HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012/11/19 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - RegularAGENDA
NOVEMBER 19, 2012
7:00 p.m. SPECIAL STUDY SESSION – Council Chambers
Discussion Items
1. Highway 100 Reconstruction Update
7:30 p.m. Adjourn
7:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MEETING – Council Chambers
1. Call to Order
1a. Pledge of Allegiance
1b. Roll Call
2. Presentations -- None
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. City Council Meeting Minutes September 24, 2012
4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar
NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion. The items for the Consent Calendar are listed on the last page of the Agenda.
Recommended Action: Motion to approve the Agenda as presented and items listed on the Consent
Calendar; and to waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances. (Alternatively: Motion to add or remove
items from the agenda, or move items from Consent Calendar to regular agenda for discussion.)
5. Boards and Commissions -- None
6. Public Hearings
6a. Brewer Taproom License – Steel Toe Brewery
Recommended Action: Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to approve application
from Steel Toe Brewey for a brewer taproom license to be located at 4848 West 35th
Street, with the license term through March 1, 2013.
6b. Public Hearing – 2013 Liquor License Fees
Recommended Action: Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to Adopt Resolution
approving 2013 liquor license fees for the license term March 1, 2013 through March 1,
2014 pursuant to M.S.A. Ch. 340A and section 3-59 of the St. Louis Park City Code.
6c. Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood Road
Recommended Action: Mayor to open the public hearing, take comments, and then
close the Public Hearing. Motion to Adopt Resolution upholding the Board of Zoning
Appeals (BOZA) decision to deny Mr. Peter Hagen’s appeal.
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None
Meeting of November 19, 2012
City Council Agenda
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
8a. Zoning Ordinance Amendment Pertaining to Food Trucks and Catering - Second Reading
Recommended Action: Motion to waive second reading and Adopt Ordinance
pertaining to food trucks as a temporary use, and catering as an accessory use, and
approve the summary ordinance for publication.
9. Communication
Immediately following City Council Meeting
SPECIAL STUDY SESSION Continued – Council Chambers
Discussion Items
2. Reconsideration of Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Civic to High Density
and Low Density Residential for Former Eliot School Site
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make arrangements, please call
the Administration Department at 952/924-2525 (TDD 952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting.
Meeting of November 19, 2012
City Council Agenda
CONSENT CALENDAR
4a. Approve Resolution authorizing Worker’s Compensation insurance renewal for December 1,
2012 – November 30, 2013
4b. Approve second reading and Adopt Ordinance amending Xcel’s franchise ordinance #2086-
97 and authorize publication in full
4c. Authorize execution of a contract with Ostvig Tree, Inc. as the 2013 Boulevard Tree
Pruning contractor in an amount not to exceed $60,000
4d. Adopt Resolution approving acceptance of a monetary donation from Leslie Marcus in the
amount of $100 for Westwood Hills Nature Center
4e. Adopt Resolution approving acceptance of a grant from the St. Louis Park Youth
Development Fund of the St. Louis Park Community Foundation/Minnesota Community
Foundation in the amount of $2,500 for use by the Parks and Recreation Department for the
summer playground program
4f. Approve for filing Planning Commission Minutes of September 19, 2012
4g. Approve for filing Fire Civil Service Commission Minutes of September 25, 2012
4h. Approve for filing Housing Authority Minutes of October 10, 2012
4i. Approve for filing Vendor Claims
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request.
To make arrangements, please call the Administration Department at
952/924-2525 (TDD 952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting.
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority and regular City Council meetings are carried live on Civic TV cable channel
17 and replays are frequent; check www.parktv.org for the schedule. The meetings are also streamed live on the internet at
www.parktv.org, and saved for Video on Demand replays. The agenda is posted on Fridays on the official city bulletin board
in the lobby of City Hall and on the text display on Civic TV cable channel 17. The agenda and full packet are available by
noon on Friday on the city’s website.
Meeting Date: November 19, 2012
Agenda Item #: 1
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Highway 100 Reconstruction Update
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The purpose of this report is to update Council on the project, particularly with regards to the
municipal consent process and public hearing comments, and seek Council input on possible
layout changes.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Staff seeks Council input and feedback on the following:
• Does Council desire a 4, 5 or 6-foot striped shoulder on the proposed Minnetonka Blvd
bridge?
• What involvement, if any, should the City consider in preserving the Rock Garden?
• Does Council agree with how staff proposes to cast the City votes for the noisewall south
of Minnetonka Blvd. on the east side of Hwy 100?
• Does Council have any specific questions or concerns related to granting Municipal
Consent for this project?
• Should staff schedule consideration of Municipal Consent for the Council meeting of
December 3, 2012? Should a special mailing to area residents be provided notifying
them of this?
BACKGROUND:
History
On November 5, 2012, a public hearing was conducted to consider MnDOT’s request for
municipal consent for the reconstruction of Highway 100. Municipal consent is required when
any of the following three conditions are a result of the improvement: Access changes, capacity
increases or decreases, and the acquisition of right of way.
The project was presented by MnDOT staff and included a review of the following:
1. The proposed improvements
2. Right of Way Impacts
3. Estimated construction costs
4. Project schedule
5. Next steps
After presentation of the layout by MnDOT staff (Attachment 1), the City Council and public
were provided the opportunity to offer comments and ask questions. Following is a general
summary of items that received more significant amounts of comment and discussion:
Minnetonka Boulevard Bridge – Comments and discussion revolved primarily around proposed
design widths for off-road trails and on-road biking in addition to the roadway itself. Bicycle
Special Study Session of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Subject: Highway 100 Reconstruction Update
advocates expressed a desire for a 5 to 6-foot striped bike lane with an absolute minimum of a 3-
foot striped shoulder. As presented at the public hearing, the plan presented proposed 10-foot
wide off-road trails on both sides of the roadway along with 3-foot striped shoulders for on-road
biking. Through design and striping adjustments, MnDOT has informed the City and County
staff that 4-foot wide shoulders can be provided (in addition to the 10 foot wide off-road trails)
without widening the bridge. However, MnDOT cost participation policy requires either the
County or the City to pay all additional costs associated with widening the bridge from that
currently proposed. Hennepin County has informed MnDOT that a design with 10 foot wide off-
road trails and a 4-foot wide striped shoulder is acceptable to them. Therefore, if the City desires
on-road striped shoulders wider than 4-feet, the City would be expected to pay all associated
bridge widening costs; MnDOT staff estimates widening costs of about $125,000 per foot of
additional shoulder width (i.e., about $125,000 for 5-foot striped shoulders or about $250,000 for
6-foot striped shoulders). As a part of this discussion, Hennepin County has requested and
MnDOT has agreed to install a striped bike lane on the north side of Minnetonka Blvd on the
west end of the bridge to match the striped lane west of Vernon Ave.
Rock Garden Features/Remains – A desire was expressed to preserve the Rock Garden - a
water feature with a small water fall, a circular concrete water storage area and a concrete slab to
walk across the circular water area. The Rock Garden was evaluated by the City, MnDOT,
Three Rivers Park District, SLP Historical Society, SLP Park Commission and some interested
residents at the same time the Beehive was relocated in 2009. A history and narrative of this
evaluation process is provided and attached (Attachments 2 and 3). The Rock Garden appears to
be very deteriorated and there seems to be general agreement by all parties involved that it is not
salvageable. MnDOT has indicated that if there is a desire by the City to preserve this, they will
work with the City to cordon the area off and attempt to protect the garden until it can be
relocated by others.
Operational Issues on Local Streets (Utica Avenue) – Comments and concerns were expressed
with regards to snow removal, signage, and other issues with regards to Utica Avenue and the
alley serving properties on Toledo Avenue. At least some of these issues such as snow removal
and cut-through traffic have historically been an on-going challenge and will continue to be dealt
with by the City as needed, including appropriate signage and enforcement as necessary to
address specific safety concerns.
Construction Staging – Concerns were expressed with regards to access and maintenance of
traffic during construction. During the final design effort MnDOT will develop construction
staging plans and inform us how work will be staged and sequenced. MnDOT, however, has
stated their intent not to close the Minnetonka Boulevard and Highway 7 bridges simultaneously.
Other Concurrent Activities
Noise Walls and Environmental Assessment
Concurrent with this Municipal Consent process, MnDOT is conducting a parallel process with
approval of an Environmental Assessment (EA) and whether or not to remove noise walls from
the project design plans. MnDOT has indicated intent to release the EA for public comment
sometime late this year or early 2013.
Noise walls are presently included as part of the project layout and design. The State of
Minnesota, in accordance with federal regulations, follows a process that allows for adjacent
property owners to remove the walls from the project should they desire through a voting
Special Study Session of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 1) Page 3
Subject: Highway 100 Reconstruction Update
procedure. Additional informational meetings to provide residents further information and
clarifications as needed were held on October 16 and October 18.
MnDOT has determined the trail area on the east side of Hwy 100 south of Minnetonka Blvd
benefits from the installation of a noise wall. The trail is deemed a 4(f) property and as
custodian, the City has been assigned votes as a part of the noise wall voting process in this area
of the project. City staff proposes to discuss this with other impacted area residents and vote as
the majority desire. If the City does not vote, that is essentially a vote to retain this noise wall in
the project.
Visual Quality and Project Advisory Groups:
MnDOT has also commenced the process of developing a Visual Quality Process Manual
Development for the project. This process involves a committee to allow for articulation of
community values and objectives to ensure sensitivity to visual quality and aesthetics (including
public art) in the design, similar to procedures utilized for the Highway 7/Louisiana Avenue
project. A committee comprised of representatives from adjacent neighborhoods, institutions
adjacent to the highway, staff, and other interests has been assembled. This committee will be
meeting monthly over the next several months to insure that these values are incorporated into
the design.
MnDOT is also working to form a Project Advisory Committee. This group will meet on a
biannual basis through the design phase and more frequently during actual construction. The
purpose of this committee will be to allow MnDOT to provide current project information and
receive feedback from stakeholders to help better understand and address the many issues that
arise during a project of this magnitude. Specific committee members have not yet been
determined, but it is expected that members will include a wide variety of interests, including
representatives of the many agencies involved (both elected representatives and staff), such as
the City, County, State, the business community, and other stakeholders as appropriate.
Project Schedule:
Based on the current project status and progress made to date, the following schedule is
anticipated at this time:
Municipal Consent Approval Process
City Holds Public Hearing November 5, 2012
Deadline to Approve / Deny Request February 3, 2013
Public Environmental Assessment (EA) Released Late 2012 – Early 2013
Noise wall Voting Process
Ballots and Information Mailed Early October
Information Meetings October 16 and 18, 2012
Voting Period Expires December 28, 2012
Development of Construction Plans and Specifications Fall 2012 - September 2014
EA Process Completed Early 2013
Right of Way Acquisition May 2013 - May 2014
Open Bids and Award Contract May 2014
Construction Late 2014 - 2016
Special Study Session of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 1) Page 4
Subject: Highway 100 Reconstruction Update
NEXT STEPS:
The City must approve or disapprove the MnDOT municipal consent request within 90 days of
the Public Hearing or let the time period expire, in which case it is deemed approved. As a result,
the Council has until February 3, 2013 to either approve or disapprove of this project. If the
Council does neither, then on February 3, 2013 the time period for action expires and the
MnDOT project will be deemed approved. If acceptable with Council, municipal consent
approval could be considered on December 3, 2012.
As stated in previous reports, if the City denies Municipal Consent for the project, MnDOT’s
options are:
1. Make the changes requested by the City (if any)
2. Refer the proposed layout to an Appeal Board
3. Stop the project
4. Modify the project so municipal consent is not required
5. Prepare a new final layout and start the municipal consent process over from
the beginning
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
As described in MnDOT’s request, the City’s share of the MnDOT project cost at this time is
estimated to be approximately $60,000. As the City continues to work with MnDOT through
final design, including visual quality and public art considerations, the City’s share of the project
cost may increase, depending on the level of improvements desired by the city. In addition to
cost participation in the actual MnDOT project, the City also has several other obligations related
to this project:
Engineering Expenses:
Previous Expenses and Studies $90,000
Additional Engineering Expenses $150,000
Utility Relocations or Improvements:
Stormwater Facilities $600,000
Sanitary Sewer Facilities $1,000,000
Water Facilities $900,000
Utica Ave Reconstruction $250,000
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The following Strategic Direction and focus area was identified by Council in 2007:
St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community.
Focus will be on:
• Promoting regional transportation issues and related dedicated funding sources affecting
St. Louis Park including but not limited to Highway 100 and SWLRT.
Attachments: Attachment 1 - MnDOT Staff Approved Layout 3D
Attachment 2 - Lilac Park and Beehive Narrative and History
Attachment 3 - Rock Garden Photo or Depiction
Prepared by: Scott Brink, City Engineer
Reviewed by: April Crockett, West Area Engineer, MnDOT
Michael P. Rardin, Public Works Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Special Study Session Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 1) Subject: Highway 100 Reconstruction UpdatePage 5
Attachment 2 – Lilac Park and Beehive Narrative and History
Here is a quick update on the status of the Beehive Committee:
The Committee began meeting in November of 2005 to discuss the options to relocate the
Beehive and Picnic Table at Lilac Park (official name) at Hwy. 100 and Minnetonka Blvd.
The Committee has representatives from City staff, MN Dot, Three Rivers Park District,
SLP Historical Society, SLP Park Commission and some interested residents. Our goal is
to present a plan to Council/Staff for the process, timeline, budget and long term use plan
for the two structures at Lilac Park.
Background:
We have two significant roadside park areas in St. Louis Park both built in 1939.
The first is Lilac Park which is the on Hwy. 100 and Minnetonka Blvd. This park has four
structures of interest, the beehive, a large picnic table, an old parking area wall and what
is referred to as a rock garden (this is an old water feature with a small water fall, a circular
concrete water storage area and a concrete slab to walk across the circular water area).
The only features we can potentially move from this park are the Beehive and the picnic
table. MN Dot has suggested they would prefer not to move/store the two primary
structures (Beehive and large limestone picnic table). MN Dot/City Staff also believes the
Rock Garden and parking wall cannot be moved and both have deteriorated to the point
the only option would be to harvest some of the limestone blocks for future renovation
projects. MN Dot did note that if the City would like to save/restore the Beehive and picnic
table they would support the City taking a lead/ownership. MN Dot also noted all
structures need to be removed because the proposed Hwy. 100 expansion project will
utilize most of the Lilac Park property. SHPO (State Historical Preservation Organization)
has been contacted regarding the parks and structures and no longer recognizes the
artifacts as registered/historically significant.
The second park is St. Louis Park Roadside Park (official name), located at Hwy. 100 and
Hwy. 7 just west of Nordic Ware. This park area will not be impacted during the proposed
Hwy. 100 project. This park contains a council ring, four picnic tables, stone fireplace, and
stone refuse container. All structures have deteriorated significantly.
The Committee to this point has met to discuss all the issues surrounding the relocation
of the two structures, reviewed historical construction documents and photos, toured
potential relocation sites in St. Louis Park and met with the State Historical Preservation
Organization.
Next Step: The committee had initially been of the understanding that we could not
consider moving the two structures from Lilac Park to the SLP Roadside Park because
SHPO would not allow it. After meeting with SHPO to discuss the issue they would
support this concept. This is great news as I believe the committee would prefer this
option. A letter recommending support of the relocation is in process from the SLP
Historical Society and will be sent to SHPO soon. I would speculate now that the
recommendation from the committee to Council/Staff will look like this;
1. Relocate the Beehive and picnic table to SLP Roadside Park
2. Restore all historically significant structures which can be saved
3. Salvage limestone block from the Rock Garden and parking wall to restore
structures/build new features
4. Create a bike loop from the LRT trail down and around the Roadside Park
5. Rename Roadside Park to Lilac Park (most believe it was all one long “Lilac Park”
before the exit ramps were constructed)
6. Implement interpretive signage about the park and features
Special Study Session Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Highway 100 Reconstruction Update Page 6
7. Add a drinking fountain for trail users
8. Maintain the area as a City Park
9. Propose to City Council not to install a sound wall at this park location during the
proposed Hwy. 100 expansion as visibility from the highway maintains some of the
historical integrity
10. Purchase, quick deed or lease property for $1 annually from MN Dot.
My thought is if possible the committee will make a recommendation to staff/council as
soon as approval is obtained from SHPO. If everything comes together I believe the
Historical society would like to begin raising funds this winter partnering with the City to
begin the relocation project spring of 2007. SLP Historical Society is very concerned about
continued vandalism and deterioration at both park locations.
One final note, the National Park Service in Washington DC has done a national search on
the Beehive structures and as far as they can document only two remain in the United
States. One here in SLP and the other in Robbinsdale behind a sound wall at Graeser Park.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Rick Birno
Special Study Session Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Highway 100 Reconstruction Update Page 7
Attachment 3
Rock Garden Photo or Depiction
Special Study Session Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Highway 100 Reconstruction Update Page 8
Meeting Date: November 19, 2012
Agenda Item #: 3a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
SEPTEMBER 24, 2012
1. Call to Order
Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Steve Hallfin, Anne Mavity, Julia Ross, Susan
Sanger, Sue Santa, and Jake Spano.
Councilmembers absent: None.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney (Mr. Scott), Controller (Mr.
Swanson), Director of Community Development (Mr. Locke), Planning/Zoning Supervisor (Ms.
McMonigal), Communications Coordinator (Mr. Zwilling), Fire Chief (Mr. Stemmer),
Environmental Coordinators (Mr. Vaughan), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes).
Guests: Stacie Kvilvang (Ehlers & Associates) and Jeff Miller (HKGi).
1a. Pledge of Allegiance
1b. Roll Call
2. Presentations
2a. 2012 Evergreen Awards
Mr. Vaughan stated the Evergreen Awards have been presented for over 20 years in
recognition of highly visible landscaping and winners are selected by a panel of judges.
He presented the 2012 Evergreen Awards to Randall Olson (4028 Quentin), James and
Barbara Jacobs (4151 Ottawa), and Adrienne Fleming/Stephanie and Ron Byland (3804
Rhode Island). He also urged residents to water their trees and landscaping due to the dry
weather conditions.
2b. Recognition for Mike Dobesh's 14 Years of Service
Mayor Jacobs presented a certificate recognizing Assistant Fire Chief Mike Dobesh for
14 years of service to the City. He congratulated Mr. Dobesh on his new position and
wished him the best of luck in the future.
Mr. Dobesh thanked the City for all its support and stated he has appreciated all of his
time in St. Louis Park. He added he could not have done his job without the support of
Chief Stemmer, his colleagues on the Fire Department, and his family.
Mr. Stemmer thanked Mr. Dobesh for his years of service and stated Mr. Dobesh started
working as a paid on call firefighter and quickly rose through the ranks of the Fire
Department where he has been responsible for the paid on call program and all training
for the Fire Department for the last eight years. He wished him the best of luck in his
new position as assistant chief of operations for the City of Richfield.
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Special City Council Meeting Minutes August 27, 2012
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 3a) Page 2
Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes of September 24, 2012
The minutes were approved as presented.
3b. Study Session Meeting Minutes August 27, 2012
The minutes were approved as presented.
3c. City Council Meeting Minutes September 4, 2012
The minutes were approved as presented.
4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar
NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine
and/or which need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is
desired by either a Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an
appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion.
4a. Approve Second Reading and Adopt Ordinance No. 2421-12 Renaming 25 ½
Street West to Barry Street West, and approve summary ordinance for
publication on October 4, 2012.
4b. Adopt Resolution No. 12-129 accepting a donation from the American Legion in
the amount of $4,000 for a portable sound system in the Wolfe Park
Amphitheater.
4c. Adopt Resolution No. 12-130 approving acceptance of donations from Bruce
Berry and Sue Anne Arkenbeck in the amount of $125 for Westwood Hills Nature
Center.
4d. Adopt Resolution No. 12-131 authorizing final payment in the amount of
$17,711.59 for the 2012 City Sealcoat Project with Allied Blacktop Company
accepting work on Contract Sealcoating – City Project No. 2012-0001, City
Contract No. 75-12.
4e. Establish a Public Hearing date of November 5, 2012 to consider MnDOT’s
request for Municipal Consent for the Highway 100 Improvement Project - State
Project 2734-43 (City Project No. 2005-2000).
4f. Adopt Resolution No. 12-132 imposing civil penalty for liquor license violation
occurring on May 18, 2012, at Best of India, 8120 Minnetonka Blvd., according
to the recommendation of the City Manager.
4g. Approve for Filing Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes
February 15, 2012.
4h. Approve for Filing Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes
March 21, 2012.
4i. Approve for Filing Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes
April 18, 2012.
4j. Approve for Filing Housing Authority Minutes August 9, 2012.
4k. Approve for Filing Vendor Claims.
It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to
approve the Agenda and items listed on the Consent Calendar; and to waive reading of
all resolutions and ordinances.
The motion passed 7-0.
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 3a) Page 3
Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes of September 24, 2012
5. Boards and Commissions - None
6. Public Hearings
6a. Breck School – Public Hearing and Final Bond Resolution – Issuance of
Private Activity Revenue Note, Series 2012A. Resolution No. 12-133
Mr. Swanson presented the staff report and introduced Ms. Wendy Engleman from Breck
School and Ms. Julie Eddington from Kennedy & Graven.
Ms. Eddington explained that the City was approached by Breck School to issue conduit
bonds on Breck's behalf as part of Breck's plans to demolish the existing upper school
and complete renovations of its other facilities. She stated that Breck is located in
Golden Valley and the Breck School serves students in the western metro area including
St. Louis Park; however, Golden Valley is unable to issue bank qualified debt for the
school so St. Louis Park and Minnetonka were asked to issue up to $6.5 million each to
help finance the project. She advised that Golden Valley will be holding a public hearing
and providing approval for both St. Louis Park and Minnetonka to issue the bonds and
this type of request is allowed by State statute. She added that the City's ability to issue
bonds will not be affected by issuing the bank qualified bonds under this transaction.
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. No speakers were present. Mayor Jacobs
closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Santa asked why Golden Valley was not issuing the bonds.
Ms. Eddington explained that Golden Valley has issued bonds already this year so it is
unable to help Breck by issuing bank qualified bonds. She stated that Golden Valley is
pleased that St. Louis Park and Minnetonka are willing to consider doing this and will
enter into a Joint Powers Agreement with the two cities. She added that tax regulations
give cities authority to issue up to $10 million per year in bank qualified bonds and
Golden Valley has already reached that $10 million limit this year.
Councilmember Spano asked what liability the City has by issuing these bonds.
Ms. Eddington replied the City has no liability with respect to these bonds and the bond
documents will indicate interest is payable solely from revenue from Breck School. She
added if there is any audit in the future, Breck School will indemnify the City.
Councilmember Sanger requested confirmation that this is a type of bond available only
to non-profit organizations and that by issuing the bonds the City also receives a fee from
Breck that goes into the City's Development Fund. She also requested confirmation that
the City would have no liability if Breck does not fully pay back the bonds.
Ms. Eddington stated these types of bonds are issued to 501(c)(3) organizations and the
City has issued conduit bonds for Park Nicollet in the past. She stated that the City
would have no liability if Breck does not fully pay back the bonds and this bond issue
will not impact the City's credit rating in any way.
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 3a) Page 4
Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes of September 24, 2012
It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Spano, to adopt
Resolution No. 12-133 Authorizing the Issuance, Sale and Delivery of the Revenue Note
(Breck School Project), Series 2012A; Approving the Form of and Authorizing the
Execution and Delivery of the Note and Related Documents; Providing for the Security,
Rights, and Remedies with Respect to the Note; and Granting Approval for Certain Other
Actions with Respect Thereto.
The motion passed 7-0.
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
8a. Authorize and Award Sale of G.O. Taxable Bonds, Series 2012A for
Greensboro Square. Resolution No. 12-134
Mr. Swanson presented the staff report and introduced Ms. Stacie Kvilvang from Ehlers
& Associates.
Ms. Kvilvang explained that the $1,290,000 taxable G.O. housing improvement bonds
represent approximately one-third of the financing for this project with the EDA
providing a loan of $1,108,602 and $1,047,260 received in prepaid special assessments.
She advised that a rating call was held last week, which affirmed the City's AAA rating
with a stable outlook. She stated the bond sale was held this morning and two bids were
received, noting that there is a limited market for these bonds because of the 20 year
term. She advised that Northland Securities was the lowest responsible bidder at 3.258%.
She stated that updated fee schedules for the homeowners will be provided and added that
as part of the financing, the City charges 100 basis points above the stated interest rate to
cover non-payments and the EDA loan will also carry the same rate.
It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to
approve Resolution No. 12-134 Awarding the Sale of Taxable General Obligation
Housing Improvement Area Bonds, Series 2012A, in the Original Aggregate Principal
Amount of $1,290,000; Fixing Their Forum and Specifications; Directing their Execution
and Delivery; and Providing for their Payment.
Councilmember Ross stated she will be abstaining from the vote on this matter and added
she was happy to see that some residents have prepaid the special assessment and that
costs were coming in under budget.
The motion passed 6-0-1 (Councilmember Ross abstain).
8b. First Reading – Zoning Ordinance Amendment Regulating Outdoor
Lighting
Ms. McMonigal presented the staff report and explained that the Ordinance amendment
updates existing lighting regulations to minimize glare and spillover light on adjacent
properties, addresses the feasibility of achieving the City's requirements related to seeing
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 3a) Page 5
Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes of September 24, 2012
a light source from off-site, and clarifies the measurement methods used in measuring
light. She stated the City hired Jeff Miller from HKGi and Mr. Miller researched outdoor
lighting regulations and prepared a draft Ordinance, which was discussed with Council in
April and July this year. She indicated this Ordinance reflects the comments received at
the study session including adding a low lighting option at athletic fields when events are
finished and also adding a provision that landscaping can be used for screening the
lighting at athletic fields. She stated that all existing outdoor lighting facilities will be
required to comply with the Ordinance if the facility expands its operations or as fixtures
are replaced, noting that typical lighting replacement occurs every four to fifteen years so
it will take a bit of time until all athletic fields are in compliance but over time there will
be a permanent reduction in light spill and glare.
Mayor Jacobs asked if anyone would like to address the Council.
Mr. Lee Snitzer 2504 Quentin, appeared before the City Council and stated he did not
feel the proposed amendment does enough to minimize glare and spillover light. He
stated he lives adjacent to Benilde and the City earlier granted Benilde a special use
permit to have that field in a residential neighborhood where property values exceed
$250,000. He stated that Section 6 of the Ordinance dealing with hours of operation
appears to expand the hours of operation allowing use of lighting up to 11:00 p.m. and
requested that the City consider 10:00 p.m. as a reasonable time that outdoor lights be
required to be turned off because most activities are over between 9:00 and 9:30 p.m. He
stated the activity on the Benilde field is not what they anticipated and they were told the
field would be used 1-2 nights per week but the field's lights are on seven nights per
week. He noted most City parks have two courses of lights but Benilde has three courses
of lights, which creates more light pollution and glare. He suggested the City consider
requiring all fixtures to be painted black now because that would cut down the glare from
the shiny fixtures. He added he appreciated the City Council's sensitivity to the issue.
Councilmember Sanger stated the previous ordinance provided there should not be
spillover light and glare in neighborhoods because the light pollution goes into the nearby
homes and into the eyes of drivers. She understood that the City did not think it was
possible to control this or eliminate it entirely, but when given suggestions on how to
minimize it, the City has an obligation to test them. She stated she is opposed to the
proposed amendments because a lot of light pollution will enter into homes of nearby
residents and her concern was that the City has not struck a good balance with the needs
and rights of property owners living nearby. She stated her biggest concern was there is
no limitation on use of the fields and these fields can be used seven nights a week and
indicated she would feel better if a balance could be struck, e.g., the lights cannot be on
more than "x" number of nights per week. She stated she was also concerned about how
the City got to this point in the first place, stating this issue has come up in other parts of
the community and the issues at Benilde galvanized the City into taking action. She
indicated Benilde asked for permission to redo their fields and part of the agreement was
that Benilde must comply with the Ordinance requirements, but Benilde did not comply
as it relates to spillover glare and rather than enforce the Ordinance, the City relaxed its
requirements. She stated she was not in favor of the Ordinance as drafted and would
prefer that Council take another look at the limitations on how many nights a week that
fields can be lit and also the issue regarding other ways to control glare.
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 3a) Page 6
Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes of September 24, 2012
Councilmember Spano asked how Section 7(b) regarding shielding devices would be
implemented to minimize glare impacts.
Ms. McMonigal explained it is expensive to change out all the lights and this Ordinance
would require every athletic field to install the most updated glare packages on their
lights when they are changing out their fixtures. She added that several of the City's
fields have already been updated but it will take some financial planning on the City's
part to plan for their eventual replacement.
Councilmember Sanger suggested that the Ordinance require that all fixtures be changed
over within a certain period of time. She stated priority needs to be given to recreational
lighting within a specified distance of residential properties to prevent glare into homes.
Mr. Scott stated that the City Council could require that all fixtures be changed over
within a certain period of time; in the case of Benilde, most if not all of the current
facilities are not in compliance from a glare standpoint and these are non-conforming
uses and if the City wanted to impose a deadline, the City Council could do that.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger to table First Reading pending further
discussion of proposed amendments by Council.
Councilmember Ross stated she felt the Ordinance should require lights off at 10:00 p.m.
instead of 11:00 p.m. and suggested looking at a provision that states if fields are going to
be lit past 10:00 p.m. those fields need to be retrofitted now and that might alleviate some
of those problems.
Councilmember Hallfin noted that a majority of the fields are City fields and he felt the
Ordinance was well written. He commended staff for their efforts in drafting the
Ordinance after significant discussion with Council.
The Motion failed for lack of a second.
It was moved by Councilmember Hallfin, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to approve
First Reading of Ordinance Amending the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code Relating to
Zoning by Amending Section 36-363 and to set Second Reading for October 15, 2012.
Councilmember Ross stated she agreed with Councilmember Sanger's concerns and
requested Council review the Ordinance in study session prior to the Second Reading.
The motion passed 6-1 (Councilmember Sanger opposed).
9. Communications
Councilmember Spano stated that a fundraiser for STEP is being held this evening until
10:00 p.m. at McCoy's with 25% of food and non-alcoholic beverage sales going to
STEP.
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 3a) Page 7
Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes of September 24, 2012
Mayor Jacobs stated the St. Louis Park Community Foundation will be holding a
fundraiser on September 29th at the Warehouse Winery. He added further information is
available on the St. Louis Park Public Schools Foundation website.
Mr. Harmening reminded residents that voters who wish to cast absentee ballots can do
so by obtaining a ballot at City Hall from 8:00 a.m.-4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday.
He stated that residents will also be able to vote on Saturday, November 3, from 10:00
a.m.-3:00 p.m. and until 5:00 p.m. on November 5th. He added if residents want to vote
by mail, residents can contact City Hall for an absentee ballot application form.
10. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 8:27 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: November 19, 2012
Agenda Item #: 4a
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Worker’s Compensation Insurance Renewal
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Approve Resolution authorizing Worker’s Compensation insurance renewal for
December 1, 2012 – November 30, 2013.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does Council approve the continuation of providing Worker’s Compensation insurance through
the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT) for the new premium amount for
December 1, 2012 – November 30, 2013?
BACKGROUND:
In 2003, Council approved participation in the LMCIT for Worker’s Compensation coverage.
The policy year for this coverage runs from December 1 – November 30 each year.
Self-Insured Costs:
From 1993 to 2003, the City was self-insured for Worker’s Compensation, using Sedgwick
Claims Management to administer our claims. We continue to be responsible for work comp
activity, including reactivated claims, from that timeframe. We are hopeful that we will be able
to continue using Sedgwick for administration of these old outstanding claims. Sedgwick
charges $10,000 each year for claims administration, plus we are responsible for any claims
activity. We have included this in the 2013 budget.
Fully-Insured Costs:
LMCIT has provided us with a renewal quote for the new contract year. The quote is as follows:
Current
12/1/11 – 11/30/12
Renewal
12/1/12 – 11/30/13
Decrease
$478,619 $470,470 -1.7%
The decrease is based on estimated payroll and our experience modification factor (review of
claims activity) of .97. An experience factor higher than 1.0 indicates we need to pay more due
to previous years of high claims activity. Our 2013 experience modification factor is based on
our claims from 2009, 2010, and 2011.
The Citywide Safety Committee regularly reviews worker’s compensation claims activity. The
committee members work closely with loss control consultants from the League of MN Cities
Insurance Trust to develop programs or training that addresses our high claims areas.
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 4a) Page 2
Subject: Worker’s Compensation Insurance Renewal
Volunteers:
In January 2007, the City began providing Worker’s Compensation coverage to City volunteers
via LMCIT for an annual cost of approximately $2,000. Staff recommends continued
participation in this program.
RECOMMENDATION:
We are pleased with how the Worker’s Compensation claims are being handled through LMCIT.
Staff recommends that Council approve the attached Resolution authorizing continued
participation in the LMCIT for Worker’s Compensation insurance coverage effective December
1, 2012.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Funds for the fully-insured Worker’s Compensation coverage through LMCIT are included in
the budget and charged back to departments. Funds for administration of old outstanding claims
from when we were self-insured with Sedgwick have also been reserved in the uninsured loss
fund of the budget.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Ali Fosse, HR Coordinator
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 4a) Page 3
Subject: Worker’s Compensation Insurance Renewal
RESOLUTION NO. 12-____
RESOLUTION APPROVING CONTINUED PARTICIPATION IN THE
LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES INSURANCE TRUST (LMCIT)
WORKER’S COMPENSATION PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to adopt Worker’s Compensation coverage and
programs to limit liability to the City of St. Louis Park;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park
that:
1. The City continues coverage with the League of MN Cities Insurance Trust for Worker’s
Compensation coverage effective December 1, 2012.
2. The City Manager shall continue to secure coverage for management of claims made
between the period of 1993 through 2003 when the City was self-insured for Worker’s
Compensation and also has the authority to continue to approve payment for necessary
administration, processing, and settlement of such open claims.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 19, 2012
City Manager
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: November 19, 2012
Agenda Item #: 4b
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Second Reading of an Ordinance Amending Xcel Franchise Ordinance #2086-97
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to approve second reading and Adopt Ordinance amending Xcel’s franchise ordinance
#2086-97 and authorize publication in full.
POLICY CONSIDERATIONS:
Does Council wish to extend the expiration date of Xcel’s current franchise ordinance by 3
months?
BACKGROUND:
History
The City currently has a franchise agreement with Xcel Energy (agreement expires February 20,
2013). Staff from Xcel Energy approached City staff early this year to begin discussing renewal
of their franchise ordinance.
The adoption of a new franchise ordinance was presented to the City Council at the July 23rd
Study Session, was followed up with a staff / Council discussion at the August 13th Study
Session, and a Public Hearing and first reading of the ordinance was conducted Monday, October
1st at which time second reading was set for October 15th. Due to several concerns identified by
Xcel and Council during first reading, a study session discussion was held on October 8th. On
October 15th second reading was continued to November 5th to allow time for Xcel and city staff
to revise the proposed ordinance. Ordinance provisions and possible revisions continue to be
discussed by Xcel and city staff; however, new ordinance provisions will not become finalized
soon enough to prevent the current franchise from expiring. To prevent the undesirable
expiration of the current franchise ordinance, several weeks ago Xcel requested and staff agreed
that we should extend the termination date of the current ordinance by three (3) months.
A public hearing was held and first reading of this proposed ordinance was approved at the
Council meeting of November 5, 2012.
This action would amend the current franchise ordinance making it effective through May 19,
2013.
Adoption Process and Schedule
Staff has developed the following steps and schedule for amending the current franchise
ordinance:
First Reading Nov 5, 2012
Second Reading (adopt ordinance and authorize publication) Nov 19, 2012
Submit Summary to Sun Sailor Nov 20, 2012
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 4x) Page 2
Subject: Second Reading of an Ordinance Amending Xcel Franchise Ordinance #2086-97
Ordinance Publication Nov 28, 2012
Ordinance Effective Date Dec 13, 2012
Summary
Staff recommends that Council approve second reading and adopt the Ordinance amending
Xcel’s franchise ordinance #2086-97 and authorize publication in full.
The current Franchise is effective through February 19, 2013. This amendment would make the
Franchise effective through May 19, 2013.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS:
The City’s Pavement Management Program is currently funded by franchise fee revenues,
collected for us by both Xcel and CPE, along with some general funds. Franchise fees can be
collected by a utility when the City has a franchise ordinance providing for this. Failure to
extend the current franchise expiration date will result in expiration of the current franchise
leading to the loss of many months of franchise fee revenues for our pavement management
program.
Based on the current fees, total Xcel franchise fees amount to approximately $843,445 annually.
The currently proposed increase in the Xcel franchise fee would add approximately $153,000 in
additional annual revenue to the Pavement Management Program.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Ordinance
Prepared by: Michael P. Rardin, Public Works Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 4x) Page 3
Subject: Second Reading of an Ordinance Amending Xcel Franchise Ordinance #2086-97
ORDINANCE NO.____-12
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ST. LOUIS PARK CITY
CODE SECTION 9-603 EXTENDING THE TERM OF
THE NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY FRANCHISE
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
SECTION 1. Section 9-603(1) of the St. Louis Park City Code is amended to extend the
term of the franchise granted to Northern States Power Company d/b/a Xcel Energy through May
19, 2013.
SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its passage and
publication.
ADOPTED this _____ day of __________, 2012, by the City Council of the City of St.
Louis Park.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council November 19, 2012
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
Date Published:____________________
Meeting Date: November 19, 2012
Agenda Item #: 4c
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other: Contract
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
2013 Contract for Boulevard Tree Pruning
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to authorize execution of a contract with Ostvig Tree, Inc. as the 2013 Boulevard Tree
Pruning contractor in an amount not to exceed $60,000.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to continue the City’s boulevard tree trimming program for 2013?
BACKGROUND:
This will be our tenth year of city-wide contract rotation boulevard tree pruning. The goal of this
contract is to increase the safety, health and function of all boulevard trees by removing low
branches, removing deadwood and eliminating future impediments to growth. This contract only
covers boulevard trees. Ostvig Tree, Inc. has successfully completed the 2007, 2008, 2010, and
2011 boulevard tree pruning contracts for the City of St. Louis Park. Parks and city-owned
property trees are rotationally pruned by Parks Maintenance staff.
Beginning on approximately January 2 and continuing until March 31, 2013 this contractual
rotational pruning will be performed, first in the Browndale neighborhood, continuing into the
Minikahda Oaks neighborhood, and then moving to the Eliot and Blackstone neighborhoods.
This rotational pruning keeps our cyclical tree maintenance on a nine year rotation.
QUOTE ANALYSIS:
Ostvig Tree, Inc. presented the lowest responsible quote of $91.80 per hour. The comparison
quotes based upon specifications for a two person crew with adequate equipment on a per hour
basis, are:
Ostvig Tree, Inc. ........................................................$ 91.80 per hour
Precision Landscape & Tree, Inc. ..............................$130.00 per hour
S & S Tree & Landscaping Specialists, Inc. ..............$150.00 per hour
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Ostvig, Tree Inc. will continue to prune boulevard trees until they reach the overall $60,000
contract amount. As in the past, staff will closely monitor the contractual obligations and work of
the contractor.
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 4c) Page 2
Subject: 2013 Contract for Boulevard Tree Pruning
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Managing our urban forest is consistent with the city’s Strategic Direction. “St. Louis Park is
committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship. We will increase environmental
consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city business”.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Stacy M. Voelker, Administrative Secretary
Jim Vaughan, Environmental Coordinator
Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: November 19, 2012
Agenda Item #: 4d
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Accept Monetary Donation from Leslie Marcus for Westwood Hills Nature Center ($100)
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution approving acceptance of a monetary donation from Leslie Marcus in
the amount of $100 for Westwood Hills Nature Center.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to accept the gift with restrictions on its use?
BACKGROUND:
State statute requires City Council’s acceptance of donations. This requirement is necessary in
order to make sure the City Council has knowledge of any restrictions placed on the use of each
donation prior to it being expended.
Leslie Marcus graciously donated $100 to Westwood Hills Nature Center. The donation is given
with the restriction that it be used at the discretion of Westwood Hills Nature Center.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
This donation will be used at the discretion of Westwood Hills Nature Center.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The donation will assist us in preserving, enhancing and providing good stewardship of our
parks. This is consistent with the first strategic direction, “St. Louis Park is committed to being a
connected and engaged community.”
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Stacy Voelker, Administrative Secretary
Mark Oestreich, Manager of Westwood Hills Nature Center
Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 4d) Page 2
Subject: Accept Monetary Donation from Leslie Marcus for Westwood Hills Nature Center ($100)
RESOLUTION NO. 12-____
RESOLUTION APPROVING ACCEPTANCE OF DONATION
IN THE AMOUNT OF $100
TO BE USED AT THE DISCRETION OF
WESTWOOD HILLS NATURE CENTER
WHEREAS, The City of St. Louis Park is required by State statute to authorize
acceptance of any donations; and
WHEREAS, the City Council must also ratify any restrictions placed on the donation by
the donor; and
WHEREAS, Leslie Marcus donated $100 to Westwood Hills Nature Center; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park that the gift is hereby accepted with thanks to Leslie Marcus with the understanding that it
must be used at the discretion of Westwood Hills Nature Center.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council November 19, 2012
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: November 19, 2012
Agenda Item #: 4e
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
St Louis Park Community Foundation/Minnesota Community Foundation Grant
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution approving acceptance of a grant from the St. Louis Park Youth
Development Fund of the St. Louis Park Community Foundation/Minnesota Community
Foundation in the amount of $2,500 for use by the Parks and Recreation Department for the
summer playground program.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to accept the grant with restrictions on its use?
BACKGROUND:
The St. Louis Park Youth Development Fund of the St. Louis Park Community
Foundation/Minnesota Community Foundation has graciously awarded to the Park and
Recreation Department a grant in the amount of $2,500. The grant is given to provide funding
for the Parks and Recreation playground program so the City can continue to provide the
program at a rate that is affordable to all residents.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
This grant will assist in funding for the Parks and Recreation Department’s summer playground
program. Staff is proposing that this money be matched with expenditures budgeted in 2013
from the Organized Recreation budget.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
St. Louis Park continues to build on its Strategic Direction of increasing and strengthening
neighborhoods and grants such as this from the St. Louis Park Youth Development Fund through
the St Louis Park Community Foundation/Minnesota Community Foundation. This is consistent
with the first strategic direction, “St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.”
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Stacy Voelker, Administrative Secretary
Rick Birno, Recreation Superintendent
Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 4e) Page 2
Subject: St Louis Park Community Foundation/Minnesota Community Foundation Grant
RESOLUTION NO. 12-___
RESOLUTION APPROVING ACCEPTANCE OF A GRANT
FROM THE ST. LOUIS PARK YOUTH DEVELOPMENT FUND
OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK COMMUNITY FOUNDATION/MINNESOTA
COMMUNITY FOUNDATION
IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,500 FOR USE BY THE
PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT
FOR THE SUMMER PLAYGROUND PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the St Louis Park Community Foundation/Minnesota Community
Foundation desires to assist the Parks and Recreation Department in reducing the registration fee
for the playground program with a grant of $2,500;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park that the grant is hereby accepted with thanks and appreciation.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council November 19, 2012
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: November 19, 2012
Agenda Item #: 4f
OFFICIAL MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
SEPTEMBER 19, 2012 – 6:00 p.m.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynne Carper, Claudia Johnston-Madison, Robert Kramer,
Dennis Morris, Richard Person, Carl Robertson,
MEMBERS ABSENT: Larry Shapiro
STAFF PRESENT: Adam Fulton, Meg McMonigal, Gary Morrison,
Nancy Sells
1. Call to Order – Roll Call
2. Approval of Minutes of August 15, 2012
Commissioner Morris moved approval of the minutes of August 15, 2012.
Commissioner Robertson seconded the motion, and the motion passed 6-0.
3. Public Hearings
A. Registered Land Survey
Location: Southeast quadrant State Hwy. 7 and Blake Road
Applicant: Solomon Real Estate Group
Case No.: 12-26-S
Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator, presented the staff report. He explained
that the Registered Land Survey (RLS) is proposed to divide property owned by MnDOT
into two tracts. Tract A will remain with MnDOT for right-of-way purposes. Tract B
will be sold to the Solomon Real Estate Group. The applicant will combine Tract B with
land they own located in Hopkins. The combined land is proposed to be redeveloped into
a retail center.
Mr. Morrison said the applicant has asked to re-landscape the area around the city
monument. They will also irrigate the area and continue to maintain the property into the
future. The city and the developer will enter into a maintenance agreement.
Commissioner Carper said currently the cul-de-sac partially functions as the south service
road for Hwy. 7. He said with the proposed changes it appears that vehicles could come
through that and use it as a short cut to come through the parking lot in order to approach
Blake Rd.
Mr. Morrison said there will be the ability to drive from Blake Rd. along the driveway
then up along the service road. He said the developer is aware of this and is willing to
accept the cut through traffic on the parking lot. However, it’s anticipated there won’t be
much cut through traffic as it wouldn’t be much of a time saver.
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 4f) Page 2
Subject: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of September 19, 2012
Chair Kramer opened the public hearing. As there was no one present wishing to speak
he closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Morris made a motion recommending approval of the Registered Land
Survey subject to conditions included by staff. Commissioner Person seconded the
motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 6-0.
B. Eliot School Site – Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Location: 6720 and 6800 Cedar Lake Road
Applicant: Eliot Park Apartments, LLC
Case No.: 12-24-CP
Adam Fulton, Planner, presented the staff report. The request is to modify the
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map from Civic to High Density Residential and Low
Density Residential. This modification would allow the applicant to request a rezoning
of the property, and, if necessary, a Planned Unit Development, for its development
proposal of two 72-unit apartment buildings and three new single family lots.
Mr. Fulton spoke about the public process for the site, including a traffic study which was
initiated in August. Staff has seen a draft of the traffic study. As soon as details of the
study are available they will be shared with the neighborhood, the developer, the
Commission and City Council.
Mr. Fulton discussed the Eliot Community Center Site Reuse Study/Design Guidelines
which were adopted into the Comprehensive Plan. He commented on the request for
overall density of 34.4 units per acre rather than medium density residential
recommended by the design guidelines. He said density refers not just to number of units
per acre, but the bulk and size of buildings, and overall aspects of the development. He
said the way in which other recommendations of the design guidelines are met exceeds
the issues posed by moderately exceeding the density recommendation.
He summarized by saying the development meets the general standards of the
Comprehensive Plan and, considered as a whole, the proposal exceeds the
recommendations of the design guidelines.
Commissioner Robertson asked why a rezoning isn’t requested at the same time as a
Comprehensive Plan amendment.
Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor, said the zoning ordinance requires
two sets of processes for a major land use change. Once the Comprehensive Plan
amendment is passed the rezoning and development review can be requested.
Dana Hunt, president Hunt Associates, said having the design guidelines in place made it
much easier for them to move forward. He said they gave up a lot of height for a little
more density. He said they worked very hard to make the development fit in with the
neighborhood.
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 4f) Page 3
Subject: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of September 19, 2012
Chair Kramer opened the public hearing.
Laura Nolan, 2037 Hampshire Ave. S., asked about studies which indicate if there is a
demand for this size of unit, this size building and this rental amount. She asked if these
buildings might end up half empty.
Ms. McMonigal responded that the developer could address that question. She added the
city has seen a high demand for rental housing.
Mr. Hunt stated that the rental market is very good currently. He added that new product
is a move-up for many people. Many people don’t wish to buy in the current market or
no longer want to own a home. He said it is the lenders and equity partners who
determine whether a project goes forward.
Judy Dvorak, 6636 W. 16th St., stated she is a block captain and she did not receive
notification of the public hearing. She suggested that the city create a place on its website
for community feedback on this project, as has been done with other city issues. She
went door to door and found that some neighbors had received notification of the public
hearing. She and a couple of her next door neighbors did not receive notification. Ms.
Dvorak said she lives on the dead end which has been closed for years. She stated that
13th and Hampshire is all apartment complexes and the dead end was placed there for the
purpose of keeping residential separate from apartments. The current proposal will put
apartments in an area that is residential on all four sides. She said years ago the city tried
to block the two uses from being together and she asked how things have changed with
the city.
Ms. Dvorak spoke about an apartment complex in her backyard called The Gables at Park
Point. She said noise and traffic comes from those apartment buildings all night long.
She said it should be of concern to put apartment buildings in the middle of a residential
area.
Ms. Dvorak stated that she went to all the apartments on 13th and Hampshire. All of
those apartments except one have vacancies. The building with the lowest rent had no
vacancies. She asked what market rate means, what price range does that mean. She
asked if the proposed buildings would also have high vacancy. She said she was
disappointed with the proposed high density as the design committee favored medium
density. Ms. Dvorak asked about number of parking spaces allowed per apartment unit.
