HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004/09/07 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - RegularREVISED AGENDA SUMMARY
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
Tuesday, September 7, 2004
7:30 p.m.
7:20 p.m. - Economic Development Authority
1. Call to Order
a. Pledge of Allegiance
b. Roll Call
2. Presentations
a. St. Louis Park k Soccer Association
b. Evergreen Awards
c. Resolution Recognizing Bruce Johnson
3. Approval of Minutes
a. City Council Minutes of August 16, 2004
b. City Council Study Session Minutes of August 23, 2004
c. City Council Study Session Minutes of August 9, 2004
d. City Council Study Minutes of July 12, 2004
Action: Corrections/amendments to minutes - Minutes 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.
Action: Motion to approve the agenda as presented and to approve items listed on the
consent calendar
(Alternatively: Motion to add or remove items from the agenda, motion to move items from
consent calendar to regular agenda for discussion and to approve those items remaining on the
consent calendar).
5. Boards and Commissions
a. Motion to appoint Robert Kramer to the Planning Commission for a term ending on
December 12, 2006
6. Public Hearings
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public - None
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions
REVISED AGENDA SUMMARY
8a. Approve preliminary property tax levy and budget for the 2005 fiscal year,
revisions to the 2004 adopted budget, set Public Hearing date for proposed
budget and property tax levy, and approve HRA levy for taxes payable in 2005
Resolution approving the preliminary property tax levy and budget is required by
Truth in Taxation legislation. Information contained in the resolution will appear on
the individual tax notices prepared by the County.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt resolutions establishing the preliminary tax levy
and budget for 2005, approves revisions to the 2004 adopted
budget, sets public hearing date for proposed budget and
property tax levy, and approves HRA levy for taxes payable in
2005.
8b. Linda Sandbo’s application for an amendment to St. Louis Park Ordinance Code
(Zoning) to allow group day cares in the industrial districts that are not intended
solely for the use of employees.
Case Nos. 04-39-ZA
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve 1st reading of an ordinance amending
Sections 36-243(d) and 36-244(d) to add day care as a
Conditional Use in both the Industrial Park and General
Industrial Districts.
8c. Ratification of Aquila Commons Tax Increment Finance District
This report considers a resolution ratifying the resolution modifying Redevelopment
Project No. 1 and establishing the Aquila Commons TIF District.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the resolution ratifying adoption of Modification
to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 and
establishment of the Aquila Commons Tax Increment Financing
District therein and ratifying adoption of tax increment financing
plan therefor.
8d. Purchase of tax forfeited property, 1600 Hamsphire Ave South, from Hennepin
County. Case No. 04-45-RE
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve resolution approving designation of
nonconservation land shown on Classification List “1297 C/NC”
by Board of County Commissioners of Hennepin County.
9. Communications
10. Adjournment
11.
REVISED AGENDA SUMMARY
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.
REVISED AGENDA SUMMARY
ST. LOUIS PARK CITY COUNCIL
MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 7, 2004
SECTION 4: 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 Motion to adopt the attached resolution authorizing installation of permit parking in front of
2716 Dakota Avenue South
4b Motion to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to amend a contract with WSB and
Associates Inc. (Contract No. 100-00) to provide professional services for the Louisiana
Avenue Traffic Improvement Project - City Project No. 00-17
4c Motion to adopt the attached resolution authorizing continuation of temporary permit parking
in front of 3128 Idaho Avenue South.
4d Motion to designate EnComm Midwest, Inc. the lowest responsible bidder and authorize
execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of $338,338.00 for Water Treatment Plant
No. 10 Filter Rehabilitation Project– Project No. 20041300
4e Motion to designate Ron Kassa Construction, Inc. as the lowest responsible bidder and
authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of $40,461.49 for Alley
Improvement Project-W. 42nd Street and Ottawa Avenue, Project No. 04-16
4f Motion to designate Ti-Zack Concrete, Inc. the lowest responsible bidder and authorize
execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of $58,851.50 for the 2004 Annual
Sidewalk Maintenance Project – City Project No. 04-0003
4g Motion to accept for filing the Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of July 22, 2004
4h Motion to accept for filing the Planning Commission Minutes of July 7, 2004
4i Motion to accept for filing the Planning Commission Minutes of July 21, 2004
4j Motion to accept for filing the Planning Commission Minutes of August 18, 2004
4k Motion to accept Vendor Claims for filing (Supplement)
4l Motion to accept resolution recognizing Bruce Johnson
4m Motion to accept for filing the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes of April
21, 2004
4n Motion to accept for filing the Telecommunication Advisory Commission Minutes of May 6,
2004
4o Motion to accept for filing the Fire Civil Service Commission Minutes of August 16, 2004
REVISED AGENDA SUMMARY
AGENDA SUPPLEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
September 7, 2004
Items contained in this section are those items
which are not yet available in electronic format
and which are identified in the individual
reports by inclusion of the word “Supplement”.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
090704 - 3a - City Council Minutes of August 16, 2004
Page 1
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
August 16, 2004
1. Call to Order
Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm.
Council members present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, John Basill, Phil Finkelstein, Paul Omodt, Susan
Sanger, Sue Santa, and Sally Velick
Staff present: City Attorney (Mr. Scott), City Engineer (Ms. Hagen), Community Development
Director (Mr. Locke), Director of Park and Recreation (Ms. Walsh), Engineer Development
Manager (Mr. Olson), Human Resources Director (Ms. Gohman), Planning/Zoning Supervisor (Ms.
McGonigal), Public Works Director (Mr. Rardin), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Stegora-Peterson).
2. Presentations
a. Amphitheater Award
Donna Tilsner, Chair of the Minnesota Recreation and Park Association Awards
Committee presented the Award of Excellence to the City of St. Louis Park for the
Veterans Memorial Amphitheater.
Mayor Jacobs thanked the Park and Rec Department for their work on the Amphitheater.
b. Junior Leaders Recognition
John Barthalow, Junior Leader Coordinator for the Park & Rec Department described the
Junior Leader program.
Mayor Jacobs presented certificates to the Junior Leaders. He thanked the junior leaders
and their families for their work.
3. Approval of Minutes
a. City Council Minutes of August 2, 2004
Councilmember Santa indicated in the third paragraph on page six, “Bell” should be
“Mehl.” On page 15 the motion vote should be “6-1.”
Councilmember Basill noted on page ten, third paragraph, he did not recall saying
“because he thought he had heard from neighbors that they wanted some redevelopment
there” and asked it be omitted.
Councilmember Sanger noted on the first page under the Junior Naturalist appreciation,
after it said 988 and she believed the next word should be “hours.”
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
090704 - 3a - City Council Minutes of August 16, 2004
Page 2
b. City Council Study Session Minutes of July 26, 2004
Councilmember Basill indicated on page three, paragraph five, it said “Councilmembers
Basill and Sanger brought up the possibility…” that was Councilmember Sanger. He did
not bring up that possibility.
c. City Council Study Session Minutes of July 12, 2004
Councilmember Sanger indicated on page two, she had said some things that were not
covered in the minutes regarding the section about Louisiana Court. She had indicated
that she was particularly concerned with the very high tenant turn-over rate in the three-
bedroom apartments because when Project for Pride in Living (PPL) had first asked the
City for financial assistance, they were led to believe there was a very strong demand for
three-bedroom units and the City had paid to convert some of the one-bedroom units into
three-bedroom units. She had expressed her strong concern about that at the meeting.
Mayor Jacobs noted that it should be inserted at the end of the middle paragraph
beginning with “Councilmember Sanger”.
Councilmember Finkelstein stated on page three, he recalled that they were going to have
them reporting back within a time frame about getting the consultant report about the
issues at PPL project at Louisiana Court. It was either September or November. He
didn’t want to leave it open.
Mayor Jacobs thought the sooner the better and indicated he would have Ms. Reichert
make the revision to insert a deadline of September and asked that the minutes be brought
back for formal approval when the date was added.
d. City Council Special Meeting Minutes of July 12, 2004
Councilmember Finkelstein noted that his name was misspelled.
The minutes were approved as corrected.
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.
(Alternatively: Motion to add or remove items from the agenda, motion to move items from consent calendar to
regular agenda for discussion and to approve those items remaining on the consent calendar).
4a Approve a 6 month extension of Shelard Homes (Lurie Apartments) Conditional Use
Permit until February 16, 2005.
4b Enter into a Clean Water Partnership Agreement for Vegetative Maintenance at Twin
Lakes Park with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
090704 - 3a - City Council Minutes of August 16, 2004
Page 3
4c Adopt Resolution 04-101 appointing election judges for the Primary and General
Elections to be held September 14 and November 2, 2004.
4d Adopt Resolution No. 04-102 rescinding Resolution No. 03-134 and authorizing the
installation of one-hour parking restrictions from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. on the east side of Xenwood
Avenue from Excelsior Boulevard to a point 150 feet north of Excelsior Boulevard.
4e Approve second reading and adopt Ordinance No. 2276-04 amending St. Louis Park
Ordinance Code (Zoning) to amend the regulations pertaining to variances in the
Floodplain Districts and regulations pertaining to the Floodplain Districts by adding
clarifications required by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA); approve
summary ordinance and authorize publication.
4f Approve second reading and adopt Ordinance No. 2277-04 vacating West 37th Street
between Alabama Avenue and Wooddale Avenue and alley north of Oxford Street and
east of Alabama Avenue, adopt ordinance, approve summary and authorize its
publication.
4g Item moved to Action Agenda – Please see Item #8d
4h Approve Resolution No. 04-103 authorizing final payment to Hulegaard Construction for
Runnymead Lane (Area #1) and Dahl Property (Area #9) storm sewer improvement
project
4i Approve a Temporary On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License – Holy Family Catholic
Church, 5900 & 5925 W. Lake St., St. Louis Park for September 18 & 19, 2004
4j Accept for filing the Fire Civil Service Commission Minutes of May 6, 2004
4k Accept Vendor Claims (Supplement)
4l Accept for filing the Housing Authority Minutes of June 9, 2004
It was motioned by Councilmember Velick, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to approve the
Agenda and items listed on the Consent Calendar.
The motion passed 7-0.
5. Boards and Commissions
Mayor Jacobs noted that they had completed interviewing Planning Commission applicants and
that would be upcoming.
6. Public Hearings - None
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions
8a. Request by Stonebridge Development and Acquisition, LLC. for an
amendment to the City’s Comprehensive Plan to change the land use
designation from Civic to High Density Residential and adopt a
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
090704 - 3a - City Council Minutes of August 16, 2004
Page 4
Redevelopment Plan for the property for a residential senior housing
cooperative known as Aquila Commons. Case Nos. 04-23-CUP
8200 33rd Street West. Resolution No. 04-096
Mr. Locke reported a brief history of the project.
Ms. McGonigal presented the staff report.
Gary Tushie, Tushie Montgomery Architects, reviewed the previous plan presented to the
neighborhood group at a meeting held last Wednesday. They met with the single-family
residents to the East and then with the other surrounding neighbors. The neighbors
primary concern was future residents looking into their back yards. The other concern was
the close proximity of the building to the East property line. They moved one leg of the
building back and shifted the “U” shape so there would be no balconies facing the East
side of the property. The parking lot was moved. An additional concern was maintenance
of a security fence near the homes and the distance between the fence and the back of the
garages. They were proposing a serpentine wall that would allow some pockets of
additional landscaping on the single-family side as well as the other side. They still had
the garden area for residents and a more formal gathering place outside of the front
entrance. They were showing parking spaces inside the courtyard, but would use that area
as landscaping if they were not required to put the parking spaces. They were now 77 feet
away from the property line and had reduced the amount of units to 114.
Tom Racette, 3341 Texas Av. S, asked Mr. Mehl if they were working on a 96-unit, 3-story
building? Mr. Mehl, Stonebridge Development replied that they did a drawing showing that.
Mr. Racette asked if the drawing was similar? Mr. Mehl replied yes.
Mr. Racette asked if that was something they were working on with the City? Mr. Mehl
replied he sent a copy to the City, but this meeting was regarding the Comprehensive
Plan and the number of units and TIF amounts were not part of this discussion.
Mr. Racette wanted the Council to be aware that they discussed the density issue and were
trying to lower the density. The developer reduced the plan by eight units, but they were
doing numbers on a 96-unit building, which would be more palatable for neighbors. He
looked at the cost for an elderly person to move into this project. If someone had a $200,000
house in St. Louis Park, over the next five years they would have approximately 10%
appreciation per year. His mother for example, would have an asset worth $303-322,000. If
she sold her house and bought one of these units, she would pay $40,000 at a 2% rate of
increase and could maybe get 4 ½% on a CD someplace for the remaining portion. At the
end of five years, assuming she didn’t touch the principal of that money or any interest, she
would have an asset of $242,000. It would cost her about $61,000 over and above what she
paid for the monthly cost to live there, over what she would have had, had she kept her
house. If she had to go into the principal to make payments, then she had a $40,000 unit
earning 2% and a declining balance in her savings account. It would cost $62-81,000 to live
there for five years, above what she had paid. He had a concern about the model being used,
because it was creating something dense in the neighborhood and he wasn’t sure it was good
for the senior citizens of St. Louis Park. It would cost them more money than the City
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
090704 - 3a - City Council Minutes of August 16, 2004
Page 5
Council thought. His mother could lose almost $80,000 of her assets just by living there for
five years. While they were evaluating the size, density and the traffic impact, he thought the
City Council ought to look at what it would cost an elderly person to live there. They were
making some progress and he would like to continue to work with the developers. Mr. Mehl
had worked very hard on this and he wanted to give him credit.
Mayor Jacobs indicated that there would be further discussions about those issues. This
discussion was regarding the land use designation.
Bernice Cowle-Gordon, Windemere Condominiums, stated that she faced Virginia Avenue
and wanted to address the traffic issue. At the last meeting they had a traffic Engineer who
surveyed the situation, but as a resident she saw the traffic coming and going. At the
nursing home there were frequent “rush” visits of police cars, fire engines, ambulances and
long trailers delivering medical supplies and groceries. They were concerned about the
underground garages, which would enter and exit onto Virginia Avenue. This would
cause congestion. The height of the new building was also a concern. There needed to be
more meetings and work done to address those issues. Mayor Jacobs replied there would
be more meetings and they would be notified.
Shepherd Harris, representing the Jewish Community Relations Council, urged the
Council’s support of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. There were various reasons
why they were supportive of this, first was the sentimental value. It had been in the Jewish
community many years and they wouldn’t hand it over to just anyone. They were happy to
see how hard Stonebridge had worked with the City, the Council, staff and the neighbors to
work out issues that had been raised. The Jewish community wanted to be a good
community partner with the City and supported this for a variety of reasons. Traffic had
been an issue that had been raised and they understood that this reduced traffic, which was a
concern when school was in session at the previous site. In their eyes it was affordable
housing. They were very concerned about senior citizens. The Jewish Community had an
above average percentage of senior citizens. Finally, they saw this as a potential to bring in
additional taxes, whereas the site before didn’t. They had some concerns if the City didn’t
approve this amendment. First, it was a deterrent to future developers and it could take a
few more years to find a potential buyer for the site. They had other schools interested in
the site, which would not make neighbors happy because of traffic issues. Lastly, potential
tax dollars lost to the City. They wanted to see the City thrive, not just survive.
Gene Storman, Windemere Condominium Assn., stated that their association was not
opposed to the approval of the amendment. They agreed, in concept, to the development
and thought it was a great one. He didn’t feel that any changes that had taken place affected
them. Nothing had changed from the West side of Virginia Avenue. The roof had been
lowered to a flat roof, but there were still four-stories. Many people signed petitions
opposed to this. He and the board would be willing to sit down with their Councilmember
to have this project reduced beyond the 114 units. Their goal would be a three-story
building and they would continue to work for that. They didn’t feel that a four-story
building was right for the neighborhood. It was out of scale and he requested that the entire
Council work toward trying to reduce the overall height of the project to three-stories.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
090704 - 3a - City Council Minutes of August 16, 2004
Page 6
Dan Sundem, 3256 Texas Av. S, indicated that his property immediately abutted this project.
They met with the developers and City who were quite helpful. The main concern was that
their privacy might be invaded if people were able to look into their backyards. They came
up with a new plan and they were happy with it. They still had a few concerns, namely a
sidewalk being proposed along 33rd, which would be fairly close to his home. They had been
very accommodating and willing to work with them. He could not speak for the other
property owners, but at the meeting they all seemed to be pretty happy with the new building
and they were the ones that were closest to it. They felt it was a good design.
Mayor Jacobs reiterated that this discussion was limited to the land use designation and
there would be more discussion on the planned unit development where they would try to
resolve as many issues as they could.
Councilmember Velick felt it was a great plan and thanked the architect for making the
changes. One of the items people were expressing concern about was the backyard of the
homes on Texas and this plan met that concern. It was a step in the right direction.
Councilmember Omodt echoed Councilmember Velick’s comments. The developer was
not happy when this was continued, but it was worth it. They were getting closer to
where they all wanted to be. They fixed the main concern of his regarding the residents
on Texas Avenue and he was glad they switched the “U” around. He encouraged them to
keep talking and they would come up with something even better.
Councilmember Finkelstein was impressed with the work the neighborhood, the architects
and developers did on this project. They took the time to listen to the concerns. He hoped
when this was done, it was something they could all be proud of. He thought this would be
a project that would serve the needs of the City and of the seniors for years to come.
Councilmember Santa echoed previous Councilmembers. There was still a ways to go
and issues that needed to be hammered out. Now that the neighborhood, the architect and
developers were talking and educating each other about what their needs were and where
they were coming from, she thought they had already seen that they were getting to a
much better project all around.
It was motioned by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Finkelstein, to
adopt Resolution No. 04-096 approving a Comprehensive Plan map amendment
changing land use designation for property at 8200 33rd St W. from Civic to High Density
Residential and text amendments to Chapter P of Comprehensive Plan 2000 – 2020
contingent upon Metropolitan Council review.
Councilmember Sanger stated that she thought that housing on this site was a good idea.
Changing the Comprehensive Plan to housing was something she would like to be able to
support if she thought this was a project that she would be supporting. There were a couple
of reasons why she would not support it. The first was the request for TIF funding. In her
mind, the requirements for TIF funding had not been met and that the City, by going ahead
with this, would be spending around $1 million for a project that did not meet the legal
standards. The developers were telling them that they could build this as a senior
condominium project with no TIF assistance. They could make good use of this site without
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
090704 - 3a - City Council Minutes of August 16, 2004
Page 7
spending City dollars. She could not say that they should support $1 million TIF or anything
close to make it a co-op rather than a condominium. Secondly, were her concerns with the
concept of the limited equity co-op. She didn’t have a problem with the concept of a senior
co-op, her concerns went to the limited equity feature and were similar with those mentioned
by Mr. Racette. The costs of living there were not cheap and it was being marketed as if it
were affordable housing. When you considered all of the monthly fees, it was not that
inexpensive and she was particularly concerned with the 6% a year cap on the appreciation of
the investment. Real estate values had been going approximately 10%, and anyone who
invested money in one of these co-ops was artificially limiting their own rate of return. That
didn’t seem like a good investment. This wasn’t something she could financially recommend
to her parents and she was having trouble with the City investing TIF money for something
that they didn’t think may be the best investment, when they could invest no money at all and
have senior condominiums and no artificial cap on the rate of return. She compared this
further to the senior condominiums being proposed for construction in the Quadion site
recently approved where the amounts of TIF for a much larger project were smaller than
what was being requested here for a smaller project. That included senior condominiums in
the same price range as these and there was no cap on the rate of return. Between her
concerns about not satisfying the TIF standards and her concerns about the finances
associated with buying one of these limited equity condos, she could not support this project,
but would be happy to support a different kind of senior housing or other housing and at that
time would be in support of changing the Comp Plan designation to a housing designation.
Councilmember Finkelstein believed that this clearly met the but/for test. It was less
intensive than another major type of project and this could be up to a six-story building. In
regards to the limited equity nature of this type of project, that was what he found to be so
attractive. This was offering another option to the seniors in this community who had
moderate incomes. It allowed them to sell their homes, put a significant amount of money
down, and then they would not be required to do the maintenance and repairs. They would
have added amenities and it allowed them to live in dignity and safety with other people.
The limited equity portion of it was required by the Federal Mortgage that allowed the co-op
feature to get a 40 year mortgage. The purpose of making it a limited equity and increase the
amount was to allow seniors now and in the future to be able to buy into this type of
program. This was an option that was offered in many first ring suburbs and something they
did not have in St. Louis Park. He felt it was needed and that they would see that by the
number of people who signed up to participate in this program.
The motion passed 6-1, with Councilmember Sanger opposed.
Councilmember Santa indicated neighbors had received a letter last week about the
Planning Commission meeting initially scheduled for August 18th, which had been
rescheduled for September 1st. She wanted to be sure people were aware of that and
didn’t go to a meeting on August 18th where it would not be discussed.
8b. City Engineer’s Report: Lamplighter Pond Storm Water Improvement
Project – Lift Station Replacement – Project No. 00-18A
Resolution No. 04-097
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
090704 - 3a - City Council Minutes of August 16, 2004
Page 8
Ms. Gohman wanted to clarify that the Council focused solely on the lift station and the
Public Works Director and staff would focus only on that item.
Mr. Rardin reported the history of the Lamplighter Pond situation.
Mayor Jacobs asked if there was a lift station there presently and it was just old? Mr. Rardin
replied correct.
Mayor Jacobs asked if this lift station would do anything significantly different if they
approved this or were they just replacing an old machine with a new machine? Mr. Rardin
replied correct, it was just a new machine.
Mayor Jacobs asked if they decided not to do the Lamplighter ponding project, would
they still need to replace the lift station that was there because of the age of the machine?
Mr. Rardin replied correct.
Ms. Hagen presented the staff report.
Nathan Busch, 1600 Pennsylvania Av, stated that his comments were also in the form of
a letter and he would be sending copies, but he wanted to be on record. According to the
plans for the Lamplighter pond project, the level of the water in the pond was to be
lowered to 875 feet of elevation. With the design specifications for the current lift
station, this goal was attainable and the pond should be able to be lowered to 875 feet. In
his May 3rd letter to Ms. Hagen, he requested information as to why the current lift station
was unable to lower the pond level. To date, he had yet to receive an answer to that
question and would like Ms. Hagen or the consulting engineer to go on record to explain
why the current lift station was not able to perform according to specifications. What
were the assurances that the proposed lift station would accomplish the desired result?
The project design for this pond required that the pond level be lowered to 875 feet. Why
didn’t the current lift station accomplish that? Was there something wrong with the inlet
to the pond or something in the pond prohibiting them from gaining their objective?
