Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999/08/02 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Regular 1 7:20 p.m.. - Economic Development Authority AGENDA - CITY COUNCIL MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA August 2, 1999 7:30 p.m. 1. Call to order 2. Presentation a. St. Louis Park Royalty b. Junior Leader Recognition 3. Roll Call 4. Approval of Minutes a. City Council meeting of July 19, 1999 Action: Corrections/amendments to minutes - Minutes approved as presented b. Special City Council meeting of July 26, 1999 Action: Corrections/amendments to minutes - Minutes approved as presented 5. Approval of agenda a. Consent agenda Note: All matters on consent (starred items) are considered to be routine and will be enacted by one motion approving all. There is no separate discussion of these items. If discussion is desired, the starred item will be moved to the regular agenda. Action: Motion to approve - Motion to delete item(s) b. Agenda Action: Motion to approve - Motion to add item(s) *c. Resolutions and Ordinances 2 Action: By consent, waive reading of resolutions and ordinances 6. Public Hearing 6a. Request by Silvercrest Properties, Inc. for approvals for a 46-unit expansion to a senior assisted living facility including an Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to adopt a Redevelopment Plan, Preliminary Plat, and Vacation of drainage and utility easements and trail easement 3601, 3633, 3663 Park Center Boulevard Case Nos. 99-14-CP, 99-15-S, and 99-16-VAC Recommended Action: • Mayor to close the public hearing for Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Motion to approve a resolution adopting Amendment to Comprehensive Plan. • Mayor to close the public hearing for vacation of easements. Motion to approve First Reading of the proposed ordinance and set Second Reading for August 16, 1999. • Motion to adopt a resolution approving preliminary plat of Silvercrest Addition, subject to conditions in the resolution. 7. Petitions, Requests, Communications 8. Resolutions and Ordinances 8a. Criminal History Background Checks Amendments to Chapters 3 and 15 of the St. Louis Park Municipal Code to allow the police department to perform criminal history checks on managers and tenants of rental property and on new City employees and volunteers. Recommended Action: 1) Motion to waive second reading, adopt the ordinance, approve the summary and authorize publication. 2) Motion to adopt a resolution setting the fee for conducting background checks. 8b. Request by Frauenshuh Companies for a minor amendment to a Special Use Permit for façade and building changes for a bank/dental building with bank drive through 4951-4959 Excelsior Boulevard Case No. 99-20-CUP 3 Recommended Action: Motion adopt a resolution approving a minor amendment to a Special Use Permit subject to conditions in the resolution 8c. Preliminary Planned Unit Development and Preliminary Plat at the southwest corner of Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue. Case 99-19-PUD Request by DRF Holdings LLC (Frauenshuh Companies) for a Preliminary Plat and Preliminary Planned Unit Development for a medical office building, future restaurant, and urgent care/pharmacy to be located at the southwest corner Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue Recommended Action: Motion to adopt a resolution approving the Preliminary Plat and the Preliminary PUD subject to the conditions included in the resolution. 8d. Parkwood Shores Assisted Living Project—Phase II This report considers a resolution calling for a public hearing on the modification of Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the modification of the Park Center Boulevard Housing Tax Increment Financing District. Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution calling for a Public Hearing on September 20, 1999 on the Modification of Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the Modification of the Park Center Boulevard Housing Tax Increment Financing District. 9. Reports from Officers, Boards, Committees *a. Planning Commission minutes of June 16, 1999 Action: By consent, accept report for filing *b. Planning Commission minutes of July 7, 1999 Action: By consent, accept report for filing *c. Vendor Claim Report Action: By consent, accept report for filing 4 10. Unfinished Business a. Board and Commission Appointment(s) Action: Motion to appoint Board and Commission Member(s) 11. New Business 12. Miscellaneous 13. Claims, Appropriations, Contract Payments a. Contract payments Final- Hardrives, Inc. $ 42,614.75 Crack Repair, Median Replacement Contract No. 21-99 Action: By consent adopt resolutions. Partial Hardrives, Inc. $ 131,234.61 Construction Phase 2 Excelsior Boulevard/Monterey Ave to France Ave Contract No. 14-98 Valley Paving $ 94,243.71 Watermain replacement, pavement milling, curb & gutter Contract No. 19-99 Action: By consent approve and authorize payments 14. Communications 15. Adjournment 5 Item # 4a UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA July 19, 1999 1. Call to Order Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. 2. Presentations - None 3. Roll Call The following Councilmembers were present at roll call: Ron Latz, Chris Nelson, Sue Sanger, Sue Santa, Robert Young, Jim Brimeyer, and Mayor Jeff Jacobs. Also present were the City Manager (Mr. Meyer); City Attorney (Mr. Scott); Director of Community Development (Mr. Harmening); Planning Manager (Ms. Jeremiah); Human Resource Director (Ms. Gohman); Police Chief (Mr. Luse); and Recording Secretary (Ms. Olson). 4. Approval of Minutes 4a. City Council Meeting of July 6, 1999 The minutes were approved as presented. 5. Approval of Agendas a. Consent Agenda Mr. Meyer, City Manager noted correction to item 8e. It was moved by Councilmember Young, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to approve the consent agenda. The motion passed 7-0. b. Agenda It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to approve the agenda. The motion passed 7-0. c. Resolutions and Ordinances By consent, Council waived reading of resolutions and ordinances. 6 6. Public Hearings - None 7. Petitions, Requests, Communications - None 8. Resolutions and Ordinances 8a. Criminal History Background Checks Chief Luse presented a staff report and recommended that Council adopt the Ordinance amending chapters three and fifteen of the St. Louis Park Municipal code concerning criminal history background checks on certain individuals. This ordinance would allow the St. Louis Park Police Department to perform background checks on rental property managers, tenants, and at the discretion of the City Manager, on new City employees and volunteers. Councilmember Latz recommended some grammatical changes to the ordinance and the City Attorney concurred. Councilmember Sanger noted that the ordinance talked about doing background checks for City employees, but the informed consent form only referred to those hired who were working with vulnerable adults and children. She believed the form should be modified to apply to all new hires. Ms. Gohman, Human Resource Director, stated that the consent form could be modified to include any City employees. She noted that this ordinance also allowed the BCA to do background checks on all new hires. It was moved by Councilmember Latz, seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer, to waive first reading of ordinance and set second reading for August 2, 1999. The motion passed 7-0. 8b. Vacation of a portion of a utility easement at 2902 Flag Avenue by Daniel and Karen Vetch Case No. 99-8-VAC It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Latz, to approve second reading of the proposed ordinance, approve ordinance summary, and authorize publication. The motion passed 7-0. 8c. Second Reading of Amendments to “M-X” Mixed-Use District Ordinance and associated sections of the Zoning Code Case No. 99-3-ZA The Council reviewed discussion and action taken on this issue at previous City Council Meeting. Councilmember Sanger stated that she absolutely supported this change to the “M-X” District, and so even though she was opposed to the live-work units she would support this ordinance change because of the overall good it does for the “M-X” District. 7 It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Young, to approve Second Reading of an ordinance amending the “M-X” District and associated sections of the Zoning Code, approve summary ordinance, and authorize publication. The motion passed 7-0. 8d. Minor Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 5101 Minnetonka Boulevard Case No. 99-18-CUP Resolution # 99-84 Mr. Harmening, Director of Community Development presented a staff report, concluded that the proposal met the conditions for a minor amendment and recommended approval. A representative of Park Land Company was present and expressed his appreciation to the City and staff for their work on the proposal. It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to adopt a resolution approving a minor amendment to Conditional Use Permit adopted under Resolution 98-161 on December 7, 1998, subject to conditions included in the resolution. The motion passed 7-0. 8e. 1999 Neighborhood Revitalization Grant for the Minikahda Vista Neighborhood Resolution #99-85 By consent, Council adopted a resolution approving the 1999 Neighborhood Revitalization Grant for the Minikahda Vista Neighborhood and authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to execute grant agreement with the neighborhood officers. 9. Reports from Officers, Boards, Committees a. Housing Authority Minutes of June 9, 1999 By consent, Council accepted report for filing. b. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of June 24, 1999 By consent, Council accepted report for filing. c. June Financial Report By consent, Council accepted report for filing. d. Vendor Claims Report 8 By consent, Council accepted report for filing. 10. Unfinished Business 11. New Business - None 12. Miscellaneous - None 13. Claims, Appropriations, Contract Payments - None 14. Communications Mr. Meyer, City Manager stated that the EDA and City Council will conduct a special meeting on July 26, 1999 at 7:00 p.m. to act on the development proposal for the southwest corner of Louisiana Avenue and Highway Seven. Mr. Meyer noted that all of the EDA, City Council and other Commission meetings would be relocated effective July 20, 1999 to the Community Room on the first floor of City Hall until after Labor Day. The City Council chambers would be undergoing some renovation to improve the video quality of the City Council Meetings. Mayor Jacobs noted that the St. Louis Park Parktacular float won the Admiral’s Award in the recent Aquatenniel Parade and commended the entire Parktacular Board for their work. 15. Adjournment It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to adjourn the meeting at 7:55 p.m. The motion passed 7-0. City Clerk Mayor 9 Item # 4b UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA July 26, 1999 1. Call to Order Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. 2. Roll Call The following Councilmembers were present at roll call: Sue Sanger, Sue Santa, Robert Young, Jim Brimeyer, and Mayor Jeff Jacobs. Also present were the City Manager (Mr. Meyer); Director of Community Development (Mr. Harmening); Economic Develoment Coordinator (Mr. Anderson); and City Clerk (Ms. Larsen). 4. Approval of Agenda It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Young to approve the agenda. The motion passed 5-0. 5. New Business 5a. Redevelopment Agreement relating to the Medical Office Development Proposal the Southwest Corner of Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue. Resolution # 99-85 Councilmember Young moved to adopt Resolution approving a Redevelopment Agreement by and among the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority, the City of St. Louis Park and DRF L-7 LLC. Seconded by Councilmember Santa. Motion passed 4-1 (Sanger opposed). 6. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 7:12 p.m. City Clerk Mayor 10 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 6a Meeting of August 2, 1999 6a. Request by Silvercrest Properties, Inc. for approvals for a 46-unit expansion to a senior assisted living facility including an Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to adopt a Redevelopment Plan, Preliminary Plat, and Vacation of drainage and utility easements and trail easement 3601, 3633, 3663 Park Center Boulevard Case Nos. 99-14-CP, 99-15-S, and 99-16-VAC Recommended Action: • Mayor to close the public hearing for Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Motion to approve a resolution adopting Amendment to Comprehensive Plan. • Mayor to close the public hearing for vacation of easements. Motion to approve First Reading of the proposed ordinance and set Second Reading for August 16, 1999. • Motion to adopt a resolution approving preliminary plat of Silvercrest Addition, subject to conditions in the resolution. Zoning: R-C, High Density Residential Comprehensive Plan Designation: RH, High Density Residential up to 75 units per acre Background: Silvercrest Properties, Inc. is requesting approvals for a second phase to their existing 45-unit senior assisted living facility in Park Commons. The request addresses the property area which currently includes a 33,000 square foot office building at 36th Street and Park Center Boulevard; the 45-unit assisted living property to the south (Parkwood Shores), and Parkshore Place, a 207- unit senior apartment high rise property further south. These properties are proposed to be replatted in order to reconfigure internal lot lines and make way for the assisted living expansion. A Comprehensive Plan amendment is also being requested to adopt a Redevelopment Plan for the properties. The Redevelopment Plan is being requested to allow for some significant ordinance modifications in conjunction with the assisted living expansion, and to set parameters for future redevelopment of the office property, which is anticipated within the next five to ten years. Vacation of two existing utility easements and a trail easement are proposed as well. The development proposal is to expand the senior assisted living facility towards the south, adding 46 units, to bring the total number of assisted living units to 91. An at-grade, enclosed pedestrian walkway is proposed to extend from the new addition to link this facility with the senior high rise. The parking area in front of the assisted living facility is proposed to be reconfigured, with a new turnaround/dropoff area in front of the building and a new 18-stall 11 surface parking lot along Park Center Boulevard. The 2,500 square foot Norwest Bank building and drive-through facility is planned to be removed from the property. (Norwest is planning to relocate this facility to a new building at Excelsior and Quentin Avenue.) There is a public trail connection running east-west across the property between the two residential buildings, which the developer is proposing to relocate to the north side of the assisted living building. Several parking stalls are proposed to be removed from the office building parking lot to make way for the trail in this area. Some landscaping changes, including tree removal and relocation, are proposed as part of the site changes. There are a large volume of emergency calls to City Fire and Police deriving from the senior high rise, and staff asked the developer to address ways to safely reduce these calls as part of the development proposal. The office building property was recently rezoned from C-2 Commercial to R-C High Density Residential (approved by City Council on July 6, 1999). The rezoning brings the property’s zoning into conformance with the Comprehensive Plan designation, making the zoning and Comprehensive Plan designation for the entire parcel as high density residential up to 75 units per acre. The R-C high Density Residential District ordinance was recently amended to facilitate residential development and allow certain modifications to performance standards if such modifications were addressed in redevelopment plans adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission reviewed this request, including a combined preliminary and final plat, on July 7, 1999 and recommended approval on all but the final plat. The final plat was continued until August 4, 1999 due to questions over easements. The Planning Commission noted several other concerns, including the reduction in open space, the safety of the proposed trail relocation, and the possible need for additional road and trail easements for future road and land use changes. The developer has made several plan modifications per staff and Planning Commission’s recommendations, which are analyzed below. Issues: • Are the requirements met for preliminary plat? • Are the proposed utility and trail easement vacations acceptable? • Is the proposed trail relocation acceptable? • What are the purpose and standards for adopting a Redevelopment Plan? • What modifications are being requested to Zoning Ordinance requirements? • Is the proposal consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, including Park Commons Redevelopment goals and Livable Communities principles? • What parameters are being recommended by staff for the future redevelopment of Lot One (the existing office)? • Are there any other Zoning Ordinance issues? • How has the developer proposed to reduce the volume of emergency calls? 12 Are the requirements met for preliminary plat? The replat proposes to reconfigure internal lot lines, maintaining three separate lots, with the office building on Lot 1, the assisted living facility on Lot 2, and the senior high rise on Lot 3. The proposed preliminary plat meets the minimum design and informational requirements as outlined in the Subdivision Ordinance, including minimum lot sizes and 10’ easements around all lot lines. The Planning Commission recommended approval on the preliminary plat and voted to continue the final plat until August 4, 1999 to address easement issues. The Planning Commission wanted to see existing easements on the final plat, and staff concurred. Apparently, Hennepin County does not permit existing easements to be shown on final plats, and does not allow road, trail, and any private easements to be shown on final plats. To ensure that all public utility easements are shown on the final plat, staff is recommending that an existing utility easement be vacated and rededicated on the final plat. The easement is a 24 foot storm sewer easement which runs east- west between the assisted living building and senior high rise. The developer has revised the preliminary plat accordingly and is requesting vacation of an additional utility easement. Utility Companies: Both NSP and U.S. West have utility lines within an easement that is proposed to be vacated. The developer is proposing to relocate the lines within a new proposed easement. Staff is recommending a condition of approval that the developer cooperate with NSP and U.S. West in relocating the utility lines and bear the costs of relocation. Minnegasco has accepted the preliminary plat. Road and Trail Easements: Per the Planning Commission’s recommendation, a roadway easement is proposed across the southwest corner of Lot 3 in anticipation of a north-south roadway connection to Park Center Boulevard in this area. A new trail easement is proposed along the north lot line of Lot 2 to make way for a proposed trail relocation (see below). In addition, per the Planning Commission’s recommendation, a seven foot wide trail easement is proposed along the south lot line of Lot 3 to provide an another potential future trail connection. As road and trail easements cannot be dedicated on a final plat, staff is recommending a condition that these easements be dedicated in separately recorded documents, and that evidence of recording be provided prior to issuance of any building permits. Grading, drainage and utility plans: There is a 90” storm sewer line and easement which traverses the property, and over which an enclosed pedestrian walkway is proposed to be constructed to connect the existing Park Shores tower and the proposed assisted living building. The Public Works Department has reviewed the proposed walkway, has determined that adequate access would remain to the storm sewer line, and accepts the proposal with two conditions. One condition is that construction-level drawings of the walkway be submitted and approved by Public Works prior to construction. The second condition is that a hold harmless agreement be executed by the developer, which releases the City from liability for damages associated with needed utility work within the easement. These conditions are recommended to be fulfilled prior to issuance of building permits. (The proposed walkway is discussed further below.) Public 13 Works has reviewed the grading, drainage, and utility plans and stormwater calculations and has accepted the plans and proposed plat. Tree Removal: The tree removal plans, as detailed on the demolition site plan and landscape plan, have been revised since Planning Commission review. Apparently some existing trees on site were overlooked and are in the path of the proposed development. In addition, the proposed new trail easement was moved slightly to the north, which preserves one row of trees and requires another row of trees to be relocated. A total of 73 caliper inches are proposed to be removed. The developer is proposing replacement trees of 121 caliper inches, which is a replacement ratio of 1.65, which exceeds Ordinance standards. Staff is recommending that a tree replacement bond be provided to the City prior to any site work. Park Dedication Fees: It has been determined that park dedication fees cannot be collected where a property is being replatted and no additional lots are being created. Therefore, park dedication fees cannot be collected in this instance. Watershed District approval: Watershed District approval is required for this project. The developer is pursing this approval. Staff is recommending a condition that the developer submit a copy of the Watershed District permit prior to starting any site work. Other conditions: Several standard requirements are recommended as conditions of final approval. Are the proposed utility and trail easement vacations acceptable? Utility easements: Two drainage and utility easements are proposed to be vacated. The south lot line of Lot 2 is proposed to be moved to the south by 70 feet, the existing 10 foot drainage and utility easement vacated, and a new 10 foot drainage and utility easement dedicated around the new lot line. As discussed above, NSP and U.S. West have utilities within the easement which will need to be relocated. The second easement is a 24’ drainage and utility easement which runs east/west across lot 3. This easement is proposed to be vacated, and then rededicated in an identical location on the final plat, to ensure that it can be shown on the final plat. The Public Works Department has reviewed the request to vacate these utility easements and has accepted them, contingent upon dedication of new easements. Trail easement: A 14’ wide trail easement currently runs east/west along the south side of the assisted living building, within which is a ten foot wide trail connection between Park Center Boulevard and Wolfe Park. This easement is proposed to be vacated and replaced with a new 14’ trail easement along the north side of the assisted living facility, approximately at the northerly lot line. There are no issues with vacating the existing trail easement, provided that the proposed new trail location is deemed acceptable and that a new minimum 14’ wide trail easement is dedicated. (See below for discussion of proposed new trail location.) Is the proposed trail relocation acceptable? 14 The developer is proposing to relocate the trail connection from the south side to the north side of the assisted living building, over the lot line separating lots 1 and 2. Per the Planning Commission’s recommendations, the site plan was revised to show a proposed trail width of 10 feet within a 14 foot easement. In addition, the proposed trail was moved slightly farther away from the assisted living building and the connection to adjacent sidewalks and trails was improved. The relocation is proposed because the expansion plans create conflicts within the current trail area, including the proposed pedestrian walkway and driveway and loading area changes. The proposed trail relocation may be less desirable from an overall circulation perspective. The proposed north-south roadway and changes to Park Center Boulevard would create a 3-way lighted intersection where the trail currently meets the street. If the trail were relocated farther north, the potential for mid-block pedestrian crossings on Park Center Blvd could be increased, which was a concern of the Planning Commission. In addition, the trail would no longer connect to the Wolfe Park trails at a trailhead, and a more circuitous route between Wolfe Park and the street would be created. On the positive side, the proposed location would require fewer driveway crossings and offer a more gradual grade change into the park. To hopefully provide a second, more direct trail connection in the future, the developer has agreed to dedicate a 7 foot trail easement across the southerly lot line of Lot 3. At such time that the Wayside House property is redeveloped, an additional seven feet can be obtained to create a 14 foot trail easement, where a trail could connect at the future lighted intersection of the north-south road. The Park and Recreation Department has reviewed the proposal to relocate the trail, and accepts the new trail location as proposed including dedication of an additional 7 foot easement to the south. The developer would be required to maintain the relocated trail, and Park and Rec is requiring that a snow removal and maintenance agreement be executed between the City and developer. Timing: The developer is hoping to begin construction in October, which would close the existing trail, and to have the new trail installed and operational by May 1. Removal of the Norwest bank building and drive-through must occur before the new trail could become operational. Pedestrians and bikers would have an alternate route available via sidewalks during the construction period. The Park and Recreation Department is comfortable with this arrangement. Staff is recommending a condition to this effect What are the purpose and standards for adopting a Redevelopment Plan? The R-C High Density Residential District was recently amended to allow multi-family housing as permitted with conditions rather than as a Conditional Use Permit. One of the conditions specifies that “Conditions a through g [the conditions for multi-family development] and certain performance standards may be waived or amended if so specified in a Redevelopment Plan for the area that has been adopted as part of the City Comprehensive Plan.” Therefore, the Redevelopment Plan allows flexibility in meeting certain Zoning Ordinance requirements, similar to a Planned Unit Development, provided the development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and particularly the Redevelopment goals. A Redevelopment Plan can also 15 allow for future redevelopment within the Plan area, within established parameters. The Redevelopment Plan can therefore enable a larger area to be considered as a whole and, once approved, expedite redevelopment of individual parcels as they come available. A Redevelopment Plan can allow for greater modifications to Zoning Ordinance requirements than the PUD ordinance in some areas. With the current proposal, the developer is requesting a modification to the usable open space requirement which exceeds the maximum modification allowed under the PUD. What modifications are being requested to Zoning Ordinance requirements via an adopted Redevelopment Plan? The following modifications to Zoning Ordinance requirements are being requested by the developer. The PUD modification allowances are listed as a guide, along with the standard requirement and the proposed modification. The three areas where the proposed modification exceeds the modification allowed by PUD are usable open space, floor area ratio, and the height of the existing senior high rise. Existing nonconformities on Lot 1, the office property, are not addressed as this property is planned for redevelopment. A proposed modification to parking on Lot 1 is shown because seven stalls are proposed to be removed. Standard Requirement PUD mod. allowed Resulting PUD standard Actual proposed Density 50 u/a 10%/as allowed by Comp Plan 75 u/a 70 u/a(lots 2&3) Elderly housing density standard 900 sf per d.u. flexible up to Comp Plan standard 635 per d.u. Floor Area Ratio 1.2 10% increase 1.32 1.7 (avg)*Lot 2: .98 Lot 3:2.21 Usable Open Space 400 s.f. per d.u. =119,200 s.f. 20% decrease 95,360 sf 53,470 sf* 49% of reqmt Building/Height- Lot 3 75’ 35% increase/as allowed by Comp Plan 101’ 142’ * (existing Park Shores building) Existing setbacks: Lot 2-north Side bldg sback 28’ No minimum 17’ Lot 3-south Side bldg sback 122’ No minimum 20’ 16 Lot 3-east Rear bldg sback 142’ No minimum 40’ Standard Requirement PUD mod. allowed Resulting PUD standard Actual proposed Lot 3-west Parking lot sb 30’ No minimum 10’ Proposed setbacks: Lot 2-south Side bldg sback 33’ No minimum 17’8” Lot 2-east Rear bldg sback 49’3” No minimum 31’4” Lot 2-west Parking lot 30’ No minimum 20’ Lot 3-north Side bldg sback 117’ No minimum 20’ Parking-lot 1 132 15% decrease 115 stalls 115 stalls Parking-lot 2 46 stalls 15% decrease 40 stalls 28 stalls Building to curb Setback 15 feet No minimum 7 feet * Exceeds PUD standards The appropriateness of the proposed modifications are addressed below under Comprehensive Plan consistency. Is the proposal consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, including Park Commons Redevelopment goals and Livable Communities principles? Park Commons Redevelopment Goals: The specific designation for the three parcels is for high density residential at about 75 units per acre. The assisted living site is anticipated to add 45 units for a total of 90 units. (The proposal is for 46 units, just one unit higher than the Comprehensive Plan anticipates.) Therefore, the proposed density of 70 units per acre over the two residential parcels, and the accompanying proposed Floor Area Ratio, is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The general Park Commons goals which relate to this parcel include: • Intensify land use to create a compact, walkable town center. 17 • Create a logical intermodal internal circulation system which connects with surrounding neighborhoods, parks, an enhanced public transit system, and trails; all accommodating pedestrians, bicyclists, disabled persons, and autos. • Provide housing of different types to accommodate a diversity of housing needs. • Strengthen area as major commercial service area by attracting other compatible uses. • Provide parking within structures, to the rear of buildings, and on the street as appropriate. • Create effective public/private partnerships. Density: The proposed Redevelopment Plan is an intensification of the existing land use. Creation of additional senior housing within the community is a Comprehensive Plan goal, but should also be balanced with the Park Commons goals of creating a diversity of housing and attracting uses that will strengthen the area’s commercial core. While the assisted living expansion is acceptable, this property should also provide housing opportunities to other age groups. Staff recommends that redevelopment of Lot 1 (current office property) be limited to no more than 50% senior housing. Parking: To be more consistent with the design goals for the area and to offset the reduced setback from the street, staff and the developer worked out some modifications to the proposed surface parking lot on Lot 2, which are reflected in a revised site plan. Four stalls were removed on the plans to create more green space, particularly along the street and near the proposed trail location. A brick-column and wrought iron fence, similar to existing fencing on the property, is proposed to create an architectural edge between the lot and Park Center Boulevard. A greened seating area with benches is proposed between the trail and parking lot to draw attention away from the lot and provide an inviting entrance to the trail. Staff is comfortable with the proposed parking lot with the changes as shown on the site plan. Public/private partnership: The developer has agreed to dedicate easements for the future north- south roadway and a potential trail connection between the Park Shores high rise and Wayside House. In addition, the project is within the TIF district and the expansion will generate additional TIF revenue which could potentially be used for future housing. Circulation: The proposed Redevelopment Plan is compatible with roadway changes that have been proposed for the Park Commons area, including a slight realignment of Park Center Boulevard. The entrance driveway would be well north of the future lighted intersection at Park Center Blvd. Please see above for trail issues. Livable Communities Principles: The Comprehensive Plan requires that any private development which utilizes public funding demonstrate how Livable Communities principles are addressed in the project. In addition to the Park Commons goals listed above, some of which are similar to Livable Communities principles, the following principles apply to this Redevelopment Plan proposal: • Provide safe, interesting, pleasant pedestrian and bicycle trails which connect all neighborhoods to services and amenities including Park Commons. 18 Proposed pedestrian walkway: The developer is proposing an at-grade enclosed pedestrian walkway to link the expanded assisted living building with the Park Shores senior high rise. The walkway would benefit the development by providing access for friends, relatives and spouses between the two buildings; enable more coordinated and efficient services between the buildings; and probably enhance the ability to deal internally with medical issues arising in both buildings. However, the walkway would create a rather long continuous barrier between Park Center Boulevard and Wolfe Park in an area where park and trail access has been deemed important. The developer has provided written justification for the need for an at-grade walkway rather than a skyway level linkage, which is attached to the staff report. Staff believes that the walkway is acceptable, provided trail easements are provided as previously discussed. Pedestrian/vehicular circulation: Pedestrian and vehicular circulation is enhanced through addition of a new circular driveway/dropoff area and a new sidewalk connection between lots 2 and 3. The proposed trail relocation would also minimize pedestrian and vehicular conflicts on site. The proposed trail relocation is analyzed further above. • Facilitate building locations and design which emphasizes a relationship with a walkable public realm. Support design which emphasizes architecture, art, and pedestrian and transit connections. The buildings in the project emphasize a strong relationship to the public park. The removal of the Norwest bank drive-through building and lanes will improve the appearance along Park Center Boulevard and add green space. The improvements near the proposed surface lot on Lot 2 would improve the property as well. As noted above, the addition of an at-grade walkway detracts from the ability to link Wolfe Park with Park Center Boulevard. The architecture of the project is of high quality, using primarily Class I materials, and buildings are well integrated with one another and with the general area. • High density and human scale development The high density of the project is consistent with goals for the area. The four-story design is less desirable than the high-rise design for this particular area, because more open space is utilized and a more urban character is desired for this area. Staff is recommending that Lot 1 (current bank building) be redeveloped as a high-rise similar to the Park Shores high rise, to create additional density and continue to define this as a more urban area. • Life-cycle housing Life-cycle housing is being provided, particularly as the assisted living facility is considered a more community-oriented alternative to a nursing home to elderly people with significant health care needs. As noted above, a mix of ages is also desired for future development on Lot 1. Staff is also recommending that future redevelopment of Lot 1 emphasize livable communities principles, particularly high density, relationship of the development to the public realm, interesting architecture at the street level, and removal of the surface parking lot adjacent to Park Center Boulevard. 19 Proposed reduction in usable open space: The developer states that the assisted living residents tend to be less mobile and do not utilize very much open space. They also state that the proximity to Wolfe Park provides additional recreational and open space opportunities. Staff accepts this reasoning, and notes that the open space currently provided and proposed is enhanced with attractive landscaping, gardens, benches and trails. However, staff is recommending that open space over all three lots not be reduced in the redevelopment of lot 1. Proposed increase in FAR and building height of existing senior high rise: As discussed above, the increased FAR and building height are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Park Commons goals of a higher density area. Staff is recommending that redevelopment of Lot 1 allow for similar FAR and building height to the senior high rise. Proposed setback reductions: Staff believes that the proposed setback reductions are reasonable to allow for a higher density project. Proposed parking lot reductions on lots 1 and 2: Parking reductions consistent with the allowable 15% modification through PUD is requested for the existing use on Lot 1. The developer is proposing to meet the parking requirements for lot 2 through 10 additional surface stalls and a shared parking arrangement with lot 3, which has an excess of parking. Proposed building to curb reduced setback: Multi-family structures are required to have a 15’ setback between the curb and building. In one area near the loading dock on the south side of the proposed expansion the developer is proposing to reduce this setback to seven feet in order to accommodate truck movements. As pedestrian traffic in this area is anticipated to be minimal, staff believes the reduction is acceptable. The City’s Redevelopment goals include: • Implement Vision St. Louis Park Goals – such as additional housing • Increase Tax Base – this goal is met • Improve Infrastructure – developer is expected to cooperate with anticipated north-south road and trail connections • Enhance Building Function – the proposed enclosed pedestrian walkway will enhance the residential environment • Bring About Needed Land Use Changes – the future redevelopment of Lot 1 is established • Meet Market Demand – the project helps meet demand of an aging population for assisted living housing • Meet Development Potential – the high density use fulfills this goal • Relate to Adjacent Development – the project will utilize the adjacent open space; address adequate trail connections; and improve safety to nearby retail stores with the future lighted intersection • Act as A Catalyst – the Plan makes way for redevelopment of Lot 1 • Leverage Public Funds Effectively – while modification to the TIF district is anticipated, no additional public funds will be expended • Create Jobs – some jobs will be created 20 What parameters are being recommended by staff for the future redevelopment of Lot One (the existing office)? Staff is recommending specific parameters to ensure that the overall project area is consistent with Comprehensive Plan goals: • Density shall be at or near 75 units per acre maximum. • Floor Area Ratio may be a maximum equal to the Parkshores high rise (2.2 FAR) • Height may be a maximum equal to the Parkshores high rise (142’). • There shall be no reduction in the amount of existing usable open space on the lot. • Any curb cut access on Park Center Boulevard shall be aligned with the existing median break. • The site design shall conform to Livable Communities principles, specifically including relationship to the public street, architectural interest at the pedestrian level, use of below ground structured parking. • A maximum 50% of the units shall be designated for senior-only housing. • Architecture shall coordinate with Parkwood Shores and Parkshore Place. • Good pedestrian/trail connections shall be provided. Staff is recommending a condition that allowable ordinance modifications for Lot 1 redevelopment be written in to a Development Agreement. The above parameters and the standards for development of Lots 2 and 3 are proposed to be incorporated into the Redevelopment Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan (please see proposed Resolution for specific language). Are there any additional Zoning Ordinance issues? Landscape/bufferyard requirements: Landscape and bufferyard requirements are met or exceeded for the project area. The exception is the bufferyard between lots 1 and 2, where some trees are proposed to be relocated to make way for the proposed trail relocation. Staff believes the reduced bufferyard is acceptable, given that the higher bufferyard requirement is actually due to the density of the residential development, and that Lot 1 is anticipated to be redeveloped. Enclosed pedestrian walkway: Enclosed pedestrian walkways linking buildings on separate properties are permitted, provided certain conditions are met. The conditions, including building materials standards and dimensional standards, are met in this case. A joint construction and maintenance agreement is also required if the properties are under different ownership. Staff is recommending a condition that such an agreement be executed if either of the properties is sold to a different owner. Because the walkway is proposed to be built over a large City storm sewer line and utility easement, a hold harmless agreement is also required to be executed pertaining to liability issues. What has the developer proposed to reduce the volume of emergency calls? 21 Emergency calls: The Parkwood Shores assisted living facility, and particularly the Parkshores high rise, generate a large volume of emergency calls to City Fire and Police. Staff asked the property owner to propose a means of safely reducing unneeded emergency calls. Typically police, fire, and ambulance all respond to an emergency medical call. The developer is planning to hire Emergency Medical Technicians (EMTs). In addition to providing on-site medical attention, the EMTs could call ambulances directly, which is an arrangement many nursing homes have, rather than having fire and/or police on all ambulance calls. The developer also anticipates that linking the assisted living and senior apartment buildings will improve the situation, because the medical staff on duty at Parkwood Shores will be more available to serve the high rise as well. In addition, the management is considering providing an emergency resident communication pendant system to supplement the pull cords that are currently in the Parkshores apartments. The pendant system has apparently worked well in the Parkwood Shores facility. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, Vacation of drainage and utility easements and trail easement, and Preliminary Plat, subject to the following conditions: 1. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with the approved Exhibits A through H , such documents incorporated by reference herein, and with the standards outlined in the Redevelopment Plan in the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Before a final plat is signed by the City, the developer shall comply with the following requirements: a. Submit to the City a copy of owner’s policy of title insurance which insures City’s interests in the plat, in an amount to be determined by the City. b. Financial security, in the form of cash escrow or a letter of credit, covering utility work, paving, curb and gutter, and repair/cleaning of public streets after construction. c. A Development Agreement shall be executed, or existing Development Agreement amended, to address terms and conditions of development, including allowable Ordinance modifications for redevelopment of Lot 1. The Mayor and City Manager are authorized to execute this agreement. 3. Prior to any site work or issuance of any building permits, the developer shall meet the following: a. Provide a copy of Watershed District permit to the City. b. Provide a tree replacement bond to cover the costs of tree removal and replacement. 3. Within 60 days of final plat approval by the City Council, the subdivider shall record the final plat with the County Recorder. The subdivider shall, immediately upon recording, furnish the City Clerk with a print and reproducible tracing of the final plat showing evidence of the recording. The subdivider shall also provide a copy of the final plat on disc in an electronic data format. No building permits shall be issued for the project until evidence is provided to the City of recording of the final plat. 22 4. Prior to or simultaneously with recording of the final plat, trail easement over lots 1 and 2 and road easement and trail easement over Lot 3 shall be recorded. 5. Vacation of trail easement, 10 foot utility easement, and 24 foot utility easement shall not become effective until new easements are recorded. 7. Prior to issuance of any building permits, the developer shall comply with the following: a. The subdivider shall furnish the City with evidence of recording of the final plat and trail easement. b. Construction plans of the enclosed walkway shall be submitted to and approved by Public Works. c. A hold harmless agreement shall be executed which releases the City from liability for damages to the walkway as a result of needed utility work with the easement. d. The parking agreement between lots 2 and 3 shall be amended to reflect the additional stalls required for Lot 2. Other agreements between the properties shall be amended as needed. 8. Modifications to ordinance requirements approved as part of the Redevelopment Plan are as noted in Resolution ___ approving a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. 9. Parameters on redevelopment of Lot 1 are as noted in Resolution ___ approving a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. 10. The property owner shall cooperate with the City regarding future construction of the north-south roadway and agrees to work with the City regarding an additional trail connection from Wolfe Park to the new roadway along the south property line. 11. If Lots 2 and 3 come under separate ownership, the owners shall execute a joint maintenance agreement for the enclosed walkway. 12. The owner shall execute a snow removal and maintenance agreement with the City for the relocated trail. 13. The existing trail may be removed on October 1, 1999. A new trail must be installed and fully operational no later than May 1, 1999. If the new trail is not operational by May 1, 1999 the developer shall cooperate with the Park and Recreation Department to provide an alternate temporary trail connection. Attachments: • Proposed resolutions • Location Map • Exhibit A, Preliminary Plat • Exhibit B, Site Plan • Exhibit C, Usable Open Space Plan • Exhibit D, Demolition Site Plan • Exhibit E, Landscape Plan • Exhibit F, Grading and utility plan • Exhibit G, Building Elevations • Exhibit H, Walkway detail • Floor Plans • Letter from Silvercrest regarding need for at-grade walkway Prepared by: Sacha Peterson, Planning Associate 23 Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 24 RESOLUTION NO. 99-87 A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 1990 TO THE YEAR 2010 FOR THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTES 462.351 TO 462.364 AMENDMENT TO ADOPT A REDEVELOPMENT PLAN PARK CENTER BOULEVARD 3601, 3633 AND 3663 PARK CENTER BOULEVARD WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan 1980-2000 was adopted by the City Council on March 5, 1984 and amended on April 1, 1991 as Comprehensive Plan 1990-2010, and provides the following: 1. An official statement serving as the basic guide in making land use, transportation and community facilities and service decisions affecting the City. 2. A framework for policies and actions leading to the improvement of the physical, financial, and social environment of the City, thereby providing a good place to live and work and a setting conducive for new development. 3. A promotion of the public interest in establishing a more functional, healthful, interesting, and efficient community by serving the interests of the community at large rather than the interests of individual or special groups within the community if their interests are at variance with the public interest. 4. An effective framework for direction and coordination of activities affecting the development and preservation of the community. 5. Treatment of the entire community as one ecosystem and to inject long range considerations into determinations affecting short-range action, and WHEREAS, the use of such Comprehensive Plan will insure a safer, more pleasant, and more economical environment for residential, commercial, industrial, and public activities and will promote the public health, safety, and general welfare, and WHEREAS, said Plan will prepare the community for anticipated desirable change, thereby bringing about significant savings in both private and public expenditures, and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan has taken due cognizance of the planning activities of adjacent units of government, and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan is to be periodically reviewed by the Planning Commission of the City of St. Louis Park and amendments made, if justified according to 25 procedures, rules, and laws, and provided such amendments would provide a positive result and are consistent with other provisions in the Comprehensive Plan, and Resolution No. 99-87 -2- WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of St. Louis Park recommended adoption of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan 1990-2010 on July 7, 1999 based on statutes, the Metropolitan Regional Blueprint, extensive research and analyses involving the interests of citizens and public agencies; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of St. Louis Park that the Comprehensive Plan, as previously adopted by the Planning Commission and City Council, is hereby amended as follows: Chapter V,.P., Redevelopment, Park Center Housing: The Park Center Housing District is located within the Park Commons redevelopment area and was established in 1997 to facilitate the development of the Parkwood Shores assisted living housing project. A Redevelopment Plan was adopted by the City Council on August 2, 1999 for 3601, 3633, and 3663 Park Center Boulevard, which includes the existing 207-unit senior high rise apartment, a total of 91 units of senior assisted living housing, and the future redevelopment of the office property. 45 assisted living units were completed in 1998. Phase II of 46 units are to be completed in 1999/2000. Redevelopment of the office property as high density residential, which is anticipated within the next five to ten years (2005-2010), shall conform to the following guidelines: • Density shall be at or near 75 units per acre maximum. • Floor Area Ratio may be a maximum equal to the Parkshores high rise (2.2 FAR) • Height may be a maximum equal to the Parkshores high rise (142’). • There shall be no reduction in the amount of existing usable open space on the lot. • Any curb cut access on Park Center Boulevard shall be aligned with the existing median break. • The site design shall conform to Livable Communities principles outlined in Chapter R, specifically including relationship to the public street, architectural interest at the pedestrian level, and use of below ground structured parking. • A maximum 50% of the units shall be designated for senior-only housing. • Architecture shall coordinate with Parkwood Shores and Parkshore Place. • Good pedestrian/trail connections shall be provided. The following modifications to Zoning Ordinance requirements are approved as part of the Redevelopment Plan for the assisted living and senior high rise properties only: • Density increase to 70 units per acre. • Reduction in required usable open space of 51%. • Increase in Floor Area Ratio to 1.7. • Reduction in building setbacks up to 72%. 26 • Building height for senior high rise of 142 feet. • Setback reduction for surface parking lot to 20 feet. • Setback reduction for structured parking to 10 feet. • Reduction in required parking stalls of 15%. • Reduced building to curb setback to seven feet. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that this amendment to Chapter V.P., Redevelopment, Park Center Housing be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan 2000-2010 approved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park on May 17, 1999 (Resolution No. 99- 66), and currently being reviewed by the Metropolitan Council. Adopted by the City Council August 2, 1999 Contingent upon approval of the Metropolitan Council Reviewed for Administration: City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk 27 ORDINANCE NO.___________ AN ORDINANCE VACATING DRAINAGE, UTILITY AND TRAIL EASEMENTS 3601, 3633 AND 3663 PARK CENTER BOULEVARD THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. A petition in writing signed by a majority of all of the owners of all property abutting upon both sides of the drainage, utility and trail easements proposed to be vacated has been duly filed with the City Clerk, requesting vacation of the drainage, utility and trail easements and the City Clerk has furnished a copy of said petition to the City Manager who has required filing of same to the newspaper, the St. Louis Park Sailor, on July 21, 1999 as directed by the said notice and has conducted a public hearing upon said petition and has determined that the proposed drainage, utility and trail easements are not needed for public purposes, and that it is for the best interest of the public that said proposed drainage utility and trail easements be vacated. Section 2. The following described drainage, utility and trail easements as now dedicated and laid out within the corporate limits of the City of St. Louis Park, is vacated: 1. Drainage and utility easement along the former south line of Lot 1, Block 2 Park Center, 300 feet in length approximately 2. 24 foot storm sewer easement which crosses Lot 2, Block 2 Park Center 3. 14 foot trail easement which crosses Lot 2, Block 2 Park Center All within the property in the attached legal description. Section 3. The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this ordinance in the Office of the Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be. 28 Sec.4. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication. Vacation of above easements shall not become effective until new drainage, utility, and trail easements are recorded against the properties. Adopted by the City Council August 16, 1999 Reviewed for Administration: City Manager Mayor Attest: Approved as to form and execution: City Clerk City Attorney 99-16/N/res/ord 29 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION GIVING APPROVAL FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT OF SILVERCREST ADDITION BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of St. Louis Park: Findings 1. Silvercrest Properties, Inc., owners and subdividers of the land proposed to be platted as Silvercrest Addition have submitted an application for approval of preliminary plat of said subdivision in the manner required for platting of land under the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, and all proceedings have been duly had thereunder. 2. The proposed preliminary plat has been found to be in all respects consistent with the City Plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and the ordinances of the City of St. Louis Park. 3. The proposed plat is situated upon the following described lands in Hennepin County, Minnesota, to-wit: See Attached Legal Description Conclusion 1. The proposed preliminary plat of Silvercrest Addition is hereby approved and accepted by the City as being in accord and conformity with all ordinances, City plans and regulations of the City of St. Louis Park and the laws of the State of Minnesota, subject to the following conditions: A. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with the approved Exhibits A through H, such documents incorporated by reference herein, and with the standards outlined in the Redevelopment Plan in the Comprehensive Plan. B. Before a final plat is signed by the City, the developer shall comply with the following requirements: 1. Submit to the City a copy of owner’s policy of title insurance which insures City’s interests in the plat, in an amount to be determined by the City. 2. Financial security, in the form of cash escrow or a letter of credit, covering utility work, paving, curb and gutter, and repair/cleaning of public streets after construction. 30 3. A Development Agreement shall be executed, or existing Development Agreement amended, to address terms and conditions of development, including allowable Ordinance modifications for redevelopment of Lot 1. Mayor and City Manager are authorized to execute this agreement. D. Prior to any site work or issuance of any building permits, the developer shall meet the following: 1. Provide a copy of Watershed District permit to the City. 2. Provide a tree replacement bond to cover the costs of tree removal and replacement. E. Within 60 days of final plat approval by the City Council, the subdivider shall record the final plat with the County Recorder. The subdivider shall, immediately upon recording, furnish the City Clerk with a print and reproducible tracing of the final plat showing evidence of the recording. The subdivider shall also provide a copy of the final plat on disc in an electronic data format. No building permits shall be issued for the project until evidence is provided to the City of recording of the final plat. F. Prior to or simultaneously with recording of the final plat, trail easement over lots 1 and 2 and road easement and trail easement over Lot 3 shall be recorded. G. Vacation of trail easement, 10 foot utility easement, and 24 foot utility easement shall not become effective until new easements are recorded. H. Prior to to issuance of any building permits, the developer shall comply with the following: 1. The subdivider shall furnish the City with evidence of recording of the final plat and trail easement. 2. Construction plans of the enclosed walkway shall be submitted to and approved by Public Works. 3. A hold harmless agreement shall be executed which releases the City from liability for damages to the walkway as a result of needed utility work with the easement. 4. The parking agreement between lots 2 and 3 shall be amended to reflect the additional stalls required for Lot 2. Other agreements between the properties shall be amended as needed. E. Modifications to ordinance requirements approved as part of the Redevelopment Plan are as noted in Resolution ____ adopting a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. F. Parameters on redevelopment of Lot 1 are as noted in Resolution ____ adopting a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. G. The property owner shall cooperate with the City regarding future construction of the north-south roadway and agrees to work with the City regarding an additional trail connection from Wolfe Park to the new roadway along the south property line. H. If Lots 2 and 3 come under separate ownership, the owners shall execute a joint maintenance agreement for the enclosed walkway. I. The owner shall execute a snow removal and maintenance agreement with the City for the relocated trail. J. The existing trail may be removed on October 1, 1999. A new trail must be installed and fully operational no later than May 1, 1999. If the new trail is not operational by May 1, 31 1999 the developer shall cooperate with the Park and Recreation Department to provide an alternate temporary trail connection. Adopted by the City Council August 2, 1999 Reviewed for Administration: City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk 99-15/N/res/ord 32 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 8a Meeting of August 2, 1999 8a. Criminal History Background Checks Amendments to Chapters 3 and 15 of the St. Louis Park Municipal Code to allow the police department to perform criminal history checks on managers and tenants of rental property and on new City employees and volunteers. Recommended Action: 1) Motion to waive second reading, adopt the ordinance, approve the summary and authorize publication. 2) Motion to adopt a resolution setting the fee for conducting background checks. Background: Manager/Tenant Section Background: Under current state law, owners and managers of rental property are able to conduct criminal history checks on prospective tenants. These checks are currently done through the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA). Due to the fact that the BCA receives requests for background checks from a number of sources, as well as a policy that does not allow faxed requests, there is a significant delay in processing time. Because of a processing period of up to two weeks, property management companies have expressed their reluctance in using this service. The proposed ordinance authorizes the Chief of Police or designee, to conduct the criminal history background checks currently being done by the BCA, upon request of a management company, for rental properties within the city of St. Louis Park. This ordinance makes reference to a fee, set by resolution of the Council, for conducting the background check. Currently, St. Louis Park schools are charged five dollars per employee background check performed by the police department. The five-dollar fee structure would also be appropriate for this ordinance. In the future, if the police department incurs increased costs as a result of performing this service, the fee should be changed to reflect any increase in service costs. A resolution setting this fee is also attached. Analysis: Adoption of the proposed ordinance would accomplish the following: 33 • Allow the police department to conduct the background checks currently being performed by the BCA, facilitating quicker and more convenient service. • Allow the police department to explain and educate property managers on the meaning of returned criminal history background checks, which affirms and enhances this partnership. • Allow for prompt background checks for criminal history that occurred outside of Minnesota. • The ordinance places the City’s Crime Free Multi-housing Program within federal and state recommended guidelines for such programs. City Employee/Volunteer Section Background: The St. Louis Police Department should perform background checks on new city employees and volunteers. The City of St. Louis Park has a significant interest in protecting the general public during the performance of government services. Each year, more than 94 million children, elderly Americans, and individuals with disabilities depend on someone else to look after them. Some of these people are cared for by paid professionals or volunteers from youth or service organizations. However, some care providers abuse the very people they are supposed to be helping. When an individual entrusted with the care of someone abuses that person and then is found to have abused others previously, questions arise. Screening prospective employees and volunteers who may come into contact with children or vulnerable adults is a critical first step to detecting abusers before they can inflict harm. Background check investigations are an effective method of screening used to deter and detect abusive individuals before there is a reoccurrence of harm. The screening process would include a background check on employees or volunteers applying for positions in which they will be required to provide care, treatment, education, training, instruction, and /or recreation to children and or vulnerable adults pursuant to Minnesota State Statute §299C.60-299C.64. The inquiry would be done after finalists and volunteers have consented. Employment or the opportunity to volunteer with the City would be conditional on the positive results of the investigation. Recommendation: Staff recommends that Council adopt the Ordinance amending chapters three and fifteen of the St. Louis Park Municipal code concerning criminal history background checks on certain individuals. This would allow the St. Louis Park Police Department to perform background checks on rental property managers, tenants, and at the discretion of the City Manager, on new City employees and volunteers. Attachments: Proposed Ordinance Ordinance Summary Resolution Informed Consent Release – Manager/Tenant Informed Consent Release – City employee/volunteer 34 Prepared by: John D. Luse, Chief of Police Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 35 ORDINANCE NO. 2142-99 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTERS THREE AND FIFTEEN OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK MUNICIPAL CODE CONCERNING CRIMINAL HISTORY BACKGROUND CHECKS ON CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN: SECTION 1. Chapter Fifteen of the St. Louis Park Municipal Code is amended to include a new Section 15-350 to read: Section 15-350. BACKGROUND CHECKS ON MANAGERS/TENANTS. Subd. 1 Definitions. For the purpose of this Section, the following terms have the meaning stated: A. "Background Check" shall mean a search of the criminal history data maintained in the criminal justice information system computers. B. "Informed Consent/Waiver Form" means a consent/waiver form approved by the City and meeting the requirements of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.05, Subd. 4(d) as amended. C. "Manager" means an individual who is hired or is applying to be hired by an owner and who has or would have the means, within the scope of the individual's duties, to enter tenants' dwelling units. "Manager" does not include a person who is hired on a casual basis and not in the ongoing course of the business of the owner. D. "Rental Property Designee" means the owner or manager of rental property located within the City which has received a request from a prospective tenant to reside in rental property. E. "Tenant" means an individual who is occupying or is applying to occupy a dwelling, under any agreement, whether oral or written, and for whatever period of time, which requires the payment of money as rent for the use of the dwelling, and all other regular occupants of that dwelling, and any resident of a manufactured home park. F. "Owner" means the owner or owners of rental property, or any other person, firm or corporation directly or indirectly in control of rental property. Subd. 2. Purpose and Intent. It is the purpose and intent of this Section to protect and preserve the City's neighborhoods, and to protect the overall public health, 36 safety, welfare and morale of City residents by providing a system at the local level for background checks of Managers and Tenants of rental property through use of the criminal history data maintained in the criminal justice information system computers. Subd. 3. Manager/Tenant Background Check. A Rental Property Designee may request the Police Department to conduct a background check on a Manager of rental property or a Tenant. The request shall be on a form approved by the City and accompanied by an Informed Consent/Waiver Form executed by the Manager or Tenant. The Police Department shall perform the background check by retrieving data maintained in the criminal justice information system computers. Subd. 4. Fees. All requests under Subdivision 3 shall be accompanied by a fee to be fixed and determined by the Council. The fee may, from time to time, be amended by the Council by resolution. Subd. 5. City Immunity. The City is immune from any civil or criminal liability that might otherwise arise, based on the accuracy or completeness of records it receives from the criminal justice information system computers, if the City acts in good faith. SECTION 2. Chapter Three of the St. Louis Park Municipal Code is amended to include a new Section 3-209 to read: Section 3-209. BACKGROUND CHECKS OF VOLUNTEERS AND NEW CITY EMPLOYEES. Subd. 1 Definitions. For the purpose of this Section, the following terms have the meaning stated: A. "Background Check" shall mean a search of the criminal history data maintained in the criminal justice information system computers. B. "Informed Consent/Waiver Form" means a consent/waiver form approved by the City and meeting the requirements of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.05, Subd. 4(d) as amended. Subd. 2. Purpose and Intent. It is the purpose and intent of this Section to assure safe park and recreation programs, and to protect the overall public health, safety, welfare and morale of City residents by providing a system at the local level for background checks of City volunteers and new City employees through use of the criminal justice information system computers. 37 Subd. 3. City Volunteer Background Check. The City Manager or the Manager's designee considering use of a volunteer may request the Police Department to conduct a background check on a prospective volunteer for any City sponsored event or for any volunteer position with the City. The request shall be accompanied by an Informed Consent/Waiver Form executed by the prospective volunteer. The Police Department shall perform the background check by retrieving and reviewing data maintained in the criminal justice information system computers. Subd. 4. New Employees. The City Manager or the Manager's designee may request the Police Department to conduct a background check on a prospective new employee. The request shall be accompanied by an Informed Consent/Waiver Form executed by the prospective employee. The Police Department shall perform the background check by retrieving and reviewing data maintained in the criminal justice information system computers. Subd. 5. City Immunity. The City is immune from any civil or criminal liability that might otherwise arise, based on the accuracy or completeness of records it receives from the criminal justice information system computers, if the City acts in good faith. SECTION 3. This ordinance shall be effective fifteen (15) days after its publication. Adopted by the City Council July 19, 1999 Reviewed for Administration City Manager Mayor Attest:: Approved as to Form and Execution: City Clerk City Attorney 38 City of St. Louis Park Informed Consent-Release for Criminal History Manager/Tenant The following named individual has completed a rental/employment application for _________________________ _____________________________________________________________, St. Louis Park, MN 554____________ Name___________________________________________________ Date of Birth________________________ Last First Middle (Mo./ Date/Year) Address_____________________________________________________________________________________ Street Apt # ____________________________________________________________________________________________ City State Zip Drivers License Number___________________________________ State of Issuance______________________ Sex M____ F_____ Social Security Number ______-____-_______ Signature______________________________________________ Date_______________ I authorize the City of St. Louis Park to disclose criminal history record information to , St. Louis Park, pursuant to Minnesota State Statute 299C.68 for the purpose of completing a background check on a potential property manager or tenant. By signing this consent form, I release and the City of St. Louis Park from any and all actions and causes of action, of every kind and nature whatsoever, past, present and future, arising out of the release of the information obtained with this consent. Date: Signature of Applicant In consideration of the records search services provided by the City of St. Louis Park, hereby releases the City of St. Louis Park from any and all actions and causes of action, of every kind and nature whatsoever, past, present and future, arising out of the use of the information obtained with this consent. Date: Authorized owner signature For Police Department Use Only Minnesota Drivers License MINCIS/NCIC Hennepin Warrants ____ Valid _____Clear _____Clear ____See Attached Ramsey Warrants _____Clear Criminal History Search _____No Criminal History Exists Completed By_________________ _____Criminal History Exists Date Processed________________ 39 City of St. Louis Park Informed Consent-Release for Criminal History City Employee/Volunteer The City Of St. Louis Park has a significant interest in protecting the general public during the performance of government services. To facilitate the verification of information contained within your employment application, a criminal history check will be made with the St. Louis Park Police Department. You may refuse to authorize the release of this information, however a failure to do so will result in disqualification as either an employee or a volunteer. The City of St. Louis Park is offering you employment conditional on the positive results of the investigation. I hereby authorize the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, to obtain, and the State of Minnesota to release, all information in the State Of Minnesota Criminal Justice Information System regarding the undersigned. I hereby release the City of St. Louis Park and the State of Minnesota from any claims or damages which I might have as a result of the City obtaining this information from the state. This authorization is effective for three months following the date of execution. This information is being requested by the City to determine whether I am disqualified from being an employee or volunteer for the City. Under Minnesota law, the City can disqualify a person from employment because of a criminal conviction only if the conviction directly relates to the proposed job. I understand that if I am disqualified as a candidate for the position I have applied for on the basis of a criminal conviction, I will be notified in writing and will be given any rights to processing of complaints or grievances afforded by Minnesota Statute, Chapter 364. This information is classified as private personnel data and will be provided only to those City employees or agents who have a need to review it. The City will not release the information to any other party unless required to do so by subpoena or court order pursuant to Minnesota Statute, Chapter 13. Name___________________________________________________ Date of Birth___________________ Last First Middle (Mo./ Date/Year) Address_______________________________________________________________________________ street apt # ______________________________________________________________________________________ City State Zip Drivers License Number___________________________________ State of Issuance_________________ Sex M____ F_____ Social Security Number ______-____-_______ Signature______________________________________________ Date_______________ For Police Department Use Only Minnesota Drivers License MINCIS/NCIC Warrants ____ Valid _____Clear _____Clear ____See Attached Criminal History Search _____No Criminal History Exists Completed By_________________ _____Criminal History Exists Date Processed________________ 40 RESOLUTION NO. 99-88 RESOLUTION DETERMINING THE FEE TO BE CHARGED BY THE ST. LOUIS PARK POLICE DEPARTMENT FOR PERFORMING CRIMINAL HISTORY BACKGROUND CHECKS WHEREAS, The City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has passed an ordinance authorizing the St. Louis Park Police Department to perform criminal history background checks on managers and tenants of rental property and on new City employees and volunteers; that: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that: 1. A fee of five dollars shall be charged for performing criminal history background checks for groups, agencies, or individuals outside the City. 2. There shall be no fee charged for performing criminal history background checks on new city employees or volunteers. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council August 2, 1999 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk 41 ORDINANCE SUMMARY ORDINANCE NO. 2142-99 This ordinance amends Chapter 3 and 15 of the St. Louis Park Municipal Code to allow the St. Louis Park Police Department to perform criminal history background checks on managers and tenants of rental property currently done by the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension. This ordinance also allows the Police Department to perform criminal history background checks on new City employees and volunteers. Effective Date: 15 days after publication. Publish: August 11, 1999 42 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 8b Meeting of August 2, 1999 8b. Request by Frauenshuh Companies for a minor amendment to a Special Use Permit for façade and building changes for a bank/dental building with bank drive through 4951-4959 Excelsior Boulevard Case No. 99-20-CUP Recommended Action: Motion adopt a resolution approving a minor amendment to a Special Use Permit subject to conditions in the resolution Background: On March 15, 1999 Frauenshuh Companies received approval for a two-story, approximately 12,000 square foot bank and dental clinic building with a bank drive through, for the property at the southwest corner of Excelsior Boulevard and Quentin Avenue. As the architectural plans have become further refined, the developer is requesting a minor amendment to the Special Use Permit to make several building façade changes, including change in building height and shape. The total floor area of the building and placement on the lot has not changed. Issues: • What changes are proposed to the bank and dental building? • Are the proposed changes acceptable? Issues Analysis: What changes are proposed to the bank and dental building? The approved building elevations were for a mostly brick rectangular building, with the north and south ends of the building emphasized with a slightly greater building height and contrasting material of artificial stucco. The drive through canopy was approved as artificial stucco to match the building accent with brick columns. The building shape was slightly irregular. The newly proposed building is completely rectangular and uses almost 100% brick. The building is proposed to be a uniform height, without the stucco accents at the north and south end. More brick accents are proposed to keep some detail in the building. The main building entrance, located on the south façade, and the drive through canopy, are proposed to be a greyish- green prefinished metal to complement the tan and reddish brick tones of the building. Most of the windows are proposed to be changed from approximately five foot wide, mullioned windows to four foot wide plain windows, which is apparently more appropriate for the dental exam 43 rooms. The windows on the north façade, facing Excelsior Boulevard, are proposed to remain as the larger mullioned windows to add interest to this façade. As mentioned, no increase in floor area is proposed. The actual square footage of the approved floor plans were 12,354 square feet, and the square footage of the newly proposed building is 12,324 square feet. There are no other changes proposed to the approved site plan, including the placement of the building, number of drive through lanes, and number of parking stalls. Are the proposed changes acceptable? The applicant states that the proposed building changes will result in greater building space efficiencies internally, and that the changes result in an increase in the quality of the building. Furthermore, the applicant states that given the small size of the building, the amount of architectural detail provided by the brick accenting is appropriate, and the greater uniformity in building height and materials will not detract from a building this size. The proposed changes do result in an upgrade in the building materials to almost 100% Class I materials. Staff also agrees with the applicant that the level of architectural detail is appropriate given the building size. The proposed changes appear to be driven by the need to make the building functional for its intended purpose as a dental clinic and bank and do not represent a downgrading of the building design overall. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the minor amendment with the following conditions: 1. Exhibit H, Elevations, to be replaced by Exhibit I, New Elevation Drawings. 2. The total floor area of the building is limited to 12,324 square feet. 3. Building materials samples to be approved by the Planning Manager prior to issuance of building permits. 4. Windows on north façade are to be five foot wide mullioned windows. 5. Assent form and official exhibits must be signed by applicant and owner prior to issuance of building permit. Attachments: • Proposed resolution • Revised Exhibit H, building elevations • Approved building elevations • Proposed revised floor plans • Approved floor plans Prepared by: Sacha Peterson, Planning Associate 44 RESOLUTION NO. 99-89 Amends Resolutions 99-31 90-76 84-09 7070 7061 7062 6078 A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 99-31 ADOPTED ON MARCH 15, 1999 AND GRANTING AN AMENDMENT TO A CONTINUED SPECIAL USE PERMIT UNDER SECTION 8-6 OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING TO ALLOW A TWO STORY BANK/DENTAL BUILDING WITH BANK DRIVE-THROUGH AT 4951-4959 EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD FINDINGS WHEREAS, HealthSystems Minnesota (HSM) and Frauenshuh Companies has made application to the City Council for an amendment to a continued special permit under Section 8-6 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code to allow facade and building modifications to a two story bank/dental building with bank drive-through at 4951-4959 Excelsior Boulevard within a C-2 Commercial District having the following legal description: SEE ATTACHED LEGAL DESCRIPTION WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the information related to Planning Case Nos 98-41-CUP and 99-20-CUP and the effect of the proposed modifications to the two story bank/dental building with bank drive-through 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 45 WHEREAS, a continued special use permit was issued regarding the subject property pursuant to Resolution No. 98-31 of the St. Louis Park City Council dated March 15, 1999 which contained conditions applicable to said property; and WHEREAS, due to changed circumstances, amendments to those conditions are now necessary, requiring the amendment of that 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. 99-31 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 98-41-CUP and 99-20-CUP are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case. CONCLUSION NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Resolution No. 98-41(Document not filed) is hereby restated and amended by this resolution which continues and amends a continued special use permit to the subject property for the purposes of permitting modifications to a two story bank/dental building with bank drive-through within the C-2 Commercial District at the location described above based on the following conditions: 1. Occupancy of the east structure as a Diagnostic Imaging Center is conditioned upon maintenance of the property in the same manner as indicated on Exhibit A, preliminary plat for Hoyt Second Addition as it relates to the physical appearance of the property. Any modification to this shall require an amendment to the special permit. Minor modification to the exterior of the building such as addition or deletion of a door or window may be permitted without special permit amendment. 2. Any dead landscaping materials on the site shall be removed and replaced with material of a like kind and quality and all weeds and other materials shall be removed. Landscaping shall continue to be maintained. 3. No lighting shall be permitted on the site which directs light rays directly across property lines. 4. A stop sign for vehicles exiting onto Quentin Avenue through the southerly curb cut shall be installed. 5. The continued special use permit shall be amended on March 15, 1999 to incorporate all of the preceding conditions and add the following conditions: A. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with Exhibits B through H, such documents incorporated by reference herein and revised according to the conditions following. 46 B. Prior to any site work, permits from the Watershed District, Hennepin County Transportation, and other agencies shall be obtained as required and the assent form and exhibits shall be signed by the applicant and owner. C. Prior to issuance of a building permit, which may impose additional requirements, the following conditions shall be met: a. Plans are to be revised to show information as required by the Fire Department. b. Lighting plans are to be approved by the Zoning Administrator. c. The Developer and Landowner shall enter into a development agreement with the City to memorialize and finalize the conditions herein, including conditions 4 and 5 below. d. Assent form and official exhibits must be signed by applicant and owner. D. At such time that Quentin Avenue may be realigned in the approximate location shown on the Future Site Plan, the following conditions must be met within one year of completion of the roadway improvements and at the property owner’s expense: a. Landscaping equal to a minimum bufferyard “D” shall be installed along Quentin Avenue as far south as the driveway access, as shown on Future Site Plan. A landscape plan shall be approved by the Zoning Administrator prior to installation. b. A 30” high brick face wall to be installed between the drive through and public sidewalks as shown on Future Site Plan. c. Twelve parking spaces adjacent to Quentin Avenue in the south parking lot to be returned to green space, unless the developer can demonstrate that this parking is needed by the current uses. E. If Quentin Avenue is not realigned, or if it is realigned in a manner substantially different than as shown on the Future Site Plan, the developer shall make necessary and reasonable changes to ensure that the property continues to comply with Zoning Ordinance requirements, and shall work with staff to mitigate any potential negative impact of the drive through use on surrounding development. 6. The continued special use permit shall be amended on August 2, 1999 (Case No. 99-20- CUP) to incorporate all of the preceding conditions and add the following conditions: a. Exhibit H, Elevations, to be replaced by Exhibit I - New Elevation Drawings. b. The total floor area of the building is limited to 12,324 square feet. c. Building materials samples to be approved by the Planning Manager prior to issuance of building permits. d. Windows on north façade are to be five foot wide mullioned windows. 47 e. 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. Adopted by the City Council August 2, 1999 Reviewed for Administration: City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk 99-20/N/res/ord 48 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 8c Meeting of August 2, 1999 8c. Preliminary Planned Unit Development and Preliminary Plat at the southwest corner of Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue. Case 99-19-PUD Request by DRF Holdings LLC (Frauenshuh Companies) for a Preliminary Plat and Preliminary Planned Unit Development for a medical office building, future restaurant, and urgent care/pharmacy to be located at the southwest corner Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue Recommended Action: Motion to adopt a resolution approving the Preliminary Plat and the Preliminary PUD subject to the conditions included in the resolution. Zoning Designation: C-2 Commercial District Comprehensive Plan Designation: Commercial Background: Frauenshuh proposes to construct a 60,000 square foot medical office building and a future 7,000 square foot restaurant on a 4.8 acre site located at the southwest corner of Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue. The three story medical office building would have a two color brick exterior. A total of 242 parking spaces are proposed for the medical office and 76 spaces for the potential future restaurant. A possible future addition of an urgent care/pharmacy is shown on the east side of the medical office building. The project also includes relocation of an existing billboard from the center of the site to the western edge of the property. The site consists of two properties, one owned by the City of St. Louis Park and one owned by Morris Communications. The 3.3 acre City property is vacant and the 1.5 acre Morris Communication property contains a billboard. The property is a former “brown field” site and the surface soils have been replaced with clean soils. The sub-soils still retain contamination from the former Reilly Tar site. As part of the Reilly Tar consent decree and the mitigation actions for the area, any development within this area is subject to Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) review. The sub-soils consist of peat and other soils with limited bearing capacity. Mitigation of the environmental and geo-technical conditions would be handled with the financial assistance of the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority. This site was reviewed as part of the Highway 7/Louisiana Study. The study task force recommended redevelopment of the site with a medical office building and a restaurant. The 49 task force felt this was an appropriate location for the medical office use and that retention of local medical professionals was an important aspect of the redevelopment. The task force recommendations were used to guide the update of the Comprehensive Plan for this parcel and for the Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue area. The plat would subdivide the property into two lots and two outlots, plus define right of way for Louisiana Avenue, Lake Street and 37th Street. Outlot A (south of 37th Street) would be retained by the City and Outlot B (western edge of the property) would contain the relocated billboard. Issues:  Does the proposed project meet the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan?  Can the billboard (an existing non-conforming use) be relocated as part of a PUD?  Does the project meet the findings and purpose of the PUD ordinance?  Does the project meet other requirements of the Zoning Code?  Does the plat meet the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance?  Are revisions needed based on staff and agency comments? Analysis of Issues: • Does the proposed project meet the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan? The project meets the general intent of the Comprehensive Plan by redeveloping a “brown field” site into a mix of higher intensity commercial uses, retaining local businesses and enhancing pedestrian connections. It does not accomplish the strategy of eliminating billboards (see discussion below), but that is a potential trade-off for realization of other Comprehensive Plan and redevelopment goals. It meets some of the goals for Livable Communities projects (such as a mix of uses, high quality architecture and landscaping and pedestrian connections), but others (such as transit orientation and buildings fronting on the public street) are not met due to functional and financial limitations. Proposed revisions to address transit service are discussed below. Task Force and Livable Communities recommendations for fronting buildings on walkable streets are difficult to realize due to poor soils in those areas of the site. • Can the billboard (an existing non-conforming use) be relocated as part of a PUD? Where non-conforming uses (uses that are not in full compliance with the zoning ordinance) exist, the city strives to eliminate or minimize the degree of non-conformity. This site contains an existing billboard (a non-conforming use) on a separate parcel located near the center of the proposed development. It is difficult to develop this site with the billboard remaining in its existing central location. The developer investigated ways to remove the billboard, but has indicated that it is not economically feasible. Therefore the billboard is proposed to be relocated to the western edge of the site to allow the site to be developed for a medical office building. The relocation is viewed as a compromise which is needed due to the location of the billboard, its relationship to the surrounding property, the other unique mitigation requirements of the site, and 50 the City redevelopment goals and objectives for this property. If moved, the billboard would be the same height and size and would have the same setback to Highway 7 as it has in its current location. It is important to note that the billboard will remain as a non-conforming use and this project does not preclude the City from taking future steps to remove the billboard. The City Attorney’s opinion of May 28, 1998 (see attached) is that the City can allow relocation of a billboard as part of a PUD approval if the following conditions are met: 1. The modifications bear a demonstrable relationship to, and are consistent with, the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. (see analysis above) 2. The adverse impact and effect of such modifications will be eliminated by screening, landscaping, superior site and building design and other features related to planning, design and construction. (the City Council should consider if the benefits of the proposed landscaping and design adequately offset the adverse impacts of moving the billboard) 3. The modification is necessary to achieve the purposes of this section of the Ordinance. (see findings and purpose of the PUD ordinance below, including redevelopment goals) 4. The modifications fall within allowable limits authorized in this Ordinance (this is not applicable, since the proposed modification is not addressed in the PUD ordinance).  Does the project meet the findings and purpose of the PUD ordinance? A. Greater utilization of new technologies in building design, construction and land development. The construction will utilize the latest technology in building construction for energy efficiency and security. Design and technological measures will be used to minimize disruption of sub-soils. B. Higher standards of site and building design. The medical office building is proposed to be built with 95% Class I exterior materials. City Code only requires minimum of 60% Class I materials. The site design provides considerably more landscaping than City Code requires for bufferyards and parking lots. C. More efficient and effective use of streets, utilities, and public facilities to support high quality development at a lesser cost. This site is largely public land owned by the City of St. Louis Park. Since the site has sub-soil contamination and poor geo-technical soils issues it is a difficult site to develop. This proposal would efficiently utilize publicly owned land and would improve the contamination issues by “capping” most of the site to lessen ground water infiltration. D. Provision of recreational, public, and open spaces which may be more usable and be more suitably located than would otherwise be provided under conventional development procedures. Additional internal walkways are proposed which are not typically provided in standard developments. 51 E. A flexible approach to development is permitted by allowing modifications of the strict application of regulations of the Commercial Use Districts which is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code indicate an intent to remove billboards when possible. However, the proposed flexibility to relocate the billboard would allow the development of a brown field site to occur, while retaining local businesses and putting undeveloped commercial land on the tax roles. Development in harmony with the Comprehensive Plan could not occur if the billboard was left in the current location and billboard acquisition costs combined with other unique site costs prohibit removal. F. A more creative and efficient use of land is encouraged. The development provides additional pedestrian connections, locates a medical use in an efficient location and re-uses a contaminated site. G. The preservation and enhancement of desirable site characteristics including flora and fauna, scenic views, screening and buffering, and access is fostered. While many of the existing trees will not be preserved, the development will add more trees than it will remove and will contribute towards plantings in nearby public parks. Screening and buffering are provided in the plan and high quality landscaping is proposed. H. Allowing the development to operate in concert with a Redevelopment Plan in certain areas of the City and to insure the redevelopment goals and objectives will be achieved. The proposed development meets the principal land use objectives of the Highway 7 and Louisiana Study and meets City-wide goals of redeveloping “brown fields” and retaining local businesses. The billboard relocation allows development, which is compatible with many of the Comprehensive Plan and redevelopment goals, to occur. I. Flexibility in the design and construction is allowed in cases where large tracts of land are under single ownership or control and have the potential to significantly affect adjacent or nearby property. Not applicable. • Does the project meet other requirements of the Zoning Code? The medical office building and restaurant are permitted uses in the C-2 district. Other than the non-conforming billboard (discussed above) and the tree preservation requirements, the project appears to meet the requirements of the Zoning Code. However, additional information will be necessary to analyze compliance of the future restaurant and urgent care facility. Tree Preservation: City Code Section 14:4-11.0 requires preservation of large trees and/or replacement of trees to be removed. The proposed development would remove approximately 45 large cottonwood and boxelder trees on the west side of the site. While cottonwoods and boxelder are not the most desirable tree species, they still provide some benefit to the community. The developer is proposing to replant approximately 200 trees on-site and there is no more room for additional planting to occur on the property. To meet the full requirements of the tree replacement regulations the developers would need to plant an additional 600-650 caliper 52 inches (approximately 250 trees) at a location determined by the City. This is a significant cost that may not be fully warranted for the loss of 45 lesser quality trees. Staff suggests an appropriate level of planting (i.e. 100-125 trees) occur in a nearby city park through establishment of an escrow account by the developer in the amount of $35,000. Proposed Uses and Parking: The 242 parking spaces exceed the Code requirement for the medical office building. Approximately 76 parking spaces are planned for the future restaurant use. It is likely that a separate PUD amendment will be filed for the future restaurant and possible urgent care expansion, after the medical office building is under construction. Staff recommends a review of the peak parking times for the restaurant and submission of architectural plans in conformance with City Code Final PUD requirements at the time that these additions are proposed. Note: This is a change from the report to the Planning Commission, which recommended a major amendment to the PUD for the future additions. Upon review of the development and discussions with the applicant, it was felt that the Code provisions and details of the future additions should dictate if either a major or minor amendment is required. • Does the plat meet the requirements of the subdivision ordinance? Since the city is the owner of much of this property, the platting is a cooperative action between the developer and the city. The plat meets the lot size, width and frontage requirements. The following information should be addressed prior to final City Council action: the location of existing utility easements, the bearings for shared Lot 1 and Lot 2 lines, the minimum setback lines, and sidewalk/trail easements. A joint access and circulation and parking agreement is needed between Lots 1 and 2. • Are revisions needed based on staff and agency comments? Some site plan revisions are needed based on staff comments. Transit: The proposed bus transit pull out and curb cut on Louisiana Avenue are to be removed, due to the lack of adequate maneuvering space. A future transit stop should be located off-site, south of Lake Street on the west side of Louisiana Avenue. Traffic: A traffic study was done for this area as part of the Highway 7 and Louisiana Study. The study evaluated development and redevelopment of property in Louisiana/Highway 7 area and recommended the addition of traffic signals at the Louisiana/Walker and the Louisiana/Lake intersections. Those signals are part of the City Capital Improvement Plan, but it is likely to be at least 5-6 years until installation occurs through the normal city improvement process. The signals would improve the function of the Hwy7/Louisiana Avenue intersection and the Lake/Louisiana Avenue signal would improve access to and from the medical office development. The developer has agreed with the EDA to pay up to $150,000 for the cost of the Lake/Louisiana Avenue signal as part of the project. It is expected that the signal will be installed as early as 2000. 53 Landscaping & Pedestrian Improvements: The Highway 7/Louisiana Ave. Study recommended a common landscape treatment for the four corners of the intersection and possible pedestrian improvements such as sidewalks, trails, plazas, and crosswalks. The proposal includes sidewalks and trails, but some of the proposed plants near the Highway 7/Louisiana intersection should be revised to reflect the existing plant material theme of the east half of the intersection, and provisions for crosswalks should be made within this development and on adjacent rights of way. Park Dedication: A park dedication fee is to be paid as required by the Subdivision Code. This amount could be up to $40,000. Agency Comments: Some agency comments were not available at the time of this report. NSP and Minnegasco have indicated acceptance of the Preliminary Plat. MnDOT provided comments after the Planning Commission meeting which indicated a desire to have the developer dedicate an additional 25 feet of right of way along Highway 7 for a future second left turn lane to Louisiana and suggested the City consider an additional 50 feet of right of way along the east side of the plat for expansion of Louisiana Avenue. If the ROW is dedicated it would have a significant effect upon the development plan and would eliminate landscaping area and 15 to 30 parking spaces. City staff discussed the right of way needs further with MnDOT and feels that the additional left turns could be accomplished with only 14 feet of additional right-of-way dedication on Highway 7 and on Louisiana Avenue. The developer is currently evaluating the impact of that amount of dedication upon the development and the planned parking supply. Recommendations: Recommend that the City Council adopt a resolution approving the Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to Planning Commission review of the Final PUD, revised plans and additional information shall be submitted showing the following: a. removal of the proposed curb cut and bus pull out along Louisiana Avenue; b. bearings for shared Lot 1 and Lot 2 lines, minimum setback lines and easements for existing public utilities; c. sidewalk/trail easements and site plan showing a six foot wide concrete sidewalk or eight foot wide bituminous trail along Louisiana Avenue and an eight foot wide bituminous trail along Lake Street; d. calculations showing that off-site storm water runoff meets the City capacity restriction as approved by the Superintendent of Engineering. 1. The Final PUD submittal shall include the following: a. site signage that is part of a unified design theme; 54 b. final landscape plan that reflects the established landscape theme of the eastern half of the Highway 7/Louisiana intersection; and c. site plans that include provisions for future crosswalks at the southwest corner of Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue and the northwest corner of Louisiana Avenue and Lake Street. 1. The Final Plat shall dedicate the required rights of way for adjacent streets and additional right-of way for Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue, if any, be dedicated as directed by the Public Works Director. 2. Prior to the City signing the Final Plat the following shall occur: a. A development agreement shall be executed between the developer and the City. b. A shared parking and access agreement, approved by the City Attorney, shall be put into place to take into consideration the future joint use of the parking lot by the medical office building and the restaurant. c. An escrow account or other form of financial guarantee acceptable to the City, should be established in the amount of $35,000 to take into consideration tree replacement requirements to be met by the developers. 1. Prior to issuance of building permits: a. Erosion control plans, performance bonds, site lighting and distribution plans, and underground irrigation plans shall be submitted and approved by the Zoning Administrator. b. Evidence of Watershed District approval and other required agency approvals shall be submitted. c. The restaurant and any subsequent additions to the medical office building (including the proposed urgent care) shall obtain future approvals as per City Code requirements relating to major and minor amendment procedures. 1. The development shall comply with the MPCA and St Louis Park consent agreement for pollution mitigation. 2. Payment of any required park dedication fee. The following modifications to ordinance requirements are authorized as part of this preliminary PUD approval: 55 1. The existing billboard (a non-conforming use) is allowed to be relocated to the western edge of the property on proposed Outlot B provided that the characteristics of the relocated sign cannot be different/more extensive that the existing sign relating to height, size, lighting, etc. 2. The tree replacement requirements are reduced to reflect the quality and type of trees to be removed and the amount and quality of the proposed on-site landscaping. Attachments:  Proposed Resolution for the Preliminary Planned Unit Development and Preliminary Plat  Unapproved excerpts of Planning Minutes of July 21, 1999  Proposed Use Statement (on file in City Clerk’s office)  Letter from City Attorney (on file in City Clerk’s office)  Proposed Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Exhibits (on file in City Clerk’s office) Prepared by: Greg Ingraham, Planning Consultant Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 56 RESOLUTION NO. 99-90 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) UNDER SECTION 14:6-7 OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE AND A PRELIMINARY PLAT OF DRF HIGHWAY VII ADDITION FOR PROPERTY ZONED C-2 COMMERCIAL LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 7 AND LOUSIANA AVENUE (7200 & 7341 HIGHWAY 7 AND 7250 LAKE STREET WEST) WHEREAS, applications for approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) and a Preliminary Plat were received on June 30, 1999 from the applicant, and WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing on the Preliminary PUD and the Preliminary Plat was mailed to all owners of property within 350 feet of the subject property plus other affected property owners in the vicinity and WHEREAS, notice of public hearing on the Preliminary PUD and Preliminary Plat were published in the St. Louis Park Sailor on July 7, 1999 , and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the Preliminary PUD concept and Preliminary Plat at the meeting of July 21, 1999, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing at the meeting of July 21, 1999, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Preliminary PUD and Preliminary Plat on July 21, 1999 by a 5-0 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. 57 BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park: Findings 1. DRF Holdings LLC has made application to the City Council for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) under Section 14:6-7 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code within the C-2 district located at the southwest corner of Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue. 2. The City of St. Louis Park and Morris Communications, owners of the land proposed to be platted as the DRF Highway VII Addition have agreed to an application submitted by DRF Holdings LLC for approval of preliminary plat of said subdivision in the manner required for platting of land under the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, and all proceedings have been duly had thereunder. 3. The proposed plat and PUD are situated upon the following described lands in Hennepin County, Minnesota, to-wit: See Exhibit A - Legal Description 4. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission (Case No. 99-19-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. 5. 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). 6. The City Council has determined that the PUD is consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, in particular the redevelopment of “brown field” sites, creating a mix of higher intensity commercial uses, retaining local businesses and, enhancing pedestrian connections. 7. The site consists of two properties, one owned by the City of St. Louis Park and one owned by Morris Communications. The 3.3 acre City property is vacant and the 1.5 acre Morris Communications property contains a billboard. The City is facilitating the consolidated development of the two parcels by use of tax abatement to enable redevelopment goals and objectives to be achieved. Morris Communications as the owner of the billboard parcel is not the initiator of new development seeking also to retain its existing billboard. However, 58 removal of the billboard would require expenditure of additional public funds which makes the project unfeasible. 8. That the effect of relocation of a billboard is unique to this site and to this development proposal and is warranted as part of the PUD due to; the location and shape of the billboard parcel, poor sub-soils and soil contamination issues, the inability to redevelop the site to meet redevelopment and business retention goals without relocation, the inability to redevelop the site while bearing billboard removal costs, and the superior site design, landscaping and architecture offset the effects of relocation. The billboard will remain as a non-conforming use. 9. That the PUD modifications are necessary to achieve the redevelopment, business retention, and pollution mitigation goals of the Comprehensive Plan. 10. The proposed preliminary plat has been found to be in all respects consistent with the City Plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and the ordinances of the City of St. Louis Park. 11. The contents of Planning Case File 99-19-PUD are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case. Conclusion The Preliminary Planned Unit Development and Preliminary Plat of DRF Highway VII Addition at the location described are approved based on the findings set forth above and subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to Planning Condition review of the Final PUD, revised plans and additional information shall be submitted showing the following: a. removal of the proposed curb cut and bus pull out along Louisiana Avenue; b. bearings for shared Lot 1 and Lot 2 lines, minimum setback lines and easements for existing public utilities; c. sidewalk/trail easements and site plan showing a six foot wide concrete sidewalk or eight foot wide bituminous trail along Louisiana Avenue and an eight foot wide bituminous trail along Lake Street and 37th Street; d. calculations showing that off-site storm water runoff meets the City capacity restriction as approved by the Superintendent of Engineering. 1. The Final PUD submittal shall include the following: a. site signage that is part of a unified design theme; b. final landscape plan that reflects the established landscape theme of the eastern half of the Highway 7/Louisiana intersection; and 59 c. site plans that include provisions for future crosswalks at the southwest corner of Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue and the northwest corner of Louisiana Avenue and Lake Street. 1. The Final Plat shall dedicate the required rights of way for adjacent streets and additional right-of way for Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue, if any, be dedicated as directed by the Public Works Director. 2. Prior to the City signing the Final Plat the following shall occur: a. A development agreement shall be executed between the developer and the City. b. A shared parking and access agreement, approved by the City Attorney, shall be put into place to take into consideration the future joint use of the parking lot by the medical office building and the restaurant. c. An escrow account or other form of financial guarantee acceptable to the City, should be established in the amount of $35,000 to take into consideration tree replacement requirements to be met by the developers. 1. Prior to issuance of building permits: a. Erosion control plans, performance bonds, site lighting and distribution plans, and underground irrigation plans shall be submitted and approved by the Zoning Administrator. b. Evidence of Watershed District approval and other required agency approvals shall be submitted. c. The restaurant and any subsequent additions to the medical office building (including the proposed urgent care) shall obtain future approvals as per City Code requirements relating to major and minor amendment procedures. 1. The development shall comply with the MPCA and St Louis Park consent agreement for pollution mitigation. 2. Payment of any required park dedication fee. Based on the Findings identified in this resolution, the following modifications to ordinance requirements are authorized as part of this preliminary PUD approval: 1. The existing billboard (a non-conforming use) is allowed to be relocated to the western edge of the property on proposed Outlot B provided that the characteristics of the relocated sign cannot be different/more extensive that the existing sign relating to height, size, lighting, etc. 60 2. The tree replacement requirements are reduced to reflect the quality and type of trees to be removed and the amount and quality of the proposed on-site landscaping. Adopted by the City Council August 2, 1999 resend Reviewed for Administration: City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk 99-19/N/res/ord 61 City of St. Louis Park City Council Item # 8d Meeting of August 2, 1999 8d. Parkwood Shores Assisted Living Project—Phase II This report considers a resolution calling for a public hearing on the modification of Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the modification of the Park Center Boulevard Housing Tax Increment Financing District. Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution calling for a Public Hearing on September 20, 1999 on the Modification of Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the Modification of the Park Center Boulevard Housing Tax Increment Financing District. BACKGROUND On July 26, 1999 staff provided a report advising the City Council/Economic Development Authority of Silvercrest Properties’ request for a modification to the tax increment financing district as it relates to their proposal to construct a 46 unit, second phase assisted living building at 3633 Park Center Boulevard. Enabling the Phase II project would occur through the Authority allowing the developer to advance a tax increment deficiency payment in the year 2000 in the amount of approximately $87,250. This payment equals the sum total of semi-annual deficiency payments projected for the years 2000 and 2001. In this case the developer is simply paying projected future deficiency payments early in return for the right to be relieved of the obligation to pay deficiency payments in future years. There is no cost to the EDA in allowing this advanced payment. The EDA would only experience some legal and fiscal consulting fees associated with amending the tax increment district and the redevelopment agreement in this case, which could be paid by the developer. Allowing the developer to eliminate deficiency payments in future years will enable the developer to raise financing through private sources rather than seeking financial assistance from the EDA. This structure would also allow the Authority to recapture its original investment in the project by 2003. The conditions for allowing the advanced deficiency payment would be as follows: • Developer agrees to construct Phase II by the end of 2000, with an agreed to assessed market value of $1,800,000 as of January 2, 2001. • Developer agrees to a minimum assessment of $3,915,000 for the entire project (Phase I and II) as of 2002 through the term of the agreement. 62 The amendment to the Tax Increment Financing Plan will (1) enable the expansion of the Park Center Boulevard Tax Increment Financing District boundaries; (2) Remove property from the Excelsior Boulevard Tax Increment Financing District; (3) authorize the assistance being requested (4) associate the plan to the furtherance of housing objectives for the Park Commons area. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution Submitted by: David M. Anderson, Economic Development Coordinator Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 63 RESOLUTION NO. 99-91 RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING BY THE CITY ON THE PROPOSED ADOPTION OF THE MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1, AND THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION OF PARK CENTER BOULEVARD HOUSING TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT THEREIN AND THE PROPOSED TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN THEREFOR. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the “Council”) for the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota (the “City”), as follows: Section 1. Public Hearing. This Council shall meet on Monday, September 20, 1999, at approximately 7:30 p.m., to hold a public hearing on the proposed adoption of the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1, the proposed modification of the Park Center Boulevard Housing Tax Increment Financing District, and the proposed adoption of a Tax Increment Financing Plan therefor, all pursuant to and accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.090 through 469.1081, inclusive, as amended, and Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 through 469.179, inclusive, as amended, in an effort to encourage the development and redevelopment of certain designated areas within the City; and Section 2. Notice of Public Hearing, Filing of Plans. City staff is authorized and directed to work with Ehlers and Associates, Inc., to prepare the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan and the Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "Modifications") and to forward documents to the appropriate taxing jurisdictions including Hennepin County and Independent School District No. 283. The City Manager is authorized and directed to cause notice of the hearing, together with an appropriate map as required by law, to be published at least once in the official newspaper of the City not later than 10, nor more than 30, days prior to September 20, 1999, and to place a copy of the Modifications on file in the City Manager’s office at City Hall and to make such copy available for inspection by the public. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council August 2, 1999 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk 64 Item 9a* MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 16, 1999 --7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Paul Carver, Michael Garelick, Ken Gothberg, Dennis Morris, Sally Velick MEMBERS ABSENT: Michelle Bissonnette; Jerry Timian STAFF PRESENT: Judie Erickson, Janet Jeremiah, Sacha Peterson, Janice Loftus 1. Call to Order - Roll Call Chair Morris called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. 2. Approval of Minutes of June 2, 1999 Mr. Gothberg moved approval of the minutes of June 2, 1999 and the motion passed on a vote of 5-0 with Carver, Garelick, Gothberg, Morris and Velick voting in favor. 3. Hearings: None 4. Old Business: None 5. New Business: A. Consent Agenda: None B. Other New Business i. Case No. 99-12-ZA – Miscellaneous Zoning Ordinance Amendments Judie Erickson, Planning Coordinator, presented the staff report and asked the Commission to make recommendation to the City Council on the proposed amendments. She stated that many of the suggested changes are word-smithing and clarification rather than requiring new standards. I. Yard Encroachments Chair Morris stated that he found inconsistencies between the proposed language and the existing language and said he is not sure if they are omissions or if certain items are to remain in place but are not shown as remaining in place. Specifically, in the yard encroachment section, the existing items A 1 and 2 are not included in the presentation 65 for the new ordinance. The existing language in the staff report is not shown nor struck out. Ms. Erickson explained how staff is trying to restructure the section into three sections one being general encroachments, one for principle buildings and one for accessory buildings. It was suggested to avoid any confusion, the entire existing language should be included with language to be deleted struck through, language to be added underlined and renumbering of any affected sections should be done. Regarding C, Chair Morris asked for a clarification on “following shall not be encroachments on rear and side yard requirements”. The language in No. 1 says “no closer than 16’ from all lot lines”. He asked if this is an assumption that it would not be a front yard. Ms. Erickson stated that the heading of this section is rear and side yard encroachments. II. Shopping Center Definition Correcting a redundancy. No comments on proposed change III. Location of Parking Facility Correcting a subdivision section number. No comments on proposed change. IV. Parking for Motor Fuel Station Correcting a redundancy. No comments on proposed change. Ms. Velick asked if the motor fuel station at Louisiana and Cedar Lake Road will need to accommodate the new change. Ms. Erickson stated it is actually not a change in regulation but taking some of the redundancy out of the ordinance. Mr. Gothberg stated his understanding is that if the use is strictly a motor fuel station, the requirement would be a minimum of six parking stalls in addition to what is at the pumps. Ms. Erickson stated that is correct. V. Non-Conforming Bufferyard Correction of subsection references. No comments on proposed changes. 66 VI. Fences Merges language for fences existing in the Municipal Ordinance Code with the Zoning Ordinance language for fences and adds the word “divide” into the definition. Chair Morris stated, regarding height of a fence measured from the ground level to the top of fence or wall section, where there is a retaining wall and the ground level in the yard is four feet higher than the sidewalk on the other side of the retaining wall, where is the ground level – is it the yard or the sidewalk? He said he has had this question raised frequently in his work and asked if there is a need to define “ground level”. Ms. Erickson said that is a good point and asked whether the question is, “what if the fence sits on top of the retaining wall”. Chair Morris said that is correct and also if the fence is on a sloped or bermed area of the yard that is higher, so the effect from the sidewalk level is a nine foot fence. It gets to be a question when people are doing corners and alleys and there is a grade difference. Mr. Carver asked why it periodically says a “fence or wall” and asked if wall is defined in another section. Ms. Erickson stated that in the bufferyard section, walls are required in some instances. According to the definition for a fence, there is no difference between a wall and fence. The Bufferyard section on pages 288 and 289 does identify fences, masonry walls and bermed walls. In answer to a question on height of swimming pool fences, Ms. Erickson stated those heights are regulated by the State. Design and Maintenance of Off-Street Parking Areas. Some language had been inadvertently omitted in an earlier amendment so this language is being put back into the ordinance. Confusion over the use of the words: “adjacent, abutting and adjoining” To clarify confusion, staff is proposing to use the same definition for the three words. Mr. Gothberg asked, since all the definitions use the term alley, do we have a definition of an alley. Ms. Erickson stated we do. Chair Morris asked why we define an alley as only a divider and not a pedestrian trail. He asked what defines the difference between an alley or another thoroughfare or passing area between two properties. 67 Ms. Erickson stated the definition of an alley includes a maximum width. If a trail is located on an easement, that area is not considered separate from a parcel of land Required Parking Adds language for guest parking where required parking is located within the structure for both cluster housing and multiple dwellings. It was suggested that the language be clarified to read “10% of parking space”. Performance Standards and Screening of Outdoor Storage Clarify confusion created when using words “abutting or adjacent” in establishing performance standards. This makes the outdoor screening standard in both the IP and IG districts consistent. Increase percentage of housing not above retail in C-2 District The current 15% maximum is prohibitive on some sites so a change is recommended to increase the maximum percent of housing from 15% to 30% of the ground floor area of total development permitted by PUD. The second sentence in XI.b. on page 10 can be stricken. Initiation of Zoning Ordinance Amendments Staff is suggesting that amendments to the Zoning Ordinance can be initiated by the Community Development Director. This will save time in the process. Chair Morris asked if it is necessary to come to the Planning Commission if an error in a reference is discovered. He said it appears that some of the amendments suggested in this report could be handled administratively. Ms. Erickson suggested that by motion tonight, the Commission could request that language be incorporated in the Zoning Ordinance addressing these types of amendments. Measurement Clarifies the place to measure where a cantilever is involved. Chair Morris stated that numerous amendments have been presented by Ms. Erickson and staff is asking for a recommendation from the Commission to move the amendments forward to Council and conduct a public hearing. 68 Mr. Garelick moved that the amendments be sent on to the City Council as submitted in the staff report with some modifications as suggested by the Commission. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0 with Carver, Garelick, Gothberg, Morris and Velick voting in favor. Chair Morris moved that the Planning Commission request staff include a provision in the Zoning Ordinance to allow for administrative corrections to the Zoning Ordinance for clerical errors or reference errors. Mr. Carver stated this is a good point in terms of efficiency in cleaning up obvious errors but he would caution that the language has to be written in such a way to not be able to clean not so obvious errors with not so obvious solution by staff, that those items need to be brought back to the Commission and Council. He sees this as a bit of a drafting challenge to delineate between obvious and no so obvious items. Chair Morris said he envisions this as not being text changes and it would need to be defined so that a sentence is not deleted with a consideration that it is a redundancy but in effect the sentence that was deleted had an impact on the Zoning Code. The proposed language would be coming back to the Commission as an amendment so the Commission will have the opportunity to review and comment. Chair Morris called the question and the motion passed on a vote of 5-0 with Carver, Garelick, Gothberg, Morris and Velick voting in favor. 6. Communications: None 7. Miscellaneous A. Update on 1st Phase of Sidewalk Plan The Commission received handouts at the beginning of the meeting regarding the status of the implementation phase of the Sidewalk Plan. Ms. Erickson reviewed the boards that show the complete sidewalk system and the different categories, specifically the Phase I Implementation Plan. The City Council has adopted the concept plan for the total system. The Implementation Plan is another process that the City is working through at this time and hopeful to get to a point to implement some of the plan next year. Neighborhood sidewalks are not part of Phase I Implementation. There are two open houses scheduled in July and the City is in the process of preparing a video to be aired on the local cable channel. Comments: • Regarding Public Works taking care of maintenance (snow removal, repairs, etc) – A major issue in the City of Minneapolis in maintaining the sidewalks in the winter time is that it is inadequate. In St. Louis Park sidewalks along Lake Street and Minnetonka 69 Blvd are often not usable in the winter due to glare ice cover or frozen flush. It is not realistic to expect our Public Works department to salt these areas and chip ice. A joint cooperative effort between property owners and the City to keep the sidewalks clean may be an option. • There is a City ordinance that requires property owners to maintain their sidewalks in winter, however it has not been enforced very well. The goal would be for enforcement to become more strict. It has been identified that City trails and sidewalks will be maintained by the City and neighborhood sidewalks would be maintained by abutting property owners. • It may be difficult to differentiate between City and neighborhood sidewalks. • Property owners should be responsible for their walks, including putting down salt, particularly along the main roads. • Maintenance includes more than just snow removal and maybe the appropriate thing to do would be to define the difference between maintenance, where some of the main thoroughfares are subject to a lot of traffic, versus snow removal. Snow removal could be the responsibility of the adjoining property owner and the maintenance for some of the main traffic areas might be the responsibility of the City. • Replacement of sidewalks has always been done by the City. There is a program in place where a section of the City is looked at each year for maintenance and at the same time bring sidewalks into ADA compliance. • Safety is the primary reason this plan is being brought to the community. People must recognize that this plan could help save lives. • Enforcement: The City of Minneapolis has five full time sidewalk inspectors who inspect for broken pavement and replacement in the summer and look for unshoveled and icy walks in the winter. Property owners are notified and if one does not respond, the City will send a crew to do the work and property owner is assessed. Realistically, more staff would need to be hired to implement this type of plan. • It is important to enforce our ordinances. • A strong public relations plan is necessary to put this together. • Ms. Erickson stated that staff is hoping that with the video and brochure staff is preparing and mailing to all properties, at least everyone in the community will be informed of what is happening. There are a lot of people in favor of this plan, however there are a number of people against it as well. 8. Adjournment - Chair Morris adjourned the meeting at 8:10 p.m. 70 Respectfully Submitted, Janice Loftus Administrative Secretary 71 Item 9b* MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 7, 1999 --7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Michael Garelick, Ken Gothberg, Dennis Morris, Jerry Timian, Sally Velick MEMBERS ABSENT: Michelle Bissonnette, Paul Carver STAFF PRESENT: Judie Erickson, Sacha Peterson, Janice Loftus 1. Call to Order - Roll Call Chair Morris called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. 2. Approval of Minutes: None 3. Hearings: None A. Case No. 99-14-CP – Request of Silvercrest Development for an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to adopt a Redevelopment Plan. B. Case No. 99-15-S – Request of Silvercrest Development for Preliminary and Final Plat approval for Parkwood Addition Sacha Peterson, Planning Associate, presented the staff report for the Comprehensive Plan amendment to adopt a Redevelopment Plan, Preliminary and Final Plat approval for Parkwood Addition, and the vacation of a drainage and utility easement and a trail easement. She stated that there is a slight modification to the staff report related to the surface parking in the front of the building abutting Park Center Boulevard. Staff is not comfortable with this surface parking as it is not consistent with the goals for parking in the Park Commons area. Staff has recommended that the developer remove the first row of 14 parking stalls along Park Center Boulevard which would create more green space along this area and would increase the amount of usable open space as well. This would anticipate that visitors to this building could use the parking on Lot 3 because there is excess parking on this lot. The developer is not comfortable with this arrangement and feels that from a marketing convenience perspective, the stalls are needed along Park Center Boulevard. After discussing this recommendation with the developer, the developer has stated a willingness to work with staff to mitigate the impact of the lot and 72 visibility from the street, including possibly removing stalls, adding a brick knee wall or other amenities. Staff is therefore recommending a different condition that the developer work with staff to develop a parking lot plan that mitigates the impact on Park Center Boulevard prior to City Council consideration. Mr. Gothberg stated he is generally in favor with the concept of this development. However, he said he thinks we are building a future major trap, recognizing that future plans are to realign Park Center Boulevard with a north/south connector road to Excelsior Boulevard and create an intersection where Park Center Boulevard currently bends to the west. This will result in taking some of the parking away from Lot 3 and results in an intersection where the entrance into the area would be just to the north of an intersection which could create a major traffic trap. He would like to see this plan looked at in terms of the long term future. Mr. Garelick asked for the reasons that the future housing to be located on Lot 1 be limited to 50% for seniors. Ms. Peterson stated that staff is proposing that the facility on Lot 1 be limited to 50% senior housing. Within the entire Park Commons area, the City is trying to provide housing for a range of ages and there is not a lot of high rise apartment housing proposed for this area that would be market rate for all ages. It is important to include this for a high level of diversity in this area. In answer to a question on how the developer feels about this, Ms. Peterson stated that the developer is not in favor of the 50% limit. Mr. Garelick asked what leverage the City has to stress this point. Ms. Peterson stated there are a large number of modifications that are being requested as a part of the current development plan and that the purpose of the development plan is to have some give and take in terms of what is being allowed in providing for those modifications, as well as what the City can do to make certain the goals of the Comprehensive Plan are enforced. Mr. Garelick stated he would like the developer to address why he feels that mixed housing is not appropriate as to having all senior housing. Chair Morris stated there are no persons in attendance for the public hearing and asked if only the property owners received notice or were tenants informed. Ms. Peterson stated the notice is mailed to the property owners and it is the responsibility of the property owner to notify their residents. She stated that the developer could probably address this. Chair Morris noted that even though the requests are combined into one report, he would open separate public hearings. 73 Michael Gould, President of Silvercrest Development, reviewed some background information for the site. The Park Shore high rise was built in 1986 to serve senior residents of St. Louis Park. He stated that there is a higher rate of St. Louis Park residents residing in this building compared to similar buildings in other communities. The existing building has served a real need for the senior residents in St. Louis Park and they wish to continue to serve this portion of the population. They have been working closely with HealtySystem Minnesota to create an entire campus and meet the future health care needs for seniors. He stated he has participated in the Park Commons West Task Force which looked at issues in the area, such as road alignments and how everything works on the west side of Park Commons. They are addressing the specific issues relating to parking, trail and road realignments. Regarding the trail realignment on the south side of Park Shore, there will be a better opportunity to open the trail on the south side when the road is realigned in the future. The current trail system has been well received. Peter Phister, with Boarman, Krause, Phister, Vogel Architects, stated they have been working with the developer since 1991 and are somewhat familiar with the history of the planning for the area. He said that Ms. Peterson did a good job of identifying the issues related to the project. He reviewed the existing and future site plans, first floor plan and elevations. One of the issues is the realignment of the park trail. Moving the trail to the north will eliminate some current traffic conflicts that exist, both pedestrian and vehicular. He explained the current pedestrian and vehicular traffic flows including the service area for trucks bringing materials to the building for food service and tenant move-ins. Regarding parking, the situation with both buildings is that the rear of the buildings are oriented to the park area so moving any parking to the rear of the buildings would not be possible. Mr. Phister stated that the parking of 22-24 stalls is relatively small compared to the adjacent properties of Target and Byerly’s. The developer is willing to work with staff to identify ways that they could screen and create a more urban edge as defined by the design principles of the area, but it is necessary to have the parking adjacent to the assisted living building. Mr. Gould addressed the issue of emergency calls to the building. He said as they investigated the reports, individual calls, what the response was and what the appropriate response should have been, they found that with the assisted living building there were far fewer calls because they have a home health care agency on site 24 hours a day as the first line of communication. They found in the independent living building where they do not have the on site health care 24 hours a day, they have a number of calls that could be handled without fire and police response. They have looked at other options including a model that Walker in Minneapolis has in place and they are looking at following the Walker model in terms of hiring emergency medical technicians (EMT’s). When the buildings are connected, it will be far easier to monitor when residents are able to utilize an EMT that will be the first line of response to an emergency call. It is obviously an educational process for the residents to contact the front desk and feel comfortable there is an EMT available to answer all questions. With this change they feel they could 74 greatly reduce the number of 911 calls from the buildings. Further, that EMT can directly access Hennepin County should it be appropriate rather than contact local police and fire. They are continuing to investigate the options and plan to have a program in place when the construction starts. In answer to a question from Ms. Velick on whether or not any residents of the assisted facility will be displaced during construction, Mr. Gould stated that no residents will be displaced. Chair Morris asked what notification residents are given if the owner is the only person who received the public hearing notice for a meeting. He said his concern is that residents connected to this type project should be aware of projects as they are directly impacted. Often people come forward a meeting and say “this is the first they have heard of something”. Mr. Gould stated he does not know who their manager would have notified. However, he said he regularly meets with the residents of Park Shore to update them on the progress because there is a waiting list for the assisted living building and residents are very anxious to see the construction completed. He said he will pass along the City Council date to residents. Chair Morris opened the public hearing to consider the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to adopt a redevelopment plan. There being no one wishing to speak, he closed the hearing. Mr. Gothberg asked if there has been any analysis of either the parking or the traffic patterns with this development as compared to the long term proposed plan to realign Park Center Boulevard in this area. Ms. Peterson described the proposed realignment of the north/south road to align with Park Center Boulevard with the use of a visual board. The north/south road is proposed to connect to Park Center Boulevard where the boulevard curves now. The curve would become a 3-way lighted intersection, and Park Center would be realigned slightly to the west. The parking structure on Lot 3 would not be affected, and the existing driveway to the project would remain well north of the new intersection. Ms. Velick stated that this appears to be a much better plan for the traffic flow through the area and will help to ease the existing congestion. In answer to a question on bike paths in the area, Ms. Peterson showed the location of the bike paths. Regarding sidewalks, Ms. Erickson stated that the new alignment will have sidewalks on both sides of the street as one of the Livable Communities Principles. 75 Ms. Peterson stated that the Commission will have an opportunity to look at the north/south roadway proposal separately later this summer and there will be an open house scheduled for the community after that. Mr. Gothberg asked staff how the realignment of the road will affect the parking at the Park Shore development. Ms. Peterson stated that the roadway will not affect the parking on Lot 3 because it is just cutting off an edge of that property line just before the parking lot. Regarding the time line of the realignment, Ms. Erickson stated the north/south road will not happen for a couple of years. Mr. Garelick asked the developer why he feels it is valid to have exclusive senior housing within the development. Mr. Gould stated he has talked with architects and others who have studied this topic. They had a similar project in Richfield which was, by natural attrition, about 67% seniors. It is not that the tenants do not mix well, but from an overall management strategy of what common areas are needed and access to them, the market rate tenants do not utilize the same types of services. Another factor that drives it is economic. One of the opportunities that could lie on that corner, depending on how the model could come together with what they are doing in HealthSystem Minnesota, is a life care center which they have observed in other parts of the country. With this type of a setting people are able to buy into the entire system. He stated that a large number of market rate apartments are being looked at in other parts of the Park Commons area. In answer to a question on the cash flow from the food and health care provided, Mr. Gould stated that the facility operates the health care ala carte so tenants can purchase the services they need at a cost effective rate. He said that you never make money on the food, but they do the best they can to provide the three meals a day in their assisted living facility. Mr. Garelick asked the developer if their rents are comparable at these buildings. Mr. Gould stated they are continuously making market studies and they feel the costs at Park Shore are very comparable. They like to believe their quality is at the top of the market but they do not want their pricing to be. The rent covers some indirect services they provide but does not cover food or health care services. Chair Morris asked staff, regarding the proposed changes the developer specifically has requested to Lot 3 both in setback and building height, is this request to bring it into conformance or is it for the anticipated development of Lot 3. 76 Ms. Peterson stated that modifications to the building height and setbacks on Lot 3 are for the existing structure and were approved under a previous special permit, but because this is a new Redevelopment Plan, they need to be addressed. Chair Morris stated he has issue with reduction of the usable open space. He said we have seen problems with other land developments where we have reduced the amount of open space. He said he finds it convoluted that it is noted that the assisted living population is not as mobile and a reduction of usable open space will not detract from the quality of the project but in the next sentence we are speaking that these immobile elderly people are going to enjoy going over to the public park for their recreational and open space needs. He said it states that Wolfe Park creates visual open space and to him that implies that if you get a bench on your property you can look out at all the open space you want. Visual open space is not a substitute for actual open space. Considering that tenants are looking at a slide, pool and a bufferyard of trees, he does not see any visual amenity to the open space provided for the development. The additional amenity of the recreation pool is not open year round. Possibly, some of the reduction could be accomplished but not 50%. Chair Morris stated we are being requested to trade a 14 foot wide existing trail for a 12 foot trail and asked why we are reducing the trail by two feet. Ms. Peterson stated that the Park and Recreation department and director have reviewed the proposed trail location and they came back with specific parameters on what they want in terms of the trail. They specified a minimum eight foot wide trail with a two foot clear zone on either side for a total of a 12 foot wide trail easement. The Park and Rec department wants to continue to meet with the developer to clarify the exact location and make sure that this is going to work. The reduction is coming from the Park and Rec department. Chair Morris stated that we are going to have a two way system, both pedestrian and bicycle, each occupying a four foot lane either way. This seems like a narrow trail easement for a two way trail. We recently had the same issue with the trail by the Hutchinson Spur by Shalom Home. He said he is aware that the land subdivision ordinance requires eight feet, but he would oppose loosing that extra two feet as he feels the 12 feet is inadequate. He would like to see an even trade. Mr. Gothberg stated that the existing trail, as it weaves through the buildings and roadways, is not a good trail. He also said he thinks the location of the proposed trail is not desirable however, he feels the new location would be a much better trail for people to use than what is there today. He reminded everyone that the developer mentioned that there a potential future opportunity for a trail along the south side of Lot 3. He said his last concern is the location of new proposed trail coming out by the cross walk sign on Park Center Boulevard. We may need to do some lighting or push button type signaling at that cross walk or close down the cross walk to encourage people to go the stop light. 77 Chair Morris said he agrees that this is a dangerous location. He said he did look at the sidewalk trail plan and, in this area, it is proposed that bicycles would share the road with vehicles. Whether the trail easement comes in to the north or south of the building it will dump people at the sidewalk or curb on the east side of Park Center Boulevard and neither one addresses the need to cross Park Center. A signalized intersection would be the safest. Ms. Peterson stated that this is a concern that can be addressed when the City Council and Commission look at the north/south roadway changes. Mr. Garelick asked the developer what his time line is for construction and completion of the project. Mr. Gould said that the current plans call for them to break ground this fall and they anticipate a ten to eleven month construction schedule to completion. Chair Morris opened the public hearing for the preliminary plat for Parkwood Addition. There being no one wishing to speak, Chair Morris closed the public hearing. Chair Morris stated he is making an assumption that sheet two of two is the final plat and he sees some discrepancies between that plan and the preliminary plat. He does not see the trail easement indicated nor the existing sanitary storm utility easement. There is a small corner section on the preliminary plat that indicates an easement and that is not shown on the final plat either. The land subdivision ordinance states that the property owner or subdivider shall submit final grading, development, erosion, utility, tree preservation, landscaping plans and other documents as described as part of the final plat. He said as part of the discussion of the preliminary plat some needs have been identified on landscaping, parking and trail location. The subdivision ordinance states that if a future street is contemplated, it would be appropriate to dedicate new street easements in the plat. He suggested that new sidewalk, trail or street easements might be needed at the westerly edge of Lot 3. He said that his recommendation would be that the Planning Commission consider this as a preliminary plat approval and not give final plat approval pending the receipt of a more refined final plat. Mr. Garelick stated that Mr. Morris’ recommendation would be in the best interest of both the developer and the City. Chair Morris stated this raises an issue of timing and asked if there is an urgency for the final plat to be approved and recorded. Ms. Peterson clarified that the storm water easement is not shown on the final plat and that it should be. Trail easements are not accepted as part of final plat but there is a condition of approval that the trail easements must be recorded separately prior to the City signing the final plat. She said that Chair Morris is correct that there is another easement not shown on the corner of Lot 3 and we may want to consider adding another 78 easement for the north/south roadway. In terms of the other final plans that are required to accompany the final plat, the Public Works department has accepted the utility plan and the grading and erosion control plans as final plans. The tree replacement and landscaping plans have not been finalized. Staff is recommending changes to both of those. In terms of timing, Ms. Peterson said one solution could be to bring the final plat back in two weeks if the developer is able to address these issues in a very short time frame. Otherwise, the hearing for City Council could be delayed two weeks. The August City Council meetings are August 2nd and August 16th. Mr. Garelick said he would like to revisit the issue of open space. If we are adding additional units, we are not seeing any additional open space. The terminology of viewable open space is interesting and he is interested in how we can rectify this. Mr. Phister stated we are dealing with two properties, one being the high rise and the other the assisted living building. It is his understanding that the proposed addition to the assisted living building falls within 90% of the open space requirement for that parcel alone with the new property added for that. He said the property that is skewing this is the high rise because of the amount of square footage, the height of the building and the fact that a major portion of this property is parking which does not qualify as part of the usable open space. Also, we are taking 18 to 20,000 square feet of lot area away from this building for the new development. The calculation for open space was taken on Lots 2 and 3 combined. Ms. Peterson stated that if you take a look Lots 2 and 3 individually the amount of usable open space required on Lot 2 is 36,000 square feet and what is proposed is to provide 22,336 square feet. For Lot 3 the required usable open space for 207 units is about 83,000 square feet and the actual proposed to be provided is 31,000. A couple of other points is that the lot line is moving to accommodate the assisted living addition so, in essence, Lot 3 is actually being reduced so the amount of usable open space is being somewhat reduced on Lot 3. However, there is an increase in usable open space that is provided due to the removal of the Norwest bank facility and driveway. All of that area is proposed to become usable open space, but was not counted for this development because it is on Lot 1. Lot 1 is the only lot that meets the usable open space requirement and staff is proposing that any redevelopment would not further reduce that open space. Ms. Peterson stated that, with the desire in the Park Commons area to create high rise apartments and the higher density, there is some allowance in the Comprehensive Plan for high rises fronting on the park. That may be a more acceptable way to reduce the usable open space to some extent. It is up to the Commission to decide if this is an acceptable amount. Chair Morris said then there may be a need to question what they would consider the frontage of the property. He understands from the presentation and drawings that the 79 frontage appears to be on Park Center Boulevard. However, Silvercrest does commendable architectural work on both the front and rear of their buildings and their quality is astounding. There is such a balance between front and rear that they both have the amenity and look so we could question how we define the frontage as facing the park for quality open space or facing Park Center Boulevard. Ms. Velick asked if the seniors in the assisted living building are permitted to leave the facility and use the Wolfe Park area. Mr. Gould stated that there are exits in both buildings that go out to the park and are used quite heavily. There are trails coming right to the buildings and patios as well. Ms. Velick asked if this is included in the open space total. Mr. Gould said it was. Mr. Timian asked if there was any way to add green space to Lot 3 making it more aesthetically pleasing with something like a gazebo. Mr. Gould said the only option would be where the parking lot is on the Park Center Blvd side of the building. The front does have benches used for pick up and waiting. Changes would be a possibility if we could take away some parking spaces. He said he would question if more open space in this area would be utilized. Chair Morris stated there is a grade issue in the front of the Park Shore building as well. Chair Morris said he has an understanding that when Lot 1 is developed as an extension of the campus area it will be integrated into the overall campus. He agrees that the assisted living addition needs more open space but future development of Lot 1 could provide shared open space for the entire campus. Chair Morris stated there are two issues before the Commission: 1) The Comprehensive Plan amendment to adopt a redevelopment plan. 2) A preliminary and final plat for Parkwood Addition. He recommended voting on them in sequence. Mr. Gothberg moved that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to adopt a redevelopment plan subject to the relative conditions in the staff report and addressing the location of the realignment of the proposed north/south road. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0 with Garelick, Gothberg, Morris, Timian and Velick voting in favor. Mr. Garelick moved that the Commission recommend approval of the preliminary plat subject to the conditions in the staff report relating to the preliminary plat and continue discussion on the final plat. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0 with Garelick, Gothberg, Morris, Timian and Velick voting in favor. 80 Mr. Garelick said this project will be a nice contribution to the City and give us some more perks to offer the citizens of the City that the development will have for us. 4. Old Business: None 5. New Business: A. Consent Agenda: None B. Other New Business i. Case No. 99-16-VAC – Request of Silvercrest Development for vacation of a drainage and utility easement and a trail easement. Ms. Peterson stated that she did not specifically say anything about the proposed vacation of the trail and utility easements along the existing lot lines of Lot 2 and 3. The staff report contains discussion on this, but basically there are no existing utilities within that utility easement. It is proposed to be replaced with a new utility easement along the existing lot line and, provided that the trail relocation is found acceptable, there is no issue with vacating the existing trail easement. She also said that staff is recommending a condition of approval that a new trail easement be dedicated simultaneously with/or before recording of the final plat. She would also recommend an additional condition that final vacation of the existing trail easement is not considered final until the new trail easement is recorded. Chair Morris stated there are no utilities in the existing utility easement and asked if the trail easement is being utilized in any manner. Ms. Peterson said the trail easement is being used. Chair Morris said that we would continue to use the existing trail easement until the new trail easement is dedicated as deeded. Chair Morris stated that the staff recommendation is to approve the vacation of the utility and trail easements subject to Condition No. 5 in the staff report as well as subject to a condition that the vacation not be made final until the new trail easement is given to the City. Mr. Gothberg said that the new trail easement being proposed cuts through a corner of the existing bank building. He said his question is if we vacate the current trail easement but the new trail easement is not usable during construction, would we have a period of time without a trail and should we add a condition that some sort of trail be maintained throughout construction. Ms. Peterson stated that the developer may be able to address this. 81 Mr. Gould said that the logistic problem is that we could bring a trail up on the north of the assisted living building up to what is currently the drive-in facility. He has received a call from Norwest and their schedule for relocating to Excelsior Boulevard has now been extended to the end of March of 2000. As soon as they are gone, the developer can demolish the drive up facility and all the lanes and finish the trail up to Park Center Boulevard. Chair Morris stated he is unaware of the condition of the existing trail, but he would suggest that if there is a timing problem, a temporary trail should be worked out. It appears that the construction will occur in an unseasonable time of the year so the trail use traffic may be limited. Mr. Gould stated that opportunity would exist along the current drive-up facility where there is a sidewalk in front of that. Mr. Gothberg moved that the Commission recommend approval of the vacation of the utility and trail easements subject to Condition No. 5 of the staff report and subject to a condition that the vacation not be made effective until the new trail easement is in place. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0 with Garelick, Gothberg, Morris, Timian and Velick voting in favor. ii. Case No. 99-12-ZA – Miscellaneous Zoning Ordinance Amendments Ms. Erickson presented the staff report: I. Definition of a Lot and what makes a lot buildable. Clarifies the definition of a lot, a buildable lot, substandard lot, parcel and condomimium lot. Comments: Chair Morris stated there is no definition for a townhome. Ms. Erickson said in our ordinance a townhome is the same as “cluster housing”, but she will bring a clarification of this back to the Commission. Mr. Garelick stated that the average consumer defines the term condominium as an apartment style unit all on one floor and looks at two story structures as townhouses regardless of the legal ownership. Ms. Erickson said that is correct and is exactly what is causing the confusion. II. Issues with size and number of garages. 82 Addition of language clarifying there is no specific limit to the number of accessory buildings which may be erected on a given lot. Comments: Mr. Gothberg stated if he has a rear yard of 3200 square feet, then he could have 800 square feet of accessory buildings which means he could have 10 8 x 10 sheds. He raises this as a joke but said someone just might want to do it. He asked if we should set some sort of limit on the number of accessory buildings. Chair Morris stated that, if realistically one is limited to 25% of the rear yard and want to put up 8 tool sheds and did not exceed the floor space, does it matter other than it looks bad. Ms. Erickson said accessory buildings are required to meet certain building code requirements and, although the code technically does not limit the number currently, this problem has not materialized. In answer to a question on follow-up of citizen complaints with the City, Ms. Erickson stated enforcement of the code is very difficult and time consuming. The City does respond to all complaints initially with a letter to the homeowner. The preference here is compliance with the code not enforcement, however the City will and has taken people to court to enforce the code. Ms. Erickson stated that if the Commission wishes they could propose a limit to the number of accessory structures. Chair Morris asked if it would be appropriate to not include the language and leave it unspecified. He asked staff if we are in a better situation if we make the language nonspecific or maybe it is a non issue. Ms. Erickson said that part of the problem with setting a limit is that what if you have a townhouse development with detached garages. Mr. Gothberg stated that having the comments noted would be sufficient. III. Lot width in Subdivision Ordinance Redefines lot area and configuration. – No comments IV. Definition of building. Changes the word “chattel” to “personal property”. – No Comments V. Usable Open Space. 83 Proposing to amend the language to address usable open space and park dedication. Also staff is proposing separating the Multiple Family Dwelling/Cluster Housing use into two separate uses and list different standards for each. Comments: A discussion followed on park dedication and usable open space and there appeared to be some confusion. Ms. Erickson stated staff will hold a general discussion on usable open space at a future meeting. Mr. Gothberg stated he is concerned with the wording where a developer may give space for public park space and not have any usable open space in the development. He said people should have some relatively private park space for open space for their use. Someone could eliminate almost all of the open space by eliminating a chunk of land to the side. Mr. Garelick asked if the way the wording is now, would it permit another development like Victoria Ponds. He feels the set up for this development is horrible. Ms. Erickson stated that modifications have been made to the subdivision ordinance so a project like Victoria Ponds could not occur. Changes include minimum setbacks from private roads, requirement for sidewalks and park dedication. Mr. Gothberg said a maximum percent should be used so all the usable open space cannot be eliminated when there is park land dedication. Chair Morris said he agrees that if all the park dedication takes away the usable open space and the park space becomes not easily accessible from the development, something is lost in the transaction. Ms. Erickson said the subdivision requirements state what the park should look like. She will add a maximum percentage to the Zoning Ordinance requirements. Chair Morris asked commissioners if they wish to delete this section from the recommendations this evening and revisit it when they have a discussion on usable open space. Commissioners concurred. Chair Morris said there is a recommendation from staff before the Commission for approval of zoning ordinance amendments items 1-4 in the staff report and the will of the Commission would be to delete item 5 from the recommended approval and defer for future discussion on usable open space between staff and the Commission. 84 Ms. Velick moved that item number 5 Usable Open Space be deleted and recommend approval of the ordinance amendments for items 1-4 of the staff report per staff recommendation. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0 with Garelick, Gothberg, Morris, Timian and Velick voting in favor. 6. Communications A. Recent City Council Action – July 6, 1999 B. Other: None 7. Miscellaneous Mr. Garelick said a few weeks ago there was a discussion on percentage of Class I materials for certain buildings and asked what happened to this. This was part of discussion for the amendments to the Mixed Use Ordinance. Chair Morris asked staff for a verbal outcome of this Mr. Gothberg asked what the issues are relative to “Live-Work” units from the Council perspective, whether it is a wording issue or Councilmembers are against live-work units. Ms. Petersen said it is her understanding that at least two Councilmembers may be opposed live-work units. She will ask staff to report any further clarification. Mr. Garelick asked if it would be feasible to have a joint informal meeting between the Council and Planning Commission. A discussion followed on training ideas and some suggestions are: study session with City Council, session with another Planning Commission; training session with a legal person to discuss rules, regulations and making of findings 8. Adjournment Chair Morris adjourned the meeting at 9:30 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Janice Loftus Administrative Secretary 85 Item # 9c* July 23, 1999 VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT AARCEE RENTAL EQUIPMENT 453.68 ADVANCED STATE SECURITY BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 439.20 AIRTOUCH CELLULAR TELEPHONE 531.27 ALL AMERICAN AGGREGATE & LANDS LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 300.60 ALMSTEAD'S SUPERVALU GENERAL SUPPLIES 212.31 AMERICAN FORESTS TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 355.00 AMERIPRIDE LINEN AND APPAREL S CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 161.70 ANCHOR PAPER CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 610.38 ANN'S TOOL SUPPLY EQUIPMENT PARTS 111.49 APACHE GROUP OF MINNESOTA OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 722.07 APPLIANCE RECYCLING CENTERS OF GENERAL SUPPLIES 20.00 ARAMARK UNIFORM CORPORATE ACCT GENERAL SUPPLIES 665.13 ASPLUND COFFEE COMPANY GENERAL SUPPLIES 96.00 BECKER ARENA PRODUCTS GENERAL SUPPLIES 27.58 BERTELSON OFFICE PRODUCTS OFFICE SUPPLIES 310.62 BITTMANN, DARYL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 215.00 BITUMINOUS ROADWAYS INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 7,614.62 BOBS PERSONAL COFFEE SERVICE GENERAL SUPPLIES 74.97 BORDER STATES ELECTRIC SUPPLY GENERAL SUPPLIES 5.46 BRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 325.40 BRO TEX INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 575.10 BROADWAY RENTAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT (1.66) CAPITOL COMMUNICATIONS RADIO COMMUNICATIONS 559.95 CITY OF LAKES CHORUS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 400.00 CLEMENT COMMUNICATIONS SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 154.70 COLICH & ASSOCIATES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 11,212.40 CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS GENERAL SUPPLIES (996.68) CRILEY, KATHI L MEETING EXPENSE 59.63 CROWN FENCE & WIRE CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 10.00 CSC CREDIT SERVICES INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 15.00 CUB FOODS SUBSISTENCE SUPPLIES 282.53 CULLIGAN BOTTLED WATER GENERAL SUPPLIES 90.26 CUMMINS NORTH CENTRAL INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 2,049.90 CURTIS 1000 INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 661.63 D'AMICO CATERING OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 4,226.42 DANKO EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 589.90 DAY-TIMERS INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 29.68 DIGITAL BIOMETRICS INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 485.00 DUNDEE NURSERY LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 11.66 DUNLOP SLAZENGER RECREATION DE GENERAL SUPPLIES 143.10 E & S ELECTRONICS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 35.00 E GROUP INC UNREALIZED REVENUE 136.99 EMERGENCY APPARATUS MTNCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 643.32 ENGINEERING REPRO SYSTEMS GENERAL SUPPLIES 119.93 ENVIRONMENTAL MEDIA CORP. GENERAL SUPPLIES 24.50 ERICKSONS SEWER SERVICE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 145.00 86 EVERGREEN LAND SERVICES CO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 759.24 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (15.67) FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP POSTAGE 99.25 FRENCH LAKE AUTO PARTS EQUIPMENT PARTS 106.50 FUN SERVICES OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,070.87 GALLAGHER & CO OF MN INC, A J WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE 0.00 GENERAL SAFETY EQUIPMENT CORP EQUIPMENT PARTS (14.07) GENERAL SPORTS CORP UNREALIZED REVENUE 774.65 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS 527.66 GLOCKNER, JEFF DAILY TICKETS 143.00 GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC RADIO COMMUNICATIONS 593.25 GRAINGER INC, W W GENERAL SUPPLIES 333.23 HABERMAN, JULIE UNREALIZED REVENUE 524.54 HATCH SALES CO EQUIPMENT PARTS 6,561.01 HEALTH SERVICES NORTH AMERICA PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 401.28 HEDBERG AGGREGATES LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 294.98 HENN CO INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY COMPUTER SERVICES 116.40 HENNEPIN CO ASSESSOR OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 100.00 HENNEPIN COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS D CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 7,713.82 HENNEPIN TECHNICAL COLLEGE TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 45.00 HEWLETT-PACKARD CO OFFICE FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT 959.03 HIGHVIEW PLUMBING INC LANDSCAPING SERVICE 1,995.00 HOME DEPOT/GECF LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 745.39 HOME HARDWARE GENERAL SUPPLIES 198.49 HYDRO SUPPLY COMPANY OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 842.20 ICI DULUX PAINT CENTERS OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 444.49 INACOM INFORMATION SYSTEMS COMPUTER SUPPLIES 80.38 J & F REDDY RENTS EQUIPMENT PARTS 74.55 JONES, MARK UNREALIZED REVENUE 1,014.33 JUSTUS LUMBER COMPANY OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 39.78 KAMPEN, STEVEN M INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 KNIGHT, D INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 KNOX LUMBER COMPANY GENERAL SUPPLIES (17.71) KRAEMER & SONS INC, EDWARD OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 1,191.44 KRIETZMAN, BRUCE INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 KRUGE-AIR INC. BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 89.00 KURZEKA, LOUISE UNREALIZED REVENUE 386.55 LINDEMANN, UDO INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 LUBRICATION TECHNOLOGIES INC LUBRICANTS/ADDITIVES 350.76 M/A ASSOCIATES INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 86.47 MACQUEEN EQUIP CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 67.01 MAIL BOXES ETC # 1236 GENERAL SUPPLIES 521.74 MASTERSON PERSONNEL INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,260.00 MENARDS LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 514.78 METROCALL GENERAL SUPPLIES 178.62 MIDWEST CHILDRENS RESOURCE CTR GENERAL SUPPLIES 20.00 MILLERBERND, DENNIS LICENSES/TAXES 68.22 MINN PUBLIC WORKS ASSOCIATION TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 70.00 MINNESOTA PLAYGROUND INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 6,110.18 87 MN DEPT OF PUBLIC SAFETY RADIO COMMUNICATIONS 510.00 MN DRIVER & VEHICLE SVCS EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT CHARGE (46.00) MN FIRE SVC CERTIFICATION BD. SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 10.00 MSCAD INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 12,743.60 MTI DISTRIBUTING CO OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 566.16 MUNICILITE EQUIPMENT PARTS 842.42 MYERS TIRE SUPPLY COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS 98.95 MYRON MANUFACTURING CORP MEETING EXPENSE 375.03 NEXTEL RADIO COMMUNICATIONS 87.00 NSP CO ELECTRIC SERVICE 57,937.14 OFFICE DEPOT GENERAL SUPPLIES 544.53 PAGE ELECTRICAL CONTRACTING IN EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 364.27 PALM BROTHERS GENERAL SUPPLIES 47.14 PALMS BAKERY MEETING EXPENSE 9.90 PARK NICOLLET MEDICAL CENTER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,305.80 PARTS PLUS EQUIPMENT PARTS 368.58 PASTOREK, BOB GENERAL SUPPLIES 299.98 PEPSI-COLA COMPANY CONCESSION SUPPLIES 547.36 PETERSEN, KARRIE INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 PIONEER RIM & WHEEL CO EQUIPMENT PARTS 330.40 POLIVANY, BRENT TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 325.00 PREMIER ALARM & SECURITY INC OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 238.56 PRIMO DELI & PIZZERIA MEETING EXPENSE 73.49 PRINTERS SERVICE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 28.30 PROEX PHOTO KNOLLWOOD 24001 GENERAL SUPPLIES 28.05 PROGRESSIVE CONSULTING ENGINEE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 238.00 QUANTERRA INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 10,650.00 RAINBOW FOODS GENERAL SUPPLIES 473.76 RAINBOW TREE CARE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 21,202.83 RC INDENTIFICATIONS GENERAL SUPPLIES 5.33 RENNIX CORPORATION OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 743.13 REYNOLDS WELDING SUPPLY CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 87.25 RHI MANAGEMENT RSOURCES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,981.25 RICHARD ALAN PRODUCTIONS UNREALIZED REV-SAFETY CAMP 525.00 ROBICHON'S UNREALIZED REV-SAFETY CAMP 350.00 ROTO-ROOTER CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 494.00 SAVIN CORPORATION EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 1,998.74 SCHARBER & SONS INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 15.92 SCHEDULESOFT CORPORATION EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 679.15 SCHWAAB INC MEETING EXPENSE 56.25 SENSIBLE LAND USE COALITION TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 40.00 SLP SCHOOL DISTRICT 283 OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 440.00 SPS COMPANIES INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 199.60 STREICHER'S EQUIPMENT PARTS 423.71 SUMMIT ENVIROSOLUTIONS INC. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 455.00 SUN NEWSPAPERS LEGAL NOTICES 79.95 SWEENEY BROS TRACTOR EQUIPMENT PARTS (1,324.78) TARGET STORES DIVISION GENERAL SUPPLIES 67.60 TARGET/DAYTONS GENERAL SUPPLIES 42.59 TENNANT EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 316.76 TOWN & COUNTRY FENCE INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 4,250.00 TRUGREEN-CHEMLAWN LANDSCAPING SERVICE 1,153.40 88 TWIN CITY OXYGEN CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 4.80 U S BENCH CORPORATION MERCHANDISE PURCH FOR RESALE 2,160.00 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED GENERAL SUPPLIES 3,518.78 VEIT & COMPANY CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 685.00 VIKING OFFICE PRODUCTS OFFICE SUPPLIES 90.88 VMAM TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 20.00 VOELKER, STACY M GENERAL SUPPLIES 150.02 WALDOR PUMP COMPANY EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 1,065.22 WATSON CO INC CONCESSION SUPPLIES 4,391.47 WEST PUBLISHING PAYMENT CTR SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 233.79 WEST WELD OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 160.65 WHEELER LUMBER OPERATIONS OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 761.75 WM H MC COY PETROLEUM FUELS GENERAL SUPPLIES 21.30 WOLF CAMERA INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 31.90 ZACKS INC SMALL TOOLS 228.76 ZIEGLER INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 182.33 ZIP PRINTING GENERAL SUPPLIES 223.12 ZIP SORT POSTAGE 28.44 210,704.69 July 30, 1999 VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT A & T UPHOLSTERY CO EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 95.00 AARCEE PARTY RENTAL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,785.66 ACI KITCHEN WINDOW GENERAL SUPPLIES 119.90 ALDERSGATE UNITED METHODIST CH UNREALIZED REVENUE 151.90 ALL FIRE TEST INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 27.00 ALLIANCE MECHANICAL SERVICES I BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 700.00 ALMSTEAD'S SUPERVALU CONCESSION SUPPLIES 10.81 ALTERNATIVES COMMUNICATIONS GR GENERAL SUPPLIES 177.01 AMEM TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 160.00 AMGLB UNREALIZED REVENUE 272.85 ANCHOR PAPER CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 454.44 APACHE GROUP OF MINNESOTA GENERAL SUPPLIES 388.46 ARAMARK UNIFORM CORPORATE ACCT GENERAL SUPPLIES 209.04 AUTOMATIC GARAGE DOOR CO BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 109.88 BACHMAN'S EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 107.57 BAKER, BETSY YOUTH RECREATION-tax exempt 14.00 BANIA JR, DON UNREALIZED REV-SAFETY CAMP 300.00 BANNERS TO GO UNREALIZED REVENUE 484.58 BECKER, CAROLE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 305.48 BITTMANN, DARYL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 200.00 BRAGER INC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 3,010.00 BROADWAY RENTAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT (1.66) BROWN TRAFFIC PRODUCTS INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 105.44 BURROWS, KELLI OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,115.60 CAMPBELL KNUTSON PROFESSIONAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 10,228.14 CHENEY SIGNS OFFICE SUPPLIES 37.88 COLLINS COMMUNICATIONS BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 461.30 COLLISYS ELECTRIC CO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 3,125.00 89 COLOR TILE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 466.70 COMMUNITY COVENANT CHURCH UNREALIZED REVENUE 234.15 CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS GENERAL SUPPLIES (996.68) CROWN TROPHY GENERAL SUPPLIES 65.02 DALCO CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY 786.11 DOLTON, FRED GENERAL SUPPLIES 300.00 DUNLEAVY, MARTIN INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 ECFE ADVISORY COUNCIL UNREALIZED REVENUE 192.70 ECOLAB BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 121.69 EHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 570.00 ELDSTROM, MICHELLE YOUTH RECREATION-tax exempt 11.00 ENGINEERING REPRO SYSTEMS GENERAL SUPPLIES 177.66 ERV'S LAWN MOWER REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTS 158.99 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (15.67) FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP POSTAGE 40.50 FIRMWARE SYSTEMS TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 2,287.50 FRANKENSTEIN CREATIONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 90.00 G & K SERVICES CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY 42.59 GALLAGHER & CO OF MN INC, A J WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE 0.00 GENERAL SAFETY EQUIPMENT CORP EQUIPMENT PARTS (14.07) GENERAL SPORTS CORP OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 843.24 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (320.85) GRAINGER INC, W W GENERAL SUPPLIES 322.72 GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 662.34 HARMON FULL SERVICE GROUP BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 318.87 HASLERUD, CARRIE GENERAL SUPPLIES 115.18 HIGHLAND, JAN DAILY TICKETS 55.00 HOISINGTON KOEGLER GROUP INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 490.06 HOME DEPOT/GECF BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 547.52 HONEYWELL INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 296.60 HPI INTERNATIONAL INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 139.00 ICI DULUX PAINT CENTERS BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 81.05 ICMA DISTRIBUTION CENTER GENERAL SUPPLIES 36.00 IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 732.38 INACOM INFORMATION SYSTEMS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 402.95 INST FOR FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 325.00 IOS CAPITAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT 516.53 J H LARSON COMPANY BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 100.13 JESSEN PRESS INC PRINTING & PUBLISHING 3,746.67 KAISER, CINDY MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 161.02 KILBY, PAT GENERAL SUPPLIES 64.94 KNOX LUMBER COMPANY GENERAL SUPPLIES (17.71) KONICA BUSINESS TECHNOLOGIES I RENTAL EQUIPMENT 39.41 KRAAYENBRINK, CHAD GENERAL SUPPLIES 100.00 KRONFELD, RICHARD INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 LOGIS COMPUTER SERVICES 28,010.90 MASTERSON PERSONNEL INC OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 858.00 MAUMA TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 50.00 MC DONELL, MARTHA MEETING EXPENSE 40.00 MENARDS GENERAL SUPPLIES 52.36 MERRICK, ADAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 28.75 90 METRO CASH REGISTER SYSTEMS GENERAL SUPPLIES 63.81 METRO SALES INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 360.46 METRO SYSTEMS NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 610.29 METROCALL TELEPHONE 15.57 MEYER, CHARLES TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 580.00 MIND SHARP TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 2,695.00 MINN DEPT LABOR & INDUSTRY LICENSES/TAXES 35.00 MINUTEMAN PRESS OFFICE SUPPLIES 35.32 MN DRIVER & VEHICLE SVCS EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT CHARGE (46.00) MN VALLEY YMCA DAILY TICKETS 203.50 MTI DISTRIBUTING CO EQUIPMENT PARTS 89.84 MUNICILITE EQUIPMENT PARTS 114.81 NATIONAL CAMERA EXCHANGE SMALL TOOLS 137.17 NORTHERN GENERAL SUPPLIES 140.49 NORTHERN WATER TREATING CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 107.80 NSP CO ELECTRIC SERVICE 496.76 OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE SUPPLIES 235.17 OLSON, JILL K MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 56.36 ON SITE SANITATION OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,348.22 OSBORNE, DEBRA YOUTH RECREATION-tax exempt 11.00 PALM BROTHERS CONCESSION SUPPLIES 113.60 PARKLYNN BUILDERS COMPANY OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 5,677.00 PERSPECTIVES INC UNREALIZED REVENUE 73.85 PRESTIGE LINCOLN MERCURY EQUIPMENT PARTS 261.13 PRINTERS SERVICE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 28.30 QUANTERRA INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,850.00 QUANTUM LABS INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 84.49 RAINBOW TREE CARE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 15,568.50 RAPOPORT, MICHELLE INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 RHI MANAGEMENT RSOURCES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,456.25 RICE, SHAWN GENERAL SUPPLIES 179.30 RICHARDS, BRIAN UNREALIZED REVENUE 200.00 RIDGEVIEW BUSINESS HEALTH OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 230.00 ROSS DWORSKY BUILDING 59.80 SAM'S CLUB CONCESSION SUPPLIES 641.81 SCHARBER & SONS INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 26.99 SLP NOONTIME ROTARY UNREALIZED REVENUE 74.55 SLP SCHOOL DISTRICT 283 UNREALIZED REVENUE 170.00 SMART TEMPTATIONS CONCESSION SUPPLIES 168.00 SPS COMPANIES INC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 128.18 SRF CONSULTING GROUP INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 5,078.62 ST JOSEPH'S EQUIPMENT INC MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT 8,871.45 ST LOUIS PARK COMMUNITY BAND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 100.00 ST PAUL PIONEER PRESS OTHER ADVERTISING 273.24 STROTH, NANCY MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 51.25 SUBURBAN PROPANE MOTOR FUELS 130.47 SUBURBAN TIRE CO TIRES 17.04 SUMMIT LEARNING GENERAL SUPPLIES 31.90 SUN NEWSPAPERS LEGAL NOTICES 123.50 SUTHERLUND PLUMBING & HEATING OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 5,220.00 SWEENEY BROS TRACTOR EQUIPMENT PARTS (1,324.78) TRUGREEN-CHEMLAWN OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 775.32 91 U S BANK OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 200.00 U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS INC TELEPHONE 3.60 U S WEST INTERPRISE TELEPHONE 1,142.91 UNION CONGREGATOINAL CHURCH UNREALIZED REVENUE 140.05 UNIVERSITY OF ST THOMAS TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 325.00 VAN WATERS & ROGERS INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 559.25 VIKING OFFICE PRODUCTS OFFICE SUPPLIES 140.53 VISUAL COMMUNICATIONS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 590.00 W & W GENERATOR REBUILDERS EQUIPMENT PARTS 296.07 WALSER FORD EQUIPMENT PARTS (53.06) WATSON CO INC CONCESSION SUPPLIES 3,666.50 WHEELER LUMBER OPERATIONS OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 1,080.18 WILLEY, GORDON INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 WILSONS NURSERY LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS 734.85 WM H MC COY PETROLEUM FUELS GENERAL SUPPLIES 17.46 ZEBEC OF NORTH AMERICA INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 400.00 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE GENERAL SUPPLIES 228.40 ZIEGLER INC OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 579.34 ZIP SORT POSTAGE 86.99 135,339.93 July 28, 1999 VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT AARCEE RENTAL EQUIPMENT 453.68 AETNA LIFE INSURANCE & ANNUITY DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 798.68 BITUMINOUS ROADWAYS INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 7,552.51 BOYER TRUCK PARTS EQUIPMENT PARTS 62.11 COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 203.00 FLANNERY CONSTRUCTION INC OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 219,749.75 I.U.O.E. LOCAL NO 49 DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 1,474.65 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-401 DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 245.98 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-457 DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 11,416.53 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 645.00 LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 1,749.00 MN CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENT CENTE DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 2,509.21 MN DEPT OF REVENUE MOTOR FUELS 124.84 ORCHARD TRUST COMPANY DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 4,954.00 PARK NATIONAL BANK DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 117,447.51 PERA DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 43,902.52 PERA FIREMEN'S RETIREMENT ASSO DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 2,777.11 PERA POLICE RETIREMENT ASSOC DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 6,188.44 SLP ASSOC OF FIREFIGHTERS-LOCA DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 1,005.04 SLP CREDIT UNION DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 28,494.36 USCM / MIDWEST DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 6,735.46 458,489.38 July 28, 1999 VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 92 GREAT WEST LIFE & ANNUITY INS DENTAL INSURANCE 1,889.67 1,889.67 July 28, 1999 VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT ALLINA MEDICAL GROUP WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE 106.03 APOLLO ENTERPRISES WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE 51.36 DOLTON, FRED INJURY PAY 735.00 EDINA FAMILY PHYSICIANS WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE 59.15 FIX, GARY INJURY PAY 181.34 FLORO DC, OLINDA WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE 420.00 MEUSER, RONDESTVEDT & B WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE 1,155.00 PARK NICOLLET MEDICAL CENTER WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE 57.22 PDR HOPKINS WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE 94.39 PDR MIDWAY WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE 1,980.00 SEDGEWICK MANAGED CARE WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE 9.50 VA MEDICAL CENTER WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE 10.00 WESTERN ORTHO SURG LTD WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE 1,390.63 6,249.62