She said there will only be 56 extra spots at the new development. She spoke about
parking which occurs all over the neighborhood already. Traffic will increase. She said
years ago they tried to get a stop sign installed on the corner and the city denied the
request.
Elaine D. Mense, 6712 Cedar Lake Road, said she has lived right next to the school for
over 50 years. She said she conducted a survey three times and has petitions at home.
She said everyone she spoke with said they would like a two-story building, not a three
story building. She said all the neighborhood wanted family homes to be built, not
apartment buildings. She said she is also concerned about parking and traffic. Ms. Mense
said she had concerns about rezoning without taking the neighborhood into consideration.
This was a neighborhood. They had a school without any problems. Now high density
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 4f) Page 4
Subject: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of September 19, 2012
apartments are being proposed. She said there are new apartments all over the city, but
not in residential areas. She said old people in the neighborhood do not plan on renting
an apartment. The neighborhood does not want apartments. She said they are a
neighborhood and she asked why the neighborhood doesn’t have a choice.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison recommended that Ms. Mense bring the petitions to
city staff.
Ms. McMonigal said what is being proposed is also residential. She said the suggestion
to be able to make online comments is a very good idea and staff will see if that can be
implemented. She said parking and traffic will be addressed with the zoning and Planned
Unit Development when final plans are available. The traffic study will be reviewed at
the next set of public hearings. She remarked that the proposed density is slightly above
the medium density category in the Comprehensive Plan in terms of units/acre. She said
what is different about the proposal is that there isn’t surface parking taking up the site
and the height is lower than the design guidelines which said 2-5 stories, and the proposal
is topping out at 3 stories in height. She added that underground parking and lots of
green space on the site are also elements that make up density, it isn’t just units/acre. A
lot of apartment complexes are built with a lot of surface parking and very little green
space. She explained what really comes to play in density is the look, feel, and location
of the buildings on the site and the green space. The medium density and multi-story
buildings were recommended by the design guidelines committee. That was part of the
agreement and work of the committee. Ms. McMonigal stated that this proposal, while
slightly outside of the medium density units/acre, really does meet the overall idea of
what was promoted in the design guidelines and that is why the development is under
consideration.
Chair Kramer asked if the dead end between homes and apartments that was mentioned
was to prevent cut through traffic.
Mr. Fulton said there are a number of locations in the city that have those cul-de-sacs. In
many cases they are constructed to avoid cut through traffic.
Mr. Fulton stated that staff did receive Mrs. Mense’s petition at the neighborhood
meeting. The petition is on file and has been provided to the City Council.
Mrs. Mense indicated that she had another petition that could be provided to the city.
Gretchen Garcia, 6630 W. 16th St., said she appreciated the clarification about density.
She said when she was reading about the project in the Sun Sailor in late spring it was her
understanding that the designed use was going to be single family residences. She wasn’t
able to follow the summer meetings and was not able to attend the meeting located at the
West End. She said she wasn’t sure when the single family vision changed. She was
excited by that prospect as it would continue a single family dwelling residential area that
is the Eliot neighborhood. She remarked that the neighborhood is currently bordered by
apartments. She said she’s very concerned about adding that degree of density to the
neighborhood. Schools operate five days a week. Apartment buildings will impact the
neighborhood 24 hours/day. There are no sidewalks one block from the school site.
People skateboard and bicycle in the street. Families from the apartment buildings walk
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 4f) Page 5
Subject: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of September 19, 2012
through the neighborhood to a lovely park north of the site. Children walk to the park all
the time. She said the neighborhood can’t afford sidewalks but the increase of traffic is a
significant concern for pedestrians. Ms. Garcia said she doesn’t believe the neighborhood
has had adequate input to prepare for the dramatic change being proposed. She stated
that she is glad there is more opportunity for review with rezoning but said she’d like to
nip this in the bud and take high density off the table, saying it isn’t appropriate for the
neighborhood.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked Ms. Garcia if she had ever seen the design
guidelines.
Ms. Garcia responded that she had not seen the guidelines.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison said the guidelines which the neighborhood agreed to
are available on the city’s website.
Ms. McMonigal said the guidelines were finalized in the summer of 2010.
Kristopher Petrie, 2049 Jersey Ave. S., said he attended one of the design guideline
meetings. The overwhelming response was for low density, owner occupied housing.
Guidelines for other design elements were also discussed. Mr. Petrie said the committee
did a tremendous job in incorporating the guidelines discussed for high density, but the
first choice was for single family owner occupied properties. He said he was concerned
if high density is approved that the neighborhood will end up with some other developer
who does not share the same vision and will build 5 stories with no setbacks. Mr. Petrie
said he’s concerned with some of the uncontrolled intersections and high density,
specifically at 18th and Kentucky and 22nd and Kentucky. He said parking issues won’t
become evident until the property is developed.
Jan Agren, 1810 Hampshire, a block captain, said she is not happy about adding 200-300
people to the block. Perspectives has eight projects in St. Louis Park and she doesn’t
think there is need for additional apartments. She said she was concerned about problems
if the proposed building management isn’t able to get higher rents and has to lower the
rent. She said she was also concerned about the three proposed single family homes in
the back. She asked why one of the lots couldn’t be a beautiful playground. Ms. Agren
commented that the only playground in the whole area is Jersey Park. The school had a
beautiful playground. She asked the city to give the neighborhood something, perhaps a
park.
John B. Lang, 6610 Cedar Lake Rd., said he is in construction and from a construction
standpoint he feels that Hunt and Associates has done a nice job with the proposed
apartments. He said they could have done far worse. He said he is concerned about
traffic on Cedar Lake Rd. Mr. Lang stated that throughout the year he cannot get out of
his driveway during rush hour. He said 25 years ago he and another resident tried to get
the city to install a stop light on Edgewood. That request was refused. He said if the city
were to address some of the traffic problems, a lot of the neighborhood would be less
antagonistic towards the proposed development.
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 4f) Page 6
Subject: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of September 19, 2012
Angela Lange, 2001 Hampshire Ave. S., said that adding the apartment buildings will
dramatically lower the value of all of the surrounding homes. She said she purchased her
home in 2001. She has been experiencing financial hardship since 2008. Because of the
economy and the state of the housing market she said has been unable to sell her house.
She had an offer on the house in late August 2012. The potential buyers found out the
school site was being zoned for apartment buildings and they backed out of the deal.
She asked the Commission to consider not approving the proposal and to find another
useful way to use the land.
Tammy Nelson, 1849 Hampshire Ave. S., lives at the corner of Franklin and Hampshire.
She said currently there is a problem at that intersection because no one stops at the stop
sign. A trail comes out there which children use all the time. Adding increased volume
to the neighborhood is going to increase the likelihood that someone will get hurt at the
intersection. There are no sidewalks and people walk down the street all the time. Ms.
Nelson said she is also concerned about the value of her house decreasing. She said no
one wants to buy next to a giant apartment complex.
Jamie Calle, 2055 Kentucky Ave. S., said he purchased his home in 2004. He’s very
happy in the neighborhood. He has two children who play in the streets. The family is
very happy in St. Louis Park. He said the city talks about various studies for a
development, but no one does a study about the neighborhood, how the development will
affect the people who live in the neighborhood. He said he came from South America
with a dream to own a house, to live happily, to have safe streets, and a safe
neighborhood. He said he understands the businessman’s perspective. He asked who
will pay the consequences if the development goes badly, if something goes wrong. He
said the neighborhood, his kids, and other kids will pay the consequences. He said he
wants his children to live happily and to go to nice schools. He said he works hard at two
jobs to keep his house. He said all he wants is to raise his kids with the dream he has in
his heart.
Wade Hammer, 2201 Jersey Ave. S., said he wanted to point out changes from the design
guidelines. One of the principles of the study was for medium density residential land
use, not high density. He said the city continues to talk about medium density as 129
units/acre. He said on page 9 of the design guidelines the range of medium density
residential is 6 – 30 units/acre. That is a range of 26 – 129 units on that site. Mr. Hammer
said that while the city continues to talk about medium density being the highest end of
the range, when you start at high density it tends to gravitate to looking at the higher end
of medium density. He said he might suggest the medium range of medium density is
something much less that 129 units on the property. He said he couldn’t speak to the
economic feasibility of that. Mr. Hammer continued by saying he would recommend that
the city continue to look at the entire range of medium density as opposed to just the high
end of medium density.
Mr. Hammer said another principle which has not been mentioned is No. 8, the
preference for owner occupied housing.
Chair Kramer closed the public hearing as no one else was present wishing to speak.
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 4f) Page 7
Subject: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of September 19, 2012
Commissioner Morris said he was glad to hear the community’s valuable input. He said
they have a good comprehensive argument for medium density. He said the impact of the
development is a city-wide impact, not just neighborhood impact. He said many
discussions and study sessions on the site have been held but there seems to be a
compelling argument for medium density.
Commissioner Robertson stated that he sat in on the design guidelines meetings. He said
high density was not embraced at all and the neighborhood said with hesitation that
medium density was understandable. He said he didn’t see a big difference between the
high end of medium density and the low end of high density. Medium density is the
buffer between single family low residential and high density. He said this development
has no buffer. Existing home owners at the north end of the school did not buy homes
next to an apartment building. The proposed new single family homes would buffer
those existing homes to the north from apartments. He said he thought the idea of the
new three single family homes on the north end of the site is that the buyers would know
what they were getting into. He said he didn’t see a buffer between single family homes
on one side of the street and high density on the other side of the street. He said he
agreed that medium density at the high end meets the developer’s needs and protects and
respects the neighborhood a little bit more.
Commissioner Person remarked on a comment made that if high density was adopted and
the development did not go ahead, then the upper range of high density would be a
possibility for the next proposal.
Ms. McMonigal said in this case if the Comprehensive Plan was changed and the
development proposal didn’t go through, the city would recommend that the site be
reguided from high density back to Civic or to a lower medium density category.
Commissioner Robertson said that makes him uncomfortable in that reguiding and
rezoning changes should stand alone, not with a particular development in mind.
Chair Robertson said more discussion needs to occur about the traffic impact. He
commented that other new high density developments in the city have been on the edges
of communities, not in the middle of communities. He said he wasn’t even sure about
medium density and traffic impact in that area.
Mr. Fulton said the draft traffic study which has just been received needs substantial
refinement. Generally the traffic study indicates making turns on and off Cedar Lake Rd.
is a concern. He said there is a lot of traffic on Cedar Lake Road and he thinks
substantially more than 192 units would have to be built to make a difference in how that
traffic operates today. There is an impact to Idaho and Hampshire. Details do need to be
analyzed further. As soon as the study is available it will be shared with the neighborhood
and the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Morris added that the school site is a substantial site. It is going to be
residential. No one in the last 10-15 years has proposed single family homes for this kind
of site. It is not an economic feasibility. The city should be guiding this to a medium or
low density type of residential development. He said he got the impression from
comments made by the neighborhood that apartment dwellers are not neighbors, they are
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 4f) Page 8
Subject: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of September 19, 2012
second class citizens. He said he is looking at retirement and wants to downsize and not
have yard work and he is considering rental. He said he has bad neighbors living in single
family homes. He has bad neighbors living in rental homes. Traffic will increase because
the site will support multiple families. Something will change unless the site sits as a
vacant lot for the next 10 years. He said he wondered if a condominium development
was being proposed if the sentiment would be the same.
Commissioner Robertson said he would not support high density and he would support
medium density. He said he respected the process of the design guidelines which
recommended medium density.
Commissioner Morris noted that the guidelines and neighborhood would support medium
density, but along with that will come traffic. He commented that children should not be
playing in streets just because there are not sidewalks. The city is trying to get more
sidewalks. He said he applauds the development and thinks it can go forward but not
with as much density as proposed. He said he gives a great deal of weight to the
community’s input.
Commissioner Morris made a motion recommending denial of an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan for high density residential designation. Commissioner Johnston-
Madison seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0.
Commissioner Morris made a motion recommending the City Council to amend the
Comprehensive Plan for a medium density residential designation and a low density
residential designation. Commissioner Person seconded the motion. The motion passed
6-0.
Mr. Fulton said the item is tentatively scheduled to go before the City Council on October
15, 2012. He asked anyone who did not receive Planning Commission notification to
leave their addresses with him for future notifications.
C. Various Design Standards – Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Applicant: City of St. Louis Park
Case No.: 12-28-ZA
The Chair stated that the public hearing has been postponed.
4. Other Business
5. Communications
A. 2012 Semi-Annual Housing Programs Report
B. Business Park Rezoning of Properties
Mr. Fulton provided an update on Business Park rezoning of properties. The Planning
Commission recommended and the City Council adopted the new Business Park
ordinance in May, 2012. Since then, staff has been developing a process for the rezoning.
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 4f) Page 9
Subject: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of September 19, 2012
Neighborhood meetings, open houses and individual business owner meetings have been
held. Outreach efforts are on-going. The next step will be a City Council study session
in early October. Public hearings for property rezonings could come before the Planning
Commission by the end of the year.
C. Development Tour – October 3rd
The Planning Commission will have a tour of development sites on October 3rd,
beginning at 5:00 p.m.
6. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 7:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Nancy Sells
Administrative Secretary
Meeting Date: November 19, 2012
Agenda Item #: 4g
FIRE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION MINUTES
September 25, 2012 – 8:00 a.m.
FIRE STATION 1 CONFERENCE ROOM
1) The meeting was called to order at 8:00 a.m. by President Douville.
2) In attendance were Commissioners William MacMillan and David Lee and President
Marjorie Douville. Also present were Ali Fosse, Human Resources Coordinator/Staff
Liaison; Eric Bakken, President Local 993; Cary Smith and Mike Dobesh, Assistant
Chiefs; and Luke Stemmer, Fire Chief.
3) A motion was made by Commissioner Lee, seconded by Commissioner MacMillan, to
approve the minutes from the August 17, 2012 meeting. Motion carried unanimously.
4) Chief Stemmer explained the process for Fire Lieutenant that six candidates applied and
tested for. All candidates achieved a score of 70 or higher on the process and are
included on the eligibility list. A motion was made by Commissioner Lee, seconded by
Commissioner MacMillan, to accept the Fire Lieutenant Eligibility Roster. Motion
carried unanimously.
5) A motion was made by Commissioner MacMillan, seconded by Commissioner Lee, to
certify the top three names on the list: Matthew Nordby, Eric Curran-Bakken, and Hugo
Searle. Motion carried unanimously.
6) In other business, Chief Stemmer notified the Commission that currently, only two
names are certified on the Firefighter Eligibility Roster and he would like a third name to
be certified so that he can fill a vacancy that has arisen due to Assistant Chief Dobesh’s
resignation. A motion was made by Commissioner Lee, seconded by Commissioner
MacMillan, to certify the next name on the Firefighter Eligibility Roster: Scott Perrier.
Motion carried unanimously.
7) The Commission adjourned at 8:07 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Ali Fosse
City Staff Liaison to the Fire Civil Service Commission
Meeting Date: November 19, 2012
Agenda Item #: 4h
MINUTES
St. Louis Park Housing Authority
Westwood Room, St. Louis Park City Hall
Wednesday, October 10, 2012, 5:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Catherine Courtney, Osman Mire
Commissioner Justin Kaufman arrived at 5:07 p.m.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Commissioners Renee DuFour, Suzanne Metzger
STAFF PRESENT: Jane Klesk, Kevin Locke, Michele Schnitker
1. Call to Order – The meeting was called to order at 5:05 p.m.
2. Approval of Minutes for September, 2012
The Board minutes of September 12, 2012 were unanimously approved.
3. Hearings – None
4. Reports and Committees – None
5. Unfinished Business – None
6. New Business
a. Eliot School Redevelopment Site Follow-Up Discussion
Ms. Schnitker opened discussion on the Eliot School redevelopment site. The
Board stated its desire to include the suggested comments by Commissioner
Kaufman in the HA Board comments to the City Council and Planning
Commission on the Eliot School proposed development. The HA Board
supported the concept of the project and noted that reducing the number of units
in the development could impact affordability. The HA Board also added that
they support a proactive approach to creating affordable housing with a broad
focus that includes affordable homeownership, mixed-income developments,
affordable rental developments and preserving existing affordable units
throughout the community. Staff will prepare a final draft of the Board’s
comments related to the Eliot School redevelopment proposal, including the
additional comments discussed at the meeting, and submit for inclusion with the
Council report on the Eliot School site rezoning designation that will be occurring
at Monday’s night’s meeting.
b. Continuing Discussion: Strategies and Tools for Creating Affordable Housing in
New Market Rate Housing Developments
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 4h) Page 2
Subject: Housing Authority Meeting Minutes of October 10, 2012
Ms. Schnitker updated the Commissioners on the discussion held with Dan Hunt,
Eliot School site developer. The Board discussed the need for the City to make a
public commitment to creating affordable housing opportunities. Commissioner
Kaufman suggested that a policy statement be created that supports a proactive
and broad focus approach for creating affordable housing. It was also suggested
that the statement then be supplemented with the strategies and tools. Some
additional comments included meeting with a developer to brainstorm, including
senior housing as part of the discussion, setting a goal for adding a specific
number of affordable housing units, and identifying a revenue strategy that could
be dedicated for affordable housing.
c. Review: Navigating the New Normal
Materials from the Urban Land Institute workshop were included in the Board
packet. Navigating the New Normal workshop was held September 10, 2012, in
conjunction with the City Council and Planning Commission. Commissioners
Kaufman and Mire attended.
7. Communications from Executive Director
a. Claims List – October, 2012
b. Communications
1. Monthly Report – October, 2012
8. Other
9. Adjournment
Commissioner Kaufman moved to adjourn the meeting, and Commissioner Mire
seconded the motion. The motion passed 3-0. The meeting adjourned at 6:23 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
____________________
Renee DuFour, Secretary
Meeting Date: November 19, 2012
Agenda Item #: 4i
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Vendor Claims
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to accept for filing Vendor Claims for the period October 27 through November 9, 2012.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
BACKGROUND:
The Finance Department prepares this report on a monthly basis for Council’s review.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Vendor Claims
Prepared by: Connie Neubeck, Account Clerk
11/15/2012 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:57:21 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
1 Page - Council Check Summary
11/9/2012 - 10/27/2012
Vendor Amount Business Unit Object
3,364.58 OPERATIONS TRAINING 2ND WIND EXERCISE EQUIPMENT
3,364.58
260.00 SKATEBOARD PROGRAMS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3RD LAIR SKATEPARK
260.00
267.51 ORGANIZED REC G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR ABERNATHY, LISA
267.51
9,960.00 PAINTING OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES AERIAL PAINTING INC
9,960.00
5,343.75 PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES AIM ELECTRONICS
5,343.75
184.00 OPERATIONS OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES AIRGAS NORTH CENTRAL
184.00
65.96 YOUTH PROGRAMS GENERAL SUPPLIES ALL STAR SPORTS
65.96
2,500.00 ADMINISTRATION G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS ALLIANCE FOR INNOVATION
2,500.00
13.57- GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTS ALLIED PRODUCTS CORP
210.97 GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
197.40
320.00 WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE AL'S FAN BALANCING SERVICES
320.00
236.26 PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY AMERICAN TIRE DISTRIBUTORS
236.26
18.28- IT G & A BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES ANCHOR PAPER CO
1,953.36 SUPPORT SERVICES G&A OFFICE SUPPLIES
1,935.08
1,929.52 FABRICATION OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES ANDERSEN INC, EARL
1,929.52
500.55 GENERAL CUSTODIAL DUTIES OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES ARAMARK UNIFORM CORP ACCTS
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 2
11/15/2012 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:57:21 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
2 Page - Council Check Summary
11/9/2012 - 10/27/2012
Vendor Amount Business Unit Object
26.72 ENTERPRISE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
527.27
6,164.55 PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY ASPEN EQUIPMENT CO
6,164.55
300.00 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A TRAINING ATC ASSOCIATES INC
300.00
663.16 GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICE ATIR ELECTRIC CORPORATION
663.16
193.75 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE ATOMIC RECYCLING
193.75
86.36 PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY AUTO PLUS
86.36
290.81- GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTS BANNER CREATIONS
4,520.81 PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
38.78- SSD 1 BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
602.78 SSD 1 G&A OTHER
32.31- SSD 2 BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
502.31 SSD 2 G&A OTHER
25.85- SSD 3 BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
401.85 SSD 3 G&A OTHER
5,640.00
451.01 ARENA MAINTENANCE OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES BECKER ARENA PRODUCTS
451.01
205.37 ORGANIZED REC G & A TRAINING BIRNO, RICK
205.37
2,000.00 ESCROWS PMC ESCROW BLUEROCK PROPERTIES LLC
2,000.00
12,000.00- PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH FOR FUTURE EXPENDITURES BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY
12,000.00 PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH UNRESERV/UNDESIGN
12,000.00 PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
12,000.00
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 3
11/15/2012 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:57:21 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
3 Page - Council Check Summary
11/9/2012 - 10/27/2012
Vendor Amount Business Unit Object
388.38 INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES BOBIER, HEIDI
388.38
403.47 PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY BOYER TRUCK PARTS
403.47
1,595.25 CE MATERIALS TESTING IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI BRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION
1,595.25
1,426.85 GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS BAL S RETAINED PERCENTAGE BROTHERS FIRE PROTECTION
1,426.85
12.02- GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTS BROWNELLS, INC
142.54 POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
44.30 POLICE G & A POSTAGE
174.82
16.10 WATER UTILITY G&A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR CAIN, DAVE
16.10
647.66 IT G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE CARTRIDGE CARE
647.66
272.86 EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CBIZ FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS INC
272.86
127.10 TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT CDW GOVERNMENT INC
127.10
44.55 SEWER UTILITY G&A HEATING GAS CENTERPOINT ENERGY
44.55
10,400.00 EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S OTHER RETIREMENT CENTRAL PENSION FUND
10,400.00
34.65 FACILITIES MCTE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES CHUX SCREEN PRINTING
92.90 PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
69.10 PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
30.30 REC CENTER BUILDING OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
30.20 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
110.85 WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
100.00 SEWER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 4
11/15/2012 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:57:21 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
4 Page - Council Check Summary
11/9/2012 - 10/27/2012
Vendor Amount Business Unit Object
100.00 STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
568.00
46.81 PUBLIC WORKS G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES CINTAS CORPORATION
818.32 PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
18.17 AQUATIC PARK BUDGET GENERAL SUPPLIES
120.08 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
72.21 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
11.70 GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES
1,087.29
38.49- GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTS CITIZENS INDEPENDENT BANK
1,152.31 ADMINISTRATION G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
398.85 ADMINISTRATION G & A MEETING EXPENSE
8.20 HUMAN RESOURCES OFFICE SUPPLIES
29.95 HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
234.00 HUMAN RESOURCES RECRUITMENT
11.93 HUMAN RESOURCES ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
910.95 HUMAN RESOURCES RECOGNITION
168.11 HUMAN RESOURCES MEETING EXPENSE
125.86 IT G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
1,013.55 IT G & A TRAINING
86.91 GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
347.22 POLICE G & A TELEPHONE
15.01 POLICE G & A MEETING EXPENSE
762.51 ERU TRAINING
486.16 E BYRNE JAG 2009-10 TRAVEL/MEETINGS
278.76 OPERATIONS GENERAL SUPPLIES
633.96 OPERATIONS FIRE PREVENTION SUPPLIES
807.77 OPERATIONS OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
144.31 OPERATIONS TRAINING
684.00 OPERATIONS SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
108.78 INSPECTIONS G & A TRAINING
470.00 PUBLIC WORKS G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
1,860.00 ENGINEERING G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
385.00 TRAINING SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
538.84 PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY
144.39- PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
70.24 ORGANIZED REC G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
34.10 ORGANIZED REC G & A TELEPHONE
635.90 ORGANIZED REC G & A TRAINING
40.01 ORGANIZED REC G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 5
11/15/2012 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:57:21 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
5 Page - Council Check Summary
11/9/2012 - 10/27/2012
Vendor Amount Business Unit Object
1,500.00 ADULT PROGRAMS GENERAL SUPPLIES
91.47 SPECIAL EVENTS GENERAL SUPPLIES
181.59 HOLIDAY PROGRAMS GENERAL SUPPLIES
860.44 PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
112.73 ENVIRONMENTAL G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
87.73 WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
1,264.57 HALLOWEEN PARTY GENERAL SUPPLIES
30.56 REC CENTER/AQUATIC PARK SAL OFFICE SUPPLIES
63.59 REC CENTER/AQUATIC PARK SAL SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
62.85 REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES
38.49 BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
638.00 LIFEGUARDING TRAINING
583.36 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A SMALL TOOLS
120.49 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A TELEPHONE
285.00 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
5.98 BLDG/GROUNDS OPS & MAINT BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
20.12 BLDG/GROUNDS OPS & MAINT CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY
22.41- GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS BAL S DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
348.35 GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
2.10- WATER UTILITY BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
32.61 WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
235.00 WATER UTILITY G&A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
16.59- STORM WATER UTILITY BAL SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
257.97 STORM WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
730.32 STORM WATER UTILITY G&A SMALL TOOLS
808.71 TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT
20,579.14
3,385.30 CONCESSIONS/HOCKEY ASSOC CONCESSION SUPPLIES COCA-COLA BOTTLING CO
3,385.30
18,669.09 ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL SERVICES COLICH & ASSOCIATES
18,669.09
4.51 BUILDING MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE COMCAST
4.51
188.85 PATCHING-PERMANENT OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES COMMERCIAL ASPHALT COMPANY
2,520.50 PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
2,709.35
40.08 POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES COMPAR INC
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 6
11/15/2012 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:57:21 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
6 Page - Council Check Summary
11/9/2012 - 10/27/2012
Vendor Amount Business Unit Object
40.08
87.04 REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES COPELAND, PATRICK
87.04
342.31 PRE-SCHOOL PROGRAMS GENERAL SUPPLIES CREATIVE KIDSTUFF
342.31
19,401.25 CABLE TV G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES CTC
19,401.25
8,020.00 ORGANIZED REC G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES CUNINGHAM GROUP ARCHITECTURE I
8,020.00
8,000.00 ESCROWS PMC ESCROW DAGGETT, DALE
8,000.00
739.95 GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES DALCO ENTERPRISES INC
434.44 REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES
1,174.39
564.58 WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS DEMARRIAS, DEVONNE
564.58
7,016.00 EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A UNEMPLOYMENT DEPT EMPLOYMENT & ECONOMIC DEV
7,016.00
293.35 ENTERPRISE G & A ADVERTISING DEX MEDIA EAST LLC
293.35
389.00 PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES DJ ELECTRIC SERVICES INC
1,039.05 REC CENTER BUILDING MAINTENANCE
5,527.20 PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
6,955.25
2,185.36 GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES DLR GROUP KKE
2,185.36
5,535.41 POLICE G & A OFFICE EQUIPMENT DYNAMIC IMAGING SYSTEMS INC
125.00 POLICE G & A POSTAGE
3,206.31 TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT
8,866.72
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 7
11/15/2012 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:57:21 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
7 Page - Council Check Summary
11/9/2012 - 10/27/2012
Vendor Amount Business Unit Object
256.36 SYSTEM REPAIR OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES EGAN COMPANIES INC
256.36
722.43 GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE EMERGENCY APPARATUS MTNCE
722.43
7,718.15 PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY EMERGENCY AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOG
7,718.15
450.00 ADMINISTRATION G & A TRAINING EMPLOYEE STRATEGIES INC
450.00
140.00 IT G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE ENCORE BROKERS
140.00
3,025.53 RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI EVERGREEN LAND SERVICES CO
3,025.53
405.40 PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY FACTORY MOTOR PARTS CO
405.40
335.36- GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTS FIRE EQUIPMENT SPECIALTIES INC
5,213.36 OPERATIONS FIRE EQUIPMENT
4,878.00
424.10 PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES FISCHER MINING LLC
424.10
70.00 ROUTINE MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES FOGARTY, COLLEEN
70.00
11.74- GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTS FORMS & SYSTEMS OF MINNESOTA
182.50 POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
170.76
796.20 WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOTH INFRASTRUCTURE & ENVIRONM
796.20
65.00 CABLE TV G & A OFFICE EQUIPMENT FOX VALLEY VIDEO SERVICE INC
65.00
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 8
11/15/2012 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:57:21 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
8 Page - Council Check Summary
11/9/2012 - 10/27/2012
Vendor Amount Business Unit Object
755.95 PUBLIC WORKS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES G S DIRECT
755.95
18.00 YOUTH PROGRAMS PROGRAM REVENUE GARRETT, ANGELA
18.00
78.00 INSPECTIONS G & A PLUMBING GENE'S WATER & SEWER INC
100.00 ENGINEERING G & A PUBLIC WORKS
178.00
233.11 GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES GRAINGER INC, WW
114.56 PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
44.01 WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
391.68
458.21 IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES GREEN ACRES SPRINKLER CO
458.21
173.14 WEED CONTROL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES GREEN HORIZONS
254.36 BEAUTIFICATION / FLOWERS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
427.50
438,769.42 GREENSBORO HIA OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES GREENSBORO CONDOMINIUM OWNERS
438,769.42
448.56 EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A HEALTH INSURANCE GROUP HEALTH INC - WORKSITE
448.56
277.00 GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES HALLBERG ENGINEERING INC
277.00
270.00 FOOTBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES HAMILTON, MIKE
270.00
7,944.30- STREET CAPITAL PROJ BAL SHEET RETAINED PERCENTAGE HARDRIVES INC
158,885.94 CONSTRUCTION PAYMENTS IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
150,941.64
400.00 HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES HASTINGS, MARGARET
400.00
1,373.87 REC CENTER BUILDING OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES HAWKINS INC
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 9
11/15/2012 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:57:21 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
9 Page - Council Check Summary
11/9/2012 - 10/27/2012
Vendor Amount Business Unit Object
6,419.58 WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
7,793.45
14.44- WATER UTILITY BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTS HENDEL PLUMBING
366.94 WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
352.50
104.50 ASSESSING G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS HENNEPIN COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVI
104.50
534.38 IT G & A COMPUTER SERVICES HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER
2,396.00 POLICE G & A SUBSISTENCE SERVICE
9,014.31 PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,253.58 WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,253.58 SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
4,507.17 STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
20,959.02
12,313.29 GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE OTHER HENRICKSEN PSG
12,313.29
10,490.00 WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE HIGHVIEW PLUMBING INC
8,695.00 SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
19,185.00
277.19 GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
13.61 ROUTINE MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
37.24 ROUTINE MAINTENANCE SMALL TOOLS
253.93 PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
92.96 PARK MAINTENANCE G & A SMALL TOOLS
42.69 PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
715.32 PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
1,432.94
1,041.00 UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSS HOPKINS AUTO BODY INC
1,041.00
300.00 KICKBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES HOWES, JESSICA
300.00
50.00 KICKBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES HOWES, KRISTINE
50.00
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 10
11/15/2012 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:57:21 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
10 Page - Council Check Summary
11/9/2012 - 10/27/2012
Vendor Amount Business Unit Object
224.35 WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTS INDELCO
224.35
469.18 PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES INDEPENDENT BLACK DIRT CO
566.44 PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE LANDSCAPING MATERIALS
1,035.62
378.25 FOOTBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT #2
378.25
950.00 HUMAN RESOURCES ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT INSIGHT EDGE
950.00
589.74 GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEM OF M
589.74
377.27 SKATING RINK MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES INTL SECURITY PRODUCTS
142.40 PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
519.67
373.36 PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY INVER GROVE FORD
984.89 GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
98.45 UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSS
1,456.70
17.96 PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY I-STATE TRUCK CENTER
17.96
19.68 PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES JERRY'S HARDWARE
37.50 BRICK HOUSE (1324) OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
37.50 WW RENTAL HOUSE (1322) OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
12.30 GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES
106.98
294.00 INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES KARCHER-RAMOS, AMBER
294.00
276.92 EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S WAGE GARNISHMENTS KELLER, JASMINE Z
276.92
2,200.00 HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES KEYSTONE COMPENSATION GROUP LL
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 11
11/15/2012 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:57:21 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
11 Page - Council Check Summary
11/9/2012 - 10/27/2012
Vendor Amount Business Unit Object
2,200.00
448.00 PRE-SCHOOL PROGRAMS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES KIDCREATE STUDIO
448.00
315.00 PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES KRECH, O'BRIEN, MUELLER & WASS
29,439.34 MUNICIPAL BLDG IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
29,754.34
44.00 YOUTH PROGRAMS PROGRAM REVENUE KRETSINGER, SANDRA
44.00
2,167.43 TREE REPLACEMENT TREE REPLACEMENT LANDSCAPING BY DAVID MILLER LL
2,167.43
156.00 POLICE G & A REPAIRS LASER TECHNOLOGY INC
156.00
1,240.00 STORM WATER UTILITY G&A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT LEAGUE OF MN CITIES
1,240.00
2,000.00 UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSS LEAGUE OF MN CITIES INSURANCE
2,000.00
189.58 INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES LENTNER, LAURA
189.58
250.15 WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS LINDSAY KNOLLWOOD LLC
250.15
204.00 HUMAN RESOURCES ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT LOCAL GOV U
204.00
302.25 INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES MACGREGOR-HANNAH, MAREN
302.25
6,913.58 GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE MACQUEEN EQUIP CO
6,913.58
1,750.00 FRANCHISE ADMINISTRATION SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT MACTA
1,750.00
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 12
11/15/2012 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:57:21 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
12 Page - Council Check Summary
11/9/2012 - 10/27/2012
Vendor Amount Business Unit Object
35,351.90 WATER UTILITY BALANCE SHEET RETAINED PERCENTAGE MAGNEY CONSTRUCTION INC
16,184.12 CONSTRUCTION PAYMENTS IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
51,536.02
487.20 YOUTH PROGRAMS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES MALONE, DANIEL
487.20
1,168.16 WATER UTILITY G&A BUILDING MTCE SERVICE MANAGED SERVICES INC
1,168.16
26.42 WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES MCCONNELL, BECKY
47.94 SCHOOL GROUPS GENERAL SUPPLIES
74.36
56.95 ROUTINE MAINTENANCE SMALL TOOLS MENARDS
13.87 PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
73.01 HALLOWEEN PARTY GENERAL SUPPLIES
143.83
228.00 VOLLEYBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES METRO VOLLEYBALL OFFICIALS
228.00
289.62 TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT MICRO CENTER
289.62
830.00 POLICE G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE MID AMERICA BUSINESS SYSTEMS
830.00
5.23- GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTS MID-CITY PRECISION INC
81.23 OPERATIONS GENERAL SUPPLIES
76.00
3,747.27 CRACK SEALING PROJECTS OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES MIDSTATES EQUIPMENT & SUPPLY
3,747.27
2,215.35- STREET CAPITAL PROJ BAL SHEET RETAINED PERCENTAGE MIDWEST ASPHALT CORP
44,306.96 CONSTRUCTION PAYMENTS IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
42,091.61
266.12 OPERATIONS OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES MIDWEST BADGE & NOVELTY CO
266.12
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 13
11/15/2012 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:57:21 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
13 Page - Council Check Summary
11/9/2012 - 10/27/2012
Vendor Amount Business Unit Object
1,576.41 TREE REPLACEMENT TREE REPLACEMENT MIDWEST LANDSCAPES
1,576.40 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
3,152.81
1,040.00 WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES MIDWEST TESTING LLC
1,040.00
455.00 ASSESSING G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS MINNEAPOLIS AREA ASSOC REALTOR
455.00
129.80 EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S ACCRUED OTHER BENEFITS MINNESOTA BENEFIT ASSOC
129.80
16.00 EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S ACCRUED OTHER BENEFITS MINNESOTA NCPERS LIFE INS
16.00
937.50 GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A LAND MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AG
937.50
1,917.34 REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES MINNESOTA VALLEY LANDSCAPE/GAR
1,917.34
200.00 HUMAN RESOURCES ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT MINNETONKA, CITY OF
200.00
275.74 WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTS MINVALCO INC
275.74
26.56- GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTS MITOGRAPHERS INC
412.83 INSPECTIONS G & A PRINTING & PUBLISHING
386.27
98.00 ADULT PROGRAMS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES MOELLER, STEEN
98.00
6.60- PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTS MOST DEPENDABLE FOUNTAINS
27.79 PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
74.81 PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
96.00
1,521.90 FABRICATION OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES M-R SIGN CO INC
1,521.90
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 14
11/15/2012 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:57:21 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
14 Page - Council Check Summary
11/9/2012 - 10/27/2012
Vendor Amount Business Unit Object
98.00 PARK MAINTENANCE G & A TRAINING MRPA
98.00
10,000.00 ESCROWS PMC ESCROW MURRAY FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERS
10,000.00
94.65 GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT PARTS NAPA (GENUINE PARTS CO)
1,094.43 PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY
41.76 GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES
80.67 WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTS
1,311.51
800.00 FINANCE G & A TRAINING NELSON, SCOTT
800.00
1,543.34 GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES NORTHERN STATES SUPPLY INC
1,543.34
11,649.19 COMM & MARKETING G & A PRINTING & PUBLISHING NYSTROM PUBLISHING
11,649.19
22.00 YOUTH PROGRAMS PROGRAM REVENUE NYSTUEN, MICHAEL
22.00
180.38 WESTWOOD G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR OESTREICH, MARK
252.86 HALLOWEEN PARTY GENERAL SUPPLIES
433.24
306.95 ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES OFFICE DEPOT
102.63 SUPPORT SERVICES G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
94.55 FINANCE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
322.71 POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
54.23 INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
96.69 PUBLIC WORKS G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
62.23 ORGANIZED REC G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
29.76 PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
8.56 GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES
1,078.31
1,063.50 INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES OFFICE TEAM
1,063.50
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 15
11/15/2012 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:57:21 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
15 Page - Council Check Summary
11/9/2012 - 10/27/2012
Vendor Amount Business Unit Object
30.00 HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PANNEL, DEBRA
30.00
1,410.09 WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS PARK TRAIL APTS
1,410.09
552.47 SPECIAL EVENTS RENTAL EQUIPMENT PARKTACULAR
552.47
3,758.30 PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI PETERSON COMPANIES INC
3,758.30
88.92 REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES PETERSON, CHRISTOPHER
88.92
153.73 PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY PIONEER RIM & WHEEL CO
153.73
132.01 INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS GENERAL SUPPLIES POLK, MARLA
1,288.47 INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,420.48
264.56 PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY POMP'S TIRE SERVICE INC
264.56
20,000.00 SUPPORT SERVICES G&A POSTAGE POSTMASTER
20,000.00
50.87 PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY PRAIRIE LAWN & GARDEN
50.87
312.08 STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE PRAIRIE RESTORATIONS INC
312.08
16,733.43 TREE DISEASE PUBLIC CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE PRECISION LANDSCAPE & TREE
16,733.43
18,746.29 PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI PRIOR LAKE BLACKTOP INC
18,746.29
103.21 BLDG/GROUNDS OPS & MAINT BUILDING MTCE SERVICE PUMP & METER SERVICE
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 16
11/15/2012 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:57:21 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
16 Page - Council Check Summary
11/9/2012 - 10/27/2012
Vendor Amount Business Unit Object
103.21
1,020.07 SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE Q3 CONTRACTING
450.00 STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
1,470.07
982.05 ARENA MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE R & R SPECIALTIES
982.05
3,269.01 GREENSBORO HIA COLLECTED BY CITY RANCOUR, KATHLEEN
3,269.01
2,623.97 FACILITY OPERATIONS GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE RANDY'S SANITATION INC
1,127.80 REC CENTER BUILDING GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
1,032.36 SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
4,784.13
215.00 INSPECTIONS G & A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE RASMUSSON, KENDRA
215.00
140.76 POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES REGENCY OFFICE PRODUCTS LLC
140.76
548.27 TREE MAINTENANCE LANDSCAPING MATERIALS REINDERS INC
548.27
6,937.26 ENGINEERING G & A PRINTING & PUBLISHING RICHFIELD PRINTING INC
6,937.26
316.00 INSPECTIONS G & A ELECTRICAL RIES ELECTRIC CO
316.00
248.00 INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES SAURER, MARTI
248.00
1,439.22 PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI SCHERER BROS. LUMBER CO.
1,439.22
82.69 ASSESSING G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR SCHOMER, KELLEY
82.69
246.67 SEWER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES SEARS COMMERCIAL ONE
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 17
11/15/2012 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:57:21 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
17 Page - Council Check Summary
11/9/2012 - 10/27/2012
Vendor Amount Business Unit Object
246.67
10,913.70 CE INSPECTION IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI SEH
10,913.70
67.00 INSPECTIONS G & A MECHANICAL SHARP HEATING & A/C INC
67.00
885.73 PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI SHERWIN WILLIAMS
885.73
1,374.00 COMM & MARKETING G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES SITEIMPROVE INC
1,374.00
250.00 CABLE TV G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES SLP BLUE LINE CLUB
250.00
12.32 PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES SPS COMPANIES INC
12.32
5,574.58 ESCROWS GENERAL SRF CONSULTING GROUP INC
5,574.58
4,556.08 TREE DISEASE PRIVATE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE ST CROIX TREE SERVICE INC
4,556.08
14.86 OPERATIONS SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT STEMMER, LUKE
14.86
14,025.55 PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY STONEBROOKE EQUIPMENT INC
14,025.55
269.16 PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY STREICHER'S
269.16
6,096.15 PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY SUBURBAN TIRE WHOLESALE
6,096.15
527.51 ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL NOTICES SUN NEWSPAPERS
527.51
79.65 REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES SWISHER, SCOTT
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 18
11/15/2012 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:57:21 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
18 Page - Council Check Summary
11/9/2012 - 10/27/2012
Vendor Amount Business Unit Object
79.65
40.75 COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL OFFICE EQUIPMENT TARGET BANK
40.75
22,724.07 GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS BAL S RETAINED PERCENTAGE TECTA AMERICAN STOCK ROOFING L
.11 GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
22,724.18
15.48 ADMINISTRATION G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES TELELANGUAGE INC
15.48
297.68 REC CENTER BUILDING EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE TENNANT SALES AND SERVICE CO.
297.68
104.06 BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICE TERMINIX INT
104.06
539.19 ADMINISTRATION G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES TIMESAVER OFF SITE SECRETARIAL
539.19
1,009.97 TREE MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES TREE TRUST
1,009.97
271.00 PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY TRI STATE BOBCAT
271.00
50.00 POLICE G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS TRI-COUNTY LAW ENFORCEMENT AS
50.00
65.00 WATER UTILITY G&A TRAINING TWIN CITY AREA LABOR MGMT COUN
65.00
45.00 ADMINISTRATION G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT TWIN WEST CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
45.00
201.88 INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES UGARTE, KATIE
201.88
200.93 POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES ULINE
200.93
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 19
11/15/2012 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:57:21 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
19 Page - Council Check Summary
11/9/2012 - 10/27/2012
Vendor Amount Business Unit Object
150.00 EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S WAGE GARNISHMENTS UNITED STATES TREASURY
150.00
240.00 EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNITED WAY UNITED WAY OF MINNEAPOLIS AREA
240.00
150.00 TRAINING SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA REGIST
150.00
1,509.51 PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY USA BLUE BOOK
1,509.51
557.04 OPERATIONS TELEPHONE USA MOBILITY WIRELESS INC
557.04
1,200.00 RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI VALUATION GROUP INC
1,200.00
122.10 ENVIRONMENTAL G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR VAUGHAN, JIM
122.10
20.00 HUMAN RESOURCES RECRUITMENT VERIFIED CREDENTIALS
20.00
74.30 COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL TELEPHONE VERIZON WIRELESS
18,385.07 TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT
18,459.37
581.67 TREE MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES VERMEER OF MINNESOTA
581.67
282.37 PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES VIKING ELECTRIC SUPPLY
282.37
177.73 WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES VIKING INDUSTRIAL CTR
177.73
242.95 WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE WATER CONSERVATION SERVICE INC
242.95
185.25 WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE WEBER ELECTRIC
286.60 SEWER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 20
11/15/2012 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:57:21 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
20 Page - Council Check Summary
11/9/2012 - 10/27/2012
Vendor Amount Business Unit Object
185.25 STORM WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
657.10
3,000.00 PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI WILSONS NURSERY INC
1,739.91 TREE REPLACEMENT TREE REPLACEMENT
4,739.91
12,192.71 GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE ELECTRIC SERVICE XCEL ENERGY
16.31 PARK MAINTENANCE G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE
15,487.24 ENTERPRISE G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE
321.29 STORM WATER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE
28,017.55
2,054.85- UNINSURED LOSS B/S RETAINED PERCENTAGE XTERIOR XPERTS
41,097.00 UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSS
39,042.15
20,000.00 ESCROWS PMC ESCROW YESHIVA OF MINNEAPOLIS
20,000.00
28,814.06 PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY YOCUM OIL CO INC
28,814.06
80.16 PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY ZIEBART OF MINNESOTA INC
5.16- PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
75.00
147.16 ENVIRONMENTAL G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES ZIP PRINTING
147.16
Report Totals 1,348,564.97
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 21
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: November 19, 2012
Public Hearing Agenda Item: 6a
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Brewer Taproom License – Steel Toe Brewery
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to approve application
from Steel Toe Brewey for a brewer taproom license to be located at 4848 West 35th Street, with
the license term through March 1, 2013.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council wish to approve the liquor license for Steel
Toe Brewery?
SUMMARY: The City received an application from Steel Toe Brewery for a brewer taproom
liquor license operating at 4848 West 35th Street. The premises will consist of approximately
688 square feet with a seating capacity of 30. The main principals involved in this application are
Jason Schoneman and Hannah Schoneman, whose interests combine to 65.5% of the business
entity. The other 34.5% interests are divided among six other interest holders, four at 7.5% and 2
at 2.25% each.
The Police Department has run a full background investigation and nothing was discovered
during the course of this investigation that would warrant denial of the license. The application
and police report are on file in the City Clerk’s office, should Council members wish to review
the information. The required notice of the public hearing was published November 8, 2012.
Should Council approve the brewer taproom liquor license, the license may be issued as early as
November 20, 2012.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Fees for this applicant include $500 for the
police background investigation and $600 for the brewer taproom license fee (pro-rated).
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: None
Prepared by: Ray French, Administrative Services Intern
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: November 19, 2012
Public Hearing Agenda Item: 6b
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Public Hearing – 2013 Liquor License Fees
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to Adopt Resolution
approving 2013 liquor license fees for the license term March 1, 2013 through March 1, 2014
pursuant to M.S.A. Ch. 340A and section 3-59 of the St. Louis Park City Code.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council agree with the proposed liquor license fees
for 2013?
SUMMARY: State law requires that the city adopt liquor license fees at a public hearing and
city ordinance permits the Council to set liquor license fees by resolution. Staff recently
reviewed the 2012 fees and recent increases, and, based on this analysis, is recommending no
change for the 2013 liquor license fees.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: State law sets the limits on what fees may
be charged for certain types of liquor licenses. Where there is no state restriction, the city can set
the fee at an amount to reflect the cost of issuing the license and other costs directly related to the
enforcement. License fees may not be used as a means of raising revenues. St. Louis Park liquor
fees are consistent with other metro cities fees.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
2012 Liquor License Establishments by License Type
Resolution
Prepared by: Ray French, Administrative Services Intern
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6b) Page 2
Title: Public Hearing – 2013 Liquor License Fees
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: State law requires that the city adopt liquor license fees at a public hearing
and city ordinance permits the Council to set liquor license fees by resolution. Staff recently
reviewed the 2012 fees and recent increases, and, based on this analysis, is recommending no
change for the 2013 liquor license fees.
PRESENT CONSIDERATIONS: The following is a list of the 2012 liquor license fees and
proposed fees for 2013. St. Louis Park liquor fees are consistent with other metro cities fees.
These proposed fees have been reviewed by the Department Director and the City Manager; and
reflect the limits set forth in state law and increased costs of providing administration and
enforcement.
Liquor License Type: 2012 Fee 2013 Fee
Effective 3/1/2013
Fee amount
set by:
Brewpub Off-sale Malt Liquor $200 $200 City
Brewers Off-sale Malt Liquor $200 $200 City
Off-sale 3.2 Malt Liquor $200 $200 City
Off-sale Intoxicating Liquor $380 $380 STATE
Off-sale Intoxicating Liquor fee per
M.S. 340A.408 Subd.3(c )
$280 $280 STATE
On-sale 3.2 Malt Liquor $750 $750 City
On-sale Intoxicating Liquor $8,500 $8,500 City
On-sale Brewer’s Taproom $600 $600 City
On-sale Sunday Liquor $200 $200 STATE
On-sale Wine $2,000 $2,000 STATE
Club (per # members): 1 - 200 $300 $300 STATE
201 - 500 $500 $500 STATE
501 - 1000 $650 $650 STATE
1001 - 2000 $800 $800 STATE
2001 - 4000 $1,000 $1,000 STATE
4001 - 6000 $2,000 $2,000 STATE
6000+ $3,000 $3,000 STATE
Temporary On-sale Liquor $100/day $100/day City
Background
Investigation
2012 Fee 2013 Fee Fee set by
New License Applicant
(non-refundable)
$500 in-state applicant;
actual costs for out-of-
state applicant may be
billed up to a maximum
of $10,000.
$500 in-state applicant;
actual costs for out-of-
state applicant may be
billed up to a maximum
of $10,000.
STATE
New Store Manager $500 $500 STATE
On-sale license renewal
per 340A.412 Subd. 2
$500 $500 STATE
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6b) Page 3
Title: Public Hearing – 2013 Liquor License Fees
2012 Liquor License Establishments by License Type
License Issued by:State City City City City City City State State State
American Legion-Frank L 200 500 700
Applebee's Grill Bar 8500 200
8700
Best of India 750 2000 2750
Bunny’s 2:00 AM 8500 200
8700
Byerly’s St. Louis Park 8500 200
8700
Byerly’s Wine & Spirits 380 380
Cedar Lake Wine & Spirits 380 380
Chili’s Southwest Grill 8500 200
8700
Chipotle Mexican Grill 750 2000 2750
Cooper Irish Pub 8500 200
8700
Costco Wholesale #377 380 380
Crave 2:00 AM 8500 200
8700
Cub Foods Knollwood 200 200
Doubletree Park Place 8500 200
8700
El Patron Mexican Cuisine 8500 200
8700
Four Firkins 380 380
Grand City Buffet Inc 750 2000 2750
Granite City Food & Brew 200 8500 200
8900
Homewood Suite SLP 750 750
Jennings’ Liquor Store 380 380
Kerasotes Showplace 14 2:00 AM 8500 200
8700
Knollwood Liquor 380 380
Liquor Barrel, Inc.380 380
Liquor Boy 380 380
Little Szechuan 8500 200
8700
Marriott Mpls West 8500 200
8700
McCoy’s Public House 2:00 AM 8500 200
8700
Mill Valley Kitchen 8500 200
8700
Minneapolis Golf Club 200 500 700
Noodle & Company 750 2000 2750
Olive Garden #1424 8500 200
8700
Park Tavern Lounge 2:00 AM 8500 200
8700
Pei Wei Asian Diner 750 2000 2750
Rainbow Foods #8803 200 380 580
Rojo Mexican Grill 2:00 AM 8500 200
8700
Sam’s Club #6318 380 380
Soprano 2:00 AM 8500 200
8700
Steel Toe Brewing 600 200
200
St. Louis Park Liquors 380 380
St. Louis Park Woodfire Grill 8500 200
8700
Target Corporation 200 200
Taste of India 750 2000 2750
Texas-Tonka Liquors 380 380
Texa-Tonka Lanes 2:00 AM 8500 200
8700
TGI Friday’s 2:00 AM 8500 200
8700
Thanh Do 8500 200
8700
Toby Keith’s 2:00 AM 8500 200
8700
Trader Joe’s 380 380
Vescio's Italian Restaurant 750 2000 2750
Vintage Wine & Spiritz 380 380
Westwood Liquors 380 380
Wok in the Park 750 2000 2750
Yangtze River Rest.8500 200
8700
Yum, Inc.750 2000 2750
Total number 1 2 3 10 24 26 14 9 2
242400
Total dollar 600 400 600 7500 204000 5200 5700 18000 1000
242400
On-Sale Off-sale
Intox
On-sale
Wine Club TotalOn-sale
IntoxLicense Type 2:00 AM Off-sale
Brew/Pub
Off-sale
3.2
On-sale
3.2
Brewer
Taproom
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6b) Page 4
Title: Public Hearing – 2013 Liquor License Fees
RESOLUTION NO. 12-____
RESOLUTION ADOPTING 2013 LIQUOR LICENSE FEES
FOR THE LICENSE TERM
MARCH 1, 2013 – MARCH 1, 2014
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park as follows:
WHEREAS, the St. Louis Park City Code Section 3-59 authorizes the City Council to
establish annual fees for liquor licenses by resolution in amounts no greater that those set forth in
M.S.A. Chapter 340A; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary for the city to maintain fees in an amount necessary to cover
the cost of administration and enforcement of regulating liquor in the city; and
WHEREAS, fees called for within the Section 3-59 of the City Code and Minnesota State
Statute Chapter 340A are hereby set by this resolution for the 2013 license term effective March
1, 2013 through March 1, 2014; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, fees for 2013 liquor licenses are hereby adopted as follows:
Liquor License Type: 2013 Fee
Effective 3/1/2013
Brewpub Off-sale Malt Liquor $200
Brewers Off-sale Malt Liquor $200
Off-sale 3.2 Malt Liquor $200
Off-sale Intoxicating Liquor $380
Off-sale Intoxicating Liquor fee per
M.S. 340A.408 Subd.3(c )
$280
On-sale 3.2 Malt Liquor $750
On-sale Intoxicating Liquor $8,500
On-sale Brewer’s Taproom $600
On-sale Sunday Liquor $200
On-sale Wine $2,000
Club (per # members)
1 - 200 $300
201 - 500 $500
501 - 1000 $650
1001 - 2000 $800
2001 - 4000 $1,000
4001 - 6000 $2,000
6000+ $3,000
Temporary On-sale Liquor $100/day
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6b) Page 5
Title: Public Hearing – 2013 Liquor License Fees
Background Investigation Fee
New License Applicant
(non-refundable)
$500 in-state applicant;
actual costs for out-of-
state applicant may be
billed up to a maximum
of $10,000.
New Store Manager $500
On-sale license renewal per
340A.412 Subd. 2
$500
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 19, 2012
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: November 19, 2012
Agenda Item #: 6c
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood Road
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Mayor to open the public hearing, take comments, and then close the Public Hearing. Motion to
Adopt Resolution upholding the Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA) decision to deny Mr. Peter
Hagen’s appeal.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Did City staff correctly interpret the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to the approval of an accessory
structure constructed at 4215 Cedarwood Road?
BACKGROUND:
Mr. Peter Hagen, Appellant, owns the property located at 4221 Cedarwood Road.
Mr. Ken Fink owns the property located at 4215 Cedarwood Road.
On or about April 30, 2012, Mr. Fink constructed an accessory building (tree house) in the rear
yard of his property. Upon receipt of a complaint, staff inspected the accessory building and
determined that it did not comply with the required minimum rear setback and that a permit was
not applied for. Mr. Fink was notified of these findings.
During the month of May, Mr. Fink altered the building to meet the minimum setbacks. Staff
inspected the accessory building on May 30th, and determined it met the required setbacks and all
other zoning requirements.
The building is located in the southwest corner of Mr. Fink’s property, adjacent to the
Appellant’s property to the west.
The Appellant filed complaints alleging the following:
1. The building does not meet maximum allowed height limits.
2. The windows do not meet minimum setback requirements.
3. The deck attached to the building does not meet minimum setback requirements.
4. The building is constructed in a utility easement.
Staff re-affirmed its determination that the structure complies with the required Zoning
Ordinances.
The Appellant appealed the following staff determinations to BOZA:
1. That the windows are not located in the second story of the tree house, and therefore, are
not in violation to City Code.
2. That the tree house is not taller than the house.
3. That the deck on the tree house conforms to setback requirements.
4. That the tree house is not built in a utility easement.
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c) Page 2
Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood Road
A more complete time line of the construction of the building, inspection and complaint is found
in the BOZA staff reports which are attached.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS REVIEW:
The BOZA considered the appeal at its September 27, 2012 meeting. The BOZA opened and
closed the public hearing, and took action to continue the case for one month due to personal
circumstances pertaining to Mr. Fink, the property owner. The BOZA re-opened the hearing on
October 25, 2012 and ruled to uphold staff’s determinations.
Attachments: Draft Resolution Upholding the BOZA Determination
Letter of Appeal to City Council
BOZA Staff Report – September 27, 2012
BOZA Staff Report with Attachments – October 25, 2012
BOZA Minutes – September 27, 2012
BOZA Minutes (Unofficial) – October 25, 2012
Hagen Exhibits 1-11, Submitted to BOZA on September 27, 2012
Hagen Exhibits A-E, Submitted to BOZA on October 25, 2012
Letter to Council from Corpall
Prepared by: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Reviewed by: Tom Scott, City Attorney
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
167488v1 1
RESOLUTION NO. 12-_______
RESOLUTION DENYING THE APPEAL OF PETER HAGEN
OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS’ DECISION
BACKGROUND
• On or about April 30, 2012 Kenneth and Nicole Fink constructed a tree house in the back
yard of their property. Staff reviewed the tree house and required that the tree house be
altered to meet the required accessory building setbacks. Staff re-inspected the tree house
on May 30, 2012 and determined that the tree house had been altered to meet the required
rear setback.
• The Finks live at 4215 Cedarwood Road.
• Peter Hagen lives at 4221 Cedarwood Road, which is located adjacent to the Fink
property.
• On June 21, 2012, Assistant City Zoning Administrator Gary Morrison notified Mr.
Hagen by e-mail of his interpretation of Section 36-162(d)(3)d pertaining to the height of
the tree house.
• On June 22, 2012, Gary Morrison notified Mr. Hagen by e-mail of his interpretation of
Section 36-162(d)(4)d pertaining to windows on the second story.
• On August 14, 2012, Mr. Hagen appealed staff determination pursuant to City Code §36-
31 that the tree house is in compliance with Section 36-162(d)(3)d and Section 36-
162(d)(4)d.
• On August 21, 2012 and August 30, 2012, Mr. Hagen’s attorney wrote letters requesting
a determination that the tree house is not in compliance with the setback regulations
pertaining to decks.
• On September 17, 2012, Mr. Hagen filed a letter with the City Clerk requesting the Board
of Zoning Appeals (BOZA) also consider that the tree house is constructed in a utility
easement in violation of the National Electrical Safety Code (NESC).
• The appeal came before the BOZA for a public hearing on September 27, 2012 and was
continued to October 25, 2012.
• On October 25, 2012, the BOZA denied the appeal based upon staff findings.
• On October 31, 2012, Mr. Hagen appealed the BOZA decision to the City Council.
• This matter came on for hearing before the City Council on November 19, 2012.
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c)
Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood Road Page 3
167488v1 2
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park,
Minnesota:
1. City Code Section 36-31(a) states:
At any time within 20 days after a written order, requirement, permit,
decision, refusal, or determination by the zoning administrator has been
made interpreting or applying this chapter, except for actions taken in
connection with prosecutions for violation hereof, the applicant or any
other person, officer, or department representative of the city affected by it
may appeal the decision to the board of zoning appeals by filing a notice
of appeal with the community development department addressed to the
board of zoning appeals stating the action appealed from and stating the
specific grounds upon which the appeal is made.
2. The appeal of the zoning administrator’s June 21, 2012 interpretation of Section
36-162(d)(3)d does not meet the 20 day appeal deadline and therefore cannot be considered.
3. The appeal of the zoning administrator’s June 22, 2012 interpretation of Section
36-162(d)(4)d does not meet the 20 day appeal deadline and therefore cannot be considered.
4. As to the deck setback issue, City Code Section 36-73(b)(4) states the following:
Uncovered porches, stoops, patios or decks which do not extend above the
height of the ground floor level of the principal building and are a
minimum of two feet from any interior side or rear lot line and 15 feet
from any front lot line and do not encroach on any side yard abutting a
street.
5. Section 36-73(b)(4) is the exception for decks and stoops relating to yard
requirements for the principal building.
6. The Zoning Administrator determined that the tree house “deck” is a component
of the accessory building and meets the two foot setback requirements for accessory buildings.
BOZA agrees with this interpretation.
7. The National Electrical Safety Code (NESC) is not part of the Zoning Ordinance,
and therefore is not subject to a zoning appeal.
8. There is no public utility easement along the property lines in the vicinity of
where the tree house is located. If any easement exists, it is a private utility easement not under
the jurisdiction of the City. City Code Section 36-162(d)(1)e does not apply to private utilities.
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c)
Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood Road Page 4
167488v1 3
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the appeal of Peter Hagen of the Board of
Zoning Appeals’ decision is denied.
Reviewed for Administration:
Adopted by the City Council __________, 2012
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c)
Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood Road Page 5
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c)
Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood Road Page 6
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c)
Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood Road Page 7
Board of Zoning Appeals
Meeting of October 25, 2012
4C Appeal of staff determination
Appellant: Mr. Peter Hagen
4215 Cedarwood Road
Case No.: 12-23-AP
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt a resolution denying the appeal.
SUBJECT:
The following report is an addendum to the September 27, 2012 report, which is attached.
BACKGROUND:
The Appellant is appealing the following staff determinations:
1. That the windows are not located in the second story of the tree house, and therefore, are
not in violation to City Code.
2. That the tree house is not taller than the house.
3. That the deck on the tree house conforms to setback requirements.
4. That the tree house is not built in a utility easement.
The Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA) considered the appeal at its September 27, 2012 meeting.
The BOZA opened and closed the public hearing, and motioned to continue the case for one
month.
Timeliness of appeal:
The appeal to staff’s determination on the tree house height and the location of the windows is
not timely.
At the September 27, 2012 meeting, the Appellant submitted an e-mail he sent to the City on
June 26, 2012, and argued that it was submitted within the required 20-day deadline, and that it
constituted an appeal.
The June 26, 2012 e-mail from the Appellant is not a notice of appeal. The ordinance
specifically requires the following:
1. A written notice of appeal, addressed to the BOZA
2. The written notice must state the action appealed from and stating the specific grounds
upon which the appeal is made.
The details of the written notice required by the ordinance are important. It is not uncommon for
the City to receive comments from residents that they do not like a determination made by staff
or that they do not agree with some aspect of a project on a neighboring property.
It is impractical and unrealistic to expect the City to take every comment or e-mail as an appeal.
While reviewing a project the City makes every effort to complete the review in an accurate and
timely fashion so the property owner can begin the project and complete it in a timely and
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c)
Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood Road Page 8
efficient pace. If e-mails and comments such as the Appellants e-mail are taken as appeals, then
the City would have to stop all construction on every project in which the City receives such
comments, and continue to hold the project until the question of the appeal is resolved.
In addition to the written notice, the ordinance also requires the written notice of appeal to be
submitted within 20-days of the determination. This allows the project to continue as approved
by the City. It also requires anybody that desires to appeal to be diligent in the appeal.
Comments such as the e-mail submitted by the Appellant cannot be used to extend the 20-day
deadline for an undetermined amount time. As noted in the September report, the Appellant
finally submitted the notice of appeal 53 days after he received staff’s determination. The City
cannot be expected to stop a project for 53 days on the chance that the person that made the
comment may or may not decide to appeal.
Therefore, the appeal of staff’s determination that the height of the tree house complies with the
Zoning Ordinance, and that the window placement also complies with the regulations of the
Zoning Ordinance is untimely and cannot be reviewed by the BOZA.
Yard requirements for decks, porches and stoops.
There is no update for this appeal.
Tree house is built in a utility easement.
Easement issues and perceived violations to easement rights are not zoning matters, and
therefore do not fall under BOZA jurisdiction. The BOZA should dismiss this appeal.
Nonetheless, City Staff provided the following analysis to show that the tree house is not in
violation to the State Electrical Codes, or the National Electric Safety Code (NESC) as argued by
the Appellant.
The City electrical inspector reviewed the tree house and determined that it is not in violation of
the Electrical Code. If there is a utility company that believes the tree house violates their rights
as granted by an easement, then they have the authority to enforce their rights on the property
owner. This enforcement is a private matter that does not involve the City. As noted below in
an e-mail dated September 13, 2012 from Excel Energy to Mr. Hagen, Excel Energy informed
Mr. Hagen that the tree house is not in violation.
In the analysis below, staff also shows that the exhibits submitted by the Appellant to prove the
easement exists, also show that the easement ceased to exist in 1975. Therefore, staff continues
to argue that there is no easement along the rear property line.
The easement that existed up until 1975 was a private easement granted to public utilities such as
Excel Energy. As a private easement, the City did not have jurisdiction over it, and therefore,
was never the enforcement agent for violations.
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c)
Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood Road Page 9
EXHIBIT 8:
Document #241965 attached to the Certificate of Title.
This document was submitted by the Appellant to show that an easement exists along the rear
property line. The document consists of a list of covenants that the property is subject to, and
item number 7 establishes a five foot easement along the rear property line for the benefit for any
public utility company.
Staff Analysis:
Item number 12, however, states the following:
These covenants shall run with the land and shall be construed as real covenants running
with the land until December 31, 1975, when they shall cease and determine.
As a result of item 12, the easement described in covenant number 7 expired on December 31,
1975.
EXHIBIT 9:
Jack Christofersen, Chairman of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE).
The Appellant contacted Mr. Christofersen to get his opinion on the proximity of the tree house
to the power lines.
Staff Analysis:
Staff contacted Mr. Christofersen and he said that Excel Energy is responsible for enforcing the
distance regulations.
The Appellant has already contacted Excel Energy and received the following response:
Peter,
While it is preferred that no structures be allowed in the easement area,
there are always exceptions and Xcel does allow encroachments into their
easements. As my email of yesterday stated, Xcel found no issues with Xcel’s
facilities and the structure/tree house located at 4215 Cedarwood Road.
This issue appears to be more of a dispute that you may have with your
neighbor and Xcel is not willing to get involved in that dispute.
Thank you,
Bonnie Anderson
Xcel Energy | Responsible By Nature
Land Rights Agent
414 Nicollet Mall, MP-8A Minneapolis, MN 55401
P: 612.330.6241 F: 612.573.9227
E: bonnie.j.anderson@xcelenergy.com
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c)
Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood Road Page 10
EXHIBIT 10:
Minnesota Public Utilities Commission – Phone call to Brian Swanson
The Appellant quoted Mr. Brian Swanson as saying “utility easement/right-of-way issues are to
be determined by the city because multiple utilities (power, cable & phone) use the same
easement and right-of-way”
Staff called the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission and spoke to Jake Seamans. Mr.
Seamans stated that the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission is not an enforcement agency for
this type of matter, and the Commission does not get involved in easement issues. He said the
City’s will typically regulate the easements, but not always, and they are not required to. Jake
confirmed this response with others in his office.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
To adopt the Resolution submitted to the BOZA on September 27, 2012, denying the appeal.
PREPARED BY:
Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
REVIEWED BY:
Tom Scott, City Attorney
ATTACHMENTS:
September 27, 2012 BOZA staff report, draft resolution, and attachments.
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c)
Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood Road Page 11
Board of Zoning Appeals
Meeting of September 27, 2012
4C Appeal of staff determination
Appellant: Mr. Peter Hagen
4215 Cedarwood Road
Case No.: 12-23-AP
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt a resolution denying the appeal.
SUBJECT:
On May 30, 2012, the City approved a tree house constructed at 4215 Cedarwood Road. Mr.
Peter Hagen (Appellant) resides next door at 4221 Cedarwood Road, and raised concerns to staff
regarding the height of the tree house and the placement of windows. Appellant subsequently
after filing this appeal raised new issues for determination relating to the setback of the “deck”
attached to the tree house, and that the tree house is built in the utility easement. Staff has
determined that the tree house does not violate City Code.
The Appellant is appealing the following staff determinations:
1. That the windows are not located in the second story of the tree house, and therefore, are
not in violation to City Code.
2. That the tree house is not taller than the house.
3. That the deck on the tree house conforms to setback requirements.
4. That the tree house is not built in a utility easement.
BACKGROUND:
On April 30, 2012, City Staff received a phone call from a resident expressing concern about a
tree house being constructed at 4215 Cedarwood Road. Staff inspected the tree house and
determined that the tree house does not meet the rear yard requirements (two feet from property
line). Upon further review, staff also determined that the tree house meets the height limitations
24 feet, that the tree house is not taller than the house, and that the windows are located in the
first story, and therefore meet the setback requirements for accessory buildings.
On May 30, staff inspected the tree house after the property owner notified staff that the tree
house had been altered to meet the setback requirements. Staff determined that the tree house
meets the two foot minimum yard requirement.
On June 12, 2012, Mr. Hagen expressed concern by phone that the tree house is too tall.
On June 21, 2012 staff notified Mr. Hagen by e-mail of staff’s determination that the tree house
complies with the height requirements.
On June 22, 2012, staff notified Mr. Hagen by e-mail of staff’s determination that the windows
comply with the zoning requirements.
The Appellant submitted an appeal on August 14, 2012 regarding staffs determination on the
windows and height issues. Subsequent letters were sent on August 21 and August 23, 2012
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c)
Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal - Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood Road Page 12
asking for a determination on the setback of the “deck.” A third letter was sent on September 17,
2012 raising the question of whether the tree house is not located in an easement.
City Code Section 36-31(a) states the following:
Right of appeal. At any time within 20 days after a written order, requirement, permit, decision,
refusal, or determination by the zoning administrator has been made interpreting or applying this
chapter, except for actions taken in connection with prosecutions for violation hereof, the
applicant or any other person, officer, or department representative of the city affected by it may
appeal the decision to the board of zoning appeals by filing a notice of appeal with the
community development department addressed to the board of zoning appeals stating the action
appealed from and stating the specific grounds upon which the appeal is made.
Mr. Hagen’s right to appeal staffs determination of the height expired on July 11, 2012, and his
right to appeal staffs determination regarding the window placement expired on July 12, 2012.
Mr. Hagen’s appeal of staff’s determinations regarding the height and window placement came
52 days after staff notified Mr. Hagen of staff’s determination that the tree house complies with
the height requirements, and 53 days after staff notified Mr. Hagen of its determination that the
window placement complies with the zoning regulations.
Therefore, Mr. Hagen’s appeal of staff’s determination that the height of the tree house complies
with the Zoning Ordinance, and that the window placement also complies with the regulations of
the Zoning Ordinance is untimely and cannot be reviewed by the BOZA.
The request to appeal the deck placement and easement issue is timely and can be reviewed by
the BOZA because staff’s notifications only addressed the height and window questions which
had been raised at that time.
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c)
Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood Road Page 13
STAFF DETERMINATIONS:
Yard requirements for decks, porches and stoops.
City Code Section 36-73(b)(4) states the following:
Uncovered porches, stoops, patios or decks which do not extend above the height of the ground floor
level of the principal building and are a minimum of two feet from any interior side or rear lot line
and 15 feet from any front lot line and do not encroach on any side yard abutting a street.
Analysis:
Section 36-73 is the Yard Encroachments section of the
City Code. It identifies all kinds of structures that are
exceptions to the yard requirements.
Section 36-73(b)(4) is the exception for decks and stoops
relating to yard requirements for the principal building. The
Appellant is arguing that the “deck” attached to the tree
house does not meet the criteria of this because it is above
the ground floor level of the house. Therefore, the “deck”
has to be at least 25 feet from the rear property line, which
is the rear yard required for the house.
Staff determined that the tree house “deck” is a component
of the accessory building and meets the setback
requirements for the following reason:
Section 36-73(c) Accessory buildings rear or side yard is found in the yard encroachment
section, and states the following:
Accessory buildings rear or side yard. The following shall not be encroachments on rear
and side yard requirements for accessory buildings: cornices, eaves and gutters; provided they do
not extend more than eight inches into a required yard; and provided such encroachment is no
closer than 16 inches from all lot lines. Building overhangs shall also comply with the state
building code.
Accessory buildings have a rear yard and side yard requirement of two feet. The section above
states that the only portions of an accessory building that is allowed to encroach into the two foot
yard requirement are cornices, eaves and gutters. Therefore, the “deck” is required to maintain
the two foot rear and side yard required for accessory buildings. Section 36-73(b)(4) relating to
encroachments into the yard requirements for the principal building does not apply.
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c)
Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood Road Page 14
Tree house is built in a utility easement.
Analysis:
The National Electrical Safety Code (NESC) is not part of the Zoning Ordinance, and therefore
is not subject to a zoning appeal. Nonetheless, staff reviewed the plat, and determined that an
easement does not exist along the property lines in the vicinity of where the tree house is located.
A copy of the plat is below.
The subject property, 4215
Cedarwood Road is highlighted in
yellow. The plat does not show the
existence of utility easements, which
are typically shown with dashed lines
and marked as utility and drainage
easements. It is not uncommon for
lots in St. Louis Park to not have
drainage and utility easements.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
To adopt the Resolution denying the appeal.
PREPARED BY:
Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Tom Scott, City Attorney
REVIEWED BY:
Meg McMonigal, Planning & Zoning Supervisor
ATTACHMENTS:
Draft Resolution upholding staff’s determination
Letters of appeal
E-mails notifying Mr. Hagen of staff’s determinations
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c)
Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood Road Page 15
166524v1 1
BOZA RESOLUTION NO. _____
A RESOLUTION OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS DENYING
APPEAL OF MR. PETER HAGEN
BACKGROUND
• On or about April 30, 2012 the Finks constructed a tree house in the back yard of their
property. Staff reviewed the tree house and required that the tree house be altered to
meet the required accessory building setbacks. Staff re-inspected the tree house on May
30, 2012 and determined that the tree house had been altered to meet the required rear
setback.
• Mr. and Mrs. Fink live at 4215 Cedarwood Road.
• Mr. Peter Hagen lives at 4221 Cedarwood Road, which is located adjacent to the Fink
property.
• On June 21, 2012, Gary Morrison notified Mr. Hagen by e-mail of his interpretation of
Section 36-162(d)(3) pertaining to the height of the tree house.
• On June 22, 2012, Gary Morrison notified Mr. Hagen by e-mail of his interpretation of
Section 36-162(d)(4) pertaining to windows on the second story.
• On August 14, 2012, Mr. Hagen appealed staff determination pursuant to City Code §36-
31 that the tree house is in compliance with Section 36-162(d)(3) and Section 36-
162(d)(4).
• On August 21, 2012 and August 30, 2012, Mr. Hagen’s attorney wrote letters requesting
a determination that the tree house is not in compliance with the setback regulations
pertaining to decks.
• On September 17, 2012, Mr. Hagen filed a letter with the City Clerk requesting the Board
of Zoning Appeals (BOZA) also consider that the tree house is constructed in a utility
easement in violation of the National Electrical Safety Code (NESC).
• The appeal came before the BOZA for a public hearing on September 27, 2012.
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Zoning Appeals of St. Louis Park, Minnesota:
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c)
Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood Road Page 16
166524v1 2
FINDINGS
1. City Code Section 36-31(a) states:
At any time within 20 days after a written order, requirement, permit,
decision, refusal, or determination by the zoning administrator has been
made interpreting or applying this chapter, except for actions taken in
connection with prosecutions for violation hereof, the applicant or any
other person, officer, or department representative of the city affected by it
may appeal the decision to the board of zoning appeals by filing a notice
of appeal with the community development department addressed to the
board of zoning appeals stating the action appealed from and stating the
specific grounds upon which the appeal is made.
2. The appeal of the zoning administrator’s June 21, 2012 interpretation of Section
36-162(d)(3) does not meet the 20 day appeal deadline and therefore cannot be considered.
3. The appeal of the zoning administrator’s June 22, 2012 interpretation of Section
36-162(d)(4) does not meet the 20 day appeal deadline and therefore cannot be considered.
4. As to the deck setback issue, City Code Section 36-73(b)(4) states the following:
Uncovered porches, stoops, patios or decks which do not extend above the
height of the ground floor level of the principal building and are a
minimum of two feet from any interior side or rear lot line and 15 feet
from any front lot line and do not encroach on any side yard abutting a
street.
5. Section 36-73(b)(4) is the exception for decks and stoops relating to yard
requirements for the principal building.
6. Staff determined that the tree house “deck” is a component of the accessory
building and meets the two foot setback requirements for accessory buildings.
7. The National Electrical Safety Code (NESC) is not part of the Zoning Ordinance,
and therefore is not subject to a zoning appeal. Staff reviewed the plat and determined that an
easement does not exist along the property lines in the vicinity of where the tree house is located.
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c)
Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood Road Page 17
166524v1 3
DECISION
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the appeal of Mr. Peter Hagen is denied.
Adopted by the Board of Zoning Appeals: September 27, 2012
_____________________________
James Gainsley, Chairperson
ATTEST:
______________________________________
Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c)
Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood Road Page 18
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c) Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood RoadPage 19
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c) Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood RoadPage 20
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c) Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood RoadPage 21
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c) Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood RoadPage 22
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c)
Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood Road Page 23
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c) Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood RoadPage 24
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c)
Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood Road Page 25
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c)
Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood Road Page 26
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c)
Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood Road Page 27
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c)
Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood Road Page 28
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c)
Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood Road Page 29
OFFICIAL MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 27, 2012
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
The St. Louis Park Board of Zoning Appeals conducted a meeting on September 27,
2012, at St. Louis Park City Hall, 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard, St. Louis Park,
Minnesota – Council Chambers.
Members Present: Susan Bloyer, James Gainsley, Paul Roberts, Henry Solmer
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Nancy Sells, Administrative Secretary
Others: Tom Scott, City Attorney
1. CALL TO ORDER – ROLL CALL
Chair Gainsley called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 1, 2011
Chair Gainsley made a motion to approve the minutes of November 1, 2011. The
motion passed on a vote of 4-0.
3. CONSENT AGENDA: None
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Variance: Side yard setback
Location: 2917 Quentin Avenue South
Applicant: Sara and Henry Stokman
Case No.: 12-25-VAR
Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator, presented the staff report. Sara
and Henry Stokman are requesting a variance from the side yard setback to allow
an addition to the house with a 0.9 foot setback instead of the required five foot
setback. The variance is requested to replace the existing one car attached garage
with an addition consisting of living space in the basement and a bedroom and
mudroom on the main floor.
Mr. Morrison reviewed the seven variance criterion. He said staff believes the
proposed application does not meet the criterion required for granting a variance
and, therefore, recommends denial.
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c)
Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood Road Page 30
Official Minutes
Board of Zoning Appeals
September 27, 2012
Page 2
Chair Gainsley opened the public hearing.
Henry Stokman, applicant, stated that what might be misconstrued is that they are
trying to replace and fix the existing foundation under the garage. They are not
advocating for an addition on the house. The existing foundation is not a frost
footing and is failing, crumbling and pulling the garage away from the house. He
said they are asking to be able to fix and replace with a structure that is useful to
them but maintains integrity and architectural uniqueness of the house and also
helps increase the value of their property and the value of the neighbors’
properties. He said they are doing this as responsible homeowners and being
responsible members of the neighborhood and St. Louis Park. He said the
distance to the property line is not ideal. Mr. Stokman asked the board to take
that into consideration when evaluating their request. He said he understood that
variances of this nature and of this proximity to property line normally are not
granted. He asked the board to look at the situation and grant the variance as all
they are trying to do is fix the foundation and build a structure that is on the
existing footprint. Mr. Stokman said they have spoken with neighbors about their
proposal. He provided 13 signatures of support to the Chair and the board.
Sara Stokman, applicant, said when she bought the house, she knew the
foundation was failing. When they built their detached garage they knew they
were very close to the property line and there was a sense of being grandfathered
in. She said it was disappointing to end up making a request for a variance. She
said they just want to use the existing footprint so they can maintain the roofline
and what they like about the house today, trying to make it as functional as
possible. She spoke about public safety. She said the neighbor is definitely
within her right to put an addition on her house and build up to five feet of the
property line. That would still leave them with six feet in-between.
Commissioner Roberts asked if the neighbor to the north is included in the
signature document.
Ms. Stokman said that neighbor came in person to the meeting.
Commissioner Solmer asked if the failing foundation is integrally attached to the
house foundation.
Mr. Stokman responded that there is block underneath the garage but it does not
go down three feet to the proper depth.
Commissioner Solmer said what he is trying to determine is that the failure of the
garage foundation is not damaging the basement wall of the house.
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c)
Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood Road Page 31
Official Minutes
Board of Zoning Appeals
September 27, 2012
Page 3
Mr. Stokman said when the house was inspected; they were warned that if
something was not repaired it could present a problem to the foundation of the
basement and the remainder of the house.
Chair Gainsley said he didn’t think BOZA was allowed to consider future events
without there being any substantial evidence for them.
Ron Sonnek, Sicora Design Build, presented photos of the side foundation of the
garage. He described the slab as a floating slab. He said the floating slab is
most likely pinned into the existing foundation of the house. He said when those
do not go 42-48 inches deep, a lot of the concrete contractors at that time would
still re-rod those foundations into the existing foundation of the house in order to
help stabilize the foundation. At some time there will be an issue that will affect
the foundation of the house. He said the foundation is failing and needs to be
dealt with and remedied. Mr. Sonnek said it is perfectly allowable by building
code to build up to the property line as long as a proper firewall is built. He said
a firewall would be required for the new construction.
Chair Gainsley asked about city requirements.
Mr. Morrison said regardless of the nature of the variance, anything within 5 feet
of the property line has to be fire rated, and that openings in the wall are not
permitted if the setback is 3 feet or less.
Chair Gainsley asked Mr. Morrison if any of the applicant or builder comments
were in conflict with the staff report or presentation.
Mr. Morrison responded that it is not known if the foundation is re-rodded or if
there is damage to the structure right now. He said it sounds like there isn’t
damage right now, but there is potential in the future. He said as far as how it is
attached to the house, it does sound like technically it isn’t known for certain
other than there is a pattern in the city for this type of construction.
Kris Kauffmann, 2913 Quentin Ave. S., said she is the neighbor directly to the
north. She said she has no objections to the variance request and supports it. She
said she’s lived there for 20 years and the garage has been in that same space the
whole time and it doesn’t affect her in any way. Ms. Kauffmann said she hopes
the variance will be granted as she supports the Stokman’s request and doesn’t
believe the variance will impact her.
Chair Gainsley closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Bloyer said she doesn’t like a setback of less than 1 foot, but she’d
like to get something done with the property and doesn’t know what can be done
to make it workable for everyone.
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c)
Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood Road Page 32
Official Minutes
Board of Zoning Appeals
September 27, 2012
Page 4
Commissioner Solmer said he understands the applicant has the right to rebuild
within the existing footprint, but they are looking to increase it in every dimension
except the side width. There will be more nonconformance and it will be more
permanent and the existing neighbor may not care about this but in the future it
could be different.
There was a discussion about the state statute allowing nonconformities to be
replaced to the exact same dimensions. Mr. Morrison said it does have to meet
code and the city can put restrictions on it if there are safety welfare or building
code concerns. He said in the case of a 1 ft. setback the city would ask that it be
pulled back more.
Commissioner Roberts said he’d be more comfortable if it was a 2 foot setback
from the side yard. He said even though the footprint is expanding a little bit it
isn’t intensifying the use of the land.
There was a discussion about needing more detail for resolution findings if the
board wished to recommend approval.
Chair Gainsley reopened the public hearing. Chair Gainsley asked the applicant if
they could come up with an alternative plan that encompasses the discussion
points which have been made, submit it to the city, and return to the board.
Mr. Stokman said he thought they could do that.
Chair Gainsley closed the public hearing as no one else was present wishing to
speak.
Commissioner Roberts made a motion to continue the request to the next Board of
Zoning Appeals meeting, October 25th. The motion passed on a vote of 4-0.
B. Variance: Front yard setback
Location: 2937 Ensign Avenue South
Applicant: Ensign, LLC
Case No. 12-27-VAR
Gary Morrison presented the staff report. Ensign, LLC is requesting a
variance from the front yard setback to allow the future construction of a
house with a 20 foot front yard setback instead of the required 30 foot
front yard setback.
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c)
Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood Road Page 33
Official Minutes
Board of Zoning Appeals
September 27, 2012
Page 5
Mr. Morrison provided background on the property. The final plat was
approved by the City Council on January 17, 2012. Mr. Morrison noted
that the Applicant is on record at the City Council meeting of November
21, 2011 stating that he can build houses on each of the lots in the plat
without variances.
Mr. Morrison reviewed the seven variance criterion. He said staff
believes the proposed application does not meet the criterion required for
granting a variance and, therefore, recommends denial.
Chair Gainsley asked why the request was being made as the survey
shows the house meeting the required setbacks.
Mr. Morrison said he agreed and that is why staff has made a
recommendation of denial. He added that it is especially difficult since it
isn’t a proposal for a house; it is just a general setback variance request.
He said the application was made so it has to be heard.
Chair Gainsley opened the public hearing.
Curt Fretham, Applicant, said the six lot development has been going very
well. He said he believes his request meets the criteria for a variance.
Mr. Fretham said ultimately he is trying to create the best development
that he can and respect the intent of the city’s ordinance.
Mr. Fretham spoke about criteria No. 1 in the analysis section of the staff
report. He said he believes that extraordinary and exceptional conditions
do exist on the lot. He said he did make the statement in the preliminary
plat process that a house could be built on Lot 1 without a variance. He
still believes that to be true, though it may not be the right thing for the
city. Mr. Fretham said what is missing from the staff report is that the
neighbor’s home has only a 17 ft. front yard setback. He illustrated how
the northwest corner of the garage is in line with the rear corner of the
neighbor’s house. He said looking down Ensign Ave. the houses are all
straight, except for the side of the neighbor’s house on the northwest. He
said he doesn’t want to pull the house up to match it, but wants to create a
transition between the new house proposing to build, the new house
further to the south, and the existing house on the corner. He wants to
come up with some common ground to provide for a better streetscape.
Mr. Fretham spoke about the City Council staff report of November 21,
2011 which included the following question from neighbors: Should the
house on Lot 1 receive a front yard setback variance to be located closer
to the street than code allows to better line up with the existing house to
the west? He said the staff response was as follows: The house on Lot 1
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c)
Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood Road Page 34
Official Minutes
Board of Zoning Appeals
September 27, 2012
Page 6
could be moved slightly forward to transition existing house to the west
which has a 17 ft. front yard setback. Mr. Fretham said the neighbors
asked for it to be moved forward, staff suggested it be put forward, and it’s
in the staff recommendations that the house have a front yard setback
variance included. He said he removed it because he was comfortable and
at that time didn’t feel like it was necessary. He said he would explain
changes that took place after that meeting which provide further evidence
as to why he is asking for a variance now.
Mr. Fretham said in relation to Criteria No. 2 from the BOZA staff report,
he finds the property does have peculiar circumstances because: 1)
neighbors 17 foot setback; and, 2) the street itself is not centered in the
right-of-way; it is shifted to the west.
Chair Gainsley asked if the centering issue was known at the time of the
plat application.
Mr. Fretham responded that it probably was known at the time, but not
recognized. He went on to say the impact of the street being off center in
the right-of-way is that there is 20 ft. of curb before the property line, then
there is another 30 ft. to the house. The houses are currently set back
more than 50 ft., which is extraordinary for St. Louis Park.
Mr. Fretham said the third point is the difference between the preliminary
plat stage and the final plat. When he recorded the final plat the Hennepin
Co. surveyor office would not record the plat because they felt there was
either a gap or an overlay in the area and so Mr. Fretham had to move the
west property line 4.88 ft. east. The consequence of that is that it pushes
the house back another 4.88 ft. That was not taken into account in the
approval process. He displayed a copy of the preliminary and final plat in
overlay illustrating the 4.88 ft. difference along with a note by the
surveyors of the 4.88 ft. difference. It changes the position of the house
and pushes it further back behind the property owner’s to the northwest.
Mr. Fretham spoke about the setback problem as it infringes upon the
privacy and quiet enjoyment of both properties as the front door of the
proposed home will be looking into the side and back yard of the existing
home. He said this satisfies Criterion No. 3.
Mr. Fretham stated there would still be adequate parking at 20 ft., and
there is still additional 20 ft. of right-of-way between the street and the
property line, totaling 40 ft. length of driveway for parking vehicles.
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c)
Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood Road Page 35
Official Minutes
Board of Zoning Appeals
September 27, 2012
Page 7
Mr. Fretham said the environmental impact benefit of granting a variance
is by pulling the house forward it pulls the house away from the slope and
away from the lake.
Chair Gainsley noted receipt of email correspondence opposing the
variance request from David Marquis and Mary Klueh of 2932 Ensign
Ave. S., Rod Gulbro of 2950 Ensign Ave. S., Robert Slavik of 2962
Ensign Ave. S., and Dean Gutzke of 2920 Ensign Ave. S.
Tyler Wenkos, Gonyea Homes and Remodeling, is currently under
contract with Ensign, LLC for the six lots in the subdivision. He stated
that Gonyea Homes is in full support of the application. They are in
process of building four homes in the subdivision. The home on the
corner is completed (front setback off of Ensign is 20 ft.) and he said he
believes the homes across the street all have a 30 ft. setback. The two
homes to the south of this lot would have 30 ft. front yard setbacks. He
said he believes Mr. Fretham’s request is reasonable. Mr. Wenkos said
they have struggled in showing clients this property because of the way it
sits positioned to the house to the northwest. From that standpoint he
finds that there is an issue with the current setback because of placement
of the homes to the northwest.
Commissioner Solmer asked why none of these considerations came up
during the City Council approval process.
Mr. Fretham responded that no variances were required to approve the
development. He said he is now asking for a variance to make it a better
development, to line up and transition the front yard setback. He said
during the approval process he was not aware of the gap or overlap in the
area that was brought up at the Henn. Co. surveyor’s office which further
exaggerated the situation. Even if it had been known, the requirement for
a variance was still not there. Now, without a variance they would have
to put the house in crooked. He said he finds the request to line up with
the houses on the street to be very reasonable.
Commissioner Solmer said the board doesn’t know what it is being asked
to approve since there isn’t a drawing for the proposal.
Mr. Fretham said he understood the question but wondered what impact a
drawing would make in the board’s decision as it’s not about what the
house looks like, but rather about having the houses transition and line up.
The request is more basic than a drawing.
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c)
Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood Road Page 36
Official Minutes
Board of Zoning Appeals
September 27, 2012
Page 8
Chair Gainsley remarked the board is being asked to do something which
is not relative to the work of the Board of Zoning Appeals. He said these
approvals came up previously with the City Council.
Tom Scott, City Attorney, said the City Council minutes which have been
referred to dealt with a subdivision variance as part of the plat. Mr. Scott
said his comments in the minutes referred to the Council having very little
discretion and having to approve the plat since the applicant wasn’t asking
for any variances from the subdivision requirements. He went on to say in
the course of that there were also questions about whether or not he could
build houses on the lots without doing what he is proposing now and
asking for a zoning variance. Mr. Scott said that was commentary and
certainly not legally binding on anyone. There’s nothing that occurred
with the approval of the plat that would preclude the board from
considering this zoning variance just like any other zoning variance. Mr.
Scott said it is a legitimate question from the board that the applicant is
asking for a variance without presenting an actual plan for a home. Mr.
Scott said the board could approve the 20 ft. setback if it chooses to
without having any housing plans, but could also decline to do that.
Mr. Fretham said he would be willing to take the extra step and provide a
drawing of placement of the house on the lot if that is what the board
needs to make a decision.
Commissioner Solmer asked if the applicant could accept a variance for
the 4.88 ft.
Mr. Fretham responded that would be an improvement and he could
accept that, but because it is on an arc it is exaggerated.
Commissioner Bloyer commented that she would want to see a plan of the
home in perspective to the other homes since the concern is aesthetic.
Mr. Fretham said he could provide that as well.
Stephanie Slavik, 2962 Ensign Ave. S., across from Lot 3, said she would
like to see plans. Her son lives in the house to the west of the house on
Lot 1 which is being discussed. She said from the beginning 6 houses
always felt like too much for this development. She said 4 or 5 would
have been alright, but 6 is a lot aesthetically. She said at the time they
were told Lot 1 is the biggest lot. The front setback of 17 feet was a
known fact from the beginning. The decision was made, there wasn’t a
need for a variance, and she feels the neighbors have already made so
many concessions. She would support the board’s request for plans. She
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c)
Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood Road Page 37
Official Minutes
Board of Zoning Appeals
September 27, 2012
Page 9
said she was concerned if plans should change for Lot 3 and wanted to
hold the applicant to proper planning.
Chair Gainsley closed the public hearing as no one else was present
wishing to speak.
Commissioner Bloyer stated she would like to see the request continued in
order to see plans.
Commissioner Solmer said he had no objections to continuing the request.
Commissioner Roberts said he’d like to see plans for Lot 1
Chair Gainsley made a motion to continue the request until the October
25th meeting during which time the applicant can make a presentation of
plans as discussed. The motion passed on a vote of 4-0.
C. Appeal of a Zoning Determination
Location: 4215 Cedarwood Road
Applicant: Peter Hagen
Case No.: 12-23-AP
Tom Scott, City Attorney, stated that the property owner Mr. Fink was
present earlier, along with his attorney Dan Rosen. There was an
emergency situation and the applicant had to leave. If the board needs
any input from the owner or his attorney before making its decision, then
Mr. Rosen is requesting that the matter be continued. The presentation
can be made, open the hearing, take comments, and at that point the board
can decide whether or not it needs input from the owner and attorney
before it can make its decision.
Gary Morrison, Asst. Zoning Administrator presented the staff report. He
explained that the appeal relates to four determinations made by staff
based on the approval of a tree house at 4215 Cedarwood Road. The
four determinations are: 1) that the windows are not located in the second
story of the tree house, and therefore, are not in violation to City Code.; 2)
that the tree house is not taller than the house; 3) that the deck on the tree
house conforms to setback requirements; and 4) that the tree house is not
built in a utility easement.
Mr. Morrison reviewed the chronology of staff determinations and the
appeal. He reviewed city code regarding time limit and the right of
appeal. He explained that Mr. Hagen’s right to appeal staff’s
determination of the height expired on July 11, 2012, and his right to
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c)
Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood Road Page 38
Official Minutes
Board of Zoning Appeals
September 27, 2012
Page 10
appeal staff’s determination regarding window placement expired on July
12, 2012.
Mr. Morrison discussed yard requirements for decks, porches and stoops
from City Code Section 36-73(b)(4) and Section 36-73(c). Staff
determined that the tree house “deck” is a component of the accessory
building and meets the setback requirements.
Mr. Morrison discussed the utility easement. The National Electrical
Safety Code (NESC) is not part of the Zoning Ordinance, and is not
subject to a zoning appeal. Staff determined that an easement does not
exist along the property lines in the vicinity of the tree house.
Chair Gainsley opened the public hearing.
Mr. Peter Hagen, Appellant, presented copies of his documents, Exhibit A,
to the board and staff.
After a discussion with Mr. Scott about timeliness, Chair Gainsley
determined the board would discuss the timeliness element only.
Mr. Scott noted that the property owner, Mr. Fink, and his attorney Mr.
Rosen, requested that the board continue the hearing if they feel they need
to hear from Fink and Rosen in order to make a decision.
Mr. Hagen said he did have a copy of the utility easement attached to the
title of the Fink property.
Mr. Hagen said no permit was pulled for the structure, either zoning or
building. On September 9, 2011 he asked for a copy of the permit at City
Hall. There wasn’t a permit on file. Later by phone he was told by Mr.
Morrison that he had requested one from the Finks.
Mr. Morrison said he did have the permit.
Mr. Hagen said he was not given a final determination and notice of right
of appeal. He said zoning claims that his appeal expired on July 11th on
the height issue and July 12th on the window issue. He said he never
received anything verbally or in writing from the zoning office that he had
the right to appeal. He said on June 26th he sent an email to Jeff Jacobs,
Sue Sanger, Tom Harmening, Gary Morrison, and Meg McMonigal
stating that he had hired an attorney and requested that the City furnish
him with City Council minutes on various ordinances. Mr. Morrison
responded 10 days later. He didn’t have the information in hand to do an
appeal until July 6th. He said his attorney was on vacation from June 29 –
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c)
Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood Road Page 39
Official Minutes
Board of Zoning Appeals
September 27, 2012
Page 11
July 9. On July 17th his attorney sent a letter to Tom Harmening objecting
to zoning’s position. The letter was sent within 11 days of his request
from the City Council minutes. He said they have responded in a timely
manner, even though they were not made aware of the 20 day time limit
for appeal. Mr. Hagen said they did do an appeal to the city on July 17th.
Chair Gainsley asked Mr. Scott about notice of right of appeal.
Mr. Scott responded that the emails from staff clearly respond specifically
to the request of the two items. They do not say there is a 20 day time
period to appeal. That notice is not legally required. The ordinance
provision indicates that they have 20 days to appeal a determination. The
determination was communicated to Mr. Hagen. He recognized that was
the final determination because he responded that he needed to talk to his
attorney about his next step. Clearly the email constitutes a writing, it was
transmitted to him and it was clearly a determination by the zoning
administrator on those two issues. Mr. Scott said from a legal standpoint
that is when the 20 days started. The 20 day deadline is clearly stated in
the zoning ordinance.
Mr. Hagen said in his email back to Mr. Morrison on June 26th he stated
that he disagreed with his determination on the height and window
placement. That wasn’t in a formal format but he said he clearly
disagreed with the assessment. He said that is within the 20 day window.
Mr. Hagen said at that time he requested more information for a more
effective response and that was not provided for 10 days, taking up 10 of
those 20 days. This email was also sent to Jeff Jacobs, Tom Harmening,
Sue Sanger and Meg McMonigal.
Chair Gainsley closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Roberts said the June 26th letter indicated the appellant’s
disagreement with the determination.
Commissioner Bloyer said she didn’t like the informality of this. She said
the appellant did make a fuss, although informally. She said she’d rather
continue the request rather than make a determination at this point.
Chair Gainsley said it appeared Mr. Hagen objected to the determination
and had another way he wanted to proceed. He doesn’t like being called
untimely because there was a delay in City processing. It’s not unlawful
for a city to take time to respond.
Mr. Scott said in light of the board being uncomfortable deciding this
evening and in light of the fact that the property owner, his attorney, and
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c)
Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood Road Page 40
Official Minutes
Board of Zoning Appeals
September 27, 2012
Page 12
Mr. Hagen’s attorney are not present, the board may want to continue the
request. Mr. Scott added that the delay in filing the appeal was almost
two months.
Chair Gainsley reopened the public hearing in case anyone wished to
speak.
Mr. Hagen said he agreed with continuing the timeliness issue for the
height and the window. He said he would like to address the deck and
easement issue this evening.
Chair Gainsley said all of this would have to be repeated again and all
items would have to be continued. He said the issue is broad enough that
all parties should be present, to be fair to the applicant.
Mr. Hagen said he considered this meeting a waste of his time.
Chair Gainsley closed the public hearing.
Chair Gainsley made a motion to continue the case until the next meeting
October 25th. The motion passed on a vote of 3-1 (Roberts opposed).
Commissioner Roberts stated that he would not be present at the October
25th meeting.
5. Unfinished Business: None
6. New Business
A. Election of Chair and Vice-Chair
Chair Gainsley nominated Paul Roberts for Chair. The motion passed on
a vote of 3-0.
Chair Gainsley nominated Henry Solmer for Vice Chair. The motion
passed on a vote of 3-0.
7. Communications: None
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c)
Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood Road Page 41
Official Minutes
Board of Zoning Appeals
September 27, 2012
Page 13
8. Adjourn
The meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Nancy Sells
Administrative Secretary
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c)
Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood Road Page 42
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES OF OCTOBER 25, 2012
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
The St. Louis Park Board of Zoning Appeals conducted a meeting on October 25, 2012,
at St. Louis Park City Hall, 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard, St. Louis Park, Minnesota –
Council Chambers.
Members Present: Susan Bloyer, James Gainsley, Henry Solmer
Members Absent: Paul Roberts
Staff Present: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Nancy Sells, Administrative Secretary
1. CALL TO ORDER – ROLL CALL
Vice Chair Solmer called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 27, 2012
Commissioner Gainsley made a motion to approve the minutes of September 27,
2012. The motion passed on a vote of 3-0.
3. CONSENT AGENDA: None
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Variance: Side yard setback
Location: 2917 Quentin Avenue South
Applicant: Sara and Henry Stokman
Case No.: 12-25-VAR
Continued from September 27, 2012
Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator, presented the staff report. He
said a survey was submitted after agenda materials were provided to the board
that illustrates what an addition would look like if it met a 3 foot setback. Mr.
Morrison said the staff recommendation at the September 27, 2012 meeting was
for denial to maintain a 10 inch setback with a larger addition. He said if the
applicant agreed to go ahead with a 3 foot setback, staff would recommend
approval of that request based on the findings which he reviewed.
Commissioner Bloyer asked if there was a concern that the 3 foot variance would
set a precedent.
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c)
Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood Road Page 43
Unofficial Minutes
Board of Zoning Appeals
October 25, 2012
Page 2
Mr. Morrison responded that each application is reviewed on the merits presented
for that specific application.
Vice Chair Solmer reopened the public hearing.
Henry Stokman, applicant, showed the revised floor plan to the board. He said
the actual garage space is only 10 feet in diameter and losing 3 feet is quite
substantial. Mr. Stokman said he understands that economic hardship isn’t
enough for a variance, but felt from an investment standpoint in time, money,
livability, and usefulness; it makes it difficult to move forward with that plan.
Mr. Stokman asked if the board would consider meeting in the middle with a 2
foot setback from the property line. He said in their situation, and based on the
current proximity of their garage in relation to the property line, they feel like
they are stuck.
Vice Chair Solmer asked if the applicant would not proceed with a 3 foot setback.
Mr. Stokman responded that he didn’t think they would go ahead with a 3 foot
setback.
Vice Chair Solmer said he believed it was the consensus at the September 27th
meeting that the board was meeting the applicant in the middle by proposing a 3
foot setback.
Mr. Stokman said he agreed, but felt most of the properties in St. Louis Park were
non-conforming and most of the variances granted are at 3 feet. He said after
redrawing the plans and looking at the size of the rooms, he said it doesn’t make
sense to do it with a 3 ft. setback.
Vice Chair Solmer closed the public hearing.
Vice Chair made a motion to deny a 4.1 foot variance to the required 5.0 foot side
yard for the construction of a house addition. The motion passed on a vote 2-1
(Bloyer no).
Mr. Morrison read the appeal statement. The appeal period expires on November
5, 2012.
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c)
Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood Road Page 44
Unofficial Minutes
Board of Zoning Appeals
October 25, 2012
Page 3
B. Variance: Front yard setback
Location: 2937 Ensign Avenue South
Applicant: Ensign, LLC
Case No. 12-27-VAR
Continued from September 27, 2012
Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator, presented the staff report. He
said that at the September 27th meeting, the board requested that the applicant
submit drawings showing how the lot would fit in with the other homes on the
block at the various setbacks which were discussed. Mr. Morrison presented
drawings. He remarked that the situation which occurs with houses facing each
other is fairly typical of a cul-de-sac. Staff does not see that as a hardship or a
practical difficulty. He said the house meets all the zoning setbacks and staff
does not see a hardship for any type of variance in any way. It seems to be
aesthetics that come into play.
Mr. Morrison said, as pointed out at the September meeting, the requirement for
the front setback is 30 feet or the distance from the property line to the front most
wall of the house on that block, whichever is greater.
Mr. Morrison said staff continues to recommend denial of the variance request.
Vice Chair Solmer reopened the public hearing.
Curt Fretham, Ensign, LLC, applicant, said the drawings also include the distance
from the curb to the front of the homes. He said there are several other
compensating factors aside from aesthetics that are worth noting. He said as one
looks north on Ensign there is a nice alignment of the houses. He said as it is a
new development why not set it up from a planning perspective the best that they
can. He would like to create some consistency and a nice streetscape. Mr.
Fretham stated that the 50 plus feet from the curb is a big number and not often
seen in the general neighborhood. Mr. Fretham discussed the discrepancy of
4.88 feet discovered when recording the final plat. This discrepancy pushed the
house further east. He remarked there are a number of circumstances that deserve
consideration.
Vice Chair Solmer asked if the 4.88 ft. discrepancy required any of the other
houses to be pushed back.
Mr. Fretham responded that it required all of the houses to be pushed back.
Vice Chair Solmer asked if they all still meet the setback requirement.
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c)
Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood Road Page 45
Unofficial Minutes
Board of Zoning Appeals
October 25, 2012
Page 4
Mr. Fretham responded that they do meet the setback requirement. He added that
the houses are all pushed back further behind the existing house.
Vice Chair Solmer discussed the area in front of the garage. He said there would
be a large area of pavement right up to the front of the property line. He said he
was trying to understand how it was going to look from the street.
Vice Chair Solmer closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Gainsley said he was concerned since this does not go along with
the Comprehensive Plan.
Commissioner Bloyer said she agreed with his concern.
Commissioner Gainsley said the proposal is a very detailed projection, a very
intricate way of doing things. It doesn’t meet the design of the Comprehensive
Plan and there is no hardship.
Commissioner Bloyer stated the board is constrained by state law. The lot does
not present a hardship. She said she had to retract her earlier thoughts about it
from the previous meeting on that basis. She said the board has to go by the
shape and circumstances of the lot, and there isn’t a constraint in this case. She
said if anything, the nearby lots might be constraining Lot 1.
Vice Chair Solmer made a motion to deny a 10 foot variance to the required 30
foot front yard for the construction of a new house. The motion passed on a vote
of 3-0.
Mr. Morrison read the appeal statement. The appeal period expires on November
5, 2012.
C. Appeal of a Zoning Determination
Location: 4215 Cedarwood Road
Applicant: Peter Hagen
Case No.: 12-23-AP
Continued from September 27, 2012
Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator, presented the staff report. He
stated the appellant is Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood Road. He said that Mr.
Hagen is appealing the following four staff determinations: 1) windows in tree
house facing the neighboring property are not located in the second story; 2) the
tree house is not taller than the house; 3) the deck on the tree house conforms to
setback requirements; and 4) the tree house is not built in a utility easement. Mr.
Morrison said that staff has determined that the appeal to items 1 and 2 is not
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c)
Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood Road Page 46
Unofficial Minutes
Board of Zoning Appeals
October 25, 2012
Page 5
timely. He reviewed the timeline. Regarding item 3, Mr. Morrison said staff
determined the decks are a component of the accessory building, and therefore
subject to accessory setbacks of 2 ft. to the rear property line and 2 ft. to the side
property line, and do meet code. Regarding item 4, he said staff does not believe
a utility easement exists on the property. He reviewed the appellant’s exhibits and
staff’s research regarding this item.
Vice Chair Solmer reopened the public hearing.
Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood Road, reviewed his communications and
correspondence regarding the appeal.
Mr. Hagen asked his attorney to present his credentials and speak to the timeliness
issue.
Richard Gabriel, attorney, reviewed his credentials. He said in Mr. Hagen’s
discussions with Mr. Morrison, he did not realize that any final determination had
been made. Mr. Gabriel said his client is referencing a number of decisions,
discussions, and a permit being granted on September 21st. He said staff had not
made a determination on the utility easement until more recently and his client
was timely on that issue. He said he would discuss the legal difference between
an easement and a covenant.
Mr. Hagen stated that staff had not provided the board with a July 17th letter from
Mr. Gabriel to Tom Harmening, City Manager. Mr. Hagen said he felt he had
been denied due process in his appeal as no one he contacted at the city informed
him about the appeal process.
Vice Chair Solmer asked Mr. Hagen to give his complete presentation.
Mr. Hagen spoke about the permit. He said a permit was not applied for until
September, and that occurred only after he had requested a copy of the permit a
number of times.
In regard to the height violation, Mr. Hagen read from the zoning code saying that
the height of all accessory buildings and structures shall be lower than the highest
roof line of the principal building. He said the tree house is 4-5 ft. higher than
the highest point of the principal building. He distributed a photograph of the
subject roof line and accessory building. He discussed a diagram of a play
structure, showing how a play structure should be measured. He remarked that
Mr. Morrison measured it from the highest grade to the highest point of the
structure rather than from the lowest exterior grade at the base of the structure to
the highest point of the structure. Mr. Hagen submitted a photograph of the base
of the structure. Mr. Hagen distributed Mr. Morrison’s response on the
measurements. He said he didn’t trust that Mr. Morrison had accurately measured
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c)
Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood Road Page 47
Unofficial Minutes
Board of Zoning Appeals
October 25, 2012
Page 6
the height of the home. Mr. Hagen distributed a letter from Austin Cargill, the
neighbor directly behind 4215 Cedarwood, regarding the height issue.
Mr. Gabriel said the relative ordinance does not refer to measuring height and
feet, but rather discusses the roof line being higher. He said the construction that
Mr. Morrison has placed on the ordinance is not consistent with the language of
that ordinance.
Mr. Hagen read from the ordinance saying that windows, doors and similar
openings may be located in the second story of an accessory building if the wall
or dormer in which it is located faces a lot line that abuts a public right-of-way or
at least 15 ft. from any property zoned residential. He said the argument the city
has made is that because the building is elevated 8 ft. into the air that the first
story starts at 8 ft. He said he believed the intent of the ordinance is to prevent
windows from looking down on other’s property to protect privacy.
Mr. Hagen said the setbacks for patios and decks are very clear. He said setbacks
exist for decks, patios and uncovered porches and stoops that do not extend above
the height of the ground floor of the level of the home. He went on to say that all
others must meet setback requirements for the house itself.
Mr. Hagen spoke about the reduction in value of his property because of the
structure. He discussed an appraisal letter from Robert Lear stating that the
structure is a huge negative for Mr. Hagen’s property. He discussed a letter from
Edina Realty stating that the structure reduces the value of Mr. Hagen’s property.
He stated that the whole reason the ordinance and code was created and exists is
to help protect the value of homes and the neighborhoods.
Mr. Hagen discussed loss of privacy. He said Mr. Cargill’s privacy has been
violated as well.
Mr. Hagen said that Xcel Energy furnished him with a Certificate of Title with the
utility easement. He said Xcel Energy considers it a permanent easement granted
to them. He said there is a perpetual easement of 5 feet. He said the covenants
that were released in 1975 did not release the easement. He said the ordinance
states that the city cannot allow any structure to be built in an easement without
an encroachment agreement. He said Xcel Energy recently measured to
determine if it violates the National Electric Safety Code and found that it does
not meet the requirements.
Mr. Gabriel reviewed his October 25, 2012 letter which was distributed to the
board. He said he was concerned about due process regarding the notice
provision. He said he was puzzled by zoning code language which doesn’t
provide for notice of appeal rights when there is a final determination.
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c)
Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood Road Page 48
Unofficial Minutes
Board of Zoning Appeals
October 25, 2012
Page 7
Mr. Gabriel said easements are recognized as a particular type of property right.
He said it is an interest in property giving the rights to use of that property by
someone other than the property owner. He said a covenant is a restriction on the
use of property. He said historically covenants have been addressed by the state
legislature. He said there is a 30 year limit on covenants unless there are certain
exceptions like townhomes or condominiums. Covenants expire automatically
upon 30 years or when they become nominal. Mr. Gabriel said easements do not
expire that way. He said in this particular case it is a perpetual utility easement
over the last 5 feet of the property. He said it is his opinion that the easement did
not expire and the covenants did expire after 25 years. He said the ordinance
states that an accessory building cannot be constructed in the easement area. Mr.
Gabriel said the structure is in violation of the city ordinance.
Mr. Gabriel spoke about right of appeal, City Code Section 36-31(a) from page 2
of the September 27th staff report. He said it says at any time within 20 days after
a permit a notice of appeal can be made.
Daniel Rosen, attorney, representing Kenneth and Nicole Fink, 4215 Cedarwood
Road, stated his clients brought a lawyer to the meeting not because they believe
the city or staff has done anything wrong. He said staff has been nothing but
courteous and cooperative throughout. He said with this neighbor there has been
a decade of a relationship and history that tells his clients that under certain
circumstances they need to engage certain levels of protection. He said it is a
history of bullying behavior. Mr. Rosen said Mr. Fink was prepared to answer
any questions. He stated that two neighbors, Dr. Mark Rosenblom and Pete
Denkworth, were also present to answer any questions.
Mr. Rosen stated that the very first communication on the subject came from
Nicole Benjamin Fink to the city inquiring if permits are required for tree houses.
She was informed that tree houses are not covered by the city ordinances so the
structure can be built without a permit. A complaint was registered after the
construction. City staff came out and said, perhaps because of the sophistication
of the structure, if it is covered under the ordinance as an accessory structure then
there are setback issues. Staff measured and did all the things they needed to do
in order to respond to the complaint. Mr. Rosen said the Finks didn’t argue or
complain about whether or not a tree house is covered and they ought to comply.
He said they made modifications costing $1,300.00 to comply with a 2 ft. setback
that applies, if tree houses are even covered by ordinance. Mr. Rosen said at no
time did the Finks do anything other than what city staff asked of them. Mr.
Rosen stated they now ask the city and the board to enforce the rule on appeal
deadline. He said it is particularly important in neighbor relationships like this
that the rules are not vague and fuzzy. Mr. Rosen remarked that substantively the
matters discussed by the neighbor regarding the timeliness are wrong. He added
that quotations from the ordinance regarding height which the neighbor brought
forward are incorrect. Mr. Rosen said the Finks have complied, they have been
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c)
Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood Road Page 49
Unofficial Minutes
Board of Zoning Appeals
October 25, 2012
Page 8
cooperative, and they’ve gone to tremendous expense to meet the complaints of
the neighbor.
Vice Chair Solmer asked Mr. Rosen to go through the issues point by point.
Mr. Rosen stated in regard to height in the ordinance, height is distance from a
base to a top. At no time does it reference elevation, but references height.
Mr. Rosen said they don’t have anything to add to the staff report regarding
windows or decks.
As regards to the easement, Mr. Rosen said they agree with everything in the staff
report. He said the appellant stated that Xcel Energy was recently on the
property. Mr. Rosen said that was as recent as one or two days ago. He added
that Xcel Energy has repeatedly and at every single occasion in response to the
complaint responded that there is nothing about the tree house that causes Xcel
Energy any difficulty. Xcel has stated that this sounds like an extension of a
dispute between neighbors and they are not going to be involved.
Mr. Rosen said, as pointed out in the staff report, there is no public easement. He
said to the extent there may be private easement rights relating to Xcel, he knows
of none that have ever been asserted by Xcel in connection with this type of
building.
Vice Chair Solmer confirmed with Mr. Morrison that there is no public easement.
Vice Chair Solmer stated that the easement, if any, is private and is not in
BOZA’s or the City’s duty to enforce it.
Mr. Hagen said the title, which has been provided to the board, specifically states
that it is a public utility easement not only for Xcel but also for the cable company
and telephone company.
Mr. Gabriel stated that is referenced in materials that have been provided to the
board. It refers to a public utility easement. He stated that the ordinance
references utility easements so this is clearly within the realm of the ordinance
and within the definition of this easement.
Mr. Rosen stated that power companies are private companies but for certain
regulatory purposes are referred to as public utilities. The fact that they are
public utilities does not mean that the easement is a public easement.
Vice Chair Solmer asked Mr. Fink if he could discuss the time period that
occurred between the construction of the structure and the granting of the permit.
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c)
Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood Road Page 50
Unofficial Minutes
Board of Zoning Appeals
October 25, 2012
Page 9
Kenneth Fink, 4215 Cedarwood Road, stated that his wife wanted to give him a
50th birthday present and she hired a contractor and constructed the tree house
without his knowledge. His wife and the contractor contacted the city sometime
in April asking if a permit was required. They were told a permit was not
required. The structure was built in April. After Mr. Hagen filed his complaints
Mr. Morrison came out and sometime in May requested a permit. Mr. Fink said
he understood the permit was an incidental request. His understanding was it
wasn’t critical because it wasn’t clear that the tree house falls under the ordinance.
It took several months because he didn’t think it was a big deal and forgot about
it. The tree house was already built at that point and they had already made the
modifications requested and spent another $1,300. Sometime during the summer
Mr. Fink said they submitted a drawing.
Mr. Hagen said he was not the homeowner who originally reported the tree house
to be in violation of the setback. He was told by Mr. Morrison that information
was confidential.
Vice Chair Solmer closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Gainsley said he agreed with the staff determination.
Vice Chair Solmer stated he also agreed with the staff determination. He said if
Xcel does find a violation they can certainly require a modification as needed.
Commissioner Bloyer said there is a defined means of appeal. She said she
agrees with the staff determination on the other items.
Commissioner Gainsley made a motion to deny the appeal based on staff findings.
The motion to deny the appeal passed on a vote of 3-0.
Mr. Morrison read the statement regarding appeal to City Council. The appeal
period would expire November 5, 2012.
5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: None
6. NEW BUSINESS: None
7. COMMUNICATIONS: None
8. ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Nancy Sells
Administrative Secretary
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c)
Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood Road Page 51
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c) Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood RoadPage 52
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c) Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood RoadPage 53
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c) Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood RoadPage 54
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c) Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood RoadPage 55
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c) Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood RoadPage 56
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c) Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood RoadPage 57
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c) Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood RoadPage 58
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c) Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood RoadPage 59
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c) Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood RoadPage 60
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c) Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood RoadPage 61
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c) Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood RoadPage 62
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c) Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood RoadPage 63
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c) Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood RoadPage 64
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c) Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood RoadPage 65
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c) Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood RoadPage 66
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c) Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood RoadPage 67
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c) Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood RoadPage 68
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c) Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood RoadPage 69
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c) Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood RoadPage 70
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c) Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood RoadPage 71
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c) Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood RoadPage 72
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c) Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood RoadPage 73
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c) Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood RoadPage 74
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c)
Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal - Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood Road Page 75
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c) Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood RoadPage 76
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c) Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood RoadPage 77
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c) Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood RoadPage 78
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c) Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood RoadPage 79
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c) Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood RoadPage 80
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c) Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood RoadPage 81
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c) Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood RoadPage 82
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c) Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood RoadPage 83
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c) Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood RoadPage 84
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c) Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood RoadPage 85
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c) Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood RoadPage 86
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c) Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood RoadPage 87
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c) Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood RoadPage 88
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c) Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood RoadPage 89
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c) Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood RoadPage 90
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c) Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood RoadPage 91
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c) Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood RoadPage 92
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c) Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood RoadPage 93
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c) Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood RoadPage 94
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c) Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood RoadPage 95
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c) Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood RoadPage 96
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c) Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood RoadPage 97
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c) Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood RoadPage 98
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c) Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood RoadPage 99
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c) Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood RoadPage 100
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c) Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood RoadPage 101
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c) Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood RoadPage 102
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c) Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood RoadPage 103
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c) Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood RoadPage 104
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c) Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood RoadPage 105
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c) Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood RoadPage 106
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c) Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood RoadPage 107
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c) Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood RoadPage 108
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c) Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood RoadPage 109
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c) Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood RoadPage 110
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c) Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood RoadPage 111
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c) Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood RoadPage 112
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c) Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood RoadPage 113
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c) Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood RoadPage 114
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c) Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood RoadPage 115
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c) Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood RoadPage 116
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c) Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood RoadPage 117
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c) Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood RoadPage 118
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c) Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood RoadPage 119
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c) Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood RoadPage 120
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c) Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood RoadPage 121
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 6c) Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal - Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood RoadPage 122
Meeting Date: November 19, 2012
Agenda Item #: 8a
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Zoning Ordinance Amendment Pertaining to Food Trucks and Catering - Second Reading
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to waive second reading and Adopt Ordinance pertaining to food trucks as a temporary
use, and catering as an accessory use, and approve the summary ordinance for publication.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to make changes to the City Code to allow mobile food trucks as a
temporary use and to allow catering as an accessory use in the R-1, R-2 and R-3 zoning districts?
BACKGROUND:
The proposed amendment would allow mobile food vehicles to operate as a temporary use on
private property with the consent of the property owner, on public property with the consent of
the City, and in the public right-of-way when it has been closed in a manner approved by the
City. The proposed ordinance includes additional conditions that have to be met to address
issues such as noise, lights, signs, trash, hours of operation, and others.
The amendment also proposes to allow catering as an accessory use to religious institutions,
educational facilities and community centers in the R-1, R-2 and R-3 zoning districts.
City Review:
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on August 15, 2012, and recommended
approval. The City Council discussed the amendment at the September 4, 2012 regular meeting
and at the October 22, 2012 study session. The City Council approved the first reading on
November 5, 2012 regular meeting.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Draft Ordinance
Summary Ordinance for Publication
Prepared by: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning & Zoning Administrator
Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Page 2
Subject: Zoning Ordinance Amendment Pertaining to Food Trucks and Catering - Second Reading
ORDINANCE NO.____-12
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK
ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING BY
AMENDING SECTIONS 36-4, 36-82, 36-163, 36-164, AND 36-165
MOBILE FOOD VEHICLES AND CATERING
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. 12-21-ZA).
Sec. 2. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Sections 36-4, 36-82, 36-163, 36-164, and
36-165 are hereby amended by adding underscored language. Section breaks are represented by
***.
Section 36-4. Definitions
***
Mobile Food Vehicle means a vehicle or cart used to prepare and serve food and/or beverages.
***
Sec. 36-82. Temporary uses.
(a) Purpose and effect. The purpose of this section is to provide conditions under which
temporary uses may be allowed in order to ensure a minimum negative impact to neighborhoods
and neighboring land uses.
(b) Authorized temporary uses. A structure or land in any use district may be used for one or
more of the following temporary uses if the use complies with the conditions stated in this
chapter:
***
(10) Mobile Food Vehicle. Mobile food vehicles (vehicle) are permitted with the following
conditions:
a. The vehicle is not permitted on property that is zoned residential and used as a
residential dwelling.
b. The vehicle shall have all permits and licenses required by the State and Hennepin
County to operate. A current copy of the permits and licenses shall be kept at the
vehicle and immediately made available upon request. The operator shall comply in
all respects with all requirements of state and county law.
c. The vehicle may be parked in a public right-of-way if the right-of-way is closed as
authorized by the City.
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Page 3
Subject: Zoning Ordinance Amendment Pertaining to Food Trucks and Catering - Second Reading
d. The vehicle operator shall have written permission from the property owner to
operate on their property. The written permission shall be kept with the vehicle, and
made immediately available to the City upon request.
e. Only food and non-alcoholic beverages shall be sold.
f. The vehicle operator shall comply with the following site standards:
1) The vehicle shall be parked on a paved surface, unless it is located on a public
park as approved by the City.
2) The vehicle shall be located at least 30 feet away from an entrance to a public
road.
3) The vehicle shall not disrupt traffic and parking.
4) The vehicle shall not have a drive-thru.
5) There shall be at least six feet of safe pedestrian passage around the vehicle.
g. Hours of operation shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 10 pm.
h. Lighting shall be limited to:
1) Vehicular lighting that is required by law.
2) Lights necessary to illuminate the inside of an enclosed vehicle, service deck of a
cart, and the point of sale area of the vehicle. The lighting shall not extend above
the vehicle, shall be downcast, and shielded in such a way to illuminate the
vehicle, and a point of sale area only. The lighting shall not directly illuminate an
area more than 10 feet away from the vehicle.
i. Noise generated by the vehicle and the use shall not become a nuisance. The
operation of the vehicle shall adhere to the following:
1) No vehicle shall use or maintain any outside sound amplifying equipment,
televisions or similar visual entertainment devices, or noisemakers, such as bells,
horns, or whistles.
2) Power generators shall not exceed 70 decibels measured 10 feet away from the
source.
j. Signage shall be limited to the following:
1) Text and images permanently applied to the vehicle as a decal or painted image
and text.
2) Signs that are attached to the vehicle. The signs shall not extend above the roof of
the vehicle, or extend more than five inches beyond any side of the vehicle.
These signs can be unlit or internally lit.
3) Text and images permanently applied to awnings that are attached to the vehicle,
do not extend above the height of the roof of the vehicle, and are at least six feet
from the ground to the bottom of the awning.
4) Text and images permanently applied to umbrellas that are attached to a food cart.
The umbrella shall be less than nine feet in height, and maintain a clearance of at
least six feet from the ground to the bottom of the umbrella.
5) One Pedestrian sign as defined in Section 36-362. The Pedestrian sign must be
located within five feet of the vehicle.
k. Trash, litter, recycling and refuse shall be handled in the following manner:
1) All waste liquids, garbage, litter and refuse shall be kept in leak proof,
nonabsorbent containers which shall be kept covered with tight-fitting lids and
properly disposed of at the establishment the vehicle operates from. Public trash
cans shall not be used to dispose of waste generated by the operation. Excepted
from this is the occasional use by customers.
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Page 4
Subject: Zoning Ordinance Amendment Pertaining to Food Trucks and Catering - Second Reading
2) No waste liquids, garbage, litter or refuse shall be dumped or drained into
sidewalks, streets, gutters, drains, or any other place except the licensed food
establishment.
3) The vendor shall provide a garbage receptacle with a tight fitting lid. The
receptacle shall be easily accessible for customer use, and located within five feet
of the vehicle.
4) The operator shall be responsible for all litter and garbage left by customers.
l. Overnight parking of the vehicle is not permitted, except that a vehicle under a long
term contract to operate on a premises may be kept overnight on the same premises
with the following conditions:
1) The vehicle is open for business at least six hours and five days per week for
every week it is kept on site. The business hours must be posted on the outside of
the vehicle at all times.
2) The vehicle is kept along the front wall of the building, near the customer
entrance of the building.
3) The vehicle is kept within 10 feet of the principal building wall.
4) There is a minimum of six feet of pedestrian walkway between the vehicle and the
edge of the sidewalk or marked pedestrian walkway.
5) Vehicles located on public property are exempt from these requirements
pertaining to overnight parking.
***
Sec. 36-163. R-1 single-family residence district.
(a) Purpose and effect. The purpose of the R-1 single-family residence district is to provide
appropriately located areas for single-family living on larger lots ensuring adequate light, air,
privacy and open space for each dwelling; protect residents from the impacts of high levels of
traffic; minimize traffic congestion; avoid the overloading of utilities by preventing the
construction of buildings of excessive size when compared with surrounding structures; provide
institutional and community services such as parks, schools, religious facilities, and community
centers supportive of a residential area while safeguarding its residential character; and protect
residential properties from noise, illumination, unsightliness, odors, dust, dirt, smoke, vibration,
heat, glare, and other objectionable influences.
***
(e) Accessory uses. The following uses shall be permitted accessory uses in an R-1 district:
***
(14) Catering is permitted as an accessory use to Community Centers, Educational (academic)
facilities, Country Clubs, and Religious Institutions with the following conditions:
a. Vehicles used to receive and/or deliver food shall not be stored outside.
***
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Page 5
Subject: Zoning Ordinance Amendment Pertaining to Food Trucks and Catering - Second Reading
Sec. 36-164. R-2 single-family residence district.
***
(e) Accessory uses. The following uses shall be permitted accessory uses in an R-2 district:
***
(14) Catering is permitted as an accessory use to Community Centers, Educational (academic)
facilities, and Religious Institutions with the following conditions:
a. Vehicles used to receive and/or deliver food shall not be stored outside.
***
Sec. 36-165. R-3 two-family residence district.
***
(e) Accessory uses. The following uses shall be permitted accessory uses in an R-3 district:
***
(13) Catering is permitted as an accessory use to Community Centers, Educational (academic)
facilities, and Religious Institutions with the following conditions:
a. Vehicles used to receive and/or deliver food shall not be stored outside.
Sec. 3. The contents of Planning Case File 12-21-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.
Public Hearing August 15, 2012
First Reading November 5, 2012
Second Reading November 19, 2012
Date of Publication November 29, 2012
Date Ordinance takes effect December 14, 2012
Adopted by the City Council November 19, 2012
Reviewed for Administration
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Page 6
Subject: Zoning Ordinance Amendment Pertaining to Food Trucks and Catering - Second Reading
SUMMARY
ORDINANCE NO.____-12
AN ORDINANCE REGARDING MOBILE FOOD VEHICLES AND CATERING
This ordinance states that mobile food vehicles will be allowed as a temporary use on private
property and catering will be allowed as an accessory use in the R-1, R-2 and R-3 residential
zoning districts.
This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication.
Adopted by the City Council November 19, 2012
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: November 29, 2012
Meeting Date: November 19, 2012
Agenda Item: 2
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Special Meeting Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Special Session Other:
TITLE:
Reconsideration of Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Civic to High Density and Low
Density Residential for former Eliot School Site
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The purpose of this study session item is to provide time for the City Council to discuss what
future action the Council wants to take regarding the land use designation in the Comprehensive
Plan for the Eliot School site. The Council may take whatever action it believes is appropriate.
They may approve the original amendment request, deny the request or take some other action
including possibly designating the Eliot School property for Medium Density Residential use as
recommended by the Planning Commission.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
What should the Land Use Designation be for the former Eliot School Site on Cedar Lake Road?
BACKGROUND:
Action to Reconsider - November 5, 2012.
At the November 5, 2012 City Council meeting the Council voted to reconsider the vote taken by
the City Council on October 15, 2012, regarding the Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the
Eliot school property.
Original Action - October 15th.
At the October 15th meeting a motion to approve a resolution to amend the Comprehensive Plan
failed on a 3 to 3 vote. The proposal had been to designate a portion of the Eliot School property
for High Density Residential use and a portion for Low Density Residential use. Since amending
the Comprehensive Plan requires a minimum of 5 affirmative votes, the request to amend the
Comprehensive Plan was denied by virtue of having received insufficient affirmative votes for
approval.
Future Action Required.
The action taken on November 5 to reconsider this amendment means the City Council must
again act on the applicant’s request to amend the Comprehensive Plan. Consideration of the
amendment will be placed on a future regular Council Meeting Agenda for Council action. It is
anticipated that it will be on the December 3, 2012 agenda.
Current Development Plan.
The developer, Hunt & Associates, will be attendance at the study session to answer any
questions and discuss his proposal for the Eliot School site. Since the October 15th City Council
meeting the developer, in response to concerns expressed at the meeting, has modified his
proposed development plan. He can explain the modified plan at the study session. A synopsis
of the new and original plan is provided below. Attached also is the original staff report from the
October 15th City Council meeting.
Special Study Session Meeting of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 2) Page 2
Title: Reconsideration of Comp Plan Amendment for former Eliot School Site
Original Proposal
• 147 housing units total
• 3 single family lots
• 144 apartments in two buildings
• Zero three-bedroom units
New Proposal
• 141 housing units total
• 3 single family lots
• 138 apartment units in two
buildings
• 6 three bedroom units
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
St. Louis Park is a connected and engaged community, including keeping its neighborhoods
strong. We are committed to providing a well maintained and diverse housing stock.
Attachments: Staff Report from October 15, 2012
Prepared by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: October 15, 2012
Agenda Item #: 8a
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Eliot Park Apartments – Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Civic to High Density and Low
Density Residential
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
• Motion to adopt a Resolution amending the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map to allow
for High Density Residential (RH) and Low Density Residential (RL) on the Eliot School
site and authorize publication of summary resolution.
• Alternatively, the Council may wish to direct the Staff to prepare a resolution consistent
with the Planning Commission’s recommendation to designate the site for Medium (RM)
and Low Density Residential (RL).
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council support the request to modify the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map to
facilitate rezoning and PUD for the redevelopment of the Eliot School site for a combination of
apartments and single family homes?
REQUEST:
Eliot Park Apartments, LLC (Hunt & Associates) has requested an amendment to the 2030
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map for 6720 and 6800 Cedar Lake Road. This amendment would:
• Modify the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map from Civic to High Density Residential
(RH) on the majority of the site, and to Low Density Residential (RL) to the north.
• Allow the applicant to request a rezoning of the property, approval of a Planned Unit
Development (PUD) and platting of the property for its development proposal.
The Comprehensive Plan amendment must be approved
prior to review of other applications that would allow the
developer’s proposal to move forward.
The development proposal for the site includes two 72-
unit apartment buildings of two and three stories in
height, and three new single family lots, for a total of
147 new residential units.
A detailed map depicting the Comprehensive Plan map
amendment is attached.
Background:
The St. Louis Park School District listed the Eliot School property for sale in 2011, and Eliot
Park Apartments, LLC (Hunt & Associates) has entered into a purchase agreement with the
School District for the site.
RH – High Density
Residential
Special Study Session of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Reconsideration of Comp Plan Amendment for former Eliot School Site Page 3
The developer held a neighborhood meeting on July 17th to obtain input on the proposed
redevelopment. Following the neighborhood meeting, the City Council reviewed the proposal at
a Study Session on July 23rd.
Development Proposal:
The proposed development is for two new market rate apartment buildings with a total of 144
units and underground parking, and three new single family lots. The existing school building
would be razed. Each apartment building would have a total of 72 units. The proposed three
new single family lots would be sold to a different development group, although Hunt &
Associates would be consulted about the homes’ design. Graphics and plans depicting the
proposed apartment buildings are included as attachments.
The proposed buildings are mostly three stories in height, and reduced to two stories in areas
near existing homes. The proposed site plan includes areas for stormwater management, outdoor
recreation, and landscaping.
Parking for residents would be provided underground, with additional guest parking on a private
street between the two buildings. As proposed in the concept plan, the development exceeds the
parking requirements found in the Zoning Ordinance, with a total of 210 spaces; 200 are
required. There is also proof-of-parking available in the adjacent lot to the east of the site, across
Hampshire should a need for even more parking become apparent in the future. All proposed
parking spaces are accommodated on-site; no on-street parking is included in the parking
calculation.
The concept site plan was designed to allow for additional setback area to the north of the site.
There is adequate space to the north of the apartments for the development of three new single
family lots. As proposed, one lot faces Hampshire and two lots face Idaho. Together with the
apartment buildings, a total of 147 new residential units are proposed for the site. The overall
density of the site would be 34.4 units per acre.
Site Conditions:
The site is 4.27 acres in size and features a vacant multi-level school building. There is also a
playground on the northern portion of the site. The school building is not being used and is in
relatively poor condition. It would be razed as part of the development proposal.
Located between Idaho and Hampshire Avenues, and just north of Cedar Lake Road, the
proposed development site is surrounded on all sides by single family homes. The site is located
at a high point in the City; as such, the northern half of the site drains to the north, and the
southern half to the south. As a result, it is located in two separate watersheds, with separate
governing authorities (Bassett Creek Water Management Organization and Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District).
Comprehensive Plan Amendment:
The current request is to change the overall Comprehensive Land Use Plan to allow
redevelopment of this site. City ordinance requires that the Land Use Plan be changed prior to
consideration of the zoning and development review of the site. Detailed site plans would be
analyzed and brought forth with applications for rezoning, PUD, and plats following the
Comprehensive Plan amendment. A summary of the proposed development is provided below;
further detailed analysis will be undertaken with future development applications.
Evaluation of Request:
Special Study Session of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Reconsideration of Comp Plan Amendment for former Eliot School Site Page 4
The request is to change the designation on the Comprehensive Plan from “Civic” to “RH – High
Density” and “RL – Low Density” residential.
A request for amending the City’s land use plan and zoning map should be evaluated from the
perspective of land use planning principles and community goals. These reflect the community’s
long range vision and broad goals about what kind of community it wants to be and what makes
strong neighborhoods.
In the case of the Eliot School site, an amendment request has been anticipated since the School
District decided to close the Eliot Community Center in 2010. To help plan for the expected
amendment request, a process to guide development for the site was also completed and adopted
by reference into the Comprehensive Plan, called the “Eliot Community Center Site Reuse Study
/ Design Guidelines.” The guidelines can be found on the City’s website, at:
http://www.stlouispark.org/webfiles/file/Comm_Dev/design_guidelines_report_final.pdf.
General Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan:
The City’s land use plan is built from the broad goals, policies and implementation strategies
incorporated in the Comprehensive Plan. These elements are the basis for evaluating the
requested change.
The proposed change to the Comprehensive Plan map meets many principles found in the Land
Use chapter, including:
- walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods
- accessible to the neighborhood
- human scale development
- unique community and neighborhood identity
Changing the Comprehensive Plan map will allow for a new housing type in the immediate area
surrounding the segment of Cedar Lake Road. At the present time, the area is dominated by
single family houses constructed in the 1950s and 60s. The Comprehensive Plan calls for an
increase in the availability of neighborhood housing choices and a broader range of housing
types. The proposed development would do so, while also providing a buffer between existing
homes and the new apartments both through the use of setback and the creation of three new
single family lots. This buffer / transition area is another strategy discussed in the
Comprehensive Plan to meet goals for residential areas of the City.
Consistency with the Eliot Community Center Design Guidelines:
In anticipation of redevelopment of the site, design guidelines for the Eliot School site were
proactively developed with the neighborhood in 2010. The process of creating the design
guidelines included extensive neighborhood input, including a neighborhood committee that
reviewed and recommended the final design guidelines document to the City Council. The City
Council adopted the design guidelines document by reference into the Comprehensive Plan. The
site reuse principles include:
1. Mix of Medium Density Residential Land Uses
The Guidelines suggest a mix of Medium Density (RM) residential land uses would be
appropriate for the site. The developer is proposing a mix of uses with apartment
buildings and three new single family lots to the north to provide a buffer for the existing
homes. In response to City Council interest in more multi-bedroom units, the Developer
has changed four 2-bedroom units to 3-bedroom units further increasing the mix of
housing opportunities provided by the proposed development.
Special Study Session of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Reconsideration of Comp Plan Amendment for former Eliot School Site Page 5
As proposed, the development is slightly over the “RM” units per acre allowances in the
Comprehensive Plan and the Developer therefore applied for High Density (RH)
designation in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Medium Density allows up to 30 units per
acre; the proposed development equates to slightly over that amount, at 34.4 units per acre.
Beyond the number of units per acre however, the Developer has proposed a number of
site and building attributes that reduce the overall impact of the buildings on the site. The
maximum height is 3 stories, with several 2 story portions of the buildings. This is in
contrast to the up to 5 stories suggested in the guidelines.
In addition, because the proposal includes a vast amount of underground parking, the site
has a large amount of green space it would not otherwise have with surface parking. The
site plan shows approximately 48% in green space overall. This is a strong attribute of
the proposed plan, because it reduces the overall intensity of development on the site.
While density is often calculated by units per acre, this calculation does not tell the
whole story. Units per acre does not take into account the number of bedrooms per unit,
or the impact that it might have. The Developer could alter the number of units by
changing the mix of one, two and three-bedroom units, however this could result in more
bedrooms overall, which may not result in reduced impacts in the area.
The mix of units in the proposed buildings is guided by information provided to the
Developer by his market research firm.
Summary
The proposal would require the property to be designated a combination of High Density
“RH” and Low Density “RL” in the Comprehensive Plan, resulting in 34.4 units per acre
overall, just slightly over the Medium Density “RM” designation of 30 units per acre.
Density as determined by “units per acre” alone does not include other measures of
project density and intensity of site use, such as height, green space, or impervious
surfaces. A five story building on the development site would have substantially
different impacts to the neighborhood in contrast to the current proposal. The specific
number of units per acre in this development is mitigated by fact that the buildings are
just 2 and 3-stories in height, and the underground parking results in green space on 48%
of the site. Through the combination of these items, the site plan works to limit the
density overall on the site as suggested in the Design Guidelines.
2. Transition Building Heights across the Site from South to North
The guidelines called for building heights of between two and five stories, with the
higher structures to be located near Cedar Lake Road, tapering to a lower height at the
north end of the site. As proposed, the apartment buildings will be three and two stories
in height with a flat roof. The proposed height of the building is approximately 38 feet
for the three story portions. The two story step-down portions of the buildings are located
closest to the north end of the site. The single family lots to the north of the apartments
also allow for a transition between the apartment buildings and the existing neighbors,
and should be scaled appropriately to meet the current standards for new single family
houses. A height diagram from the design guidelines is attached for review.
3. Complement Existing Development Scale and Character
Special Study Session of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Reconsideration of Comp Plan Amendment for former Eliot School Site Page 6
The proposed apartment buildings would be three stories with segments at two stories.
Resident parking would be provided underground. Setbacks for the buildings along the
east and west sides of the site would mimic the existing setbacks for nearby single family
homes. The massing of the buildings is sensitive to its surroundings.
4. Neighborhood Open Space
Included in the site plan is a mini-park area to serve neighborhood residents with
children. The mini-park would be located near the south side of the site, in the open area
recommended in the design guidelines. The building setbacks incorporate generous
green spaces that will maintain the neighborhood’s aesthetically pleasing streetscape
areas. A private roadway is also proposed between the two apartment buildings;
neighborhood access through that roadway, particularly for pedestrian access, will be
maintained.
Open space on the site is increased due to the location of parking for apartment residents.
Proposed underground parking will accommodate all resident parking and some guest
parking; by placing the parking below the buildings, the developer made possible the
wide setback areas with more space for Designed Outdoor Recreation Area (DORA) and
additional landscaping. It is expected that the DORA and landscaping proposed for the
site will exceed the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance due to the substantial amount
of space reserved around the buildings for resident and neighborhood use.
5. Community Landmark and Neighborhood Gateway
The developer has provided elevation drawings depicting the proposed materials and
design of the apartment buildings. The intent is that the buildings will respect the
previous presence of Eliot School along Cedar Lake Road, while preserving the green
space in the site’s southwest corner. The developer has stated that the buildings will be
designed at a level of quality and workmanship commensurate with the original school
building.
6. Neighborhood Connectivity
The development proposal includes an east-west connection through the site. It allows
pedestrian access between Hampshire and Idaho, without encouraging cut through
neighborhood vehicular traffic. The area is well-served by existing City streets already.
7. Redevelopment Feasibility
The proposed development is consistent with the terms of the developer’s agreement with
the School District. At the proposed development density, the development is expected
to be feasible. The developer expects to request financial assistance from the City in the
form of Tax-Increment Financing, to fund some of the extraordinary site costs such as
demolition of the school building and the construction of underground parking. Details
regarding the TIF request are not yet available, as the official application has not been
submitted to the City.
8. Owner-Occupied Housing
Based on current market conditions, the developer plans to construct market-rate
apartments that will be offered for lease. Staff concurs with the developer regarding the
feasibility of constructing owner-occupied housing at this time. It is possible that the
apartment buildings could be converted to owner-occupied housing in the future.
Special Study Session of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Reconsideration of Comp Plan Amendment for former Eliot School Site Page 7
It is expected that the three new single family lots created as part of the project will result
in three new owner-occupied houses.
9. School Building Reuse
The developer and City Inspection’s Staff have reviewed the condition of the existing
school building. Reuse of the building is not feasible at this time.
10. Interim Property Maintenance
The City continues to work with the School District to ensure the building is maintained
in a safe condition as the development request proceeds.
Impacts to Surrounding Properties and the Physical Character of the Neighborhood
Redevelopment of the Eliot School site has been expected since 2010, when the School District
indicated that the site would be sold. With the removal of the existing school building, there will
be some changes to the character of the neighborhood. The proposed development follows the
height, massing, and articulation recommendations of the design guidelines, and in doing so
minimizes the impacts of redevelopment on surrounding properties.
The greatest change to the physical character of the neighborhood will be the loss of the open
space to the north of the existing school building. The City’s Parks and Recreation Department
has indicated that the area was reviewed and found to have adequate park amenities already in
place; for this reason, the Comprehensive Plan does not call for any additions to the City’s park
system in this area. The developer has retained some of the open space characteristics of the
area, and has shown an interest in adding a mini-park area at the south end of the site to install a
play area for neighborhood use.
Public Process:
To date, the following meetings and communications have occurred:
• July 9 th, 2012: City Council Study Session Report on Development Proposal
• July 18th, 2012: Neighborhood Input Meeting, held at the West End
• July 23rd, 2012: City Council Study Session Discussion
• August 9th, 2012: Housing Authority Summary Review of Development
• August 16th, 2012: Planning Commission Summary Review of Development
• August 21st, 2012: Staff orders Traffic Study
• September 12th, 2012: Neighborhood notice of Planning Commission meeting
• September 19th, 2012: Planning Commission Public Hearing
If the Comprehensive Plan map amendment is approved, the developer intends to apply for the
necessary zoning approvals. The developer is also in the process of preparing their project’s
financial pro-forma. It is anticipated that the developer will seek tax-increment financing (TIF)
assistance.
An additional neighborhood meeting may be held between the approval of the Comprehensive
Plan map amendment and the submittal of additional applications for rezoning, PUD and
preliminary plat. The neighborhood meeting would be another chance for neighbors to review
the proposal in more detail and provide input regarding the development.
Availability of Infrastructure:
Special Study Session of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Reconsideration of Comp Plan Amendment for former Eliot School Site Page 8
The City Engineer has reviewed the proposed development and found the underground
infrastructure (water and sewer) in the area to be adequate to serve the proposed development. A
traffic study is currently underway to review the capacity of adjacent roadways. Traffic has been
noted as an important issue for neighbors in the area. The Comprehensive Plan identifies Cedar
Lake Road as an “A Minor Augmentor.” Between now and 2030, there is the possibility that
there may be some capacity issues for Cedar Lake Road, so the traffic study will include analysis
of how the proposed development will impact the overall number of vehicle trips in the area.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
On September 19th, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment. Several people were present to speak (draft minutes are attached). The
Commission recommended denial of the application as presented, and instead approved a motion
to recommend the Comprehensive Plan be changed to Medium Density residential rather than
High Density residential. The Commission believed that the Medium Density designation was
more consistent with the Design Guidelines dwelling unit per acre standard for the site.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None at this time.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
St. Louis Park is a connected and engaged community, including keeping its neighborhoods
strong.
Attachments: Resolution
Summary Resolution for Publication
Planning Commission Draft Minutes from 9-19-12
Comprehensive Plan Map – Existing/Proposed – Eliot School Area
Excerpt, Eliot School Design Guidelines
Proposed Development Site Plan and Related Documents
Eliot School Redevelopment Site: Housing Authority Board Comments
Prepared by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Special Study Session of November 19, 2012 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Reconsideration of Comp Plan Amendment for former Eliot School Site Page 9