Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000/04/17 - ADMIN - Minutes - City Council - Regular ST.CITY Louis OFFICIAL MINUTES PARK CITY COUNCIL MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA April 17,2000 1. Call to Order Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. 2. Presentations a. Caring Youth Proclamation Mayor Jacobs read a Proclamation for the Caring Youth program. 3. Roll Call The following Councilmembers were present at roll call: Jim Brimeyer, Ron Latz, Chris Nelson, Sue Sanger, Sue Santa, Robert Young, and Mayor Jeff Jacobs. Also present were the City Manager(Mr. Meyer); City Attorney (Mr. Scott); Economic Development Coordinator(Mr. Kleve); Director of Inspections (Mr. Hoffman); Assistant Zoning Administrator(Mr. Moore); Superintendent of Engineering (Mr. Moore); Planning Associate (Ms. Peterson); Director of Parks and Recreation (Ms. Walsh); and Recording Secretary (Ms. Olson). 4. Approval of Minutes a. City Council Minutes of April 3, 2000 The minutes were approved as presented. b. Study Session Minutes of March 27,2000 The minutes were approved as presented with the following correction. Page 18, Item 4, Paragraph 2, Councilmember Sanger asked to change the following statement: "She also asked if residents would need on-street parking twenty-four hours a day"to"She stated residents would need on-street parking twenty-four hours a day". 5. Approval of Agendas a. Consent Agenda. Councilmember Sanger asked that item 8f be removed from the consent agenda. It was moved by Councilmember Latz, seconded by Councilmember Nelson, to approve the consent agenda. The motion passed 7-0. b. Agenda It was moved by Councilmember Latz, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to approve the agenda with the addition of item 8f. The motion passed 7-0. Council Meeting Minutes -2- April 17, 2000 c. Resolutions and Ordinances By consent, Council waived reading of resolutions and ordinances. 6. Public Hearings 6a. Public hearing to consider Sale of City Property Located at 3554 Louisiana Avenue to MSP SLP Apartments,LLC related to the construction of 200 apartment units on the Mill City site Tom Kleve, Economic Development Coordinator presented a staff report. Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. With no one wishing to speak, Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing. It was moved by Councilmember Latz, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to adopt the first reading of an ordinance that authorizes the sale of City-owned property located at 3554 Louisiana Avenue to MSP SLP Apartments, LLC. The motion passed 7-0. 7. Petitions, Requests, Communications 7a. Variance appeal to permit an accessory building two feet from a side lot line with a height of 18 feet 7 inches instead of the maximum 12 feet for property located at 4312 Coolidge Avenue Scott Moore and Brian Hoffman presented a staff report and summary of BOZA's decision. Mr. Hoffman stated that unfortunately, during discussions with the Christianson's, staff did make some errors in interpreting and applying the city code, and erroneously approved a design equal to about 16 feet in height based on measurements from the grade line to the middle of the front gable. Tom Scott, City Attorney stated that in his legal opinion the City could grant staff's variance recommendation based on hardship incurred by the resident,but there was no legal basis to allow for 18 feet. Karen Marty, 3601 Minnesota Drive, Suite 880, Bloomington, Christianson's Attorney, briefly gave an overview the situation and stated that the Christianson's desired to resolve this issue and were requesting a variance to keep what they have built. Eileen Christianson, 4312 Coolidge Avenue, stated that"she wanted to highlight some issues of ours regarding our garage that the City is requesting to be changed. She went on to say, "I am here tonight to state my side of the story and have the events put on record. My husband and I have tried to avoid going to court over this issue. We have been more than patient and waited to see what the City would do for us in respect to this matter that the City's negligence has put us in. We have listened to our neighbor's attorney and also to Mr. Moehler and others. I want to put it as plain and clear as I can. I want my neighbors and others who live in St. Louis Park to hear that what happen to us, could happen to anybody and we believe that it is totally unfair and wrong. First of all, we applied for a permit to have a garage built; the City approves our permit in September 1998. 