The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2000/04/03 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Regular 1 AGENDA - CITY COUNCIL MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA April 3, 2000 7:30 p.m. 7:15 p.m – Economic Development Authority 1. Call to order 2. Presentation a. Recognize Laurel Higgins – Human Rights Commission b. National Telecommunicator’s Week Proclamation 3. Roll Call 4. Approval of Minutes a. City Council Minutes of March 20, 2000 Action: Corrections/amendments to minutes - Minutes approved as presented b. Study Session Minutes of March 13, 2000 Action: Corrections/amendments to minutes - Minutes approved as presented 5. Approval of agenda a. Consent agenda Note: All matters on consent (starred items) are considered to be routine and will be enacted by one motion approving all. There is no separate discussion of these items. If discussion is desired, the starred item will be moved to the regular agenda. Action: Motion to approve - Motion to delete item(s) b. Agenda Action: Motion to approve - Motion to add item(s) *c. Resolutions and Ordinances 2 Action: By consent, waive reading of resolutions and ordinances 6. Public Hearing 6a. Public Hearing regarding proposed change of control or transfer of the St. Louis Park cable franchise from Time Warner Cable to a new parent company, AOL Time Warner. The new company must have City approval for a change of control or transfer of the cable franchise. Recommended Action: Mayor to open public hearing and continue hearing to May 1. 7. Petitions, Requests, Communications – None 8. Resolutions and Ordinances 8a. Request by MSP Real Estate, Inc. for Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development for Mill City Addition, a 200-unit apartment project Case Nos. 99-35-PUD, 99-37-S 7301 Walker Street Recommended Action: Motion to adopt a resolution approving final plat and final Planned Unit Development for Mill City apartments, subject to conditions in the resolution. 8b. The request of Costco Wholesale for a major amendment to the approved Planned Unit Development for Park Place Plaza to permit a 139,144 square feet wholesale retail and tire service facility at 1625 Zarthan Avenue and 5799 W. 16th St. Case No. 95-51-PUD (Amended) Recommended Action: Motion to approve a resolution amending the Park Place Plaza Planned Unit Development and finding no need for a new EAW subject to the conditions in the resolution. 8c. CASE NO. 00-12-ZA - Zoning Ordinance Amendments Zoning Ordinance Amendment to modify Section 14:6-7.E.8 to allow preliminary and final PUDs to be processed simultaneously under certain circumstances. Recommended Action: Approve first reading of Zoning Ordinance amendment modifying Section 14:6-7.E.8 and set second reading for April 17, 2000. 3 *8d. Resolution Adopting a Stormwater Management Documents This action would establish a Flood Proofing Grant Program, approve associated Flood Problem Area Guidelines, and approve the Stormwater Utility Policy that was used to create the Stormwater Utility. Recommended Action: Motion to adopt the attached resolution approving the Stormwater Utility Policy; the Flood Problem Area Guidelines; and the Flood Proofing Program used to operate the stormwater management program. 9. Reports from Officers, Boards, Committees *a. Charter Commission Minutes of January 12, 2000 *b. Housing Authority Minutes of February 9, 2000 *c. Planning Commission Minutes of February 16, 2000 *d. Planning Commission Minutes of March 1, 2000 *e. Police Civil Service Commission Minutes of January 27, 2000 *f. Vendor Claims Action: By consent, accept reports for filing 10. Unfinished Business 11. New Business 11a. MSP Real Estate Development Agreement This report considers approving a development agreement with MSP Real Estate relating to its 200 unit apartment project in the Mill City Tax Increment Financing District. Recommended Action: Motion to adopt the resolution approving the Contract for Private Redevelopment among the St. Louis Park EDA, the City of St. Louis Park and MSP SLP Apartments, LLC relating to its development of a 200 unit apartment building in the Mill City Tax Increment Financing District. 4 *11b. Bid Tab: Purchase of Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) Supply Contract This report considers the purchase of Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) for Water Treatment Plant No. 1, (WTP #1) located at 2935 Jersey Avenue South and Water Treatment Plant No. 4, and (WTP #4) located at 4601 West 41st Street. Recommended Action: Motion to authorize execution of a contract with Norit Americas Inc. for the purchase of GAC in the amount of $55,600.00. *11c. 2000 Arbotect Injection Contract The City annually solicits bids for a program designed to protect the urban forest through the injection of Arbotect 20-S, a chemical fungicide which effectively inoculates American elms from infestation of Dutch Elm Disease. By securing a price which is obtained through the competitive bidding process, the City can offer residents a highly competitive rate for the injection of trees on private property while also meeting the statutory requirements for the solicitation of bids for the injection of trees on public property. Recommended Action: Motion to designate Rainbow Tree Care, Inc. as the lowest responsible bidder and to authorize execution of a contract for the 2000 Arbotect 20-S Elm injection program at a cost of $8.69 per diameter inch. *11d. Renewal of the Property and Liability Insurance Program through the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust for 1999/2000 The League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust has submitted the proposal and premium quote for the annual renewal of property, liability and other coverage for the City. Recommended Action: Motion to approve the insurance program as submitted by the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust for the period 4/1/00 through 4/1/01. *11e. Annual Insurance Renewal – Decline of Waiver on Municipal Tort Liability Limit The League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT) is requiring cities to submit a waiver form that specifies that the City Council has made the decision on whether or not to waive the monetary limits on municipal tort liability established by Minnesota Statutes. Recommended Action: Motion to notify the LMCIT that the City Council does not waive the municipal tort liability limits. 5 12. Miscellaneous 13. Claims, Appropriations, Contract Payments - None 14. Communications 15. Adjournment 6 Item # 4a UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA March 20, 2000 1. Call to Order Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. 2. Presentations Mayor Jacobs read a Proclamation that designated April as National Rental Month. Rachel Fitzgerald, Owner of Reddy Rents was present to receive the proclamation and thanked the City of St. Louis Park for their support. 3. Roll Call The following Councilmembers were present at roll call: Jim Brimeyer, Ron Latz, Chris Nelson, Sue Sanger, Robert Young, and Mayor Jeff Jacobs. Also present were the City Manager (Mr. Meyer); City Attorney (Mr. Scott); Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Kleve); Director of Public Works (Mr. Rardin); Housing Programs Coordinator (Ms. Larsen); Finance Director (Ms. McGann); and Recording Secretary (Ms. Olson). 4. Approval of Minutes a. City Council Minutes of March 6, 2000 Page 5, Item 1a, Change “Karen Doer” to “Karen Dewar”. Page 5, Item 2b, Change “Coral Ho” to “Coral Houle”. Page 6, Item 6a, Last Paragraph, Change “1986-1987” to “1994-1995”. Page 8, Item 6c, Change “It was moved by Councilmember Nelson” to “It was moved by Councilmember Latz”. Page 10, Item 15, Change “It was moved by Councilmember Nelson” to “It was moved by Councilmember Latz”. b. Study Session Minutes of February 14, 2000 7 Page 11, Item 1, 1st Paragraph, Change “option for obtaining an equity partner” to “option for obtaining a commercial/retail expertise”. and Change “He felt if Avalon Bay” to “Councilmember Nelson felt if Avalon Bay” Page 11, Item 1, 3rd Paragraph, Change “would prefer to do it in house” to “would prefer to retain ownership”. c. Study Session Minutes of February 28, 2000 The minutes were approved as presented. 5. Approval of Agendas a. Consent Agenda. It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Young, to approve the consent agenda. The motion passed 6-0. b. Agenda It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to approve the agenda. The motion passed 6-0. c. Resolutions and Ordinances By consent, Council waived reading of resolutions and ordinances. 6. Public Hearings 6a. Mill City Tax Increment Finance District Tom Kleve, Economic Development Coordinator presented a staff report and noted a technical change to the plan which added Met Council. Mr. Kleve asked that a letter from Hennepin County stating that the proposed Mill City Redevelopment TIF District appears to satisfy the preference of the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners to use Tax Increment Financing. Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. With no one wishing to speak, Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing with the right to reopen it at a future date. It was moved by Councilmember Latz, seconded by Councilmember Nelson, to adopt the resolution establishing the Mill City Tax Increment Financing District within Redevelopment Project No. 1 and adopting the Tax Increment Plan therefor. The motion passed 6-0. 6b. Public Hearing to consider allocation of Community Development Block Grant Funds - Year XXVI Kathy Larsen , Housing Programs Coordinator presented a staff report. 8 Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. Bill O’Meara, Representative of Community Action for Suburban Hennepin County was present and thanked St. Louis Park for their continuous support. Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing with the right to reopen it at a future date. Councilmember Latz stated that he was pleased to see a substantial portion of the funds going toward the multi-family rehabilitation efforts. Mayor Jacobs commended the staff for their efforts to implement this plan. It was moved by Councilmember Latz, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to adopt the Resolution approving projected use of funds for 2000 Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant funds, reprogramming $15,000 of 1998 Rehab Counseling/Home Maintenance Public Service Fund to 1998 Emergency Repair Program Fund and authorizing signature of Subrecipient Agreement with Hennepin County and any related Third Party Agreements. The motion passed 6-0. 6c. Public Hearing - Hammer Residences, Inc. Joint Powers Agreement/Revenue Bong Jean McGann, Finance Director presented a staff report. Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. There being no one wishing to speak, Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing with the right to reopen it at a future date. Councilmember Latz asked what Hammer Residences was. Jim Lant, Finance Director of Hammer Residences stated that their organization provided facilities and services for the developmentally disabled. Mayor Jacobs asked about the size of the facility located in St. Louis Park. Mr. Lant stated that the facility in St. Louis Park was a four person home. Councilmember Latz asked for clarification as to why the City was considering issuing revenue bonds to assist Hammer Residences. Cynthia Chamberlain, NW Investment Services, explained that by approving this resolution the City was agreeing to allow the City of Wayzata to issue this debt on their behalf in order for them to save on the interest rate on that debt. Councilmember Latz asked if there was any precedence set for doing this for a comparable organization. Mr. Meyer indicated that back in 1994-95 Park Nicollet executed a similar transaction. 9 It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Nelson, to approve the attached resolution and enter into a Joint Powers agreement The motion passed 6-0. 7. Petitions, Requests, Communications - None 8. Resolutions and Ordinances 8a. Change Order No. 4 to Contract No. 4066 with Howard R. Green Company for Professional Engineering Services By consent, Council adopted the attached resolution authorizing execution of Change Order No. 4 in the amount of $53,774.00 to Contract No. 4066 for Professional Engineering Services increasing the total contract amount from $543,708.00 to $597,482.00. 8b. CASE NO. 00-11-OMB - Second Reading of Text Amendment to Official Map By consent, Council approved Second Reading of Ordinance to amend sections 14-405, 14-406, 14-408, 14-409, 14-409.1 of the Municipal Code related to the Official Map, approved summary ordinance and authorize summary publication. 8c. CASE NO. 00-06-Z - Zoning Ordinance Map Amendments By consent, Council approved second reading of Zoning Ordinance Map amendments to bring the Zoning Map into conformance the Comprehensive Plan, adopt Ordinances, approve summary Ordinances and authorize summary publication. 8d. CASE NO. 00-07-ZA - Zoning Ordinance Amendments By consent, Council approved second reading of Zoning Ordinance amendment modifying Section 14:7-2C, adopt Ordinance, and authorize summary publication. 8e. Resolution Authorizing Amendment of the Southwest Fire Mutual Aid Agreement By consent, Council adopted a resolution approving the addition of the City of Minneapolis to the Southwest Fire Mutual Aid Association. 9. Reports from Officers, Boards, Committees a. Financial Report b. Vendor Claims c. Fire Civil Service Commission Minutes of February 7, 2000 By consent, Council accepted all reports for filing. 10. Unfinished Business - None 10 11. New Business 11a. Authorizing Extending An Agreement Between the City of St. Louis Park and Sedgewick, James of Minnesota, Inc. for Workers Compensation Services By consent, Council extended the contract for services for one year beginning January 1, 2000 and ending December 31, 2000. 11b. Approval of “Right-of Way Permit and Facility Use Agreement” with Metricom, Inc. By consent, Council approved the attached resolution authorizing execution of this agreement. 12. Miscellaneous - None 13. Claims, Appropriation, Contract Payments - None 14. Communications >From the City Manager -Mr. Meyer informed Council of upcoming meeting on April 24th where the Council will vote of the bonds for Louisiana Court. >From the Mayor - Mayor Jacobs commented briefly on the National League of Cities Conference he recently attended in Washington, D.C. 15. Adjournment It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer, to adjourn the meeting at 8:00 p.m. The motion passed 6-0. City Clerk Mayor 11 Item # 4b UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION March 13, 2000 The meeting convened at 7:12 p.m. Present at the meeting were Councilmembers Jim Brimeyer, Susan Sanger, Sue Santa, and Mayor pro-tem Ron Latz. Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Meyer), Community Development Director (Mr. Harmening), Planning and Zoning Supervisor (Ms. Jeremiah), Planning Coordinator (Ms. Erickson), Housing Supervisor (Ms. Schnitker), Housing Programs Coordinator (Ms. Kathy Larsen), Assistant Zoning Administrator (Mr. Scott Moore), Director of Inspections (Mr. Hoffman), Engineering Superintendent (Mr. Carlton Moore), and City Clerk (Ms. Cynthia Larsen). 1. Fees for Signs, Fences, and Parking Lots and Fence height reduction Discussion took place regarding the size of signs and whether contractors should be licensed. The question was raised on how costs would be covered. It was suggested that the same fee should apply for signs of any size, due to the fact that staff time and activity is the same for all signs. It was also stated that the proposed fee structure seemed difficult to administer. Mr. Harmening stated that if charges to the public for city services were to be actual cost of the service performed, the fees would be exorbitant to the public. Council and staff discussed why fence permits would be a good idea and felt that it would provide an educational opportunity for the public and will increase awareness. After discussing parking lot permits, it was decided that the fee should be increased due to the amount of staff time required with this type of permit. It was stated that permits for parking lots would be used for new lots and not for lots renewed through the CUP process. Staff and Council discussed fence heights, the need for privacy and the ramifications of lowering fence heights. After discussion, it was determined that Council agreed with the Planning Commission’s recommendation to retain current fence height restrictions. 2. Texa-Tonka Comprehensive Plan Study Staff requested approval from Council to move forward with a market study for the area. Councilmember Sanger inquired about what would be done with the information gathered from the report and what would be the goals for this project. Councilmember Latz felt the proposed study would be help to compile information needed and goals could be determined at a later time. Councilmember Santa felt baseline information should be determined first to see what the possibilities are for potential redevelopment. She stated that the neighborhood wanted the area cleaned up and this study may provide the information needed to initiate action. 12 Mr. Harmening stated that perhaps expectations should be discussed before the study takes place. Mr. Meyer stated that the Comprehensive Plan initiated the redevelopment effort. Discussion then took place about what the owner’s intentions may be for that area. Councilmember Brimeyer inquired what others felt the end result of the project should be. Councilmember Santa stated that she would like more information before determining what the desired results are. Councilmember Brimeyer asked how much of the intersection in question the study would encompass. Ms. Erickson replied that all four corners of the intersection would be included in the study. Ms. Jeremiah stated that the market study would also be helpful in setting parameters for a task force. Councilmember Sanger asked if Mr. Fine, the owner of the property in question, was going to be a participant in the project, either financially or by attending meetings. Councilmember Latz stated that the information obtained from this study may be the information that Mr. Fine needs to make improvements on the property. Councilmember Brimeyer felt that information should be obtained by assembling background information such as traffic counts, parking study, neighborhood profiles, market study, and determining the boundaries for the study area. Following that information gathering, Council would be better equipped to determine preferred outcomes. 3. Blackstone Neighborhood Traffic Issues Ms. Jeremiah briefly discussed the current traffic patterns of the area such as cut through traffic and intersections confusing to drivers. She stated that the proposed traffic controls would include installation of lights and stop signs. Councilmember Sanger suggested that -through traffic could be stopped by creating a cul-de-sac on 16th St. Council and Staff then discussed the benefits and drawbacks of that proposal. Mr. Harmening reported that traffic counts for the area would be coming back to Council. He also stated that the townhomes would need on-street parking. Mr. Meyer stated that the disbursement compared to the concentration of traffic is the policy issue Council should focus on. Councilmember Sanger suggested the neighborhood review the plans. Ms. Jeremiah replied that arrangements for neighborhood review had already been made and presentations will take place soon. Mr. Harmening felt that installing a traffic signal now would mean that Costco would have to cover the cost of it as part of the development project. Councilmember Latz asked if the development would also help pay for street improvements. Mr. Harmening replied that it could and it may also qualify as local contribution. 13 4. Blackstone Neighborhood Revitalization Ms. Kathy Larsen gave a brief background of the item. She reported that the Council had allocated $100,000 in CDBG funds to be used for targeted neighborhood revitalization. She stated the concerns that Council had regarding a proposed survey that would be given out to residents in the area. Staff has worked with the neighborhood association and Decision Resources Ltd. to develop a survey tool. Councilmember Brimeyer asked what the purpose of the survey would be. Mr. Harmening replied that it would be used to determining the neighborhood’s desires for development and redevelopment. Councilmember Sanger asked if the survey would be limited to single family homes and suggested that homes already purchased for development should not be surveyed. Councilmember Latz inquired if this would accomplish the larger question of viability of the neighborhood in the future. Mr. Harmening replied that it would. He stated that results of the survey would be available in approximately two months. 5. Licensing Policy Issues Staff and Council discussed the extent to which local government should attempt to regulate business, the false perceptions of protection that licensure can give, and liability concerns when the City regulates activities. They also discussed how to set licensing fees, whether they should be set based on market value or actual cost. Council directed staff to proceed with preparing a set of recommendations for license ordinance modifications. 6. Restrictive Easements on Private Property Councilmember Sanger stated that she would like staff to look at other options for residents who would like to working on expansion of their home after a variance has been denied. She added that if any changes are made to the current policy that they would need to set certain criteria and determine how often it would occur. 7. Communications Mr. Meyer informed Council on the progress of the Oak Park Village Task Force. Mr. Meyer stated that there may be a potential strike with the PACE employees in the school district. 8. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 10:42 p.m. City Clerk Mayor 14 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item #6a Meeting of April 3, 2000 6a. Public Hearing regarding proposed change of control or transfer of the St. Louis Park cable franchise from Time Warner Cable to a new parent company, AOL Time Warner. The new company must have City approval for a change of control or transfer of the cable franchise. Recommended Action: Mayor to open public hearing and continue hearing to May 1. Background: The process for the City to grant approval of the transfer or change of control involves several information gathering steps, including this public hearing, with decisions to be made later. Comments will be forwarded to the Telecommunications Advisory Commission for its meeting on April 13. At that meeting the Commission is also expected to review a report from the City Attorney on the technical, legal and financial ability of the new parent company to operate the cable system, and make a recommendation for City Council action on May 1. The reason to continue the public hearing to May 1 is to comply with State law. Joel Jamnik of Campbell Knutson informed staff that, “State law provides that ‘within 30 days after the public hearing, the franchising authority shall approve or deny in writing the sale or transfer request. The approval must not be unreasonably withheld.’ (M.S. 238.03,Subd. 4).” While the Telecommunications Commission should be able to complete its recommendation to Council by within the 30 days, continuing the hearing allows for additional time if the Commission cannot complete its recommendation at its April 13th meeting. The company has a good track record of responding to customer complaints that are directed to the City’s cable television office, and is expected to have a representative available at the public hearing. The company prefers to limit the discussion at the public hearing to those areas narrowly within the scope of the City’s authority (see attached letter dated 3/16/00 from Lance Leupold). Mr. Leupold says in this letter that, “The City may not use the change of control approval process to review information or impose conditions unrelated to the limited authority to evaluate the financial, legal and technical qualifications of the transferee.” The City’s authority is limited as described but some cities have imposed conditions during the transfer process, most notably Portland, Oregon and its 1999 requirement that AT&T open its cable system to multiple Internet access providers. That requirement was upheld by a state appeals court and remains on appeal at a Federal District Court. 15 Other conditions that have been imposed typically involve redress of franchise violations. At this time the consensus of staff and Joel Jamnik is that there are no issues that require imposing conditions. Therefore, the public hearing is an opportunity to find out if there are other customer issues that should be considered by the Council and its advisory commission. The hearing notice was printed in the St. Louis Park Sun Sailor on March 15, has been displayed for several weeks on the City-managed cable channels (35, 33 & 96) and on the City’s web site. It was also described in the “Park Perspective” cable television show that began running March 2. The Park Perspective newsletter that will reach homes about April 7 will also describe the upcoming meeting schedule. Attachments: 3/10/00 Letter to Time Warner’s Arlen Mattern Notice of public hearing St. Louis Park Sun Sailor 3/16/00 Letter from Lance Leupold Prepared by: Reg Dunlap and John McHugh, TV Coordinators Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 16 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RELATED TO THE TRANSFER OF CONTROL OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the St. Louis Park City Council will meet at City Hall on April 3, 2000 to conduct a public hearing on a proposed transfer of control of the St. Louis Park Cable Communications Franchise from Time Warner, Inc. to a new company formed by a merger with America Online to be called AOL Time Warner, Inc. All interested persons may appear and be heard at this public hearing. Written comments may be sent to the City’s cable television office. Auxiliary Aides are available upon request for persons with disabilities to assist in participation at the meeting. Please call the City’s TDD line (924-2518) at least 96 hours (four days) in advance of the meeting time to make arrangements. If you have questions, contact the City’s cable television office at 924-2660. CYNTHIA LARSEN CITY CLERK Published in the St. Louis Park Sun Sailor: March 15, 2000 17 March 10, 2000 Arlen Mattern Time Warner Cable 801 Plymouth Avenue North Minneapolis, Minnesota 55411 Dear Arlen; We have finalized the City Council public hearing and Cable TV Commission meeting schedule, at least from the standpoint of holding them in appropriate legal time windows. Here they are: 7:30p.m. April 3: Public hearing at City Council meeting; continue to April 17. 7:00p.m. April 13: Cable TV Commission meeting in Council Chambers 7:30p.m. May 1: City Council considers First Reading of Resolution 7:30p.m. May 15: City Council Second Reading of Resolution sets effective date. We hope you or another Time Warner representative will be able to attend each of these meetings. When any staff reports for these meetings are prepared, we will forward them to you (or other company representative you designate) as soon as they go to Council. A few other timeline items: March 27: Joint meeting between Council & Cable TV Commission, arranged to discuss 1999 Commission activities and plans for 2000 meetings. When an agenda is available, probably about March 23, I’ll send it and call to discuss whether or not any discussion pertaining to the company is expected. The week of March 13-17, John McHugh and I will meet with Joel Jamnik, the City Attorney assisting us, to discuss franchise language amendments and the Form 394. We propose to meet with the appropriate Time Warner representatives soon after, to see if the franchise amendments are acceptable to the company. The City Attorney may request clarifying information from Time Warner for his report, which he plans to have available for the April 13 Cable TV Commission meeting. In any request, we’ll give notice about when we would need to have responses to stay on track for approval. For the April 3 public hearing, legal notice has been arranged for the March 15 Sun Sailor. We’ll also put a notice on the Civic Cable Channel. Here’s the notice that will run in the City newsletter, Park Perspective: (Arlen Mattern March 10, 2000 Page 2) AOL/Time Warner merger meetings Over the next few months various public meetings will consider how the merger of America Online and Time Warner will affect St. Louis Park’s cable television system and 18 franchise. All interested persons may appear and be heard at the public hearing. Written comments may be sent to the City’s cable television office. 7:30p.m. April 3: Public hearing at City Council meeting 7:00p.m. April 13: Cable TV Commission meeting in Council Chambers 7:30p.m. May 1: City Council considers recommendation including input from public, Cable TV Commission, City Attorney and staff I suggest that the preceding paragraph could be edited appropriately to run on the company’s St. Louis Park character generator and John or I would be willing to do a guest spot on “Time Warner Connections” if needed. As you probably know, the City must conclude this process by June 10 or the request is granted, unless the company agrees to an extension. We understand that other communities may be undertaking this process as well, and that the company representatives may have competing requests for attendance. Please review the proposed schedule with the appropriate Time Warner staff and let us know if the company has any concerns, questions or problems with it. We look forward to your feedback to assure a timely public hearing process. Very truly yours, Reg Dunlap C: Kim Roden Lance Leupold Clint Pires Joel Jamnik 19 20 21 22 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 8a Meeting of April 3, 2000 8a. Request by MSP Real Estate, Inc. for Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development for Mill City Addition, a 200-unit apartment project Case Nos. 99-35-PUD, 99-37-S 7301 Walker Street Recommended Action: Motion to adopt a resolution approving final plat and final Planned Unit Development for Mill City apartments, subject to conditions in the resolution. Zoning: R-C, High Density Residential Comprehensive Plan Designation: RH, Residential up to 50 units per acre Background: MSP Real Estate is requesting final plat and final PUD approval to redevelop the former Mill City Plywood site and a small piece of City-owned land along Walker Street as a market rate, 200-unit apartment project. The buildings would have ground level garage parking and four stories of apartments above, with a clubhouse along Highway 7 as a visual focus. On February 7, 2000 the City Council approved the preliminary plat, preliminary PUD and a ten- foot rear yard setback variance for Mill City apartments with conditions on a vote of 6-1. An ordinance modification for 316 parking spaces instead of the required 340 was approved at that time. The developer is requesting an increased ordinance modification for parking due to some proposed office space on site. On March 1, 2000 the Planning Commission considered the final plat and final PUD and approved both on a vote of 6-1. The building elevations were not finalized for Planning Commission review, and the developer was proposing to reduce the Class I exterior materials from 70-80% on some facades to the Ordinance minimum of 60%. Staff recommended approval subject to the developer continuing to work with staff to ensure that the building design would meet Comprehensive Plan goals and the requirements of the PUD Ordinance. The dissenting Commissioner objected to the proposed reduction in Class I materials and felt that enough concessions had been granted to the project already. Issues: • Are the final PUD plans consistent with the conditions of preliminary approval? • Are the final PUD plans consistent with the Planning Commission’s conditions of final approval? • Are other Zoning Ordinance requirements met? 23 • Is the increased ordinance modification for parking acceptable? Issues Analysis: Are the final PUD plans consistent with the conditions of preliminary approval? The conditions of preliminary approval are as follows: Prior to final PUD or final plat consideration, applicant shall provide detailed elevation drawings which show building entrances along Walker Street consistent with the approved preliminary site plan and address the design issues outlined in the staff report. There were no detailed building elevation drawings or landscape plans submitted with the preliminary PUD, therefore consideration of several design issues were to be addressed as part of the final PUD. The design issues included: • Providing prominent building entrances along Walker Street which help orient the project towards the street and park, add architectural interest, and provide good pedestrian access to nearby parks, trails and transit. • Provide a high degree of architectural interest, particularly at the pedestrian level. • Per the approved Redevelopment Plan for the Highway 7/Louisiana area, provide a common design theme in the area and extend the development pattern from the west (in particular, compatibility with the Newport on Seven apartments). • Per the PUD Ordinance, ensure maximum compatibility with surrounding land uses; and provide a higher than minimum standard of building and site design, including architectural compatibility of all structures and aesthetically pleasing landscape and site features. • In addition, all Zoning Ordinance requirements regarding architectural design must be met, such as exterior materials standards and building wall deviation. 24 The building elevation drawings have been revised substantially since preliminary PUD. The general octagonal building shape and site placement is the same, with the proposed exterior materials a combination of brick, two tones of stucco, glass, cement siding (which was approved as a Class II material on a trial basis with preliminary PUD approval), a split face rock ground level, and asphalt shingle roof. Regarding the above conditions: Building entrances: This condition is met. The building entrances along Walker have been revised as prominent features along that façade, similar in style to the interior building entrances. Pedestrian level interest: Staff believes this has been achieved. The horizontal line of split face rock on the garage level is proposed to vary around the balcony areas on all facades, which adds interest. In most areas, berming and landscaping is proposed to screen several feet of the ground level. In areas along Walker Street and Louisiana, where there is less berming, the landscape plan has been revised to show additional evergreen trees and shrubs around the building foundation. Compatibility of design with Newport on Seven/surrounding land uses: Staff believes this standard is met. The proposed building elevations have been modified from previous designs to incorporate more brick on the exterior facades in order to tie in better with Newport on Seven. The cement siding is similar in color, appearance and placement to the grey wood siding on the adjacent apartments. In addition, the general building shape, massing, and level of architectural detail is consistent with the apartments to the west. Minimum architectural design standards in Zoning Ordinance: Minimum exterior materials standards for 60% Class I materials are not met on the building facades facing Walker Street. This cannot be approved through the PUD, since it is not an allowable modification and building design is held to a superior standard. Therefore, staff is recommending that the cement siding proposed around the building entrances be changed to stucco in order to meet this requirement and to be more consistent with PUD standards. Otherwise, the minimum architectural standards are met. PUD Ordinance requirements: Staff believes that overall, a higher standard of building and site design has been achieved through the clubhouse feature, architecturally interesting building shape, features and variety of materials and superior landscaping. However, staff believes that the building exterior facing Walker does not yet meet this standard. A large amount of cement siding is proposed around the building entrances from the second to fourth stories. This material has been approved as a Class II material on a trial basis only for the first time with this project, and the material is used elsewhere on the building only in the balcony areas or on the third and fourth stories. In addition, this facade does not meet the minimum Class I requirements in the Zoning Ordinance. As noted, staff is recommending that the cement siding in this area be replaced with stucco to meet Zoning Ordinance requirements and create a higher quality appearance along Walker Street. 2. Submit complete final PUD and final plat application requirements (detailed elevations, final tree replacement plan, final landscape plan, final plat drawing, etc.) The required plans have been submitted and are analyzed in this report. 25 Are the final PUD plans consistent with the Planning Commission’s conditions of final approval? The conditions in the Planning Commission’s final PUD staff report which were to be addressed prior to City Council consideration are as follows: A. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in conformance with the official exhibits which shall be amended prior to City Council consideration, to address the following conditions: 1. Provide high-quality building elevation drawings which address the requirement for providing greater architectural interest at the pedestrian level, particularly Walker and Louisiana and at an adequate level of detail to ensure compliance with City Codes. As discussed above, the proposed elevation drawings do not meet minimum exterior materials standards on the façade facing Walker Street, and staff is recommending adding stucco to this facade. Otherwise, this condition is met. 2. Revise title page of final plat to show correct date. The title page of the final plat document has been revised. The final plat document meets all other requirements. 3. Revised grading plan to be approved by Public Works. The grades around the south stormwater pond are proposed to be modified to accommodate some changes in the retaining wall directly north of that pond. The Public Works Department has accepted the revised grading plan. 4. Designate a minimum of 20 guest parking only spaces on the site plan. The required guest parking is shown on the site plan, and the stalls are to be designated on site through signage or other means acceptable to the Zoning Administrator. The developer believes this will be adequate. However, another multi-family developer has suggested that a typical guideline is one guest space for every four units, or 50 spaces total. Therefore, staff and the Planning Commission are also recommending a condition that if guest parking becomes a problem on Walker Street (where on-street parking is prohibited) or other areas such as fire lanes, the Zoning Administrator may require the proof of parking to be converted to parking and/or additional guest parking be designated on site. 5. Include an approved Metro Transit stop on Walker Street. The developer has obtained written approval from Metro Transit for a transit stop on the south side of Walker Street directly west of Louisiana Avenue. Therefore, with the recommended change discussed in #1, the conditions are met. Are other Zoning Ordinance requirements met? Landscape plan and tree replacement plan: The landscape plan shows the proposed landscaping and bufferyards on site including on site tree replacement. The plan meets the City’s landscape and bufferyard requirements, and the landscape architect has worked with City staff to ensure 26 that the plant species are appropriate for site conditions and complement City plantings on boulevards and adjacent sites. As noted above, plantings have been enhanced in several areas near the building to screen more of the ground floor exterior. Regarding tree replacement, 1,499 inches of significant trees are proposed to be removed, which are almost all of the trees. 1,798 replacement trees are required. The developer is proposing to plant approximately 623 replacement inches on site, and to donate the remaining 1,175 inches to the City for planting on public lands, which is allowed by the Subdivision Ordinance. Because of the required design of the stormwater ponds, which occupy most of the open space on the site, existing trees cannot be retained in the ponding areas nor new trees planted there. Staff believes the tree replacement plan is acceptable given the site constraints, and is recommending a condition of approval regarding donating the remaining replacement inches to the City as cash. Lighting and signage plans: Staff is recommending a condition that complete lighting and signage plans be submitted and approved as a condition of building permit issuance. Is the increased ordinance modification for parking acceptable? Parking requirements: Approximately 1800 square feet of office space is proposed within the clubhouse, which increases the parking requirements by seven parking stalls. This brings the total parking requirement to 346 stalls after allowable reductions for access to transit and provision of bicycle stalls are taken. The proposed 316 parking stalls, plus ten proof of parking, is still well within the 15% parking reduction allowable by PUD, and staff agrees with the developer that the amount of parking provided is adequate. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the final plat and final PUD subject to the conditions in the resolution. Attachments: • Proposed resolution • Official Exhibits • Floor Plans • Colored elevations Prepared by: Sacha Peterson, Planner Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 27 RESOLUTION NO._____________ A RESOLUTION APPROVING A FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) UNDER SECTION 14:6-7 OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING FOR PROPERTY ZONED R-C HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LOCATED AT 7301 WALKER STREET AND FINAL PLAT – MILL CITY ADDITION WHEREAS, the City Council approved the Preliminary PUD and Preliminary Plat for Mill City Addition on February 7, 2000, Resolution No. 00-010; and WHEREAS, an application for approval of a Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Final Plat for Mill City Addition was received on February 22, 2000 from the applicant, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the Final PUD and Plat at the meeting of March 1, 2000, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Final PUD and Plat on a 6-1 vote with six members present voting in the affirmative, and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the staff reports, Planning Commission minutes and testimony of those appearing at the public hearing or otherwise including comments in the record of decision. BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park: Findings 1. MSP Real Estate has 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 R-C High Density Residential district located at 7301 Walker Street: and MSP Real Estate, owners and subdividers of the land proposed to be platted as Mill City Addition has 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. 99-35-PUD and 99-37-S) and the effect of the proposed PUD and Plat 28 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 99-35-PUD and 99-37-S 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 for Mill City Addition at the location described are approved based on the findings set forth above and subject to the following conditions: A. Site shall be developed, used and maintained in conformance with Official Exhibits A through G, Exhibit G building elevations to be revised to show stucco rather than cement siding around the building entrances. B. Final plat and PUD approval and development is contingent upon sale of certain City land to developer and meeting all conditions of final approval. C. Before a final plat is signed by the City, the developer shall comply with the following requirements: 1. 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. 2. A development agreement shall be executed between the developer and the City/EDA which covers at a minimum, allowable plan modifications, sidewalk construction and maintenance, tree replacement, installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Louisiana and Walker Street and creation of a left turn lane on Louisiana Avenue, and repair and cleaning of public streets. The development agreement shall also cite the approved parking modification. 3. Submit financial security in the form of cash escrow or letter of credit in the amount of 125% of the costs of tree replacement, sidewalk installation, and repair/cleaning of public streets. 4. Submit a copy of unrecorded trail easement document to City for review. 5. Reimbursement of City attorney’s fees in drafting/reviewing such documents. D. Within 60 days of final plat approval by the City Council, the subdivider shall record the final plat with the County Recorder. The subdivider shall, immediately upon recording, furnish the City Clerk with a print and reproducible tracing of the final plat showing evidence of the recording. The subdivider shall also provide a copy of the final plat on disc in an electronic data format. 29 E. Prior to or simultaneously with recording of the final plat, the trail easement shall be recorded. F. Prior to any site work, the developer shall meet the following requirements: 1. A drainage permit shall be obtained from MNDOT. 2. A copy of the Watershed District permit shall be forwarded to the City. 3. Any other necessary permits from other agencies shall be obtained. 4. Sign assent form and official exhibits. 5. Meet all conditions for the City signing the final plat. 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 recording of the final plat and trail easement. 3. Submit and have approved lighting plans, signage plans, and building materials samples. H. A PUD ordinance modification to allow 316 parking stalls rather than the required 346 stalls is approved as part of the final PUD. I. A six foot concrete sidewalk along the south side of Walker Street is to be installed and maintained by the developer per the approved site plan, unless the City chooses to maintain the sidewalk. A ten-foot bituminous trail is to be installed on Louisiana Avenue by the developer and maintained by the City per the approved preliminary plat. J. The developer shall provide the 1,798 inches of replacement trees on site or a combination of on-site trees and cash in lieu of trees. The Community Development Director and Parks and Recreation Director shall approve the cash equivalent amount. K. The 20 required guest parking spaces shall be reserved via signage or other means approved by the Zoning Administrator. If evidence, such as parking on public streets, drive aisles or fire lanes, indicates that additional guest spaces are needed, the Zoning Administrator may require conversion of proof of parking and/or designation of additional on-site guest parking. Pursuant to Section 14:6-7.5(F) of the Zoning Ordinance, the City will require execution of a development agreement as a condition of approval of the Final P.U.D. The development agreement shall address those issues that the City Council deems appropriate and necessary. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council March 20, 2000 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk 30 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 8b Meeting of April 3, 2000 8b. The request of Costco Wholesale for a major amendment to the approved Planned Unit Development for Park Place Plaza to permit a 139,144 square feet wholesale retail and tire service facility at 1625 Zarthan Avenue and 5799 W. 16th St. Case No. 95-51-PUD (Amended) Recommended Action: Motion to approve a resolution amending the Park Place Plaza Planned Unit Development and finding no need for a new EAW subject to the conditions in the resolution. Background: On June 3, 1996, the St. Louis Park City Council adopted Resolution #96-89 approving a final Planned Unit Development (PUD) and plat for the redevelopment of the former Honeywell site into a shopping center. This shopping center (Park Place Plaza) was divided into nine (9) buildable lots to accommodate over 325,000 square feet of retail and restaurant. Currently, six (6) of the nine (9) lots have been developed. Costco is proposing to develop retail space along with a tire service facility and parking on two (2) of the three vacant parcels. One of the lots is located on the southeast corner of Zarthan Avenue and West 16th Street (Lot 1), and the other is directly to the east also along West 16th Street (Lot 8). Lot 1 would be developed with a 139, 144 square foot principal building used for retail sales (including a liquor store), tire service and parking, while Lot 8 would only be developed as parking. When the PUD was approved by the City Council, Lot 1 was conceptually approved with 110,000 square feet of retail and parking, and Lot 8 was approved with a 5,000 square foot bank, drive-thru facility, and parking. The remaining vacant lot (Lot 9 just north of PetSmart) was approved for 5,000 square feet of retail, which Ryan Companies has indicated is still the plan for that lot. On February 22, 2000, the developer held a neighborhood meeting to informally review the plans. On March 1, 2000, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, which included review of the traffic study. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the major amendment on a vote of 4-3 subject to the conditions recommended by staff. The Planning Commission also recommended no need for a new EAW. Concerns raised by Commissioners voting against the proposal included a lack of adequate pedestrian connections, an unnecessary amount of parking, and a lack of green space/landscaping. Residents testifying during the public 31 hearing raised concerns about potential impacts on the nearby single-family neighborhood as well as a lack of direct automobile access to the proposed storefront. Issues: • What are the results and recommendations of the traffic study? • Is a new Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) needed for this development? • Are the Zoning Ordinance requirements and Planning Commission conditions being satisfied? • What are the PUD resolution and Development Agreement restrictions? Analysis of Issues: What are the results and recommendations of the traffic study? The Costco proposal exceeds the square footage that was conceptually approved with the original PUD. Costco is also proposing to close a customer entrance to the center on 16th Street that currently exists near the front of the proposed Costco building and continues in front of Home Depot. The proposed change results in a concentration of additional traffic at the remaining 16th Street customer entrance. For these reasons, the City commissioned SRF Consulting to perform a traffic study in order to determine the impact on adjacent roads and intersections of the increased development and circulation change (the study has been paid for by the developer). Possible realignment of Zarthan Avenue: The Public Works Department has recently raised the possibility of a realignment of Zarthan Avenue between Wayzata Boulevard and West 16th Street to create a more continuous frontage road from Wayzata to 16th. This is in part a response to nearby residents’ concerns regarding cut-through traffic on Zarthan Avenue between 16th Street and Cedar Lake Road. Therefore, the traffic study also analyzed the effect of the Costco development with respect to this possible road change, as well as the anticipated effect of the possible realignment on cut-through traffic on Zarthan Avenue. It was assessed that about 27% (or about 50 cars in the P.M. peak hour) of the traffic on Zarthan Avenue between 16th Street and Cedar Lake Road is cut-through traffic, and that a fairly small percentage (20%) of the cut- through traffic would be diverted if Zarthan were to be realigned. Therefore, it is predicted that if Zarthan were realigned, about 10 fewer cars would use Zarthan Avenue between 16th and Cedar Lake Road during the P.M. peak hour. The remainder of the traffic study shows very little difference in the projected results whether Zarthan Avenue is realigned or remains as it is today. The summary below therefore only discusses the results assuming Zarthan is not realigned, although the traffic study shows both scenarios. The City Council discussed the possibility of a realignment of Zarthan Avenue as well as other neighborhood traffic issues during the March 13th Study Session. The City Council seemed generally favorable toward the realignment as a means of reducing impacts on the neighborhood. Additional analysis regarding the proposed realignment and neighborhood cut-through traffic is being done in conjunction with the CSM/Rottlund proposal for the northwest corner of 16th and Zarthan Avenue. 32 Summary of study: The study analyzed the key adjacent roads and determined traffic volumes and levels of service for three scenarios: current levels, a 2002 “no-build” scenario, and 2002- build scenario with Costco. The study finds that overall, with several recommended improvements, the Costco proposal can be supported by the adjacent roadway system. The analysis of current operations (Table 1, p.3) show that all intersections currently operate at a level of service “C” or better. (Levels of service are rated “A” through “F” with A the best and F the worst.) In the past the City has generally considered A through D to be acceptable levels of service and E or F unacceptable, although a LOS E has been accepted for a minor approach in some instances in the past (an example of a minor approach is an intersection with a two-way stop, the streets with the stop signs would be considered minor approaches). LOS E has also been accepted on some high volume County and State roadways (generally awaiting improvements) and for up to 50% of the I-394/Park Place Boulevard ramp intersections. “No-Build” Development Assumptions: There is a substantial amount of new development anticipated in both St. Louis Park and Golden Valley over the next few years in this area, and staff asked SRF to include the anticipated increase in traffic from these developments in the 2002 “no-build” scenario. Some projects have not yet received final approvals, and/or may not be completed by 2002, therefore relative to the level of development anticipated, the projections represent a worst-case scenario. These developments include the build-out of over 1 million square feet of office development by Duke/Weeks (formerly MEPC), 265,000 square feet of Northco office development on the North Star Tennis site, and the CSM/Rottlund hotel/townhome project in St. Louis Park. The “no-build” scenario also includes a 600,000 square foot office complex for Allianz/Life USA, which has received preliminary approval in Golden Valley, plus other approved development in Golden Valley. “No-Build” Analysis: Under the 2002 “no-build” capacity analysis, all of the intersections are projected to operate at an overall LOS D or better, except for Park Place Boulevard and Wayzata Avenue, which is projected to operate at LOS F. SRF is recommending the installation of an additional right turn only lane westbound on Wayzata Boulevard, which would bring the LOS to C. SRF is also recommending further study on the need for a southbound dual left turn lane on Park Place Boulevard. Because the anticipated increases are related primarily to future office development in the area rather than Costco, Costco would not be expected to fund this improvement. The improvements would probably be completed and paid for in conjunction with the future office development. The Zarthan/West 16th Street intersection is expected to operate at a LOS D, with the minor approach (westbound 16th Street) at a LOS E. Build Analysis: The 2002 build capacity analysis projects that all intersections would operate at a LOS D or better with three exceptions. Without recommended improvements, Park Place Boulevard and Wayzata Avenue is projected to operate at LOS F, same as the 2002 “no-build” analysis. The recommended improvements would bring the LOS to D under a build scenario. West 16th Street at the main access driveway to the Park Place Plaza development would go from LOS A/E under no-build to LOS F/F (the second letter represents the minor approach, i.e. the access drive) without improvements. Zarthan/West 16th Street is anticipated to go from LOS D/E under no-build to LOS F/F without improvements. 33 West 16th St/Main access drive: Currently, the main site access drive on 16th Street is aligned somewhat to the west of the access drive on the north side of West 16th Street which serves the office/retail/hotel there. Staff was concerned that excess stacking on 16th for entry onto the Costco site could contribute to safety problems at this intersection. Staff was also concerned that excess stacking on the main access drive for exit onto 16th would interfere with access to the restaurant area of the site. At staff’s request, SRF analyzed this intersection. SRF has recommended installation of a traffic signal at this intersection, and shifting the main access drive to the east to line up with the access drive on the north side of West 16th Street. The signal and driveway relocation are expected to bring the LOS to A for all approaches, and reduce queuing to acceptable levels. The proposed site plan shows the main access drive shifted east as recommended. Staff and the Planning Commission recommend that Costco fund the realignment and installation of the traffic signal. Zarthan/W.16th Street: At a minimum, SRF is recommending installation of a four-way stop sign at this intersection to bring the LOS from F/F to D/E. A queuing analysis was also performed for this intersection, and the installation of 4-way stop signs are expected to bring queuing levels from 20+ cars during the P.M. peak hour to “acceptable levels.” While the City has accepted a LOS D/E in some instances in the past, staff is concerned about the impact a LOS D/E at this intersection would have on nearby residents. Staff asked SRF to determine the additional volume at this intersection that would warrant a traffic signal and when in the future these volumes would be anticipated, given normal increases in background traffic. The analysis concluded that given the expected traffic volumes under the 2002-build scenario, a traffic signal would be warranted in 2002. The analysis also concluded that if Zarthan were to be realigned, a signal would be warranted in 2012 based on projected traffic volumes, although other factors besides traffic volumes could necessitate a traffic signal sooner. As noted, the City Council discussed the desired improvements to this intersection at a recent study session in March. Based upon current information, staff and the Planning Commission are recommending that Costco dedicate land, if necessary, to make future improvements to this intersection, as anticipated on the original development agreement for the site. Staff and the Planning Commission further recommend that Costco submits funds to pay for its share of necessary future improvements to this intersection, which could include a signal as early as 2002. CSM/Rottlund would also be expected to pay its share of future improvements to this intersection. A representative of SRF will be present on April 3rd to answer any questions related to the traffic study. Is a new Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) needed for this development? An EAW was required for the original development proposal, since it exceeded the threshold of 300,000 square feet of proposed commercial development. With required mitigation, such as storm water ponds and traffic improvements installed as part of the first phase of construction, the original EAW was approved with a negative declaration on the need for an EIS (a more intensive environmental review). Since the Costco proposal would increase the amount of approved commercial space, staff reviewed the environmental rules with staff of the 34 Environmental Quality Board (EQB) to determine if a new EAW is needed. The rules state the following: Subp. 5. Change in proposed project; new EAW. If after a negative declaration has been issued but before the proposed project has received all approvals or been implemented, the RGU determines that a substantial change has been made in the proposed project that may affect the potential for significant adverse environmental effects, a new EAW is required. The City of St. Louis Park is the RGU (Regulating Government Agency) for determinations related to the environmental review process, such as the potential need for a new EAW. Based upon the rules noted above and the increased density of the proposal, staff recognized the potential for additional adverse effects relating to storm water and traffic/air quality. Stormwater Analysis: A new storm water analysis was prepared and accepted by the City’s Public Works Department as consistent with the original approval. Therefore, staff has found no additional adverse effects relating to storm water from the Costco proposal. Traffic/Air Quality Analysis: As noted above, a new traffic analysis was prepared for the proposal. The traffic analysis revealed increased traffic impacts, which would also result in diminished air quality at certain intersections, unless certain traffic improvements are implemented with the proposed project. Staff discussed this issue with the EQB staff and was informed that mitigation could be considered in making a determination regarding whether a new EAW is needed. The mitigation would have to bring anticipated impacts back to the level that was accepted as part of the original EAW and would have to be made a condition of project approval. A comparison of anticipated traffic impacts from the original EAW and the new traffic study, both considering mitigation, is as follows: EAW with Costco with Intersection LOS Improvements LOS Improvements Xenia Ave. & I-394 North Ramps C or better B Xenia Ave. & I-394 South Ramps C/D B Park Place Blvd. & Wayzata Blvd. D D Park Place Blvd. & 16th St. C or better B Park Place Blvd. & Gamble Dr. C B Park Place Blvd. & CLR/Parkdale Dr. D/E C Cedar Lake Rd. & Zarthan Ave. D B Zarthan Ave. & 16th Street C D/E (4way stop) or C+ (signal) 16th St. & Main Access Drive Not Analyzed A 35 As the above comparison illustrates, proposed traffic improvements to mitigate impacts from Costco and other anticipated development would result in traffic levels that are at least as good as those anticipated in the EAW as long as a traffic signal is installed at 16th and Zarthan. Therefore, staff and the Planning Commission recommend that a new EAW is not necessary as long as Costco funds its share of the traffic signal. Are the Zoning Ordinance requirements and Planning Commission conditions being satisfied? Dimensional Standards and Densities The proposed Costco development meets the setbacks, floor area ratio, and building height requirements. Conditions within the C-2 District The proposal meets most of the requirements for a shopping center within the C-2 District. No drive-thru or outdoor sales/display is proposed. Interior and exterior cart storage areas are provided as required, including curbed landscaped islands around the temporary parking lot storage areas. The trash and loading areas are proposed to be screened from off-site views with the use of architecturally designed screen walls and landscaping. Since Planning Commission review, the screen walls have been revised to use the same exterior facing materials as the building and to integrate with materials used on other screen walls in the project. However, the proposed 8’8” height of the trash screen wall and 9’4’’ height of the loading screen wall are substantially less than the 12’ high screen walls required of Home Depot and other uses in the development. This raises some questions about potential visibility and noise from off-site. Costco has responded that they believe the screen walls will completely screen trucks since the loading areas are suppressed from where the height is measured. Staff recommends that Costco either provide screen walls consistent with the rest of the large-scale uses in the development or evidence that trucks will be completely screened from off-site views. The building is proposed to integrate with other buildings within the PUD as required. Since Planning Commission review, the elevations have been revised to show the use of glass on the tire service doors to improve consistency with the retail storefront appearance of the remainder of the shopping center. The proposal involves completing the landscaping of a required pedestrian connection along the south side of Lot 1 that was previously approved and constructed. However, Costco is also proposing to modify the pedestrian connection by providing two breaks in the curbing to allow carts to pass between the Home Depot and Costco parking lots. Given the amount of parking proposed for Costco (see below), staff does not believe this is necessary. The Planning 36 Commission concurred with staff’s recommendation. However, if the City Council deems the change acceptable, staff recommends requiring additional details to determine effects on ADA requirements for the sidewalk and potential impacts on existing landscaping. If the curb cuts in the pedestrian connection are approved, staff and the Planning Commission recommend requiring additional proof of parking green space, since parking will readily be shared with the Home Depot lot. The project is required to reserve a minimum of 10% of the required parking as proof of parking. Since Planning Commission review, the plans have been revised to show the minimum amount of required proof of parking set aside as green space. As noted, staff and the Planning Commission recommend either an additional proof of parking set aside or removing the proposed curb cuts in the pedestrian walkway. Parking The parking requirement for a shopping center this size is one stall per 220 square feet, with a minimum of 10% set aside as proof of parking. The initial approval included proof of parking on all lots. Cumulative parking requirements for large shopping centers may also be reduced by up to 30% if, for example, there are shared parking arrangements between uses or proof in excess of minimum is set aside. With the proposed 139,144 square feet of retail and standard Code reductions for transit and bicycle provisions, the amount of required parking for Costco is 539 parking stalls with a minimum of 10% (54 spaces) set aside as proof of parking green space. Therefore, if there is no sharing between uses, only 485 spaces need to be paved for this use. This can be reduced if parking is shared with Home Depot. As noted above, Costco is proposing to share parking with Home Depot by providing breaks in an existing pedestrian connection to allow carts to pass through. In spite of the proposed sharing, Costco is currently proposing to provide a total of 614 parking stalls, including 560 paved stalls and only the minimum 54 proof of parking spaces. In other words, Costco is both proposing paved parking in excess of Code requirements as well as breaks in the pedestrian walkway to allow carts to pass through and parking to be shared with the Home Depot site. Staff and the Planning Commission do not see the need to interrupt the pedestrian walkway and share with Home Depot unless paved parking is reduced on the Costco site. Therefore, staff and the Planning Commission recommend requiring additional spaces to be set aside as proof of parking. As an alternative, staff recommends allowing the amount of proposed parking on the Costco site but eliminating the proposed interruptions to the pedestrian walkway, which should be unnecessary. Landscaping Both Lot 1 and Lot 8 will be in compliance with the perimeter and internal landscaping requirements. The perimeter bufferyards are not intensifying from what was required previously, so the existing vegetation will be sufficient. The parking areas are required to provide 1,314 plant units within them. They are proposing to have over 1,400 units installed. Underground 37 irrigation is required. A revised full scale landscape plan has been submitted with a note to this effect. Signage A dimensioned signage plan was submitted after Planning Commission consideration. The signage plan includes signage that is well in excess of maximum Code allowances. Deviations to the sign ordinance cannot be approved by PUD. Therefore, staff has included a condition of approval that the signage plan must be reduced to meet Code prior to issuance of a sign permit, unless a variance for additional signage has been granted. Lighting A light distribution plan was submitted after Planning Commission consideration. It indicates light levels along 16th Street that are high in some places. Deviations to the lighting ordinance cannot be approved by PUD. Therefore staff has included a condition of approval that shields or other devices will have to be installed to reduced the light levels below the maximum allowed at property lines and to ensure that a direct source of light is not visible from off site. Architectural Design The proposed building complies with the minimum Class I building material requirements and is consistent with the design of the remainder of the shopping center. The proposed materials include a combination of brick, glass and rock face block. The required building wall deviations are being satisfied. Parapet walls are required to completely screen all rooftop equipment from ground level view. The rooftop equipment must also be painted the same color as the roof to diminish its appearance as viewed from the nearby office towers. It is staff’s understanding that Costco intends to comply with these requirements, which will be checked prior to building permit issuance. Development Agreement: A development agreement that was executed with the original approval will need to be amended to address design, construction, and financial sureties for construction of improvements related to this site. What are the existing PUD resolution and Development Agreement restrictions? The approved resolution and Development Agreement has certain restrictions for hours of construction, routes for construction vehicles, hours for delivery and service vehicles, and temporary signage. The PUD resolution restricts the hours of demolition, hauling, and construction to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. on weekdays, and 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. on weekends and 38 holidays. Likewise, the construction vehicles and equipment are prohibited from using Zarthan Avenue between Cedar Lake Road and West 16th Street. Delivery and garbage service trucks are also limited to servicing the building to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on weekdays, and 9:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on weekends and holidays. These vehicles are also prohibited from using Zarthan Avenue between Cedar Lake Road and West 16th Street. Staff and the Planning Commission have some concerns that the garbage service is proposed to be accessed from the customer entry rather than the approved service drive. Staff and the Planning Commission therefore recommend a condition that additional restrictions may be enforced, if necessary, to prevent conflicts between garbage trucks and customer cars during peak restaurant hours. Temporary signage is permitted only on the building façade or on the property where the sign is displayed to other properties within the PUD. The signs are also required to meet the other city codes as they pertain to size and location from property lines. Are there outstanding issues with Park Place Plaza? There are some outstanding issues that need to be completed or complied with for the entire Park Place Plaza project. They include providing colored concrete at the main identification point at the corner of West 16th Street and Park Place Boulevard, providing a seat or bench on the main identification sign at the same corner of West 16th Street and Park Place Boulevard, constructing a bus shelter at the bus stop located on West 16th Street, and ensuring the sidewalks throughout the entire project are always cleared for pedestrian use. The Planning Commission believes there are other conditions of approval that have not been addressed, and staff is in the process of completing a thorough site compliance analysis. Staff and the Planning Commission recommend that as a condition of approval, the PUD site shall be brought into full compliance prior to a Certificate of Occupancy being issued for the Costco building. This would ensure that the improvements that were supposed to be completed a few years back are now done, and the site brought into compliance. In addition, staff and the Planning Commission recommend adding a specific condition requiring all sidewalks to be maintained in a clear, walkable condition at all times during which one or more buildings in the center are open. Recommendation: Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the major amendment to the PUD for Costco and find no need for a new EAW subject to the conditions in the attached resolution (the Costco amendment conditions begin with number 9 in the proposed resolution and are underlined). Attachments: Proposed resolution Traffic Study Proposed plans and elevations Prepared By: Janet Jeremiah, Planning & Zoning Supervisor Approved By: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 39 RESOLUTION NO. ___________ Amends Resolutions 96-89, 96-158, 97-3, 97-39, 98-23 A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 96-89 APPROVED ON JUNE 3, 1996 APPROVING A FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) UNDER SECTION 14:6-7 OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING FOR PROPERTY ZONED C-2, GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, LOCATED AT 5600, 5640, 5680, 5700, 5800 and 5900 CEDAR LAKE ROAD; AND 1620, 1650, 1690 AND 1700 PARK PLACE BOULEVARD; AND 5601, 5699 AND 5799 WEST 16TH STREET AND1625 ZARTHAN AVENUE (TOTAL SITE FORMERLY KNOWN AS 1625 ZARTHAN AVENUE) WHEREAS, the St. Louis Park City Zoning Ordinance permits shopping centers in excess of 200,000 square feet by Planned Unit Development (PUD) under certain conditions in the C-2 Commerical Zoning District, and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 96-38 approving the Preliminary PUD on March 18, 1996, and WHEREAS, the City staff were informed on April 12, 1996 that certain environmental remediation would be necessary and such remediation would affect the timing process of demolition of the existing building and resulted in the need to amend the conditions of preliminary approval, and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 96-71 rescinding Resolution No. 96-38 and approving the Preliminary PUD subject to certain revised conditions on May 6, 1996, and WHEREAS, a complete application for a Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) was received on April 26, 1996, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the Final PUD application at the meeting of May 1, 1996, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Final PUD subject to 17 conditions of approval on a 3-1 vote with three members present voting in the affirmative and one member voting against, and WHEREAS, the City Council received an overview from City staff and the City Attorney of the necessary agreements related to the PUD at its May 13, 1996 Study Session, and WHEREAS, the applicant and current and prospective property owners have entered into a development agreement, supplemental development agreements, sidewalk easements agreement, reciprocal easement and operation agreement, and a reversion agreement, which 40 agreement nullifies and voids without any further action required on the part of the City Council the preliminary and final approval if certain conditions are not met, and WHEREAS, on March 3, 1997 Franchise Associates, Inc. (current owner of 1690 Park Place Boulevard) and Ryan Construction Companuy of Minnesota, Inc. as developer and with the consent of Honeywell, Inc. (fee owner of 1625 Zarthan Avenue) submitted an application for a minor amendment to the approved Final PUD to allow the use of neon on the building at 1690 Park Place Boulevard and to revise the Landscape Plan for 1625 Zarthan Avenue and 5600, 5640 and 5680 Cedar Lake Road, and WHEREAS, certain amendments to the approved Final PUD have been approved by the City Council on 10/22/96 (Res. 96-158) and 1/6/97 (Res 97-3), and 3/17/97 (Res 97-39), and WHEREAS, on December 11, 1997 Office Max (current owner of 5600 Cedar Lake Road) and Ryan Construction Company of Minnesota, Inc. as developer and with the consent of Honeywell, Inc. (fee owner of 1625 Zarthan Avenue) submitted an application for a minor amendment to the approved Final PUD to allow the placement of a new 12.8 s.f. flat wall identification sign on the east face of the building at 5600 Cedar Lake Road. WHEREAS, on CostCo Wholesale and Ryan Companies US, Inc as developer with the consent of Honeywell, Inc. submitted an application for a major amendment to the approved Final PUD to allow the construction of a 139,444 square foot wholesale, retail and tire service facility at NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park: A. Recitals The recitals set forth above are incorporated herein and made part of this resolution. B. Findings 1. Ryan Construction Company of Minnesota, Inc., as developer with the consent of the property owner Honeywell, Inc., has made application to the City Council for approval of a Final Planned Unit Development (“Final PUD”) within the C-2 General Commercial Zoning District under Section 14:6-7 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance for property formerly known as 1625 Zarthan Avenue for the legal description as follows, to-wit: Lots 1-9 and Outlots A, B and C; Block 1, Park Place Plaza (Torrens) 2. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission (Case No. 95-51-PUD) and the effect of the proposed Final PUD and amendments thereto on the health, safety and welfare of the occupants of the surrounding lands, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect on values of properties in the surrounding area, the effect of the use on the Comprehensive Plan, with specific consideration given to the Plan By 41 Neighborhood Section of the Comprehensive Plan, and compliance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. The City Council has determined that approval of a Final PUD and the proposed amendments thereto will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community nor with certain contemplated traffic improvements will it cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards, nor will it seriously depreciate surrounding property values. The Council has also determined that the proposed Final PUD and amendments thereto is in harmony with the general provisions, purpose and intent of the City’s Zoning Ordinance and its Comprehensive Plan and that the requested modifications comply with the requirements of Section 14:6-7.2(E). 4. The contents of Planning Case File 95-51-PUD are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case. C. Conditions and Approval A Final PUD at the location described in paragraph 1 of the above findings is approved based on the recitals and the findings set forth above, the Approved Final Plans, and subject to the following conditions: 1. Issuance of demolition and erosion control permits shall be subject to the following conditions as required in the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Resolution and subsequently modified on March 18, 1996 and May 6, 1996 as follows: a. Demolition, hauling and construction activities shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. on weekdays and 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. on weekends and holidays. b. Trucks and construction equipment shall be prohibited from using Zarthan Avenue between Cedar Lake Road and 16th Street and shall enter and exit the site from 16th Street and Park Place Boulevard only. c. During demolition of the existing building, the western wall of the building shall be left intact as a sound barrier for as long as practicable. d. Use of explosives shall be prohibited. e. All demolition and construction equipment shall utilize state of the art muffler systems. f. On-site crushing and recycling operations shall be located as far from existing residential land uses as practicable. 2. Approval of the Preliminary and Final Planned Unit Development and Plat shall be subject to the following conditions as required in the EAW Resolution and subsequently modified on March 18, 1996 and by this resolution as follows: a. Installation of all roadway improvements associated with anticipated traffic from the proposed use and dedication of public right-of-way to accommodate public infrastructure . b. Adjustments to existing traffic lights, street lights and other utilities. 42 c. Installation of sidewalks along the length of Cedar Lake Road, Park Place Boulevard, 16th Street, and Zarthan Avenue adjacent to the project and connecting to public plaza areas within the site. d. Dedication of drainage and utility easements to a depth of 10 feet back from planned right-of-way and execution of a sidewalks easement agreement. Such sidewalk easements shall extend 1 foot beyond required perimeter sidewalks. e. Installation of on-site directional signs to I-394 and Highway 100 to prevent unnecessary traffic in residential neighborhoods. f. Delivery and garbage service trucks shall be prohibited from using Zarthan Avenue between Cedar Lake Road and 16th Street and shall be limited to servicing the uses between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on weekdays and 9:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on weekends and holidays. Unoccupied delivery and garbage trucks shall be prohibited from idling on site during nighttime hours as defined by Section 11-507(3)(a). g. Overnight parking of vehicles, semi-trailers, refrigeration units and the like shall be prohibited unless parked wholly within any of the enclosed loading dock bays. h. Openings of rooftop fans and air circulation equipment shall be required to face away from residential neighborhoods and all exhaust openings except bathroom fans shall be prohibited on exterior walls facing residential neighborhoods. In the event bathroom fan exhausts exceed the maximum nighttime allowable noise limits, operation of these fans shall be terminated until compliance with the City of St. Louis Park Noise Ordinance is achieved. i Compliance with ordinance provisions relating to exterior lighting and prevention of unnecessary nighttime site lighting. j. Compliance with all applicable City ordinance provisions shall be required unless modifications are specifically authorized by this Final Planned Unit Development approval or by more stringent requirements of the development agreement or supplemental development agreements. 3. The following modifications to ordinance requirements are authorized as part of this Final PUD approval: a. Bufferyards are not required between drive through facilities and adjacent properties that are part of the Final PUD. b. The temporary hoop structures associated with Home Depot’s “Garden Center” outdoor sales area are not required to be architecturally integrated with the principal building (utilize same building materials) provided masonry walls surrounding the outdoor sales area are provided as shown on the Approved Final Plans. c. A Bufferyard “D” may be substituted for the required Bufferyard “F” between the truck circulation and loading areas for the Retail/Service/Restaurant building on Lot 5 and Park Place Boulevard. d. Buildings are not required to utilize at least 60% brick or other natural stone on each building face but are approved with percentages of brick and other materials as shown on the Approved Final Plans. 43 e. Buildings on Lots 2 and 3 may have more than 5% bright, pure accent colors on each facade and are approved with the percentages of accent colors shown on colored elevations “stamped” as received by the City on March 15, 1996 and on April 19, 1996 (Exhibits B2 and B3 of the Approved Final Plans). f. The area of all wall signs may exceed 7% of the building wall area but may not exceed the wall sign area shown on the Approved Final Plans. Exhibit A7 of the Approved Final Plans shall be revised to reduce cumulative wall signage by at least 37 square feet in accordance with the Preliminary PUD approval. g. Individual wall signs may exceed 150 square feet but may not exceed the individual wall sign areas shown on the Approved Final Plans. h. Two free standing “off-premise signs”, advertising uses on properties within the PUD only, are allowed as shown on the Approved Final Plans. Such signs are denoted on the Approved Final Plans as “Center Pylon Signs” and also as “Monument Signs”. Such signs may also be referenced as “Project Identification Signs” or “Tenant Identification Signs”. i. The maximum size of the “Center Pylon Sign” faces may exceed 300 square feet and may be 320 square feet each as shown on the Approved Final Plans. j. The maximum total sign area of the “Center Pylon Signs” may exceed 400 square feet and may be 1,280 square feet as shown on the Approved Final Plans. k. One Monument Sign measuring no more than 4 feet 4 inches in height and 16 feet in width and identifying only the name of the Shopping Center may be placed in Outlot A as shown on the Approved Final Plans. Such sign shall include seating on one side, shall be faced primarily with brick, and shall not be counted toward the total approved sign areas. l. Exterior lighting spillover may exceed 1.0 footcandle at property lines that abut other properties within the Final PUD but may not exceed ordinance restrictions at property lines that abut properties that are not within the PUD. m. The Bufferyard “D”s separating the in-vehicle sales and service uses (drive- throughs) on Lots 4,5,6,7 and 8 of the Plat from 16th Street and Park Place Boulevard are not required to include a minimum of 95 plant units per 100 linear feet and may include a total of 225 fewer plant units than required as shown on the Approved Final Plans. n. Certain canopy trees may be installed at sizes less than 2-1/2” caliper as shown on the Approved Final Plans and such trees shall be given full plant unit credits. o. Certain evergreen trees may be installed at sizes less than 6 feet (height) as shown on the Approved Final Plans and such trees shall be given full plant unit credits. 4. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with the Approved Final Plans, which are incorporated herein as Exhibits P1, P2, S1, S2, C1, C2, C3, L1, L2, L3, L4, L5, A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6, A7 as revised by condition 3f of this resolution, A8, A9, F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6 (“Park Place Plaza” Monument Sign Detail), B1, B2 and B3, and the following conditions: a. MPCA approval of the remediation plan relating to environmental contamination on the site and conformance with the conditions of the approved remediation plan. 44 b. Final PUD approval is contingent upon the developer and current/prospective property owners, including Home Depot, signing the required agreements and conforming with all provisions of the executed special assessment agreements for construction of required off-site improvements, executed development agreement and executed supplemental development agreements that cover all on-site improvements within the PUD in accordance with Section 14:6-7.5(F), executed sidewalk easements agreement, executed reciprocal easements and operation agreement, and the executed reversion agreement. Wherever there is a conflict between the requirements of any of said documents, City Code, and/or this resolution, the more stringent requirements shall apply. c. The type and colors of all exterior building materials (including building facades, canopies, screen walls, fences, trash enclosures, and permanent exterior signage) throughout the Final PUD must match those adopted as part of the Approved Final Plans, and no exterior building materials other than doors may be surface painted (this requirement does not prohibit the use of standing seam metal with a baked enamel finish, as approved). Said doors shall be painted to match the approved brick or rock face block color. All exterior building materials must be maintained in an aesthetic manner as determined in the sole discretion of the City. d. Wherever brick is denoted on the Approved Final Plans, a full 4” thick face brick must be applied in a masonry technique except that an alternative brick application, face brick cast in structural panels, is specifically approved for the Home Depot building on Lot 2. The alternative brick application for Lot 2 must match the color, texture and visual aesthetics of the brick used throughout the remainder of the PUD. e. Permanent exterior signage is limited to that shown on the Approved Final Plans. Additional window signage, temporary banners and the like are restricted in accordance with the terms of the “Maintenance and Operational Restrictions” Exhibit of the development agreement and supplemental development agreements. f. All light poles must be included within curbed areas. g. All rooftop equipment must be screened from ground level view using parapet walls and all rooftop equipment must be painted to match the color of the rooftop to ensure that it is minimally visible from nearby office towers. h. Prior to issuance of any building permits, the developer must reimburse the City for all costs incurred by the City in connection with processing the applicant’s PUD, and preparation and implementation of the development agreements and associated agreements. i. In lieu of meeting certain bufferyard requirements as waived in Paragraph 3l above, the developer shall donate 225 plant units to the City in the form of twenty 2-1/2” canopy trees by June 1, 1997 for use on nearby lands to provide screening of the project. j. The subsequent phase of the PUD is approved in concept only as including 110,000 square feet of gross retail building area, 495 parking spaces and 55 proof of parking spaces on Lot 1. The details of the subsequent phase shall be reviewed as a minor amendment to the approved Final PUD, unless additional off-site impacts or modifications to Code or PUD requirements are anticipated, in which 45 case, the details of the subsequent phase shall be reviewed as a major amendment. In either case, the City Council reserves the right to hold a public hearing regarding the subsequent phase. The subsequent phase shall require amendment to the development agreement and/or supplemental development agreement for Lot 1. k. No administrative subdivision of any property within the PUD shall be granted due to the interrelatedness of the PUD, plat, and Approved Final Plans. l. The developer and/or property owner shall dedicate, at no expense to the City, any right-of-way which may be necessary and required in the future to facilitate improvements at the intersection of 16th Street and Zarthan Avenue and/or to provide access from Cedar LakeRoad into the PUD. Developer and/or property owner shall be responsible for the costs associated with these potential future improvements based upon the benefit to the project and/or the demands the project has placed on the roadway system. Any such improvements would require a major amendment to the Approved Final Plans for the PUD m. The developer and/or owner shall obtain all necessary permits to complete any further required environmental remediation of the site and undertake said remediation pursuant to local, state and federal regulations, as applicable. n. The developer shall receive all other necessary permits and approvals from the City including, but not limited to sanitary sewer, water tapping permit, demolition permit, building permits, and erosion control permit. o. The developer shall obtain approval by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District as well as any other approvals required by state and federal agencies, including the required Indirect Source Permit, and the developer shall comply with all conditions of said approvals and permits. p. The Final Plat shall be submitted to the County for recording prior to initiating any site work relating to construction of the PUD project; evidence of filing of the final plat or other assurances pertaining to required easements shall be presented to the City prior to issuance of any permits other than demolition and associated temporary noise permits. q. The Preliminary and Final Plat are inherent components of the Preliminary and Final PUD approvals and are subject to the conditions of Preliminary and Final PUD approval and the Approved Final Plans. Access to the platted properties shall be limited to the means provided in the Approved Final Plans. r. No certificate of occupancy for any building in the PUD shall be issued until all the circulation drives and internal sidewalks throughout the PUD and all the improvements, other than landscaping and wear coat of asphalt, for that building’s lot, have been installed and accepted by the City. All landscaping on the lot shall be completed within one (1) year from the date the certificate of occupany is issued. s. The general public shall have the right to utilize the internal sidewalks for pedestrian access, including walking bicycles, through the PUD property and for access to the outdoor seating plaza, which shall remain available to the general public in perpetuity for passive recreational use that is not disruptive to the operation of the shopping center. No provision of the reciprocal easement and operations agreement shall be interpreted as overriding this requirement. 46 t. The Approved Final Plan Exhibits may be revised to include a 4,450 square feet Arby’s restaurant on Lot 4 in accordance with the plans reviewed by the Planning Commission on May 1, 1996, and further revised as follows: to clarify building materials; to ensure that building materials match materials used throughout the remainder of the development; and to reduce the width of the metal door on the rear elevation to a maximum of 8 feet. u. The obligations and conditions herein imposed on the developer by this Final PUD shall also apply to any property owner, successor or assign. v. The City may enforce any provision of this resolution in the same manner as provided for a violation of the City’s Zoning Ordinance and/or as provided in the development agreement or supplemental development agreements. 5. The Final PUD shall be amended on October 22, 1996 to incorporate all of the preceding conditions and add the following condition: a. The height of the future Retail 1 tenant space at 5680 Cedar Lake Road may be reduced from 30’8” to not less than 20’0”. 6. The Final PUD shall be amended on January 6, 1997 to incorporate all of the preceding conditions and add the following condition: a. The rear door configuration in the tenant space on the south end of the 1650 Park Place Boulevard building (Bruegger’s Bagels) is revised in accordance with Exhibit A5.1 - Exterior Elevations dated 12-23-96 7. The Final PUD shall be amended on March 17, 1997 to incorporate all of the preceding conditions and add the following conditions: a. The building at 1690 Park Place Boulevard (Arby’s) may utilize neon lighting in accordance with Exhibits A4.1, A4.2 and A4.3, Arby’s Exterior Elevations provided said exhibit and assent form are signed by Franchise Associates, Inc. b. The Landscape Plan may be revised in accordance with Exhibit L.1, Landscape Plan revised 2/28/97 and stamped received 3/3/97 provided the following conditions are met. i) a revised Grading Plan that accurately reflects the proposed retention of existing berms shall be submitted and approved by the City Engineer and Zoning Administrator. The Zoning Administrator shall ensure that the plan meets requirements relating to minimum berm heights adjacent to truck circulation areas. ii) Prior to implementing the changes, Ryan Construction Company, Inc. and the current fee owner of 1625 Zarthan Avenue must sign the Assent form and revised exhibits. 8. The Final PUD shall be amended on January 5, 1998 to incorporate all of the preceding conditions and add the following conditions: 47 a. An Office-Max sign may be installed on the east facade of the building located at 5600 Cedar Lake Road (Office-Max) in the location shown on the Exhibit A3.1 Elevation. b. Prior to issuance of a sign permit, Ryan Construction Company, Inc. and Office Max must sign the Assent Form and revised exhibit. 9. The Final PUD shall be amended on April 3, 2000 to incorporate all of the preceding conditions, find no need for a new EAW, and add the following conditions: a. The Costco site (Lots 1 and 8) shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with the official exhibits, which shall be amended to address the following conditions: i) The plans shall be amended as determined necessary by the Director of Public Works to show dedication of right-of-way near 16th/Zarthan as anticipated in the original development agreement sketch. Landscape plans shall be amended as necessary and approved by the Zoning Administrator to accommodate future improvements to this intersection while preserving existing berming/screening to the extent feasible. ii) The plans shall be amended to eliminate the proposed cart curb cuts through the existing pedestrian connection or to include proof of parking in excess of minimum requirements as approved by the Zoning Administrator. If excess proof of parking is shown, details of the proposed curb cuts and effects on existing landscaping shall be submitted and approved by the Zoning Administrator. iii) Elevation drawings shall be amended to show screen wall heights of 12 feet as measured from the main service drive elevation unless evidence is approved by the Zoning Administrator that the proposed heights will adequately screen service vehicles. iv) Elevation drawings and sign details shall be amended to comply with ordinance requirements unless a variance for proposed signage has been approved. b. Prior to beginning any site work, the following conditions shall be met: i) a copy of the required Watershed District permit shall be submitted to the City. ii) an erosion and sediment control plan shall be submitted and approved by Public Works. iii) a letter from the MPCA shall confirm no need for a new ISP based upon the final traffic study by SRF. iv) The official exhibits and assent form shall be signed by the applicant, owner, and City. c. Costco shall adhere to the restrictions on construction times and routes as included in the final PUD approval for Park Place Plaza except that additional restrictions may be imposed as necessary to prevent conflicts with customers during peak restaurant times. 48 d. Costco shall adhere to restrictions on temporary signage as included in the Final PUD approval for Park Place Plaza. e. Prior to issuance of a building permit, which may impose additional restrictions, the following conditions shall be met: i) The development agreement shall be amended and executed and shall address, at a minimum, land dedication, design, construction, financial sureties for on- and off-site improvements, and maintenance. ii) A revised light distribution plan, landscape irrigation plan, and all building material samples and colors shall be submitted and approved by the Zoning Administrator. f. Prior to issuance of an Occupancy Permit, the following conditions shall be met: i) the required traffic improvements at 16th Street and the main access drive, including installation of a traffic signal paid for by the applicant, shall be complete and operational; the applicant shall also pay its share of a traffic signal at 16th and Zarthan, which may be installed at a later date. ii) the entire PUD site shall be found to be in compliance with the conditions of final PUD approval, including but not limited to completion of improvements near the intersection of Park Place Boulevard and 16th Street, public transit improvements on 16th Street as approved by Metro Transit, and all conditions of the final PUD resolution and executed development agreement. g. Costco shall adhere to restrictions on delivery and garbage service hours and routes as included in the final PUD approval for Park Place Plaza except that additional restrictions on garbage service may be imposed on Costco as necessary to prevent conflicts with customers during peak restaurant hours. h. All sidewalks throughout the PUD site shall be maintained in a clear, walkable condition at all times during which one or more buildings within the PUD are open to the public. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council April 3 , 2000 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk 1 49 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 8c Meeting of April 3, 2000 8c. CASE NO. 00-12-ZA - Zoning Ordinance Amendments Zoning Ordinance Amendment to modify Section 14:6-7.E.8 to allow preliminary and final PUDs to be processed simultaneously under certain circumstances. Recommended Action: Approve first reading of Zoning Ordinance amendment modifying Section 14:6-7.E.8 and set second reading for April 17, 2000. Background: On March 1, 2000, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance that would potentially streamline the PUD process by allowing certain preliminary and final PUDs to be processed simultaneously. The Planning Commission raised as a concern the potential lack of neighborhood involvement, but recommended approval on a 6-1 vote. The PUD approval process requires a public hearing only at the preliminary PUD. However, staff has expanded neighborhood awareness beyond the required 350 foot mail notification requirement by posting a sign on the site whenever applications are received for zoning or Comprehensive Plan processes. In addition, staff encourages the developer to hold informal neighborhood meetings and is in the process of implementing a procedure for notification of the neighborhood association president. The proposed amendment would allow staff to bring the preliminary and final PUD to the Planning Commission and the City Council concurrently, but it would allow the Planning Commission or the City Council the option to take action on the preliminary PUD and defer the final PUD. This in effect would preserve for the Planning Commission and the City Council the right to separate the processes. Issues: • Under what circumstances could a preliminary and final PUD be considered simultaneously? • Would the City run into a problem with the 60-day deadline rule? • Have there been any examples of simple PUDs that made sense to be run together? Analysis of Issues: 50 Staff is proposing to add the following language to the PUD section of the Zoning Ordinance to address the circumstances under which preliminary and final PUDs could be considered together: Add Section 14:6-7.E.8 SIMULTANEOUS PROCESSING OF PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PUD APPLICATIONS. In instances where a PUD application does not require variances outside of code modifications allowed by the PUD ordinance, the Community Development Director may elect to process the preliminary and final PUD simultaneously under the following conditions: a. Approval of the preliminary and final PUD will each be considered by separate motions. b. The application for the final PUD will not be considered complete until the City Council approves the preliminary PUD. As noted, the preliminary and final PUD could not be considered simultaneously if any variances are requested or the Community Development Director determined that the application is too complex or is in need of too many revisions. • Under what circumstances could a preliminary and final PUD be considered simultaneously? By requiring the preliminary and final PUD to be considered by separate motion, the Planning Commission or City Council could choose to separate them. In other words, the Planning Commission might recommend approval of the preliminary PUD with conditions while deferring action on the final PUD until the required conditions of preliminary approval have been addressed and reviewed as part of the final application. • Would the City run into a problem with the 60-day deadline rule? Since the application for final approval would not be considered complete until the preliminary PUD is approved by the City Council, an additional 60 days could be used to review the final PUD without any written notification to the applicant. This could be extended to 120 days if written notification stating reasons for the extensions is provided to the applicant. • Have there been any examples of simple PUDs that made sense to be run together? The Planning Commission reviewed a request for preliminary and final PUD on August 21, 1996, for a property located at 2300-2400 Edgewood Avenue South. This was a simple request where the PUD was requested to allow a new building to be constructed and connected to an existing building in the I-P Industrial Park District. Attachments: Draft Ordinance Prepared by: Judie Erickson, Planning Coordinator Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 51 ORDINANCE NO.______ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING BY AMENDING SECTION 14:6-7.5.E.8 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. 00-12-ZA) Sec. 2. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Section 14:6-7.5.E. is hereby amended by adding the following language: 8. SIMULTANEOUS PROCESSING OF PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PUD APPLICATIONS. In instances where a PUD application does not require variances outside of code modifications allowed by the PUD ordinance, the Community Development Director may elect to process the preliminary and final PUD simultaneously under the following conditions: a. Approval of the preliminary and final PUD will each be considered by separate motion. b. The application for the final PUD will not be considered complete until the City Council approves the preliminary PUD. Sec. 3. The contents of Planning Case File 00-12-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 April 17, 2000 Reviewed for Administration City Manager Mayor Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution: City Clerk City Attorney 52 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 8d* Meeting of April 3, 2000 *8d. Resolution Adopting a Stormwater Management Documents This action would establish a Flood Proofing Grant Program, approve associated Flood Problem Area Guidelines, and approve the Stormwater Utility Policy that was used to create the Stormwater Utility. Recommended Action: Motion to adopt the attached resolution approving the Stormwater Utility Policy; the Flood Problem Area Guidelines; and the Flood Proofing Program used to operate the stormwater management program. BACKGROUND: Over the past two years, staff and Council have had numerous meetings discussing how to address the flood problem areas affecting structures in the City. The Stormwater Utility was established, among other things, to provide the funding for projects to remedy this flooding. These documents provide the Council, staff, and residents with a program, guidelines, and the policy necessary to respond to these and future issues associated with flooding in the City. DISCUSSION: At Council meetings and Study Sessions during the summer/fall of 1999, staff has provided draft copies of the City’s Guidelines for Dealing with Flood Problem Areas, the Flood Proofing Grant Program, and the Stormwater Utility Policy for discussion during the Stormwater Utility process. These documents have been revised to include the input and direction received from Council. Below is a brief summary and a listing of major items included in each document. Flood Problem Area Guidelines These guidelines determine how flood problem areas are addressed within the City. The major items/issues covered include: • Flood improvement projects will only be considered when structures are flooded. • Storm event criteria for structure protection was set at a 100-year frequency + 25%. • Differentiation between “public” and “private” drainage, where City assumes responsibility for “public” drainage. • Stormwater improvement project prioritization based on a cost-benefit ratio, frequency of occurrence, total cost, and whether the project is located on public or private land. • Projects that pass a problem from one property to another property will not be considered. • Possible options to address flood problem areas (do nothing, overland drainage, ponding, additional storm sewer capacity, flood proof structures, remove structures). 53 • The recommended alternative is to be the most cost-effective solution (ranging from doing nothing to the purchase and removal of the structure). • Establishes the Flood Proofing Grant Program to remedy public flooding improvements to / or on private property. Flood Proofing Grant Program This document sets forth the guidelines for the administration of the Flood Proofing Grant Program. The major items/issues covered are: • The City will provide grants to St. Louis Park property owners to cover costs associated with improvements on private property to correct public drainage problems. Property owners will be responsible for any costs resulting from improvements to remedy private drainage problems. • The Program will become effective immediately upon City Council approval of the Flood Proofing Grant Program and Flood Problem Area Guidelines and be funded by the Stormwater Utility. • Eligible applicants - St. Louis Park property owners. • Eligible properties - properties subject to flooding (100 year + 25% frequency) by public drainage. • Eligible improvements – grading, ponding, flood proofing of structures. • Program procedures (ranging from the initial owner application, to Public Works review and recommendations, to owner’s contractor agreements, to final project City staff review/acceptance, to owner cost reimbursement by City). • The Director of Public Works will administer the Program. Stormwater Utility Policy Stormwater runoff can be managed as a public utility under Minnesota Statutes Section 444.075. The Stormwater Utility Policy was the basis for the Stormwater Utility Ordinance that was adopted by Council in February 2000. The major items/issues covered include: • The Stormwater Utility is based upon the property’s land use as defined in the City’s Geographic Information System (GIS). • Stormwater Utility rate per quarter = (Rate) x (REF) x (Acreage/Lot). • The Rate is the quarterly charge for a single/two family land use (for utility purposes, it is assumed that all single/two residential properties are 1/5th acre in size). • Stormwater Utility rates will be reevaluated periodically by the City Council. • Monies generated by the Stormwater Utility shall be used exclusively for Stormwater Management purposes (planning, water quality monitoring, routine/remedial system maintenance, water quality improvement measures, and capital projects. • The Stormwater Utility shall fund 100% of the costs associated with public improvement projects resulting from “public” drainage on public and / or private property, based on public benefit. 54 Issues: Staff has not identified or is not aware of any issues associated with the adoption of these documents. Recommendations: Staff recommends Council adopt the attached resolution approving the Stormwater Utility Policy; the Flood Problem Area Guidelines; and the Flood Proofing Program as presented. Attachments: • Resolution adopting the Stormwater Management Documents • Stormwater Utility Policy • Flood Problem Area Guidelines • Flood Proofing Program Prepared by: Scott Merkley, Public Works Coordinator Through: Mike Rardin, Director of Public Works Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 55 RESOLUTION NO. __________ RESOLUTION ADOPTING STORMWATER MANAGEMENT DOCUMENTS WHEREAS, the City has established that stormwater management shall be operated as a public utility pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 444.075; and WHEREAS, the City has approved the Stormwater Utility to fund the Stormwater Management Program; and WHEREAS, the approved Stormwater Utility is based upon the strategies listed in the Stormwater Utility Policy; and WHEREAS, the approved Stormwater Utility is to include a Flood Proofing Program to assist with funding for residential properties are experiencing flooding to structures; and WHEREAS, the Flood Proofing Program is based upon the strategies listed in the Flood Problem Area Guidelines; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that the City will adopt the following documents to operate the Stormwater Management Program: the Stormwater Utility Policy; the Flood Problem Area Guidelines; and the Flood Proofing Program. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council April 3, 2000 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk 56 Stormwater Utility Policy City of St. Louis Park March 2000 The City of St. Louis Park has implemented a Stormwater Utility to fund general maintenance and improvements to the storm sewer system within the City. The Stormwater Utility is designed to be legally defensible, dependable, easy to use, flexible, and fairly assess landowners based on their use of the storm sewer system. The policies listed below provide for operating the Stormwater Utility in that manner. 1. The Stormwater Utility shall be consistent with goals and policies set forth in the City of St. Louis Park’s Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan. 2. The Stormwater Utility shall be based on land use as shown in the City’s Geographic Information System (GIS) database. Land uses not being charged comprise of: (a) public rights of way; (b) wetlands and public waters as defined by state law; (c) ponds designed and used exclusively for stormwater retention or treatment purposes up to the 100-year flood elevation; (d) undeveloped parcels; (e) undeveloped or natural state, county, regional and city parklands; (f) railroads; and (g) City owned property. Undeveloped parcels (vacant land) will be charged at the time it is developed. 3. The quarterly stormwater utility rate shall be determined using the following equation: • Stormwater Utility rate per parcel per quarter = (Rate) x (REF) x (Acreage/lot). • A Rate is the quarterly charge for a single/two family land use. • The REF, or Residential Equivalency Factor, is defined as the ratio of the volume of runoff generated by one (1) acre of a particular land use to the volume of runoff generated by one (1) acre of single/two family residential land use, based on the annual average rainfall. The annual average rainfall was calculated using actual rainfall data from the Minneapolis/St. Paul airport from 1980-1989. • The Acreage is determined using the City’s GIS database. 4. For purposes of the utility, it shall be assumed that all single/two family residential properties are 1/5th acre in size. 5. The Stormwater Utility rate shall be reevaluated periodically by the City Council to ensure that the revenues generated meet the City’s needs and that the fee is fair and reasonable. 57 6. The Stormwater Utility billing will be mailed out with the Water bill. 7. The monies generated by the Stormwater Utility shall be used exclusively to fund Stormwater Management Program projects. This program includes master planning, regulation, routine and remedial maintenance, and capital projects. 8. The City will clean and maintain the storm sewer system as outlined in the City’s Stormwater System Maintenance Plan and Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan. 9. The City will provide and administer a flood proofing grant program. Grants will cover costs associated with improvements on private property to correct public drainage problems. Property owners will be responsible for the remaining costs resulting from private drainage, as determined by the City. 10. Due to the lack of available land and the fully developed nature of the City, the City intends to address any problems associated with structural inundation by working with property owners to raise or flood proof structures. If such activities cannot be reasonably undertaken, the City will work with property owners to secure flood insurance. If the opportunity exists to construct a capital improvement in a cost-effective way that addresses structural inundation problems within the City, the City intends to give consideration to these alternatives. 11. The Stormwater Utility shall fund 100% of the costs associated with public improvement projects resulting from public drainage on public and / or private property, based on public benefit. 12. The City shall require 2 feet of freeboard between minimum building opening elevations and 100-year high water elevations for new structures constructed within the City. In the past the City required 1 foot of freeboard between anticipated 100-year high water elevations and minimum building openings, therefor-existing structures will be allowed to maintain the 1-foot freeboard until such time as they are reconstructed. At the time of reconstruction the City shall require 2 feet of freeboard between minimum building opening elevations and 100-year high water elevations. 13. Any disputes regarding the Stormwater Utility shall be put in writing to the Director of Public Works for appropriate action. 58 Flood Problem Area Guidelines City of St. Louis Park March 2000 The following guidelines have been developed to address flood problem areas within the City of St. Louis Park: 1. The City has defined a “problem area” as an area that experiences flooding that result in flood damage to a structure. 2. Structures will be protected for a 100-year event + 25% based on updated probability tables (3" of rain in 30 minutes; 3.75" of rain in 1 hour; 7.5" of rain in 24 hours). A 100-year event is defined as an event that has a 1% chance of occurring in a given year. 3. The City requires two feet of freeboard between the minimum structure opening elevation and the 100-year high water level elevation. 4. The City will provide and administer a flood proofing grant program. Grants will cover costs associated with improvements on private property to correct public drainage problems. Property owners will be responsible for the remaining costs resulting from private drainage, as determined by the City. 5. The City will assist residents who are experiencing flood problems when runoff from the street or public area is ponding and causing damage to private property. The City will provide assistance when inadequate public facilities are available to deal with a public drainage problem. Private drainage problems do not qualify for assistance. 6. The City will not undertake work on private property unless it is part of a public improvement project or as part of public work that extends beyond the public right- of-way unless extenuating circumstances would dictate a variance in this regard. 7. Stormwater improvement projects to address the flood problems will be undertaken based on priority. The City will prioritize projects based on a cost-benefit ratio, frequency of occurrence, total cost, and whether the project is located on public or private land. 8. Stormwater improvement projects will be selected based upon their overall benefit, understanding that there are positive and negative impacts associated with all projects. Unless there is an overall City benefit, projects will not be undertaken that transfers a drainage problem from one area of the City to another. 59 9. The options to address flood problem areas generally include the following: a. Do nothing (house is protected from the 100-year event) b. Do nothing (cost for project exceeds the benefit by an unreasonable amount) c. Construct improvements to overland overflow routes and swales d. Provide stormwater ponding e. Install additional storm sewer (i.e. add pipes and/or inlet structures) f. Flood proof structure • Construct berm around structure • Seal walkouts, window sills, and low building openings • Elevate structure g. Purchase and remove structure For flood problem areas, the most cost-effective solution will be selected as the recommended alternative. 10. The City will purchase and remove structures in problem areas provided the City is a willing buyer and the resident is a willing seller and that it is the most cost-effective solution to the flooding problem. Generally, if an improvement costs more than 1.5 to 2.5 times the property value, the property should be purchased. 60 THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK'S FLOOD PROOFING PROGRAM 2000 61 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. GENERAL………………………………………………………………………….3 II. ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS………………………………………………………… 3 III. ELIGIBLE PROPERTIES…………………………………………………………. 4 IV. ELIGIBLE IMPROVEMENTS……………………………………………………. 4 V. PROGRAM PROCEDURE……………………………………………………….. 5 Exhibit B…………………………………………………………………………………… 7 Property Owner Program Introduction Letter Exhibit C…………………………………………………………………………………… 8 Property Owner Application Form Exhibit D…………………………………………………………………………………… 9 City Evaluation Form for Determination of Recurrent Flooding Exhibit E……………………………………………………………………………………10 Change in Work Form Exhibit F……………………………………………………………………………………12 Contractor and Property Owner Construction Agreement Exhibit G……………………………………………………………………………………16 Sworn Contractor Statement Exhibit H……………………………………………………………………………………17 Commitment Letter Exhibit I…………………………………………………………………………………….18 Completion Certificate Exhibit J……………………………………………………………………………………20 Completion Letter Exhibit K…………………………………………………………………………………..21 Property Owner and City Agreement Exhibit L…………………………………………………………………………………..24 Administrative Procedures 62 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK FLOOD PROOFING GRANT PROGRAM This program has been designed to assist property owners within the City of St. Louis Park that have structures subject to recurrent flooding. Flood proofing is any measure, approved by the City, that property owners might take to minimize flood damage to their structures. I. GENERAL This document sets forth the guidelines for the administration of the City of St. Louis Park's Proofing Grant Program, hereafter known as the “Program”. A. Grants will be offered to St. Louis Park property owners under funding allocated by the St. Louis Park City Council. B. The City of St. Louis Park, hereinafter know as “City”, will provide grants to St. Louis Park property owners to cover costs associated with improvements on private property to correct public drainage problem areas. Property owners will be responsible for any costs resulting from improvements to remedy private drainage problem areas. C. The City has defined a “problem area” as an area that experiences flooding that result in flood damage to a structure. D. The Program will adhere to the City’s Flood Problem Area Guidelines. E. The Program will become effective immediately upon City Council approval of the Program and Flood Problem Area Guidelines and be funded by the Stormwater Utility. F. The Director of Public Works shall administer the Program. II. ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS A. Eligible applicants are owners of property in the City of St. Louis Park. B. There are no income, asset or equity requirements. C. Applicants must complete an application form and indicate the source of funds to be used for owner’s contribution. 63 D. Owners of structures, subject to recurrent flooding, may request participation in the Program. The Public Works Department will evaluate requests on a case-by- case basis. III. ELIGIBLE PROPERTIES A. Any structure subject to recurrent flooding by storm system overflows. Recurrent flooding is determined by properties located in an impacted area or properties that do not have at least 100-year event + 25% flood protection, as determined by the Public Works Department. A 100-year event is defined as an event that has a 1% chance of occurring in a given year. B. Property may be either owner or renter occupied. IV. ELIGIBLE IMPROVEMENTS A. Improvements are limited to flood proofing improvements as approved by the Director of Public Works, or designee, and may include but are not limited to any of the following items. 1. Construction improvements to overland overflow routes and swales • Filling, grading and sodding around the house or points of water entry 2. Provide stormwater ponding 3. Flood proof structure • Adding or modifying window wells • Eliminating basement windows and substituting with glass blocks • Replacing large basement windows with smaller windows • Replacing basement doors with windows • Elevating house and accessory buildings. • Poured concrete or concrete block wall dikes. • NOTE: All improvements to basement living space must retain a proper means of egress. B. Other eligible improvements are those items needed to adjust to the new elevation of a house or garage, such as interior/exterior stairs, electrical, plumbing and heating extensions, and elevating driveways or walks. - 64 V. PROGRAM PROCEDURE A. Funding is available throughout the year. Applications will be accepted anytime throughout the year. B. The Public Works Department shall maintain a project file which, upon project completion, will contain the following: 1. City Map - Identifying potential areas of recurrent flooding (Exhibit A) 2. Property Owner Program Introduction Letter (Exhibit B) 3. Property Owner Application Form - (Exhibit C) 4. City Evaluation Form for Determination of Recurrent Flooding (Exhibit D) 5. Change in Work Form (Exhibit E) 6. Contractor and Property Owner Construction Agreement (Exhibit F) 7. Sworn Contractor Statement (Exhibit G) 8. Commitment Letter (Exhibit H) 9. Completion Certificate (Exhibit I) 10. Completion Letter (Exhibit J) 11. Property Owner and City Agreement (Exhibit K) 12. Administrative Procedures (Exhibit L) C. Application packages shall be mailed to property owners upon request. D. As completed applications are received, the following will occur: 1. Public Works will inspect applicants’ property(s) to assess the flooding problem. 2. To ensure a high quality response, Public Works may coordinate an initial site visit with the applicant. 3. Public Works will determine the 100-year event + 25% flood level and the lowest opening in the building. 4. Public Works will recommend methods of flood proofing. E. The Director of Public Works, or designee, shall review the proposed flood proofing, including ancillary items, with the property owner and answer any questions they may have. F. Public Work’s recommendations for flood proofing will be given to the property owner to obtain three bids. Should the property owner have problems getting three bids, two bids will be acceptable. The property owner should return contractor bids to the Director of Public Works, or designee, as soon as possible. G. The Director of Public Works, or designee, will review bids for completeness and cost reasonableness. The lowest responsible bid will be accepted, unless property 65 owner wishes to pay the difference between low bid contractor and contractor of their choice. H. Once a contractor has been selected by the property owner, an Agreement (Exhibit F) shall be signed between the property owner and selected contractor. The Director of Public Works, or designee, shall send the property owner a Commitment Letter (Exhibit H) stating the approved grant amount. The owner must also sign an Agreement (Exhibit K) with the City at this time. The Director of Public Works, or designee, will send the owner a Proceed to Work notice (Commitment Letter - Exhibit H). The owner is responsible for normal City permits and fees, as required. I. In the event that changes to the approved work are necessary, a Change in Work Form (Exhibit E) must be completed. The form outlines all changes in the approved work and in the grant amount. The contractor, the property owner and the Director of Public Works, or designee, must sign it as applicable, revised bids should be attached to the form. J. The Public Works Department may make site inspections to make sure specified construction meets elevation requirements. If construction does not comply with requirements, the Director of Public Works, or designee, shall inform the Contractor of necessary construction changes. K. All improvements subject to the grant shall be completed within a period of six months from the date of the commitment letter. Delays or extensions of time will be evaluated by the Director of Public Works, or designee, on a case-by-case basis when a request is received in writing. L. Upon project completion, the property owner shall arrange for final inspection of all work. If appropriate, the Building Inspector shall notify the Director of Public Works, or designee, of approval. The Public Works staff will also inspect the property at this time. The contractor shall submit a bill and sign a Sworn Statement (Exhibit G) and a Completion Certificate (Exhibit I) for payment. The property owner, Inspector, and Director of Public Works, or designee, shall also sign the Completion Certificate after reviewing all work completed. A check shall be released to the property owner (grantee) upon receipt of all necessary documents. M. The Director of Public Works, or designee, shall mail a final Completion Letter (Exhibit J) with all lien waivers to the property owner and close out the file with all previous listed documentation. 66 Exhibit B Property Owner Program Introduction Letter Date Mr. 123 St. Louis Park , MN 55 Dear Mr. : Thank you for inquiring about the Flood Proofing Program. Please read the information listed below. If you are still interested in flood proofing for your property, please fill out the attached application and return it to our office as soon as possible. All applications are subject to availability of funds. 1. Grants are available to residential property owners (either rental or owner occupied) where property has been subject to recurrent flooding by storm sewer overflow. 2. Grants will cover costs associated with improvements on private property to correct public drainage problems. Property owners will be responsible for any costs resulting from private drainage problems, as determined by the City. 3. There are no income, asset, or equity requirements for eligibility. 4. Improvements are limited to flood proofing improvements as approved by the Public Works Director, or designee, and may include, but are not limited to, any of the following: a. Filling, grading and sodding around the house or points of water entry. b. Adding or modifying window wells. c. Eliminating basement windows and substituting with glass blocks. d. Replacing large basement windows with smaller windows. e. Replacing basement doors with windows. f. Elevating the house and accessory buildings. g. Building poured concrete or concrete block wall dikes. h. Other eligible improvements are those items needed to adjust to the new elevation of a house or garage, such as; interior/exterior stairs, electrical, plumbing and heating extensions, fill and grading around new foundation and elevating driveways or walks. 5. No funds will be available for decorating, carpeting or remodeling needed as a result of flood damage. Should you have further questions, please feel free to call me at 952-924-2555. Sincerely, Mike Rardin Director of Public Works 67 Exhibit C Property Owner Application Form Name of Applicant(s) Address of Applicant(s) Phone Numbers Home: Work: Address of Property to be evaluated: Please fill in the information requested below: A. Indicate the month and year you purchased the property to be evaluated. / B. Is the property to be evaluated: ____ Single Family __ Duplex Apartment Other C. Describe what happens with storm sewer overflow on your property. (Use additional paper if necessary) D. When storm sewer overflow has occurred, what damage has been caused? (Use additional paper if necessary) E. List the month(s) and year(s) the damage occurred. ______ Applicant(s) Signature Date Please return your application to the City of St. Louis Park Public Works Department at 5005 Minnetonka Blvd., St. Louis Park, Minnesota 55416-2290 68 Exhibit D City Evaluation Form for Determination of Recurrent Flooding Date Applicant(s) Phone Number Address of Property to be Evaluated The structure is a: Single Family House _______ Duplex _______ Apartment ______ 1. Is the property in an impacted area? _______ Yes ______ No 2. What is the 100-year event +25% flood level? 3. What is the elevation of lowest building opening? 4. Recommended flood proofing methods: (Itemized list of improvements or no improvements recommended) Person Completing Form Date 69 Exhibit E Change in Work Form Property Owner Date Property Address City State Zip Code Changes to the flood proofing specifications and cost changes for the same are described below. Revised bids will be attached on all major changes. CHANGE(S) IN WORK COST Original Agreement Amount Approved $ Cost Increase (credit) $ Cost Decrease (debit) $ New Agreement Price $ New Grant Amount $ The above prices and specifications of the Change in Work Form are hereby accepted. All work to be performed under the same terms and conditions as specified in the original Agreement and in all warranties. 70 Change in Work Form Page 2 Name of Construction Firm Authorized Signature (Contractor) Date Signature of Property Owner Date I hereby approve the above-described change(s) in work to the specifications covered in the Contractor and Property Owner Agreement. Signature of Director of Public Works, or designee Date THIS FORM IS NOT VALID WITHOUT THE APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS, OR DESIGNEE 71 Exhibit F Contractor and Property Owner Construction Agreement THIS AGREEMENT is made the day of , 2000, by and between (hereinafter referred to as “Owner”) and a Minnesota (hereinafter referred to as “Contractor”). WITNESSETH WHEREAS, the Owner is the fee owner of the residential property located in the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota at , which property is legally described as (the “Property”); and WHEREAS, the Property has been subject to periodic flooding from storm water; and WHEREAS, the Owner wishes to employ the contractor to perform specified flood prevention work on the Property; and WHEREAS, the Contractor is qualified and able to perform such work for the Owner at the Property. NOW, THEREFORE, based on their mutual covenants and obligations, the Owner and the Contractor hereby agree as follows: 1. REPRESENTATIONS BY CONTRACTOR The Contractor warrants that it is a licensed contractor under the laws of the State of Minnesota and licensed by the City of St. Louis Park to perform the type of work desired by the owner. The contractor warrants that it has expertise to perform the work in a workman-like fashion. The Contractor further warrants that it has statutory workers’ compensation and liability insurance in an amount commonly required for such projects. 2. REPRESENTATIONS BY OWNER The Owner represents that he or she is the fee owner of the Property and that there are no other encumbrances on the Property except as specified in Exhibit 1 attached hereto. 72 3. COMPLETION OF WORK The contractor agrees to perform the work in accordance with the details specified in Exhibit 2 attached hereto and hereby incorporated by reference. The work will begin no later than and will be completed by no later than . 4. PERMITS AND CODES The Contractor agrees to secure any building or other permits which are necessary to perform the work called for by this Agreement and that all such work shall be in compliance with all building code regulations and ordinances. 5. WARRANTY The Contractor warrants to the Owner that all materials, hardware, fixtures, and utilities of whatever kind or nature incorporated by the Contractor into the work shall be of good quality and free from defects in material or workmanship. The Contractor agrees to repair, correct or replace at no cost to the Owner any defective materials or any defects or deficiencies in workmanship which arise in relationship to the work if the Owner notifies the Contractor regarding the matter within two years of the date of the final payment under this Agreement. This warranty shall run with the land and be binding upon the heirs, assigns, and transferees of the Owner and the Contractor. 6. INDEMNITY AND HOLD HARMLESS The Contractor agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Owner from all liability and claims for damages or personal injury arising out of the Contractor’s work under this Agreement. 7. LIEN WAIVERS The Contractor agrees to provide the Owner with a list of all subcontractors and material men which the Contractor uses in connection with the work. The Contractor agrees to provide lien waivers from all such subcontractors and material men for the benefit of the Owner. 73 8. NOT UNACCEPTABLE RISK Contractor warrants that the Contractor is not listed on the unacceptable risk determination list of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development or the United States Farmers Home Administration. 9. PAYMENT The Owner agrees to pay the contractor $ for the work on the Property. Payment will be made upon final acceptance of the work by the Owner and approval from City Inspector. 10. SOURCE OF FUNDS The Contractor and the Owner acknowledge that $ for the work will be supplied by the City of St. Louis Park (the “City”) from its Flood Proofing Program funds. Regardless of the source of the funds, the Contractor acknowledges that it may look only to the Owner for payment under this Agreement and its remedies are limited to those that are available to it against the Owner. Nothing herein shall be construed as giving the Contractor a right or claim against the City. 11. CHANGES IN WORK Changes in the type, amount or cost of work shall be considered an Amendment to the Agreement. No such changes shall be made without PRIOR written approval to the contractor by the Owner. All changes made before receipt of a Change in Work form approved by the Owner will be ineligible for reimbursement. The Change in Work Form must: a. Be signed and dated by the Contractor and the Owner; and b. Specify improvement to be changed and cost per item; and c. Specify reason for cost increase/decrease to previously bid item and amount of increase/decrease. 12. ARBITRATION The parties acknowledge that any controversy or claim, including a claim regarding the quality of the work or Owner’s satisfaction arising out of or relating to this Agreement or the breech thereof, shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the construction industry arbitration rules of the American Arbitration Association. Judgement upon the award rendered by the arbitrators may be entered in any court having jurisdiction. 74 13. SEVERABILITY Each provision of this Agreement is declared to be severable from every other provision. If a court of competent jurisdiction or other arbitrator of fact shall hold any provision of this Agreement to be invalid or illegal, such determination shall not affect any other provision or a portion of this Agreement. 14. MINNESOTA LAW This Agreement shall be interpreted under and in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota. 15. NOTICE Any notice or other communication required to be given under this Agreement shall be deemed to be given if delivered personally, or mailed, postage prepaid, certified mail, return receipt requested: as to the Owner: as to the Contractor: This Agreement is made as of the day first written above. OWNER By Its By Its CONTRACTOR By Its By Its 75 Exhibit G City of St. Louis Park Sworn Contractor Statement STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The undersigned, hereinafter called “Contractor”, being first duly sworn, as Contractor improving the property having the address of City of St. Louis Park, State of Minnesota, deposes and says that the following names of all parties who had or currently have contracts or subcontracts with the Contractor, for specific portions of the work on said property and building(s) or who had or currently have contracts or subcontracts with the Contractor for materials or who have contributed materials at the Contractor’s request entering into the construction thereof; and that the items set forth below include all labor and materials contracted by or obtained at the request of the Contractor required to complete the work according to the specifications and drawings or the contract; that there are no other contracts outstanding entered into by the Contractor or the Contractor’s subcontractors. Item Furnished by Laborers, Suppliers and Subcontractors retained by Contractor identified below Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of , 20_____. Notary Public Contracting Firm By Its The City of St. Louis Park must have obtained lien waivers evidencing payment in full from the Contractor, Suppliers and Subcontractors set forth above as a condition to releasing the final balance of the grant proceeds. 76 Exhibit H Commitment Letter Mr. 123 … St. Louis Park, MN 55418 Subject: Flood Proofing Program Commitment Letter Dear : Your application for the City of St. Louis Park’s Flood Proofing Program has been evaluated and a grant commitment has been authorized with the following conditions: 1. That all grant funds will be utilized for flood proofing at your property at , St. Louis Park, Minnesota as described in your application. 2. That all work is done according to City codes and ordinances and that appropriate permits be obtained. 3. That all improvements subject to the grant are completed by . 4. The attached construction agreement and contract be executed and returned to the Director of Public Works, or designee, for approval prior to the initiation of work. 5. That grant funds will be paid after the City has determined that the approved work eligible for the grant has been completed and a Completion Certificate has been signed by all parties. 6. That any cost of improvements exceeding the committed grant amount will be the responsibility of the property owner. You may now make arrangements to contact your contractors and proceed with the work. If you have any questions, please call me at . Sincerely, Director of Public Works, or designee 77 Exhibit I Completion Certificate Property Owner Address of Improved Property Address City CONTRACTOR: Payment will not be processed without an itemized bill. The undersigned Contractor hereby certifies that the improvements specified by the Contractor and Property Owner Agreement pertaining to the above Property Owner have been completed in their entirety and in accordance with the Agreement between the undersigned and the Property Owner relating thereto, and that all work performed by the undersigned is subject to and in conformity with the Contractor’s Warranty set forth in said Contractor and Property Owner Agreement. $ Name of Firm Date Completed Amount Signature of Authorized Representative INSPECTOR: The undersigned Inspector hereby certifies that the Contractor listed above has completed the work and/or delivered all materials for the flood proofing improvements per applicable City codes. Signature of Inspector Date Inspected 78 Completion Certificate Page 2 PROPERTY OWNER: The undersigned Property Owner hereby certifies that the Contractor listed above has completed the work and/or delivered all materials for the flood proofing improvements, in full compliance with the terms of the Contractor and Property Owner Agreement between the undersigned and said Contractor. The undersigned hereby authorizes the City to disburse the funds directly to the Contractor. Signature of Property Owner Date ADMINISTRATIVE ENTITY: The undersigned Administering Entity hereby certifies that the above-referenced Property Owner is in conformity with eligibility requirements as set forth in the Flood Proofing Program guidelines, the improvements specified by the Contractor and Property Owner Agreement have been inspected and completed, and the Warranty as set forth in the Program guidelines/Contractor and Property Owner Agreement are true and correct, as applied to the above-referenced Property Owner. Authorized Signature Date Title 79 Exhibit J Completion Letter Date Mr. 123 St. Louis Park, MN 55 Subject: Flood Proofing Program Completion Letter Dear This letter serves as notice of the completion of Flood Proofing Program improvements approved for you on . The work was completed for a final total amount of $ . Enclosed, you will find any applicable lien waivers. If you have any further questions, please contact me at 952-924-2555. Thank you for your participation in the program. Sincerely, Director of Public Works, or designee 80 -20- Exhibit K Property Owner and City Agreement THIS AGREEMENT is made this day of , 20 , by and between (hereinafter “The Owner”), the fee owner of the property located in the City of St. Louis Park at (the “Property”), and the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota (the “City”), a municipal corporation under the laws of Minnesota. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the City has initiated a Flood Proofing Program whereby it agrees to reimburse qualified property owners for the cost of conducting flood-proofing work at their homes; and WHEREAS, the Owner has applied for and been approved under the program for work at the Property; and WHEREAS, the parties wish to specify the terms under which the City will reimburse the Owner for the cost of the work. NOW, THEREFORE, based on their mutual promises and obligations contained herein, the Owner and the City agree as follows: 1. THE WORK The Owner has proposed that specific flood protection work be performed at the Property, which work is detailed in Exhibit 1 attached hereto. The work has been reviewed by and approved by the City as being reasonably related and necessary for the stated purposes. 2. THE AGREEMENT The Owner intends to enter into an Agreement with a qualified contractor to perform the work. If the Owner enters into a contract for such purpose and causes the work to be performed in accordance with the plans and specifications approved by the City, the City agrees to pay for the work on behalf of the Owner, up to a maximum City contribution amount of $ . 3. METHOD OF PAYMENT Within five (5) days of the execution of this Agreement, the Owner agrees to submit to the City funds in an amount equal to the Owner’s contribution for the work. The City agrees to hold such money and to use it, along with the City’s contribution, to pay the Contractor. The City will make payments in accordance with the agreement between the Owner and the Contractor on behalf of the Owner at such times and in such amounts as required by the Agreement. The City shall not be responsible for payments in excess the City’s contribution amount noted above in Item 2 (The Agreement), unless prior to proceeding with additional work, the Owner requests approval through a Change in Work form from the City. The City will pay the City contribution cost of changes that are approved 81 through a Change in Work form. The Owner agrees to fund all remaining work. The City shall have no obligation to approve such Change in Work form but may do so at its sole option. If the City declines to pay for any portion of the Change in Work form, it will be the option of the Owner to proceed with such additional work at the Owner’s sole expense and cost or to decline to allow such additional work to occur. 4. LIEN WAIVERS The Owner agrees to provide copies of lien waivers for the benefit of the City prior to such time as the City is required to make payments under the Owner’s Agreement with the Contractor. 5. INDEMNITY AND HOLD HARMLESS The Owner agrees to indemnify and hold the City harmless from any claim arising out of personal injury or damage to the Property associated with the Contractor’s work. The Owner also agrees that nothing herein constitutes a warranty or representation by the City that the work to be performed will flood proof the Property or any guaranty against future flood damage and the Owner hereby releases the City from any claims for flood damage which may occur in the future on the Property. 6. MINNESOTA LAW This Agreement shall be interpreted under the law of the State of Minnesota. 7. NOTICES Any notices which must be given or communications sent under this agreement shall be given if delivered personally or mailed postage prepaid, certified mail, return receipt requested: as to the Owner: as to the City: City of St. Louis Park 5005 Minnetonka Blvd. St. Louis Park, MN 55416-2290 Attention: Public Works Department or at such other address as either party may notify the other of in accordance with this provision. 82 This Agreement is made as of the day first written above. OWNER STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 20 , by . Notary Public CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA By Its Mayor By Its City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 20____, by and , the Mayor and City Manager of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota, by and behalf of said municipal corporation. Notary Public 83 Exhibit L Public Works Administrative Procedures Procedure/Task Mail applications (Exhibits B and C) to residents who have expressed an interest in the program. Identify additional property owners in impacted areas; mail applications. Make preliminary determination of eligibility based on location. Notify property owner of preliminary determination; in cases of eligible and potentially eligible properties, explain the purpose of the program and the inspection; schedule a site visit. Conduct inspection. Recommend flood-proofing methods and complete Evaluation Form (Exhibit D). Notify property owner of determination; schedule meeting to explain program procedures in detail; notify Inspections of all approved applicants. Review program rules and procedures with property owner (explain exhibits and review owner responsibilities regarding contractors). Review proposed flood proofing methods with owner; instruct the owner to obtain three bids for the work and to forward bids to Public Works. Review bids for completeness and cost reasonableness. Contact Inspections with questions; ask Inspections to review unusual cases, as necessary. Contact owner regarding approved bid; send owner a commitment letter (Exhibit H) requesting owner to deposit an escrow with the City and to return the signed Contractor/Owner Agreement (Exhibit F) and Owner/City Agreement (Exhibit K). Upon receipt of owner’s escrow, Agreement and Covenant, send owner a Commitment Letter (Exhibit H). Contact Inspections after work is completed. Conduct final inspection Upon receipt of signed Completion Certificate (Exhibit I), Sworn Construction Statement (Exhibit G), lien waivers, and invoice from contractor (subs), request payment for contractor. Send completion letter (Exhibit J) to owner with original lien waivers. Hold follow-up meetings to evaluate program, as needed, throughout the process. 84 Item # 9a* MINUTES CHARTER COMMISSION MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA January 12, 2000 City Hall, Third Floor Conference Room Call to Order Cynthia Ahrens chaired the meeting of January 12, due to Chair Beck's excused absence, and called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. Introductions and Attendance It was moved by Commissioner Moga and seconded by Commissioner Walsh to excuse the absences of the following members: George Beck, Paul Carver, and Ruth Kirschner. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. A. Members Present: Cynthia Ahrens, Michael Sixel, Cheryl Ernst, Christopher Johnson, Dorothea Moga, David Ornstein, James Schaefer, D. Christopher Smith, and Carol Walsh. B. Members Excused: George Beck, Paul Carver, and Ruth Kirschner. C. Members Unexcused: Alan Sargent (see later in the minutes for a discussion about Commissioner Sargent's status.) D. Staff Present: City Staff Liaison Clint Pires E. Vacancies: The Commission currently has two vacancies, plus the likely vacancy of Alan Sargent's seat. Approval of Minutes It was moved by Commissioner Walsh and seconded by Commissioner Moga to approve the minutes of the November 10, 1999 meeting. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Charter Review A. The Commission discussed Chapter 9, Franchises. After discussing for several minutes, the commission decided to table further discussion until the Council meets with key state legislators about possible telecommunications laws changes. Since legislation is likely in 2000, the Commission will probably not discuss this issue again until after the 85 session. Mr. Pires stated he would e-mail or copy Commissioners the current state planned legislation to keep them informed. B. The Commission discussed Section 2.07 on compensation. The Commission reviewed information provided by Commissioner Carver and Municipal Code Corporation, then decided that no action was required at this time. The rationale is that the Council should have the freedom to act on compensation. Commissioner Resignation The Commission then discussed the likely vacancy of Commissioner Sargent's seat. It has come to our attention that he has probably moved out of St. Louis Park, but Commissioner Sargent has not submitted a letter of resignation from the Commission. The Commission directed Mr. Pires to attempt to obtain a letter of resignation. This was moved by Commissioner Johnson and seconded by Commissioner Schaefer. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Meeting Schedule Commissioner Johnson moved and Commissioner Schaefer seconded a motion to move the March meeting from the 8th to the 15th. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Other Business The Commission directed Mr. Pires to discuss with the Council which meeting we should attend to discuss Charter issues with them. Two potential dates were offered, April 10 or April 24. The March 15th meeting should include a legislative update, the annual elections of officers, and a representative from the League of Minnesota Cities to comment further on the franchise section of the Charter in the context of pending legislation. Adjournment As there was no other business, at 7:55 p.m., Commissioner Sixel moved and Commissioner Schaefer seconded adjournment. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Respectfully submitted, Mike Sixel Secretary 86 Item # 9b* MINUTES HOUSING AUTHORITY ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA Wednesday, February 9th, 2000 Council Chambers 5:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Catherine Courtney, William Gavzy, Judith Moore and Shone Row MEMBERS ABSENT: Bridget Gothberg STAFF PRESENT: Michele Schnitker, Sharon Anderson and Paula Jordan OTHERS PRESENT: Logene Kobe - Representative League of Women Voters 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 5:14 P.M. 2. Approval of the Minutes January 11th, 2000 Commissioner Moore moved to approve the January 11th Minutes. Commissioner Row seconded the motion. The motion was passed on a vote of 4-0 with Commissioners Gavzy, Courtney, Row and Moore voting in favor. Approval of Minutes of January 26th, 2000. Commissioner Row moved to approve the January 26th Minutes. Commissioner Moore seconded the motion. The motion was passed on a vote of 4-0 with Commissioners Courtney, Gavzy, Moore and Row voting in favor. 3. Hearings: None 4. Reports and Committees: None 5. Unfinished Business : None 6. New Business 87 a. Housing Authority Agency Plan. Michele Schnitker reported that because of the volume of information included in the Agency Plan, she would not review the plan page by page unless the Board members think it would be beneficial. A draft of the HA plan was distributed for the Board's review at the January 26th Board meeting. Ms. Schnitker reported that a copy of the draft plan has been distributed to the Resident Advisory Committee and a copy is on display for public review. A copy has been submitted to the County for their review and certification that the Plan is consistent with the County's Consolidated Plan. HUD also requires that we publish a notice and conduct a public hearing to discuss the Plan and invite public comment. All comments received from the committee and the public will be disclosed to the Board along with any recommendations for corresponding changes to the Plan at a future board meeting. Several required plan certifications will be submitted to the Board at the April meeting for approval, which include: • Certification of Compliance with the PHA Plans and Related Regulations. • Certification for a Drug Free Workplace. • Certification of Payments to Influence Federal Transactions. Commissioners Moore, Row, Gavzy and Courtney asked many questions during the discussion on the data given. Commissioner Moore indicated that the number of rental households with housing needs listed in the Table on page 5 seemed high if the numbers only represented St.Louis Park households. Ms. Schnitker agreed and stated she would re-verify the numbers. Ms. Schnitker reported that any changes to the Plan following the February 29th submission could be transmitted to HUD in the form of an amended Plan. b. Revision to the Administration Policies: Capitalization and Disposition Policies - Resolution No. 470. Sharon Anderson reported that the current disposition policy and capitalization policy contained within the Authority's Administrative Policies specify $200 as a threshold for capitalization and certain procedures relative to disposition. This is an unusually low amount and creates unnecessary work related to inventory, disposition, etc. The City's policy is $1,000. In addition, this is a timely change with the Housing Authority's conversion to GAAP accounting. She stated that staff is recommending that the Authority adopt Resolution No. 470, amending the capitalization and disposition policies of the Authority's Administrative Policies to designate a threshold of $1,000. Commissioner Moore moved to approve Resolution No. 470. 88 Commissioner Courtney seconded the motion. The motion was passed on a vote of 4-0 with Commissioners Row, Gavzy, Courtney and Moore voting in favor. c. Public Housing Budget for Fiscal Year Ending March 31, 2001 - Resolution No. 471. Ms. Schnitker reported that according to HUD regulations, housing authorities (HAs) are required annually to develop and adopt an Operating Budget to support the operation of their Public Housing Programs. The budget must be for a period of operation covering its fiscal year (FY). The St. Louis Park HA's public housing operating budget covers the FY period, April 1, 2000 through March 31, 2001. Ms. Schnitker reported total revenues included rents, interest and other income and are projected to be $61,000 greater that what was budgeted for the current year. This is primarily due to increased rents. Rent projections are formula based and 1999's actual rents were significantly higher than originally budgeted. This increase translated into a higher rent projection for FY 2001. Ms. Schnitker stated that the budget projects utility costs to be $17,080 greater than last year's costs. The increase is due to the HA assuming direct payment of water and sewer bills for scattered site homes. This change will prove more cost effective by having the HA pay the bills directly. The increase in utility costs should be offset by a corresponding increase in rent revenues since the residents will no longer receive the utility allowance for water and sewer expenses. The FY 2001 budget does not reflect any anticipated increase in rents as rent revenues are calculated based on last year's revenues. Ms. Schnitker reported that operating reserves for the end of FY 2001 are projected to be $468,268. The projection is based on the HA meeting financial obligations for the upcoming year and with the anticipation that all the reserves budgeted for this year's use ($46,421), will be spent. This does not, however, include the $185,000 reserve from the Leased Housing Project, which HUD Authority has allowed the Authority to set-aside for more discretionary purposes. In addition, the Authority has mill levy reserves of approximately $207,000 Ms. Schnitker reported that it is recommended that the Authority adopt Resolution No. 471 approving the operating budget for public housing for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2001. Commissioner Courtney moved approval of Resolution 471 adopting the budget for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2001. Commissioner Row second the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 4-0 with Commissioners Gavzy, Moore Courtney and Row voting in favor. 89 d. Section 8 Certificate Budget for FiscalYear ending March 31, 2001. Michele Schnitker reported that with the merger of the Section 8 Voucher and Certificate programs, HUD has instructed HAs that all increments are being renewed as voucher funds. As of April 1st there will only be one Section 8 increment remaining in the certificate program. The increment is an allocation for 4 units and expires April 30, 2000. The renewal funding for this increment has been included in the Fiscal Year 2001 Voucher Budget. The total annual contributions being requested from HUD to fund the certificate program for the first month of FY2001 is $1,738. Ms. Schnitker stated that it is recommended that the Board approve the Section 8 Certificate budget for Fiscal Year Ending March 31, 2001. No resolution is required. Commissioner Moore moved approval of the Section 8 Certificate budget for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2001. Commissioner Courtney seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 4-0 with Commissioners Gavzy Row, Moore and Courtney voting in favor. e. Section 8 Voucher Budget Fiscal Year Ending March 31, 2001. Michele Schnitker reported the budget estimate was based on a unit bedroom distribution similar to that currently administered by the HA. The monthly housing assistance payments amount used to estimate the annual housing assistance payments required were based on participant averages derived from the Multi Tenant Characteristic System (MTCS) database. The proposed budget provides for 230 vouchers with an earned administrative fee to the HA of $146,308. The current year's Section 8 program budgets provide for a combined program of 224 units, 62 vouchers and 168 certificates. The total annual contributions being requested from HUD to fund the voucher program for FY 2001 is $1,355,050. This amount includes the FSS funding award of $21,444. Ms. Schnitker stated that it is recommended that the Board of Commissioners approve the Section 8 Voucher budget for the Fiscal Year Ending March 31, 2001. No resolution is required. Commissioner Courtney moved approval of the Section 8 Voucher Budget. Commissioner Moore seconded the motion. The motion passed with a vote of 4-0 with Commissioners Gavzy, Row, Moore and Courtney voting in favor. f. Public Housing Utility Allowance for Scattered Site Program - Resolution No. 472. Sharon Anderson reported that in accordance with HUD regulations, utility 90 schedules for our scattered site homes are updated on an annual basis. Allowances are based on actual previous consumption and current utility rates. Allowances are subtracted from 30% of each tenant's income to determine the amount they pay for rent. Sue Wiseman was responsible for obtaining the data for this report from a three year rolling base. Ms. Anderson stated that staff is recommending adoption of Resolution No. 472 amending the Leasing and Occupancy Plan, Appendix D, Utility Allowances for the Scattered Site Program. Commissioner Moore moved to approve the public housing utility allowance for the Scattered Site Program. Commissioner Row seconded the motion. The motion was passed on a vote of 4-0 with Commissioners Courtney, Gavzy, Moore and Row voting in favor. 7. Communications from the Executive Director a. Claims List No. 02-00 Commissioner Row moved to approve Claims List No. 02-00. Commissioner Courtney seconded the motion. The motion was passed on a vote of 4-0 with Commissioners Gavzy, Moore, Row and Courtney voting in favor. b. Communications (1) Monthly Report for February, 2000 - (verbal report) No report given (2) Scattered Site Homes and Hamilton House - (verbal report) No report given (3) Home Renewal Program and Habitat Program (verbal report) Michele Schnitker gave an update on 2929 Ottawa. The house is being demolished today. Staff is working with a builder who needs to provide additional information to meet all the RFP criteria. The builder does have an interested buyer and staff is hopeful that outstanding issues can be resolved. Ms. Schnitker reported on the Louisiana Court Project. Purchase Agreements have been acquired on all the properties eliminating the need to proceed with condemnation. 91 Ms. Schnitker noted that the Home Remodeling Fair at the Eisenhower Community Center is February 13th. Kathy Larsen has been on a committee planning the fair. Ms. Schnitker pointed out to the Board that the Commissioners are being provided with a new copy of the Leasing and Occupancy Plan in a three ring binder to make it easier to make future changes to the Plan. 8. Adjournment Commissioner Moore moved to adjourn. Commissioner Row seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 4-0 with Commissioners Gavzy, Moore, Row and Courtney voting in favor. Meeting adjourned at 6:35 p.m. Respectfully Submitted ______________________________ Shone Row Secretary 92 Item # 9c* MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 16, 2000 --7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Michelle Bissonnette, Michael Garelick, Ken Gothberg, Dennis Morris, Jerry Timian (arrived at 7:20 p.m.), Sally Velick MEMBERS ABSENT: Paul Carver STAFF PRESENT: Judie Erickson, Janice Loftus, Scott Moore 1. Call to Order - Roll Call Vice Chair Bissonnette called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. 2. Approval of Minutes of January 19, 2000 Mr. Morris moved approval of Minutes of January 19, 2000 and the motion passed on a vote of 3-0-2 with Bissonnette, Garelick, and Morris voting in favor and Gothberg and Velick abstaining. 2a. Lou Park Apartment Update: Judie Erickson, Planning Coordinator, asked if anyone in the audience was present regarding Lou Park apartments. One person was present. She stated that this is not an item on the agenda but gave a brief update on the ground contamination at the Lou Park Apartment site. Aaron Borken, 1351 Hampshire Avenue South, #324, stated that his house faces the contaminated waste dump. It is a bunch of soiled dirt, covered with a tarp which has been unearthed for 1 1/2 months and has a toxic oily tar smell to it. He stated that he wanted to make sure that the City is aware of the contamination and he hopes that something gets done about it. 3. Public Hearings: 93 A. Case No. 00-06-Z -- Zoning Map Amendment - rezoning for consistency with Comprehensive Plan • SE Quadrant of Texas and South Frontage Road of I-394 • Parcels on the north side of West 13th Lane • Parcel at 4320 West 36 1/2 Street • Parcels SW of Bass Lake Judie Erickson, Planning Coordinator, presented a staff report and recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Zoning Ordinance Map Amendments for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and forward to the City Council for adoption. Mr. Morris asked if the parcel at West 38th and Beltline Boulevard is owned by the EDA or the Park Board. Ms. Erickson stated that the parcel is owned by the City of St. Louis Park. Ms. Velick asked if the parcel west of Texas and abutting I-394 is held by the State. Ms. Erickson stated that she would research whether or not the State owns this parcel. She indicated that the zoning and guiding on the property are R-1 Single Family and the City is not looking at a commercial use on the parcel. Vice Chair Bissonnette opened the public hearing. Stuart Chazin, 4301 Hwy 7, Apt #115, requested that the zoning amendment for the property located north of West 13th Lane that is zoned R-3 on the plan not be changed because he is interested in a mixed use project for the site. There being no else wishing to speak, Vice Chair Bissonnette closed the public hearing. Ms. Erickson stated and she is not against a deferral for the parcels on the north side of West 13th Lane since Mr. Chazen has shown an interest in the parcel for a mixed use development. Mr. Morris asked if there is a deadline date by which the City has to bring the zoning into conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Erickson stated that the deadline would be nine months from the date of the Comprehensive Plan approval which is June 1, 2000. Mr. Gothberg stated that since the area is currently zoned R-2, if there is a mixed use development, the City would have to amend both the Comprehensive Plan 94 and zoning. He stated that it didn’t make much difference whether or not action is delayed. Ms. Velick moved that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Zoning Ordinance Map Amendments for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and forward to the City Council for adoption with the exception of the parcels on the north side of West 13th Lane to be revisited at a later date. The motion passed 5- 0-1 with Bissonnette, Velick, Garelick, Gothberg and Morris voting in favor and Timian abstaining. B. Case No. 00-07-ZA -- Zoning Ordinance Amendments: • No subdivisions of properties with non-conforming use Judie Erickson, Planning Coordinator, presented a staff report and recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment and forward on to the City Council for adoption. Mr. Garelick asked if the billboard will stay with the new parcel. Ms. Erickson stated that the billboard will stay because it is on a separate piece of property already. That property is owned by the billboard company who does not want to sell it so the parcel will not be part of the redevelopment. Vice Chair Bissonnette opened the public hearing. With no one wishing to speak, Vice Chair Bissonnette closed the public hearing. Mr. Morris moved to accept staff’s recommendation for adopting the proposed amendment. The motion passed 6-0 with Bissonnette, Velick, Garelick, Gothberg, Morris and Timian voting in favor. C. Case No. 00-08-ZA - Miscellaneous Zoning Ordinance Amendments: • Variance/Zoning Administration - 2 year time for reapplying and changing zoning administration from Direction of Inspections to Planning and Zoning Supervisor • Permits for Fences and Parking Lots • Height of Fences in Side Yards • Private Indoor Entertainment with liquor permitted with Conditional use Permit • Sign Ordinance requirement for sign permits Scott Moore, Assistant Zoning Administrator, presented a staff report and outlined the proposed language changes. Mr. Garelick asked if these changes would be applied to the proposed new use for Texa Tonka Shopping Center. 95 Mr. Moore stated that this land use does not fall under this category. Rather, it is considered a restaurant and would require a CUP. Mr. Garelick asked if the City is making the CUP harder to obtain with the change. Mr. Moore indicated that this is not the case. Mr. Garelick stated that he thought real estate signs were a blight on the neighborhood and asked if any thought had been given to any limitations on signs that are going into neighborhoods. Mr. Moore stated that the current zoning ordinance states that any real estate sign that is under 40 square feet in area is exempt from the provisions of the sign ordinance. Mr. Garelick said he is concerned about the length of time a real estate sign remains on a property and asked if something could be drafted which states that once a property is sold, the real estate sign would be removed. Mr. Moore stated that this could be drafted but the down side would be enforcement and inspection issues. Mr. Garelick noted the Deephaven ordinance that states that any signs left on any boulevards are confiscated by the City. Mr. Moore stated that there is a provision in the code that states that any sign that is placed in the public right way is subject to confiscation and the City does go out and pick up signs. Mr. Morris stated that this is also applied to garage sale signs. Mr. Morris asked if there is draft language of what the actual amendments are going to be for the last four items. Mr. Moore reviewed the amendments and stated that there is no specific language drafted for these items because staff needs to determine what we are going to be including, what is going to be asked of the homeowner and fence installer, and what additional materials will be needed. Mr. Morris stated that he does not believe that the Commission could vote on a theoretical amendment because it is the Commission’s responsibility to review language specific to the applicable code. He said he is opposed to requiring permits to build fences if there is not going to be an inspection for enforcement after installation and reluctant to approve the other amendments without seeing specific language. 96 Mr. Gothberg agreed with Mr. Morris relative to the need to see specific language. He is concerned about the change in height of fences for side yards and asked staff to clarify the definition of a side yard. Mr. Moore briefly reviewed the definition. Mr. Gothberg indicated that it would be difficult to fence in an RV for a resident who lives on a corner lot and explained other difficulties. He stated that he is opposed to this amendment. Mr. Garelick stated that he would be opposed to any amendments that would allow an RV without screening. Mr. Morris stated that he believes there would be difficulties with enforcement. Ms. Velick recommended that this item be tabled. Vice Chair Bissonnette opened the public hearing. With no one wishing to speak, Vice Chair Bissonnette closed the public hearing. Mr. Morris moved that all the ordinance amendments be deferred to the March 22, 2000 Planning Commission Meeting and directed staff to provide the additional proposed language. The motion passed 6-0 with Bissonnette, Velick, Garelick, Gothberg, Morris, Timian voting in favor. Mr. Morris asked staff to consult legal staff to see if it is possible to bring something back to the Planning Commission that is not in language form that was more defined. Mr. Timian asked what the City intends to accomplish with a fence permit. Mr. Moore explained the history of the fence request and stated that the amendment is based on the City Council’s recommendation to staff at a Study Session to bring language forward for requiring a permit for fences. Mr. Timian stated that the City Council is not always right. Ms. Bissonnette left at 8:05 p.m. Prior to Ms. Bisonnette leaving, there was discussion on the possibility of rescheduling the March 15th meeting to March 22nd. All present stated they could attend on 3-22 with the exception of Ms. Velick. D. Case No. 00-09-ZA - Zoning Ordinance Amendments: 97 • Definition of catering Scott Moore, Assistant Zoning Administrator, presented a staff report and recommended that the Planning Commission recommend adoption of the proposed Zoning amendment for the definition of catering. Mr. Gothberg asked what would happen if a food service had seating for more than 10 persons and asked where food preparation areas at schools and churches fit into the definition. Mr. Moore stated that if a land use has more than 10 seats it is defined as a restaurant. He stated that for a school or church that has a facility for providing food for on site consumption the kitchen would not be separated out of the overall land use. Mr. Timian asked if a school is preparing food to be delivered to another school in the district would that be considered catering. Mr. Moore stated that this would still be considered as a school function. Mr. Morris stated that the way this amendment is written assumes that a catering business is a large operation and it would not be permitted in an area like Knollwood Mall or Miracle Mile. He stated he is not certain that most caterers really have large facilities. Mr. Garelick stated that there is a small catering business across from Texa Tonka and that is all the space that is needed. Ms. Velick asked if the City is trying to set up a standard for a catering business and is this possible. Mr. Morris stated he is concerned about creating a land use that is so isolated that it discourages a business operation in some areas. He asked staff for any statistics on the number of catering businesses within the City. Mr. Moore clarified that the public contact for most catering businesses is limited and the use does not need a store front. Acting Chair Morris opened the public hearing. With no one wishing to speak, Acting Chair Morris closed the public hearing. Mr. Garelick stated that strong restrictions should not be placed on where catering businesses should be located and said he is opposed to the zoning restrictions for a catering services. 98 Mr. Garelick moved to deny the recommendation to adopt the proposed zoning ordinance amendments for a catering definition. Mr. Moore stated that currently there is no definition and that many catering businesses are being conducted illegally. He stated he is unsure about what other changes could be made. He stated that he believes that the Commercial and IP Districts are the best areas for a catering business and that a residential district is not the place for it. Mr. Morris said he agrees with the definition for catering but does not agree that C1 and C2 districts are the appropriate place for them. Mr. Garelick stated that he doesn’t see this as a problem yet. Mr. Moore stated that if the City is creating a land use definition, it needs to decide the location of where the use will be permitted. Mr. Morris stated that the consensus of the Commission is that they are not opposed to the catering definition, but rather desire to have a better understanding of why catering is not a beneficial use in their existing districts or where they would only be an assessory use. Mr. Garelick requested additional information about the number of catering businesses in St. Louis Park. Mr. Garelick withdrew his earlier motion to deny the amendment and moved to direct staff to hold this item over to the March 22nd Planning Commission meeting. The motion passed 5-0 with Velick, Garelick, Gothberg, Morris, Timian voting in favor. 4. Old Business: None 5. New Business A. Consent Agenda - None B. Other New Business i. Case No. 00-10-OM -- Planning Commission initiate Official Map Amendment for extension of 16th Street/east of Park Place Blvd near Duke and recommend approval Judie Erickson, Planning Coordinator, presented a staff report and recommended that the Planning Commission initiate the Official Map amendment and approve the Official Map amendment to extend West 16th 99 Street East of Park Place Boulevard and forward to the City Council for adoption. Ms. Erickson explained that in the next economic cycle there would be growth and intensification in this area. The City has received a PUD amendment to permit a Costco and a PUD and Plat application to permit townhomes and hotels in the area. Mr. Morris asked if the extension of 16th street would be offset from the intersection or would it create a new intersection. He said he is unsure what traffic this would alleviate. Ms. Erickson stated that this is looked at as a reliever for I-394 and hoped that by bringing this into straight alignment congestion would be improved. Mr. Morris stated he is not opposed to adopting the amendment to the official map. The reality of having a street through that intersection and relieving anything is dim, but future development may change that. Mr. Gothberg moved to initiate the Official Map amendment and approve the Official Map amendment to extend West 16th Street east of Park Place Boulevard and forward to the City Council for adoption. The motion passed 5-0 with Velick, Garelick, Gothberg, Morris, Timian voting in favor. ii. Case No. 00-11-OM -- Planning Commission initiate an amendment to the municipal code to allow staff to initiate Official Map Amendments and to hold the public hearing on these amendments at Planning Commission and recommend approval of same. Judie Erickson, Planning Coordinator, presented a staff report and recommended that the Planning Commission initiate an amendment to the municipal code to allow staff to initiate Official Map Amendments and to hold the public hearing on these amendments at Planning Commission and recommend approval of same. Chair Morris questioned Section 14-405 related to petitions, “petition of five (5) or more persons owning affected property”. He asked if staff had considered making this a percentage of a petition and what happens if there is only one property owner. Ms. Erickson stated that she would consider changing the language to state “or 60% of the property owners upon which land the designation lies”. 100 Mr. Gothberg asked for clarification of the definition of “owning affecting property”. Ms. Erickson clarified the definition and stated that generally speaking this would mean that the property owners who had a designation over their land would probably petition to have that designation removed. Mr. Morris noted the Hutchinson Spur as an example. Ms. Erickson stated that if there are residents who are against this designation, they would have the opportunity to speak to staff, City Council or Planning Commission and those parties could initiate an amendment if they felt one was necessary. Ms. Velick moved to initiate text amendments to the Municipal Code relating to the Official Map and approve the text amendments with the changes to Section 14-405 with the revision that it be changed to a percentage or more persons in the last line and forward to the City Council for public hearing and for adoption. The motion passed 5-0 with Velick, Garelick, Gothberg, Morris and Timian voting in favor. iii. Vitality of St. Louis Park in comparison to other surrounding suburbs Mr. Garelick presented the following vitality statistics: In 1999, 594 houses and townhouses were sold in St. Louis Park (4 - 1BR, 152 - 2 BR, 338 - 3BR, 96 4BR). This is double that of any other first ring suburb. The dollar volume of real-estate sold in St. Louis Park was approximately $90 million. The average sale price is $152,413 and medium price is $135,000. 186 of the buyers were first time home buyers going FHA with 3% down, 17 were VA with nothing down, but the largest percentage was for conventional loans. In 1990 the average price was $91,200. The average price is going up about $10,000 to $15,000 a year. Mr. Garelick had a full report that he asked staff to distribute to the Commission members. Mr. Morris asked if a high rate in a particular City is a good or a bad thing. Mr. Garelick stated that the rate of turn over is good and causing the values to go up, but pointed out that if the City desires to continue this trend of values going up, they are going to have to start educating the realtors on why they should have people come to St. Louis Park. At the current time, there is no class like this. He recommends that a seminar for realtors be developed by the City. iv. Pollution Concerns 101 Commissioner Velick stated that she has concerns about the pollution in St. Louis Park. She stated she had been thinking about this throughout the meeting after Mr. Borken spoke about the Lou Park Apartments. She indicated that personally she has had some health difficulties with her son and recently heard about two other young people who live in a three mile radius in St. Louis Park who have developed cancers. She stated that a woman from Lou Park Apartments told her about other people she knew who had developed cancers. Ms. Velick stated that this is very upsetting and troubling. She didn’t want this to be a public matter that can’t be solved in anyway with people saying bad things about St. Louis Park that we are the polluted area. She stated she is upset about the pollution that has been uncovered in St. Louis Park on Hampshire and, while it is not the City’s issue, she thinks we should all be aware of it. Mr. Garelick asked who the previous owners were. Ms. Erickson stated the previous owner was Terry Brothers. She said she is unsure if it was a pollution dumping area, but stated that some chemicals were found on the site. Chair Morris said he empathized with Ms. Velick’s comments. He stated that it may be inevitable that as development is being pushed, because of the desirability of property, people are discovering what the historical land use was. Certainly there are many more controls and testing done to land than was done in the past, but there is a lot of stuff under the ground that we are going to find out about. 6. Communications A. Recent City Council Action - February 7, 2000 Ms. Erickson reviewed the content of the Minnikahda Vista handout and the status of the Park Commons development. The Commission desires to see another presentation of the Park Commons development plan for Planning Commission input prior to the PUD. 7. Miscellaneous A. Resolution of Appreciation - Dennis Morris 102 Secretary, Janice Loftus, distributed Resolution No. 56 for signature. She stated that staff was directed at the last meeting to prepare a resolution of appreciation for Mr. Morris. 8. Adjournment Chair Morris adjourned the meeting at 9:15 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Janice Loftus Administrative Secretary Prepared by: Shirley Olson Recording Secretary 103 Item # 9d* MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 1, 2000 --7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Michelle Bissonnette, Paul Carver, Michael Garelick, Ken Gothberg, Dennis Morris, Jerry Timian (arrived 8:00 p.m., Sally Velick MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Janet Jeremiah, Janice Loftus, Sacha Peterson 1. Call to Order - Roll Call Chair Carver called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. 2. Approval of Minutes - None 3. Public Hearings: A. Case No. 99-51-CUP - Request of Costco Wholesale for a major amendment to an approved Planned Unit Development to build a 139,444 square foot retail building and parking for property located at 1625 Zarthan Avenue and 5799 W. 16th Street. Janet Jeremiah, Planning & Zoning Supervisor, presented a staff report and recommended approval of the major amendment to the PUD for Costco subject to the 8 conditions outlined in the staff report. She noted that the condition related to proof of parking would prevent the need for a variance, which would need to be resolved first if the applicant is requesting a variance. Mr. Morris stated that this is the time to bring all the undeveloped amenities of the whole PUD into conformance, but didn’t want to hold Costco hostage to that. He asked staff to clarify who is responsible for making the improvements outside of the Costco development and how does the City go about getting those improvements completed. Ms. Jeremiah stated that there are several different owners and entities on this property. She stated that Ryan Construction has been responsible for all of the improvements around the perimeter and also all the improvements in the common area such as the small plaza up near 16th and Zarthan as well as the larger seating plaza and the ponding areas of the site. She said it is her understanding that Ryan has also retained some of the other building sites such as the Office Max and Petsmart site. She indicated that Home Depot and Arby’s do own their site so any improvements that were specific to those private development sites would be the 104 responsibility of those private owners. However, all of these property owners are tied together through the PUD and development agreement and the City looks at this as one overall development. That is why staff is recommending that the City defer issuing an occupancy permit to Costco until staff is satisfied that all of the provisions have been installed and the site is being maintained as expected. This could be the City’s last permit point to try to catch all of the things that have not been done. Ms. Velick asked about the traffic survey results for Park Place and questioned if more traffic would be handled on Park Place than on Zarthan or 16th Street. Ms. Jeremiah agreed that there is a high level of traffic on Park Place. She described the recent improvements that are working well and described current traffic levels. Mr. Gothberg asked if the traffic study considered people coming east on Cedar Lake Road who would want to take the short route and take a left turn off of Cedar Lake Road up Zarthan, particularly since the left turn lane is only 2-3 car lengths long. Being rather difficult with traffic coming from the east, he said his concern is that cars could easily back up on Cedar Lake Road. He asked if there is any consideration that once a stop light goes in at the entrance to Costco what it would to do increase the amount of cut through traffic on Zarthan. Ms. Jeremiah stated that she believes the timing of the light at Cedar Lake Road and Zarthan was intentional to discourage a lot of traffic in front of the single family residences. She stated that it does not look like there is a level of service problem overall, but is not sure if the traffic study looked at the details of all the turning movements. She said she understands Mr. Gothberg’s concern about the additional stop and whether or not it would be viewed as a deterrent from taking one route over the other. Mr. Garelick asked if there are any plans to widen Cedar Lake Road from Louisiana to the proposed site to help alleviate traffic problems in the area. Ms. Jeremiah indicated that there are no further plans in the near future. She stated that there are some issues with the neighborhood that include lack of breaks in the traffic for residents who are exiting the neighborhood onto Cedar Lake Road, and Sunset Ridge residents have difficulty crossing Cedar Lake Road to the transit station. She said these issues are expected to be downsized by the Council and Public Works in an upcoming Study Session. Mr. Garelick stated that he is concerned that the site is not customer friendly with the amount of asphalt currently on site and recommended that something be tied in on the overall approval to make it more pedestrian friendly. He asked if there is any public assistance for the project. 105 Ms. Jeremiah stated that there is no public assistance discussed as part of this project. Ms. Bissonnette said she is also concerned about the short cut of circulation. Ms. Velick stated that she believes that the traffic flow would be greater from Highway I-394 and Highway 100 than from the service roads. Ted Johnson, Executive Vice President, Thomas Dike & Associates, introduced the project team members present and not present. He reviewed two publications that were distributed that described the history and background of Costco. He described how Costco operates and compares to other retail stores and stated that they have high quality merchandise at the lowest price. He described the overall site and included the earlier version of the development, explaining the hours of operation. He stated that there was a neighborhood meeting held last week and a resident asked to see a site plan showing building masses. He reviewed the items that staff asked Costco to look at and indicated that Costco is willing to work with staff to meet construction requirements. Jerry Timian arrived. Mr. Morris asked if the three doors that are shown for the tire service are drive in/ back out service stalls. Mr. Johnson stated that there are four back out service stalls. Mr. Morris asked if there is a separate entry for the cart storage or would they use the same entry as the customers. Mr. Johnson stated that they would use the same entry as the store and the carts would be stored within an enclosed canopy. Mr. Morris asked about the width of the proposed sidewalks. Mr. Johnson didn’t have specifics with this design scale. Mr. Garelick asked how many employees would be within the concept. Mr. Johnson stated that a typical store employs 180-230 employees, so this store would employee 150-200 employees. Mr. Garelick asked what the average employee salary is. Mr. Johnson stated that he didn’t have this information on hand. 106 Mr. Garelick asked how many people are projected to enter the store and where are they coming from. Mr. Johnson indicated that that was discussed in the traffic study. Mr. Garelick asked Mr. Johnson what Costco’s community involvement philosophy is. Mr. Johnson indicated that Costco participates in several programs with the local schools and children hospitals. Mr. Gothberg asked if Mr. Johnson sees a major problem with condition 1B related to a minimum of 54 proof of parking spaces. Mr. Johnson stated that there is a major problem with that condition. Mr. Gothberg asked if Mr. Johnson is willing to provide a fair share relative to the intersection as explained in condition 6A. Mr. Johnson concurred. Mr. Gothberg asked if Mr. Johnson has any problem with condition 6B related to the traffic transit improvement on 16th Street. Mr. Johnson stated that it could be very difficulty to place those improvements on someone else’s property, but believes they are on same dialog as staff. Ms. Jeremiah clarified that Costco wouldn’t be expected to pay for those impacts that were related to the hotel/townhouse development, but the details would need to be worked out as part of the development. Staff is not prepared to explain what the costs involved would be at this time. She noted that if Costco is insistent that they would like to stripe all 614 spaces at the outset of their development, this would be a code violation and would require a variance. Chair Carver asked if Costco had applied for a variance. Mr. Johnson indicated that he had not and that he is still reviewing the ordinance requirement for the proof of parking and its reference to the shopping center. Chair Carver asked Mr. Johnson to clarify what he means when referring to the whole center. Mr. Johnson stated that the requirement is for shopping centers in excess of 200,000 square feet and he is looking at all of Park Place, since his development is only 139,000 square feet. 107 Ms. Jeremiah stated that staff did take a very preliminary look at this and it does not appear that the rest of the center would be satisfying the requirement of proof of parking for this parcel. Staff does believe there should be proof of parking in conjunction with these two lots that they are proposing to develop. Chair Carver stated that Costco and the City should investigate the proof of parking issue further. Mr. Timian stated that he has never seen the Home Depot parking lot full and it does not seem like a very good idea to increase the desert of parking already there. He asked Mr. Johnson if this is an attractive development. Mr. Johnson stated it will be an attractive redevelopment when the landscaping matures. Mr. Timian asked if the concept of sidewalks in the center of the parking lot was considered for the safety of children. Mr. Johnson indicated that they were providing wider parking spaces (10 x20) and didn’t believe this would be an issue. Mr. Johnson stated that people leave the Costco facility with oversized carts and it would be very difficult to integrate sidewalks in the area and still have efficient movement to a parking space from the entrance through the parking lot with the carts. Ms. Bissonnette stated she agrees with Mr. Timian’s comments on the Home Depot sea of parking and feels that aesthetically it is an eyesore and does not want to see more pavement. Chair Carver explained that a 54 proof of parking is worth trying, although he has never seen any people park in the outlying areas near proof of parking. Ms. Velick said she believes a shared agreement with Home Depot is worth a try. Chair Carver opened the public hearing. Gary Berscheid, 1604 Blackstone Avenue, stated that he can see people and trucks coming through the neighborhood. He requested the development of signage for “No Trucks on Blackstone, Alabama and Zarthan”. He said he is concerned about the Berlin Wall behind Home Depot and the reality of the pines maturing to block the view of this wall. He is concerned with traffic circulation and the actual increases in traffic and believes the number of trips needs to be clarified. 108 Mr. Berscheid read a statement from Hans Witimer, 1600 Alabama who was present but had to leave. The statement indicated that Mr. Witimer is concerned about why the building size has increased over 25%, the need for another liquor store and the effectiveness of the semaphore at Zarthan. He agrees that there is too much blacktop and there should be a proof of parking. A smaller building could mean less parking and he supports delivery restrictions. Carla Jones, SRF stated that the trips are generated based on the ITE trip generation reports and daily trips were described in total trips including in and out on a daily basis. She stated that none of the trips for the proposed Costco through Blackstone or Alabama were counted because there is a light at Zarthan and it is easier to take that left turn at Zarthan than proceed through the neighborhood. She indicated that SRF is also doing the analysis for the CSM townhome and hotel development and some of those trips were taken through the neighborhood based on travel times. Chair Carver asked staff to clarify the landscaping requirements for the proposed development. Ms. Jeremiah indicated that the bufferyard along Zarthan and Cedar Lake Road was completed as part of the overall development and Costco is not requesting to change that plan. She indicated that the exact configuration of the loading area has changed from the conceptual plan and stated that staff could look specifically at the landscaping near the current loading area at the south corner of the store and see if that would adequately screen the wall. Mr. Gothberg stated that there is currently a mix of evergreens with trees at that location. Chair Carver asked if anything would be added to that area. Ms. Jeremiah indicated that nothing would be added unless the Planning Commission makes a recommendation. Joshua Aaron, 7600 West 14th Street, stated that he is concerned about the increase of traffic at the northwest corner since the entry of the store would be on that corner of the property. He said he is concerned about how customers would enter and exit the Costco property and believes that the plan was cutting out a direct flow. He is concerned about the sale of liquor, if there is a separate entrance off the street and what kind of hours would this create. He said he is concerned about the pond that is included on site. The site is more loaded with buildings than the conceptual plan and he does not believe this is a model that fits in our area, but rather in the outer suburbs. He stated he is not in favor of this proposal. 109 Chair Carver stated that Costco would have to follow State laws related to sale of liquor. Mr. Johnson stated that the State requires a separate entry for the liquor sales. He explained the location of the liquor store, hours of operation, and traffic circulation. He stated that the westerly customer entrance to the site on 16th Street would be closed. Because there would be only one enter/exit for all customers and because of the carts, he said it is not appropriate to have a drive that could carry quite a bit of traffic throughout the entire center right at the front door of the store. Mr. Morris asked if the liquor store is a stand alone store or only a separate entrance and separate check out. Mr. Johnson stated that the liquor store is part of the entire facade, but had separate entrance and you can not go directly from the main store to the liquor store which is 2,000 square feet. Mr. Berscheid asked if the wall for the loading docks would enclose the truck exhaust stack units on the 13 foot trailers or would the sound project up and over the wall. He suggested raising the wall 1-2 feet to deflect the sound away from the neighborhood. Mr. Jeremiah stated that Mr. Berscheid’s comment is an excellent idea and staff will look at the detail of the exhaust stacks with Costco. With no one else wishing to speak, Chair Carver closed the public hearing. Mr. Morris stated that the Planning Commission is learning from experience and beginning to see some of the mistakes that we may have inherited by approving other plans. He agrees with the public comments that the stacking of the entrances to Costco in the northwest corner of the parking lot for a pedestrian use with carts requires everybody to park far away, travel to the corner where you go in and bring your carts back to your car while always dodging the traffic. In this case you have to walk past an entire service facility with six stalls where people are driving in and backing out. At other locations those stalls are stacked to the side or the rear for service purposes. He does not see the feasibility of people utilizing any sidewalk space here (6 foot sidewalk with a 4 foot cart) for travel to these far stalls at the south side of the lot or desirably taking them across the entry driveway where there is no pedestrian crossing at all. In general, he sees an undesirable traffic pattern for vehicles, pedestrians and the use of carts. He stated he is not opposed to the size or aesthetics of the store. He noted that there is no pedestrian access from Costco and Home Depot to the restaurants and there is a need to tie east and west together with pedestrian walkways. He said he does not feel that Costco needs to be held hostage to everyone else complying with what they should have done. It appears that the Home Depot site is lax with what they originally came through with, i.e., there is no landscaping, no cart corral and no 110 bike racks proposed. In addition, there is material storage on the front of the property and there was a fountain that was supposed to be put into the pond. He stated that now is the time to put some restrictions on the certificate of occupancy to put the whole PUD into conformance. Mr. Gothberg stated that he is happy to see that the access for a direct drive in front of the store is going to be closed to ensure a safer situation for this area because it is a hazard when customers can enter right in and roll right by, as is the case with the CUB store at Knollwood. Ms. Velick said she would like to see the tire service center moved to the south side to make a safer situation. Mr. Johnson explained how the tire center would work. Customers would not be driving in and out of the service doors. Employees would be moving the cars for customers. Mr. Garelick said he believes that it is the consensus of the Council not to have St. Louis Park become a parking lot, but desires to see the landscaping and consumer friendly environment that were in the original concepts. Chair Carver agreed that closing off the entrance in front of the door makes sense. He said that the proof of parking is the way to go to resolve the parking issues we are faced with time and again. He said that the Commission is not inclined to let issues faced with Home Depot happen again and are irritated that people who we welcome into the neighborhood to be neighborly do not always act neighborly once they get here. It makes the Commission feel like they have been taken advantage of and does not create for a good feeling of being neighbors. Ms. Velick stated that she has shopped in several Costco stores and believes they would be a good addition and neighbor. Ms. Bissonnette reiterated the need for a pedestrian friendly development with sidewalks. Mr. Morris indicated that he is not in favor of the proposal. Ms. Velick moved to recommend approval of the major amendment to the approved Planned Unit Development subject to the 8 conditions as recommended by staff and finding no need for a new EAW. Mr. Morris asked if the motion included that staff pursue requiring the entire PUD to be brought into conformance before the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Chair Carver stated that Condition 6B addressed PUD compliance. 111 Ms. Velick stated that Costco has no problem with condition 6B. Ms. Bissonnette asked that the issue of examining sidewalk possibilities be included in the motion. Ms. Velick stated that she did not accept this as a friendly motion. Chair Carver asked staff to give Ms. Bissonnette feedback on the ways in which sidewalk additions could be explored with Costco. Ms. Jeremiah stated that a way that staff could potentially explore additional sidewalk connects would be to reconfigure the exact recommendations relative to the proof of parking open space areas. Perhaps those proof of parking areas could be configured in such a way to accommodate sidewalks. However, she said she would note that given the space restrictions on the site and the intent on the part of Costco to pave as much parking as they can at the outset. She thinks this is going to be difficult to accommodate. One area we could include would be the connection between Costco and Home Depot by eliminating much of the parking in that area of the site. She stated it would be helpful to staff for the Commission to identify the most desirable sidewalk improvements. Ms. Velick she does not believe this issue is pertinent to the motion. Mr. Garelick questioned if the Commission is disavowing any leverage for any landscaping or completing things in the future for this specific environment. He asked if the conditions will help beautify the site. Ms. Jeremiah stated that if Mr. Garelick is referring to the entire PUD site, there are definitely items that have not been completed that staff thinks would help beautify the site with regard to the plaza improvements and staff will take a closer look at the landscaping issues. She stated if there are additional concerns with the Costco site related to landscaping, that needs to be addressed. She stated that Costco is requesting a major amendment to the overall PUD and believes it is within the Planning Commission’s purview to look at the entire PUD site and suggest additional improvements as part of this major amendment request. Chair Carver called the motion to approve the amendment to the PUD subject to the 8 conditions in the staff report. The motion passed 4-3 with Bissonnette, Carver, Gothberg and Velick voting in favor and Garelick, Morris and Timian opposed. B. Case No. 00-12-ZA -- Proposed amendment to PUD section of Zoning Ordinance to allow preliminary and final PUD applications to be processed simultaneously in certain cases 112 Chair Carver waived a staff report presentation and asked staff to be available for questions. Chair Carver opened public hearing and with no one wishing to speak, he closed the public hearing. Mr. Gothberg stated he is concerned about a lack of involvement and input from neighborhood and other areas. He stated that before he could support this amendment there would need to be some way of verifying there has been good neighborhood input. Chair Carver noted that something like this could come to the Planning Commission as a joint package. If it were detected that additional work needed to be done, the Commission could approve the preliminary PUD and defer action on the final PUD. Ms. Jeremiah stated that staff notifies residents within 350 feet of the site, places a sign on the property and is in the process of implementing notification to the neighborhood association president. Staff also encourages the developer to have an informal neighborhood meeting. Mr. Garelick recommended that Commissioners be notified of neighborhood meetings. Mr. Morris moved that the Commission recommend approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment and forward to the City Council for adoption. The motion passed 6-1 with Bissonnette, Carver, Garelick, Morris, Timian and Velick voting in favor and Gothberg opposed. 4. Old Business: None 5. New Business A. Consent Agenda - None B. Other New Business i. Review of Mill City Tax Increment financing District as to whether it is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan Janet Jeremiah, Planning and Zoning Supervisor, presented a staff report and recommended approval. Mr. Garelick asked if the need for TIF financing has been successfully identified. Ms. Jeremiah stated that a need has been established in part because of the brownfield soil condition of this property and other findings that the project is 113 supporting the goals of the City for providing additional housing opportunities within the City. She stated that many developers have looked at this site in the past and this is the only developer who has come close to finding all of the financing that is necessary to make this marginally possible. Mr. Garelick questioned improving the site or keeping it as a park. Ms. Jeremiah stated that there is an existing non-conforming structure on the site that is an eyesore. A task force looked at the site while studying the entire Highway 7 and Louisiana area and recommended that housing should go on this property that was originally designated for commercial. In order to accommodate the City’s housing goals, this was a trade for keeping the area north of Walker as park instead of housing. Mr. Gothberg stated that since it was determined that this proposal matched the Comprehensive Plan could the adoption of the establishment of the Mill City Tax Increment Financing District be included with the PUD. Ms. Jeremiah stated that if the document had been ready, it could have been brought to the Planning Commission at the time of the Preliminary PUD. Mr. Gothberg moved to adopt a resolution finding the proposed establishment of the Mill City Tax Increment Financing District and the Modification of Redevelopment Project No. 1 to be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan of the City of St. Louis Park. The motion passed 7-0 with Bissonnette, Carver, Garelick, Gothberg, Morris, Timian and Velick voting in favor. ii. Case No. 99-35-PUD Case No. 99-37-S Request of MSP Real Estate Inc. for Final PUD and Plat approval for Mill City Addition Case No. 00-16-RE – Sale of City Land at 3354 Louisiana Sacha Peterson, Planner, presented a staff report. She reviewed issues raised including pedestrian walkways, roof heights, elevations and facade materials. The developer is proposing substantial design changes to the building from the preliminary drawings and the drawings in the Commissioner’s packets, and is still working to refine the drawings, so that there are no finalized elevation drawings for the Planning Commission to review She stated that staff believes the developer is working towards meeting staff’s recommended changes to an acceptable design; however, the Planning Commission will need to decide if you are comfortable with moving the project forward without having the opportunity to review final elevation drawings. Staff and the Commission are not able to do a detailed analysis of whether the exterior material requirements and other basic design code standards are met so she suggested an additional sentence to Condition A1 that reads “The plan would meet all code requirements regarding 114 architectural design standards”. With that suggestion, Ms. Peterson recommended approval of the Final PUD and Plat with the conditions outlined in the staff report and the additional language added to Condition A1 as stated above. She stated that the Commission has the option of continuing if they want to see the revised elevations. A resolution regarding the land sale is also included in the report. Mr. Morris asked staff to clarify the meaning of the word “forbs”. He noted that the green space on the west and north sides are swales and asked if that is intended to be for run off collection. Ms. Peterson noted that the forbs are part of the landscaping plan and the intent is to berm around the building to meet the requirements of providing elevation 2 feet above the flood plain elevation. (It was confirmed later in the meeting that there are pond areas proposed north and west of the building.) Ms. Velick stated she is pleased that the recommendation of the Planning Commission with the Preliminary PUD and Plat were taken into consideration by the developer. Mr. Timian asked if the soils were tested in the area. Mr. Jeremiah stated that the soils were tested and a brownfield grant was awarded. Peter Pfister, Boorma, Krose, Phister Architects, reviewed the basic issues related to the site layout and addressed the concerns of the Planning Commission. Ms. Bissonnette stated that the term “forbs” refers to wild flowers. Mr. Morris said it appears that the proposal has brick only on the end units with the remainder of the exterior surfaces being stucco. Mr. Pfister stated that there would be brick on various parts of the building. Mr. Morris stated that he is concerned that it appears that all the green space is going to be wetlands and used for drainage and questioned if this is desirable for the residents since there would not be any amenities on the outside perimeter. Mr. Pfister explained that the ponds will be piped together and drained through a system and ponds. He stated that there is a deck overlooking the area and a 10 foot trail on the east side of the building. Mr. Morris asked staff if this green space is mandatory run-off and do they have to use all of this. 115 Ms. Peterson stated that a lot of the time the pond areas would be dry, and the proposal is to have good links to the park across Walker Street as an alternative to on-site usable open space. While more on-site usable space would be desirable, this proposal is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, and a reduction in on-site open space for this area was approved as part of the Redevelopment Plan. Ms. Velick stated that she prefers a slate color roof better than the green roof. Mr. Garelick asked if this owner also owns Newport on Seven. Mr. Phister stated that they have the same architects, not the same owners. Ms. Bissonnette stated she believes the landscaping includes a nice variety of plants that will be attractive as they mature. Mr. Timian asked if any of the units would be affordable units. Milo Pinkerton, owner of MSP Real Estate stated no, because if we were to apply for tax credits now, we would have to wait another year to start construction. Mr. Morris moved to adopt a resolution finding that the sale of the City owned property located at 3554 Louisiana Avenue is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the City of St. Louis Park and that the property in questions is no longer needed for public use. The motion passed 7-0 with Bissonnette, Carver, Garelick, Gothberg, Morris, Timian and Velick voting in favor. Mr. Gothberg moved to recommend approval of Final Plat and final Planned Unit Development, subject to conditions as recommended by staff with additional language added to condition A1 “That the plans would meet all code requirements with regard to architectural design”. Ms. Peterson stated that Mr. Gothberg’s recommendation would give the developer the flexibility to reduce the Class I materials down to 60%. Mr. Morris stated he is in favor of higher Class I materials because it is a major corner of the City and the adjacent development has high standards. There are many concessions being made in terms of the livability of this location. He stated that he preferred the original proposal to this proposal. Mr. Pinkerton stated that the he would love to have 80% Class I materials, but doesn’t know if he could build it at 80% Class I materials due to construction cost. He stated that timeliness is an issue and a delay adds more risk to the development. 116 The motion passed 6-1 with Bissonnette, Carver, Garelick, Gothberg, Timian and Velick voting in favor and Morris opposed. Chair Carver noted that it would be sad if this property is not developed because of the financial situation. Mr. Garelick stated that this development is going to be a nice contribution to the area and there is a real need for this type of rental property in St. Louis Park right now. 6. Communications A. Recent City Council Action - February 22, 2000 7. Miscellaneous Mr. Garelick moved to reschedule the March 15, 2000 Planning Commission meeting to March 22, 2000. The motion passed unanimously. 8. Adjournment Chair Carver adjourned the meeting at 10:40 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Janice Loftus Administrative Secretary Prepared by: Shirley Olson Recording Secretary 117 Item # 9e* MINUTES POLICE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION JANUARY 27, 2000 THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM - CITY HALL 1) The meeting was called to order at 4:35 p.m. The following were present: Chair Jim Lanenberg and Commissioner Brian Leary. Also present was Staff Liaison/Human Resources Manager Nancy Gohman and Durell Vieau, HR Technician. Member absent and excused was Commissioner Trummer. 2) A motion was made by Commissioner Leary and seconded by Chair Lanenberg to approve the minutes of September 20, 1999. The motion carried. 3) The Commission discussed the Sergeant vacancy. Commissioners expressed a concern about the need to certify 3 names and stated they would rather just certify a list and let the City move through the list without additional Commission certification. A motion was made by Commissioner Leary and seconded by Chair Lanenberg to draft a revision of the Civil Service by-laws to streamline the hiring process by having the Commission certify a list and allowing the City to consider hiring without further certification by the Commission. The motion carried. A motion was made by Chair Lanenberg and seconded by Commissioner Leary to certify the following to fill the vacancy of Police Sergeant. The motion carried. Matthew Reilly Michael Harcey John Giebel 4) The Commission discussed the Police Officer process. A motion was made by Commissioner Leary and seconded by Chair Lanenberg to approve the Police Officer recruitment process as presented in a memo from Nancy Gohman, Human Resources Manager, dated January 27, The motion carried. 5) Staff Liaison Gohman stated there will be a request for another Civil Service meeting in the near future to consider a new Sergeants promotional process. 6) The meeting adjourned at 4:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Nancy Gohman City Staff Liaison to the Police Civil Service Commission 118 Item # 9f* March 24, 2000 VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT A W W A OFFICE SUPPLIES 164.00 ALL FIRE TEST INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 565.62 ALLIANCE MECHANICAL SERVICES I BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 288.00 ANCHOR PAPER CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 177.87 ANN'S TOOL SUPPLY EQUIPMENT PARTS 87.38 APPLE PRINTING AND SECRETARIAL PRINTING & PUBLISHING 400.44 ARAMARK UNIFORM CORPORATE ACCT GENERAL SUPPLIES 629.43 ASE/ACT TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 194.00 AUTOMATIC SYSTEMS INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 241.09 BATTERIES PLUS GENERAL SUPPLIES 7.02 BAUER BUILT TIRE & BATTERY EQUIPMENT PARTS (35.87) BENFER EQUIPMENT & SUPPLY INC. GENERAL SUPPLIES 67.85 BENILDE-ST MARGARET OTHER IMPROVEMENTS 7,500.00 BORDER STATES ELECTRIC SUPPLY GENERAL SUPPLIES 96.93 BOYER TRUCK PARTS EQUIPMENT PARTS 14.30 BROADWAY RENTAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT (1.66) BRYANT, STEPHANIE L INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 CAMPBELL KNUTSON PROFESSIONAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 6,603.72 CARTRIDGE CARE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 428.00 CED SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 54.00 CHENEY SIGNS GENERAL SUPPLIES 28.86 CIRCUITWORKS OFFICE SUPPLIES 834.85 COLLISYS ELECTRIC CO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 575.70 CONCEPT SEATING INC GENERAL SUPPLIES (180.00) CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS GENERAL SUPPLIES (938.10) COURTNEY, MARGARET SPECIAL PROGRAMS 27.00 CUMMINS NORTH CENTRAL INC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 4,827.98 CUSTOM PRODUCTS & SERVICES OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 337.00 DARTEK.COM GENERAL SUPPLIES 57.46 DELEGARD TOOL CO EQUIPMENT PARTS 832.36 DEMCO INC. OFFICE SUPPLIES 41.19 DRYWALL SUPPLY INC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 29.20 EAGLE POINT OFFICE SUPPLIES 3,000.00 EDTECH COMPUTER SUPPLIES 2,425.43 EHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,687.50 EMERGENCY APPARATUS MTNCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 942.89 ENSR CONSULTING & ENGINEERING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 27,042.00 EPA AUDIO VISUAL INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 526.28 EVERGREEN LAND SERVICES CO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 841.55 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (15.67) FLOYD TOTAL SECURITY GENERAL SUPPLIES 750.83 G & K SERVICES CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY 89.89 GALLAGHER & CO OF MN INC, A J WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE 0.00 GENERAL SAFETY EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT PARTS (14.07) 119 CORP GOODIN COMPANY OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 899.07 GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC RADIO COMMUNICATIONS 192.50 GRAFIX SHOPPE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 615.00 GRAINGER INC, W W GENERAL SUPPLIES 8.72 GUSSINBERG, JENNIFER INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 HACH CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 106.12 HARMENING, TOM TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 259.00 HAWKINS WATER TREATMENT GROUP CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY 2,113.64 HENN CO INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY TELEPHONE 165.99 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER OTHER IMPROVEMENTS 78.85 HOME DEPOT/GECF OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 292.90 IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 11,491.20 INACOM INFORMATION SYSTEMS OFFICE FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT 2,266.08 IOS CAPITAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT 264.26 IRRIGATION RESOURCES CORP OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 1,369.90 J H LARSON COMPANY BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 1,396.00 JOSEPH CATERING MEETING EXPENSE 515.64 KENNEDY & GRAVEN DEPOSITS PAYABLE 2,438.45 KOHN, HERB ELECTRIC COMPANY ELECTRICAL 60.20 LABOR RELATIONS ASSOCIATES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 4,075.50 LAMOTTE COMPANY GENERAL SUPPLIES 48.80 LANDGREN, ROGER INSURANCE BENEFITS 206.36 LARSEN, KATHY GENERAL SUPPLIES 107.00 LEADER TO LEADER SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 149.00 LEARNING INNOVATIONS INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 4,413.00 LENTNER, RICHARD METERS/HORNS 95.19 LOGIS COMPUTER SERVICES 42,207.45 LOWELLS AUTOMOTIVE/PAINT PLUS OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 211.78 M-R SIGN OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 632.61 MACQUEEN EQUIP CO EQUIPMENT PARTS 534.66 MASTERSON PERSONNEL INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,548.00 MCGLONE, TIMOTHY M. INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 MEDSOFT CORPORATION OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 344.50 MENARDS SMALL TOOLS 81.54 METROCALL TELEPHONE 109.38 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 247,209.35 MID AMERICA METER INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 420.58 MID-AMERICA BUSINESS SYSTEMS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 21.30 MIDWEST GANG INVESTIGATORS ASS SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 60.00 MINN BLUE DIGITAL GENERAL SUPPLIES 7.99 MINN SAFETY COUNCIL SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 205.00 MINNEGASCO HEATING GAS 28,429.39 MINNESOTA CLE TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 870.00 MINUTEMAN PRESS PRINTING & PUBLISHING 1,032.00 MN DRIVER & VEHICLE SVCS EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT CHARGE (46.00) MN RECREATION AND PARKS GENERAL SUPPLIES 20.00 120 ASSOCI MOSS & BARNETT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 295.00 MUNICILITE EQUIPMENT PARTS 229.61 NAPA AUTO PARTS EQUIPMENT PARTS 248.72 NATIONAL AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER C BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 618.60 NORTHERN LIGHTS COMMUNICATION GENERAL SUPPLIES 40.00 NORTHSTAR REPRO PRODUCTS INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 110.64 NORTHWEST GRAPHIC SUPPLY CO OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 33.00 NSP CO ELECTRIC SERVICE 31,216.44 Norwest Community Development OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,010.38 OESTREICH, MARK MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 126.42 OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE SUPPLIES 770.19 OLSON, RUSSELL R. DEPOSITS PAYABLE 500.00 OTTO PACKAGING MIDWEST LLC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES (72.00) PALLADINO, MADONNA SKATING LESSONS-tax exempt 49.50 PRESTIGE LINCOLN MERCURY EQUIPMENT PARTS 5.45 PROGRESSIVE CONSULTING ENGINEE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 805.00 QUEST ENGINEERING INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 42.92 QUICKSILVER EXPRESS COURIER POSTAGE 851.18 R O T A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 100.00 RC INDENTIFICATIONS GENERAL SUPPLIES 5.33 REINEKE, DAVID S. INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 REYNOLDS WELDING SUPPLY CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 9.27 RITE-WAY ELECTRIC ELECTRICAL 26.40 RLK-KUUSISTO LTD ENGINEERING SERVICES 260.67 ROGERS ENTERPRISES INC MOTOR FUELS 24.55 SEARS SMALL TOOLS 104.32 SEDGWICK CLAIMS GMT SERVICES PROF/CONSULT SERVICES 3,220.00 SENSUS TECHNOLOGIES OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 750.00 SLP CRIME PREVENTION FUND UNREALIZED REV-SAFETY CAMP 0.00 SNAP-ON INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT PARTS 360.24 SRF CONSULTING GROUP INC DEPOSITS PAYABLE 3,156.84 ST LOUIS PARK COMMUNITY BAND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,500.00 STANDARD SPRING OF MPLS EQUIPMENT PARTS (234.77) STAR TRIBUNE SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 225.16 STRAND MFG COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS 174.66 STREICHER'S EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 1,366.85 SUNNYSIDE SUPERVALU FOODS MEETING EXPENSE 71.95 SWEENEY BROS TRACTOR EQUIPMENT PARTS (61.60) SWENSON, ALISSA INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 TCHRA AWARDS/INDEMNITIES 75.00 THAYER, AUTUMN INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 TIERNEY BROTHERS INC OFFICE SUPPLIES 31.80 TRIARCO ARTS & CRAFTS GENERAL SUPPLIES 24.00 TRUE VALUE (PARK) GENERAL SUPPLIES 26.06 TWIN CITY AREA LABOR MGMT COUN TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 25.00 TWIN CITY SAW & SERVICE CO SMALL TOOLS 30.25 U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE 1,144.31 UNRUH MOTOR COMPANY EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 600.00 121 USI INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 109.36 VIKING INDUSTRIAL CENTER GENERAL SUPPLIES 429.14 WASTE MANAGEMENT CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 16,606.36 WEST SUB. MEDIATION CENTER OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,950.00 WINNEROSKI, KEVIN INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 WM H MC COY PETROLEUM FUELS OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 203.59 WWW GENERAL SUPPLIES 28.76 YOUNG, JOSEPH INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 ZEMBRYKI, MARK GENERAL SUPPLIES 63.99 ZIPSORT POSTAGE 411.27 490,659.96 March 31, 2000 VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 3CMA OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 140.00 ARAMARK UNIFORM CORPORATE ACCT TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 338.81 AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES TELEPHONE 6.58 BATTERIES PLUS EQUIPMENT PARTS 463.22 BAUER BUILT TIRE & BATTERY EQUIPMENT PARTS (35.87) BEARCOM RADIO COMMUNICATIONS 257.04 BEEKS PIZZA MEETING EXPENSE 54.75 BLACKSTONE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSN OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 400.00 BOBS PERSONAL COFFEE SERVICE GENERAL SUPPLIES 412.16 BOY SCOUT TROOP 369 UNREALIZED GRANT REVENUE 450.00 BRINKMAN, MARK GENERAL CUSTOMERS 62.87 BRO-TEX INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 234.30 BROADWAY RENTAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT (1.66) CARTRIDGE CARE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 375.57 CITY OF MINNETONKA GENERAL CUSTOMERS 1,111.08 COLLINS LIMITED, LEE OFFICE SUPPLIES 71.90 CONCEPT SEATING INC GENERAL SUPPLIES (180.00) CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS GENERAL SUPPLIES (938.10) CREEKSIDE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOC OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 136.98 D'ALESSIO, CRAIG GENERAL CUSTOMERS 58.30 EDTECH EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 1,422.65 ELAN FINANCIAL SERVICES TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 1,902.85 ENGINEERING REPRO SYSTEMS GENERAL SUPPLIES 34.58 ESCOM SOFTWARE SERVICES LTD GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,872.00 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (15.67) FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP POSTAGE 39.55 FIRE MARSHALS ASSOC OF MN SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 70.00 FIX, PATRICK OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 202.50 FORTIS FINANCIAL GROUP TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 280.00 GALLAGHER & CO OF MN INC, A J WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE 0.00 GANTMAN, ANDREW INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 GARDEN & ASSOCIATES INC OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 90.00 122 GARTNER REFRIG & MFG INC BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 470.00 GENERAL SAFETY EQUIPMENT CORP EQUIPMENT PARTS (14.07) GORDON, TED INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 GRAINGER INC, W W OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 26.29 GREENMAN TECHNOLOGIES OF MN IN CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY 81.40 HASLERUD, CARRIE GENERAL SUPPLIES 112.89 HAWKINS WATER TREATMENT GROUP CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY 1,803.99 HENN CO ACCOUNTING SERVICES SUBSISTENCE SERVICE 7,501.62 HIGHVIEW PLUMBING INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 1,915.89 HOLTZ, LISA ANN INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 HOME DEPOT/GECF SMALL TOOLS 40.17 HYDRO SUPPLY COMPANY OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 1,691.43 ICI DULUX PAINT CENTERS GENERAL SUPPLIES 53.11 INST FOR FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 350.00 IOS CAPITAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT 1,536.80 JOHNSON, CHRIS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 202.50 K & L GRINDING & MACHINE COMPA EQUIPMENT PARTS 59.64 KINKOS INC. GENERAL SUPPLIES 111.00 KUSTOM SIGNALS INC OFFICE FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT 1,616.79 LAKE COUNTRY CHAPTER-ICBO TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 135.00 LANDSTROM, ERIC GENERAL CUSTOMERS 78.92 LANGEFELS, DOUGLAS MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 135.50 LARSON'S SALES, BUD GENERAL SUPPLIES 159.75 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 20.00 LEARNING INNOVATIONS INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 4,413.00 LINDBERG, LAWRENCE INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 LOWELLS AUTOMOTIVE/PAINT PLUS OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 132.11 LUCAS, BARBARA & PAUL GENERAL CUSTOMERS 11.40 M-B COMPANIES INC. EQUIPMENT PARTS 597.81 MARQUARDT, DAVID TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 179.00 MARSHALL & SWIFT SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 45.95 MCGANN,JEAN TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 97.93 MENARDS GENERAL SUPPLIES 109.40 METRO AREA MGMT ASSN SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 32.00 MID AMERICA METER INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 369.31 MIDWAY INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CO IN SMALL TOOLS 392.36 MN DEPT OF HEALTH TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 500.00 MN DRIVER & VEHICLE SVCS EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT CHARGE (46.00) MORIARTY, MATT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 202.50 MTI DISTRIBUTING CO EQUIPMENT PARTS 15.30 NATHENSON & ASSOCIATES, JUDITH PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 473.58 NEOPOST EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 361.04 NORTH STAR CHAPTER-ICBO MEETING EXPENSE 35.00 NORTHLAND ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO EQUIPMENT PARTS 102.87 Norwest Community Development OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 11,643.00 123 OESTREICH, MARK TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 690.35 OFFICE DEPOT GENERAL SUPPLIES 300.48 OLSON, DANIEL INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 50.00 OTTO PACKAGING MIDWEST LLC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES (72.00) PARK NATIONAL LITTLE LEAGUE UNREALIZED GRANT REVENUE 250.00 PARK SPANISH IMMERSION UNREALIZED GRANT REVENUE 200.00 PARKDALE ULTIMATE DETAIL CENTE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 234.30 PARTACULAR UNREALIZED GRANT REVENUE 750.00 PARTS PLUS EQUIPMENT PARTS 180.95 PATTERSON, JAMES & MELISSA GENERAL CUSTOMERS 52.33 PAULSON, MATT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 202.50 PERFORMANCE TRAINING ASSOCIATE TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 695.00 PETER HOBART ELEMENTARY SCHOOL UNREALIZED GRANT REVENUE 400.00 POMPS TIRE SERVICE INC TIRES (159.75) PRESCHOOL ENRICHMENT UNREALIZED GRANT REVENUE 500.00 PRINT SHOP PRINTING & PUBLISHING 558.00 PRO PRODUCTS INC GENERAL SUPPLIES (92.32) PRYOR RESOURCES INC TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 236.00 QUANTERRA INCORPORATED PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 5,820.00 RAINBOW FOODS GENERAL SUPPLIES 30.93 RANDY'S SANITATION INC GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE 3,258.74 REYNOLDS WELDING SUPPLY CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 27.59 RUDDLE, MARJEAN MISC RECEIPTS 386.91 RUFFRIDGE JOHNSON EQUIPMENT CO EQUIPMENT PARTS 42.45 SALONEK, MYRON TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 50.00 SALVERDA & ASSOCIATES, DONALD TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 3,612.15 SAM'S CLUB OFFICE SUPPLIES 31.93 SCHARBER & SONS INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 38.33 SCHOULTZ, MICHAEL G. INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 SENIOR COMMUNITY SERVICES OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 10,000.00 SERCO LABORATORIES TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 500.00 SKARSET, TARA M. INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 SLP CRIME PREVENTION FUND UNREALIZED REV-SAFETY CAMP 0.00 SPS COMPANIES INC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 32.77 ST CROIX RECREATION COMPANY OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 4,183.77 ST LOUIS PARK COMMUNITY BAND UNREALIZED GRANT REVENUE 500.00 ST LOUIS PARK DOLLARS FOR SCHO UNREALIZED GRANT REVENUE 250.00 ST LOUIS PARK FASTPITCH ASSO UNREALIZED GRANT REVENUE 250.00 ST LOUIS PARK HIGH SCHOOL SENI UNREALIZED GRANT REVENUE 400.00 ST LOUIS PARK SCHOOL DIST #283 UNREALIZED GRANT REVENUE 1,289.86 ST LOUIS PARK SENIOR ALL-NIGHT UNREALIZED GRANT REVENUE 500.00 ST LOUIS PARK SOCCER ASSOCIATI UNREALIZED GRANT REVENUE 1,800.00 STANDARD SPRING OF MPLS EQUIPMENT PARTS (234.77) STATE TREASURER TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 150.00 SUBURBAN PROPANE MOTOR FUELS 114.84 SUN NEWSPAPERS LEGAL NOTICES 1,360.27 SWEENEY BROS TRACTOR EQUIPMENT PARTS 195.53 124 TCALMC TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 25.00 TEKSYSTEMS COMPUTER SERVICES 2,240.00 THELEN, REBECCA OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 39.55 THOMAS, ERNEST GENERAL SUPPLIES 120.28 THOMPSON, CLAY B. LICENSE-PRIV HSG INSPECTOR 60.00 TKDA PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 724.60 TRACY/TRIPP FUELS MOTOR FUELS 10,553.51 TWIN CITY OXYGEN CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 14.31 TWIN CITY WATER CLINIC INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 575.00 U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE 41.21 UNITED RENTALS EQUIPMENT PARTS 81.55 UNIVERSITY OF MINN TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 150.00 UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN- MADISO TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 895.00 US POSTAL SERVICE GENERAL SUPPLIES 66.00 VIEAU, DURELL MEETING EXPENSE 58.45 VIKING OFFICE PRODUCTS OFFICE SUPPLIES 13.49 VOELKER, STACY M TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 27.74 WALSER FORD EQUIPMENT PARTS 146.57 WANGER, JOE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 75.14 WAYTEK EQUIPMENT PARTS 18.59 WECKER, KATHLEEN OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 200.00 WEST HENNEPIN COMM SVCS UNREALIZED GRANT REVENUE 750.00 WEST WELD EQUIPMENT PARTS 49.33 WESTWOOD HILLS NATURE CTR UNREALIZED GRANT REVENUE 500.00 WM H MC COY PETROLEUM FUELS GENERAL SUPPLIES 9.59 WSB ASSOCIATES INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 623.00 WYNN, BRIDGET MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 12.68 ZEMBRYKI, MARK MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 13.97 ZIP PRINTING PRINTING & PUBLISHING 985.20 ZIP SORT POSTAGE 204.10 106,063.57 March 31, 2000 VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT ALBRECHT MARY STUDY INCENTIVE & MERIT PAY 1,408.48 MN DEPT OF REVENUE MOTOR FUELS 306.90 PARK NATIONAL BANK DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 104,413.65 ST LOUIS PARK HOUSING AUTHORIT DUE TO OTHER GOVTS 162.63 106,291.66 125 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 11a Meeting of April 3, 2000 11a. MSP Real Estate Development Agreement This report considers approving a development agreement with MSP Real Estate relating to its 200 unit apartment project in the Mill City Tax Increment Financing District. Recommended Action: Motion to adopt the resolution approving the Contract for Private Redevelopment among the St. Louis Park EDA, the City of St. Louis Park and MSP SLP Apartments, LLC relating to its development of a 200 unit apartment building in the Mill City Tax Increment Financing District. Background: MSP Real Estate is proposing to construct 200 market rate apartment units on the subject site. The project would consist of two four-story buildings (100 units each) plus a level of parking. The two buildings will be connected with a 2 story clubhouse/office. The plan being proposed by MSP is generally compatible with the Highway 7-Louisiana Task Force’s recommended master plan and consistent with the 1998 re-guiding and 1999 rezoning of the property for high-density residential development. The EDA/Council reviewed a very preliminary TIF application at its June 28 study session and a verbal report was presented on July 26. At the October 11, 1999 EDA/Council study session, staff presented an updated preliminary TIF application for this project. At that time the developer was requesting that the city sponsor DTED and Met Council grants. The City Council approved resolutions authorizing submittal of the two grants at its October 18, 1999 meeting. Since that time, grant announcements have been made and the MSP Real Estate project has received $316,785 from the Met Council and $1,308,375 from DTED for a total of $1,625,160. The Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of the preliminary PUD and Plat for the MSP project at its meeting on January 5, 2000. The City Council approved the preliminary PUD and Plat at its February 7, 2000 meeting. At the March 1, 2000 Planning Commission meeting the Commission reviewed and recommended approval of the final PUD and Plat. At the January 24, 2000 study session staff presented the EDA/Council with a final TIF application from MSP Real Estate for this project. At its February 7, 2000 meeting the council set a public hearing date of March 20, 2000 for the TIF hearing. At the February 28, 2000 study session the Council reviewed a summary of the development agreement with MSP Real Estate. The Planning Commission Reviewed the Tax Increment Financing Plan on March 1, 2000 and 126 found that it was in conformance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The City Council held the TIF public hearing and adopted the resolution creating the Mill City TIF District at its March 20 meeting. The EDA also adopted its resolution creating the TIF at its March 20 EDA meeting. Development Agreement The EDA is being asked to consider approval of the final development agreement between the EDA, the City and MSP Real Estate for the development of a 200 unit apartment building at Highway 7 and Louisiana in the Mill City Tax Increment Finance District. A copy of the development agreement and a summary of the development agreement terms is attached. The MSP Real Estate project is exempt from the requirements of the Business Subsidy Act because assistance for housing is not considered a business subsidy. The City Council has two agenda items related to this project on its April 3, 2000 agenda. One item is an approval of the development agreement and the other is approval of the Final PUD and Plat. Since the agreement is between the EDA, the City, and MSP Real Estate both the EDA and the City must approve it. The development agreement was drafted this way since there is a city land sale and the PUD and Plat approval provisions are being incorporated into the development agreement. The City Council will review the city land sale at future meeting. Attachments: • Resolution Approving Development Agreement • Summary of Development Agreement (attached to EDA report) • Development Agreement (attached to EDA report) Prepared by: Tom Kleve, Economic Development Coordinator Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 127 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK RESOLUTION NO. _________ RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT AMONG THE ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK AND MSP SLP APARTMENTS, LLC BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park ("City") as follows: Section 1. Recitals. 1.01. The St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (“Authority”) has determined a need to exercise the powers of a housing and redevelopment authority, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections. 469.090 to 469.108 ("EDA Act"), and is currently administering Redevelopment Project No. 1 ("Redevelopment Project") pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047 ("HRA Act"). 1.02. Among the activities to be assisted by the Authority in the Redevelopment Project is redevelopment of certain underutilized property in the City for a 200-unit market rate apartment building (the “Mill City Project”). 1.03. There has been presented before the Authority and the City a Contract for Private Redevelopment (the “Contract”) among the Authority, the City and MSP SLP Apartments, LLC (the “Redeveloper"), setting forth the terms and conditions of development of the Mill City Project and the City and Authority participation in that effort. 1.04. The Contract provides, among other things, for the sale of certain property owned by the City to the Redeveloper. 1.05. The City Council has reviewed the Contract and finds that the execution thereof and performance of the City’s obligations thereunder are in the best interest of the City and its residents. Section 2. Authority Approval; Further Proceedings. 2.01. The Contract as presented to the City Council is hereby in all respects approved, subject to modifications that do not alter the substance of the transaction and that are approved by the Mayor and City Manager, provided that execution of the documents by such officials shall be conclusive evidence of approval. 2.02. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute on behalf of the City the Contract and any documents referenced therein requiring execution by the City, and to carry out, on behalf of the City its obligations thereunder, including without limitation preparation of an ordinance for City Council approval relating to sale of the City Parcel to the 128 Redeveloper in accordance with the Contract. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council March 6, 2000 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk 129 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 11b* Meeting of April 3, 2000 *11b. Bid Tab: Purchase of Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) Supply Contract This report considers the purchase of Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) for Water Treatment Plant No. 1, (WTP #1) located at 2935 Jersey Avenue South and Water Treatment Plant No. 4, and (WTP #4) located at 4601 West 41st Street. Recommended Action: Motion to authorize execution of a contract with Norit Americas Inc. for the purchase of GAC in the amount of $55,600.00. Background: Granular Activated Carbon Treatment Plants are located at 2935 Jersey Avenue (Water Treatment Plant No. 1) and at 4701 Natchez Avenue (Water Treatment Plant No. 4). These plants came on line in 1986 and 1993, respectively. These GAC plants treat drinking water contaminated by the Reilly Tar and Chemical Plant. This treatment is effective in removing polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) contaminants. The GAC absorbs the PAH’s as the contaminated water passes through the filters. The GAC eventually becomes loaded with the PAH particles and is no longer effective in the removal of the PAH’s and must be changed out. The GAC treated water is continually monitored to measure the amount of PAH’s removed. When the level of PAH’s in the treated water increases to the Drinking Water Advisory Level the GAC is scheduled for replacement. The replacement of the GAC has been done annually at Water Treatment Plant No. 1 since the plant was put into service. GAC replacement at Water Treatment Plant No. 4 is anticipated to be done once every two or three years. Groundwater contamination is more severe at Water Treatment Plant No. 1 and there are two (2) filter vessels at Plant No. 1 while there are four (4) filter vessels at Plant No. 4. Bids were received on March 22, 2000 for the supply and regeneration of GAC for Water Treatment Plants No. 1 & 4. An advertisement for bids was published in the St. Louis Park Sun-Sailor on March 8, 2000. A summary of the bid results is as follows: Bidder Bid Amount Norit Americas, Inc. $ 55,600.00 Calgon Carbon Corporation $ 70,240.00 Financial Considerations: The bid of $0.67 per pound by Norit Americas, Inc. represents a higher cost ($0.67 versus $0.57) per pound for the GAC than the previous contract with Calgon Carbon Corporation in 1999 which totaled $53,400. The 2000 Water Utility Budget provided $75,000 for this GAC exchange at Water Treatment Plants No. 1 & 4. Prepared By: Scott Anderson & Scott Merkley - Public Works Approved By: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 130 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 11c* Meeting of April 3, 2000 *11c. 2000 Arbotect Injection Contract The City annually solicits bids for a program designed to protect the urban forest through the injection of Arbotect 20-S, a chemical fungicide which effectively inoculates American elms from infestation of Dutch Elm Disease. By securing a price which is obtained through the competitive bidding process, the City can offer residents a highly competitive rate for the injection of trees on private property while also meeting the statutory requirements for the solicitation of bids for the injection of trees on public property. Recommended Action: Motion to designate Rainbow Tree Care, Inc. as the lowest responsible bidder and to authorize execution of a contract for the 2000 Arbotect 20-S Elm injection program at a cost of $8.69 per diameter inch. Background: Since the inception of the program, in 1990, the City has promoted public participation in a program designed to proactively treat healthy American elms with specialized chemical injections of Arbotect 20-S in an effort to preserve the community’s urban forest. When this chemical is properly applied in an on-going three-year cycle, it effectively prevents the infestation of Dutch Elm Disease in approximately 99% of the treated trees. Since the program’s inception, the City has subsidized more than 3500 tree injections, and during that same period the number of trees being infested with Dutch Elm Disease has continued to decline on an annual basis. As in previous years, the City is expecting more than 300 requests for tree injections. The City subsidizes 40% of the cost for trees on private property and 60% of the cost for trees on public boulevards, which abut private property. The net cost of this program is expected to be approximately $35,000, which is included in the 2000 Grounds and Natural Resources budget. Bid Analysis: Bid packages for the 2000 Arbotect 20-S Elm Injection Program were mailed out in late February to three tree firms. Bids were opened March 7, 2000 at City Hall. Only one firm submitted a responsive bid, with the amount shown as follows: Rainbow Tree Care $8.69 per diameter inch 131 The apparent low bid is a $2,100 increase from 1999. If a private homeowner were to contract for Arbotect injections on their own, they would pay twice the rate the City receives. It appears that the City’s bid, based upon a volume price, is extremely competitive. Since the inception of the program, Rainbow Tree Care has conscientiously and successfully performed all the City’s Arbotect injection contracts. Prepared by: James Vaughan, Manager of Grounds and Natural Resources Cindy S. Walsh, Parks and Recreation Director Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 132 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 11d* Meeting of April 3, 2000 *11d. Renewal of the Property and Liability Insurance Program through the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust for 1999/2000 The League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust has submitted the proposal and premium quote for the annual renewal of property, liability and other coverage for the City. Recommended Action: Motion to approve the insurance program as submitted by the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust for the period 4/1/00 through 4/1/01. Background: David Howard, a representative of Arthur J. Gallagher & Company submitted the City’s insurance renewal application form to The League of Minnesota Cities. The policy period is from April 1, 2000 to April 1, 2001. The total premium for all lines of coverage including applicable agent fees has increase by $6,697 or 3.5%. This amount includes Y2K after effects premium of $3,364. The League is currently reviewing Y2K coverage and may decrease this portion of the insurance. The total premium for 2000/2001 is $199,810 compared to $193,113 in 1999/2000. Prepared by: Jean McGann, Director of Finance Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 133 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 11e* Meeting of April 3, 2000 *11e. Annual Insurance Renewal – Decline of Waiver on Municipal Tort Liability Limit The League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT) is requiring cities to submit a waiver form that specifies that the City Council has made the decision on whether or not to waive the monetary limits on municipal tort liability established by Minnesota Statutes. Recommended Action: Motion to notify the LMCIT that the City Council does not waive the municipal tort liability limits. Background: The 1999 Legislature increased the municipal tort liability limit to $1,000,000 per occurrence compared to the previous $750,000. The municipal tort liability limit remains at $300,000 per claimant per occurrence. This change was effective January first of this year. Even though the City’s renewal date is April first, the City is covered under the new limits. Members of the League program have the option to waive the limits and buy excess liability coverage. The LMCIT is requiring City Councils to make this decision and submit a waiver form as evidence of the decision. Analysis: In the past the City of St. Louis Park has not waived the statutory limit. The City Attorney does not recommend waiving the statutory limit. City staff does not recommend that the limit be waived now. Both Mr. Scott and Mr. Howard, insurance agent, noted that the statutory limit does not apply to all claims. Certain lawsuits such as those stemming from federal law, i.e., discrimination, would not be subject to the $1,000,000 liability limit. The cost of excess liability coverage (for those claims not subject to the statutory limit) is priced each year and the cost/benefit evaluated. The City has yet to buy any excess coverage. Attachments: LMCIT Liability Coverage – Waiver Form Prepared by: Jean McGann, Director of Finance Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager