded areas, or other wetland areas within the scope of this project. Thus, no damage will occur to the “new” desirable plants surrounding the three, above-mentioned water bodies. Most of the wooded plant material found in the area of deer concern is made up of invasive exotic species, creating a climate for little plant and animal diversity. In fact, diversifying what currently exists in the area would enhance the flora and fauna. The current deer herd is overbrowsing desirable plant material, leaving less desirable (exotic invasive) plant material in abundance. Small twigs and branches are more likely to be injured by deer browsing than by passing personnel maintaining the traps and removing deer. The Minnehaha Creek Watershed Management District has discussed the request for an EAW and related concerns. They have stated that foot traffic in connection with trapping and shooting deer, or removal of the deer will have no negative impact on the wetland vegetation as long as the traps are installed and removed while the ground is frozen. They further stated that by removing the deer, the city may prevent damage to the wetland plantings caused by the deer themselves. 4. Trap and Shoot Method. The degree of stress inflicted upon a trapped deer in this context does not give rise to any issue involving the potential for significant environmental effects. The position of the DNR is that the trap and shoot method of deer removal is the only effective deer management option in smaller, confined areas where safety is of paramount concern. Many 40 other metropolitan municipalities such as North Oaks, Richfield, Minnetonka and Edina use this as their preferred method of deer removal. According to the NARS (Nuisance Animal Removal Service), it is possible but unlikely that a trapped deer would suffer from capture myopathy. Based on NARS experience, after the initial agitation of being trapped, the animal calms down, eats the bait corn and lies down. This method also removes the deer that are actually in the immediate area. The trap and relocate option is not acceptable because there is an average mortality rate of over 70% for relocated animals, and the DNR will not issue permits for relocation. Use of a sharpshooter is not a viable option either. All of the neighborhood areas have open access to the public. It would be difficult; if not impossible to set up a sharpshooting area that would be completely and safely sealed from the public. There are additional public safety concerns with potential bullet ricochets or over-penetration. 4. Gunshot Noise. The project does not have any potential for significant environmental effects relating to noise. The animals living in the area where removal is to take place currently exist with man-made noises of various nature and are not likely to be frightened from their habitat. Neighborhoods will experience little if any disruption and will continue to remain peaceful and quiet. Within the past year, City crews have been in the area cutting up and cleaning debris blocking the creek that directly feeds into Cedar Meadows. In dealing with this debris, chainsaws and other loud and potentially disruptive equipment has been used. It is not uncommon to hear Benilde/St. Margaret athletic events. Also, vehicles and construction equipment are quite commonly heard by wildlife causing no disruption to their activities. The weapons and ammunition to be used generate less noise than a firecracker, or an automobile engine backfire. Additionally, the hours when the activity will occur are before the hours that the majority of the public is outside. Also, because of the winter season, windows are shut and outside noise is significantly reduced. Currently, when a deer is injured and police are called, the animal is dispatched by a standard weapon and ammunition. This is much louder than the weapon and ammunition that will be used during the trapping. There has been no flurry of animal activity when an injured deer has been dispatched in the past, and there is no reason to believe that this should occur when the shooting is done at the trap locations. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK: 1. The evidence presented in the petition or otherwise known to the Council, fails to demonstrate that the project may have the potential for significant environmental effects. 2. An Environmental Assessment Worksheet is not required and will not be prepared for the implementation of the City’s Deer Management Project for the Lake Forest and Fern Hill area. The petition for an EAW for the proposed project is dismissed. ADOPTED this _____ day of ________________, 2001. 41 Reviewed for Administration: City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk 42 CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 20, 2001 ITEMS TO BE ACTED UPON BY CONSENT Consent items are those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion. 1. Motion to adopt second reading of an ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance to change the zoning requirements for restaurants and other uses with wine and beer licenses, approve summary ordinance, and authorize publication. Case No. 00-62-ZA 2. Motion to adopt the attached resolution authorizing restricting parking in front of the easterly half of 7515 Wayzata Boulevard and limiting parking to one (1) hour along the westerly half of 7515 Wayzata Boulevard -Traffic Study 555 3. Motion to adopt the attached resolution authorizing staff to implement the terms of a reciprocal arrangement with Hopkins on a one-year trial basis for joint use of the Skate Park in Hopkins and the Family Aquatic Park in St. Louis Park 4. Motion to authorize Mayor and City Manager to renew a one-year contract with West Suburban Mediation Center for mediation, conciliation, information and referral, and public education services. 5. Motion to approve final payment to E I M, EVP Signal System for the amount of $6,963.40 --Contract #00-08 6. Motion to accept the following reports for filing a. Charter Commission Minutes of November 8, 2000 b. Planning Commission Minutes of January 2, 2001 c. Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes of January 10, 2001 d. Housing Authority Minutes of January 10, 2001 43 CONSENT ITEM # 1 St. Louis Park City Council Meeting of February 20, 2001 1. Motion to adopt second reading of an ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance to change the zoning requirements for restaurants and other uses with wine and beer licenses, approve summary ordinance, and authorize publication. Case No. 00-62-ZA Background: On February 5, 2001, the City Council passed first reading of the proposed ordinance amendments but had some comments and concerns regarding, hours of operation, the definition of weekday and weekend, and setback requirements for uses with the wine and beer license. There was an oversight of the previous staff report in that the language for these proposed changes were not incorporated into the “C-1” Neighborhood Commercial District. The staff report did indicated that the changes were to be included within the “C-1” District, but the proposed ordinance did not reflect these amendments. Issues: • What is the definition of weekday and weekend and how does that affect the hours of operation? • Should the hours of operation be restricted for uses with a wine and/or beer license versus the intoxicating liquor license? • What are the changes in the “C-1” Neighborhood Commercial District? Issues Analysis: • What is the definition of weekday and weekend and how does that affect the hours of operation? A typical weekday definition is Monday through Friday and weekends are Saturday and Sunday. However, the City has a policy for enforcing the noise ordinance and for conditions of approval relating to hours of operation that is slightly different. To clarify, the weekday definition is from Sunday evenings through Friday afternoons, and weekends include Friday evenings to Sunday afternoons. This restricts late night hours on Sunday evenings, but allows the same business to be open or operate later on Friday evenings. So a business with a wine and/or beer license could be open until 11:00 p.m. on Friday, but would have to close by 10:00 p.m. on Sunday. 44 • Should there be a difference in the setback requirements from residential properties and limited hours of operation for uses with a wine and/or beer license versus the intoxicating liquor license? Staff has indicated what concerns there may be for a use with an intoxicating liquor license. They include late hours of operation, noise, and excess traffic. Due to the impacts, there is a minimum 100-foot setback requirement from residential. Staff does not believe that most of these negative impacts would be produced from a site having a business with a wine and/or beer license since a separate bar area is not permitted in an establishment having that type of liquor license. Not having a separate bar area will reduce the amount of traffic and associated noise since the wine and/or beer license is being proposed for restaurants that would like to serve wine and beer with a meal. Therefore, staff does not believe that the more stringent setback requirements should apply to an establishment having a wine and/or beer license. Since the establishment would be allowed to locate close to residential, staff has proposed limited hours of operation to eliminate late night impacts. With the way the proposed code is written, an establishment having a wine and/or beer license would be required to cease all operations pertaining to the business by 10:00 p.m. on weekdays and by 11:00 p.m. on weekends. Staff believes that it would be very hard to enforce the issue of requiring the business with the wine and/or beer license to stop serving alcohol at the designated times, while allowing the rest of the business to operate until later hours. Staff does not anticipate significant negative impacts on surrounding properties or additional enforcement issues for the business if the Council determines it is appropriate for this condition of approval to be eliminated from the proposed code amendment. • What are the changes in the “C-1” Neighborhood Commercial District? It was always the intent to incorporate the proposed changes in the “C-1” District. The proposed ordinance amendments would allow restaurants, clubs and lodges, and private entertainment (indoor) without an intoxicating liquor license as a use permitted with conditions. The conditions of approval would be identical to the conditions listed for the same use permitted with conditions in the “C-2” District. Those conditions pertain to access onto the site, building setbacks relative to residentially used parcels, bufferyard requirements, and if a wine and/or beer license is applied for, hours of operation and the restriction for no separate bar. The “C-1” District does not allow an intoxicating liquor license to be issued for any land use within the district, so the ability to apply for a Conditional Use Permit would not be included as a condition of approval in the “C-1” District. Attachments: Proposed Ordinance Proposed Summary Ordinance Prepared by: Scott Moore, Assistant Zoning Administrator, 952-925-2592 Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 45 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING BY AMENDING SECTIONS 14:5-5.2, 14:5-5.3, 14:5-6.2 & 14:6-1.3 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. 00-62-ZA) Sec. 2. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Sections 14:5-5.2, 14:5-5.3, 14:5-6.2 & 14:6- 1.3 are hereby amended to read as follows: SECTION 5-5.2 “C-1” NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICT C. USES PERMITTED WITH CONDITIONS 11. CLUBS AND LODGES WITHOUT INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE Conditions: a. Access shall be to a roadway identified in the Comprehensive Plan as a collector or arterial or shall be otherwise located so that access can be provided without generating significant traffic on local residential streets. b. Buildings shall be located a minimum of 25 feet from any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential or has an occupied institutional building including but not limited to a school, religious institution or community center. c. A Bufferyard “E” shall be installed and maintained along all property lines which abut property in an “R” Use District. This bufferyard shall at a minimum include a berm “B2” or fence F5 as illustrated under Section 14:6-4. d. If there is a wine and/or beer license, the following additional conditions shall apply: 1) Hours of operation shall be limited to 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. on weekdays and 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. on weekends. 2) There shall be no separate bar area within the club or lodge. 16. PRIVATE ENTERTAINMENT (INDOOR) WITHOUT INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE Conditions: a. The structure in which the use is conducted shall be located a minimum of 60 feet from any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for 46 residential or has an occupied institutional building including but not limited to a school, religious institution or community center. b. A Bufferyard “F” shall be provided along all property located within an “R” Use District. This bufferyard shall include a wall “F6” or berm wall “BW4” as illustrated under Section 14:6-4. c. If there is a wine and/or beer license, the following additional conditions shall apply: 1) Hours of operation shall be limited to 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. on weekdays and 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. on weekends. 2) There shall be no separate bar area within the establishment. 18. RESTAURANTS WITHOUT INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE Conditions: a. Access shall be to a roadway identified in the Comprehensive Plan as a collector or arterial or shall be otherwise located so that access can be provided without generating significant traffic on local residential streets. b. Buildings shall be located a minimum of 25 feet from any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential or has an occupied institutional building including but not limited to a school, religious institution or community center. c. A Bufferyard “E” shall be installed and maintained along all property lines which abut property in an “R” Use District. This bufferyard shall at a minimum include a berm “B2” or fence “F5”. d. If there is a wine and/or beer liquor license, the following additional conditions shall apply: 1) Hours of operation shall be limited to 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. on weekdays and 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. on weekends. 2) There shall be no separate bar area within the restaurant. SECTION 5-5.3 “C-2” COMMERCIAL DISTRICT C. USES PERMITTED WITH CONDITIONS 9. CLUBS AND LODGES WITHOUT INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE Conditions: a. Access shall be to a roadway identified in the Comprehensive Plan as a collector or arterial or shall be otherwise located so that access can be provided without generating significant traffic on local residential streets. b. Buildings shall be located a minimum of 25 feet from any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential or has an occupied institutional building including but not limited to a school, religious institution or community center. c. A Bufferyard “E” shall be installed and maintained along all property lines which abut property in an “R” Use District. This bufferyard shall at a 47 minimum include a berm “B2” or fence F5 as illustrated under Section 14:6-4. d. If there is a wine and/or beer license, the following additional conditions shall apply: 1) Hours of operation shall be limited to 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. on weekdays and 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. on weekends. 2) There shall be no separate bar area within the club or lodge. 3) If the above conditions are not met, a club or lodge with a wine and/or beer license may apply for a Conditional Use Permit under Section 14:5-5.3D5. 17. PRIVATE ENTERTAINMENT (INDOOR) WITHOUT INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE Conditions: a. The structure in which the use is conducted shall be located a minimum of 60 feet from any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential or has an occupied institutional building including but not limited to a school, religious institution or community center. b. A Bufferyard “F” shall be provided along all property located within an “R” Use District. This bufferyard shall include a wall “F6” or berm wall “BW4” as illustrated under Section 14:6-4. c. If there is a wine and/or beer license, the following additional conditions shall apply: 1) Hours of operation shall be limited to 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. on weekdays and 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. on weekends. 2) There shall be no separate bar area within the establishment. 3) If the above conditions are not met, private indoor entertainment with a wine and/or beer license may apply for a Conditional Use Permit under Section 14:5-5.3D9. 18. RESTAURANTS WITHOUT INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE Conditions: a. Access shall be to a roadway identified in the Comprehensive Plan as a collector or arterial or shall be otherwise located so that access can be provided without generating significant traffic on local residential streets. b. Buildings shall be located a minimum of 25 feet from any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential or has an occupied institutional building including but not limited to a school, religious institution or community center. c. A Bufferyard “E” shall be installed and maintained along all property lines which abut property in an “R” Use District. This bufferyard shall at a minimum include a berm “B2” or fence “F5”. d. If there is a wine and/or beer liquor license, the following additional conditions shall apply: 48 1) Hours of operation shall be limited to 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. on weekdays and 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. on weekends. 2) There shall be no separate bar area within the restaurant. 3) If the above conditions are not met, a restaurant with a wine and/or beer license may apply for a Conditional Use Permit under Section 14:5-5.3D4, provided that the parking requirements for restaurant with intoxicating liquor license are met. D. USES PERMITTED BY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 4. RESTAURANTS WITH INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE Conditions a. Access shall be to a roadway identified in the Comprehensive Plan as a collector or arterial or shall be otherwise located so that access can be provided without generating significant traffic on local residential streets. b. Buildings shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential or has an occupied institutional building including but not limited to a school, religious institution or community center. c. Separate pedestrian ways shall be constructed to allow for the separation of pedestrian and vehicular movements within the parking lot. d. A bufferyard “F” shall be installed and maintained along abutting property in a “R” Use District. 5. CLUBS AND LODGES WITH INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE Conditions: a. Access shall be to a roadway identified in the Comprehensive Plan as a collector or arterial or shall be otherwise located so that access can be provided without generating significant traffic on local residential streets. b. Buildings shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential or has an occupied institutional building including but not limited to a school, religious institution or community center. c. Separate pedestrian ways shall be constructed to allow for the separation of pedestrian and vehicular movements within the parking lot. d. A bufferyard “F” shall be installed and maintained along any abutting property in a “R” Use District. 9. PRIVATE ENTERTAINMENT (INDOOR) WITH INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE Conditions: 49 a. Access shall be to a roadway identified in the Comprehensive Plan as a collector or arterial or shall be otherwise located so that access can be provided without generating significant traffic on local residential streets. b. Buildings shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential or has an occupied institutional building including but not limited to a school, religious institution or community center. c. Separate pedestrian ways shall be constructed to allow for the separation of pedestrian and vehicular movements within the parking lot. d. A bufferyard “F” shall be installed and maintained along any abutting property in a “R” Use District. SECTION 14:5-6.2 “O” OFFICE DISTRICT C. USES PERMITTED WITH CONDITIONS 9. CLUBS AND LODGES WITHOUT INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE Conditions: a. Access shall be to a roadway identified in the Comprehensive Plan as a collector or arterial or shall be otherwise located so that access can be provided without generating significant traffic on local residential streets. b. Buildings shall be located a minimum of 25 feet from any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential or has an occupied institutional building including but not limited to a school, religious institution or community center. c. A Bufferyard “E” shall be installed and maintained along all property lines which abut property in an “R” Use District. This bufferyard shall at a minimum include a berm “B2” or fence F5. d. If there is a wine and/or beer license, the following additional conditions shall apply: 1) Hours of operation shall be limited to 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. on weekdays and 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. on weekends. 2) There shall be no separate bar area within the club or lodge. 3) If the above conditions are not met, a club or lodge with a wine and/or beer license may apply for a Conditional Use Permit under Section 14:5-6.2D6. 14. PRIVATE ENTERTAINMENT (INDOOR) WITHOUT INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE Conditions: a. This use shall only be permitted as part of a larger development which contains at least one other principal use or as part of a PUD. b. The structure in which the use is conducted shall be located a minimum of 60 feet feet from any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential or has an occupied institutional building 50 including but not limited to a school, religious institution or community center. c. A Bufferyard “F” shall be provided along all property which abuts an “R” Use District. This bufferyard shall at a minimum include a berm “B3”, berm wall “BW2” or fence “F5.” d. If there is a wine and/or beer license, the following additional conditions shall apply: 1) Hours of operation shall be limited to 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. on weekdays and 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. on weekends. 2) There shall be no separate bar area within the private indoor entertainment. 3) If the above conditions are not met, private indoor entertainment with a wine and/or beer license may apply for a Conditional Use Permit under Section 14:5-6.2D8. 15. RESTAURANTS WITHOUT INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE Conditions: a. This use shall be permitted as part of a larger development which contains at least one other principal use or as part of a PUD. b. Access shall be to a roadway identified in the Comprehensive Plan as a collector or arterial or shall be otherwise located so that access can be provided without generating significant traffic on local residential streets. c. All refuse shall meet the requirements of the Ordinance Code regulating refuse. d. Buildings shall be located a minimum of 25 feet from any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential or has an occupied institutional building including but not limited to a school, religious institution or community center. e. A Bufferyard “E” shall be installed and maintained along all property lines which abut property located within an “R” Use District. This bufferyard shall include at a minimum a berm “B2” or fence F5 as defined in Section 14:6-4. f. If there is a wine and/or beer license, the following additional conditions shall apply: 1) Hours of operation shall be limited to 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. on weekdays and 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. on weekends. 2) There shall be no separate bar area within the restaurant. 3) If the above conditions are not met, a restaurant with a wine and/or beer license may apply for a Conditional Use Permit under Section 14:5-5.3D2, provided that the parking requirements for restaurant with intoxicating liquor license are met. D. USES PERMITTED BY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2. RESTAURANTS WITH INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE 51 Conditions: a. Shall be permitted only as part of a larger development which contains at least one other principal use or as part of a PUD. If the land upon which the restaurant with intoxicating liquor license is to be located is immediately adjacent to, and is able to share parking with an office building, it shall be deemed to have complied with this condition. b. Access shall be to a roadway identified in the Comprehensive Plan as a collector or arterial or shall be otherwise located so that access can be provided without generating significant traffic on local residential streets. c. The building housing the use shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential or has an occupied institutional building including but not limited to a school, religious institution or community center. d. All refuse shall meet the requirements of the Ordinance Code regulating refuse. e. Separate pedestrian ways shall be constructed to allow for the separation of pedestrian and vehicular movements within the parking lot. f. A Bufferyard “F” shall be installed and maintained along any abutting property located within an “R” Use District. 6. CLUBS AND LODGES WITH INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE Conditions: a. Access shall be to a roadway identified in the Comprehensive Plan as a collector or arterial or shall be otherwise located so that access can be provided without generating significant traffic on local residential streets. b. The building housing the use shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential or has an occupied institutional building including but not limited to a school, religious institution or community center. c. Separate pedestrian ways shall be constructed to allow for the separation of pedestrian and vehicular movements within the parking lot. d. A Bufferyard “F” shall be installed and maintained along all property lines which abut property in an “R” Use District. 8. PRIVATE ENTERTAINMENT (INDOOR) WITH INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE Conditions: a. Access shall be to a roadway identified in the Comprehensive Plan as a collector or arterial or shall be otherwise located so that access can be provided without generating significant traffic on local residential streets. b. The building housing the use shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from any property located in an “R” Use District. c. Separate pedestrian ways shall be constructed to allow for the separation of pedestrian and vehicular movements within the parking lot. 52 d. A Bufferyard “F” shall be installed and maintained along all property lines which abut property in an “R” Use District. SECTION 14:6-1.3 NUMBER OF REQUIRED OFF STREET PARKING SPACES. A. REQUIRED PARKING COMMERCIAL USES 39. Restaurants with Intoxicating Liquor License. One (1) parking space for each fifty (50) square feet of gross floor area. 40. Restaurants without Intoxicating Liquor License. One (1) parking space for each sixty (60) square feet of gross floor area. Sec. 3. The contents of Planning Case File 00-62-ZA are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case. Sec.4. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication. Adopted by the City Council February 20, 2001 Reviewed for Administration City Manager Mayor Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution: City Clerk City Attorney 00-62-ZA/N/res/ord 53 SUMMARY ORDINANCE NO._____________ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING BY AMENDING SECTIONS 14:5-5.2, 14:5-5.3, 14:5-6.2 & 14:6-1.3 This ordinance amends the Zoning Ordinance to change the zoning requirements for restaurants and other uses with wine and/or beer licenses in the C-1 Neighborhood Commercial, C-2 Commercial, “O” Office zoning districts; and amends the section for off street parking spaces for restaurants with intoxicating and without intoxicating liquor license. This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication. Adopted by the City Council February 20, 2001 Jeffrey W. Jacobs /s/ Mayor A copy of the full text of this ordinance is available for inspection with the City Clerk. Published in St. Louis Park Sailor: February 28, 2001 00-62-SUM/N/res/ord 54 CONSENT ITEM #2 St. Louis Park City Council Meeting of February 20, 2001 2. Motion to adopt the attached resolution authorizing restricting parking in front of the easterly half of 7515 Wayzata Boulevard and limiting parking to one (1) hour along the westerly half of 7515 Wayzata Boulevard -Traffic Study 555 Background: The City has recently received a number of requests from tenants and one from the property owner of 7515 Wayzata Boulevard to restrict on-street parking in front of their building. The request is prompted by the lack of visibility to the west as you exit their driveway. Staff has discussed this issue with a number of tenants and the property owner and has reviewed the site to verify the comments received. Staff concurs with the request that visibility to the west is extremely difficult and presents a safety hazard to the travelling public. In reviewing this request staff also looked at the available off-street parking for this building and found their parking lot to be ½ to 2/3 full during business hours. It therefore appears sufficient off-street parking is available for tenants and visitors. Options: Staff has identified the following options available to the Council at this time: * 1. Approve the request. If so, the attached resolution authorizing the installation of the parking regulations may be utilized. 2. Deny the request. 3. Defer for additional study * Staff recommendation Attachments: Map Resolution Letter Prepared by: Carlton Moore/Michael Rardin, Public Works Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 55 RESOLUTION NO. 01-017 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PARKING RESTRICTIONS AT 7515 WAYZATA BOULEVARD TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 555 WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota has been requested, has studied, and has determined that traffic controls are necessary at this location. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that the Director of Public Works is hereby authorized to install the following controls: 1. No parking on the south side of Wayzata Boulevard from the east entrance to 7515 Wayzata Boulevard and extending west 100 feet. 2. One hour parking from a point 100 feet west of the east entrance to the west property line. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council February 20, 2001 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk 56 CONSENT ITEM # 3 St. Louis Park City Council Meeting of February 20, 2001 3. Motion to adopt the attached resolution authorizing staff to implement the terms of a reciprocal arrangement with Hopkins on a one-year trial basis for joint use of the Skate Park in Hopkins and the Family Aquatic Park in St. Louis Park Background: Several months ago, Parks and Recreation staff from Hopkins and St. Louis Park began discussing the possibility of an exchange program in which Hopkins residents could purchase season passes to the Rec Center Family Aquatic Park at the same rate and with the same benefits as St. Louis Park residents. In exchange, St. Louis Park residents would be allowed to purchase entrance at the Hopkins Skate Park at the same rate and with the same benefits as Hopkins residents. Similar reciprocal agreements are currently in place with the cities of Golden Valley and Minnetonka and have been very beneficial to all involved. Analysis: The Hopkins rate system is a bit complicated making it difficult to explain simply whether the reciprosity agreement is a good deal for St. Louis Park. The oversimplified analysis would be that a Hopkins resident would save $10 on a season pass to the acquatic center and a St. Louis Park resident would save $4 every time they used the skate park. Staff's opinion is that this represents a fair deal for both cities. Update: Staff from the City of Hopkins has recommended moving forward on the approval of the reciprocity agreement between the City of St. Louis Park and the City of Hopkins. A resolution authorizing a reciprocal agreement was approved by the Hopkins City Council on February 6, 2001 and authorizes staff to begin implementation, subject to approval of the proposal by the St. Louis Park City Council. Implementation: If this proposal is approved by Council, staff members from both cities will work together to provide residents with appropriate information which will allow them to take advantage of the benefits of this reciprocal arrangement. St. Louis Park will provide information to be published and distributed to Hopkins residents regarding the Family Aquatic Park, and Hopkins will provide information to be published and distributed to St. Louis Park residents concerning the cost and benefits of the new Skate Park. Attachments: Resolution Prepared by: Rick Birno, Recreation Superintendent Cindy S. Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation Approved by: Clint Pires, Deputy City Manager 57 RESOLUTION NO. 01-013 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING RECIPROCITY BETWEEN THE CITIES OF ST. LOUIS PARK AND HOPKINS FOR JOINT USE OF THE HOPKINS SKATE PARK AND THE ST. LOUIS PARK FAMILY AQUATIC PARK WHEREAS, the City of Hopkins owns, operates and maintains The Hopkins Overpass Skate Park for the enjoyment of its residents and the general public; and WHEREAS, residents of St. Louis Park may purchase membership cards for the use of The Hopkins Overpass Skate Park, at a cost of $40 for the 2001 season, enabling them to purchase daily entrance at the reduced fee of $5.00; and WHEREAS, members of the general public who do not reside within the City of Hopkins and do not posses a membership pass must pay a $9.00 daily entrance fee; and WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park owns, operates and maintains the Family Aquatic Park for the enjoyment of its residents and the general public; and WHEREAS, residents of the City of St. Louis Park may be allowed to purchase season passes to the Family Aquatic Park, which provides special benefits and services, at a cost of $30 (Before May 1) or $36 (After May 1) for the 2001 season; and WHEREAS, members of the general public who do not reside within the City of St. Louis Park must pay $40 (Before May 1) $46 (After May 1) to purchase a season pass at the Family Aquatic Park; and WHEREAS, on February 6, 2001 the Hopkins City Council endorsed a proposal which would create reciprocity between the City of St. Louis Park and the City of Hopkins for joint use of The Hopkins Skate Park and the St. Louis Park Aquatic Park to provide expanded recreational opportunities for its city’s residents; and WHEREAS, the St. Louis Park City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of its residents to provide the highest quality recreational programs and services at the lowest possible cost, and that the shared use of municipal facilities with adjoining communities clearly helps to meet that objective: NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the St. Louis Park City Council that residents of the City of Hopkins will be allowed to purchase season passes at the Rec Center Family Aquatic Park at the same rate and with the same benefits as St. Louis Park residents, with the understanding that St. Louis Park residents will be allowed to purchase membership cards and reduced daily admission at The Hopkins Overpass Skate Park at the same rate and with the same benefits as Hopkins residents; 58 AND BE IT FURTHUR RESOLVED that this authorization for reciprocal use of The Overpass Skate Park and the Family Aquatic Park is hereby approved on a one-year trial basis with an expiration date of February 20, 2002, and that staff of the City of St. Louis Park and the City of Hopkins will evaluate the benefits and impact on residents of both communities to determine a future relationship. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council February 20, 2001 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk 59 CONSENT ITEM # 4 St. Louis Park City Council Meeting of February 20, 2001 4. Motion to authorize Mayor and City Manager to renew a one-year contract with West Suburban Mediation Center for mediation, conciliation, information and referral, and public education services. Background West Suburban Mediation Center has provided mediation and dispute resolution services for over sixteen years within the Hennepin County suburban area. The City has contracted with the West Suburban Mediation Center for over eleven years. The Mediation Center provides four types of services: mediation, conciliation, public education and information/referral. Both sides meet with trained mediators to decide on a mutually acceptable solution. The premise of the program is that citizens are capable of identifying their problems and resolving differences between them. Through these services, the Mediation Center addresses the need of community members for efficient and fair alternatives for dispute resolution. Using mediation to resolve conflicts enables people to work towards building healthy, peaceful neighborhoods and stronger communities. Through trained volunteer mediators, the Mediation Center helps resolve disputes for a variety of parties, including: neighbors, family members, businesses / consumers, employers / employees, and landlords / tenants. The Center also mediates juvenile issues such as vandalism, shoplifting, harassment, truancy, runaways, assault, theft, and intra-family conflicts. In addition, the Center offers victim / offender mediation, based on principles of Restorative Justice, as well as community presentations, facilitation services, and conflict resolution training. Analysis The following summarizes the number of individuals served by the Center, cases worked, and cases specifically involving St. Louis Park community members. Individuals # Cases St. Louis Park Served Worked #Cases City Funding 2000 3,170 805 62 $3,900 1999 2,562 724 37 $3,900 1998 1,717 555 28 $3,900 1997 2,331 657 21 $3,900 1996 1,940 642 20 $3,900 1995 2,597 752 38 $3,900 1994 2,582 670 56 $3,900 60 1993 2,108 563 25 $3,900 1992 1,363 317 26 $3,900 Attachment A summarizes the types of cases handled by the Mediation Center last year, case dispositions and the Center’s funding sources and projected expenses for 2001. The Mediation Center currently does not charge for its services, with a few minor exceptions, and relies on funding primarily from various governmental agencies (see Attachment A for listing). It is also worth noting that over 91% of the cases are successfully resolved through mediation, arbitration, or conciliation. Mediation Center’s cases generally average five hours of service per adult and eight hours per juvenile. The Mediation Center has indicated for 2001 that it will cost approximately $45 per hour to operate the programs. Based on these estimates and the City’s current funding level of $3,900, the estimated “break even” number of St. Louis Park cases is 17. Based on the historical usage by St. Louis Park community members (i.e. average of 34 cases for the last 6 years), it is recommended that no changes be made to the current funding level. Recommendations It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached contract to continue to fund the West Suburban Mediation Center in the amount of $3,900 for 2001 for services to St. Louis Park community members. Funding for this purpose is included in the 2001 City budget. West Suburban Mediation Center and the City Attorney have reviewed this contract. It is also recommended that the City continue to help publicize the Mediation Centers services to St. Louis Park community members and refer cases as appropriate. Attachments: • Attachment A, West Suburban Mediation Center Summary of Cases and Funding Sources • Contract with West Suburban Mediation Center Prepared by: Martha McDonell, Community Outreach Coordinator Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 61 Attachment A WEST SUBURBAN MEDIATION CENTER SUMMARY OF CASES AND FUNDING SOURCES Types Of Cases (Opened This Period) 2000 Housing court (landlord/tenant) 319 Landlord/tenant-other 14 Juvenile(e.g.vandalism) 26 Neighbor disputes 30 City/resident 7 Human rights 5 Business/consumers 359 Employer/employee 5 Intra-family 6 Co-parenting 10 Visitation/expeditor 14 Other 10 Total 805 Funding Sources Budget 2000 State of MN 18,300 Hennepin County 25,000 MCCVS 7,000 Interest 2,000 Cont. In-Kind 1,380 Fees 1000 Grants, Misc 20,000 Burnsville 3,800 Eden Prairie 2,500 Edina 1,400 Hopkins 1,000 Minnetonka 3,500 Plymouth 4,000 Richfield 3,500 St. Louis Park 3,900 Total $98,280 Case dispositions (Closed this period) 2000 Mediated/ agreement reached 466 Mediated/ no agreement 239 Conciliated/ resolved 40 Mediated/ arbitrated 0 One or more parties refused 60 Total 805 Projected Expenses 2001 Salaries 58,250 FICA UC & Medical 8,100 Dues 500 Professional services 1200 Annual Meeting 1500 Rent 11280 NSP 500 Telephone/AOL 3500 Staff Dev./Training 700 Maintenance Agre. 500 Office Supplies 1000 Postage 3000 Printing 1000 Mis./Mileage 1000 Insurance 1000 Volunteer training 750 Promotion 2500 Office Furniture/Equip 1500 Mis./Move 500 .Total $98,280 62 AGREEMENT This AGREEMENT is effective January 1, 2001, between the CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, a Minnesota municipal corporation (“City”), and WEST SUBURBAN MEDIATION CENTER, (hereinafter to as “Mediation Center”), a Minnesota non-profit corporation. WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park recognizes, as reflected in Vision St. Louis Park, the importance of strong connections to the community, civic commitment, mutual respect, and neighborliness and strongly supports individuals, neighborhoods, and community institutions working together to solve problems; and WHEREAS, mediation services can help resolve disputes or problems within the St. Louis Park community for neighbors, family members, businesses, employers, employees, landlords, tenant, juveniles and others; and WHEREAS, the Mediation Center has organized community based mediation programs within the Hennepin County suburban area for the purpose of offering neutral, impartial, results oriented mediation services that focus on serving parties in a dispute and providing citizens with a quick, accessible and inexpensive forum to resolve their disputes; and WHEREAS, the City has an interest in supporting the provision of alternative dispute resolution services for members of the City of St. Louis Park community who are not able to resolve grievances alone. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED by and between the parties hereto as follows: A. Term of the Agreement. The term of this Agreement is January 1, 2001 through December 31, 2001, subject to termination as provided in Section G. B. Services Provided. In Consideration of the amount paid by the City, the Mediation Center shall provide the following services. 1. The Mediation Center will provide free, confidential, voluntary, and speedy mediations, conciliation, information and referral, and public education to resolve conflicts, disputes and problems for members of the City of St. Louis Park community in conformance with guidelines and rules established pursuant to Minnesota statues, Chapter 494 - Community Dispute Resolution Program. 2. The Mediation Center will send to the City Manager a quarterly report, commencing with the 2001 1st quarter report to be provided by May 1, 2001, summarizing the number and nature of the activities provided to St. Louis Park community members pursuant to the agreement. 3. The Mediation Center shall provide services under this agreement without regard to race, color, creed, religion, national origin, gender, martial status, familial status, sexual orientation, age or status with regard to public assistance or disability. 63 C. Eligibility. St. Louis Park community members eligible for the services are those persons with a conflict or dispute appropriate for mediation and not excluded under Minnesota Statues Chapter 494-03 or other guidelines and rules promulgated by the State Court. D. Indemnification. The Mediation Center agrees to indemnify and keep indemnified and defend, hold and save City harmless from and against any all actions or cause of which City shall or may at any time sustain, precipitate or incur arising out of or in relation to the conduct of Mediation Center or employees, agents, volunteers or servants of Mediation Center acting within the scope of and in connection with the Mediation Center. E. Non-Assignability. This agreement is personal to the parties specified herein and may not be transferred or assigned by either party hereto. F. Insurance. The Mediation Center shall carry and keep in force insurance, including but not limited to: professional liability, general liability, automobile liability insurance, workers compensation insurance, and any other coverage required by applicable statutes. Said insurance policies shall be from an insurance company licensed to do business in Minnesota. G. Termination. 1. Prior to the expiration of December 31, 2001, either party for any reason upon the giving of thirty- (30) days written notice may terminate the agreement. 2. If the agreement is terminated before expiration pursuant to this section, the Mediation Center will be paid a pro-rata portion of the total compensation based upon the number of days in the contract period prior to contract termination. 3. The City reserves the right to cancel this Agreement at any time in event of default or violation by the Mediation Center of any provision of this Agreement. The City may take whatever action at law or in equity that may appear necessary or desirable to collect damages arising from a default or violation to enforce performance of this agreement. H. Consideration. For the performance of the services described in this document, the City agrees to pay the Mediation Center three thousand nine hundred dollars ($3,900) which shall be paid in two equal payments. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused the execution of this Agreement on their behalf by their duly authorized representatives. CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK WEST SUBURBAN MEDIATION BY:______________________________ BY:______________________________ Its Mayor Its Executive Director BY:______________________________ Its Manager Attest: City Clerk 64 CONSENT ITEM # 6a MINUTES CHARTER COMMISSION MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA November 8, 2000 City Hall, Council Chambers I. Call to Order Chair Beck called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m. II. Introductions and Attendance It was moved by Commissioner Ornstein and seconded by Commissioner Walsh to excuse the absence of the following members: Paul Carver, Norm Kirschner, Ruth Kirschner, Bryan Leary, Dorothea Moga, and James Schaefer. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. A. Members Present: George Beck, Michael Sixel, Brian Fiderlein, Christopher Johnson, David Ornstein, Christopher Smith, and Carol Walsh. B. Members Excused: Paul Carver, Norm Kirschner, Ruth Kirschner, Bryan Leary, Dorothea Moga, and James Schaefer. C. Members Unexcused: Cynthia Ahrens and Cheryl Ernst (Both left phone messages requesting excused absences. Messages received after the meeting due to weather conditions. Commission may wish to excuse these absences at January 10 meeting.) D. Staff and Guests Present: City Staff Liaison Clint Pires, Finance Director Jean McGann. E. Vacancies: None. III. Approval of Minutes It was moved by Commissioner Fiderlein and seconded by Commissioner Sixel that the minutes of October 11, 2000 be approved. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. IV. New Legislation / Recommendations on Purchasing Ms. McGann presented revised language based on previous input received from the Commission members. While the Commission was generally satisfied with the language and its intent, staff was directed to make additional changes clarifying rejection of bids and requirements for Council approval. Staff Liaison Pires indicated that staff would do so and submit revised language for Commission consideration at its January 10, 2001 meeting. 65 V. Future Commission Vacancy – Advertisements Chair Beck reminded the Commission of the legal requirement that he resign from the Commission by January 1, 2001. (He made this official with a letter dated November 13, 2000). Mr. Pires indicated that an advertisement of the vacancy would be published. A nominating committee to consider filling the vacancy of Chair was formed: Commissioners Johnson (Chair), Smith, and Walsh. Commissioners were asked to submit nominations to the nominating committee by December 15. VI. Police and Fire Civil Service Commissions The final Commission report on this topic was presented. Mr. Pires reported that the City Council would be considering the Commission’s report at its November 13 study session, and encouraged all Commission members to attend. VII. Meeting Schedule The Commission agreed to hold its regular meetings on January 10 and March 14. VIII. Other Business Mr. Pires recorded final updates to the Commission roster regarding new area codes. IX. Adjournment As there was no other business, at 8:20 p.m., Commissioner Johnson moved and Commissioner Sixel seconded adjournment. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Respectfully submitted, Clint Pires Staff Liaison 66 CONSENT ITEM # 6b MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 3, 2001 – 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Michael Garelick, Ken Gothberg, Dennis Morris, Jerry Timian (arrived at 7:05 p.m.) Sally Velick MEMBERS ABSENT: Michelle Bissonnette STAFF PRESENT: Tom Kleve, Jan Loftus, Sacha Peterson 1. Call to Order Acting Chair Morris called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. Approval of Minutes of December 6, 2000 Mr. Gothberg moved approval of the Minutes of December 6, 2000 and the motion passed on a vote of 4-0 with Garelick, Gothberg, Morris and Velick voting in favor. 3. Public Hearings: A. Request of Westside Office Park: Case No. 01-01-Z – Change the zoning from R-4 Multi-Family Residential to C-2 General Commercial for property located at 6009 Wayzata Boulevard And Case No. 01-02-VAC – The vacation of a portion of West 14th Street Sacha Peterson, Planner, presented a staff report and recommended approval of the street vacation subject to the condition that a utility easement be granted before the vacation would take effect, and recommended approval of the zoning ordinance map amendment that would change that parcel from R-4 Multi-Family Residential to C-2 General Commercial and bring the parcel into conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. Acting Chair Morris stated that typically when the request for rezoning and the vacating of an easement is not really essential, it precludes a development. Are we aware of any plans for development of this site that this is being requested to bring the parcel into conformance? Ms. Peterson stated that the applicant has had some discussions with staff about the possibility of developing this property further by putting another office/warehouse building on the south part of the property. There are some non-conformities that would need to be addressed that would be a part of the approval process and the applicant has been made aware of those. They would need 67 to pursue a conditional use permit to put a second building on a property and a replatting because there are a number of old lot lines that they would be crossing. Any further development would entail public hearings at Planning Commission and City Council approval. Acting Chair Morris opened the public hearing for the vacation and zoning change. Evan Johnson, of Eden Prairie, owner of the property at 1405 Colorado, stated that he had no problems with the zoning request. He referred to the plans shown by staff and stated that the only question he has is what portion of this street will be vacated. Ms. Peterson stated that the area outlined in green on the plan is the proposed street vacation. Mr. Johnson stated that as long as the vacation only goes to that spot, it is okay. His concern was that they were going to go back further and there are a lot of cars parked on the street because the offices on the other side don’t have parking lots. He would not want the vacation to interfere with the parking now taking place on the street. He stated that he has no problem with the zoning changes or the vacation. He said there are two lots to the south of his property that, for some reason, land use was attempted to be changed to commercial in the comprehensive plan as well, but was denied. Right now it is a vacant house that is serving no purpose so a zoning change is something you may want to look at in the future. With no one else wishing to speak, Acting Chair Morris closed the public hearing. Ms. Velick asked what is the word “Johnson’s” refers to on the plan? Acting Chair Morris stated that Johnson’s Addition is the plat name. Mr. Gothberg moved to recommend approval of the zoning ordinance map amendment to change zoning from R-4 Multi-Family Residential to C-2 General Commercial for Case No. 01-01-Z and recommend approval of the street vacation of a portion of West 14th Street for Case No. 00-62- ZA subject to conditions recommended by staff. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0 with Garelick, Gothberg, Morris, Timian and Velick voting in favor. B. Case No. 00-62-ZA – Amendment to Zoning Ordinance to change the zoning requirements for restaurants and other uses with “nonintoxicating” liquor. Sacha Peterson, Planner, presented a staff report and stated that the amendment would distinguish between uses with intoxicating and nonintoxicating liquor licenses and make the requirements different. Ms. Peterson recommended that the zoning ordinance be amended as written in the staff report with the proposed definitions of intoxicating and nonintoxicating liquor license to be brought before the Planning Commission in the near future. Mr. Garelick asked if the City Council has reviewed this item. 68 Ms. Peterson stated that the City Council has not reviewed this item. However, it is her understanding that the Ward Councilmember has spoken with the ThanhDo restaurant owners and is aware of the situations that caused staff to propose this amendment. Mr. Garelick stated that a few months ago, the Euro Gourmet Deli requested something similar and asked if this impacts them at all or puts them out in the cold as far as any modified liquor use for their establishment? Ms. Peterson stated that the Euro Gourmet applicant was seeking a full intoxicating liquor license and at no time during his application did he indicate that he was seeking a “non- intoxicating” or wine and beer only liquor license. Mr. Garelick stated that this is a good compromise. Mr. Gothberg asked how some of the other suburbs are handling this issue. Ms. Peterson stated that staff did not look into this, but could look into it before the City Council meeting. Ms. Velick asked who would monitor the hours of operation for the various restaurants? Ms. Peterson stated that the enforcement division of the Inspections Department would handle that. Acting Chair Morris opened the public hearing. Bob Cunningham, 6385 Old Shady Oak, stated that he was trying to listen with rapt attention during the presentation. I think it sounds like a great idea. I am wondering if it is possible to expand this change into the MX Districts? Ms. Peterson stated that the MX District does not lay out uses with or without liquor in the same way. Staff will review this further. Rick Johnson, 3100 29th Avenue South, owner of ThanhDo Restaurant, stated that he is in favor of the amendment. He stated that the last time he stood before the Commission he was here to apply for a CUP for a restaurant with liquor and asked for a continuance to give them time to come up with a plan to try to meet the non-conformities on the property. I argued that adding the nonintoxicating liquor to the menu would not significantly change the operation of the establishment or significantly affect the surrounding neighborhood. The maximum number of people we would be able to serve would not change, so our parking would not change and the hours would not be changed. In my opinion it is a good change and I commend those who initiated it and have worked on its proposal. I recommend its approval. With no one else wishing to speak, Acting Chair Morris closed the public hearing. 69 Acting Chair Morris stated that he is in favor of the changes being proposed, but said he looked at a dictionary and there is no such thing as nonintoxicating liquor. He stated that there is a definition of liquor as distilled spirits, and beer and wine are fermented spirits. I would suggest that even if we pass this that staff look at permanent text wording changes to delete the intoxicating and nonintoxicating reference. What we are really suggesting is that you have a liquor license for hard liquor or you have a beer and wine license. It might be friendlier for people reading the ordinance to understand the difference between liquor license and a beer and wine license. I think most people associate those uses rather than a non-intoxicating liquor license, especially when you are trying to explain to the State Trooper that pulls you over for DWI that you have been consuming only nonintoxicating liquor. Mr. Gothberg stated that these were interesting observations, but when you talk about beer and wines you have to consider fortified wines. Acting Chair Morris asked if percentages of alcohol are addressed in the liquor ordinance. Ms. Peterson stated that the language is an attempt to be consistent with the liquor license ordinance. She stated that staff would consider the comments and look into definitions. Mr. Gothberg moved to recommend approval of the zoning ordinance amendments as recommended by staff with the additional recommendations that when it goes to City Council staff be prepared to address the issues of what other suburbs are doing in the area, as well as, the questions raised relative to the MX District. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0 with Garelick, Gothberg, Morris, Timian and Velick voting in favor. 4. Old Business - None 5. New Business A. Consent Agenda: None B. Other New Business i. Review of Park Commons TIF District conformance with Comprehensive Plan – Resolution Tom Kleve, Economic Development Coordinator presented a staff report and recommended adoption of the resolution finding the Tax Increment Financing Plan in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan based on changes that the Planning Commission made to the Comprehensive Plan specific to the Park Commons East project. Mr. Gothberg stated he had a couple of questions related to the Park Commons project description on page 3 and page 4. He said I am raising the issue because I think we definitely want to update the descriptions in the current proposal to reflect what we are contemplating. Mr. Kleve stated that staff would look into updating this before it is approved by the City Council. 70 Mr. Garelick asked that in looking at the projected total cost of the development, what kind of equity position is the developer coming in with in order to complete the project. Bob Cunningham, Vice President of TOLD Development, stated that they have substantial equity. This will be a project that is going to be phased and we are going to have equity into each one of these phases. We are planning right now to use some traditional bank financing which will allow us to maintain a long-term ownership position in the project. That exact equity percentage is something that I can not say right now, because we do not have our financing commitments yet. Mr. Garelick asked what would be a favorable percent for an equity position for a developer coming into this area. Mr. Cunningham stated that it would not be more than 20% which is typical in projects that we do all across the nation and in the finance world. The format that we are planning to finance the project with is that the principals of TOLD Development Company might be signing completion guarantees and repayment guarantees with lenders so their commitments are complete and total. Mr. Timian asked for an update on what TOLD is doing about parking. Mr. Cunningham explained the two areas that are subject to change (Phase 2 on the plan). He stated that the idea is not to make any modifications to this plan that would require any sort of zoning or comprehensive plan changes. We did seek some third party input from expert developers and architects regarding this plan who criticized apartments over retail because they overlooked a parking lot. We are proposing to change the parking to a three and four level ramp at the these locations and create three separate courtyards that are 115 feet by 110 feet in these areas. We think this is a real plus. We have modified the phasing because we are concerned about getting the bulk of the construction out of the way. Phase 1 (formerly Phase 2) will include the boutique office building and is going to represent about 50% of the total commitment of the project. The plan is to submit an application for the preliminary plat and PUD on January 16, 2001, have commencement of utility construction around June 1, 2001 and building construction around August 1, 2001. Mr. Timian asked if the baseball card shop and running shoe store are part of the plan. Mr. Cunningham stated that the retail leasing brokers have spoken with the GEAR store and I believe it would be a great addition to Park Commons. Mr. Timian asked where the new Bally’s will be located? Mr. Cunningham stated that we are proposing to move Bally’s to the east side of the town green so that the parking deck would be right behind it. There would be residential above it facing the courtyard. 71 Mr. Kleve stated that staff has been talking with tenants and recommended that they talk to TOLD and the leasing people if they are interested in relocating. It is our understanding that the card shop owner is going to move to Arizona. Ms. Velick asked if housing was added with the elimination of some of the courtyards. Mr. Cunningham stated that the reconfiguration is going to allow us to change the plan. We agree with staff that the total residential unit count including owner occupied and rental housing will not total more than 660 units. The changes in the plan had the benefit of allowing us in the first phase to have 317 rental units and 15 to 17 owner occupied units and allowed us to reduce the 7 story building shown in Phase I on the plan to a 4 story building. The design carousel has stopped, but we still have to paint the horses. Ms. Velick stated that she believes the Planning Commission is pleased with the changes, especially the green space that has been added. Mr. Garelick asked if the neighbors who are in opposition to the 7 stories have been notified of the reduction to 4 stories. Mr. Cunningham stated that he has not done any official notice, except to mention it at a City Council Study Session that was attended by some of the Minnikahda Vista neighbors. Mr. Kleve stated that Councilmember Nelson advised the neighbors. Mr. Cunningham stated that there would still be underground parking below the footprint of the residential units and the courtyards will be unexcavated below which will allow us to use real landscaping materials. Acting Chair Morris raised some concern about some inconsistencies between the staff report, the attached description of Park Commons and the TIF plan. I’m not sure if we are looking at an old TIF financing plan that has been revised and some omissions have been made. I question whether the Park Commons description has to be as accurate as Commissioner Gothberg needs it. I believe it would be since it was an attachment to the TIF District. First, in your report you are stating the total project is $127 million, but in the TIF document it states that the project cost is $111 million on page 2-6. Mr. Kleve stated that there are going to be some inconsistencies just in general because it is a little bit of a moving target. However, I will take a look at the TIF plan for accuracy. Acting Chair Morris asked about the duration of the TIF District. I think in the TIF document it says that the duration is going to be 25 years. Mr. Kleve stated that under the law, the maximum number of years that we can have for a TIF District of this type would be 25 years. How much of that we commit to the development is a variable and we will negotiate that within the development agreement. 72 Acting Chair Morris asked that in adopting the TIF District are we setting up the parameters of the scope of the financing for the district and the general use or strategy for the district, but are not approving particular plans or floor plans that will come later. Mr. Kleve stated that this is correct. The parameters set out in the budget can be moved between line items and this is only putting in place a finance mechanism that will allow you to get the project you want to ultimately see. The new Park Commons TIF District includes 38 properties that are all north of Excelsior Boulevard. Ms. Velick moved to adopt a resolution finding that the modification to the redevelopment plan for redevelopment Project No.1 and the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Park Commons Tax Increment Financing District is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan of St. Louis Park. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0 with Garelick, Gothberg, Morris Timian, and Velick voting in favor. C. Election of Officers Acting Chair Morris nominated Ms. Velick for Chair of the Planning Commission. Ms. Velick accepted the nomination. Acting Chair Morris moved to elect Sally Velick as Chair of the Planning Commission and the motion passed on a vote of 4-0-1 with Garelick, Gothberg, Morris and Timian voting in favor and Velick abstaining. Ms. Velick nominated Mr. Gothberg for Vice Chair of the Planning Commission. Mr. Gothberg accepted the nomination. Ms. Velick moved to elect Ken Gothberg as Vice Chair of the Planning Commissioner and the motion passed on a vote of 4-0-1 with Garelick, Morris, Timian and Velick voting in favor and Gothberg abstaining. Acting Chair Morris reported that Chair Paul Carver has resigned from the Planning Commission and another Commissioner will be appointed by the City Council. 6. Communications A. Recent City Council Action – December 18, 2000 B. Other 7. Miscellaneous A. Summary of Findings – Texa-Tonka Study B. Planning Commission Meeting for January 17th cancelled 8. Adjournment Acting Chair Morris adjourned the meeting at 8:20 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Prepared by: Janice Loftus Shirley Olson Administrative Secretary Recording Secretary 73 CONSENT ITEM # 6c PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY COMMISSION Minutes for Wednesday, November 8, 2000 7:00 p.m. Rec Center Gallery MEMBERS PRESENT: Davidman, Nelson, Otteson, Peters, Tomoson, Worthington MEMBERS ABSENT: Halverson, Johnson STAFF PRESENT: Meyer, Birno, Voelker 1. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:08 p.m. 2. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE AGENDA: None. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 13, 2000 Mr. Worthington motioned to approve the minutes, Mr. Peters seconded. The motion passed 6-0. 4. NEW BUSINESS A. Welcome New Member, Nancy Nelson: Jeff Davidman welcomed Nancy Nelson. Ms. Nelson briefed the Commission on her background in the community, including her volunteer work at Westwood Hills Nature Center. The Commission members introduced themselves and welcomed Ms. Nelson. B. Role of Commission Members Discussion with Charlie Meyer, City Manager: Jeff Davidman introduced City Manager Charlie Meyer to the Commission and thanked him for coming. Mr. Davidman indicated the Commission would like to make a difference in the community and would like direction as to what the City expects of them. Mr. Meyer indicated he attends Boards and Commission meetings from time to time and advised the City Council has adopted ordinances that govern the role of Commissions. Mr. Meyer distributed a section of the ordinance that applies to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission and pointed out the primary role of the Commission was to study and recommend parks and recreation programs for the City of St. Louis Park. Mr. Meyers portrayed the City Council’s expectations is to have the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission review, and appropriately act on, long-range items. These items include a review of the programs being offered to insure they are meeting the needs and wants of the community. Also included in the long-range plans is the review of parks, their facilities and working with staff to ensure adequate development if needed. Mr. Meyer advised that Council generally support most recommendations from the Commission, with some exceptions. Mr. Meyer gave examples of a Commission that inappropriately held public hearings and another that did not work as a group. One Commission was redirected, the other 74 disband. Mr. Meyer indicated the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission should review all the facilities, the programs, and the parks in the City. Mr. Meyer also explained it is the Commission’s responsibility to provide staff with guidance rather than direction. Mr. Meyer feels the Commission has been on course with what needs to be accomplished, which has included the Trail and Sidewalk study and the Oak Park area redevelopment. Both issues are very important to the Council. Mr. Meyer indicated a lot needs to be accomplished, as the City has a large number of parks and facilities compared to other communities. Mr. Meyer feels residents appreciate having a neighborhood park in close proximity to their home. In terms of programming, Mr. Meyer indicated the Commission should continue as they have been and feels the Council will be directing their emphasis towards parks and park facilities. Mr. Meyer asked the Commission for questions. Mr. Davidman inquired on the reason the City assigns task forces versus having the Commission take on the research, etc. of a project. Mr. Meyer indicated task forces are set up to make sure all voices are represented, especially when dealing with controversial issues and areas. Mr. Meyer feels it is a better policy and more respectful if issues are visited with the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission before a task force is created. Mr. Worthington inquired on what was expected of the parks in the future as per the Vision St. Louis Park. Mr. Meyer indicated the City turned the Vision St. Louis Park over to a large steering committee but does not feel the parks were a large portion. Mr. Worthington inquired on a master plan. Rick Birno advised the Parks and Recreation Department has begun the process of organizing a master park plan and the Parks and Recreation Director fully supports the master plan process. Mr. Meyer feels it is the Directors intent to have the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission involved with the process. Mr. Worthington feels the sports associations are not as connected as they should be and suggested a youth sports congress to find out what they all want to see. Mr. Birno indicated one of his goals is to improve the communication with the associations by breaking down the barriers, and hopes as time progresses, that the relationship and communication will improve. Mr. Meyer feels there should be a role of the Commission with improving the communication and relationships with the associations in order to establish a common understanding between the groups. Mr. Davidman inquired on how to keep the Council informed. Mr. Meyer recommends developing an annual work plan in a simple format (two pages) and an annual report on the previous year. These items could be presented to Council at a Study Session to layout what the Commission has been working on and what they will be doing in the future. Mr. Meyer advised the Council has been very supportive and may offer suggestions. Although generally Commissions must report to the Council by April 1st, the Council tends to be flexible with the reporting process. Mr. Meyer strongly encouraged the Commission to meet with the Council annually at a Study Session. Mr. Davidman feels it is a very good idea to keep the Council informed and keep the Commission on track to meet their goals. Mr. Otteson explained the Commission has done this in the past and has also reported to the School Board. 75 David Peters inquired if an inventory of the parks is available. Rick Birno indicated Jim Vaughan maintains one and will check on the availability. Mr. Birno also noted the new Parks, Recreation and Outdoor brochure will include a page with all park amenities. Mr. Peters thought this would provide him with the information he needed. Mr. Birno informed the Commission the brochure would be delivered the first week in December. Mr. Davidman asked the Commission if they had any other questions for Mr. Meyer then thanked him for attending. Mr. Meyer thanked the Commission and advised he would come back to talk any time. Layne Otteson asked why there is no liaison from the City Council on the Commission. Mr. Meyer advised there had been in the past but the City eliminated it because they felt the Council members were dominating decisions even if they were only expressing their opinions. Mr. Otteson felt it was very effective to have a Councilmember on the Commission in the City of Hopkins. Mr. Meyer indicated the subject hasn’t been discussed recently. Mr. Davidman advised the Commission has discussed rotating the members to attend City Council meetings. Mr. Birno advised the minutes and agendas of each Commission meeting are part of the Council packets. Mr. Meyer felt the Council would appreciate Commission members attending meetings when there are issues involving the Parks Department and the Commission would also get a better feel of how the Council works through the issues. Mr. Meyer suggested Commission members should attend the Council meeting when the proposed Oak Park plan is presented to Council. Mr. Peters inquired as to when the Council meetings are held that may relate to the Commission. Mr. Meyer indicated there has been two recently but prior to that was when the Rec Center construction was proposed. Mr. Peters suggested having a Commission member keep in touch with City staff to know the agenda items that may relate. C. 2001 Black Tie Dinner Discussion: Mr. Davidman briefly explained the Black Tie Dinner including the silent auction, award presentation, and speaker. Mr. Davidman indicated it worked well the first year due to the opening of the renovated Rec Center and each year it continually modified and changed. Mr. Davidman advised the Commission needs to decide if they would like to hold the dinner in 2001. Mr. Davidman also indicated the Commission relied on staff too much in the past and the Commission should be taking care of the details with staff’s assistance which would be a lot of work for the Commission. Mr. Davidman noted that as none of the original Commission members are currently on the Commission, ownership of the dinner is removed. The Commission discussed money raised/lost in the past and confirmed the goal of the dinner is to raise money for the scholarship fund. Nancy Nelson indicated she is not big on organizing these types of events especially if it will be held in May. Ms. Nelson also feels if the main purpose is to raise money, there are quicker and easier ways to do so. Mr. Davidman feels appointing a chair of the event and moving the date of the event to fall would help in the planning of the dinner. Mr. Worthington inquired on the attendance. Mr. Otteson indicated there were approximately 85 to 100 people. Mr. Otteson felt it was disorganized last year and there are better ways to get donations and items for the silent auction. Mr. Davidman advised it is a fun event on the day it occurs and it makes the Commission look good. Ms. Tomoson agreed 76 the dinner gets the Commission’s name out and the community gets to know the objective of the Commission. Mr. Davidman indicated the Commission needs to decide if this is something they want to do and suggested holding off further discussion until the December meeting when Commission member Gretchen Halverson is present. Mr. Otteson recommended having the dinner in September. Mr. Peters feels the Commission should host the dinner one more time then evaluate it. Mr. Peters also feels there are a lot of other ways to raise money. Ms. Nelson indicated the dinner gives positive exposure, raises money for the scholarship fund, and builds the community. Mr. Worthington inquired on the other event the Parks and Recreation Department holds for volunteers and people involved in youth sports. Mr. Birno briefly explained the coaches’ appreciation event held annually. Mr. Worthington suggested there might be a value at looking into that event as another function of the Black Tie dinner. Mr. Peters inquired if staff has a list of businesses in St. Louis Park and also asked if businesses need to be located in St. Louis Park to participate in the silent auction. Mr. Davidman explained they do not have to be located in St. Louis Park, but should participate in the community. Mr. Peters inquired on requesting items for the silent auction and Mr. Davidman advised anyone could donate. Mr. Birno advised park commons will be developed to include a program area and suggested ideas for special events and programming. Mr. Birno suggested the Commission host a Taste of St. Louis Park, or similar event. Mr. Davidman advised if the Commission decides to do the dinner in 2001, specific tasks would be assigned to each member and staff will not be burdened. Mr. Davidman indicated staff might be asked for help on occasion, but would not be staff intensive. Mr. Davidman advised the Commission to contact members outside of the meeting if they would like to discuss and advised it will be on the agenda in December. Ms. Nelson questioned staff time in which Ms. Voelker was unable to give specifics on staff time as it varied. Mr. Birno indicated the event could also be advertised in the new brochure. Mr. Davidman indicated he wants to be sure the Commission is willing to contribute the time to make the event happen and advised the Commission will decide in December. 5. OLD BUSINESS A. Oak Park Area Update: Rick Birno updated the Commission on the Task Force’s progress in creating a final design proposal which will be presented at a Open House on November 14th. Mr. Birno complemented the Task Force on being a fair and diverse group in creating the proposal. Mr. Birno then reviewed the proposed concept with the Commission which includes parking, lighting, a multi-use field layout, playground structures, buildings, a Frisbee golf area, and trail system. Mr. Birno also updated the Commission on neighborhood concerns. Jeff Davidman inquired on the potential for building a parking lot across Louisiana Avenue in which Mr. Birno advised that land is controlled by the EDA and is not property for park use. Mr. Birno also informed the Commission of the next steps and time frame projected for approval of the plan. David Peters inquired on the landscape design in which Layne Otteson indicated when the Task Force is to that point, a landscape architect will be working on details. Tom Worthington inquired on the budget of the development. Rick Birno indicated an estimate is not available yet 77 and advised the Commission the Mighty Kicks Grant money is committed to the project. Jeff Davidman inquired on the time frame. Rick Birno estimated the earliest any major work could begin would be in the spring of 2002. Mr. Birno also invited the Commission to the Open House. B. Off-Leash Area Update: Rick Birno informed the Commission the Edina Park Commission was in favor of the off-leash area, but the Edina police chief didn’t feel they could patrol the area adequately and therefore was opposed to the idea. Mr. Birno indicated the issue might come up again, but at this time Minneapolis has eliminated the site for development. Layne Otteson inquired on the patrolling plan of the animal rights group in which Mr. Birno advised the Edina police chief did not feel the group could provide adequate coverage. C. Motion to Change Meeting Day to Third Wednesday: Mr. Davidman reviewed with the Commission a previous discussion that would move the regular monthly meetings to the third Wednesday of each month. Ashley Tomoson advised it might conflict with Children First meetings at times. Mr. Davidman also questioned if the Commission would be interested in moving the time to earlier in the evening and the Commission advised 7 p.m. is adequate. Mr. Davidman motioned to move the regular Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission meeting to the third Wednesday of each month beginning in December 2000, and Layne Otteson seconded the motion. The motion was passed 6-0. 6. COMMUNICATIONS A. Chair: Jeff Davidman informed the Commission that some Commission members participated in the Goblin March and Boogie Concert at the Rec Center. Mr. Davidman felt the event was wonderful and feels the Commission should participate in more events. B. Commissioners: Tom Worthington suggested meeting at different locations to gain knowledge of park sites in which Jeff Davidman agreed. C. Program Report – Doug Langefels: Not available. D. Director’s Report: Rick Birno informed the Commission that staff is nearing the end of completing the first brochure and advised members to watch for it in their mailboxes the first week of December. 7. ADJOURNMENT: A motion was made by Layne Otteson, seconded by Tom Worthington, to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed 6-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:34 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Stacy M. Voelker Department Secretary 78 CONSENT ITEM # 6d MINUTES HOUSING AUTHORITY ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 10th, 2001 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: William Gavzy, Judith Moore, and Shone Row MEMBERS ABSENT: Catherine Courtney and Bridget Gothberg STAFF PRESENT: Michele Schnitker, Sharon Anderson and Paula Jordan OTHERS PRESENT: None 1. Call to Order: The meeting was called to order at 5:17 P.M. 2. Approval of the Minutes for December 13th, 2000 Commissioner Moore moved to approve the amended minutes of December 13th, 2001. Commissioner Row seconded the motion. The motion was passed on a vote of 3-0 with Commissioners Gavzy, Row and Moore voting in favor. 3. Hearings: Commissioner Gavzy opened the Housing Authority Agency Plan-Public Hearing. This Hearing was open to the public for comments and questions. As there were no participants present, Commissioner Gavzy closed the hearing. 4. Reports and Committees: None 5. Unfinished Business: None 6. New Business a. Housing Authority Certification of Compliance with the HA Plans and Related Regulations, Resolution No. 483. Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor, reported that the staff is recommending that the Board approve the submission of the 5-Year and the Annual Agency Plan and Resolution No. 483 certifying the Plan's consistency with the County's Consolidated Plan and the HA's compliance with other Plan related documents. 79 The HA has complied with and completed all of the plan requirements. Following the Boards review and the approval of Resolution No. 483, the Plan will be submitted to HUD for their review and approval. A copy will continue to be made available for public viewing at City Hall and Hamilton House. The Plan is effective for the HA's fiscal year 2002. Any amendments to the Plan during the fiscal year will require a public review and comment period prior to Board approval. Commissioner Moore inquired about the proposed changes for the preference points. Ms. Schnitker stated that applicants receive preference points for the year of application, veteran status, gainful employment, near elderly, elderly, disabled, etc. The preference being considered for change would be the preference for year of application. This would ensure that singles are not housed prior to elderly and near elderly at Hamilton House. Commissioner Moore moved approval of Resolution No. 483. Commissioner Row seconded the motion. The motion was passed on a vote of 3-0 with Commissioners Gavzy, Row and Moore voting in favor. b. Resolution Approving Cooperation Agreement Between the Housing Authority of St.Louis Park and the City of St.Louis Park, Resolution No. 484. Michele Schnitker reported that Resolution No. 484 approves a Cooperation Agreement between the HA and the City of St. Louis Park for the development and administration of 18 MHOP public housing units as part of the Park Commons development. HUD requires that the agreement be in place prior to the submission of TOLD Development Company's application to obtain approximately $2,000,000 in funding from the Minneapolis Public Housing Authority MHOP program to finance the development of the 18 MHOP public housing units with the Park Commons development. Staff recommends the approval of the resolution that authorizes the Housing Authority to enter into a Cooperation Agreement with the City of St, Louis Park in connection with the development and administration of 18 MHOP units in the Park Commons Development. Commissioner Row moved approval of Resolution No. 484. Commissioner Moore seconded the motion. The motion was passed on a vote of 3-0 with Commissioners Gavzy, Row and Moore voting in favor. 7. Communications from the Executive Director a. Claims Lists No. 12- 2001 80 Commissioner Moore moved approval of Claims List No. 12 - 2001. Commissioner Row seconded the motion. The motion was passed on a vote of 3- 0 with Commissioners Gavzy, Moore and Row voting in favor. 8. Communications (1) Monthly Report for January, 2001 (2) Scattered Site Houses and Hamilton House (verbal report) Sharon Anderson reported that Zinoviy and Galina Savitskiy, caretakers for the Hamilton House, have given their notice for the end of January, 2001. Ms. Anderson stated that she has interviewed a potential replacement for that position. This couple will be able to start March 1st, 2001 if things work out. (3) Home Renewal Program and Habitat Program Update (verbal report) Ms. Schnitker reported that there are no new sites at this time for the Home Renewal Program. The property on Yosemite is a possibility, but there are still some issues to address at this time. The property is not owned by the HA. Commissioner Moore inquired if there was a possibility of having an in-house architect as the HA has now incorporated in-house accounting. Commissioner Gavzy stated that an in-house architect would not be a possibility for the HA because it is not cost effective. Staff confirmed that for the amount of services required by the HA, having an architect on staff would not be cost efficient. (4) Action Plan (5) Draft Financial Statements 8. Other 9. Adjournment Commissioner Moore moved to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Row seconded the motion. The motion was passed on a vote of 3-0 with Commissioners Gavzy, Row and Moore voting in favor. The meeting adjourned at 6:18pm. Respectively Submitted, Shone Row, Secretary