What was the source of the funding for the lift station? Who gave the grant and how
much was it for? Will the Environmental Assessment worksheet (EAW) have to be
modified to reflect these changes? To his recollection, the original EAW did not include
the proposed lift station. According to documents in the possession of the City Clerk, the
consulting engineer for the project had recommended an extended measurement of the
ground water level during the draw-down test. They also recommended that
measurements be taken over a period of three to six months if the North pond area was
excavated first and over a period of a year if the Lamplighter area proper was excavated.
In the letter from Ms. Hagen dated August 2, 2004, the term of the measurement was
currently uncertain, but not expected to extend past two months. Why were the
recommendations of the consulting engineers being ignored to accelerate the pace of the
Lamplighter pond project? A geological hydrological study had indicated a separated
local ground water flow system to the South of Lamplighter pond. The study said,
“Lamplighter pond is hydrologically connected to the saturated materials above and
below the peat layer at the intersection of Quebec and 22nd.” That means, lowering the
pond level directly impacted the water level in the surrounding ground. Last September
Pete Willenbring said that the draw-down test in 2000 showed no interaction, while he
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
090704 - 3a - City Council Minutes of August 16, 2004
Page 9
knew that the study performed in 1997 showed a direct connection between the pond
level and the surrounding ground water. If the pond were pumped down to 875, which
was the desired goal and had never been done, they would be pumping ground water,
which was illegal. A different consulting engineer had indicated that the potential
subsidence in the area surrounding Lamplighter pond could range between .8 inches to
1.5 inches once the water level was lowered below 877 feet. If the pond level were
below 877, it meant that the surrounding area would sink between .8 inches and 1.5
inches within a year. Depending upon the location, the subsidence could range “up to
approximately two to three inches.” It was not hard to imagine what would happen to the
inside of the house. Given the connection between the level of the water in Lamplighter
pond and the surrounding water table, was it responsible to conduct a current draw-down
test to identify the connection between the water in the Lamplighter pond and the
surrounding water table? This information had apparently been withheld from the proper
regulatory agencies as well, because this had never been revealed through the
environmental assessment worksheet to the DNR, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District or the Army Corp of Engineers. This was important information for those
agencies to determine whether this project should or could go forward. The project had
been sold as a flood mitigation project for flooding in the area of 22nd and Quebec. He
had never believed that. Documents in the possession of the City Engineer and the City
Clerk, indicated that at least three projects would ultimately impact the Lamplighter pond
area: the building of an expansion at the church of 15,000 square feet; proposed
modifications of the field at the junior high school, which would cause a considerable
amount of run-off and would need the pond project for that; and, an expansion of the
nursing home to the North. The project initially said that there was going to be a basin.
The nursing home had refused to give permission because they wanted to expand. The
City needed to do an investigation and be forthcoming with what was true about this
project. You heard that the original plans for the pond did not exist, he got a copy from
the City Clerk. He suggested what he would like to see happen. One, as the
recommendation and the liability mitigation program submitted by WSB Peter
Willenbring to the City Attorney, leave the North area as it was and don’t dredge it.
Leave the pathway alone. Dredge the current pond, reshape the banks to stabilize them
and because the pond level had already been down to 877 feet of elevation, maintain it
there and see how they did with the new pumping station. If the project was fixed up a
little the way it was, they wouldn’t need to take it down to 875 and suffer the potential
liabilities from the damages, especially since they knew that there was a unique ground
water flow there that hadn’t been properly brought forth to the regulatory agencies.
Mayor Jacobs stated that there were two questions brought up, one was what was the
funding source for the new pump? Ms. Hagen replied that the total amount was $459,000
and that amount was factored into the total cost of the project. They had envisioned one
contract for the lift station and all of the grading work.
Mayor Jacobs asked if that was a result of a grant or what was the funding source? Ms.
Hagen replied correct, as part of the Minnesota DNR grant that was received by the City
in 2002, it was a one to one match. For every dollar that the City spent, the grant would
match one. Half of the amount would come from the DNR grant or approximately
$229,000 and the storm sewer utility bond proceeds would pay for the other $229,000.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
090704 - 3a - City Council Minutes of August 16, 2004
Page 10
Mayor Jacobs asked in terms of the pumps capacity, was it going to be a different capacity of
pump in terms of the ability to draw down? Ms. Hagen replied it would be exactly the same
size. The capacity down-stream was limited. There were already flooding problems down the
line. One of the options that they originally looked at was increasing the capacity of the pump
station to get more water out quicker. They couldn’t do that because of the down-stream
conditions, so the pumps would remain the exact same size and pump the same amount out.
The difference was, which related to Mr. Busch’s question of why couldn’t the existing lift
station take it down to 875, the way the screen is. There is a lot of junk such as plastics bags,
etc, that got into the pumps and clogged them and they weren’t able to take it down that far. It
was part of the on-going maintenance problems and why they were looking at replacing this.
The new lift station would be placed one and a half feet lower and the invert of the pipe would
be one and a half feet lower. Currently it was 874, you would think they could get it down to
875, but they couldn’t because of the amount of mud that was being sucked into the pumps.
Mayor Jacobs stated what they were talking about now was a limited issue of whether or
not to replace a lift station and they were not talking about whether they draw it down to
875 or 877. If they replaced the lift station, could they then have a further discussion
with the neighborhood about how far they took it down? Ms. Hagen replied absolutely,
that was what the draw-down test was studying, exactly how far they could take it down.
Mayor Jacobs assumed they would have more discussion with the neighborhood about
that before they did it. Ms. Hagen replied yes.
Mayor Jacobs asked if it was being drawn down now? Ms. Hagen replied before they took further
action, they would bring the results to the neighborhood once they did the draw-down test.
Councilmember Sanger stated as she interpreted Mr. Busch’s comments, it seemed that
most of them were going to the larger project and not the specifics of replacing the lift
station. He did raise one question that related to the lift station that they hadn’t
addressed, that would be whether there was any requirement to do an EAW or EIS or
amend the existing EAW solely in order to replace the lift station? Mr. Scott replied no.
Councilmember Omodt asked Mr. Busch if his questions had been answered? Before
they went to questions for Ms. Hagen, there were some allegations in a letter from Mr.
Davis which he thought were unfounded. He knew from time to time there had been
disjointed communications on this project. He wanted to say up front that he didn’t
believe Ms. Hagen was a deceptive person and didn’t think she had tried to mislead
anyone. Mr. Busch had also talked about three expansion projects and that the pond was
being done for those, he hadn’t heard of these projects.
Mr. Busch replied that the first question he had from Ms. Hagen was somewhat
answered. He would be sending a letter containing that information and give an
opportunity for more dialogue. Regarding the truthfulness of the current EAW, he
thought there was substantial evidence to indicate that it was not. On the third issue, the
plans for the church and the school were on record in the Clerk’s office and had also been
before the City Council. Pete Willenbring spoke about the possible basin at the
intersection of Franklin and Pennsylvania and said they couldn’t do it because the nursing
home wanted to expand there.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
090704 - 3a - City Council Minutes of August 16, 2004
Page 11
Councilmember Omodt recalled Mr. Willenbring saying that, but didn’t believe they
were active plans or that they had seen plans for the expansion of a nursing home. He
also didn’t recall seeing plans from the junior high or the church. Mr. Busch responded
that he would be happy to provide those plans.
Councilmember Finkelstein vaguely remembered the discussion in September of 2003.
When this came back in the fall, he asked if they could be provided the minutes and
information from September 2003, in addition he requested the 1997 study and a one
page summary of what an EAW versus an EIS, and what was required for each.
Debra Cohen, 1600 Pennsylvania Av, commented that this project had been sold to the
residents of the City as a flood mitigation project for the homes in the area. The City’s
own engineers, Braun Intertec, said that there was no guarantee that this project would
help the flooding of the homes. So what was the purpose of the project? Ms. Gohman
reiterated that the project was down the road further, the item now was the lift station and
they needed to focus on that. There would be additional time for more information.
Leslie Davis stated often people like to take little pieces off of a project and say that it
was limited and they were only talking about the small piece. The public and decision
makers depend on EAW’s and environmental reviews to be accurate, honest and truthful
and this was not. This had been signed by the City Engineer that it was accurate and
complete to the best of their knowledge. It wasn’t. It didn’t tell where the money was
coming from. It didn’t tell them whether they were making way for additional capacity
to the pond. Are they going to pave over a parking lot at the school? Was the flood
mitigation project a lie to the people to increase the capacity of the pond to accommodate
additional development? They couldn’t do that because they were already in a wetland
and were sinking. He spoke to an engineer about the sinking, flooding homes and he said
that there were many alternatives like installing piers and tiling to accommodate the
flooding problem. They didn’t want to buy out the houses, but there were alternatives
they needed to look at. Environmental review called for feasible, prudent alternatives to
projects that people opposed. That was part of the MN Environmental Rights Act,
Environmental Policy Act and that you would discover in an EIS. If this expansion of the
pond was to accommodate additional capacity, they couldn’t do it because they were
already flooding. Would you generate more storm water runoff? They were told at the
beginning of the meeting that this was just an old machine for a new machine. Then they
were taking down a building and building a new one, landscaping and building a
driveway. They wouldn’t let them go forward with this. This was in a wetland, and they
needed to deal with the flooding problem, give them compensation or install piers. If
they moved on from this little step, they would destroy the habitat of the animals and
vegetation living around this pond. They would be taking away a beautiful path. You
could only move it forward with a fraudulent environmental assessment worksheet. He
would stand on that and stake his reputation of 22 years working as the founder and
president of the Earth Protector Environmental group that this was a fraud. The EAW
had to be truthful and accurate and it wasn’t. He contacted Mr. Downing at the
Environmental Quality Board and they were examining what to do because this had
already been approved. There were alternatives. He thought this was a connected action
and when they do environmental reviews they can’t say that they looked at the pond on
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
090704 - 3a - City Council Minutes of August 16, 2004
Page 12
Franklin and fit it into this particular project. That was a separate action. If it’s a fact
that you are going to do this project to increase the capacity for storm water runoff from
newer projects, they needed to be forthcoming with the public about that.
Councilmember Velick referenced a letter written to Mr. Davis dated June 29th, by Ms.
Hagen, that answered the questions raised.
Mr. Davis asked where in the letter it answered his question from May 21st, if there were
new projects or developments being planned or proposed in the area of Lamplighter pond
that would require newly generated storm water runoff to be directed to Lamplighter
pond? Councilmember Velick noted in the letter, Ms. Hagen said, “The Lamplighter pond
sub-watershed is a fully developed area.” In her understanding, that meant nothing else
was coming. She had not seen any other plans, it was a fully developed area without any
plans coming forward.
Mr. Davis stated that Mr. Busch just told them that he had seen plans in the offices of St.
Louis Park about a parking lot for a church expansion and the hard topping of a ball field.
Were they aware of those? Councilmember Velick replied no, they hadn’t come before
the City Council. They may have been planned at one time and dropped. She was on the
Planning Commission six years prior to the Council, and she never saw anything like that.
Mayor Jacobs asked if City staff were aware of these plans? The Council had not seen
them, but many plans were generated at a level other than the City Council. Mr. Rardin
replied that staff had been having discussions for approximately four years with the
School District. They would like to redo the Junior High and the fields, but when they
did that, they would need to be in compliance with their storm water management plan.
They wouldn’t need to enlarge the pond to take care of their water. As far as the church,
they had talked about possible expansion. There was nothing current and no proposal. It
was possible what they had seen was something they were talking about, there had been a
lot of communication. He specifically remembered a conversation last September with a
nursing home or condo association on the SE where they had talked about having a small
pond. He did not believe they said they were looking at a development, they wanted to
reserve that property in case they wanted to do something in the future. They did not
want to give it up as a storm water pond at the time.
Mr. Davis asked if the City acquired the North portion or who owned the property that
they wanted to excavate? Ms. Hagen replied that the Park Assembly of God Church
owned that property.
Mr. Davis asked if they were giving it to the City to dig a hole and put water in? Ms. Hagen
responded no, they were going to retain an easement over it.
Mr. Davis asked why the church would give them an easement over their wetland and
have them dig it out? Ms. Hagen responded that they didn’t see a need for it in the future
for their development expansion.
Mr. Davis stated no, because they were going to dump their water into the Lamplighter
pond when they expanded their church and their parking lot.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
090704 - 3a - City Council Minutes of August 16, 2004
Page 13
Councilmember Velick commented that the path that Mr. Davis said would be removed,
would be replaced and would be lovelier than it presently was because it was falling
apart. She believed this would improve the habitat because of the fact that they were
going to stop mowing to the edge and would plant native plants. She was very
embarrassed that someone would stand there and say that their staff had done something
fraudulent. She disagreed wholeheartedly and thought they had worked very hard.
It was motioned by Councilmember Velick, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to adopt
Resolution No. 04-097 accepting this report, establishing and ordering Improvement
Project No. 00-18A, approving plans and specifications, and authorizing advertisement for
bids.
Councilmember Basill echoed Councilmember Velick’s comments. With all due respect
to Mr. Davis, reading his letter of August 11, 2004, he defined fraud as, “generally
defined in the law as an intentional misrepresentation of material or existing facts made
by one person to another with knowledge of its falsity and for the purpose of inducing the
other person to act.” He went on to say, “The St. Louis Park City Engineer signed the
fraudulent EAW which aided in circumventing the proper and legitimate environmental
review and should be called to answer for the indiscretions.” He could assure him that
she signed that with the best of her knowledge, believing it was accurate and they were
continuing to look at that. The defamatory statement that she would intentionally
misrepresent was wrong. He asked for a point of order because they were talking about
the lift station and they had listened to Mr. Davis and Mr. Busch go on about the staff on
an issue that was not on the agenda. They needed to get back to that issue.
Councilmember Sanger supported the motion and understood that it was just dealing with
the lift station and that they needed to do it regardless of the merits, or lack of merits, of
the larger planned proposal, regardless of whether they went forward with a plan to redo
the pond, or whether they did it in a way that was currently proposed or in some other
fashion. In her judgment, it was totally inappropriate to make the kind of inflammatory
statements that had been made about staff. It was fine to have a difference of opinion,
but to put that into terminology that was so accusatory with no apparent basis, she found
to be very disrespectful and not helpful in addressing these issues constructively.
Mayor Jacobs agreed with Councilmember Sanger.
Councilmember Finkelstein agreed with the rest of the Council. He placed a lot of trust
in the staff and they had never proven him wrong.
Mayor Jacobs stated he had never had a staff person lie to them, or say anything he felt was
intentionally incorrect or fraudulent. To suggest that was contrary to the way this City and the
staff operated. That was way out of line. A lot of the questions that were raised needed to be
answered because there were neighbors who wanted storm water mitigation to alleviate
flooding they were experiencing. They may have a very different view on how to accomplish
that. The last thing the City wanted to do was to draw down the pond to the detriment of other
houses. They needed answers from Engineers who would work with staff. The answers
would be truthful to the best of their knowledge, but to accuse them of fraud was wrong.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
090704 - 3a - City Council Minutes of August 16, 2004
Page 14
Ms. Cohen stated that she asked a question before and didn’t get an answer. The Council said
that the reason for this project was to mitigate flooding in houses, but the consulting engineers
said that the project wouldn’t do that, so what was the purpose of the Lamplighter pond
project? Mayor Jacobs responded that was not the present discussion and would be one that
would happen later on. He had a question about that too and they wanted to get answers
before they spent the money and took the actions that had been proposed. He wanted to be
sure they weren’t going to end up wasting the money or doing more harm than good. If it
turned out that the main project wouldn’t accomplish its designed purpose, he wanted to take a
hard look if they should do it.
The motion passed 7-0.
8c. City Engineer’s Report: 2004 Trail Improvement Project, City Project No. 04-03
Mr. Olson presented the staff report.
Councilmember Sanger asked if they unsure they could finish the construction this fall,
what was the point of starting and having something half constructed sit over the winter
and then go back to it in the spring? Mr. Olson replied they would be able to construct
three segments, the Flag Avenue, the Gorham Avenue and 36th Street. The resident saw
some urgency in constructing those. On the remaining three, which were regional trail
connections, they needed to finish final approval of the grant. It was uncertain whether
that would be completed in a timely fashion. They would start what they could finish this
fall and not begin others until the spring.
Ms. Hagen stated that they wouldn’t open them up and then leave them partially done.
They would try to get the three done.
Councilmember Santa stated she was glad to see these projects. She didn’t see on the list
anything that would give her an idea of when to tell residents to expect notice about when
construction was starting. As welcome as this was, it would cause disruption to traffic
and people needed to know. Mr. Olson replied they would notify those being impacted
by the construction and traffic impacts. None of these abutted personal property.
Councilmember Santa indicated that even though there were no houses along these areas,
there would be major exits from a neighborhood being affected and any construction
would impact the people living there. She wanted to be sure that they could tell people
when they could expect construction.
Councilmember Basill noted that he was very happy to see the West 36th Street around
Jorvig Park. It was a dangerous corner and to complete that trail segment was an
exceptional improvement and he welcomed it this fall.
It was motioned by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to adopt
Resolution No. 04-098 accepting this report, establishing and ordering Improvement Project
No. 04-03, approving plans and specifications, and authorizing advertisement for bids.
The motion passed 7-0.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
090704 - 3a - City Council Minutes of August 16, 2004
Page 15
It was motioned by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to adopt
the Resolution No. 04-099 accepting a grant from the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resource (DNR) for partial funding of regional trail connections.
The motion passed 7-0.
8d. Adjustment to the City Manager’s Salary. Resolution No. 04-100
Mayor Jacobs indicated an evaluation was done of the City Manager who is doing an
outstanding job and pursuant to contract they were required to discuss after a six-month
period of time an adjustment to his salary.
Ms. Gohman stated that they had to operate under the salary cap. In the resolution,
although the Council approved an annual salary of $120,000, which was discussed at the
study session, they must comply with the salary cap, so the compensation limit would be
$116,600 and therefore part of the resolution would put 53 hours into a paid time off
bank. They had a policy that had set that up.
It was motioned by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Finkelstein, to
adopt Resolution No. 04-100 confirming a salary increase for the City Manager and paid
time off effective August 1, 2004.
The motion passed 7-0.
9. Communications
Mayor Jacobs stated that National Night Out was a huge success. There were 116 parties. He
attended five or six and it was a fun event. He thanked the Police, Fire and Public Works
Departments for their work and those in the communities who helped to organize events.
10. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 9:34 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
City Clerk Mayor
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
090704 - 3b - Study Session Minutes of08-23-04
Page 1
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
August 23, 2004
The meeting convened at 6:30 p.m.
Councilmembers present were John Basill, Phil Finkelstein, Paul Omodt, Susan Sanger, Sue
Santa, Sally Velick, and Mayor Jeff Jacobs.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Community Development Director (Mr. Locke),
Planning and Zoning Coordinator (Ms. McGonigal), Police Chief (Mr. Luse), Police Captain
(Mr. Ortner), Operations Superintendent (Mr. Hanson), Public Works Director (Mr. Rardin), and
City Clerk (Ms. Reichert).
1. Brookside Community Center
Council and staff met at the Brookside Community Center to view the site. Following the site
visit council returned to city hall and reconvened at 7:23 p.m.
Councilmember Basill inquired about the financial impact of alternative plans for the site. Mr.
Locke explained the development alternatives in terms of the number of single family units and
the cost of public assistance that would be needed for each proposal.
Councilmember Velick felt the density as originally proposed did not fit in with the surrounding
neighborhood.
Mayor Jacobs stated that there was hardly any traffic currently in the area and adding density
would cause impact traffic flow.
Councilmember Santa stated that the estimated $1.8 amount was based on the concept of the
Independent School District 281 without consideration for needs of neighborhoods or whether
the Council would approve rezoning of the property to allow for the proposed development.
Councilmember Finklestein stated that it was too late to renegotiate price, and he believed that
development could be done on the site which worked with the school’s asking price. He felt the
city should keep in mind the school’s budget situation. Councilmember Basill pointed out that
use of the site with the school building and higher density would come back as more profit for
the school in taxes. Councilmember Sanger suggested that more single family homes could be
provided on the site if the school reduced the asking price and the City provided tax increment
financing.
Councilmember Santa felt they should keep the discussion to the best use of the property. Re-
use of the school building would keep the historic character of the neighborhood intact. She
liked the idea of “ramping down” the building heights and density by renovating the school, then
placing condos next to it and single family homes along the street.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
090704 - 3b - Study Session Minutes of08-23-04
Page 2
Mayor Jacobs felt they should save the building and go with the five single family homes facing
Webster Avenue. Councilmember Finkelstein did not want to use tax increment financing on the
site if we did not hae to. Councilmember Omodt stated that he preferred single family homes on
the site.
Mr. Harmening stated that the school district may be willing to grant more time to get the deal
closed. He would like to communicate to the school district that the city needs to do due
diligence. He also stated that they would like to do a “but-for” analysis. Councilmember Basill
inquired about the timing and Mr. Locke stated that Steve Bubul of Kennedy & Graven
suggested refraining from re-zoning the site until the City receives a full tax increment financing
analysis.
Councilmember Omodt suggested that they discuss the working relationship with the School
Board at a future meeting. Mr. Harmening reported that he has already talked to the district
superintendent about holding a facilitated workshop wit both Council and the School Board.
Councilmember Basill suggested that council direct staff to work with Option #1 as presented as
it contained the most single family homes on the site, while keeping the TIF contribution
required by the city to facilitate the development.
Mr. Harmening recapped the council direction received stating that staff would be coming back
to council at a future meeting with a detailed pro-forma for option #1.
2. Snow Removal Operation
Mr. Harmening reported on last snow season’s operations with the changes that were
implemented and also reviewed the enforcement policy.
Mayor Jacobs felt the current practice was okay and Councilmember Finkelstein congratulated
staff on the job well done with on plowing the previous year.
Councilmember Basill felt that ticketing should be more aggressive.
Councilmember Sanger inquired if compliance was better or worse than before. Mr. Hanson
replied that there are more cars on the street that are not in compliance before 8 a.m.
Chief Luse felt that the question in policy was whether they tagged cars for being on the street
when there is more than three inches of snow or when the plows go around cars left on the street.
After discussion council and staff agreed that the trigger for ticketing should be violation of the
3-inch snow level parking ban. It was also agreed that the Police Department would need to use
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
090704 - 3b - Study Session Minutes of08-23-04
Page 3
discretion about timing of when tickets are issued based upon whether police personnel were
occupied dealing with more pressing emergency situations.
This issue will be revisited issue again after the first of the year. Mr. Harmening felt that public
education was key and a resolution clarifying the policy should be passed.
3. 2005 Budget
Ms. McGann presented a narrative description of the budget to Council.
Councilmember Velick inquired if the six percent levy would cover the needs of the City. Ms.
McGann replied that it would. Council discussed revisions to the proposed 2005 budget and
increases in funding of non-profit organizations. Councilmember Finkelstein would like to see a
funding source created for public art.
Councilmember Sanger inquired whether inspection fees for one and two family rental housing
would cover the cost of the program. Ms. McGann said she would follow-up on that and the
budget would be coming back to Council on Sept. 7th.
4. Communications
Council discussed an appointment to the Planning Commission.
5. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
City Clerk Mayor
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
090704 - 3c - Study Session Minutes of 8-9-04
Page 1
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
August 9, 2004
The meeting convened at 6:30 p.m.
Councilmembers present: John Basill, Phil Finkelstein, Susan Sanger, Sue Santa, Sally Velick and
Mayor Jeff Jacobs.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Housing Supervisor (Ms. Schnitker); Housing
Coordinator (Ms. Larsen); Community Development Director (Mr. Locke); Planning Coordinator (Ms.
Erickson); Human Resources Director (Ms. Gohman); Finance Director (Ms. McGann), and City Clerk
(Ms. Reichert).
1. Brookside School Site – Development Proposal and Options
Several representatives of the developer were present at the meeting to discuss their concept plan with
the council and to present other options that include some or all single family homes on the site.
Present at the meeting were Charlie Nestor, Master Development; Bruce Bahneman, Master
Development; Jeff Wrede, Tushie Montgomery Architects; Jim Donovan, Foundation Land
Development.
Charlie Nestor gave a presentation of the project.
Councilmembers asked questions to clarify details of the proposal including questions about building
height, parking, price of the units and questions about green space.
Councilmember Basill thanked the developer for the number of neighborhood meetings and for his
willingness to work through the issues. He noted that density had been lowered from the original
proposal and stated that he had been conflicted about the proposal and that he believed that council
should at least be given an opportunity to review a plan that had more single family homes as part of
the development.
Councilmember Sanger asked how many single family homes could go on the site and the developer
responded that it could vary depending on the size of the homes and the lots on which they were
placed. The problem would be access to parking for the school building. The cost of removing the
school entirely would be between $400,000 and $500,000.
The developer offered a member which outlined tax implications of various configurations of single
family and multi family housing options on the site.
Mayor Jacobs suggested that the policy question at hand is do we want 53 units of multi-family
housing with no tax increment financing dollars spent, or do we want to encourage more single family
homes on the site, which would increase the amount of TIF needed to fund the project.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
090704 - 3c - Study Session Minutes of 8-9-04
Page 2
Councilmember Sanger asked to see a revision to the proposal that would show removal of the school,
all single family homes on the site and the corresponding formula of TIF versus private development
dollars.
The developer offered to come back to the next study session with variations for council review.
Councilmember Sanger suggested that if the council really wanted to create more move-up housing in
the city, then we needed to “bite the bullet” and do whatever it takes to accomplish that goal –
including use of public dollars to encourage that result.
Mr. Harmening questioned how neighborhood notification should take place regarding council’s
request for alternate development proposals. He noted that the council needed to act on the proposal
before late September.
Garfield Clark, the real estate agent secured by the school board, informed the council that there is an
anticipated sequence that must be adhered to. There were timing restrictions associated with the
purchase agreement. He also questioned whether the purchase amount of 1.8 million would still be
appropriate if a different proposal was approved.
Mr. Harmening noted that the timeframe for staff and the developer to work together on presenting
alternate designs was very short. If the packets come out on the Thursday prior to the council meeting
at which this item will be discussed, it may be necessary to provide additional materials for council
review after Thursday, and perhaps even at the Monday meeting.
2. Housing Summit Draft Goals
Ms. Schnitker reviewed the planning process and the comments from the City Council.
Councilmember Santa stated that they had talked about clustered housing and she felt that they should
not cluster any housing. She had questions regarding lots that are combined or subdivided.
Councilmember Finkelstein felt that staff did great work on the draft goals. Council discussed
revisions to the goals to be more specific. Ms. Schnitker stated that these were only draft goals, and
that staff was anxious to take them out for public comment. Staff was looking for true opinions from
members of the public who would be reviewing them. She felt keeping the goals more broad would
allow for solicitation of many different kinds of ideas. She was concerned that presenting specific
policy statements would narrow public discussion.
With minor revisions, council directed staff to proceed with solicitation of public comments on the
goals.
3. Planning Commission Request for Joint Meeting
Mr. Locke stated that the housing summit and recent housing/redevelopment proposals have generated
interest among the Planning Commission and they have requested a joint Planning Commission/City
Council meeting. Council was interested and asked staff to set a time and topics for discussion.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
090704 - 3c - Study Session Minutes of 8-9-04
Page 3
4. 2005 Proposed Budget, Property Tax Levy, 2004 Revised Budget, 2005-2009 CIP and
MSA Discussion
Staff presented the revised proposed budget for 2005 with Council’s suggestions incorporated into it.
Ms. McGann stated that they assumed a six percent property tax levy. Council discussed diseased tree
trimming and removal costs and how to budget for it in the future. Ms. McGann reported that the
analysis on the Park and Rec fund will be coming later in August.
Mayor Jacobs felt that a raise in the tax levy was preferable to a “nickel and dime” approach.
Councilmember Santa felt that the fees for service is also appropriate and encouraged staff to make
sure fees were set at an amount that actually covered the services.
Staff proposed tha more money be appropriated for website enhancement and proposed reinstatement
of cuts made earlier to weekend maintenance at the Police Station, tree trimming, and administrative
clerical support.
Mr. Harmening stated goals are needed for the technology in the CIP program. Ms. McGann then
detailed the nine primary areas of the CIP projects and funds. She stated that the the pedestrian bridge
is unfunded in the CIP plan and the source of funding is not identified.
Mr. Harmening inquired if the Council wanted to tour the CIP sites. The Council directed staff to
move forward with the budget process as well as the six percent property tax levy.
5. City Manager Salary
Ms. Gohman reported that with a six month review and probationary period completed it was time to
look at the City Manager’s salary. She stated that pay should be at the mid-point salary range. Salary
is set at the local range but it should be set at the national range.
Councilmember Basill stated that Mr. Harmening had a proven track record and should receive a pay
increase. Ms. Gohman stated that there is a five percent increase once an employee is off of probation.
Councilmember Finkelstein suggested an increase to $120,000 and Council agreed.
6. City Council Workshop
Council felt that dialogue on Vision St. Louis Park and public process would be suitable topics to
discuss.
7. Communications
Council discussed an appointment to the Planning Commission.
Council requested an update on the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District visioning process and the
vacancy on the Bassett Creek Water Management District.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
090704 - 3c - Study Session Minutes of 8-9-04
Page 4
8. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 10:28 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
City Clerk Mayor
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
090704 - 3d - Study Session Minutes of 7-12-04
Page 1
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
July 12, 2004
The meeting convened at 7:06 p.m.
Councilmembers present: John Basill, Phil Finkelstein, Paul Omodt, Susan Sanger, Sue Santa, Sally
Velick and Mayor Jeff Jacobs.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Public Works Director (Mr. Rardin), City Engineer (Ms.
Hagen), Director of Inspections (Mr. Hoffman), Environmental Health Official (Mr. Camilon), and
City Clerk (Ms. Reichert).
1. 2003 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
Ms. McGann introduced representatives of Kern, DeWenter, Viere, Ltd., who had performed the 2003
audit. The city had issued an unqualified opinion of the financial statements of 2003, which is the
highest opinion that can be offered.
Ms McGann and the auditor reviewed the management report and discussed the health of the various
funds of the city.
Council discussed the possibility of receiving an additional 1.6 million from the state and impacts on
the budget if that were to occur. Mr. Harmening cautioned council against relying on that money in
their calculations as it was likely not to occur.
2. Relationship between Community Education and the City of St. Louis Park
Ms. Walsh introduced Linda Severaid, Community Education Director, and provided a historical
overview of the relationship between the City and the Community Education Department. Ms.
Severaid distributed a handout outlining the principles and philosophy of Community Education
Services. She felt that Community Education was perhaps the most important outreach tool available
to the school district, as programs touch residents from birth to death. She also explained the mission
of the Community Education Advisory Commission and provided some information on its structure.
Councilmember Velick asked about the future of the Eliot School Building. Ms. Severaid stated that
the intent of the district is to repair and update the structure.
Mayor Jacobs commented on the relationship between the school board and city council stating that he
believed good communication was key to the success of both boards.
Ms. Severaid informed the council that the school board was considering a levy referendum on the
November Ballot.
Ms. Walsh spoke briefly about the relationship between the City’s Parks and Recreation Department
and the School District’s Community Education Department. There are funds exchanged each year
and programs and services are offered in cooperation between the two departments.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
090704 - 3d - Study Session Minutes of 7-12-04
Page 2
Ms. Severaid requested council to consider an increase in funding for senior programming stating that
she understood the council was operating under tight budgetary controls due to the economy and
political climate. Council agreed to consider that possibility as they move forward with the 2005
budget planning process.
3. Louisiana Court Update
Staff and representative of PPL met with council to provide an update on the financial status of Project
for Pride in Living’s Louisiana Court Development. Steve Kramer and Barbara McCormick from PPL
and Mark Ruff of Ehler’s and Associates were in attendance.
Ms. Schnitker gave an overview of the financial situation stating that goals that had been set earlier
were not being met. PPL is proposing a stabilization plan which includes capital investments, better
programming for resident retention, introduction of new tenants with rental subsidies and supportive
services, improved support services for persons with special needs and reductions in operating
expenses.
Possible city contributions could be tax abatements, project based rental assistance and additional
police support, possibly in the form of a resident officer.
Ms. Schnitker recommended that an independent management consultant conduct an assessment of
PPL’s program, goals and management practices.
Councilmember Sanger asked if the PPL’s proposed actions were sufficient to address the root causes
of the problems. Councilmember Sanger indicated that she was particularly concerned with the very
high tenant turn-over rate in the three-bedroom apartments because when Project for Pride in Living
(PPL) had first asked the City for financial assistance, they were led to believe there was a very strong
demand for three-bedroom units and the City had paid to convert some of the one-bedroom units into
three-bedroom units. PPL responded that they have conducted surveys to determine those root causes,
and that results indicated that PPL needs to have a stronger presence at the site. Social problems
should be addressed which would improve resident retention.
Councilmember Finklestein asked what exactly is being done to help with some of the social issues.
Ms. McCormick responded that PPL is trying to provided a higher level of social assistance. She
believed even more social assistance would be required.
Mayor Jacobs cited the success of the Meadowbrook Collaborative in turning around a very bad
situation there, and suggested a similar model may need to be put into place at Louisiana Courts.
Mr. Ruff stated that financial problems being experienced by PPL are not due entirely to PPL’s
management, but that the economy and tax laws were also significant contributing factors.
Councilmember Omodt stated he was not happy with the performance of PPL’s management and
stated that he believed PPL staff was not entirely honest with the council at their last presentation. For
him, tax abatement was entirely out of the question.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
090704 - 3d - Study Session Minutes of 7-12-04
Page 3
Councilmember Basill believed that putting money into enhanced safety and security for the residents
would help with the problem of resident retention.
Ms. Schnitker suggested that staff move forward with retaining an independent consultant to assess
PPL’s management practices and if council agreed, staff would work with the consultant to provide a
detailed analysis and report sometime in September.
Mr. Harmening asked PPL staff if it would be helpful to have a letter of support from the city as they
move forward with securing various grants as part of their plan. They indicated that a letter would be
helpful. Councilmembers were supportive of providing such a letter.
4. Housing Summit Discussion of Draft Goals and Public Input Process
Staff met with council to review revisions made to the draft housing policy and draft housing goals that
had been made after the Housing summit meeting of June 24th.
Ms. Schnitker explained that they were looking for approval from the council on the goals prior to
beginning the next phase of the public process. Mr. Locke stated they were not intending to take a
finalized document to the focus groups, but rather, wanted to seek public reaction to broad statements
as a basis for starting discussions.
Councilmember Sanger was concerned that the statements were too broad and felt more specificity
needed to be added.
Councilmember Basill suggested the goals be ranked in importance by the council prior to distribution
them in a public forum.
Mr. Harmening said that the intent of public process is not to conduct scientific statistical research, but
to provide a starting point for public discussion. Therefore, the goals were presented as broad
statements.
Ms. Larsen indicated that the goals would also be put on the city’s website when they were ready.
Mr. Harmening asked councilmembers to submit their written comments by email and staff would
prepare another draft for their review.
5. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 10:28 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
City Clerk Mayor
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
090704 - 4a - Parking at 2716 Dakota Avenue
Page 1
4a. Traffic Study No. 590: Motion to adopt the attached resolution authorizing
installation of permit parking in front of 2716 Dakota Avenue South.
Background: The City has received a request from Ms. Karla Luetzow of 2716 Dakota Avenue
South to restrict on-street parking in front of her house. Ms. Luetzow has limited mobility, is
eligible for a disabled persons parking permit, and needs accessible parking. Ms. Luetzow has
provided staff with a letter from her doctor stating her need for a parking permit. Due to other on
street parking which occurs on her street, Ms. Luetzow has requested the City install permit
parking in front of her home. Ms. Luetzow has spoken with her neighbors to try to provide on
street parking in front of her house, but her attempts have been unsuccessful.
Staff has discussed this request with Ms. Luetzow. Installation of handicapped parking signs is
not feasible, since the parking stall design requirements cannot be met on this local street.
However, the City’s Traffic Policy and past practice do allow for permit parking in this situation.
It has been the City’s practice to use permit parking, which can then be removed when the
individual needing the access no longer resides there or no longer needs the access. In this case,
Ms. Luetzow requires the parking restrictions.
Staff considers the resident’s request to be valid and supports the installation of permit parking
for handicap access at 2716 Dakota Avenue South. This recommendation is based on the
following:
1. The resident of the household has limited mobility and is eligible for a disabled
person’s parking permit.
2. Conflicting parking tendencies with neighbors will be eliminated.
Recommendation: Staff recommends adopting the attached resolution authorizing installation
of permit parking restrictions as described.
Attachments: Map (supplement)
Resolution
Prepared by: Laura Adler, Engineering Program Coordinator
Reviewed by: Maria Hagen, City Engineer
Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
090704 - 4a - Parking at 2716 Dakota Avenue
Page 2
RESOLUTION NO. 04-109
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING INSTALLATION OF PERMIT
PARKING IN FRONT OF 2716 DAKOTA AVENUE SOUTH
TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 590
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota that it
is in the best interest of the City to establish a parking restriction based upon permit issuance in
front of 2716 Dakota Avenue South.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that parking shall not be permitted at any time unless
the vehicle prominently displays a City-issued parking permit on the left rear windshield.
Emergency vehicles, governmental vehicles and commercial vehicles parked at curbside while
work is conducted are exempt from these restrictions.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the parking restriction enacted herein shall remain
in effect until the resident no longer needs the restriction or has moved.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that the Director of Public Works is hereby authorized to install the following
controls:
1. Permit parking at 2716 Dakota Avenue South
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council September 7, 2004
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
090704 - 4b - Louisiana Ave Traffic Improvements
Page 1
4b. Motion to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to amend a contract with WSB
and Associates Inc. (Contract No. 100-00) to provide professional services for the
Louisiana Avenue Traffic Improvement Project - City Project No. 00-17
Background: In October, 2000 WSB and Associates was hired to prepare a traffic operation
study of Louisiana Avenue from Walker Street to Lake Street. The scope of services at that time
also included fees to design a traffic signal system at the intersection of Louisiana Avenue with
Walker Street.
Several delays were experienced in the course of the project which resulted in extra work being
performed by the consultant. This included coordination with Mn/DOT and Mn/DOT’s desire to
have additional traffic data prepared as justification for the signals. Also, at the time, the City
was actively working with a developer on the southwest quadrant of Louisiana Avenue and
Highway 7. This resulted in a desire to complete further analysis of the need for a traffic signal
at the intersection of Louisiana Avenue with Lake Street to facilitate traffic accessing the
development site.
Contract #100-00 was approved in October, 2000 in the amount of $18,250. This was modified
administratively in February 2003 to increase the total contract amount to $60,950 and extended
the completion date to December, 2003.
WSB has assisted the City through final design of two new traffic signals, design of the turn-lane
& signal modifications at Highway 7, and permitting issues with Mn/DOT and the MPCA. Their
work also currently includes project management and inspection of the construction. In order to
cover their costs to date and complete the construction observation & contract administration,
WSB is anticipating their fees to be an additional $89,550 for a total contract amount of
$150,500.
Analysis: Staff has reviewed the consultant’s proposal and found the costs to be approximately
21% of the estimated construction total (excluding preparation of the initial study report). This
is within staff’s experience of similar projects that are typically 15% to 22% of the estimated
construction total.
The contract with WSB should be amended to reflect this new amount. In keeping with the
existing contract, expenditures would be based on the number of hours worked, not on a lump
sum basis.
Recommendation: It is recommended that the City amend the existing contract with WSB and
Associates, Inc. (Contract #100-00) for design and construction services for Project No. 00-17 by
increasing the contract amount by $89,550 for a total contract amount of $150,500 and extend
the completion date of the contract to December 31, 2004.
Prepared By: Maria Hagen, City Engineer
Reviewed By: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
090704 - 4c - Permit Parking at 3128 Idaho
Page 1
4c. Traffic Study No. 591: Motion to adopt the attached resolution authorizing
continuation of temporary permit parking in front of 3128 Idaho Avenue South.
Background: The City received a request earlier this year from Ms. Laurel Mickelson of 3128
Idaho Avenue South to restrict on-street parking in front of her house. Ms. Mickelson was to
undergo surgery and have a caregiver stay with her for several months. Ms. Mickelson’s
caregiver has limited mobility, has been issued a disabled persons parking permit, and needs
accessible parking. Due to other on street parking which occurs on her street, Ms. Mickelson
had requested the City install permit parking in front of her home for a period of six months.
This request came before the City Council on March 15, 2004, and a resolution was passed to
allow for temporary permit parking for a period of six months.
Ms. Mickelson contacted the City again in August. The temporary permit parking in front of her
house ends on September 15, 2004. Ms. Mickelson will be having more surgery and needs to
maintain the temporary permit parking in front of her house for another six months.
Staff considers the resident’s request to be valid and supports the continuation of permit parking
for handicap access at 3128 Idaho Avenue South. This recommendation is based on the
following:
1. The resident of the household will require a caregiver due to additional upcoming
surgery.
2. The caregiver has limited mobility and has been issued a disabled persons parking
permit.
3. Conflicting parking tendencies with neighbors will be eliminated.
Recommendation: Staff recommends adopting the attached resolution authorizing installation
of temporary permit parking restrictions as described.
Attachments: Map (supplement)
Resolution
Prepared by: Laura Adler, Engineering Program Coordinator
Reviewed by: Maria Hagen, City Engineer
Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
090704 - 4c - Permit Parking at 3128 Idaho
Page 2
RESOLUTION NO. 04-110
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING INSTALLATION OF TEMPORARY PERMIT
PARKING IN FRONT OF 3128 IDAHO AVENUE SOUTH
TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 591
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota that it
is in the best interest of the City to establish a parking restriction based upon permit issuance in
front of 3128 Idaho Avenue South.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that parking shall not be permitted at any time unless
the vehicle prominently displays a City-issued parking permit on the left rear windshield.
Emergency vehicles, governmental vehicles and commercial vehicles parked at curbside while
work is conducted are exempt from these restrictions.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the parking restriction enacted herein shall remain
in effect for a period of six months from the date of this resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that the Director of Public Works is hereby authorized to install the following
controls:
1. Permit parking at 3128 Idaho Avenue South
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council September 7, 2004
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
090704 - 4d - Water Treatment Plant Project
Page 1
4d. Bid Tabulation: Motion to designate EnComm Midwest, Inc. the lowest responsible
bidder and authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of
$338,338.00 for Water Treatment Plant No. 10 Filter Rehabilitation Project–
Project No. 20041300
Background: Bids were received on Tuesday, August 24, 2004, for the Water Treatment Plant
No. 10 Filter Rehabilitation Project. This improvement project provides for the replacement of
filter media, minor filter modifications, addition of air scouring system, addition of chemical
feed equipment and electrical controls.
A total of three (3) bids were received for this project. An advertisement for bids was published
in the Sun Sailor on July 29 and August 5, 2004 and in the Construction Bulletin on July 30 and
August 6, and August 13, 2004. A summary of the bid results is as follows:
Evaluation of Bids: City staff and Howard R. Green (City’s consultant) have reviewed all of
the bids submitted and have tabulated the results. From the review, staff and Howard R. Green
recommend the selection of EnComm, as they are the lowest responsible bidder. EnComm is a
reputable contractor who has performed satisfactory work on other projects engineered by
Howard R. Green.
Financial Considerations: These improvements are being funded by the Water Utility Fund.
Construction Timeline: Work is anticipated to begin the first week of October and should take
approximately eight weeks to complete.
Prepared By: Scott Anderson, Superintendent of Utilities
Reviewed By: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
CONTRACTOR BID AMOUNT
EnComm Midwest, Inc. $338,338.00
Magney Construction, Inc. $344,700.00
Municipal Builders, Inc. $378,400.00
Engineer’s Estimate (includes 10% contingency) $374,000.00
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
090704 - 4e - 42nd & Ottawa Alley Improvement
Page 1
4e. Bid Tabulation: Motion to designate Ron Kassa Construction, Inc. as the lowest
responsible bidder and authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the amount
of $40,461.49 for Alley Improvement Project-W. 42nd Street and Ottawa Avenue,
Project No. 04-16
Background: Bids were received on Thursday, August 19, 2004 for the construction of a concrete
alley at W. 42nd Street and Ottawa Avenue. This project was initiated through a petition signed by
62% of the benefiting property owners.
A total of three (3) bids were received for this project. An advertisement for bids was published in
the Sun Sailor on July 29 and August 5, 2004 and in the Construction Bulletin on July 30 and August
6, 2004. A summary of the bid results is as follows:
CONTRACTOR BID AMOUNT
Ron Kassa Construction, Inc. $40,461.49
Thomas & Sons, Inc. $62,093.50
O’Malley Construction, Inc *$62,376.85
Engineer’s Estimate $45,667.00
*Bid corrected upon extension
Evaluation of Bids: A review of the bids indicates Ron Kassa Construction, Inc submitted the
lowest responsible bid. This contractor has satisfactorily completed projects in the past for the City.
Financial Considerations: 100% of the cost for the concrete alley paving is to be assessed to the
abutting property owners. A total of 8 properties will be assessed. The costs will be apportioned in
accordance with the City’s special assessment policy with direct and indirect benefits. Since City
property abuts one entire side of the alley, the City’s funding obligation will be 50% of the total
project cost.
Assessment Considerations: The assessment hearing for Project No. 04-16 was held on July 19th.
Three of the abutting property owners spoke against the construction of alley. The property owners
had 30 days to file an appeal from the date of the assessment hearing. The 30-day appeal period
expired on August 18, 2004 and as of that date the City had received no appeals.
Construction Timeline: Work is anticipated to begin the last week of September and should take
approximately six weeks to complete. Adjacent residents will receive notice of the construction
schedule once a firm starting date has been determined. Staff will also meet with individual
property owners to address any concerns they may have about the construction process.
Prepared By: Jim Olson, Engineering Project Manager
Reviewed By: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Maria Hagen, City Engineer
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
090704 - 4f - Annual Sidewalk Maintenance Contract
Page 1
4f. Bid Tabulation: Motion to designate Ti-Zack Concrete, Inc. the lowest responsible
bidder and authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of
$58,851.50 for the 2004 Annual Sidewalk Maintenance Project – City Project No.
04-0003
Background: Bids were received on September 1, 2004 for the repair and construction of
sidewalk at various locations on the city’s sidewalk system. Staff annually surveys the condition
of the sidewalk to identify hazards for repair. Panels of sidewalk that are cracked or have been
lifted by tree roots and create trip hazards are removed and replaced under this contract.
An advertisement for bids was published in the St. Louis Park Sun-Sailor on August 19 and 26,
2004, and in the Construction Bulletin on August 20 and 27, 2004. A total of five (5) bids were
received for this project. A summary of the bid results is as follows:
CONTRACTOR BID AMOUNT
Ti-Zack Concrete, Inc. $ 58,851.50
Ron Kassa Construction $ 66,467.25
BCG Construction $ 70,534.85
Standard Sidewalk, Inc. $ 77,129.65
O’Malley Construction $110,701.63
Engineer’s Estimate $72,849.46
Evaluation of Bids: A review of the bids indicates Ti-Zack Concrete, Inc. submitted the lowest
responsible bid. This contractor has satisfactorily completed projects in the past for the City.
Financial Considerations: Funds for this maintenance project were allocated in the Public
Works Operations budget. $75,000 was budgeted in the 2004 Capital Improvement Program for
this annual project.
Construction Timeline: Work is anticipated to begin September 20th with a completion date of
October 29, 2004.
Prepared By: Jim Olson, Engineering Project Manager
Reviewed By: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Maria Hagen, City Engineer
Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
090704 - 4g - BOZA Minutes of July 22, 2004
Page 1
MINUTES JULY 22, 2004
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
The St. Louis Park Board of Zoning Appeals Committee conducted a regular meeting on
Thursday, July 22, 2004, at St. Louis Park City Hall, 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard, St.
Louis Park, Minnesota.
Members Present: Chair Susan Bloyer
Vice Chair Ryan Burt
Commissioner James Gainsley
Commissioner Tom Powers (7:06 p.m.)
Commissioner Paul Roberts
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Tara Olson, Community Development Secretary
1. CALL TO ORDER – ROLL CALL
Chair Bloyer called the regular meeting to order at 7:04 p.m.
2. APPROVE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMITTEE MINUTES
Motion by Commissioner Gainsley, seconded by Commissioner Powers, to approve the
following minutes as presented:
1) Board of Zoning Appeals Committee public hearing and regular meeting minutes dated May
27, 2004.
Motion Carried. Voting Yes: Bloyer, Burt, Gainsley, Powers and Roberts. Voting No: None.
3. CONSENT AGENDA
None
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS/COMMITTEE BUSINESS
A. Case No. 04-34-VAR – The request of Mark Tepley and Karen Kettler Tepley from
the requirements of Section 36-163(f)(5) of the Ordinance Code relating to zoning to
allow a 22 foot rear yard for an existing house instead of the required 25 feet for
property located in the R-1 Single Family Residential District at 3903-39th Street
West.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
090704 - 4g - BOZA Minutes of July 22, 2004
Page 2
Staff believes that all seven of the seven findings have been met and recommends that the Board
of Zoning Appeals approve the applicants’ request to allow a 22 foot rear yard subject to the
condition that all future additions to the home must meet the rear yard requirements in place at
the time the addition is applied for.
With no more questions, Chair Bloyer opened the public hearing.
Mark Tepley, applicant of 3903-39th Street West stated he had no comments.
With no more questions, Chair Bloyer closed the public hearing.
Chair Bloyer stated she is in favor of granting this variance but feels a law is not a hardship
rather Mr. Tepley’s hardship is due to being directly adjacent to France Avenue and how the
home is positioned on the corner. In addition, she feels that the applicant is not intensifying the
existing non-conformity since they are not going to be coming close to the side yard setback
requirement.
Commissioner Gainsley agrees with Chair Bloyer but feels staff’s statement regarding a hardship
is determined due to changes in the ordinance is not correct. He feels there are hardships other
than changes in the ordinance.
Commissioner Powers stated he disagrees with both Chair Bloyer and Commissioner Gainsley,
he feels the law does impose a hardship especially with today’s standards of larger kitchens
which has become essential and feels no undue hardship for the neighboring properties, he is in
favor of granting the variance.
Commissioner Roberts agrees with Chair Bloyer and Commissioner Gainsley regarding staff’s
determination of a hardship due to ordinance changes. He stated that in the past a few
occurrences was allowed such as Apple Valley Aggregate site near Ready Rents and the St. Louis
Park Bowl. He feels that Mr. Tepley’s property has enough hardship to warrant the variance.
Commissioner Burt is in favor of granting the variance and would like to clarify that staff’s
condition to the resolution that all future additions to the home must meet the rear yard
requirements in place at the time the addition is applied for is approved with the resolution.
Motion by Commissioner Burt, seconded by Commissioner Powers, to approve Resolution No.
03-04 to allow a 22 foot rear yard is granted based upon the findings setforth in the resolution
and subject to the condition that all future additions to the home must meet the rear yard
requirements in place at the time the addition is applied for at the property of 3903-39th Street
West.
Motion Carried. Voting Yes: Bloyer , Burt, Gainsley, Powers and Roberts. Voting No: None.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
090704 - 4g - BOZA Minutes of July 22, 2004
Page 3
5. Old Business
6. New Business
None
7. Communications
None
8. Miscellaneous
Commissioner Gainsley didn’t not know that a variance lapses with the loss of a principal
building on the property he thought each variance goes with the land and not the buildings, is that
correct? How will this affect all of the past variances?
Mr. Morrison stated that since the ordinance has been changed staff has included proper wording
in each resolution and variances that were approved prior to the zoning change will remain with
the land.
Commissioner Gainsley questioned the year that this ordinance changed.
Mr. Morrison stated that this was approved about 2 years ago; he’s not sure of the exact date but
can research and get back to him.
9. Adjournment
Commissioner Gainsley moved and Commissioner Powers seconded the motion for
adjournment. The regular meeting of the Board of Zoning appeals adjourned at 7:25 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Tara Olson
Community Development Secretary
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
090704 - 4h - Planning Commission minutes 7-7-04
Page 1
OFFICIAL MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
July 7, 2004 – 6:00 P.M.
1. Call to Order
Chair Robertson called the meeting to order at 6:00 pm.
Commissioners present: Michelle Bissonnette, Lynne Carper, Carl Robertson, Dennis
Morris, Claudia Johnston-Madison.
Commissioners absent: Jerry Timian
Staff present: Planning Coordinator (Ms. Erickson) and Administrative Secretary (Ms.
Sells).
2. Approval of Minutes of June 2, 2004
A motion was made by Commissioner Morris to accept the minutes as presented. The
motion passed 4-0-1 (Commissioner Bissonnette abstained).
3. Hearings:
A. Case No. 04-31-CP and 04-30-Z – Request of Foundation Land Development and
Master Development Group (St. Louis Park School District) for a Comprehensive
Plan Map change from Civic to Medium Density Residential, a text amendment to
the Plan By Neighborhood chapter to eliminate Brookside School as a public
building/amenity, and a zoning map change from R-2 – Single Family Residential
to R4 – Multi Family Residential for property located at 4100 Vernon Avenue
South and 4135 Webster Avenue South.
Ms. Erickson presented a staff report. She displayed an aerial photograph of the area to give an
idea of the mass of the school building.
Ms. Erickson said after Planning Commission and City Council approval, the developer will
need to return with both a plat and a Conditional Use Permit or Planned Unit Development
application. This will require a separate public hearing, so there will be another opportunity to
speak to this project.
Ms. Erickson stated that the developer held a meeting with neighborhood leaders, but not with
the entire neighborhood. Concerns of the neighborhood brought to her attention include: 1)
parking on one side of the street only, limiting parking for the neighborhood; 2) school bus stop
at 41st and Webster should be moved temporarily during construction; 3) buffers needed between
the project and existing single family housing especially directly to the south; 4) increased
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
090704 - 4h - Planning Commission minutes 7-7-04
Page 2
traffic; 5) railroad crossing at 42nd St. should be left open and improved; and 6) 3-way stop at
Vernon and 42nd could slow traffic on Vernon.
Commissioner Carper asked which side of Webster parking would exist. Ms Erickson responded
it was on the east side of the street. She said internal guest parking will be made available.
Commissioner Carper suggested that parking on the west side only with curb cuts to allow
another lane of parking immediately in front of the buildings might accommodate more street
parking. Ms. Erickson said that there was a grade change that would make that less feasible or at
least require retaining walls, but it could be looked into.
Commissioner Morris wondered about the pedestrian overpass on Hwy 100. He suspects part of
the school building encroaches into that parcel, which is outside of their property, and is
apparently on MnDOT property. Ms. Erickson concurred. His understanding is that the
comprehensive plan and rezoning changes are only for the platted lot. He wondered about a
problem with this rezoning--will it capture that piece of the building that is actually outside of
the property line. Ms. Erickson said the map needs to be adjusted to make sure that happens.
Charles Nestor, Director of Real Estate, Master Development Group, said the applicants met
with neighborhood leaders on July 1 and came away feeling very comfortable about the plan.
Mr. Nestor mentioned plans for a green space corridor which resulted from discussion at the
neighborhood meeting.
Chair Robertson opened the public hearing.
Carol Coffey, 4140 Xenwood reviewed numbers of units and site layout. She said it appeared to
her that 106 parking spaces for tenants and visitors would not be adequate.
Chair Robertson said that this review is for zoning and Comprehensive Plan amendments only so
it may be premature to count parking spaces.
Ms. Coffey responded that she understood the City process. She said that the neighborhood
really needs to understand at this time what is being proposed for its own process.
Ms Erickson stated that the plan basically shows a combination of underground and grade
parking, all within the site. The plan shows 108 parking spaces, which is over 2 per unit.
Generally, the City’s requirement for parking is 2 per unit, where 10% of the parking has to be
accessible to guests. In this case that requirement would be met. Ms. Coffey asked what the
division was between surface and underground parking.
Mr. Nestor said there were 27-30 parking units “exposed” for visitors, on the property itself.
Their goal is to put more stalls of internal parking in the school, as the project moves along.
Celia Anderson, 4246 Vernon Ave, said neighborhood leaders did not include people who live
on Vernon Ave. who would be most affected by the project. She is concerned about the sound
wall which will narrow Vernon Ave. She said her block will definitely fight for street parking.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
090704 - 4h - Planning Commission minutes 7-7-04
Page 3
Mr. Nestor said they have addressed parking and access points based on meetings with the City
regarding the sound wall. Mr. Nestor said that as Ms. Erickson stated, the developer will have
to do a traffic study and address traffic concerns.
Commissioner Morris said the Commission needs more information about building the noise
wall, the narrowing of Vernon Ave., and turning it into a one-way street. Ms. Erickson
responded that the noise wall is a 2005 project, and it has been talked about for quite awhile.
The choice has been to either make the street one way and still allow on-street parking, or to
have the street two way with no street parking. She said there have been some neighborhood
discussions prior to this application with the Public Works Dept. about that issue. It is a joint
effort between the State and the City. The resolution of whether it is one or two way rests with
the Public Works Dept.
Chair Robertson asked what the traffic study would examine. Ms. Erickson said generally it
would be looking at the impacts at different intersections, and whether or not a special design
would be required.
Randy Hedman, 4065 Xenwood, is concerned with access. This building area is buried within a
neighborhood, and there is no major access to a major artery within several blocks. He said the
streets in the neighborhood are very narrow, and parking is allowed on only one side on many
of the streets. He commented that there is already a lot of traffic on 41st Street, and the
sidewalks are not always continuous in the neighborhood. He has a 2 ½ year old child who likes
to be outdoors and Mr. Hedman is concerned about additional traffic.
Chair Robertson noted that it has been a vacant school for some time, but as a school, the traffic
impact from a fully functioning school is much higher than the residential use. Generally a
residential use has a fairly low traffic impact.
As no one else was present who wished to speak, Chair Robertson closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison said she was at the neighborhood meeting. The issue with the
school is that it is never going to be a school again. What she liked about this particular plan
versus some others in other areas is the fact that it is medium density. So, the impact to the
neighborhood overall is not as great as a higher density. The developer has a good reputation.
She said she is always concerned about density in the neighborhoods, but since this is not going
to be a school again, medium density is a good alternative.
Commissioner Morris said it seems appropriate in the development to include a commemorative
plaque or area that designates the history of the site as a school. He said he is not certain if it
was one of the original brick schools to be built in the City, but it seems appropriate to see
historical perspective incorporated into the site.
Commissioner Morris said he hears the neighborhood concern about traffic. He said he’ll be
looking for innovative solutions to that issue.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
090704 - 4h - Planning Commission minutes 7-7-04
Page 4
Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked the developer to address the issue of working with the
entire neighborhood. Mr. Nestor said once the Comprehensive Plan goes through the City
Council and Met Council, the developer will set up neighborhood meetings.
Commissioner Bissonnette asked about relocation of STEP and the daycare currently located in
the building. Ms. Erickson responded that both STEP and Discoveries for Children are actively
looking for new space. She said even though the developer would have liked to integrate
daycare on the site, it didn’t look like it would meet building code to have underground parking
and day care on the same level.
Commissioner Carper complimented Ms. Erickson’s thorough report on a complex issue.
Chair Robertson stated he likes the idea of the project, commenting that it is a really nice
building with a lot of character which will provide opportunities to do good design.
A motion was made by Commissioner Morris for approval of a Comprehensive Plan map change
from Civic to Medium Density Residential, a text amendment to the Plan by Neighborhood
chapter to eliminate the Brookside School as public building/amenity, and a zoning map change
from R-2 Single Family to R-4 Multifamily Residential. The motion passed 5-0.
Carol Coffey, 4140 Xenwood, asked about the cost of the units. She understood they were
going to be between $200-$300,000. She asked if any consideration was given for affordable
housing.
Chair Robertson said if the development is not asking for money from the City, there is no
requirement for an affordability component.
B. Case Nos. 03-73-PUD and 03-74-S--Request of Rottlund Homes for a final PUD
and plat for property located at 3630 Wooddale Ave., 5951 and 5957 W. 37th
Street, 5912 Oxford Street, 5916 Oxford Street, 5920 Oxford Street, 5926 Oxford
Street to construct 78 townhouse units, 66 condominium units, and 80 senior
rental units and with a variance from the subdivision ordinance for private street
width and a PUD modification for building height.
Ms. Erickson gave the staff report. She displayed the landscape plan, commenting that because
boulevard trees will not be put in at this time along Wooddale Avenue, an escrow account will be
created so that the trees will be put in later. She commented on issues that came up at
preliminary plat review regarding the design of the pond. She said changes have been made to
the design of the pond and the ultimate plan with landscaping will be satisfactory.
Ms. Erickson discussed building heights.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
090704 - 4h - Planning Commission minutes 7-7-04
Page 5
Michael Noonan, V.P., Rottlund Co. spoke about the neighborhood process, saying it has been
very fruitful. He said that Rottlund Co. is satisfied that it can meet all of the conditions
proposed by staff.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked about plans are for the existing office building. Mr.
Noonan said Rottlund’s desire has been to retain it on the site, rehab it and sell it to a single user.
Chair Robertson wondered about the elevations of the town homes. He said it looks like there is
a potential for a bank of gas meters to be quite prominent. He asked for assurance that plants
will be in front of them. Mr. Noonan said the landscaping is fairly lush around the edge,
providing the ability to screen the utilities.
Commissioner Morris said in previous presentations the existing office was designated to be
used by the developer as a home office. He said he was originally opposed to the office building
staying on site, but the argument was made to the Commission by Mr. Sherman that it would be
their office space for on-site building and management. Commissioner Morris said he was
pointing out that often times when promises are made to the Commission they are not fulfilled.
He said he understood the economic needs of the building, but still believes an office building
should not be in the middle of this residential development. Notwithstanding, he said he
understands that circumstances change.
Mr. Noonan replied that originally Sherman and Associates proposed to do rental senior housing
and use the office as their office building. Sherman couldn’t get TIF support and the end result
is that Rottlund is doing the senior ownership housing and will sell the office building.
Chair Robertson opened the public hearing.
Bob Sather, 3825 Inglewood, asked about price ranges, layout and garage details of the
townhomes.
Mr. Noonan replied that there are three product lines. The loft price is about $180,000. Senior
housing would be approximately $200-225,000. Townhouses would be approximately $275-
$280,000.
Commissioner Morris wanted to know if this was a TIF project, and if there is any affordable
housing. Mr. Noonan said TIF provided the ability to acquire two additional houses on Oxford,
but did not provide the ability to provide an affordable housing component.
Chair Robertson commented that the loft price at $180,000 is very close to being what the Met
Council has recently classified as affordable.
Celia Anderson, 4146 Vernon, asked if the house at Wooddale and Oxford, one of the oldest
houses in St. Louis Park, would be remodeled or removed. Mr. Noonan responded that the plans
are to clear the site and incorporate the land into the development.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
090704 - 4h - Planning Commission minutes 7-7-04
Page 6
Commissioner Morris suggested that the Planning Commission may want to look into having an
historical preservation policy.
In response to a resident’s (unidentified) question about parking, Mr. Noonan said the staff report
outlines 425 parking spaces provided which is a combination of underground and surface. He
said Rottlund feels the parking is adequate and is suitable for the needs and demographics of the
residents. In response to the resident’s question about height of the senior building, Mr.
Noonan responded that the height of the senior building is comparable to the office building
including its mechanical penthouse. In response to the resident’s question about street width
variance, Ms. Erickson said the variance to lower the width from 29’ to 28’ feet, which was
requested due to parking on one side of the street, was approved by the City’s Fire and Police
departments. The Public Works Dept. is also comfortable with the proposed width.
Chair Robertson said he wanted to clarify that visually the senior building mass seems a little bit
taller than the office building. Mr. Noonan said that is true, due to the mass.
Janice Uhde, 3811 Zarthan Ave South, asked about construction dates.
Mr. Noonan said the expectation is an 8-9 week grading and utility job. Rottlund hopes to start
the first townhouse units in October or early November. The southern portion would be finished
in a 2006 time frame. Construction of the two condo buildings should start in April 2005. Mr.
Noonan said Rottlund hopes all construction would be finished by mid-2006, subject to weather,
labor conditions, and material shortages. He added that Rottlund is very mindful of noise
regulations in St. Louis Park, and they will be respectful of the neighborhood.
Patty Diamond, 3761 Alabama, asked about property values in the surrounding area. She asked
if there are any plans for retail construction.
Mr. Noonan said there is no retail plan for this block. He mentioned that Rottlund has thought
about a plan for mixed use on the east side of Wooddale (2 acre parcel which fronts Wooddale).
Regarding property values, Mr. Noonan said typically new development does not negatively
impact property values, but only supports the neighborhood and solidifies property values.
John Wheeler, 3761 Alabama, asked the Commission if they had given any consideration to
making any enhancements to Center Park, across the street from the development. He asked if
any consideration had been given to sustainable building techniques. He asked for explanation
of pedestrian walkways through the site.
Ms. Erickson said Center Park is on the City CIP for 2005 improvements. Mr. Noonan said that
sidewalks and trails provide internal connections to the site. They are also enhancing the
sidewalk structures around the site. A full complement of sidewalks will be provided on
Alabama, Oxford and on 36th. A temporary trail along Wooddale will be constructed which will
be replaced with a permanent trail once Wooddale construction takes place. He said that if
sustainable building techniques meet the energy code and the prescriptions set forth by the state,
Rottlund will follow them. He said they are looking constantly to enhance the efficiency of their
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
090704 - 4h - Planning Commission minutes 7-7-04
Page 7
buildings in terms of energy use as well as conservation of renewable resources. He said the
lumber used is generally plantation-grown lumber and does have more of a green tinge than the
old growth lumber from Canada.
Chair Robertson discussed the park dedication fees from this project, which will go towards
improvements in the park.
Resident Barbara Reese, of the Historical Society, said she is pleased the Commission is
mindful of the history of St. Louis Park. She is a member of Union Congregational Church,
across from the development. Parking may be a problem but they are very glad to have the new
buildings coming in.
As no one else was present wishing to speak, Chair Robertson closed the public hearing.
A motion was made by Commissioner Morris to approve the final PUD and plat, subject to the
conditions outlined in the staff report. He also moved that a subdivision variance be granted for
the private interior street from 29’ to 28’, and moved approval of a PUD modification for
building height from 40’ to 50’ for the loft component and 55’ for the senior housing component.
The motion passed 4-1. Commissioner Johnston-Madison opposed.
4. Unfinished Business – none
5. New Business - none
6. Communications - none
7. Miscellaneous - none
8. Adjournment
The Chair adjourned the meeting at 7:30 p.m.
Minutes prepared by: Minutes submitted by:
Karen Teagarden Nancy Sells
Recording Secretary Administrative Secretary
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
090704 - 4i - Planning Commission minutes 7-21-04
Page 1
OFFICIAL MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
July 21, 2004 – 6:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynne Carper, Carl Robertson, Dennis Morris, and Jerry Timian
MEMBERS ABSENT: Michelle Bissonnette, Claudia Johnston-Madison
STAFF PRESENT: Assistant Zoning Administrator (Gary Morrison), Economic
Development Coordinator (Greg Hunt) and Administrative
Secretary (Nancy Sells)
1. Call to Order
Chair Robertson called the meeting to order at 6:00 pm.
2. Approval of Minutes: none
3. Hearings:
A. Case No. 04-35-ZA--Proposed Amendments to Section 36-33(d) and Sections 36-
291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298 and 299 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance
Code relating to Zoning to amend the regulations pertaining to variances in the
Floodplain Districts and regulations pertaining to the Floodplain Districts by
adding clarifications required by the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA).
Mr. Morrison presented the staff report, stating that the proposed amendment to the
Floodplain Ordinance is primarily to continue the City’s eligibility in the national flood
insurance program by doing two things: 1) to adopt the most current flood maps,
prepared by FEMA; and 2) to insure that the City’s Floodplain Ordinance is consistent, or
meets and exceeds the criteria that are established in the Flood Disaster Protection Act of
1973, and the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968.
Commissioner Morris thanked staff for proving the regulatory material in a synopsis
format.
Chair Robertson opened the public hearing. As no one was present wishing to speak, the
Chair closed the hearing.
A motion was made by Commissioner Morris to approve the staff recommendation for
proposed amendments to Section 36-33(d) and Sections 36-291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296,
297, 298 and 299 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code relating to Zoning to amend the
regulations pertaining to variances in the Floodplain Districts and regulations pertaining
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
090704 - 4i - Planning Commission minutes 7-21-04
Page 2
to the Floodplain Districts by adding clarifications required by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA).
The motion passed 4-0.
4. Unfinished Business - none
5. New Business
A. Consideration of a resolution stating that the establishment of the Aquila
Commons Tax Increment Financing District and the Modification of
Redevelopment Project No. 1 is in compliance with the City’s Comprehensive
Plan
Mr. Hunt presented a staff report.
Commissioner Morris asked about the City’s capacity to create TIF districts.
Mr. Hunt responded that currently the City of St. Louis Park has 9.1% of its tax base with
TIF districts. He went on to say that in 2009 three pre-1979 TIF Districts will be
decertified. Mr. Hunt distributed a report which showed the projected captured TIF tax
capacity of St. Louis Park and comparisons with other cities.
Commissioner Morris asked about the TIF selection process.
Mr. Hunt responded that once applications are received they are reviewed to determine
whether or not the project meets the City’s criteria for the creation of a TIF District and
the provision of tax incremental assistance. There is a substantial analysis to determine
whether or not the project makes economic sense and then whether or not it meets
various criteria the City has from a public policy standpoint.
A motion was made by Commissioner Morris to approve Resolution No. 72 finding the
proposed establishment of the Aquila Commons Tax Increment Financing District and
the modification of Redevelopment Project No. 1 to be in conformance with the
Comprehensive Plan of the City of St. Louis Park.
The motion passed 4-0.
B. Consideration of a resolution stating that the establishment of the Elmwood
Village Tax Increment Financing District and the Modification of Redevelopment
Project No. 1 is in compliance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan
Mr. Hunt presented a staff report.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
090704 - 4i - Planning Commission minutes 7-21-04
Page 3
Commissioner Morris commented that he was uncomfortable including the office
building in the TIF District. He said he is concerned about including a site that wasn’t in
the redevelopment portion of the development. Mr. Hunt responded by saying there are
a number of parcels included within that particular TIF District that are required to allow
the City to pursue some infrastructure needs that are occurring within the Elmwood
neighborhood. The TIF District map is actually larger than the proposed development
itself. He went on to say that in order to allow the infrastructure projects to move
forward, the adjacent properties need to be included within the TIF plan.
Commissioner Morris stated he understands that it makes sense to include the TIF
District line into the streets where infrastructure needs are anticipated, but he would have
problems if the City were to apply any TIF District financing to renovations or
improvements to the parcel that was specifically excluded from the redevelopment area.
Commissioner Morris suggested adding an amendment to the TIF District which
excluded the parcel.
Mr. Hunt said there are other properties, shown on the TIF District map, whose uses will
remain the same. Commissioner Morris noted they are residential parcels. Mr. Hunt said
one of the parcels is residential, some are commercial properties, and there is also a piece
owned by the City. Commissioner Morris said those are commercial parcels that were
identified as phased redevelopments. He said what he is trying to point out is that the
office building was specifically excluded as being any part of the redevelopment for the
Elmwood area. He said he is making the comment for the record that he is opposed to
the office parcel being included in the TIF District.
Mr. Hunt identified the reasons the lines were drawn as they were; so as to allow
infrastructure improvements in front of the building. Commissioner Morris said his
concern is that at some point in the future, someone may decide to rehab the office
building into a restaurant or hotel and be able to use TIF dollars or change the use. He
suggested a text amendment to the TIF District excluding the office building parcel.
Mr. Hunt said properties can be added and dropped from TIF Districts. He gave the
example of Excelsior Blvd and Park Commons. The Park Commons area was already
included within the Excelsior Blvd TIF District. A new TIF District was created which
was within the confines of the Excelsior Blvd. TIF District.
Chair Robertson said that for the record he agrees with Commissioner Morris’ concern.
Chair Robertson said the Planning Commission is either to find that the proposed TIF
District does conform or doesn’t conform to the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner
Morris agreed, saying that the Comprehensive Plan does include that parcel, so he can’t
see any way of excluding it from the TIF District. But he wanted his comments to be
noted in the minutes for the record and for the City Council’s information for their
decision making.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
090704 - 4i - Planning Commission minutes 7-21-04
Page 4
A motion was made by Commissioner Carper to adopt Resolution No. 73 finding the
proposed establishment of the Elmwood Village Tax Increment Financing District and
the Modification of Redevelopment Project No. 1 to be in conformance with the
Comprehensive Plan of the City of St. Louis Park.
The motion passed 4-0.
6. Communications
Commissioner Morris wondered if the study session which had been scheduled for July
21 was redirected to a specific date. Chair Robertson said a date had not yet been set.
7. Miscellaneous – none
8. Adjournment
Chair Robertson adjourned the meeting at 6:35 pm.
Minutes prepared by: Minutes submitted by:
Karen Teagarden Nancy Sells
Recording Secretary Administrative Secretary
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
090704 - 4j - Planning Commission minutes 8-18-04
Page 1
OFFICIAL MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
August 18, 2004--6:00 p.m.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Michelle Bissonnette, Lynne Carper, Claudia Johnston-
Madison, Dennis Morris, Carl Robertson, Jerry Timian
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Judie Erickson, Meg McMonigal, Gary Morrison,
Nancy Sells
1. Call to Order – Roll Call
Chair Robertson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
2. Approval of Minutes of July 7, 2004 and July 21, 2004
Commissioner Morris made a motion to approve the minutes. The motion passed
3-0-2. (Commissioners Johnston-Madison and Timian abstained.)
Commissioner Bissonnette arrived at 6:10.
3. Hearings
A. Case No. 04-24-PUD—Request by Stonebridge Development for a
Preliminary and Final PUD for development of a senior housing
cooperative located at 8200 33rd Street West
Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor, said staff recommendation is
to continue the public hearing until September 1. She explained that revisions
are still being done on the proposed building layout.
Chair Robertson opened the public hearing. As no one was present who wished
to speak, the Chair closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Morris made a motion to continue the public hearing to September
1, 2004. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0.
B. Case Nos. 04-36-PUD and 04-37-S—Request of TOLD Development
Company for Final Plat approval for Park Commons East 3rd Addition
and a Major Amendment to the Park Commons East Planned Unit
Development granting Final PUD approval for Phase E (Park Commons
East 3rd Addition)
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
090704 - 4j - Planning Commission minutes 8-18-04
Page 2
Judie Erickson, Planning Coordinator, presented a staff report. She stated that
Phase E is proposed to be 5 stories containing 86 condominium lofts and 14,235
square feet of retail.
Ms. Erickson reviewed outstanding issues, including parking needs of the retail
uses and condominium owners across Monterey Drive. The temporary parking
lot which has served those needs will be removed with the construction of Phase
E. Ms. Erickson said that the developer doesn’t have an obligation to provide
parking for those uses. However, the parking study has determined that adequate
parking for those uses is provided in the public parking ramp.
Ms. Erickson said minor changes will be made to the Planning Contract and EDA
Redevelopment Contract.
Ms. Erickson discussed current concerns with trash removal for the entire project.
The developer has been working with the City to develop a trash handling plan for
the project with emphasis on the trash handling components of Phase E.
Ms. Erickson explained that discussions about construction staging are still to be
worked out.
Ms. Erickson commented on delivery access. Street entrances have been
narrowed-down and some truck movements run over the curb. Reinforcements of
some kind will need to be at the curb so that curbs won’t be destroyed by trucks
as they serve the area. The loading area is still an outstanding issue but will be
worked out before the request goes to the City Council.
Commissioner Morris asked about recycling in the developed phases of the
project. Bob Cunningham, TOLD Development, responded that recycling
receptacles are provided for both residents and retail.
Commissioner Morris asked if the retailer being proposed for Phase E would use
a box crusher. Mr. Cunningham responded that the retailer would be using a
box crusher. The proposed retailer’s delivery truck will also remove the retailer’s
baled cardboard to a central distribution point.
Commissioner Carper inquired about screening between the proposed entrance on
Park Commons Dr. and Westmoreland Hills Condos. He asked if the wall is
high enough to screen lights.
Ms. Erickson responded that the parking is lower than the sidewalk so the grade
change will block the headlights from across the street. She said when cars exit,
a section of the Westmoreland building would be impacted and that will need to
be resolved prior to City Council consideration of Phase E.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
090704 - 4j - Planning Commission minutes 8-18-04
Page 3
Commissioner Timian asked about total units in the project. Mr. Cunningham
said total units after completion of Phase E will be 548; 338 are rental and 210
will be owner occupied. Total units when all phases are completed needs to be
under 660.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison commented that this phase will be very visible
and she asked for more detail about a somewhat reduced palette of
materials/colors and painted metal rather than copper detailing.
Mr. Cunningham responded that copper detailing, as used in Phase I, has tripled
in price. He explained that the champagne colored metal seen in Phase I will be
used in Phase E metal components, predominantly at the fifth floor level.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison said she understood that the developer isn’t
responsible for the lack of parking for the businesses to the east of Monterey. She
said she disagreed with the parking study’s finding that the businesses parking
needs could be met through the public parking ramp at Excelsior & Grand. She
said that was not relevant to the issues of those business people. She asked
where the Excelsior & Grand retail employees will park. She was concerned
about employees parking in the neighborhood on the south side of Excelsior Blvd.
Mr. Cunningham said all of the project retail leases include a parking clause
specifying TOLD’s right to designate locations for employee parking, primarily
the upper levels of the parking lot. He said the parking component for
construction workers for Phase E still hasn’t been identified. He said that parking
generally occurs between 7:00 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., which is the lowest demand
time in the parking ramp.
Mr. Cunningham said that TOLD does not have any issues with any of the
conditions recommended by staff. Regarding the parking needs of the businesses
east of Monterey, he said TOLD does believe the landlord could address some of
the parking issues by expanding their parking lot. Regarding a trash plan, Mr.
Cunningham said trash removal from the site is tricky. He said TOLD has paid
attention to the problem and has fixed it in the other phase, they are confident they
have a solution through corrals and other storage.
Commissioner Morris asked about the retailer request for permission of sidewalk
displays within five feet from the face of the building. Mr. Cunningham said it
would be for seasonal items. Ms. Erickson said that would be handled in the
same way as sign ordinances, not through the PUD process.
Commissioner Morris asked if the reference to one or two retailers in TOLD’s
application was written prior to securing a tenant, or if it is still anticipated that
there may be two tenants.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
090704 - 4j - Planning Commission minutes 8-18-04
Page 4
Mr. Cunningham responded that TOLD has a letter of intent from the retailer they
have been discussing. The retailer will occupy approximately 13,000 square
feet. They may take the entire area or there may be 800 – 1,000 square feet left
over. He explained that he wanted the application to be as accurate as possible.
Commissioner Morris said he is very disturbed about the loading dock concept. It
did not appear in previous plans. He commented that the loading dock concept
appears to be driven by an anticipated new use.
Mr. Cunningham said TOLD didn’t mean to avoid discussing or showing the
loading dock. He said it has been in their plans from the time they started to
discuss that particular retailer. The reason the loading dock is a necessity is
TOLD wanted to get their trucks loading and unloading off of the street. They
would service the retail space not through small delivery trucks, but through a
larger truck which comes from a central distribution warehouse. TOLD has tried
to incorporate the loading dock into the building in as innocuous manner as
possible. He showed a drawing illustrating a truck fully engaged in the dock.
The drawing also illustrated a smaller truck delivery to the residential component.
Commissioner Morris said he objected because Meridian Lane would be turned
into a truck lane. He went on to say 80% of the street is residential. Screening
of headlights won’t be possible. He is concerned about a large truck and smaller
trucks staging on the street waiting to back into the dock. He said it gives the
street a more industrial flavor. He’s not sure what residents will feel about the
project once they see truck movements. The whole aspect of the truck dock, the
amount of deliveries, and the size of the vehicles, taints, in his mind, the
residential flavor of Meridian. Commissioner Morris was concerned about
future uses as the design with a loading dock was being proposed for a single
tenant. Ideally all truck movement would be contained within the property.
Commissioner Morris said even at its best, the visual impact of the trucks will be
a detriment to the neighborhood. He said even though there is sidewalk space for
people to walk around the trucks, the trucks will still be projecting past the
building face. He said even if this was an industrial site, this type of loading and
unloading facility wouldn’t be approved.
Mr. Cunningham said M-X zoning requires alternate use on grade level. Some
time ago TOLD identified the office market as being weak enough in 2004 and
beyond, as to leave retail and residential components for Phase E. The south half
of the project is bordered by Monterey Drive and Excelsior Blvd., both of which
would be difficult to access any sort of truck dock area, or access in any fashion
off of Meridian or Excelsior. TOLD thought they should look at the truck
loading in the same manner as they did on Buildings A and F. He explained the
necessity of matching up components from across the street. The loading zone
for several of the parking stalls matches up with the loading zone area that is
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
090704 - 4j - Planning Commission minutes 8-18-04
Page 5
being proposed for the lofts. Each of the individual elements which make up
Meridian Lane matches the use already in place across the street. They were also
trying to maximize the utility of the site. In order to achieve retail on the grade
level, additional parking needed to be incorporated. Mr. Cunningham stated that
an alternative would have been to put the parking at two levels below grade and
use the entire area for truck maneuvering.
Commissioner Morris said that in the planning and vision of Excelsior and Grand
no one envisioned truck docks accommodating long haul trailers parking at any
point on any of those streets or projecting into the streets from a loading dock. It
was anticipated that residential and retail would have delivery vehicles, not to the
extent that is being anticipated in Phase E. He suggested that if there isn’t a way
to accommodate smaller trucks to deliver to a specific enclosed community, then
we need to start talking about revising the plan to show a truck dock that is
configured to take the truck movement off the street.
Mr. Cunningham wanted to add that regarding future use, the space lends itself
well to be broken up into several smaller uses. He said the proposed retail will
bring vitality to the retail mix, the residential, and the neighborhood at the project.
He said if they had to go back and reexamine the retail use at this point, they
would have to shelf this project.
Commissioner Timian asked if TOLD had looked into any kind of roller system
allowing unloading on Excelsior Blvd. into the retail space. Mr. Cunningham
said they had not.
Chair Robertson asked about the weekly truck volume.
Mr. Cunningham replied there would be 5 trucks per week.
Chair Robertson opened the public hearing.
Linda Ott, Salon One, 4430 Excelsior Blvd., addressed parking issues. She said
the public ramp is 2-3 blocks away and the salon cannot survive without adequate
parking. She said the parking that will remain will be a few spaces on Excelsior
Blvd. Ms. Ott said Salon One would like to ask the City, again, for additional
parking by filling in and blacktopping the property behind Salon One for
additional parking for the salon and for the other businesses in the block east of
Monterey. She went on to say the temporary lot is always full. Ms. Ott asked
for the construction start date.
Chair Robertson acknowledged that it isn’t the developer’s responsibility to
provide parking for Salon One and the businesses on that block, but parking is an
important issue for the City.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
090704 - 4j - Planning Commission minutes 8-18-04
Page 6
Ms. Erickson said the City is having conversations with the owner of Salon One
and the concern is not being ignored.
Mr. Cunningham said the proposed construction start date is mid-November.
Commissioner Carper asked about the parking situation prior to the Excelsior &
Grand development and temporary lot.
Ms. Ott responded that there was a large municipal lot behind the pawn shop.
Parking was also allowed on Monterey in the past.
Ms. Erickson stated that the City is making efforts to work with everyone possible
in order to see what can be done to increase the parking for the users of the strip
center.
Mr. Cunningham showed a photograph of a project model and pointed out an
awning on the corner which would extend over to the area adjacent to the truck
dock 16 ft. from the grade level of the building to the finished floor elevation to
the units above. He spoke about plant screening materials planned for a portion
of the truck dock. He said only a small portion will be open to the street. He
suggested the use of a decorative screen or alternate materials over the 2 bays that
would be open.
Commissioner Timian asked about truck lighting going into apartments across the
street.
Mr. Cunningham responded that there are 3 or 4 apartments across the street on
grade level. He said the building is set back slightly from the sidewalk, separated
by a landscape band. Dennis Sutliffe, ESG Architects, said the floor elevation is
2 ½ - 3 feet higher than the street at the north corner, and at the south corner
grade rises gradually so that elevations are only about 1 ½ feet above the street.
Window sills would then be at about eye level with truck headlights. Leases can
control operation of the truck. Actual maneuvering time would be approximately
1 ½ minutes. It would be a September – March issue for a few minutes five days
a week.
Chair Robertson opened the public hearing. As no one was present who wished
to speak, the Chair closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Bissonnette made a motion recommending approval. The motion
passed on a vote of 5-1 (Morris opposed).
C. Case Nos. 04-32-CUP and 04-33-VAR—Request by Target Corporation
for an amendment to an existing special permit to allow a 47,742 square
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
090704 - 4j - Planning Commission minutes 8-18-04
Page 7
foot addition, and for a variance to the sign ordinance for property located
at 8900 Highway 7
Mr. Morrison said it was determined that two additional variances would be
needed for the application. Staff recommends a continuation of the public
hearing to September 1.
Chair Robertson opened the public hearing.
Commissioner Morris moved to continue the public hearing to September 1. The
motion passed on a vote of 6-0.
D. Case No. 04-39-ZA—Linda Sando’s application for amendments to St.
Louis Park Ordinance Code (Zoning) to allow a group day care use in the
industrial districts that are not intended solely for the use of employees.
Gary Morrison provided a staff report. Mr. Morrison noted that Section 3.a. in
the draft ordinance should be deleted by strikethrough as that was the applicant’s
and staff’s intent as follows (3a. The use shall occupy a maximum of ten percent
of the gross floor area of the building.)
Commissioner Carper asked about the rationale for daycare use occupying a
maximum of ten percent of gross floor area of the building in the Industrial Park
District previously.
Mr. Morrison responded the rationale was that daycare would be primarily for the
benefit of employees at the site. Therefore the daycare would only occupy 10%
of the building, accessory to that use. This made an odd placement in the code.
Daycare is permitted with conditions but treated as an accessory use.
Ms. Erickson added that when the code was written in 1992 there had been a
concern that Industrial land was being transformed to other uses. At that time
many uses that had been permitted in the Industrial District went away. Daycare
ended up being compartmentalized. The City doesn’t have any industrial use
large enough to support its own daycare. That idea that an industry could support
an on-site daycare was probably misplaced.
Commissioner Morris asked what percentage of the City is zoned Industrial. It
appears to be 10-15% at the most.
Ms. Erickson answered that the largest land area is single family and everything
else is slight in comparison.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
090704 - 4j - Planning Commission minutes 8-18-04
Page 8
Commissioner Morris said he was on the zoning code task force in the early 90s.
Land uses were studied. The task force saw an on-site daycare as a benefit. One
of the concepts was that industrial areas are places we relegate the worst land uses
to. Adult uses were banned to the industrial district. He said the industrial
district shouldn’t be open to any uses because of health and safety concerns.
85% of the City is available for daycare and the Industrial District shouldn’t have
to be opened up for that use. He said he felt he could not approve the request.
Commissioner Carper said he also is concerned about pollution and hazardous
chemicals. He asked about the City’s responsibility to assure parents and daycare
operators that they will be operating in an area that is not hazardous to their
children.
Mr. Morrison said the concerns are very valid. He said adult uses are allowed in
Commercial, Office and M-X Districts as well as Industrial, and there are distance
requirements as conditions of those uses. Mr. Morrison said the applicant has
been operating out of Brookside School for 29 years. Due to development they
are losing that site and have been looking for a replacement site for the past 8
months. They have found a couple of locations available in Commercial
districts—one at 36th & Beltline. It is intensely developed and there were
problems due to lack of play area. Commercial sites are expensive. Providing
affordable and professional daycare in the City is a goal. Regulations do prevent
hazardous waste. Typically complaints involve noise or fumes. But, generally
there have not been complaints.
Commissioner Morris commented that environmental controls cover daily
operation of storage materials and safety. But the likelihood of accidents with
those materials occurs more often in Industrial districts. If daycare, a protected
environment, can exist in Industrial why can’t anything else.
Mr. Morrison said his survey of other cities indicated 50% allowed daycare in
Industrial—50% did not. Some cities have determined a public need for daycare
in close proximity to employers.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked if the City can assure that children would
be protected, just as adults would be protected, from the likelihood of accidents.
Mr. Morrison said the vast majority of Industrial uses in the City do not use
highly dangerous materials. The property the applicant is looking at is in the Belt
Line area which is primarily warehouse/office.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked how future applicants for daycare in
Industrial would be handled to insure safety.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
090704 - 4j - Planning Commission minutes 8-18-04
Page 9
Ms. Erickson said as part of emergency management, the Fire Dept. is required to
keep an inventory of all sites with hazardous materials in St. Louis Park. A lot of
uses that had hazardous waste are no longer in the City. Daycares also must
comply with state safety regulations. She added that timing is crucial to the
applicant. She suggested looking at the issues and make sure they are
incorporated as the request goes to the Council.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked what recourse the applicant would have if
an industrial use came into existence too close to their site.
Mr. Morrison said that any new industrial use goes through an extensive review
process. He added that the volume of industrial materials is low. Industrial
owners try to keep as little material on site as possible.
Cindy Albrecht and Heidi Dorfmeister, applicant from Discoveries for Children
Daycare, discussed the cost of commercial space. They said daycare is highly
regulated by the Dept. of Human Services which includes frequent inspections by
the Health Dept. and Fire Dept. They hope to continue partnering with STEP.
They are looking at a light industrial site which is used as warehouse/office.
Commissioner Morris asked if a rezoning had been considered.
Ms. Albrecht responded that one outcome of a rezoning to Commercial would be
higher costs.
Commissioner Morris discussed the problems of opening up Industrial to other
uses. He said the function of zoning is to isolate specific uses by classification.
Mr. Morrison said staff has worked with the applicant on other sites, most of
which would have required a rezoning. Staff has held off on recommending
rezoning Industrial properties until an Industrial Study is complete.
Chair Robertson opened the public hearing. As no one was present wishing to
speak he closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Morris said he understands the dilemma and need for action. He
suggested allowing it as a Conditional Use Permit, providing regulatory control
and criteria, as to a specific request at a specific site.
Chair Robertson said that idea had a lot of merit but he was still concerned about
problems related to future uses surrounding the daycare. He would rather see
rezoning of Industrial sites after an Industrial Study.
Staff discussed the timeline for the text amendment plus Conditional Use Permit.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
090704 - 4j - Planning Commission minutes 8-18-04
Page 10
Commissioner Morris made a motion to recommend approval of an ordinance
code text amendment to allow group day care in both the Industrial Park and
General Industrial District as a Conditional Use Permit with conditions, those
conditions recommended by staff from the comments of the Aug. 18 Planning
Commission meeting, prior to City Council consideration.
Ms. McMonigal said if it is a Conditional Use Permit the applicant would have to
apply for a Conditional Use Permit and come back before the Planning
Commission.
The motion passed on a vote of 6-0.
Commissioner Timian left the meeting at 8:00 p.m.
E. Case No. 04-40-CUP—Request by Stonebridge Development for major
amendment to existing CUP to allow increased building height, revised
site and building layout and a change from rental to owner occupied for
the residential portion of the mixed use/residential-office development for
property located at 1155 Ford Rd.
Ms. McMonigal presented the staff report.
Ron Mehl, Stonebridge Development, explained the revised layout.
Jay Nelson, architect, reviewed the development design and exterior.
Commissioner Morris asked how the applicant proposes to meet the developed
outdoor recreation area requirement.
Mr. Mehl will be meeting with staff and Mr. Ingraham to make the changes
necessary prior to City Council consideration. He and Ms. McMonigal briefly
discussed ideas for useable recreation space, such as picnic tables, that can be
added to the site, rather than just green space.
Commissioner Morris suggested adding elements for child play and interactivity
between adults and children.
Chair Robertson opened the public hearing. As no one was present wishing to
speak, the Chair closed the public hearing.
Chair Robertson said the revisions are good improvements and he finds it to be a
nice project.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
090704 - 4j - Planning Commission minutes 8-18-04
Page 11
Commissioner Morris said that typically the Planning Commission would review
the planned recreation area for a project of this magnitude.
Ms. Erickson said the project was originally approved prior to the new
requirements for useable recreation area requirements. The applicant is asking
for an amendment to the approved special permit. The question is do we ask
them to revise all of their standards. Staff is willing to work with the developer
to get the best possible recreation area, even though the City isn’t requiring the
current recreational space standards.
Commissioner Morris said it sounds like the developer is willing to meet current
standards. He would like to see the green space used as family oriented
recreational space with amenities.
In response to Commissioner Bissonnette’s question about the timeline after
approval if a project is not built, Ms. Erickson responded that the applicant did
receive and receive an extension, making the project active.
Ms. McMonigal commented on the market for the project and how that would
affect outdoor recreation space.
Mr. Mehl said the market is anticipated to be empty nesters and first time
homebuyers. He is hesitant about agreeing to put in large play areas for that
reason.
Ms. McMonigal suggested family area amenities, for visiting grandchildren, not
necessarily playground equipment.
Mr. Mehl mentioned the use of grills, picnic tables, and gazebos.
Commissioner Morris said that marketing groups will change and the recreation
area should be adaptable. If the applicant has the green space the recreation
elements should go in. He said he was also speaking on behalf of Commissioner
Timian.
Commissioner Morris recommended approval of the major amendment subject to
conditions. The motion passed 5-0.
4. Unfinished Business
5. New Business
6. Communications
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
090704 - 4j - Planning Commission minutes 8-18-04
Page 12
Ms. McMonigal said the September 15 Planning Commission meeting will
be moved to September 22 due to Rosh Hashanah. She asked if
Commissioners can meet at 5:00 p.m. for the tour. Commissioners
suggested meeting at 5:00 p.m. for box lunches to be followed by the tour.
She invited commissioners to e-mail tour site recommendations to her.
In response to a question regarding a joint study session with the City
Council, Ms. McMonigal said a date has not yet been determined.
Ms. Erickson introduced Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning
Supervisor.
7. Miscellaneous
8. Adjournment
The Chair adjourned the meeting at 8:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Nancy Sells
Administrative Secretary
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
090704 - 4l - Johnson Recogniton Resolution
Page 1
RESOLUTION NO. 04-104
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ST. LOUIS PARK,
MINNESOTA, RECOGNIZING THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF
AND EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO BRUCE JOHNSON
WHEREAS, Bruce Johnson began his employment with the City of St. Louis Park almost 28 years
ago on August 16, 1976; and
WHEREAS, through his enthusiasm and tenacity, Bruce has earned the respect of peers and citizens;
and
WHEREAS, Bruce has made countless contributions in his commitment to his job and has served
the City in the Fire Department by serving as a Firefighter, Assistant Chief/Fire Marshal, and finally as a
Battalion Chief/Fire Marshal; and
WHEREAS, Bruce has continuously supported the Fire Department Administration and regardless
of the assignment has performed his duties to the best of his ability; and
WHEREAS, Bruce, with the direction from his wife Marge, and sons Casey and Nate, will now
have many opportunities to fish, camp and visit garage sales;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park,
Minnesota, by this resolution and public record, would like to thank Bruce Johnson for his great
contributions and 28 years of dedicated service to the City of St. Louis Park and wish him the best in his
retirement.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council September 7,
2004
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
090704 - 4m - Park & Rec Minutes of 4-21-04
Page 1
OFFICIAL MINUTES
PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY COMMISSION
APRIL 21, 2004 at 7 P.M.
REC CENTER PROGRAMMING OFFICE
MEMBERS PRESENT: Steve Hallfin, Kirk Hawkinson, Dick Johnson, Sarah Lindenberg,
Dana Strong, and Tom Worthington
MEMBERS ABSENT: R. Bruce Cornwall
STAFF PRESENT: Rick Beane, Stacy Voelker and Cindy Walsh
1. Call to order
Tom Worthington called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m.
2. Adjustments to the agenda
Mr. Worthington added a welcome to new member, Steve Hallfin, to New Business.
3. Approval of Minutes from March 23, 2004
Kirk Hawkinson moved to approve the minutes from the March 23, 2004 meeting, Dick
Johnson seconded. The motion passed 6-0.
4. New Business
A. Welcome New Member, Steve Hallfin
Mr. Worthington welcomed Steve Hallfin to the Parks and Recreation Advisory
Commission. Mr. Hallfin, along with staff and Commission members, introduced
them and gave a brief history of their involvement with St. Louis Park.
5. Old Business
A. Off Leash Dog Park Site Discussion
Ms. Walsh indicated comments received provided overall support for an off-leash
site somewhere in the City. Ms. Walsh, Mr. Beane and Councilmember Sally
Velick have reviewed another potential site by Cedar Knoll Park. Ms. Walsh
stated major concern was expressed regarding traffic and parking at the Victoria
Lake site.
Members reviewed a site map of the Cedar Knoll area and items discussed
included traffic, parking and size of site. The size is 1+ acre which is similar in
size to the site by Victoria Lake. There is not much activity at the proposed site
except for evening baseball in the summer. There is parking available on Nevada
Avenue and in the parking lot which could be increased if necessary. The site
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
090704 - 4m - Park & Rec Minutes of 4-21-04
Page 2
currently receives unwanted guests and dumping of debris. The unofficial footpath
that exists would be wood chipped as an official access to the fenced site. A line
of trees will remain to create a buffer for the neighborhood so they could not see
the fence. There will be a double gate as entrance to the off-leash park as many
individuals suggested. The entrance to the park would be located on the south east
side. Mr. Hallfin inquired if the police would patrol that area more often once the
off-leash park is established and Ms. Walsh indicated they would. Ms. Walsh also
advised most off-leash areas patrol themselves as people are very responsible as
per ROMP.
Mr. Beane indicated there would be labor costs to clean up the site but minimal
trees would be removed. The fence is the largest expense. Mr. Beane indicated
Sentence to Serve individuals could be scheduled on site in the next month to
begin preparation. Mr. Hawkinson inquired if potential sites got categorized and
Ms. Walsh indicated they did. Commission members briefly reviewed the other
potential sites in the City. Since Cedar Knoll doesn’t have residential on all sides,
it appears to be the best option.
Mr. Hallfin inquired on the proposed fees and members indicated a good
percentage of other cities charge a fee. Mr. Beane feels fees are appropriate to
create and maintain the off-leash area. Ms. Walsh advised potential users
suggested permit must be obtained along with a city license to prove all dogs have
rabies shot. Mr. Strong feels dog users can be charged to use the area as kids are
charged for field use. The members agreed.
Members feel Cedar Knoll area is a much better area than Victoria Lake. Mr.
Hawkinson inquired if dogs attend obedience training, would owners get a
discount on permit fees? Ms. Walsh advised that Community Education offers
obedience training.
Mr. Johnson suggested having a grand opening/meeting and inviting all dog
owners and representative from ROMP to sell permits and advise of rules &
regulations. Members discussed limiting the number of dogs allowed per person
and agreed on three dogs allowed per person.
Mr. Worthington inquired on when construction would start and Ms. Walsh
indicated fencing and cleaning could start soon after the site is approved. Mr.
Beane indicated the site could be ready for use the end of May. Ms. Walsh
advised the issue will be brought before Council at the first Study Session in May
(after the neighborhood meeting).
Commission members and staff discussed and feel the area next to Cedar Knoll
Park is a good site. The area could be expanded in the future if necessary, as well
as the parking. Members feel the off-leash site would be a bonus for residents as it
would keep unwanted guests out and improve the area.
Mr. Worthington asked for additional comments from members. Mr. Johnson
suggested advising the neighborhood that buckthorn will be removed which is a
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
090704 - 4m - Park & Rec Minutes of 4-21-04
Page 3
benefit to the neighborhood. The Commission members indicated the preferred
site is the area south west of Carlson ballfield in Cedar Knoll Park. Dana Strong
moved to approve creation of an off-leash dog park in Cedar Knoll park, Kirk
Hawkinson seconded. The motion passed 6-0.
Mr. Worthington inquired as to the next step in which Ms. Walsh indicated there
is an on-site meeting scheduled for Thursday, April 29th at 5:30 p.m. for all
interested parties.
B. Discuss May through August Meeting Dates
Mr. Worthington reminded all of the Commissions sponsored breakfast to be held
on Wednesday, May 19 at 7:30 a.m. in The Rec Center Banquet Room. Mr.
Johnson discussed the menu for the Commissions sponsored breakfast and
advised staff has been personally invited. The members discussed the time for
their regular Commission meeting to be held on that day and decided it will be
held at 7 p.m. Mr. Worthington suggested having it at Westwood Hills Nature
Center or Louisiana Oaks Pavilion in which Ms. Voelker will check availability
and advise members. The Commission discussed their June through August
meetings and will hold June’s meeting if agenda items. July and August meetings
will not be held due to lack of quorum.
6. Communications
A. Chair
Mr. Worthington advised the Commission that Ms. Lindenberg received a Caring
Youth Award. Two volunteer Junior Leaders, Jake Schlagel and Nate Peterson,
also received awards.
B. Commissioners
Mr. Johnson distributed a work plan for the Commissioners’ Twilight Swim.
Members explained the event to Mr. Hallfin. Mr. Hallfin volunteered to assist if
available.
Mr. Hallfin enjoyed his first meeting and look forward to contributing to the City.
Mr. Strong inquired on the status of the Code of Conduct and was advised it is
currently on hold. Mr. Strong advised he will attend the annual Soccer
Association meeting and is working to bring the Soccer Association and the
Maddali’s to a mutual understanding. Mr. Strong inquired if the City requests by-
laws from Associations in which Ms. Walsh advised they are requested prior to
annual field usage. Mr. Strong suggested the Commission come up with a list of
information (board election, bylaws, code of conduct, cost breakdown, paid staff
members, etc.) they would like from associations and have the City request it
again as of 9/1/04 (suggested date). It was also suggested to ask if anyone
involved in the association is paid (i.e. board members); and what type of
positions are paid (i.e. officials, referees, and coaches). Members felt Associations
should provide this information and suggested wording “are any elected officials
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
090704 - 4m - Park & Rec Minutes of 4-21-04
Page 4
or board members paid?”. Ms. Walsh suggested the Commission write the letter
to the Associations. Mr. Strong agreed and suggested the letter be sent in
September or October with a due date of December 31, 2004. Mr. Worthington
and Mr. Strong will work on and present draft of letter at Commission’s
September meeting.
Staff and members discussed including a “Best Practices” or case situation
discussion item be included on the agenda for the January Youth Association
meeting in hopes of opening communication between associations.
C. Program Report
None.
D. Director’s Report
Ms. Walsh reminded Commission members of the Arbor Day celebration on
Saturday, May 8 from 9:3 a.m. to noon at Beltline Boulevard and the Southwest
Regional Bike Trail.
7. Adjournment
Moved by Kirk Hawkinson and seconded by Dick Johnson to adjourn. Motion passed 6-
0. With no further business, the Commission adjourned at 8:29 p.m.
Minutes prepared and
respectfully submitted by,
Stacy M. Voelker
Recording Secretary
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
090704 - 4n - CATV Minutes of May 6, 2004
Page 1
OFFICIAL MINUTES
ST. LOUIS PARK TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
MEETING OF MAY 6, 2004 AT 7:00 P.M.
ST. LOUIS PARK SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Bruce Browning, Dale Hartman, Ken Huiras, Mary Jean Overend,
Rolf Peterson
MEMBERS ABSENT: Rick Dworsky, Bob Jacobson,
STAFF PRESENT: Reg Dunlap, Civic TV Coordinator; John McHugh, Community
TV Coordinator
OTHERS PRESENT: Arlen Mattern, Time Warner Cable Public Affairs Administrator;
Tom Marble, School District #283 Technology Coordinator;
Charlie Fiss, School District #283 AV PC LAN Technician
1. Call to Order
Chair Huiras called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
2. Roll Call
Present at roll call were Commissioners Browning, Hartman, Huiras, Overend and
Peterson.
3. Approval of Minutes for February 12, 2004
It was moved by Commissioner Browning, seconded by Commissioner Peterson, to
approve the minutes of February 12, 2004 without changes.
The motion passed 5-0.
4. Adoption of Agenda
Commissioner Browning requested that the following be added as Item 5D, Old
Business: Public Hearing follow up
It was moved by Commissioner Browning to approve the agenda as amended.
The motion passed 5-0.
5. Old Business
A. Franchise Renewal Update
John McHugh described some of the activity and business points that staff has been
discussing with Time Warner Cable (TWC) pertaining to a new franchise. He said that if
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
090704 - 4n - CATV Minutes of May 6, 2004
Page 2
TWC needs to close the customer service facility in St. Louis Park, they must have a
replacement facility within 4 miles. He said that if TWC discontinues Local Origination
cable production (channel 16), the City proposes to operate a van and cover local
productions. He said that the City has proposed to allow TWC to continue the studio at
its current St. Louis Park facility or allow limited use of TWC’s Eden Prairie studio,
which is a better studio and not too far away.
Chair Huiras asked how often the studio is used, and Mr. McHugh said monthly or less
often than that.
Commissioner Browning asked if the St. Louis Park studio is outdated, and Mr. McHugh
said that it certainly wouldn’t serve resident’s needs for the next 10-15 years.
B. Emergency Alert System update
Mr. Dunlap contacted Lance Leupold, Time Warner’s Director of Public Affairs, for an
update on the digital override system and has not heard back from him yet. Chair Huiras
said to notify Time Warner that the monthly analog test didn’t work yesterday at 1pm,
and Mr. Dunlap said he would follow up.
C. Victory Sports update
Arlen Mattern, TWC’s Public Affairs Administrator, said there was nothing new on this,
and distributed a letter from Mike Munley, TWC’s Minnesota President. Mr. Mattern
said TWC wants to carry Victory Sports but it’s too expensive.
Chair Huiras asked if TWC had met with Victory lately, and Mr. Mattern said there had
been a meeting within the last 2 weeks. Chair Huiras said that it irritates him that this is
being negotiated on the national level instead of the local level. Mr. Mattern said that he
thinks there is more activity going on than is publicized.
Chair Huiras asked if TWC had gotten a $ .60 rebate from Fox Sports yet for losing the
Twins games and if the customers would ever see a credit on their bills? Mr. Mattern said
that the rebates from Fox hadn’t started yet, but eventually there will be a rebate and a
small refund will be passed along to customers.
Commissioner Overend asked about Governor Tim Pawlenty’s suggestion for mediation
between the parties; Mr. Mattern said if there is anything to be mediated, it’s between the
Twins and Fox Sports Net, the network that used to carry Twins games on cable. Mr.
Mattern also mentioned that the cable companies had anti-trust concerns if they entered
mediation as a group.
Chair Huiras said that the free trial that Victory Sports proposed last winter included a
clause that required a signed contract within 90 days.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
090704 - 4n - CATV Minutes of May 6, 2004
Page 3
Commissioner Browning asked if any metro area cable systems carry Victory Sports,
and Mr. Mattern said no, but that some out-state systems had signed up for it.
D. Public Hearing follow up
Commissioner Browning asked if there had been any staff follow up with Bill Watson at
Wyndmoor Condominiums, who spoke at the February 12 public hearing. Mr. McHugh
said that he met with Mr. Watson about 3 weeks ago and helped him consider options for
the condominium association to vote on at an upcoming meeting. The Wyndmoor
contract with TWC expires this fall, so one option is to negotiate installing a security
camera on a shopping channel with a TWC approved contractor. This solves the problem
of not preempting channel 6, a state-required regional channel, and keeps TWC from
being in the business of installing security cameras. Mr. McHugh has discussed this
proposal with City Attorney Joel Jamnik, who agrees that the narrow interpretation
complies with the standstill agreement the City and TWC negotiated.
6. New Business
A. School District funding for 2004
Tom Marble, District #283 Technology Coordinator, gave a summary of recent District
cable TV efforts. He mentioned a new, more efficient method of doing graphics for the
channel which allows teachers and staff to prepare PowerPoint slides instead of cable TV
staff. Art Watch has been a tremendous success thanks to parent and student
involvement, and the 5 or 6 shows have created many requests for DVD copies.
Unfortunately, Art Watch was created by Beth Johnson of the Communications
Department, which has been eliminated at the end of this school year. Mr. Marble said
they are looking to add DVD equipment compatible with their Tech controller so they
can play back DVDs on channel 14. He said that it is now possible to keep programs
entirely digital throughout the editing process, which allows higher quality and easy
manipulation of the signal. One surprise was that mini-DVC cassettes ($4 each) cannot
be successfully erased, meaning they can be used only once.
Chair Huiras asked who was doing the School Board meeting coverage, and Mr. Marble
said that TWC is providing staff to use District equipment.
Chair Huiras asked if that’s what TWC was talking about taking away, and Mr. McHugh
said yes, but that the City would assume those tasks.
Mr. Marble said that the District has changed the original proposal for the $19,000
equipment grant that they received from franchise fees in the second half of 2002. They
have not had studio classes this school year so there’s no reason to try to build a second
studio. Instead they purchased a 16 x 16 router, a DVD recorder and a DVD dub tower
($1800) to duplicate 8 DVDs at a time for Art Watch.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
090704 - 4n - CATV Minutes of May 6, 2004
Page 4
Mr. Marble said that the District requests an operation grant from the franchise fees of
$35,000, the same as last year.
Chair Huiras made a motion to recommend an operations grant of $35,000 for 2004, and
Commissioner Browning seconded the motion.
The motion passed 5-0.
Commissioner Peterson said that he’s reviewed the microphone specifications and found
that they have an on/off feature. He has discussed this with the School Board, and the
Board would like to try that because it will make it easier to manage than the current
system where the speaker must continually hold down a button while talking. Mr.
Marble said that could be done.
Commissioner Overend asked if there was any way to have a fund to replace the studio
cameras? Mr. Marble said that the TWC $100,000 equipment grant could be a place to
look for that, or perhaps the technology budget. Commissioner Peterson said the one
bright spot in the School Board budgeting is the technology levy.
B. Review: School District using interns for extra experience & to produce
programming
Mr. Marble said that this would continue to be a goal of the District. The first student
that served as an intern was a Brown College student and a former St. Louis Park High
School student who was very familiar with the procedures in the school. Unfortunately
that student could only help for 2 weeks, but the School District will continue to work
with Brown College on an internship program. They are talking about credit for hours of
assistance during the school day, for things like staffing the PC help desk. Mr. Marble
said that this was the first year for charging students for all extra curricular activities, and
the fee has had a negative effect and discouraged participation in video club activities.
C. Background on proper uses of Social Security Numbers & privacy policies
Deferred to the next meeting because staff did not complete the research on this item.
D. Staff proposal for Time Warner $100,000 equipment grant
Mr. Dunlap said that the City was still early in the budget process so there was no
direction on how much of this could be spent. He said that Technology and Support
Services Director Clint Pires mentioned that some of the City’s wide area network
(WAN) equipment may come from this grant, and so one of the proposals on the draft
plan for the grant includes video conferencing equipment using the WAN from sites like
the Police and Fire Stations. Mr. Marble said that by sharing the paths of the School
District fiber optic network with the City could save $150,000.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
090704 - 4n - CATV Minutes of May 6, 2004
Page 5
Mr. Dunlap asked how partnering with the City benefits the School District, and Mr.
Marble said that locates cost the District $35,000 per year, and that the City could assume
that task as part of their right of way management. He also said the City might be able to
get some Homeland Security grants to fund their part of the project.
Commissioner Browning asked if voice over internet protocol (VOIP) had been
considered over the WAN, since this had been big success at Brown College. Mr. Marble
said that since the School District was near the end of the useful life of their other
telephone equipment, they are looking at implementing VOIP options in January of
2005.
Commissioner Peterson asked about the path of the WAN to Susan Lindgren, and Mr.
Marble said it runs by the Ford dealer and the Rec Center.
E. Discuss cable TV possibilities related to Jewish Community Center & Park
Nicollet $100,000 Senior Summit grant
Commissioner Peterson and Overend inquired about this grant. It is a Naturally
Occurring Retirement Community (NORC) federal grant of $1 million that was
announced at last year’s Senior Summit. Mr. McHugh said that one of the NORC
activities is a monthly presentation at the Lenox Community Center, to be taped by
Community TV. McHugh said he will do further research and email information to the
commission before the next meeting. He said that communicating with seniors could be
done with universal cable TV service, but confirmed with Mr. Mattern that no such
arrangement exists anywhere in Time Warner’s Minnesota area. Commissioner Overend
said that NORC might be another way to tell seniors about community TV services.
7. Reports
A. School District Quarterly Programming Report
B. Complaints
Chair Huiras asked if customer complaint #1 got an apology. Mr. Dunlap said that the
customer had contacted him after it had been resolved by TWC, and said they didn’t want
further action but to simply report the inconvenience that had occurred.
Mr. McHugh said that complaint #2, about having to make 4 phone calls to find out how
to get a copy of the Breck vs. Benilde-St. Margaret’s hockey game, illustrated the need
for one central telephone number for local programming questions, which he has
proposed in franchise renewal talks. Mr. Mattern said that he gets calls like this all the
time about tape copy requests, and that a central phone number would go a long way to
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
090704 - 4n - CATV Minutes of May 6, 2004
Page 6
make it easier for customer service to help callers, so he would see what he can do about
this.
8. Communications from the Chair
Chair Huiras said he had received a lot of favorable comments about the February 12
Telecommunications Commission meeting being on cable TV.
Chair Huiras made a motion that all future Telecommunications Commission meetings
be in the Council Chambers and televised, if the Chambers is available.
The motion passed 5-0.
9. Communications from City Staff
Mr. McHugh passed around two pictures (Hennepin Library and Lenox Community
Center) as examples of some new community message screens now running on
Community TV 15’s new (“Carousel”) message display system. He plans to, yet this
year, contact all houses of worship in St. Louis Park and ask them to participate in
sharing their events which are open to the public, using similar customized
announcements.
Mr. Dunlap said he worked with a committee of 15 students to produce a short video
publicizing the recent Youth Summit, and he thanked Charlie Fiss for running it
numerous times on this channel to help get the word out to students.
10. Adjournment
Commissioner Browning made a motion to adjourn at 8:46pm, and the motion passed
unanimously.
After the meeting, Mr. Marble and Mr. Fiss led Commissioners Overend and Peterson
and City staff McHugh and Dunlap on a tour of the studio and meeting room C350 where
the School Board meetings are taped.
Respectfully submitted by:
Reg Dunlap
Civic TV Coordinator
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
090704 - 4o - FCSC Minutes of 8-16-04
Page 1
MINUTES
FIRE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
August 16, 2004, 1:30 p.m.
FIRE CONFERENCE ROOM, 1ST FLOOR CITY HALL
1) The meeting was called to order at 1:30 p.m. by President Lee.
2) In attendance were Commissioners David Lee and Marjorie Douville. Also present were John
Lindstrom, Battalion Fire Chief, Ali Fosse, Human Resources Coordinator/Staff Liaison, Shawn Glapa,
Local 993 Union representative, Mark Windschitl, Local 993 Union representative, Cary Smith,
Firefighter, Mark Nelson, Firefighter, Deane Wallick, Firefighter, and Shirley Huiras, Fire Department
Secretary.
3) President Lee welcomed new Commissioner Marjorie Douville. President Lee explained the Fire Civil
Service Commission meets once per year and on an as needed basis. President Lee requested that Chief
Stemmer and/or Acting Chief Lindstrom give Commissioner Douville a tour of the fire stations and
introduce her to members of the Department. Commissioner Douville introduced herself and explained
her experience in Public Safety (41 year resident of St. Louis Park, 25 years of service for metro area
cities in Police and Fire reserves).
4) A motion was made by Commissioner Douville, seconded by President Lee to approve the minutes
from the last meeting, held August 3, 2004. The motion carried.
5) A motion was made by Commissioner Douville, seconded by President Lee to accept the Battalion
Chief Eligibility List. The motion carried.
6) President Lee explained he had received a letter from Acting City Manager Nancy Gohman requesting
the top 4 names from the Battalion Chief eligibility list be certified for the 2 current openings. The
names certified are: Cary Smith, Deane Wallick, Mike Dobesh, and Mark Windschitl. A motion was
made by Commissioner Douville, seconded by President Lee to certify the top 4 names on the Battalion
Chief Eligibility List. The motion carried.
7) The Commissioners and Chief Lindstrom discussed the process and opening for Firefighter. Chief
Lindstrom explained that the job description had been changed to require FF2 certification (instead of
FF1) and EMT certification. The reason for the change was to meet the needs of the City, as a majority
of responses are for Emergency Medical Services. In addition, requiring EMT and FF2 will save the
City money since the training will be completed before the Firefighter begins work. A motion was
made by Commissioner Douville, seconded by President Lee to approve the process for Firefighter.
The motion carried.
8) A motion was made by Commissioner Douville, seconded by President Lee to adjourn the meeting.
The Commission adjourned at 1:42 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Ali Fosse
City Staff Liaison to the Fire Civil Service Commission
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
090704 - 8a - Proposed Budget & Poperty Tax Levy
Page 1
8a. Approve preliminary property tax levy and budget for the 2005 fiscal year,
revisions to the 2004 adopted budget, set Public Hearing date for proposed
budget and property tax levy, and approve HRA levy for taxes payable in 2005
Resolution approving the preliminary property tax levy and budget is required by
Truth in Taxation legislation. Information contained in the resolution will appear on
the individual tax notices prepared by the County.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt resolutions establishing the preliminary tax levy
and budget for 2005, approves revisions to the 2004 adopted
budget, sets public hearing date for proposed budget and
property tax levy, and approves HRA levy for taxes payable in
2005.
Background:
The 2005 proposed budget and the 2004-revised budget were reviewed by the City Council at the August
23rd, August 9th, and July 26th 2004 study sessions. By law, the City Council must approve a preliminary
tax levy and budget for 2005 and submit the tax levy certification to the County by September 15, 2004.
The County will mail out parcel specific notices to affected taxpayers on or before November 22, 2004.
Final action of the levy and 2005 budget will not occur until the second Council meeting in December.
In addition to the General Property Tax levy, the City will levy for the 1999 General Obligation Bond,
2003 General Obligation Bond, PERA increase from 2004 to 2005, and an HRA levy.
Property Tax Levy:
For fiscal year 2005, a total levy of $ 17,435,665 is proposed. The overall property tax levy increase is
approximately 6%. The total levy helps to support the operations of the General Fund, Park and Recreation
operations and Park Improvements. A portion of the levy is dedicated to the retirement of General
Obligation Debt.
The allocation of property taxes is indicated in the chart below.
Levy 2003/2004 2004/2005
General Fund 12,069,320$ 12,796,269$
Parks and Recreation Fund 2,488,822 2,821,988
Park Improvement Fund 927,473 979,908
1999 GO Debt 325,500 326,300
2003 GO Debt 512,600 511,200
Total Levy 16,323,715$ 17,435,665$
Legislative requirements provide that cities hold a “Truth in Taxation” public hearing related to the budget.
Staff is recommending holding the budget, (Truth in Taxation) hearing on December 6, 2004 to discuss the
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
090704 - 8a - Proposed Budget & Poperty Tax Levy
Page 2
proposed 2005 budget as well as the legislative changes. This will assist in clarifying the budget status for,
and allow input from, the public. Staff also recommends setting December 13, 2004 as a continuation date
for the Public Hearing if needed.
HRA Levy:
At the August 23rd, August 9th, and July 26th 2004 study sessions the HRA levy was discussed. At that
time, the Council indicated they would like to proceed with the HRA levy for taxes payable in 2005. If
approved, this will be the fourth year that the Council has authorized a HRA levy.
The EDA is required to approve this levy as well as the City Council. As outlined in the resolution, the
HRA levy cannot exceed .0144 percent of the taxable market value of the City. As of August 10, 2004, the
market value of the City is $4,173,686,300. This market value allows the City to levy $601,010 for taxes
payable 2005.
The proposed 2005 levy amount of $601,010 is $57,885 higher than 2004. This is due to increased taxable
market valuation. Staff will review market values prior to final certification in December. The levy
amount is included as part of the Development Fund budget. Levy proceeds are to be used for
infrastructure improvements in redevelopment areas.
Other Items to Consider:
Since the Council last discussed the 2005 preliminary budget, two items have come to Staff’s attention that
Council should be aware of.
Request from St. Louis Park Community Education; On August 26, 2004, the City of St. Louis Park
received an e-mail from Linda Saveraid, Community Education Director for the St. Louis Park Schools.
This e-mail requested the City consider restoring some or all of the funding cut from the City’s
appropriation to Community Education program. This amount could range from $10 to $20,000.
Additional information relating to this request will be provided at the next budget discussion at a study
session.
Dispatch Consolidation; on August 31, 2004, the Council met to discuss the Dispatch Center. During this
discussion, Council gave direction to staff to further explore the options of consolidation as well as to
keeping the Dispatch Center independent. The Dispatch Center is currently being funded by the Police and
Fire Pension Special Revenue Fund. Regardless of which option is selected, Council will need to consider
how Dispatch is paid for in the future.
The Police and Fire Special Revenue Fund is not part of the General Operating Budget. There is currently
$400,000 per year transferred from this fund to the General Fund to pay for Dispatch operations. As
budget discussions continue, Council will want to consider the property tax levy increases that will be
necessary to operate the Dispatch Center either under a consolidation agreement or independently. Further
information will be presented at the next Study Session budget discussion.
Prepared By: Jean D. McGann, Director of Finance
Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Attachments: Resolutions
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
090704 - 8a - Proposed Budget & Poperty Tax Levy
Page 3
RESOLUTION NO. 04-105
RESOLUTION APPROVING PROPOSED 2004 TAX LEVY, COLLECTIBLE IN 2005,
APPROVING PROPOSED BUDGET FOR 2005, REVISED BUDGET FOR 2004 AND SETTING
PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR PROPOSED BUDGET AND PROPERTY TAX LEVY
WHEREAS, The City of St. Louis Park is required by Charter and State law to approve a resolution setting
forth an annual tax levy to the Hennepin County Auditor; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes currently in force require approval of a proposed property tax levy and a
preliminary budget on or before September 15th of each year; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has received the proposed budget document;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park that the
preliminary 2005 budget for all Governmental Funds, Enterprise funds and Internal Service funds shall be
as follows:
Revenues:Appropriations
General Property Taxes 16,546,864$ Personal Services 20,553,011$
Licenses and Permits 2,189,875 Supplies Services and other Charges 16,830,912
Intergovernmental 2,757,439 Capital Outlay 3,635,738
Charges for Services 3,029,292 Debt Service 5,125,500
Fines, Forfeits and penalties 285,900 Transfer Out 2,492,722
Enterprise 10,214,112 Contingency 152385
Special Assessments 98,012
Miscellaneous 3,293,461
Transfer In 6,561,260
Total Revenue 44,976,215$ Total Appropriations 48,790,268$
Fund Balance/Reserves - Jan. 1 80,739,092$ Fund Balance/Reserves - Dec. 31 76,925,039$
Total Available 125,715,307$ Total Available 125,715,307$
AVAILABLE RESOURCES:REQUIREMENTS:
And as supported by the proposed budget document; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing required by Truth in Taxation legislation will be
held on December 6, 2004; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Hennepin County,
Minnesota, that the following sums of money be levied in 2004, collectible in 2005 upon the taxable
property in said City of St. Louis Park for the following purposes:
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
090704 - 8a - Proposed Budget & Poperty Tax Levy
Page 4
General Fund 12,796,269$
Park and Recreation Fund 2,821,988
Park Improvement Fund 979,908
GO Debt Service 837,500
Total 17,435,665$
And
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to transmit a certified
copy of this resolution to the County Auditor of Hennepin County, Minnesota and to the Local Government
Aids/Analysis Division, Department of Revenue, State of Minnesota as required by law.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council September 7, 2004
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
090704 - 8a - Proposed Budget & Poperty Tax Levy
Page 5
RESOLUTION NO. 04-106
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE HRA LEVY FOR 2005
WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.090 to 469.108 (the “EDA Act”), the City
Council of the City of St. Louis Park created the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (the
"Authority"); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the EDA Act, the City Council granted to the Authority all of the powers
and duties of a housing and redevelopment authority under the provisions of the Minnesota Statutes,
sections 469.001 to 469.047 (the "HRA Act"); and
WHEREAS, Section 469.033, subdivision 6 of the Act authorizes the Authority to levy a tax upon
all taxable property within the City to be expended for the purposes authorized by the HRA Act; and
WHEREAS, such levy may be in an amount not to exceed 0.0144 percent of taxable market value
of the City; and
WHEREAS, the Authority has filed its budget for the special benefit levy in accordance with the
budget procedures of the City; and
WHEREAS, based upon such budgets the Authority will levy all or such portion of the authorized
levy as it deems necessary and proper;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the St. Louis Park City Council:
1. That approval is hereby given for the Authority to levy, for taxes payable in 2005, such tax
upon the taxable property of the City as the Authority may determine, subject to the limitations contained
in the HRA Act.
Approved this 7th day of September, 2004, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park.
Reviewed for Administration
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
090704 - 8b - Day Care Ordinance Amendment
Page 1
8b. Linda Sandbo’s application for an amendment to St. Louis Park Ordinance
Code (Zoning) to allow group day cares in the industrial districts that are not
intended solely for the use of employees.
Case Nos. 04-39-ZA
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve 1st reading of an ordinance amending
Sections 36-243(d) and 36-244(d) to add day care as a
Conditional Use in both the Industrial Park and General
Industrial Districts.
Request:
An application was received to amend the language in the Zoning Code to allow group day cares
in the Industrial Park and General Industrial Districts as permitted with conditions. Currently,
day cares are allowed in the industrial zoning districts if they are used primarily for the benefit of
employees of an industrial use. The applicant’s proposed amendment would allow day cares in
the industrial districts that are open to the public, and it would clarify some of the existing
language.
Background:
The zoning ordinance currently allows group day care and nursery schools in both the General
Industrial and Industrial Park Districts as uses permitted with conditions. In summary, the
conditions include:
1. The use shall not occupy more than 10% of the building area.
2. The use is intended primarily for the benefit of employees.
3. A minimum sized outside play area is required. The play area is to be screened with a 6
foot high privacy fence and a Bufferyard D.
4. An off-street drop-off/loading area is required.
5. Outdoor play area is to be at least 15 feet from property lines, and at least 200 feet from
any principal arterial road.
On July 19, 2004 an application was received from Linda Sandbo to amend the zoning text as
proposed in the attached amendment, to clarify language that group day cares can be used by the
public in the General Industrial and Industrial Park Districts.
Planning Commission Action:
The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed amendments and held a public hearing on
August 18, 2004. The applicant spoke in favor of the amendment, and the Commission
expressed concerns regarding the appropriateness of a daycare in an industrial district. The
Commission’s concerns centered primarily on the possibility that the children in a daycare may
be exposed to fumes or other noxious/hazardous materials being used or stored at a nearby
industrial property. The Commission is recommending that the Council approve the attached
amendment to the Industrial Park and General Industrial Districts to allow the day care use in
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
090704 - 8b - Day Care Ordinance Amendment
Page 2
both industrial districts by Conditional Use Permit, instead of the requested permitted with
conditions. The Commission also recommends including language that would condition
approval on a setback from adult uses and from other uses that may involve noxious/hazardous
uses.
The Commission voted on a 6-0 vote to recommend the City Council approve the proposed
amendments adding Group Daycare/Nursery School as a conditional use to both the Industrial
Park and General Industrial Districts.
Analysis:
Applicant’s Request1:
The following is a brief explanation of each proposed text amendment as requested by the
applicant. Since the proposed changes are similar for both the IP and IG districts, the following
analysis covers the changes for both districts.
1. The use shall occupy a maximum of ten percent of the gross floor area.
This amendment as proposed by the applicant would allow a daycare or nursery school to occupy
more than 10% of the building’s floor area.
2. The use is intended primarily for the benefit of employees.
This amendment as proposed by the applicant would allow daycares and nursery schools to be
open to the public. Staff believes that this change could be seen as a clarification of the code.
The use of “primarily” instead of “solely” leaves the intent a little unclear. Staff also believes
having a daycare in close proximity to employment centers is a benefit to both the employees
(parents) and the children, and therefore, should be encouraged.
bc. A minimum of 40 square feet of outside play space per pupil shall be provided and such space
shall be enclosed by a 42 inch minimum height fence n F3 fence and bufferyard D.
The F3 fence is a 6 foot high privacy fence. County and state guidelines for daycares typically
requires a fence approximately 3 feet in height. Staff is unaware of any other city that requires a
6 foot privacy fence, and feels that this requirement creates an unsafe environment for the kids by
keeping them hidden from public view. The initial reaction for a 6 foot privacy fence may be to
protect the kids from public view, however, public view also has the effect of protecting the
children by keeping the play area visible so the public can notify authorities if there is an incident
within the play area. In speaking with some daycare providers within the city, they typically are
surprised by this requirement, and do not wish to install the 6 foot high privacy fence. They feel
security is better with a lower fence that is typically chain link.
de. Outdoor play areas shall be located a minimum of 15 feet from any property lines and shall be
screened with a bufferyard D.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
090704 - 8b - Day Care Ordinance Amendment
Page 3
This amendment simply relocates the bufferyard D requirement from section b above, and places
it into this section. No changes are proposed to the intent or standards of the bufferyard
requirement.
Planning Commission Recommendation:
The following is a brief explanation of each proposed text amendment as recommended by the
Planning Commission. Since the proposed changes are similar for both districts, the following
analysis covers the changes for both districts.
(d) Uses permitted by conditional use permit. No structure or land in an I-P district shall be
used for the following uses except by conditional use permit. These uses shall comply with the
industrial restrictions and performance standards of section 36-242 and all of the general
conditions provided in section 36-3675 and with the specific conditions imposed in this
subsection (d).
This amendment corrects the reference made to the conditional use permit standards found in
section 36-365, not 36-367 as stated in the ordinance.
a. A minimum of 40 square feet of outside play space per pupil shall be provided and such space
shall be enclosed by a 42 inch minimum height fence and bufferyard D.
b. An off-street dropoff and loading area shall be designed in order to maintain vehicular and
pedestrian safety.
c. Outdoor play areas shall be located a minimum of 15 feet from any property lines and shall be
screened with a bufferyard D.
d. No outdoor play area shall be located within 200 feet of any principal arterial as defined on the
comprehensive plan.
The above conditions a – d, are standard conditions for group daycare/nursery schools as found
in other zoning districts. These same conditions are being carried forward, and made conditions
for approval under a conditional use permit application.
e. The daycare facility, including the outdoor play area, shall be no closer than 350 feet to any
property containing a sexually oriented business.
Adult uses are permitted with conditions in the industrial districts, therefore, the commission felt it was
appropriate to have a minimum distance requirement from adult uses.
f. The neighboring industrial uses shall not have an adverse impact on the operations and health,
safety and welfare of the proposed group daycare/nursery school. The characteristics of such
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
090704 - 8b - Day Care Ordinance Amendment
Page 4
impacts shall be analyzed by the planning, fire and health officials, and shall include, but not
limited to: noise, dust, truck traffic, odors and hazardous materials.
Both the Planning Commission and staff had concerns about locating a daycare or nursery school next to
an industrial use that utilizes potentially hazardous materials or processes. The Commission is
recommending that this provision be added to establish a process that would require staff to review the
proposed location in terms of the potential impacts the materials and processes currently in place on the
neighboring properties may have on the proposed daycare/nursery school use.
Recommendation:
The Planning Commission recommends approval of the attached ordinance identified as
“DRAFT – PLANNING COMMISSION” amending Sections 36-243(d) and 36-244(d) to allow
Group Daycare/Nursery Schools as a conditional use in the Industrial Park and General
Industrial Districts.
As noted above, the applicant is requesting amendments to the existing text that would allow
Group Daycare/Nursery Schools to continue to be permitted with conditions in both industrial
districts, but would open them up to the general public. The draft ordinance is attached as
“DRAFT – APPLICANT” for the Council’s review and action if you choose to approve the
applicant’s request.
Attachments:
1. Proposed Draft Ordinance “DRAFT – PLANNING COMMISSION”.
2. Proposed Draft Ordinance “DRAFT – APPLICANT”.
3. Letter from applicant.
Prepared By: Gary Morrison, Asst. Zoning Administrator
952-924-2592
gmorrison@stlouispark.org
Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
090704 - 8b - Day Care Ordinance Amendment
Page 5
DRAFT - APPLICANT
ORDINANCE NO. _________
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE RELATING
TO ZONING BY AMENDING SECTIONS 36-243(c)(1) and 36-244(c)(1) REGARDING
GROUP DAYCARE/NURSERY SCHOOLS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
Findings
Section 1. An application was received to amend the zoning ordinance to allow daycares to
be open to the public in the Industrial Park and General Industrial Districts.
Section 2. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning
Commission (Case No. 04-39-ZA).
Section 3. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Section 36 is hereby amended by deleting
stricken language and adding underscored language. Section breaks are
represented by ***.
Section 4. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Section 36-243(c)(1) (Industrial Park
District: Uses Permitted With Conditions: Group Daycare/Nursery Schools) is
amended as follows:
a. The use shall occupy a maximum of ten percent of the gross floor area.
b. The use is intended primarily for the benefit of employees.
ac. A minimum of 40 square feet of outside play space per pupil shall be provided and such space
shall be enclosed by a 42 inch minimum height fence n F3 fence and bufferyard D.
bd. An off-street dropoff and loading area shall be designed in order to maintain vehicular and
pedestrian safety.
ce. Outdoor play areas shall be located a minimum of 15 feet from any property lines and shall be
screened with a bufferyard D.
df. No outdoor play area shall be located within 200 feet of any principal arterial as defined on the
comprehensive plan.
Section 5. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Section 36-243(d) (Industrial Park District:
Uses Permitted By Conditional Use Permit) is amended as follows:
(d) Uses permitted by conditional use permit. No structure or land in an I-P district shall be
used for the following uses except by conditional use permit. These uses shall comply with the
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
090704 - 8b - Day Care Ordinance Amendment
Page 6
industrial restrictions and performance standards of section 36-242 and all of the general
conditions provided in section 36-3675 and with the specific conditions imposed in this
subsection (d).
Section 6. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Section 36-244(c)(1) (General Industrial
District: Uses Permitted With Conditions: Group Daycare/Nursery Schools) is
amended as follows:
a. The use shall occupy a maximum of ten percent of the gross floor area of a building.
b. The use is intended primarily for the benefit of employees.
ac. A minimum of 40 square feet of outside play space shall be provided per pupil and such space
shall be enclosed by a 42 inch minimum height fence. screened with a bufferyard D. The
bufferyard shall include as a minimum an F3 fence as defined in section 36-364.
bd. An off-street passenger dropoff and loading area shall be designed in order to maintain vehicular
and pedestrian safety.
c. Outdoor play areas shall be located a minimum of 15 feet from any property lines and shall be
screened with a bufferyard D.
de. Outdoor play areas shall be located a minimum of 200 feet from any roadway defined in
the comprehensive plan as a principal arterial.
Section 7. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Section 36-244(d) (General Industrial
District: Uses Permitted by Conditional Use Permit) is amended as follows:
(d) Uses permitted by conditional use permit. No structure or land in an I-G district shall be
used for the following uses except by conditional use permit. Those uses shall comply with the
requirements of all the general conditions provided in section 36-242 and section 36-3675 and
with the specific conditions imposed in this subsection (d).
Section 8. The contents of Planning Case File 04-39-ZA are hereby entered into and made
part of the public hearing record of decision for this case.
Section 9. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective fifteen (15) days after its
passage and publication.
ADOPTED this ______ day of ____________, 2004, by the City Council of the City of
St. Louis Park.
(Signature Block)
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
090704 - 8b - Day Care Ordinance Amendment
Page 7
DRAFT – PLANNING COMMISSION
ORDINANCE NO. _________
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE RELATING
TO ZONING BY AMENDING SECTIONS 36-243(d) and 36-244(d) REGARDING GROUP
DAYCARE/NURSERY SCHOOLS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
Findings
Section 1. An application was received to amend the zoning ordinance to allow daycares to
be open to the public in the Industrial Park and General Industrial Districts.
Section 2. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning
Commission (Case No. 04-39-ZA).
Section 3. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Section 36 is hereby amended by deleting
stricken language and adding underscored language. Section breaks are
represented by ***.
Section 4. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Section 36-243(d) (Industrial Park District:
Uses Permitted By Conditional Use Permit) is amended as follows:
(d) Uses permitted by conditional use permit. No structure or land in an I-P district shall be
used for the following uses except by conditional use permit. These uses shall comply with the
industrial restrictions and performance standards of section 36-242 and all of the general
conditions provided in section 36-3675 and with the specific conditions imposed in this
subsection (d).
***
(4) Group Daycare/Nursery Schools.
a. A minimum of 40 square feet of outside play space per pupil shall be provided and
such space shall be enclosed by a 42 inch minimum height fence and bufferyard D.
b. An off-street dropoff and loading area shall be designed in order to maintain vehicular
and pedestrian safety.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
090704 - 8b - Day Care Ordinance Amendment
Page 8
c. Outdoor play areas shall be located a minimum of 15 feet from any property lines and
shall be screened with a bufferyard D.
d. No outdoor play area shall be located within 200 feet of any principal arterial as
defined on the comprehensive plan.
e. The daycare facility, including the outdoor play area, shall be no closer than 350 feet to
any property containing a sexually oriented business.
f. The neighboring industrial uses shall not have an adverse impact on the operations and
health, safety and welfare of the proposed group daycare/nursery school. The
characteristics of such impacts shall be analyzed by the planning, fire and health
officials, and shall include, but not be limited to, dust, truck traffic, odors and
hazardous materials.
Section 5. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Section 36-244(d) (General Industrial
District: Uses Permitted by Conditional Use Permit) is amended as follows:
(d) Uses permitted by conditional use permit. No structure or land in an I-G district shall be
used for the following uses except by conditional use permit. Those uses shall comply with the
requirements of all the general conditions provided in section 36-242 and section 36-3675 and
with the specific conditions imposed in this subsection (d).
***
(4) Group Daycare/Nursery Schools.
a. A minimum of 40 square feet of outside play space per pupil shall be provided and
such space shall be enclosed by a 42 inch minimum height fence and bufferyard D.
b. An off-street dropoff and loading area shall be designed in order to maintain vehicular
and pedestrian safety.
c. Outdoor play areas shall be located a minimum of 15 feet from any property lines and
shall be screened with a bufferyard D.
d. No outdoor play area shall be located within 200 feet of any principal arterial as
defined on the comprehensive plan.
e. The daycare facility, including the outdoor play area, shall be no closer than 350 feet to
any property containing a sexually oriented business.
f. The neighboring industrial uses shall not have an adverse impact on the operations and
health, safety and welfare of the proposed group daycare/nursery school. The
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
090704 - 8b - Day Care Ordinance Amendment
Page 9
characteristics of such impacts shall be analyzed by the planning, fire and health
officials, and shall include, but not be limited to: noise, dust, truck traffic, odors and
hazardous materials.
Section 6. The contents of Planning Case File 04-39-ZA are hereby entered into and made
part of the public hearing record of decision for this case.
Section 7. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective fifteen (15) days after its
passage and publication.
ADOPTED this ______ day of ____________, 2004, by the City Council of the City of
St. Louis Park.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council
_______________________________ ___________________________
City Manager Jeffrey W. Jacobs, Mayor
ATTEST: Approved as to Form and Execution
_______________________________ ____________________________
Cynthia Reichert, City Clerk City Attorney
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
090704 - 8c - Aquila Commons TIF Ratification
Page 1
8c. Ratification of Aquila Commons Tax Increment Finance District
This report considers a resolution ratifying the resolution modifying
Redevelopment Project No. 1 and establishing the Aquila Commons TIF District.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the resolution ratifying adoption of Modification
to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 and
establishment of the Aquila Commons Tax Increment Financing
District therein and ratifying adoption of tax increment financing
plan therefor.
Background
At the August 2, 2004 Council meeting the City Council adopted a resolution modifying
Redevelopment Project No. 1 and establishing the Aquila Commons TIF Plan subject to Council
approval that evening of a related amendment to the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The Council
continued consideration of the proposed Comprehensive Plan change to August 16th which left
the actual date of TIF Plan approval uncertain. To remedy this, the EDA’s legal counsel
recommended that, upon adoption of the amendment changing the Comprehensive Plan on
August 16th, the Council subsequently approve a ratifying resolution, attached, which simply re-
states everything that was in the Aug. 2 resolution. This new resolution will supersede the Aug.
2 resolution and will clarify the formal adoption date of the Aquila Commons TIF Plan as
September 7, 2004.
No additional public hearing is needed and no notice to the county or school district is required.
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution ratifying the resolution modifying
Redevelopment Project No. 1 and establishing the Aquila Commons TIF District as presented.
Attachments:
• Resolution
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
090704 - 8c - Aquila Commons TIF Ratification
Page 2
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 04-107
RESOLUTION RATIFYING ADOPTION OF MODIFICATION TO THE
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1 AND
ESTABLISMENT OF THE AQUILA COMMONS TAX INCREMENT
FINANCING DISTRICT THEREIN AND RATIFYING ADOPTION OF TAX
INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN THEREFOR.
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the "Council") of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota
(the "City"), as follows:
Section 1. Recitals.
1.01. The Board of Commissioners (the "Board") of the City of St. Louis Park (the "EDA") has
heretofore established Redevelopment Project No. 1 and adopted a Redevelopment Plan therefor. It has
been proposed by the EDA and the City that the City adopt a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for
Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the "Redevelopment Plan Modification") and establish the Aquila
Commons Tax Increment Financing District (the "District") therein and adopt a Tax Increment Financing
Plan (the "TIF Plan") therefor (the Redevelopment Plan Modification and the TIF Plan are referred to
collectively herein as the ''Plans"); all pursuant to and in conformity with applicable law, including
Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047, Sections 469.090 to 469.1082, and Sections 469.174 to
469.1799, all inclusive, as amended, (the "Act") all as reflected in the Plans, and presented for the
Council's consideration.
1.02. The City has investigated the facts relating to the Plans and has caused the Plans to be
prepared.
1.03. The City has performed all actions required by law to be performed prior to the
establishment of the District and the adoption and approval of the proposed Plans, including, but not
limited to, notification of County of Hennepin and Independent School District No. 283 having taxing
jurisdiction over the property to be included in the District, a review of and written comment on the Plans
by the City Planning Commission, and the holding of a public hearing on August 2, 2004 upon published
notice as required by law.
1.04. Certain written reports (the ''Reports") relating to the Plans and to the activities
contemplated therein have heretofore been prepared by staff and consultants and submitted to the Council
and/or made a part of the City files and proceedings on the Plans. The Reports include environmental
studies, data, information and/or substantiation constituting or relating to the basis for the other findings
and determinations made in this resolution. The Council hereby confirms, ratifies and adopts the Reports,
which are hereby incorporated into and made as fully a part of this resolution to the same extent as if set
forth in full herein.
1.05 The City is not modifying the boundaries of Redevelopment Project No. 1.
1.06 By Resolution No. 04-092 approved August 2, 2004 (the “Original Resolution”), the
Council approved the Plans, subject only to Council approval of an amendment to the City’s
comprehensive plan consistent with the development proposed in the Plans.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
090704 - 8c - Aquila Commons TIF Ratification
Page 3
1.07. As of this date, the Council has approved the relevant amendment to the comprehensive
plan, and by this resolution intends to ratify in all respects the findings and approvals made in the Original
Resolution.
Section 2. Findings for the Adoption and Approval of the Plans.
2.01. The Council hereby finds that the Plans, are intended and, in the judgment of this
Council, the effect of such actions will be, to provide an impetus for development in the public interest
and accomplish certain objectives as specified in the Plans, which are hereby incorporated herein.
Section 3. Findings for the Establishment of the Aquila Commons Tax Increment Financing
District.
3.01. The Council hereby finds that the District is a "housing" under Minnesota Statutes,
Section 469.174, Subd. 11.
3.02. The Council further finds that the proposed development would not occur solely through
private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and that the increased market value of the site
that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than
the increase in the market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the
present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of the District permitted by the
TIF Plan, that the Plans conform to the general plan for the development or redevelopment of the City as
a whole; and that the Plans will afford maximum opportunity consistent with the sound needs of the City
as a whole, for the development or redevelopment of the District by private enterprise.
3.03. The Council further finds, declares and determines that the City made the above findings
stated in this Section and has set forth the reasons and supporting facts for each determination in writing,
attached hereto as Exhibit A.
3.04. Although it is not anticipated that the District will contain commercial/industrial
property, the City elects to calculate fiscal disparities for the District in accordance with Minnesota
Statutes, Section 469.177, Subd. 3, clause b, which means the fiscal disparities contribution would be
taken from inside the District.
Section 4. Public Purpose
4.01. The adoption of the Plans conforms in all respects to the requirements of the Act. The
Plans will facilitate the development of a site that is occupied by a former school building, which has
been vacant for more than one year. The re-use of the site will create 110 units of limited equity
cooperative housing for seniors, which will improve the tax base and improve the general economy of the
State, and thereby serves a public purpose.
Section 5. Approval and Adoption of the Plans.
5.01. The Plans, as presented to the Council on this date, including without limitation the
findings and statements of objectives contained therein, are hereby approved, ratified, established, and
adopted and shall be placed on file in the office of the Economic Development Coordinator.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
090704 - 8c - Aquila Commons TIF Ratification
Page 4
5.02. The staff of the City, the City's advisors and legal counsel are authorized and directed to
proceed with the implementation of the Plans and to negotiate, draft, prepare and present to this Council
for its consideration all further plans, resolutions, documents and contracts necessary for this purpose.
5.03 The Auditor of Hennepin County (the "Auditor") is requested to certify the original net
tax capacity of the District, as described in the TIF Plan, and to certify in each year thereafter the amount
by which the original net tax capacity has increased or decreased; and the City is authorized and directed
to forthwith transmit this request to the Auditor in such form and content as the Auditor may specify,
together with a list of all properties within the District, for which building permits have been issued
during the 18 months immediately preceding the adoption of this resolution.
5.04. The Economic Development Coordinator is further authorized and directed to file a copy
of the Plans with the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Revenue pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes 469.175, Subd. 4a.
5.05. This resolution ratifies and supersedes the Original Resolution in all respects.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council member
Santa, and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Mayor Jacobs,
Councilmembers Basill, Finkelstein, Santa and Velick
and the following voted against the same: Councilmembers Sanger and Omodt
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council September 7, 2004
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
090704 - 8c - Aquila Commons TIF Ratification
Page 5
EXHIBIT A
RESOLUTION NO. 04-107
The reasons and facts supporting the findings for the adoption of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for
the Aquila Commons Tax Increment Financing District, as required pursuant to Minnesota Statutes,
Section 469.175, Subdivision 3 are as follows:
1. Finding that the Aquila Commons Tax Increment Financing District is a housing district as defined
in M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 11.
The District consists of one parcel. The development will consist of approximately 110 senior, limited equity cooperative housing units. At
least 95% of the units assisted with tax increment will be occupied with persons at 100% of median income for a family of two or less and
115% of median income for families of three or more (rental housing would have stricter income limitations). Median income under this
provision is the greater of the statewide median or the county median. For Hennepin County, in the Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan
Statistical Area (MSA), the median the median income is $76,400 and the statewide median is $66,000 (year 2004). The market value of
non-assisted housing or commercial property will be less than 20 percent of the total fair market value of the planned improvements.
Appendix E of the TIF Plan contains background for the above finding.
2. Finding that the proposed development, in the opinion of the City Council, would not reasonably be
expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and
that the increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use
of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in the market value estimated to result
from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments
for the maximum duration of the Aquila Commons Tax Increment Financing District permitted by
the TIF Plan.
The proposed development, in the opinion of the City, would not reasonably be expected to occur
solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future: The site is occupied by a
former school building that has been vacant for more than one year. The proposed development—
122 units of limited equity cooperative housing for seniors—will require demolition and clearance of
the site. Further, based on analysis of the developer's pro forma and the Maxfield Research study
(See Subsection 2-16 of the TIF Plan), the City has determined that a gap of over $1,000,000 needs
to be filled through tax increment in order to make the proposed development financially feasible.
The City has no doubt the proposed housing facility is not likely to occur without the assistance
described in this TIF Plan (See Appendix E of the TIF Plan).
While the property could be sold to another developer for some other use, these scenarios are not
feasible in the market due to various constraints. First, adaptive reuse of the building would produce
far less market value than the proposed 110-unit housing facility. Second, commercial development
is not feasible due to inadequate market location and it is unlikely that spot zoning would be
supported (changing the zoning to commercial for only one parcel) due to the surrounding land uses,
which are predominately single-family homes. Third, a higher valued senior cooperative would not
be feasible based upon research completed by Maxfield Research Inc. The surrounding target
market of moderate income seniors would be unable to afford to purchase a higher valued unit due to
the increased cost for entry share cost and ongoing monthly fees (maintenance and mortgage). This
would decrease the economic attractiveness of the development to the intended target market and
would reduce demand for the cooperative product since some households would decide they would
not be able to afford the entry share costs and have sufficient funds remaining to support the ongoing
monthly fees. Fourth, according to Maxfield Research, a general occupancy condominium
development would not be feasible since the target market generally consists of younger, first-time
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
090704 - 8c - Aquila Commons TIF Ratification
Page 6
home buyers and older senior households. Both of these markets are price sensitive... younger
buyers have limited funds for down payment and seniors that are selling their major asset (their
home), want to spend on par or less than the equity they receive from selling their home. Finally,
higher end condominium units are unlikely due to the value of the existing housing in the
surrounding neighborhood. Maxfield Research completed a review of the market area and
determined that the proposed pricing for the cooperative units of $130,000 - $200,000 was reflective
of the market in this area of the City. The property is located in an area of modest home values and
as such, the development of even a middle-priced condominium development would exceed the
values of the single-family homes in the neighborhood and most likely would not be supported due
to lack of neighborhood amenities, etc. In addition, there are over 500 condominium units in the
pipeline for St. Louis Park at various locations within the City. All of these developments are
proposing to offer product priced well above the $180,000 price point. These developments are
situated in locations with amenity value to support these higher prices, unlike this location.
Ehlers & Associates completed an analysis of the development proforma based upon this
information and research and the proposed development costs provided by the developer. It was
determined that a gap of over $1,000,000 existed to make the project financially feasible for the
developer, which means that the developer would need to purchase the land for under the proposed
$1,900,000 and receive no development fee. Given that the Assessor has placed a value on the land
of $1,947,000 and the school had an appraisal completed two years ago that showed a value of
$2,750,000, it is unlikely that the land cost will be lowered in the near future for this proposed
housing development or another housing development.
It should be noted that any alternative redevelopment scenario faces the same high land cost and
demolition/clearance costs faced by the proposed developer, and in the City's experience such
properties have not been redeveloped in St. Louis Park without significant public assistance.
The City has required the developer to abide by a "look back" provision, which measures the actual
sales price of the units and costs of construction versus the project revenues and costs. If the
developer achieves a higher than market rate return, the amount of TIF assistance will be reduced.
Therefore, the City concludes as follows:
a. The City's estimate of the amount by which the market value of the entire District will
increase without the use of tax increment financing is $0.
b. If all development which is proposed to be assisted with tax increment were to occur in
the District, the total increase in market value would be up to $23,125,250.
c. The present value of tax increments from the District for the maximum duration of the
district permitted by the TIF Plan is estimated to be $3,431,932. (See Appendix F in the
TIF Plan)
d. Even if some development other than the proposed development were to occur, the
Council finds that no alternative would occur that would produce a market value increase
greater than $19,693,318 (the amount in clause b less the amount in clause c) without tax
increment assistance.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
090704 - 8c - Aquila Commons TIF Ratification
Page 7
3. Finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Aquila Commons Tax Increment Financing
District conforms to the general plan for the development or redevelopment of the municipality as a
whole.
The Planning Commission reviewed the TIF Plan and found that the TIF Plan conforms to the
general development plan of the City.
4. Finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Aquila Commons Tax Increment Financing
District will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for
the development or redevelopment of Redevelopment Project No. 1 by private enterprise.
The project to be assisted by the District will result in the development of a vacated former school
site, preserve and enhance the tax base, and provide an impetus for residential development, which is
desirable and necessary for increased population and an increased need for life-cycle housing within
the City.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
090704 - 8d - Tax Forfeited Property Purchase
Page 1
8d. Purchase of tax forfeited property, 1600 Hamsphire Ave South, from Hennepin
County. Case No. 04-45-RE
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve resolution approving designation of
nonconservation land shown on Classification List “1297 C/NC”
by Board of County Commissioners of Hennepin County.
Background:
On July 17, 2004, Hennepin County notified the city that the property at 1600 Hampshire was
being tax forfeited. The parcel is a vacant lot with potential for use as “move-up housing”.
Whenever property goes tax forfeit in Hennepin County, the County advises the city where the
property is located. Cities have the option of requesting a tax deed for the property for a public
purpose, requesting a nonpublic sale to the city, or authorizing the County to sell the property at
auction. The County also requests the city confirm by resolution the classification of the
property as Non-Conservation (i.e. not a wetland, lake, etc.).
City staff has reviewed this property and recommend that it be purchased by the Housing
Authority using Housing Rehab Funds. The attached resolution designates the property at 1600
Hampshire as a non-conservation land which would allow acquisition by the city (Housing
Authority) for development or public use.
Hennepin County requires municipalities to approve a resolution approving designation of tax
forfeit land as non-conservation and requesting its purchase in order for it to be sold for
development. This is a legal requirement that allows cities to purchase tax forfeited lands
located in their communities rather than having the County sell the land through public auction.
In this case, the resolution must be passed within 60 days from the July 17, 2004 date, or
September 17, 2004.
The plan is for the City to acquire and resell the 1600 Hampshire parcel as a site for “move-up”
single family home. Design standards for building on the lot will be established before the
property is sold. The design guidelines are anticipated to include requirements for a home with
3+ bedrooms, 2 baths, a 2 car garage and amenities such as a great room.
Property Information:
§ This property is a vacant lot located in the Bronx Park neighborhood.
§ The City condemned and demolished an existing house on the property in 1995 and a
garage in 1997.
§ Special assessments for demolition, legal fees and lot maintenance total $24,530.82.
§ The lot is zoned R2 and is 40’ x 135’. A 1,800 sq. ft. home can be built and meet code
and zoning requirements, and conforms to the Comp Plan.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
090704 - 8d - Tax Forfeited Property Purchase
Page 2
§ An encumbrance on the property exists. The 2 lots directly to the south have a 15’ wide
easement over the rear 15’ of the lot for access to their garages.
Purchase Price to the City: $46,588
The purchase price is based on the 2004 assessed land value of $45,000; and, assurance fee, state
deed preparation fee, filing fees and the state deed tax totaling $1,558.00. Legal and
administrative fees related to the acquisition will be approximately $500.00. The total
acquisition cost is $47,088.
Because this property is being sold by the County as tax forfeited property, the County is
required to share the proceeds form the land sale with the City. The City’s share of the land sale
proceeds will be approximately $24,531.
Resale of 1600 Hampshire:
It is projected that the City will sell the lot for $45,000. As a Home Renewal Program project,
the lot will be sold to a selected buyer/builder based on conformance to program design
guidelines as well as lot price. The estimated net cost to the City for creating an opportunity for
a new single family home on this lot is $2,500 assuming a total acquisition cost of $47,500 and a
lot sales price of $45,000.
It is estimated a home in the low to mid $300,000 price range would be built. A new home in that
price range would be compatible with homes in this neighborhood. The following is current
market information for the Bronx Park Neighborhood in which this property is located:
§ The average 2004 sale price in the Bronx neighborhood is about $230,000.
§ The most expensive recent sale at 1446 Jersey, an 80 ft lot with new home built in 1996,
sold for $325,000.
§ The 2004 average assessed value in the neighborhood is $185,440; the range of values is
from $130,000 to $238,500.
§ Estimated land values range from $35,000 - $53,000.
Benefits of acquisition of 1600 Hampshire for redevelopment:
§ Construction of a new single family home..
§ Redevelopment of vacant lot that had previously been a single family home.
§ Meets housing goal of building large family homes where feasible.
§ City cost is less than average for homes which have been built under the City’s Home
Renewal Program because the acquisition and estimated sale price are close and there is
no demolition needed.
§ City will capture all or part of special assessment payment.
Next Steps:
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
090704 - 8d - Tax Forfeited Property Purchase
Page 3
Assuming the Council approves the attached resolution, the St. Louis Park Housing Authority
will consider a resolution to purchase the property at it’s September 8, 2004 Board meeting.
The legal requirements for acquisitions of this type include: a certified copy of the City
Council’s resolution designating the land as nonconservation, a check for the amount of
$46,588.00 and a cover letter stating intention to purchase. Staff will proceed with these steps
upon Council approval of the attached Resolution.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the Resolution approving designation of non-
conservation land shown on Classification List “1297 C/NC” by the Board of County
Commissioners of Hennepin County
Attachment: Resolution
Prepared By: Kathy Larsen, Housing Programs Coordinator
Judie Erickson, Planning Coordinator
Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
090704 - 8d - Tax Forfeited Property Purchase
Page 4
RESOLUTION NO. 04-108
RESOLUTION APPROVING DESIGNATION OF NONCONSERVATION
LAND SHOWN ON CLASSIFICATION LIST “1297 C/NC”
BY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF HENNEPIN COUNTY
1600 HAMPSHIRE AVENUE SOUTH
WHEREAS, the City Council of St. Louis Park has received from the County Auditor of
Hennepin County a list of lands in said City which became the property of the State of
Minnesota for nonpayment of taxes and said list has been designated as Classification List “1297
C/NC”; and
WHEREAS, the parcel of land described in said list has heretofore been classified by the
Board of County Commissioners of Hennepin County as nonconservation land, and its sale has
been authorized by said Board; therefore,
WHEREAS, as City requests acquisition of said properties for redevelopment of a single
family home under the Home Renewal Program which is administered by the St. Louis Park
Housing Authority;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council, pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes 1949, Section 282.01, Subd. 1, that the Board’s classification of land as
nonconservation described in said list is approved, and the sale of the land described below is
approved:
Lot 35, Richmond, Hennepin County, Minnesota
Property I.D. 05 117 21 43-0004
1600 Hampshire Avenue South
St. Louis Park, MN 55410
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council September 7, 2004
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk