Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000/05/01 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Regular AGENDA - CITY COUNCIL MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA May 1, 2000 7:30 p.m. 7:15 p.m. - Economic Development Authority 1. Call to order 2. Presentation a. Employee Recognition b. Jim Rhodes Appreciation Proclamation c. Holocaust Days of Remembrance Proclamation 3. Roll Call 4. Approval of Minutes a. Study Session Minutes of April 10, 2000 Action: Corrections/amendments to minutes - Minutes approved as presented b. City Council Minutes of April 17, 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. Continuation of public hearing and resolution approving transfer of control of the St. Louis Park cable television franchise. The City must approve any change of control or transfer of a cable franchise. The Telecommunications Advisory Commission and City Attorney recommended approval of the transfer. Recommended Action: Mayor to close the public hearing. Motion to adopt the accompanying resolution approving the proposed transfer of the City's cable television franchise from Time Warner Cable to a new parent company, AOL Time Warner. 7. Petitions, Requests, Communications 8. Resolutions and Ordinances 8a. Resolution Implementing Employee Recognition Programs Staff is requesting council approval of two programs recognizing employee service to the organization. The programs recognize service given by active employees as well as employees separating from the city in good standing. Recommended Action: Motion to approve the resolution adopting and approving funding for the Departing Employee Recognition Program, the Employee Service Recognition Program and the Annual Recognition Banquet 8b. Resolution establishing a task force to assist in the development of a Master Plan for the Oak Hill area parks. This action would establish a task force consisting of members representing diverse interests to ensure appropriate representation in the development of a master plan for the Oak Hill area parks. Recommended Action: Motion to adopt the resolution establishing the Oak Hill Area Parks Task Force. 8c. Request by Benilde St. Margaret’s School for a Special Permit Amendment and five-foot height variance for building height in the R-1 Zoning District to permit a building expansion and site improvements Case No. 00-20-CUP and 00-21-VAR 3 2501 South Highway 100 Recommended Action: Motion to adopt resolutions approving a Special Permit Amendment and five foot building height variance, subject to conditions in the resolutions. 8d. Resolution setting fees for sign, fence and parking lot permits. Recommended Action: Motion to adopt the attached Resolution establishing fees for sign, fence and parking lot permits. 8e. Request by CSM/Rottlund for Preliminary Plat and Preliminary Planned Unit Development approval for Pointe West Commons One and Two, including development of 127-unit and 106-unit hotels, 84 townhomes, and a neighborhood park Case Nos. 00-14-S and 00-15-PUD Northwest quadrant of West 16th Street and Zarthan Avenue Recommended Action: Motion to adopt a resolution approving preliminary plat and preliminary Planned Unit Development for Pointe West Commons One and Two, subject to conditions in the resolution. 8f. Miscellaneous Zoning Ordinance amendments pertaining to extending the time limit for variance re-applications, enforcing officer, requiring permits for fences and parking lots, how private indoor entertainment w/liquor is permitted, relocating permits for signs from the Municipal Code to the Zoning Ordinance, and the deletion of the sign ordinance in the Municipal Code with retention in the Zoning Ordinance. Recommended Action: Motion to adopt first reading of the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments and set second reading for May 15, 2000. 8g. Creating a definition for a catering land use, establishing which zoning districts to permit a catering business, and determining a parking requirement for a catering operation. Recommended Action: Motion to recommend adoption of first reading of the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments and to set second reading for May 15, 2000 8h. Second Reading of an ordinance authorizing the Sale of City Property Located at 3554 Louisiana Avenue to MSP SLP Apartments, LLC related to the construction of 200 apartment units on the Mill City site. This report considers action by the City Council to adopt second reading of an 4 ordinance that would authorize the sale of certain City-owned property located at 3554 Louisiana Avenue. Recommended Action: Motion to adopt the second reading of an ordinance that authorizes the sale of a City-owned property located at 3554 Louisiana Avenue to MSP SLP Apartments, LLC and to authorize the publication of summary ordinance. *8i. MSP Real Estate Development Contract Amendment This report considers approving a change to the terms of the original development contract with MSP Real Estate increasing the amount of TIF assistance to an amount up to $3,531,853 not exceeding 20 years for the Mill City Apartment project. Recommended Action: Motion to approve the First Amendment to Contract for Private Redevelopment between the St. Louis Park EDA, the City of St. Louis Park and MSP SLP Apartments, LLC increasing the maximum amount of TIF to $3,531,853 for the Mill City Apartment project. *8j. City of St. Louis Park’s Representation on the Board of Managers of Project for Pride in Living’s Louisiana Court Limited Liability Company. This report considers adoption of a Resolution to designate the City’s representative to Project for Pride in Living’s (PPL) Louisiana Court’s Limited Liability Company (LLC) Board of Managers. Recommended Action: Motion to adopt a Resolution designating Council Member Ron Latz as the City of St. Louis Park’s representative to the Board of Managers of Project for Pride in Living’s Louisiana Court Limited Liability Company.. *8k. City Engineer’s Report: Entrance/identity signs at Park Place Boulevard and the South Frontage Road of I-394 - Project No. 98-16 This report considers the construction of entrance/identity signs at Park Place Boulevard and the South Frontage Road of I-394 Recommended Action: Motion to adopt the attached resolution accepting this report, establishing Project No. 98-16, ordering Project No. 98-16, approving plans and specifications, and authorizing receipt of bids. 5 *8l. Consideration of a resolution denying the applicant’s request for a height variance and granting a modified variance to permit an accessory building two feet from a side lot line with a maximum height of 16 feet instead of the permitted 12 feet for property located at 4312 Coolidge Avenue. Recommended Action: Motion to adopt a resolution denying the applicant’s request for a variance and granting a variance from section 14:5-4.1(c)(7)(d) and (f) of the ordinance code relating to zoning, to permit an accessory building located within two feet of a side lot line with a maximum height of 16 feet 0 inches instead of the permitted 12 feet for property located in the r-2, single family district at 4312 Coolidge Avenue. 9. Reports from Officers, Boards, Committees *a. Human Rights Commission Minutes of March 15, 2000 *b. Vendor Claims Action: By consent, accept reports for filing 10. Unfinished Business 11. New Business *11a. Authorization to replace dehumidification system in the west arena at the Rec Center. Recommended Action: Motion to approve replacement of the dehumidification system in the west arena at the Rec Center using 1999 General Obligation Bond proceeds. *11b. Metropolitan Livable Communities Act – Local Housing Incentive Account Grant Agreement This report considers authorizing execution of a grant agreement with the Metropolitan Council to receive $353,000 for the Louisiana Court Redevelopment project. Recommended Action: Motion to authorize execution of the Livable Communities Act Local Housing Incentive Account (LHIA) Grant Agreement by the Mayor and City Manager. 12. Miscellaneous 13. Claims, Appropriations, Contract Payments 6 14. Communications 15. Adjournment 7 Item # 4a UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION April 10, 2000 The meeting convened at 6:00 p.m. Present at the meeting were Councilmembers Jim Brimeyer, Ron Latz, Chris Nelson, Susan Sanger, Sue Santa, and Mayor Jeff Jacobs. Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Meyer), Deputy City Manager (Mr. Pires), Director of Finance (Ms. McGann), Director of Inspections (Mr. Hoffman), Police Chief (Mr. Luse), Director of Public Works (Mr. Rardin), Director of Parks and Recreation (Ms. Walsh), Fire Chief (Mr. Gill), Utilities Superintendent (Mr. Anderson), Community Outreach Coordinator (Ms. McDonell), Planning and Zoning Supervisor (Ms. Jeremiah), Housing Supervisor (Ms. Schnitker), Housing Programs Coordinator (Ms. Kathy Larsen), Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Kleve), and City Clerk (Ms. Cindy Larsen). 1. Staff/Council Retreat Tom Allen met with the City Council and department directors to discuss the agenda for the retreat to be held on May 2. 2. Sanitary Sewer Service Line Backwater Valves Mr. Rardin gave a presentation on the history of sanitary sewer backups and the recent incidents where sewer backup occurred. Mr. Anderson presented a video regarding sewer valve systems. Council discussed various options for city involvement with homeowners to install backwater valves. Mr. Latz inquired about liability issues that the City may have. Mr. Rardin replied that the City has a no negligence policy, but he would like to see the City provide a fixed level of service to keep the system operating well. Mr. Anderson described the problem with the lift station controls. He stated that there had not been many backups recently except for when Lift Station No. 19 failed. Councilmember Sanger felt that the homes most affected by sewer backups should have assistance in obtaining a prevention device for their sewer line. She added that the City should monitor the situation and perhaps test the system. Mr. Anderson replied that he was not comfortable with that suggestion due to the fact that more damage could occur and homeowners would most likely not want to participate. Mr. Meyer interjected that the option to let the system remain as it is would not be irresponsible. Mr. Nelson added that there could not be such a thing as a risk free system. Mr. Rardin stated that there have more problems with random backups than with lift station failures. Councilmember Nelson inquired if it would be more cost effective to assist 8 homeowners with the cost of the valves or to pay claims presented to the City as the sewer backups occurred. Mayor Jacobs suggested that the next step should be to develop a plan for cost sharing for priority one homes. He said he would like staff to return with a plan for Council approval. Councilmember Nelson inquired if coordination with the plumbing company was in progress as part of an insurance settlement. Mr. Anderson replied that it may be possible in a few of the homes that were damaged. Councilmember Sanger stated her preference to assist all homeowners in the area that have had damage. Several questions were raised on how such assistance would be funded and whether the issue is one of state or city code. Mr. Meyer stated the sewer fund would support assistance for the higher risk homes but would not cover other options. Councilmember Sanger suggested that perhaps a program to educate the public on the maintenance of sewer lines should be initiated. Councilmember Brimeyer stated that the money needs to be spent in the right place; they cannot repair only what was damaged but also need to prevent it. Councilmember Sanger suggested that preventive maintenance be done on the lift stations and assistance provided to homeowners. 3. Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee Present at the meeting were Commission members Merriwether Felt, Gretchen Peterson, and Layne Otteson. Commissioner Felt stated that there had been a lot of turnover for the Commission in the last year. She stated that some of the Commission’s goals are: working on the Oak Park Village Task Force, assist with a city-wide master park plan, ensure that recreational programs are placed where they are needed, marketing of the Rec Center, organize and sponsor the Black Tie Dinner, increase visibility and awareness of Commission, implement the new fee assistance policy, and find additional fundraising options to supplement the program for fee assistance. Councilmember Latz inquired on the demand for fee assistance. Ms. Walsh replied that last year $15,000 had been given out in fee assistance. Councilmember Sanger questioned how the public would be aware of new or different programming that was being offered. Commissioner Felt replied that survey could be conducted and that it could also tie in with the marketing of the Rec Center. Mayor Jacobs asked if there were ideas or plans regarding a skate park. Councilmember Nelson inquired on the timeline for the Oak Park Village development. Ms. Walsh replied that the task force would begin in May and the process for planning soon afterward. Councilmember Brimeyer suggested that Oak Park Village be renamed the Oak Park Area to reflect the larger interest in that open space. Commissioner Felt stated that the master plan would help identify the needs in the community. Commissioner Brimeyer asked the Commission what could be done to create a state-of-the-art city, school, and park system. The Commission replied that they would consider that possibility. Councilmember Sanger stated that such an effort would need to address the needs of all constituent groups in the city. 4. 2000 Neighborhood Revitalization Program Grant Applications 9 On behalf of the Grant Review Committee, Lynn Littlejohn was present at the meeting. Ms. McDonell distributed handouts to the Council. Ms. Littlejohn stated that limits are set on the amount of money given in each category; and that some neighborhood requests had exceeded that amount. Ms. McDonell stated that each neighborhood is eligible for $4,000 and within that caps were placed on individual categories. She added that if no capital improvements were requested that the caps could be raised. Councilmember Sanger inquired why caps had been established. Ms. McDonell replied that the it was a historical decision made by the Neighborhood Revitalization Committee to help improve the program; also stating that Council may wish to remove the caps. Councilmember Latz asked why capital improvements were not encouraged. Ms. McDonell stated that most neighborhoods are not equipped to handle the public process and smaller projects are easier. She said that the Park and Recreation department would like to see capital improvements included in the master plan. Ms. McDonell suggested that an additional $500 be added to each neighborhood’s grant money to allow more flexibility. Council expressed their support for that idea. Councilmember Nelson felt the neighborhoods should economize on their expenditures and continue fund raising efforts. Ms. McDonell replied that she could help train the neighborhoods on fundraising options. Councilmember Sanger asked how it can be determined whether the program is helping to build cohesive neighborhoods. Ms. McDonell replied that the neighborhood grants tie in with the Vision St. Louis Park outcomes. Ms. Littlejohn inquired if the city would be able to purchase items that were normally rented by the neighborhoods in the past with the extra funds. Ms. McDonell replied that she would do more research and come back to Council. Council discussed the individual neighborhood requests. They also discussed the carry over of funds from the previous year. Council also discussed issues with neighborhood communication in the Browndale area. Council then discussed the process that the neighborhoods use to disburse funds. Councilmember Santa stated that each neighborhood has their own process for deciding how funds are used. It was stated that the process could be included in each neighborhood’s by-laws. 5. Louisiana Court Redevelopment Project Mark Ruff of Ehlers & Associates, John Utley of Kennedy & Graven, and representatives Barb McCormick and Todd Rhodes of PPL were all present at the meeting. Ms. Schnitker reported that the general obligation bonds would be coming to Council for approval very shortly. She gave a brief overview of the progress of the project stating that the following have been accomplished: purchase agreements for all properties have been negotiated, bonds have been secured from the state, bids have been let for construction activities, the relocation plan for the tenants has begun, and the planning and zoning process is underway. Councilmember Nelson asked about specific details of the financing for the project. Mr. Ruff gave a summary of the bond structure. He stated that the bonds had a term slightly less than 30 10 years and have been allocated from the State of Minnesota as tax-exempt bonds for the benefit of private business. The bonds are general obligation but no property tax levy is anticipated. Council then expressed support of a long-term rather than short-term risk. Mr. Utley gave a summary of the loan, disbursement, and regulatory agreements that Council will be asked to approve. Ms. McCormick gave a brief overview of the PPL’s support services that will be available to the residents of Louisiana Court. She stated that design changes will be made to the area such as landscaping, HVAC system, units that comply with ADA standards, and three bedroom units. Mr. Utley stated that the architect had shown drawings of the site with landscaping. Ms. McCormick added that the interior changes will bring the buildings up to code standards. She said that flooring, carpeting, and appliances will be added as needed. 6. Park Commons Update Allan Bloom and Matt Friday of Grubb & Ellis were present at the meeting along with Gregg Esterman of Avalon Bay. Mr. Esterman presented drawings that highlighted the following: parking plans, mix of residential and commercial development, live/work units, traffic movement and signals, and the mix of rental and for-sale property. He stated that the next steps would include civic involvement, architectural design and financing. Mr. Harmening stated that the financing feasibility must be determined then the public process can begin. 7. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 11:05 p.m. City Clerk Mayor 11 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item #6a Meeting of May 1, 2000 6a. Continuation of public hearing and resolution approving transfer of control of the St. Louis Park cable television franchise. The City must approve any change of control or transfer of a cable franchise. The Telecommunications Advisory Commission and City Attorney recommended approval of the transfer. Recommended Action: Mayor to close the public hearing. Motion to adopt the accompanying resolution approving the proposed transfer of the City's cable television franchise from Time Warner Cable to a new parent company, AOL Time Warner. Background: The City Council opened a public hearing on April 3, 2000 regarding the merger of America Online and Time Warner and its effect on St. Louis Park’s cable television system and franchise. The public hearing was continued to May 1, 2000 to allow further public comment and to assure that the City could comply with State law that requires notice to AOL Time Warner within 30 days of closing the public hearing. To date, no public testimony or written comments have been presented to the City Council. One person testified at the Telecommunication Advisory Commission meeting of April 13th. Those comments are included in the attached minutes. Recommendation from the Telecommunications Advisory Commission and Attorney: The Telecommunications Advisory Commission met with Joel Jamnik of Campbell Knutson April 13th to consider the proposed merger. At that meeting, Mr. Jamnik presented a written report and fielded questions from the Commission and City staff. In his report Mr. Jamnik states, “Grounds for denial are limited to finding that the transferee lacks the requisite financial, legal or technical qualifications to fully perform the franchise terms.” He concludes “Based strictly on the information made available to us at the time of the review, we conclude that…the request by Time Warner Cable to approve the transfer should be approved.” After discussion the Telecommunications Commission voted unanimously to accept the City Attorney report and forward it to the City Council with the recommendation that the transfer be approved. 12 Attachments: • Excerpts from draft Telecommunications Commission Minutes of April 13, 2000 • Joel Jamnik letter to Charlie Meyer of April 20, 2000 • Resolution to approve transfer to AOL Time Warner Prepared by: Reg Dunlap and John McHugh, TV Coordinators Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 13 (Excerpts from) Unofficial Minutes Telecommunications Advisory Commission April 13, 2000 --7:00 P.M. Council Chambers MEMBERS PRESENT: Bruce Browning, John Herbert, Ken Huiras, Robert Jacobson, and Mary Jean Overend. Rick Dworsky arrived at 7:13 p.m. MEMBERS ABSENT: Dale Hartman STAFF PRESENT: Reg Dunlap, Civic TV Coordinator; John McHugh, Community TV Coordinator; and Shirley Olson, Recording Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Joel Jamnik, Attorney of Campbell Knutson, Kim Roden, Vice President of Public Affairs and Customer Service, Time Warner, and Terry Judson, 3016 Lynn Avenue South B. Review of City Attorney Report on AOL Time Warner merger Joel J. Jamnik reviewed a proposed draft of the proposed transfer/change of control of the City’s cable television franchise and concluded that the proposed merged company will have the necessary legal, technical and financial qualifications, based on the standards of review established by the applicable law and City franchise, to continue to meet the terms and conditions of the City franchise, and that consequently the request by Time Warner Cable to approve the transfer should be approved. Ken Huiras asked what the status of the merger was. Mr. Jamnik stated that the merger would culminate this fall. Ken Huiras asked if any major problems were anticipated. Mr. Jamnik didn’t anticipate any problems. Kim Roden, Vice President of Public Affairs of Time Warner concurred with Mr. Jamnik’s report. Bruce Browning asked if it had been determined to allow other competing Internet service providers (ISP’s). Kim Roden stated that Time Warner was open to competing ISP’s and stated that there was a memorandum of understanding submitted to the Federal Communications Commission outlining the technical and legal issues with Road Runner. Robert Jacobson asked if a draft of this report was available. Mr. Jamnik stated that copies of this supplemental information were given to Reg Dunlap for review. 14 Reg Dunlap inquired about the bona fide business reasons to merge and Internet restrictions mentioned in the FCC form 394. Mr. Jamnik said that the FCC would address both of these issues in the next few months. Terry Judson, 3016 Lynn Avenue asked for more information about access to other ISP’s. Ms. Roden stated that St. Louis Park would have more options and Time Warner wouldn’t discriminate on who would provide the service or the size of the customer. Mr. Judson asked if basic customers would be able to upgrade to digital. Ms. Roden stated that they were not related. Mr. Judson asked how much this would cost. Ms. Roden explained how cable rates were determined. Bruce Browning asked if other ISP’s have to pay for service. Ms. Roden explained that they would have to reach a negotiated agreement. Mr. Judson asked if it was possible to have Media One bid. Ms. Roden stated that they were free to place a bid and stated that there may be others interested. Reg Dunlap indicated that the City has not advertised an invitation for other companies to bid. Chair Huiras introduced resident Terry Judson, 3016 Lynn Avenue who was present. Terry Judson, 3016 Lynn Avenue, stated that he has been dissatisfied with the service he has received from Time Warner. He was upset about losing the TV Guide channel, having channel 23 transformed to a full time infomercial channel, and was concerned about rate increases without better service. Reg Dunlap indicated that the City had recently approved an agreement by Metricom, but didn’t have any details. Terry Judson asked the history of cable in St. Louis Park. Reg Dunlap gave a brief history. Mr. Judson asked if the demand of subscribers were not met could this transfer/change of ownership be held up? Mr. Jamnik stated that discretion was limited and that a time line had to be followed. Bruce Browning asked if RoadRunner was part of Time Warner. Ms. Roden explained that Road Runner was a joint venture with several partners. It was moved by Robert Jacobson, seconded by Bruce Browning, to accept the report and forward the report to the City Council with the recommendation to hold First Reading of the resolution changing ownership on May 1, 2000. The motion passed unanimously. Mary Jean Overend was concerned about basic cable subscribers. She asked if when digital was offered would it affect the ability to get basic cable. 15 Ms. Roden indicated that digital wouldn’t affect basic cable access. Mary Jean Overend asked what would change. Ms. Roden stated that rates may go up, but digital would be added as an option. Robert Jacobson asked if digital was high definition. Ms. Roden indicated that this was the case with conditions. She explained the theory of digital and HDTV and indicated that HDTV wouldn’t be able to get digital without HDTV television sets. The Commission discussed digital and high definition TV and asked Ms. Roden the advantages of digital. Ms. Roden stated that the advantages were mainly the music, picture quality and variety of programming. Mary Jean Overend was concerned about the actual number of residents in St. Louis Park that would be able to afford these additional options. Ms. Roden explained how the upgrade would provide more options to the consumers. She explained how channels were determined and how cost was determined. Mr. Judson recommended taking less channels for less cost and questioned whether or not some other kind of package could be offered. Ms. Roden stated that ala cart programming could not be negotiated because it was hard to get an agreement signed since was expensive to administer and programmers didn’t look for this type of tier. She reviewed the draft of the proposed line-up with upgrade and stated it would be similar to that of Bloomington’s which has recently upgraded. Respectfully Submitted, Shirley Olson Recording Secretary ATTEST: Reg Dunlap Civic TV Coordinator City of St. Louis Park 16 Letter from Joel Jamnik to Charlie Meyer, April 20, 2000 April 20, 2000 Mr. Charles Meyer City Manager City of St. Louis Park 5005 Minnetonka Blvd. St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Re: Proposed Transfer/Change of Control of the City's Cable Television Franchise Dear Charlie: Time Warner Inc. (TWI) the parent company of Time Warner Cable, the City's cable television franchisee, has announced a planned stock-for-stock merger with America Online, Inc. (AOL). As a result of the proposed mergers, both AOL and Time Warner would become wholly owned subsidiaries of a new holding company, AOL Time Warner Inc. and the ultimate ownership and control of those entities holding licenses and authorizations would be transferred from AOL and Time Warner to AOL Time Warner Inc.(AOL/TW). Time Warner Cable, like other subsidiaries of TWI that own and operate cable systems, will remain in existence and will continue to be the franchise holder and operator of the cable system. The proposed merger will involve a review by the United State Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission to determine compliance with federal antitrust laws. The Federal Communications Commission also will review the proposed merger. When local cable franchises are transferred from one company to another, the 1996 Telecommunications Act also proscribes a role for local units of government that issue franchises. Section 617 of the 1996 Act (which has been coded as 47 U.S.C. §537) provides: A franchising authority shall, if the franchise requires franchising authority approval of a sale or transfer, have 120 days to act upon any request for approval of such sale or transfer that contains or is accompanied by such information as is required in accordance with Commission regulations and by the franchising authority. If the franchising authority fails to render a final decision on the request within 120 days, such request shall be deemed granted unless the requesting party and the franchising authority agree to an extension of time. Other provisions serve to limit the discretion or authority of local franchising authorities, For instance, the Cable Act also provides at Section 613(d) (47 U.S.C. §533(d)) as follows: (d) Regulation of ownership by States or franchising authorities Any State or franchising authority may not prohibit the ownership or control of a cable system by any person because of such person's ownership or control of any other media of mass communications or other media interests. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent any State or franchising authority from prohibiting the ownership or control of a cable system in a jurisdiction by any person (1) because of such person's ownership or control of any other cable system in such jurisdiction, or (2) in 17 circumstances in which the State or franchising authority determines that the acquisition of such a cable system may eliminate or reduce competition in the delivery of cable service in such jurisdiction. Under Minnesota law, local franchise authorities must approve a sale or transfer of a franchise, including a sale or transfer by means of a fundamental corporate change (including mergers, etc.). Stock sales or transfers are specifically subjected to the requirements of the statute, Minn. Stat. §238.083. Public hearing provisions and decisional timelines are specified by the law, including in Subd. 4 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." As stated in the Time Warner Cable letter dated February 9, 2000, "it is unclear" that the type of transaction proposed by AOL and Time Warner constitutes a "sale or transfer" under federal law or under the local franchise. However, Time Warner Cable, like most other cable operators that become involved in mergers, has elected to provide the City with the information required by the FCC (Form 394) as part of the sale or transfer review process, and has asked the City to review the request and to pass a resolution consenting to the proposed change in control of the franchise. The review of a transfer request is significantly different under state and federal law than a request for renewal or a request for a new franchise. Generally speaking, the franchising authority may only approve or deny the request. Attaching additional terms and conditions such as system upgrades, PEG access, and other service features to the resolution is not expressly authorized by law, but it is unclear whether federal law actually serves to preclude attaching additional terms and conditions. If the franchise is to be renewed in the foreseeable future, it is preferable to delay requests for system upgrades or service enhancements until that time. Grounds for denial are limited to finding that the transferee lacks the requisite financial, legal or technical qualifications to fully perform the franchise terms. Legal Qualifications Under the proposed merger, there will be no change to the legal structure of the current operator of the cable television system, Time Warner Cable. The corporate structure changes, including the formation of the new holding company for the merged companies, will occur at a level above the operational level of the franchisee. These changes will not affect Time Warner Cable's legal authority to continue to operate cable television systems within Minnesota and the City. Consequently, based on our review of the legal qualifications of the relevant corporate entities, we conclude that it would be unreasonable for the City to find that upon closing of the transaction contemplated in the documents accompanying Form 394, which closing is expected later this fall, that the resulting merged holding company and its subsidiaries would not have the legal qualifications to operate the City's cable television system. 18 Technical Qualifications The technical qualifications standard relates to AOL Time Warner's technical expertise and experience in operating and maintaining cable television systems. Unlike a traditional sale or transfer where the City's current cable system operator will be divesting itself of its operational interest, and a new operator will be assuming the franchise obligations, in the proposed transfer or merger proposed here, the current cable company will continue to operate the system. Further, because the proposed merger does not as yet involve the sale or divestiture of any merged-entity assets, there should be no diminution in the technical capabilities of Time Warner Cable related to the merger. Financial Qualifications We have reviewed the financial information provided by applicant, but have not retained an outside financial consultant to assist the City's assessment of the financial capabilities of the new entity to continue providing cable service to city residents. However, based on the material provided, and limited strictly to the company's own financial statements, we do not believe that the request to transfer can be reasonably withheld based on a lack of financial qualifications. Given that the transfer being reviewed is not a sale from one company to another but rather a merger of AOL, an internet service company with almost 20 million members, 12,000 employees, 1999 revenues of almost $5 billion, and stockholder equity in excess of $3 billion with TWI, a multi-media and entertainment conglomerate with 1998 revenues of almost $27 billion and total assets in excess of $31 billion the only basis for finding a lack of financial qualifications would be that AOL's merger with TWI results in a corporate entity that is less financially capable than TWI standing alone. Based on the information provided and reviewed to date, we do not believe that conclusion to be warranted or reasonable. Conclusion Based strictly on the information made available to us at the time of this review, we conclude that the proposed merged company will have the necessary legal, technical and financial qualifications, based on the standards of review established by the applicable law and City franchise, to continue to meet the terms and conditions of the City franchise, and that consequently the request by Time Warner Cable to approve the transfer should be approved. Very truly yours, Campbell Knutson Professional Association By:__________________________ Joel J. Jamnik JJJ:cjh 19 RESOLUTION NO. ______ RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE CHANGE IN CONTROL OF A CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISEE WHEREAS, the City Council of St. Louis Park (“Franchising Authority”) has granted a franchise to a subsidiary (the “Franchisee”) of Time Warner Inc. (“TWI”) to provide cable television service; WHEREAS, TWI and America Online, Inc. (“AOL”) have entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the “Merger Agreement”) dated as of January 10, 2000; WHEREAS, the Merger Agreement will result in a stock-for-stock merger (the “Transaction”) in which TWI and AOL will merge with subsidiaries of a newly formed holding company; WHEREAS, as a result of the Transaction both TWI and AOL will become wholly owned subsidiaries of the new company, AOL Time Warner Inc.; and WHEREAS, the Franchising Authority has concluded the Transaction will result in a change of control of the Franchisee requiring Council review and approval. NOW, THEREFORE, THE ST. LOUIS PARK CITY COUNCIL RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: 1. To the extent required under the terms of the Franchise and state and federal law, the City Council of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, as the Franchising Authority, authorizes and consents to the proposed change in control of the Franchisee resulting from the Transaction. 2. The Franchisee shall remain responsible for all obligations under the Franchise. 3. The foregoing consent shall be effective upon the closing of the Transaction. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council May 1, 2000 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk 20 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item #8a Meeting of May 1, 2000 8a. Resolution Implementing Employee Recognition Programs Staff is requesting council approval of two programs recognizing employee service to the organization. The programs recognize service given by active employees as well as employees separating from the city in good standing. Recommended Action: Motion to approve the resolution adopting and approving funding for the Departing Employee Recognition Program, the Employee Service Recognition Program and the Annual Recognition Banquet Background As a continued effort to promote a workplace that recognizes its employees for their years of service not only when they depart from the City but also for their continued service while employed for the City, we would like to implement two new recognition programs. The first program, entitled Departing Employee Recognition Program, would recognize employees when they retire or resign in good standing from the City. The second program, entitled Employee Service Recognition Program, would recognize employees for their years of service and longevity by presenting them with an award on the date of their job anniversary. Finally, the City would like to continue to formally recognize employees for their years of service at the annual recognition banquet. Employee Retirement/Resignation Under the City’s current policy, all employees who retire or resign from the City are presented with an award regardless of their number of years of service. We would like to focus recognition specifically to those who have been employed with the City for a minimum of 5 years. Under the new policy, entitled Departing Employee Recognition Program, employees who have served 5-9 years and retire or resign in good standing would be honored with a certificate from the Mayor and City Manager. Employees who leave the City after 10-19 years of service would be presented with a framed certificate from the Mayor and the City Manager at a Council meeting. Those employees who have served the City for 20 or more years would receive a plaque and a resolution presented at a Council meeting by the Mayor and the City Manager. The recommended Departed Employee Recognition Program is attached. Employee Recognition In addition to recognizing employees when they retire or resign, the City also recognizes the importance of honoring those employees who are currently employed with the City. In the past, the City has recognized employees for their years of service at the annual banquet. Employees 21 who celebrated their 5, 10, 15 or 20 year job anniversaries were introduced and presented with the same award such as a pen or paperweight. Although this has been well received, we would like to enhance the banquet and the awards presented by varying the awards based on years of service. A new policy entitled the Employee Service Recognition Program would recognize employees for their continued service by presenting them with awards on or near the date of their job anniversaries. Employees would be able to choose from a variety of awards based on their years of service. The award would be presented to employees by their Department Director and the City Manager on or around the date of their job anniversary. The value of the gift would increase based on the amount of years the employee has served the City. This program is not intended to replace the annual banquet, rather the program would be established to enhance the banquet by presenting employees with their actual award on their anniversary date and then formally recognize them in front of all City staff at the banquet. The recommended Employee Service Recognition Program is attached. Annual Recognition Banquet Finally, as in the past, we would like to continue to honor employees at the annual recognition banquet. Employees who celebrate a 5, 10, 15, or 20 year anniversary are introduced and provided with a complimentary dinner for the employee and their guest. Additionally, the Spirit of St. Louis Park winner is announced and honored and other service awards are given by various departments. We would like to continue to have the annual banquet and ensure its funding through formal Council approval. Funding for these programs would be through the Human Resource budget. Recommendation Based on the continued effort to honor and recognize employees for their service to the City, staff recommends that Council adopt the resolution adopting and approving funding for the Departing Employee Recognition Program, the Employee Service Recognition Program, and authorize continued funding for the annual employee recognition banquet. Money is available for all of the proposed programs in the Human Resource budget. Attachments: Employee Service Recognition Policy Departing Employee Recognition Policy Resolution Prepared by: Durell Vieau Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 22 EMPLOYEE SERVICE RECOGNITION PROGRAM Effective January 1, 2000 the City of St. Louis Park will recognize the longevity of its employees by presenting awards for years of service. The Employee Service Recognition Program will recognize all benefit earning regular and part-time employees who work 20 or more hours a week, year round for the City of St. Louis Park.. Awards will be presented to employees near or on the date of their employment anniversary by the City Manager and the Department Director. The Department Director will arrange a meeting with the City Manager to present the Service Award to the employee. Employees may select the following awards in recognition for their years of service with the City: 5 years Awards such as a City of St. Louis Park sweatshirt, an engraved coffee mug or an item of a similar nature and a personalized letter from the City Manager are given to the employee. 10 years Awards such as an engraved paperweight, an engraved pen set, engraved key chain or an item of a similar nature and a personalized letter from the City Manager are given to the employee. 15 years Awards such as an engraved letter opener, pocket knife, desk clock or an item of a similar nature and a personalized letter from the City Manager are given to the employee. 20 years Awards such as a larger desk clock, stein, or a gift of employee’s choice of a similar nature and a personalized letter from the City Manager are given to the employee. 25 years Awards such as an engraved wall clock, a wrist or pocket watch, or a gift of employee’s choice of a similar nature and a personalized letter from the City Manager are given to the employee. 30 years Awards such as those presented for 25 years of service and a personalized letter from the City Manager are given to the employee. • An employee is given the option of choosing a gift from the category of their appropriate years of service or a gift from any category for lesser years of service. • The City Manager is given discretion to modify the program as appropriate. 23 DEPARTING EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION PROGRAM Effective January 1, 2000, the City of St. Louis Park will recognize employees when they retire or resign in good standing by presenting awards based on their years of service. The policy will recognize all benefit earning regular and part-time employees who work 20 or more hours a week, year round for the City of St. Louis Park. Awarded upon retirement or resignation of employee: 5-9 years Certificate of Appreciation from Mayor and City Manager 10-19 years Framed Certificate of Appreciation from Mayor and City Manager. 20 or more years Plaque and resolution presented by City Manager and City Council. Awards for 10 or more years of service will be presented by Council and the City Manager at a Council meeting following the resignation of the employee. The City Manager is given discretion to modify the program as appropriate. 24 RESOLUTION NO. ______________ RESOLUTION ADOPTING AND APPROVING FUNDING FOR THE DEPARTING EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION PROGRAM, THE EMPLOYEE SERVICE RECOGNITION PROGRAM AND THE ANNUAL RECOGNITION BANQUET WHEREAS, the City wishes to promote a workplace that recognizes its employees for their years of service and dedication; and WHEREAS, the City recognizes the importance of honoring employees currently employed by the City as well as employees resigning or retiring in good standing from the city; and WHEREAS, the City wishes to ensure the continued funding of the annual employee recognition banquet to honor employees who celebrate job anniversaries; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that Council hereby adopts the Departing Employee Recognition Program to recognize and honor employees upon resignation or retirement for their years of service to the City of St. Louis Park; and LET IT BE FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that the Council hereby adopts and approves funding for the Employee Service Recognition Program and the Annual Recognition Banquet allowing use of funds from the General Operating Budget for such program. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council May 1, 2000 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk 25 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 8b Meeting of May 1, 2000 8b. Resolution establishing a task force to assist in the development of a Master Plan for the Oak Hill area parks. This action would establish a task force consisting of members representing diverse interests to ensure appropriate representation in the development of a master plan for the Oak Hill area parks. Recommended Action: Motion to adopt the resolution establishing the Oak Hill Area Parks Task Force. Background The City Council has approved a contract with SRF Consulting, Inc. not to exceed $25,000 for the design work of the Master Plan at the Oak Hill area parks. The next step is to establish the task force which will begin meeting soon to discuss the future of the Oak Hill area parks. Task Force Representation The task force will consist of members representing a range of interests to ensure community- wide balance as we develop a plan to guide the long-term development of the area. Based on study session discussions the task force will consist of representatives from Athletic Associations, the Oak Hill Neighborhood, the School District, the Planning Commission, the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission, the Business community, an at-large citizen representative, the city council and city staff . Individual Appointments The City informed the public of the opportunity to serve on the task force in the Park Perspective, on the City Web site and through correspondence with area athletic associations. Staff has received and reviewed applications and is recommending the following list of members to serve on the task force: Athletic Associations:  Pam Solstad, Soccer Association, 9820 W 16th Street We are seeking an additional association representative who will represent interests other than soccer. To date, we have not had anyone volunteer for this. Oak Hill Neighborhood  Dan Smaida, ( Oak Hill Neighborhood President), 3246 Rhode Island Avenue  Albert Pooler, 3119 Sumter Avenue South 26 School District  To be determined. Planning Commission  Ken Gothberg, 3411 Aquila Lane Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission  Layne Otteson, 6912 Minnetonka Boulevard At-Large Citizen Representative  Pete Chubb, 2635 Boone Avenue South Business Representative  Phil Weber, Park Tavern Lounge & Lanes, 3401 Louisiana Avenue South Staff Liaisons  Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation  Jim Vaughan, Manager of Grounds and Natural Resources (as needed)  Rick Birno, Recreation Superintendent (as needed) City Council Representative  Jim Brimeyer, 1306 Westwood Hills Road Meeting Dates The first meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, May 17th from 6:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. The task force will be setting future meeting dates for the next four to five months at that time. Recommendation Staff recommends adopting the resolution establishing the task force to aid in the development of a Master Plan design for the Oak Hill area parks. Attachments: Resolution Prepared by: Cindy S. Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 27 RESOLUTION NO. ______ RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE OAK HILL AREA PARKS TASK FORCE WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has approved a contract with SRF Consulting Group, Inc. to develop and design a Master Plan for the Oak Park Village site, Oak Hill Park, Walker Park, and Oregon Park (Oak Hill area parks); and WHEREAS, as part of developing a Master Plan for the area involved, Council wishes to seek input from community members representing a wide range of interests to ensure a balanced perspective; and WHEREAS, the task force will serve as a temporary advisory board to the council and be comprised of representatives from the Planning Commission, Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission, Athletic Associations, the Oak Hill neighborhood, other neighborhoods in the City, the City Council, the school district, and staff. WHEREAS, the task force will research the recreational needs; will consider the physical characteristics of the area in question, will work with SRF to prepare a draft design master plan consistent with the findings of that research and the mission of Vision St. Louis Park, and will report their findings to the City Council for consideration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that the Oak Hill Area Parks Task Force is hereby established for the purpose of aiding in the design of a Master Plan for the Oak Hill area parks. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council May 1, 2000 City Mana ger Mayor Attest: City Clerk 28 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 8c Meeting of May 1, 2000 8c. Request by Benilde St. Margaret’s School for a Special Permit Amendment and five-foot height variance for building height in the R-1 Zoning District to permit a building expansion and site improvements Case No. 00-20-CUP and 00-21-VAR 2501 South Highway 100 Recommended Action: Motion to adopt resolutions approving a Special Permit Amendment and five foot building height variance, subject to conditions in the resolutions. Zoning: R-1, Low Density Residential Comprehensive Plan Designation: Civic Background: Benilde St. Margaret’s School is proposing a major building expansion to add classroom space, a new chapel, new auditorium, and improved front entry to their grades 7-12 facility. Site improvements include improving the main parking lot, adding parking lots to the south and northeast of the building, and additional landscaping. The curb cuts and parking/dropoff area along the Highway 100 frontage road are proposed to be removed. A Special Permit Amendment is required for the proposed expansion, and a five foot height variance is being requested to allow for a 35-foot high new auditorium. Benilde had initially requested a second variance for a reduced bufferyard along the north lot line near the proposed parking lot, but are now proposing to meet the bufferyard requirements and are not requesting that variance. On March 23, the applicant held a neighborhood open house. Approximately ten residents attended. One resident was concerned that the south parking lot be upgraded with landscaping as part of the expansion. The Ward Councilmember expressed some potential concerns about the initial variance request for reduced bufferyard on the north lot line. On April 5, 2000, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and considered the applicant’s request, and voted to recommend approval of the Special Permit Amendment and variance 4-0. One resident spoke, which is detailed in the draft minutes for that meeting. Issues: • Are all conditions of the existing Special Permit being met? • How are existing nonconformities proposed to be addressed? • Are all other Zoning Ordinance requirements proposed to be met? • Are the findings met for the proposed variances? 29 • Is the proposal consistent with the Comprehensive Plan? • Are there any other issues? Issues Analysis: Are all conditions of the existing Special Permit being met? The conditions of the existing Special Permit continue to be met, and are incorporated into the recommended conditions of the resolution. How are existing nonconformities proposed to be addressed? A Special Permit Amendment requires that: “Any nonconformities existing on the site shall be brought into greater or complete compliance with other provisions of this ordinance to the extent reasonable and possible…” Following are the nonconformities existing on the property and how they are proposed to be addressed: Bufferyards: Several of the landscape bufferyards are currently nonconforming. The applicant is proposing to bring all nonconforming bufferyards into conformance with current requirements. The bufferyard requirements between playfields and the north and east property lines are proposed to be met by existing vegetation (see attached copies of photos), which staff concurs with as meeting the requirements. North buffer line near proposed parking lot: The Public Works Dept. had originally been requiring several trees to be removed and no new trees planted over an existing storm sewer line that is about ten feet from the north property line, which necessitated a variance. After meeting with the adjacent resident and Benilde, Public Works has agreed to preserve the trees for the time being, although the trees may have to be cut down in the future if they start to affect the storm sewer line. Benilde is also proposing to plant 53 arborvitae trees along this property line to meet bufferyard requirements. To ensure that the planting of these trees meets the adjacent resident’s needs and preserves existing trees, staff is recommending a condition that some flexibility be allowed in the location of the trees when they are planted. South buffer line adjacent to Princeton Court townhomes: Additional plantings are proposed along this bufferyard to bring it up to the required bufferyard “C”. At the April 5 Planning Commission public hearing, a resident asked if any of the proposed trees could be moved to more specifically screen the east parking lot from the townhomes. As Benilde was open to this, staff is recommending a condition of approval that some (up to 50%) of the bufferyard plantings may be shifted to directly east of the east parking lot, provided the townhomes and Benilde agree on this. 30 Parking lot design and landscaping: The main parking lot southeast of the school building is nonconforming with respect to internal landscaping, curbing and lighting. Benilde is proposing to bring the parking lot fully into conformance with current standards. Architectural standards: Existing portions of the school building that are painted concrete are proposed to be refaced in brick to match the rest of the building. New portions of the building are proposed as brick with some EIFS on top portions of the auditorium. This corrects the nonconformity to exterior materials and meets code requirements for new portions of the building. Are all other Zoning Ordinance requirements proposed to be met? Number of parking spaces: The total required parking for this site is 444, once allowable reductions are taken for access to transit and provision of on-site bicycle stalls. The school is proposing 403 paved parking spaces, which is 36 spaces more than are currently provided, and 44 proof of parking stalls, which meets Code requirements. In addition, the school has also executed a written agreement with Beth El Synagogue to the south to allow both uses to share parking for events. The shared parking works well in this instance because the two uses have different peak times. Are the findings met for the proposed variance? The Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum 30 foot building height in the R-1, Single Family Residential Zoning District. As mentioned, the applicant is requesting a five foot height variance to allow the proposed auditorium to be 35 feet high. Section 14:8-3.3 (E) of the Zoning Ordinance states that the Board of Zoning Appeals may grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and impose conditions and safeguards provided that: 1. Where by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of the lot, or where by reason of exceptional topographic or water conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional conditions of such lot, the strict applications of the terms of this ordinance would result in a peculiar and practical difficulties or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such lot in developing or using such lot in a manner customary and legally permissible within the zoning district in which said lot is located. The applicant states the hardship lies in the fact that the lot includes an existing building which was constructed over 44 years ago. The finished floor elevation for the auditorium is already established, because the existing stage in the Great Hall is intended to serve the new auditorium in order to increase the flexibility of both spaces. They state that the original design showed a height of 50 feet for the proposed auditorium, and they have made efforts to scale down the height to come as close to current codes as possible. They are proposing the 35-foot height as the minimum possible height and volume for the proposed use. Staff agrees that there are certain conditions pertaining to the lot which create a hardship in trying to accommodate today’s ordinances. The applicant has already demonstrated that they are 31 trying to comply with the requirements by reducing the request from what is actually desired to the minimum height necessary for the type of use. Auditoriums are typical accessory uses in contemporary educational facilities. Staff also agrees that the extra five feet in height will not have a significant impact on adjacent properties because the closest residential home is over 500 feet from the proposed addition. Staff believes this criterion is satisfied. 2. Conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property and so not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. The applicant states that the educational use is unique to this area as well as the size of the parcel. Staff agrees with the applicant. Although permitted, an educational facility is not the typical use in the residential district. It is hard to accommodate all of the residential restrictions and performance standards, and still meet the needs for the students attending the school. The height request is necessary in order to accommodate certain needs for the students. Staff believes that this criterion has been satisfied. 3. The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The applicant states the use of an educational facility is permitted in this Use District, and the proposed additions are consistent with the already permitted use. Most new schools being constructed include auditoriums, and the height proposed is the minimum necessary for this type of use, given the existing conditions. Staff agrees that an educational facility needs to grow in order to provide for the students’ needs. The additional height is not a significant increase for a use like this on a large property, but would be for a single-family dwelling in close proximity to other homes. The height of this building is necessary in order to make it function properly as an auditorium. Staff believes that this criterion has been satisfied. 4. The granting of the variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety. The applicant states that neither variance request will impair light or air to the surrounding properties. The proposed auditorium is located over 500 feet from any residential home. Staff agrees with the applicant that neither of the requests will impair the light or air to the surrounding areas. The location of the proposed auditorium is so far away that the additional height will not impact the surrounding homes. Therefore, staff believes that this criterion has been satisfied. 32 5. The granting of the variance will not unreasonably impact on the character and development of the neighborhood, unreasonably diminish or impair the established property values in the surrounding area, or in any other way impair the health, safety, comfort, or morals of the area. The applicant states the proposed addition will be consistent with the existing structure and will be an improvement to the facility. They also state that it should have a positive effect on the neighboring properties, and that the addition will provide a better environment for educating the current student body with is an asset for the entire metro area. Staff agrees that the variance would not result in an unreasonable impact to the character of the neighborhood, nor would it diminish the established property values in the area. Staff believes that this criterion has been satisfied. 6. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Ordinance or Comprehensive Plan. The applicant states the proposed auditorium is consistent with approved educational use on the property. As well, they state they understand the height limitations, but with the proposed addition being over 500 feet away from the nearest house, they do not believe the request would be contrary to the intent of the ordinance. The intent of the code is to minimize the height of adjacent buildings to keep sight lines intact and to ensure the amount of light and air is not reduced. Since this building will be located over 500 feet from the nearest property, staff believes that the intent of the code is being met. Also, since the applicant has existing conditions which establishes what the finished floor will be, there is also a hardship associated with the proposal. Therefore, staff believes that this criterion has been satisfied. 7. The granting of the variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable undue hardship or difficulty. The applicant reiterates that the hardship is the fact that they are dealing with an existing building which was constructed over 44 years ago. The minimum height that would be acceptable would be the 35 feet which is what is being requested. This allows for proper volume, acoustics, lighting, and prop handling. They have already compromised since the original desired height was 50 feet, but knowing that would be likely unacceptable for a variance, they believe the proposed request for an additional 5 feet is not a convenience, but necessary in order to meet the minimum auditorium requirements. As stated above, staff believes that the proposed variance will not serve as a convenience to the applicant but is necessary to maintain the facility as a competitive educational facility. The applicant has shown that the proposed height is the minimum necessary to make the auditorium functional, given the existing constraints. Staff believes that this criterion has been satisfied. 33 Is the proposal consistent with the Comprehensive Plan? The continued use of the property for educational purposes is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan guiding for Civic, and the property improvements are anticipated to have a positive impact on surrounding areas. Are there any other issues? The Public Works Department notes that a City trail has recently been proposed as part of the master trail and sidewalk plan which would link the existing Twin Lakes Park trail up to Parkwoods Road. If approved, the City would obtain a trail easement from Benilde St. Margaret’s to construct the trail along the north property line. The Public Works Department has stated that Benilde’s expansion plans would accommodate the proposed trail. Recommendation: Based upon the finding that all seven criteria are met, staff is recommending approval of the variance request, subject to conditions in the resolution, and is recommending approval of the Special Permit Amendment, subject to conditions in the resolution. Attachments: • Proposed resolutions • Excerpts of unapproved April 5, 2000 Planning Commission minutes • Location map • Official exhibits Prepared by: Sacha Peterson, Planner Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 34 RESOLUTION NO. ____ Amends Resolutions 85-72 92-125 A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 92-125 ADOPTED ON AUGUST 17, 1992 AND GRANTING A CONTINUED SPECIAL (CONDITIONAL USE) PERMIT UNDER SECTION 14:8-6 OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING TO ALLOW A BUILDING EXPANSION AND EXTERIOR SITE IMPROVEMENTS AT 2501 SOUTH HIGHWAY 100 FINDINGS WHEREAS, Benilde St. Margaret School (Opus Northwest Construction Corporation) has made application to the City Council to amend a Continued Special Use Permit under Section 14:8-6.4 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code to allow a building expansion and associated exterior site improvements at 2501 south Highway 100 within a R-1 Single Family and F2 Floodplain Zoning Districts having the following legal description: That part of the South ½ of the Northwest ¼ of Section 31, Township 29, Range 24, lying East of the East line of State Highway Number 100, North of the south 330 feet thereof and West of the East 450 feet thereof, and the West 233.58 feet of the East 450 feet of the North 500 feet of the South ½ of the Northwest ¼ of Section 31, Township 29, Range 24 EXCEPT: That part of the South 1/2 of the Northwest ¼ of Section 31, Township 29, Range 24, lying East of State Highway No. 100, North of the South 330 feet thereof and West of the East 450 feet hereof, which lies Southeasterly of a line run parallel with and distant 100 feet Southeasterly of the first following described line and Northwesterly of a line run parallel with and distant 20 feet Southeasterly of the second following described line: Line 1. From a point on the North line of said Section 31 distant 1316.42 feet West of the North ¼ corner thereof, run Southwesterly at an angle of 78 degrees 57 minutes 13 seconds with said North section line for 801.9 feet; thence deflect to the right on a 1 degree 00 minutes curve (Delta Angle 9 degrees 04 minutes) for 906.7 feet; thence on tangent to said curve for 332.6 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence continue Southwesterly on the last described course for 194.8 feet; thence deflect 35 to the left on a 1 degree 30 minutes curve (Delta Angle 21 degrees 58 minutes) for 1464.4 feet and there terminating; Line 2. From the point of beginning of line 1 described above, run Southeasterly at right angles with said line 1 for 71 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence deflect to the right at an angle of 90 degrees 00 minutes for 57.46 feet; thence deflect to the left on an 11 degrees 00 minutes curve (Delta Angle 22 degrees 34 minutes 06 seconds) for 205.17 feet; thence on tangent to said curve for 41.94 feet; thence deflect to the right on a 25 degrees 00 minutes curve (Delta Angle 39 degrees 35 minutes 12 seconds) for 158.35 feet; thence on tangent to said curve for 35.17 feet; thence deflect to the left on an 11 degree 00 minutes curve (Delta Angle 25 degrees 16 minutes 06 seconds) for 229.71 feet; thence on tangent to said curve for 100 feet and there terminating. (Abstract) WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the information related to Planning Case No. 00-20- CUP and the effect of the proposed building expansion and exterior site improvements on the health, safety, and welfare of the occupants of the surrounding lands, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect on values of properties in the surrounding area and the effect of the use on the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, a special use permit was issued regarding the subject property pursuant to Resolution No. 92-125 of the St. Louis Park City Council dated August 17, 1992 which contained conditions applicable to said property; and WHEREAS, due to changed circumstances, amendments to those conditions are now necessary, requiring the amendment of that continued special use permit; and WHEREAS, it is the intent of this resolution to continue and restate the conditions of the permit granted by Resolution No. 92-125 to add the amendments now required, and to consolidate all conditions applicable to the subject property in this resolution; WHEREAS, the contents of Planning Case File 00-20-CUP are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case. CONCLUSION NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Resolution No. 92-125 filed as Document No. 5961482 is hereby restated and amended by this resolution which continues and amends a continued special use permit to the subject property for the purposes of permitting a building expansion and associated exterior site improvements within the R-1 Single Family Zoning District at the location described above based on the following conditions: 1. That the grading and drainage be constructed and maintained thereafter in accordance with Exhibit A – Grading and Drainage Plan, Exhibit B – Sodding, Seeding and Landscape Plan and all conditions set forth in the City’s Flood Plain Zoning District regulations be satisfied as specified in Section 14:123.100(2)(a) through (k). 2. That all grading, sodding and seeding be completed by October 15, 1985. 3. The special permit shall be amended pursuant to Planning Case No. 92-42-SP to permit construction of a pylon sign 19.5 feet in height and to permit a total sign area of 200 square feet. 36 4. The conditional use permit shall be amended on May 1, 2000 (Case No. 00-20-CUP) to incorporate all of the preceding conditions and add the following conditions: a. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with Official Exhibits C thru K. Exhibits B and D, landscape plan may be modified as to the exact location of the arborvitae plantings along the north lot line to most effectively provide screening and to preserve existing trees. Exhibit B landscape plan may also be modified to move up to 50% of the new bufferyard plantings north of the Princeton Court townhomes to directly east of the east parking lot, provided this is agreed to by the applicant and Princeton Court townhomes. b. Prior to any site work, applicant shall meet the following conditions: 1. Obtain a Watershed District permit and submit copy to City. 2. Applicant shall sign assent form and official exhibits. c. A building permit is required, which may impose additional conditions. d. If parking should become a problem in the future, the Zoning Administrator may required that proof of parking be converted to parking. e. A five foot building height variance for an auditorium is approved, subject to all conditions of final approval. f. The property owner shall grant a trail easement to the City at no cost in a location to be agreed upon by both parties, if it is determined by the City that a trail is to be constructed in this area. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council May 1, 2000 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk 00-20-CUP/N 37 VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. ____ A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 14:5-4 OF THE ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING TO PERMIT VARIANCES IN BULDING HEIGHT AND BUFFERYARD REQUIREMENTS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AT 2501 SOUTH HIGHWAY 100 BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of St. Louis Park, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. Benilde St. Margaret School has applied for variances from Section 14:5-4 of the Ordinance Code relating to zoning to permit a building height of 35 feet instead of the required 30 feet for property located in the R-1 Single Family Residential District at the following location, to-wit: That part of the South ½ of the Northwest ¼ of Section 31, Township 29, Range 24, lying East of the East line of State Highway Number 100, North of the south 330 feet thereof and West of the East 450 feet thereof, and the West 233.58 feet of the East 450 feet of the North 500 feet of the South ½ of the Northwest ¼ of Section 31, Township 29, Range 24 EXCEPT: That part of the South 1/2 of the Northwest ¼ of Section 31, Township 29, Range 24, lying East of State Highway No. 100, North of the South 330 feet thereof and West of the East 450 feet hereof, which lies Southeasterly of a line run parallel with and distant 100 feet Southeasterly of the first following described line and Northwesterly of a line run parallel with and distant 20 feet Southeasterly of the second following described line: Line 1. From a point on the North line of said Section 31 distant 1316.42 feet West of the North ¼ corner thereof, run Southwesterly at an angle of 78 degrees 57 minutes 13 seconds with said North section line for 801.9 feet; thence deflect to the right on a 1 degree 00 minutes curve (Delta Angle 9 degrees 04 minutes) for 906.7 feet; thence on tangent to said curve for 332.6 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence continue Southwesterly on the last described course for 194.8 feet; thence deflect to the left on a 1 degree 30 minutes curve (Delta Angle 21 degrees 58 minutes) for 1464.4 feet and there terminating; Line 2. From the point of beginning of line 1 described above, run Southeasterly at right angles with said line 1 for 71 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence deflect to the right at an angle of 90 degrees 00 minutes for 57.46 feet; thence deflect to the left on an 11 degrees 00 minutes curve (Delta Angle 22 degrees 34 minutes 06 seconds) for 205.17 feet; thence on tangent to said curve for 41.94 feet; thence deflect to the right on a 25 degrees 00 minutes curve (Delta Angle 39 degrees 35 minutes 12 seconds) for 158.35 feet; thence on tangent to said curve for 35.17 feet; thence deflect to the left on an 11 degree 00 minutes curve (Delta Angle 25 degrees 16 minutes 06 seconds) for 229.71 feet; thence on tangent to said curve for 100 feet and there terminating. (Abstract) 38 2. On April 5, 2000 The Planning Commission held a public hearing, received testimony from the public, discussed the application and recommended approval of a variance 3. The Planning Commission has considered the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on values of property in the surrounding area, and the effect of the proposed variance upon the Comprehensive Plan. 4. Because of conditions on the subject property and surrounding property, it is possible to use the property in such a way that the proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety, unreasonably diminish or impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. 5. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property and do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which such land is located. 6. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. It will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. 7. The contents of Planning Case File 00-21-VAR are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision of this case. 8. Under the Zoning Ordinance, this variance shall be deemed to be abandoned, revoked, or canceled if the holder shall fail to complete the work on or before one year after the variance is granted. CONCLUSION The application for a variance to permit a building height of 35 feet instead of the required 30 feet is granted based upon the finding(s) set forth above. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council May 1, 2000 City Manager Mayor City Clerk 99-21-VAR/N 39 “DRAFT UNAPPROVED” PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Excerpts Planning Commission Meeting April 5, 2000 C. Case Nos, 00-20-CUP and 00-21-VAR - Request of Benilde St. Margaret’s School for a major amendment to a continued special permit and Variances for height and bufferyard requirements for property located at 2501 S. Highway 100 Sacha Peterson, Planner, presented a staff report and noted that, given that all of the seven findings are met for the variances and for the reasons outlined in the staff report, staff is recommending approval of the Special permit amendment and variances, subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report. Ms. Peterson indicated that along the north lot line, the property is adjacent to single family residential, and one of the requirements for amending the special permit is that any ways in which the property is currently out of compliance with our zoning ordinances would need to be brought up to the current code standards. One issue in this area would be that we have landscape and bufferyard requirements depending upon the adjacent use. There would be Bufferyard requirement D between the parking lot and residents to the north. Initially Benilde had been requesting a variance in that area because there is an existing storm sewer line that is buried about 10 feet from the property line, and Public Works requested that some trees be removed and additional trees be planted. Public Works are still requiring that that some trees be removed because of concerns about roots destroying sewer line, however there would still be six feet between the space they need to keep clear and the property line, so the applicant did submit a plan of a couple of alternatives to meet the requirement there which includes an eight feet high treated wood fence and some shrubs. She stated that staff believes this would meet the Bufferyard D requirement and a variance would not be needed in that area and recommended that the final details be worked out prior to this request being forwarded to City Council. She noted that a Bufferyard C that was not constructed as promised in the past would now be required to be built near existing townhomes. Ms. Velick asked what the neighborhood response was to the project at the open house held on March 23, 2000. Ms. Peterson stated that she did not hear any additional concerns or complaints. Jim Hamburg, President of Benilde St. Margaret’s School, thanked the Planning Commission and City Staff. He briefly reviewed the proposed expansion and stated that the intent is not to increase enrollment. He stated that it was his intention to continue to fulfill the responsibilities of being a good member of the 40 community. He introduced Bill Hanley, Chair of the Board of Directors, Joyce Kusho, Member of Board of Directors. Paul Synder, Architect from ATS&R and Dave Bangasser, Senior Project Manager from Opus, and Doug Cooley, Chair of Building Committee. Paul Synder, Architect from ATS & R, reviewed the site plan for the project. Chair Carver opened the public hearing. Duane Krohnke, 2505 Princeton Court, President of Princeton Court Association, stated that the Association welcomed the development, but noted that the plans show that theoretically Benilde could add parking to the southeast further toward the townhomes. He applauded the cooperation of the school and the synagogue to share parking facilities and hope that will eliminate any need for any expansion. He was happy to see the additional bufferyards and recommended the placement of additional trees on the eastern end of the parking lot. Chair Carver asked if there was a requirement to add additional trees on the eastern end of the parking lot. Ms. Peterson reviewed the landscaping and proof of parking on the site plan and stated that staff would support flexibility in the location of the Bufferyard C if there was a consensus between Benilde and the townhomes in terms of where the trees should be within that Bufferyard C adjacent to the townhomes (for example, if some of them could be better utilized on the east side of the parking lot) but the trees that are internal to the parking lot, are meeting our minimal requirements in terms of the internal parking lot landscaping. She reiterated the fact that Benilde has a letter of agreement with Bethel Synagogue for shared parking, and Benilde’s assessment is that they would not need the proof of parking and would not need to convert the proof of parking to actual parking in the future. However, the letter of agreement is not something that is actually recorded against the property, so from the City’s perspective staff can’t count that as parking, so it is required that Benilde show proof of parking. Jim Hamburg stated that he would defend that property at the east end of the parking lot and there will not be any parking in my lifetime. He stated that Benilde went to great expense to level those fields and irrigate those fields and we do not intend to put parking there. He indicated that he respected the City’s right to require proof of parking, but we have worked in great partnership with Bethel over the years and we have that parking agreement, and while it is not fully recognized as meeting the code requirement, we want it known publicly that both Bethel and BSM wish to use their parking lots as a community. Chair Carver closed the public hearing. 41 Mr. Morris questioned Mr. Hamburg’s comment that he would never do the proof of parking in his lifetime although he could be required to as a condition of the special permit. Mr. Hamburg clarified his comment by stating that it is not the intention of BSM to use the proof of parking unless the City requires it. Chair Carver clarified that the Planning Commission had a sensitivity since they have dealt with promises of developers that were not completed. He stated that in this case the Bufferyard C was neglected to be put in as a condition and realized only later that it should have been there and that was the reason it wasn’t completed as a part of the initial project for that portion. Mr. Garelick moved to recommend approval of the Special Permit amendment and variances, subject to the conditions as outlined in the staff report with the alternative proposed. Mr. Morris stated that the motion should be amended to reflect that there was no longer a need for a variance for Bufferyard requirement D since staff received an alternative from the applicant to meet the requirement and it was recommended by staff that the final details be worked out prior to this request being forwarded to City Council. Mr. Garelick accepted the amendment to his motion. The motion passed 4-0 with Carver, Garelick, Morris and Velick voting in favor. 42 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 8d Meeting of May 1, 2000 8d. Resolution setting fees for sign, fence and parking lot permits. Recommended Action: Motion to adopt the attached Resolution establishing fees for sign, fence and parking lot permits. Background: Staff is proposing some ordinance amendments that are requiring new fees to be established. They pertain to fences and parking lot permits. In addition, staff is also proposing to relocate a majority of the sign ordinance from the Municipal Code into the Zoning Ordinance. In doing this, staff was also directed to reconsider the fee structure for sign permits. Fees: Currently, the fees for administrative activities related to planning and zoning are set by resolution, with the exception of signage fees. The proposal of adding the permitting fees for fences and parking lots and changing the permitting fees for signs requires approval by resolution. A new resolution establishing new fees for signs, fences and parking lots is attached. Issues: • What should the fees be for signs? • What should the fee be for a fence permit? • What should the fee be for a parking lot permit? Issue Analysis: What should the fees be for signs? The permitting requirements for signage is not changing. However, the Council had indicated that the fee structure should be amended to better reflect the amount of staff time spent on reviewing the plans for compliance. Below is the current fee structure, which is based on the size of the sign and who actually requested the permit. For a sign contractor, the fees are established with a base fee of $40.00. This fee is for signs between 0 and 50 square feet. An additional $12.50 is added to the base fee for every 50 square foot increment or fraction thereof of signage in excess of 50 square feet. A property owner wishing to obtain a sign permit must pay a fee equal to one and one-half times the fee listed for a sign contractor. Staff believes the fee for sign contractors are lower because the contractor currently needs to be licensed and there is also a licensing fee of $75.00 per year. Inspections staff has discussed licensing issues with the City Council as well. 43 The existing fee table is as follows: Sign Size (sq. ft.) Sign Contractor Property Owner 0-50 $ 40.00 $ 60.00 51-100 $ 52.50 $ 78.75 101-150 $ 65.00 $ 97.50 151-200 $ 77.50 $116.25 201-250 $ 90.00 $135.00 251-300 $102.00 $153.75 300< Call for fee Call for fee Temporary, construction, and real estate signs also have fees established for them. There is no fee for construction or real estate signs under 40 square feet. The fee for any temporary sign and for real estate and construction signs exceeding 40 square feet is $30.00. The amount of staff time involved in reviewing, issuing, and inspecting signs does not vary that much whether they are smaller or larger signs. Some free standing signs may involve a footing inspection to ensure the sign is being installed in compliance with the required setbacks and structural requirements, but typically, only a final inspection is conducted to see if the sign was installed as approved. Most signs require one hour to one and one half-hours of staff time to see if the total allowable amount of signage is being exceeded. This would include reviewing past sign permits issued and possibly a site inspection conducted to see what is actually installed on the site, plus the final inspection. Staff would propose that the fee for a sign that does not require a footing inspection be $75.00, and for a sign which requires a footing inspection, the fee be $100.00, regardless of who is issued the permit. This simplifies the fee structure for signs, and better reflects the actual cost of time involved with processing the permits. What should the fee be for a fence permit? When the option of requiring a permit was raised to the Council, it was determined that the amount of staff time involved with issuing the permit would not be that significant. Staff’s time would be limited to the customer contact at the counter for discussion of the permitting requirements, reviewing the proposed plans for compliance with the fence ordinance, issuing the permit and administering the fees. Since staff would not have to do a site inspection prior to a fence installation, and no follow-up inspection would be required, unless there was a complaint, staff’s time would not ordinarily be in excess of one hour. Staff would propose an application that was is very simple and brief. It would have to include the general information such as property address, property owner and the contractor name, if one is applicable. The permit should also include language stating that the homeowner agrees that it is still their responsibility to ensure the fence is installed completely on their property. This prevents the need for an inspection to verify the fence’s location. The purpose of the permit is to provide staff the 44 opportunity to explain the rules and regulations as they pertain to fences to avoid after the fact enforcement. Since the staff time spent for issuing a fence permit will be between one-half of an hour and one hour, the average cost would be $20.66. Staff would propose reducing this fee to $15.00 since the majority of the permits issued would not take the full hour. This would be less than the permit cost for a small shed being built within the city which is $21.50. Staff has found that some other cities currently issue fence permits and the costs vary. For example Minnetonka, Inver Grove Heights, and Blaine require fence permits. Minnetonka’s fee is based on the valuation of the job. Inver Grove Heights and Blaine have a flat fee of $15.00 and $25.00 respectively. What should the fee be for a parking lot permit? The fee for a parking lot permit will be somewhat higher than that for a fence. More staff time is involved with reviewing plans for compliance with the Zoning Ordinance, and follow-up inspections will have to be conducted to ensure compliance. Staff believes that the parking lot permit should only be issued to those projects which do not have to go through another planning process such as a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) or a Planned Unit Development (PUD). Again, this is to ensure staff has adequately reviewed the parking lot. There are many issues with a parking lot that if not addressed immediately, could be costly to the property owner. In addition to the city’s requirements, there may also be additional requirements imposed by the watershed district. Community Development and Public Works will mainly be the two departments doing the plan review for a parking lot. Public Works will be reviewing for compliance with the drainage requirements. This is outlined in the City’s water resource management plan. It requires all new parking areas to manage their own storm water on site versus having it run into the street, and would include the installation of structures (catch basins) and storm sewer piping. Community Development will be reviewing the plans to ensure compliance with the City’s Zoning Ordinance, particularly the design and maintenance section of the parking ordinance. This includes curbing, both perimeter and island, dimensioning of stalls and aisles, landscaping, lighting, surfacing, and number of stalls. The majority of the parking lots that are being constructed are smaller in size. The larger parking areas usually have another planning process that they would go through. The amount of staff time involved would ordinarily be between an hour and an hour and one-half giving an average cost of $84.06. Staff would propose the fee for a parking lot permit be $75.00, since some would take less than the average time. 45 Summary: Staff is proposing that the fees for signs that do not require a footing inspection be $75.00 and $100.00 for signs that require a footing inspection. The fee for a fence permit would be $15.00 and the fee for a parking lot permit would be $75.00. Attachment: Proposed Resolution Prepared by: Scott Moore, Assistant Zoning Administrator, 924-2592 Reviewed by: Cynthia D. Larsen, City Clerk 46 RESOLUTION NO.___________ A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING FEES FOR SIGN, FENCE AND PARKING LOT PERMITS WHEREAS, various sections of the City Code authorize the City Council to establish fees for specified administrative procedures, and WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted a Policy for requiring permits for signs, fences and parking lots, and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to adopt a fee schedule which will recover a portion of the City costs to process applications for signs, fences and parking lots, and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to establish fee amounts which are equitable and commensurate with the cost of staff time for processing the permits. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that pursuant to the Policy established for requiring permits for signs, fences and parking lots, the following fees are hereby established: Sign Permit: $ 75.00 Sign not requiring a footing inspection $100.00 Sign requiring a footing inspection Fence Permit: $ 15.00 Parking Lot Permit: $ 75.00 Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council May 1, 2000 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk 00-08-FEES/n 47 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 8e Meeting of May 1, 2000 8e. Request by CSM/Rottlund for Preliminary Plat and Preliminary Planned Unit Development approval for Pointe West Commons One and Two, including development of 127-unit and 106-unit hotels, 84 townhomes, and a neighborhood park Case Nos. 00-14-S and 00-15-PUD Northwest quadrant of West 16th Street and Zarthan Avenue Recommended Action: Motion to adopt a resolution approving preliminary plat and preliminary Planned Unit Development for Pointe West Commons One and Two, subject to conditions in the resolution. Zoning: O, Office and R-4, Multiple Family Residential Comprehensive Plan Designation: Office, RM, Medium Density Residential up to 30 units per acre, and Park Background: CSM Corporation and Rottlund Companies are proposing to redevelop an approximately 11-acre parcel at the northwest quadrant of West 16th Street and Zarthan Avenue as a 127-unit regular- stay hotel, a 106-unit extended stay hotel, 84 urban-style townhomes, and a one-acre neighborhood park. A preliminary plat and preliminary Planned Unit Development are being requested at this time. Ordinance modifications are being requested through the PUD process for building and sign setbacks and reduced parking. A traffic study has been performed for the project as required by the City, and the results are discussed below. Two neighborhood meetings have been held by the developer, one last July regarding the general development concept, and a second meeting on March 14, 2000. The concerns raised are discussed below. On March 15, 2000 the Park and Recreation Board considered the proposed park dedication and recommended dedication of a one-acre park and approximately $13,000 in park dedication fees. Their additional comments are discussed below. On March 22, 2000 the Planning Commission opened the public hearing and heard one resident speak. Consistent with staff’s recommendation, the Planning Commission voted 6-0 to continue the public hearing and consideration of the preliminary plat and PUD until April 5, 2000 to allow staff more time to review revised plans that had just been received. On April 5, 2000 the Planning Commission reopened the public hearing and considered the request. Three residents spoke. The draft unapproved minutes of that meeting are attached to 48 this report. The Planning Commission voted 4-0 to recommend approval of the preliminary plat and PUD, subject to conditions as recommended by staff, including the condition that the access issues to the townhomes would be resolved as part of the final PUD. At the April 24, 2000 study session, the City Council reviewed traffic and access issues related to this project, and further discussed a realignment of Zarthan Avenue to create a more continuous frontage road from Wayzata Blvd. to West 16th Street. Issues: • What has been the input from the neighborhood so far? • What issues exist with regard to traffic and access? • Is the preliminary plat acceptable? • Are the PUD Ordinance requirements met, including the acceptability of the proposed ordinance modifications? • Are Zoning Ordinance requirements met? • Does the proposal meet livable communities goals expressed in the Comprehensive Plan? What has been the input from the neighborhood so far? Blackstone neighborhood residents were involved in discussions during last year’s Comprehensive Plan revisions process regarding long range plans for the Blackstone neighborhood and the best and most compatible use for this specific parcel. As a result of those discussions, the northern portion of the site was retained as office and the south half was reguided to Medium Density Residential, with townhomes envisioned. Below are the main comments expressed by the neighborhood residents in recent meetings and how they are being addressed: • Traffic concerns: A desire to see the proposed 16th St. access closed, or modified by offsetting it or providing a 4-way stop sign intersection at Alabama and this access. General concern that the development would lead to increased traffic through the residential streets. Concern that enough guest parking be provided on site to reduce future townhome residents/guests from parking on Alabama/Blackstone. Whether the proposed townhouse access on Zarthan was too close to the intersection of Zarthan and 16th Street. These comments are addressed under the traffic section. • Construction impacts on the neighborhood. Staff is recommending a condition of approval that prohibits construction traffic on Blackstone, Alabama, and Zarthan Ave. South of 16th Street; and conditions regarding noise, debris, and keeping public streets clean. • Timing/type of park improvements: Desire to see park development coordinated with the private development. The Park and Recreation Dept. is currently reviewing their time frame for planning and implementing park improvements. While the Department realizes it would be desirable to develop the park as soon as possible, it is unlikely that this would happen until next year. Neighborhood meetings will be held at the beginning of the park planning process to receive neighbors’ ideas and input. 49 What issues exist with regard to traffic and access? SRF Consulting performed a traffic study to analyze the impact of the proposed development on nearby roads and intersections. A copy of the study was distributed at the April 24 study session, and a duplicate copy is attached. Summary of traffic 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 the CSM/Rottlund proposal. The study finds that overall, with a recommendation for stop signs or a traffic signal at the intersection of W. 16th Street/Zarthan Avenue, and assuming a realignment of Zarthan Avenue from Wayzata Boulevard to West 16th Street, the hotel/townhouse proposal can be supported by the adjacent roadway system. The 2002 no-build scenario took into account a substantial amount of new development that is anticipated in both St. Louis Park and Golden Valley over the next few years in this area, including almost 2 million square feet of new office space, Costco, and other development. Under the no-build scenario all of the intersections are projected to operate at an overall Level of Service (LOS) C or better, with the exception of Zarthan Avenue/West 16th Street, which is projected to go to a D/E. However, the recently approved Costco project requires a traffic signal to be installed at 16th and Zarthan, and to be paid for at least partially by Costco. The 2002 build capacity analysis projects that all intersections would continue to operate at an overall LOS C, with the exception of the W. 16th Street/Zarthan intersection if the CSM/Rottlund is built. This intersection is projected to deteriorate to a LOS F/F with no improvements. With a traffic signal, this intersection would operate at a LOS B. Impact on local residential streets: The traffic increase on residential streets as a result of this development are anticipated to be very low. SRF estimates that for the PM peak hour, the increase would be two cars per hour on Blackstone Avenue, six cars per hour on Alabama, and nine cars per hour on Zarthan south of 16th Street (less than one additional car every six minutes during peak times). In addition, the overall daily traffic volumes for these streets under the 2002-build scenario are well within the expected ranges as listed in the Comprehensive Plan. Realignment of Zarthan Avenue: At a previous study session and at the April 24 study session, the City Council discussed realigning Zarthan Ave. to provide a more continuous frontage road from Wayzata Blvd. to West 16th Street to improve traffic flow to the major concentrations of development in the area and reduce some traffic on Zarthan Ave. south of 16th Street. The Council was generally in favor of the realignment, although cost and timing has not been determined. The realignment is also addressed in the Comprehensive Plan as an anticipated road improvement within the next five to ten years. Based on an analysis from a previous traffic study in the area, SRF has assessed that a realignment of Zarthan Avenue would not substantially change the results summarized above, although there would be a small reduction in cut-through traffic on Zarthan Avenue south of 16th Street. 50 Townhouse access on Zarthan Avenue: Attached is a drawing showing the proposed townhouse access on Zarthan in relation to the adjacent intersection, assuming that Zarthan Avenue is realigned as shown in red. The proposed spacing between the driveway and intersection is 80 feet, which just exceeds the City’s minimum spacing standards of 75 feet. This proposed access drive would not meet the minimum spacing standards if Zarthan Avenue is not realigned. The proposed spacing is less than the spacing that SRF typically considers desirable between a driveway and intersection for proper site distances. However, SRF believes the proposed spacing of 80 feet is acceptable in this case, provided that trees and other sight obstructions are eliminated from the viewing areas, given the relatively low traffic volumes using the Zarthan driveway, and given that the spacing meets minimum City standards. The Public Works Dept. also supports the proposed driveway location assuming a realignment of Zarthan Avenue. 16th Street access: At the April 24 study session, most councilmembers indicated agreement with retaining the proposed townhouse access on 16th Street. As discussed, staff supports having a second townhouse access on 16th for the following reasons: • Emergency vehicle access: The Fire Dept. has stated that two accesses to the townhomes are necessary for adequate emergency vehicle access. An emergency vehicle-only access (such as a chained entrance) would not serve as an adequate second access. • Low neighborhood traffic volumes: As stated above, the anticipated traffic increases on residential streets as a result of this proposal are extremely low. Therefore, the 16th St. access is not anticipated to have a negative effect on the neighborhood. • Livable Communities principles/Comprehensive Plan goals: Having a 16th Street access is consistent with the Livable Communities goals of development patterns and street patterns which promote connection rather than isolation and encourage a sense of neighborhood. The townhouse proposal is consistent with the medium density residential use identified by the neighborhood as part of last year’s Comprehensive planning process as being compatible with the single family residential neighborhood. A representative of SRF will be present on May 1 to answer questions related to the traffic study. Is the preliminary plat acceptable? Preliminary Plat document: The preliminary plat document for Pointe West Commons has been revised to meet Subdivision Ordinance standards and is acceptable to all utilities and MNDOT. A MNDOT drainage permit is required and is listed in the recommended conditions of approval. Park dedication: The Park and Recreation Board met on March 15, 2000 and reviewed the preliminary plat and proposed park dedication. They recommended dedication of a one acre park and $13,040.67 in park dedication fees, which is consistent with the formula for determining park dedication land/fees that is outline in the Subdivision Ordinance. The preliminary plat shows the one acre park, and the required fee is included as a recommended condition of approval. The Park Board had the following additional comments: 51 • Install an attractive, non-opaque fence along the west side of the park and development site to provide a barrier from the railroad tracks (such as a vinyl-coated chain link fence). • Make the holding pond an attractive site feature through landscaping, perhaps native grasses within the pond, and do not install a fence around the pond unless it is needed for safety. No fence is proposed around the holding pond, as the slopes and depth do not pose a safety hazard. • Obtain a formal agreement from the townhomes for use of the circular parking area for shared parking for park patrons. This is included as a recommended condition of approval. Tree replacement: The developer is proposing to remove 1,972 of the total 2,332 caliper inches of significant trees on site. 2,001 inches of replacement trees are required. 645 inches of replacement trees are proposed on site as shown on the preliminary landscape plans. The Subdivision Ordinance allows for the remaining replacement inches to be donated to the City for planting on public parks or other lands, or cash in lieu. Staff is recommending a condition that the remaining 1,356 replacement inches be donated as cash in lieu of trees, with the cash amount to be approved by the Community Development and Park and Recreation Directors. As a more detailed landscape plan is provided, staff will review the tree replacement plan further and may recommend changes to the tree replacement plan. Are other Zoning Ordinance requirements being met? Conditions for hotel in the O, Office District: These conditions are met. Conditions for cluster housing in the R-4 District: All of the conditions are met except one: e. Attached garages shall be located a minimum of 18 feet from the edge of a sidewalk closest to it or from the back of the curb line of internal private roadways or parking lots if no sidewalk exists. The townhomes are designed to have one garage entrance for each building, with a two- car garage provided for each unit. Some of the entrances do not meet the setback requirement above and are as close as 12 feet to the sidewalk edge. However, staff believes that this condition does not apply, because the proposed garage configuration functions like a common entrance to a multi-family building. The requirement is intended to prevent parked cars on individual driveways from overhanging onto the sidewalk or road. Architectural design standards: Building elevation drawings have been submitted for the hotels but not for the townhomes. A full review of architectural design will be provided as part of the final PUD analysis. The developer is proposing to use Hardiplank, a cement lap siding, on portions of the extended stay hotels and townhomes, and is requesting that it be considered as a Class I or Class II material. Hardiplank was recently approved on a trial basis as a Class II material for the Mill City apartment project. Staff will review the proposal and provide an analysis and recommendation with final PUD review. Other standards: Landscaping and bufferyard requirements, lighting, and signage will be reviewed as part of the final PUD. 52 Are the PUD Ordinance requirements met, including the acceptability of the proposed ordinance modifications? A. The design shall consider the whole of the project and shall create a unified environment within project boundaries by insuring architectural compatibility of all structures, efficient vehicular and pedestrian circulation, aesthetically pleasing landscape and site features, and efficient design and use of utilities. Architectural compatibility: The site design is consistent, with buildings proposed fronting public streets and parking less visible from public right of way. The general massing of the buildings works well given the mixed use, with the extended stay hotel buildings providing a good transition between the taller, larger hotel building to the north and the townhomes. The level of architectural interest along the street and at the pedestrian level is good for the hotels. The architecture and building materials of the hotels are consistent with one another. Building elevations of the townhomes have not been submitted. Efficient vehicular and pedestrian circulation: Proposed vehicular circulation appears good. The Fire Department has stated that the proposed plan meets their requirements for emergency vehicle access. As noted above, SRF has analyzed the proposed access drives in relation to the adjacent roads and intersections and found the design acceptable, provided Zarthan Avenue is realigned and the intersection of Zarthan and W. 16th Street is signalized. Pedestrian circulation is also good. Sidewalks are proposed along all public streets as required, and on both sides of private roads and between buildings on the townhouse site. Sidewalks are proposed around the hotel buildings and within the hotel parking lots. Aesthetically pleasing landscape and site features: Generalized landscape plans have been submitted which show a substantial amount of landscaping throughout the site, including replacement trees. A thorough review of landscaping will be provided with the final PUD when detailed plans are submitted. Other enhancing site features include an outdoor pool at the hotel, a circular guest parking area on the townhouse site near the park, and the pedestrian connections. Staff is recommending these as conditions to be addressed under the final PUD. B. The design of the PUD shall achieve the maximum compatibility of the project with surrounding land uses, both existing and proposed and shall minimize the potential adverse impacts of the PUD on surrounding land uses and the potential adverse effects of the surrounding land uses on the PUD. The proposed PUD is compatible with surrounding land uses, with the commercial uses located to the north of the site adjacent to other commercial uses and the highway, and the townhomes to the south, transitioning to the single family neighborhood south of 16th Street. The uses are consistent with those envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan. C. The design shall take into account any modifications of Ordinance requirements permitted by Section 14:6-7.4 of this Ordinance and provide appropriate solutions to eliminate the adverse impacts of any modification required for approval of the PUD. 53 The following ordinance modifications are being requested: Standard Code Allowable Standard Requirement by PUD Proposed # Parking stalls Site as whole: 466* 15% decrease 465 Considering site As a whole hotel site: 419 same as above 244 plus 26 proof of pkg townhomes: 151 w/ 10% same as above 168 garage available as plus 27 guest guest pkg parking** Setbacks: Freestanding sign Building setback May be reduced Along Zarthan: 15’ Setback =30 feet to zero (1 hotel sign and 1 townhouse sign) Spring Hill Suites: Front setback Bldg height No required yards 30 ft. (Zarthan) =50 ft. Side setback 15 ft. No required yards 13’ 9” (Wayzata) Side setback 25 ft. No required yards 110 ft. (to south) Rear setback 25 ft. No required yards 20 ft. (to west) Towne Place Suites: Front setback Bldg height No required yards 27’ 10” (Zarthan) =42 ft. 54 Standard Code Allowable Standard Requirement by PUD Proposed Side setback 16 ft. No required yards 5’ 8” (to north) Side setback 21 ft. No required yards 15 ft. (to south) because internal to PUD Rear setback 21 ft. No required yards 15 ft. Townhouse site: Front setback 30 ft. No required yards Zarthan: 20’ 8” 16th St: 12’ 5” Side setback 15 ft. No required yards North: 16 ft. West: 10’ 6” Rear setback 25 ft. No required yards n/a *Parking requirement shown is after the allowable reduction is taken for superior access to transit (10% reduction allowed). ** Additional guest parking for the townhomes would be available along 16th Street. In conjunction with this development, 16th Street west of Zarthan would be widened and on-street parking bays and a sidewalk added on the north side of the street. Parking: As shown above, the developer is proposing a total of 465 parking stalls overall, which is within the allowable PUD reduction. Staff believes that the amount of parking proposed is adequate, because the townhouse site exceeds Code requirements and the developer believes the hotel site provides more than enough parking for the hotels. However, because the hotels are proposed on separate parcels, cross-access agreements must be executed for the hotels to share parking. Staff is recommending this as a condition of approval. Since the hotel sites are still proposed with substantially reduced on-site parking, staff is also recommending a shared parking agreement with the bank to the east to help accommodate potential overflow parking in the evening and nighttime hours. Setbacks: Staff believes that the proposed setback modifications are appropriate. The Comprehensive Plan encourages site design which bring buildings up to and frame public streets and this proposal is consistent with that concept. The proposed sign setbacks are appropriate, given the need to have the signs ahead of the buildings to be visible and that the signs would remain far enough from the street to avoid damage by snow storage and removal. 55 Does the proposal meet livable communities goals as expressed in the Comprehensive Plan? Livable communities goals include: • Uses should relate well to surrounding uses and relationship of private to public realm • Street pattern which promotes sense of neighborhood and where adjacent uses connect to one another; no dead end streets • Buildings and architecture which frame public streets; build buildings to a fixed line • Off-street parking behind buildings, away from the street, or in parking structures. Staff believes that the current proposal meets livable communities goals. The project is oriented outwards towards the public streets, rather than internally, and the proposed driveway pattern matches up with the surrounding street pattern to become part of the neighborhood. Buildings are proposed to frame the streets and parking visible from public right of way is minimized. If the proposed townhouse access drive on 16th Street is eliminated or blocked off, staff believes that the project would no longer meet livable communities goals because the townhomes would not relate well to the surrounding development or street pattern and would include an internal dead-end street. The townhomes would be disconnected from the rest of the residential neighborhood and be encouraged to operate from a more internal orientation. The neighborhood park would also be more isolated and may be perceived as more private to the townhomes. Recommendation: Staff and the Planning Commission are recommending approval of the preliminary plat and preliminary PUD, subject to the conditions in the resolution. Attachments: • Proposed resolution • Location Map • Traffic study • Official exhibits Prepared by: Sacha Peterson, Planner Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 56 RESOLUTION NO. 00-060 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) UNDER SECTION 14:6-7 OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING FOR PROPERTY ZONED “O” OFFICE AND R-4 MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOCATED AT NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF WEST 16TH STREET & ZARTHAN AVENUE AND PRELIMINARY PLAT – POINTE WEST COMMONS ONE AND TWO WHEREAS, applications for approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Preliminary Plat for Pointe West Commons One and Two were received from the applicant on February 15, 2000 (accepted as complete applications on March 20, 2000), and WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing on the Preliminary PUD and Plat was mailed to all owners of property within 350 feet of the subject property plus other affected property owners in the vicinity, and WHEREAS, notice of public hearing on the Preliminary PUD and Plat was published in the St. Louis Park Sailor on March 8, 2000, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing at the meeting of March 22, 2000 and continued discussion to the April 5, 2000 meeting, and WHEREAS, on April 5, 2000, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Preliminary PUD and Plat on a 4-0 vote with all members present voting in the affirmative, and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the staff reports, Planning Commission minutes and testimony of those appearing at the public hearing or otherwise including comments in the record of decision. BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park: Findings 1. CSM Hospitality, Inc. and Rottlund Companies have made application to the City Council for a Planned Unit Development under Section 14:6-7 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code within the “O” Office and R-4 Multiply Family Residential districts located at the Northwest quadrant of West 16th Street and Zarthan Avenue; and CSM Hospitality, Inc. and Rottlund Companies, owners and subdividers of the land proposed to be platted as Pointe West Commons One and Two have submitted an application for approval of 57 preliminary plat of said subdivision in the manner required for platting of land under the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, and all proceedings have been duly had thereunder; for the legal description as follows, to-wit: See Attached Legal Description 2. The proposed preliminary plat has been found to be in all respects consistent with the City Plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and the ordinances of the City of St. Louis Park. 3. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission (Case Nos. 00-14-S and 00-15-PUD ) and the effect of the proposed PUD and Plat on the health, safety and welfare of the occupants of the surrounding lands, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect on values of properties in the surrounding area, the effect of the use on the Comprehensive Plan, and compliance with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. 4. 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 are 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). 5. The contents of Planning Case Files 00-14-S and 00-15-PUD are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case. Conclusion The Preliminary Planned Unit Development and Preliminary Plat for Pointe West Commons One and Two at the location described are approved based on the findings set forth above and subject to the following conditions: A. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with the Official Exhibits A through L, subject to approved plan changes through the final PUD and final plat process. B. Prior to final PUD or final plat consideration, applicant shall submit complete final PUD and final plat application materials. Final PUD plans shall address issues as noted in the staff report including landscaping around detention pond, townhouse elevations and building materials, and plans sufficient to determine building wall deviation for all buildings. In addition, applicant shall attempt to obtain a parking agreement for shared parking during off- peak hours with the bank property across Zarthan Avenue. C. Within 90 days, the City shall receive a final plat and final PUD application or the preliminary plat and preliminary PUD shall become null and void. D. Final plat and PUD approval and development is contingent upon developer meeting all conditions of final approval including all MNDOT requirements. 58 E. 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 or amended between the developer and the City/EDA which covers at a minimum, sidewalk construction and maintenance, tree replacement, repair and cleaning of public streets, and financing of the development’s share of required traffic improvements including a signal at 16th and Zarthan. The development agreement shall also cite the approved ordinance modifications. 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. Draft easement agreement for shared parking between two hotel lots and bank. 5. Execute formal agreement with City to allow park patrons to share on-site guest parking for townhomes. 6. Submit townhouse association by-laws and covenant documents, to be approved by the City attorney. 7. Submit copy of parking agreement with bank property, if obtained. 8. Reimbursement of City attorney’s fees in drafting/reviewing such documents. F. 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. G. 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 conditions of City signing final plat. H. 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 parking easement agreement. 3. Building materials samples to be submitted to and approved by City. I. A PUD ordinance modification to allow 465 parking stalls rather than the required 466 stalls and building and sign setbacks as shown on the approved site plan are contingent upon final PUD approval. J. Should the Zoning Administrator determine that parking is a problem in the future, the City may require proof of parking to be converted to parking. K. The developer shall comply with the following conditions during construction: 1. Construction vehicles shall be prohibited from using Zarthan Avenue south of W. 16th Street, Alabama Avenue, and Blackstone Avenue. 2. All City noise ordinances shall be complied with, including that there be no construction activity between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. 59 3. Loud equipment shall be kept as far as possible from residences at all times. 4. The site shall be kept free of dust and debris that could blow onto neighboring properties. 5. Public streets shall be maintained free of dirt and shall be cleaned as necessary. 6. The Zoning Administrator may impose additional conditions if it becomes necessary in order to mitigate the impact of construction on surrounding properties. L. Six foot concrete sidewalks along the west side of Zarthan Avenue and the north side of West 16th Street adjacent to the subject parcel are to be installed and maintained by the developer per the approved preliminary site plan, unless the City chooses to install and/or maintain the sidewalks. M. A one acre neighborhood park is to be dedicated on the plat. Developer shall also pay to the City a cash fee of $13,040.67 as a park dedication fee. N. The developer shall provide the required number of replacement trees on site or a combination of on-site trees and cash in lieu of trees. The Community Development Director and Parks and Recreation Director shall approve the cash equivalent amount. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council May 1, 2000 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk 00-14-S-00-15-PUD-prel/N/res/ord 60 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 8f Meeting of May 1, 2000 8f. Miscellaneous Zoning Ordinance amendments pertaining to extending the time limit for variance re-applications, enforcing officer, requiring permits for fences and parking lots, how private indoor entertainment w/liquor is permitted, relocating permits for signs from the Municipal Code to the Zoning Ordinance, and the deletion of the sign ordinance in the Municipal Code with retention in the Zoning Ordinance. Recommended Action: Motion to adopt first reading of the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments and set second reading for May 15, 2000. Background: At the January 24, 2000 City Council Study Session, staff discussed several potential ordinance amendments with the Council. At their direction staff originally proposed ordinance amendments to increase the amount of time an applicant must wait prior to reapplying for the same variance and to require a permit to be issued prior to the installation of a fence or a parking lot, and to change the height requirement for fences in certain side yards. At a recent City Council meeting, the Council had raised the question as to how an applicant was able to reapply for the same variance six months after either the BOZA or City Council had denied it. They felt that six months was too short of a time frame and it should either be eliminated or increased. In addition, staff felt that this issue could have been avoided if some sort of simple permit were issued to the home owner or fence installer. Likewise, it was thought that a permit should be issued prior to the installation of a parking lot. This would avoid having to enforce the code after-the-fact. A Councilmember also raised the point that a different height requirement for front yards and side yards abutting a street creates an inconsistency. During the Planning Commission hearing on February 16, 2000, the Planning Commission questioned a change to the fence height requirement for side yard, since it would be difficult to enjoy the privacy in the back yard of corner lots and difficult to screen possessions. The Council reconsidered the fence height issue at their March 13, 2000 Study Session and decided to rescind the proposed ordinance amendment. Staff is initiating the two other amendments pertaining to the enforcing officer and allowing private indoor entertainment without liquor as a use permitted with conditions and require private indoor entertainment with liquor to obtain a Conditional Use Permit. In October of 1999 the Assistant Zoning Administrator position and responsibilities transferred from the Inspections Department to the Community Development Department. Staff is proposing amending the enforcing officer in the code to reflect the transfer. Staff is also proposing the change to private indoor entertainment with liquor for consistency with how other uses with liquor are treated. This was discussed previously, but has not yet been adopted. 61 In addition, staff is proposing relocating the section of the Municipal Code requiring a permit for a sign to the Zoning Ordinance, and then deleting most of the sign section in the Municipal Code. Sign standards would be retained in the Zoning Ordinance. Previous Action: At the March 22, 2000 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission unanimously recommended approval of most the proposed ordinance amendments on a vote of 6-0, with the exception of requiring a permit prior to the installation of a fence. This was the second meeting where the Planning Commission heard the proposed amendments. At the first meeting on February 16, 2000, the Planning Commission requested that staff bring the amendments back to them with the actual proposed language. When the proposed language was presented to the Planning Commission, there were some Commissioners who still had concerns pertaining to requiring a permit for the installation of a fence. Staff explained to the Planning Commission the rational behind requiring a permit in order to reduce after the fact enforcement of the code and to ensure that the public is well informed of the new code changes as they relate to fences. After some discussion, the Planning Commission recommended that staff bring the ordinance proposal back to another Planning Commission meeting. At the April 5, 2000 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission again heard the proposed ordinance amendment related to requiring a permit for a fence. The Planning Commission voted 4-0 to forward this amendment onto the Council with no recommendation. Issues: • Extending the time limit for reapplying for the same variance. • Changing the Enforcing Officer of the Zoning Ordinance. • Requiring a permit prior to the installation of a fence. • Requiring a permit prior to the construction of a parking lot. • Amending how the Private Indoor Entertainment land use is permitted. • Relocating parts of the sign ordinance from the Municipal Code into the Zoning Ordinance. • Deleting most of the sign section of the Municipal Code. Analysis of Issues: Extending the time limit for reapplying for the same variance. As mentioned above, at a recent City Council meeting, the question was raised as to how an applicant was able to reapply for the same variance that previously had already been denied. Section 14:8-3.1(L) of the Zoning Ordinance states: 62 “… Any person who is denied a variance by the BOZA or whose appeal is denied by the City Council may not reapply for the same variance within six (6) months from the denial date.” This currently allows for an applicant to reapply for the same variance request every six (6) months. This has happened twice in the past five years. In the two instances, the requests were denied both times. The City Attorney believes that an amendment prohibiting a person from reapplying for the same variance could legally be challenged under the theory of a past council binding a future council. It was his opinion that a time frame be established allowing a person to reapply for the same variance. Staff would propose an ordinance amendment that would not allow a person to reapply for the same variance within twenty-four (24) months of the denial date, (rather than six months), unless the physical conditions of the land changed. An example of this would be the lot being divided or combined with other land, or a partial taking of the property. This would then change the conditions that were looked upon at the previous variance hearing, and could result in a different outcome. However, it should be noted that if the need for a variance is created by the action of the property owner, findings for approving the variance cannot be satisfied. This would not prevent a new property owner from applying for the same variance. Since the applicant (property owner) would be different, staff believes that the request would have to be heard again. Therefore, staff proposes the following language: Section 14:8-3.1(L) – [General Provisions for Application and Review Process] “…Any person who is denied a variance by the BOZA or whose appeal is denied by the City Council may not reapply for the same variance within six (6) twenty-four (24) months from the denial date unless the physical conditions of the property or land in question have changed. A change in the physical conditions would include but is not limited to a division or combination of the land or a taking of part of the land for public purpose.” Changing the Enforcing Officer of the Zoning Ordinance. Currently, the Zoning Ordinance appoints the Director of Inspections as Zoning Administrator. The reorganizing of the Community Development Department and Inspections Department move the Assistant Zoning Administrator’s position and responsibilities from Inspections to Community Development. Staff believes that the ordinance should be amended to reflect this change since zoning is no longer position within the Inspections Department. Therefore, staff proposes the following language: Section 14:8-7.2 – [Enforcing Officer] 63 “The Director of Inspections Planning and Zoning Supervisor is appointed the Zoning Administrator who shall enforce this Ordinance under the direction and control of the Community Development Director and City Manager. Requiring a permit prior to the installation of a fence. Staff has recently determined that with the new requirements under the Zoning Ordinance for fences, and the past history, it would be beneficial if the City were to issue some type of permit prior to a fence being installed. This would allow the city the opportunity to explain the rules and regulations to the homeowner or fence installer. The rules and regulations would then be given to the applicant, and a statement signed indicating they have received and understood the information. In the event a fence is not constructed in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance, we would then have this signed statement indicating that the information was received and understood. Staff would also recommend that the statement would include language stating that the home owner agrees that it is still their responsibility to ensure the fence is installed completely on their property. This would prevent the need for an inspection to verify the location of the fence. There would be some staff impact in advertising and implementing the new policy, but staff believes it would be beneficial in avoiding some after the fact enforcement issues. It would also help prevent homeowners from having to make after the fact corrections which can be costly. Staff discussed potential fees with the Council on March 13, 2000, and staff recommended a $15.00 fee which is somewhat lower than the average cost of processing the permit and the low end of what other cities charge. The proposed fee is part of a separate report. Staff is proposing that within the fence section of the ordinance, a new sub-section be created entitled General Provisions. Under this new sub-section, we would state that a permit is required prior to the installation of a fence, and give the minimum requirements that are needed in order for the City to review the application. This may include a working drawing showing how the fence will look after completion and the height and location of the proposed fence. Therefore, staff proposes the following language to Section 14:4-4: A. General Provisions 1. Permit Required – A permit shall be required prior to the installation of any fence. 2. Submission Requirements – The following information shall be submitted prior to a fence permit being issued: a. Application form and fee. b. Site plan indicating location of fence. c. Fence design indicating height and style of fence. 64 Requiring a permit prior to the construction of a parking lot. Like the fences, parking lots have also become noticed as an area which may need more review prior to their construction. There are many issues with parking lots that if not addressed immediately, could be costly to the property owner. These would include perimeter and internal curbing, tree replacement, landscaping (internal and perimeter), stall width and length, drive aisle width, setbacks, and lighting. In addition to these city requirements, there may also be additional requirements for the watershed districts pertaining to storm water quality and quantity. Staff would propose that within the general provisions of the parking section of the code, the existing language be modified to state that a permit is required prior to the construction of a parking lot, unless the parking lot has been reviewed and approved as part of another application. Again, the language would indicate the minimum requirements which would need to be submitted prior to the city issuing a parking lot permit. This may include two sets of construction drawings showing the parking lot and how it will comply with all the requirements stated in the design and maintenance section of the parking ordinance. As well, we would have to have adequate documentation submitted to determine compliance with other regulating agencies. In most cases, an inspection would need to be completed to determine compliance. Again, staff would propose that the fees for the new parking lot permit be incorporated and set by resolution and adopted by the City Council. The parking lot fee is expected to be higher than that for fences since an inspection would likely be required. The fees were discussed with the City Council on March 13, 2000 and staff recommended a $75.00 fee for parking lot permits that are not included in other applications. Within the General Provision section of the parking ordinance, staff would propose the following changes and language to Section 14:6-1.2(B): 2. Permit Required – A parking lot permit shall be issued prior to the installation or reconstruction of a parking lot, unless the parking lot design has been reviewed and approved as part of another application. 3. Submission Requirements – The following information shall be submitted prior to a parking lot permit being issued: a. Application form and fee b. Certified survey showing location of any existing and proposed buildings and parking areas. c. Design plans of the parking lot indicating: i. Stall length ii. Stall width iii. Drive aisle width 65 iv. Curbing v. Surfacing vi. Lighting vii. Grading and drainage viii. Utilities ix. Landscaping d. Required storm water calculations The existing 2 through 15 will be re-numbered as 4 through 17. Amending how the Private Indoor Entertainment land use is permitted. Currently, the private indoor entertainment land use is permitted with conditions in the C-1, C-2, and O Districts, and requires a PUD in the MX District. The current ordinance allows a bar as an accessory use to the private indoor entertainment land use in only the C-2, O, and MX Districts. Staff believes that the private indoor entertainment land use should be viewed similarly to a restaurant or club or lodge. It should be broken into two classifications, one with liquor, and one without liquor. The private indoor entertainment without liquor would remain as a use permitted with conditions in the C-1, C-2 and O Districts, and require a PUD in the MX District. The private indoor entertainment with liquor would not be permitted in the C-1 District, would require a Conditional Use Permit in the C-2 and O District, and would require a PUD in the MX District. This would be consistent with the current regulations for restaurants and clubs and lodges with and without liquor in the Zoning Ordinance. For the private indoor entertainment without liquor, the conditions for approval would not be changed. They would remain the exact way as they exist in the current code. However, for the new private indoor entertainment with liquor, new conditions of approval would have to be adopted. Staff would recommend that these conditions be identical to the conditions of approval for a restaurant or club or lodge with liquor in the same zoning district. In addition, staff would recommend that the accessory use sections of the C-2, O, and MX Districts be amended to delete bars as an accessory use to restaurants, private indoor entertainment, and clubs or lodges. Staff proposes the following ordinance amendment to the “C-1” District: Section 14:5-5.2(C)(16) – [Uses Permitted with Conditions] “16. PRIVATE ENTERTAINMENT (INDOOR) WITHOUT LIQUOR LICENSE.” Staff proposes the following ordinance amendments to the “C-2” District: Section 14:5-5.3(C)(17) - [Uses Permitted with Conditions] 66 “17. PRIVATE ENTERTAINMENT (INDOOR) WITHOUT LIQUOR LICENSE.” Section 14:5-5.3(D)(9) - [Uses Permitted by Conditional Use Permit] 9. PRIVATE ENTERTAINMENT (INDOOR) WITH LIQUOR LICENSE. a. Access shall be from a roadway identified in the Comprehensive Plan as a collector or arterial or otherwise located so that access can be provided without conducting significant traffic on local residential streets. b. The building housing the use shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from any property located in an “R” Use District. c. Separate pedestrian ways shall be constructed to allow for the separation of pedestrian and vehicular movements within the parking lot. d. A bufferyard “F” shall be installed and maintained along all property lines which abut property in an “R” Use District. Section 14:5-5.3(F)(5) – [Accessory Uses] 5. Bar if accessory to a restaurant, hotel, private entertainment (indoor), club or lodge. The existing 6 through 8 will be re-numbered as 5 through 7 Staff proposes the following ordinance amendments to the “O” District: Section 14:5-6.2(C)(14) - [Uses Permitted with Conditions] 14. PRIVATE ENTERTAINMENT (INDOOR) WITHOUT LIQUOR LICENSE.” Section 14:5-6.2(D)(7) - [Uses Permitted by Conditional Use Permit] 7. Uses where more than one principal building is located on a single lot. PRIVATE ENTERTAINMENT (INDOOR) WITH LQUOR LICENSE. a. Access shall be from a roadway identified in the Comprehensive Plan as a collector or arterial or otherwise located so that access can be provided without conducting significant traffic on local residential streets. b. The building housing the use shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from any property located in an “R” Use District. 67 c. Separate pedestrian ways shall be constructed to allow for the separation of pedestrian and vehicular movements within the parking lot. d. A bufferyard “F” shall be installed and maintained along all property lines which abut property in an “R” Use District. Section 14:5-6.2(F)(3) – [Accessory Uses] 3. BAR if accessory to a restaurant, hotel, private entertainment (indoor), club or lodge. The existing 4 through 6 will be re-numbered as 3 through 5. Relocating parts of the sign ordinance from the Municipal Code into the Zoning Ordinance. With the recodification of the city’s Municipal Code, sections which are redundant will be deleted and incorporated into one section. This is the case with the city’s sign ordinance. It is listed once in the Municipal Code, and again in the Zoning Ordinance. The purpose of this amendment is to adopt certain sections of the Municipal Code into the Zoning Ordinance in order to ensure that permits are still obtained prior to a sign’s installation. Staff would propose that within the general provisions of the sign section of the code, a requirement stating that a permit shall be issued prior to a sign being installed be adopted. As well, this amendment would also indicate what would need to be submitted by an applicant in order for city staff to determine if a sign will be in compliance with the remainder of the code. Like with the fence and parking lot permits, staff would propose that the fees for the signs be set by resolution and adopted by the City Council. The Council has asked staff for additional information regarding staff time involved with issuing sign permits. Within the General Provision section of the sign ordinance, staff would propose the following changes and language to Section 14:6-2.6: A. Permit Required – A sign permit shall be issued prior to the installation of any sign. B. Submission Requirements – The following information shall be submitted prior to a sign permit being issued: 1. Application form and fee 2. Site plan and building elevations (if applicable) 3. Two sets of drawings for each sign that is proposed. 68 The existing A through R will be re-lettered C through T Deleting most of the sign section of the Municipal Code. With the relocation of the permitting requirements from the Municipal Code into the Zoning Ordinance, there is no need to have those requirements duplicated. Likewise, since the fees will be adopted by resolution, that section of the code can also be eliminated. There are other sections of the code that are duplicated within the Zoning Ordinance that should also be deleted. However, there are a couple of sections pertaining to licensing and billboard inspections which will have to be retained until the recodification of the Municipal Code is completed. Attached is copy of the existing sign ordinance in the Municipal Code. Staff is proposing that the majority of the Sign Section be deleted out of the Municipal Code. This would include Section 13-701; 13-702; 13-704 through 13-708; and 13-710 through 13-724. Sections 13-703 and 13-709 will be retained as is within the Municipal Code as they deal with licensing and billboard inspections respectively. Attachment: Proposed Ordinance Existing Sign Ordinance in Municipal Code (on file in City Clerk’s Office) Prepared by: Scott Moore, Assistant Zoning Administrator, 924-2592 Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 69 ORDINANCE NO.______ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING BY AMENDING SECTIONS 14:4-4, 14:5-5.2(C), 14:5-5.3(C) 14:5-5.3(D), 14:5-5.3(F), 14:5-6.2(C), 14:5-6.2(D), 14:5-6.2(F), 14:6-1.2(B),14:6-2.6, 14:8-3.1(L), 14-8-7.2 AND DELETING MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS 13-701, 13-702, 13-704 THROUGH 13-708 AND 13-710 THROUGH 13-724 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. 00-08-ZA) Sec. 2. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Section 14:4-4, 14:5-5.2(C), 14:5-5.3 © 14:5- 5.3(D), 14:5-5.3(F), 14:5-6.2(C), 14:5-6.2(D), 14:5-6.2(F), 14:6-1.2(B),14:6-2.6, 14:8-3.1(L), 14-8-7.2 are hereby amended to read as follows: Section 14:4-4: A. General Provisions 1. Permit Required – A permit shall be required prior to the installation of any fence. 2. Submission Requirements – The following information shall be submitted prior to a fence permit being issued: a. Application form and fee. b. Site plan indicating location of fence. c. Fence design indicating height and style of fence. Section 14:5-5.2(C)(16) – [Uses Permitted with Conditions] 16. PRIVATE ENTERTAINMENT (INDOOR) WITHOUT LIQUOR LICENSE. Section 14:5-5.3(C)(17) - [Uses Permitted with Conditions] 17. PRIVATE ENTERTAINMENT (INDOOR) WITHOUT LIQUOR LICENSE. Section 14:5-5.3(D)(9) - [Uses Permitted by Conditional Use Permit] 70 9. PRIVATE ENTERTAINMENT (INDOOR) WITH LQUOR LICENSE. a. Access shall be from a roadway identified in the Comprehensive Plan as a collector or arterial or otherwise located so that access can be provided without conducting significant traffic on local residential streets. b. The building housing the use shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from any property located in an “R” Use District. c. Separate pedestrian ways shall be constructed to allow for the separation of pedestrian and vehicular movements within the parking lot. d. A bufferyard “F” shall be installed and maintained along all property lines which abut property in an “R” Use District. Section 14:5-5.3(F)(5) – [Accessory Uses] 6. Bar if accessory to a restaurant, hotel, private entertainment (indoor), club or lodge. The existing 6 through 8 will be re-numbered as 5 through 7 Section 14:5-6.2(C)(14) - [Uses Permitted with Conditions] 14. PRIVATE ENTERTAINMENT (INDOOR) WITHOUT LIQUOR LICENSE.” Section 14:5-6.2(D)(7) - [Uses Permitted by Conditional Use Permit] 7. Uses where more than one principal building is located on a single lot. PRIVATE ENTERTAINMENT (INDOOR) WITH LQUOR LICENSE. a. Access shall be from a roadway identified in the Comprehensive Plan as a collector or arterial or otherwise located so that access can be provided without conducting significant traffic on local residential streets. b. The building housing the use shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from any property located in an “R” Use District. c. Separate pedestrian ways shall be constructed to allow for the separation of pedestrian and vehicular movements within the parking lot. d. A bufferyard “F” shall be installed and maintained along all property lines which abut property in an “R” Use District. Section 14:5-6.2(F)(3) – [Accessory Uses] 71 3. BAR if accessory to a restaurant, hotel, private entertainment (indoor), club or lodge. The existing 4 through 6 will be re-numbered as 3 through 5. Section 14:6-1.2(B): 2. Permit Required – A parking lot permit shall be issued prior to the installation or reconstruction of a parking lot., unless the parking lot design has been reviewed and approved as part of another application. 3. Submission Requirements – The following information shall be submitted prior to a parking lot permit being issued: a. Application form and fee b. Certified survey showing location of any existing and proposed buildings and parking areas. c. Design plans of the parking lot indicating: i. Stall length ii. Stall width iii. Drive aisle width iv. Curbing v. Surfacing vi. Lighting vii. Grading and drainage viii. Utilities ix. Landscaping d. Required storm water calculations The existing 2 through 15 will be re-numbered as 4 through 17. Section 14:6-2.6: A. Permit Required – A sign permit shall be issued prior to the installation of any sign. B. Submission Requirements – The following information shall be submitted prior to a sign permit being issued: 1. Application form and fee 2. Site plan (if applicable) 72 3. Two sets of drawings for each sign that is proposed. The existing A through R will be re-lettered C through T Section 14:8-3.1(L) – [General Provisions for Application and Review Process] “…Any person who is denied a variance by the BOZA or whose appeal is denied by the City Council may not reapply for the same variance within six (6) twenty-four (24) months from the denial date unless the physical conditions of the property or land in question have changed. A change in the physical conditions would include but is not limited to a division or combination of the land or a taking of part of the land for public purpose.” Section 14:8-7.2 – [Enforcing Officer] “The Director of Inspections Planning and Zoning Supervisor is appointed the Zoning Administrator who shall enforce this Ordinance under the direction and control of the Community Development Director and City Manager. Sec. 3. The St. Louis Park Municipal Code, Sections 13-701, 13-702, 13-704 through 13-708, and 13-710 through 13-724 are hereby deleted in their entirety. Sections 13-703 and 13-709 shall be retained and renumbered to 13-701 and 13-702 respectively. Sec. 4. The contents of Planning Case File 00-08-ZA are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case. Sec.5. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication. Adopted by the City Council May 15, 2000 Reviewed for Administration City Manager Mayor Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution: City Clerk City Attorney 73 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 8g Meeting of May 1, 2000 8g. Creating a definition for a catering land use, establishing which zoning districts to permit a catering business, and determining a parking requirement for a catering operation. Recommended Action: Motion to recommend adoption of first reading of the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments and to set second reading for May 15, 2000 Background: During the past couple of months, the city has had numerous questions regarding where and how a catering facility could be located and operated within the City. The current Zoning Ordinance does not separately list or define a catering land use. A determination was needed in order to establish where and how this type of land use would be permitted. After review, staff determined that a manufacturing or processing facility was the closest related land use to a catering operation. The factors in this determination were truck traffic, noise, odor, and refuse handling as well as the overall definition of the production of a physical commodity or changing the form of a raw ingredient. Another consideration was the fact that catering businesses do not usually involve direct customer contact at the place of business, unless it is accessory to another use (e.g. food service, restaurant, bakery etc.). Since more of these businesses are starting up or relocating within the City, staff believes that the land use should have a separate definition, separate standards for where and how it should be operated, and separate parking requirements. Staff also believes that the food service definition should be clarified to better distinguish it from catering. Previous Action: At the March 22, 2000 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission recommended approval of the proposed ordinance amendments pertaining to catering. This was the second meeting where the Planning Commission heard the proposed amendments. At the first meeting on February 16, 2000, the Planning Commission requested that staff bring the amendments back to them with the actual proposed language. When the proposed language was presented to the Planning Commission, there were some Commissioners who had concerns as to where this type of business can or should be located. Some of the Commissioners thought that a straight catering operation should also be permitted as a principal land use in the General Commercial (C-2) District. Staff explained to the Planning Commission the rational behind permitting a catering operation as an accessory land use versus a principal one in the C-2 District. This included limited public contact and the large amount of truck traffic for deliveries. After some discussion, 74 the Planning Commission, on a vote of 4-1, recommended approval of the proposed ordinance amendments. Issues: • How to define a catering business? • What districts should a catering business be located in and how should they be permitted? • What should the parking requirements be for a catering operation? • How to better define food service to distinguish it from a catering business? Analysis of Issues: How to define a catering business? As mentioned above, currently, a catering business has been defined as a manufacturing and processing facility. Even though some of the characteristics and the principal definition are similar, staff believes that a catering business should be examined more closely and be separate from the manufacturing use. Staff would propose the following language for a catering land use definition: “Catering – An operation where food is either fully or partially prepared on site and delivered to the customer off site for final preparation and consumption. Characteristics include truck traffic, refuse storage issues, limited on-site public contact, and possible odors from materials and processing.” What districts should a catering business be located in and how should they be permitted? In determining where a catering business should be located, staff considered that the operation is often affiliated with a restaurant business since the cooking facilities are already provided and is most closely defined as a manufacturing business as previously explained. Staff reviewed all the districts where these two land uses are permitted and concluded that in the commercial areas, including the Mixed Use District, a catering operation should be permitted as an accessory use, and in the Industrial areas, a catering business should be permitted as a principal land use. Therefore in the C-1, C-2, and M-X Use Districts, staff is recommending that a catering business only be permitted as an accessory use to a restaurant, food service delicatessen, grocery store, or retail bakery. This would preserve the commercial districts for mainly customer-oriented businesses but allow for some catering to occur in conjunction with commercial uses. In the I-P District, a catering operation would be permitted with conditions as a principal land use. These conditions would be similar to the ones listed for a manufacturing facility in the same district. In the I-G District, a catering business would be a permitted use as a principal land use. This is consistent with the manufacturing land use in this district. 75 Therefore, staff would propose the following ordinance amendments to the following Sections of the Zoning Ordinance. Section 14:5-5.2(E) – [Accessory Use in the C-1, Neighborhood Commercial District] 6. Catering if accessory to a restaurant, food service, delicatessen, grocery store, or retail bakery. Section 14:5-5.3(F) - [Accessory Use in the C-2, General Commercial District] 9. Catering if accessory to a restaurant, food service, delicatessen, grocery store, or retail bakery. Section 14:5-7.2(C) – [Uses permitted with conditions in the I-P, Industrial Park District] 10. Catering Conditions: a. All outdoor activities such as loading and unloading shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from any property in an “R” Use District and where possible shall be located on the side of the building farthest from an “R” Use District. b. The facility shall provide a Bufferyard “F” along all abutting property in the “R”, “O”, or “C-1” Use Districts. c. The applicant must sign a statement acknowledging and agreeing to abide with all of the applicable performance standards and other regulations of this Ordinance. Section 14:5-7.3(B) – [Uses permitted in the I-G, General Industrial District] 14. Catering Section 14:5-8(E) – [Accessory uses in the M-X, Mixed Use District] 10. Catering if accessory to a restaurant, food service, delicatessen, grocery store, or retail bakery. What should the parking requirements be for a catering operation? Since public interaction is limited with a catering operation, staff does not believe that the parking requirement for this type of business should be as high as a restaurant or retail facility. Staff would propose that a catering operation have to provide one parking stall for every 500 square feet of floor area. This is similar to the parking requirements for a manufacturing facility. 76 Staff believes that this will provide adequate parking for employees and any potential customers. The catering parking would be in addition to the requirement for the principal use except if space were shared. Therefore, staff would propose the following ordinance amendment: Section 14:6-1.3(A) 28. Catering. One (1) parking stall for each five hundred (500) square feet of floor area. Existing 28 through 49 will be re-numbers as 29 through 50. How to better define food service to distinguish it from a catering business? To better differentiate between a food service and catering land use, staff proposes the following modification to the definition of food service: Section 14:5-3.2(D)(11) – [Land Use Definitions] “The on-site sale of food and beverages which are prepared and served in individual portions in a ready to consume state for consumption either on-site or off-site; including seating for not more than ten persons. Characteristics may include truck and vehicle traffic, cooking odors and refuse. The preferred location is on major thoroughfares with no access to local residential streets. This use is often found in conjunction with motor fuel stations and grocery stores. Attachment: Proposed Ordinance Prepared by: Scott Moore, Assistant Zoning Administrator, 924-2592 Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 77 ORDINANCE NO.______ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING BY AMENDING SECTIONS 14:5-3.2(D), 14:5-5.2(E). 14:5-5.3(F), 14:5-7.2(C), 14:5-7.3(B), 14:5-8(E), 14:6-1.3(A) 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. 00-09-ZA) Sec. 2. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Sections 14:5-3.2(D), 14:5-5.2(E). 14:5- 5.3(F), 14:5-7.2 (C), 14:5-7.3(B), 14:5-8(E), 14:6-1.3(A) are hereby amended to read as follows: Section 14:5-3.2(D)(11) – [Land Use Definitions] FOOD SERVICE - The on-site sale of food and beverages which are prepared and served in individual portions in a ready to consume state for consumption either on-site or off- site; including seating for not more than ten persons. Characteristics may include truck and vehicle traffic, cooking odors and refuse. The preferred location is on major thoroughfares with no access to local residential streets. This use is often found in conjunction with motor fuel stations and grocery stores. Section 14:5-5.2(E) – [Accessory Use in the C-1, Neighborhood Commercial District] 6. Catering if accessory to a restaurant, food service, delicatessen, grocery store, or retail bakery. Section 14:5-5.3(F) - [Accessory Use in the C-2, General Commercial District] 9. Catering if accessory to a restaurant, food service, delicatessen, grocery store, or retail bakery. Section 14:5-7.2(C) – [Uses permitted with conditions in the I-P, Industrial Park District] 11. Catering Conditions: d. All outdoor activities such as loading and unloading shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from any property in an “R” Use District and where possible shall be located on the side of the building farthest from an “R” Use District. 78 e. The facility shall provide a Bufferyard “F” along all abutting property in the “R”, “O”, or “C-1” Use Districts. f. The applicant must sign a statement acknowledging and agreeing to abide with all of the applicable performance standards and other regulations of this Ordinance. Section 14:5-7.3(B) – [Uses permitted in the I-G, General Industrial District] 14. Catering Section 14:5-8(E) – [Accessory uses in the M-X, Mixed Use District] 10. Catering if accessory to a restaurant, food service, delicatessen, grocery store, or retail bakery. Section 14:6-1.3(A) 28. Catering. One (1) parking stall for each five hundred (500) square feet of floor area. Existing 28 through 49 will be re-numbers as 29 through 50. Sec. 3. The contents of Planning Case File 00-09-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 May 15, 2000 Reviewed for Administration City Manager Mayor Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution: City Clerk City Attorney 00-09-ZA-N/res/ord 79 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 8h Meeting of May 1, 2000 8h. Second Reading of an ordinance authorizing the Sale of City Property Located at 3554 Louisiana Avenue to MSP SLP Apartments, LLC related to the construction of 200 apartment units on the Mill City site. This report considers action by the City Council to adopt second reading of an ordinance that would authorize the sale of certain City-owned property located at 3554 Louisiana Avenue. Recommended Action: Motion to adopt the second reading of an ordinance that authorizes the sale of a City-owned property located at 3554 Louisiana Avenue to MSP SLP Apartments, LLC and to authorize the publication of summary ordinance. Background MSP Real Estate is proposing to construct 200 market rate apartment units on the Mill City Plywood site. The project would consist of two four-story buildings (100 units each) plus a level of parking. The Mill City project has been through the TIF and planning approval process. The Planning Commission Reviewed the Tax Increment Financing Plan on March 1, 2000 and 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. At the April 3, 2000 City Council meeting the final PUD and Plat was approved. The Council also approved the Development Agreement at this meeting. The public hearing on the land sale was held at the April 17, 2000 Council meeting and first reading of the land sale ordinance was approved that same evening. The project as approved is based on plans that included the City parcel. This was necessary in order for MSP to meet the planning, zoning, and flood storage requirements for the 200 unit apartment project. Therefore MSP is requesting that it be able to purchase the subject parcel from the City. Terms of the Sale Section 3.2 of the Development Agreement that was approved at the April 3, 2000 Council meeting contains the provision for conveyance of the City parcel to MSP SLP Apartments, LLC. The terms laid out in the agreement are as follows. • The agreed upon purchase price is $100,000. This is based on the sale of approximately 37,000 square feet (.85 acre) at $2.70/sq. ft. 80 • The City will deliver a quit claim deed upon the redeveloper satisfying a number of requirements including: • MSP has acquired the Mill City parcel. • MSP has obtained financing for the Mill City apartment project. • MSP has received approval of its construction plans. • There is no uncured default under the development agreement. Other usual and customary language is included in the Development Agreement to protect the City. Attachments • Ordinance • Summary Ordinance Prepared by: Tom Kleve, Economic Development Coordinator Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 81 ORDINANCE NO. _________ CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING SALE OF CITY PROPERTY TO MSP SLP APARTMENTS, LLC THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN: SECTION 1. The sale of .85 acres of property at 3554 Louisiana Avenue by the City to MSP SLP Apartments, LLC for a total sale price of $100,000 is hereby authorized. The property is located at the southwest corner of Walker and Louisiana Streets on the north side of the Mill City Plywood site and is legally described as follows: See Attached Schedule A The sale shall occur in accordance with the terms of a Redevelopment Agreement executed by Buyer dated April 3, 2000 on file with the City Clerk. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall be effective fifteen (15) days after its passage and publication. Adopted by the City Council _______________ Reviewed for Administration City Manager Mayor Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution: City Clerk City Attorney 82 SUMMARY ORDINANCE NO. _________ CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING SALE OF CITY PROPERTY TO MSP SLP APARTMENTS, LLC This ordinance states that property owned by the City located at the southwest corner of Walker and Louisiana Streets on the north side of the Mill City Plywood (3554 Louisiana Avenue) site shall be sold to MSP SLP Apartments LLC This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication. Adopted by the City Council May 1, 2000 Jeffrey W. Jacobs /s/ Mayor A copy of the full text of this ordinance is available for inspection with the City Clerk. Published in St. Louis Park Sailor: May 10, 2000 1688-sum 83 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 8i* Meeting of May 1, 2000 *8i. MSP Real Estate Development Contract Amendment This report considers approving a change to the terms of the original development contract with MSP Real Estate increasing the amount of TIF assistance to an amount up to $3,531,853 not exceeding 20 years for the Mill City Apartment project. Recommended Action: Motion to approve the First Amendment to Contract for Private Redevelopment between the St. Louis Park EDA, the City of St. Louis Park and MSP SLP Apartments, LLC increasing the maximum amount of TIF to $3,531,853 for the Mill City Apartment project. Background: MSP Real Estate is proposing to construct 200 market rate apartment units on the Mill City 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. At the April 3, 2000 EDA/Council meetings MSP received approval of the Contract for Private Redevelopment outlining the terms of EDA/City participation in the Mill City Apartments project. That same evening the City Council approved the Final PUD and Plat for the project. At its April 17, 2000 meeting, the Council approved first reading of an ordinance authorizing the sale of a city parcel necessary for the Mill City project to meet its flood storage and site planning requirements. At the April 24, 2000 study session the EDA/Council directed staff to proceed with changes to the development agreement increasing the maximum amount of TIF from $3,242,377 for up to 17 years to $3,531,853 for up to 20 years. The EDA/Council also directed staff to proceed with a closing on the Mill City parcel using the DTED and Met Council grant funds. Attachments: • First Amendment to Contract for Private Redevelopment Prepared by: Tom Kleve, Economic Development Coordinator Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 84 FIRST AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made as of the _____ day of __________, 2000, by and between the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (the “Authority”), a public body corporate and politic under the laws of Minnesota, the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, a Minnesota municipal corporation (the “City”) and MSP SLP Apartments, LLC (the “Redeveloper”), a Minnesota limited liability company. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Authority, the City and the Redeveloper entered into that certain Contract for Private Redevelopment dated as of April 3, 2000 (the “Contract”), describing the parties’ respective responsibilities in connection development of certain property in the City, defined in the Contract as the Redevelopment Property; and WHEREAS, in the parties have determined to modify certain terms of the Contract as described herein; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual obligations of the parties hereto, each of them does hereby covenant and agree with the other as follows: 1. Notwithstanding anything to the Contrary in Section 3.7 of the Contract, the maximum principal amount of the Note will be $3,531,853, and the Final Maturity Date (as defined in the Note) will be February 1, 2022 except to the extent extended to February 1, 2023 as described in the Note. The authorizing resolution approved by the Authority upon approval of this Amendment supersedes in all respects Schedule C of the Contract and Resolution No. ____ approved by the Authority on April 3, 2000. All other terms of Section 3.7 remain in effect. 2. Schedule B of the Contract is amended to read as shown in Schedule B attached hereto. 3. The Contract remains in full force and effect and is not modified except as expressly provided herein. 85 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be duly executed by their duly authorized representatives as of the date first above written. ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY By Its President By Its Executive Director STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of _________, 2000 by Robert Young and Charlie Meyer the President and Executive Director of the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority, on behalf of the Authority. 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 ___________, 1999 by Jeff Jacobs and Charles Meyer, the Mayor and City Manager of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, on behalf of the City. Notary Public 86 MSP SLP APARTMENTS, LLC By _______________________________________ Its STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF __________ ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of ________, ____, by _________________________, the _________________ of MSP SLP Apartments, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, on behalf of the limited liability company. Notary Public 87 SCHEDULE B PUBLIC REDEVELOPMENT COSTS Total Grant Eligible Costs Other Costs (TIF & DTED/MET ) (DTED/MET ) (TIF) 1 Land Acquisition $850,000 $850,000 $0 2 Demolition 150,000 0 150,000 3 Hazardous Soil Removal-Environmental Phase I 5,000 Site Investigation 56,000 RAP 15,000 Soil Cleanup 422,750 Groundwater Cleanup 18,000 Remed. Oversight/Approval 18,500 Bldg. Vapor Control 266,250 Env. Monitor & Doc. 90,000 Abandon Site & Monitor Well 3,000 Category 3 total: 894,500 894,500 0 4 Parking – Covered ($10,400/Stall x 200) 2,380,000 0 2,380,000 5 Parking – Surface Lots and Roads 200,000 0 200,000 6 Utilities + Site Lighting 220,000 0 220,000 7 Sidewalks, Trail, Tree Replacement (1) 125,000 0 125,000 8 City Off-Site Costs: stop light, turn lane(2) 225,000 0 225,000 9 Landscaping & Retaining Walls 200,000 0 200,000 10 Unusual site conditions for construction due to environmental issues 50,000 0 50,000 TOTALS $5,294,500 $1,744,500 $3,550,000 1. Tree replacement will be accomplished in part by Redeveloper on-site, and in part by the City off-site but paid by a Redeveloper deposit under Section 4 of the Planning Development Contract. The portion deposited with the City will be eligible for a Principle Advance Certificate under the Note as of the date of the deposit. 2. City Off-Site Costs will be undertaken by the City and paid for by the Redeveloper from the escrow established for that purpose under Section 5 of the Planning Development Contract. These costs will be eligible for a Principle Advance Certificate under the Note as of the date the costs are incurred by the City. 88 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 8j* Meeting of May 1, 2000 *8j. City of St. Louis Park’s Representation on the Board of Managers of Project for Pride in Living’s Louisiana Court Limited Liability Company. This report considers adoption of a Resolution to designate the City’s representative to Project for Pride in Living’s (PPL) Louisiana Court’s Limited Liability Company (LLC) Board of Managers. Recommended Action: Motion to adopt a Resolution designating Council Member Ron Latz as the City of St. Louis Park’s representative to the Board of Managers of Project for Pride in Living’s Louisiana Court Limited Liability Company.. Background: At the City Council Study Session on April 10, 2000 the Council selected Council Member Ron Latz to serve as the City’s representative to PPL’s LLC Board of Managers. Council Member Latz responded that he would serve on the Board of Managers. Due to the nature of agreements and contracts that PPL LLC’s Board of Managers will be authorizing, PPL has requested a formal resolution of the City’s designation. Attachments: Resolution Prepared by: Kathy Larsen, Housing Programs Coordinator Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 89 RESOLUTION NO. ____ RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK’S REPRESENTATIVE TO PROJECT FOR PRIDE IN LIVING’S LOUISIANA COURT LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY’S BOARD OF MANAGERS WHEREAS, The City of St. Louis Park, the St. Louis Park Housing Authority, and Project for Pride in Living are undertaking the redevelopment of the Louisiana Court project. WHEREAS, As stated in the executed Private Redevelopment Contract between and among the City of St. Louis Park, the St. Louis Park Housing Authority and Project of Pride in Living’s (PPL) Louisiana Court Limited Liability Company (LLC), the City is to select a representative to the LLC’s Board of Managers. WHEREAS, The City wishes to participate fully with a member of the City council designated to serve as that representative. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT: The City Council officially designates Council Member Ron Latz as representative of the City of St. Louis Park to the Board of Managers of the Project for Pride in Living’s Louisiana Court Limited Liability Company. LET IT FURTHER BE RESOLVED THAT: Councilmember Latz will be performing his duties as a member of the Board on behalf of the City of St. Louis Park and will be acting in that capacity as a St. Louis Park Councilmember. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council May 1, 2000 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk 90 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 8k* Meeting of May 1, 2000 *8k. City Engineer’s Report: Entrance/identity signs at Park Place Boulevard and the South Frontage Road of I-394 - Project No. 98-16 This report considers the construction of entrance/identity signs at Park Place Boulevard and the South Frontage Road of I-394 Recommended Action: Motion to adopt the attached resolution accepting this report, establishing Project No. 98-16, ordering Project No. 98-16, approving plans and specifications, and authorizing receipt of bids. Background: In 1995 the City constructed the first entrance/identity sign at the northeast corner of Trunk Highway 100 and Excelsior Boulevard. In 1996 a second entrance/identity sign was constructed at Trunk Highway 7 and Minnetonka Boulevard. These two (2) signs were part of a larger plan to construct entrance/identity signs at the major entrances to the City. The Excelsior Boulevard Streetscape project from France Avenue to Monterey Avenue included a sign on the south side of Excelsior Boulevard at France Avenue. The 2000 Capital Improvement Program includes the construction of one (1) sign being proposed herein. Two (2) final signs after this one will complete this City program, one (1) at Cedar Lake Road and Trunk Highway 169 (year 2001) and one (1) on Excelsior Boulevard at Meadowbrook Road (year 2002, or later depending on streetscaping this segment). Design Considerations: The City contracted with Hosington Koegler Group, Inc. to design the signs and landscaping which will be the same design as the earlier signs. The sign will have landscaping in front to accentuate the entrance-gateway feature of the sign. The sign includes low level landscaping and a front floodlight source the same as the other signs. The construction cost for the sign is approximately $30,000. Financial Considerations: The estimated cost for the sign is $35,000. Funding for the entrance/identity sign is proposed from the Economic Development Fund. Following is a summary of the estimated costs and revenue sources: Estimated Costs: Construction $ 30,000 Contingencies (10%) 3,000 Subtotal $ 33,000 Consultant Fees $ 2,000 TOTAL $ 35,000 91 Revenue Sources 2000 Economic Development Funds $ 35,000 Should the City Council approve the City Engineer’s Report, it is anticipated the following construction timetable could be met: • City Engineer’s Report to City Council May 1, 2000 • Ad for Bids May • Bid Opening June • Bid Award June • Construction June/July Feasibility: The project, as proposed herein, is necessary, cost effective, and feasible under the conditions noted and at the costs estimated. Attachments: Resolution Plans Photo (Color) Prepared by: Carlton Moore/Michael P. Rardin, Public Works Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 92 RESOLUTION NO. __________ RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE CITY ENGINEER’S REPORT, ESTABLISHING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 98-16, ORDERING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 98-16, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR IMPROVEMENT NO. 98-16 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the City Engineer related to the installation of an entrance/identity sign at Park Place Boulevard and the South Frontage Road of I-394. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that: 1. The City Engineer’s Report regarding the installation of a entrance/identity sign at Park Place Boulevard and the South Frontage Road of I-394 Project No. 98-16 is hereby accepted. 2. The proposed project, designated as Project No. 98-16 is hereby established. 3. Project No. 98-16 is hereby ordered. 4. The plans and specifications for the making of the improvement as prepared under the direction of the Director of Public Works are approved. 5. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted at least two weeks in the official newspaper and in the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids for the making of said improvement under said approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall appear not less than twenty one (21) days prior to the date and time bids will be received by the City Clerk, and that no bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the City Clerk and accompanied by a cashier’s check, bid bond, or certified check payable to the City for five (5) percent of the amount of the bid. 6. The bids shall be tabulated by the Director of Public Works who shall report his tabulation and recommendation to the City Council. Attest: Adopted by the City Council May 1, 2000 City Clerk Mayor Reviewed for Administration: City M anager 93 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 8l* Meeting of May 1, 2000 *8l. Consideration of a resolution denying the applicant’s request for a height variance and granting a modified variance to permit an accessory building two feet from a side lot line with a maximum height of 16 feet instead of the permitted 12 feet for property located at 4312 Coolidge Avenue. Recommended Action: Motion to adopt a resolution denying the applicant’s request for a variance and granting a variance from section 14:5-4.1(c)(7)(d) and (f) of the ordinance code relating to zoning, to permit an accessory building located within two feet of a side lot line with a maximum height of 16 feet 0 inches instead of the permitted 12 feet for property located in the r-2, single family district at 4312 Coolidge Avenue. Background: Michael Christianson applied for a variance to permit an accessory building two feet from a side lot line with a height of 18 feet 7 inches instead of the maximum 12 feet. The Board of Zoning Appeals held a public hearing for the request on March 23, 2000. After testimony was heard, the BOZA denied the applicant’s request on a vote of 3-1. The applicant appealed this decision to the City Council. The Council reviewed the case at its April 17, 2000 meeting and directed staff to prepare a resolution denying the applicant’s request but approving a modified variance permitting an accessory building with a height of 16 feet instead of the requested 18 feet 7 inches. Recommendation: • The City Council, by motion, adopt the attached resolution approving a modified variance request. Attachments: Proposed Resolution Prepared by: Scott Moore, Assistant Zoning Administrator, 924-2592 Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 94 VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. ____ A RESOLUTION DENYING THE APPLICANT’S REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE AND GRANTING A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 14:5-4.1(C)(7)(d) AND (f) OF THE ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING TO PERMIT AN ACCESSORY BUILDING LOCATED WITHIN TWO FEET OF A SIDE LOT LINE WITH A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 16 FEET 0 INCHES INSTEAD OF THE PERMITTED 12 FEET FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE R-2, SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT AT 4312 COOLIDGE AVENUE BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of St. Louis Park, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. Michael Christianson has applied for a variance from Section 14:5-4.1(C)(7)(d) and (f) of the Ordinance Code relating to zoning to permit an accessory building located within two feet of a side lot line with a height of 18 feet 7 inches, measured to the north gable end (17 feet when measured to the east gable end) instead of the maximum 12 feet for property located in the “R-2” Single Family District at the following location, to-wit: Lot 4, Block 2, Rearrangement of Blocks in Browndale Park 2. The Board of Zoning Appeals held a public hearing, received testimony from the public, discussed the application for the variance (Case Number 8-99-VAR) and upon finding that the request did not satisfy the Ordinance necessary for granting a variance, adopted a resolution of denial on March 23, 2000 on a vote of 3-1. 3. On March 31, 2000, the applicant, Michael Christianson, filed an appeal of this decision to the City Council. 4. On April 17, 2000, the City Council considered the appeal of Michael Christianson from the decision to the Board of Zoning Appeals. 5. The City Council hereby adopts as its findings the analysis of staff contained in the staff report relating to the seven criteria. 6. The contents of Planning Case File 8-99-VAR are hereby entered into and made part of the public record and the record of decision of this case. 7. The following conditions and safeguards are necessary in order to insure that there are no unreasonable adverse consequences to the granting of the amended variance. a. The garage shall be modified to conform to a maximum 16-foot height within six (6) months. 95 b. The design of the garage shall comply with the original approved plans for a 9:12 sloped roof with matching east, north, and south gable ends, and a dormer on the west side with a sloped shed style roof. CONCLUSIONS 1. The applicant’s request is denied. 2. An amended variance to permit an accessory building with a maximum height of 16 feet as measured from the east gable end is granted based upon the finding and subject to the conditions set forth above. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council May 1, 2000 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk 96 Item # 9a* City of St. Louis Park Human Rights Commission Meeting Minutes - March 15, 2000 First Floor Community Room - City Hall ______________________________________________________________________________ Present Commission members: Marc Berg, Kim Fischer, Lynn Littlejohn, Betty Merritt, Kristin Siegesmund, Chris Smith and Emily Wallace-Jackson Staff: Martha McDonell, Commission Liaison, and Lynn Schwartz, Recording Secretary Call to Order Chairperson Marc Berg called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. February Minutes: Moved by Lynn Littlejohn and seconded by Kim Fischer to approve the February meeting minutes after correcting who is attributed with seconding the February agenda. Motion passed unanimously. Lynn Schwartz then explained the City policy on attaching items to meeting minutes. Miscellaneous documents should not be attached to commission minutes which are forwarded to the City Clerk’s office; instead, any documents the commission wishes to retain for historical purposes should be given to the commission’s staff liaison Martha McDonell. March Agenda: Moved by Betty Merritt and seconded by Lynn Littlejohn to approve the agenda. Motion passed unanimously. April Meeting: Martha McDonell reminded members that the April meeting date is reset to Tuesday, April 18th because Wednesday, April 19th is the beginning of Passover. Because of remodeling, the meeting will be held in a different room in City Hall; Martha asked commissioners to check next month’s agenda for the meeting room location. Old Business Meeting With City Council: Marc Berg reported that the commission’s February 28th meeting with the City Council went well, and the commission’s annual reports were well received. Commissioners noted that they understood the council’s desire for the commission to focus on educational outreach rather than advocacy. Commissioners also commented that much of the meeting’s discussion focussed on the Bias/Hate Crime Response Plan and issues concerning new immigrants. Commission members said they felt the council was supportive of the commission’s upcoming work plan and were pleased to hear that the council appeared willing to fund commission projects. Members also understood that the council would like to hear a progress report in three or four months. 2000 Work Plan: Marc Berg reported that Mort Ryweck, Minnesota League of Human Rights Commissions, reviewed the commission’s draft work plan. Ryweck said the plan was good but tries to accomplish too much. Ryweck advised limiting the work plan to two or three major 97 efforts to ensure these are accomplished. Berg mentioned that Ryweck also commented that other commissions have benefited from having both an educator and a clergy person as members. Commissioners began their review of the draft 2000 work plan by looking at the section that deals with the School District. Kristen Siegesmund said this section needs more definition and an end goal. Siegesmund would like to see more diversity programming at all grade levels. She also said the commission should get input from the schools—not tell the schools what to do. Betty Merritt added that the commission can work in partnership with the schools and still put forth a challenge to achieve diversity programming. In response to commissioners’ questions, Martha McDonell provided background on the commission’s past involvement with the School District and how the district’s strategic plan was developed. Several commissioners noted their disappointment with the strategic plan’s limited emphasis on diversity; nonetheless, commissioners felt they could take a meaningful role with the district. Members said it was time for the commission to shift from discussing the district’s plan to helping the district implement programming. Betty Merritt said that the commission can be a resource and an ‘influencer.’ The end goal should be that schools have teaching mechanisms to address diversity issues. Commissioners suggested surveying teachers, principals and school social workers to learn their views on diversity issues and find out what diversity programs are currently in use. Commissioners also would like to see the results of the district’s ethnographic study. The commission could then research what other school districts are doing so it can serve as a resource for the district as it seeks to create diversity programs. Betty Merritt suggested that the commission focus on the schools that are doing the least amount of diversity or inclusivity programming. Members agreed that the first step should be asking the school superintendent’s permission to survey individual schools. Kristen Siegesmund and Merritt offered to develop a preliminary list of survey questions for school staff after Emily Wallace-Jackson has gotten the superintendent’s permission to contact the schools. Members felt the School Board supports the commission but doesn’t have specific expectations of the commission. As the commission’s school liaison, Emily Wallace-Jackson said she could report back to the School Board on issues, recommendations and resources. Wallace-Jackson agreed to call the school superintendent to see what the district hopes the commission might accomplish on behalf of the schools. In the discussion about the community outreach portion of the work plan, Kristen Siegesmund said that education should take priority over the phone line because educational efforts can head off many of the problems the phone line aims to address. Members agreed that the phone line has a place but can’t do everything; they agreed to review the phone line’s use, purpose and effectiveness. Commissioners agreed that the effort to create awareness of the commission among students should be moved to the community outreach section of the work plan. Members also discussed setting a goal of placing at least two articles in the St. Louis Park Sun-Sailor newspaper. 98 Members also suggested developing a list of community organizations and then creating a liaison system so a commissioner could be assigned to one or more organizations. Working with other organizations might also enable to the commission to learn about community concerns and obstacles facing people in the community. Marc Berg told commissioners that Mort Ryweck also suggested that the commission try to co- sponsor community events. Lynn Littlejohn suggested that the commission could survey organizations to see what events they are planning. Other suggestions for outreach efforts involved creating posters and placing the newly revised commission brochure at the library and other public buildings. In the city government section of the work plan, commissioners said they should continue to urge the Police Department to inform victims of possible bias/hate crimes of the commission’s support and assistance. As a first step, the commission would like a Police Department representative to come to a commission meeting to clarify what the police are currently doing and how the commission can ensure the police will better follow the steps outlined in the Bias/Hate Crime Response Plan. Commissioners also want to invite either the City Manager or the Human Resources Manager to a meeting to update the commission on what the City of St. Louis Park is doing in terms of diversity, affirmative action and equal opportunity employment. They would also like to discuss how the commission can serve as a resource to City staff. One possibility might be advising the City on employee training programs on diversity topics. Marc Berg offered to revise the work plan based on commissioners’ suggestions. At the April meeting, members should be ready to commit to working on at least one project outlined in the plan. League of Women Voters’ Forum: Marc Berg reported on the League of Women Voters forum on immigrants’ experiences and the barriers—language and lack of affordable housing— that they face. New Business TwinWest Chamber of Commerce Forum: Martha McDonell reported that the commission is invited to participate in a May 9 forum on immigrants and work readiness. Emily Wallace- Jackson noted that the mayor had stated it was important for the commission to work on issues surrounding immigrants’ work readiness. Lynn Littlejohn offered to make some calls about the forum and report on whether there is a role for the commission. If the commission cannot actively participate in the forum, members suggested that the commission might offer to endorse the forum or make its brochure available. Bias/Hate Crimes Update: Martha McDonell reported that she met with Sergeant Lorin Kramer and Police Department Office Manager Joan Reamer to see what can be done to get officers to tell victims about the support available from the Human Rights Commission. McDonell said the meeting went well and the department will try to do a better job of reminding officers what procedures to follow. Officers will be asked to state in their report whether they 99 distributed information about the Human Rights Commission. If the victim is not told about the commission, then the commission will call the officer. Regional Meeting: Martha McDonell reported that the League of Minnesota Human Rights Commission’s regional meeting is March 25; anyone who wants to attend should contact McDonell. Commissioner Reports Kristen Siegesmund reported that she attended a February 23rd multi-cultural event at St. Thomas; she will bring materials to share at the April meeting. Martha McDonell said that staff report issues had already been covered in previous discussion. April Agenda Members asked Martha McDonell to invite the Human Resources or City Manager to the April meeting. Adjournment Moved by Chris Smith and seconded by Lynn Littlejohn to adjourn. Motion passed unanimously. With no further business, the commission adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lynn Schwartz, Recording Secretary 100 Item # 9b* April 21, 2000 VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT ACE SUPPLY COMPANY INC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 69.70 AIRTOUCH CELLULAR TELEPHONE 146.42 ALLIANCE MECHANICAL SERVICES I BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 212.00 AMERIPRIDE LINEN AND APPAREL S CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 200.99 ANCHOR PAPER CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,025.89 ARAMARK UNIFORM CORPORATE ACCT GENERAL SUPPLIES 711.62 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 5.00 AT&T TELEPHONE 6.58 AUTOMATIC GARAGE DOOR CO BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 359.28 BAUER BUILT TIRE & BATTERY EQUIPMENT PARTS (35.87) BCA/FORENSIC SCIENCE LABORATOR TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCH OOLS 40.00 BEARCOM RADIO COMMUNICATIONS 334.15 BEEKS PIZZA MEETING EXPENSE 75.25 BENILDE-ST. MARGARET'S SCHOOL OTHER IMPROVEMENTS 7,500.00 BOBS PERSONAL COFFEE SERVICE GENERAL SUPPLIES 233.91 BOHN WELDING COMPANY EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 207.67 BOISE MARKETING SERVICES GENERAL SUPPLIES 525.00 BONNIE GOLDFISH YOUTH RECREATION-tax exempt 15.00 BOYER FORD TRUCKS EQUIPMENT PARTS 1,584.98 BROADWAY RENTAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT (1.66) CAMPBELL KNUTSON PROFESSIONAL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,500.00 CAPITOL COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 691.36 CATCO PARTS SERVICE EQUIPMENT PARTS 845.99 COLLINS COMMUNICATIONS NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 12,306.82 CONCEPT SEATING INC GENERAL SUPPLIES (180.00) CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS GENERAL SUPPLIES (938.10) COPY EQUIPMENT GENERAL SUPPLIES 74.55 CRILEY, KATHI L TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCH OOLS 173.04 CSC CREDIT SERVICES INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 10.00 101 CURTIS 1000 INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 64.80 CYNTHIA S. DUBRAVCAK INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 DATABASE TECHNOLOGIES INC OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 71.00 DECISION RESOURCES LTD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 4,000.00 DEKO FACTORY SERVICE INC SMALL TOOLS 18.00 DLT SOLUTIONS OFFICE SUPPLIES 784.00 DOBBINS & ASSOCIATES, MARY G OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,080.00 EHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 6,402.50 ENGINEERING REPRO SYSTEMS GENERAL SUPPLIES 176.88 ENSR CONSULTING & ENGINEERING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 500.00 EVERGREEN LAND SERVICES CO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,151.33 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (15.67) FANCHER PLANNING & DESIGN INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 840.00 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP POSTAGE 47.12 FILTRATION SYSTEMS INC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 478.87 FIRE ENGINEERING SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIP S 24.95 FLANNIGAN, JANE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 25.00 FRESCO INC SMALL TOOLS 128.81 G & K SERVICES CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY 33.62 GENERAL SAFETY EQUIPMENT CORP EQUIPMENT PARTS (14.07) GRAINGER INC, W W GENERAL SUPPLIES 529.58 GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 32.10 HASLERUD, CARRIE GENERAL SUPPLIES 49.30 HAWKINS WATER TREATMENT GROUP BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 550.07 HENN CO INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY COMPUTER SERVICES 174.67 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 9,227.14 HIGHVIEW PLUMBING INC BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 695.00 HOLIDAY INN ROCHESTER SOUTH TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCH OOLS 681.65 HOME DEPOT/GECF GENERAL SUPPLIES 30.65 INACOM INFORMATION SYSTEMS COMPUTER SUPPLIES 110.02 102 IND SCHOOL DIST #283 OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,498.16 INTERNATIONAL ASSN OF FIRE CHI SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIP S 120.00 INTOXIMETERS INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 200.00 IOS CAPITAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT 264.26 IRON MOUNTAIN OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 58.00 J H LARSON COMPANY BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 81.06 JANE ELEANOR MILLER INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 KENNEDY & GRAVEN DEPOSITS PAYABLE 4,775.15 LABOR RELATIONS ASSOCIATES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 3,076.50 LAKE SUPERIOR COLLEGE TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCH OOLS 328.00 LATHROP PAINT SUPPLY CO BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 17.28 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCH OOLS 590.00 LENOX NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 175.24 LOGIS COMPUTER SERVICES 28,496.04 LONG LAKE POWER EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT PARTS 110.55 LYNDALE GARDEN CENTER OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 250.00 MACQUEEN EQUIP CO EQUIPMENT PARTS 632.47 MASTERSON PERSONNEL INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 843.75 MCPARTLAND, JANE MEETING EXPENSE 229.76 MEDSOFT CORPORATION OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 239.50 MENARDS EQUIPMENT PARTS 236.93 METRO SYSTEMS NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 62.73 MIDWEST MAILING SYSTEMS INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 40.76 MILLERBERND, DENNIS LICENSES/TAXES 89.11 MINN DEPT OF ADMINISTRATION TELEPHONE 3,440.65 MINNEGASCO HEATING GAS 18,057.64 MINNESOTA EMPLOYMENT LAW LETTE SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIP S 117.00 MINUTEMAN PRESS PRINTING & PUBLISHING 419.64 MN DEPT OF PUBLIC SAFETY CJIS RADIO COMMUNICATIONS 510.00 MN DRIVER & VEHICLE SVCS EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT CHARGE (46.00) MRPA TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCH 200.00 103 OOLS MTI DISTRIBUTING CO OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 24.73 MUNICILITE EQUIPMENT PARTS 240.95 MUNICIPAL CODE CORPORATION OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,800.00 MYERS TIRE SUPPLY COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS 174.56 NAPA AUTO PARTS EQUIPMENT PARTS 1,531.33 NORTHLAND ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 299.75 NORTHSTAR REPRO PRODUCTS INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 89.08 NSP CO ELECTRIC SERVICE 86.34 NYSTROM PUBLISHING PRINTING & PUBLISHING 2,757.00 Norwest Community Development OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,535.00 OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE SUPPLIES 359.72 OLSEN CHAIN & CABLE CO INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 9.57 OTTO PACKAGING MIDWEST LLC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES (72.00) PALMS BAKERY OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 29.75 PARTS PLUS EQUIPMENT PARTS (3.88) PHIMISTER, MEGHAN OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 15.00 POKORNY COMPANY BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 161.08 POMPS TIRE SERVICE INC TIRES 550.59 POWER SYSTEMS EQUIPMENT PARTS 202.35 PRAXAIR DISTRIBUTION INC. GENERAL SUPPLIES 71.34 PRESTIGE LINCOLN MERCURY EQUIPMENT PARTS 134.78 PRIMO DELI & PIZZERIA MEETING EXPENSE 89.41 PRINTERS SERVICE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 168.60 PRO PRODUCTS INC GENERAL SUPPLIES (92.32) PUMP & METER SERVICE BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 843.27 QUALITY HOTEL & SUITES- DOWNTOW TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCH OOLS 439.12 QUICKSILVER EXPRESS COURIER POSTAGE 851.18 QUILL CORPORATION OFFICE SUPPLIES 6.75 QUIST ART & DESIGN, GLENN OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 116.63 RC INDENTIFICATIONS GENERAL SUPPLIES 5.33 RESCUE ONE EQUIPMENT PARTS 207.68 RLK-KUUSISTO LTD ENGINEERING SERVICES 610.51 104 ROGERS ENTERPRISES INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,500.90 ROTH SUGAR BUSH GENERAL SUPPLIES 97.45 SAFETY-KLEEN CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 222.24 SAVIN CORPORATION EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 1,998.74 SCHARBER & SONS INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 38.33 SEH PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 3,367.75 SENSIBLE LAND USE COALITION TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCH OOLS 30.00 SLP CRIME PREVENTION FUND UNREALIZED REV-SAFETY CAMP 0.00 SONUS INTERIORS INC BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 1,355.00 SPS COMPANIES INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 98.63 ST LOUIS PARK TRUE VALUE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 49.87 ST PAUL NEIGHBORHOOD ENERGY CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 25.00 ST. LOUIS PARK BENEVOLENCE FUN GENERAL SUPPLIES 48.14 STANDARD SPRING OF MPLS EQUIPMENT PARTS 2,011.90 STAR TRIBUNE SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIP S 225.16 STATE OF MINNESOTA PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 47.50 STREICHER'S EQUIPMENT PARTS 545.09 SUBURBAN PROPANE MOTOR FUELS 68.69 SUBURBAN TIRE CO TIRES 320.01 SUN NEWSPAPERS LEGAL NOTICES 362.85 SWANSON & YOUNGDALE INC BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 1,333.40 TEKSYSTEMS COMPUTER SERVICES 2,240.00 THYMES TWO CATERING MEETING EXPENSE 160.70 TRIARCO ARTS & CRAFTS GENERAL SUPPLIES 53.75 TWIN CITY OXYGEN CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 4.96 U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE 4,640.15 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED GENERAL SUPPLIES 193.75 UNITED RENTALS EQUIPMENT PARTS 1,157.40 UNIVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE, TEST TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCH OOLS 20.00 UNIVERSITY OF MINN TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCH OOLS 360.00 VERMEER OF MINNESOTA EQUIPMENT PARTS 67.62 WALSER FORD EQUIPMENT PARTS (65.43) ZIEGLER INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 33.00 ZIP SORT POSTAGE 23.55 162,620.37 105 April 28, 2000 VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 3CMA SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHI PS 315.00 A & T UPHOLSTERY CO. EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 500.00 ADVANCED COATING SYSTEMS GENERAL SUPPLIES 514.15 ALBINSONS GENERAL SUPPLIES 111.71 ALTA TRIPLETT INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 ANDERSON, SCOTT MEETING EXPENSE 151.26 ANDREA KOSETTO INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 ANGELA DOCKENDORF INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 ANN'S TOOL SUPPLY GENERAL SUPPLIES 169.77 ARAMARK UNIFORM CORPORATE ACCT GENERAL SUPPLIES 735.39 ASSOC OF TRAINING OFFICERS TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SC HOOLS 700.00 AUTO GLASS SPECIALISTS INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 162.88 BATTERIES PLUS GENERAL SUPPLIES 69.21 BAUER BUILT TIRE & BATTERY EQUIPMENT PARTS (35.87) BERNDT ELECTRIC SERVICE BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 3,187.67 BOBS PERSONAL COFFEE SERVICE GENERAL SUPPLIES 115.70 BORDER STATES ELECTRIC SUPPLY GENERAL SUPPLIES 96.31 BOYER TRUCK PARTS EQUIPMENT PARTS 175.75 BRAGER INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 7,075.00 BROADWAY RENTAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT (1.66) BRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 1,057.85 CAMPBELL KNUTSON PROFESSIONAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 44.00 CAPITOL COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT PARTS 115.78 CARTRIDGE CARE GENERAL SUPPLIES 362.23 CATCO PARTS SERVICE EQUIPMENT PARTS 714.85 CATE FORD OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 44.14 CATHERINE OSLUND INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 CHARLENE FRIEDGES TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SC HOOLS 27.00 CHENEY SIGNS OFFICE SUPPLIES 12.65 CLARY BUSINESS MACHINES CO NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 1,592.18 106 COLLISYS ELECTRIC CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 155.00 COLOR TILE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 5,429.37 CONCEPT SEATING INC GENERAL SUPPLIES (180.00) CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS GENERAL SUPPLIES (938.10) CONTINENTAL SAFETY EQUIPMENT NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 5,644.44 DARTEK COMPUTER SUPPLY COMPUTER SUPPLIES 123.90 DAVID M. SMELTZER INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 DEKO FACTORY SERVICE INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 18.00 DELI DOUBLE CONCESSION SUPPLIES 289.40 DOUGLAS UPPENA INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 DREIER, LORI A TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SC HOOLS 400.00 EDTECH COMPUTER SUPPLIES 27.80 ELAN FINANCIAL SERVICES TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SC HOOLS 2,467.95 ELECTRIC MOTOR REPAIR BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 26.66 ELECTRIC PUMP WALDOR GROUP BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 242.82 EMERGENCY APPARATUS MTNCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 250.00 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (15.67) FEATHERLITE EXHIBITS GENERAL SUPPLIES 937.20 FLEXIBLE PIPE TOOL EQUIPMENT PARTS 5,047.30 FOWLER ELECTRIC COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS 15.88 GENERAL SAFETY EQUIPMENT CORP EQUIPMENT PARTS (14.07) GENERAL SPORTS CORP GENERAL SUPPLIES 3,577.85 GIWOYNA, NANCY GENERAL SUPPLIES 73.56 GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC RADIO COMMUNICATIONS 400.73 GREENMAN TECHNOLOGIES OF MN IN CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY 9.60 GROSSMAN CHEVROLET MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT 18,581.20 HODGSON, KELLIE INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 HOME DEPOT/GECF GENERAL SUPPLIES 115.82 INDEPENDENT BLACK DIRT CO LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 838.64 INTERSTATE DETROIT DIESEL EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 230.36 IOS CAPITAL EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 857.33 J H LARSON COMPANY OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 83.28 107 JEFFREY JOHNSON INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 JOHN ARSENAULT POSTAGE 93.69 JOHN M. MANDEL INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 JOLLEY, PETER A LICENSES/TAXES 29.50 JULIE A. GROENKE INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 JUSTUS LUMBER COMPANY GENERAL SUPPLIES 43.25 KIEFER, RICHARD TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SC HOOLS 91.00 KNOX LUMBER OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 131.35 LANDGREN, ROGER INSURANCE BENEFITS 206.36 LOFTUS, JANICE MEETING EXPENSE 42.01 LORRAINE ROBERTS INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 MASTERSON PERSONNEL INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 600.00 MENARDS OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 57.99 METHODIST HOSPITAL GENERAL CUSTOMERS 200.27 METROCALL TELEPHONE 7.24 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 232,904.00 MID-AMERICA BUSINESS SYSTEMS OFFICE FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT 17,574.03 MIDWEST BADGE & NOVELTY CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 64.37 MN DRIVER & VEHICLE SVCS EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT CHARGE (46.00) MTI DISTRIBUTING CO EQUIPMENT PARTS 534.56 MYRA A. SIMENSON INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 NANCY FOX INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 NAPA AUTO PARTS EQUIPMENT PARTS 452.79 NORTH HENNEPIN COMMUNITY COLLE TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SC HOOLS 119.00 OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE SUPPLIES 535.11 OTTO PACKAGING MIDWEST LLC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES (72.00) PAGE ELECTRICAL CONTRACTING IN EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 1,872.55 PALMS BAKERY MEETING EXPENSE 115.48 PAM & MARK VAN ERT INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 PARK NICOLLET CLINIC HSM PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,208.25 PARTS PLUS EQUIPMENT PARTS (3.88) PAT MCCORMICK INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 PENCO GRAPHIC SUPPLY INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 353.25 PERFORMANCE OFFICE PAPERS OFFICE SUPPLIES 103.71 PINKERTON SERVICES GROUP PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 392.16 108 PIONEER PRODUCTS INC CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY 223.82 PRAIRIE ELECTRIC ELECTRICAL 34.30 PRO PRODUCTS INC GENERAL SUPPLIES (92.32) REYNOLDS WELDING SUPPLY CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 82.77 ROBERT DOUGHERTY INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 ROBERT SHULFER INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 ROTARY CLUB OF SLP TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SC HOOLS 155.00 SCHARBER & SONS INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 78.16 SEARS SMALL TOOLS 74.54 SHANNON SPRINGSTON INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 SIEGEL DISPLAY PRODUCTS GENERAL SUPPLIES 106.73 SIGN IMAGES BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 80.99 SLP CRIME PREVENTION FUND UNREALIZED REV-SAFETY CAMP 0.00 SPS COMPANIES INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 49.40 ST CLOUD STATE UNIVERSITY TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SC HOOLS 2,508.00 STANDARD PLUMBING BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 135.98 STATE OF MINNESOTA GENERAL SUPPLIES 10.00 STATE TREASURER TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SC HOOLS 30.00 STREICHER'S EQUIPMENT PARTS 346.13 SUBURBAN FEED & SUPPLY GENERAL SUPPLIES 24.41 SUBURBAN PROPANE MOTOR FUELS 91.23 SUBURBAN TIRE CO TIRES 981.25 SUN NEWSPAPERS PRINTING & PUBLISHING 210.00 TARGET/DAYTONS GENERAL SUPPLIES 15.18 TEKSYSTEMS COMPUTER SERVICES 1,120.00 THE TAPE COMPANY GENERAL SUPPLIES 89.26 THOMAS R. HERKENHOFF INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 TRACY WHEELER OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 95.30 TRACY/TRIPP FUELS MOTOR FUELS 8,963.36 TRUE VALUE (PARK) OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 9.67 TWIN CITY SEED CO OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 926.55 TWIN WEST CHAMBER OF COMMERCE INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 88.84 TYMES TWO CATERING MEETING EXPENSE 182.00 U S WEST INTERPRISE TELEPHONE 722.09 UNIVERSITY OF MINN TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SC HOOLS 170.00 109 US FILTER DISTRIBUTION GROUP NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 7,465.77 VIKING INDUSTRIAL CENTER GENERAL SUPPLIES 128.27 VIKING OFFICE PRODUCTS COMPUTER SUPPLIES 31.91 WALSER FORD EQUIPMENT PARTS (65.43) WARNING LIGHTS GENERAL SUPPLIES 138.67 WENDY'S GARDEN OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 168.58 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE GENERAL SUPPLIES 33.87 ZIP PRINTING UNREALIZED REVENUE 20.24 ZIP SORT POSTAGE 583.65 346,812.41 April 28, 2000 VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT PARK NATIONAL BANK DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 109,662.66 STATE OF MINNESOTA PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 47.50 109,710.16 110 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 11a* Meeting of May 1, 2000 *11a. Authorization to replace dehumidification system in the west arena at the Rec Center. Recommended Action: Motion to approve replacement of the dehumidification system in the west arena at the Rec Center using 1999 General Obligation Bond proceeds. Background The purpose of a dehumidification system is to remove moisture from the air space over the ice sheet. Without the removal of this moisture, ice conditions become dangerous for skaters and the walls and ceiling of the structure deteriorate. To maintain safe ice in the summer at the Rec Center, it is essential that the dehumidification system is operating efficiently. The performance of the west arena system (the original rink) has deteriorated to a point that replacement is necessary if safe, good quality ice is to be provided this summer. The current dehumidification system in the west arena is 30 years old, outdated from a technological standpoint, and is very expensive to operate. In addition to operating inefficiencies, major components including compressors and controls need to be replaced. When the Rec Center was expanded to include the east arena, the original bid did include a new dehumidification and cooling system for the west arena. However, due to the high bid prices that were received at that time, it was decided to delay both upgrades to the west arena. At that time, staff felt that the existing system could function a couple more years. We noticed last summer, that the dehumidification system was not able to keep up during the hot days of July and August. Thus, we are at the point of having to replace the system. Staff knew it was inevitable, but not critical at the time of the Rec Center construction. It has now become critical that we replace the system in order to provide good quality ice to our users. The cooling system replacement is not critical this year and will be included in a future CIP plan for the Rec Center. At the March 27, 2000 Study Session, Council was provided with a report indicating that staff would be working with Nelson-Rudie & Associates to design a new desiccant humidification system which would replace the old system. Project Costs The design portion of the project has now been completed. The project costs consist of three components: 1. Design/engineering $ 9,000 2. Base cost system and controls $ 85,000 3. Gas heating system $ 12,000 $ 106,000 111 The gas heating system would be beneficial for the operation of the new humidification system as it would serve as a back up for the City’s boiler. If the City decides to install the gas heating system, staff would be able to operate the arena as well as keep the building warm enough to not freeze the pipes. Installing a gas heating system at the time of the dehumidification replacement would also give staff the opportunity to reduce demand on the boiler during the spring and fall which would result in energy efficiencies. Rebates A portion of the project costs will be recovered through utility rebates from Reliant Energy and Northern States Power. Exact rebate totals will not be available until a specific piece of equipment is selected but will range from $15,000 to $20,000. The formula for rebates is based on the capacity and efficiency of the new equipment. Funding The proposed funding source is the 1999 General Obligation Bond. There are sufficient dollars remaining from this bond issue and this is a qualified expenditure. When this bond was issued, a portion of the proceeds went to reimburse prior project costs and an allocation was made to current projects with the remaining proceeds to be utilized on qualified improvement projects. Given the nature of this project and the limited dollars available in the Park Improvement Fund, staff recommends use of the bond proceeds. After this project allocation there is approximately $659,000 remaining of the 1999 General Obligation Bond proceeds. Recommendation Because of the deteriorated condition of the existing dehumidification system and the high customer demand for summer ice rentals, staff recommends approval of this capital project using the funding source listed above. Prepared by: Craig Panning, Manager of Buildings and Structures Cindy S. Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation Jean McGann, Director of Finance Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 112 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 11b* Meeting of May x, 2000 *11b. Metropolitan Livable Communities Act – Local Housing Incentive Account Grant Agreement This report considers authorizing execution of a grant agreement with the Metropolitan Council to receive $353,000 for the Louisiana Court Redevelopment project. Recommended Action: Motion to authorize execution of the Livable Communities Act Local Housing Incentive Account (LHIA) Grant Agreement by the Mayor and City Manager. Background: Project for Pride in Living submitted a super Request for Proposal to the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency to assist with funding the Louisiana Court Redevelopment project. The super RFP channels funds from the Metropolitan Council’s Local Housing Incentive Account, the Family Housing Fund and the MHFA. Generally the Met Council awards grants to municipalities, not non-profits. Therefore this portion of the super RFP is being granted directly to the City to assist PPL with the Louisiana Court Redevelopment project. Mr. Tom Scott, the City’s counsel has reviewed and approved the contract for execution. The project will demonstrate the transformation of Louisiana Court into a lively desirable stable rental neighborhood serving many ages, incomes and family types and will be developed by Project for Pride in Living. The LHIA grant will be used to assist PPL with acquisition costs. Attachments: Metropolitan Livable Communities Act – Local Housing Incentives Account Grant Agreement Prepared by: Kathy Larsen, Housing Programs Coordinator Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager