HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000/07/05 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - RegularAgenda 1
AGENDA - CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
July 5, 2000
7:30 p.m.
7:10 p.m. - Economic Development Authority
1. Call to order
2. Presentation
2a. Parktacular Recognition
3. Roll Call
4. Approval of Minutes
a. City Council Minutes of June 19, 2000
Action: Corrections/amendments to minutes - Minutes approved as presented
b. Study Session Minutes of June 12, 200
Action: Corrections/amendments to minutes - Minutes approved as presented
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
Agenda 2
6. Public Hearing
6a. Public Hearing and Adoption of City-Wide Sidewalk and Trail Systems
This report recommends establishment of citywide Sidewalk and Trail Systems.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the attached resolution, which establishes a city-
wide Sidewalk and Trail System, and to direct the staff to begin
development of these systems at the earliest time possible.
7. Petitions, Requests, Communications
8. Resolutions and Ordinances
8a. Resolution Amending Special Assessment Policy
This action will authorize the use of special assessment to finance the relocation,
encasement, or bridging of City utilities on private property, which obstructs
development.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the attached resolution amending the City’s
Special Assessment Policy by: Establishing an administrative
fee for relocation, encroachment, bridging; permitting the City to
specially assess the cost of relocation, encroachment, bridging of
City utilities; and establishing the terms of special assessments.
8b. Request by David Hornig Companies for Preliminary Planned Unit
Development and variances for stacked parking and reduced bufferyard to
develop 39 units of townhomes
Case Nos. 00-32-PUD and 00-33-VAR
South of 36th Street and east of Phillips Parkway
Recommended
Action:
• Motion to adopt a resolution approving the preliminary PUD,
subject to conditions as recommended by staff.
• Motion to adopt a resolution approving variances for stacked
parking and reduced bufferyard requirements, subject to
conditions as recommended by staff.
8c. CASE NO. 00-34-Z - Zoning Ordinance Map Amendments for Consistency
with Comprehensive Plan
First reading of Zoning Ordinance Map Amendments to change designations for
parcels on the north side of West 13th Lane east of Texas Avenue from R2-Single
Family Residential to R-3 Two-Family Residential
Agenda 3
Recommended
Action:
Approve first reading of Zoning Ordinance Map Amendments
for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and set second
reading for July 17, 2000.
*8d. Waiver of Subdivision Regulations – Acquisition of 4600 and 4608 Excelsior
Boulevard
This report considers approval of a resolution which waives the application of the
City’s subdivision regulations to allow the division of a tax parcel which is
comprised of the Red Coach and Gipper’s/O’Toole’s buildings at 4600 and 4608
Excelsior Boulevard.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt a resolution waiving application of subdivision
regulations to allow division of consolidated Lots 11-20, Block
3, Minikahda Vista 2nd Addition into two parcels.
*8e. Request by Park Land Company for a six month extension to a Conditional
Use Permit to develop a four story, mixed-use commercial and residential
building
5101 Minnetonka Boulevard
Case Nos. 99-18-CUP
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt a resolution granting a three month extension to
the Conditional Use Permit until October 5, 2000.
*8f. Request by Northco, Inc. for a one year extension to a Conditional Use Permit
for an office building and parking ramp
1621 Park Place Boulevard
Case No. 98-28-CUP
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt a resolution extending the Conditional Use
Permit for six months from date of approval to January 5, 2001
*8g. Zoning Ordinance Amendments proposed by Joshua E. Aaron of Park Land
Company and staff
CASE NO. 00-17-ZA -
Second 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 second reading of Zoning Ordinance text amendment to
Section 14:5-6.2.E.1, adopt Ordinance, approve summary and
Agenda 4
authorize its publication.
*8h. Change Order No. 1 to Contract No. 53-98 with SRF Consulting, Inc. for
Professional Engineering Services
This report considers a request for Change Order No. 1 to Contract No. 53-98 with
SRF Consulting Group, Inc. for professional engineering services for the
Hutchinson Spur Regional Trail.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the attached resolution authorizing execution of
Change Order No. 1 in the amount of $33,500 to Contract No.
53-98 with SRF Consulting Group, Inc. for Professional
Engineering Services increasing the total contract amount from
$139,855.00 to $173,355.00.
*8i. Consultant Retention for Professional Engineering Design and Inspection
Services for Excelsior Boulevard Streetscape Between Quentin Avenue and
Monterey Drive (Phase III)
This report considers the retention of an Engineering Consultant to assist City staff
in the design and inspection of Phase III of the Excelsior Boulevard Streetscape
between Quentin Avenue and Monterey Drive scheduled for construction next year.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to Authorize Mayor and City Manager to execute a
Contract with SRF Consulting Group, Inc. (SRF) for
Professional Engineering Design and Inspection Services for the
Excelsior Boulevard Streetscape from Quentin Avenue to
Monterey Avenue (Phase III).
*8j.* Traffic Study No. 552 - Parking Restrictions at W 31st Street and Aquila Ave.
This report considers a property owner’s request for “No Parking” on W. 31st Street
East of Aquila Avenue.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the attached resolution authorizing installation
of “No Parking” signs on the north and south sides of W. 31st
Street from Aquila Avenue to a point 100 feet east.
9. Reports from Officers, Boards, Committees
*a. Human Rights Commission Minutes of May 17, 2000
*b. Planning Commission Minutes of June 7, 2000
*c. Board fo Zoning Appeals Minutes of May 25, 2000
Agenda 5
*d. Vendor Claims
Action: By consent, accept reports for filing
10. Unfinished Business
11. New Business
*11a. Amend the Preliminary Development Agreement for Park Commons developer
This report considers approving the Second Amendment to the Amended and
Restated Preliminary Development Agreement (PDA) between TOLD Development
Company, the City and the EDA relating to the Park Commons East redevelopment
project.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve the Second Amendment to the Amended and
Restated Preliminary Development Agreement between TOLD
Development Company, the City, and the EDA relating to the
Park Commons East redevelopment project.
*11b. Bid Tabulation: Entrance Signage and Site Improvements – City Project
No. 98-16
This report considers awarding a contract for the construction of an entrance
monument sign at Park Place Boulevard and the South Frontage Road of I-394.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to designate Nadeau Utility, Inc. the lowest responsible
bidder and authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the
amount of $37,351.00.
*11c. Bid Tabulation: Storm Water Flood Area No. 11 (Nelson Park) – Project No.
00-06; Area No. 12 (2916 Maryland) – Project No. 00-02; Area No. 17 (3363
Zarthan Avenue) – Project No. 00-04
This report considers awarding a contract for the construction of stormwater
improvements at Nelson Park, 2916 Maryland Avenue and at 3363 Zarthan Ave.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to designate Thomas & Sons Construction, Inc. the
lowest responsible bidder and authorize execution of a contract
with the firm in the amount of $185,654.96.
*11d. Bid Tabulation: Hutchinson Spur Regional Trail – City Project
No. 98-09 (S.P. 163-090-01)
Agenda 6
This report requests the City Council recommend to the Commissioner of
Transportation, as agent for the City, that a contract be awarded to the lowest
responsible bidder, and authorize deposit of the City’s 20% cost share with
Mn/DOT ($249,280.14)
Recommended
Action:
Motion to recommend to the Commissioner of Transportation, as
agent for the City, that a contract be awarded to the lowest
responsible bidder and authorize deposit of the City’s 20% cost
share with Mn/DOT.
12. Miscellaneous
13. Claims, Appropriations, Contract Payments
14. Communications
15. Adjournment
Item # 4a 1
Item # 4a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
June 19, 2000
1. Call to Order
Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
2. Presentations - None
3. Roll Call
The following Councilmembers were present at roll call: Jim Brimeyer, Ron Latz, Sue Sanger,
Sue Santa, Robert Young, and Mayor Jeff Jacobs.
Also present were the City Manager (Mr. Meyer); City Attorney (Mr. Scott); Director of Public
Works (Mr. Rardin); Police Chief (Mr. Luse); and Recording Secretary (Ms. Olson).
4. Approval of Minutes
a. City Council Minutes of June 5, 2000
The minutes were approved as presented.
b. Study Session Minutes of May 22, 2000
The minutes were approved as presented with the following corrections:
Page 9, Paragraph 2, change to “Councilmember Latz arrived at 8:45 p.m.”
Page 10, Item 3, Paragraph 2, change to “Councilmember Young felt that any trees or mature
plantings should not be destroyed as a result of construction”.
Page 11, Item 4, Paragraph 1, add “It was the consensus of the Council that they were not
prepared to adopt the staff’s recommendation, but desired to explore other options including a
suggestion for a turn stall”.
5. Approval of Agendas
a. Consent Agenda
It was moved by Councilmember Latz, seconded by Councilmember Young, to approve the
consent agenda. The motion passed 6-0.
b. Agenda
Item # 4a 2
It was moved by Councilmember Latz, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to approve the
agenda. The motion passed 6-0.
c. Resolutions and Ordinances
By consent, Council waived reading of resolutions and ordinances.
6. Public Hearings
6a. Proposed Citywide Sidewalk and Trail System
Mayor Jacobs stated that Council would not take any formal action on this item, but would take
public input and defer action on this proposal to July 5, 2000 in order to consider resident input
received June 15 and June 19.
Mr. Meyer, City Manager explained the background of the proposed plan which was an attempt
to link together all of St. Louis Park so there was a City wide system of connecting people that
addressed issues of safety related to pedestrians and bicyclists. He stated that all public
comments and input has been recorded and passed on to Council for consideration.
Mike Rardin, Director of Public Works presented a staff report. He reviewed the handouts
provided to the public explaining the revised proposal which was a scaled down version of Phase
I and Phase II combined.
Carol McPherson, 1333 Pennsylvania Avenue South, was concerned about what the actual
impact would be on her property.
Mayor Jacobs recommended that residents who had specific concerns about how the plan would
actually impact their property complete a yellow information sheet and forward to City staff.
Sara Kind, 1341 Pennsylvania Avenue south, was concerned about what the actual impact would
be on her property.
Mike Hiebel, 5726 W. Lake Street, was concerned about the proposed sidewalk on the North side
of Lake Street and the impact of the Rollergarden customers would have on the security of the
neighborhood. He believed the sidewalk plan was unnecessary, he had questions of aesthetics
and was concerned about the security of personal property.
Mr. Luse, Police Chief stated that he was aware of some of the historic incidents with the
Rollergarden and indicated that from a recent survey that trail and sidewalk expansion had no
measurable effect on public safety, but was happy to work with the neighborhood.
James M. Robertson, 5100 W. 40th Street, was concerned about the City’s level of commitment
to maintaining the proposed sidewalk and trails when existing sidewalks were already in need of
repair. He was concerned about some of the sidewalk design issues and the level of traffic
enforcement
Item # 4a 3
Mr. Rardin explained the existing policy and budget for sidewalk maintenance.
Ron Berry, 4100 Salem Avenue South, was opposed to the sidewalk on 41st between Wooddale
and Highway 100 and concerned about the actual impact on the neighborhood.
Robert Gendreau, 3057 Ottawa Avenue South, was concerned about the cost of the plan related
to the amount of current City debt. He recommended that the Council consider a pay as you go
approach to financing the plan.
Mr. Meyer, City Manager stated that a pay as you go approach could be considered rather than
using bonds.
Esther Katz, 2700 Yosemite Avenue, was concerned about what the actual impact would be on
her property.
Councilmember Sanger stated that Council discussed that it would be preferable to go back to the
28th Street route and not go on 27th Street which was currently on the plan.
Scott Dvorak, 6636 W. 16th Street, was concerned about what the actual impact would be on his
property.
Martin Noll, 3300 Rhode Island Avenue South, was in favor of the plan and the recommendation
for share-the-road on 33rd Street connecting Aquila Park to Oak Hill Park.
Dan Smaida, 3246 Rhode Island Avenue South, was in favor of the plan and the recommendation
for share-the-road on 33rd Street connecting Aquila Park to Oak Hill Park.
Michael N. Hindin, 7708 W. 13 1/2 Street, stated that he was in favor of the plan and
recommended that this was an opportunity to design a community education training program to
teach the public about how to use share-the-road.
Lyle Eakins, 2048 Flag Avenue, believed that a sidewalk was necessary for safety reasons, but
was concerned about what the actual impact would be on his property and the responsibility of
snow removal and financing.
Duane Krohnke, 2505 Princeton Court, representative of the Princeton Court Association, stated
that he was in favor of the plan.
Rabbi Berry Wolfe, 2640 Quentin Avenue, was concerned about pedestrian safety and
recommended the installation of additional street lights.
Councilmember Sanger noted that other residents have inquired about the possibility of
proposing additional sidewalks that were not currently on the plan.
Mr. Rardin indicated that desired sidewalks that are not listed would be neighborhood sidewalks
and neighborhoods could petition to the City for them.
Item # 4a 4
Ann Betz, 2524 Joppa Avenue, was in favor of the sidewalk plan, but questioned if there was any
plan about pedestrian cross walk at France Avenue.
Nathan Bush, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, was concerned about traffic enforcement at 16th and
Pennsylvania related to pedestrian safety. He was concerned about the proposed path on east
side of Lamplighter Pond and what the actual impact would be on his property. He desired to
meet with City Staff and his Council representative to resolve the issue before the plan is
completed.
Mr. Meyer, City Manager explained the proposed improvements to Lamplighter Pond and the
proposal was not to be to cross on Mr. Bush’s property, but rather to locate trail off behind his
property.
Joan Borwik, 3400 Aquila Lane, was concerned that the plan was too extensive and wouldn’t be
able address all areas of concern at the same time. She believed that the safety and recreational
goals for the City needed to be separated and evaluated.
Roger Paulis, 2929 Dakota Avenue, was concerned about the dedicated bike lanes and the
parking restrictions on Dakota.
Mr. Johnson, 1319 Texas Avenue, was opposed to the sidewalk proposed on east side of Texas
and what the actual impact would be on his property and the existing trees and safety of the
presence of a retaining wall.
Ken Dubbe, 2550 Webster Avenue, was concerned that this issue was controversial and believed
the correct way to handle this issue was to put on referendum ballot.
Paul Ziegel, 4201 Toledo Avenue, commended the City on the plan which will make the City
more accessible.
Debbie Johnson, 3181 Hillsborough Avenue South, questioned if any of the City owned park
land adjacent to the Minnehaha Creek trail proposed between West 34th Street, Aquila Lane and
Hillsborough Avenue been cited for possible future canoe amenities by Hennepin Parks.
Mr. Meyer, City Manager explained that park system improvements were being proposed for the
inner ring suburbs by Hennepin County, but details about canoe accessibility were not available
at this time.
Doris Courts, 4920 W. 28th Street, was concerned about the proposed bike trail on 28th Street.
Opal Young, 2044 Flag Avenue South, was concerned about what the actual impact would be on
her property.
Joyce Scully, 2500 Flag Avenue South, was concerned about what the actual impact would be on
her property.
Item # 4a 5
Vicki Sector, 2006 Hampshire Avenue, was concerned about what the actual impact would be on
her property.
Mr. Rardin, Director of Public Works noted that many details have yet to be evaluated and
finalized as the plan was implemented.
Council deferred action on this proposal to July 5, 2000.
7. Petitions, Requests, Communications - None
8. Resolutions and Ordinances
8a. Case NO. 00-22-Z - Zoning Ordinance Map Amendments for Comprehensive
Plan Consistency
By consent, Council approved second reading of Zoning Ordinance Map Amendments for
consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, adopted Ordinance, approved summary, and
authorized 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
By consent, Council adopted 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
By consent, Council approved first reading of Zoning Ordinance test amendment to Section 14:5-
66.2.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) 5320 W. 23rd Street Case No. 00-26-VAC
By consent, Council approved 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
By consent, Council adopted the resolution.
9. Reports from Officers, Boards, Committees
a. Financial Report - May 2000
b. Housing Authority Minutes of May 10, 2000
Item # 4a 6
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
By consent, Council accepted all reports for filing.
10. Unfinished Business
10a. Board and Commission Appointments - None
11. New Business
11a. Bid Tabulation: Pumper Fire Apparatus for Rescue/Fire Suppression
By consent, Council designated 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 - None
13. Claims, Appropriation, Contract Payments - None
14. Communications - None
15. Adjournment
It was moved by Councilmember Brimeyer, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to adjourn the
meeting at 9:50 p.m. The motion passed 6-0.
City Clerk Mayor
4b 1
Item # 4b
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
Minutes of June 12, 2000
The meeting convened at 6:05 p.m.
Present at the meeting were Councilmembers Jim Brimeyer, Ron Latz, Chris Nelson, Susan
Sanger, Sue Santa, and Mayor Jeff Jacobs.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Meyer), Director of Community Development (Mr.
Harmening), Planning and Zoning Supervisor (Ms. Jeremiah), Planning Coordinator (Ms.
Erickson), Director of Public Works (Mr. Rardin), Director of Parks and Recreation (Ms. Walsh),
Community Cable Coordinator (Mr. McHugh), and City Clerk (Ms. Larsen).
1. Park Commons
Mayor Jacobs spoke about the interviews for the potential Park Commons developer that had
taken place on June 7th. He reported that second interviews would take place in the near future.
Councilmember Nelson stated his preference to interview more than one finalist. He then
discussed different attributes of the various developer teams and Councilmember Young did the
same. Councilmember Young felt that based on the interviews, TOLD would be brought back
for a second interview. Mr. Harmening suggested that TOLD be interviewed and then determine
if others should be brought back for interviews.
Council and staff then discussed possible times to hold the interview.
2. Proposed Competitive Cable TV System Presentation
Present at the meeting representing the City Attorney’s office was Joel Jamnik of Campbell
Knutsen, P.A. Also present was the Vice President of Marketing for Wide Open West, Chris
Julian.
Councilmember Sanger asked about disruption to the right of way. Mr. McHugh replied that
trenchless technology would be used whenever possible.
Councilmember Jacobs stated that there are limited grounds for denial of such a franchise.
Councilmember Nelson felt that there should be competition. Mr. Jamnik added that federal law
prohibits exclusive franchises.
Councilmember Sanger asked why Wide Open West chose Minneapolis and the surrounding
suburbs. Mr. Julian replied that it has a good market and a low amount of penetration by other
franchises. Councilmember Latz inquired as to the status of Metricom.
4b 2
Mayor Jacobs asked what the next step would be. Mr. McHugh stated they need to meet legal
notice requirements. Mr. Jamnik pointed out that the state and federal legislation are in conflict
over some of these issues.
Mr. Meyer inquired what would happen if additional competition comes forward. Mr. Jamnik
replied they would repeat the process and another notice would have to be published.
Councilmember Sanger asked if references have been checked. Mr. Jamnik replied that it is part
of the process and it is the one area where the City is granted discretion for denial.
Mr. Meyer raised the issue of undergrounding utilities and wondered if undergrounding would
apply to cable and telephone companies.
Councilmember Santa inquired who would pay for the repair to the streets and landscaping. Mr.
Rardin replied that the vendor is responsible.
3. NSP Substation
Ms. Erickson described several sites that were being considered as locations and the problems
with zoning requirements for the properties. The NSP owned property is located at the southeast
corner of Cedar Lake Road and Edgewood Ave. It would not be possible to build a substation on
this site without amending the Zoning Map and Comprehensive Plan. Another alternative is to
build the station on City owned property located east of the CP Rail at 2501 Edgewood Ave. The
zoning on this property would need to be changed to come into compliance with the
Comprehensive plan. Mr. Meyer inquired if a variance could be used in this situation. Mr.
Harmening replied that it could.
Councilmember Nelson inquired if there could be a taking issue as a result of rezoning after
permits are issued. Ms. Erickson replied that state law favors the decision of the cities.
Councilmember Latz asked if NSP is planning to use the north or south portion of their property.
Ms. Erickson replied that they will use the south end near the industrial park.
Mr. Jim Rhodes showed a conceptual photo of the substation design. Council and staff discussed
the height of towers, poles, etc.
Councilmember Nelson would like a history of past Council actions regarding this issue.
Ms. Erickson stated that this issue was brought to Council to reguide and rezone the proposed
area.
Councilmember Latz felt that Option One (NSP owned property) was the only choice and would
like to know how to mitigate to ease the impact on residential properties. Councilmember
Sanger inquired if electronic or radio interference would occur and Mr. Rhodes replied that it
would not. She then asked if there might be any other impacts. Mr. Rhodes said there will be
noise, or a hum, of the transformer at the substation fence.
4b 3
Mr. Meyer stated that some residents are concerned about the proximity to the electro-magnetic
field (EMF). Mr. Rhodes stated that NSP did not intend to add any voltage power lines and that
a field already exists by that property.
Councilmember Latz inquired if a buffer other than landscaping could be used. Mr. Rhodes
replied that it would be possible to construct a buffer, but a larger footprint would be needed to
allow for cooling of the equipment. Coniferous trees are NSP’s preferred buffer material. After
the construction, NSP activity would be limited to approximately two visits a week with no
ongoing traffic.
Councilmember Sanger inquired how long the substation would meet residential needs.
Mr. Rhodes stated that if option one was built as proposed, the needs will be met at current utility
rates. However, if option two was chosen, the cost may be absorbed by the city or by an increase
in billing fees. The company felt that the addition of the substation could handle foreseen
development. However, if any additional uses were added with excessive power needs, such as a
hospital or casino, the substation would not be able to maintain the extra energy needed. The
substation could be upgraded if that need existed.
Councilmember Young felt that the City owned property would not be a good location for the
substation. He referred to this same issue that was raised several years ago and stated that the
timing for such a proposal had not been right. He felt the time is appropriate now to deal with the
issue but only if the neighborhood is involved and not opposed to the substation. He stated that
he did not want to make comprehensive plan changes.
Mr. Meyer inquired how quickly NSP could move forward if Council took action. Mr. Rhodes
stated that the groundwork could be completed by fall. It would then take a year and one half to
go from grading to operation. There was concern that the permit should not be issued too early as
they only have two years before it expires.
Mr. Harmening felt that the variance process was not the appropriate method to use and
suggested that rezoning be done to the Comprehensive Plan at the time of the permit application.
He stated that such a use will be permitted but with conditions. A possible CUP may be required
due to floodplain concerns. He stated that staff and NSP will work on the details.
4. Proposed Future Land Use for Properties South of Cedar Lake Road, West of
Zarthan Avenue extended, and East of CP Rail right of way including the City-
owned property at 2501 Edgewood Ave S (“Boneyard site); and the NSP property at
2201 Edgewood Avenue
Staff gave an overview of future land use for four residentially used parcels south of Cedar Lake
Road between the CP Rail north/south railroad and Zarthan Avenue extended. They would like a
discussion considering the zoning of the City’s “Boneyard” site and Council direction regarding
the Comprehensive Plan guiding on the NSP property.
4b 4
Councilmember Sanger questioned whether Council had adequately addressed the zoning design
of the area south of Cedar Lake Road. She stated her preference to change zoning on the
Boneyard site to open space and to have the residential properties zoned as residential.
Councilmember Latz asked if any of the open space was buildable and Ms. Erickson replied that
it was not. The site was re-desiginated as one half open space and one half industrial.
The residential properties south of Cedar Lake Road were discussed and concern was raised that
the properties would be non-conforming if the zoning was changed. The long term use for the
property was an issue of concern.
Ms. Jeremiah suggested staff should be directed to analyze the Comprehensive Plan for
residential and industrial use.
Councilmember Nelson felt that only the four residential parcels were of concern and they should
continue to move forward with the other changes. Councilmember Young felt they should move
forward with the Planning Commission’s recommendation to change the design of the
“Boneyard” site. Councilmember Brimeyer stated that the site may be appropriate for move up
housing such as luxury townhomes and they may not want to zone the property to allow for that
use.
5. Zoning Ordinance text amendments to modify Office District regulations pertaining
to residential uses
Ms. Erickson explained the proposed amendment and the difference between the proposed
modifications to the Office District and other mixed use designations.
Councilmember Nelson inquired about the DDD (Diversified Development District) used several
years ago and the Council discretion in guiding development through the PUD process.
Councilmember Sanger inquired about open space requirements. Ms. Erickson replied that a
minimum of 400 square feet per living unit was required. Councilmember Sanger raised the
issue of cluster housing. It was discussed that because of the heights of the surrounding
buildings, it would not be feasible to allow cluster housing in that area.
6. Sidewalks and Trails
Mr. Rardin asked Council for guidance on several issues: bike paths versus parking, snow
removal costs and citizen reaction, and the Capital Improvement Plan.
Councilmember Young was concerned about the overall cost of the project and how it had
increased from five million to eleven million dollars. Mr. Rardin stated that nearly six million
will be used for construction of trails with outside funding and MnDot will also work on the
crossings. The approximate cost to the City is between four and four and a half million dollars.
Rules and procedures for the public hearing were discussed.
4b 5
7. School District Requests
Ms. Walsh gave an overview of the school districts needs. The School District is asking for
funding assistance for four projects: reconstruction of the Junior and Senior High tennis courts,
Lenox Senior Center repairs and one of the Junior High’s gymnasiums.
Council inquired why the recent referendum did not include these costs. There was a discussion
regarding senior programming already provided by the City. The Council agreed that this issue
needs a full discussion.
Councilmember Latz felt that it is appropriate to participate in funding community needs for
recreational facilities.
Councilmember Brimeyer asked if this could be folded into a larger referendum for city-wide
recreation needs. Councilmember Young added that if the referendum did not go as anticipated,
it would be a message from the public as to their feelings on the issue.
Mayor Jacobs stated that Lenox Center is not in good condition and is in need of repairs.
Councilmember Santa felt that the City should be driving the discussion regarding City
contributions.
It was suggested that the money could come from the health and safety emergency fund.
Councilmember Nelson suggested that the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission research
the needs of the city and Council will come back to the School District when the study is
complete.
Funding for the tennis courts at the Junior and Senior High will be granted as part of a previous
contract.
8. Police Reorganization
Chief Luse discussed the proposed elimination of the investigator position in an attempt to move
from traditional policing to community oriented policing. These positions will be redesigned to
be more flexible with assignments and more coordinated with uniform patrol and support
services. The overall additional cost to implement the reorganization would be approximately
fifteen to twenty thousand dollars a year.
9. Communications
Council discussed the process they would prefer for making board and commission
appointments. It was agreed that all appointments would be placed on the agenda prior to the
meeting
10. Adjournment - The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m.
4b 6
City Clerk Mayor
6a 1
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 6a
Meeting of July 5, 2000
6a. Public Hearing and Adoption of City-Wide Sidewalk and Trail Systems
This report recommends establishment of citywide Sidewalk and Trail Systems.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the attached resolution, which establishes a city-
wide Sidewalk and Trail System, and to direct the staff to begin
development of these systems at the earliest time possible.
Background: Staff presented a Revised Proposal for the city-wide Sidewalk and Trail systems
to the City Council at the Public Hearing held June 19. This Revised Proposal is shown on the
attached map (Exhibit A). The Proposal calls for the City to complete the construction of various
sidewalks, off-road trails, on-road bikeways and crossings. A summary of the Revised Proposal,
along with details and construction costs, are included as attachments. The Proposal also states
the City will maintain and remove the snow from these various facilities. Finally, it is proposed
that Guiding Principles (attached) will be utilized to develop (construct) and to maintain these
systems.
Various resident comments were received at, and after, the Public Hearing. Those have been
compiled and are included for your information and use.
Possible Changes to the Revised Proposal: Based on comments received the past two months,
Council requested staff to identify and compile possible changes to the Revised Proposal. These
changes are listed in Exhibit B attached.
The following is a brief summary showing how these changes would affect the Revised Proposal
Element Revised Proposal Suggested Changes
Sidewalk (miles/cost) 8.3 / $1,662,152 - 0.5 / - $ 56,000
Trails (miles/cost) 5.4 / $1,957,138 - 0.5 / - $135,000
Bikeways (miles/cost) 32.7 / $1,127,562 - 0.4 / - $ 6,000
Crossings (each/cost) 25 / $6,668,750 -- / --
Narrowed Streets (miles/cost) 2.0 / $516,700 -- / --
N.H. Walks (miles/cost) --- / --- -- / --
TOTAL $11,933,302 -$ 197,000
6a 2
In addition, staff suggests Council consider the creation of an additional on-road Bikeway to
supplement the other two proposed Bikeways (Share The Road and Designated Bike Lane). This
third type of Bikeway could be used where guidelines/standards preclude the use or designation
of the other two.
Resident Comments: Staff has attempted to incorporate resident comments into the changes
suggested above. Comments unable to be addressed by staff generally were individual comments
such as:
1. Do not do this in my yard
2. Do not do this segment or any others
3. Costs too much
4. Provide compensation for impacts caused by this
Issues: Based on resident input, staff has suggested revisions (Exhibit B) to the Revised
Proposal. If council accepts those changes, staff feels all broad community issues will have been
satisfactorily addressed. There are, needless to say, some individual issues such as noted above
that staff has not addressed.
Summary: Staff recommends Council adopt the Revised Proposal with staff suggested changes
and consider establishing a third type of Bikeway as discussed in this report.
Staff also recommends Council direct staff to implement the development of these systems at the
earliest time.
Finally, staff recommends Council defer action on the Minnehaha Creek Trail and Hillsboro
Avenue Bikeway segments pending further resident input this year.
Attachments: Resolution
Exhibit A – Map
Exhibit B – Suggested Revisions
Revised Proposal
Revised Quantities
Revised Walks
Revised Trails & Bikeways
Revised Crossings
Guiding Principles
Public Hearing Comments
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
6a 3
RESOLUTION NO. 00-077
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING CITY WIDE
SIDEWALK AND TRAIL SYSTEMS
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park wishes to officially establish a
sidewalk and trail system in the city, and
WHEREAS, a map, attached as Exhibit A to this resolution describes and depicts a city-wide
system of sidewalks and trails that has been considered by Council and revised through a series
of neighborhood meetings and other forms of citizen input, and
WHEREAS, Exhibit A, as attached, does not depict all changes directed by the City Council and
additional revisions to be reflected on Exhibit A are contained in Exhibit B.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, that
the City hereby establishes a city-wide Sidewalk and Trial System, and that the map attached as
Exhibit A with revisions as contained in Exhibit B is the Official Trail and Sidewalk Map of the
City, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City maintain and remove snow from these walks and
trails in accordance with ordinance requirements.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council July 5, 2000
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
8a 1
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 8a
Meeting of July 5, 2000
8a. Resolution Amending Special Assessment Policy
This action will authorize the use of special assessment to finance the relocation,
encasement, or bridging of City utilities on private property, which obstructs
development.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the attached resolution amending the City’s
Special Assessment Policy by: Establishing an administrative
fee for relocation, encasement, bridging; permitting the City to
specially assess the cost of relocation, encasement, bridging of
City utilities; and establishing the terms of special assessments.
Background: At its May 22, 2000 Study Session the City Council discussed alternatives to
assist property owners who have difficulty developing/redeveloping due to the location of a City
utility on their property. The Council preferred the use of special assessments to assist property
owners in spreading out their costs when they encounter this situation.
Discussion: After reviewing the City’s special assessment policy it is recommended that a new
section be added which specifically addresses the use of special assessments for assisting
property owners who wish to develop/redevelop and encounter a City owned utility that hinders
or obstructs their plans.
Staff receives a number of requests each year from property owners who desire to expand their
homes or garages and encounter restrictive easements for city utilities. In these cases staff
informs the property owner of their options, which are as follows:
1. Relocate the existing utility (property owners cost).
2. Encase the existing utility (property owners cost).
3. Bridge the existing utility (property owners cost)
a. Structural span.
b. Removable type structure.
Each of the above options has been routinely utilized at different locations throughout the City.
However, this has usually been in conjunction with commercial development activities, not
residential requests. Due to the costs of implementing these options, it is not a financially
feasible option for most homeowners. Typically, the cost ranges from $7,000 to $30,000 or more
to construct the above options. Providing a financial tool, as an alternative would be similar to
the City’s Policy of allowing special assessments to assist residential property owners replace
water and sewer services.
8a 2
In addition, it is also recommended that the Council adopt an application fee to cover the
administrative costs for this program. Staff estimates the costs and fee structure to be similar to
the fire sprinkler system assessment. The administrative fee for processing is recommended to
be one-half of one percent (0.5%) of the assessed amount, with a minimum fee of $150 and a
maximum fee of $750.00. This will also provide consistency in the special assessment policy for
the administrative fee structure.
Terms of Special Assessment
Finally, it is recommended that the City Council adopt a policy on the term of special assessment
for utility work. The recommended terms, based upon the dollar amount of the special
assessment are as follows:
• Less than $1,000 – 3 years
• Less than $4,000 – 10 years
• Greater than $4,000 – 20 years
The terms of special assessments would only apply to sewer and water services and the
relocation, encasement, and bridging of City utility lines.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Carlton Moore/Mike Rardin, Public Works
Bruce Stepnick/City Assessor
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
8a 3
RESOLUTION NO. 00-078
A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NUMBER 96-85
ESTABLISHING ASSESSMENT POLICIES FOR IMPROVEMENT
PROJECTS
WHEREAS, project designs for the installation of City improvements may differ with respect to
zoning districts and special characteristics of certain streets and thoroughfares; and
WHEREAS, distinctions can be made with respect to benefits realized by properties adjoining
these improvements in accordance with zoning designations and street characteristics; and
WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City Council to express its policy on assessments for
improvements for the guidance of its staff and its citizens; and
WHEREAS, the City Council hereby amends Resolution 96-85. This Resolution shall replace
the prior resolution as a guide for the assessment of improvement projects;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of St. Louis Park that;
1. DEFINITION OF MARKET VALUE
A. Special assessments are intended to reflect the influence of a specific local
improvement upon the value of property and no matter what particular formula or method is used
to establish the amount of the assessment the real measure of benefits is the increase in the
market value of the land as a result of the improvement.
B. Project costs shall include all costs related to the survey, design, and construction
of the project. All the City’s engineering and administrative costs shall be included in the project
cost as a 9 percent and 3 per cent fee based on the final construction costs.
2. PAVING, CURB AND GUTTER
A. Projects to be assessed will be specially assessed a direct benefit of $13.00 per front foot
for paving and $7.00 per front foot for curbing and gutter for residential properties and 100% of
the cost for commercial and multi-family properties.
B. STANDARD BLOCKS. All paving, curb and gutter projects, for which no assessment
has been approved prior to May 1, 1972, the corner lot shall be charged 25% of the side street
improvement cost. The remaining 75% of the side street improvement cost shall be charged
equally on a front foot basis to all frontage, from the corner midway to the next intersection. The
75% balance is described to be the indirect benefit.
C. NON-STANDARD BLOCKS. The assessor, in spreading the assessment in the
following situations may deviate from the Council's formula in spreading the cost to the extent
8a 4
that benefits assessed are in proportion to benefits received for each type of improvement and
equitably compare with assessed properties in the improvement
project:
1. Where platting is irregular, including metes and bounds described
properties,
2. In circumstances where subdividing has caused a rearrangement at the end
of the block,
3. Where lots or building sites front on a side street contrary to the regular
grid platting,
4. In circumstances where the distance between two corner lots is 300 feet or
less,
5. Where "T" alleys involve lots having the depth of lot adjacent to the
bottom side of the cross "T".
6. Where a lot has frontage on two streets, the assessment will be on the street
where the property is addressed.
D. Driveway aprons shall be assessed to the benefiting property owner 100% of the cost
of the improvement.
E. All lands occupied by churches not in excess of their reasonable needs and used
actively and exclusively for religious purposes shall be assessed at the prevailing rate applying to
single or double family houses.
F. For purposes of preparation of engineering data, improvement proceedings, and other
administrative and engineering details, the administrative staff and the Department of Public
Works may delete from any street improvement area any street or curb and gutter which in
reasonable judgment of staff should be free from major maintenance and repair (barring
unforeseen problems) for at least five (5) years from the date of the proposed improvement and
does not adversely affect the general need, including drainage, and other essential determinations
involved in the project area.
G. Any street, curb and gutter, or other appurtenance involved in such street
improvement project area so deleted may be reinstated or included by petition of not less than
51% of the owners of abutting and benefiting real properties of a street previously deleted.
H. The City Assessor in making his assessments on new curb and gutters shall give
credit to the property owner to insure that no assessment will be made for the removed lineal
footage of curb and gutter when such curb and gutter would be, in reasonable judgment of the
Department of Public Works, free from major maintenance and repair (barring unforeseen
problems) for at least 5 years from the date of the improvement and meets grade level
requirements for gravity flow or surface storm water and that the storm sewer contractor will be
responsible for the replacement costs of any curb and gutter removed or damaged due to his
negligence.
I. Improvements for paving, curb, and gutter shall be assessed for a period of 20 years to
benefiting property owners.
3. SIDEWALKS
A. On collector roadways and thoroughfares, the cost of new sidewalk installation shall
be assessed at 50 percent of the actual construction costs and the remaining 50 percent of actual
8a 5
construction costs shall be financed by general obligation bonds or other appropriate funds of the
City.
B. On streets which are not collector roadways or thoroughfares, the cost of sidewalks shall
be assessed 100 percent of the construction costs of sidewalks abutting them.
C. Commercial, industrial, and multiple family properties shall be assessed 100 percent
of the construction costs of sidewalks abutting them.
D. The assessment policy for corner lots relative to sidewalk installation shall be as
follows:
1. On collector roadways and thoroughfares under City jurisdiction, 25 percent of the
actual construction costs of sidewalks shall be assessed against the property's sideyard (long side
of the lot); 25 percent of the construction costs shall be assessed on an equal front-foot basis
against properties on one-half of the block on the side of the street where the walk is constructed;
and 50 percent of sidewalk construction costs shall be financed by general obligation bonds or
other appropriate funds of the City.
2. On streets which are not collector roadways or thoroughfares, 50 percent of actual
sidewalk construction costs shall be assessed against the property owner's sideyard and 50
percent of actual construction costs shall be assessed on an equal front foot basis against
properties on one-half of the block on the side of the street where the sidewalk is constructed.
E. Random sidewalk repair will not be assessed but will be paid out of the Street
Department budget.
4. STREET LIGHTING
A. The cost of street lighting improvements on residential streets as identified in the
Comprehensive Plan shall be undertaken only by petition of 75% or more of benefiting
property owners and shall be assessed 100 percent against the benefiting properties on a unit
basis. After the signed petition is received by the City, but before the improvement is ordered
to be made, a written notification shall be sent to benefiting property owners and contain
individual assessment amounts, which properties will be assessed, and which property owners
signed the petition. A unit being defined as the equivalent of a zoning lot. If a standard zoning
classification does not exist throughout the project area, special assessments may be computed
on a unit, area, or lineal basis or any combination thereof. Non-petitioned projects on
residential streets will be financed with general revenues.
B. The cost of street lighting improvements for residential properties on collector streets
with existing street lighting in place will be financed with general revenues.
C. The cost of street lighting improvements along any collector or thoroughfare, as identified
in the Comprehensive Plan, where street lighting is not currently in place, shall be assessed 50
percent of the cost of the standard residential portion of the design, that is intersectional and mid-
block lighting. If a standard zoning classification does not exist throughout the project area,
special assessments may be computed on a unit, area, or lineal basis or any combination thereof.
General revenues shall be used to finance the remainder of the project cost.
D. The cost of street lighting improvements in high density areas (six or more units per
acre in R-3 Zoning Districts or a zoning district having a greater intensity than the R-3 Zone),
business, or industrial areas with existing street lighting in place shall be taken out of the General
Fund.
8a 6
E. The cost of street lighting improvements in high density residential areas (six or more
units per acre in R-3 Zoning districts or a zoning district having a greater intensity than the R-3
Zone), business, or industrial areas without street lighting currently in place shall be assessed 100
percent against the benefiting properties. Costs shall be assessed on the basis of direct and
indirect benefits.
Direct benefits shall be equal to 30 percent of the project costs. The direct benefit shall
be calculated by dividing 30 percent of the total project cost by the number of street lights in the
project. The unit cost resulting from this formula shall be assessed against properties receiving a
direct benefit from an adjoining street light. Direct costs shall be shared equally by adjoining
properties when the street light is located on the property line.
Indirect benefits shall be equal to 70 percent of the project cost. The indirect costs shall
be assessed against all properties in the project area on a front-foot basis.
F. The useful life of a street lighting project shall be established as 15 years.
Replacement of any portion of the street lighting system shall not be assessable for a period of 15
years from the date of the last street lighting installation.
Special assessments shall be financed consistent with the life of the improvement.
Individual special assessments of $100 or less shall be paid in one year; and individual special
assessments between $100 and $200 shall be paid in two years, unless the person paying the
special assessment is a senior citizen in which case the special assessments may be deferred.
5. ALLEY PAVING
A. The cost of alley improvements for residential properties shall be assessed as follows
when at least 51 percent (alley front feet) of the property owners petition for the improvement:
1. Thirty (30) percent of the cost of the improvement shall be assessed against all
properties abutting the alley. (INDIRECT BENEFIT)
2. Seventy (70) percent of the cost of the improvement shall be assessed against directly
benefited properties as defined in paragraph 5(B). (DIRECT BENEFIT)
B. A property is directly benefited if it has an existing garage with direct access to the
alley, if an access to the alley could be constructed from an existing garage, or if, no garage
exists, there is sufficient area on the lot to build a garage with access to the alley.
C. Commercial and multi-family property owners shall be assessed 100 percent of the
cost of the improvement.
D. Alleys shall be constructed of concrete and shall be assessed for a period of 20 years.
6. MAINTENANCE COSTS FOR UNIMPROVED STREETS AND ALLEYS
A. The total cost of maintenance of unimproved streets and alleys, including material,
labor, equipment, financing, supervision, and administrative overhead required for special
assessment procedure and performance of work, shall be assessed against those property owners
abutting the unimproved street or alley on which
maintenance is performed. For purposes of this policy, maintenance is defined as grading,
leveling, patching, surfacing, overlaying or sealing any or all portions of any street or alley
roadway. Activities not related to restoration or improvement of the roadway surface, such as
street sweeping or snow plowing, will not be considered as assessable maintenance costs.
8a 7
B. The assessment for street maintenance shall be determined by totaling the cost for
each street maintained during the year and dividing the number of assessable feet of abutting
properties to determine a cost per front foot. Said cost will be assessed against the number of
feet on the front of any given lot, with side street assessments being assessed using the current
City policy for street paving assessments. For purposes of this policy, a street or alley is
improved when it is constructed with proper drainage, has concrete curbs (streets only) gutters,
and meets the State of Minnesota Department of Transportation "Standard Specifications for
Highway Construction" which includes, but is not limited to, a minimum six-inch granular base
and two-inch asphalt overlay or strength equivalent, or a minimum seven-inch thickness of
concrete paving material.
C. The assessment for street and alley maintenance shall be determined by totaling the
cost during the 12-month period beginning January 1 of each year and assessing the cost per
front foot to benefiting properties.
D. Single properties normally will not be assessed more than every three years for
improvement of the same street or alley; however, it is anticipated that in the cost of streets and
alleys which require "annual maintenance" there will be an accumulative assessment covering the
three-year period. Assessments shall be payable in the year levied if the amount is less than
$100.00; in two years if the amount is between $100.00 and $200.00; and in three years if the
amount is greater than $200.00. The interest rate charged to those property owners electing to
pay after the 30-day period following the adoption of the assessment roll shall be the same as the
interest rate charged in Section 14 (A) of this resolution.
E. The cost of street improvements which result from disturbing streets for storm sewers
or other major utility installations and repairs shall be included as part of the utility installation or
repair agreement and will not be assessed against abutting property owners. However, if the
street in question has not been improved for a period of three years prior to the installation or
repair work, the normal maintenance assessment procedures outlined above shall apply.
F. Assessment shall be made against any government property or other tax-exempt
property abutting unimproved alleys or streets.
7. STORM SEWERS
Storm sewers for properties located in R-1 and R-2 zonings shall be assessed $200.00 per
50 foot lot plus $1.00 for each additional foot and no assessment shall be greater than $300.00.
Properties located in a R-1 or R-2 district shall not be assessed more than once or more than
$300. These assessments shall be for a period of one year and other assessments for
commercially zoned properties shall be assessable for a period of 20 years.
8. SANITARY SEWERS AND WATERMAINS
A. Sanitary sewers and watermains shall be assessed to the benefiting property owners
for 100 percent of the improvement cost. These assessments shall be for a period of 20 years.
9. WATERMAIN LOOPING
8a 8
A. Watermain looping shall not be assessed unless there is a benefit to the land. These
assessments shall be for a period of 20 years.
10. DEFERMENT OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR PERSONS 65 YEARS OF AGE AND
OLDER
A. Assessments against any homestead property owned by a person 65 years of age or
older and for whom it would be a hardship to make the payments shall be deferred subject to
income conditions upon submission of the appropriate application signed by the qualified person.
B. The interest rate from Section 14 (A) of this resolution shall be added to the deferred
assessment and shall be payable in accordance with the terms and provisions of M.S.A. Section
444.24.
C. The right of deferment is automatically terminated under Section 444.24 if:
1. The owner dies and the spouse is not otherwise qualified;
2. The property or any part thereof is sold, transferred, or subdivided;
3. The property should lose its homestead status; or
4. If for any reason the City determines that there would be no hardship to require
immediate or partial payment.
D. The total household income requirement to be eligible for special assessment
deferments be established at $10,500 or less.
E. In the event the deferment is terminated, the principal and interest deferred to that
date shall be due and payable, and the remaining principal and interest shall be due over the
period of time remaining on the original assessment period.
11. FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS
A. All petitions for the special assessment of the project must be received and acted
upon by the City Council prior to the start of any fire sprinkler installation.
B. The petition must meet the requirements of MS Chapter 429, as they apply to fire
sprinkler systems, and include the submission of plans and specifications, a cost estimate from
three (3) qualified companies (licensed by the State of Minnesota as a fire sprinkler contractor)
and a written statement that the owner shall be responsible for contracting for the actual
installation and proper operation of the fire sprinkler system
C. The amount to be specially assessed shall not exceed the amount of the
construction estimate, plus any City administrative or interest charges. The petitioner shall be
responsible for any construction costs exceeding the amount of the construction estimate.
D. The City shall not approve the petition until it has reviewed and approved the
plans, specifications, and cost estimates contained in the petition.
E. No payment shall be made by the City for any installation until the work is
completed and finally approved by the City and the assessment has been adopted.
F. The fire sprinkler system is being installed in existing buildings and the
installation of the sprinkler system will result in the sprinkling of the entire building in
compliance with the applicable City ordinances and State laws.
8a 9
G. The petitioner must waive all rights to the public hearing and any appeal of the
special assessment adopted by the City Council and the petition must be signed by all owners of
the property.
H. No special assessment shall be made for a period of more than ten (10) years,
except as otherwise determined by the Council.
I. If the petitioner requests the abandonment of the special assessment project, all
City costs incurred shall be reimbursed by the petitioner.
J. Consideration of any petition made under this policy is subject to a determination
by the City Council, in its sole discretion, that sufficient City funds are available for the project.
City staff will periodically advise the Council with regard to the availability of appropriate funds.
K. The administrative fee for processing the sprinkler assessment application shall be
one-half of one percent (0.5%) of the petitioned amount, with a minimum fee of $150.00 and a
maximum fee of $750.00.
L. The City Manager is authorized to develop the procedures for implementation of
this policy.
12. SEWER AND WATER SERVICES
A. This special assessment policy for the installation or repair of a private sewer or
water service only applies to existing one and two family homes.
B. The property owner(s) are responsible to contract with a licensed contractor. The
contractor and property owner shall be responsible for all licenses, permits, fees and inspections.
The installation must be in compliance with the applicable City Ordinances and State laws.
C. The property owner may petition the City for payment of the work, not to exceed
the amount of the lowest acceptable bid.
D. The petition must include a waiver of public hearing and a waiver of appeal
signed by all property owners. A lien waiver or sworn construction statement must be provided
prior to payment by the City.
E. No special assessment shall be made for a period of more than ten years, except as
otherwise determined by the City Council.
F. Consideration of any petition made under this policy is subject to a determination
by the City Council, in its sole discretion, that sufficient City funds are available for the project.
G. The petition must meet the requirements of MSA Chapter 429, include a cost
estimate from two licensed contractors and a statement that the property owner will be
responsible for the installation of the service.
H. Payment shall be made by the City when the work is completed and approved by
the City. The City shall certify the cost to special assessment rolls at the usual Fall special
assessment hearings.
I. The City Manager is authorized to develop the procedures for the implementation
of this policy.
12.5 RELOCATION, BRIDGING OR ENCASEMENT OF CITY UTILITY
LINES
8a 10
A. This special assessment policy applies to the relocation, bridging or
encasement of City utility lines.
B. The property owner(s) are responsible to contract with a licensed City approved
contractor experienced in the work to be performed. The contractor and property owner
shall be responsible for all licenses, permits, fees and inspections. The installation must be
in compliance with the applicable City Ordinances, specifications and State laws. Plans
and specifications must be approved by the City Engineer or his designee.
C. The property owner may petition the City for payment of the work, not to
exceed the amount of the lowest acceptable bid.
D. The petition must include a waiver of public hearing and a waiver of appeal
signed by all property owners. A lien waiver or sworn construction statement must be
provided prior to payment by the City.
E. No special assessment shall be made for a period of more than ten years, except
as otherwise determined by the City Council.
F. Consideration of any petition made under this policy is subject to a
determination by the City Council, in its sole discretion, that sufficient City funds are
available for the project.
G. The petition must meet the requirements of MSA Chapter 429, include a cost
estimate from two licensed contractors and a statement that the property owner will be
responsible for the work.
H. Payment shall be by the City when the work is completed and approved by the
City. The City shall certify the cost to special assessment rolls at the usual Fall special
assessment hearings.
I. The City Manager is authorized to develop the procedures for the
implementation of this policy.
J. The administrative fee for processing the City utility line relocation assessment
application shall be one-half of one person (0.5%) of the petitioned amount, with a
minimum fee of $150.00 and a maximum fee of $750.00.
13. DELINQUENT CHARGES
A. Delinquent charges for abatement of nuisances, tree removal, weed removal,
curb/gutter repair and responding to fire alarms shall be assessed against those properties
benefiting from these services.
B. At any time before the City Council adopts the assessment roll containing
delinquent charges against a particular property, the property owner may petition the City to
extend an opportunity to pay the delinquent charges in lieu of a special assessment.
C. The petition must be signed by the property owner and must specifiy payment
terms acceptable to the City, including a provision that any default in the property owner’s
payment obligation will result in any unpaid portion of the delinquent charges being levied
against the affected property as a special assessment.
D. The petition must also include an express waiver of public hearing and a waiver
of appeal signed by the property owner.
E. No special assessment may be made for a period of more than one year, except as
otherwise determined by the City Council.
8a 11
F. Consideration of any petition made under this policy is subject to a determination
by the City Council, in its sole discretion, that sufficient City funds are available.
G. The City Manager is authorized to develop procedures for the implementation of
this policy.
13A. CERTIFICATION OF UNPAID BILLS
A. Each charge levied pursuant to this Resolution shall be a lien upon the
corresponding lot, land or premises served by a connection to the water or sanitary sewer system
of the City as provided by City Code.
B. All such charges which are more than 60 days past due and having been properly
billed to the owner or occupant of the premises served may be certified annually to the County
Auditor by the Administrator designee.
C. The City Manager or designee in certifying such charges to the County Auditor
shall specify the amount, the description of the property served and the name of the owner.
D. A certification processing fee of $25 shall be added to those billings that are
certified to the County Auditor.
E. The amount so certified shall be extended by the County Auditor on the tax rolls
against such property in the same manner as other City assessments, and collected by the County
Treasurer and paid to the City Treasurer along with tax settlements.
14. INTEREST RATES
A. In the absence of other instructions by the City Council on specific projects, for the
purpose of preparation of reports, assessment proceedings, and other administrative and financial
matters, the interest rate for special assessment improvement projects will reflect the current
twenty (20) year U.S. Treasury bill rate plus one percent at the time of the assessment hearings.
Adopted by the City Council July 5, 2000
Reviewed for Administration
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
8b 1
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 8b
Meeting of July 5, 2000
8b. Request by David Hornig Companies for Preliminary Planned Unit
Development and variances for stacked parking and reduced bufferyard to
develop 39 units of townhomes
Case Nos. 00-32-PUD and 00-33-VAR
South of 36th Street and east of Phillips Parkway
Recommended
Action:
• Motion to adopt a resolution approving the preliminary PUD,
subject to conditions as recommended by staff.
• Motion to adopt a resolution approving variances for stacked
parking and reduced bufferyard requirements, subject to
conditions as recommended by staff.
Zoning: R-C, High Density Residential
Comprehensive Plan Designation: RH, High Density Residential up to 50 units per acre
Background:
The developer is requesting a preliminary PUD and variances to develop an approximately 3 acre
parcel south of 36th Street and east of Phillips Parkway, for 39 stacked townhomes in three and
four unit buildings. The townhomes are a mix of two and three bedroom units and are intended
to be market rate senior rentals. Ordinance modifications are being requested per the PUD
ordinance for reduced building and parking lot setbacks along Phillips Parkway. Variances are
being requested for a stacked parking configuration (i.e. some parking spaces are located directly
in front of garage spaces so that garage spaces do not have direct access to a public street), and
for reduced landscape bufferyard along the east and south property lines. Significant regrading of
the property is proposed, and a retaining wall is proposed along the entire length of the east
property line which would vary from four to twelve feet in height.
The Planning Commission considered the proposal at the June 7, 2000 meeting and voted 4-0 to
recommend approval with conditions and some concerns noted. Several residents attended the
meeting as well, and their comments and those of the Planning Commission are discussed below,
as well as detailed in the June 7 meeting minutes.
Issues:
• Are the required conditions met for City Council consideration?
• What issues were raised at the Planning Commission meeting?
• Are all Zoning Ordinance requirements met?
8b 2
• Are the PUD Ordinance requirements met, including the acceptability of the proposed
ordinance modifications?
• Do the proposed variances meet the necessary criteria for approval?
Issues Analysis:
Are the required conditions met for City Council consideration?
Several conditions were required to be met by the developer prior to City Council consideration
of the preliminary PUD and variances, including revising the landscape plan, to reduce
bufferyard variances to the minimum necessary and site plan and tree replacement plan to be
consistent with staff’s and the Planning Commission’s recommendations. These conditions have
been met, with the exception that the developer submit revised building elevations to include
brick and possibly other materials similar to adjacent developments. Staff is recommending that
this condition be carried over as a condition to be met prior to Planning Commission
consideration of the final PUD, as these types of design issues are typically reviewed as part of
the final PUD.
What concerns were raised at the Planning Commission meeting?
The key issues raised by the Planning Commission included:
• A desire to see the project designated as seniors only, if possible, to be more compatible with
adjacent development and to fill a need in the community. Also that if the project is not
seniors only, it must be looked at for all potential types of tenants, and a future tot lot area
should be designated on site.
• Liability issues for the recommended east-west pedestrian crossing should be explored; and a
comment that a ramp might be better than steps.
• Questioning whether the proposal is too crowded on the site.
Key comments by residents were:
• A desire to see only or primarily seniors in this development
• Concern that mature trees are being removed
• Desire for high degree of landscaping along Phillips Parkway
• A desire to maintain an east-west pedestrian crossing over the property (several informal
paths across the property currently exist and are used by the adjacent senior residents and
employees to access to grocery store, transit stops, etc.), and a desire by the owner of the car
wash property that the crossing connect to the Target property to the south, not his property
• A desire to reconfigure the trail and sidewalk along Phillips Parkway, to better separate the
trail and sidewalk, and to provide more green space
Other comments and discussion are detailed in the Planning Commission minutes of June 7,
2000.
8b 3
Senior-only housing: Staff has determined that legally, the developer could designate the
property for seniors only or 55 and older. The City attorney has also stated that the City could
choose to condition the PUD on requiring seniors only tenants, based upon compatibility with
surrounding uses. The developer has stated their preference to keep the project open beyond
seniors, although their intent is to market primarily to seniors. They cite the legal burdens of
designating the project, longer time periods for seniors to commit to renting, and needed
flexibility to make the project viable. It should also be noted that approximately half of the units
are accessible only by stairs from the front entrance, since the units are second-story units. A
future tot lot has been designated on the south end of the property if families with children were
to occupy the townhomes. Staff recommends requiring construction of the tot lot unless the
project is designated seniors only.
East-west pedestrian crossing: The site plan has been revised per staff’s and the Planning
Commission’s recommendation to show an east-west pedestrian crossing as a means of meeting
City-wide goals for accommodating pedestrians and PUD requirements for integrated pedestrian
facilities. The developer has proposed placing it between the 2nd and 3rd townhomes from
Phillips Parkway to the retail properties to the east. While this location is directly adjacent to the
car wash property, it is close to an existing location of an informal path and it would be difficult
to locate it further south, due to much steeper grades that would have to be accommodated
further to the south. Regarding liability, the City would require a public easement to be
dedicated over the crossing property, and the crossing would be treated like a public sidewalk.
The developer would be responsible for constructing and maintaining the crossing. Unless the
City acquires an easement over the adjacent private property to which the crossing leads, that
property owner could legally block access to his property from the crossing. Although the car
wash owner has not blocked crossings that are currently taking place across the property, staff
understands the property owner’s concerns and will continue to explore options for the crossing
prior to final PUD approval.
Density/coverage of the development: The proposal meets or exceeds ordinance requirements
with regard to required usable open space and parking, provided a variance for stacked parking is
approved. Ordinance modifications are being requested for reduced parking and building
setbacks along Phillips Parkway.
Tree removal: Almost all the trees on site are proposed to be removed, partially due to building
placement and to the need to entirely regrade the site. A number of the existing trees are also
within public right of way or the trail easement and will be removed for trail construction. The
developer is proposing to donate the required tree replacement of 432 inches to the City for use
on parks or other public lands, as the trees probably cannot be replanted on site in addition to
meeting most bufferyard requirements.
Landscaping along Phillips Parkway: The proposed landscaping along Phillips Parkway meets
the ordinance requirements. If desired, it may be possible to add some landscaping between the
buildings and parking lots and the right of way.
8b 4
Trails and sidewalk: The location of the regional trail and relocated sidewalk were determined
through public hearings and City Council action last year. Receipt of Federal funding for the trail
is dependent upon the project continuing to move forward as scheduled. The trail construction is
currently being bid out through the Public Works Department and construction is anticipated to
begin this fall. The trail is discussed further below.
Are all Zoning Ordinance requirements met?
Cluster housing conditions: Cluster housing is permitted with conditions in the RC District as
follows.
d. Sidewalks with a minimum width of five feet shall be provided along all sides of the lot
that abut a public street and along at least one side of interior private streets.
A regional trail and relocated sidewalk are planned along the east side of Phillips
Parkway and continuing south on an easement over this property along the west side of
the property, as shown on the proposed site plan This proposal does not affect the
location of the public trail and sidewalk. The developer is agreeing to replace the existing
four foot wide sidewalk along the south side of 36th Street with the required five foot
sidewalk. Other than the proposed east-west pedestrian crossing through the property,
there are no internal sidewalks proposed, because staff is not classifying the common
driveways serving up to 8 units each as private streets.
The other conditions for cluster housing are met.
RC Zoning District Requirements: The proposed density of the project is 12.87 units per acre,
which is within the maximum of 50 units per acre. A setback of 15 feet is required along Phillips
Parkway for buildings and parking areas, and a 10 foot setback is proposed as an ordinance
modification. Please see the PUD section analysis.
Parking Standards: The proposed townhomes require two parking spaces per dwelling unit plus
guest parking at a rate of 10% of the required parking or four spaces, whichever is greater. The
developer is proposing to provide one garage space per townhouse unit and one driveway space
per unit directly in front of the garage space. A variance is being requested for stacked parking,
because the garage spaces technically do not have direct access to a public street if there is a
vehicle parked in the driveway. Staff is recommending approval, for the reasons discussed in the
variance section. Twelve guest parking spaces are proposed, at the east end of each parking area,
which exceeds the guest parking requirement of four spaces. Because the guest parking is
located where a turnaround area would typically be provided, the developer has widened the
drive aisles by three feet to provide extra turnaround space, per staff’s recommendation.
Landscaping/Bufferyard: The proposal meets the bufferyard requirements along the north and
west property lines, and does not meet the bufferyard requirements along the east and south
property lines. The applicant is requesting a variance from the required bufferyard F along the
east property line, and from the required bufferyard D along the south property line. Staff is
8b 5
recommending approval of the variance for reduced bufferyards, for the reasons outlined in the
variance section.
Architectural Design Standards: The three and four unit townhouse buildings are proposed to be
vinyl siding with windows. Vinyl siding is considered to be an acceptable material for residential
buildings up to four units in size, therefore these code requirements are met. Staff is
recommending that additional building materials be added to improve compatibility with
adjacent buildings and meet PUD requirements for higher standards of site and building design
(see PUD section).
Are the requirements of the PUD ordinance met?
Building and site design:
A. The design shall consider the whole of the project and shall create a unified environment
within project boundaries by ensuring architectural compatibility of all structures,
efficient vehicular and pedestrian circulation, aesthetically pleasing landscape and site
features, and design and efficient use of utilities.
Architectural compatibility: The project achieves architectural compatibility internally as the
buildings are very similar to one another. However, the architecture does not meet the PUD
findings and purpose of higher standards of site and building design. Therefore, staff and the
Planning Commission are recommending adding brick to the facades.
Vehicular circulation: In order to meet emergency vehicle access requirements to the townhomes
to the south, the developer has widened the access drive to 20 feet, which is acceptable to the
Fire Department. This results in only a one foot setback between the driveway and buildings
and parking areas, so staff is recommending that a brick knee wall be provided in these areas, to
prevent driving over curbs and to improve aesthetics. Four curb cuts are proposed across the
planned regional trail for vehicular access, which staff believes is acceptable given the low
volume of traffic expected from this type of residential development.
Pedestrian Access: In past public hearings and at the June 7 Planning Commission meeting,
neighbors expressed a desire to retain an east/west pedestrian crossing across this property to
allow more direct access between Phillips Parkway and the commercial property to the east,
which exists currently in an informal way. The crossing would also enable future residents of
townhomes easier access to the east. When this property was proposed to be replatted for offices,
such a crossing was approved as part of the plan. As this property is not being proposed for
replatting now, City Code does not specify a requirement for this type of crossing. However, the
PUD ordinance does state that integrated pedestrian facilities shall be provided to and within a
project, as one of several criteria to be met to offset any ordinance modifications. Staff believes
the east-west crossing is important to provide adequate pedestrian access for the townhouses and
in this area.
Pleasing landscape and site features: Staff believes the proposed landscaping is adequate.
8b 6
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 affects of
the surrounding land uses on the PUD.
The proposed use of the property as primarily senior townhomes complements the adjacent uses,
which are a senior apartment and nursing home campus, and commercial which serves the
surrounding residential area. The proposed density of the project would maintain Phillips
Parkway as a relatively quiet street, because traffic would be much lower than for a higher
density residential or office project. The lower traffic also works well with the planned regional
trail. The planned regional trail would not be affected very much, due to the anticipated low
volume of traffic. The project would be more compatible with surrounding uses if it were
designated as a senior-only project. Regarding compatibility of design, staff is recommending
that the compatibility of the proposed buildings with surrounding developments be improved
through the addition of other building materials such as brick, at least as accents.
A property owner to the east has expressed concern that development of this parcel could lead to
greater runoff onto his property. The Public Works Dept. has reviewed the proposed grading and
drainage plan and the stormwater calculations and has determined that runoff will not be
increased, and has accepted the plans. Some significant regrading of the property is proposed
and a 4-12 foot high retaining wall is proposed along the east side of the property. An eight-foot
high fence is also proposed to be installed on top of or directly adjacent to the retaining wall for
safety and screening purposes. Staff is requiring details of the retaining wall and fence to be
submitted and reviewed prior to issuance of a building permit.
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.
As mentioned, a 10 foot building and parking area setback is proposed along Phillips Parkway.
Staff believes that there would be no negative impacts of the reduced setbacks, given the height
and scale of the buildings and the size of the parking lots. Furthermore, the setback is necessary
given the narrowness of the lot. In addition, a bufferyard D is provided along most of Phillips
Parkway which will provide an effective green buffer between this use and the street.
The PUD ordinance also requires that “an applicant for a PUD seeking modifications as
permitted shall demonstrate how the proposal will enhance, support, and further the following
objectives:”
1. Provide for integrated pedestrian facilities to and within the project
As discussed above, staff is recommending that an east/west pedestrian crossing be provided
over the site to maintain more direct access between this property and Phillips Parkway and
the commercial property to the east.
8b 7
2. Enhanced linkages to mass transit facilities
Preserving an east-west pedestrian connection would enhance access to a transit stop to the
east of this development. There is good access to transit along 36th Street and Phillips
Parkway as well.
3. Increase the supply of low and moderate income housing.
The developer has stated this would be a luxury senior rental development primarily. Based
upon the project design including one-car garages, staff believes the units would probably be
more moderate. The proposal would fill a need for townhomes, especially for seniors. Given
the stairs to upper units, staff believes a variety of age groups will likely occupy the units
unless they are specifically designated senior only.
4. Incorporate implementation of travel demand management strategies as part of the PUD
plan.
This criteria is more appropriate for larger scale or commercial projects.
5. Provide public plazas and usable open space which exceeds minimum ordinance
requirements.
The proposed usable open space on site exceeds the ordinance minimum. Provision of a tot
lot would make it more usable for residents or guests with children.
6. Provide a high degree of aesthetics through overall design and display of public art.
Staff is recommending some enhancements to the building façades to be more compatible
with surrounding buildings and to meet the PUD findings and purpose of higher standards of
site and building design. The public art criteria is probably more appropriate for larger scale
or commercial projects.
Are all findings met for the requested variances?
The Zoning Ordinance states that all seven of the following criteria must be met for the Board of
Zoning Appeals or the City Council to grant a variance. The stacked parking variance request is
analyzed first and the variance request for reduced bufferyards are analyzed second.
A. Variance request for stacked parking, i.e. parking does not have direct access to a driveway
leading to a public or private street.
1. Where by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of the lot, or where by reason of
exceptional topographic or water conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional
conditions of such lot, the strict applications of the terms of this ordinance would result
in a peculiar and practical difficulties or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner
of such lot in developing or using such lot in a manner customary and legally permissible
within the zoning district in which said lot is located.
The applicant states that the narrowness of the lots prevents additional parking from
being placed on the site. They believe that since the stacking will be taking place in the
8b 8
driveway of the single-family dwellings, the occupants will have control over that
vehicle.
Staff does agree with the applicant. The site is only 100 feet in width and does not allow
for very much surface parking. The applicant is trying to provide as much green space on
the site as possible, and the stacked parking will allow this. The senior residents may
have only one vehicle. If they have two or use the driveway for additional guest parking,
the occupant of the dwelling will have control over the vehicle that is parking in the
driveway. There will be adequate room for the maneuvering of the vehicle out of the
driveway and into the drive aisle. Staff believes that this criterion has been satisfied.
2. Conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or
immediately adjoining property and so do not apply generally to other land or structures
in the district in which said land is located.
The applicant states that this site was an old railroad spur, and the actual width of the lot
is limited.
Staff does believe there is uniqueness to the lot in question. The fact that it was a railroad
spur and is only 100 feet in width does limit what can be developed on this parcel. Most
lots have more depth than this one allowing a developer more options for site design.
With this limited width, there is not that much the applicant can do with revising a site
plan. Staff believes that this criterion has been satisfied.
3. The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant.
The applicant believes that the variance is necessary in order for the site to be developed.
The variance allows the proposed development to have more open space on the site
versus more asphalt. The stacked parking will not create an undue burden on the
occupants of the buildings since they will have control over any vehicle that may be
parked in the driveways.
Staff concurs with the applicant that the variance will allow for the development to
happen while maximizing the amount of green space on the site. If additional parking
were to be required, what little green space is left on the site would be converted into
parking areas, which would require a different variance. Staff has determined that the
stacked parking is necessary to develop this site as townhomes at a much lower density
than the Zoning District allows. Staff believes that this criterion has been satisfied.
4. The granting of the variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to the
adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in the public streets, increase
the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety.
8b 9
Staff agrees with the applicant that the variance would not impair light and air to the
surrounding properties, nor would it increase the danger of fire or endanger the public in
any way. Staff believes that this criterion has been satisfied.
5. The granting of the variance will not unreasonably impact on the character and
development of the neighborhood, unreasonably diminish or impair the established
property values in the surrounding area, or in any other way impair the health, safety,
comfort, or morals of the area.
Again, staff agrees with the applicant that the proposed variance request will not
negatively impact the neighborhood. It also would not impair the property values in the
area or the health, safety, comfort, or morals. Staff believes that this criterion has been
satisfied.
6. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Ordinance or
Comprehensive Plan.
The applicant does not believe that the request will be contrary to the intent of the code.
They state they are trying to allow for more green space versus parking when the parking
requirement can be satisfied with the stacked parking arrangement. They believe that
since the occupant of the buildings will have control over any vehicle being parked in the
driveway, that the intent of the code is not being compromised.
Staff does not believe that this request would be against the intent of the Zoning
Ordinance. Since the occupant will have control over the stacked vehicles, they both will
have access to the public right-of-way. Staff believes that this criterion has been satisfied.
7. The granting of the variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but
is necessary to alleviate demonstrable undue hardship or difficulty.
The applicant states the variance is necessary to alleviate the hardship of the narrowness
of the lot.
Staff agrees that the variance will not be serving as a convenience to applicant but is
necessary to help alleviate a hardship. The narrowness of the lot does prevent the
applicant from exploring other options in site design to try and accommodate the parking
without having it stacked. However, since the occupants will be in control over the
stacked vehicle, and the variance will also allow for more green space, staff believes that
this criterion has been satisfied.
B. Variance request for reduced bufferyard along east and south property lines
1. Where by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of the lot, or where by reason of
exceptional topographic or water conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional
conditions of such lot, the strict applications of the terms of this ordinance would result
in peculiar and practical difficulties or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of
8b 10
such lot in developing or using such lot in a manner customary and legally permissible
within the zoning district in which said lot is located.
The applicant states that the lot has a width of 100 feet, making any multifamily or commercial
building difficult to site plan. The site is further handicapped by the need to install a retaining
wall running the length of the lot in order to make the site flat and level enough to construct any
buildings. The filling of the site will make it necessary to remove virtually all of the existing
trees from the site.
Staff agrees that the long, narrow shape of the lot is unique and creates physical difficulties in
developing the site. A maximum of 15 to 18 feet of space is available along the east lot line to
meet the buffer requirements based on the proposed site plan, and the townhomes could not be
shifted to provide more room. On the south lot line, staff agrees that there is a physical hardship
in meeting the bufferyard D requirement as well. Because of the narrowness of the lot, the
townhomes must be placed in a single long row the length of the lot. The southernmost driveway
winds up right against the property line. The setback could not be increased to provide for the
bufferyard without reducing green space between the buildings. While staff agrees that the grade
differences on the site required removal of most trees on site, the existing trees are not located
along the east property line and would not be counted towards the bufferyard requirements in this
area. Staff believes that this criterion is met.
2. Conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or
immediately adjoining property and so do not apply generally to other land or structures in
the district in which said land is located.
The applicant states the site cannot be developed as a low density townhouse project on this site
without relief on the landscaping standards because building setback requirements, parking and
drive aisle requirements and good building design practices leave little room for excessive
landscaping on this site.
Staff agrees that the situation is unique and peculiar to this particular property, and do not apply
generally to other land in the area. Staff agrees that this criterion is met.
3. The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial
property right of the applicant.
The applicant states that the landscaping requirement puts an undue hardship on the development
of a relatively non-dense multifamily development that is built against an existing commercial
area (Target). Because of the linear nature of the site, the most difficult bufferyard standard is
virtually impossible to meet without jeopardizing sound landscaping principles and installing
plant material that is too dense and crowded to survive or thrive, thereby making the maintenance
of a poorly designed landscape plan an undue hardship on the owner and creating a project that is
not as attractive and therefore potentially less valuable.
Staff has been working with the applicant to increase the amount of landscaping on the east
bufferyard to the maximum amount possible given site constraints and the need for adequate
spacing and aesthetics. The applicant is now proposing to provide 132 plant units per 100 lineal
feet and 281 total units per 100 feet along the east property line, compared to 135 plant units and
8b 11
330 total units required. Staff agrees that the applicant has come as close as possible to meeting
bufferyard requirements. On the south property line, installing a bufferyard would probably
result in elimination of a building or creation of other variance situations. Therefore, staff
believes that this criterion is met.
4. The granting of the variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to the
adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in the public streets, increase the
danger of fire, or endanger the public safety.
The applicant states that the granting of the variance would substantially improve the supply of
light and air to the project and surrounding area.
The required bufferyard would not impact light, air or safety, nor would the granting of the
variance impact these issues. Therefore, staff believes that this criterion is met.
5. The granting of the variance will not unreasonably impact on the character and development
of the neighborhood, unreasonably diminish or impair the established property values in the
surrounding area, or in any other way impair the health, safety, comfort, or morals of the
area.
The applicant states that since the east side of the property faces the back side of the Target store,
they do not think there is any diminishment of the value of that property should this variance
request be granted. The west side (where there is no problem meeting the landscape bufferyard
standards) faces a similar multi-family use (Sholom Home) and the two standards are
compatible.
Staff believes the applicant has come as close as possible to meeting Ordinance requirements and
the effect is to provide a substantial buffer between the residential and commercial properties,
including an eight foot high solid wood fence, which should help to screen rooftop equipment
and other aspects of the commercial properties. On the south lot line, the property is adjacent to
property which is zoned RC and which contains a commercial antenna and is otherwise
undeveloped and unlikely to be developed. Therefore, staff agrees that this criterion is met.
6. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Ordinance or
Comprehensive Plan.
The applicant states that they believe the intent of the ordinance is not to unfairly put the burden
of landscape bufferyard requirements on new development while existing commercial
development has no responsibility for bufferyard contribution. There will be a fence on top of
the retaining wall for both safety and visual purposes. They feel that this fence combined with
the planting that they have illustrated in their landscape plan meets the intent of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Staff agrees that the intent of the Zoning Ordinance is preserved in this case. The applicant has
worked with staff to come as close as possible to meeting Ordinance requirements along the east
8b 12
property line, and staff agrees that the effect will be an effective buffer between the two uses.
Along the south property line staff believes that this criterion is met because this property is very
unlikely to be developed for residential purposes and neither the subject property nor the property
to the south would be adversely affected by a reduced bufferyard requirement. Staff believes this
criterion is met.
7. The granting of the variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but
is necessary to alleviate demonstrable undue hardship or difficulty.
Staff believes the granting of the variance would not merely serve as a convenience to the
applicant and is not necessary to alleviate demonstrable undue hardship or difficulty. The unique
shape of the lot creates a hardship in fully meeting the bufferying requirements and to avoid the
variance the site plan would have to be substantially modified and could result in additional
variances. Therefore, staff believes this criterion is met.
Staff believes that all seven criteria are met for a reduced bufferyard along the east and south
property lines and is therefore recommending approval subject to the conditions below.
Recommendation:
As staff believes the seven findings have been met, staff is recommending approval of a variance
for stacked parking and for reduced bufferyard along the south property line, and is also
recommending approval of the preliminary PUD, subject to the conditions in the resolutions.
Attachments:
• Proposed resolutions
• Official exhibits
Prepared by: Sacha Peterson, Planner
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
8b 13
RESOLUTION NO. _____________
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
(PUD) UNDER SECTION 14:6-7 OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE
RELATING TO ZONING FOR PROPERTY
ZONED R-C, HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
LOCATED SOUTH OF 36TH STREET AND EAST OF PHILLIPS PARKWAY
WHEREAS, an application for approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) was
received on May 30, 2000 from the applicant, and
WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing on the Preliminary PUD was mailed to all owners
of property within 350 feet of the subject property plus other affected property owners in the
vicinity and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the Preliminary PUD concept at the
meeting of June 7, 2000, and
WHEREAS, notice of public hearing on the Preliminary PUD was published in the St.
Louis Park Sailor on May 24, 2000, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing at the meeting of June
7, 2000, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Preliminary PUD
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. David A. Hornig has made application to the City Council for a Planned Unit Development
under Section 14:6-7 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code within the R-C, High Density
Residential District located south of 36th Street and east of Phillips Parkway for the legal
description as follows, to-wit:
All that portion of Burlington Northern Railroad Company’s (formerly Great
Northern Railway Company) 100 foot wide Hopkins to Hopkins Jct., Minnesota
Branch Line Right-of-Way, including improvements, if any, now discontinued,
being 50 feet wide on each side of said Railroad Company’s Main Track
8b 14
centerline as originally located and constructed upon, over and across the
Southwest Quarter of Section 18, Township 117 North, Range 21 West, Hennepin
County, Minnesota bounded on the North by the Southeasterly extension of the
Northeasterly boundary line of The Federation Addition, according to the recorded
plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, and bounded on the South by the
following described line:
Commencing at the Southeast corner of said Southwest quarter of Section 18;
thence South 89 degrees 04 minutes 39 seconds West, assumed bearing, a distance
of 1086.15 feet, along the south line of said Southwest Quarter, to an intersection
with the Easterly line of said Burlington Northern Railroad Company’s
discontinued 100 foot right-of-way; thence North 20 degrees 49 minutes 09
seconds East, a distance of 224.00 feet along said Easterly line to the point of
beginning of the line to be described; thence North 69 degrees 10 minutes 51
seconds West a distance of 44.73 feet; thence South 32 degrees 38 minutes 56
seconds West a distance of 269.61 feet to the intersection of said South line of the
Southwest Quarter of Section 18 and the Westerly line of said discontinued right-
of-way and said line there terminating.
(Abstract)
2. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission
(Case No. 00-32-PUD) and the effect of the proposed PUD on the health, safety and welfare of
the occupants of the surrounding lands, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect on
values of properties in the surrounding area, the effect of the use on the Comprehensive Plan, and
compliance with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance.
3. The City Council has determined that the PUD will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or
general welfare of the community nor with certain contemplated traffic improvements will it
cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards, nor will it seriously depreciate surrounding property
values. The Council has also determined that the proposed PUD is in harmony with the general
purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan and that the requested
modifications comply with the requirements of Section 14:6-7.2(E).
4. The contents of Planning Case File 00-32-PUD are hereby entered into and made part of the
public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
Conclusion
The Preliminary Planned Unit Development at the location described is approved based on the
findings set forth above and subject to the following conditions:
1. Prior to consideration of the final PUD, the applicant shall meet the following conditions:
a. Submit full set of final PUD plans including any required revisions per the
preliminary PUD approval.
8b 15
b. Submit revised building elevations to include brick and potentially some other
materials similar to adjacent developments.
c. Site plan to be revised to show a brick “knee” wall in areas where
driveway is one foot or less setback from buildings and parking areas.
d. Continue working with staff and neighboring property owners regarding
the most appropriate solution for east-west pedestrian connection.
2. The site shall be used, developed and maintained in accordance with the official exhibits,
subject to further plan revisions through the PUD process.
3. Prior to any site work, the applicant shall meet the following conditions:
a. Obtain an erosion control permit from the City.
b. Submit a copy of the Watershed District permit if required.
c. Submit a Letter of Credit covering 125% of the cost of: on-site tree replacement,
sidewalk installation, east-west pedestrian connection, repair and cleaning of
public streets, and any utility work within public right of way.
d. Provide cash in lieu of off-site tree replacement. The final cash amount shall be
based on the number of caliber inches to be replaced off-site and shall be
approved by the Park and Recreation Director and the Community Development
Director.
e. A Development Agreement is to be executed between the developer and the City
covering, at a minimum, plan changes which may be administratively approved,
sidewalk installation, and shall cite approved ordinance modifications.
f. Easement for east-west pedestrian connection.
g. Reimbursement of attorney’s fees for drafting and reviewing above documents.
4. Prior to issuance of any building permits, which may impose additional requirements, the
applicant shall meet the following conditions:
a. Submit and have approved retaining wall and sidewalk construction details.
b. Submit and have approved lighting plans.
c. Submit and have approved building material samples and fence design
details.
d. Sign the assent forms and all official exhibits, including the approved
plans, elevations, details, and materials samples.
e. Submit evidence of recording of crossing easement.
f. Submit and have approved tot lot details or evidence of senior only
designation.
5. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the developer shall meet the following
conditions:
a. Install a 5-foot concrete sidewalk along the south side of 36th Street per the
approved site plan and construction details, to be constructed and maintained at
the developer’s expense.
b. Install east-west pedestrian crossing per approved site plan and
construction details, to be constructed and maintained at developer’s expense.
c. Install a tot lot, unless the project is designated as seniors only.
6. The following ordinance modifications are approved as part of the PUD:
a. A 10-foot building setback along Phillips Parkway is approved rather than the
required 15-foot setback.
8b 16
b. A 10-foot parking area setback along Phillips Parkway is approved rather than the
required 15-foot setback.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council July 5, 2000
City Manager Mayor 00-32-prel/N/res/ord
Attest:
City Clerk
8b 17
RESOLUTION NO. ____
A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES FROM SECTIONS 14:6-1 and 14:6-4 OF
THE ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING TO PERMIT A STACKED
PARKING CONFIGURATION AND REDUCED BUFFERYARDS FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED IN THE R-C HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT SOUTH OF 36TH
STREET AND EAST OF PHILLIPS PARKWAY
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of St. Louis Park, Minnesota:
FINDINGS
1. David A. Hornig has applied for variances from Sections 14:6-1 and 14:6-4 of the
Ordinance Code relating to zoning to permit a stacked parking configuration, and reduced
bufferyards along the south and east property lines for property located in the R-C High
Density Residential District at the following location, to-wit:
All that portion of Burlington Northern Railroad Company’s (formerly Great
Northern Railway Company) 100 foot wide Hopkins to Hopkins Jct., Minnesota
Branch Line Right-of-Way, including improvements, if any, now discontinued,
being 50 feet wide on each side of said Railroad Company’s Main Track
centerline as originally located and constructed upon, over and across the
Southwest Quarter of Section 18, Township 117 North, Range 21 West, Hennepin
County, Minnesota bounded on the North by the Southeasterly extension of the
Northeasterly boundary line of The Federation Addition, according to the recorded
plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, and bounded on the South by the
following described line:
Commencing at the Southeast corner of said Southwest quarter of Section 18;
thence South 89 degrees 04 minutes 39 seconds West, assumed bearing, a distance
of 1086.15 feet, along the south line of said Southwest Quarter, to an intersection
with the Easterly line of said Burlington Northern Railroad Company’s
discontinued 100 foot right-of-way; thence North 20 degrees 49 minutes 09
seconds East, a distance of 224.00 feet along said Easterly line to the point of
beginning of the line to be described; thence North 69 degrees 10 minutes 51
seconds West a distance of 44.73 feet; thence South 32 degrees 38 minutes 56
seconds West a distance of 269.61 feet to the intersection of said South line of the
Southwest Quarter of Section 18 and the Westerly line of said discontinued right-
of-way and said line there terminating.
(Abstract)
2. On June 7, 2000 The Planning Commission held a public hearing, received testimony
from the public, discussed the application and recommended approval of a variance
8b 18
3. The Planning Commission has considered the effect of the proposed variance upon the
health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions,
light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on values of property in
the surrounding area, and the effect of the proposed variance upon the Comprehensive
Plan.
4. Because of conditions on the subject property and surrounding property, it is possible to
use the property in such a way that the proposed variance will not impair an adequate
supply of light and air to the adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in
the public streets, increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety, unreasonably
diminish or impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to
the intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
5. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such
property or immediately adjoining property and do not apply generally to other land or
structures in the district in which such land is located.
6. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant. It will not merely serve as a convenience to the
applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty.
7. The contents of Planning Case File 00-33-VAR are hereby entered into and made part of
the public hearing record and the record of decision of this case.
8. Under the Zoning Ordinance, this variance shall be deemed to be abandoned, revoked, or
canceled if the holder shall fail to complete the work on or before one year after the
variance is granted.
CONCLUSION
The application for variances to permit a stacked parking configuration and reduced bufferyards
along the south and east property lines are granted based upon the finding(s) set forth above and
subject to the following conditions:
1. Approval of the variance is subject to approval of a final PUD and the developer meeting
all conditions of final PUD approval.
2. The site shall be used, developed and maintained in accordance with the official exhibits,
subject to further plan revisions through the PUD process.
3. Prior to any site work, the applicant shall meet the following conditions:
a. Obtain an erosion control permit from the City.
b. Submit a copy of the Watershed District permit if required.
c. Submit a Letter of Credit covering 125% of the cost of: on-site tree replacement,
sidewalk installation, east-west pedestrian connection, repair and cleaning of
public streets, and any utility work within public right of way.
8b 19
d. Provide cash in lieu of off-site tree replacement. The final cash amount shall be
based on the number of caliber inches to be replaced off-site and shall be
approved by the Park and Recreation Director and the Community Development
Director.
e. A Development Agreement is to be executed between the developer and the City
covering, at a minimum, plan changes which may be administratively approved,
sidewalk installation, and shall cite approved ordinance modifications.
f. Easement for east-west pedestrian connection.
g. Reimbursement of attorney’s fees for drafting and reviewing above documents.
4. Prior to issuance of any building permits, which may impose additional requirements, the
applicant shall meet the following conditions:
a. Submit and have approved retaining wall and sidewalk construction details.
b. Submit and have approved lighting plans.
c. Submit and have approved building material samples and fence design details.
d. Sign the assent forms and all official exhibits, including the approved plans,
elevations, details, and materials samples.
e. Submit evidence of recording of crossing easement.
f. Submit and have approved tot lot details or evidence of senior only
designation.
5. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the developer shall meet the following
conditions:
a. Install a 5-foot concrete sidewalk along the south side of 36th Street per the
approved site plan and construction details, to be constructed and maintained at
the developer’s expense.
b. Install east-west pedestrian crossing per approved site plan and construction
details, to be constructed and maintained at developer’s expense.
c. Install a tot lot, unless the project is designated as seniors only.
6. The following ordinance modifications are approved as part of the PUD:
a. A 10-foot building setback along Phillips Parkway is approved rather than the
required 15-foot setback.
b. A 10-foot parking area setback along Phillips Parkway is approved rather than the
required 15-foot setback.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council July 5, 2000
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
8b 20
8c 1
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 8c
Meeting of July 5, 2000
8c. CASE NO. 00-34-Z - Zoning Ordinance Map Amendments for Consistency
with Comprehensive Plan
First reading of Zoning Ordinance Map Amendments to change designations for
parcels on the north side of West 13th Lane east of Texas Avenue from R2-Single
Family Residential to R-3 Two-Family Residential
Recommended
Action:
Approve first reading of Zoning Ordinance Map Amendments
for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and set second
reading for July 17, 2000.
Background:
On May 17, 1999, the City Council, at the recommendation of the Planning Commission,
adopted Comprehensive Plan 2000–2020 that changed land use designations for the subject
properties. State Statute requires the City to bring “official controls” into conformance with the
Comprehensive Plan within nine months of its effective date (September 1, 1999). The proposed
Zoning Map amendments are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and are intended to meet
that statutory requirement. There are no current development proposals for the subject
properties. Notification of the proposed change was mailed to property owners within a 350-foot
radius of the proposed change.
Site Map:
Parcels Located
Between the South
Frontage Road of I-394
and north of 13th Lane.
The largest portion of
land involved is
currently owned by the
Minnesota Department
of Transportation but
is expected to be turned
back to the City within
the next 12 months.
8c 2
Planning Commission Recommendation:
The Planning Commission held a public hearing for the proposed map amendment on June 7,
2000, and unanimously recommended approval. The Planning Commission had previously
deferred action on these parcels at the request of a potential developer who was considering a
mixed-use development on the site. That particular developer has since stated that mixed-use
would be too difficult to achieve.
Analysis and Proposed Map Changes:
The Comprehensive Plan designations are shown below.
The decision to guide the property residential instead of commercial was based on the existing
grade difference between 13th Lane and the south I-394 Frontage Road. Even though a
commercial use may seem appropriate along the frontage road, the actual grade of the greatest
portion of the parcel is the higher elevation of 13th Lane. The easiest access to the parcel based
upon its current grade would be from 13th Lane, which is a residential street with residential land
.-,394
13TH LN W
13 1/2 ST W
PENNSYLVANIA AVE STEXAS AVE SComp Plan DesignationsCivicCivic-MixedUseCommercial-Mixed UseCommercialIndustrialOfficeParkResidential HighResidential LowResidential MediumRight of Way
Railroad
8c 3
uses along its south side. A townhouse development was therefore considered an appropriate
land use.
This property was not included in the park and open space study of 1995, but staff did consider a
park use for the property. Due to its proximity to the busy frontage road and highway, a park use
was considered inappropriate.
Another land use that could be considered for the property would be mixed-use. If the site were
excavated, a retail/service use could occur with access at the frontage road level with residential
uses on a second story with access from 13th Lane. Mixed use was not considered when the
property was reguided as part of the Comprehensive Plan update. If a mixed-use project is
desirable, it would require amendments to both the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map.
However, one developer who was initially interested in a mixed-use project has since stated that
it would be too difficult to achieve.
C1
R4
R1
C2R2
#
Subject
Existing Zoning
R1 – Single Family
Residential
R2 – Single Family
Residential
R4 – Multi-Family
Residential
C1 – Neighborhood
Commercial
C2 – General
Commercial
8c 4
Issues:
Will the proposed change cause non-conformities?
The property just north of 13th Lane that is subject to this proposed change includes a single
family home and a vacant parcel that was originally taken by Minnesota Department of
Transportation when I-394 was being constructed. This vacant parcel is expected to be turned
back by the State within a few months. The proposed change to R3-Two Family Residential will
allow the property to be developed as either single family, two-family, or townhouses. The
single family house will remain a conforming land use.
Would a townhouse proposal be a viable land use on the property north of 13th Lane?
The north portion of this property drops significantly in elevation from south to north. The
majority of the parcel is at the same higher elevation as 13th Lane. The grade separation from the
south frontage road and access from 13th Lane indicate a residential project could be a successful
land use on the property.
There have been inquiries about this parcel from several residential developers
Attachments: Proposed Ordinance
Prepared by: Judie Erickson, Planning Coordinator
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
Proposed Zoning
R1 – Single Family
Residential
R2 – Single Family
Residential
R3 – Two-Family
Residential
R4 – Multi-Family
Residential
C1 – Neighborhood
Commercial
C2 – General
Commercial
8c 5
ORDINANCE NO.__________
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE
CHANGING BOUNDARIES OF ZONING DISTRICTS
PROPERTY BETWEEN 13TH LANE AND WAYZATA BOULEVARD
EAST OF TEXAS AVENUE
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:
See Attached Legal Description - Exhibit A
from R-2 Single Family Residential to R-3 Two Family Residential.
Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication.
Adopted by the City Council July 17, 2000
Reviewed for Administration
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
8d* 1
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 8d*
Meeting of July 5, 2000
*8d. Waiver of Subdivision Regulations – Acquisition of 4600 and 4608 Excelsior
Boulevard
This report considers approval of a resolution which waives the application of the
City’s subdivision regulations to allow the division of a tax parcel which is
comprised of the Red Coach and Gipper’s/O’Toole’s buildings at 4600 and 4608
Excelsior Boulevard.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt a resolution waiving application of subdivision
regulations to allow division of consolidated Lots 11-20, Block
3, Minikahda Vista 2nd Addition into two parcels.
Background:
The EDA has authorized the execution of a purchase agreement and option agreement relating to
the Red Coach, Gipper’s/O’Toole’s and the liquor store. The Red Coach building and
Gipper’s/O’Toole’s are located on one tax parcel. The purchase agreement entered into by the
EDA involves the acquisition of the Red Coach building and adjacent land. The option
agreement provides the EDA with the option of acquiring Gipper’s/O’Toole’s and the liquor
store buildings and adjacent land.
The City’s subdivision regulations technically requires a replatting of the tax parcel comprised of
the Red Coach and Gipper’s/O’Toole’s in order to allow it to be split.
In light of the fact the EDA is 1.) acquiring the Red Coach property for redevelopment purposes
and obtaining an option for the Gipper’s/O’Toole’s property for anticipated future acquisition
and redevelopment; and 2.) that no development activity would take place on either of these
properties at this time, it appears compliance with the City’s subdivision regulation creates an
unnecessary hardship given the fact that these properties will be replatted in the future when
redevelopment occurs.
State statute allows a City Council to waive its subdivision regulations under certain
circumstances. The attached resolution provides authorization by the City Council to waive the
City subdivision regulations at this time in order to allow the acquisition of the Red Coach
property.
Attachments: Resolution
Drawing of Property Acquisition Area
Prepared by: Tom Harmening, Community Development Director
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
8d* 2
RESOLUTION NO._________
RESOLUTION WAIVING APPLICATION OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
TO ALLOW DIVISION OF CONSOLIDATED LOTS 11 – 20, BLOCK 3,
MINIKAHDA VISTA 2nd ADDITION, HENNEPIN
COUNTY, MINNESOTA, INTO TWO PARCELS
RECITALS
• The west thirty feet of Lot 11 and Lots 12-20, Block 3, Minikahda Vista 2nd Addition, are
currently consolidated into one tax parcel.
• The consolidated parcel is currently occupied by two separate bar/restaurant facilities
commonly known as the Red Coach and Gipper/O’Toole’s.
• The City is acquiring the Red Coach property for redevelopment purposes and obtaining an
option on the Gipper/O’Toole’s property for purposes of anticipated future acquisition.
• No development activity will take place on either of these properties at this time.
• The parcels will be replatted at the time of redevelopment.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE ST. LOUIS PARK CITY COUNCIL RESOLVES AS
FOLLOWS:
1. Since no private development is taking place at this time on the Red Coach parcel being
acquired by the City or the Gipper/O’Toole’s parcel, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §462.358,
subd. 4b, the City Council hereby finds that compliance with the City subdivision regulations
will create an unnecessary hardship and failure to comply does not interfere with the purpose of
the subdivision regulations.
2. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §462.358, subd. 4b, the St. Louis Park City
Council hereby waives compliance with its subdivision regulations and authorizes the separation
of the subject property into two parcels described as follows:
Parcel A (Red Coach)
Lots 15, 16, 17, 18 and the west 40 feet of Lots 14 and 19, Block 3,
Minikahda Vista 2nd Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
8d* 3
Parcel B (Gipper/O’Toole’s)
The west 30 feet of Lot 11 and Lots 12, 13, 20 and the east 10 feet of Lots 14 and
19, Block 3,
Minikahda Vista 2nd Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council July 5, 2000
City Manager Mayor
1758/N/res/ord
Attest:
City Clerk
8e* 1
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 8e*
Meeting of July 5, 2000
*8e. Request by Park Land Company for a six month extension to a Conditional
Use Permit to develop a four story, mixed-use commercial and residential
building
5101 Minnetonka Boulevard
Case Nos. 99-18-CUP
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt a resolution granting a three month extension to
the Conditional Use Permit until October 5, 2000.
Background:
On December 7, 1998 the City Council approved a Conditional Use Permit and easement
vacation to redevelop the former Nevens Cleaners site, subject to conditions (Case No. 98-37-
CUP). A minor amendment to the CUP was approved on July 19, 1999. Conditional Use
Permits expire one year after approval if no building permit has been issued. Due to challenges
in securing financing, development has been delayed until recently, and demolition work is now
proceeding. Because it is uncertain whether the developer will obtain a building permit prior to
July 19, an extension is being requested to the CUP.
Analysis:
The extension appears reasonable due to the challenges in financing and due to the fact that work
on the project has now begun. Staff believes a three month extension is a reasonable time frame
to enable the applicant to obtain a building permit.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends adoption of a resolution granting a three month extension to the CUP to
October 5, 2000.
Attachments:
• Proposed resolution granting extension
• Letter requesting extension
Prepared by: Sacha Peterson, Planner
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
8e* 2
RESOLUTION NO. ____
Amends Resolutions
99-84
98-161
A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 99-84 ADOPTED ON
JULY 19, 1999 GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT UNDER
SECTION 14:5-5.2D OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE
RELATING TO ZONING TO ALLOW A THREE MONTH TIME
EXTENSION TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF A MIXED-USE
(COMMERCIAL/RESIDENTIAL) DEVELOPMENT FOR PROPERTY
ZONED C-1 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICT AT 5101
MINNETONKA BOULEVARD
FINDINGS
WHEREAS, Helen Brooks (Park Land Company) has made application to the City
Council for an amendment to an approved conditional use permit under Section 14:5-5.2D of the
St. Louis Park Ordinance Code to allow a time extension for the construction of a mixed-use
(commercial/residential) development consisting of a four story building with the ground floor
containing retail/service, residential above and an underground garage at 5101 Minnetonka
Boulevard within a C-1 Neighborhood Commercial District having the following legal
description:
The East 235 feet of the North 233 feet of the West 250 feet of the following described
premises, namely: the West 5/8 of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter and
the East 1/8 of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 6, Township
28, Range 24, excepting that portion taken for road or highway purposes. (Torrens)
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the information related to Planning Case
Nos. 98-37-CUP and 99-18-CUP and the effect of the proposed mixed use development on the
health, safety, and welfare of the occupants of the surrounding lands, existing and anticipated
traffic conditions, the effect on values of properties in the surrounding area and the effect of the
use on the Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, a conditional use permit was issued regarding the subject property pursuant
to Resolution No. 98-161 of the St. Louis Park City Council dated December 7, 1998 which
contained conditions applicable to said property; and
WHEREAS, Resolution 98-161 was amended and replaced pursuant to Resolution No.
99-84 of the St. Louis Park City Council dated July 19, 1999 which continues and amends the
Conditional Use Permit; and
8e* 3
WHEREAS, due to changed circumstances, amendments to those conditions are now
necessary, requiring the amendment of that conditional use permit; and
WHEREAS, it is the intent of this resolution to continue and restate the conditions of the
permit granted by Resolution No. 99-84 to add the amendments now required, and to consolidate
all conditions applicable to the subject property in this resolution;
WHEREAS, the contents of Planning Case Files 98-37-CUP and 99-18-CUP are hereby
entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
CONCLUSION
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Resolution No. 99-84 filed as Document
No. 3198750 is hereby restated and amended by this resolution which continues and amends a
conditional use permit to the subject property for the purposes of permitting the construction of a
mixed-use (commercial/residential) development consisting of a four story building with the
ground floor containing retail/service, residential above and an underground garage within the C-
1 Neighborhood Commercial District at the location described above based on the following
conditions:
1. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with
Exhibits A through L, Exhibit A to be revised as required by the Zoning
Administrator, such documents incorporated by reference herein.
(all exhibits replaced 7-19-99 except Exhibit H – Survey)
2. Prior to issuance of a building permit, which may impose additional requirements, the
applicant shall:
a. Work with staff to ensure that bufferyard requirements are met along the south
property line, and submit any revisions to Exhibit A, Landscape Plan, as required by the
Zoning Administrator; (deleted July 19, 1999)
b. Submit evidence of Watershed District approval and any other necessary
permits from other agencies;
c. Submit financial surety to cover repair and cleaning of Raleigh Avenue.
d. Sign the assent form and official exhibits (to be signed by owner as well).
3. Prior to receiving a Certificate of Occupancy, the developer shall submit as-built
drawings of the relocated public utilities under Raleigh Avenue, which shall be approved by the
Public Works Department.
4. The conditional use permit shall be amended on July 19, 1999 (Case No. 99-18-
CUP) to incorporate all of the preceding conditions and add the following
conditions:
a. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance
with Exhibit AA – Site Plan, BB – Elevations - Page 1; CC Elevations - Page
2; DD – Grading Plan; EE – Utility Plan; and FF – Lighting Plan (FF to be
revised as required by Zoning Administrator); such documents incorporated
by reference herein.
8e* 4
b. Applicant shall work with staff to insure that light levels along property
line at Raleigh Avenue do not exceed 1.0 foot candles.
5. The conditional use permit shall be amended on July 5, 2000 to incorporate all of
the preceding conditions and add the following conditions:
a. A three month extension shall be granted until October 5, 2000.
b. Assent form and official exhibits must be signed by applicant (or applicant
and owner if applicant is different from owner) prior to issuance of building
permit.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council July 5, 2000
City Manager Mayor 99-18-1/N/res/ord
Attest:
City Clerk
8f* 1
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 8f*
Meeting of July 5, 2000
*8f. Request by Northco, Inc. for a one year extension to a Conditional Use Permit
for an office building and parking ramp
1621 Park Place Boulevard
Case No. 98-28-CUP
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt a resolution extending the Conditional Use
Permit for six months from date of approval to January 5, 2001
Background:
On October 6, 1998 the City Council approved a Conditional Use Permit for a 225,633 square
foot office building and six-level parking ramp, which would redevelop the Northstar Tennis site.
The applicant was previously granted a six-month extension on November 1, 1999. Due to
staff’s error in thinking that the six months expired later, the request is coming before the
Council after the expiration deadline.
Analysis:
The City Council has typically granted six month extensions in these types of situations, in order
to allow the City Council to continue to review the approval periodically. Staff believes there is
no reason at this time not to grant the extension, but recommends only a six month extension
from the date of approval to enable the City Council to review the project again early next year if
there is no progress in developing the site.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends adoption of a resolution granting a six month extension to the Conditional Use
Permit from the date of approval to January 5, 2001.
Attachments:
• Proposed resolution
• Letter requesting extension
Prepared by: Sacha Peterson, Planner
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
8f* 2
RESOLUTION NO. _______
Amends Resolution
99-128
98-129
A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 99-128 ADOPTED ON NOVEMBER 1,
1999, AND GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT UNDER SECTION 14:5-6.2.D. OF
THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING TO ALLOW A SIX
MONTH TIME EXTENSION FROM DATE OF APPROVAL TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION
OF A 225,633 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE BUILDING AND SIX LEVEL PARKING RAMP
FOR PROPERTY ZONED “O” OFFICE AND TDM - TRAFFIC DEMAND MANAGEMENT
OVERLAY DISTRICTS LOCATED AT 1621 PARK PLACE BOULEVARD
FINDINGS
WHEREAS, Parkdale Associates (Northco Corporation) has made application to the City
Council for an amendment to an approved conditional use permit under Section 14:5-6.2.D. of
the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code to allow a time extension to permit construction of a 225,633
square foot office building and six level parking ramp at 1621 Park Place Boulevard within an
“O” Office District having the following legal description:
See Attached Legal Description
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the information related to Planning Case
No. 98-28-CUP and the effect of the proposed time extension to permit construction of a 225,633
square foot office building and six level parking ramp on the health, safety, and welfare of the
occupants of the surrounding lands, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect on
values of properties in the surrounding area and the effect of the use on the Comprehensive Plan;
and
WHEREAS, a conditional use permit was issued regarding the subject property pursuant
to Resolution No. 98-129 of the St. Louis Park City Council dated October 6, 1998 which
contained conditions applicable to said property; and
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 98-129 was amended and replaced pursuant to Resolution
No. 99-128 of the St. Louis Park City Council dated November 1, 1999 which continues and
amends the Conditional Use Permit; and
WHEREAS, due to changed circumstances, amendments to those conditions are now
necessary, requiring the amendment of that conditional use permit; and
WHEREAS, it is the intent of this resolution to continue and restate the conditions of the
permit granted by Resolution No. 99-128 to add the amendments now required, and to
consolidate all conditions applicable to the subject property in this resolution;
WHEREAS, the contents of Planning Case File 98-28-CUP are hereby entered into and
made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
8f* 3
CONCLUSION
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Resolution No. 99-128 Document No.
7225188 is hereby restated and amended by this resolution which continues and amends a
conditional use permit to the subject property for the purposes of permitting time extension to
permit construction of a 225,633 square foot office building and six level parking ramp within
the “O” Office District at the location described above based on the following conditions:
A. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with Exhibits A through I,
such documents incorporated by reference herein, and revised in accordance with the
following conditions:
a) Parking ramp elevations for all four sides with exterior materials specified, as approved by
the Community Development Director;
b) Provide a revised colored drawing which shows the color-applied concrete exterior of the
parking ramp matching the precast of the office building exterior and the blue color of the
office building integrated in the parking ramp exterior. Drawing to be approved by the
Community Development Director.
B. Prior to initiating any site work, the applicant shall comply with the following:
a) Submit copies of permits from the Watershed District and other agencies as required;
b) Submit evidence that the easement providing access to the property to the north has
been vacated and adequate access remains to the property to the north or submission of
plans that retain existing access to the north and meet bufferyard requirements without
conflicting with other circulation requirements;
C. Prior to issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall submit the following:
a) The balance of the required TDM fees;
b) Plans which comply with building code requirements, including adequate separation
and/or fire rating between structures for fire safety purposes. If compliance results in
changes to official exhibits, such plan changes must be approved by the Community
Development Director.
c) Lighting plans that meet City Code requirements as determined by the Zoning
Administrator;
d) Signage plans that are integrated with the building, design, architecture, and materials,
and meet City Code requirements as determined by the Zoning Administrator;
e) Building materials samples for all exterior building materials.
D. Prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy, the applicant shall submit evidence that tenant
leases include Traffic Management Plan notification per City Code requirements.
E. Beginning one year after issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy, the owner shall
submit annual traffic monitoring reports to the St. Louis Park Community Development
8f* 4
Department for distribution to the TDM Joint Task Force. The traffic reports shall address
current traffic volume measurements at the I-394 Park Place Boulevard/Xenia interchange
and other information as requested by the TDM Joint Task Force.
F. At the direction of the Joint Task Force, when the reserve capacity is allocated or level of
service standards are exceeded, the owner shall implement actions listed in the applicant’s
TMP and actions required by City Code to reduce PM peak hour traffic to meet the level of
service standards. The owner shall also work with other nearby owners to provide
office service uses that enhance the success of the traffic management measures.
G. The applied color to be used on the concrete exterior portions of the parking ramp
shall be adequately maintained in perpetuity.
H. Assent form and official exhibits must be signed by applicant (or applicant and owner if
applicant is different from owner) prior to issuance of a building permit.
I. Approval of a building permit, which may impose additional requirements.
J. The conditional use permit shall be amended on November 1, 1999 to incorporate all of the
preceding conditions and add the following conditions:
a. A six month extension shall be granted.
b. Assent form and official exhibits must be signed by applicant (or applicant and owner if
applicant is different from owner) prior to issuance of building permit.
K. The conditional use permit shall be amended on July 5, 2000 to incorporate all of the
preceding conditions and add the following conditions:
a. A six month extension shall be granted to January 5, 2000.
b. Assent form and official exhibits must be signed by applicant (or applicant and owner if
applicant is different from owner) prior to issuance of building permit.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council July 5, 2000
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
8g* 1
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 8g*
Meeting of July 5, 2000
*8g. Zoning Ordinance Amendments proposed by Joshua E. Aaron of Park Land
Company and staff
CASE NO. 00-17-ZA -
Second 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 second reading of Zoning Ordinance text amendment to
Section 14:5-6.2.E.1, adopt Ordinance, approve summary and
authorize its publication.
Background:
On June 19, 2000, the City Council approved first reading of a request to amend the Zoning
Ordinance provision that allows by PUD residential uses in the O-Office District to be more
consistent with how residential uses are permitted in other commercial and mixed-use districts.
This occurred following a Council discussion of the proposal at the June 12, 2000, Study
Session.
On May 3, 2000, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, found the proposed
amendments to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and unanimously recommended
approval. 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 a total development. Mr. Aaron’s proposal and staff’s additional proposed
modifications would limit housing related uses to 25% of the first and second stories of a
building, but would allow 100% residential above the second story.
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.
8g* 2
Staff/Planning Commission Recommended Amendments When staff was reviewing the
proposed text change proposed by Mr. Aaron, staff compared it to how residential uses are
permitted in other commercial districts.
The C1 and C2 Districts allow residential uses above the ground floor. The MX district also was
developed to require a mixture of uses. The Zoning Ordinance requires that commercial uses are
located on the ground floor in all of these districts, 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.
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 located within the first story shall
be limited to common areas and rental offices.
8g* 3
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 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
Summary
Prepared by: Judie Erickson, Planning Coordinator
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
8g* 4
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 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 do not represent more than 25% of the first story or 25% of
the second story of 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. No dwelling units are located below the second story of the building. All housing
related uses located within 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 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.
8g* 5
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 July 5, 2000
Reviewed for Administration
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
8g* 6
SUMMARY
ORDINANCE NO. 2171-00
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK
ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING BY
AMENDING SECTION 14:5-6.2.E.1
This ordinance states that the “O” Office District regulations shall be amended pertaining to
residential uses to prohibit cluster housing, restrict residential uses to 25% of the floor area in the
first two stories of a building, and allow upper stories of a building to be 100% residential.
This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication.
Adopted by the City Council July 5, 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: July 12, 2000
8h* 1
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 8h*
Meeting of July 5, 2000
*8h. Change Order No. 1 to Contract No. 53-98 with SRF Consulting, Inc. for
Professional Engineering Services
This report considers a request for Change Order No. 1 to Contract No. 53-98 with
SRF Consulting Group, Inc. for professional engineering services for the
Hutchinson Spur Regional Trail.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the attached resolution authorizing execution of
Change Order No. 1 in the amount of $33,500 to Contract No.
53-98 with SRF Consulting Group, Inc. for Professional
Engineering Services increasing the total contract amount from
$139,855.00 to $173,355.00.
Background: At its August 3, 1998 meeting the City Council authorized execution of a contract
with SRF Consulting Group, Inc. for professional engineering services on the Hutchinson Spur
Regional Trail. On June 14, 2000 staff received a written request from SRF requesting the
additional fees along with documentation. Staff has reviewed the request and determined the
costs are legitimate. Although staff was aware there were going to be some cost overruns on the
design contract, the total costs were not finalized until recently, due to ongoing work to meet
state and federal requirements. Additional work was also performed as needed to complete the
project including a number of additional meetings with property owners, right of way issues and
permit acquisitions.
Following is a summary of the additional costs being requested.
• Additional meetings and exhibit preparation for right-of-way easements and
acquisitions
$4,937
• Revisions to the Project Memorandum. $1,064
• Revisions to plans and specifications requested by CP Rail for retrofit of truss bridge $4,938
• Additional coordination, meeting attendance and plans necessary in acquiring necessary
permits for wetland mitigation from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District.
$1,064
• Alignment concepts for Smith property to address snow storage issues. $3,496
• Alignment concepts for Midland Glass site to accommodate building expansion. $1,025
• Meetings and drawing revisions regarding alternative trail alignments at Sholom
property.
$5,014
• Coordination and an additional Public Meeting regarding Victoria Ponds. $5,482
• Coordination and exhibit preparation for Super Value Easements. $2,500
• Additional surveying of Smith property and wetland mitigation site. $3,980
Total $33,500
8h* 2
A representative of SRF Consulting Group, Inc. will be at the Council meeting to respond to
questions.
Attachments: Change Order No.1
Resolution
SRF Letter
Prepared by: Carlton Moore/Michael P. Rardin, Public Works
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
8h* 3
RESOLUTION NO. __________
RESOLUTION PERTAINING TO CHANGE ORDER NO. 1
CONTRACT NO. 53-98
WHEREAS, the City Council entered into Contract No. 53-98 with SRF Consulting
Group, Inc. for Professional Engineering Services, Contract No. 53-98; and
WHEREAS, the City has determined that certain modifications be made to the contract
to facilitate the completion of the project; and
WHEREAS, the SRF Consulting Group, Inc. has agreed to the prices for the
modification noted above.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of
St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that Change Order No. 1, in the amount of $33,500.00 to Contract No.
53-98 with SRF Consulting Group, Inc. for professional engineering services on the Hutchinson
Spur Regional Trail is hereby approved.
Attest: Adopted by the City Council July 5, 2000
City Clerk Mayor
Reviewed for Administration:
City Manager
8h* 4
Contract No.: 53-98
Change Order No.: 1 Date: July 5, 2000
Project Name: Hutchinson Spur Regional Trail – Engineering Design
Project Location: T.H. 100 to Excelsior Boulevard
Contractor: SRF Consulting Group, Inc. One Carlson Parkway No., Suite 150
Minneapolis, MN 55447-4443 Phone No. 763/475-0010
Type of Work: Engineering design
Amount of Original Contract: $139,855.00
Description of Work to be Added : See attached letter
________________________________________________________________________________________
Unit Contract As Revised by C.O.
Contract Item Unit Price Quantity Amount Quantity Amount
________________________________________________________________________________________
Total Amount: $ 33,500.00
Funds Encumbered to date from Change Order No. 1: 173,355.00
Difference between Contract Amount and C.O. Amount (Add): $ 33,500.00
Total Funds Encumbered per this Change Order: $ 173,355.00
Above additional work to be performed under same conditions as specified in original
contract unless otherwise stipulated herein.
Approved: _________________________________ _______________________________________
Project Inspector Date Superintendent of Engineering Date
________________________________ ______________________________________
Director of Public Works Date City Manager Date
We hereby agree to furnish labor and materials complete in accordance with the contract
specifications
at the above stated price.
Approved: ___________________________ _________________________________________
Date Authorized Contractor Signature
NOTE: This Revision becomes part of and in conformance with the existing contract.
8I* 1
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # *8i
Meeting of July 5, 2000
*8i. Consultant Retention for Professional Engineering Design and Inspection
Services for Excelsior Boulevard Streetscape Between Quentin Avenue and
Monterey Drive (Phase III)
This report considers the retention of an Engineering Consultant to assist City staff
in the design and inspection of Phase III of the Excelsior Boulevard Streetscape
between Quentin Avenue and Monterey Drive scheduled for construction next year.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to Authorize Mayor and City Manager to execute a
Contract with SRF Consulting Group, Inc. (SRF) for
Professional Engineering Design and Inspection Services for the
Excelsior Boulevard Streetscape from Quentin Avenue to
Monterey Avenue (Phase III).
Background:
In the early 1990’s the City Council initiated a long term vision for the improvement of Excelsior
Boulevard. The concept was to initiate public improvements to the area including new street
lighting, landscaping, pedestrian facilities, bus shelters and accessibility. The First Phase of
construction was from Quentin Avenue to Trunk Highway 100 and north on Park Center
Boulevard to W. 36th Street. Phase I was designed by RLK & Associates and DSU, Inc. The
Second Phase of construction was just recently completed from Monterey Drive to France
Avenue. Phase II was designed by H.R. Green and Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc. It is
proposed to use SRF for Phase III of the Streetscape construction.
Discussion:
Staff’s recommendation on the use of SRF is based upon a number of factors including: Their
familiarity with the traffic issues in this area, their involvement in the Park Commons conceptual
development, and the commitment by Mr. Barry Warner to be involved in the project. Staff has
received a written proposal from SRF for the anticipated scope of services which includes:
1. Data collection for preliminary report/preliminary public involvement.
2. Prepare preliminary design.
3. Prepare final plans and specifications.
4. Right of way/easement descriptions.
5. Bidding administration.
6. Construction inspection services.
7. Record drawings.
8I* 2
Financial Considerations:
The total consultant fee based upon the Scope of Services outlined above is estimated to be
$136,207. It is understood that should additional work be needed/requested to complete the
project that the project cost would adjust accordingly. Staff has reviewed the consultants
proposal and recommends the City council authorize execution of an agreement with SRF
Consulting Group, Inc. in the amount of $150,000 to provide for some flexibility in the actual
services requested. Staff anticipates additional services may be needed to obtain Hennepin
County approval for this project.
Prepared by: Carlton B. Moore, Mike Rardin, Public Works
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
8j* 1
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 8j*
Meeting of July 5, 2000
*8j.* Traffic Study No. 552 - Parking Restrictions at W 31st Street and Aquila Ave.
This report considers a property owner’s request for “No Parking” on W. 31st Street
East of Aquila Avenue.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the attached resolution authorizing installation
of “No Parking” signs on the north and south sides of W. 31st
Street from Aquila Avenue to a point 100 feet east.
Background: The City received a request from Mr. Michael Sedley of 3055 Aquila Avenue to
restrict parking adjacent to the new homes on the corners of W. 31st Street and Aquila Avenue.
The restriction is to reduce the conflict of park users parking adjacent to the residences and
cutting across their yards.
Staff has reviewed the site and requested input from the Park & Recreation Department on the
impact of reduced parking for Aquila Park. The conflict appears to be evening and weekend park
users, especially for ball games. The Park & Recreation Department feels there is sufficient
parking at the Aquila School, which is currently not being fully utilized, to facilitate the needed
parking.
Options: Staff has identified the following options available to the council at this time:
* 1. Approve the request
2. Deny the request
* Staff recommendation
Attachments: Resolution
Map
Letter
Prepared by: Carlton B. Moore/Michael P. Rardin, Public Works
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
8j* 2
RESOLUTION NO. _______
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING “NO PARKING”
ON W. 31st STEET EAST OF AQUILA AVENUE SOUTH
TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 552
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota has been requested, has studied, and
has determined that traffic controls are necessary at this location.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that the Director of Public Works is hereby authorized to install the following
controls:
“No Parking” – North and south sides of W. 31st Street from Aquila Avenue to a point 100 feet
east.
Attest: Adopted by the City Council July 5, 2000
City Clerk Mayor
Reviewed for Administration:
City Manager
9a* 1
Item # 9a*
City of St. Louis Park
Human Rights Commission
Meeting Minutes - May 17, 2000
First Floor Community Room - City Hall
______________________________________________________________________________
Present
Commission members: Marc Berg, Herb Isbin, Betty Merritt, Kristin Siegesmund, Chris Smith,
Emily Wallace-Jackson
Staff: Martha McDonell, Commission Liaison and Lynn Schwartz, Recording Secretary
Call to Order
Chairperson Marc Berg called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m.
April Minutes: Moved by Chris Smith and seconded by Kristin Siegesmund to approve the
April minutes with two corrections suggested by Herb Isbin. Motion passed unanimously.
May Agenda: Moved by Betty Merritt and seconded by Chris Smith to approve the agenda with
two additions: 1) review of a bias incident report and 2) school board report. Motion passed
unanimously.
New Business
Phone Line Resource and Referral List: Herb Isbin reported that he was discouraged when he
called the numbers on the Commission’s Resource and Referral List and found that many of the
organizations are advocacy groups and only a few provide direct assistance to hate crime victims.
Isbin also stated that the commission does not have a network—as mentioned in the Bias/Hate
Crime Response Plan—that can provide victim assistance. Isbin felt the list should be for direct
help only, and the commission should create a new list with that purpose in mind. Isbin
recommended that the Minnesota Department of Human Rights be deleted from the list since it
doesn’t provide victim assistance.
Betty Merritt preferred expanding the list to include organizations that provide victim assistance
rather than deleting organizations from the list. Emily Wallace-Jackson stated that it doesn’t
bother her that some organizations provide referrals as long as the referrals don’t result in a dead
end for the caller.
Marc Berg suggested creating two lists: one for general reference and one for victim assistance.
When creating a new list, Kristin Siegesmund suggested that the commission consider what the
victim would immediately want (police follow-up or counseling, for example). Siegesmund felt
that hate crime victims’ situations are similar to domestic abuse situations so counseling and
empowerment/protection options are appropriate. She did not object to keeping advocacy groups
on the list since they provide a sense of community to the victim.
9a* 2
Marc Berg offered to write a letter to each organization on the current list and ask what they do,
what their mission is, and whether they provide victim assistance so that a new list can be
created.
Ice Cream Social: Martha McDonell reported that the commission is buying multi-cultural
color crayons to give out at the May 21st Children First Ice Cream Social. The commission will
also be distributing materials copied from the Shoreveiw Human Rights Commission booklet.
Commissioners who will be working at the event are: Marc Berg, Betty Merritt and Emily
Wallace-Jackson.
Voter Assistance: Martha McDonell reported that the City Clerk asked whether the
Commission might be interested in help non-English speaking voters. Although information on
how to cast a vote is available there is very little candidate information available in other
languages. Although the City is prohibited from providing any information about individual
candidates, the commission could help the League of Women Voters translate candidate
information into other languages. Chris Smith offered to follow-up with the League on what
assistance the commission could provide.
Bias/Hate Incident Report: Martha McDonell reported that the Police Department forwarded
an offense report concerning a May 14 vandalism incident at Byerly’s. The exterior employee
entrance was spray painted with a swastika and the phrase “Kill Jews”. The graffiti was not
visible to store customers, and Byerly’s has removed the graffiti. The Police Department has
filed a bias offense report in connection with the incident.
Old Business
Bias/Hate Crimes Newspaper Article: Kristin Siegesmund distributed a draft letter to the
editor/commentary that could be submitted to the St. Louis Park Sun-Sailor on behalf of the
commission. Siegesmund explained that the purpose of the article is to make a statement that
harassment is unacceptable, and that people should not sit by when harassment occurs. The
article would also help make the community aware of the existence of the Human Rights
Commission. Commissioners made some content suggestions but generally liked the letter’s
content and tone. Moved by Herb Isbin and seconded by Betty Merritt to send the revised article
to the Sun-Sailor for possible publication.
School Board Report: Emily Wallace-Jackson told commissioners that she will be making a
brief report to the St. Louis Park School Board on May 22 concerning the Commission’s work
plan and 1999 efforts. Wallace-Jackson will bring a copy of the Commission’s 1999 annual
report as well as the commission’s brochure to the meeting.
Reports
Commissioner Reports: Marc Berg reported on correspondence between Mort Ryweck and
Amy Klobuchar concerning the hate/crime incident at the Minneapolis Jewish Community
Center.
9a* 3
Herb Isbin brought an article on the immigration forum for placement in the commission’s
archives. Isbin also distributed information from the Minnesota Advocates for Human Rights.
He also asked whether the commission’s brochure could be inserted into utility bills. Lynn
Schwartz responded that the brochure’s existing size does not meet the size requirements for
utility bill inserts. Martha McDonell offered to follow up on the process of inserting information
into utility bills.
Staff Report: Martha McDonell reported that several phone calls were received on the Human
Rights Phone Line and these were referred to the appropriate agencies. McDonell also
mentioned that, because of City Hall remodeling, the commission cannot meet in the first floor
community room and will be meeting in the second floor conference room until the remodeling is
complete. Because of building security needs, any commission member who will be late for a
meeting should also be aware that City Hall doors are locked. Commissioners who are unable to
get into the building, should call from the parking lot entry door to page the custodian.
McDonell also reported that Clint Pires and Charlie Meyer will be coming to the June meeting to
discuss Vision St. Louis Park’s diversity component and the commission’s role in implementing
Vision St. Louis Park recommendations.
June Agenda
Members agreed to place the following items on the June agenda: Vision St. Louis Park,
Children First Ice Cream Social follow-up, phone line referral list, School Board report follow-
up, and work plan progress/mid-year report to the City Council.
Adjournment
Moved by Betty Merritt and seconded by Kristin Siegesmund to adjourn. Motion passed
unanimously. With no further business, the commission adjourned at 8:42 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lynn Schwartz, Recording Secretary
9b* 1
Item # 9b*
PLANNING COMMISSION
ST LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
JUNE 7, 2000 --7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Michael Garelick, Ken Gothberg, Dennis Morris, Sally Velick
MEMBERS ABSENT: Michelle Bissonnette, Paul Carver, Jerry Timian
STAFF PRESENT: Janet Jeremiah, Janice Loftus, Sacha Peterson
NOTE: Due to the fact that the Chair and Vice Chair were not present, Commissioner Morris
served as Temporary Chair.
1. Call to Order - Roll Call
Acting Chair Morris called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
2. Approval of Minutes of May 17, 2000
Mr. Gothberg moved approval of Minutes of May 17, 2000 and the motion passed on a
vote of 2-0-2 with Garelick, Gothberg voting in favor and Morris and Velick abstaining.
3. Public Hearings:
A. Case Nos. 00-32-PUD and 00-33-VAR - Request of David Hornig for Preliminary
and Final Planned Unit Development approval and Variances for reduced
landscape bufferyard and stacked parking to permit the construction of 39 units of
townhomes for property located south of 36th Street and east of Phillips Parkway
- Phillips Parkway Townhomes
Sacha Peterson, Planner, presented a staff report. She stated that the developer is
requesting a combined preliminary and final PUD and variances to develop an
approximately 3 acre parcel south of 36th Street and east of Phillips Parkway, for
39 stacked townhomes in three and four unit buildings. The townhomes are
intended to be moderate market rate senior rentals. Ordinance modifications are
being requested per the PUD ordinance for reduced building and parking lot
setbacks along Phillips Parkway. Variances are being requested for a stacked
parking configuration and for reduced landscape bufferyards along the east and
south property lines. Significant regrading of the property is proposed, and a
retaining wall is proposed along the entire length of the east property line which
would vary from four to twelve feet in height.
9b* 2
Ms. Peterson stated that a modification to the City’s trail plan in terms of having a
regional trail along the east side of Phillips Parkway adjacent to this development
was approved by the City Council about a year ago. There is an easement in place
on this property that is not proposed to be changed to accommodate this
development proposal. The existing sidewalk on Phillips Parkway is proposed to
be relocated between the trail and the street. She stated that there is currently a 4
foot sidewalk along the south side of 36th Street and Staff’s recommendation
would be to have the developer install a 5 foot sidewalk so it would meet City
standards. She noted that although the staff report states that the units are to be
moderate priced based upon single car garages and vinyl siding, the developer
anticipates the units to be more upscale.
Ms. Peterson stated that at the time the staff report was prepared, staff believed
that seven findings have not been met, and was recommending denial of a
variance for the reduced landscape bufferyard along the east property line.
However, since writing the report, staff has met with the developer and discussed
ways to increase the bufferyard on this property line and, if the developer makes
the changes that were agreed to in that meeting which is basically increasing the
plant units, staff is comfortable that they are putting in as much landscaping as
they are able to and would recommend approval of the bufferyard variance on the
east property line. Staff believes the seven finding have been met and is
recommending approval of a variance for stacked parking and for reduced
bufferyard along the south property line, and is also recommending approval of
the preliminary PUD, subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report. She
noted that although the staff report indicates that a preliminary and final PUD are
being considered, because of recent ordinance changes, the Planning Commission
cannot consider a combined Preliminary and Final PUD when a variance is being
requested. Therefore, the Final PUD will be brought back for Planning
Commission consideration after the Preliminary PUD and Variance are acted
upon by Council.
Ms. Peterson stated that while the intended market for these townhomes is
seniors, there is no criteria to specifically limit the rental of these townhomes to
one specific group. Since families with children may occupy any of the units,
staff would recommend looking at the possibility of adding a condition requiring a
tot lot.
Mr. Gothberg asked for clarification on the location of the trail.
Ms. Peterson stated that there would be a retaining wall along the east property
line that would vary from 4 feet to 12 feet in height. The trail would be installed
along the west side of this property within the right-of-way next to Phillips
Parkway. South of Phillips Parkway, the trail would continue south on an
easement over the subject property. The existing sidewalk would be relocated
between the trail and the Phillips Parkway.
9b* 3
Mr. Gothberg asked for clarification about guest parking and overflow parking.
Ms. Peterson stated that there is no parking along Phillips Parkway. The
development proposal does exceed the requirement for guest parking.
Mr. Garelick stated there is an assumption that as you get older you are going to
have a single car garage and I don’t believe that is how it works. He stated he is
concerned about not having any trees and concerned that children will be caught
between two parking lots and have no area to play.
Ms. Velick stated that at the last meeting the Commissioners were concerned
about emergency vehicles maneuvering on the site and the staff report states that
this is not going to be a problem.
Ms. Velick asked if the sidewalk that is currently on Phillips Parkway will be
gone and if steps will be installed for the cross-over path on the property.
Ms. Peterson stated that the sidewalk will be relocated so that it is right up against
the curb, but still on the east side of Phillips Parkway, and the trail will be right
next to the sidewalk.
Ms. Peterson stated that staff is recommending that an east/west pedestrian
crossing be provided across the property to maintain what is an existing informal
access from Phillips Parkway east to the Rainbow/Target retail property. This
would probably have to include steps.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that there is currently a natural path that the seniors are using
to get to Rainbow Foods.
Ms. Velick and Mr. Garelick both stated that they do not believe the seniors
would use steps and recommended a ramp.
Acting Chair Morris opened the public hearing.
Rod Brannon, 8951 W. 36th Street, stated that he is the owner of the car wash and
the office building immediately to the east of the proposed property. He said his
wife and he have discussed several concerns with staff but they still have some
questions and concerns they would like placed into the minutes. At this point, the
trail that the Planning and Zoning Supervisor is talking about does come right
across the car wash parking lot. As I mentioned to Sacha and Carlton on a couple
of occasions, the primary amount of traffic across the developer’s property, does
not go to the apartment building that is closest to 36th Street. My experience has
been when I watch people getting off the bus by the Rainbow parking lot is that
they walk across the parking lot and then they go up at about a 40 degree angle.
9b* 4
Most of those people must be employed by the seven story terminally ill facility
on that campus (southernmost building). So that means that if you are going to
put a gate on the car wash property, you are going to force those people, the
majority of the employees who work there, you are going to force them to go on to
the Rainbow parking lot and angle off to the right. Then they have to go all the
way back to that third building on that campus which is as far away as they can
get. If you bring that across our property, you are serving the needs of the people
in the three story building closest to 36th Street, but you are not taking into
consideration the needs of those people in the middle and the southern most
building on the campus who are trying to get to Rainbow or other complexes. So
if you put the gate on the extreme end closer to 36th Street, you are going to be
forcing several people to walk the furthest distance they can to get to Rainbow. If
they are going to Target that is a different situation, then you are forcing the
people who are closest to 36th Street to go to the other gate.
Mr. Brannon stated that he had four other concerns:
Drainage -- We have discussed our drainage issues with staff and our questions
have been answered quite well. I don’t want any run off on my property. We had
a February that was very unusual as far as melting snow and the year before we
had two inches of rain in January. The problem is that if that water comes down
the bank from that proposed development property onto our parking lot in the
winter time, we have a skating rink. We are a car wash business with a lot of
traffic going out of 14 bays onto that parking lot and if it gets water on it, it gets
very slippery.
Landscaping: The question I have now is about the landscaping to the northern
most set of townhouses. When my tenants look out at Sholom, there are beautiful
trees, rolling grass and reflecting ponds making an attractive area. We have spent
a lot of time and money on our landscaping and we take very good care of our
property. We have a lot of shrubs and trees and we want to make sure that this
continues. I would like to ask Sacha “What is the landscaping to the north of the
northern most townhouse”? 36th Street is a very high volume pedestrian and
automobile traffic street. I would like the landscaping to continue like the
townhomes to the west of Highway 169.
Fence Materials: We are concerned about materials to be used for the proposed 6
foot fence. We have tenants that will look right out at that development and I
would recommend to the developer that he take as good care of our side of the
fence as he does his side of the fence where his tenants are going to see.
Lighting: We do have a 22 foot high pole light. My recommendation to the
developer is that he should seriously consider putting in another deciduous
hardwood tree and some conifers, because when those leaves drop off the trees in
the fall there has to be some screening because we take 800 watts and it bounces
9b* 5
off our building. Second floor bedrooms would be negatively affected by the
lights.
Mr. Brannon thanked Sacha and Carlton for being cooperative and helpful in
answering their questions.
Dorothy Brannon, 8951 W. 36th Street, stated that Sacha mentioned some
changes to the exterior materials on these buildings to be more acceptable in the
neighborhood. I want to reiterate that the developer can do a better job to make
the buildings more attractive than just vinyl siding, retain a better upscale image
over a long period of time.
Michael Klein, 1811 Hillsboro Avenue, Chief Operating Officer, Sholom
Community Alliance, stated that in general, from his perspective, they much
prefer senior housing rather than a tattoo parlor or some sort of commercial
development. We are very willing to work with developer to make it work. We
are concerned that there be adequate parking. If the development is not a seniors
building, there may be parking coming into our property and this would be a
nuisance. Related to the crossover, people always look for the shortest distance
between two points and with the land being vacant, rather than walking around on
the sidewalks, they do cut across. He is willing to work with developers to figure
out where to place the crossover and reconfigure the location of the proposed
bicycle path.
Bruce Nemer, 8901 W. 34th Street, stated that he would like to see the bicycle
path and trail separated. It looks like you are paving the world and that there is no
grass left. I understand that staff would like to see additional turn around room,
but the issue was not included in the recommendation. Would there be a decrease
in the number of units if you had increased turn around space?
Roberta Nemer, 8901 W. 34th Street, stated that her mother lives in Knollwood
Place. She is concerned for the safety of the residents if the sidewalks are going
to be made narrower and moved closer to the street. I have been active at the
Cedar Trails condominium complex and believe there is a serious need for more
room to park. I would like to leave the trees there in this narrow area and see less
concrete.
Acting Chair Morris closed the public hearing.
David Hornig, the developer, stated that when he brought this site to the architect
he indicated that the site was difficult. I think everyone here believes that maybe
the best use is a path right down the center of the lot and it would be forever
nature. The fact is that I am the owner of that lot. Originally I presented a
proposal to staff for an 80 unit building and found that there is a 30 inch water
line that feeds Lake Minnetonka, Delano and Hutchinson, so we could not build
9b* 6
over that piece, so we have two pieces. The 80 unit building had some advantages
because we could have a parking lot on either side of the building at the ends of
the lot and in the middle we could have underground parking. We could also save
a lot of trees. Staff indicated that townhomes would likely be preferable. We
worked with KKE in designing the units and evaluated the feasibility of making
one level. I believe that the units are gorgeous and would fill a need for seniors.
There would be five two-level units and all the rest will be one level units. The
landscaping may affect the retaining wall as the trees mature. We are paying for
tree replacement for trees that were planted on the property by others. We are
building the 5 foot sidewalk and encourage people to use it.
Ms. Peterson responded to one of the questions raised at the public hearing. She
stated that staff believes that the most appropriate location of the pedestrian
crossing would be between the car wash and retail businesses. She stated that the
run-off from this proposed development is much less than it would be today.
What is shown on the grading plan is that all of the parking and building areas
would be draining to catch basins (onto storm sewer). She stated that the point
about trying to create some additional buffer on the north side between this
property and Phillips Parkway was good and it would be good to provide more
landscaping on the east side in order to shield light from the car wash. She stated
that the City has a requirement that the finished side of the fence face the adjacent
property owner and fences are inspected for proper maintenance if a complaint has
been registered.
Ms. Peterson stated that the Public Works department has taken over the bicycle
path and sidewalk project. They are in the process of sending proposals out for
bid and plan to have this process completed within the next month, so it would be
extremely difficult to entertain any changes in the trail location at this point and
could very well jeopardize the majority of the funding for the trail. She stated that
there are four curb cuts proposed for the townhomes, and the volume of traffic
anticipated to cross the trail is less than with previously approved office
development, which had fewer curb cuts. She stated that staff is recommending
that the width of the parking areas between the townhomes would be increased.
This would mean that there would be additional space for cars to pull out, but the
open space between buildings would be reduced slightly.
Acting Chair Morris asked what the effect of the lighting would have off site.
Ms. Peterson stated that staff would check to see if the car wash lighting is in
compliance and, if it is, she would encourage the developer to provide additional
landscaping as a buffer.
Acting Chair Morris asked what the required parking spaces for each unit are.
9b* 7
Ms. Peterson stated the requirement for 2 parking spaces per dwelling unit plus
guest parking is met assuming the variance is granted for stacked parking. The 2
spaces per unit would be met with one garage space and one driveway space and
the guest parking would be provided in separate on-site areas.
Acting Chair Morris asked if this conforms to the new parking code that you
cannot park in the front yard of your property.
Ms. Peterson stated that because the development is all one lot, the front yard is
along 36th Street, and the driveway spaces that are in front of the garage spaces are
not considered the front yard.
Acting Chair Morris asked if it would be different if this were a condominium
development.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that they would only become front yards if they faced onto
public streets. In this case, the individual driveways face onto private shared
driveways that are internal to the project.
Mr. Gothberg commented on the walkways to retail areas and questioned if the
walkways incur any additional liability on property owners.
Acting Chair Morris requested a better detailed plan for final consideration and
preferred a lane striped plan with additional dimensions. He believes it is not
appropriate for the Planning Commission to revisit the bicycle trail/sidewalk
issue. He believes the pedestrian easement issue throughout the property needs to
be examined and resolved. He said we need to look at the property regardless of
what the expected or hoped for market is going to be. He stated that the driveway
cuts have been examined and discussed with the previous plan and that the
landscaping and screening will be guided by the City code.
Ms. Velick stated that she thinks housing for seniors fits into the location of the
campus and questioned if the Commission could make a request to develop this as
a seniors only complex.
Mr. Hornig stated that if the campus is funded with government monies, a
restriction could apply, but otherwise it is not allowed.
Mr. Garelick said he is concerned about too much development being placed in a
small area like Victoria Ponds and wanted to ensure it was livable.
Mr. Hornig stated that this site is zoned for 147 units. I would love to see more
density and be happy to reconsider 80 units.
9b* 8
Roberta Nemer, 8901 W. 34th Street, stated that the trees that Sholom put in are
in the front of the area where the people who live on that campus and use the
street can appreciate it. What I hear now is that we are going to have a lot of
greenery and save trees if we can, but they are going to be at the back of the
property. What about the rest of us who live in St. Louis Park who are now going
to be looking at driveway cuts and a street that doesn’t have any grass next to it.
Acting Chair Morris stated that the landscaping was placed on this property by
Sholom without any City permission.
Mr. Hornig stated he believes that the landscaping will enhance the current area.
Acting Chair Morris said that the landscaping on the parkway side is resolved.
Mr. Garelick stated that this is a good project for seniors and is supportive with
the reservations expressed.
Mr. Gothberg moved to accept staff recommendation to approve the variance for
stacked parking and reduced bufferyard requirement along the south property line,
approve the variance for reduced bufferyard along the east property line subject to
the condition that plans are received which show the maximum amount of
bufferyard as determined by staff and approval of the preliminary PUD, subject to
the conditions listed as 1 - 6 in the staff report. The motion passed on a vote of 4-
0 with Garelick, Gothberg, Morris and Velick voting in favor.
B. Case No. 00-34-Z - Amendment to Zoning Map for Comprehensive Plan
Consistency - Property between 13th Lane and Wayzata Boulevard east of Texas
Avenue from R-2 Single Family Residential to R-3 Two Family Residential
Janet Jeremiah, Planning & Zoning Supervisor, presented a staff report and
recommended approval of Zoning Ordinance Map Amendment for consistency
with the Comprehensive Plan and forward to City Council.
Ms. Velick asked if townhomes or single family homes could be built with the
steep grade to the north.
Ms. Jeremiah indicated that townhomes or single family homes could be built,
probably with walk-outs.
Acting Chair Morris opened the public hearing.
With no one wishing to speak, Acting Chair Morris closed public hearing.
Ms. Velick moved to approve the Zoning Ordinance Map Amendment for
consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and forward to City Council and the
9b* 9
motion passed on a vote of 4-0 with Garelick, Gothberg, Morris and Velick voting
in favor..
4. Old Business: None
5. New Business
A. Consent Agenda - None
B. Other New Business
i. Case Nos. 00-14-S and 00-15-PUD - Request of CSM/Rottlund for Final
Plat approval for Pointe West Commons One and Two and Final Planned
Unit Development approval to permit the construction of a 127-unit hotel,
106-unit extended stay hotel and 84 units of townhomes for property
located at the northwest quadrant of West 16th Street and Zarthan Avenue
Ms. Peterson, Planner, presented a staff report. She noted that Parks and
Recreation have agreed in concept to the park grading and revised plans
are expected at the end of the week. It is staff’s understanding that the
developer intends to preserve as many trees as possible. She
recommended approval of the final plat and final PUD for Pointe West
Commons One and Two, subject to the conditions in the staff report.
Mr. Gothberg asked where signals would be located with the realignment
of 16th Street.
Ms. Peterson indicated their location at Zarthan and 16th Street.
Acting Chair Morris asked what would happen to the leftover parcel once
Zarthan is realigned.
Ms. Peterson believed the City would retain that parcel for existing
utilities.
Acting Chair Morris asked if the realignment is going to be completed in
conjunction with the development so that when the development is
complete the street realignment will be complete.
Ms. Peterson stated that this is staff’s understanding, because access would
not be feasible until the realignment occurs.
The developer was present to answer questions.
Mr. Gothberg commented on the quality of the modifications and work on
the plan that has satisfied neighborhood concerns.
9b* 10
Acting Chair Morris accepted the use of hardiplank as Class II material,
but asked that since this was the second development that the City is doing
a test on, what is the nature of the test.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that staff will need to look at a potential modification
to the ordinance to accommodate this material.
Acting Chair Morris requested that staff complete an investigation as to
the materials compatibility with City code and would like to see some
material samples of product and an example of a full development where it
is already in use.
Richard Palmiter, the developer, stated that there is a Rottlund Homes
project in downtown Minneapolis next to the Federal Reserve on the river
that was constructed with hardiplank.
Ms. Velick stated that she is very pleased with how this area is developing
and believes it is going to be a real plus for St. Louis Park and thanked
staff and the developer.
Mr. Garelick moved to approve the final plat and final PUD for Pointe
West Commons One and Two as recommended by staff subject to the
conditions in the staff report; the motion passed on a vote of 4-0 with
Garelick, Gothberg, Morris and Velick voting in favor.
6. Communications
A. Recent City Council Action - June 5, 2000
B. Date for Planning Commission’s Tour of City was set for
Thursday, July 6th at 5:00 p.m.
7. Miscellaneous
A. Minutes of Zoning Appeals March 23, 2000
B. Agenda Board of Zoning Appeals May 25, 2000
8. Adjournment
Acting Chair Morris adjourned the meeting at 9:03 p.m.
Prepared by: Respectfully Submitted,
Shirley Olson
Recording Secretary
Janice Loftus
9b* 11
Administrative Secretary
9c* 1
Item # 9c*
MINUTES
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING
St. Louis Park, Minnesota
May 25, 2000
City Hall, Council Chambers
MEMBERS PRESENT: Susan Bloyer, James Gainsley, Paul Roberts
MEMBERS ABSENT: Paul Robertson
STAFF PRESENT: Scott Moore, City Staff Liaison
1. Call to Order - Roll Call
Chair Roberts called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
2. Approval of Minutes dated March 23, 2000
Mr. Gainsley moved and Ms. Bloyer seconded the motion to approve the minutes of the
meeting dated March 23, 2000. Motion Passed Unanimously.
3. Consent Agenda: None
4. Public Hearings:
a. Case No. 1-31 VAR - The request of Ford Road Partners for a variance from the
requirements of Section 14:5-4-4.6(C)(12)(b) of the Ordinance Code relating to
zoning to permit for property located in the “R-C” Multiple Family District at 460
Ford Road.
Mr. Moore presented a staff report and concluded that since five out of the seven
criteria have not been satisfied, it is recommended that the request to permit
13,770 square feet of usable open space instead of the required 32,800 square feet
be denied. Mr. Moore indicated that staff has met with the applicant on a
modified site plan since the time of the report, but noted that the plan still required
a variance.
Chair Roberts opened the pubic hearing.
Robert Johnson, Ford Road Partners explained his understanding of the zoning
requirements and stated that the goal was to build a 4-story building of owner
occupied townhomes and condominiums.
9c* 2
David Graham, Architect presented the modified project proposal which he
believed met the usable open space requirement, but still needed a variance for
consideration of the ground floor area.
Mr. Gainsley asked for clarification if usable open space was still an issue.
Mr. Moore stated that staff needed to review modified plan to determine if the
open space requirement was met.
Mr. Gainsley stated that if the Commission was reviewing something other than
for the purpose stated in the notice, then a new public hearing would need to be
scheduled so proper notice can be given.
Mr. Gainsley moved and Ms. Bloyer seconded the motion to continue the public
hearing to the next BOZA meeting on June 22, 2000 and directed staff to review
and interpret the modified plan. Motion Passed Unanimously.
Mr. Gainsley recommended that a neighborhood meeting be held prior to the next
BOZA meeting for residents to provide additional feedback.
b. Case No. 00-28-VAR - The request of Micro Electronics for a variance from the
requirements of Section 14:6-2.6(R) of the Zoning Ordinance Code relating to
zoning to permit a sign with a height of 40 feet instead of the maximum 25 feet
for property located in the “C-2” General Commercial District at 3700 State
Highway 100.
Mr. Moore presented a staff report and concluded that since five out of the seven
criteria have not been satisfied, it is recommended that the request to permit a sign
with a height of 40 feet instead of the maximum 25 feet be denied.
Mr. Gainsley asked if this issue was significantly different that a case in the past
with a sign request from Benilde.
Mr. Moore indicated that since Benilde was in a residential district, the amount of
signage allowed was very restricted to the lot and the issue was of area, not of
height.
Chair Roberts opened the pubic hearing.
David Bishop, Director of Construction Services for Micro Electronics, presented
a packet with photos to BOZA (Exhibit A). He explained that the purpose of the
sign was not to attract customers, but to show customers the location. He
described the practical difficulty of the site and stated that while he agreed that a
precedence would be set, he would argue what kind of precedence would be set.
9c* 3
Mr. Gainsley reviewed issues related to the need for the requested sign and didn’t
believe there was an obvious safety issue to the public.
Chair Roberts closed the public hearing.
Mr. Gainsley stated that he was not opposed to giving a sign variance in view of
the fact that sign variances have been given before, but he was against giving a
sign variance where there is not a demonstrable need and only a supposition of a
safety issue.
Ms. Bloyer concurred with the staff report and didn’t believe there was a safety
issue.
Mr. Roberts explained that there was a safety issue and a business issue since the
business was not visible from Highway 100 with the presence of the bridge and
trees.
Mr. Gainsley stated that he was convinced that there was a safety issue.
Mr. Gainsley moved and Chair Roberts seconded the motion to grant the variance.
The motion passed 2-1. Ms. Bloyer was opposed.
c. Case No. 00-29-VAR - The request of Troy Gambucci for a variance from the
requirements of Sections 14:5-4.5(G)(5), 14:5-4.5(G)(6), and 14:5-4.5(G)(8) of
the Ordinance Code relating to zoning to permit a lot area of 4888 sq. ft instead of
the required 8000 sq. ft, a lot width of 38.6 feet instead of the required 60 feet,
and to permit side yard setbacks of 7 and 7.5 feet instead of the required 15 feet
on and one half the building height for property located in the “R-4” Multiple
Family District at 3918 West 31st Street.
Mr. Moore presented a staff report and concluded that since BOZA has heard this
case in both 1996 and 1998, and both times the variance was approved, but the
applicant failed to submit building plans and failed to file for time extensions for
the variance, he had to reapply again. He concluded that since proposal and
conditions have not changed, it is recommended that the request be approved.
Mr. Gainsley questioned why the applicant didn’t use the property and act upon
the variance that was granted.
Chair Roberts opened the public hearing.
Troy Gambucci, applicant stated that he has been working on blueprint back in
1996 and when they were completed he missed deadline by two months. He
didn’t build because he was real-estate developing and was busy working on
9c* 4
another one with Scott and a commercial property and then backed out of that one
and bought this one to work on alone without any partners. He stated that he was
going to use this as a residence. He also noted that he had a problem with
securing financing.
Chair Roberts closed the public hearing.
Mr. Gainsley asked staff what they would be recommending without the fact that
the variance was granted in the past. He noted that the new zoning ordinance
gives increased importance to open space in St. Louis Park over the previous
zoning ordinance.
Mr. Moore stated that this does not apply to single family and two-family
dwellings.
Ms. Bloyer reviewed the previous process and was in favor of granting the
variance since the applicant was finally ready to build.
Mr. Roberts was in favor of granting the variance.
Chair Roberts moved and Ms. Bloyer seconded the motion to grant the variance.
Motion Passed Unanimously.
d. Case No. 00-30-VAR - The request of Superior Moulding (Mark Fredrickson) for
a variance from the requirements of Section 14:5-7.2 (G)(4) of the Ordinance
Code relating to zoning to permit a side yard setback of 10 feet instead of the
required 20 feet for property located in the “I-P” Industrial Park District at 5000
West 35th Street.
Mr. Moore presented a staff report and concluded that since five out of the seven
criteria have not been satisfied, it is recommended that the request to permit a side
yard setback of 10 feet instead of the required 20 feet. Mr. Moore stated that he
received a letter from John McCain of Beltline Industrial Park (neighbor to the
east) indicating his support of the variance.
Chair Roberts opened the public hearing.
Mark Fredrickson, Owner of Superior Moulding, presented some information to
BOZA (Exhibit A) and explained the history and background of the property. He
stated there was a practical difficulty with the narrowness of the lot. He stated
that if the design was modified as outlined by staff, part of the existing structure
would have to be demolished and would increase cost and not be a reasonable use.
He also explained how he was forced to encroach on his neighbors property in
order to unload trucks.
9c* 5
Chair Roberts closed the public hearing.
Mr. Gainsley agreed that there was a practical difficulty with the narrowness of
the lot.
Mr. Gainsley moved and Ms. Bloyer seconded the motion to grant the variance.
Motion Passed Unanimously.
5. Old Business:
a. Case 8-98 - VAR - The request of Park Land Company (Joshua Aaron) for a six-
month time extension for the variances granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals
on October 22, 1998 and given a six-month time extension on November 30, 1999
Mr. Moore presented a staff report and recommended that the request for a six-
month time extension for the Park Land Company and adopt the attached
resolution.
Mr. Gainsley moved and Ms. Bloyer seconded the motion to grant the variance.
Motion Passed Unanimously.
6. New Business: None
7. Communications: None
8: Miscellaneous: BOZA recommendation to Staff: Earlier receipt of meeting
packets or e-mail agenda.
9. Adjustment:
Mr. Gainsley moved and Ms. Bloyer seconded the motion that the meeting be adjourned.
Motion Passed Unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Scott Moore
Zoning Administrator
Prepared by: Shirley Olson
9d* 1
Item # 9d*
June 23, 2000
VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
3CMA TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 520.00
5 AND 10 EQUIPMENT PARTS 22.13
ABBY SCHAEFER AQUATIC PARK SEASON TICKETS 48.00
ADVANTAGE PAPER OFFICE SUPPLIES 160.50
ALL FIRE TEST INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 287.81
AMERICAN SOCIETY OF PLUMB ENG SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 115.00
AMLEX INC. GENERAL SUPPLIES 54.95
ANCHOR PAPER CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,801.65
APACHE GROUP OF MINNESOTA GENERAL SUPPLIES 988.09
ARAMARK UNIFORM CORPORATE ACCT GENERAL SUPPLIES 762.96
AUDIOVISUAL INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 109.60
BACHMAN'S PLYMOUTH LANDSCAPING SERVICE 116.11
BARTLEY SALES CO INC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 170.40
BATTERIES PLUS GENERAL SUPPLIES 19.15
BAUER BUILT TIRE & BATTERY EQUIPMENT PARTS (35.87)
BEARCOM RADIO COMMUNICATIONS 85.85
BILL KISSMEYER CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 229.52
BITUMINOUS ROADWAYS INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 852.00
BOB BARKER COMPANY INC SUBSISTENCE SUPPLIES 136.61
BOBS PERSONAL COFFEE SERVICE GENERAL SUPPLIES 126.45
BOHN WELDING COMPANY OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 32.31
BOYER TRUCK PARTS EQUIPMENT PARTS 25.71
BROADWAY RENTAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT (1.66)
BROCK WHITE CO LLC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES (189.14)
CAPITOL COMMUNICATIONS RADIO COMMUNICATIONS 382.40
CARTRIDGE CARE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 290.61
CATCO PARTS SERVICE EQUIPMENT PARTS (127.62)
CATHY YOUNG AQUATIC PARK RENTAL 40.00
CENTER FOR ENERGY & ENVIRONMEN OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 734.55
CHENEY SIGNS GENERAL SUPPLIES 135.36
CHEROKEE POWER EQUIPMENT CO EQUIPMENT PARTS 695.03
CITY OF SAINT PAUL TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 210.00
COLLINS COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 1,590.84
COLLISYS ELECTRIC CO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 3,003.63
CONCEPT SEATING INC GENERAL SUPPLIES (180.00)
CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS GENERAL SUPPLIES (938.10)
CRABTREE COMPANIES COMPUTER SERVICES 125.00
CROWN TROPHY GENERAL SUPPLIES 659.12
CUSTOM PRODUCTS & SERVICES LANDSCAPING SERVICE 15,581.34
D.J.'S MUNICIPAL SUPPLY INC. SMALL TOOLS 347.19
DAPHNE BERGERON AQUATIC PARK SEASON TICKETS 36.00
DATABASE TECHNOLOGIES INC OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 37.00
DEAN PELTON INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
DELI DOUBLE MEETING EXPENSE 147.70
DIGITAL BIOMETRICS INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 485.00
DOHMAN, WARD SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 60.00
DONATH, MAX & PAULETTE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 125.00
DUNDEE NURSERY GENERAL SUPPLIES 335.99
9d* 2
DVORAK, BRAD TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 317.98
ELAN FINANCIAL SERVICES TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 500.92
ELECTRIC SERVICE CO EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS 1,086.94
EMBEDDED SYSTEMS INC EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS 1,062.00
EMPLOYER EDUCATION SERVICES TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 290.00
ENGINEERING REPRO SYSTEMS GENERAL SUPPLIES 15.98
ENSR CONSULTING & ENGINEERING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 23,173.99
ERV'S LAWN MOWER REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTS 161.93
EVERGREEN LAND SERVICES CO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,302.77
FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (15.67)
FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP POSTAGE 1,384.91
FORESTRY SUPPLIERS INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 337.86
GARTNER REFRIG & MFG INC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 6,264.47
GENERAL SAFETY EQUIPMENT CORP EQUIPMENT PARTS (14.07)
GENERAL SPRINKLER CORP. BUILDING 21.24
GENUINE PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (27.83)
GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC RADIO COMMUNICATIONS 644.80
GREENMAN TECHNOLOGIES OF MN IN CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY 17.60
HANSEN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 4,860.00
HAWKINS WATER TREATMENT GROUP GENERAL SUPPLIES 797.00
HENNEPIN TECHNICAL COLLEGE TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 1,650.00
HOME DEPOT/GECF LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 31.79
HOME HARDWARE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 201.17
HONEYWELL PROTECTION SERVICES EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 117.00
HOWARD R. GREEN COMPANY LEGAL SERVICES 1,522.50
I A A I SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 100.00
ICE SKATING INSTITUTE OF AMERI GENERAL SUPPLIES 139.06
IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS GENERAL SUPPLIES 320.29
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST 283 PRINTING & PUBLISHING 788.10
INST FOR FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 350.00
IOS CAPITAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT 252.41
IRON MOUNTAIN GENERAL SUPPLIES 58.00
J H LARSON COMPANY GENERAL SUPPLIES 250.43
JEFF DAVIDMAN GENERAL SUPPLIES 90.82
JERRY MORGAN AQUATIC PARK SEASON TICKETS 15.00
JOSEPH CATERING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 792.99
KNOX LUMBER GENERAL SUPPLIES (92.42)
KOVAL APPLIANCE CO NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 286.48
LABOR RELATIONS ASSOCIATES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,600.00
LANDGREN, ROGER INSURANCE BENEFITS 206.36
LEAGUE MN CITIES INS TRUST BLDG & CONTENTS INSURANCE 4,356.00
LEE COLLINS LIMITED GENERAL SUPPLIES 88.89
LENOX NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 500.00
LORI MCTIGUE AQUATIC PARK RENTAL 30.00
LUTHER HOPKINS TOWN & COUNTRY EQUIPMENT PARTS 154.43
M C F O A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 70.00
M/A ASSOCIATES INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 51.33
MASTERSON PERSONNEL INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 600.00
MATTHEW DANIELS INC. PLUMBING 191.69
MATTHEW J. HABERMAN BUILDING 91.41
MEDTRONIC PHYSIO-CONTROL CORP GENERAL SUPPLIES 168.28
MENARDS GENERAL SUPPLIES 16.54
9d* 3
MERIWETHER FELT GENERAL SUPPLIES 58.78
METRO ATHLETIC SUPPLY OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 329.89
METRO CASH REGISTER SYSTEMS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 167.00
METRO VOLLEYBALL OFFICIALS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 43.00
METROCALL TELEPHONE 53.19
MIDWEST LANDSCAPES LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS 8,095.07
MINNESOTA WANNER GENERAL SUPPLIES 219.64
MN DRIVER & VEHICLE SVCS EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT CHARGE (46.00)
MTI DISTRIBUTING CO EQUIPMENT PARTS 284.21
N I G P OFFICE SUPPLIES 196.88
NAPA GENUINE PARTS CO/FINANCE EQUIPMENT PARTS 780.78
NEOPOST GENERAL SUPPLIES 174.10
NORTH EMS EDUCATION OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,344.00
NORTHERN WATER TREATING CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 27.98
NORTHLAND ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 16.49
NSP CO ELECTRIC SERVICE 32,550.20
OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE SUPPLIES 400.42
OLSEN CHAIN & CABLE CO INC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 40.66
OTTO PACKAGING MIDWEST LLC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES (72.00)
P & L AUTOMOTIVE INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 500.00
PAIGE BERG YOUTH ATHLETICS/LEAGUES-exempt 31.50
PALM BROTHERS CONCESSION SUPPLIES 51.61
PAM ORTON OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 177.25
PARR EMERGENCY PRODUCT SALES I GENERAL SUPPLIES 64.34
PARTS PLUS EQUIPMENT PARTS (294.90)
PEPSI-COLA COMPANY CONCESSION SUPPLIES 940.94
POINTED PRINTING SERVICES GENERAL SUPPLIES 692.30
POLICE EXECUTIVE RESEARCH FORU SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 150.00
PRESTIGE LINCOLN MERCURY EQUIPMENT PARTS 274.91
PRO PRODUCTS INC GENERAL SUPPLIES (92.32)
QUANTERRA INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 3,400.00
QUICKSILVER EXPRESS COURIER POSTAGE 851.18
QUIST ART & DESIGN, GLENN OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 130.63
REBECCA BERG GENERAL SUPPLIES 121.89
REGISTERED LOCKSMITHS BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 42.00
RICHARD H. MONITOR INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
RIGID HITCH INCORPORATED EQUIPMENT PARTS 131.17
ROTH, MICHAEL J STUDY INCENTIVE & MERIT PAY 815.00
ROTO-ROOTER OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 502.00
RUTTGERS BAY LAKE LODGE TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 587.82
S & S WORLDWIDE GENERAL SUPPLIES 260.78
S & T LAWN SERVICE INC OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,917.01
SCHARBER & SONS EQUIPMENT PARTS 15.77
SCHARBER & SONS INC EQUIPMENT PARTS (3.51)
SCHWANTZ, LARRY Clothing Allow/Reimbursement 36.90
SCHWIETZ,JULIANNE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,034.10
SCOTT ROSS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 174.10
SHARE, JOHN & JO ANN OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 100.64
SLP CRIME PREVENTION FUND UNREALIZED REV-SAFETY CAMP 0.00
SPRINT ROTHHAMMER INTERNATIONA GENERAL SUPPLIES 401.44
STAT MEDICAL GENERAL SUPPLIES 179.49
STATE TREASURER STATE SURCHARGE PAYABLE 1,946.88
9d* 4
STEMMER, LUKE GENERAL SUPPLIES 127.64
STEPHAN JOHNSON PLUMBING 28.00
STEPP MANUFACTURING CO INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 145.41
SUBURBAN TIRE CO EQUIPMENT PARTS 879.46
SUN NEWSPAPERS GENERAL SUPPLIES 270.00
SUSAN SAMPSON AQUATIC PARK SEASON TICKETS 86.40
SYSTEMS SUPPLY INC COMPUTER SUPPLIES 216.09
TARGET/DAYTONS GENERAL SUPPLIES 513.33
TEKSYSTEMS COMPUTER SERVICES 2,985.00
TERMINIX INTERNATIONAL EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 300.00
TEXA-TONKA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCI OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 500.00
THYMES TWO CATERING MEETING EXPENSE 100.90
TIMOTHY N. OETTMEIER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,627.79
TRACY/TRIPP FUELS MOTOR FUELS 10,667.50
TRANSMISSION SHOP INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 673.91
TREEMENDOUS INC LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS 15,014.37
TRIARCO ARTS & CRAFTS GENERAL SUPPLIES 984.56
TWIN CITY OXYGEN CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 2.68
TWIN CITY SAW & SERVICE CO OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 44.85
U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE 181.47
VISU-SEWER CLEAN & SEAL INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 362.50
VOELKER, STACY M GENERAL SUPPLIES 710.83
W W GOETSCH ASSOCIATES INC. BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 2,063.51
WALSER FORD EQUIPMENT PARTS 220.59
WARNER INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY GENERAL SUPPLIES 176.92
WASTE MANAGEMENT-BLAINE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 146,390.09
WATER ENVIRONMENT FEDERATION SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 179.00
WATSON CO INC CONCESSION SUPPLIES 3,259.62
WAYNE KEWITSCH GENERAL SUPPLIES 89.37
WHEELER LUMBER OPERATIONS OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 1,577.63
WOLF CAMERA INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 19.07
WSB ASSOCIATES INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 7,859.00
ZIP PRINTING GENERAL SUPPLIES 107.03
ZIP SORT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 157.05
345,772.32
June 30, 2000
VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
3M COMPANY OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 83.07
AFTER 5 OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 350.00
ALBINSONS GENERAL SUPPLIES 148.25
ALLEN-BRADLEY GENERAL SUPPLIES 188.21
ALLIANCE MECHANICAL SERVICES I BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 106.00
ALMSTEAD'S SUPERVALU CONCESSION SUPPLIES 47.82
ANDREW BERENBERG OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 148.00
ANN'S TOOL SUPPLY EQUIPMENT PARTS 52.65
APACHE GROUP OF MINNESOTA GENERAL SUPPLIES 783.51
ARAMARK UNIFORM CORPORATE ACCT GENERAL SUPPLIES 656.22
ART BLACKBURN OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,000.00
AT&T TELEPHONE 9.87
ATOMIC ARCHITECTURAL SHEET MET FACILITY RENTALS - taxable 56.00
9d* 5
BACHMANS LANDSCAPING SERVICE 359.20
BARTLEY SALES CO INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,684.83
BAUER BUILT TIRE & BATTERY EQUIPMENT PARTS (35.87)
BCA/TRAINING & DEVELOPMENT TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 300.00
BILL DEAN OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 18.50
BOBS PERSONAL COFFEE SERVICE GENERAL SUPPLIES 78.53
BROADWAY RENTAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT (1.66)
BROCK WHITE CO LLC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES (189.14)
BROWNING-FERRIS INDUSTRIES GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE 91.60
BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 375.00
C.S. MCCROSSAN CONSTRUCTION IN OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 2,710.60
CAHALAN, JUDITH L BUILDING 306.83
CAMPBELL KNUTSON PROFESSIONAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 7,789.97
CARTRIDGE CARE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 479.36
CATCO PARTS SERVICE EQUIPMENT PARTS (127.62)
CHRIS BRAVINDER OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 18.50
CHUBB & ASSOCIATES GENERAL SUPPLIES 197.00
COLICH & ASSOCIATES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 13,159.02
COLLINS COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 252.00
COMM ACTION FOR SUBURBAN HENNE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 9,878.00
CONCEPT SEATING INC GENERAL SUPPLIES (180.00)
CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS GENERAL SUPPLIES (938.10)
CONTINENTAL RESEARCH CORP GENERAL SUPPLIES 140.13
CUB FOODS TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 346.92
CUMMINS NORTH CENTRAL INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 321.30
DALCO GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,097.67
DIRECT SAFETY CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 44.52
DON DINGER OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 45.00
DRYWALL SUPPLY INC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 508.64
DUNDEE NURSERY LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS 165.08
E & S ELECTRONICS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 351.50
EHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC DEPOSITS PAYABLE 125.00
ELAN FINANCIAL SERVICES MEETING EXPENSE 6,914.10
ELIZABETH SHAW AQUATIC PARK SEASON TICKETS 36.00
ERICKSONS SEWER SERVICE BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 295.00
EVERGREEN LAND SERVICES CO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 120.00
FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (15.67)
FAIRMONT FIRE SYSTEMS BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 123.78
FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP POSTAGE 1,299.27
FINLEY BROS. INC. OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 4,187.00
GALLAGHER & CO OF MN INC, A J WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE 1,175.00
GARTNER REFRIG & MFG INC BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 446.19
GENERAL SAFETY EQUIPMENT CORP EQUIPMENT PARTS (14.07)
GENUINE PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (27.83)
GLOWSTICK FACTORY GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,766.00
GRAINGER INC, W W GENERAL SUPPLIES 295.45
HASLERUD, CARRIE MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 59.85
HAWKINS WATER TREATMENT GROUP CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY 2,431.70
HENN CO INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY COMPUTER SERVICES 419.39
HENNEPIN CO INFO TECH SALARIES - TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES 6,400.00
HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPT SUBSISTENCE SERVICE 758.70
HOME DEPOT/GECF GENERAL SUPPLIES 31.84
9d* 6
HOME HARDWARE GENERAL SUPPLIES 3.79
HYDROLOGIC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 15.89
IACP HOUSING BUREAU TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 350.00
INDELCO EQUIPMENT PARTS 37.74
IOS CAPITAL EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 880.76
IRA KAPLAN SUMMER CAMPS 58.50
J H LARSON COMPANY BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 284.11
JAMES HUSMANN AQUATIC PARK SEASON TICKETS 61.20
JEFFREY C. SMITH OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 300.00
JESSEN PRESS INC PRINTING & PUBLISHING 2,742.38
JOSEPH CATERING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 559.17
K C GROVES TREE EXPERTS CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 191.70
KATHLEEN A. RHODES INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
KENNEDY & GRAVEN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,820.65
KNOX LUMBER GENERAL SUPPLIES (35.14)
LEAGUE MN CITIES INS TRUST MOTOR VEHICLE LIAB INSURANCE 130.00
LINSK FLOWERS GENERAL SUPPLIES 62.50
MACQUEEN EQUIP CO TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 1,200.00
MASTERSON PERSONNEL INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 566.25
MATTHEW DOOLEY OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 18.50
MEDSOFT CORPORATION OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 332.00
MENARDS OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 156.67
METRO COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SE SEWER AVAILABILITY CHARGE 3,267.00
METROCALL TELEPHONE 14.48
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 225,800.00
MINNESOTA BOOK STORE GENERAL SUPPLIES 448.35
MINNESOTA CHAPTER OF AIIM TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 40.00
MINNESOTA TORPHIES & GIFTS GENERAL SUPPLIES 70.30
MINNESOTA WANNER EQUIPMENT PARTS 157.60
MINNESOTA ZOO OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 400.00
MN DRIVER & VEHICLE SVCS EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT CHARGE (46.00)
MTI DISTRIBUTING CO EQUIPMENT PARTS 244.41
NAPA GENUINE PARTS CO/FINANCE EQUIPMENT PARTS (211.67)
NORTH COUNTRY CLOGGERS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 275.00
NORTHERN LIGHTER PYROTECHNICS GENERAL SUPPLIES 9,000.00
OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE SUPPLIES 612.45
OLSEN CHAIN & CABLE CO INC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 534.44
OTTO PACKAGING MIDWEST LLC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES (72.00)
PALM'S HOME BAKERY MEETING EXPENSE 4.95
PANNING, CRAIG GENERAL SUPPLIES 160.34
PARTS PLUS EQUIPMENT PARTS (326.76)
PELI GENERAL SUPPLIES 680.40
PRESTIGE LINCOLN MERCURY EQUIPMENT PARTS 53.97
PRO PRODUCTS INC GENERAL SUPPLIES (92.32)
PUMP & METER SERVICE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 100.20
RAY & VIENNE KASPROWICZ FACILITY RENTALS - taxable 30.00
RC INDENTIFICATIONS GENERAL SUPPLIES 10.65
RECREONICS ETAL GENERAL SUPPLIES 629.55
RESCUE ONE EQUIPMENT PARTS 671.17
RICHARD ALAN PRODUCTIONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 675.00
RIGID HITCH INCORPORATED EQUIPMENT PARTS 11.19
RUTTGERS BAY LAKE LODGE TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 153.88
9d* 7
SAE TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 80.00
SCHARBER & SONS INC EQUIPMENT PARTS (3.51)
SCOTT DONNOLEY OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 18.50
SECURITYLINK FROM AMERITECH OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 36.10
SEDGWICK CLAIMS GMT SERVICES PROF/CONSULT SERVICES 1,160.00
SEVEN CORNERS ACE HDWE NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 1,361.98
SHOOP,PAT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 150.00
SLP CRIME PREVENTION FUND UNREALIZED REV-SAFETY CAMP 0.00
SONY SERVICE CENTER FACILITY RENTALS - taxable 32.00
SPS COMPANIES INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 33.06
SRF CONSULTING GROUP INC OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,442.75
ST LOUIS PARK COMMUNITY BAND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 400.00
ST LOUIS PARK HOUSING AUTHORIT ADMINISTRATION FEES 37,500.00
STATE OF MINNESOTA PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 9.50
STEPHEN J. FRANKWITZ INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
SUNSOURCE EQUIPMENT PARTS 1,160.28
TARGET/DAYTONS GENERAL SUPPLIES 108.56
TEKSYSTEMS COMPUTER SERVICES 1,125.00
TERMINIX INTERNATIONAL BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 51.12
TIERNEY BROTHERS INC OFFICE SUPPLIES 79.92
TRIARCO ARTS & CRAFTS GENERAL SUPPLIES 37.69
TRUE VALUE (PARK) GENERAL SUPPLIES 42.95
U S WEST INTERPRISE TELEPHONE 722.09
UNISTRUT NORTHERN OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 221.32
VALLEYFAIR OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,240.00
VEIT & COMPANY GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE 311.10
VINYL INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,878.25
VOICE TREK OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 600.00
WATSON CO INC CONCESSION SUPPLIES 1,202.04
WAYTEK EQUIPMENT PARTS 351.22
WESTSIDE EQUIPMENT BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 152.78
WILL HALE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 250.00
WM H MC COY PETROLEUM FUELS MOTOR FUELS 59.51
WSB ASSOCIATES INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 6,805.50
ZIEGLER INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 350.00
ZIP SORT OFFICE SUPPLIES 375.47
383,132.04
June 30, 2000
VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
CUB FOODS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 46.64
DELARIAS KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 723.50
GOVT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOC OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 415.00
KATHLEEN HARNEY OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 40.00
1,225.14
11a* 1
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 11a*
Meeting of July 5, 2000
*11a. Amend the Preliminary Development Agreement for Park Commons developer
This report considers approving the Second Amendment to the Amended and
Restated Preliminary Development Agreement (PDA) between TOLD Development
Company, the City and the EDA relating to the Park Commons East redevelopment
project.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve the Second Amendment to the Amended and
Restated Preliminary Development Agreement between TOLD
Development Company, the City, and the EDA relating to the
Park Commons East redevelopment project.
Background:
On August 16, 1999 the EDA/Council adopted the amended and restated preliminary
Redevelopment Agreement with Avalon Bay Communities, Inc. relating to Phase I of the Park
Commons Redevelopment Area (known as Park Commons East). Since this time, Avalon Bay
has stepped down as the Master developer of the project and entered into a Letter of
Understanding with the EDA/City. In the Letter of Understanding Avalon Bay agreed to assign
its development rights for Park Commons East to another developer when named.
On Wednesday June 7, 2000, interviews for a new developer of the Park Commons East project
were held. Based on these interviews, a second interview was held with TOLD Development
Company. After the second interview, the interview panel recommended that TOLD be given
exclusive development rights to the Park Commons East project based on a negotiated
preliminary development agreement.
On June 26, 2000, the EDA/Council discussed choosing TOLD Development Company as the
exclusive developer for Park Commons East. This led to staff putting the Second Amendment to
the PDA on the July 5, 2000 agenda.
Development Agreement Issues:
The Second Amendment to the PDA covers the same issues that were in the original PDA
including having the Authority: continue to acquire property, continue work on the EAW, ISP,
Comprehensive Plan, and Rezoning approvals, preserve the right to use Tax Increment for
streetscape and town green improvements, and provide some public assistance for the project.
The significant changes to the original PDA are as follows:
11a* 2
Owner Occupied Housing
TOLD will be responsible for finding a for sale housing developer and the EDA/Council will
have approval over the developer.
The Schedule
The revised schedule is attached in the General Business Terms Summary. Basically, the
developer will have until August 15 to do a first cut at a feasibility analysis. If everything goes
well, the developer will have until October 2 to do the final feasibility analysis. The
EDA/Council will then negotiate a final development agreement with TOLD by December 18,
2000. The dates for 2001 will be set out in the final development agreement with the goal of
starting utility work by June 1 and building construction by August 1.
Deposit/Financial Obligations
The PDA requires that $25,000 cash be deposited upon execution plus a $225,000 letter of credit.
The $25,000 in cash is nonrefundable under any circumstances. By September 15, 2000, an
additional $25,000 in cash is required and a new letter of credit in the amount of $200,000 must
be provided. This $25,000 in cash will be nonrefundable if TOLD does not perform (i.e. make it
to construction). After EDA/Council approval of the final development agreement on December
18, 2000, an additional $100,000 will be nonrefundable if TOLD does not build the project. The
terms of refundability of the remaining $100,000 will be set out in the final development
agreement. In any case, if TOLD actually meets the deadlines and constructs the project,
$225,000 less EDA expenses will be refunded to them.
Next Steps:
Staff will work with TOLD to provide as much information as possible to assist in the feasibility
analysis. The EDA/Council will continue to perform its obligations under the PDA.
Attachments: General Business Terms Summary
Amended and Restated Preliminary Development Agreement
Prepared by: Tom Kleve, Economic Development Coordinator
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
11a* 3
General Business Terms of Preliminary Development Agreement (PDA) with
TOLD Development Company
Schedule
The Developer will use its best efforts to complete the following tasks by the following dates:
1) by August 15, 2000, submit a feasibility analysis of the development including, at a minimum
analysis of:
functionality
preliminary cost estimates
preliminary financing approach and gap analysis (showing the amount and form of public
subsidy)
preliminary phasing plan and related components
retail/office/housing mix
suggested modifications of the master site plan, as necessary to make the plan feasible and
identification of other issues.
1) by September 1, 2000, request City to initiate any necessary comprehensive plan changes and
rezonings, conditioned on the parties’ mutual agreement to proceed.
2) by October 2, 2000, submit to the Authority a final feasibility analysis that refines the
analysis submitted under clause (1) above; and the parties commence negotiation of a final
development agreement.
3) by December 1, 2000, submit to the Authority a detailed schematic design for Park Commons
East, including site plan, buildings, infrastructure, and preliminary phasing plan; and submit
preliminary plat documents and application for planning approvals (including preliminary
PUD).
4) by December 18, 2000, the parties must have agreed to the following
status of retail leasing and the office component, evidencing feasibility of the development.
final phasing plan
final financing approach
final comprehensive Contract
1) By February 15, 2001, Developer has completed design development and pricing exercise for
the first phase, and has initiated final planning approvals (including final PUD) for the first
phase.
11a* 4
2) by May 1, 2001, Developer has completed construction documents and pricing exercise for
the first phase of the development; final planning approvals have been obtained; and
Developer has submitted utility and building permit applications for the first phase.
3) by June 1, 2001, construction of utility and streets for the first phase commences.
4) By August 1, 2001, below ground excavation for construction of buildings in the first phase
commences.
Deposit/Financial Obligations
Upon execution of the PDA, the Developer will deposit with the Authority: funds in the amount
of $25,000, and an irrevocable bank letter of credit in the amount of $225,000. Such funds and
letter of credit will be applied as follows:
(a) The $25,000 cash deposit is nonrefundable.
(b) On or before September 15, 2000, the Developer must deposit with the Authority
additional cash in the amount of $25,000, together with a substitute irrevocable bank
letter of credit in the amount of $200,000 in a form acceptable to the Authority. The
additional $25,000 becomes nonrefundable if construction does not commence by August
1, 2001.
(c) From and after December 18, 2000, an additional $100,000 (whether cash or letter of
credit) becomes nonrefundable if construction does not commence by August 1, 2001;
(d) The terms of the remaining $100,000 will be laid out in the final development agreement
which is to be approved by December 18, 2000.
(e) Upon commencement of below-ground excavation by August 1, 2001 $225,000 less
EDA expenses will be returned to the developer.
11b* 1
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 11b*
Meeting of July 5, 2000
*11b. Bid Tabulation: Entrance Signage and Site Improvements – City Project
No. 98-16
This report considers awarding a contract for the construction of an entrance
monument sign at Park Place Boulevard and the South Frontage Road of I-394.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to designate Nadeau Utility, Inc. the lowest responsible
bidder and authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the
amount of $37,351.00.
Background: Bids were received on June 22, 2000, for the City entrance monument sign at
Park Place Boulevard and the South Frontage Road of I-394.
Advertisement for bids was published in the St. Louis Park Sun-Sailor on June 7, and 14, 2000
and in the Construction Bulletin on June 9, and 16, 2000. A summary of the bid results is as
follows:
Contractor Bid Amount
Nadeau Utility, Inc. $ 37,351.00*
Engineer’s Estimate $ 33,000.00
* Denotes Engineer’s correction upon extension
Evaluation of Bids: Only one (1) contractor submitted a bid on this project. The Contractor,
Nadeau Utility, built the entrance monument signs in 1999 at Trunk Highway 7 and Aquila
Avenue, and at Louisiana Avenue and I-394. The work completed by Nadeau Utility was
completed in a satisfactory manner. Staff and the City’s consultant contacted other contractors
who typically bid on this type of work and found they already have full work scheduled for this
summer. Although the bid is $4,351 (13%) over the Engineer’s estimate, it is unlikely that
rebidding the project this year or waiting until next year will result in a significant reduction in
the bid price. Therefore, it is recommended that a contract be awarded to Nadeau Utility, Inc. in
the amount of $37,351.
Financial Considerations: It is proposed that this project be funded entirely by year 2000
Economic Development funds. No other funding sources are proposed for this project.
Prepared By: Carlton Moore/Michael P. Rardin, Public Works
Approved By: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
11b* 2
11c* 1
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 11c*
Meeting of July 5, 2000
*11c. Bid Tabulation: Storm Water Flood Area No. 11 (Nelson Park) – Project No.
00-06; Area No. 12 (2916 Maryland) – Project No. 00-02; Area No. 17 (3363
Zarthan Avenue) – Project No. 00-04
This report considers awarding a contract for the construction of stormwater
improvements at Nelson Park, 2916 Maryland Avenue and at 3363 Zarthan Ave.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to designate Thomas & Sons Construction, Inc. the
lowest responsible bidder and authorize execution of a contract
with the firm in the amount of $185,654.96.
Background:
Bids were received on June 27, 2000, for Storm Water Flood Area No. 11 (Nelson Park) –
Project No. 00-06; Area No. 12 (2916 Maryland) – Project No. 00-02; Area No. 17 (3363
Zarthan Avenue) – Project No. 00-04. Advertisement for bids was published in the St. Louis
Park Sun-Sailor on June 14, and 21, 2000 and in the Construction Bulletin on June 9, 16, and 23,
2000. Following is a summary of the bid results:
Contractor Bid Amount
Thomas & Sons Construction, Inc. $185,654.96
* Magney Construction, Inc. $189,899.30
Rosti Construction of Minnesota $192,278.50
Sunram Construction, Inc. $199,871.70
* Jay Brothers, Inc. $202,718.34
G.L. Contracting, Inc. $204,963.91
* Penn Contracting, Inc. $222,170.70
* Lametti & Sons, Inc. $226,836.20
* Don Zappa & Son Excavating, Inc. $246,847.05
Engineer’s Estimate $198,500.00
* Denotes Engineer’s correction upon
extension
Evaluation of Bids:
A total of nine (9) contractors submitted bids. A review of the bids indicates Thomas & Sons
submitted the lowest bid. Thomas & Sons has satisfactorily completed a number of projects for
the City in recent years. Staff has determined that Thomas & Sons submitted the lowest
responsible bid and recommends a contract be awarded to the firm in the amount of $185,654.96.
Following is a summary of project costs based upon the low bid:
11c* 2
Project No. 00-06 Project No. 00-02 Project No. 00-04
Area No. 11 Area No. 12 Area No. 17
$78,200.30 $92,778.16 $14,676.50
Financial Considerations:
These projects will be financed by General Obligation Revenue Bonds to be repaid from user
fees generated by the Storm Water Utility Fund. No other funding sources are proposed for this
project.
Prepared By: Carlton Moore/Michael P. Rardin, Public Works
Approved By: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
11d* 1
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 11d*
Meeting of July 5, 2000
*11d. Bid Tabulation: Hutchinson Spur Regional Trail – City Project
No. 98-09 (S.P. 163-090-01)
This report requests the City Council recommend to the Commissioner of
Transportation, as agent for the City, that a contract be awarded to the lowest
responsible bidder, and authorize deposit of the City’s 20% cost share with
Mn/DOT ($249,280.14)
Recommended
Action:
Motion to recommend to the Commissioner of Transportation, as
agent for the City, that a contract be awarded to the lowest
responsible bidder and authorize deposit of the City’s 20% cost
share with Mn/DOT.
Background: Bids were received on June 22, 2000, for construction of the Hutchinson Spur
Regional Trail. Advertisement for bids was published in the St. Louis Park Sun-Sailor on June 7,
14, and 21, 2000 and in the Construction Bulletin on June 2, 9, and 16, 2000. A summary of the
bid results is as follows:
Contractor Bid Amount
Barber Construction Co., Inc. $1,246,400.72
Carl Bolander & Sons Co. $1,288,153.12
Hardrives, Inc. $1,432,513.44
Thomas & Sons Construction, Inc. $1,433,058.79
Midwest Asphalt Corporation $1,467,310.56
Engineer’s Estimate $1,156,711.50
Evaluation of Bids: On this project, the City function was to receive and open bids for the
Hutchinson Spur Regional Trail and make a recommendation to the Commissioner of
Transportation. The State of Minnesota, Office of Contract Administration will review the bids
for compliance with bidding specifications and develop the Bid Tabulation Report for this
project.
Financial Considerations: The City’s cost share for this project is 20% of the construction
contract. In this instance it would be 20% of $1,246,400.72 or $249,280.14. It is required by
Mn/DOT that the City’s 20% share be deposited with Mn/DOT prior to their award of the bid. It
is therefore recommended that the City Council authorize deposit of the City’s 20% cost share of
$249,280.14 with Mn/DOT. Funds for the City’s share are approved to be expended from EDA
and Utility Funds.
Prepared By: Carlton Moore/Michael P. Rardin, Public Works
Approved By: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
11d* 2