The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1999/09/21 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Regular7:15 - Economic Development Authority AGENDA - CITY COUNCIL MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA September 21, 1999 7:30 p.m. 1. Call to order 2. Presentation a. Karen Elg Years of Service b. Evergreen Award 3. Roll Call 4. Approval of Minutes a. City Council meeting of September 7, 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 Action: By consent, waive reading of resolutions and ordinances 6. Public Hearing 2 6a. Parkwood Shores Assisted Living Project—Phase II This report considers a resolution adopting modifications to Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Park Center Boulevard Housing Tax Increment Financing District. Recommended Action: Motion to close public hearing. Motion to approve a resolution adopting the modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 and adopting the modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Park Center Boulevard Housing Tax Increment Financing District. 7. Petitions, Requests, Communications 7a. Browndale Neighborhood Association 1998/1999 grant proposal for a wood chip walking path around the pond in Browndale Park. Request: Motion to release grant funds so that the implementation of the revised project may begin. 8. Resolutions and Ordinances 8a. School District #283 request for funds from Cable TV franchise equipment grant. At five year intervals, the cable operator grants the City money specifically designated for purchasing equipment used to produce programs for local cable TV channels. Recommended Action: To approve the recommendation of the Citizens Cable TVAdvisory Commission to allot one-third of the franchise equipment grant to School District #283 to purchase production equipment for local cable channel 32. 8b. Rename Cable TV Commission to Telecommunications Commission To reflect changes in the industry and position the Commission for offering telecommunications advice to the City Council if requested. Recommended Action: Motion for Council Resolution to rename Citizens Cable Television Advisory Commission to Citizens Telecommunications Advisory Commission. 8c. Second Reading – Sale of 2712 Vernon Ave South 3 Second Reading for the City to sell a 40 foot lot located at 2712 Vernon Avenue South to Carpenter Homes and Construction, Inc. for $13,000. Recommended Action: Motion to waive the second reading, adopt ordinance, approve summary ordinance and authorize publication. 8d. CASE NO. 99-12-ZA - Miscellaneous Zoning Ordinance Amendments Zoning Ordinance Amendments for Sections 14:1-1,1-2,2-5, 3-1,4-1,4-3,4-4, 5-3,5- 4,5-5,5-6,5-7,6-1,6-5,6-6,6-7,8-2,8-3, and 8-4 of Zoning Ordinance Recommended Action: Motion to approve second reading, adopt Zoning Ordinance Amendments, adopt Subdivision Ordinance Amendments, approve summaries, and authorize publication of summary ordinances. 8e. Compensation of the Mayor and City Councilmembers and the Economic Development Authority President and Commissioners Amendments to Ordinance No. 1666-85 and Resolution 88-169 to increase the salaries of the Mayor from $7200 to $9200 and Councilmembers from $4800 to $6000 and to increase the annual salaries of the Economic Development Authority President from $3600 to $4800 and Commissioners from $2400 to $3600. Recommended Action: 1) Motion to waive the second reading, adopt the ordinance, and authorize publication. 2) Motion to adopt a resolution setting the annual salaries for the EDA President and Commissioners. 9. Reports from Officers, Boards, Committees *a. Planning Commission Minutes of September 1, 1999 Action: By consent, accept report for filing *b. Vendor Claims Action: By consent, accept report for filing 10. Unfinished Business 4 11. New Business 11a. Authorize use of funding for Rec Center The purpose of the report is to provide for the project funding and debt service for the Rec Center Renaissance project. Recommended Action: Motion to authorize City Manager to transfer $1,820,268 from the Public Improvement Revolving Fund to the Project Construction Fund for the Rec Center Renaissance project; to budget for an annual transfer in the amount of $160,000 from the Parks and Recreation Fund for the debt service for the Rec Center bonds; and to establish an appropriate reserve in the Matured Special Assessment Fund to fund the balance of debt service for the Rec Center bonds. 12. Miscellaneous 13. Claims, Appropriations, Contract Payments 14. Communications 15. Adjournment 5 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 6a Meeting of September 21, 1999 6a. Parkwood Shores Assisted Living Project—Phase II This report considers a resolution adopting modifications to Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Park Center Boulevard Housing Tax Increment Financing District. Recommended Action: Motion to close public hearing. Motion to approve a resolution adopting the modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 and adopting the modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Park Center Boulevard Housing Tax Increment Financing District. Background: Silvercrest Properties recently received land use approvals for the construction of a 46-unit, second phase assisted living building at 3633 Park Center Boulevard. Silvercrest Properties has also requested a modification to the Tax Increment Financing District as it relates to their second phase project. 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. On August 2, the City Council adopted a resolution calling for a public hearing to consider the proposal. Attached is a copy of the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the modified Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Park Center Boulevard Housing Tax Increment Financing District. The changes to this document are identified specifically and shown in bold print. The original first phase of the assisted living project was financed through a City/EDA interfund loan of approximately $413,000 of principal plus accrued interest. Approximately $87,000 was dedicated to the project as a local contribution up-front creating a total assistance package to the developer for $500,000. Due to changes in the property tax class rate structure, tax increments have been lower than expected and the developer has submitted deficiency payments to the City to assist in the repayment of the interfund loan. No tax increment assistance will be offered to the second phase of the assisted living project. Instead, it is proposed that the developer will make an up-front shortfall payment to the City in 1999. The shortfall payment plus tax increments received through 2004 or 2005 will repay the City interfund loan. The City may then dedicate tax increments collected from the project to 6 other eligible housing developments within Redevelopment Project No. 1 or decertify the Park Center TIF District. As a separate action, the existing Development Agreement with Silvercrest Properties will be brought to the EDA with proposed amendments to take into consideration this restructured financing approach. In summary, the proposed amendments will: • Enable the expansion of the Park Center Boulevard Tax Increment Financing District boundaries to encompass both phases of the project. • Remove property from the Excelsior Boulevard Tax Increment Financing District (the second phase land area) • Authorize the restructured approach providing assistance to the project. • Allow future tax increments to be available to further housing objectives in the project area including, for example, Park Commons, Louisiana Court, etc. Attachments: • Resolution • Amended Redevelopment Plan • Tax Increment Financing Plan Prepared by: Tom Harmening, Community Development Director Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 7 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK HENNEPIN COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 99-110 RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1: AND ADOPTING THE MODIFICATION TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE PARK CENTER BOULEVARD HOUSING TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the “Council”) of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota (the “City”), as follows: Section 1. Recitals. 1.01 The City Council and the Economic Development Authority for the City have heretofore adopted a Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 and adopted a Tax Increment Financing Plan for Park Center Boulevard Housing Tax Increment Financing District. 4.1 Due to changes in the project budgets and replatting of the property in Redevelopment Project No. 1 and Park Center Boulevard Housing Tax Increment Financing District, it has been proposed that the City modify the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 and modify the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Park Center Boulevard Housing Tax Increment Financing District, all pursuant to and in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.090 through 469.1081, inclusive, as amended, and Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 to 469.179, inclusive as amended (the “Act”). Generally the substantive changes to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Park Center Boulevard Housing Tax Increment Financing 8 District includes the modification of the boundaries of the tax increment financing district, the amount of bonded indebtedness, and the budget for the use of tax increment. 4.2 The Council has investigated the facts and has caused to be prepared the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the Modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Park Center Boulevard Housing Tax Increment Financing District (collectively the “Modifications”). 4.3 The City has performed all actions required by law to be performed prior to the adoption and approval of the proposed Modifications, including, but not limited to, notification of Hennepin County and School District No. 283 having taxing jurisdiction over the property to be included in Park Center Boulevard Housing Tax Increment Financing District, notice of the proposed modification of an existing housing district to the local county commissioner, a review of and written comment on the Modifications by the City Planning Commission, and the holding of a public hearing upon published notice as required by law. Section 2. Findings for the Approval of the Modifications 4.1 The City is not modifying the boundaries of Redevelopment Project No. 1. 4.2 2.02 The Council hereby reaffirms the original findings for Park Center Boulevard Housing Tax Increment Financing District as modified herein, namely that Park Center Boulevard Housing Tax Increment Financing District is in the public interest and is a “housing district” under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, subd. 11 and that the proposed development would not occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future, that the Modifications conform to the general plan for the development or redevelopment of the City as a whole, and that the Modifications will afford maximum opportunity consistent with the sound needs of the city as whole, for the development of Redevelopment Project No. 1 by private enterprise and therefore the use of tax increment financing is deemed necessary. 2.03 The reasons supporting these findings are that private investment will not finance these development activities due to prohibitive costs, and therefore it is necessary to finance these redevelopment activities through the use of tax increment financing so that other development by private enterprise will occur within Redevelopment Project No. 1; Park Center Boulevard Housing Tax Increment Financing District is properly zoned; the Modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan conforms to the City’s comprehensive plan for redevelopment and development; and the development activities are necessary so that development and redevelopment by private enterprise can occur within Redevelopment Project No. 1. Section 3. Public Purpose 4.1 The Council hereby finds that the Modifications conform in all respects to the requirements of the Act and are intended and, in the judgement of this Council, the effect of such actions will be, to provide an impetus for development thereby creating additional housing 9 opportunities, creating employment opportunities, enhancing the economic and tax base of the City and generally improving the quality of life of the City and hereby serves a public purpose. Section 4. Approval of the Modifications; Filing. 4.1 The Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the Modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Park Center Boulevard Housing Tax Increment Financing District are hereby approved, and shall be placed on file in the office of the Economic Development Coordinator. Approval of the Modifications does not constitute approval of any project or a Development Agreement with any developer. 4.2 The staff of the City are authorized to file the Modifications with the Commissioner of Revenue and the Hennepin County Auditor. 4.3 The staff of the City, the City’s advisors and legal counsel are authorized and directed to proceed with the implementation of the Modifications and for this purpose to negotiate, draft, prepare and present to this Council for its consideration all further plans, resolutions, documents and contracts necessary for this purpose. Adopted by the City Council September 21, 1999 Reviewed for Administration: City Manager Mayor Attest: Approved as to form and execution: City Clerk City Attorney 10 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 7a Meeting of September 21, 1999 7a. Browndale Neighborhood Association 1998/1999 grant proposal for a wood chip walking path around the pond in Browndale Park. Request: Motion to release grant funds so that the implementation of the revised project may begin. Dear Mayor Jacobs and City Council Members, The Browndale Neighborhood Association’s (BNA) 1999 NRC Grant Application included a request for funds for the development of a short walking path around part of the pond at the south end of Browndale Park. The Parks and Recreation Department issued a provisional Letter of Feasibility for the project dated March 23, 1999. The letter of feasibility was “contingent on the Browndale Neighborhood reaching agreement with the homeowners whose property abuts the proposed trail.” The final Grant Agreement dated May 11, 1999 stated that release of funds for the walking path was contingent upon meeting the provisions in the Letter of Feasibility. The BNA requests that the Council remove its condition so the walking path project, modified as described below, can be completed in the Fall of 1999. A meeting was held at Susan Lindgren School the evening of June 22, 1999. Martha McDonell, Community Outreach Coordinator, invited all of the neighbors on Browndale Ave, Dart Ave. and Glen Place whose property abuts the proposed trail. Present at the meeting from the City were Martha McDonell, Jim Vaughan, Chris Nelson and two police officers. Pat Swiderski, Andy Karl and David Erickson represented the BNA. A far-ranging, though civil, discussion ensued. Each present had ample opportunity to speak his or her mind. Many of the abutting neighbors’ concerns were with park maintenance and security issues not directly related to the proposed trail (dogs in the park, teenage drinking parties, tree maintenance, etc.). The three major trail-specific concerns were: wildlife impact, handicapped accessibility and crime. After the meeting the BNA asked City staff to address these issues. Wildlife impact – Pat Swiderski asked for Parks and Rec to assess the impact of the trail on resident wildlife. Please see the attached letter from Doug Langfels of Parks and Rec. In his opinion the trail will not have a detrimental impact on resident wildlife. Handicapped accessibility - Tom Scott, City Attorney, responded to our inquiries regarding accessibility. Please see the attached notes stating his opinion that the trail proposed for Browndale Park would not be required to meet ADA accessibility requirements. Crime - Pat Swiderski has discussed the proposed trail’s impact on crime in the park with members of the Police Department. The police have verbally responded that, in their opinion, to the extent that the trail would greatly increased legitimate use of the wooded south end of the park, that loitering, drinking, etc. will if anything decrease. 11 It is the opinion of the BNA Board that the three major concerns specific to the proposed trail have been addressed. The board requests the City Council to let this project proceed with the following changes: 1. The necessary excavation work will be done by hand by an available Sentenced-To–Serve (STS) work crew instead of by Parks and Rec heavy equipment. This method should be less likely to cause any unintended damage to wildlife habitat and plant life. It will also allow for the trail to taper down from a six-foot width in the “wild” undeveloped southern edge of the pond to a four-foot width on the manicured western edge of the pond that the properties of 4351, 4355 and 4359 Browndale Avenue abut. 2. The BNA will use a portion of the trail grant funds for signs at each end of the trail. The signs will remind trail users to respect the area’s wildlife and neighbors’ property. 3. The BNA will consider doing future landscaping on the western edge of the trail to more aggressively delineate the lines between park property and the private back yards of the property owners at 4351, 4355 and 4359 Browndale Avenue if, after the trail is constructed, those property owners want a more obvious border to enhance their privacy. The BNA Board still believes that the modified walking trail will be a highly desirable addition to our neighborhood park. The Board respectfully reminds the City Council that the entire trail as originally and now proposed will be on park property. A developed formal trail is necessary because many current park users are not aware that the entire pond is surrounded by park property. Part of the park property on the west side of the pond looks like parts of the abutting property owners’ back yards. For many years, one of those property owners even maintained his vegetable garden on the park property between his yard and the edge of the pond. The Board believes that the trail will welcome and allow all neighbors, not just those whose property directly borders the pond, greatly improved access to wildlife viewing and hiking. The BNA Board understands and sympathizes with the feelings of the abutting property owners. We want the trail to be an attractive community asset. We want the trail to be a good neighbor. To this end, as explained in our grant application, the BNA will schedule an annual spring clean-up day for the trail. The prospect of change often makes people uncomfortable and fearful, but public parks are amenities provided for the enjoyment of all people, not just the adjacent property owners. I would be happy to discuss this matter further at your convenience. My address is 4044 Utica Ave. S. (55416). My phone numbers are 924-0673(H) and 915-7451(W). Submitted by, David Erickson Andy Karl Pat Swiderski Browndale Neighborhood Association Attachments: Letter by Doug Langefels, Recreational Services Manager Notes from Carlton Moore, Public Works Department Notes from Tom Scott, City Attorney 12 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 8a Meeting of September 21 1999 8a. School District #283 request for funds from Cable TV franchise equipment grant. At five year intervals, the cable operator grants the City money specifically designated for purchasing equipment used to produce programs for local cable TV channels. Recommended Action: To approve the recommendation of the Citizens Cable TVAdvisory Commission to allot one-third of the franchise equipment grant to School District #283 to purchase production equipment for local cable channel 32. Background: As provided for in the current Cable TV franchise ordinance, the operator provides an equipment grant to the franchise grantor every five (5) years to acquire equipment in support of the local Public, Educational and Government (PEG) access entities. Paragon Cable submitted the $86,000 payment as required by January 1, 1999. The City is using two thirds ($57,333) of the grant for the audio and video equipment upgrades for the City Council Chambers. That project also includes additional monies from the City’s Cable TV Department budget of about $30,000. The School district has submitted proposals to the City for increases in regular annual funding with capital investments to replace current studio and editing equipment during the next several years. Current annual funding of $25,000 doesn’t cover the salary and benefits for one full time, full year technician. (Refer to attachment #1.) In 1998 in addition to annual funding, the Commission recommended and the City Council approved an $8,000 grant for School District #283 to purchase automated playback equipment to for cable channel 32. The result is a significant improvement, benefiting our city’s 12,000+ Cable TV subscribers. (Refer to attachment #2.) For 1999 in addition to annual funding, the Commission recommended and the City Council approved $7,500 for camcorders and accessories meant to benefit both School District #283 and non-public schools in the City. The School District would like to replace well-used editing and studio equipment at the High School in 2000, and a proportional share of the Cable TV franchise equipment grant (one-third) would allow that. At the May 13, 1999 meeting the Citizens Cable TV Advisory Commission recommended a one time payment to the District of one-third of the franchise equipment grant, 13 $28,667. However the Commission has not made a recommendation on the School District request for increased annual funding for the 1999-2000 school year. (Refer to attachment #3.) A recommendation is expected at the Commission’s next meeting, contingent upon the School District’s response to the Commission’s request for information. Recommendation Motion to approve immediate payment of one-third ($28,667) of the cable TV franchise equipment grant, for audio/video capital investment benefiting the Educational Access Cable TV Channel, with the School District to follow up with a report to the Commission of how the capital investment was allocated, and disposition of new and older equipment for use by non- public schools in our City. Submitted by: Reg Dunlap and John McHugh, TV Coordinators Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager Attachments: City Letter of August 13, 1999 to ISD #283 Superintendent Barbara Pulliam CATV Fund Revenues Chart Approved Minutes: Cable TV Advisory Commission meeting of May 13, 1999 14 August 13, 1999 Barbara Pulliam St. Louis Park School District #283 6425 West 33rd Street St. Louis Park, Minnesota 55426 Dear Barbara; This is an update on potential City grant funds, activities of the St. Louis Park Cable TV Commission and a request for information. The Commission approved recommending a full one-third share ($28,667) of the $86,000 franchise equipment grant at their May 13, 1999 meeting. I intended to bring this to the Council for action in June but postponed it because of other imminent commitments. I have requested Council action at a September meeting. The Cable TV Commission meeting for July had to be postponed to August 12, because of potential absences. At last night’s meeting the Commission reviewed Carolyn Charles’ letter of June 18, discussed the grant for 1999 and decided they would like more information before recommending an increase over the traditional $25,000. Carolyn’s letter addressed many of the Commission’s May 13 questions, but with a new employee starting at the busiest time of year, she said that many of the equipment related questions would be addressed by Charlie Fiss this summer. Among those questions:  Specifying new equipment recommendations  Developing a schedule of implementation for future equipment purchases  Working on classroom suggestions for the video production class  Developing program ideas for the next school year  Reviewing existing equipment and identifying any that may be made available for use by non-public schools. The Commission would appreciate a progress report from Charlie addressing these questions. If possible we’d like Charlie’s report by September 22 so the Commission can address the annual funding issue at their next meeting, which is going to be rescheduled to either September 30 or October 21. If you have any questions or concerns, please call me at 924-2660. Very truly yours, Reg Dunlap C: Carolyn Charles Charlie Fiss 15 Cable TV Fund Revenues Franchise Grants highlighted in gray CATV/Fran_fee Year School District allocation Total Franchise Fees Administration notes 1987 20,000 95,379 Negotiation of new franchise agreement with cable operator 1988 21,000 113,463 Finalize franchise proposal 1989 23,000 117,254 • First year of current franchise • I-Net Committee established 1990 27,000 135,736 March 1 rebuild (add ppv, more premium channels) 1990 15,000 60,000 Received franchise equipment grant 1991 25,000 158,212 MSC issue (contracted with cable attorney) 1992 25,000 170,211 School District technology referendum passes 1993 25,000 169,605 • 1992 Cable Act implemented • Contracted with cable attorney to assist in regulation of basic cable 1994 25,000 170,561 Transfer to Paragon Cable (contracted with cable attorney) 1994 (estimate)18,000 72,000 Received franchise equipment grant 1995 25,000 184,860 Transfer to Time Warner (contracted with cable attorney) 1996 25,000 213,706 • Upgrade to 550 MHz • Hired engineer to certify upgrade • Contracted with cable attorney for franchise amendment language review 1997 25,000 228,000 (estimate) Approved equipment grant to School District for auto playback system in 1998 1998 25,000 + 8,000 240,000 (estimate) • Paid auto playback equipment grant (approved in 1997) • Franchise amended re: survey 1999 25,000 + 7,500 248,000 (estimate) • Possible City survey/finish Council Chambers remodeling • Camcorder/tripod grant 1999 28,667 86,000 • 1/1/99 franchise equipment grant received from Paragon 16 APPROVED MINUTES ST. LOUIS PARK CABLE TV ADVISORY COMMISSION May 13, 1999 --7:00 P.M. ST. LOUIS PARK CITY HALL FIRST FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Bruce Browning, Dale Hartman, Ken Huiras, Mary Jean Overend, Rick Dworsky (arrived at 7:15 p.m.) & Robert Jacobson (arrived at 7:35 p.m.). MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Reg Dunlap, Civic TV Coordinator; John McHugh, Community TV Coordinator; and Shirley Olson, Recording Secretary 1. Call to Order - Roll Call Chair Huiras called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. 2. Roll Call: All current members of the Commission were present. 3. Approval of Minutes: It was moved by Bruce Browning, seconded by Mary Jean Overend, to approve the minutes of April 8, 1999 meeting of the Cable TV Advisory Commission as presented. Motion carried unanimously. 4. Adoption of Agenda: Chair Huiras asked that a review of the upcoming meeting schedule and work plan be added to the agenda under New Business. 5. Old Business A. School District funding for 2000 B. School District funding request from Franchise Equipment Grant The Commission discussed the School District presentation given by Carolyn Charles at the April 8, 1999 meeting and the District’s request for a funding increase. Chair Huiras stated that he had no problem with an increase. Mary Jean Overend was concerned about what the School District’s actual plans for video were and was interested in the findings of the School District’s Action Team who were going to examine the positions related to technology and develop a strategic plan. Bruce Browning was in favor of an increase, but was concerned about how important video really was to the School District. He felt that if the School District conceded that video was important, that they 17 should have a more detailed plan. He empathized with the School District’s equipment needs, but felt uncomfortable with any funding being used for a salaried position. Chair Huiras concurred. Bruce Browning asked if there was any other source of funding available to the School District. Reg Dunlap stated that he believed this grant would be the only source of capital equipment funding that the School District received and that they may be more focused on computers and fiber optics than expanding video. He explained the breakdown of revenues from the franchise equipment grant. Mary Jean Overend felt that she needed additional information about the plans of the School District relative to cable. She asked if the Commission could wait to make a decision until more information was received. She believed that it was important that students learn presentation skills. Reg Dunlap indicated that approval could be contingent on the School District answering a set of questions that the Commission adopted. He believed that the School District’s Action Team was planning to meet over the summer. Rick Dworsky believed the School District was appealing to help with salary differential of cable position and questioned how St. Louis Park measured up to other communities. John McHugh, Community TV Coordinator briefly described the School District operation of Hopkins. Reg Dunlap noted that Hopkins had staff and students who produced several innovative and high profile cable productions. Chair Huiras asked what the status was of the idea to match funding. Reg Dunlap stated that this idea was still just a concept. After a brief discussion, it was the consensus of the Commission to grant one third of the franchise equipment grant of $86,000 received from Paragon to the School District. Bruce Browning felt it was important to know how the School District funding was being used. Robert Jacobson believed that the School District had not exercised good judgment in the past as it related to use of funding. He was not sure of what the rules were for the use of franchise fees and believed that the School District needed more direction about how the funds were to be used. The Commission agreed that it was important to help set direction and standards for the School District. The Commission drafted the following list of questions to be submitted to the School District for a response. 1. What are the goals of your Action Plan? 2. What is your Mission Statement? 18 3. Do you have a schedule of implementation? 4. What role does the teacher on staff have in the program? 5. What is the expected replacement date for the capital equipment list? 6. How does cable fit in with your future plans for computer technology? 7. Who is responsible for equipment purchasing? 8. What is your future plans for high profile production or innovative programming? 9. How do you plan to staff after hours for programming on Channel 32? 10. Would the School District be willing to meet with the Commission to discuss future plans for video and cable? It was moved by Bruce Browning, seconded by Robert Jacobson, to grant a one time capital grant of one third of the franchise equipment grant of $86,000 received from Paragon and to request a written response to a list of questions about the School District’s future plans before considering a funding increase for 2000. Motion carried unanimously. C. Needs assessment background and discussion Arlen Mattern, Public Affairs Administrator of Paragon was present for this item. John McHugh presented an update on the current Paragon Cable franchise agreement. He emphasized that Paragon provided good cable service in St. Louis Park and so the City was in a good position when trying to assess community needs compared to other cities. He explained the possibility of approaching area Business Councils, community groups and public and private schools to solicit their telecommunication needs over the next 5-10 years. He noted that Paragon has a web site at their Portland operation, and that a possible customer service need in St. Louis Park would be allowing customers to contact the company through fax or email with a professional response time. He asked the Commission to exchange ideas and explained the need to form a Needs Assessment Subcommittee to work on developing a needs assessment survey. Mary Jean Overend believed that public awareness through education was important to make the public aware of upcoming changes in technology so they can determine personal needs. Robert Jacobson recommended communicating by e-mail to a target group. Rick Dworsky recommended using the Park Perspective, Sun Sailor and local cable programs to solicit information. Bruce Browning, Rick Dworsky, and Mary Jean Overend volunteered to serve on the Needs Assessment Subcommittee. John McHugh asked the subcommittee members to e-mail needs assessment ideas and recommendations to him. 6. New Business A. Review of upcoming meeting schedule and work plan. 19 The Commission reviewed the upcoming meeting schedule. It was noted that Rick Dworsky would be absent at the July 22, 1999 meeting. The Commission recommended that the response from the School District to the list of questions be discussed at the October meeting. 7. Reports A. Rename Commission TV Commission to Telecommunications Commission Reg Dunlap asked Commissioners to review draft of name change and send any concerns or questions to him. He noted that the name change was scheduled on a June agenda for the City Council. B. Cable Complaints The Commission reviewed and discussed the list of cable complaints. Reg Dunlap brought up the complaint that Paragon should do a better job of publicizing basic cable as an option (less than $10 per month for 22 channels). Arlen Mattern said that the company makes its real money from the standard package and additional services, so that is what they promote; however, in the annual price information sent to every customer, basic cable is always listed as available. 8. Communications from the Chair Chair Huiras asked if there was any progress on the development of a city web site. Reg Dunlap said that John McHugh and himself have been asked to help with further developing the City web site. Chair Huiras requested an update of the Cable TV Advisory Commission roster. 9. Communications from City Staff 10. Adjournment With no other business to come before the Commission, it was moved by Bruce Browning, seconded by Robert Jacobson to adjourn at 9:10 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Shirley Olson Recording Secretary ATTEST: Reg Dunlap Civic TV Coordinator City of St. Louis Park 20 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 8b Meeting of September 21, 1999 8b. Rename Cable TV Commission to Telecommunications Commission To reflect changes in the industry and position the Commission for offering telecommunications advice to the City Council if requested. Recommended Action: Motion for Council Resolution to rename Citizens Cable Television Advisory Commission to Citizens Telecommunications Advisory Commission. Background: The Citizens Cable Television Advisory Commission first discussed a name change early last year in response to name changes to commissions in other cities. An informational meeting was scheduled for September 22, 1998 to visit a telecommunications commission for a presentation on the effects of the name change. Mike Reardon, Executive Director of the Burnsville-Eagan Telecommunications Commission, hosted the meeting. The key points of Mr. Reardon’s presentation: • The change was literally in name only; duties were not formally changed at all. • Telecommunications duties that were performed by either city’s staff were not affected. Rather, Mr. Reardon met with each city’s department heads to identify the Telecommunications Commission as available to assist with appropriate issues, as identified by city staff. • The Commission was quite busy with issues related to the sale of the cable system, and as such did not begin any new telecommunications tasks. • The name change appears to widen the pool of possible volunteers from the computer and telecommunications fields. • The name change reflects the changing industry landscape. For years the industry has been evolving, with cable and telecommunications companies converging and positioning to compete in each other’s traditional businesses. After discussion on September 22, and January 28, the St. Louis Park Citizens Cable Television Advisory Commission voted unanimously on February 22 to recommend that the City Council change the name of the Commission to the “Citizens Telecommunications Advisory Commission” as a proactive step in a converging technological landscape for the reasons listed above. The consensus was that this prepares the Commission for new duties, if any, as assigned by the City Council, without expanding any specific duties. Acting Chair (vice chair) Ken Huiras spoke for 21 the motion, saying that this was expressly not to be perceived as involving the Commission in tasks now performed by Information Technologies or Public Works. Recommendation: Motion for Council Resolution to rename the Citizens Cable Television Advisory Commission to the Citizens Telecommunications Advisory Commission. Submitted by: Reg Dunlap and John McHugh Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager Attachments: Cable TV Advisory Commission Minutes: September 22, 1998 Cable TV Advisory Commission Minutes: February 28, 1999 22 APPROVED MINUTES ST. LOUIS PARK CABLE TV ADVISORY COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 22, 1998 − 5:55 P.M. BURNSVILLE CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Bruce Browning, Ken Huiras, Robert Jacobson, and Mary Jean Overend MEMBERS ABSENT: Anthony Raiber STAFF PRESENT: Reg Dunlap, Civic TV Coordinator; John McHugh, Community TV Coordinator; and Rebecca Belz, Recording Secretary 1. Call to Order: Vice Chair Huiras called the meeting to order at 5:55 p.m. 2. Roll Call: Chair Anthony Raiber was absent with cause. 3. Approval of Minutes of July 16, 1998: Bruce Browning moved, seconded by Robert Jacobson, to approve the minutes of the July 16, 1998 St. Louis Park Cable TV Advisory Commission as presented. The motion carried unanimously. 4. Adoption of Agenda: Vice Chair Huiras accepted the agenda as distributed, after Commissioner Jacobson reported that the material that he had been collecting on schools was incomplete and will be presented at a future meeting. 5. Old Business A. Background on Burnsville/Eagan name change from Cable TV Commission to Telecommunications Commission: Mr. Mike Reardon, Director of Burnsville/Eagan Telecommunications Commission gave an overhead presentation and discussion regarding background information on the Telecommunications field and his experience with changing from a Cable 23 Commission to a Telecommunications Commission. He gave background information regarding the rapid changes in technology in the last ten years, the 1996 Telecommunications Act and how he sees the role of commissions changing as well. He reported that the Burnsville/Eagan Commission changed its title January 1, 1997, and reviewed some of their experiences since the change. Based on the questions asked and the information given during the presentation, the Commission learned: * The Commission is an advisory body to two City Councils, but has direct authority from the Federal Communications Commission to regulate Basic cable rates. * The duties of the new Commission have not been clearly defined and will be clarified with the City Councils in the future. * The work load of two transfers of ownership of the cable tv system in the last few years has been a significant factor in delaying the clarification of new roles for the Commission. * The Commission acknowledges that various City departments have direct responsibilities for telecommunications issues, i.e., Engineering for tower siting, Planning for Comprehensive Planning, and Public Works for right- of-way management. * The Commission has found that they may or may not be consulted regarding telecommunication issues happening within the City. * Change within the Commission itself has resulted primarily with a wider group of interested parties with various areas of telecommunication expertise. Mr. Reardon’s presentation and discussion regarding his experience concluded at 7:15 p.m. at which time, the Commission thanked Mr. Reardon for his assistance and took a short break. B. Discuss Name Change to Telecommunications Commission: The Commission continued its discussion regarding the possibility of changing the name to Telecommunications Commission. Though responses were somewhat mixed, the general consensus was that a change in the name could stimulate growth for the Commission. Details in the process of a change were also discussed. The Commission requested staff to compile information that would need to be presented to City Council for a recommendation. Staff will have information ready at the 24 December meeting. It was also noted that several discussion items were planned for the December meeting and a decision regarding the name change may be limited or tabled until a subsequent meeting. 6. New Business: A. Annual Commission Report and 1998 Work Plan: Mr. Dunlap noted the draft included in the packet and asked the Commission for their input. Commission approved of the draft. 7. Reports: A. Franchise Report: Vice Chair Huiras noted the inclusion of the report and asked for any questions. No questions were noted. B. Cable Outage Report: Mr. Dunlap noted that the outage report had been included. He explained that he compiled the information from a report submitted by Paragon. The Commission briefly discussed the report and wondered how Paragon compiled this information. Mr. Dunlap suggested these questions be brought up at the December meeting when a representative from Paragon would be present. 8. Communications From the Chair: There was no report from the Chair due to his absence. 9. Communications From Staff: Mr. Dunlap reported that a letter had been sent to Barbara Pulliam September 14, 1998 regarding the questions the Commission asked relating to the money the School District had requested. These monies are from the annual grant request the district makes, and was discussed at previous meetings this summer. Mr. Dunlap will follow-up in a few weeks if no response is received. He further advised the Commission that the funds would most likely be voted on in December. Mr. Dunlap then reported that the local paper, the Sun-Sailor, had recently started printing the cable schedule again. The Commission noted that they had seen the printing and were pleased. 25 Mr. Dunlap referenced the complaint log and that few complaints had been received. Mr. Dunlap reported that the Emergency Alert System (EAS test) has not been working on one of the cable channels. This is being investigated and will be fixed. Mr. McHugh noted that he will be forwarding a new report to the Commission and added that he would like to forward it via e-mail to the Commissioners. He acknowledged that not all Commissioners had e-mail or access to a computer and explained that the City would be willing to loan the appropriate equipment to individuals. He further explained that the equipment would be loaned on the signature of the Commissioner with the understanding that the equipment would be returned once their term is complete and/or they resign. He explained that this would greatly enhance communication efforts between the Commissioners and enable all to receive information in a timely manner. He added that each Commissioner could selectively keep and delete pertinent information as they see fit. The consensus of the Commission was that this was a good idea and looked forward to the possibilities. 10. Adjournment: With no other business to come before the Commission, Bruce Browning moved, seconded by Robert Jacobson, to adjourn the meeting at 8:18 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Rebecca L. Belz Recording Secretary ATTEST: Reg Dunlap Civic TV Coordinator City of St. Louis Park 26 APPROVED MINUTES OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK CABLE TV ADVISORY COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18, 1999 − 7:00 P.M. ST. LOUIS PARK CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Bruce Browning, Ken Huiras, Robert Jacobson, and Mary Jean Overend MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Reg Dunlap, Civic TV Coordinator; John McHugh, Community TV Coordinator; and Rebecca Belz, Recording Secretary 1. Call to Order: Vice Chair Huiras called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. 2. Roll Call: All current members of the Commission were present. 3. Approval of Minutes: Vice Chair Huiras requested discussion and approval of the January 28, 1999 minutes. Changes requested were as follows: * The words “questioned who was responsible for repairs for non-public equipment and suggested” be removed from the last sentence on page one and replaced with the words “asked if it would be possible for.” * To correct the spelling of Vice Chair Ken Huiras’ name throughout the document. * Insert a period after the word “technology” in the second sentence under letter B on page two. Then to begin a new sentence with “This information supported the need for community flexibility and planning in the use of technology and therefore…” With changes noted, Bruce Browning moved, seconded by Robert Jacobson, to approve the minutes of the January 28, 1999 meeting of the Cable TV Advisory Commission as corrected. Motion carried unanimously. Vice Chair Huiras then asked for review and acceptance of the Notes of the December 8, 1998 and the September 22, 1998 meetings. 27 Bruce Browning moved, seconded by Robert Jacobson, to accept the Notes of the December 8, 1998 meeting of the Cable TV Advisory Commission as presented. Motion carried unanimously. Bruce Browning moved, seconded by Robert Jacobson to accept the Notes of the September 22, 1998 meeting of the Cable TV Advisory Commission as presented. Motion carried unanimously. 4. Adoption of Agenda: Vice Chair Huiras asked for any changes to the Agenda. It was requested to discuss the Y2K Report from Paragon under letter E. of New Business. It was also requested to discuss the e-mail information that is distributed by staff under Communications from City Staff. 5. Old Business: A. School District funding for 1999: Discussion began with Vice Chair Huiras inquiring whether the District’s funding request had been received in writing. Mr. McHugh reported that the District had originally made a request in April of 1998 for $5,100. Since the time of the request, the Commission had questions that have been adequately answered. Mr. Dunlap reviewed with the Commission the replies to their questions. He noted that the District provided a full inventory of the TV equipment, described their maintenance practices, and acknowledged the suggestion to plan a way to assist nonpublic schools with used video equipment. The Commission and staff agreed that $7,500 is a more adequate amount for the equipment the District desires to purchase. Bruce Browning moved, seconded by Robert Jacobson, to recommend that City Council approve the request for $7,500 for a special equipment grant to purchase camcorders and tripods provided the School District supplies an invoice for the purchase. Motion carried unanimously. There was also some discussion regarding the matching funds concept. Commissioner Jacobson expounded on his idea and explained that if the School District were interested in matching funds they would in turn be able to purchase more and/or better equipment, with the condition that it would be made available in some way to the community at large, and not used solely for teaching high school video production. B. Name Change: Commissioner Jacobson noted previous discussions regarding the pros and cons of the name change and that the intent of the Commission was to continue in an advisory capacity. The Commission continued by acknowledging its role has changed since its inception and believes it will continue to evolve through time. 28 Bruce Browning then moved, seconded by Mary Jean Overend, to recommend that the City Council change the name of the “Cable TV Advisory Commission” to the “Telecommunications Advisory Commission” as a proactive step in a converging technological landscape. Motion carried unanimously. C. Paragon Rates Update: Mr. Dunlap received the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) form 1240 from Paragon explaining their rate calculations for the standard package. He said it was difficult to understand and seemed incomplete, but that several articles in trade journals had confirmed Paragon’s account that programming costs had increased substantially. Mr. Dunlap suggested the Commission accept this explanation by Paragon and that no purpose would be served by filing a rate complaint with the FCC with rate regulation ending on March 31, 1999. He also said that one of the benefits of the Time Warner (Paragon’s parent company) Social Contract was that only one increase was allowed each year, while other communities may face a second increase after the rate regulation sunset. 6. New Business: A. Election of Officers: Commissioner Jacobson requested this be addressed at another meeting after additional recruitment has been completed. Hearing no objections, the Commission continued with the next item of business. B. 1999 Meeting Schedule: The Commission discussed the proposed dates for meetings in 1999 and decided on the following schedule: April 8, 1999 July 15, 1999 October 7, 1999 December 9, 1999 The meetings will begin at 7:00 p.m. and held at City Hall unless otherwise notified. C. 1999 Work Plan: The Commission also discussed the work plan in conjunction with the meeting schedule for 1999. In addition to the information Mr. Dunlap distributed regarding the plan, the Commission requested that a Y2K update be received from Paragon mid-year and that a futurist and/or various outside sources be consulted prior to completing the needs assessment. Mr. McHugh suggested sending Paragon a letter requesting the update prior to the July meeting to ensure a response by that time. This will be completed by staff. 29 Staff will also consult various sources regarding future technology and the potential impact of Y2K. D. Matched funding concept with the School District: This was discussed under the School District Funding for 1999. It was proposed that it be discussed with the appropriate school personnel at the April 8, 1999 meeting. E. Y2K Update from Paragon: This was discussed under the 1999 Work Plan segment. Staff will send a letter requesting an update for the July 15, 1999 meeting. 7. Reports: No report was given. 8. Communications from Chair: No report was given. 9. Communications from City Staff: A. E-mail and Technology Information Suggestion: Commissioner Overend suggested that the helpful information forwarded to Commissioners via e-mail by City Staff be submitted to the Park Perspective and/or the Sun Sailor for more widespread exposure. She indicated that the information was helpful and believed it would benefit others. Vice Chair Huiras questioned whether the City was pursuing re-developing its web page. Mr. Dunlap responded that appropriate City Staff are discussing it. Mr. Dunlap made note of the information distributed regarding the Bloomington City Council’s meeting concerning their cable franchise agreement. Key points include a 15 year franchise, and an upgrade to a 550 MHz cable tv system (like St. Louis Park’s) by April of 2000, that would be capable of advanced services (like telephone service or Internet access) when the company offers those services in about 18 to 24 months. He added that he had taped the meeting and it was available for Commissioners to review. 10. Adjournment: With no other business to come before the Commission, it was moved by Robert Jacobson, seconded by Bruce Browning, to adjourn at 8:34 p.m. 30 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 8c Meeting of September 21, 1999 8c. Second Reading - Sale of land at 2712 Vernon Ave S Second Reading for the City to sell a 40 foot lot located at 2712 Vernon Avenue South to Carpenter Homes and Construction, Inc. for $13,000. Recommended Action: Motion to waive the second reading, adopt ordinance, approve summary ordinance and authorize publication. Background: This ordinance was discussed and approved for first reading by the City Council on September 7, 1999. Their approval was subject to the following conditions that have been included in a revised (attached) ordinance. The conditions are: • Construction of an ‘architecturally compatible home’ (for the neighborhood), to be reviewed and approved by zoning administrator. • Removal of a damaged tree, by Carpenter Homes and Construction, located at the rear of the one lot (2708 Vernon Avenue S.), • Combination of the two 40 foot lots, known as 2708 and 2712 Vernon Avenue S. into one 80 foot lot. • Sale of the City lot, 2712 Vernon Avenue, is contingent upon ownership of 2708 Vernon Avenue S. by Carpenter Homes and Construction (simultaneous closing). Previous Report (Sept. 7, 1999) Staff would like to sell a vacant, nontaxable 40 ft. lot (R1 zoned) located at 2712 Vernon Avenue South. The lot is owned by the City and it would be authorized for sale on Tuesday, September 7, 1999 for $13,000 to Carpenter Homes and Construction, Inc. The City of St Louis Park acquired a 40 ft. x 121 ft lot located at 2712 Vernon Avenue South on December 30, 1988 from the Salvation Army. The cost of the lot was: $12,329.00 The lot had been deeded to the Salvation Army from Robert C. Nelson and Ardith A. Nelson on December 31, 1985. Originally Ester Marie Nelson owned both lots and her estate distributed one lot to her daughter, Phyllis A. Strand and one lot to her son, Robert C. Nelson. Title to these lots transferred to the heirs on November 15, 1967. In 1982 a Variance was denied to build a single family residence on the 40 foot lot located at 2712 Vernon Avenue South. The applicant for the Variance was James H. Cox who had purchased the lot from Mr. Nelson. City records since 1983 indicate that the grass on the City lot has been cut each year and that the lot at 2708 31 Vernon Avenue South has been maintained since 1993. It is estimated it costs the City $300 per year to maintain the lots (10 mowings per year). In order to determine a fair price to sell the City’s lot at 2712 Vernon Avenue South an appraisal was ordered and the combined value of the two lots was appraised at $25,000. The valuation was reduced $15,000 for leveling and grading the site. Carpenter Homes and Construction, Inc. has a signed Purchase Agreement with Phyllis A. Strand for $24,000. Another Purchase Agreement for $13,000 for the vacant lot located at 2712 Vernon Avenue South has been delivered to the City. The sale of the lot was approved at the September 1, 1999 Planning Commission hearing and residents within 350 feet of the City lot have been notified about the dates of the Planning Commission hearing and the City Council hearing. It is recommended that the City sell the lot located at 2712 Vernon Avenue South for $13,000 to Carpenter Homes and Construction, Inc. The transaction is recommended for the following reasons: 1.) The City will recoup most of the original purchase costs ( $12,329). 2.) The City will not have to maintain the lots. 3.) The combined lot will allow construction of a single family residence. 4.) A long-standing dispute with the City will be ended. Prepared by: Bruce Stepnick, City Assessor Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager Attachments: Ordinance 32 ORDINANCE NO. 2144-99 AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE SALE OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2712 VERNON AVENUE SOUTH, ST. LOUIS PARK, MN. TO CARPENTER HOMES AND CONSTRUCTION, INC. FOR A PRICE OF $13,000. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK ORDAINS: WHEREAS, Section 11.02 of the City Charter states that no real property of the City be sold or disposed of except by ordinance; and, WHEREAS, the City has acquired title to the real property located at 2712 Vernon Avenue and legally described as: Lot 4, Block 2, Birch Woods Addition. Pursuant to the Purchase Agreement from Carpenter Homes and Construction, Inc., 2712 Vernon Avenue South will be transferred to Carpenter Homes and Construction, Inc., contingent upon the following conditions: • Construction of an ‘architecturally compatible home’ (for the neighborhood), to be reviewed and approved by zoning administrator. • Removal of a damaged tree, by Carpenter Homes and Construction, located at the rear of the one lot (2708 Vernon Avenue S.), • Combination of the two 40 foot lots, known as 2708 and 2712 Vernon Avenue S. into one 80 foot lot. • Sale of the City lot, 2712 Vernon Avenue, is contingent upon ownership of 2708 Vernon Avenue S. by Carpenter Homes and Construction (simultaneous closing). WHEREAS, the terms of the proposed purchase and subsequent sale of the Subject Property are fair and reasonable; and, WHEREAS, maintaining ownership of the Subject Property would not serve the public interest: and, WHEREAS, the proposed sale of the Subject Property has no relation to the City’s Comprehensive Plan: NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park that: 1. The recitals set forth above are hereby incorporated into this Ordinance. 2. The City staff is hereby authorized to sell the vacant lot located at 2712 Vernon Avenue South to Carpenter Homes and Construction, Inc., for $13,000. 33 This ordinance shall be effective fifteen (15) days after publication. ADOPTED this 21st day of September 1999, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park. A Reviewed for Administration City Manager Mayor Attest:: Approved as to Form and Execution: City Clerk City Attorney 34 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 8d Meeting of September 21, 1999 8d. CASE NO. 99-12-ZA - Miscellaneous Zoning Ordinance Amendments Zoning Ordinance Amendments for Sections 14:1-1,1-2,2-5, 3-1,4-1,4-3,4-4, 5-3,5- 4,5-5,5-6,5-7,6-1,6-5,6-6,6-7,8-2,8-3, and 8-4 of Zoning Ordinance Recommended Action: Motion to approve second reading, adopt Zoning Ordinance Amendments, adopt Subdivision Ordinance Amendments, approve summaries, and authorize publication of summary ordinances. BACKGROUND: On September 7, 1999, the City Council approved first reading of several Zoning Ordinance amendments that were originally initiated by the Planning Commission on June 2, 1999. During the September 13 Study Session, the Council discussed the amendments again, particularly with regard to public hearing matters, and affirmed the language in the ordinance. The amendments are intended to address several unrelated issues including the following: • Provisions regulating accessory buildings in residential districts (this includes an added provision that limits accessory buildings to one story). • Conformance issues with the Comprehensive Plan. • Housekeeping amendments that correct various references and reincorporate a Zoning Ordinance inadvertently deleted during another amendment process. • Corrections to various position titles and changes in department responsibilities. • Provisions changing the location of public hearings for some City Council actions to the Planning Commission. • Provisions allowing the City Council to act as the Board of Zoning Appeals in some instances. • Deletions of some sections of the Zoning Ordinance where similar regulations occur in other sections of the Municipal Code. ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance Amending Zoning Ordinance Ordinance Amending Subdivision Ordinance Summary Ordinance Amending Zoning Ordinance Summary Ordinance Amending Subdivision Ordinance Prepared By: Judie Erickson, Planning Coordinator Approved By: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 35 ORDINANCE NO.______ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING BY AMENDING SECTIONS 14:1-1,1-2,2-5, 3-1,4-1,4-3,4-4, 5-3,5-4,5-5,5-6,5-7,6-1,6-5,6-6,6-7,8-2,8-3, and 8-4 THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN: Findings Sec. 1. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission (Case No. 99-12-ZA) Sec. 2. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Sections 14:1-1,1-2,2-5, 3-1,4-1,4-3,4-4, 5- 3,5-4,5-5,5-6,5-7,6-1,6-5,6-6,6-7,8-2,8-3, and 8-4 are hereby amended to read as follows: SECTION 14:2-5 E Measurement All measured distance expressed in feet shall be to the nearest tenth of a foot. The measurement of distances when required by this Ordinance shall be done in a straight line in the plane located at a point one foot above the highest point in the surface of the ground along the path of measurement, from the closest exterior wall (extended vertically if a cantilever) of a building containing the use to the property line of the adjacent street, district, or lot or other boundary line. If the use is not within a building, the measurement shall be the shortest distance from the location of the use to the property line of the adjacent street, district, or lot or other boundary line. SECTION 14:3-1. DEFINITIONS Abutting. Having a common border or boundary with, or being separated from such a common border by an alley. This term is used interchangeably with adjacent and adjoining. Adjacent. Having a common border or boundary with, or being separated from such a common border by an alley. This term is used interchangeably with abutting and adjoining. Adjoining. Having a common border or boundary with, or being separated from such a common border by an alley. This term is used interchangeably with abutting and adjacent. 36 Building. Any structure having a roof which may provide shelter or enclosure of persons, animals or personal property. Building Height. A distance to be measured vertically from the first floor main entrance elevation to the highest point of the structure. First floor shall be determined as defined by the State Building Code. The highest point may be located at the top of a wall, parapet, roof or other feature of the structure, whichever results in the greatest elevation difference from the first floor. Condominium. An estate of real property consisting of an undivided interest in common with other purchasers in a portion of a parcel of real property, together with a separate interest in space in a building. A condominium may include, in addition, a separate interest in other portions of such real property, such as garage space or in the case of cluster development, a townhouse or cluster development lot. Fence. Any artificially constructed barrier of any material or combination of materials erected to enclose, divide, or screen areas of land. Lot. A parcel of land created by an existing subdivision or described on a deed which has been recorded in the office of the Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles of Hennepin County Minnesota and which is occupied or used or intended for occupancy or use and has common ownership in its entirety. Lot, Buildable. A lot which meets the minimum lot width and area requirements of the use district in which it is located and which has frontage on a right-of-way for street or alley purposes. If the lot was subdivided as part of a cluster housing development, access to a public street may be by private street. Lot, Substandard. A lot or parcel of land that does not meet the definition of a buildable lot or does not meet the provisions of Section 14:4-1 of this Ordinance. Parcel. See Lot. Roof, Low-sloped: Roof slopes to a maximum of a 2:12 (two (2) units of vertical distance for each twelve (12) units of horizontal distance) pitch. Roof, High-sloped: Roof slopes exceeding a 2:12 pitch. SECTION 14:5-4.2.F DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS/DENSITIES (R1 Use District) 1. Except as provided in Section 14:4-8 of this Ordinance, the following height limitations shall apply: 37 a. Buildings with low sloped roofs and other structures shall not exceed 30 feet. b. Buildings with high sloped roofs shall not exceed 36 feet. c. Buildings shall not exceed 3 stories. d. Accessory building heights shall comply with provisions of Section 14:5- 4.1. SECTION 14:5-4.3.F DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS/DENSITIES (R2 Use District) 1. Except as provided in Section 14:4-8 of this Ordinance, the following height limitations shall apply: a. Buildings with low sloped roofs and other structures shall not exceed 30 feet. b. Buildings with high sloped roofs shall not exceed 36 feet. c. Buildings shall not exceed 3 stories. d. Accessory building heights shall comply with provisions of Section 14:5- 4.1. SECTION 14:5-4.4.F DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS/DENSITIES (R3 Use District) 2. Except as provided in Section 14:4-8 and Section 14:6-7 of this Ordinance, the following height limitations shall apply: a. Buildings with low sloped roofs and other structures shall not exceed 35 feet. b. Buildings with high sloped roofs shall not exceed 42 feet. c. Buildings shall not exceed 3 stories. d. Accessory building shall comply with provisions of Section 14:5-4.1. SECTION 14:5-4.5.G. DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS/DENSITIES (R4 Use District) 3. Except as provided in Section 14:4-8 and Section 14:6-7 of this Ordinance, the following height limitations shall apply: a. Buildings with low sloped roofs and other structures shall not exceed 40 feet. b. Buildings with high sloped roofs shall not exceed 50 feet. c. Buildings shall not exceed 3 stories. d. Accessory building heights shall comply with provisions of Section 14:5- 4.1. SECTION 14:5-5.2.F DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS/DENSITIES (C1 Use District) 4. Except as provided in Section 14:4-8 and Section 14:6-7 of this Ordinance, the following height limitations shall apply: 38 a. Buildings with low sloped roofs and other structures shall not exceed 35 feet. b. Buildings with high sloped roofs shall not exceed 42 feet. c. Buildings shall not exceed 3 stories. SECTION 14:5-4.1.C General Provisions (Residential performance standards) 7. Accessory structures shall comply with all of the following regulations: a. No accessory building shall be erected or located within a yard other than the rear yard, except that a detached accessory building, designed and used as a garage, may be located within a side yard unless it abuts a street. No accessory building shall be located between the front building wall and the front lot line. No accessory building except a garage shall be located between the rear building wall of the principal building and the front lot line. b. No accessory building erected in the rear yard of a corner lot shall be located within 15 feet of any property line abutting a street except that in an “R-2” or “R-3” district an accessory building may be located within 9 feet of a property line abutting a street on a lot of record which is at least 40 but less than 60 feet wide. c. All detached garages and other accessory structures shall be compatible in design and materials to the principal structure on the parcel. d. The minimum setback from all property lines for accessory buildings located within 60 feet of a front lot line shall be three (3) feet. The minimum setback from all property lines for accessory buildings located more than 60 feet from the front property line shall be two (2) feet. No accessory building wall which exceeds 26 feet in length may be located closer than 5 feet from any lot line except a lot line abutting an alley. e. There is no specific limit to the number of detached garages or other accessory structures that may be erected on a given lot. However, the total ground floor area of all accessory buildings shall not exceed 25 percent (25%) of the area between the rear building wall of the principal structure and rear lot line. Additionally, in the “R-1”, “R-2”, or “R-3” districts, the total ground floor area of all accessory buildings shall not exceed eight hundred (800) square feet, except for two-family dwelling units in the “R- 3” district, where the total ground floor area of all accessory buildings shall not exceed either one thousand two hundred (1,200) square feet. No single accessory building may exceed eight hundred (800) square feet of ground floor area. 39 f. The height of an accessory building measured in accordance with Section 14:3-1, shall not exceed twelve (12) feet for a low-sloped roof and sixteen (16) feet for a high-sloped roof, except: i. parking ramps whose height is regulated by Section 14:5-4.5 and 14:5-4.6. g. An accessory building shall not exceed one (1) story. SECTION 14:5-4.2E ACCESSORY USES (R-1 Use District) 1. Private garages. SECTION 14:5-4.3.E ACCESSORY USES (R-2 Use District) 1. Private garages. SECTION 14:5-4.4.E ACCESSORY USES (R-3 Use District) 1. Private garages. SECTION 14:5-4.5.F ACCESSORY USES (R-4 Use District) 1. Private garages and parking spaces. SECTION 14:4-3 A. The following shall not be encroachments on yard requirements. 1. Yard lights and the nameplate signs for one and two family dwellings in the R-1, R-2, and R-3 Districts. 2. Floodlights or other sources of light illuminating authorized illuminated signs, or illuminating parking areas, loading areas, or yards for safety and security purposes if these meet the regulations of Section 14:6-3. 3. Flag poles, bird baths, and other ornamental features detached from the principal building which are a minimum of four (4) feet from any lot line. 4. Railroad feeder tracks which provide access to buildings and structures in the “C-1”, “C-2”, “O”, “I-P”, and “I-G” Use Districts. No loading or unloading may be done from railroad cars on any feeder track in any front yard. 5. Canopies no more than 12 feet wide are permitted in the “R-4”, “R-C”, “C-1”, “C-2”, “O”, “I-P”, and “I-G” Use Districts if they are open at the 40 sides, comply with provisions of Section 14:4-6 and provide 14 feet of clearance if located over any access roadway or fire lane. 6. Enclosed pedestrian walkways. The walkways must meet the following standards: The walls of the walkway shall conform with the class I exterior materials requirements of the Zoning Code. Said walkways may be no more than 16’ wide and 12’ in height from floor to ceiling. A clearance of 16’6” is required if the walkway is above a traveled roadway. The properties connected by the walkways must submit documents which indicate their agreement to build, the arrangement for maintenance of the walkway, and under what conditions the walkways might be removed. The location of any pedestrian walkway shall be approved by the Director of Public Works and Community Development Director. Approval shall not be granted for any walkway that does not provide a satisfactory means to access any utility or public trail lying under or adjacent to the walkway. B. The following shall not be encroachments on yard requirements for principal buildings. 1. Bays not exceeding a depth of two (2) feet or to contain an area of more than twenty (20) square feet. 2. Chimney, flues, belt courses, leaders, sills, pilasters, lintels, ornamental features, cornices, eaves, and gutters; provided they do not extend more than three (3) feet into a required yard; and provided such encroachment is no closer than four (4) feet from all lot lines. Building overhangs shall also comply with the Minnesota State Building Code. 3. Terraces and steps which do not extend more than two and one-half (2 1/2) feet above the height of the ground floor level of the principal building, awnings, and door hoods provided they are a minimum of two (2) feet from any lot line. 4. Uncovered porches, stoops or decks which do not extend above the height of the grounds floor level of the principal building and are a minimum of two (2) feet from any side or rear lot line and 15 feet from any front lot line. 5. Open covered porches that do not contain either windows or screens and are a minimum of 5 feet from any interior side lot line, 9 feet from any side yard line abutting a street, 25 feet from any rear lot line and 20 feet from any front lot line. Porches shall be open between the floor and the ceiling. All railings shall be open utilizing posts and spindles. 41 C. The following shall not be encroachments on rear and side yard requirements for accessory buildings. 1. Cornices, eaves, and gutters; provided they do not extend more than eight (8) inches into a required yard; and provided such encroachment is no closer than sixteen (16) inches from all lot lines. Building overhangs shall also comply with the Minnesota State Building Code. SECTION 14:4-4 - FENCES A. Fence Location 1. All fences shall be located entirely upon the private property of the party requiring or requesting the construction of the fence. It shall be the responsibility of the party installing the fence to ensure that it is constructed on private property. 2. No fence shall be constructed or permitted on any public property, right- of-way or easement without the express authorization from the public agency having jurisdiction over the property or right-of-way. B. Prohibited Fences 1. Electrical Fences 2. Barbed Wire Fences, unless permitted by an exception. 3. Any fence, wall, hedge, or other visual obstruction of any kind which is not in compliance with Section 14:4-6 C. Height – Height shall be measured from the ground level to the top of the fence or wall section. In the case where a fence has variable heights or where ground slopes, the height of the fence shall be the average height, but in no case, shall the height of any one point exceed six (6) inches above the maximum allowed by this section. Fence posts may exceed eight (8) inches above the maximum allowed by this section. 1. A fence or wall shall not exceed six (6) feet in height if it is located in the any side or rear yard. 2. A fence, wall or hedge shall not exceed three and one-half (3 ½) feet in height if located in a front yard. D. Exceptions 42 1. A fence or wall shall not exceed eight (8) feet in height if placed in any side or rear yard which abuts Interstate 394, State Highway 100, State Highway 7, State Highway 169, or their adjacent frontage road. 2. A fence or wall shall not exceed eight (8) feet in height if placed in any side or rear yard in an “R” Use District which abuts property in the “C”, “O”, or “I” Use Districts, or abuts a railroad right-of-way, school, church, or other public building. 3. A fence or wall shall not exceed eight (8) feet in height if placed in any side or rear yard when it is required as part of a bufferyard. 4. A fence or wall in one front yard of any through lot may be at the height permitted in a rear yard if it complies with all of the provisions of Section 14:4-6, is used as a rear yard, and the fenced yard used as the rear yard does not adjoin a yard used as a front yard. 5. Barbed wire may be used by certain industrial and public service users for health and safety purposes. However, the barbed wire cannot be used at a height lower than six (6) feet six (6) inches, and the overall height of the fence including the barbed wire cannot exceed eight (8) feet. E. Construction & Maintenance 1. Every fence shall be constructed so the finished side of the fence is facing towards the neighboring properties exposing the structural side to the party requiring or requesting the fence. Alternating board fences which are finished on both sides shall be considered as complying with this section of the ordinance. 2. Both sides of the fence shall be maintained in a condition of good repair. 3. Any fence that is potentially dangerous to the public safety or health by reason of construction or sharp projections or protrusions shall be removed or repaired. 4. Any fence over six (6) feet in height shall be constructed of a non-metallic material and shall be 90 percent opaque, unless the fence is used for security purposes in the “I” Use Districts. 5. Any fence or wall constructed over six (6) feet in height shall be considered a structure, require a building permit, and meet all Uniform Building Code requirements for a structure. SECTION 14:1-1.2 FINDINGS AND PURPOSE (Of the Zoning Ordinance) 43 G. Require that development proceed according to the principles, goals, objectives, implementation strategies, and land use designations established in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. SECTION 14:6-5.2 GENERAL CONDITIONS No Conditional Use Permit shall be issued unless the following findings are made: 1. It is consistent with and supportive of principles, goals, objectives, land use designations, redevelopment plans, neighborhood objectives, and implementation strategies of the Comprehensive Plan. 2. It is not detrimental to the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community as a whole. 3. It is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance and the zoning district in which the Conditional Use is located. 4. It will not have undue adverse impacts on governmental facilities, services, or improvements which are either existing or proposed. 5. It will not have undue adverse impacts on the use and enjoyment of properties in close proximity to the conditional use. 6. It is subject to the design and other requirements of site and landscape plans prepared by or under the direction of a professional landscape architect or civil engineer registered in the State of Minnesota and adopted as part of the conditions imposed on the use by the City Council. These plans shall be presented to the Community Development Director with the application for the conditional Use Permit. The Community Development Director shall prepare a report for the City Council reviewing the adequacy and feasibility of such plans. 7. It is subject to drainage and utility plans prescribing locations for City water, City sewer, fire hydrants, manholes, power, telephone, and cable lines, natural gas mains, and other service facilities prepared by a professional civil engineer registered in the State of Minnesota and adopted as part of the conditions imposed on the use by the City Council. These plans shall be presented to the Director of Public Works with the application for the Conditional Use Permit. The director of Public Works shall prepare a report for the City council reviewing the adequacy and feasibility of such plans. 8. It is subject to the imposition of additional conditions as part of the conditional use permit when, in the opinion of the City Council, such additional conditions are necessary to protect the general welfare, public safety and neighborhood character. Such additional conditions may be imposed in those situations where the other dimensional standards, performance standards, conditions or requirements in this Ordinance are insufficient to achieve the objectives contained in Section 14:1-1.2 of this Ordinance. In these circumstances, the City council may impose restrictions and conditions on the conditional sue permit which are more stringent than those set forth in this Ordinance and which are consistent with the general conditions above. SECTION 14:5-3.2(D)(29) - SHOPPING CENTER LAND USE DEFINITION 44 SHOPPING CENTER - A group of commercial uses planned, developed and/or managed as a unit which has common parking facilities. Shopping centers may include more than one building and more than one contiguous property. SECTION 14:6-1.2(B)(8)(A) - LOCATION OF PARKING FACILITIES A religious institution where parking is regulated by Sub-Section 14:6-1. A.21. Section 14:6-1.2.C 12 - Design and Maintenance of Off-Street Parking Areas. 12. Yards. a. Parking areas shall be subject to the requirements of front yards and side yards abutting a street in all “R” Use Districts, except that in the “R-1”, “R-2”, and “R-3” Use Districts, parking for a detached single family or two family house shall be permitted in the front yard under the following conditions: i. There is no other location on the lot where parking is possible, and the front yard offers the only space where the required parking can be located. ii. Total parking and driveway area does not occupy more than 30% of the front yard and the average width of the driveway does not exceed 22 feet. b. Parking areas in the “C-1”, “C-2”, “O”, “I-P” and “I-G” Use Districts shall be permitted in the front yard and side yards abutting a street provided that all of the following requirements are met, but in no case shall the yard be reduced to less than six (6) feet. i. All of the bufferyard requirements of this Ordinance are met. ii. A solid bumper, curb, or fence not more than three and one half (3 1/2) feet in height shall be constructed in such a position and such a manner that no part of a parked vehicle can extend into the bufferyard. SECTION 14:6-1.3(A) - PARKING FOR MOTOR FUEL STATION 32. Motor Fuel Station. Eight (8) parking spaces. A maximum of 25% of the required parking may be at the pump island. If a motor fuel station contains convenience grocery, food service, or motor vehicle service and repair, the standards for each shall be applied in addition to the requirement stated above.” 45 SECTION 14:6-4.11 - NON-CONFORMING BUFFERYARD A. Any land use on any property which contains a non-conforming bufferyard shall not be expanded or intensified unless the property is brought into compliance with the standards contained in Section 14:7-4.G. However, all non-conforming bufferyards must comply with Section 14:7-4.G by October 31, 1997. In addition to other penalties provided by law, the City may withhold a Certificate of Occupancy for any property not in compliance with Section 14:7-4.G. Section 14:6-1.2.C.13 13. Parking Space Abutting “R” Use Districts: When a parking lot for between six (6) and thirty (30) vehicles is located on a parcel which abuts an “R” Use District or residential developed property, a Bufferyard “C” shall be installed between that portion of the parking lot visible from the abutting property and the abutting residential property. When a parking lot for more than thirty (30) spaces is located on a parcel which abuts an “R” Use District or residentially developed property, a Bufferyard “D” shall be installed between that portion of the parking lot visible from the abutting property and the abutting residential parcel. Section 14:5-7.2.C.2.b Outdoor storage areas visible from any residential property or public street shall be screened with a Bufferyard “C”. Section 14:5-7.2.F.5.a Storage shall be enclosed by a solid wall or fence not less than six (6) feet high. This wall or fence shall be screened from view of all public streets which abut the lot containing the outdoor storage with a Bufferyard “D” and from any property in an “R” or “C” Use District with a Bufferyard “F”. SECTION 14:5-7.3 C.2.b Outdoor storage areas visible from any residential property or public street shall be screened with a Bufferyard “C”. SECTION 14:5-5.2.C.13 IN-VEHICLE SALES OR SERVICE a. Drive through facilities and stacking areas shall not be within 100 feet of any lot in an “R” Use District unless the entire facility and stacking areas are separated from the lot in an “R” Use District by a building wall. b. A Bufferyard “D” shall be provided along the lot line between drive through facilities and stacking areas and adjacent streets and properties. 46 SECTION 14:5-5.3.C.13 IN-VEHICLE SALES OR SERVICE a. Drive through facilities and stacking areas shall not be located within 100 feet of any lot in an “R” Use District unless the entire facility and stacking areas are separated from the lot in an “R” Use District by a building wall. b. A Bufferyard “D” shall be provided along the lot line between drive through facilities and stacking areas and adjacent streets and properties. SECTION 14:5-6.2.C.13 IN-VEHICLE SALES OR SERVICE a. Drive through facilities and stacking areas shall not be located within 100 feet of any lot in an “R” Use District unless the entire facility and stacking areas are separated from the lot in an “R” Use District by a building wall. b. A Bufferyard “D” shall be provided along the lot line between drive through facilities and stacking areas and adjacent streets and properties. SECTION 14:5-5.3.E.1 SHOPPING CENTERS c. New in-vehicle sales or service shall only be permitted when it can be demonstrated that their operation will not have a significant adverse effect on the internal circulation of the PUD and the level of service of nearby street and intersections and must comply with the following conditions: i. Drive through facilities and stacking areas shall not be located within 100 feet of any lot in an “R” Use District unless the entire facility and stacking areas are separated from the lot in an “R” Use District by a building wall. ii. A Bufferyard “D” shall be provided along the lot line between drive through facilities and stacking areas and adjacent streets and properties. SECTION 14:5-6.2.C.12 IN-VEHICLE SALES OR SERVICE a. Drive through facilities and stacking areas shall not be located within 100 feet of any lot in an “R” Use b. A Bufferyard “D” shall be provided along the lot unless the entire facility and stacking areas are separated from the lot in an “R” Use District by a building wall line between drive through facilities and stacking areas and adjacent streets and properties. SECTION 14:6-1.3 A REQUIRED PARKING RESIDENTIAL USES 47 2. Cluster Housing. Two (2) parking spaces per dwelling unit. 10% of the required parking or (4) spaces, whichever is greater, shall be available for guest parking. Available on-street parking within 300 feet of the lot accommodating the use may be used to accommodate guest parking. 3. Multiple Dwelling. Two (2) parking spaces per dwelling unit. 10% of the required parking or (4) spaces, whichever is greater, shall be available for guest parking. Available on-street parking within 300 feet of the lot accommodating the use may be used to accommodate guest parking. SECTION 14:5-5.3.D USES PERMITTED BY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 7. MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLING AND CLUSTER HOUSING d. The housing represents a maximum of 30% of the ground floor area of total development. 100% of the floor area above the ground floor may be developed as housing. SECTION 14:4-1 LOT PROVISIONS B. Lots of record - buildable 1. A lot of record existing upon the effective date of this Ordinance in the “R-1”, “R-2”, “R-3”, or “R-4” use District, which does not meet either the area or the width requirements of this Ordinance may be utilized for single family detached dwelling purposes if the dimensions of its area and width are at least sixty-six and two-thirds per cent (66 2/3%) of the requirements of this Ordinance. This provision does not include cluster or townhouse lots. 2. Any single family detached dwelling which exists on the effective date of this Ordinance on any substandard lot located within the “R-1”, “R-2”, “R- 3”, or “R-4” Use District which is later destroyed by fire or other natural disaster or otherwise removed may be rebuilt if a building permit for reconstruction is issued within 365 days of its destruction and if it otherwise is in conformance with the provisions of this Ordinance. 3. Any substandard lot which is in common ownership with an abutting lot on or after the effective date of this Ordinance may not be developed and no building permit shall be issued for such development unless the two lots are combined to increase the substandard dimensions of the lot to meet the area and width requirements of this Ordinance. Under these 48 circumstances only one single family dwelling may be built on the two lots. SECTION 14:5-4.5 D USES PERMITTED BY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (R-4) 1. MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLING Conditions: a. Access shall be to a roadway identified in the Comprehensive plan as a collector or arterial or shall be otherwise located so that access can be provided without generating significant traffic on local residential streets. b. Building lots shall contain a minimum of 400 square feet of usable open space per dwelling unit and no more than one half (1/2) can be located in the front yard. New developments which are required or elect to dedicate land or cash in lieu of land for parks, trails and open space in accordance with the provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance may reduce this requirement on a one for one basis to a minimum of 200 square feet per dwelling unit. c. The minimum spacing between buildings shall be the average heights of the building d. All buildings shall be located a minimum of 15 feet from the back of the curb line of internal private roadways or parking lots. e. If parking is accommodated on the required public or private road system, it must meet minimum public street width requirements of the subdivision ordinance to allow on-street parking. f. Sidewalks with a minimum width of 5 feet shall be provided along all sides of the lot that abut a public streets. Sidewalks shall also be provided between the public street and parking areas to all building entrances. 2. CLUSTER HOUSING Conditions: a. Building lots shall contain a minimum of 400 square feet of usable open space per dwelling unit and no more than one half (1/2) can be located in the front yard. New developments which are required or elect to dedicate land or cash in lieu of land for parks, trails and open space in accordance with the provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance may reduce this requirement on a one for one basis to a minimum of 200 square feet per dwelling unit. 49 b. The minimum spacing between buildings shall be the average heights of the building c. Side and rear yards may be reduced to zero feet where dwellings are designed to share common walls. d. Attached garages shall be located a minimum of 18 feet from the edge of a sidewalk closest to it or from the back of the curb line of internal private roadways or parking lots if no sidewalk exists. e. If parking is accommodated on the required public or private road system, it must meet minimum public street width requirements of the subdivision ordinance to allow on-street parking. f. Sidewalks with a minimum width of 5 feet shall be provided along all sides of the lot that abut a public street and along at least one side of interior private streets. SECTION 14:5-4.6.C.12 USES PERMITTED WITH CONDITIONS (R-C) 12. MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLING Conditions: a. Access shall be to a roadway identified in the Comprehensive plan as a collector or arterial or shall be otherwise located so that access can be provided without generating significant traffic on local residential streets. b. Building lots shall contain a minimum of 400 square feet of usable open space per dwelling unit and no more than one half (1/2) can be located in the front yard. New developments which are required or elect to dedicate land or cash in lieu of land for parks, trails and open space in accordance with the provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance may reduce this requirement on a one for one basis to a minimum of 200 square feet per dwelling unit. c. The minimum spacing between buildings shall be the average heights of the building d. All buildings shall be located a minimum of 15 feet from the back of the curb line of internal private roadways or parking lots. e. If parking is accommodated on the required public or private road system, it must meet minimum public street width requirements of the subdivision ordinance to allow on-street parking. 50 f. Sidewalks with a minimum width of 5 feet shall be provided along all sides of the lot that abut a public streets. Sidewalks shall also be provided between the public street and parking areas to all building entrances. 13. CLUSTER HOUSING Conditions: a. Building lots shall contain a minimum of 400 square feet of usable open space per dwelling unit and no more than one half (1/2) can be located in the front yard. New developments which are required or elect to dedicate land or cash in lieu of land for parks, trails and open space in accordance with the provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance may reduce this requirement on a one for one basis to a minimum of 200 square feet per dwelling unit. b. The minimum spacing between buildings shall be the average heights of the building c. Side and rear yards may be reduced to zero feet where dwellings are designed to share common walls. d. Attached garages shall be located a minimum of 18 feet from the edge of a sidewalk closest to it or from the back of the curb line of internal private roadways or parking lots if no sidewalk exists. e. If parking is accommodated on the required public or private road system, it must meet minimum public street width requirements of the subdivision ordinance to allow on-street parking. f. Sidewalks with a minimum width of 5 feet shall be provided along all sides of the lot that abut a public street and along at least one side of interior private streets. SECTION 14:4-3 REQUIRED YARDS/OPEN SPACE E. Usable open space which is required by this Ordinance shall contain improvements such as outdoor swimming pools, patio areas, game areas, landscaped and grassy areas which contain benches, sculpture gardens, pedestrian paths and trails, or similar outdoor fixtures or features. Usable open space shall be available and accessible to and usable by all persons occupying the dwelling units, group facility, or other use for which the usable open space is required. SECTION 14:6-7.1 FINDINGS AND PURPOSE The City Council finds that a Planned Unit Development process will benefit the City and its residents because the process permits greater flexibility in the development of a parcel by 51 tailoring the development to the site and neighborhood. Such benefits include, but are not limited to: A. Greater utilization of new technologies in building design, construction, and land development. B. Higher standards of site and building design C. More efficient and effective use of streets, utilities, and public facilities to support high quality development at a lesser cost. D. Provision of recreational, public, and open spaces which may be made more usable and be more suitably located that would otherwise be provided under conventional development procedures. E. A flexible approach to development is permitted by allowing certain limited modifications of the strict application of regulations of the Use Districts that are in harmony with the goals, purpose and intent of the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. SECTION 14:6-7.2 APPLICATION The provisions of the PUD section of this Ordinance shall be administered as follows: B. Approval of a Planned Unit Development shall not alter the underlying Use District classification or the application of Use District regulations unless they are modified under the terms of Section 14:6-7.4 of this Ordinance. A. Modifications of Use District regulations may be approved as part of the overall approval of the PUD, if the following conditions are satisfied: 1. The modifications bear a demonstrable relationship to, and are consistent with, the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. 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. 3. The modification is necessary to achieve the purposes of this section of the Ordinance. 4. The modifications are limited to those allowed in Table 6-7.A and fall within allowable limits authorized by Section 14:6-7.4.C of this Ordinance SECTION 14:6-7.4 MODIFICATIONS TABLE 6-7.A Allowable Modifications in PUDs. 52 Ordinance Requirement Maximum Modification Allowed Distance From Property Lines, No Required Yards Except When Abutting Residential Zoned or Used Property Distance From Other Buildings As Building Code Allows Building Height No maximum if consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Density 10% increase or as consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Ground Floor Area 5% increase Floor Area Ratio Limited by height, density and ground floor area restrictions Usable Open Space 20% decrease Parking 15% decrease in addition to other allowable Ordinance reductions SECTION 14:6-7.5 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURE c. Procedure Planned Unit Developments shall be proposed and processed according to the requirements of this section. No application for a final Planned Unit Development shall be processed until the application for a Preliminary Planned Unit Development has been approved by the City Council. 7.b. The Planning Commission shall consider the staff report, other applicable data, and testimony and shall submit its recommendation to the City Council. If the Planning Commission recommends approval of the final PUD Plan, it shall find that the final PUD Plan is in substantial compliance with the preliminary PUD Plan and the Comprehensive Plan. SECTION 6-6.2 STANDARDS K. Parking Ramps: 53 All parking ramps constructed after the adoption of this Ordinance shall meet the following design standards: 1. Parking ramp facades which are visible from off site shall display an integration of building materials, building form, textures, architectural motif, and building colors with the principal building. 2. No signs other than directional signs shall be permitted on parking ramp facades. 3. If the parking ramp is located within 20 feet of a street right of way or recreational trail, the facade facing the street shall be subject to the same requirements for exterior surface materials as for buildings. SECTION 14:8-2.6 BUILDING PERMITS An application for a building permit for the erection, alteration or enlargement of a structure not involving a change in ownership or occupant shall also constitute an application for a Certificate of Occupancy. No building permit shall be issued unless the building or structures and proposed use of the land comply with the requirements of this Ordinance. If a conflict exists between the zoning map and Comprehensive Plan land use designation on land for which a building permit for new construction, additions or enlargements is requested, no building permit shall be issued until the conflict is remedied. All applications for a building permit shall include an accurate site plan of the property and shall state the proposed use of the building, the land uses on all adjacent parcels, and such other information the zoning administrator may require to determine compliance with the provisions of this Ordinance. SECTION 14:8-3.1 GENERAL PROVISIONS A. Hearings. No Conditional Use Permit shall be issued until a public hearing on the request has been held by the Planning Commission. B. Conditions and Modifications. The City Council may impose reasonable conditions in any Conditional Use Permit and may, at any time at its election or upon application by the property owner, modify the conditions of an existing Conditional Use Permit as changing circumstances warrant. No modification of an existing Conditional Use Permit may be made until a public hearing has been held by the Planning Commission in the manner outlined in Section 14:8-4.2 except that minor amendments shall require only notice to the holder of the Permit and approval of the City Council. SECTION 14:8-3.2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS 54 The City Council may grant Conditional Use Permits for uses and purposes authorized by this Ordinance by resolution and may impose such additional conditions and safeguards in permits as may be necessary to protect the Comprehensive Plan and the general purpose and intent of this Ordinance. Applications for Conditional Use Permits shall include a site plan and such other information required by the City which shall be processed in the following way: SECTION 14:8-3.3 VARIANCES-LIMITATIONS The Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA) may grant Variances from the strict application of the provisions of this Ordinance and impose conditions and safeguards in the Variances granted in cases where by reason of narrowness, shallowness, shape of a lot, exceptional topographic or water conditions, or other extraordinary and exceptional conditions of the lot, the strict application of the terms of this Ordinance would result in peculiar and practical difficulties or exceptional or undue hardship to the owner of the lot in developing or using the lot in a manner customary and legally permissible in the Use District in which said lot is located. C. Notice. After receipt of a complete application, the City shall set a date for a public hearing before the Board of Zoning Appeals for any variance request within forty-five (45) days of after the application for a variance is received by the City. The public hearing shall be held only after the notice required by Section 14:8-3.1(A) of this Ordinance has been given. I. Combined Variance and Conditional Use Permit, Planned Unit Development Process, or Subdivision. The City Council will act as the BOZA for variance requests made in conjunction with a conditional use permit, PUD application, or subdivision. The Planning Commission shall hold the public hearing on the variance request, review the variance request along with the conditional use permit PUD application, or subdivision process, and report its Findings and recommendations to the City Council. SECTION 14:8-4.0 AMENDMENTS SECTION 14:8-4.1 GENERAL A. Initiation of Proceedings. Proceedings for amendment of this Ordinance shall be initiated by: a. A petition of the owner or owners of the actual property, the zoning of which is proposed to be changed. b. A recommendation of the Planning Commission. c. Action of the City Council. d. A recommendation of the Community Development Director. SECTION 14:8-4.2 ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR AMENDMENTS CHANGING ZONING DISTRICTS AND BOUNDARIES THEREOF 55 B. Hearings. After an application is received for a change to the Zoning Ordinance, the City shall set a date for a public hearing. At the time set for the hearing, the Planning Commission shall hear arguments for and against the proposed change, and may continue the hearing from time to time not exceeding forty-five (45) days from the original date specified in the notice of hearing. If a hearing is continued more than once, another notice shall be given in accordance with Section 14:8-4.2(C). C. Notice. A notice of the time, place and purpose of the hearing shall be published in the official newspaper of the City at least ten (10) days prior to the day of the hearing. When an amendment involves changes in district boundaries affecting an area of five acres or less, a similar notice shall be mailed at least ten (10) days before the day of the hearing to each owner of affected property and property situated wholly or partly within 350 feet of the property to which the amendment relates. For the purpose of giving mailed notice, the person responsible for mailing the notice may use the records of the County Auditor of Hennepin County or any appropriate records to determine the names and addresses of owners. A copy of the notice and a list of the owners and addresses to which the notice was sent shall be attested to by the responsible person and shall be made a part of the record of the proceedings. The failure to give mailed notice to individual property owners, or defects in the notice shall not invalidate the proceedings, provided a bona fide attempt to comply with this subsection has been made. Proof of service shall be made by the affidavit of the persons serving same and shall be filed with the City Clerk. The Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources shall be notified at least ten days in advance of the public hearing of any request to amend the boundaries of the FW, FF, AND FD districts. FW, FF, or FD boundaries shall not be amended unless the City provides adequate information to the Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources that the map is in error or the lands are adequately protected from flood. D. Zoning Text Changes. A zoning text change shall require published notice of the public hearing for two (2) consecutive weeks as required in Subsection C above. E. Fees For Rezoning and Amendments to the Text. No application for change in the boundaries of any zoning district or for change in the text of the Zoning Ordinance shall be filed until the person making the request has paid to the City Treasurer a fee the amount which has been set by Resolution of the City Council. If the City Planning Commission initiates proceedings for rezoning and text amendments, the Council may require that such payment be made by owners of property involved before making any change. F. Planning Commission Recommendation. Any proposed change to the Zoning Ordinance shall be submitted to the Planning Commission. After holding a public hearing and deliberating on the request, the Planning Commission shall render a finding that all 56 amendments to the Zoning Ordinance map and text are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and shall submit its findings and recommendation to the City Council within forty-five (45) days after submission of the matter to it. If no recommendation is given to the City Council by the Planning Commission within forty- five (45) days after the request for a recommendation has been made to the Planning Commission, the City Council may take action without a Planning Commission recommendation. G. The City Council shall act on the proposed change within 45 days after reviewing a recommendation from the Planning Commission, or a period of 45 days has elapsed from the time the Planning Commission received the request, if no recommendation was made. This period may be extended if the applicant agrees to a time extension. SECTION 14:8-4.3 SPECIAL PROCEDURE FOR COMPREHENSIVE REZONING Whenever the Planning Commission, in its capacity or acting on referral from the City Council, recommends a comprehensive rezoning of a substantial part of the City which consists of not less than fifty (50) lots of platted area or five (5) acres of unplatted area in order to conform to changing conditions, the City Council may make all or a part of that recommendation effective by amendment to this Ordinance. In such a case, the provisions of Section 14:8-5.2 shall not be applicable; but the procedure for such amendment shall be as follows: C. Planning Commission Hearing. The Planning Commission shall meet and conduct a public hearing upon the proposed rezoning amendment at the time and place specified in the notice prior to making a recommendation for a Comprehensive Rezoning to the City Council. The hearing may be adjourned from time to time by the Planning Commission, but it shall not be continued more than sixty (60) days from the date of the original hearing. D. Adoption. The City Council shall act upon the proposed rezoning not less than seven (7) days nor more than sixty (60) days after it receives a recommendation from the Planning Commission. A two thirds (2/3) vote of all members of the Council shall be required to adopt any amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. The City Council may alter the amendment proposed, but if the alteration results in a modification of the zoning map filed at the time of the first publication of notice of the hearing, it shall not be made until ten (10) days after notice has been given by registered mail to the owner of the property to be zoned that an amendment is being considered and may be adopted which is different from that shown on the zoning map filed in support of the requested zoning change. E. Publication. If an Ordinance is adopted which provided for comprehensive rezoning even though less than the entire City is affected, the City Council shall require that new zoning maps be prepared showing the zoning district boundaries after adoption of the comprehensive amendment. Those maps shall be published as part of the publication of the Ordinance amendment. The Zoning Ordinance need not describe the tracts of land 57 included in each zoning district in any way other than by reference to the zoning maps required by this Section. SECTION 14:8-4.4 PROCEDURE FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS PURPOSE AND INTENT. The Comprehensive Plan is a compilation of policy statements, goals, standards, and maps for guiding the physical, social and economic development, both private and public, of the City of St. Louis Park. The Comprehensive Plan includes goals, policies and standards, a land use plan, a community facilities plan, a transportation plan and recommendations for plan execution and is an adopted statement of City policy concerning development. The Zoning Ordinance is adopted for the purpose of carrying out the policies and goals of the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission shall render a finding that all amendments to the Zoning Ordinance map and text are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. AMENDMENTS. A. Initiation of Proceedings. Proceedings for amendment to the Comprehensive Plan shall be initiated by: 1. A petition of the owner or owners of the actual property, the guiding of which is proposed to be changed. 2. A recommendation of the Planning Commission. 3. Action of the City Council. 4. A recommendation of the Community Development Director. B. Amendment Process: 1. Any person requesting a change in the Comprehensive Plan shall submit an application in the form prescribed by the City. The application shall describe the change requested, state the reasons for the requested change, and attach documentation to support the request. The applicant shall pay a fee established by the City Council when the application is filed with the Director of Community Development. If the request requires a change in the Comprehensive Plan Map, two copies of a list of the names and addresses of property owners of record of all properties within 500 feet of the parcel for which the change is requested shall be filed with the application. The names and addresses of property owners within 500 feet may be obtained from the County Auditor of Hennepin County or other appropriate records. 2. The Director of Community Development shall forward a copy of the proposed request to adjacent municipalities, the affected school district, Hennepin County, and the affected watershed district within ten (10) working days of receipt of the request by the City. 58 3. The Director of Community Development shall set a date for a public hearing on the request by the Planning Commission. Notice of the public hearing shall be published at least ten (10) days before the date of hearing, and, if the request requires an amendment of the Comprehensive Plan Map, notice shall be mailed to all property owners of record within 500 feet of the subject property at least ten (10) days before the date of the hearing. The Planning Commission shall hold the public hearing on the date stated in the notice and may continue the hearing once. If the Planning Commission believes it necessary to continue the hearing a second time, a new notice shall be published for the continued hearing. 4. The Planning Commission shall consider the testimony received at the public hearing, the staff reports, and other material it deems pertinent and shall report its findings and recommendations to the City Council. The City Council shall receive the recommendation of the Planning Commission and set a date for a public hearing on the request before the City Council. 5. All Comprehensive Plan amendments shall be adopted by resolution of the City Council approved by a two-thirds (2/3) majority of all members of the Council contingent upon approval of the Metropolitan Council. The resolution shall be forwarded to the Metropolitan Council within 10 days following City Council approval. The resolution shall be published following its adoption no later than twenty-one (21) days after the date of its passage. The date of passage is the date of final Metropolitan Council approval if no revisions are requested. The resolution shall be effective upon its publication. 6. Requests for Zoning Ordinance amendments for property affected by a pending request for a Comprehensive Plan map amendment may be handled concurrently, however, the approval of such application shall be conditioned upon the approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment by the Metropolitan Council and shall not become effective until after such approval is received. 7. If the requested Comprehensive Plan amendment involves a land use or density change on a particular parcel of land, no request for a conditional use permit, planned unit development, or variance related to that parcel shall be accepted for processing until action on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment has been completed. C. Exceptions: When changes to the Comprehensive Plan involve a complete Comprehensive Plan revision, notice to individual property owners is not required. However, notice of public hearing at the Planning Commission shall be published in the official newspaper on three consecutive weeks, the latest at least 10 days prior to the public hearing. SECTION 14:8-6.4.GENERAL CONDITIONS FOR CONTINUED SPECIAL PERMIT USES 59 D. Property covered by a continued special permit may be expanded, altered or modified subject to all of the following: 3. The expansion, alteration, or modification shall follow the same procedures for approval as required by Section 14:8 for Conditional Use Permit amendments. This includes a finding that the amended continued special permit is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Sec. 3. The contents of Planning Case File 99-12-ZA are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case. Sec.4. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication. 60 Adopted by the City Council September 21, 1999 Reviewed for Administration City Manager Mayor Attest:: Approved as to Form and Execution: City Clerk City Attorney 61 ORDINANCE NO.______ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING BY AMENDING SECTIONS 14-908, 14-931, 14-941 and 14-956 (SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE) THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN: Findings Sec. 1. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission (Case No.99-12-ZA) Sec. 2. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code (Subdivision Ordinance), Sections 14-908, 14-931, 14-941 and 14-956 are hereby amended to read as follows: Subdivision Ordinance Section 14-908 EXCEPTIONS The following land divisions are exempt from Sections 14-910 through 14-929 of this Subdivision Ordinance. Upon request, the Zoning Administrator shall within ten (10) days, certify that the proposed subdivision is exempt A. EXEMPT SUBDIVISIONS. Divisions of land are exempt if all of the following conditions are met: 1. the land involved has been previously platted into lots and blocks and is designated in a subdivision plat on file and of record in the Office of the Registrar of Deeds or Registrar of Titles of Hennepin County 2. the division involves no more than two (2) previously platted lots 3. the division will not cause the land or any structure on the land to be in violation of this Subdivision Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance, or the Building Code 4. the subdivision will not involve any new street or road, or the extension of municipal facilities, or the creation of any public improvement 5. the subdivision will not involve any outlot 6. the purpose of the division is to divide a single parcel into two parcels Subdivision Ordinance Section 14-931 Blocks and Lots: 62 B. LOTS: 1. Area and Configuration: The minimum lot area, width and depth shall not be less that that established by the Zoning Ordinance in effect at the time of adoption of the final plat. The minimum lot width established by the Zoning Ordinance shall occur at the front setback line and shall be maintained for a continuous 1/3 of the lot depth. Subdivision Ordinance Section 14-941: MONUMENTS: B. Pipes or steel rods shall be placed at each lot within one year of recording the final plat. All United States, State, County or other official bench marks, monuments or triangular stations in or adjacent to the property shall be preserved in precise position and shall be recorded on the plat. All lot and block dimensions shall be shown on the plat and all necessary angles pertaining to the lots and blocks, as an aid to future surveys shall be shown on the plat. No ditto marks will be permitted in indicating dimensions. Section 14-956: Amendment Process No amendment to the Subdivision Ordinance shall occur without review and recommendation of the Planning Commission. Sec. 3. The contents of Planning Case File 99-12-ZA are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case. Sec.4. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication. Adopted by the City Council September 21, 1999 Reviewed for Administration City Manager Mayor Attest:: Approved as to Form and Execution: City Clerk City Attorney 99-12subord/N/resord 63 SUMMARY ORDINANCE NO.______ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING BY AMENDING SECTIONS 14:1-1,1-2,2-5, 3-1,4-1,4-3,4-4, 5-3,5-4,5-5,5-6,5-7,6-1,6-5,6-6,6-7,8-2,8-3, and 8-4 This ordinance states that Sections 14:1-1, 1-2, 2-5, 3-1, 4-1, 4-3, 4-4, 5-3, 5-4, 5-5, 5-6, 5-7, 6-1, 6-5, 6-6, 6-7, 8-2, 8-3, and 8-4 of the Zoning Ordinance shall be amended relative to: language changes including modifications to provisions regulating usable open space, building height, accessory structures, yard encroachments, fences, lot definitions, allowable modifications by PUD, parking ramp architecture, parking, residential uses in the C2 Use District, consistency with Comprehensive Plan, and administration This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication. Adopted by the City Council September 21, 1999 Jeffrey W. Jacobs /s/ Mayor A copy of the full text of this ordinance is available for inspection with the City Clerk. Published in St. Louis Park Sailor: September 29, 1999 9912-sum 64 SUMMARY ORDINANCE NO.______ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING BY AMENDING SECTIONS 14-908, 14-941, 14-931 and 14-956 (Subdivision Ordinance) This ordinance states that Sections 14-908, 14-931, 14-941 and 14-956 of the Subdivision Ordinance shall be amended relative to language changes including modifications to provisions regulating exempt subdivisions, monuments, area and configuration, and amendment process. This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication. Adopted by the City Council September 21, 1999 Jeffrey W. Jacobs /s/ Mayor A copy of the full text of this ordinance is available for inspection with the City Clerk. Published in St. Louis Park Sailor: September 29, 1999 9912-sum 65 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 8e Meeting of September 21 1999 8e. Compensation of the Mayor and City Councilmembers and the Economic Development Authority President and Commissioners Amendments to Ordinance No. 1666-85 and Resolution 88-169 to increase the salaries of the Mayor from $7200 to $9200 and Councilmembers from $4800 to $6000 and to increase the annual salaries of the Economic Development Authority President from $3600 to $4800 and Commissioners from $2400 to $3600. Recommended Action: 1) Motion to waive the second reading, adopt the ordinance, and authorize publication. 2) Motion to adopt a resolution setting the annual salaries for the EDA President and Commissioners. Background Our City Charter states that City Council compensation is set by ordinance and becomes effective on December 1st following the municipal election. City Council compensation was last set on November 4, 1985. Compensation for the Economic Development Authority is set by resolution and was last done so on November 7, 1988. Currently, the salaries of the Mayor and Councilmembers are $7200 and $4800, respectfully. An additional $2400 is paid to Commissioners of the Economic Development Authority with the President receiving $3600. Findings A survey was conducted of the 33 cities in the metropolitan area with populations over 20,000. Please see attachment. The survey shows council salaries and also indicates whether or not additional compensation is given for members of the Economic Development Authority or the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. Of the 33 cities listed, five cities, not including St. Louis Park, provide additional compensation for the Economic Development Authority. The average compensation provided by these five cities is $30 per meeting. According to provisions on compensation in the City Charter, a public hearing and an ordinance are required every time Council pay is amended. Staff recommends setting up a procedure which ensures Council will receive salary increases in accordance with Charter and Ordinance. This regular review of Council salaries could be done in the fall of each municipal election year and would allow for the adjustment in Council salaries to be in amounts similar to other City employees. The Council would proceed with a public hearing for an ordinance amending their salaries. Currently, St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority Commissioners are paid $200 per month, $100 per meeting, two meetings per month with the President receiving $300 per month, $150 per meeting, two meetings per month. However, in the Resolution adopted in 1988, pay 66 was established at $100 per meeting for Commissioners and $150 per meeting for the President with the compensation not to exceed $100 per month for commissioners and $150 per month for the President. At the August 9, 1999 Council study session, Council discussed increasing the salaries of the Mayor by $2000 and Councilmembers by $1200. This would allow for an approximate 1.7% annualized increase from the last pay raise on November 4, 1985 to the present date. In comparison, non-union City employees have received an average 3.52% annualized increase from 1985 to the present date. Additionally, Council discussed amending the resolution establishing compensation of the EDA President and Commissioners to increase compensation by a flat rate of $1200 retroactive to November 7, 1988. The resolution would increase the annual salary of the Commissioners from $2400 to $3600 and the President from $3600 to $4800. The retroactive correction for the EDA will not result in any retroactive payment to the President or Commissioners. The salary increases reflect the increase in responsibilities of the Mayor over the past 12 years and an adjustment in the cost of living. Recommendation Staff recommends that Council take the following actions at it’s September 21st meeting: A. Adopt the Ordinance increasing the annual salary of the Mayor from $7200 to $9200 and Councilmembers from $4800 to $6000 effective January 1, 2000. B. Adopt the Resolution setting the compensation of the Economic Development Authority President at an annual salary of $3600 and Commissioners at an annual salary of $2400 effective November 7, 1985 through December 31, 1999. C. Adopt the Resolution setting compensation of the Economic Development Authority President at an annual salary of $4800 and Commissioners at an annual salary of $3600 effective January 1, 2000. D. Review and adjust Council salaries in the fall of each municipal election year in amounts similar to other City employees. Prepared by: Durell Vieau Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager Attachments: Salary Survey Proposed Ordinance Proposed Resolution (for September 21st) 67 Salary Survey, Council Members City Current Salary Salary Approved for 2000 EDA HRA Other Ordinance or Resolution Andover 6650 no no no No ordinance Apple Valley 6000 no no no No ordinance Blaine 7704 no no no No ordinance Bloomington 10000 no no no No ordinance Brooklyn Center 6350 no no no No ordinance Brooklyn Park 9636 9924 no no No ordinance Burnsville 6840 7020 no no No ordinance Champlin 5836 no 25/mo. no No ordinance Coon Rapids 9000 no no no No ordinance Cottage Grove 6000 no no no No resolution Crystal 6242 6369 no no No ordinance Eagan 6880 no no no Mileage ordinance Eden Prairie 6000 no no no No ordinance Edina 5100 no no no No ordinance Fridley 6100 no no no No ordinance Golden Valley 7217 7668 50/mtg no No resolution Hopkins 4600 no no no No ordinance Inver Grove Heights 6000 no no no No ordinance Lakeville 8664 no no 25/mtg No ordinance Maple Grove 7600 8100 no no No ordinance Maplewood 8597 no no no No ordinance Minnetonka 7200 no no no No ordinance New Brighton 6000 no no no No ordinance New Hope 6895 7120 25/mtg 25/mtg No ordinance Oakdale 5820 no no no No ordinance Plymouth 6300 no no no No ordinance Richfield 6025 no no no No ordinance Roseville 6000 no no no No ordinance St. Louis Park 4800 2400 no No ordinance Shoreview 5736 no no no No ordinance South St. Paul 6600 no no no No ordinance White Bear Lake 4800 no no no No ordinance Woodbury 5400 no no no No ordinance Jul-99 68 ORDINANCE NO. __________ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SALARIES FOR COUNCILMEMBERS THE CITY COUNCIL OF ST. LOUIS PARK ORDAINS: Section 1. The annual salary of the Mayor shall be $9000, and the annual salary of each Councilmember shall be $6000, until changed by ordinance as provided in Section 2.07 of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter. Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect January 1, 2000. Attest: Adopted by the City Council September 21, 1999 City Clerk Mayor Reviewed for Administration: Approved as to Form and Execution: City Manager City Attorney 69 RESOLUTION NO. ___________ RESOLUTION MODIFYING THE COMPENSATION PAID TO COMMISSIONERS OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY WHEREAS, The Economic Development Authority of St. Louis Park, Minnesota was officially established on September 19, 1988 by Resolution 88-134; and WHEREAS, the Economic Development Authority holds its regular meetings the first and third Monday of each month; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Minnesota State Statutes Section a 469.095, commissioners, including the president shall be compensated in an amount to be determined by the City Council; NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park to set the compensation of the Commissioners of the Economic Development Authority at an annual rate of $2400 and the President at an annual rate of $3600 effective November 7, 1985 through December 31, 1999. . NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park to set the compensation of the Commissioners of the Economic Development Authority at an annual rate of $3600 and the President at an annual rate of $5400 effective January 1, 2000. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council September 21, 1999 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk 70 Item # 9a* MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 1, 1999 --7:00 P.M. COMMUNITY ROOM - FIRST FLOOR MEMBERS PRESENT: Michael Garelick, Ken Gothberg, Dennis Morris, Jerry Timian, Sally Velick MEMBERS ABSENT: Michelle Bissonnette, Paul Carver STAFF PRESENT: Judie Erickson, 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 August 16, 1999 Ms. Velick moved approval of Minutes of April 16, 1999 and the motion passed on a vote of 3-0-2 with Morris, Timian, Velick voting in favor. Gothberg and Garelick abstained. 3. Public Hearings: None 4. Old Business: None 5. New Business A. Consent Agenda - None B. Other New Business i. Case No. 99-22-RE -- Sale of City property located at 2712 Vernon Avenue Judie Erickson, Planning Coordinator, presented a brief staff report. She indicated that staff finds the proposed sale to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, staff recommends approval. Mr. Garelick asked why we received the property from the Salvation Army and what we paid for it. Ms. Erickson stated that the Salvation Army received the property as a tax deductible contribution and they approached the City about purchasing it. At some 71 point the City felt that the two parcels would constitute a buildable lot. The City did not buy it with the intention of holding on to it forever. Ms. Velick asked if the home at 2708 Vernon will be torn down. Ms. Erickson stated that there is no home at 2708 Vernon. The two vacant properties combined would create an 80 foot lot. Ms. Velick asked if the purchaser is planning to build a single family dwelling. Mr. Garelick asked if he is correct in saying that there is a purchase agreement on the property now presented to the City. Ms. Erickson stated that the purchase agreement is for the 2708 property and not for the City property. What we need from the Planning Commission is to find that there is no public need for the property and to recommend to the City Council the sale of the property. In answer to a question from Mr. Garelick on who determines the price of the property, Ms. Erickson responded that the price would be recommended by the City Assessor and approved by the City Council. Mr. Garelick asked if the City would, by warranty deed, transfer title to the people who are requesting it. Ms. Erickson stated that would be correct. Ms. Erickson stated that the lot is substandard in its current condition. The City does not typically sell substandard property at public auction. Instead, the property which is vacant and substandard can only be sold to an adjoining property owner. In this case we have a home builder who has a purchase agreement to buy the property at 2708. That means that if that sale goes through, that would be the adjacent property owner and that property owner has come to us with a interest in buying the 2712 property. In answer to a question on whether the two properties are identical in substandard conditions, Ms. Erickson stated that both properties are 40 feet wide and substandard in their current condition. Mr. Garelick stated that he wants to make sure that when the appraisal is done for the property, the price is determined by something close to it. Ms. Erickson stated that the information about the sale price is not available right now, but it will be proposed by the City Assessor and approved by the City Council. 72 Mr. Garelick requested that a note be made that, when they are determining the sale price, it should be in the ball park with the property at 2708 Vernon and there should not be a substantial difference. Chair Morris stated that he understands the jest of what Mr. Garelick is saying. The Commission is hoping that the sale price is going to be a fair market value as opposed to a pass through to a developer. Dale Anderson, 2700 Vernon Avenue South stated “I own the house that adjoins the property under purchase agreement. This proposal, as I understand, is to build a single home on these two lots which is a realization of our dream. I have owned that property for 15 years, and prior to that I grew up in that house and so we have always entertained a parade of builders wanting to buy those parcels of land and build something there. Our fear was that we would be having two houses on the two parcels and we strongly oppose that. We likewise encourage a single home on the two parcels and hope that it blends well into the neighborhood. Currently, there is a problem of snow removal in the winter time and there is a problem of cutting the grass in the summer time. I find it curious about your concern about the value of the property and that it should be marketed at fair market value. I think that it is foolish to the extent that the City got the parcel for a donation anyway. Whether you profit or not, I don’t think is particularly meaningful. What is meaningful is that you find an adequate use for the property and that you encourage development and reinvestment of the property. By the way, the City got the parcel from the Salvation Army who received it as a donation from the party who is the brother of the owner of the other parcel. They couldn’t get along, and the brother finally through up his hands and gave it to the Salvation Army. The Salvation Army saw it as a liability, not an asset, gave it to the City”. Mr. Garelick indicated that the point he was making is that it really makes no difference what the City paid for it, it just goes to the question of perception if one lot is being sold for X dollars and this one is going for one dollar. They are going to look at the City and say what are you trying to do. I wanted to be fair if someone does scrutinize it. Mr. Anderson stated “I think what you are trying to do is to create reasonable development and use of the land. This proposal is, in my judgment, precisely that”. Chair Morris stated for clarification that the Planning Commission is not placing a restriction, we are merely adding a comment to the staff recommendation. Eleanor Wily, 2733 Vernon Avenue South stated “I agree that the lot is really substandard. I am worried about what kind of house he is going to build on that property. Is a developer going to build another monstrosity like was built on 27th 73 and Louisiana? I think that was an insult to those people, to let somebody build a house as ugly as that one”. Chair Morris stated for clarification that the house referred to on 27th and Louisiana is the one with the columns that is across from the post office. We understand that it will be a single family residence, not a duplex. With the size of the lot, according to our code, we don’t have much in way of defining what kind of house goes on the lot, as long as it meets the height and setback requirements. Ms. Wiley stated “It just spoils the houses on either side of it. Instead of the value going up, I’m sure the value went down on those two houses”. Mr. Garelick asked if the house on 27th and Louisiana meets all setback requirements, etc. Chair Morris stated that it got a building permit, so he assumes it met all standards. He asked Ms. Erickson if she feels comfortable commenting on what type of building could go on an 80 feet lot. Ms. Erickson stated that it is going to be a single family house and has to meet all code requirements. She said she certainly understands the concern about having a house built that fits into the neighborhood and the Commission could make that comment and pass it on to the City Council. She said she has not seen the house plans, so can’t comment on what the builder is intending to put on the lot. Mr. Anderson stated “The builder told me yesterday that she intends to build a single family detached house, a walkout rambler style with an attached garage open to the alley. That seems to fit as far as I ascertain”. Chair Morris stated that he assumes when the sale is complete, there would be no other public input as to the design or construction of the home. They would just apply for a building permit. Ms. Erickson stated that would be correct. The only time there would be anything at all would if there was a condition on the sale that says the City approves the style of the house. Chair Morris stated from the neighborhood perspective, the only comment he would make to the residents is that if Mr. Anderson knows who the builder is, you can privately discuss the type of home with him. If you have concerns about what you see being developed, you could contact your Councilmember, the City Council, or City Assessor with questions.” 74 Mr. Anderson stated “In a way it is going to be sad to see the change because since the City owned the lot, it was the City’s responsibility to clear the snow and it was actually easier for the City to remove the snow for the whole block”. Mr. Garelick moved to adopt a resolution finding that the sale of 2712 Vernon Avenue South is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan with a comment that it be sold at fair market value because of the identical lot next to it. 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 Judie Erickson, Planning Coordinator, presented the staff report of August 18, 1999. Planning Commission reviewed Analysis and Proposed Language Changes for the following sections: I. Clarification of PUD modifications. After a brief review of changes to amend the floor area ratio on Table 6-7-A, Ms. Erickson stated that staff is proposing to building height deviations by PUD. What we currently have in our plan is a 35% increase. We would propose to have no limit. The problem is that when you build an apartment building, there are certain building code requirements if you go up higher than four stories. People are not going to build six story apartment buildings because they cost too much. So if you really want to have an apartment building that is taller than four stories, you really need to have a bigger allowable increase than 35%. Chair Morris asked staff to clarify the desired language for the change. Ms. Erickson stated that the language should state, no requirement, but as consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Chair Morris discussed some specific sites that have been an issue and indicated that we do have some restrictions built into the code. Even though we are saying no requirement, there are requirements for height restrictions based on the zoning code. Ms. Velick asked if the property on 27th and Louisiana is a single family dwelling and why it is so high. Didn’t it have to meet standards for transition into the neighborhood? Ms. Erickson stated that it did meet requirements because in the R-1 and R-2 zoning districts the maximum height is 30 feet with a 3-story maximum. 75 Chair Morris said he has a question that concerns an issue that has been tabled to September 15th. The Planning Commission is considering a simultaneous preliminary and final PUD. Under the code, the application procedure for subdivisions allows for preliminary and final plats to be considered together. In the PUD application procedure, there is no such specific language stating that you can do preliminary and final PUD’s simultaneously. Chair Morris asked if we need an interpretation as to whether the preliminary and final PUD should be considered together. Chair Morris suggested that if allowed, language in the application section for the PUD should be changed to address filing the preliminary and final PUD simultaneously. Ms. Erickson stated she believes the way staff has been interpreting this is, that if there is no language to the contrary, then these can be run simultaneously. She stated she will take the Commission’s comments into consideration when we bring this to City Council. We could add a sentence that states specifically that they can be run simultaneously if that would be the desire of the Planning Commission. Chair Morris stated that he personally objects to running preliminary and final PUDs simultaneously because there are very complicated issues to be dealt with. He said he thinks there should be specific language if the City Council feels that they should be allowed to run simultaneously. In fact, by exclusion we have one section that says that you can do it if the City Council lets you and the other does not address the issue. Ms. Erickson stated that perhaps there should be a vote as to whether or not the Planning Commission thinks they should be run simultaneous and then she could propose language to reflect this decision. Mr. Garelick stated that his feeling is that it would be better if they were separate rather than run together. Chair Morris indicated that usually the PUD’s are predominantly major developments, because they have to have a site larger than 2 acres. Chair Morris stated that the Planning Commission could make this recommendation as part of its adoption of the amendments. II. Adjustments to the Ordinance to clarify abutting , adjacent, adjoining. Ms. Erickson presented a brief review of the revisions clarifying the different uses. 76 Mr. Gothberg asked what percentage of the drive through uses would meet these definitions today. Ms. Erickson stated she does not know the answer to that directly, but she knows that we have been scrutinizing drive through facilities a lot lately, and there seems to be more proposals for drive through facilities, particularly on the south side of Excelsior Boulevard. In answer to a question from Mr. Timian on whether this is ultimately making it easier for people to put in a drive through, Ms. Erickson stated she does not think so. Mr. Timian asked if the NW Bank on Excelsior Boulevard meets these requirements and would this improve the facility and be more neighborhood friendly. Ms. Erickson stated that this may not change the site plan, but there are still bufferyard requirements. Mr. Timian stated that he thinks we have a responsibility to ask questions about how the Norwest Bank drive through will serve the community and serve the neighborhoods where the facilities are located. Ms. Erickson stated that the Norwest drive throughs were approved on the east side of the building. Residential uses are probably 100 feet away from the use. Chair Morris asked for clarification of the term “separated by a building wall”. He asked if the City is envisioning a retaining wall or a building wall that would have to be connected to the building. Ms. Erickson stated that it would be a building wall actually connected to the building. Chair Morris stated that this also includes the stacking area, so in the circumstance of a drive through facility, they usually have a canopy over the teller portion. By this ordinance, that wall has to extend back through their entire stacking area or have to be 100 feet away. The intent is to block the stacking of the cars that are getting service from the residential area in two different manners. III. Potential Conflicts Between the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. 77 Ms. Erickson presented a staff report. She indicated that the City Attorney has reviewed Section 14:2-12 Interpretation, Item M. He does not like this section and believes it should be deleted. There was a lengthy discussion concerning the ambiguity of which language prevails when a conflict between the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan exists, the removal of “M” on page 2, and the building permit language on page 6. • Staff is proposing to delete “M” and let building permit language remain as is proposed. Language is already included which states that the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance prevails and implements the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. • Planning Commission is concerned that new language may be more ambiguous and may not provide a guiding principle. • Planning Commission believes there is a need to keep consistency over a period of time. • Planning Commission wants the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan to be in synch, but doesn’t want to be the deciding factor every time an inconsistency arises. The Comprehensive Plan is the guiding tool. It is just the theory behind what the zoning code should regulate, but if the zoning code is the regulatory power, it should stand as the authority. • Staff is concerned primarily in the transition between the adoption of a new Comprehensive Plan and implementation of changes to the Zoning Code. • Staff is concerned about the possibility of a building permit being issued if an inconsistency exists. • Staff did not propose language that specifically states which document would prevail because each case is unique. Ms. Erickson stated that the Planning Commission could propose language that is more acceptable to the Commission. No proposals were made. IV. Usable Open Space Ms. Erickson presented the staff report. There were no comments made by the Planning Commission. 78 V. Parking Ramps Ms. Erickson presented the staff report. Chair Morris asked if we are we keeping the 60% class I material standard. Ms. Erickson indicated that the 60% class I materials standard currently only applies to buildings. A parking ramp is not considered a building. The proposed amendment would require 60% Class I materials if a parking ramp is located 20 feet from a street right of way. Chair Morris asked what if the parking ramp is located within 20 feet of a recreational trail or other corridors. He sees a need for having some control over other corridors that are not for street purposes. Ms. Erickson indicated she would change K-3 to include “within 20 feet of a street right of way or recreational trail”. In response to a question from Mr. Gothberg on why a parking ramp is not considered a building, Ms. Erickson indicated that a parking ramp does not have a roof. Mr. Gothberg moved to approve Staff’s proposed changes to the Zoning Ordinance Amendments with the following changes proposed by the Planning Commission except, Section14:8-2.6: Building Permits: Page 2 - Section 14:6-7.2:Application: Include no simultaneous filing of preliminary and final PUD Page 3 - TABLE 6-7.A:Building Heights: No requirements but consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Page 5 - Section 14:2-2:Interpretation: Staff is recommending the removal of “M” in its entirety. Page 7 - Section 6-6.2:Standards, K. Parking Ramps. Item 3 - Add recreational trails with the 20 foot designation. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0 with Garelick, Gothberg, Morris, Timian, and Velick voting in favor. Mr. Gothberg moved to accept the proposed change as recommended by staff on Page 6 - SECTION 14:8-2.6: Building Permits. The motion passed on a vote of 4- 1 with Garelick, Gothberg, Morris, and Velick voting in favor. Commissioner Timian opposed. 79 Mr. Timian believed this could slow up development and bring more cases to the Planning Commission. SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT Ms. Erickson, Planning Coordinator presented staff report on Supplemental Report SECTION 6.1,B.8,c Parking Limits. In response to a question from Mr. Garelick if this would apply to a site similar to Home Depot, Ms. Erickson stated that this would be the case. Chair Morris stated he is not sure if it is feasible to throw all that parking space into the rear of the building. I understand this is used to discourage the extra parking, but if someone still wanted it, what we end up doing is getting the parking at the rear. Ms. Erickson stated that this is clearly discouraging to the developer who would want to develop excessive parking. Chair Morris stated he believes some other pitfalls exist. Mr. Gothberg asked if the current parking space minimums are at a level that nobody would ever need any more. i.e. Cub Foods parking lot is full. Mr. Timian stated that some people are not going to Cub Foods because the parking lot is full. Ms. Erickson stated that currently Knollwood does not meet the parking requirement in general and Cub Foods is part of total center. The parking may be adequate overall, but is not necessarily located in the right place. Our current standard is for minimums and there are no provisions that establish maximum parking standards. Chair Morris asked if we could state that a maximum number of parking spaces will be permitted. This gives them an uneconomically feasible way out. Ms. Erickson indicated that this could be proposed but would not affect current establishments. Chair Morris asked if there is consideration that parking in excess of the minimum spaces is a requirement for a CUP that puts it under a regulatory control as to how much additional parking would be approved and puts it under a plan review. He stated that he questions if this could be enforced since you are creating a standard that is not attainable to your code and asked if the City Attorney reviewed this. 80 Ms. Erickson indicated that the City Attorney had not commented on this section. Mr. Gothberg stated that we are actually saying that the minimum would be considered the maximum and he believes this needs more review. Ms. Erickson stated that another idea that was discussed was to set a maximum number of spaces at some given percentage that is over the minimum requirement. Mr. Timian presented a future parking scenario for Byerly’s if they owned the property to the rear of their building and asked if this would apply. Ms. Erickson stated that this could, but presently Byerly’s and Sam’s did not meet the minimum parking requirement. Mr. Timian moved to return this item to staff for further consideration and presentation at a later time. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0 with Garelick, Gothberg, Morris, Timian, and Velick voting in favor. I. Subdivision Amendments Ms. Erickson, Planning Coordinator, presented the staff report. She stated that currently there is no language in the subdivision ordinance or the zoning ordinance that has to do with amendments to the subdivision ordinance itself. When this language is absent, the amendment process for the municipal code kicks in. Currently, the subdivision ordinance does not require a public hearing to amend it and only requires that the Council hold two readings. There isn’t even a process in place that would require that the Planning Commission review and make recommendations. Staff is proposing to add language to the subdivision ordinance that no amendment to the subdivision ordinance shall occur without review and recommendation of the Planning Commission. The next amendments simply clarify Paragraph A. ADDITIONAL AMENDMENT (NOT IN STAFF REPORT): Ms. Erickson stated that there is one more amendment that staff is proposing to the Planning Commission that is not in your packet. This just came up and we thought it was an opportune time to bring it to the Commission. This has to do with monuments. Currently, whenever a subdivision is approved, the subdivider is required to go out on the land and place monuments marking all of the corners of all of the lots of the subdivision. We do state in our subdivision ordinance that pipes and steel rods shall be placed at each lot. What we don’t state is how long of a time the subdivider has to place these monuments. Hennepin County is asking us to include within our subdivision ordinance a requirement that within a 81 year of approval of the subdivision ordinance the monuments must be put in place. We are proposing to state in SECTION 14:9-1 that pipes and steel rods should be placed at each lot corner within one year of the recording of the final plat. II. Process for Adopting Amendments to Existing Special Permits Ms. Erickson gave brief history of the process for adopting special permits and presented the staff report. There were no Commission comments. Mr. Timian moved to recommend the adoption of Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance Amendments with inclusion of language regarding monuments in Section 14:9-1 and forward to the City Council for public hearing and Council action. 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 - April 19, 1999 and May 3, 1999 7. Miscellaneous The Planning Commission briefly discussed the Planned Unit Development proposed by General Growth Management at Knollwood mall and their desire to see results of the traffic study before the Public Hearing at the Planning Commission on September 15, 1999. Chair Morris stated that if you read the PUD requirements, the Commission cannot pass the PUD unless the traffic study is presented. Ms. Erickson stated that she thinks the traffic study was based on certain assumptions and one of the reasons it wasn’t discussed was that we were not sure that those assumptions were going to be the same. One of the assumptions was that that one of the entrances to Knollwood was going to be closed on 36th Street and we don’t know if that is going to happen or not. If it does not happen, the traffic study itself is not valid. Chair Morris asked if results or information is available in advance, the Planning Commission would desire adequate time to review before the next meeting. 8. Adjournment Chair Morris adjourned the meeting at 9:00 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, 82 Janice Loftus Administrative Secretary Prepared by: Shirley Olson Recording Secretary 83 Item # 9b* September 10, 1999 VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT AIRTOUCH CELLULAR TELEPHONE 729.36 ALBINSONS GENERAL SUPPLIES 193.53 ALPHA VIDEO AND AUDIO INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 22.05 AMERICAN SALES LEADS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 893.18 AMUNDSON, GAIL S MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 24.80 ANDERSON, SCOTT LICENSES/TAXES 80.07 ARAMARK UNIFORM CORPORATE ACCT GENERAL SUPPLIES 243.58 AUDIOVISUAL INC OFFICE FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT 3,449.31 BERTELSON OFFICE PRODUCTS OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.49 BITUMINOUS ROADWAYS INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 7,310.95 BOBS PERSONAL COFFEE SERVICE GENERAL SUPPLIES 143.45 BROADWAY RENTAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT (1.66) BUDGET HELPER OTHER ADVERTISING 205.00 CALIFORNIA CONTRACTORS SUPPLIE SMALL TOOLS 515.76 CAMILON, MANNY MEETING EXPENSE 32.49 CAPITOL COMMUNICATIONS RADIO COMMUNICATIONS 1,232.80 CAREERTRACK TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SC HOOLS 179.00 CARLSON, TERESA BUILDING 35.88 CLOSE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,500.00 COLLINS COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE 3,452.35 CONSTRUCTION BULLETIN MAGAZINE LEGAL NOTICES 60.90 CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS GENERAL SUPPLIES (996.68) COX, LEAH MERCH. & RENTALS - taxable 35.00 CRILEY, KATHI L TELEPHONE 158.78 CYBERGUYS GENERAL SUPPLIES 103.33 DIAMOND VOGEL PAINTS OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 1,125.41 84 DIGITAL BIOMETRICS INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 485.00 E & S ELECTRONICS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 91.62 ELECTRIC PUMP WALDOR GROUP EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 1,822.17 ELEMENTS INC OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 846.55 EMERY'S TREE SERVICE INC CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 15,978.83 ENGINEERING REPRO SYSTEMS GENERAL SUPPLIES 80.72 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (15.67) FLEXIBLE PIPE TOOL EQUIPMENT PARTS 3,863.06 G & K SERVICES EQUIPMENT PARTS 79.62 GALLAGHER & CO OF MN INC, A J WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE 0.00 GE CAPITAL IT SOLUTIONS OFFICE FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT 13,499.43 GENERAL SAFETY EQUIPMENT CORP EQUIPMENT PARTS (14.07) GENUINE PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (61.47) HAWKINS WATER TREATMENT GROUP CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY 1,122.34 HENN CO TREASURER SUBSISTENCE SERVICE 8,045.74 HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPT SUBSISTENCE SERVICE 923.92 HOME HARDWARE GENERAL SUPPLIES 119.17 HUIRAS, SHIRLEY GENERAL SUPPLIES 244.02 ICI DULUX PAINT CENTERS OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 256.76 IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS RENTAL EQUIPMENT 54.00 INACOM INFORMATION SYSTEMS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 288.56 IOS CAPITAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT 865.24 JAVNER, JOHN B MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 114.70 JUSTUS LUMBER COMPANY OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 33.89 KANSAS STATE BANK OF MANHATTAN NOTES PAYABLE 1,994.31 KNOX LUMBER COMPANY OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 18.44 LA PRENSA DE MINNESOTA OTHER ADVERTISING 63.00 LADEN'S BUSINESS MACHINES INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 195.00 LAWRENCE, RANDY GENERAL SUPPLIES 19.12 85 LUBRICATION TECHNOLOGIES INC MOTOR FUELS 84.36 MACQUEEN EQUIP CO EQUIPMENT PARTS (158.21) MANAGED SERVICES INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 216.67 MARKERTEK VIDEO SUPPLY GENERAL SUPPLIES 257.41 MCC COMPANIES ADULT ATHLETIC/LEAGUES - EXEMPT 110.00 MENARDS BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES 4,221.66 METRO SALES INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 301.17 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL SEWER AVAILABILITY CHARGE 4,158.00 MIHOCK, TAMI MERCH. & RENTALS - taxable 35.00 MINN RECREATION & PARK ASSN GENERAL SUPPLIES 2,185.00 MINN SECRETARY OF STATE GENERAL SUPPLIES 9.00 MINNEGASCO HEATING GAS 7,636.71 MN DEPT OF ADMINISTRATION STATE SURCHARGE PAYABLE 4,817.64 MN DRIVER & VEHICLE SVCS EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT CHARGE (46.00) MN PIPE & EQUIPMENT OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 194.04 MN PUBLIC WORKS ASSOC TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SC HOOLS 100.00 NATL RECREATION & PARKS ASSOC TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SC HOOLS 450.00 NORTH STAR TURF SUPPLY GENERAL SUPPLIES 340.80 NORTHERN WATER TREATING CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 301.22 NSP CO CONCESSION SUPPLIES 3,177.66 OFFICE MAX GENERAL SUPPLIES 42.82 ON SITE SANITATION GENERAL SUPPLIES 3,341.28 PAGE ELECTRICAL CONTRACTING IN OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 5,167.55 PEPSI-COLA COMPANY CONCESSION SUPPLIES 482.07 PERSONNEL DECISIONS INTERNATIO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,900.00 PRINTERS SERVICE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 26.75 PRO STAFF OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,428.00 PROPANE GAS PRODUCTS OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 196.42 RADIO SHACK GENERAL SUPPLIES 5.59 RELIABLE OFFICE SUPPLIES 70.16 86 RHI MANAGEMENT RSOURCES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 5,943.75 RIGHTWAY ROOFING BUILDING 199.40 SHADE IN A DAY LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS 2,400.00 SHOWCASE ENTERPRISES GENERAL SUPPLIES 648.00 SIPMA ELECTRIC INC ELECTRICAL 24.60 SLP PLAZA HEALTH CARE CENTER UNREALIZED REVENUE 68.05 ST LOUIS PARK TRUE VALUE EQUIPMENT PARTS 5.43 STATE TREASURER TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SC HOOLS 210.00 SUBURBAN UTILITY SUPERINTENDEN TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SC HOOLS 120.00 SUN NEWSPAPERS LEGAL NOTICES 636.35 SWEENEY BROS TRACTOR EQUIPMENT PARTS (1,324.78) TANK, ANNE MERCH. & RENTALS - taxable 35.00 TRACY/TRIPP FUELS MOTOR FUELS 7,298.17 TRANSMISSION SHOP INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 3,307.80 TRAP-LINE SEWER CLEANING INC BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 250.00 TRI-STATE FIRE PROTECTION INC BUILDING 525.76 UNIVERSITY OF ST THOMAS TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SC HOOLS 325.00 VAN VOOREN, MARIE MERCH. & RENTALS - taxable 35.00 VERMEER OF MINNESOTA EQUIPMENT PARTS 1,664.62 VIKING OFFICE PRODUCTS OFFICE SUPPLIES 98.30 WARNING LITES OF MN INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 957.22 WATSON CO INC CONCESSION SUPPLIES 584.85 WEINBERG SUPPLY CO EQUIPMENT PARTS 139.00 WESTSIDE EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 473.04 WOLF CAMERA INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 202.85 ZIP+4 CODE STATE DIRECTORY ORD GENERAL SUPPLIES 24.00 137,647.31 September 17, 1999 VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT AAA-LICENSE DIVISION MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT 774.13 ABELN, DEB YOUTH ATHLETICS/LEAGUES- exempt 95.00 87 ADAMS, MARY B MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 63.86 ADVANTA BANK CORP OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 97.45 AIRTOUCH CELLULAR TELEPHONE 132.73 ALMSTEAD'S SUPERVALU CONCESSION SUPPLIES 18.00 ANCHOR PAPER CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 536.15 ANN'S TOOL SUPPLY GENERAL SUPPLIES 223.10 AQUILA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIO OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 211.06 ARAMARK UNIFORM CORPORATE ACCT GENERAL SUPPLIES 252.59 BATTERIES PLUS GENERAL SUPPLIES 79.42 BCA TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SC HOOLS 80.00 BEEKS PIZZA TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SC HOOLS 114.75 BITUMINOUS ROADWAYS INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 4,505.95 BOBS PERSONAL COFFEE SERVICE CONCESSION SUPPLIES 225.34 BOISE MARKETING SERVICES GENERAL SUPPLIES 187.25 BRENTS SIGNS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 287.55 BROADWAY RENTAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT (1.66) CALHOUN TOWERS APARTMENTS RADIO COMMUNICATIONS 600.00 CAPITOL COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 89.80 CAROLINA BIOLOGICAL SUPPLY GENERAL SUPPLIES 12.85 CHASKA FIRE DEPARTMENT GENERAL SUPPLIES 50.00 CHENEY SIGNS OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 12.78 COFFEE MILL INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 96.00 COLICH & ASSOCIATES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 14,000.59 COLLINS LIMITED, LEE OFFICE SUPPLIES 57.20 COMM ACTION FOR SUBURBAN HENNE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 388.00 COMPRESSAIR & EQUIPMENT CO EQUIPMENT PARTS 74.55 CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS GENERAL SUPPLIES (996.68) DELEGARD TOOL CO EQUIPMENT PARTS (88.22) DIAMOND VOGEL PAINT OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 935.02 DMG-MAXIMUS INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 292.50 DUPAY, AMY K INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 88 E & S ELECTRONICS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 60.02 ELAN TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SC HOOLS 1,603.75 EMERY'S TREE SERVICE INC CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 2,353.55 ENGEN, JOHN R INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 ERV'S LAWNMOWER SERVICE EQUIPMENT PARTS 64.89 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (15.67) FASTENAL COMPANY BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES 465.03 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP POSTAGE 10.85 FORMO, CHRIS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 44.31 FRANKLIN COVEY GENERAL SUPPLIES 35.38 GALLAGHER & CO OF MN INC, A J WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE 0.00 GARELICK STEEL CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 85.95 GENERAL SAFETY EQUIPMENT CORP EQUIPMENT PARTS (14.07) GENUINE PARTS COMPANY GENERAL SUPPLIES 346.81 GREEN TREE VENDOR SERVICES COR OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 751.89 GREENMAN TECHNOLOGIES OF MN IN CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY 24.80 HABERMAN, JULIE UNREALIZED REVENUE 231.59 HAMILTON, JAYME GENERAL SUPPLIES 162.98 HENNEPIN COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS D CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 7,792.78 HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPT EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 11.96 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 785.06 HOME HARDWARE GENERAL SUPPLIES 26.75 HPI INTERNATIONAL INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 164.00 ICMA DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHI PS 18.95 INACOM INFORMATION SYSTEMS OFFICE FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT 1,572.56 INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST #283 PRINTING & PUBLISHING 641.37 INTERSTATE DETROIT DIESEL EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 74.00 IOS CAPITAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT 252.41 J & F REDDY RENTS RENTAL EQUIPMENT 63.36 JOHNSON, DICK GENERAL SUPPLIES 73.20 KANSAS STATE BANK OF OTHER PAY 642.43 89 MANHATTAN KAUFMAN, ALVIN INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 KENNEDY & GRAVEN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 273.41 KNOX LUMBER COMPANY BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 52.94 KONICA BUSINESS TECHNOLOGIES I RENTAL EQUIPMENT 39.41 LAKE FOREST ASSOCIATION OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 183.82 LANDGREN, ROGER INSURANCE BENEFITS 195.16 LENOX NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 500.00 M & M HYDRAULIC CO EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 334.55 MACQUEEN EQUIP CO EQUIPMENT PARTS (11.82) MASTERSON PERSONNEL INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 600.00 MEADOWBROOK APIARY GENERAL SUPPLIES 125.00 MENARDS GENERAL SUPPLIES 19.14 METRO AREA MGMT ASSN MEETING EXPENSE 16.00 METRO WATER CONDITIONING INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 254.96 MID-AMERICA BUSINESS SYSTEMS GENERAL SUPPLIES 168.01 MINIKAHDA OAKS NEIGHBORHOOD AS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 297.49 MINNESOTA CHAPTER NIGP SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHI PS 50.00 MINNESOTA POWER CENTER EQUIPMENT PARTS 200.16 MINUTEMAN PRESS OFFICE SUPPLIES 45.00 MN DEPT OF ADMINISTRATION TELEPHONE 9.00 MN DEPT OF HEALTH OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 17,631.00 MN DRIVER & VEHICLE SVCS EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT CHARGE (46.00) MN STATE FIRE DEPT ASSOCIATION SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHI PS 275.00 MN STATE FIRE MARSHAL DIVISION TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SC HOOLS 150.00 MTI DISTRIBUTING CO EQUIPMENT PARTS 5.54 MULTICHANNEL NEWS SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHI PS 54.00 MYERS TIRE SUPPLY COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS 135.30 N Y S C A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 120.00 NATL STRENGTH AND TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SC 150.00 90 CONDITIONING HOOLS NEW URBAN NEWS SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHI PS 69.00 NORTHLAND ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 84.49 NSP CO ELECTRIC SERVICE 77,977.92 OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE SUPPLIES 356.27 OFFICE MAX OFFICE SUPPLIES 95.20 OLSON, SHIRLEY OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 15.18 ON SITE SANITATION OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,729.14 ORKIN PEST CONTROL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 30.46 PALM BROTHERS CONCESSION SUPPLIES 81.47 PALMS BAKERY GENERAL SUPPLIES 133.65 PARK PET HOSPITAL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 639.00 PARTS PLUS EQUIPMENT PARTS 210.50 PEPSI COLA COMPANY GENERAL SUPPLIES 170.40 PHYSIO CONTROL CORP EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 222.00 PIRES, CLINTON E GENERAL SUPPLIES 217.83 POSTMASTER POSTAGE 2,646.59 PRAXAIR DISTRIBUTION INC. GENERAL SUPPLIES 75.34 PRESTIGE LINCOLN MERCURY EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 2,129.81 PRINTERS SERVICE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 112.00 PROPANE GAS PRODUCTS OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 125.90 PUBLIC SAFETY EQUIPMENT CO EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 72.00 QUICKSILVER EXPRESS COURIER PRINTING & PUBLISHING 801.99 RELIABLE OFFICE SUPPLIES 322.18 REYNOLDS WELDING SUPPLY CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 9.90 RHI MANAGEMENT RSOURCES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 3,000.00 ROBERTS COMPANY INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 160.00 RORMAN, MURIEL INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 RUDDLE, MARJEAN OFFICE SUPPLIES 342.22 SECURITYLINK FROM AMERITECH OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 36.10 STAT MEDICAL GENERAL SUPPLIES 39.41 STREICHER'S GENERAL SUPPLIES 2,265.64 91 SUBURBAN PROPANE MOTOR FUELS 59.10 SUBURBAN TIRE CO TIRES 29.82 SWEENEY BROS TRACTOR EQUIPMENT PARTS (1,324.78) TARGET/DAYTONS GENERAL SUPPLIES 48.33 THYMES TWO CATERING GENERAL SUPPLIES 35.67 TWIN WEST CHAMBER OF COMMERCE TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SC HOOLS 1,700.00 U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE 3,540.98 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED GENERAL SUPPLIES 5,597.91 VAN WATERS & ROGERS INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 447.43 VIKING OFFICE PRODUCTS OFFICE SUPPLIES 17.95 VOLUNTEER FIREMAN'S BENEFIT AS SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHI PS 951.00 WALSER FORD EQUIPMENT PARTS 64.43 WAVETECH INC OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 665.00 WM H MC COY PETROLEUM FUELS OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 84.35 WOLF CAMERA INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 37.64 WOODS' END LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 1,699.50 ZIP SORT PRINTING & PUBLISHING 262.31 171,753.25 September 1, 1999 VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT COPYMED INC WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE 9.56 METHODIST HOSPITAL WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE 977.37 SCHMAUS, DON WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE 87.55 1,074.48 September 7, 1999 VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT GREAT WEST LIFE & ANNUITY INS DENTAL INSURANCE 817.36 817.36 September 15, 92 1999 VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT AETNA LIFE INSURANCE & ANNUITY DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 738.68 ALLINA DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 80,992.19 COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 203.00 FORTIS BENEFITS DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 1,651.90 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST- 401 DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 245.98 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST- 457 DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 11,864.78 MINN COMM OF REVENUE SALES / USE TAX 18,931.00 MINNESOTA BENEFIT ASSOCIATION DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 1,071.39 MINNESOTA NCPERS LIFE INSURANC DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 105.00 MN CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENT CENTE DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 2,937.12 ORCHARD TRUST COMPANY DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 4,974.00 PARK NATIONAL BANK DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 107,352.96 PERA DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 42,732.92 PERA FIREMEN'S RETIREMENT ASSO DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 2,706.29 PERA POLICE RETIREMENT ASSOC DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 6,165.03 SLP CREDIT UNION DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 28,294.47 UNITED WAY OF MINNEAPOLIS AREA DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 317.35 UNUM LIFE INSURANCE DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 4,070.22 USCM / MIDWEST DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 6,765.46 VALLEY PAVING INC OTHER IMPROVEMENTS 30,317.19 WESTBRIDGE CAPITAL CORP INSURA DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 39.00 352,475.93 93 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 11a Meeting of September 21, 1999 11a. Authorize use of funding for Rec Center The purpose of the report is to provide for the project funding and debt service for the Rec Center Renaissance project. Recommended Action: Motion to authorize City Manager to transfer $1,820,268 from the Public Improvement Revolving Fund to the Project Construction Fund for the Rec Center Renaissance project; to budget for an annual transfer in the amount of $160,000 from the Parks and Recreation Fund for the debt service for the Rec Center bonds; and to establish an appropriate reserve in the Matured Special Assessment Fund to fund the balance of debt service for the Rec Center bonds. Background: Upon completion of the Rec Center Construction project it is necessary to take several steps to appropriately close out the project financing and provide direction on the sources of funding for debt service payments for the 1996 Rec Center bonds. The attached memorandum provides the background and reasons for the recommended action and has been previously provided to the City Council. Attachments: Rec Center Financing Report presented to City Council for September 13, 1999 Study Session. Prepared by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 94 Report from September 13th Study Session The Rec Center project had an interesting history of budget estimates. Early estimates were as low as $7,000,000 but a number of factors caused those estimates to be revised. The most significant changes were based on early expansions of the project and bids that came in much higher than estimates. At the time of bidding in September 1996 the project cost estimate was $10,235,450. The following table represents the project revenues and costs as they were anticipated in September 1996 and the actual costs and revenues at present (excluding any contingency for the coping stone repair). DESCRIPTION ANTICIPATED ACTUAL Revenues Bond Financing 9,570,000 9,206,029 Mighty Ducks 250,000 250,000 CDGB 250,000 0 Interest Earnings 165,450 364,166 Contributions 0 25,000 Insurance Refunds 0 5,810 Energy Rebate 0 13,200 Total Revenue 10,235,450 9,864,205 Less Costs 10,235,450 11,684,473 Deficit 0 (1,820,268) The Rec Center project was funded primarily through General Obligation Tax Increment Bonds and grant money from the State Mighty Ducks program. Initial funding projections also anticipated the use of $250,000 in Community Development Block Grant funds, but Federal restrictions on expenditures from that fund forced us to abandon that option. Significant factors that contributed to the negative project balance after September 1996 included: • Inability to use a CDBG grant of $250,000 due to bidding requirements • $300,000 cost due to soils remediation issues and litigation with DKH over soil removal • Costs for the Evelyn Raymond sculpture which contributions did not cover • Decisions to upgrade the banquet center • Decision to replace the boards in the old arena as part of the project • Increases in professional fees for HGA and Kraus Anderson based on total project cost 95 • Change orders authorized to the project such as enhanced perimeter fencing • Zamboni purchase which is offset by future payments Project Deficit Closeout Now that the Rec Center Renaissance is complete *it is necessary to close out financing on the project. The project has been financed through a temporary construction fund pending project completion. A balance of $1,820,268 on the project remains unresolved. Staff recommends a transfer from the Public Improvement Revolving Fund (PIR Fund) to the Rec Center Construction Fund to close out the project. This recommendation is based on an analysis of two funding options identified; the PIR Fund and the EDA Development Fund. Until we had completed at least a preliminary review of TIF capacity for the Park Commons project we were reluctant to commit Development Fund monies. It is now apparent that all of the resources of the Development Fund will be needed for Park Commons and other redevelopment projects in the City and that the PIR fund is a more viable option. The PIR Fund was created to temporarily finance projects until permanent financing sources can be arranged. This fund has carried a balance of approximately $3,000,000 to $4,000,000 for several years. In 1998 we transferred approximately $1,800,000 from the fund to finance a number of projects in the 425 Special Assessment Construction Fund which had been carrying a deficit balance. The fund balance in the PIR Fund on December 31st 1998 was $3,110,000. By bonding for ongoing capital projects as we did this year the need to use the PIR Fund for other projects is greatly reduced. Debt Service Plan The debt service for the Rec Center was planned so that there would be no increase in the debt service portion of the property tax levy. The original plan was to pay the annual debt service according to the following plan: • 20% of the debt covered by Tax Increment Financing (required for General Obligation Tax Increment Bonds) • Excess revenue from operations. The original estimate was that excess revenues would contribute $160,000 per year. Any amount in addition to that would also go to debt service. • Any remaining balance to come from the Matured Special Assessment Fund While that plan remains in place, we have had difficulty determining an exact number for the excess revenue. Since the aquatic center operates fairly independently we have identified * While the construction project is completed there is still an open item relative to the replacement of the coping stone that was done this Spring. The cost of that work is approximately $175,000 and we are assuming that there is no City share in that cost. If the City were somehow obligated to participate in the settlement of that dispute we would look to the Uninsured Loss Fund. 96 approximately $160,000 in excess revenues in 1997, $219,000 in 1998 and an estimated $160,000 in 1999. However, the debt service includes the entire Rec Center Renaissance project. Calculating the excess of revenue over operations becomes much more difficult for the entire Rec Center, especially when allocating personnel costs. Therefore, staff has calculated a fixed amount of $160,000 per year to be applied to debt service from the operation of the Rec Center. Amounts in excess of that would be applied to the capital needs at the Rec Center. By allocating a fixed amount we avoid the future possibility of allocating more cost which could result a lack of excess revenue to apply to debt service. There will be a remaining amount coming from the Matured Special Assessment Fund. The annual debt service payments to be made from the Matured Special Assessment Fund are approximately $450,000 per year for 2000 through 2011 and then after the TIF District expires about $640,000 per year through 2018. The present value amount necessary to provide for that level of payments is $5,725,000. We have reserved in the fund $4,952,000 for this debt service. The fund also has about $3,195,000 in outstanding deferred revenue. These would be special assessments yet to be paid but there is no outstanding obligation to be paid off. Hence, there is enough money in the fund to meet the Rec Center obligations but it will consume most of the funds available. The current policy is to contribute 90% of interest earnings in the Matured Special Assessment Fund to the Municipal Building Fund. While that contribution will be considerably diminished in the future, staff feels as though most of the most expensive projects on municipal buildings have been completed. Recommendation: Staff recommends that: • the Project Construction Fund for the Rec Center Renaissance project be closed out by transferring $1,820,268 from the Public Improvement Revolving Fund; • the amount of $160,000 be set as an annual transfer from the Parks and Recreation Fund for the debt service for the Rec Center bonds; • the additional funds needed for debt service come from the Matured Special Assessment Fund • future payments received on the Zamboni should be recorded as revenue to the PIR Fund