17 feet mid gable, 3 feet side set-back and a shed dormer. Council Meeting Minutes -3- April 17, 2000 We have our builder, start building our garage. In about a month, a City inspector, Maurice Plunkett comes to our home and claims that a neighbor is complaining about our structure and he wants to look at our approved permit and the plans. I asked him why he doesn't have a copy of the information he is requesting. Maurice told me that the City does not keep copies of garage plans. The builder was not there that day, so I told his to come back the next day and he could take a look at everything. Mr. Plunkett comes over the next day and looks at everything. He asks if he can take it with him and bring it to the office for his supervisor to review. I told him no that I did not feel comfortable with him taking my only record of the plans and permit. I told him that we could fax it to his office. We faxed it to his supervisor, Scott Moore. Mr. Moore took a look at everything and calls us back the same day and says everything looks just fine. I thought it was odd that the City would throw their plans and a copy of the permit away. I thought they would at least keep all paper work until the structure is finished. However, a little while later, Scott Moore calls and says that your neighbor called us again and we reviewed your plans again and this is now for the third time. He states that we have a problem and we need to change one thing on your structure. So my husband, along with our builder, Tim Foose, his assistant and Scott Moore meet at the work site to discuss the problem. Scott tells everyone present that the structure will have to be lower. He told everyone there that the building would have to come down to 15.6 feet and then it would be O.K. After the meeting our builder called us to confirm that height and he even called Scott again to verify that height and it was OK to continue the finish the structure. Scott Moore gives him the green light. Our builder has been building for over 30 years and he has never come across a problem like this. He said the he did not feel comfortable building until Scott confirmed the height with him again. He told us he told us he called Scott and Scott verified the 15.6 height with him again. After a while later Scott Moore calls us again. This time to asked if we can readjust the overhang from a 2 feet to a 1 feet, because again he said that your neighbor was calling and complaining about that. Michael asked him that if we change the overhang from a 2 feet to a 1 feet overhang, would that change any overall measurements. Scott says no, which we have now later found out that this is not true at all. It does change measurement. One thing you do have to remember is that that we're not builders, and we're not planners. We went by what your staff said that we could do. We have never argued or have any disagreements with what City called and asked us to do. Whatever they asked, we did. Scott did make it sound like he was just asking us to change it and not like it had to be changed. We did agree to change it because we didn't want any problems with the Mohler's or the City. So we let our builder know to change the overhang. Within time, our garage is completely built except for the inside finishing work. However, the City now comes to tell us that they will not sign off. They tell us that our neighbor doesn't like the structure and there are problems and they will not O.K. it. They tell us that there is a problem with the height and also with some knee walls that our builder put in. Our builder did not believe these knee walls would not change the height of the structure,just the pitch of how you get there. Because of the fact that Scott had made some height changes, our builder wanted to make sure that there would be adequate headroom inside. However in time we do go to a BOZA meeting. During the meeting the neighbor's voices are heard. At the final outcome, BOZA decides in favor of leaving the garage as is. However, our neighbor does it appeal it to a City Council meeting. I did talk with Brian Hoffman a week before the meeting. Again, I did state what if we take the knee walls out. I did miss a part where Scott Moore came out to our home and said that they would not sign off on it. Michael did ask, what if we take the knee walls out. He said let's go to BOZA and see what happens. When I did talk to Brian Hoffman, I did reiterate to him what if we take the knee walls out. He said,that would not solve the problem, because the 15.6 feet is the problem and Scott Moore said we could go that height and we even have a permit that was Council Meeting Minutes -4- April 17, 2000 approved for going even higher than that. Even if we change the knee walls, the neighbors the Mohler's will see the exact same thing they see, because the knee walls don't have anything to do with the back of the building. Brian said that he did agree with that. Brian Hoffman also stated that at the Council meeting they will be talking about interpretations only and he said that unless he was going to speak on interpretations, they would probably not let me speak that night. He made a brief comment that Michael and I don't even need to go to the meeting because that is all they will be speaking on. Brian Hoffman stated that he highly doubted that the Council would vote in favor of new interpretations. He stated that staff measured our garage as how they have always measured and he didn't believe that City Council would ever consider changing that and retroactively putting that on this structure. He was wrong, because that is exactly what happened. John Miller spoke that night for quite a while and it was not only on interpretations, usage was talked about also, which at least was upheld. However you vote, in favor of changing the interpretation, and those are now retroactively put on our garage, which is already built which we had a permit to build nine months earlier, which staff measured in the way they have always measured everyone else's structures and on a permit that was not only approved once, but twice. At that meeting, we are being told the structure will have to be torn down. Here, we worked with the City the whole time that our garage was being built. They have O.K.'d everything that we did. We were totally devastated by this. We took out a second mortgage on our home to pay for this. Now we are being told that the structure that has been built has to be torn down. This is beyond belief for me that this can even happen to someone. She explained how the City was negligent in the three letters that were sent out that had three different heights that they wanted us to adhere to. She said that at one point, we were told by our attorney that Tom Scott had even threatened us to court. This is ridiculous. Mr. Miller has made many comments stating that we should have reasonable knowledge of the law, yet the City doesn't even know their own laws and some were not even in the books, which Tom Scott has admitted in the presence of our attorney. If the ordinances are not in the book and the City doesn't know about the, how are we supposed to know about them. In the meantime, we are living our life in chaos, which has been totally caused by the City. During a meeting with her attorney and the City, she asked what would happen if the knee walls were taken out the City replied that it would not solve the problem because one of the problems was the 15.6 height and the other problem was City Council's new ruling. Mr. Scott stated what if we have a company come in and redesign the garage to meet the new ordinance that that City Council adopted. Even though we felt is unfair what had happened, we agreed and said that we were willing to go forward and look at new plans to change the garage. Classic Design drew up new plans and we agreed to them that they looked fine. Classic Design dropped them off at City Hall for review the next day. Weeks went by and we heard nothing. We called our attorney to have them call the City to see what was taking so long. Our attorney calls us back and said that the City was waiting for the Mohler's to come back from vacation to have them review the plans. I called the City Manager and asked where in the books it is written that your neighbor has to approve your plans. City Council asked them to do this, and they would not think of approving these new plans until the Mohler's received a courtesy call from them. I thought this was ridiculous. If these new plans bring the garage into compliance then what is the issue. It sounded like the City was seeking the Mohler's approval for our project. Charlie Meyer told me point blank that when these plans are shown to the Mohler's it will be stated to them that this is just a courtesy call. These plans are not for your approval, because these plans bring the garage into compliance. We get a phone call from the City and the plans were not approved and it was not even told to our attorney why they were not approved. This shows me that the plans were given to them for their approval. Tom Scott had stated to our attorney that the Mohler's did not like an access door which doesn't have Council Meeting Minutes -5- April 17, 2000 anything to do with the height of the structure and tells me that they are trying to redesign the while building from top to bottom. I wonder why the plans were not given to our other neighbors, the Davis' because it impacts them even more than the Mohlers'. We know of other 2 story garages that have no usage restrictions. Now you even want to change the usage, even though you upheld usage in your June meeting which was in the tape. Brian Hoffman said in an October 1999 meeting said that earlier he had told us that we could not have used the building for the purpose of what we intended. That is absolutely false, that was never said to us at all. He was called on that by our attorney. At the Council meeting in June you upheld usage, but in a meeting with our attorney month's after that he tried to say that we could not use the upstairs for the purpose for what it was built and he also tried to mention that even that Council upheld usage, they could always should another meeting and take that usage away from us. The City never once came to us when this whole mess happened and try to remedy the situation. When Council made the ruling in June 1999, the City should have come forward immediately to solve this dilemma that they have caused, instead they have threatened us with letters that have different measurements to change the garage. We are not really sure what to do. Because of the City's negligence we have been living in chaos, stress,harassment, and many safety hazards. I have repeatedly asked if we could put on a door for safety hazards and don't know why this can't be done. Our garage was permitted in October, 1998 and the height restrictions were changes, and you can't hold me to something that was not in the ordinance book". Mr. Hoffman indicated that the City issued a stop work order to ensure the proposed height would be in compliance that prohibited any additional work from being done. Michael Christianson, 4312 Coolidge Avenue, explained the hardships that he has experienced with the interpretation of the permit and the events related to the negotiations to resolve the issue. He asked if the garage door could be put on, reviewed the three letters he received from the City and believed the hill did need to be taken into account. Karen Marty, Attorney, stated that since the hill was so significant in the Christianson' yard it obviously creates a different base for the building. John Miller,4500 Park Glen Road,#250, Mohler's attorney requested statements from a panel of municipal law experts. William Thibault, Thibault Associates, 11712 Wayzata Boulevard, Minnetonka presented a report reviewing the seven variance criteria that are necessary for granting a variance, the requirements of the State Statues relative to variances, and the purpose of the variances. Wayne Popham, 4100 Multifoods Building, explained how he believed that this was not a variance issue. He stated the way to deal with this was not to come in through a variance to say that what was done improperly now becomes grounds in St. Louis Park for making it legal. John Flaherty, 4317 Brook Avenue, stated that the garage as is would impact property values. He stated he was a real-estate appraiser and the garage would affect his property value, Mr. Moehler and anyone adjacent and have an impact on the neighborhood. Mr. Miller presented photographs of the garage. He stated that because of deficiency in the application, the misstatements of plans of staff and owners and their attorney, he was forced to make a record that he hasn't agreed with what was stated. He extensively highlighted several cited examples of court cases and state statues that were included in a 20-page memorandum Council Meeting Minutes -6- April 17, 2000 provided to the Council and presented an overview of all of the events that occurred since the approval of Christiansons' permit as presented to BOZA as an oral argument. The Council took a short recess. Tom Mayrose, 4308 Coolidge Avenue, believed that the construction of the new structure would probably increase his property value and believed that the argument of enforcing the ordinance seems irrelevant since the ordinance was approved after the construction of the building. He was concerned about the cost of this lengthy process. Tom O'Neil, 4321 Coolidge Avenue, stated that he was not concerned about the property values and believed that since the project was approved by the City the Christiansons' should be allowed to keep the garage as is and he believed there was much ado about nothing in this case. Mayor Jacobs recommended that due to the lengthy discussion on this case that the case be moved to the end of agenda. The Council took a short recess and then completed the rest of the agenda and then returned to the case. Mr. Miller stated that that according to case Lowry vs. Mankato, the City had a void permit in this case if the City allowed this to happen, the ordinances were clearly ineffective. He claimed that the Christiansons' never had any intent to comply with the ordinance. They wanted to build what they wanted and shove it down our throats. Councilmember Nelson stated that Mr. Miller was not qualified to state what the Christiansons' intent was. Councilmember Latz clarified with staff that the changes that the Christiansons' made were adding the knee wall and a change to the design of the roof. He believed that staff s recommendation was a compromised approach to deal with this situation and believed that the hardship (at least to 16 feet) was caused by staff. He was in favor of approving a 16 feet variance in an effort to move this issue along. Mr. Scott stated that it's been undisputed that staff did approve a 16-foot structure, and legally the Council can grant the staff recommended variance based on hardship created from the Christiansons' reliance on what they were told. It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Council member Young, to uphold the BOZA's decision denying the applicant's request and direct staff to prepare a Resolution of Approval to permit an accessory building with a height of 16 feet as measured from the east gable end. The motion passed 7-0. 8. Resolutions and Ordinances 8a. Resolution Authorizing Renewal of Gambling Premises Permit for St.Louis Park Hockey Boosters Association at Bunny's Bar and Grill, 5916 Excelsior Boulevard and O'Tooles's located at 4608 Excelsior Blvd. Resolution No.'s 00-040 and 00-041 Mr. Meyer, City Manager reported that all the requirements of the application were in order and staff recommended approval. Council Meeting Minutes -7- April 17, 2000 Councilmember Nelson stated that he was opposed to the resolution because of his previously stated objections to charitable gambling and this was not a reflection on applicant. It was moved by Councilmember Young, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to approve the resolutions authorizing renewal. The motion passed 6-1. Councilmember Nelson opposed. 8b. City's Engineer's Report: Proposed improvements to reduce traffic congestion on Louisiana Avenue between W. 27th Street and Minnetonka Blvd. Project No. 00-13. Carlton B. Moore, Superintendent of Engineering and the City's consultant, Chuck Rickart from WSB and Associates presented two primary alternatives for safety and capacity improvements to the Louisiana Avenue corridor from the Burlington Northern railroad tracks to Minnetonka Boulevard. Alternative 1 (Four Lanes) would develop a four-lane roadway section at the intersections of West 237th Street and West 28th Street and traffic signal improvements and modifications. This plan would eliminate 11 parking staffs on the east side and 15 parking stalls on the west side of Louisiana Avenue. Alternative 2 (Three-Lane Section) would develop a three-lane roadway with a center left-turn lane for the intersection at West 27th Street, West 28th Street, the apartment complex and post office, which are located on Louisiana. This plan would eliminate 20 parking stalls on the west side of Louisiana between West 27th Street and West 29th Street; however, no parking stalls would be eliminated from the east side of the roadway. Mr. Moore recommended Alternative 2 (Three-Lane Section) be pursued with the recommendation that after a year another analysis of the street and intersections be done to confirm whether or not there was any impact on the reduction of accidents and if congestion had been reduced. Doug Larson, 2837 Kentucky Avenue, Vice President of Bronx Park Neighborhood Association, thanked Councilmember Sanger and staff for their support. He stated that the neighborhood was concerned about their parking being taken away and residents in the area there would not have ample parking. Ruth Bergene, 2835 Louisiana Avenue, President of Bronx Park Neighborhood Association, stated that the neighborhood has examined the parking in the area and was concerned about their parking being taken away. She stated that the neighborhood has come up with a possible option for the area and which she gave to staff for review. She asked that the City leave the resident's parking rights alone. David Peters, 2817 Louisiana Avenue, questioned the accuracy of the traffic statistics, explained the use of this roadway by commuters, and was concerned about the loss of parking and the impact on the families that live on Louisiana. Pat Westrum, 2741 Louisiana Avenue, stated that commuters already use Louisiana Avenue to avoid Interstate 394 and Highway 169. She stated if the City started taking away parking and adding more lanes, it would just cause increased congestion on Louisiana Avenue. She was Council Meeting Minutes -8- April 17, 2000 concerned about the elimination of parking and that the City didn't notify residents living along Louisiana Avenue that changes to the roadway were being proposed and that the way she found out about the plans was from a letter she received a letter from the neighborhood association. James Mott, 2812 Louisiana Avenue, stated that he was opposed to both alternatives because of the safety concerns, elimination of parking, and potential decrease to property values. Joy Geislinger, 2853 Louisiana Avenue, stated that she was concerned about safety and the impact of elimination of parking. She recommended synchronization of the lights,prohibiting left turns during rush hours, or placement of an arrow signal at light to help ease congestion and improve safety. Marsha Beard, 2749 Louisiana Avenue, stated that her driveway was on Louisiana and was concerned about safety of entering and exiting her property with the elimination of parking and encouraged prohibiting left turns during rush hour. Scott Ross, 2837 Maryland Avenue, President of Texa Tonka Neighborhood Association, stated that he had a general concern about the traffic flow through the Texa Tonka Neighborhood that was coming from Louisiana. Councilmember Nelson asked staff if residents were given official notice. Mr. Moore stated that they hadn't been given official notice. Councilmember Sanger stated that she spoke to the Bronx-Park Neighborhood Association about the project, but to her knowledge no official notice was given. Bob Riley, 2837 Louisiana Avenue, believed Louisiana was a St. Louis Park street and was concerned that the proposed alternatives would make it easier for commuters who didn't live in the community at the expense of the neighborhood. Yvonne Dennis, 2820 Kentucky, was concerned about increased speed of traffic with the elimination of parking. Councilmember Latz recommended that staff investigate information to determine who was actually using this roadway. Councilmembers Sanger and Nelson proposed alternative solutions to ease traffic along Louisiana, which they considered might involve fewer elimination of parking spaces, such as banning left turns, adding left turn lights or parking only during peak rush hours. The Council discussed guiding principles related to each alternative. It was the consensus of the Council that the two alternatives proposed did not adequately address all the concerns or accomplish the goals expressed at their work session and recommended that staff explore and redesign aspects of the alternatives for safety and capacity improvements to Louisiana Avenue and bring to a study session. It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Santa,to defer the proposal to a study session on May 8th to study more alternatives and then agree when it would come back to Council so that residents living along Louisiana Avenue could be notified. The motion passed 7-0. Council Meeting Minutes -9- April 17, 2000 8c. Request by Project for Pride in Living, Inc. for preliminary Planned Unit Development and variances for site improvements to Louisiana Court apartment complex Case No. 00-18-PUD and 00-19-VAR 2704-2768 Louisiana Court and 2740-2750 Louisiana Avenue Resolution No. 00-042 Sacha Peterson, Planning Associate presented a staff report and recommended approval with conditions as outlined in the resolution. Councilmember Latz asked PPL about the use of the parking spaces direction in front of the two apartment properties on Louisiana. Ron Price, PPL Project Developer, explained that traffic and parking needs had been studied and determined that few residents or visitors were utilizing the parking spaces directly in front of the two properties on Louisiana. Councilmember Sanger asked if the amount of required parking could be reduced and the amount of proof of parking be increased. Ms. Peterson stated that the site was not currently at the 10%proof of parking, so that is something that the Council could impose as a requirement. Barb McCormick, PPL stated that where they are right now in regard to parking is where they would like to be and that reducing the parking further would put them in a situation where at some point in the future they would be looking at ways to increase parking and this would be an additional expense. Councilmember Sanger asked if there could be heightened landscaping requirements in the setbacks to be more of a bufferyard between building and sidewalks. She also indicated that at a recent Bronx Park Neighborhood meeting there was nothing but positive comments to this approach to improving the property. Ms. Peterson stated that staff would be looking at a detailed landscaping plan as part of the final PUD and that the initial landscaping plan does go beyond our ordinance requirements as it looks without having a detailed plan. Councilmember Sanger asked if the other two building could be included in the PUD. Ms. Peterson indicated that the landowner was not cooperative and it was thought that the best thing to do was to eliminate the two buildings from the PUD site. In the future, if site changes were proposed to those buildings,the property would be required to come into compliance with current standards. Barb McCormick, PPL, explained the issues related to the owner and was not certain that they were available to purchase and indicated that there weren't any opportunities in the current plan of finance to purchase them. Councilmember Nelson believed that the City was not solving the problem completely unless the whole development ended up looking the same. He asked if there was any ordinance solution to this problem. Council Meeting Minutes -10- April 17, 2000 Ms. Peterson stated that the exterior of the two buildings was fairly good and some additional landscaping was proposed on those two lots as part of the PUD. Mr. Meyer, City Manager stated that this deal was done and to include these two properties was not a possibility. He stated that if the City found itself in a position where those buildings are not meeting the standard of the rest of the project the City could look at something in the future. Councilmember Sanger asked if the City could look to see if legally there are any means that could serve to bring those two buildings whoever purchases them to force them into compliance with some of the design and aesthetic standards of the 14 buildings in the PUD. Tom Scott, City attorney stated that this could be explored further. It was moved by Councilmember Latz, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to adopt resolutions approving a Preliminary Planned Unit Development and variances for site improvements to Louisiana Court apartments, subject to the conditions in the resolution. The motion passed 6-1. Councilmember Young opposed. 8d. Minnesota Auto Theft Grant 2001/2001 It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Latz,to adopt a resolution approving grant agreement between the Minnesota Auto Theft Prevention Program and the City of St. Louis Park. The motion passed 7-0. 8e. Traffic Study No. 551 - Parking Restrictions at 3381 Gorham Avenue South By consent, Council adopted the resolution authorizing installation of"No Parking - 5:30 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday" in front of a portion of 3381 Gorham South. 8f. Resolution supporting Suburban Hennepin Regional Parks in their trails, greenways, and parks plan for First Tier Communities Councilmember Sanger asked what the City could do to ask them to officially start exploring the waterway. Cynthia Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation recommended that this request be included in the cover letter. It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Sanger,to adopt the attached resolution supporting Suburban Hennepin Regional Parks in their trails, greenways and parks plan for First Tier Communities of Suburban Hennepin County. The motion passed 7-0. 8g. CASE NO. 00-12-ZA - Zoning Ordinance Amendments By consent, Council approved second reading of Zoning Ordinance amendment modifying Section 14:6-7.E.8, adopt the ordinance, approve ordinance summary, and approve summary publication. Council Meeting Minutes -1 I- April 17, 2000 t ' 8h. 2000 Neighborhood Revitalization Grant Program Awards By consent, Council adopted a Resolution approving the 200 neighborhood revitalization grant program applications and authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to execute grant agreements with the neighborhoods. _ 8i. Authorization to advertise and receive bids for contract sealcoating of streets during 2000. City Project No. 00-11 By consent, Council adopted the resolution, authorizing the advertising and bidding of contract sealcoating for 2000. 8j. Authorization to advertise and receive bids for random curb and gutter repair- Citywide. City Project no. 00-01 By consent, Council adopted the resolution, authorizing advertising and bidding of random curb and gutter repair- citywide. 8k. Designating the Position of City Clerk as Responsible Authority for Administration of the Data Practices Act and Adopting the State Record Retention Guidelines for Municipalities By consent, Council adopted a resolution designating the City Clerk as the Responsible Authority for the administration of the Data Practices Act and authorizing staff to utilize the Records Retention Guidelines for Municipalities as they are prepared and distributed by the State Department of Administration. 81. Resolution Granting Further Extension to Correct Code Violations at St. Louis Park Senior High School By consent, Council adopted a resolution to endorse the request for a time extension by District #283. 9. Reports from Officers, Boards, Committees a. Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes of January 12,2000 b. Housing Authority Minutes of March 15,2000 c. Planning Commission Minutes of March 22, 2000 d. Human Rights Commission Minutes of January 19,2000 e. Human Rights Commission Minutes of February 16,2000 f. Vendor Claim Report By consent, Council accepted all reports for filing. . Council Meeting Minutes -12- April 17, 2000 10. Unfinished Business - Board and Commission Appointments It was moved by Councilmember Young, seconded by Councilmember Sanger,to appoint Richard Johnson and David Peters to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission. The motion passed 7-0. 11. New Business Ila. SRF Consulting Group, Inc. Agreement Cynthia Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation presented a staff report and recommended approval. It was moved by Councilmember Latz, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to adopt the resolution approving an agreement with SRF Consulting Group, Inc. for the master plan design work of the Oak Hill area parks. 11b. Bid Tab: 2000 Street Work Supplies By consent, Council designated C.S. McCrossan, Inc. the lowest responsible bidder for conventional and driveway bituminous mixture No. 2340, and Midwest Asphalt the lowest responsible bidder for cold patch material and authorize execution of contracts with the firms in the amount of$60,125,000 and $4,750.00, respectively. 12. Miscellaneous -None 13. Claims,Appropriation, Contract Payments -None 14. Communications -None 15. Adjournment It was moved by Councilmember Brimeyer, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to adjourn the meeting at 12:20 a.m. The motion passed 7-0. ( / 0 Ci Clerk Mayor ,