Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000/06/19 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Regular 1 AGENDA - CITY COUNCIL MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA June 19, 2000 7:30 p.m. 7:25 p.m. - Economic Development Authority 1. Call to order 2. Presentation 3. Roll Call 4. Approval of Minutes a. City Council Minutes of June 15, 2000 Action: Corrections/amendments to minutes - Minutes approved as presented b. Study Session Minutes of May 22, 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 Action: By consent, waive reading of resolutions and ordinances 6. Public Hearing 6a. Proposed Citywide Sidewalk and Trail Systems 2 This report provides the history, details, and issues associated with the proposed citywide Sidewalk and Trail Systems. Recommended Action: Conduct the hearing and defer action on this proposal to July 5, 2000 in order to consider resident input received June 15 and June 19. 7. Petitions, Requests, Communications None 8. Resolutions and Ordinances *8a. CASE NO. 00-22-Z - Zoning Ordinance Map Amendments For Comprehensive Plan Consistency Second Reading of Zoning Ordinance Map Amendments to change designations for the Properties located at the SW Quadrant of Wooddale and Highway 7 east of Brunswick Avenue from IP-Industrial Park to MX-Mixed Use. Recommended Action: Approve second reading of Zoning Ordinance Map Amendments for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, adopt Ordinance, approve summary, and authorize summary publication. *8b. Request by CSM Corporation and Rottlund Companies for final plat and PUD approval for Point West Commons One and Two to develop a 127-unit and 106 unit hotel, 84 townhouse units and a one acre 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 final plat and final PUD for Pointe West Commons One and Two, subject to conditions in the resolution. *8c. CASE NO. 00-17-ZA - Zoning Ordinance Amendments proposed by Joshua E. Aaron of Park Land Company and staff First reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment to modify Section 14:5-6.Z.E.1(d) to amend the Office District regulations pertaining to residential uses to increase the percentage of residential uses within a development, restrict residential uses in first two stories, and allow upper stories of a building to be 100% residential. Recommended Action: Approve first reading of Zoning Ordinance text amendment to Section 14:5-6.2.E.1, and set second reading for July 5, 2000. *8d. Request by Novartis Nutrition Corporation for street vacation of a portion of Stephens Drive (second reading) 3 5320 W. 23rd Street Case No. 00-26-VAC Recommended Action: Motion to approve second reading of an ordinance vacating a portion of Stephens Drive, subject to conditions in the ordinance. *8e. Resolution Recognizing Ronald Iverson for his years of service to the St. Louis Park Police Department Recommended Action: Motion to adopt the resolution 9. Reports from Officers, Boards, Committees *a. Financial Report – May 2000 *b. Housing Authority Minutes of May 10, 2000 *c. Housing Authority Minutes of May 30, 2000 *d. Planning Commission Minutes of May 17, 2000 *e. Charter Commission Minutes of May 10, 2000 *f. Vendor Claims Action: By consent, accept reports for filing 10. Unfinished Business 11. New Business *11a Bid Tabulation: Pumper Fire Apparatus for Rescue/Fire Suppression This report considers the purchase of one (1) Pumper (1250 gpm) Fire Apparatus for Rescue/Fire Suppression for the Fire Department. Recommended Action: Motion to designate Central States Fire Apparatus, LLC as the lowest responsible bidder for one (1) Pumper (1250 gpm) Fire Apparatus for Rescue/Fire Suppression and to authorize execution of a purchase agreement with Central States Fire Apparatus, LLC in the amount of $190,359.00 12. Miscellaneous 13. Claims, Appropriations, Contract Payments 14. Communications 15. Adjournment 4 Item 4a UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA June 5, 2000 1. Call to Order Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. 2. Presentations a. Recognition for Marjean Ruddle Mayor Jacobs presented a plaque to Marjean Ruddle in recognition of her 19 year of dedicated service to the City of St. Louis Park. 3. Roll Call The following Councilmembers were present at roll call: Jim Brimeyer, Ron Latz, Chris Nelson, Sue Sanger, Sue Santa, Robert Young, and Mayor Jeff Jacobs. Also present were the City Manager (Mr. Meyer); City Attorney (Mr. Scott); Planning Manager (Ms. Jeremiah); Director of Community Development (Ms. Erickson); and Recording Secretary (Ms. Olson). 4. Approval of Minutes a. City Council Minutes of May 15, 2000 The minutes were approved as presented with the following corrections: Page 7, Item 8c, Paragraph 1, change “Three (3) land section” to “Three (3) lane section”. Page 9, Item 8e, Paragraph 6, change to “looking at the question of if the City needs another lift station”. Page 6, Item 6a, Paragraph 10, change to “Councilmember Santa asked where the Money Centers would be located”. b. Study Session Minutes of May 8, 2000 The minutes were approved as presented with the following correction: 5 Page 13, Item 1, Paragraph 4, changed to “Councilmember Latz requested to know the reasons behind . . .” 5. Approval of Agendas a. Consent Agenda. It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to approve the consent agenda. The motion passed 7-0. b. Agenda It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to approve the agenda with the addition of item 10a. The motion passed 7-0. c. Resolutions and Ordinances By consent, Council waived reading of resolutions and ordinances. 6. Public Hearings - None 7. Petitions, Requests, Communications - None 8. Resolutions and Ordinances 8a. Request by Novartis Nutrition Corporation for Preliminary and Final Plat for Novartis Addition, Amendment to Special Permit, and street vacation of a portion of West 24th Street. 5320 W. 23rd Street. Case Nos. 00-24-S, 00- 23-CUP, and 00-26-VAC Judie Erickson, Planning Coordinator, presented a staff report and recommended approval of the Preliminary and Final Plat, Special Permit Amendment, and street vacation of a portion of W. 24th Street, subject to the conditions in the resolutions/ordinance. Councilmember Nelson asked if new lots were being created. Ms. Erickson stated that the whole area will be one single lot, and noted that the diagram was showing the existing condition of lots. Councilmember Nelson asked if there was any future plans for a Novartis expansion. Ms. Erickson indicated that she believed Novartis may have future plans to do building expansions on the lot. Councilmember Nelson was concerned that if Novartis sold the land a land locked parcel would be created. 6 Ms. Erickson stated that this would not be a land locked parcel, but there would be one large parcel with access from Utica Avenue. She stated that Novartis would have to subdivide it in order to sell it, and in order to subdivide it they would also have to create access. Councilmember Sanger asked for an update on Novartis’ efforts to control the dust emissions that occasionally fall on the Birchwood neighborhood. Ms. Jeremiah stated that the Inspections Department has been working with Novartis and there have been some improvements. John Nelson of Novartis stated that Novartis is currently working to correct the problem. It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer, to adopt a resolution approving preliminary and final plat for Novartis Addition, subject to conditions in the resolution, to adopt a resolution approving Special Permit Amendment, subject to conditions in the resolution, to approve first reading of an ordinance vacating a portion of West 24th Street, subject to conditions in the ordinance. The motion passed 7-0. 8b. CASE NO. 00-17-ZA - Zoning Ordinance Amendments proposed by Joshua E. Aaron of Park Land Company Judie Erickson, Planning Coordinator presented a staff report and recommended approval. Councilmember Sanger raised the question if some of the same purposes could be accomplished by doing mixed use zoning instead of doing so much modification to the office zoning. Ms. Erickson stated that the mixed use allows a lot of retail use and staff sees this area as a prime office district. Councilmember Sanger was concerned that this may not be the most appropriate route to get to a very desirable goal of having more housing in St. Louis Park and questioned why there was the deletion of all the references to cluster housing. Ms. Erickson stated that cluster housing was not a very dense development and the office district allows heights up to 20 stories with high density. She stated that any request to complete a residential use has to be by PUD. Councilmember Sanger was concerned about the possibility of putting such a tall apartment building adjacent to a residential neighborhood and recommended that this issue come to a study session for a discussion before the Council votes. The Council discussed the definitions of the different land use districts. Steven Young, Representative for Park Land Company, reviewed his plan and stated that the goal was a two story office pad with a residential tower on top of it. 7 Councilmember Sanger asked if this property would be needed to complete the frontage road. Ms. Erickson indicated that a decision has been to modify frontage road, but indicated that it wasn’t possible to reconstruct the frontage road past Park Center Boulevard. It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Nelson, to defer this issue to a Study Session on June 12, 2000. The motion passed 6-0-1. Mayor Jacobs abstained. 8c. CASE NO. 00-22-Z - Zoning Ordinance Map Amendments For Comprehensive Plan Consistency Judie Erickson, Planning Coordinator presented a staff report and stated that amendments would bring the zoning in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Councilmember Sanger raised a concern that the City property east of CP Rail line south of Cedar Lake Road is adjacent to an area that is on study session agenda on June 12, 2000 for possible zoning changes and suggested that these areas need to be discussed together. It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to defer approval of the first reading of Zoning Ordinance Map Amendments for City property east of CP Rail line south of Cedar Lake Road to a Study Session on June 12, 2000. The motion passed 7-0. It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to approve first reading of Zoning ordinance Map Amendments for Properties on the SW quadrant of Wooddale and Highway 7, and set second reading for June 19, 2000. The motion passed 7-0. 8d. Investment Policy By consent, Council accepted investment policy revisions. 9. Reports from Officers, Boards, Committees a. Charter Commission Minutes of March 15, 2000 b. Human Rights Commission Minutes of April 18, 2000 c. Financial Report d. Planning Commission Minutes of May 3, 2000 e. Police Civil Service Commission Minutes of March 27, 2000 f. Police Civil Service Commission Minutes of May 15, 2000 g. Vendor Claims By consent, Council accepted all reports for filing. 10. Unfinished Business 10a. Board and Commission Appointments 8 It was moved by Councilmember Young, seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer to appoint Tom Powers to the Board of Zoning Appeals. The motion passed 7-0. 11. New Business - None 12. Miscellaneous - None 13. Claims, Appropriation, Contract Payments Oak Park Village: Contractor Contract No. Amount SRF Consulting Group, Inc. 24-00 $ 366.06 By consent, Council authorized payment. 14. Communications The Mayor introduced Kathy Wecker of the Parktacular Board to announced Parktacular 2000 activities. 15. Adjournment It was moved by Councilmember Brimeyer, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to adjourn the meeting at 8:30 p.m. The motion passed 7-0. Secretary President 9 Item 4b UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION Minutes of May 22, 2000 The meeting convened at 7:07 p.m. Present at the meeting were Councilmembers Jim Brimeyer, Susan Sanger, Sue Santa, Robert Young, and Mayor Jeff Jacobs. Councilmember Latz arrived at 9:45 p.m. Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Meyer), Community Development Director (Mr. Harmening), Planning and Zoning Supervisor (Ms. Jeremiah), Housing Supervisor (Ms. Schnitker), Housing Programs Coordinator (Ms. Kathy Larsen), Public Works Director (Mr. Rardin), Superintendent of Engineering (Mr. Moore), Parks and Recreation Director (Ms. Walsh), Manager of Buildings and Structures (Mr. Panning), and City Clerk (Ms. Cynthia Larsen). 1. Blackstone Neighborhood Survey Ms. Schnitker indicated that the survey for the neighborhood has been completed and they have a summary of the findings. Bill Morris of Decision Resources was present at the meeting and gave a presentation of the results of the survey. He reported it was clear that a significant number of the residents were not rooted in the neighborhood. Appearance and livability were key factors in the negative view of the neighborhood. However, the neighborhood rated very high in safety and a good place for children. He added that the traffic throughout the neighborhood is perceived as a big issue. He noted that the overall impression from the residents was one of a good degree of satisfaction. Councilmember Brimeyer asked how the neighborhood was in comparison with other neighborhoods when talking about citizens who are short-term residents. Mr. Morris replied that Blackstone neighborhood had a larger amount of short-term than most neighborhoods. Councilmember Brimeyer felt that certain questions needed to be asked and inquired how much of an investment the City and neighborhood should make into the revitalization. Mr. Harmening wondered if the City should look toward targeting the neighborhood for redevelopment or continue to promote it as a single-family neighborhood. Ms. Schnitker discussed the lifestyles of some of the residents, stating that they may buy these homes as their first homes and as their family becomes larger they may move out of the neighborhood. Councilmember Brimeyer suggested that the City find ways to give the neighborhood character and perhaps begin special programs for tree planting, lights, traffic, etc. He also suggested low interest loans for those willing to make improvements to their property. He wondered if they could overlay the zoning district and create a special district. Councilmember Sanger inquired if a home improvement district could be established and Mr. Harmening replied that it could be done. Councilmember Brimeyer stated that they should pursue all options available. Mr. Harmening felt the Council had provided them with good direction to work on innovative programs. 10 Councilmember Sanger felt that any changes should be significant enough to show an overall change in the neighborhood. Councilmember Brimeyer stated that first time buyer homes are scarce in the area and perhaps they need to be retained. Mr. Harmening replied that the neighborhood residents have expressed their feeling of insecurity about the neighborhood’s future as single-family. Ms. Larsen stated that the next step will be to meet with neighborhood residents about the survey. Mr. Harmening said he would like to bring an action plan to Council that will begin to implement Council’s ideas. 2. Woodpiles (Agenda order changed to accommodate citizen attendance) Ed and Ardyth McCaleb briefly presented their concerns regarding the house next door to theirs where an extensive amount of wood is kept on the premises. Council discussed the issue and asked staff to draft an ordinance regulating the size of woodpiles allowed in the city. 3. Sidewalks/Trails Mr. Rardin presented a map of the proposed sidewalks and trails. He discussed some of the conflicts in the guiding principles. Councilmember Young felt that any trees or mature plantings should not be moved during construction. Councilmember Santa felt comfortable with the guiding principles that were presented. Mr. Rardin stated that Council will need to approve all plans. Councilmember Sanger then asked how the public process will proceed as the projects are approved. Mr. Rardin replied that it will happen in the form of City Engineer Reports and neighborhood meetings. Council discussed a section of trail proposed as a link between Minnetonka Blvd. and Hillsboro Ave. There were concerns from the residents and also some concern regarding the public process. Councilmember Sanger expressed her desire to hold a discussion about trail snow removal in the near future. She also felt that the City should plow all city sidewalks. Councilmember Young was concerned about the cost of such an undertaking. Council directed staff to establish criteria for City plowing of the sidewalks and trails. Mr. Meyer stated that if residents are required to plow sidewalks, enforcement must be done. 4. Outdoor Pool Entrance Ms. Walsh gave a brief overview of the issue and stated that at the time of original construction an outdoor entrance to the Aquatic Center had been discussed, but was not built to help keep costs low. Since then, the Rec Center main entrance has had to accommodate many different activities and people at the same time which has lead to several problems. 11 Councilmember Young did not recall an outdoor pool entrance in the original plan. He questioned if this issue was an important need. He felt that the cost of the project was too high and other projects had higher priority and need for funding. Mr. Panning stated that the problems are not for the pool users but for others who use the Rec Center. Councilmember Sanger agreed with Councilmember Young. Councilmember Latz questioned if there is a less expensive way to solve the problem. Councilmember Brimeyer asked if it presented a problem regarding image with the community and wondered if there were traffic flow modifications that could be made. Mr. Panning stated that visitation numbers are higher than were expected. Mayor Jacobs requested staff to present alternatives for funding of the entrance if the city will do the general contracting. Councilmember Latz agreed. 5. Restrictive Easements on Private Property Mr. Moore briefly gave an overview of the staff report indicating that Council had asked staff to research options for property owners who would like to expand their homes or garages but are unable due to restrictive easements. There are currently three options available for the property owners who wish to have such work done. The options are to relocate, encase, or bridge the existing utility which are all at a different cost to the homeowner. Councilmember Sanger asked if the City would be willing to subsidize to create move-up housing. Councilmember Latz suggested using a special assessment to fund the various options. The Council felt that was acceptable. It was agreed that staff will bring the ordinance change back to Council for approval. 6. Park Commons Update Ms. Jeremiah asked for Council direction regarding potential developers for Park Commons East, the schedule and criteria for selecting a developer, and Council involvement with the developer interview process. Councilmember Sanger stated that she would prefer developers to have experience in dealing with neighborhood groups and city councils. Councilmember Brimeyer inquired if certain portions of the development will be given to other developers with experience in a specific field. Ms. Jeremiah replied that they may not have to do so if they can find a developer that has the ability to complete the development on their own. Mr. Meyer felt the project should be completed as a whole at the same time. Ms. Jeremiah asked the Council which members would like to be included in the developer interviews. Councilmember Young, Councilmember Nelson, and Mayor Jacobs volunteered. 12 7. City Council Rules of Procedure Council reviewed a draft document outlining procedures for conducting council meetings including rules of decorum, protocol for submission of items to council and use of parliamentary procedures. The document is intended to replace existing language contained in the municipal code and would be adopted by resolution. Council discussed meeting times, protocol and study session format. Staff also informed council that if changes were adopted, there would be corresponding modifications to the agenda packet prepared in advance of each meeting. Following discussion Council directed staff to make suggested changes and bring forward to a regular council meeting. 8. Communications Mr. Meyer reported that the City has been served by the Mohlers. Councilmember Brimeyer raised the issue of the development on Highway 7 and Louisiana Ave and stated that he would like the issue to be reconsidered. He said that he did not want to further delay the project. He felt Council should consider that the billboard can still be relocated if the current project goes forward and that it was difficult to get school and county cooperation on the tax abatement issue. Mr. Meyer suggested that perhaps some other means be used to encourage Frauenshuh to move forward. Mayor Jacobs agreed. Councilmember Latz would like to see a more intense development. Councilmember Young felt that this project should be left to develop as planned. 9. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. City Clerk Mayor 13 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item #6a Meeting of June 19, 2000 6a. Proposed Citywide Sidewalk and Trail Systems This report provides the history, details, and issues associated with the proposed citywide Sidewalk and Trail Systems. Recommended Action: Conduct the hearing and defer action on this proposal to July 5, 2000 in order to consider resident input received June 15 and June 19. History: During May of 1999, Council adopted the Sidewalk and Trail Master Plan in conjunction with, and as a part of, the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Council then directed staff to begin a public participation process meant to inform residents of and obtain input on the proposed citywide sidewalk and trail systems. This was done during May, June, and July of 1999. Staff received many comments during this time. Comments were summarized to Council in August at which point Council directed staff to address major concerns that had been raised by residents. Among the concerns noted were: 1. Several walks and trails seemed necessary. 2. Concern over sidewalk snow removal. 3. Concern over significant property impacts. 4. Concern over cost. 5. Some Phase II segments should be moved ahead into Phase I. 6. Concern over lack of notice and opportunity for resident input. Staff developed plan and policy alternatives during the fall and discussed these at October, November, and December Study Sessions, and then sponsored five (5) special area meetings during January and February to obtain resident input. Based on this input, staff recommended revising the May 1999 Phase I Proposal. Council accepted the revised proposal near the end of March and directed staff to sponsor a citywide review of the Revised Proposal to obtain final resident input prior to Council decision on the issue. The finale of this citywide review is an Open House on Thursday, June 15, 2000 and this public hearing. Revised Proposal: The Revised Proposal is a scaled down version of Phase I and Phase II combined. It consists of various integrated segments of sidewalk, off-road trail, on-road bikeways, and crossings. This Revised Proposal has been shown in map form to the community since April. Modifications to the earlier proposal consisted of: 1. Changing some off-road trails to bikeways. 2. Elimination of some sidewalks due to redundancy. 3. Narrowing of three (3) streets to minimize property impacts. 14 4. Relocation of several segments within neighborhoods to better meet community and neighborhood needs. The following is a summary comparison of the Phase I and Phase II Proposals to the current Revised Proposal: Element Phase I Phase II Revised Proposal Miles Cost Miles Cost Miles Cost Sidewalk 10.2 $2,017,085 -- -- 8.3 $1,662,152 Trails 2.8 $1,027,812 2.5 $ 889,076 5.4 $1,958,138 Bikeways 4.9 $182,944 27.5 $ 938,430 32.7 $1,127,562 Crossings (# of) 7 $2,286,213 20.0 $4,098,050 25 $6,668,750 Narrowed Streets -- -- -- -- -- -- N.H. Walks -- -- -- -- 2.0 $516,700 Total $5,514,054 $5,925,556 $11,933,302 Phase I + Phase II total cost of = $11,439,610 Revised Proposal total cost of = $11,933,302 Detailed sheets are attached that show revisions and corrections, which were made to the 1999 Phase I and II Proposal. During the recent review of the Revised Proposal, Council expressed concerns over various impacts residents could suffer if this Proposal was adopted and implemented. Staff was requested to develop “Guiding Principles” to be followed which would minimize resident impacts associated with these systems if constructed. These principles are attached and considered to be a part of the Revised Proposal. Recent Comments on the Revised Proposal: The following is a brief summary of the comments received up to June 13: 1. Significant discussion over the proposed trail segment along Minnehaha Creek from W. 34th Street to Hillsboro Avenue. 2. Concern over property impacts from proposed sidewalk along W. 27th Street from Birchwood Park to Webster Avenue. 3. Concern over property impacts from proposed sidewalk along Aquila Avenue from W. 36th Street to W. 33rd Street. 4. Concern over possible parking restrictions associated with bikeways on some streets. 5. Add a sidewalk segment along the west side of Wooddale Avenue south of W. 44th Street. 6. Add a sidewalk segment along the north edge of Browndale Park from Browndale Avenue to Wooddale Avenue. 7. Add a bikeway on W. 34th Street from Aquila Lane to the new “Hutchinson Spur” Regional Trail. 15 8. Add a sidewalk along W. 34th Street from Minnehaha Creek to the new “Hutchinson Spur” Regional Trail. Staff will make every effort to summarize comments received at the Open House on June 15 so as to have them available for Council review at the Public Hearing on the 19th. Issues: Due to the magnitude of this proposal, there are numerous individual issues, but most of them appear to be related to various property impacts. On a broader note, the more general issues seem to be: 1. Is a community wide sidewalk and trail system a benefit to the overall community? 2. Is the Revised Proposal inadequate, adequate, or too extensive? 3. Has everything possible been done to minimize impacts to adjacent property owners? 4. Should the City be responsible for snow removal for this proposed sidewalk system? Summary: This public hearing is the apparent culmination of the public participation and resident input process leading to Council consideration of a citywide sidewalk/trail system. Based on comments heard thus far and some additional comments expected, staff feels some changes to the Revised Proposal will need to be considered by the Council. These can be presented at the July 5 Council meeting. If Council adopts this proposal, future resident input will be necessary and will be solicited for development of construction plans associated with many of these proposed segments. For construction to begin in 2001, Council will need to adopt a proposal by early August. Attachments: Revised Proposal Revised Quantities Revised Phase I Walks Revised Phase I Trails & Bikeways Revised Phase I Crossings Guiding Principles Prepared by: Michael P. Rardin, Public Works Approved by: Clint Pires, Deputy City Manager 16 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item #8a* Meeting of June 19, 2000 *8a. CASE NO. 00-22-Z - Zoning Ordinance Map Amendments For Comprehensive Plan Consistency Second Reading of Zoning Ordinance Map Amendments to change designations for the Properties located at the SW Quadrant of Wooddale and Highway 7 east of Brunswick Avenue from IP-Industrial Park to MX-Mixed Use. Recommended Action: Approve second reading of Zoning Ordinance Map Amendments for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, adopt Ordinance, approve summary, and authorize summary publication. Background: On June 5, 2000, the City Council approved first reading of the Zoning Ordinance Map amendment to change the Zoning Designation on parcels located on the southwest quadrant of Highway 7 and Wooddale Avenue from IP-Industrial Park to MX-Mixed Use. This action is required to bring the properties into conformance with the civic-Mixed Use Comprehensive Plan designation. Two commercially used parcels are currently non-conforming with the industrial zoning. The recommended action will cause all properties to be non-conforming because industrial uses are not permitted in the MX-Mixed Use District and retail uses are permitted only as part of a vertical mixture of uses within the same building. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed changes on May 3, 2000, and recommended approval. Notification of the proposed changes was mailed to the affected property owners and to property owners within a 350-foot radius of the proposed changes. 17 The Comprehensive Plan designations are shown below. R2 IG IP IG C2 R3 R4 H ig h w a y 7 Wooddale AveSubject Area CIV IND IND IND COM RM CompPlanResidential LowResidential Med Residential HighCivicCivic-MixedUseComercialOffice IndustrialParkRailroadROW Slparzoning.shp Existing Zoning R2 – Single Family Residential R3 – Two Family Residential R4 – Multi-Family Residential IP – Industrial Park IG – General Industrial C2 – General Commercial 18 Issues: Why was the property reguided to CMX-Civic Mixed Use? Proposed Zoning R2 – Single Family Residential R3 – Two-Family Residential R4 – Multi-Family Residential IP – Industrial Park IG – General Industrial C2 – General Commercial MX – Mixed Use R2 R4 MX IG C2 IG R3 IP Subject Proposed Future BusWay Major City Trail Circulator Transit Route RegionalTrail 19 The decision to reguide this property to CMX was based on a number of factors including changes in circulator transit routes, future additions to the sidewalk/trail system, a possible future dedicated bus way, and an existing regional trail. The above map shows the location of several transportation features relative to the subject property. The subject property has been identified as an ideal site for a future transit station. The reguiding of the property to Civic Mixed-Use was intended to accommodate this possibility. Staff has reviewed a concept plan brought forward by the owner of two of the properties which consisted of a multi-story mixed-use building. The concept proposal included first floor retail and upper floor office uses. The configuration of the building and parking could conceivably accommodate an area where a small bus could circulate and layover. Attachments: Proposed Ordinance Summary Ordinance Prepared by: Judie Erickson, Planning Coordinator Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 20 ORDINANCE NO.__________ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE CHANGING BOUNDARIES OF ZONING DISTRICTS SW QUADRANT OF WOODDALE AVENUE AND HIGHWAY 7 THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. The St. Louis Park Zoning Ordinance adopted December 28, 1959, Ordinance No. 730; amended December 31, 1992, Ordinance No. 1902-93, as heretofore amended, is hereby further amended by changing the zoning district boundaries by reclassifying the following described lands from their existing land use district classification to the new land use district classification as indicated for the tract as hereinafter set forth, to wit: Tracts B and C, Registered land Survey No. 0302 Tracts A, B, C, D, E, Registered Land Survey No. 0387 And roads from IP-Industrial Park to MX-Mixed Use District. Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication. Adopted by the City Council June 19, 2000 Reviewed for Administration City Manager Mayor Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution: City Clerk City Attorney 00-22-Z-2/N/res/ord 21 SUMMARY ORDINANCE NO._____________ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE CHANGING BOUNDARIES OF ZONING DISTRICTS SW QUADRANT OF WOODDALE AVENUE AND HIGHWAY 7 This ordinance states that the zoning for the property located at the southwest quadrant of Wooddale Avenue and Highway 7 shall be changed from IP-Industrial park to MX-Mixed Use District. This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication. Adopted by the City Council June 19, 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: June 28, 2000 00-22-Z-2-sum/N/res/ord 22 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item #8b* Meeting of June 19, 2000 *8b. Request by CSM Corporation and Rottlund Companies for final plat and PUD approval for Point West Commons One and Two to develop a 127-unit and 106 unit hotel, 84 townhouse units and a one acre 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 final plat and final PUD 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, Medium Density Residential up to 30 units per acre, and Park Background: CSM and Rottlund are applying for final plat and final PUD approval for the above-described development. On May 1, 2000 the City Council approved the preliminary plat and PUD, subject to conditions in the resolution, on a vote of 6-0. The access configuration as shown on the approved site plan was approved as part of the preliminary PUD, with the condition that staff explore further whether the 16th Street townhouse access could be made one-way only. On June 5, 2000 the Planning Commission recommended approval of the final plat and PUD for Pointe West Commons One and Two on a vote of 4-0. Based upon the traffic consultant’s and staff’s recommendations, they recommended approval with a two-way access on 16th Street. The developer has submitted a revised grading plan that includes a proposed rough grading of the park site, which the developer would complete. The plan is analyzed below. Issues: • Why is a two-way townhouse access on 16th Street considered preferable? • Does the final PUD meet all Zoning Ordinance requirements, including design criteria? • Is the final plat acceptable? • Does the proposal meet Livable Communities goals? • When is the park proposed to be graded and improved? 23 Issues Analysis: Why is a two-way townhouse access on 16th Street considered preferable? Traffic consultant’s analysis: SRF Consulting performed followup analysis to determine the impact of making the 16th Street access one-way only. They determined that making this access one-way only would have a minimal impact on neighborhood traffic. They projected that post- development vehicle trips would be reduced (from the figures stated in the original traffic study) by 1 trip in the a.m. peak on Blackstone Avenue and 4 trips in the a.m. peak on Alabama, with those trips diverted to Zarthan Avenue. The p.m. peak trip differences were smaller. SRF also stated that overall site circulation would be better with a two-way access on 16th Street. Emergency vehicle access: The Fire Marshall has stated that either a one-way or a two-way access on 16th Street is acceptable for emergency vehicle purposes. Livable Communities goals: A two-way access is more consistent with the Livable Communities goals of promoting connections between compatible uses and favoring a grid-like street pattern. Given that the traffic impact on the neighborhood is very low and that internal circulation is anticipated to be better, and to support Livable Communities goals, staff is recommending that a two-way access on 16th Street be maintained as part of the final PUD. Does the final PUD meet all Zoning Ordinance requirements, including design criteria? Architectural standards: The Zoning Code’s architectural standards are met, provided Hardiplank is approved as a Class II material as staff is recommending. The regular stay hotel is proposed to be a combination of brick and EIFS (artificial stucco). The extended stay hotel, in two buildings, is proposed to be a combination of brick and Hardiplank, a cementboard siding. The townhomes, contained in 16 and 18 unit buildings, are proposed to be mostly brick and Hardiplank. Staff is recommending a condition that some of the elevation drawings be revised to reflect the correct materials to be used. A similar cementboard siding was approved on a trial basis for the Mill City apartment project as a Class II material. The product information states that Hardiplank is an extremely durable type of siding which carries a 30 to 50 year warranty and must be repainted about every 10 years. The appearance is very similar to wood siding. From the information received, staff has determined that Hardiplank would be consistent with a Class II material, and is recommending that it be approved on a trial basis only for this project, because the product is untested in the long term. Staff believes that the proposed use of Hardiplank on the townhomes and extended stay hotels is appropriate because of the residential character of both uses. Cementboard siding may not be appropriate as a Class II material for most commercial buildings. At their meeting, the Planning Commission recommended that staff review cementboard siding in more detail and determine whether it should be included as an approved Class II material on a permanent basis. Tree Replacement: The developer is required to provide 2190 total inches of replacement trees for this development. Approximately 900 inches are proposed to be replanted on site. The developer has agreed to donate the remaining required replacement inches to the City for 24 planting on the adjacent park or other public lands. The City is requiring cash in lieu of trees. Staff believes the proposed tree replacement plan is acceptable. Because of elm disease, which may damage some existing trees, as well as the need to modify the landscape plan, there may be some slight modifications to the tree replacement plan. Staff is recommending a condition to allow for some slight adjustment to the replacement figures; and to require that the final cash amount for off-site tree replacement be approved by the Park and Recreation Director and the Community Development Director. Lighting Plans: Lighting plans for the hotel site have been submitted and are being reviewed by staff. No lighting plans have been submitted for the townhomes, although the developer has indicated that very little exterior lighting is proposed. Staff is recommending a condition that lighting plans be submitted and approved prior to issuance of any building permits, that the light fixture design be compatible throughout the project, and that the lighting must meet all City standards regarding light levels and projections onto adjacent property. PUD Ordinance: The Ordinance states that PUD projects shall meet certain objectives outlined below. These objectives were reviewed as part of the preliminary PUD, but are reviewed again with regard to detailed building elevations, landscape plans, and a final proposed circulation plan. 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. Staff believes this condition is met. Architectural compatibility is achieved through use of similar materials and building massing. Pedestrian circulation is good throughout the site. As mentioned above, staff is recommending a two-way townhouse access on 16th Street for better vehicular circulation. Regarding landscape and site features, a significant amount of landscaping is proposed on site, partially to work towards tree replacement requirements. Other site features include a circular parking area for the townhomes and park, an outdoor pool for the hotel, and green space which exceeds the minimum standards. 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 and consistent with the uses envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan for this site. As analyzed above, the development is anticipated to have a minimal impact on traffic in the area, including on the residential neighborhood to the south. 25 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. Ordinance modifications were granted as part of the preliminary PUD for building and sign setbacks and parking. The modifications include appropriate alternative solutions. Is the final plat acceptable? Pointe West Commons One and Two have been separated into two final plats which could be recorded separately, provided all conditions are met. Pointe West Commons One, the hotel site, includes a new Outlot A to account for the remainder of a parcel of property which comprises most of this plat. This means that Pointe West Commons One must be recorded before Point West Commons Two, and that Pointe West Commons Two will record over the outlot. The City attorney has advised staff that this proposed method is appropriate, and that the final plats can be considered to be consistent with the approved preliminary plat. The final plats meet other City requirements and are subject to the conditions as recommended by staff. Does the proposal meet livable communities goals? 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 placed to frame the streets and parking visible from public right of way is minimized. As discussed above, a two-way townhouse access drive on 16th Street is more consistent with Livable Communities goals. When is the park proposed to be graded and improved? The developer has submitted a revised grading plan which incorporates a rough grading of the park, and is offering to rough grade the park at their own expense this fall in conjunction with development of their site. The Public Works and Park and Recreation Departments reviewed a proposed park grading plan and requested some changes to ensure that no ponding would occur on the residential property to the south and to try to preserve some of the trees. Staff is currently reviewing the revisions. Staff is recommending that the grading plan be approved as part of the 26 final PUD, subject to further refinements by staff and the developer, with the condition that a final grading plan must be approved prior to any site work within either plat. There has been some discussion by residents and the Council regarding a desire to improve the park as early as possible. Staff is discussing a timeline in which the park planning process, which would involve the neighborhood, would occur this summer to fall, with the first meeting with the neighborhood expected to take place in July or early August. Staff anticipates that the park would be improved next spring once a budget has been determined and if funding is allocated. The park would also be graded, seeded and some border trees planted this fall by the developer. The development agreement includes an item requiring that the existing neighborhood park and play structure be left intact until at least September 1, 2000. Recommendation: Staff and the Planning Commission recommend adopting a resolution approving the final plat and PUD for Pointe West Commons One and Two, subject to the conditions in the resolution. Attachments: • Proposed resolution • Traffic memorandum regarding 16th Street access • Revised traffic study • Official Exhibits • Other development plans Prepared by: Sacha Peterson, Planner Approved by: Clint Pires, Deputy City Manager 27 RESOLUTION NO._____________ A RESOLUTION APPROVING A FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) UNDER SECTION 14:6-7 OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING FOR PROPERTY ZONED “O” OFFICE AND R-4 MILTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOCATED AT NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF WEST 16TH STREET & ZARTHAN AVENUE AND FINAL PLAT – POINE WEST COMMONS ONE AND TWO WHEREAS, the City Council approved the Preliminary PUD and Preliminary Plat on May 1, 2000 Resolution No. 00-060; and WHEREAS, an application for approval of a Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Final Plat for Pointe West Commons One and Two was received on May 22, 2000 from the applicant, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the Final PUD and Plat at its meeting of June 7, 2000, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Final PUD and Plat on a 4-0 vote with all members present voting in the affirmative, and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the staff reports, Planning Commission minutes and testimony of those appearing at the public hearing or otherwise including comments in the record of decision. BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park: Findings 1. CSM Hospitality, Inc. and Rottlund Companies have made application to the City Council for a Planned Unit Development under Section 14:6-7 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code within the “O” Office and R-4 Multiple Family Residential districts located at the Northwest quadrant of West 16th Street and Zarthan Avenue: and CSM Hospitality, Inc. and Rottlund Companies, owners and subdividers of the land proposed to be platted as Pointe West Commons One and Two have submitted an application for approval of final plat of said subdivision in the manner required for platting of land under the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, and all proceedings have been duly had thereunder; for the legal description as follows, to-wit: 28 See Attached Legal Description 2. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission (Case Nos. 00-14-S and 00-15-PUD) and the effect of the proposed PUD and Plat on the health, safety and welfare of the occupants of the surrounding lands, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect on values of properties in the surrounding area, the effect of the use on the Comprehensive Plan, and compliance with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. The City Council has determined that the PUD and Plat will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community nor with certain contemplated traffic improvements will it cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards, nor will it seriously depreciate surrounding property values. The Council has also determined that the proposed PUD and Plat is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan and that the requested modifications comply with the requirements of Section 14:6-7.2(E). 4. The contents of Planning Case Files 00-14-S and 00-15-PUD are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case. Conclusion The Final Planned Unit Development and Final Plat at the location described are approved based on the findings set forth above and subject to the following conditions: A. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with the Official Exhibits A through ___. Exhibit ___, building elevations shall be revised to show only approved materials, i.e. brick, glass, Hardiplank and rock face block, rather than vinyl on the fronts of the townhouses and brick and rock face block on side townhouse elevations. Exhibit ___, grading plan shall be subject to further refinements on the park site as approved by Public Works and Park and Rec Directors. Exhibit ___, tree replacement plan to be revised to reflect correct number of existing trees on site and trees to be removed. Exhibit __, building material samples shall be submitted and approved. B. Final plat and PUD approval and development is contingent upon developer meeting all conditions of final approval including all MNDOT requirements. C. Before a final plat is signed by the City, the developer shall comply with the following requirements: 1. Building elevations to be revised as stated above. 2. Submit to the City a copy of owner’s policy of title insurance which insures the City’s interest in the plat, in an amount to be determined by the City. 3. A development agreement shall be executed or amended between the developer and the City/EDA which covers at a minimum, dedication of Outlot A, Pointe West Commons Two, as City park land, grading of the park, cash in-lieu of additional park and trail dedication, realignment of Zarthan Avenue and installation of a traffic signal at 16th Street and Zarthan Avenue, conditions under which site work may occur and/or building permits be issued for hotels and townhouse site, sidewalk construction and maintenance, tree replacement, and repair and cleaning of public 29 streets. The development agreement shall also cite the approved ordinance modifications. 4. Submit financial security in the form of cash escrow or letter of credit in the amount of 125% of the costs of on-site tree replacement, public sidewalk installation, utility repair, and repair/cleaning of public streets. 5. Execute formal agreement with City to allow park patrons to share on-site guest parking for townhomes. 6. Submit cross-easement agreement(s) for shared parking between the two hotels and the townhomes, to be approved by City attorney. 7. Submit townhouse association by-laws and covenant documents, to be approved by the City attorney. 8. Submit cash in lieu of on-site tree replacement to the City. The exact amount shall be determined by the number of off-site tree replacement inches required and shall be approved by the Park and Recreation Director and the Community Development Director, based upon a rate of $60 per caliper inch. 9. Submit cash reimbursement of City attorney’s fees in drafting/reviewing such documents. 10. Submit cash park and trail dedication fee of $13,040.67. D. Within 90 days of final plat approval by the City Council, the subdivider shall record the final plat and easements with the County Recorder. The subdivider shall, immediately upon recording, furnish the City Clerk with a print and reproducible tracing of the final plat and copies of easement documents showing evidence of the recording. The subdivider shall also provide a copy of the final plat on disc in an electronic data format. E. Prior to any site work, the developer and property owner(s) shall meet the following requirements: 1. A drainage permit shall be obtained from MNDOT, if required. 2. A copy of the Watershed District permit(s) shall be forwarded to the City. 3. Any other necessary permits from other agencies shall be obtained. 4. Sign assent form and all official exhibits, as approved by the City. 5. Meet conditions of City signing final plat. 6. Meet any other conditions as required by the Development Agreement. F. The developer shall comply with the following conditions during construction: 1. Construction vehicles shall be prohibited from using Zarthan Avenue south of W. 16th Street, Alabama Avenue, and Blackstone Avenue. 2. All City noise ordinances shall be complied with, including that there be no construction activity between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. 3. Loud equipment shall be kept as far as possible from residences at all times. 4. The site shall be kept free of dust and debris that could blow onto neighboring properties. 5. Public streets shall be maintained free of dirt and shall be cleaned as necessary. 6. The Zoning Administrator may impose additional conditions if it becomes necessary in order to mitigate the impact of construction on surrounding properties. G. Prior to issuance of any building permits, which may impose additional requirements, the developer shall comply with the following: 1. Meet any Fire Department emergency access requirements for during construction. 30 2. The subdivider shall furnish the City with evidence of having submitted the final plat and cross-parking easement agreement for recording. 3. Lighting plans to be submitted to and approved by the Zoning Administrator for the entire development. Lighting design is to be compatible throughout the development, and shall meet all City standards. 4. Signage plans to be submitted and approved by the Zoning Administrator (a sign permit is required). 5. Meet any other conditions as required by the Development Agreement. H. Prior to issuance of any occupancy permits for the townhomes, Zarthan Avenue shall be realigned and a traffic signal shall be operational at Zarthan Avenue and 16th Street. I. A PUD ordinance modification to allow 465 parking stalls rather than the required 466 stalls and building and sign setbacks as shown on the approved site plan are contingent upon final PUD approval. J. Should the Zoning Administrator determine that parking is a problem in the future, the City may require proof of parking to be converted to parking. K. The developer shall attempt to obtain a written agreement to share parking during off-peak hours with the bank across Zarthan Avenue as overflow parking for the hotels. L. Hardiplank is approved for this development on a trial basis as a Class II material and may be used as shown on the Official Exhibits. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council June 19, 2000 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk 00-14-S-00-15-PUD-final/N/res/ord 31 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item #8c* Meeting of June 19, 2000 *8c. CASE NO. 00-17-ZA - Zoning Ordinance Amendments proposed by Joshua E. Aaron of Park Land Company and staff First reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment to modify Section 14:5-6.Z.E.1(d) to amend the Office District regulations pertaining to residential uses to increase the percentage of residential uses within a development, restrict residential uses in first two stories, and allow upper stories of a building to be 100% residential. Recommended Action: Approve first reading of Zoning Ordinance text amendment to Section 14:5-6.2.E.1, and set second reading for July 5, 2000. Background: On June 5, 2000, the City Council considered first reading of a request to amend the Zoning Ordinance provision that allows by PUD residential uses in the O-Office District. Many issues were discussed relative to a particular site that would be affected by this text change. The City Council deferred the item to the June 19, 2000, City Council meeting and requested that it be brought before them at the June 12, 2000, Study Session. On May 3, 2000, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and unanimously recommended approval of a Zoning Ordinance text amendment requested Joshua E. Aaron of Park Land Company and staff. The essence of the request was to modify the text that allows residential uses by PUD in the Office District. The Ordinance currently allows residential uses with densities up to 50 units per acre provided that the residential use does not occupy more than 25% of the gross floor area of the total development. Mr. Aaron’s proposed modification would limit housing related uses to 25% of the ground floor, but would allow 100% of the upper stories to be residential. The Planning Commission also recommended approval of other refinements of the text proposed by staff. Mr. Aaron’s is interested in developing the old Cooper Theater site with a mixed-use development that includes a 20+ story building with office on the lower two stories and residential on the upper stories. He is making a specific proposal to modify 14:5-6.Z.E.1(d) as follows: d. Housing cannot represent more than 25% of the gross ground floor area of total development. All additional proposed changes are reflected below and in the attached Ordinance. 32 Analysis Of Proposed Amendment: Is the proposed change in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan? Chapter C of the Comprehensive Plan describes the O-Office Land Use Designation as follows: “The office designation currently applies to 3% of the City’s land area. It includes the Shelard Park area north of 394 and west of Highway 169, the office developments southwest of the 394/Highway 100 interchange, and the Park Nicollet medical complex on Excelsior Boulevard. Other smaller areas are also designated for office. The corresponding zoning for the land use designation is O (office) or RC (residential/commercial). The R-C Zoning is only used where offices already exist in that district. New stand-alone offices are not longer permitted in the R-C District. The Office land use designation allows for concentrated areas of fairly intensive office and mixed use development, with high floor area ratios and building heights in the O District. The O District also allows other limited uses such as hotels, parking ramps, residential, day care, retail, and restaurants when part of a larger development.” Chapter B of the Comprehensive Plan projects housing growth within all the areas of the City that contain large tracts of land currently zoned as Office. The projected housing growth to the specific area where the applicant has interest shows an increase of over 450 units by the year 2020. The desire for more and diversified housing in St. Louis Park is reflected in the extremely low vacancy rates. A residential project of the type that would be permitted by the proposed text changes would alleviate some of the pent up demand for rental housing while at the same time adding a different type of housing to the market. This is also consistent with the Vision St. Louis Park housing goal that states, “Provide a balanced and sustainable housing stock to meet diverse needs both today and in the future.” According to the applicant, the primary market for high-rise housing in this location would be young professionals. Does The Proposed Change Reflect Current Livable Communities Principles? Chapter R of the Comprehensive Plan promotes both high density and a mixture of uses within the same building. This chapter recognizes the need to reduce automobile traffic and suggests that high density, mixed-use buildings can to some degree accomplish this. Higher residential densities can support transit and encourage local retail and service uses in close proximity. What Is The History Of The Office District And How Long Have Residential Uses Been Permitted By PUD? The Office District is a relatively new zoning district established with the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance in 1992. Prior to that time, the multi-story office developments occurred in a PUD, DDD (Diversified Development District), or in the RB (Residential-Business) District. Each PUD and the DDD had a redevelopment plan that included the types of land uses that were appropriate within the given area. Often the redevelopment plan contained a concept master plan. The old RB (Residential/Business) District was considered to be primarily a commercial district that permitted multifamily and senior housing by Special Permit. This district was 33 renamed to RC (Residential/Commercial) in 1992 and residential uses now tend to be the primary uses within the district. Building heights in the RC are limited to 6 stories. In 1992, the PUD and DDD districts were disbanded and the Office District was created to accommodate the multi-story office complexes in Shelard Park and at the SW quadrant of Highway 100 and I-394. The zoning at Park Nicollet Clinic and Citizens Bank area also was changed from PUD to O-Office. Multi-family residential uses were permitted in the Office District by PUD since 1992. The major reason for disbanding the PUD/DDD zoning districts was the concern that there were no consistent standards for development that applied uniformly to all development and that every use required a Special Permit. Since each PUD was a separate zoning district with special requirements, enforcement was more difficult and time consuming. In addition, when working with developers within a PUD, there were no basic standards from where negotiations started. The result was that often a PUD development was permitted with lower standards than required by other zoning districts. In the 1992 Zoning Ordinance, PUD became a process (like a conditional use permit) for allowing ZO modifications, instead of a zoning district. What Options Were Considered by Staff Reguiding to Residential and Rezoning to “R-C”: Staff considered reguiding the old Office Depot/Cooper Theater site to Residential with an R-C Zoning District. A mixed-use development with ground floor office and upper story residential could be approved by PUD in the R-C District. However, the maximum height would be 6-8 stories, which would not accommodate Mr. Aaron’s proposal. In addition, it could be considered spot zoning, since the property is surrounded by commercial uses. Also, it would prevent future use of the parcel as an office development, hotel or other commercial use, if the Aaron’s proposal is not accomplished. Reguiding to Mixed Use and Rezoning to “M-X”: Staff also considered reguiding and rezoning the site to mixed use since the O-District and the MX-District are the only zoning districts that permit buildings over 75 feet (6-stories) in height. There are major differences between these districts, however. First floor uses in the MX-District are required to be retail or service uses and upper level office or residential. Therefore, it does not accommodate Mr. Aaron’s proposal. More importantly, the parcel has not been successful for retail, due to access limitations. In addition, the area is not in keeping with other goals of the mixed use District relating to providing active, walkable environments. This district is appropriate in areas where there is a pattern of interconnected streets with ample sidewalks and retail, restaurant, and service uses in buildings located directly on the street. These areas are intended to have an active “street life” where pedestrians are safely integrated with auto traffic. Buildings are required to be mixed-use and multi-story. Modifying the O-District Regulations. The maximum building height in the O-District is 240 feet or 20 stories. (Increased heights are allowed by PUD.) This district was originated to accommodate large office towers and multi-building, multi-use developments. The 34 Comprehensive Plan indicates that residential uses in proximity to office development is desirable. The Zoning Ordinance already allows residential uses in this District by PUD, but currently cannot accommodate Mr. Aaron’s proposal. The Zoning Ordinance describes the purpose of the Office District as a zone that provides “opportunities for high density office development in areas outside of commercial districts; to establish and maintain in portions of the City the high standards of site planning, architecture, and landscape design sought by many business and professional enterprises…..; allow functionally related uses to be located in relatively close proximity to one another to provide efficient and optimum use of the land; provide for the coordination of development plans with plans for transportation, open space, housing, shopping and for the conducting of business and related activities….” Many non-office uses are permitted outright or with conditions in the Office District. These include banks, business and trade schools, studios, hospitals, medical and dental offices, clubs and lodges, convention/exhibition halls, and hotels. Other uses are permitted only if they are part of a larger development that contains at least one other principal use, such as retail, library, museums, day care, adult day care, and restaurants. CUP uses include larger office and medical office buildings as well as restaurants with liquor if they are part of a larger development. The Office District also allows residential uses with densities up to 50 units per acre and shopping centers by PUD if they are part of a larger development permitted within the district. The proposed ordinance amendment would modify how those residential uses are permitted. What was the Planning Commission Recommendation On May 3, 2000, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and unanimously recommended approval of the Zoning Ordinance text amendment requested by Joshua E. Aaron of Park Land Company as modified by staff. The Planning Commission discussion related to whether the proposed amendment was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan housing goals and raised a concern that definitions were clear within the text when the terms “ground floor” or “first story” were used. Staff is confident the appropriate definitions are in place. What Effect Would The Proposed Amendment Have On The Office District? The essence of the proposal is to modify the text that allows residential uses by PUD in the Office District. The Ordinance currently allows residential uses with densities up to 50 units per acre provided that the residential use does not occupy more than 25% of the gross floor area of the total development. However, in large developments, the current language could allow single use residential towers as well as low density cluster housing, which could be inconsistent with surrounding office tower development. The proposed modification, to limit residential related uses to 25% of the first and second stories of a building, would preserve the fundamental nature of the district by requiring office uses at the ground level. It would also limit residential related uses on the first story to community rooms and rental offices, but would allow 25% of the second story and 100% of the upper stories to be residential units. 35 Applicant’s Proposed Amendment Mr. Aaron’s is interested in developing the old Cooper Theater site with a mixed-use development that includes a multiple story building with office on the lower two stories and residential on the upper stories. He is making a specific proposal to modify 14:5-6.Z.E.1(d) as follows: d. Housing cannot represent more than 25% of the gross ground floor area of total development. Staff/Planning Commission Recommended Amendments When staff was reviewing the proposed text change, staff compared it to how residential uses are permitted in other commercial districts. Since 1992 when the current Zoning Ordinance was originally adopted, staff has explored ways to promote residential development as part of mixed-use buildings in several zoning districts. The C1 and C2 Districts now allow residential uses above the ground floor. The MX district also was developed to require a mixture of uses. These Ordinance amendments require that commercial uses are located on the ground floor, but that upper stories can be up to 100% residential. This type of zoning insures that the primary impression of a commercial district is still commercial because commercial uses dominate the street level. The manner in which residential uses are permitted in the Office District currently does not follow this same philosophy. Staff and the Planning Commission support modifications to the proposed amendment because they preserve the office district for office use at the street level, but also allow a mixture of residential uses in close proximity to jobs, a primary goal of “livable communities”. The text changes recommended by staff and the Planning Commission to the Office District are reflective of the requirements in other commercial districts. As noted, these amendments include a provision that would preserve 75% of the first and second story for office uses and would also prohibit residential dwelling units to locate on the first story. The other element of the staff and Planning Commission proposal is to prohibit cluster housing in the Office District. The reason for this is that cluster housing demands a street presence and the building size is out of scale to taller office buildings permitted in the district. A cluster development may well live in a constant shadow of large office buildings. The following are amendments recommended by staff and the Planning Commission: E. USES PERMITTED BY PUD (OFFICE DISTRICT) 1. MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLINGS AND CLUSTER HOUSING provided that: a. The housing is part of a larger development permitted within the district. b. The building design and placement provide a desirable residential environment. c. Access to open space, plazas, and pedestrian ways is provided. 36 d. Housing related uses cannot do not represent more than 25% of the gross first story floor area or 25% of the second story of total any building in the development. e. A minimum of 400 square feet of usable open space is provided per dwelling unit and no more than ½ is located in the front yard. f. All dwelling units are at or above the grade of all land within a distance of 25 feet from all faces of the building. No dwelling units are located below the second story of the building. All housing related uses on the first story shall be limited to common areas and rental offices. g. The minimum spacing between buildings in a multi-building project is at least equal to the average heights of the buildings except where dwellings share common walls. h. All buildings are located a minimum of 15 feet from the back of the curb line of internal private roadways or parking lots. i. The density does not exceed the maximum density allowed in the “R-C” Use District 50 units per acre. The maximum density may be increased by up to 50% at the sole discretion of the City Council if two or more of the following are provided: i. At least 80% of the required parking is provided in underground or above- ground structures, including all levels of parking ramps. ii. Buildings are placed at or near the street right-of-way and off-street parking is screened from the public right-of-way by buildings. iii. At least 35% of the building ground coverage contains structures of six or more stories in height, thereby conserving open space within the development site. The above changes will prohibit totally residential buildings within the “O” District, but will allow residential uses to occupy up to 100% of the upper stories of buildings. This change reserves the majority of the lower two stories to be consistent with the commercial nature of the office district while upper stories may contain residential uses. The overall result is to provide housing in close proximity to jobs, thereby promoting the ability of people to walk to work. This is consistent with how residential uses are permitted within the C1, C2, and MX Zoning Districts The proposed changes recommended by staff and the Planning Commission are consistent with the applicants future development plans and he does not object to them. However, it should be noted that Mr. Aaron would still need to apply for a PUD. Traffic analysis and other considerations would certainly be part of the PUD consideration and a public hearing would be required. Attachments: Proposed Ordinance Prepared by: Judie Erickson, Planning Coordinator Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 37 ORDINANCE NO.______ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING BY AMENDING SECTION 14:5-6.2.E.1 THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN: Findings Sec. 1. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission (Case No. 00-17-ZA) Sec. 2. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Section 14:5-6.2.E.l. is hereby amended to read as follows: 1. MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLINGS AND CLUSTER HOUSING provided that: a. The housing is part of a larger development permitted within the district. b. The building design and placement provide a desirable residential environment. c. Access to open space, plazas, and pedestrian ways is provided. d. Housing related uses cannot do not represent more than 25% of the gross ground floor area or 25% of the second floor area of total any building in the development. e. A minimum of 400 square feet of usable open space is provided per dwelling unit and no more than ½ is located in the front yard. f. All dwelling units are at or above the grade of all land within a distance of 25 feet from all faces of the building. No dwelling units are located below the second story of the building. All housing related uses on the first story shall be limited to common areas and rental offices. g. The minimum spacing between buildings in a multi-building project is at least equal to the average heights of the buildings except where dwellings share common walls. h. All buildings are located a minimum of 15 feet from the back of the curb line of internal private roadways or parking lots. i. The density does not exceed the maximum density allowed in the “R-C” Use District 50 units per acre. The maximum density may be increased by up to 50% at the sole discretion of the City Council if two or more of the following are provided: i. At least 80% of the required parking is provided in underground or above- ground structures, including all levels of parking ramps. ii. Buildings are placed at or near the street right-of-way and off-street parking is screened from the public right-of-way by buildings. 38 iii. At least 35% of the building ground coverage contains structures of six or more stories in height, thereby conserving open space within the development site. Sec. 3. The contents of Planning Case File 00-17-ZA are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case. Sec.4. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication. Adopted by the City Council June 21, 2000 Reviewed for Administration City Manager Mayor Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution: City Clerk City Attorney 00-17-ZA/N/res/ord 39 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item #8d* Meeting of June 19, 2000 *8d. Request by Novartis Nutrition Corporation for street vacation of a portion of Stephens Drive (second reading) 5320 W. 23rd Street Case No. 00-26-VAC Recommended Action: Motion to approve second reading of an ordinance vacating a portion of Stephens Drive, subject to conditions in the ordinance. Zoning: I-G, General Industrial Comprehensive Plan Designation: I, Industrial Background: On June 5, 2000 the City Council approved first reading of an ordinance to vacate a portion of Stephens Drive that is bounded by the Novartis property. At that meeting, the City Council also voted to approve a replatting and Special Permit Amendment for the property, although no additional development is anticipated at this time. The first reading was approved with the street named as a portion of West 24th Street. As the legally recorded name of this street is Stephens Drive, the ordinance will read Stephens Drive rather than 24th Street. Recommendation: Staff is recommending approval of second reading of an ordinance vacating a portion of Stephens Drive, subject to the conditions in the ordinance. Attachments: • Proposed ordinance • Proposed summary ordinance Prepared by: Sacha Peterson, Planner Approved by: Clint Pires, Deputy City Manager 40 ORDINANCE NO.___________ AN ORDINANCE VACATING A PORTION OF STEPHENS DRIVE THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. A petition in writing signed by a majority of all of the owners of all property abutting upon both sides of the street proposed to be vacated has been duly filed with the City Clerk, requesting vacation of the street, and the City Clerk has furnished a copy of said petition to the City Manager who has required filing of same to the newspaper, the St. Louis Park Sailor, on April 19, 2000 as directed by the said notice and has conducted a public hearing upon said petition and has determined that the street is not needed for public purposes, and that it is for the best interest of the public that said street be vacated. Section 2. The following described street, as now dedicated and laid out within the corporate limits of the City of St. Louis Park, is vacated: The West 375 feet of Stephens Drive as measured from the NE corner of Ridge Addition, Block 1, Lot 2 reserving, however, to the City of St. Louis Park any and all easements that may exist in, over, and across the described property for storm sewer, sanitary sewer, water main, and public utility purposes. Section 3. The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this ordinance in the Office of the Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be. Sec.4. This Ordinance is contingent upon approval of the final plat and dedication of a utility and drainage easement over the portion of the street to be vacated, and shall not take effect until at least fifteen days after its publication. Adopted by the City Council June 19, 2000 Reviewed for Administration City Manager Mayor Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution: City Clerk City Attorney 00-26-VAC/N/res/ord 41 SUMMARY ORDINANCE NO._____________ AN ORDINANCE VACATING A PORTION OF STEPHENS DRIVE This ordinance states that a portion of Stephens Drive lying west of Utica Avenue shall be vacated. This Ordinance is contingent upon certain conditions being met, and shall not take effect until at least fifteen days after its publication. Adopted by the City Council June 19, 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: June 28, 2000 00-26-VAC-sum/N/res/ord 42 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item #8e* Meeting of June 19, 2000 *8e. Resolution Recognizing Ronald Iverson for his years of service to the St. Louis Park Police Department Recommended Action: Motion to adopt the resolution Background: Ronald Iverson began employment with the City of St. Louis Park as a patrol officer in 1970. Throughout the years he has been a dedicated officer and a leader. After 29 plus years of employment, he has announced his retirement. As part of the new departing employee recognition program, staff has prepared the attached resolution to be passed by Council. Ron requested that he not be formally recognized at a City Council meeting and instead has asked that the Chief of Police on behalf of the City Council present his plaque of appreciation at his retirement party. Staff is making arrangements for that presentation. Attachments: Resolution Prepared by: Kim Olson, Administrative Clerk Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 43 RESOLUTION NO. WHEREAS, Ron Iverson became a Police Officer with the City of St. Louis Park in 1970; and WHEREAS, Ron was promoted to Investigator in 1991. He has served as an officer in School Patrol, Bicycle Safety, and Crime Prevention. Ron has contributed to the implementation of the bicycle enforcement and training programs; and WHEREAS, Ron is a certified police and firearms instructor, and has been an active member in many police groups and associations; and WHEREAS, Ron was awarded the honor of Officer of the Year by his peers who admire and respect him. NOW THEREFORE, let it be known that the Mayor and the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park wish to thank and recognize Ronald Iverson for his 29 plus years of service. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council June 19, 2000 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk 44 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item #9a* Meeting of June 19, 2000 *9a. Financial Report for May, 2000 This report details May 2000 financial activity in comparison to budget estimates. Recommended Action: Motion to accept report for filing Background: Attached is the May 2000 financial report. The report outlines all funds of the City. The General fund report contains a balance sheet as well as revenue and expenditures. All other fund reports outline the revenues and expenditures for the month as well as year to date. Attachments: May 2000 Financial Report Prepared by: Jean D. McGann, Director of Finance Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 45 Item 9b* MINUTES HOUSING AUTHORITY ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA Wednesday, May 10, 2000 Council Chambers 5:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: William Gavzy, Judith Moore and Shone Row MEMBERS ABSENT: Catherine Courtney and Bridget Gothberg STAFF PRESENT: Michele Schnitker, Sharon Anderson, Kathy Larsen, and Paula Jordan OTHERS PRESENT: None 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 5:10 P.M. 2. Approval of the Minutes April 12th, 2000. Commissioner Row made a motion to approve the Minutes of April 12th. Commissioner Moore seconded the motion. The motion was passed on a vote of 3-0 with Commissioners Gavzy, Moore and Row voting in favor. 3. Hearings: None 4. Reports and Committees: None 5. Unfinished Business: None 6. New Business a. Regulatory and Operating Agreement By and Between the Housing Authority of St. Louis Park and PPL Louisiana Court Limited Partnership - Resolution No. 478. 46 Housing Authority Minutes St. Louis Park, Minnesota May 10th, 2000 Page 2 Kathy Larsen, Housing Programs Coordinator, reported on the project update. The City Council passed the 4.5 million Bond Resolution at the April 24th, 2000 meeting. The City Council also executed the Bond associated documents: Loan Agreement, Regulatory Agreement and the Disbursement Agreement with PPL's LLC, Partnership. The loan agreement for the Metropolitan Council's funding from LCDA and the Housing Incentive Account Grant had been incorporated into that loan agreement along with the CDBG monies. There will be a master disbursement agreement entered into by all the parties. The City will consider the Final PUD application at the May 15th meeting. (Closing on the properties and the funding sources is anticipated for May 31st) Commissioner Moore asked about the relocation factor and if the tenants had been told where and when they would have to move. Michele Schnitker responded that relocation expert, Edie Vargass, under contract with PPL, has held two informational meetings for all tenants and is working with individual tenants who expressed concerns. Ms. Larsen continued with the project update, stating that PPL had submitted their building permit application. PPL must have all of their planning, zoning approval and permits issued before they can close on the property. The City and the other lenders stipulated that all approvals must be met before there is any exchange of money. Ms. Larsen added that Inspecting Architect, Mr. Ted Steiner, of KKE and Mr. Kent Simon, of Miller, Hanson, Westerberger, Inc. were interviewed by staff for the role of Inspecting Architect representing the city. The subject of change orders were discussed at length. Both parties were in agreement that all change orders should be reviewed prior to implementation. Mr. Steiner has worked with the Planning staff at St. Louis Park, and both parties have worked with the Minneapolis Housing Authority. Ms. Larsen reviewed the Initial Agreement, the Regulatory and Operating Agreement by and between the Housing Authority of St. Louis Park and PPL Louisiana Court Limited Partnership, the Property Management Agreement between PPL Louisiana Court Limited Partnership and Project for Pride in Living, Inc. and the Housing Development Agreement by and between the Minneapolis 47 Housing Authority Minutes St. Louis Park, Minnesota May 10th, 2000 Page 3 Public Housing Authority in and for the City of Minneapolis and PPL Louisiana Court Limited Partnership. Ms. Larsen reported that these agreements are consistent with HUD's polices, guidelines and regulations. Mr. Jim Holmes, Holmes and Assoc., legal counsel to the Minneapolis Public Housing Authority drafted the contracts in accordance with the documents for the MHOP units, as well as HUD's boilerplate contract. Commissioner Gavzy asked if Mr. Holmes was hired by the Partnership. Ms. Schnitker replied that the Minneapolis Housing Authority hired Mr. Holmes and is paying for all services rendered. Commissioner Gavzy had several comments relating to the Property Management Agreement on page 21, Article IX of the Property Management Agreement Section 9.01 (a) (ii) and (vii). Commissioner Gavzy had some questions about the automatic renewal of the Management Agreement. The Board agreed that the language in each of the documents should be brought back to legal counsel to clarify the fact that the Authority was not required to renew the contract annually and could terminate the contract if deemed necessary. Language in the Regulatory Agreement regarding the need for judicial action to terminate the Management Agreement was also objected to. Michele Schnitker stated the intent was that the Management Agreement would be renewed on an annual basis, but because of the language in the agreement, both agreements will be revised and brought back to the Board for consideration. Ms. Larsen directed the Board to Article VII, Section 7.02, and Managing Agent's Compensation. The Operating Budget has a projection for what the Project Management fees will be. The number in the Managing Agent's Compensation Article VII, Section 7.02 is to be consistent with the Operating Budget. Mr. Jim Holmes is still working on this document and changes have not been completed at this date. 48 Housing Authority Minutes St. Louis Park, Minnesota May 10, 2000 Page 4 Ms. Schnitker stated that the changes are significant and warrant bringing it back to the Board. The Commissioners felt that because of the language noted in the Louisiana Court Regulatory and Management Agreements, a special meeting should be held to approve those changes. Commissioner Moore moved to approve Resolution No. 478, approving the execution of the amended Initial Agreement and approve the Housing Development Agreement. Commissioner Row seconded the motion. The vote passed on a vote of 3-0 with Commissioners Gavzy, Row and Moore voting in favor. b. Collection Losses Sharon Anderson reported that there is a line item on the budget to cover any collection losses the Authority has incurred from tenants who have vacated. For accounting purposes, defining collection losses takes the items off the books, makes it clearer for the audit, and reduces outstanding amounts that must be shown on HUD reporting forms. These amounts are written off on an annual basis although we are not prevented from continuing any collection efforts. Staff is recommending that the Authority adopt Resolution No. 477 designating $2,881.43 as collection losses for damages, unpaid rents and other charges. Commissioner Row moved to approve Resolution No. 477. Commissioner Moore seconded the motion. The motion was passed on a vote of 3-0 with Commissioner Gavzy, Moore and Row voting in favor. c. Administrative Policies - Resolution No.476. Michele Schnitker reported that the Administrative Policies of the Housing Authority (HA) state that the personnel policies of the Authority are the policies applicable to the employees of the City of St. Louis Park except as noted in the HA Administrative Policies. 49 Housing Authority Minutes St. Louis Park, Minnesota May 10, 2000 Page 5 Staff recommends that the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners adopt Resolution No. 476 amending the HA Administrative Personnel Polices to state that the maintenance employees be compensated for a minimum of two hours for after hour service calls. Commissioner Moore moved to approve Resolution No. 476. Commissioner Row seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 3-0 with Commissioners Gavzy, Moore and Row voting in approval. d. Housing Authority Scholarship The Board requested that the HA Scholarship item 6d. be postponed until the June 13th meeting. 7. Communications from the Executive Director a. Claims List No. 05, 2000 Commissioner Moore moved to approve Claims List No. 5, 2000. Commissioner Row seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 3-0 with Commissioner Gavzy, Moore and Row voting in favor. **Commissioner Moore left at this point in the Board meeting.** b. Michele Schnitker reported on the possibility of changing the date for the Housing Authority Board meetings. This will be discussed at the June 14th meeting when all Commissioners are present. c. Scattered Site Houses and Hamilton House (verbal report) None 50 Housing Authority Minutes St. Louis Park, Minnesota May 10, 2000 Page 6 d. Home Renewal Program and Habitat Program Update (verbal report) Michele Schnitker reported that the Ottawa contract has not been signed. A deadline will be given to the developer to sign the contract so that the project can move forward. Ms. Schnitker reported that the Stobbe property on Rhode Island sold but the selling price was not available. e. Staff will do a follow-up on the Council Discussion at the June 14th Board meeting. 8. Staff has been approached by MHA to administer the Shelter Plus Care program. This will be discussed at the June 14th Board Meeting. 9. Adjournment Commissioner Row moved to adjourn. Respectfully Submitted ____________________________ Shone Row Secretary 51 Item 9c* MINUTES HOUSING AUTHORITY ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA Tuesday, May 30th, 2000 Council Chambers 8:00 A.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: William Gavzy, Catherine Courtney and Bridget Gothberg MEMBERS ABSENT: Judith Moore and Shone Row STAFF PRESENT: Michele Schnitker, Kathy Larsen and Paula Jordan OTHERS PRESENT: None 7. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 8:10 A.M. 8. Approval of the Minutes: None 9. Hearings: None 10. Reports and Committees: None 11. Unfinished Business: a. Authorized Execution of Regulatory and Operating Agreement By and Between the Housing Authority of St. Louis Park and PPL Louisiana Court Limited Partnership. Michele Schnitker reported that both the Regulatory and Operating Agreement and the Management Agreement being considered are agreements related to the MHOP units in Louisiana Court. When the MHOP documents were reviewed at the May 10th Board Meeting, the Board approved the Initial Agreement and the Housing Development Agreement. The Board expressed some concerns regarding both the agreements being considered at this meeting today, specifically, concerns related to the annual renewal of the Management Agreement. Both the Regulatory and Operating Agreement and the Property Management Agreement were modified to address the Board’s concerns. 52 Housing Authority Minutes St. Louis Park, Minnesota May 30, 2000 Page 2 Language in the Property Management Agreement clarified Board's ability to terminate and approve renewal of the Management Agreement on an annual basis. Kathy Larsen, Housing Programs Coordinator, reported on the language changes in the Regulatory and Operating Agreement By and Between the Housing Authority of St. Louis Park and PPL Louisiana Court Limited Partnership. Ms. Larsen, stated that in Article II, Section 3.3 Management, the changes read: The Managing Agent will be responsible to Owner for management of the Development in accordance with the terms of this Agreement and all applicable requirements referenced in Section 3.1 hereof. The Management Agreement will contain appropriate provisions providing access by HA, upon request therefor, to books and records maintained by the Managing Agent with respect to the Development and pursuant to which the Owner may be required to terminate the Management Agreement and the appointment of the Managing Agent if the Authorities determine that the Managing Agent has violated, breached, or failed to comply with any provision of, or obligation under, this Agreement. Ms. Larsen noted that by deleting the statement for appropriate judicial review, it is easier for the HA to terminate Management Agreement if necessary. Ms. Larsen continued with language changes in the last statement in the same paragraph which states: The Property Management Agreement between the Owner and Managing Agent shall be subject to annual approval by the HA. The number of provisions of compliance references the Property Management Agreement, and all the other housing covenants, with that safeguard the HA has the right of annual reviewal Kathy Larsen reported on the changes in the Property Management Agreement between PPL Louisiana Court Limited Partnership and Project For Pride In Living, Inc; Article IX, Terms of Agreement, Section 9.01 (ii). This section has been has been changed to read: This Agreement shall be approved annually by all parties: the HA, the Owner Managing Agent. The second change is to Article VII, The Development and Revenue and Expense Account, Section 7.01, which now states: The fee shall be equal to 6.8 percent fee based on the Development's previous month's gross collected revenue. Ms. Schnitker stated that this concluded any and all changes to the agreements. 53 Housing Authority Minutes St. Louis Park, Minnesota May 30, 2000 Page 3 Commissioner Gothberg moved to approve the Regulatory and Operating Agreement and the Property Management Agreement. Commissioner Courtney seconded the motion. The motion was passed on a vote of 3-0 with Commissioners Gavzy, Gothberg and Courtney voting in favor. 6. Adjournment Commissioner Gavzy moved to adjourn. The motion was passed on a vote of 3-0 with Commissioners Gothberg, Courtney and Gavzy voting in favor. The meeting was adjourned at 8:20 A.M. Respectful Submitted ______________________________ Shone Row, Secretary 54 MINUTES Item 9d* PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 17, 2000 --7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Paul Carver, Michelle Bissonnette, Michael Garelick, Ken Gothberg MEMBERS ABSENT: Sally Velick, Dennis Morris, Jerry Timian STAFF PRESENT: Judie Erickson, Janice Loftus 1. Call to Order - Roll Call Chair Carver called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. 2. Approval of Minutes of May 3, 2000 Mr. Gothberg moved approval of the Minutes of May 3, 2000 and the motion passed on a vote of 3-0-1 with Carver, Garelick, Gothberg, voting in favor and Bissonnette abstaining. 3. Public Hearings: A. Case No. 00-26-CP - Request of Soomekh Oriental Rugs to amend the Comprehensive Plan to change the land use designation from Industrial to Commercial for property located at 5925 Highway No. 7, and Case No. 00-27-Z - Request of Soomekh Oriental Rugs to amend the zoning map to change the zoning from IG General Industrial to C2 General Commercial for property located at 5925 Highway No. 7 Ms. Erickson, Planning Coordinator, presented a staff report and recommended that the City Council deny the requests based on the following findings: 1. The request is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan policies concerning the preservation of industrial base and industrial jobs found in Chapters E and O. 2. The request is inconsistent with Chapter U of the Comprehensive Plan that designates this property to a future land use study. Any changes in land use designation for this property at this time is premature because it is in advance of the study. 3. A rezoning of this property to C2- General Commercial could have detrimental impacts to traffic in this location. The extent of those impacts 55 cannot be evaluated without a traffic study that considers the potential for redevelopment of the subject site. 4. A rezoning to C2-General Commercial could potentially impact pedestrian and bicycle safety. Paul Zisla, Moss & Barnett, representative for Soomekh Oriental Rugs reviewed the key parts of the letter he just sent to the Planning Commission. He stated that the company has been in business about 30 years and in this market for 24 years. The company was for a part of those 24 years in the Dayton’s stores. In the mid- 1990s, Soomekh closed its warehouse in Los Angeles and relocated to the warehouse at this location and invested $300,000 to $400,000 to convert it from a manufacturing facility to a showroom and warehouse. He explained how Dayt on’s terminated the license agreement with Soomekh Oriental Rugs and how the City responded to their proposed business change determining that the proposed change was a retail use and not allowed in the IG use District. To resolve the situation Soomekh made the application for C2 zoning. It is imperative to understand that Soomekh is looking to be legal with the kind of business that is going on in there now. He stated that he believes the study will show that a commercial use is best for the property. He said they think some of the industrial uses might indeed create traffic and land use problems, but not by what Soomekh is doing. There are identical retail uses at the neighboring properties. Mr. Zisla said his client’s problem is that the Comprehensive Study is not going to happen until 2001 and what should they do in the interim. He said he doesn’t think that what Soomekh needs is in conflict with any of the adjacent uses, the neighborhood, and is not inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and where the plan is going. Mr. Gothberg asked if Soomekh was exclusively working with Dayton’s. Mr. Jim Soomekh stated that he was working basically as a showroom for the designers of Dayton’s until the license termination and then would open to other designers and the public. Chair Carver asked if the situation when the Dayton’s contract was still in force was an acceptable practice under the current zoning and Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Erickson stated that the use was looked at as a warehouse, and not a showroom. Chair Carver asked if a showroom was an appropriate use under the current land use. Ms. Erickson stated that a showroom would be a permitted use under current zoning and indicated that the zoning administrator identifies a particular use based upon land use descriptions in the zoning code. 56 Chair Carver asked who the zoning administrator was. Ms. Erickson stated that Scott Moore in the Community Development Department is the Zoning Administrator. Chair Carver asked when the warehouse determination was made. Ms. Erickson stated that it was made when the use went in. Chair Carver asked if this was an appropriate time to reassess the situation. Ms. Erickson stated that the owner is requesting to change the use to a retail use. Chair Carver asked if this use would fit in with other showrooms where customers look at a product and then it is shipped to the customer. In that case there would be no need for a zoning amendment or comprehensive plan amendment. Ms. Erickson stated that this would be correct. Mr. Zisla stated that Scott Moore determined that this use is retail. Chair Carver stated that he felt it would be appropriate if this business could be operated as a showroom until such time that the Comprehensive Plan Review could be completed which would keep the business viable and wouldn’t do any harm to the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Zisla stated that it wasn’t a pure showroom since there were some rugs that were small enough that could be put in a van after being purchased, but this doesn’t happen very often, perhaps 25 items per week. Mr. Gothberg clarified that the building location that housed the warehouse was the same place that also housed the showroom. Mr. Soomekh stated that many designers take the rugs to the customers and let them decide. Ms. Erickson stated that the code allows up to 15% of the floor area of the building as retail as an accessory use. Mr. Zisla stated that if they had to go that route in the long run that would be considered, but right now he believes the whole space functions that way with a large warehouse in back. Chair Carver reiterated the need for a reevaluation of what type of property this was. 57 Mr. Garelick believed that it was not appropriate to go after a small business owner in St. Louis Park and that being unique is ok. He said that he was in favor of looking at alternatives to make the business successful and make for a better community. Mr. Soomekh stated that the oriental rugs are beautiful art and benefit the community. Ms. Bissonette asked if the unpainted furniture store was considered retail. Ms. Erickson stated that the unpainted furniture was zoned commercial. Ms. Bissonette asked staff to describe the zoning for the area. Ms. Erickson described the current zoning for the area as outlined in the staff report. Mr. Zisla asked if the businesses west of Wooddale are conforming uses with the rezoning to mixed-use in the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Erickson stated that they currently are non-conforming and after the zoning amendment would be non-conforming because they are not a mixed-use building. Ms. Bissonnette stated that the unpainted furniture store appeared to be more retail than commercial. Mr. Gothberg stated that he agreed with staff that no changes should be made until the study is completed and the exact use is re-evaluated. Chair Carver opened the public hearing. With no one wishing to speak, Chair Carver closed the public hearing. Ms. Bissonnette asked if this business could be classified as a showroom until further evaluation is completed. Chair Carver stated that he was in favor of this since this was a unique issue and needed additional clarification. Mr. Garelick asked what would happen if the property owner removed the request. Chair Carver asked if this issue could be tabled until there was a reassessment of the property by the zoning administrator. 58 Ms. Erickson stated that the owners were currently operating under a temporary sales permit and recommended that if they could conform the use of the property to a showroom there would not be an issue. She stated that staff was concerned about doing any kind of reguiding or rezoning of the property at this time. Mr. Gothberg asked if it was appropriate to refer this to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Ms. Erickson stated that if staff determined that this business was not a showroom and if the business owner wanted to make the determination that they were, they could appeal the zoning administrator’s decision to BOZA. Mr. Zisla stated that he wanted to continue the business as it is currently run for the next two years and explained that they were under the timeline of the temporary sales permit given by Scott Moore. He requested that the item be tabled until the zoning administrator could re-evaluate the property for its actual use. Mr. Gothberg stated that he was not in favor of a rezoning. The Commission discussed their options. Mr. Garelick moved to table this issue until the Planning Commission received a ruling from the zoning administrator on interpreting this issue, understanding that it is important not to meddle with the Comprehensive Plan as it is now. The motion passed 4-0 with Carver, Garelick, Gothberg and Bissonnette voting in favor. Chair Carver supported the motion with the understanding that the applicant will approach the zoning administrator. Staff will re-evaluate the business for its actual operation. If the use fits with the current land use description for showroom, the business may not suffer a shutdown or a need to vacate the premises while the land use study is in process. 4. Old Business: None 5. New Business: None 6. Communications A. Recent City Council Action - May 15, 2000 7. Miscellaneous A. Planning Commission Tour (June 7 or 21 at 5 p.m.) The Commission discussed availability and requested that staff e-mail the Planning Commission with the date chosen. 59 B. Amended Pages for Zoning Ordinance 8. Adjournment Chair Carver adjourned the meeting at 8:20 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Janice Loftus Administrative Secretary Prepared by: Shirley Olson Recording Secretary 60 Item 9e* MINUTES CHARTER COMMISSION MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA May 10, 2000 City Hall, Council Chambers I. Call to Order Chair Beck called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. II. Introductions and Attendance It was moved by Commissioner R. Kirschner and seconded by Commissioner N. Kirschner to excuse the absences of the following members: Michael Sixel and Cheryl Ernst. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. A. Members Present: George Beck, Cynthia Ahrens, Paul Carver, Brian Fiderlein, Christopher Johnson, Norman Kirschner, Ruth Kirschner, Dorothea Moga, David Ornstein, James Schaefer, D. Christopher Smith, and Carol Walsh. B. Members Excused: Michael Sixel and Cheryl Ernst. C. Members Unexcused: None D. Staff and Guests Present: City Staff Liaison Clint Pires, City Attorney Joel Jamnick, Police Civil Service Commissioner Jim Lanenberg. E. Vacancies: The Commission currently has one vacancy. III. Approval of Minutes It was moved by Commissioner Johnson and seconded by Commissioner Carver to approve the minutes of the March 15, 2000 meeting. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. IV. Police and Fire Civil Service Commissions Guests present to speak to this issue included Joel Jamnick and Jim Lanenberg. Mr. Jamnick indicated that the prevalence of Civil Service Commissions has decreased over the last 20 years. He attributes some of this to increased unionization, new laws governing the hiring/firing process and treatment of persons with disabilities, and conflicts that have arisen between Civil Service Commission rules and collective bargaining agreements. Commissioner Ahrens asked when the commissions were established in St. Louis Park, and why Fire Civil Service Commissions were not included in the most recent legislation permitting commission abolishment. Mr. Jamnick stated that St. Louis Park’s commissions were established in approximately 1950. He also 61 indicated that representatives of Fire interests had asked that Fire Civil Service Commissions be excused from the legislation. Commissioner Ornstein stated that another piece of legislation that has had an impact on Civil Service Commissions is veteran’s preference. Commissioner Johnson asked about veteran’s preference rules versus Civil Service rules. Mr. Jamnick indicated that veteran’s preference rules supersede Civil Service rules. Mr. Jamnick was asked why some communities might choose to have a Civil Service Commission. He indicated that, while many employee protections already exist, some perceive a benefit in an additional (though sometimes duplicative or conflicting) protection. Commissioner N. Kirschner asked whether employees are protected from arbitrary actions by their employers without existence of Civil Service Commissions. Mr. Jamnick stated that other laws and rules protect employees. Commissioner R. Kirschner asked what happens to recruitment and employee files for employees who are not covered by Civil Service. Mr. Pires stated that all official employee files, whether for those covered by Civil Service or not, are maintained by the Division of Human Resources. Citywide recruitment rules cover all employees; however, it is anticipated that certain additional rules may be needed for public safety employees should Civil Service coverage ever be abolished. Mr. Lanenberg was asked what sorts of activities the Police Civil Service Commission routinely engages in. He responded by saying that the Commission routinely certifies applicants for open positions and deals with promotions. Commissioner Schaefer questioned whether departments could complete some current Civil Service functions. Commissioner Walsh questioned how many sworn and non-sworn personnel there are in the Police Department. Mr. Pires indicated that there are approximately 50 sworn and 20 non-sworn positions. Commissioner Beck referenced the e-mail from Fire Civil Service Commissioner Lee, who suggested alternative ways for citizens to be involved in community public safety issues. On balance, due to duplications and conflicts with other laws, Mr. Jamnick felt that Civil Service Commissions could be abolished without diminishment of protections to currently covered employees. Commissioner Johnson requested that all parties interested in this topic be notified of all future meetings the Charter Commission holds on it. Commissioner Carver requested data on Civil Service Commission activities over the last five years (i.e., topics, number of meetings, personnel-related actions). Commissioners Ahrens, Carver, and Walsh volunteered to draft standard questions to ask future guests invited to speak to the Civil Service Commission topic. V. City Attorney Suggested Revisions to Charter 62 The Commission agreed to consider recodification-related changes at its next meeting, following incorporation of recent Charter updates. VI. Meeting Schedule The Commission agreed to hold regular meetings on June 14 and July 12. VII. Other Business The Commission considered modifications related to Franchises in the Charter. The rationale was to simplify Franchise provisions, and bring the Charter into alignment with state and federal law. Following review of research completed by Commissioner Smith, Commissioner Johnson moved and Commissioner R. Kirschner seconded the following motion: (a) Chapter 1: Replace paragraph 7 of Section 1.02 with the following text: “may grant franchises or licenses for the services which shall be rendered by any owner or operator of a franchise or license;” (b) Chapter 9: Delete sections 9.03-9.09. Replace section 9.02 with the following text: "The Council may grant franchises by ordinance. Every ordinance granting a franchise shall contain all the terms and conditions of the franchise and shall be adopted in the manner prescribed by Chapter 3 of the Charter, except that no franchise will be granted by emergency ordinance. In addition to the requirements of Chapter 3 of the Charter, no franchise ordinance shall be granted until a public hearing has been held by the City Council. Notice of the public hearing must be published at least once in the City's official newspaper at least twenty (20) days prior to the public hearing." MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. VIII. Adjournment As there was no other business, at 8:55 p.m., Commissioner R. Kirschner moved and Commissioner N. Kirschner seconded adjournment. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Respectfully submitted, Clint Pires Staff Liaison 63 Item 9f* June 9, 2000 VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT A T S S A INC RENTAL OTHER 150.00 ADVANTA BANK CORP OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 97.45 AIRTOUCH CELLULAR TELEPHONE 2,306.32 ALBRECHT MARY STUDY INCENTIVE & MERIT PAY 637.02 ALL TIME FAVORITES UNREALIZED REVENUE 5,117.33 ANDERSON, SCOTT TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOL S 512.01 ARAMARK UNIFORM CORPORATE ACCT GENERAL SUPPLIES 128.23 ASSN OF METRO MUNICIPALITIES TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOL S 30.00 AT&T TELEPHONE 9.87 BAUER BUILT TIRE & BATTERY EQUIPMENT PARTS (35.87) BLOYER, SUE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 134.23 BROADWAY RENTAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT (1.66) BROCK WHITE CO LLC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES (1,700.38) CARTRIDGE CARE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 239.68 CATCO PARTS SERVICE EQUIPMENT PARTS (127.62) CHASKA FIRE DEPARTMENT GENERAL SUPPLIES 50.00 CONCEPT SEATING INC GENERAL SUPPLIES (180.00) CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS GENERAL SUPPLIES (938.10) COON RAPINDS DRUMLINE UNREALIZED REVENUE 300.00 D'AMICO CATERING OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,000.00 DANKO EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 71.05 DAVID LEBROWSKI GENERAL CUSTOMERS 51.60 DELI DOUBLE GENERAL 480.25 DOBESH, MICHAEL TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOL S 75.00 DUNDEE NURSERY LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 4,781.65 EDTECH EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 83.37 ENGINEERING REPRO SYSTEMS GENERAL SUPPLIES 38.55 ERICKSONS SEWER SERVICE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 115.00 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (15.67) FLANNIGAN, JANE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 145.55 GALLAGHER & CO OF MN INC, A J BLDG & CONTENTS INSURANCE 9,785.00 GENERAL SAFETY EQUIPMENT CORP EQUIPMENT PARTS (14.07) GENUINE PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (27.83) GLAPA, SHAWN STUDY INCENTIVE & MERIT PAY 515.52 HARCEY, MICHAEL L TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOL S 34.45 HENN CO ACCOUNTING SERVICES SUBSISTENCE SERVICE 5,523.22 HILDEBRANDT, HARLAN TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOL S 29.09 HOLZ, ANNE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 10.00 HOME HARDWARE GENERAL SUPPLIES 232.62 HYDRO SUPPLY COMPANY MERCHANDISE PURCH FOR 6,965.74 64 RESALE IACP SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 100.00 INDELCO EQUIPMENT PARTS 1,202.14 INDEPENDENT BLACK DIRT CO LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 419.32 INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST 283 OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 93.00 INST FOR FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 700.00 JOSEPH CATERING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 227.47 JUSTUS LUMBER COMPANY OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 61.44 KANSAS STATE BANK OF MANHATTAN CAPITALIZED INTEREST 2,636.75 KIENENBERGER, BRIDGET MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 8.78 KNOX LUMBER GENERAL SUPPLIES 26.85 LANGLOIS, JEANNE GENERAL SUPPLIES 70.00 LEAGUE MN CITIES INS TRUST MOTOR VEHICLE LIAB INSURANCE 63,544.00 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 96.57 LUSTY, PAULA GENERAL 52.48 MARY LAHAMMER OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 100.00 METROCALL TELEPHONE 444.53 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 12,334.41 MIDWEST RADIO RENTALS UNREALIZED REVENUE 249.21 MINN DEPT OF ADMINISTRATION TELEPHONE 3,426.90 MINNEGASCO HEATING GAS 8,819.16 MINNESOTA FIRE SERVICE TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOL S 35.00 MINNESOTA WANNER GENERAL SUPPLIES 174.37 MINUTEMAN PRESS PRINTING & PUBLISHING 177.86 MN BOARD OF AELSLAGID LICENSES/TAXES 208.00 MN BOARD OF PEACE OFFICER STAN OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,440.00 MN DRIVER & VEHICLE SVCS EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT CHARGE (46.00) MN FREEDOM BAND UNREALIZED REVENUE 400.00 MOORE, CARLTON B MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 95.08 MTI DISTRIBUTING CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 628.80 N Y S C A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 580.00 NORTHERN PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 418.60 NSP CO ELECTRIC SERVICE 164.55 OFFICE MAX OFFICE SUPPLIES 90.82 OTTO PACKAGING MIDWEST LLC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES (72.00) PRINT SHOP PRINTING & PUBLISHING 16.25 PRO PRODUCTS INC GENERAL SUPPLIES (92.32) RHODES, JIM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 300.00 RICHFIELD HIGH SCHOOL BAND UNREALIZED REVENUE 500.00 ROSS, SCOTT A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 186.38 RUFFRIDGE JOHNSON EQUIPMENT CO EQUIPMENT PARTS 152.21 SAFETY-KLEEN CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 228.15 SCHARBER & SONS INC EQUIPMENT PARTS (3.51) SCHWAAB INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 74.55 SECURITYLINK FROM AMERITECH OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 15.92 65 SIGN IMAGES BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 106.93 SLP CRIME PREVENTION FUND UNREALIZED REV-SAFETY CAMP 0.00 SOULE & ASSOCIATES TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOL S 295.00 SRF CONSULTING GROUP INC OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 366.06 ST. FRANCIS HIGH SCHOOL BAND UNREALIZED REVENUE 550.00 ST. LOUIS PARK BENEVOLENCE FUN GENERAL SUPPLIES 48.04 ST. LOUIS PARK EMERGENCY PROGR OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 25,000.00 ST. PAUL CLOWN CLUB UNREALIZED REVENUE 150.00 STAR TRIBUNE OTHER ADVERTISING 2,263.80 STATE OF MINNESOTA SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 350.00 STREICHER'S GENERAL SUPPLIES 42.55 SUBURBAN TIRE CO TIRES 7.99 TEKSYSTEMS COMPUTER SERVICES 1,335.00 TOTAL MUSIC SYSTEMS UNREALIZED REVENUE 810.00 TWIN CITY AREA LABOR MANAGEMEN TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOL S 50.00 TWIN CITY METRO PIPE BAND UNREALIZED REVENUE 800.00 TWIN CITY UNICYCLE CLUB UNREALIZED REVENUE 300.00 VESSCO INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 937.63 WECKER, KATHLEEN OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 29.92 WESSELS & PAUTSCH P.C. TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOL S 50.00 WORKERS' COMP REINSURANCE ASSO WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE 4,249.07 ZIP SORT POSTAGE 85.71 ZURAH SHRINE BAND UNREALIZED REVENUE 300.00 175,022.02 June 16, 2000 VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 3M COMPANY OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 99.68 AAA-LICENSE DIVISION MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT 2,488.32 AIRLAKE FORD MERCURY INC. MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT 37,328.00 AIRTOUCH CELLULAR TELEPHONE 657.23 AMERICAN PUMP COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS 422.19 AMERIPRIDE LINEN AND APPAREL S CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 180.17 AMUNDSON, GAIL S POSTAGE 64.00 ANDERSON, SCOTT GENERAL SUPPLIES 88.37 ANIMALS OF WALTONS HOLLOW UNREALIZED REVENUE 825.00 ARAMARK UNIFORM CORPORATE ACCT GENERAL SUPPLIES 661.05 AT&T TELEPHONE 19.74 AUDIO-TECH BUSINESS BOOK SUMMA SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 158.69 BATTERIES PLUS GENERAL SUPPLIES 46.84 BAUER BUILT TIRE & BATTERY EQUIPMENT PARTS (35.87) BECKER ARENA PRODUCTS BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 532.50 66 BENSEN, KARON OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 167.75 BIG RIVER DELI & SANDWICHES MEETING EXPENSE 57.51 BIRCHWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOC OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 250.00 BITUMINOUS ROADWAYS INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 496.72 BOBS PERSONAL COFFEE SERVICE GENERAL SUPPLIES 109.46 BOWKER, JACQUELINE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 48.46 BRENTS SIGNS GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,137.16 BRIEFINGS PUBLISHING GROUP SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 87.00 BROADWAY RENTAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT (1.66) BROCK WHITE CO LLC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES (189.14) BROWN TRAFFIC PRODUCTS INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 298.00 CAPITOL COMMUNICATIONS RADIO COMMUNICATIONS 65.59 CARTRIDGE CARE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 589.57 CATCO PARTS SERVICE EQUIPMENT PARTS (127.62) COFFEE MILL INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 103.84 CONCEPT SEATING INC GENERAL SUPPLIES (180.00) CONSECO FINANCE VENDOR SERV CO OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 751.89 CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS GENERAL SUPPLIES (938.10) CORPORATE EXPRESS DELIVERY SYS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 16.07 CRILEY, KATHI L MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 146.49 CRISIS MANAGEMENT RESOURCES TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOO LS 800.00 CRONSTROM HEATING & AIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 89.00 CSC CREDIT SERVICES INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 15.00 CURTIS 1000 INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 833.09 CUSHMAN MOTOR COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS 24.03 DAHLING, KEITH OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 67.94 DANKO EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 457.50 DAVID BJORKLUND INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 DAVID MEYER INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 DAYTON'S GENERAL SUPPLIES 58.53 DITZLER PROPERTIES INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 DOELTZ, SHARON YOUTH ATHLETICS/LEAGUES- exempt 40.00 DRAWER CS 198186 EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 453.60 DRYWALL SUPPLY INC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 682.17 DUNDEE NURSERY LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 387.30 EDTECH COMPUTER SUPPLIES 806.84 ELIZABETH LYLE INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 ELVIN SAFETY SUPPLY GENERAL SUPPLIES 260.27 EMERGENCY MEDICAL PRODUCTS GENERAL SUPPLIES 272.28 ERICKSON, DAVID OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 49.03 ERICKSON, JUDIE SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 625.00 ERV'S LAWN MOWER REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTS 599.88 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (15.67) FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,197.22 FITZGERALD, JOHN OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 250.00 67 G & K SERVICES EQUIPMENT PARTS 34.64 GENERAL SAFETY EQUIPMENT CORP EQUIPMENT PARTS (14.07) GENUINE PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (27.83) GRAFIX SHOPPE MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT 739.00 GRAINGER INC, W W GENERAL SUPPLIES 151.58 GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 73.30 HANSON ASSOC INC, R D GENERAL SUPPLIES 22.95 HARMENING, TOM TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOO LS 60.84 HAWKINS WATER TREATMENT GROUP GENERAL SUPPLIES 681.28 HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF SUBSISTENCE SERVICE 675.25 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 12,013.98 HENNEPIN STATE FIRE SCHOOL TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOO LS 350.00 HOLZ, ANNE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 8.01 HOME DEPOT/GECF LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 267.22 HOME HARDWARE GENERAL SUPPLIES 286.26 HYDROLOGIC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 576.30 ICMA SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 30.00 IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS RENTAL EQUIPMENT 54.00 J H LARSON COMPANY OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 78.20 JAMES B. BENNYHOFF INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 JAMES CARTER INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 KARL, BETTY OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 116.04 LAND CARE EQUIPMENT CO EQUIPMENT PARTS 19.26 LARSEN, KATHLEEN MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 112.50 LAWSON PRODUCTS INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 25.61 LEAGUE MN CITIES INS TRUST BLDG & CONTENTS INSURANCE 49,111.50 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 72.00 LIBERTY CARTON COMPANY GENERAL SUPPLIES 144.40 LINHOFF PHOTO & DIGITAL IMAGIN GENERAL SUPPLIES 11.75 LOISELLE, G J OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 250.00 M A C T A TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOO LS 280.00 M R P A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 576.00 MARIE M. MACK INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 MARK J. MILLS INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 MASTERSON PERSONNEL INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 973.13 MAURICE SILVER INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 MEDTRONIC PHYSIO-CONTROL CORP EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 222.00 MENARDS OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 271.72 MESSERLI & KRAMER P.A. INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 METRO SALES INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 462.19 METRO SYSTEMS NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 113.15 METROCALL TELEPHONE 22.57 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 1,770.00 MIDWEST BADGE & NOVELTY CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 405.44 MIDWEST GANG INVESTIGATORS SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 30.00 68 ASS MIDWEST MAILING SYSTEMS INC POSTAGE 43.59 MIKE SIXEL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 53.74 MINNEAPOLIS GOLF CLUB MEETING EXPENSE 881.07 MINNESOTA PIPE & EQUIPMENT SMALL TOOLS 849.27 MINNESOTA TRUCKING ASSOC. OFFICE SUPPLIES 117.97 MN DEPT OF LABOR & INDUSTRY LICENSES/TAXES 30.00 MN DRIVER & VEHICLE SVCS EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT CHARGE (46.00) MOTZKO PLUMBING, FRANK PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,600.00 MTI DISTRIBUTING CO EQUIPMENT PARTS 78.31 NAPA GENUINE PARTS CO/FINANCE EQUIPMENT PARTS (10.32) NEENAH FOUNDREY OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 7,877.39 NELSON-RUDIE ASSOCIATES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 457.20 NORTHERN WATER TREATING CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 512.73 NSP CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 43,471.19 OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE SUPPLIES 490.24 OFFICE MAX GENERAL SUPPLIES 29.24 OLSEN CHAIN & CABLE CO INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 10.83 ORKIN PEST CONTROL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 33.65 OTTO PACKAGING MIDWEST LLC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES (72.00) PARK PET HOSPITAL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 643.00 PARTS PLUS EQUIPMENT PARTS (195.06) PAUL & HEIDI HAPPE INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 PERSONNEL DECISIONS INTERNATIO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 4,065.00 PIRES, CLINTON E SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 94.00 PRAXAIR DISTRIBUTION INC. GENERAL SUPPLIES 52.01 PRINTERS SERVICE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 188.30 PRO PRODUCTS INC GENERAL SUPPLIES (92.32) RAINBOW TREE CARE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 675.00 REYNOLDS WELDING SUPPLY CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 110.23 RICE, SHAWN Clothing Allow/Reimbursement 184.00 RICK BIRNO GENERAL SUPPLIES 31.48 RIGID HITCH INCORPORATED EQUIPMENT PARTS 277.60 ROYCE ROLLS RINGER COMPANY GENERAL SUPPLIES 211.72 RUFFRIDGE JOHNSON EQUIPMENT CO EQUIPMENT PARTS 69.08 RUTTGERS BAY LAKE LODGE TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOO LS 90.00 S & S WORLDWIDE GENERAL SUPPLIES 206.71 SARAH TYVAND YOUTH ATHLETICS/LEAGUES- exempt 35.00 SCHARBER & SONS INC EQUIPMENT PARTS (3.51) SENSIBLE LAND USE COALITION TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOO LS 30.00 SERCO LABORATORIES GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,200.00 SIMPLEX TIME RECORDER CO EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 170.10 SLP CRIME PREVENTION FUND UNREALIZED REV-SAFETY CAMP 0.00 SPS COMPANIES INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 95.85 STAT MEDICAL GENERAL SUPPLIES 624.16 69 TERMINIX INTERNATIONAL BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 51.12 THE LIFEGUARD STORE INC. GENERAL SUPPLIES 435.95 THOMAS J. MUGGLI INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 TRIARCO ARTS & CRAFTS GENERAL SUPPLIES 107.37 TRUE VALUE (PARK) GENERAL SUPPLIES 3.39 U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE 4,500.93 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED GENERAL SUPPLIES 2,218.37 VALLEY VIEW ASSOCIATES GENERAL SUPPLIES 13.79 VIKING INDUSTRIAL CENTER GENERAL SUPPLIES 375.89 WATSON CO INC CONCESSION SUPPLIES 765.88 WM H MC COY PETROLEUM FUELS OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 9.59 YAMANE BERHANE FACILITY RENTALS - taxable 100.00 ZEP MANUFACTURING GENERAL SUPPLIES 230.20 200,711.01 SL REPORT JUNE 16,2000 VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT JASON HUBER TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOO LS 500.00 PARK NATIONAL BANK DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 110,431.77 110,931.77 WORKERS COMP LIST June 16, 2000 VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT COPYMED INC WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE 2.15 DOLTON, FRED WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE 51.14 FAIRVIEW UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CT WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE 147.49 HAMILTON, JAYME INJURY PAY 475.73 KEIFER, RICHARD INJURY PAY 906.66 METHODIST HOSPITAL WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE 3,290.63 MINNESOTA ORTHOPEDICS WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE 875.00 ORTHOPAEDIC CONSULTANTS WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE 116.82 PARK NICOLLET MEDICAL CENTER WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE 63.50 SEDGEWICK MANAGED CARE WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE 81.25 SMITH, CARY S INJURY PAY 732.00 VALLEY FAMILY PRACTICE WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE 63.25 6,805.62 70 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item #11a* Meeting of June 19, 2000 *11a Bid Tabulation: Pumper Fire Apparatus for Rescue/Fire Suppression This report considers the purchase of one (1) Pumper (1250 gpm) Fire Apparatus for Rescue/Fire Suppression for the Fire Department. Recommended Action: Motion to designate Central States Fire Apparatus, LLC as the lowest responsible bidder for one (1) Pumper (1250 gpm) Fire Apparatus for Rescue/Fire Suppression and to authorize execution of a purchase agreement with Central States Fire Apparatus, LLC in the amount of $190,359.00 Background: Bids were received on April 26, 2000 for the purchase of one (1) Pumper Fire Apparatus for Rescue/Fire Suppression as provided in the 1999 Equipment Replacement Fund. An advertisement for bids was published in the St. Louis Park Sun-Sailor on March 15th and March 22nd, 2000. A pre-bid conference for prospective bidders was held on April 5th, 2000. Bid packages were issued to vendors nationally. A summary of the bid results is as follows: Vendor Net Purchase Price Central States Fire Apparatus, LLC $ 190,359.00 * North Central Ambulance $ 211,179.10 Toyne, Inc. $ 228,740.00 Precision Fire Apparatus $ 231,517.00 Metro Fire $ 243,783.00 Staff’s Estimate $ 240,000.00 * Low Bid Evaluation of Bids: A total of five (5) companies submitted bids. The “Net Purchase Price” reflects the vehicle bid plus options #1, #2, #3, #4, and #5 for all bidders. A review of the bids indicates Central States Fire Apparatus, LLC submitted the low bid without or including the options. Central States Fire Apparatus, LLC has satisfactorily constructed a number of similar Fire Apparatus trucks nationally and in surrounding communities. Staff has contacted a number of the fire departments that have purchased and are using similar trucks constructed by Central States Apparatus. All reported satisfaction with the units built by Central States Fire Apparatus and with any warranty work performed by them. Staff has determined that Central States Fire Apparatus, LLC submitted the lowest responsible bid and recommends a contract be awarded to the firm in the amount of $190,359.00. 71 Financial Considerations: Council authorized purchase of this unit in 1999 through adoption of the major equipment purchases. The 2000 Equipment Replacement Fund provided $240,000 for the purchase of this Pumper Fire Apparatus for Rescue/Fire Suppression. Prepared By: Harlan Backlund/Michael P. Rardin, Public Works Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager