HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002/03/18 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Regular 1
AGENDA - CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
March 18, 2002
7:30 p.m.
Economic Development Authority – No Meeting
6:00 p.m. Joint Mtg – City Council & Park Nicollet Staff, Westwood Room
1. Call to Order
a. Pledge of Allegiance
b. Roll Call
2. Presentations
3. Approval of Minutes
a. City Council Minutes of March 4, 2002
b. Study Session Minutes of February 25, 2002
Action: Corrections/amendments to minutes - Minutes approved as presented
4. Approval of Agenda and Consent Items
NOTE: Consent items are 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.
a. Approval of Agenda
Action: Motion to approve (Alternatively, motion to add or remove items from
the agenda, motion to move items from consent to regular agenda for
discussion).
b. Approval of Consent Items
1. Motion to Approve Second Reading and adopt text amendments to Chapter 36 of
Municipal Code to add a new land use titled “Post Office Customer Service”
along with a definition, standards and parking requirements, approve summary
and authorize publication. (Case No. 01-61-ZA)
2
2. Motion to approve second reading, to adopt a zoning ordinance text amendment
to allow a State Licensed Residential Facility serving 6 or fewer persons in each
unit of a two-family dwelling in the R-3 District, to approve summary ordinance
and authorize publication (Case No. 02-04-ZA).
3. Motion to order that the adoption of an ordinance to create Special Service
District #3 and the adoption of a resolution for the imposition of a service charge
within that district be considered at the same public hearing scheduled for April 1,
2002 and that the public hearing previously approved for April15, 2002 be
cancelled.
4. Motion to designate Sobiech backhoe & Tree Service as the lowest responsible
bidder, and authorize execution of a contract for the 2002 Dutch Elm Disease
Tree Removal Program in an amount not to exceed $112,415.00.
5. Motion to designate Rainbow Tree Care, Inc. as the lowest responsible bidder and
to authorize execution of a contract for the 2002 Arbotect 20-S Elm injection
program at a cost of $8.80 per diameter inch.
6. Motion to adopt the attached resolution rescinding Resolution Numbers: 3448,
6591, 86-53, 96-65, 7381, 6928, 5717, and 6470 and adopting the attached
resolution authorizing the restriction of parking on the south side of the south
frontage road of I-394 200 feet east and 200 feet west of Zarthan Avenue; the
east and west sides of Zarthan Avenue from the south frontage road of I-394 to
200 feet south of W. 16th Street; and no parking Monday to Friday (Except
holidays on west side only) from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. from 200 feet south of W. 16th
Street to 130 feet north of Cedar Lake Road and authorizing installation of 3-way
stop signs at the Zarthan Avenue intersection with the south frontage road of I-
394.
7. Motion to adopt the attached resolution accepting this report, establishing and
ordering an improvement project, approving plans and specifications and
authorizing advertisement for bids for replacement of water main on Excelsior
Boulevard between Princeton Avenue and Kipling Avenue.
8. Motion to adopt the attached resolution approving Change Order No. 2 with SRF
Consulting Group, Inc. for Professional Engineering Services for Phase III
Excelsior Boulevard Streetscape improvement in the amount of $90,200,
increasing the total contract amount from $192,400 to $282,600.
9. Motion to accept the following reports for filing:
a. Board of Zoning Appeals of January 24, 2002
b. Human Rights Commission Minutes of January 16, 2002
c. Planning Commission Minutes of February 20, 2002
d. Vendor Claims
Action: Motion to approve Consent Items
3
5. Public Hearings
5a. Public Hearing: Alley Paving – 4000 Block between Toledo Avenue and Utica
Avenue
This report considers paving the alley in the 4000 block between Toledo and Utica
Avenues.
Recommended
Action:
Mayor to close Public Hearing. Motion to adopt the attached
Resolution ordering the construction of a concrete alley in the
4000 block between Toledo Avenue and Utica Avenues,
approving plans and specifications and authorizing receipt of
bids.
5b. Assessment Hearing for Alley Paving Project in the 4000 block between
Toledo and Bruswick Avenues
Following Council’s action to establish the project a separate public hearing is
required to order the assessment to affected property owners
Recommended
Action:
Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to adopt a resolution
ordering the assessment
5c. Public Hearing and first reading of an ordinance reconfiguring ward
boundaries
Every 10 years following the census the city is required to reconfigure ward
boundaries to balance representation of the city’s population. This public hearing
is being held to solicit citizen input on the proposed plan.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to continue the public hearing and first reading to April
1, 2002
6. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public
7. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions
7a. Consideration of premises permit renewal for the MN Youth Boxing Club at
Al’s Liquors, located at 3912 Excelsior Blvd.
Recommended
Action:
1) Motion to adopt a resolution approving the renewal; OR
2) Motion to adopt a resolution of denial
7b. 1st Reading of an ordinance amending the city’s general parking restrictions
from a 12 hour limit to a 48 hour limit
4
This ordinance would increase the amount of time cars are allowed to be
continuously parked from 12 hours to 48 hours.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve 1st reading of an ordinance amending the
city’s general parking restrictions and set second reading for
April 4, 2002
7c. Restriping and parking restrictions on Minnetonka Boulevard
This project considers the restriping of Minnetonka Boulevard to two (2) lane
traffic west of Highway 100 and to four (4) lane traffic east of Highway 100 which
would eliminate on-street parking along most of the street.
Recommended
Action:
1. Motion to adopt the attached resolution to rescind existing
parking resolutions along Minnetonka Boulevard;
2. Motion to adopt the attached resolution to remove parking on
the north side of Minnetonka Boulevard from Virginia
Avenue to Inglewood Avenue & on the south side of
Minnetonka Boulevard from Virginia Avenue to Huntington
Avenue; and to direct Hennepin County to install lane
striping as appropriate;
3. Motion to adopt the attached resolution which retains parking
controls at various locations on and adjacent to Minnetonka
Boulevard.
7d. City Engineer’s Report: Excelsior Boulevard Streetscape Improvements from
Quentin Avenue to Monterey Drive – Project Nos. 99-05 and 01-04
This project considers Excelsior Boulevard Streetscape improvements from
Quentin Avenue to Monterey Drive.
Recommended
Action:
1. Motion to adopt the attached resolution accepting this report,
establishing and ordering Project Nos. 99-05 and 01-04,
approving plans and specifications, authorizing receipt of
bids for improvements on Excelsior Boulevard; and
2. Motion to adopt the attached resolution rescinding parking
on Excelsior Boulevard and on Monterey Drive; and
3. Motion to adopt the attached resolution authorizing parking
restrictions on Excelsior Boulevard and on Monterey Drive.
8. Boards and Committees
9. Communications
10. Adjournment
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.
5
Item # 3a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
March 4, 2002
1. Call to Order
Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
The following Councilmembers were present at roll call: Jim Brimeyer, Ron Latz, Chris
Nelson, Susan Sanger, Sue Santa, Sally Velick, and Mayor Jeff Jacobs.
Also present were the City Manager (Mr. Meyer); City Attorney (Mr. Scott); Finance
Director (Ms. McGann); Director of Community Development (Mr. Harmening); Human
Resource Manager (Ms. Gohman); Planning and Zoning Supervisor (Ms. Jeremiah);
Director of Parks and Recreation (Ms. Walsh); Housing Supervisor (Ms. Schniker);
Housing Programs Coordinator (Ms. Larsen); City Clerk (Ms. Reichert); and Recording
Secretary (Ms. Samson).
2. Presentations - None
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. City Council Minutes of February 19, 2002
The minutes were approved as presented.
3b. Study Session Minutes of February 11, 2002
From Mayor Jacobs: Page 12, Paragraph 8, in the sentence beginning, “He would like
to have the issue resolved” change business community to general community.
From Councilmember Latz: Page 12, Paragraph 8, at the end of the first sentence, “task
force to consider smokers’ rights in the community” change smokers’ to nonsmokers’.
3c. Study Session Minutes of February 19, 2002
The minutes were approved as presented.
4. Approval of Agenda and Consent Items
NOTE: Consent items are 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
6
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. Approval of Agenda
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to approve
the agenda.
The motion passed 7-0.
4b. Approval of Consent Items
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to approve
the following Consent Agenda Items.
The motion passed 7-0.
1. Property owners have requested a public hearing April 1, 2002 to consider the
establishment of a special service district along Excelsior Boulevard between
Quentin Avenue and Monterey Drive and a hearing April 15, 2002 to consider the
imposition of a service charge within the district.
2. Motion to approve second reading of ordinance for a Zoning Map amendment to
change the zoning map designation from IP-Industrial Park to C2-General
Commercial for properties located at 3533 Raleigh Avenue South, 3550, 3540,
3532 and the south 180 feet of 3510 Belt Line, approve summary and authorize
publication.
3. Motion to hire Lewis & Associates to conduct a franchise fee audit for 2000 and
2001, as recommended by the Telecommunications Commission.
4. Motion to approve the final payment for Barber Construction Company Inc. in the
amount of $1,413.30 for the completion of Contract No. 105-01.
5. Motion to accept the following reports for filing:
a. Planning Commission Minutes of February 6, 2002
b. Housing Authority Minutes of January 9, 2002
c. Vendor Claims
5. Public Hearings
5a. Public Hearing – West Suburban Housing Partners Private Activity Revenue
Bond
Jean McGann, Finance Director, said West Suburban Housing Partners (“WSHP”) has
requested the City to issue $9,165,000 of private activity revenue bonds to construct an 88-
unit multi-family housing project. About two to four weeks after approval of the
7
preliminary resolution, a final resolution will come before the Council for approval. The
purpose of the final resolution, which will require six votes, is to set the bond up for sale.
Councilmember Nelson said Council previously expressed concerns about the distribution
or the percentages of low-income housing or subsidized housing versus non-subsidized
housing, and he does not see that in the preliminary resolution. He asked if it will be
included in the final resolution. Ms. McGann said that information will be included in the
documentation for the final resolution.
Councilmember Sanger asked what the current plan is on that subject. Ms. McGann said
25% of the units, which is 23 units.
Councilmember Latz would like to increase the percentage to 40% at 60% of the median
income for affordable housing units. For the record, Councilmember Latz said it is
important for this issue, affordable housing in St. Louis Park, to be discussed at a Study
Session. He said because 25% is inadequate, he will vote against this proposal.
Mayor Jacobs said he would prefer a greater percentage, too.
It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Velick, to approve the
preliminary resolution to issue the Private Activity Revenue Bonds for West Suburban
Housing Partners in the amount not to exceed $9, 165,000.
The motion passed 6-1. (Councilmember Latz opposed).
Councilmember Santa would also like to see more affordable housing.
5b. Public Hearing to Consider Resolution Authorizing Renewal of Gambling
Premises Permit for the MN Youth Boxing Club at Al’s Liquors, located at 3912
Excelsior Blvd.
Cindy Reichert, City Clerk, reported the Minnesota Youth Boxing Club (“MYBC”) has
submitted an application for a two-year gambling premises permit to run from April 1,
2002 through March 31, 2004. The license is issued by the State but requires local
approval.
Councilmember Sanger asked if information is available stating the application complies
with the Trade Area Requirements (“TAR”) for the City’s gambling premises permit. Ms.
Reichert said the City does not yet have an audited report, however, the audit is underway;
based on partial records the City Clerk has on file, it appears MYBC does not meet the
TAR. Ms. Reichert is expecting the completed audit in a few weeks.
Councilmember Sanger does not want to approve the permit without the audit information,
and she would rather defer this item to the next regular City Council meeting.
Ms. Reichert said the MYBC donates $10,000 annually to Parktacular.
8
Councilmember Nelson stated the Council should not be involved in who gives what to
whom; Council has no business other than issuing a license based on statutes, and it is not
to be determined by Council which charity is worthy and which is not—particularly based
on geography. Councilmember Nelson said it appears MYBC will not meet the TAR, and
if Council is serious, the permit should be denied but he suggests instead that Council ask
Staff to prepare a resolution repealing the TAR. With that, Councilmember Nelson falls on
his long-stated position that he does not support charitable gambling at all and he will vote
against it.
Mr. Scott McDonald, gambling manager for MYBC, addressed the Council. He said there
is no way for Staff to know if the monies transferred to the general account were spent in
the contiguous area. He added the MYBC’s audit is due to the State in June, and monies
were spent in St. Louis Park. Mr. McDonald suggested granting the permit conditionally.
Ms. Reichert said the State Gambling Board is expecting the application to be a little late,
and the City may not grant a provisional license. The City only gives its authorization to
the State to grant a two-year license, and the State does not enforce local regulations,
therefore, the only opportunity for Council is now at the time of endorsing the resolution
authorizing renewal.
Councilmember Latz, who also opposes TAR and voted against it last year, asked the City
Attorney, Tom Scott, if Council has any discretion with regard to how this matter is voted
given the TAR compliance and an ordinance regarding audited numbers to verify where the
monies are spent. Mr. Scott answered, Council would have some discretion on the audited
financial statement requirement but Council would need to be satisfied that the TAR is in
fact being met or can reasonably be met in the foreseeable future. Mr. Scott suggested
deferring this item to the next Council meeting, and he does not recommend Council to
make a determination that MYBC are not in fact able to comply; Mr. Scott understands
MYBC can potentially demonstrate that they comply with the TAR.
Councilmember Sanger asked if the renewal for a gambling premises permit could be re-
issued in June when the audited numbers are available and if MYBC is in compliance with
the TAR? In other words, can the permit be suspended due to noncompliance until all
information is in? Mr. Scott said he will investigate the issue and review the ordinance and
statute, and address it at the next meeting.
Ms. Reichert said she thinks the State would not go along with the delay as it is a license
renewal by the State, and St. Louis Park is only giving its endorsement.
Mr. Meyer raised the question, Does the MYBC believe they can provide the City with un-
audited materials that would substantiate the TAR had been met on a timely basis for
Council to consider when they meet two weeks from tonight? Mr. McDonald did not
provide a direct answer.
Councilmember Nelson made a motion to repeal the TAR, and whatever other restrictions
the Council has in place, for charitable gambling and if no vote on his motion tonight, then
9
put it on the next regular agenda. Councilmember Latz will second the motion provided
the motion is limited to repeal the TAR but not any of the other restrictions.
Councilmember Sanger said it is totally inappropriate to vote on a motion on a new issue
for which Councilmembers are unprepared to vote on. She has supported, and continues to
support, TAR because it is beneficial to the community of St. Louis Park and surrounding
communities.
David Payne, owner of Al’s Liquors, 3912 Excelsior Blvd., addressed the Council. He said
MYBC is the single largest contributor to Parktacular, and he said MYBC will end up in
compliance with the TAR. Mr. Payne said he has never been in favor of the TAR.
Councilmember Brimeyer said he cannot support Councilmember Nelson’s motion, a
discussion about TAR should take place at a Study Session, and he votes to defeat the
motion. Mayor Jacobs added TAR should be discussed at a Study Session.
Councilmember Nelson withdrew his motion with the understanding that TAR discussion
will be put on a Study Session agenda, and Councilmember Latz agreed.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to defer this
issue until the next regular Council meeting of March 18th; and ask the Applicant to bring
information forward in good faith that may support the Applicant’s standing with the TAR.
Mr. Meyer said his concern regarding the motion is if the Applicant can not provide
information supporting compliance with the TAR, then Council may gain nothing by
deferring this matter two weeks. Another option would be to make a motion that would ask
Staff to prepare a resolution with findings to deny. Councilmember Brimeyer expressed
agreement with Mr. Meyer.
Mayor Jacobs asked if this item could be deferred beyond March 18th. Ms. Reichert said
the gambling board gives some leeway in processing applications but she is unsure if they
can adjust the renewal date. The City Clerk will contact the gambling board to ask if it can
be deferred beyond March 18th.
Mr. Meyer said Council could direct Staff to prepare both a motion to approve and a
motion with findings to deny for March 18th, and Council may then take either course of
action.
Councilmember Sanger amended her motion to include Mr. Meyer’s suggestion. The
motion was seconded by Councilmember Santa.
The motion passed 7-0.
5c. Public Hearing to consider allocation of 2002 Community Development Block
Grant Funds
10
Kathy Larsen, Housing Programs Coordinator, said the proposed allocation activities this
year will reflect the priorities listed in Vision St. Louis Park, and also in the EDA strategic
plan housing and business plan.
Wynn Granstran, Community Action for Suburban Hennepin, addressed the Council saying
CASH has operated this program since 1992, which includes rehab projects. Linda
Trummer, Meadowbrook Collaborative, 4772 Meadowbrook Lane, thanked the Council for
their continued support. Sharon Johnson, Executive Director of Wayside House, also
thanked the Council for considering funding for rehabilitation and repair at Wayside
House.
Councilmember Sanger said she has been a long-time board member of Wayside House
and, as such, she thinks she has a conflict of interest in this matter. For the record,
Councilmember Sanger will abstain from the portion of the motion in regard to the
Wayside House.
It was moved by Councilmember Velick, seconded by Councilmember Latz, to adopt
Resolution 02-017 approving proposed use of funds for 2002 Urban Hennepin County
Community Development Block Grant funds, and authorizing execution of Subrecipient
Agreement with Hennepin County and any related Third Party Agreements.
The motion passed 7-0.
6. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public--None
7. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions
7a. Firefighters Contract for 1/1/02 – 12/31/02 Resolution No. 02-018
Nancy Gohman, Human Resources Manager, recognized Paul Rosholt, a member of the
firefighters negotiation team, for his participation in contract negotiations, and she provided
a summary on negotiations.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to adopt
Resolution No. 02-018 approving a Labor Agreement between the City and International
Association of Firefighters Local 993, establishing terms and conditions of employment for
one year: 1/1/02 – 12/31/02.
The motion passed 7-0.
Mr. Meyer recognized Ms. Gohman’s expertise and negotiating skills as being responsible
for facilitating productive and efficient contract negotiations.
7b. Police Sergeant Contract for 1/1/02 – 12/31/02 Resolution No. 02-019
Ms. Gohman said the change in this contract is from the old sick and vacation program into
a flex leave program.
11
It was moved by Councilmember Brimeyer, seconded by Councilmember Sanger to adopt
Resolution No. 02-019 approving a Labor Agreement between the City and Law
Enforcement Labor Services (LELS) #218, establishing terms and conditions of
employment for one year: 1/1/02 – 12/31/02.
The motion passed 7-0.
7c. The request of the City of St. Louis Park for a Conditional Use Permit for the
placement of approximately 20,000 cubic yards of topsoil fill on Oak Park
Village Park in the northwest quadrant of Louisiana Avenue and Walker Street.
Case No. 02-08-CUP Resolution No. 02-020
Councilmember Nelson asked Janet Jeremiah, Planning and Zoning Supervisor, what route
will be taken to remove soil from Park Commons, and Ms. Jeremiah said the fill, an
engineered topsoil, will come from outside of Park Commons.
It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Velick, to adopt
Resolution 02-020 approving the Conditional Use Permit subject to conditions listed in the
resolution.
The motion passed 7-0.
7d. The request of the City of St. Louis Park for a Conditional Use Permit for the
placement of approximately 10,400 cubic yards of fill on Wolfe Park for soil
corrections and final amphitheater and parkway grading at 3700 Monterey
Drive. Resolution No. 02-021
Case No. 02-09-CUP
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Latz, to adopt
Resolution No. 02-021 approving the Conditional Use Permit subject to conditions listed
in the resolution.
The motion passed 7-0.
7e. Request of Edith Mmuma for a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Regarding
State Licensed Residential Facilities in the R-3 Two-Family Residential District
Case No. 02-04-ZA
Ms. Jeremiah summarized Applicant Edith Mmuma’s request, which is consistent with
State statutes.
Councilmember Nelson said Ms. Mmuma met with the Elmwood Neighborhood
Association. The 15 attendees were generally supportive of her concept, however, there is
concern that the text amendment not be construed by other applicants to operate homes for
12
juvenile sex offenders or similar; the Applicant withdrew part of her request for a text
amendment to accommodate that request. With the understanding that the text amendment
would not apply to halfway houses and similar facilities, Councilmember Nelson will make
a motion.
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Latz, to approve First Reading of a
zoning ordinance text amendment to allow a State Licensed Residential Facility in each
unit of a Two-Family Dwelling in the R-3 District and set Second Reading for March 18,
2002.
Councilmember Sanger asked what other types of facilities may take advantage of the
revised ordinance in order to house 12 people in one building. Mr. Scott said under St.
Louis Park non-statutory ordinances, offender type group homes would not be acceptable
in regard to the text amendment for this request. Councilmember Sanger asked if the
ordinance could be revised to permit the use that is being proposed here without necessarily
opening the door for other uses such as chemical dependency and sex offender facilities.
Mr. Scott said no.
The motion passed 7-0.
8. Boards and Committees--None
9. Communications
Mr. Meyer—Mr. Meyer said Rule M, regarding bufferyards around wetlands and water
bodies, has been deferred.
A proposal for private inspections of housing construction is dead.
As of late last week, re-election of Councilmembers elected by ward, and where there have
been changes in ward boundaries due to reapportionment, is still alive.
The budget has been overridden, and the budget in place does not include any cuts to local
government aid (LGA).
Councilmember Nelson—Councilmember Nelson reminded listeners about precinct
caucuses on Tuesday, March 5th.
11. Adjournment
Mayor Jacobs adjourned the meeting at 9:00 p.m.
City Clerk Mayor
13
Item # 3b
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
Minutes of February 25, 2002
Th meeting convened at 7:00 p.m.
Present at the meeting were Councilmembers Jim Brimeyer, Chris Nelson, Susan Sanger, Sue
Santa, Sally Velick, and Mayor Pro-tem Ron Latz and Mayor Jeff Jacobs (who arrived later in
the meeting).
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Meyer), Director of Community Development (Mr.
Harmening), and City Clerk (Ms. Reichert).
1. Traffic Circle Sculpture – Allegory of Excelsior
Andrea Myklebust was in attendance at the meeting.
Ms. Myklebust stated that a lot of interest has been shown on the sculpture via online discussions
on her website. She encouraged Council to visit the website for more information.
Ms. Myklebust showed the modifications to the sculpture that came as a result of previous
discussions.
Councilmember Nelson indicated that he preferred the original work and that he did not care as
much for the rough texture of the new design. The majority of the rest of the Council agreed that
they like certain components of the newer design better, but agreed that the smoother texture was
preferable. Councilmember Latz felt the original design included dynamism and worked better
for the city’s needs.
Council discussed several of the comments that were brought up on the website. Ms. Myklebust
stated that one comment came from an individual that felt nudity was inappropriate and very
difficult to explain to his seven-year-old son. She added that another comment received in
response to that was from someone who wondered if art in the public realm was to be judged
based upon the sensibilities of a seven-year-old.
Mr. Meyer inquired about the feasibility of the structure from an engineering standpoint.
Councilmember Velick asked if Council would see the final product before signing the contract.
Mr. Meyer replied that they would not, that the contract will be signed and then the artist will
complete the sculpture.
Councilmember Velick stated that she does not like the concept and had something different in
mind for the traffic circle sculpture. Councilmember Latz asked Councilmember Velick if she
could be comfortable with the concept and whether she could live with it. Councilmember
Velick stated that she could but still does not like the concept.
Councilmember Sanger felt that since the major concern with the sculpture was nudity, a plaque
should go along with it to explain its symbolism and significance. Ms. Myklebust stated that she
agreed and that several layers of information on the sculpture will be available.
14
Mr. Harmening stated that staff would be bringing the contract forward. Ms. Myklebust outlined
the order of the work to be done stating that first the contract must signed. She will then start the
studio work and hire a model to pose for the sculpture, creating clay models. Following that she
will determine the scale of the sculpture and how the sculpture will be connected to the base.
She will then begin working with the real materials, building a scale model. There will be a final
presentation to the Council. Lastly, fabrication on the real scale sculpture will begin. Ms.
Myklebust stated that at least a two-month period would occur before the final presentation to
Council.
Mr. Becker stated that there are three phases to the process. The first will involve the start and
design of the sculpture. Second, the actual work on the sculpture will begin contingent on
approval by Council. The last phase will be the installation of the sculpture in the traffic circle.
Councilmember Latz stated that he likes the sculpture and thanked Ms. Myklebust.
Mr. Harmening informed Council that the contract would be coming to the next regular Council
meeting for final approval.
2. Park Commons East Streetscape and Architecture Update
Bob Cunningham, TOLD Development Company, and a representative of Damon Farber
Associates were present at the meeting.
The representative from Damon Farber presented the most current plans and design elements to
the Council.
Councilmember Latz would like to see accessible recycling cans incorporated into the design.
The representative from Damon Farber emphasized that maintenance is a key issue in this
project. He showed the fixtures, planters, bike stands and other items that would be included in
the design.
Mr. Cunningham reported that they were on track in terms of leasing out space. He also
discussed the architecture and brick selection for the buildings.
3. West Suburban Housing Partners Private Activity Revenue Bonds
Councilmembers Sanger and Nelson expressed their concern over the financing of the project.
Mr. Harmening replied that all issues that had caused concern previously had been addressed.
Mr. Harmening commented that the major concern for Council now is to determine the mix of
affordable housing.
Councilmember Latz explained how the overall percent of affordable units at a percentage of
median income could affect the funding for the development.
Councilmember Latz informed Council that he had spoken to a representative from the
Metropolitan Interfaith Council for Affordable Housing (MICAH) to inquire what they felt
would be an appropriate mix of affordable housing units in the development. They confirmed
that the proposed numbers that were being looked at were adequate.
15
The developer stated that the proposal allowed for twenty-five percent of the units to be
affordable housing for persons at the fifty- percent mark of the median income.
Councilmember Latz would like to see more units affordable such as dedicating forty percent of
the units to affordable housing for persons earning up to sixty percent of the median income.
The majority of the Council wanted to see a lower proposal.
Councilmember Latz stated that the demographic mix would be the same within the development
whether or not there is a lesser number of affordable units. He commented that the important
question would be if the tenants in the building would be stretched to pay for their units. He felt
that the city had a good assortment of affordable housing prior to the Park Commons project, but
now is the time to balance it out again.
Councilmember Velick questioned staff on how the city was doing with affordable housing. Mr.
Harmening replied that in addition to new units the city is doing well with rental affordable
housing. He added that in terms of owned affordable housing, the city has lost a great deal of
affordable properties as a result of rising home values and new construction of market rate
housing.
Councilmember Santa was concerned about pockets of affordable housing in the city and felt that
affordable housing needs to be spread throughout the community.
Councilmember Nelson felt that St. Louis Park is contributing a fair amount of affordable
housing to the market.
Councilmember Brimeyer voiced his support for either level of affordable housing that was
proposed.
Mr. Harmening stated that staff would move to hold a public hearing at the next regular meeting.
4. Building at Oak Park Village
Bruce Cornwall of BTR, Inc. was present at the meeting.
Mr. Cornwall stated that the location of the building has been moved due to poor soil condition
at the original location.
Mr. Cornwall discussed the location of the restrooms that are to be located in the building. He
also mentioned the concerns over traffic flow near the adjacent housing in the area.
Council discussed renting storage space in the building to some of the athletic associations and
how much space would be needed to provide that storage.
Councilmember Latz inquired how the financing would work for this project. Mr. Meyer
replied that they could issue general obligation bonds. Council discussed renting out the rooms
of the building out to create revenue to help pay off the bonds.
Councilmember Latz asked what the building user groups preferred to use the building for and if
they would be willing to pay to have a larger building.
16
Council directed staff to plan on the larger building but to first discuss the options with the
primary building users. Council would also like staff to provide revenue projections.
5. Twelve Hour Parking Restriction
Ms. Reichert updated the Council on the analysis of the parking situation on city streets. Staff
recommended increasing the time frame to allow vehicles to be parked continuously for forty-
eight hours. Lt. Dilorenzo stated that the Police department was planning to change their
procedure and would provide notice to the vehicle owner at the time the tires are chalked. This
would provide notice earlier in the process and allow the owner to move the vehicle before being
issued a citation.
Council briefly discussed the recommendation and agreed that it should come forward as an
ordinance change. They directed staff to move forward with the recommendation.
6. Re-Striping of Minnetonka Boulevard
Ms. Hagen briefly went over the options for re-striping Minnetonka Boulevard and stated that
staff’s recommendation was to remove parking both east and west of Highway 100 and allow for
striped shoulders.
Councilmember Nelson felt that there was a high safety concern and concurred with staff’s
recommendation. He stated that the high number of accidents in the last two and a half years
raises a very valid safety issue.
Councilmember Brimeyer agreed with the safety issues, but stated that the businesses were
concerned that customers will not have good access to their stores.
Staff clarified that the recommended striping options would not prevent cars from stopping to let
off passengers before finding a parking spot.
Council suggested that a public hearing should be scheduled for the second meeting in March.
7. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 10:30p.m.
City Clerk Mayor
17
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 5a
Meeting of March 18, 2002
5a. Public Hearing: Alley Paving – 4000 Block between Toledo Avenue and Utica
Avenue
This report considers paving the alley in the 4000 block between Toledo and Utica
Avenues.
Recommended
Action:
Mayor to close Public Hearing. Motion to adopt the attached
Resolution ordering the construction of a concrete alley in the
4000 block between Toledo Avenue and Utica Avenues,
approving plans and specifications and authorizing receipt of
bids.
Background: At its February 4, 2002 meeting, the City Council approved the City Engineer’s
Report for construction of a concrete alley in the 4000 block between Toledo and Utica Avenues,
and scheduled a Public Hearing and Assessment Hearing for March 18, 2002.
Background information is summarized below:
Location: 4000 block between Toledo Avenue and Utica Avenue, (bordered by
Wooddale Avenue and 41st Street)
Proposed Project: Paving existing gravel alley with concrete
Estimated Cost: $41,272
Assessment Data: 100% of the cost for the concrete alley paving is proposed to be assessed
to the abutting property owners. The costs will be apportioned in
accordance with the City’s special assessment policy with direct and
indirect benefits. The estimated assessment for a typical 40 foot lot is
$1,699.00 payable over 20 years.
Parcels Within Assessment District: 29
Neighborhood Meeting Comments: On Wednesday, February 20, 2002 staff held a
neighborhood meeting for abutting property owners to
discuss the proposed project. A notice of this meeting
was sent to all property owners adjacent to this project.
A total of six (6) residents representing five (5)
properties attended the meeting. Staff reviewed the
proposed project, construction issues and schedule along
with the assessment costs. Staff responded to residents’
questions and had the preliminary plans available for
their review. No particular design issues were raised at
the meeting.
18
Notification: Abutting property owners received written notice of the
public hearing and assessment hearing.
Recommendation: Staff recommends proceeding with this project as outlined above and in the
City Engineer’s Report dated February 4, 2002.
Attachments: Resolution
Neighborhood Meeting Attendance List
City Engineer’s Report
Assessment Role
Prepared by: Maria A. Hagen, City Engineer
Reviewed by: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
19
RESOLUTION NO. _______
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING AND ORDERING AN IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A CONCRETE ALLEY IN THE
4000 BLOCK BETWEEN TOLEDO AVENUE AND UTICA AVENUE, AND
APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS &
AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR THE SAME
WHEREAS, pursuant to a resolution passed by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park on the 4th day of February, 2002, the City Engineer has prepared plans and specifications
for the construction of a concrete alley in the 4000 block between Toledo Avenue and Utica
Avenue and has presented such plans and specification to the City Council for approval;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that:
1. The proposed project is hereby established and ordered.
2. The plans and specifications for the making of the improvement, as prepared under the
direction of the City Engineer, are approved.
3. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted at least two weeks in the official
newspaper and at least one week in the Construction Bulletin, an advertisement for bids
for the making of said improvement under said-approved plans and specifications. The
advertisement shall appear not less than twenty one (21) days prior to the date and time of
receipt of bids, and specify the work to be done, state the date and time bids will be
received by the City Clerk, and that no bids will be considered unless sealed and filed
with the City Clerk and accompanied by a cashier’s check, bid bond, or certified check
payable to the City for five (5) percent of the amount of the bid.
4. The bids shall be tabulated by the City Engineer who shall report her tabulation and
recommendation to the City Council at the May 6, 2002 regular City Council meeting.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council March 18, 2002
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
20
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING
2/20/02
ATTENDANCE LIST
4000 BLOCK TOLEDO/UTICA AVENUES:
CONCRETE ALLEY PAVING
Name Address
Susan Bachman 4037 Utica Ave. So.
Steve Anderson 4065 Utica Ave. So.
Wade Gulbransen 4056 Toledo Ave. So.
Mischel Peacock 4085 Utica Ave. So.
Jim & Tiffany Frank 4069 Utica Ave. So.
21
REPORT FROM MEETING OF FEBRUARY 4, 2002
CONSENT ITEM # 2
St. Louis Park City Council
Meeting of February 4, 2002
2. Motion to adopt the attached resolution that accepts this report, establishes this
Improvement Project, directs staff to sponsor an informational meeting with
abutting property owners, and sets a Public Hearing and Assessment Hearing
date of March 18, 2002.
Background: On December 3, 2001, the residents in the 4000 block between Toledo Avenue
and Utica Avenue submitted a petition to the City requesting the alley be paved in accordance
with the City’s standard for alleys. The petition was signed by more property owners (69%) than
the 51% needed to advance the project.
City Alley Paving Special Assessment Policy:
The City’s Alley Paving Special Assessment Policy is as follows:
A. The cost of alley improvements for residential properties shall be assessed as follows when
at least 51 percent (alley front feet) of the property owners petition for the improvement:
1. Thirty (30) percent of the cost of the improvement shall be assessed against all
properties abutting the alley. (INDIRECT BENEFIT)
2. Seventy (70) percent of the cost of the improvement shall be assessed against directly
benefited properties as defined in paragraph 5(B). (DIRECT BENEFIT)
B. A property is directly benefited if it has an existing garage with direct access to the alley, if
an access to the alley could be constructed from an existing garage, or if, no garage exists,
there is sufficient area on the lot to build a garage with access to the alley.
C. Commercial and multi-family property owners shall be assessed 100 percent of the cost of
the improvement.
D. Alleys shall be constructed of concrete and shall be assessed for a period of 20 years.
Discussion: The City’s standard design for alley paving includes six (6)-inch thick concrete
pavement 10 feet in width with driveway apron connections between the paved alley and
abutting paved driveways. Private driveways outside the alley right-of-way are the responsibility
of the property owner. In accordance with City practice, the driveway connections will match
existing materials and grades. It is proposed that pavement grades be established to provide
positive drainage without requiring storm sewer construction.
Financial Considerations: The City’s Policy for funding alley improvements requires the
abutting property owners to pay 100% of the improvement costs. The Policy also provides for
the assessments to be levied as direct and indirect benefits based upon abutting frontage.
Estimated assessments and an estimated payment schedule have been attached for informational
purposes. A summary of the estimated costs and proposed assessments, based upon the City’s
Assessment Policy for alley improvements is as follows:
22
Estimated Costs:
Construction Costs $ 33,500
Contingency (10%) $ 3,350
Subtotal $ 36,850
Engineering & Administrative (12%) $ 4,422
TOTAL $ 41,272
Revenue Sources:
Special Assessments $ 41,272
Alley Improvement Project Timetable: Should the City Council approve the City Engineer’s
Report, it is anticipated that the following schedule could be met:
• City Engineer’s Report to City Council, February 4, 2002
Council sets date for Public Hearing and Assessment Hearing
• Staff holds informational meeting with residents February 20, 2002
• City Council holds Public Hearing & Assessment Hearing March 18, 2002
• Advertise for bids March/April
• Bid Opening April 24, 2002
• End of 30 Day Appeal on Assessments April 18, 2002
• Bid Tab Report to Council, Council can award the bid and order
the project or delay the project if there are any assessment
appeals
May 6, 2002
• Construction June, 2002
Feasibility: The project, as proposed herein, is necessary, cost effective, and feasible under the
conditions noted and at the costs estimated.
Public Involvement Process: Staff will schedule an informational meeting for February 20,
2002, prior to the Public Hearing/Assessment Hearing to inform residents of the process and
review the preliminary plans. The Council will be notified of the meeting place and time. Once
the project is awarded, staff will schedule another meeting with the affected property owners to
discuss the construction schedule.
Attachments: Resolution
Plan
Property owner list with estimated assessments
Prepared by: Maria Hagen, City Engineer
Reviewed by: Michael P. Rardin, Public Works Director
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
23
Utica Avenue/Toledo Avenue/41st Street/Wooddale Avenue
Alley Paving Assessment
ESTIMATED COST: $41,272
A. 70% DIRECT BENEFIT (garage or access)
B. 30% INDIRECT BENEFIT (dust, noise, mud
and service)
total $41,272
direct $28,890
indirect $12,382
INDIRECT DIRECT TOTAL
Address Feet % Allocation Feet % Allocation ALLOCATIO
N
4029 Utica Ave S 60 4.65 $576 60 5.36 $1,548 $2,124
4033 Utica Ave S 40 3.10 $384 40 3.57 $1,032 $1,416
4037 Utica Ave S 40 3.10 $384 40 3.57 $1,032 $1,416
4041 Utica Ave S 40 3.10 $384 40 3.57 $1,032 $1,416
4045 Utica Ave S 40 3.10 $384 40 3.57 $1,032 $1,416
4049 Utica Ave S 40 3.10 $384 40 3.57 $1,032 $1,416
4053 Utica Ave S 40 3.10 $384 40 3.57 $1,032 $1,416
4057 Utica Ave S 60 4.65 $576 60 5.36 $1,548 $2,124
4065 Utica Ave S 40 3.10 $384 40 3.57 $1,032 $1,416
4069 Utica Ave S 40 3.10 $384 40 3.57 $1,032 $1,416
4073 Utica Ave S 40 3.10 $384 40 3.57 $1,032 $1,416
4077 Utica Ave S 40 3.10 $384 40 3.57 $1,032 $1,416
4081 Utica Ave S 40 3.10 $384 40 3.57 $1,032 $1,416
4085 Utica Ave S 40 3.10 $384 40 3.57 $1,032 $1,416
4089 Utica Ave S 40 3.10 $384 40 3.57 $1,032 $1,416
4093 Utica Ave S 40 3.10 $384 0 0.00 $0 $384
4044 Toledo Ave S 40 3.10 $384 40 3.57 $1,032 $1,416
4048 Toledo Ave S 40 3.10 $384 40 3.57 $1,032 $1,416
4052 Toledo Ave S 40 3.10 $384 40 3.57 $1,032 $1,416
4056 Toledo Ave S 40 3.10 $384 40 3.57 $1,032 $1,416
4060 Toledo Ave S 40 3.10 $384 40 3.57 $1,032 $1,416
4064 Toledo Ave S 40 3.10 $384 40 3.57 $1,032 $1,416
4068 Toledo Ave S 40 3.10 $384 40 3.57 $1,032 $1,416
4072 Toledo Ave S 40 3.10 $384 40 3.57 $1,032 $1,416
4076 Toledo Ave S 40 3.10 $384 40 3.57 $1,032 $1,416
4080 Toledo Ave S 40 3.10 $384 40 3.57 $1,032 $1,416
4084 Toledo Ave S 40 3.10 $384 40 3.57 $1,032 $1,416
4088 Toledo Ave S 40 3.10 $384 40 3.57 $1,032 $1,416
4092 Toledo Ave S 40 3.10 $384 0 0.00 $0 $384
4017 Utica Ave S 90 6.98 $864 0 0.00 $0 $864
Total 1290 100.00 $12,382 1120 85.71 $28,890 $41,272
24
25
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 5b
Meeting of March 18, 2002
5b. Assessment Hearing for Alley Paving Project in the 4000 block between
Toledo and Bruswick Avenues
Following Council’s action to establish the project a separate public hearing is
required to order the assessment to affected property owners
Recommended
Action:
Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to adopt a resolution
ordering the assessment
Background:
At its February 4, 2002 meeting, the City Council approved the City Engineer’s Report for
construction of a concrete alley for the 4000 block between Toledo Avenue S. and Utica
Avenue. The City’s assessment policy (Res. #00-078) for funding alley improvements requires
abutting property owners to pay 100 % of the improvement costs. A petition was received in the
Assessing Division that was signed by 69% (51% required) of the benefited property owners. A
neighborhood meeting attended by 6 property owners was held February 20, 2002. Staff
reviewed the proposed construction, assessment costs and construction schedule. The property
owners who attended the meeting favored the construction project and assessments. The purpose
of holding the assessment hearing prior to completion of the project is to allow the City to
consider any objections to the assessment or the project - before it is built. .
Estimated cost: $41,272
Total Assessment: $41,272
Number of parcels: 30
Assessment Period: 20 years
Interest rate: 6.75%
Assessment Charge for a 40 front foot
lot:
$1,416
Annual
Payment:
Principal $71
Interest $96
Total Payment: $167
Attachments: Assessment Spread Sheet
Map
Resolution
Prepared by: Bruce Stepnick, City Assessor
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
26
RESOLUTION NO.________
RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT
IMPROVEMENT NO._____________ ALLEY PAVING
IN THE 4000 BLOCK BETWEEN TOLEDO AVENUE AND UTICA AVENUE.
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park as follows:
1. Notice of hearing on this improvement was duly mailed on March 1, 2002 and
published in the official City newspaper, the St__Louis_Park_Sailor, on March 6, 2002 and
March 13, 2002 as required by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429.
2. A public hearing having been held on this date and opportunity having been
given at the hearing to all persons to make known their objections to the proposed assessment,
and the Council being fully advised of the pertinent facts, the proposed assessment as it deems
just is adopted and shall constitute the special assessment levied against the respective lands
therein described, and each tract of land is found to be specifically benefited by the
improvements in the amount of assessment levied against it.
3. The assessment shall be payable, unless prepaid, in equal annual installments
extending over the period of 20 years. The first installment shall be payable concurrently with
general taxes levied in the year 2002, and payable in the year 2003 , and shall bear interest at the
rate of 6.75 percent per annum. To the first installment shall be added interest on the entire
assessment from November 1, 2002, until December 31, 2002, the year in which the assessment
will be levied. For subsequent installments, interest shall be added for one year on the total of all
unpaid installments. No interest will be charged as to any parcel if the entire assessment is paid
at the Office of the Treasurer within 30 days from the date of adoption of the assessment
resolution.
4. The location of the construction improvement over which installments are to be
extended for a period of 20 years is as follows:
Project Number Improvement Location
Alley Paving 4000 block between Toledo and Utica Avenues.
5. The Assessor’s Office shall transmit a certified copy of this assessment to the
county auditor to be extended on the proper tax lists of the county, and such assessments shall be
collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes.
Reviewed for Administration:
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council _______________
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
27
ESTIMATED COST: $41,272
A. 70% DIRECT BENEFIT (garage or access)
B. 30% INDIRECT BENEFIT (dust, noise, mud and service)
total 41272
direct 28890
indirect 12382
********* Indirect ******************** Direct **********Total
Indirect Direct Direct &
Address Ind feet % Indirect Allocation Dir feet % Direct Allocation Indirect
4029 Utica Ave S 60 4.65 $576 60 5.36 $1,548 $2,124
4033 Utica Ave S 40 3.10 $384 40 3.57 $1,032 $1,416
4037 Utica Ave S 40 3.10 $384 40 3.57 $1,032 $1,416
4041 Utica Ave S 40 3.10 $384 40 3.57 $1,032 $1,416
4045 Utica Ave S 40 3.10 $384 40 3.57 $1,032 $1,416
4049 Utica Ave S 40 3.10 $384 40 3.57 $1,032 $1,416
4053 Utica Ave S 40 3.10 $384 40 3.57 $1,032 $1,416
4057 Utica Ave S 60 4.65 $576 60 5.36 $1,548 $2,124
4065 Utica Ave S 40 3.10 $384 40 3.57 $1,032 $1,416
4069 Utica Ave S 40 3.10 $384 40 3.57 $1,032 $1,416
4073 Utica Ave S 40 3.10 $384 40 3.57 $1,032 $1,416
4077 Utica Ave S 40 3.10 $384 40 3.57 $1,032 $1,416
4081 Utica Ave S 40 3.10 $384 40 3.57 $1,032 $1,416
4085 Utica Ave S 40 3.10 $384 40 3.57 $1,032 $1,416
4089 Utica Ave S 40 3.10 $384 40 3.57 $1,032 $1,416
4093 Utica Ave S 40 3.10 $384 0 0.00 $0 $384
4044 Toledo Ave S 40 3.10 $384 40 3.57 $1,032 $1,416
4048 Toledo Ave S 40 3.10 $384 40 3.57 $1,032 $1,416
4052 Toledo Ave S 40 3.10 $384 40 3.57 $1,032 $1,416
4056 Toledo Ave S 40 3.10 $384 40 3.57 $1,032 $1,416
4060 Toledo Ave S 40 3.10 $384 40 3.57 $1,032 $1,416
4064 Toledo Ave S 40 3.10 $384 40 3.57 $1,032 $1,416
4068 Toledo Ave S 40 3.10 $384 40 3.57 $1,032 $1,416
4072 Toledo Ave S 40 3.10 $384 40 3.57 $1,032 $1,416
4076 Toledo Ave S 40 3.10 $384 40 3.57 $1,032 $1,416
4080 Toledo Ave S 40 3.10 $384 40 3.57 $1,032 $1,416
4084 Toledo Ave S 40 3.10 $384 40 3.57 $1,032 $1,416
4088 Toledo Ave S 40 3.10 $384 40 3.57 $1,032 $1,416
4092 Toledo Ave S 40 3.10 $384 0 0.00 $0 $384
4017 Utica Ave S 90 6.98 $864 0 0.00 $0 $864
Total 1290 100.00 $12,382 1120 85.71 $28,890 $41,272
28
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 5c
Meeting of March 18, 2002
5c. Public Hearing and first reading of an ordinance reconfiguring ward
boundaries
Every 10 years following the census the city is required to reconfigure ward
boundaries to balance representation of the city’s population. This public hearing
is being held to solicit citizen input on the proposed plan.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to continue the public hearing and first reading to April
1, 2002
Background:
The United States Constitution secures the right of equal representation in federal, state, and
local government elections. It requires each type of elective district to be as equal in population
as practicable. However, population changes over time result in uneven distribution across
districts. If district boundaries are not adjusted, some people will be under-represented and some
will be over-represented.
Redistricting, which occurs after each 10-year census, is the process used to adjust the various
election district boundaries to account for population shifts. It ensures that each official elected
from a particular type of district represents the same number of people. The Federal and State
redistricting process affects where our local boundaries for wards and precincts can be drawn.
City Charter calls for wards to be “as near equal size in both population and area as practicable”
and MN Statute language reads “wards shall be as equal in population as practicable and each
ward shall be composed of compact, contiguous territory.” The directive from the Secretary of
State’s Office and the Hennepin County Auditor is that deviation in population in any ward of
the city is to remain within 10% of the average population. In order for the City to comply with
this standard, minor adjustments will need to be made to the ward boundaries to better distribute
the population.
Because the city will not be receiving the legislative redistricting plan until March 20th, and the
entire process needs to be completed no later than April 30th, the timeline under which we are
working to draw our local district lines is very short. Council will be opening the public hearing
to receive citizen input on the proposal and will continue the public hearing to allow for changes
that may result from the legislative redistricting plan. Continuation of the public hearing and
first reading of the ordinance re-establishing wards will occur on April 1, 2002 and final
approval is recommended for April 15th.
Proposed Ward Boundary Changes
At the meeting of February 19, 2002, Council and staff met to discuss the redistricting process,
During that discussion Council suggested the following considerations they felt should be part of
the decision making process as we move forward with redrawing ward boundaries.
29
• Wards shall be as equal in population as practicable and each ward shall be composed of
compact, contiguous territory (statute and charter)
• Deviation in population in any ward of the city is to remain within 5% of the average -
10% overall (Secretary of State/County Auditor instructions)
• Ward lines will be drawn with an effort to preserve existing boundaries to as great an
extent as possible while conforming to the 10% variance
• As ward population is shifted and lines are redrawn, consideration will be given to
projected population shifts expected to occur at the next census
• Whenever possible, neighborhood boundaries will correspond to ward boundaries and
where existing ward lines cross neighborhood boundaries, lines will be redrawn
The proposed plan came out of that direction as well as subsequent discussions between the City
Clerk and the affected Councilmembers. In summary, these are the changes to ward lines being
proposed at the public hearing:
• That area of the Lenox neighborhood that is currently part of Ward 1 is annexed to
Ward 3 making the entire Lenox neighborhood part of a single ward (requested by Sanger
and Santa)
• The area north of West 28th Street, West of Louisiana and East of Virginia that is
currently part of Ward 3 is annexed to Ward 4. This raises the population of Ward 4 to a
level within 1% of zero (it is currently at nearly 8% below). Though this does create a
split in neighborhood boundaries, it is a logical division as persons in the parcel are
contiguous and have good access to polling locations in Ward 4 via both Louisiana and
Virginia Avenues.
Other options considered created problems due to the location of the railroad right of
way. (Velick and Santa have reviewed and discussed this option and have agreed that
this is the most logical alternative)
• The parcel in the Elmwood Neighborhood which lies between the Railroad line to the
South and Highway 7 to the North which is currently in Ward 1 is annexed to Ward 2.
This unifies the Elmwood neighborhood into a single ward and also raises the population
of Ward 2 to just over 2.17% below zero. Though that percentage is not ideal, it is within
the standard deviation. This proposal keeps neighborhood boundaries intact and allows
for the population growth that is projected to occur over the next few years due to the
addition of housing in Ward 2. (Requested by Nelson).
30
Population deviation of the proposed plan is: Ward 1 -0.4%
Ward 2 -2.17%
Ward 3 1.96%
Ward 4 0.63%
4.13% overall deviation
3
4
1
2
31
ORDINANCE NO. _______-02
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING WARD BOUNDARIES
BASED ON 2000CENSUS
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
SECTION 1. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Section 10-1 is hereby amended to read
as follows:
Sec. 10-1. Ward lines established.
Ward lines of the city are hereby determined, and the city is divided into four separate
wards, as follows:
(1) Ward No. 1. Ward No. 1 is as follows: Commencing at the intersection of the
north city limits and the Soo Line Railroad tracks, south along the Soo Line tracks
to the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks, west along the Burlington Northern
tracks to Louisiana Avenue South, south along Louisiana Avenue to Minnetonka
Boulevard, east along Minnetonka Boulevard to Dakota Avenue South, south
along Dakota Avenue to the Soo Line Railroad property, south/southwest along
the Soo Line property to the Soo Line Property. East along the Soo Line property
to State Highway No. 100 South, north along Highway 100 to Minnetonka
Boulevard, east along Minnetonka Boulevard to the east city limits, north along
the east city limits to the north city limits, west/northwest along the north city
limits to its intersection with the Soo Line Railroad tracks.
(2) Ward No. 2. Ward No. 2 is described as follows: Commencing at the intersection
of the Soo Line Railroad property with west city limits, south and east along the
west city limits to the south city limits, easterly along the south city limits to the
east city limits, north and east along the east city limits to Minnetonka Boulevard,
west along Minnetonka Boulevard to State Highway 100 South, south along
Highway 100 to the Soo Line Railroad Property, west along the Soo Line
Property to State Highway 100 South, north on State Highway 100 South to its
intersection with State Highway No. 7, west along State Highway No. 7 to the
Soo Line Property, South along the Soo Line Property to the Soo Line Property,
west on the Soo Line Property to its intersection with the west city limits.
(3) Ward No. 3. Ward No. 3 is described as follows: Commencing at the intersection
of the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks with the west city limits, south along
the west city limits to the south city limits, east along the south city limits to
Texas Avenue South (west city limits), south along Texas Avenue to the Soo Line
Railroad property, northeasterly along the Soo Line property to Dakota Avenue
South the Soo Line Property, north along the Soo Line Property to, north along
Dakota Avenue to Lake Street West, northeasterly along Lake Street to Dakota
32
Avenue, north along Dakota Avenue to Minnetonka Boulevard, west along
Minnetonka Boulevard to Louisiana Avenue South, north along Louisiana
Avenue to the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks, 28th Street West, west on
28th Street W to Virginia Ave S, north on Virginia Ave S to the Burlington
Northern tracks, southwesterly along the Burlington Northern tracks to its
intersection with the west city limits.
(4) Ward No. 4. Ward No. 4 is described as follows: Commencing at the intersection
of the north city limits with the west city limits, southeasterly along the west city
limits to the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks, easterly along the Burlington
Northern tracks to Virginia Ave S, south on Virginia Ave S to 28th street W, east
on 28th Street W to Louiaiana Ave S, north on Louisiana Ave S to the Soo Line
Railroad tracks, northeasterly along the Soo Line tracks to the north city limits,
west/northwest along the north city limits to its intersection with the west city
limits.
Attest: Adopted by the City Council April 4, 2002
City Clerk Mayor
Reviewed for Administration: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Manager City Attorney
33
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 7a
Meeting of March 4, 2002
7a. Consideration of premises permit renewal for the MN Youth Boxing Club at
Al’s Liquors, located at 3912 Excelsior Blvd.
Recommended
Action:
1) Motion to adopt a resolution approving the renewal; OR
2) Motion to adopt a resolution of denial
Background:
Council considered this renewal at the meeting of March 4, 2002, and at that time moved to
continue to the meeting of March 18th. Discussion at the March 4th meeting centered around
the question of compliance with the trade area restriction which reads as follows:
Sec. 15-8. Distribution of proceeds.
Each organization conducting lawful gambling within the city must
expend 90 percent of its lawful purpose expenditures on lawful purposes
conducted or located within the trade area. This section applies only to lawful
purpose expenditures of gross profits derived from lawful gambling conducted on
a premises within the city. At the end of the first fiscal year beginning after
January 1, 2000 and each year thereafter, each organization must file with the city
a report prepared by an independent certified public accountant documenting
compliance with the requirements of this section. In addition, each organization
must submit a report to the city listing all lawful purpose expenditures made in the
preceding year. The report shall identify the name of the entity to whom the check
was written, the city location of the recipient and the amount of the donation.
In December of 1999 when this provision was adopted, the MN Youth Boxing Association
submitted a letter (attached) to the City stating that a great number of the programs they
sponsored were located in St. Paul. They requested to be exempted from the provision, or that
the percentage of dollars spent in the trade area be phased in over a period of time. The council
did consider this request and worded the ordinance to require the first report at the end of fiscal
year 2001.
On February 4, 2002, MN Youth Boxing was contacted and informed that the Council would be
asking about their compliance with the restriction. They responded that their annual audit was
not yet complete, not due at the state until July of 2002, and would be submitted to the City at
that time.
When asked by the Council if they were in compliance with the ordinance, Mr. Scott McDonald,
Gambling Manager, stated that it was impossible for staff to know from reports submitted if the
gambling proceeds transferred to the association’s general account were spent in the contiguous
34
area. He added that the association gives $10,000 per year to the Parktacular celebration and that
additional monies were spent in the trade area. He did not give the specific dollar amount or
indicate what percentage of the association’s expenditures benefitted lawful purposes conducted
in the trade area. He did state that he believed they were in compliance with the ordinance..
The City Council asked that documentation be provided at the meeting of March 18 to show the
association’s compliance. They also directed staff to contact the State Gambling Board to
determine if the license renewal date could be postponed. The State Board has informed us that
the renewal date cannot be delayed. Renewal is set for April 1, 2002 and the Council must act
before that date to approve or deny the license.
The Council also requested that the issue of the Trade Area Restriction be added to a study
session agenda in the near future. Unfortunately, the decision to approve or deny the MN Youth
Boxing Association’s premises permit must be made prior to that discussion.
Response From Applicant:
Mr. Wayne Bebeau, CEO, informed staff on Tuesday, March 12th that they were working with
accountants to prepare materials for council consideration at the meeting on Monday the 18th.
Staff has asked to receive those materials in advance of the meeting and Mr. Bebeau indicated
that they would not be available prior to the meeting. He did state that it appeared that the
association is in compliance with the 90% trade area restriction based upon their initial review.
Trade Area Restriction:
At the time the trade area restriction was adopted, questions were raised concerning the
interpretation of the restriction. The City Attorney responded with the interpretation that as long
as the lawful purpose itself is conducted within the trade area and the expenditures are for that
purpose, it does not matter where the expenditure is made. For example, a purchase of sports
equipment from a supplier in another state is acceptable if that equipment is to be used by a local
sports team sponsored by the lawful gambling organization.
Attachments: Letter from Campbell Knutson , November 18, 1999
Letter from MN Youth Boxing, November 30, 1999
Police Investigation Report, February 19, 2002 – Page 2
Resolution of approval
Resolution of denial
Prepared by: Cynthia Reichert, City Clerk
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
35
RESOLUTION NO. 02-___
A RESOLUTION APPROVING ISSUANCE OF A PREMISES PERMIT
FOR LAWFUL GAMBLING
MN Youth Boxing Club
at Al’s Liquors, located at 3912 Excelsior Blvd.
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 349 and St. Louis Park Ordinance Code
Chapter 15 , provide for lawful gambling licensing by the State Gambling Control Board; and
WHEREAS, a licensed organization may not conduct lawful gambling at any site
unless it has first obtained from the Board a premise permit for the site; and
WHEREAS, the Board may not issue or renew a premises permit unless the
organization submits a resolution from the City Council approving the premises permit;
therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED by the City of St. Louis Park City Council that the applicant
listed below meets the criteria necessary to receive a premises permit, and the application is
hereby approved
MN Youth Boxing Club
at Al’s Liquors, located at 3912 Excelsior Blvd.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council March 18, 2002
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
36
RESOLUTION NO. 02-___
A RESOLUTION DENYING ISSUANCE
OF A PREMISES PERMIT FOR LAWFUL GAMBLING
MN Youth Boxing Association
at Al’s Liquors, located at 3912 Excelsior Blvd.
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City of St. Louis Park City Council:
FINDINGS
1. Section Sec. 15-8 of the Ordinance Code of the City of St. Louis Park states that each
organization conducting lawful gambling within the city must expend 90 percent of its lawful
purpose expenditures on lawful purposes conducted or located within the trade area.
2. In a letter to the City dated November 30, 1999, the Association stated “… a great
number of our programs dealing with youthful racial minorities are located in St. Paul.” They
felt that the imposition of a trade area restriction would significantly impact their ability to fund
those programs.
3. The investigative report prepared by the St. Louis Park Police Department states that the
organization runs a boxing gym at 440 Thomas Avenue in St. Paul and also supports several
other boxing gyms throughout the State of Minnesota. The report also indicates that when
questioned about compliance with Section 15-8, Mr. Bebeau stated that the association is in the
process of funding the St. Louis Park Parktacular. The amount of that local donation in 2001
was $10,000.
4. In a letter dated February 4, 2002, the City Clerk informed the association that their
audited report for fiscal year 2001 was due and that the Council would be requesting information
about their compliance with the ordinance. In response, the Clerk was informed that the
association’s annual audit was not yet complete and therefore documentation regarding their
compliance was not available.
5. During the council meeting of March 4, 2002, the Council delayed action until the next
regular meeting and requested that the association provide unaudited documentation for
consideration at that meeting.
WHEREAS, the MN Youth Boxing Association has not provided sufficient
documentation showing compliance with the trade area restriction; and
WHEREAS, the City Council cannot authorize renewal of a premises permit for any
organization is not in compliance with the ordinances of the city.
37
BE IT RESOLVED by the City of St. Louis Park City Council that the applicant listed
below does not meet the criteria necessary to receive a premises permit, and the application is
hereby denied.
MN Youth Boxing Association
At Al’s Liquors 3912 Excelsior Blvd
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council March 18, 2002
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
38
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 7b
Meeting of March 18, 2002
7b. 1st Reading of an ordinance amending the city’s general parking restrictions
from a 12 hour limit to a 48 hour limit
This ordinance would increase the amount of time cars are allowed to be continuously
parked from 12 hours to 48 hours.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve 1st reading of an ordinance amending the
city’s general parking restrictions and set second reading for
April 4, 2002
Background:
At the study session meeting of February 25, 2002, staff from the Police Department and City
Clerk’s Office met with the council to discuss issues related to the 12-hour parking restriction
currently contained in the city’s ordinance.
The City’s general parking restrictions have been on the books unchanged since at least 1969 and
now limits parking on any public street to only 12 hours at a time. Many comments have been
received from the public that the time restriction is unreasonably short and does not provide for
the needs of residents. Many homes do not have adequate off-street parking for multiple
vehicles and parking on the street is a necessity.
This ordinance allows a more reasonable time limit of 48 hours. Though the amount of time a
vehicle can be parked is proposed to increase, the Police Department is making changes in their
enforcement that will provide a notice to the vehicle owner earlier in the process. This will help
to educate our residents about parking restrictions and allow the vehicle owner to comply with
the ordinance prior to being issued a ticket.
Prepared by: Cynthia Reichert, City Clerk
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
39
ORDINANCE NO. _______-02
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING GENERAL PARKING
RESTRICTIONS TO ALLOW A 48-HOUR TIME LIMIT FOR
VEHICLES TO BE CONTINUOUSLY PARKED
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
SECTION 1. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Section 30-153 is hereby amended to
read as follows:
Sec. 30-153. General parking restrictions.
No person shall stop, park or leave standing any vehicle, whether attended or unattended,
upon the paved or improved or main traveled part of any street or highway in this city when it is
practical to stop, park or so leave such vehicle off such part of the street or highway, but in every
event a clear and unobstructed width of at least 20 feet of such part of the street or highway shall
be left for the free passage of other vehicles, and a clear view of such stopped vehicle shall be
available for a distance of 200 feet in each direction upon such street or highway. No vehicle
shall be parked continuously at any place in any public street for a period of more than 12 48
hours.
Attest: Adopted by the City Council April 4, 2002
City Clerk Mayor
Reviewed for Administration: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Manager City Attorney
40
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 7c
Meeting of March 18, 2002
7c. Restriping and parking restrictions on Minnetonka Boulevard
This project considers the restriping of Minnetonka Boulevard to two (2) lane
traffic west of Highway 100 and to four (4) lane traffic east of Highway 100 which
would eliminate on-street parking along most of the street.
Recommended
Action:
3. Motion to adopt the attached resolution to rescind existing
parking resolutions along Minnetonka Boulevard;
4. Motion to adopt the attached resolution to remove parking on
the north side of Minnetonka Boulevard from Virginia
Avenue to Inglewood Avenue & on the south side of
Minnetonka Boulevard from Virginia Avenue to Huntington
Avenue; and to direct Hennepin County to install lane
striping as appropriate;
3. Motion to adopt the attached resolution which retains parking
controls at various locations on and adjacent to Minnetonka
Boulevard.
BACKGROUND:
The City’s Sidewalk, Trail, Crossing and Bikeway Plan identifies on-road biking along
Minnetonka Boulevard. In response to Hennepin County’s plans to mill and overlay Minnetonka
Boulevard in the summer of 2001, staff questioned whether on-road bicycle facilities could be
incorporated into the project at the same time. (Initially, this issue focused only on the portion of
Minnetonka Boulevard west of Highway 100, but was expanded to include Minnetonka
Boulevard to the east of the highway as well.)
County staff confirmed that re-striping, to allow room for bicycle use, was achievable, but only if
parking, on both sides of the roadway, was removed. Though the City’s initial impetus for
discussing the removal of parking was to provide for bicycle access, further analysis reveled an
even more important underlying issue that must be addressed. The analysis revealed serious
concerns regarding safety on Minnetonka Blvd.
On September 12, 2001, the City held a meeting to gather input on the proposed plan to re-stripe
Minnetonka Boulevard and eliminate on-street parking. Approximately 12 business owners,
residents and property owners attended the meeting. Although they agreed that the road is
unsafe, especially for pedestrians who try to cross it, they expressed greater concern over losing
convenient, on-street parking in front of their homes and businesses.
At the October 3, 2001, City Council meeting, this item was discussed. Several property owners
and business tenants spoke at the meeting and voiced opposition to the removal of parking. The
business owners felt that losing this convenient, accessible parking would be detrimental to their
businesses. The residents were concerned about guest parking and the lack of available parking
on side streets.
41
Subsequently, this issue was tabled and staff was directed to investigate “creative” alternatives
with Hennepin County that would address the following objectives:
Increase safety
Achieve some level of parking
Allow for bicycle use
ACCIDENT DATA:
According to accident data compiled by Hennepin County, for the 3-year period of 1997-1999, a
total of 247 accidents were recorded between TH 169 and CSAH 25. Of these about 10% of the
accidents (25) involved bicycles, pedestrians, or parked vehicles. About 10% of the accidents
(25) involved sideswipes with cars moving in the same or opposite directions. This is likely
linked to confined roadway width and bypassing vehicle maneuvers.
60% of the accidents (147) occurred on the roadway segments outside of the major intersections.
The Minnetonka Boulevard corridor was split into eight segments for reporting purposes. A
summary of accidents and accident rates, per segment (outside of the major intersections)
follows:
Roadway Segment
# of
Accidents
1997-1999
Critical
Accident Rate
per mvm
Actual
Accident Rate
per mvm
3-yr. Average
Accident Rate
per mvm (for
similar road)
E. of TH 169 to W. of Texas Ave. 34 2.53 3.09 1.42
E. of Texas Ave. to W. of Louisiana Ave. 16 2.83 2.57 1.42
E. of Louisiana Ave. to W. of Dakota
Ave.
35 2.81 5.37 1.42
E. of Dakota Ave. to W. of Vernon Ave. 27 2.75 3.73 1.42
E. of Toledo Ave. to W. of Ottawa Ave. 14 3.73 2.91 1.88
E. of Ottawa Ave. to W. of Lynn Ave. 8 4.00 2.31 1.88
E. of Lynn Ave. to W. of Inglewood
Ave.
10 2.53 3.99 1.88
E. of Inglewood Ave. to W. of Glenhurst
Ave.
3 5.16 3.11 1.88
*Table compiled by Hennepin County staff
Typically, locations where the Actual Accident Rate exceeds the Critical Accident Rate warrant
additional study to determine what unfavorable conditions may be contributing to a higher
accident rate. The 3-year Average Accident Rate is a measure of the accident history on other
similarly designed roads in an urban area. Again, areas where the Actual Rate exceeds the
Average Rate are those that warrant further analysis.
RE-STRIPING OPTIONS:
In subsequent meetings with Hennepin County, the following options were identified:
West of Highway 100 (to Texas Avenue)
Option 1: Remove parking from both sides of the roadway and stripe a 12-foot lane plus 6.25-
foot shoulders on each side.
42
The shoulder would be signed as a bike route but could also accommodate bus stop pull-outs,
turning vehicles, and temporary space for disabled vehicles. By having a single, striped lane in
each direction, it is anticipated that safety would increase.
Option 1A: Same as Option 1, and construct a parking bay on the south side of the street
between Florida Ave. and Georgia Ave.
Although this option achieves all of the objectives, it would involve costs for the construction of
the bay and would require the removal of at least one large tree. Another issue to consider is that
other property owners along the street, might desire this same benefit if the City were to fund the
improvement. If a special assessment process was used, the adjacent property owners could
petition for the installation of parking bays at their own expense.
Option 2: Remove parking from only one side of the street and stripe one 12-foot lane and one,
14-foot lane.
This option would likely increase safety but would not accommodate bicycle access.
Option 3: Do nothing, (existing)
Other Options Considered:
Installation of a single center lane for turning vehicles, flanked by a 12-foot lane in either
direction was investigated. But, it was determined that this option would not fit in the current
width of the road.
Meandering the centerline to accommodate an on-road parking lane for one or two blocks
near Florida Avenue was rejected by Hennepin County since it would not provide for
continuous shoulders, thus eliminating the bicycle access and, it is a deviation and might lead
to additional safety issues.
East of Highway 100, (to Inglewood Avenue)
Option 1: Remove parking from both sides of the street; stripe for four lanes of traffic and 4.5-
foot shoulders
These shoulders could not be signed as a bike route since it does not meet the County’s standards
for shoulder width. But, bicycles could use the area, and it would accommodate bus stop pull-
outs, turning vehicles, and temporary space for disabled vehicles. It is anticipated that safety
would increase by striping the lanes.
Option 1A: Same as Option 1, and construct angled parking between the buildings and/or assign
spots in the municipal parking lot for customer parking
Constructing, or allowing the businesses to construct, off-street, angled parking in the area
between the buildings could allow room for 3-4 vehicles. Signing stalls in the easterly municipal
parking lot is not recommended since this lot is consistently full from city and Menorah Plaza
employees/visitors.
Option 2: Remove parking from the north side of the street; stripe for two lanes of traffic in the
west-bound direction plus the 4.5-foot shoulder and leave the south side of the street in its
current state. This would allow the businesses near Ottawa Avenue to retain their parking. Most
of the north side of the street is already signed as “No Parking”.
Option 3: Do nothing, (existing)
Other Options Considered:
Installation of a parking bay near the businesses east of Ottawa Avenue. The area between
the existing curb and the face of the building would not accommodate a parking bay.
43
Installation of “Drop Off” or “5-minute Parking” signs near the businesses. Hennepin
County does not allow this signage since it creates a situation where drivers in a striped thru
lane can unexpectedly come upon a parked vehicle and need to react quickly.
Installation of a single center lane for dual left turns. The width of the existing roadway
could not accommodate this center lane plus two thru lanes in each direction. Since the
volume of traffic exceeds 15,000 vehicles/day, Hennepin County feels that two thru lanes in
each direction is needed.
ANALYSIS:
The lack of striping contributes to the high number of accidents occurring on Minnetonka
Boulevard by creating an ambiguous situation for motorists. Accidents appear to be increasing
as people become frustrated and more aggressive in their driving behavior.
Safety can be increased by channeling the traffic into 2 lanes west of TH 100 (1 lane in each
direction) and 4 lanes east of TH 100 (2 lanes in each direction) through the use of striping.
Traffic lanes can be clearly defined therefore allowing vehicles to travel more safely only in
designated lanes. The remaining space would be used as a shoulder area for bicyclists, stopping
busses, and delivery vehicles.
By restriping the roadway, it is anticipated that driver uncertainty can be minimized and,
therefore, accidents involving fixed objects (such as parked cars), sideswipes and bicycles will
be reduced. The shoulder stripe would give drivers better guidance, and thus should reduce
wandering and some of the mishaps.
However, this re-striping plan will not solve all of the safety problems. Right angle collisions
(cars pulling out), rear end, and left turn accidents will likely be less affected by the shoulder
striping. Also, several people at the neighborhood meeting commented that it is difficult to cross
Minnetonka Boulevard as a pedestrian due to the high volume and speed of the vehicles.
Striping will not improve this situation. However, motorists will be more likely to see
pedestrians if they are not confused about where they should be traveling in the roadway.
Installing the proposed striping would eliminate parking in front of most homes and businesses
along Minnetonka Boulevard. City staff does not desire to remove resident and business
parking, but rather provide for it in safe areas. It appears that adequate off-street parking is
available to meet resident and business needs if the Council approves the re-striping plan.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:
A letter informing affected parties of this Council meeting and the staff recommendation on this
issue was mailed on Tuesday, March 5.
RECOMMENDATION:
There are implications in implementing or not implementing any of the proposed options.
However, when considering the values of safety, mobility, and pedestrian access, the options that
remove parking and allow for striped shoulders (Option 1, both east and west of Highway 100)
provide the best balance of these interests. If off-street parking, such as construction of parking
bays, were desired, those costs should be borne by the property owners.
44
Therefore, staff recommends Council approve Option 1 both east and west of Highway 100. The
three (3) attached resolutions provide for this action.
Attachments: Striping Options-east of Highway 100
Striping Options-west of Highway 100
Prepared By: Maria A. Hagen, City Engineer
Reviewed By: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved By: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
45
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION RESCINDING CERTAIN TRAFFIC CONTROLS
ON MINNETONKA BOULEVARD BETWEEN VIRGINIA AVENUE
AND HUNTINGTON AVENUE
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, in conjunction with Hennepin
County, has determined that the removal of parking will facilitate safer traffic movement along
Minnetonka Boulevard, and
WHEREAS, several existing resolutions relating to parking restrictions on Minnetonka
Boulevard are in force, and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of St.
Louis Park, Minnesota, that the following resolutions relating to traffic control be rescinded:
Resolution # Resolution Date
1021 07/30/59
1267 05/02/60
2300 04/29/63
2757 02/15/65
3395 10/16/67
3443 01/08/68
4635 09/11/72
6449 12/17/79
6570 06/02/80
7406 06/06/83
99-98 08/16/99
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council March 18, 2002
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
46
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE REMOVAL OF PARKING ON THE NORTH
SIDE OF MINNETONKA BOULEVARD FROM VIRGINIA AVENUE TO
INGLEWOOD AVENUE, AND ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF MINNETONKA
BOULEVARD FROM VIRGINIA AVENUE TO HUNTINGTON AVENUE
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, in conjunction with Hennepin
County, has determined that the removal of parking will facilitate safer traffic movement along
Minnetonka Boulevard.
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
1. To install “No Parking” restrictions on the north side Minnetonka Boulevard from
Virginia Avenue to Inglewood Avenue, except for the area from 175 feet west of Dakota
Avenue to 66 west of Dakota Avenue;
2. To install “No Parking ” restrictions on the south side of Minnetonka Boulevard from
Virginia Avenue to Huntington Avenue;
3. To request that Hennepin County install lane and shoulder striping along Minnetonka
Boulevard for two-lane traffic west of Highway 100 and four-lane traffic east of Highway
100 as outlined in the report to the City Council dated March 18, 2002.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council March 18, 2002
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
47
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING INSTALLATION OF VARIOUS PARKING
CONTROLS ON MINNETONKA BOULEVARD AND STREETS ADJACENT TO
MINNETONKA BOULEVARD
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, in conjunction with Hennepin County,
has determined that the removal of parking will facilitate safer traffic movement along Minnetonka
Boulevard; and
WHEREAS, the removal of this parking necessitated that several resolutions, containing
parking controls that the City wishes to continue to enforce, be rescinded.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that a traffic analysis having indicated that traffic control signs are warranted in the
following areas, the Director of Public Works is hereby authorized to install the following controls:
30 minute parking limit from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on the north side of Minnetonka Boulevard
from Glenhurst Avenue to Huntington Avenue (extended);
5-minute parking limit from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on the north side of Minnetonka Boulevard
from Huntington Avenue to Inglewood Avenue;
“No Parking” restrictions on the west side of Monterey Avenue from Minnetonka Boulevard to
150 feet north;
“No Parking” restrictions on the east side of Louisiana Avenue from 130 feet south of
Minnetonka Boulevard to 130 feet north of Minnetonka Boulevard;
“No Parking” restrictions on the west side of Louisiana Avenue from 130 feet south of
Minnetonka Boulevard to 100 feet north of Minnetonka Boulevard;
“No Parking” restrictions on the east side of Texas Avenue from 123 feet south of Minnetonka
Boulevard to 260 feet north of Minnetonka Boulevard;
“No Parking” restrictions on the west side of Texas Avenue from 140 feet south of Minnetonka
Boulevard to 260 feet north of Minnetonka Boulevard;
“No Parking” restrictions on the east side of Dakota Avenue from 131 feet south of Minnetonka
Boulevard to 123 feet north of Minnetonka Boulevard;
“No Parking” restrictions on the west side of Dakota Avenue from 130 feet south of Minnetonka
Boulevard to 43 feet north of Minnetonka Boulevard
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council March 18, 2002
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
48
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 7d
Meeting of March 18, 2002
7d. City Engineer’s Report: Excelsior Boulevard Streetscape Improvements from
Quentin Avenue to Monterey Drive – Project Nos. 99-05 and 01-04
This project considers Excelsior Boulevard Streetscape improvements from
Quentin Avenue to Monterey Drive.
Recommended
Action:
1. Motion to adopt the attached resolution accepting this report,
establishing and ordering Project Nos. 99-05 and 01-04,
approving plans and specifications, authorizing receipt of
bids for improvements on Excelsior Boulevard; and
2. Motion to adopt the attached resolution rescinding parking
on Excelsior Boulevard and on Monterey Drive; and
3. Motion to adopt the attached resolution authorizing parking
restrictions on Excelsior Boulevard and on Monterey Drive.
Background: In the Spring of 2000, the City Council directed staff to begin the design of Phase
III Streetscape improvements along Excelsior Boulevard from Quentin Avenue to Monterey
Drive. In July of 2000, the City contracted with SRF Consulting Group, Inc. to assist the City in
developing the plans and specifications and to coordinate the design with the adjacent
redevelopment project. In November 2000, preliminary concept plans were developed and were
individually presented to the property owners. The proposed Streetscape project will be similar
in design and scope as the previous two phases and will be coordinated with the Excelsior &
Grand redevelopment project.
In December 2001 and early January the final plans were presented to the property owners for
review. At that time, staff also discussed construction timing and the City’s desire to initiate a
Special Service District to facilitate the increased level of maintenance associated with the
improvements as was done for the first two Special Service Districts.
Neighborhood Meeting Comments: At it’s February 11, 2002 Study Session, the Streetscape
plans were presented to the City Council. On February 21, 2002, a neighborhood meeting was
held to allow residents to review and comment on the proposed Streetscape plan. Residents were
generally pleased with the proposed plan and expressed support for its construction. Some
residents from the Minnekahda Vista Neighborhood expressed concern regarding the entrance to
the neighborhood at W. 38th Street and Excelsior Boulevard. In response to their concerns staff
met with a smaller group of concerned residents on March 7, 2002 to discuss the W. 38th Street
entrance design and traffic issues. Issues to be finalized are entrance sign/monument(s), access
to the dry cleaners and landscaping. These design elements do not impact the general
Streetscape design. It is staff’s intent to finalize these issues with the residents over the next two
(2) months and include any revisions to the Streetscape plan as a change order.
49
Discussion: Although the proposed Streetscape will be very similar to the previous two phases,
there are a few differences which should be highlighted. Following is a summary of the basic
streetscape elements and changes:
Landscaping – The proposed plan includes street trees in sidewalk areas with tree grates and
irrigation. No sod is proposed in the boulevard or median areas. The center median will have
trees, shrubs, and annual & perennial plantings to bring more color to the entrance into the
Excelsior & Grand development.
Lighting – The street lighting and pedestrian lighting will be the same as the first two streetscape
phases. It is proposed the City purchase the poles and fixtures under a separate contract as was
previously done on the first two streetscape projects to save contractor mark up costs.
Bus Shelters – New bus shelters that match the first two phases are proposed at the southwest
corner of Natchez Avenue and Excelsior Boulevard and at the southwest corner of W. 38th Street
and Excelsior Boulevard. The shelter areas will include benches, trash receptacle and an obelisk
monument.
Sidewalks – The concrete sidewalks along the south side of Excelsior Boulevard will be the
same as in the other two phases. On the north side of Excelsior Boulevard (which will be
constructed by TOLD Developers except in front of Bally’s) it is proposed to have a one foot
band of paver bricks every nine (9) feet. The sidewalk will become solid pavers for the area on
each side of the entrance into Excelsior & Grand development. It is proposed that the pavers be
buff or tan color similar to the planters and sign colors along Excelsior Boulevard and the same
as proposed throughout the Excelsior & Grand development.
Pedestrian Crosswalks – In response to numerous comments that the crosswalk color, which is
now a dark red, is not visible enough to drivers, staff recommends the color be changed to more
closely match the paver color used in the north side sidewalks. Staff intends to work with the
manufacturer to develop this color match, possibly a custom color, and to incorporate this into
the other crosswalks along Excelsior Boulevard when they are repainted this summer.
Traffic Signals – Hennepin County and the City previously executed a Cooperative Agreement
for the new traffic signal proposed for Excelsior Boulevard and Natchez Avenue. Modifications
to the signal at Monterey/W. 38th Street and at Quentin/Excelsior will be incorporated into the
Cooperative Agreement with Hennepin County for the Streetscape improvements. A unique
feature to these traffic signals is the installation of a countdown timer at crosswalks. This timer
will indicate how much time is remaining on the crosswalk prior to the traffic signal changing.
Staff is aware of only a couple of installations of the countdown timer in the metro area, but it is
used more extensively in other parts of the country. It is proposed that the countdown timers
also be installed on the traffic signals at Park Nicollet Boulevard and at Wooddale Avenue to
facilitate pedestrian movement.
Street Mill and Overlay – This project includes milling off the existing bituminous pavement and
placing a new bituminous surface similar to the previous projects. This project also includes the
reconstruction of Monterey Drive from Excelsior Boulevard to W. 38th Street (Park Commons
50
Drive). The east curbline of Monterey Drive will remain in the same location while the west
curbline will be moved west about 26 feet to accommodate a new center median and dual left
turn lanes for southbound traffic. This design requires the removal of parking from the east side
of Monterey Avenue from Excelsior Boulevard to W. 36 ½ Street and on the west side of
Monterey Avenue from W. 38th Street to the Recreation Center entrance.
Special Service District – As with the previous two Streetscape improvement projects, a special
service district is proposed to be formed for this segment to insure the improvements are well
maintained. Staff has met individually, as well as in a group setting, with the affected property
owners to explain the concept of a Special Service District and present a budget and cost sharing
formula. Based on these meetings, it appears there is support for creating a district. It is hoped
that a sufficient number of petitions will be submitted by the property owners so that on March
18 the City Council can schedule the required Public Hearing as part of considering the
establishment of a new district.
Easements and Right of Way: Should the City Council order the project, staff will begin the
acquisition of temporary construction easements. A permanent easement will be needed for the
bus shelter at the Amoco Station. Staff and SRF discussed this issue with the property owners
during our meetings with them and did not receive any major concerns from the property owners.
Permits and Project Approvals: The project has been reviewed by several agencies in a
preliminary manner and approvals must be granted prior to initiating construction. The
approvals will include the following:
Hennepin County - Excelsior Boulevard is a County State Aid Highway and is under the
jurisdiction of Hennepin County. Hennepin County must approve the final plans prior to
construction. The final construction plans were submitted to Hennepin County on March 6,
2002. The City and County must also execute a cooperative agreement for the project which
includes project cost and funding sources, a discussion of project elements, as well as discussion
of liability relating to intrusion into clear zone areas. The agreement has been drafted by
Hennepin County and will be reviewed by City staff and the City Attorney before bringing it to
the City Council for formal approval. This will likely take place at the April 15, 2002 meeting.
The agreement is anticipated to be similar to that executed for Phase I and II streetscape
improvements.
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District - This portion of the City of St. Louis Park lies within the
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and will require an erosion control permit. They must
review and approve the permit prior to construction. The City’s consultant has submitted to the
Watershed District.
Parking Restrictions: As part of the proposed Streetscape and Excelsior & Grand projects it is
recommended the City Council adopt new parking restrictions along Excelsior Boulevard and
Monterey Drive. Following is a summary of the proposed parking restrictions:
Excelsior Boulevard (south side) - On the south side of Excelsior Boulevard all on-street parking
is being eliminated with the Streetscape project except between Quentin Avenue and Princeton
51
Avenue and east of Princeton Avenue where two (2) parking bays are proposed. It is
recommended that the existing “15 Minute Parking” between Quentin Avenue and Princeton
Avenue be retained. It is also recommended the “One Hour Parking” in the parking bay east of
Princeton Avenue be retained.
Excelsior Boulevard (north side) - Along the north side of Excelsior Boulevard it is
recommended all of the proposed parking bays between Monterey Drive and Princeton Avenue
be designated “One Hour Parking”. Although the Developer may in the future request changes
to the “One Hour Parking” restrictions, it is recommended the parking restrictions be in place
prior to full occupancy of the Excelsior & Grand development. The Developer is supportive of
the proposed parking restrictions.
Between Princeton Avenue and Quentin Avenue along the north side of Excelsior Boulevard it is
recommended the entire block be posted “No Parking Except Buses”. This is the location
designated in the development plan for the bus transfer and lay over. This area is currently
posted “No Parking Anytime” for the bus stop.
Monterey Drive – In the July 2001 URS/BRW, Inc. Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study,
it was recommended that all on-street parking on Monterey Drive be eliminated. This will create
four (4) traffic lanes from W. 36th Street to Excelsior Boulevard. On street parking is currently
allowed along the east side of Monterey Drive from Excelsior Boulevard to just south of W. 36
½ Street. Parking is allowed along the west side of Monterey Drive from W. 36 ½ Street to W.
38th Street (Park Commons Drive). It is recommended the City Council rescind previous
resolutions and designate both sides of Monterey Drive from Excelsior Boulevard to W. 36 ½
Street as “No Parking Anytime”.
Project Cost and Financing: Financing for the Streetscape project comes from several sources.
The majority of the overall project cost will be funded by the City of St. Louis Park using tax
increment funds. TOLD Development Company will pay for 50% of the improvements on
Monterey Drive and Hennepin County will fund up to $350,000 of eligible streetscape/
beautification and street lighting elements and 100% of the traffic signal interconnect.
Maintenance costs for the snow removal, landscaping, and other new amenities, are proposed to
be financed through a special service district. Creation of the special service district is well
underway and is being coordinated by City staff and affected businesses.
52
Following is a summary of the estimated costs and revenue sources:
Estimated Costs
Construction Costs
Construction Staging/Removals $ 153,952
Street Construction 347,870
Storm Sewer 67,695
Watermain 21,545
Traffic 305,705
Lighting/Electrical 177,652
Landscaping/Streetscape 415,268
Purchase Poles & Fixtures 343,100
Sub Total $1,832,787
Contingency (10%) 183,279
Consultant 282,600
TOTAL $2,298,666
Revenue Sources
TOLD Development Company $ 70,738
Hennepin County 350,000
City Water Utility Fund 10,200
City TIF Funds 1,867,728
TOTAL $2,298,666
Project Schedule: The proposed Streetscape schedule is as follows:
• Neighborhood Open House February 21
• City Engineer’s Report to City Council for
approval and authorization to bid
March 18
• Council approval of Cooperative Agreement with
Hennepin County
April 15, 2002
• Advertisement for bids March 22 thru April 5
• Open bids April 10
• Award of Contract April 15
• Construction starts May 1 – 10
• Construction completion November 1
• Landscaping completion
(carry over into Spring of 2003 due to some
planting requirements)
June 15, 2003
53
Feasibility: The project, as proposed herein, is necessary, cost effective, and feasible under the
conditions noted and at the costs estimated.
Attachments: Resolutions (3)
Plan
Prepared by: Carlton Moore, Superintendent of Engineering
Maria Hagen, City Engineer
Reviewed by: Michael P. Rardin, Public Works Director
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
54
RESOLUTION NO. __________
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE CITY ENGINEER’S REPORT,
ESTABLISHING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 99-05 & 01-04,
ORDERING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 99-05 & 01-04
APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND AUTHORIZING
ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR IMPROVEMENT NOS. 99-05 & 01-04
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the
City Engineer related to the Streetscape improvements on Excelsior Boulevard from Quentin
Avenue to Monterey Drive.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that:
1. The City Engineer’s Report regarding the proposed Streetscape and traffic signal
improvements under Project Nos. 99-05 & 01-04 is hereby accepted.
2. The proposed projects designated as Project Nos. 99-05 & 01-04 are hereby established.
3. Project Nos. 99-05 & 01-04 are hereby ordered.
4. The plans and specifications for the making of the improvement, as prepared under the
direction of the City Engineer, are approved.
5. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official newspaper and in the
Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids for the making of said improvement
under said approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall appear not less
than ten (10) days prior to the date and time bids will be received by the City Clerk, and
that no bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the City Clerk and
accompanied by a cashier’s check, bid bond, or certified check payable to the City for
five (5) percent of the amount of the bid.
6. The bids shall be tabulated by the City Engineer who shall report her tabulation and
recommendation to the City Council.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council March 18, 2002
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
55
RESOLUTION NO. __________
RESOLUTION RESCINDING RESOLUTIONS RELATED TO PARKING
ON EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD AND ON MONTERY DRIVE
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota has studied and has determined that
revised parking and traffic controls are necessary at this location; and
WHEREAS, two (2) existing parking resolutions currently prescribe traffic controls in
this area.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that the following resolutions be rescinded:
Resolution Number Resolution Date
3660 January 20, 1969
3396 October 16, 1967
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council March 18, 2002
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
56
RESOLUTION NO. __________
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PARKING RESTRICTIONS
ON EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD AND ON MONTEREY DRIVE
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota has studied and has determined that
traffic controls are necessary at this location.
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. “No Parking” along the south side of Excelsior Boulevard between Quentin
Avenue to W. 38th Street except as follows:
• “15 Minute Parking” – along the south side of Excelsior Boulevard from 50
feet east of Quentin Avenue to Princeton Avenue.
• “One Hour Parking” – along the south side of Excelsior Boulevard from a
point 110 feet east of Princeton Avenue to a point 180 feet east of Princeton
Avenue.
2. “One Hour Parking” – along the north side of Excelsior Boulevard between
Princeton Avenue and Monterey Drive.
3. “No Parking Except Buses” – along the north side of Excelsior Boulevard
between Princeton Avenue and Quentin Avenue.
4. No parking on the east and west sides of Monterey Drive from Excelsior
Boulevard to W. 36th Street.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council March 18, 2002
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
57
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
March 18, 2002
ITEMS TO BE ACTED UPON BY CONSENT
Consent items are 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.
1. Motion to Approve Second Reading and adopt text amendments to Chapter 36 of
Municipal Code to add a new land use titled “Post Office Customer Service” along with a
definition, standards and parking requirements, approve summary and authorize
publication. (Case No. 01-61-ZA)
2. Motion to approve second reading, to adopt a zoning ordinance text amendment to allow
a State Licensed Residential Facility serving 6 or fewer persons in each unit of a two-
family dwelling in the R-3 District, to approve summary ordinance and authorize
publication (Case No. 02-04-ZA).
3. Motion to order that the adoption of an ordinance to create Special Service District #3
and the adoption of a resolution for the imposition of a service charge within that district
be considered at the same public hearing scheduled for April 1, 2002 and that the public
hearing previously approved for April15, 2002 be cancelled.
4. Motion to designate Sobiech backhoe & Tree Service as the lowest responsible bidder,
and authorize execution of a contract for the 2002 Dutch Elm Disease Tree Removal
Program in an amount not to exceed $112,415.00.
5. Motion to designate Rainbow Tree Care, Inc. as the lowest responsible bidder and to
authorize execution of a contract for the 2002 Arbotect 20-S Elm injection program at a
cost of $8.80 per diameter inch.
6. Motion to adopt the attached resolution rescinding Resolution Numbers: 3448, 6591, 86-
53, 96-65, 7381, 6928, 5717, and 6470 and adopting the attached resolution authorizing
the restriction of parking on the south side of the south frontage road of I-394 200 feet
east and 200 feet west of Zarthan Avenue; the east and west sides of Zarthan Avenue
from the south frontage road of I-394 to 200 feet south of W. 16th Street; and no parking
Monday to Friday (Except holidays on west side only) from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. from 200
feet south of W. 16th Street to 130 feet north of Cedar Lake Road and authorizing
installation of 3-way stop signs at the Zarthan Avenue intersection with the south
frontage road of I-394.
10. Motion to adopt the attached resolution accepting this report, establishing and ordering an
improvement project, approving plans and specifications and authorizing advertisement
for bids for replacement of water main on Excelsior Boulevard between Princeton
Avenue and Kipling Avenue.
58
11. Motion to adopt the attached resolution approving Change Order No. 2 with SRF
Consulting Group, Inc. for Professional Engineering Services for Phase III Excelsior
Boulevard Streetscape improvement in the amount of $90,200, increasing the total
contract amount from $192,400 to $282,600.
12. Motion to accept the following reports for filing:
e. Board of Zoning Appeals of January 24, 2002
f. Human Rights Commission Minutes of January 16, 2002
g. Planning Commission Minutes of February 20, 2002
h. Vendor Claims
59
CONSENT ITEM # 1
St. Louis Park City Council
Meeting of March 18, 2002
1. Motion to Approve Second Reading and adopt text amendments to Chapter 36 of
Municipal Code to add a new land use titled “Post Office Customer Service”
along with a definition, standards and parking requirements, approve summary
and authorize publication. (Case No. 01-61-ZA)
Background:
On December 5, 2001, the Planning Commission initiated an amendment to Chapter 36 of the
Municipal Code related to Zoning to adopt a definition and standards for a “Post Office
Customer Service” land use. This was prompted by a conceptual plan to redevelop the post
office site on Beltline Boulevard and West 36th Street and accompanying applications to change
zoning. According to the owner of the property, the post office is considering the possibility of
relocating the more industrial component of the post office function that includes mail
distribution to another site. The redevelopment concept includes provisions to retain the
retail/customer service component within a redeveloped building on the same site on Beltline
Boulevard north of 36th Street. The owner of this property requested and received a zoning
change from I-P Industrial Park to C2 – General Commercial. Currently the post office use is
not permitted in commercial zoning districts.
On January 22, 2002, the City Council approved first reading of an amendment to Chapter 36
(Zoning) of the Municipal Code to add the new land use, “Post Office Customer Service” as a
use permitted within some commercial zoning districts. On February 4, 2002, the City Council
deferred second reading of the amendments because of a request from the owners of Beltline
Industrial Park to revisit the proposed parking requirements.
Staff met with the owners of Beltline Industrial Park and discussed an option for parking that
would recognize differences between old and newer post office floor-plan models. The newer
model incorporates larger customer areas that include self serve and display areas as well as
service windows and post office boxes. The older model generally includes only post office
boxes and customer service windows. Experience has shown that with older models there are
often long lines of persons waiting to be served. The proposed solution is to maintain the
originally proposed parking ratios where the customer floor area is less than 600 square feet and
to allow a lesser parking requirement for that portion of the retail (customer service) area in
excess of 600 square feet (one space per 180 square feet of floor area). Language has also been
incorporated that would allow a reduction to the total requirement for larger post offices in multi-
tenant buildings if it can be demonstrated that fewer parking spaces are sufficient to meet the
demands of all uses. A representative from the post office has stated for the current facility they
would require a minimum of 24 spaces. This number has been incorporated into the parking
requirement as a minimum. The owners of Beltline Industrial Park concur with this approach.
60
Chapter 36 of the City Code (Zoning) currently allows the customer service portion of a post
office to locate in the Mixed-Use district by PUD and in the Office district as an accessory use.
The proposed amendments will add Post Office Customer Service as a conditional use in the C1
– Neighborhood Commercial and C2 – General Commercial zoning districts.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing and recommended approval of the text
amendments on January 2, 2002, on a vote of 6-0 with some minor changes to the staff
recommendation. The Planning Commission’s recommendations and subsequent parking
requirement changes have been included in the proposed ordinance.
Recommendation:
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed Municipal Code
(Zoning) text amendments.
If the Council approves second reading on March 18th, the amendment will be published on
March 27th and will become effective on April 11, 2002.
Attachments: Draft Ordinance
Prepared By: Judie Erickson, Planning Coordinator
Approved By: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
61
ORDINANCE NO.______
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK
ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING BY
AMENDING SECTIONS 36-142, 36-193(d)(5), 36-194(d)(10), 36-361(c)(1)d
AND TABLE 36-115A IN SECTION 36-115
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
Findings
Sec. 1. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning
Commission (Case No. 01-61-ZA)
Sec. 2. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Sections 36-142, 36-193(d)(5), 36-
194(d)(10), 36-361(c)(1)d, and Table 36-115A in Section 36-115 are hereby amended to read as
follows:
Section 36-142 Land Use Descriptions
Post Office Customer Service. The retail/customer service portion of the post office function
that includes customer drop off of packages and mail; sale to the public of stamps, money orders,
insurance, envelopes and packaging materials, and other mail services; and post office boxes.
Characteristics include hours similar to offices and Saturday mornings, high volumes of
automobile traffic and some truck traffic. Mail sorting for mail route delivery and distribution
are not part of this land use.
Section 36-115
Table 36-115A Amendments as follows:
Add subsection 36-193 (d)(5) (C1 Neighborhood Commercial conditional use)
Zoning Districts R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-C C-1 C-2 O I-P I-G M-X
Commercial Uses
Post Office Customer Service N N N N N CUP CUP A N N PUD
Industrial Uses
Parcel delivery service/post office N N N N N N N N P P N
62
(5) Post Office Customer Service
a. The use shall only be permitted when it can be demonstrated that the operation will not have
a significant adverse effect on the existing level of service and safety of adjacent streets and
intersections.
b. Access shall be to a roadway identified in the Comprehensive Plan as a collector or arterial or
shall be otherwise located so that access can be provided without generating significant
traffic on local residential streets.
c. The use, including access, parking and any proposed drive through component, shall be
designed so it does not impede traffic or impair vehicular and pedestrian traffic movement, or
exacerbate the potential for pedestrian or vehicular conflicts.
d. Outdoor mailboxes intended for in-vehicle service shall be located to allow in-vehicle mail
drop-off by the vehicle’s driver. Each mail drop-off location shall allow for the on-site
stacking of 6 vehicles or more.
e. A bufferyard D shall be provided along the lot line between the drive through facilities and
stacking areas and adjacent streets and properties, but shall not interfere with visibility at the
intersection of the exit drive and adjacent street as required by Section 36-76.
f. Drive through and stacking areas shall not be within 100 feet of any lot in an “R” use district
unless the entire facility and stacking areas are separated from the lot in an
“R” use district by a building wall or bufferyard F.
Add subsection 36-194 (d)(10) (C2 General Commercial conditional use)
(10) Post Office Customer Service
a. The use shall only be permitted when it can be demonstrated that the operation will not have
a significant adverse effect on the existing level of service and safety of adjacent streets and
intersections.
b. Access shall be to a roadway identified in the Comprehensive Plan as a collector or arterial or
shall be otherwise located so that access can be provided without generating significant
traffic on local residential streets.
c. The use, including access, parking and any proposed drive through component, shall be
designed so it does not impede traffic or impair vehicular and pedestrian traffic movement, or
exacerbate the potential for pedestrian or vehicular conflicts.
d. Outdoor mailboxes intended for in-vehicle service shall be located to allow in-vehicle mail
drop-off by the vehicle’s driver. Each mail drop-off location shall allow for the on-site
stacking of 6 vehicles or more.
63
e. A bufferyard D shall be provided along the lot line between the drive through facilities and
stacking areas and adjacent streets and properties, but shall not interfere with visibility at the
intersection of the exit drive and adjacent street as required by Section 36-76.
f. Drive through and stacking areas shall not be within 100 feet of any lot in an “R” use district
unless the entire facility and stacking areas are separated from the lot in an
“R” use district by a building wall or bufferyard F.
Section 36-361 (c)(1)d
Add the following Parking Requirements:
22. Post Office Customer Service. One parking space for each 25 square feet of customer floor
area for the first 600 square feet plus one parking space for each 180 square feet of customer
floor area in excess of 600 square feet. In a multi-tenant building where the customer floor area
exceeds 600 square feet a lesser requirement may be considered if it can be demonstrated that a
lesser requirement will meet the parking needs of all uses. In no event shall the number of
parking spaces be reduced to fewer than 24.
Sec. 3. The contents of Planning Case File 01-61-ZA are hereby entered into and made
part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
Sec.4. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication.
Adopted by the City Council March 18, 2002
Reviewed for Administration
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
01-61-ZA:N\ord-res
64
SUMMARY
ORDINANCE NO._____________
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK
ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING BY
AMENDING SECTIONS 36-142, 36-193(d)(5), 36-194(d)(10), 36-361(c)(1)d
AND TABLE 36-115A IN SECTION 36-115
POST OFFICE CUSTOMER SERVICE
This ordinance states that Post Office Customer Service will be added to the Ordinance Code as
a new land use along with a definition, standards and parking requirements. The use is permitted
by conditional use permit in the C1, Neighborhood Commercial and C2, General Commercial
Districts, by PUD in the MX, Mixed-Use District, and as accessory in the O, Office District.
This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication.
Adopted by the City Council March 18, 2002
Jeffrey W. Jacobs /s/
Mayor
A copy of the full text of this ordinance is available for inspection with the City Clerk.
Published in St. Louis Park Sailor: March 27, 2002
01-61-ZAsum:N
65
CONSENT ITEM # 2
St. Louis Park City Council
Meeting of March 18, 2002
2. Motion to approve second reading, to adopt a zoning ordinance text amendment
to allow a State Licensed Residential Facility serving 6 or fewer persons in each
unit of a two-family dwelling in the R-3 District, to approve summary ordinance
and authorize publication (Case No. 02-04-ZA).
Background:
State statutes require “state licensed residential facilities” or “housing with services
establishments” serving 6 or fewer persons to be considered permitted single-family residential
use of property for the purposes of zoning (see attached memo with State statute excerpts).
Cities may place conditions, such as distance requirements, on other “non-statutory group
homes”. St. Louis Park has included several conditions for the latter.
Edith Mmuma operates “housing with services establishments”, which provide sleeping
accommodations to adult residents, at least 80% of which are 55 years of age or older. She
currently operates such an establishment in a single-family home at 2833 Yosemite Avenue. The
establishment has been issued a license as an “assisted living home care provider”. The City
Attorney has made a determination that the facility falls under the State statute requirement as a
permitted single-family residential use. Since Ms. Mmuma’s use is classified as a State licensed
residential facility, she has withdrawn the portion of her request relating to non-statutory group
homes.
Ms. Mmuma is interested in purchasing the property at 6019 W. 39th St. for two State licensed
residential facilities. The property is zoned “R-3” Two-Family Residential and designated in the
Comprehensive Plan for Medium-Density Residential. There is an existing building on the
property, which used to be a nursing home with 6 bedrooms. The building has been vacant for
eight years. Edith would like to construct a second level on the building. The purpose of the
addition would be to allow two assisted living home care facilities, each serving 6 or fewer
persons, to be housed on the site. In other words, she would like to serve a total of 12 assisted
living residents on the site. In effect, she would be creating a two-family dwelling unit with each
unit housing a State licensed residential facility. The existing building is non-conforming with
regard to the front yard setback, so Ms. Mmuma applied for a variance to allow the addition.
The variance was approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals on February 28, 2002. Other plan
changes will also be required to meet current ordinances.
The “R-3” Two-Family Residence District currently permits a single-family dwelling or a two-
family dwelling without any special conditions other than size of the lot and typical performance
standards for setbacks, parking, etc. The “R-3” District also allows a State licensed residential
facility serving 6 or fewer persons. Staff has interpreted this as allowing either a two-family
residence or one State licensed residential facility serving 6 or fewer persons on the lot. The City
Attorney has agreed with staff’s interpretation regarding the language in our current ordinance.
66
An ordinance amendment is therefore required before two residential facilities could be placed in
a two-family dwelling.
On January 14, 2002, a neighborhood meeting was held to discuss Edith’s proposal for the W.
39th St. property . The neighborhood residents were generally supportive of Ms. Mmuma’s
proposal. However, they were concerned that other less desirable State licensed residential
facilities might also be permitted (see analysis below).
On February 6, 2002 the Planning Commission held a public hearing and recommended approval
of an ordinance amendment as recommended by staff on a vote of 7-0. On March 4, 2002, the
Council approved first reading of the ordinance amendment on a vote of 7-0 and set second
reading for March 18, 2002.
Issues:
Does State law require cities to permit State licensed residential facilities in each unit of
a two-family dwelling?
Would the ordinance amendment affect other properties?
What other types of facilities are allowed under the State licensed and mandated
category?
Are any additional changes proposed to the ordinance amendment?
Analysis of Issues:
Does State law require cities to permit State licensed residential facilities in each unit of
a two-family dwelling?
The City Attorney has indicated that Ms. Mmuma’s request is consistent with the intent of State
law, since a two-family dwelling is the equivalent of two attached single-family dwellings. He
has indicated that it would likely be difficult to deny such a proposal under the current Statute.
In general, the City Attorney recommends amending our ordinances for consistency with State
law.
Would the ordinance amendment affect other properties?
The proposed ordinance amendment would affect all two-family dwellings in the “R-3” Two-
Family Residential District. Therefore, consideration should not be restricted to the property on
which the use is currently proposed.
What other types of facilities are allowed under the State licensed and mandated
category?
The attached memo provides some additional information regarding the types of residential
facilities that are permitted by State law. Facilities whose primary purpose is to treat juvenile
sex offenders are clearly not permitted. The description of the use in the Zoning Code states the
following:
67
STATE LICENSED RESIDENTIAL FACILITY - A State licensed and mandated
residential facility occupied by persons in need of specialized treatment or protection and
resident staff who live together as a single housekeeping unit, usually for a limited period
of time. The use includes outpatient group counseling, some supervision and treatment
programs. The maximum number of clients served is specified by Minnesota State Statute
which may be amended form time to time. Persons served may include the mentally
retarded and severely physically handicapped.
This is distinguished from non-statutory group homes, which are described in the Zoning Code
as follows:
GROUP HOME/NON-STATUTORY - Occupancy of a residential structure by persons in
need of specialized treatment or protection and resident staff who usually live together as
a housekeeping unit for a limited period of time. This use may include outpatient group
counseling, some supervision, forced detention, treatment for mental illness and drug
addiction, protective shelter, halfway house, and release programs.
Cities are allowed to place greater restrictions on the latter, and St. Louis Park has done so. Ms.
Mmuma has withdrawn her request to make any changes to our restrictions on non-statutory
group homes.
Are any additional changes proposed to the ordinance amendment?
Ms. Mmuma has proposed the following ordinance amendment:
Sec. 36-165. “R-3” Two-Family District
(b) Permitted uses:
(3) State licensed residential facilities serving six or fewer persons per individual
residential living unit.
Since existing multiple family dwellings are also permitted in the “R-3” District, and Ms.
Mmuma’s proposal could be interpreted as allowing a facility in each multi-family unit, staff and
the Planning Commission propose the following:
(3) State licensed residential facilities serving six or fewer persons per individual
dwelling unit of a single-family or two-family dwelling.
Recommendation:
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed ordinance amendment
subject to the proposed change as stated above. The changes are included in the attached
ordinance.
68
If the Council approves second reading on March 18th, the summary ordinance will be published
on March 27th and will become effective on April 11, 2002.
Attachments:
Proposed ordinance
Proposed summary ordinance
Prepared By: Janet Jeremiah, Planning & Zoning Supervisor
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
69
ORDINANCE NO.______
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK
ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING BY
AMENDING SECTION 36-165(b)(3)
State Licensed Residential Facilities
In the R-3 Two-Family Residential District
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
Findings
Sec. 1. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning
Commission (Case No. 02-04-ZA).
Sec. 2. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Section 36-165(b)(3) is hereby amended to
read as follows:
(3) State licensed residential facilities serving six or fewer persons per individual
dwelling unit of a single-family or two-family dwelling.
Sec. 3. The contents of Planning Case File 02-04-ZA are hereby entered into and
made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
Sec.4. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication.
Adopted by the City Council March 18, 2002
Reviewed for Administration
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
02-04-ZA:N\ord-res
70
SUMMARY
ORDINANCE NO._____________
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE
RELATING TO ZONING BY AMENDING SECTION 36-165(b)(3)
State Licensed Residential Facilities
In the R-3 Two-Family Residential District
This ordinance states that State licensed residential facilities serving six or fewer persons per
individual unit of a single-family or two-family dwelling will be allowed in the R-3 Two-Family
Residential District.
This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication.
Adopted by the City Council March 18, 2002
Jeffrey W. Jacobs /s/
Mayor
A copy of the full text of this ordinance is available for inspection with the City Clerk.
Published in St. Louis Park Sailor: March 27, 2002
71
CONSENT ITEM # 3
St. Louis Park City Council
Meeting of March 18, 2002
3. Motion to order that the adoption of an ordinance to create Special Service
District #3 and the adoption of a resolution for the imposition of a service charge
within that district be considered at the same public hearing scheduled for April
1, 2002 and that the public hearing previously approved for April15, 2002 be
cancelled.
Background:
At the March 4, 2002 Council Meeting, a motion was approved to order a public hearing on
April 1, 2002 to consider the adoption of an ordinance to create Special Service District #3 and
to order a public hearing for April 15, 2002 to consider the adoption of a resolution for the
imposition of a service charge within the district. Upon consultation with the City’s legal
counsel, it is recommended that since both topics are connected that they be considered together
at the April 1, 2002 public hearing. In doing so, it would make the adoption process more
efficient and make it more convenient for those who may wish to address the Council.
Attachments:
• Public Hearing Notice
• Proposed Operating Budget
• Proposed Service Charge Allocation By Property
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
72
CONSENT ITEM # 4
St. Louis Park City Council
Meeting of March 18, 2002
4. Motion to designate Sobiech backhoe & Tree Service as the lowest responsible
bidder, and authorize execution of a contract for the 2002 Dutch Elm Disease
Tree Removal Program in an amount not to exceed $112,415.00.
Background: The City has been partially subsidizing the removal of diseased trees on private
property for more than 20 years. During the initial phases, funding was provided through the
Community Development Block Grant Program and subsidies were established at a 50% level.
When CDBG guidelines were altered (approximately 13 years ago) the removal of diseased trees
was no longer fundable. As a result, the City’s subsidy program was stepped back over the
course of five years until it reached the current level (no cash subsidy) at the end of 1995.
The City’s role in this process is to handle all paperwork. This includes preparing official
notices, billing the homeowners, establishing a timely schedule for the removals and providing a
follow-up inspection. As in previous years, an updated brochure explaining the City’s removal
program has been prepared and will be distributed to all affected property owners at the time
their diseased trees are identified by staff.
The 2002 DED bids reflect projected costs for the removal of 300 average-size private trees and
25 selected public trees which cannot be removed by City crews. Property owners will reimburse
the entire cost for private tree removals. In 2001, there were 160 trees removed in St. Louis Park
by a contractor due to Dutch Elm disease.
The approved bid prices will also be used to calculate costs in cases where property owners
refuse to comply with the official removal notice. In all other cases, homeowners will still be
allowed to solicit their own private bids and may choose to have the work performed by a
different licensed contractor at their expense.
Bid Analysis: Bid packages for the 2002 DED Tree Removal contract were mailed out in early
February to eight tree firms. Bids were opened on February 11, 2002 at City Hall. Four bids were
subsequently received in the amounts as follows:
Sobiech Backhoe & Tree Service $ 112,415.00
Emery’s Tree Service, Inc. $ 117,580.00
Asplundh Tree Expert Co., Inc. $ 171,501.50
JAK Trees, Inc. $ 190,265.05
City staff is recommending Sobiech Backhoe & Tree Service. Although they have not
previously been awarded a contract with the City of St. Louis Park reference checks indicate
their history of conscientiously and successfully performing tree removal contracts.
Prepared by: James Vaughan, Environmental Coordinator
Cindy S. Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
73
CONSENT ITEM # 5
St. Louis Park City Council
Meeting of March 18, 2002
5. Motion to designate Rainbow Tree Care, Inc. as the lowest responsible bidder
and to authorize execution of a contract for the 2002 Arbotect 20-S Elm injection
program at a cost of $8.80 per diameter inch.
Background: Since the inception of the program in 1990, the City has promoted public
participation in a program designed to proactively treat healthy American Elms with specialized
chemical injections of Arbotect 20-S in an effort to preserve the community’s urban forest.
When this chemical is properly applied in an on-going three-year cycle, it effectively prevents
the infestation of Dutch Elm Disease in approximately 99% of the treated trees. Since the
program’s inception, the City has subsidized more than 4,400 tree injections.
As in previous years, the City is expecting more than 300 requests for tree injections. The City
subsidizes 40% of the cost for trees on private property and 60% of the cost for trees on public
boulevards, which abut private property. The net cost of this program is expected to be
approximately $35,000, which is included in the 2002 Environmental Division budget.
Bid Analysis: Bid packages for the 2002 Arbotect 20-S Elm Injection Program were mailed out
in late February to four tree firms. Bids were opened February 15, 2002 at City Hall. One firm
submitted a responsive bid, with the amount shown as follows:
Rainbow Tree Care $8.80 per diameter inch
The apparent low bid is the same as the awarded 2001 bid. If a private homeowner were to
contract for Arbotect injections on their own, they would pay twice the rate the City receives. It
appears that the City’s bid, based upon a volume price, is extremely competitive. Since the
inception of the program, Rainbow Tree Care has conscientiously and successfully performed all
the City’s Arbotect injection contracts.
Prepared by: Jim Vaughan, Environmental Coordinator
Cindy S. Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
74
CONSENT ITEM # 6
St. Louis Park City Council
Meeting of March 18, 2002
6. Motion to adopt the attached resolution rescinding Resolution Numbers: 3448,
6591, 86-53, 96-65, 7381, 6928, 5717, and 6470 and adopting the attached
resolution authorizing the restriction of parking on the south side of the south
frontage road of I-394 200 feet east and 200 feet west of Zarthan Avenue; the
east and west sides of Zarthan Avenue from the south frontage road of I-394 to
200 feet south of W. 16th Street; and no parking Monday to Friday (Except
holidays on west side only) from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. from 200 feet south of W. 16th
Street to 130 feet north of Cedar Lake Road and authorizing installation of 3-
way stop signs at the Zarthan Avenue intersection with the south frontage road
of I-394.
Background: In 2001 the City Council authorized the reconstruction of the Zarthan Avenue
intersection with the south frontage road of I-394 and its intersection with W. 16th Street. The
reconstruction was to provide a better connection from the south frontage road to W. 16th Street
as the existing frontage road terminates at a cul-de-sac west of Park Place Boulevard. As a part
of this project, it was contemplated that parking restrictions on Zarthan Avenue would be
implemented at the completion of construction.
In reviewing the existing parking restrictions in this area staff found eight (8) resolutions, some
which over lapped or were in conflict with each other. Therefore, it is staff’s recommendation
that the eight (8) existing resolutions be rescinded via resolution and that and one (1) new
resolution be adopted implementing the revised restrictions. Staff has reviewed the proposed
parking restrictions with adjacent property owners, as necessary, and they support the
modifications. The proposed resolution would change the existing parking as follows:
1. Eliminate the existing on-street “One-Hour Parking” along the east and west sides of
Zarthan Avenue between W. 16th Street and the south frontage road of I-394. Instead, it
is recommended that no on-street parking (no parking anytime) be allowed in this same
area.
2. With the reconfigured intersection of Zarthan Avenue with W. 16th Street, staff proposes
to rescind the previous resolutions since their descriptions no longer apply to the new
roadway. Instead, it is recommended that on-street parking be removed from the entire
intersection area and on Zarthan Avenue to a point 200 feet south of its intersection with
W. 16th Street.
3. The Rottlund Townhome Development north of W. 16th Street included the widening of
W. 16th Street to the north between Zarthan Avenue and Blackstone Avenue and the
construction of parking bays. It is recommended that the existing parking restrictions,
“No Parking 8 a.m. – 4 p.m.”, be removed.
4. On the south side of W. 16th Street between Zarthan Avenue and Alabama Avenue there
are two (2) resolutions which conflict. One prohibits parking and the second resolution
75
restricts parking Monday – Friday from 7 a.m. – 6 p.m. The first resolution is the more
recent and is what the signage currently reflects. It is recommended the second
resolution be rescinded.
5. The parking restrictions on Zarthan Avenue south of W. 16th Street (no parking Monday
– Friday 7 a.m. to 6 p.m.) are part of another resolution which is recommended to be
rescinded. It is proposed that the same parking restrictions be included in the proposed
resolution with the updated description.
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council rescind the following resolutions:
3448 6591 86-53 96-65
7381 6928 5701 6470
It is also recommended that the City Council adopt the following parking restrictions:
“No-parking anytime” along the south side of the south frontage road of I-394 from a
point 200 feet east and 200 feet west of the (its) intersection with Zarthan Avenue.
“No-parking anytime” along the east and west sides of Zarthan Avenue from its (the)
intersection with the south frontage road of I-394 to a point 200 feet south of W. 16th
Street.
“No parking Monday – Friday 7 a.m. – 6 p.m. except holidays” (west side only) along the
east and west sides of Zarthan Avenue from a point 200 feet south of W. 16th Street to a
point 130 feet north of Cedar Lake Road.
It is also recommended the City Council authorize the installation of 3-way stop signs at the
intersection of Zarthan Avenue and the south frontage road of I-394. Temporary stop signs have
been in place since construction started in 2001 and it is recommended they become permanent.
It is also recommended that these parking restrictions become effective at the completion of the
roadway and traffic signal construction.
Attachments: Map
Resolution
Prepared By: Carlton Moore/Maria Hagen, Engineering
Reviewed By: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved By: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
76
RESOLUTION NO. __________
RESOLUTION RESCINDING RESOLUTIONS RELATED TO PARKING
RESTRICTIONS ON ZARTHAN AVENUE AND WEST 16TH STREET
TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 561
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota has studied and has determined that
revised parking and traffic controls are necessary at this location; and
WHEREAS, eight (8) existing parking resolutions currently prescribe traffic controls in
this area.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that the following resolutions be rescinded:
Resolution Number Resolution Date
3448 January 22, 1968
6591 July 7, 1980
86-53 April 21, 1986
96-65 May 6, 1996
7381 May 2, 1983
6928 August 17, 1981
5701 March 21, 1977
6470 January 7, 1980
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council March 18, 2002
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
77
RESOLUTION NO. __________
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PARKING RESTRICTION
ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD OF I-394
AT ZARTHAN AVENUE; THE EAST AND WEST SIDES OF
ZARTHAN AVENUE FROM THE SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD
OF I-394 TO 200 FEET SOUTH OF W. 16TH STREET; AND NO PARKING
MONDAY TO FRIDAY (EXCEPT HOLIDAYS ON WEST SIDE ONLY)
FROM 7 A.M. TO 6 P.M. FROM 200 FEET SOUTH OF W. 16TH STREET
TO 130 FEET NORTH OF CEDAR LAKE ROAD AND 3-WAY
STOP SIGNS AT THE INTERSECTION OF ZARTHAN AVENUE AND
THE SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD OF I-394
TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 561
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota has studied and has determined that
traffic controls are necessary at this location.
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. “No-parking anytime” along the south side of the south frontage road of I-394
from a point 200 feet east and 200 feet west of the (its) intersection with Zarthan
Avenue.
2. “No-parking anytime” along the east and west sides of Zarthan Avenue from its
(the) intersection with the south frontage road of I-394 to a point 200 feet south of
W. 16th Street.
3. “No parking Monday – Friday 7 a.m. – 6 p.m. except holidays” (west side only)
along the east and west sides of Zarthan Avenue from a point 200 feet south of W.
16th Street to a point 130 feet north of Cedar Lake Road.
4. 3-way stop signs at the intersection of Zarthan Avenue and the south frontage
road of I-394.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council March 18, 2002
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
78
CONSENT ITEM # 7
St. Louis Park City Council
Meeting of March 18, 2002
7. City Engineer’s Report for Water Main Improvement Project: Project No. 02-
10: Motion to adopt the attached resolution accepting this report, establishing
and ordering an improvement project, approving plans and specifications and
authorizing advertisement for bids for replacement of water main on Excelsior
Boulevard between Princeton Avenue and Kipling Avenue.
Background: The Park Commons area is now undergoing redevelopment and as a result, some
of the City’s utilities are being altered or replaced to ensure they are in satisfactory condition and
can accommodate future increased demand. In addition, streetscaping improvements are
scheduled to take place on Excelsior Boulevard beginning in mid-May. The existing street is to
be resurfaced and the adjacent areas are to be enhanced with amenities. Any underground utility
work that is necessary in this area should be completed prior to this streetscape work.
The existing 6-inch diameter cast iron pipe, between Quentin Avenue and Kipling Avenue was
installed in 1948. The pipe is nearing the end of its useful life and is prone to increased risk of
breaks if not replaced relatively soon. In addition, the water main segment is a 6” diameter main,
whereas the mains on either side of this segment are 8” diameter mains. The 6” diameter main is
considered a capacity restriction and should be replaced with an 8” diameter main to provide the
flows and pressure necessary to serve the area.
Analysis: Due to the high cost of open cutting or trenching Excelsior Boulevard (a concrete
street), a relatively new technology called pipe bursting will be utilized. Pipe bursting involves
inserting an expandable hammer into the existing main and, literally, bursting the pipe, while
simultaneously pulling in the new high-density polyethylene (HDPE) pipe. The old pipe
fragments are pushed into the surrounding soil. The new pipe will be 8” diameter pipe.
Staff has contracted with SEH, Inc. (SEH) to assist in the design, document preparation and
contract administration for this project since the work must be completed before the Streetscape
contractor begins. SEH was involved in a similar project in Deerborn, Wisconsin. It is
anticipated that the City’s Engineering staff will be utilized for project inspection.
Design/Construction Considerations: Although considered a trenchless technology, pipe
bursting does require that an entrance and exit pit be established at any service connection points,
at manholes, or at crossings. The longest length of a pull is 250-300 feet. Therefore, some repair
of the concrete street will be needed. Street repair will be done under the Streetscape contract in
order to reduce cost and shorten the duration of the project. Due to the proximity of the Park
Commons development construction and the impending Streetscape project, close coordination
of all three projects will need to occur.
Financial Considerations: The estimated cost to replace the water main using an open cut
method is $235,000. The estimated cost of the pipe bursting work is $191,180. Funding for this
project would come from the Water Utility Fund.
79
Estimated Costs:
Water Main Replacement Construction $173,800
Contingency (10%) 17,380
Engineering 17,000
Total $208,180
Revenue Sources: Water Utility Fund $208,180
Project Timeline: Should the City Council approve the City Engineer’s Report, it is anticipated
that the following schedule could be met:
• City Engineer’s Report to City Council March 18, 2002
• Advertise for bids March/April
• Bid Opening April 10, 2002
• Bid Tab Report to City Council April 15, 2002
• Construction Late-April to mid-May, 2002
Summary of Feasibility: Taking steps to replace the main now, prior to extensive street work
associated with the streetscape improvement project, is a proactive measure. The proposed
project is necessary, cost effective, and feasible under the conditions noted and at the costs
estimated.
Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution
approving the City Engineer's report, approving and ordering a project for this improvement,
approving the plans and specifications, and authorizing staff to solicit bids for this work.
Attachment: Resolution
Prepared by: Maria A. Hagen, City Engineer
Reviewed By: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
80
RESOLUTION NO. __________
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE CITY ENGINEER’S REPORT,
ESTABLISHING AND ORDERING AN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FOR THE
REPLACEMENT OF WATERMAIN ON EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD, AND
APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS & AUTHORIZING
ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR THE SAME
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the
City Engineer related to the need for replacement of water main in Excelsior Boulevard between
Princeton Avenue and Kipling Avenue.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that:
1. The City Engineer’s Report regarding the replacement of water main in the
described location is hereby accepted.
2. The proposed project, designated as Project No. 02-10, is hereby established and ordered.
3. The plans and specifications for the making of the improvement, as prepared under the
direction of the City Engineer, are approved.
4. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted at least two weeks in the official
newspaper and in the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids for the making of
said improvement under said-approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall
appear not less than ten (10) days prior to the date and time bids will be received by the
City Clerk, and that no bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the City Clerk
and accompanied by a cashier’s check, bid bond, or certified check payable to the City
for five (5) percent of the amount of the bid.
5. The bids shall be tabulated by the City Engineer who shall report her tabulation and
recommendation to the City Council at the April 15, 2002 regular City Council meeting.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council March 18, 2002
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
81
CONSENT ITEM # 8
St. Louis Park City Council
Meeting of March 18, 2002
8. Motion to adopt the attached resolution approving Change Order No. 2 with
SRF Consulting Group, Inc. for Professional Engineering Services for Phase III
Excelsior Boulevard Streetscape improvement in the amount of $90,200,
increasing the total contract amount from $192,400 to $282,600.
Background: On July 5, 2000, the City executed a contract with SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
(SRF) to provide professional engineering services for the design and construction inspection of
the Phase III Streetscape improvements on Excelsior Boulevard between Quentin Avenue and
Monterey Drive.
The original contract did not anticipate nor include the traffic signal design at Natchez Avenue or
modifications to the signals at Quentin Avenue and at Monterey/W. 38th Street. It also did not
include Streetscape improvements on Monterey Drive and Quentin Avenue. In response,
Change Order No. 1 in the amount of $42,400 was approved December 12, 2001 increasing the
total contract amount from $150,000 to $192,400.
Since December, SRF was requested to attend additional meetings with each of the property
owners to review the final design and discuss the creation of a Special Service District, attend
additional City/Developer meetings, create alternatives for the W. 38th Street intersection, add
Streetscape elements to the east side of Quentin and include additional utility design/relocations
on Monterey Drive. In addition, in reviewing SRF’s original proposal it appears there is
insufficient time and costs allotted for construction inspection services even without the
additions to the Scope of Services.
Following is a summary of the proposed changes to the contract:
Task
Description
Orig.
Contract
Amount
(App.
12/12/01)
Change
Order No. 1
Change
Order No. 2
Total
1 Data Collection/Public Involvement 6,250 4,000 10,250
2 Preliminary Design 23,910 7,500 31,410
3 Final Plans 34,955 41,800 5,500 82,255
4 ROW/Easements 4,960 4,960
5 Bidding 1,600 1,600
6 Construction Inspection 58,660 72,400 131,060
7 Record Drawings 4,240 4,242
Direct Expenses 1,632 600 800 3,032
Contract Contingency 13,793 13,793
Total Contract Amount $ 150,000 $ 42,400 $ 90,200 $ 282,600
82
Staff has reviewed the proposed Change Order No. 2 and found it to be consistent with expenses
incurred on the previous Streetscape projects and with other consultant projects where fees
typically range from 15 to 18 percent of construction costs. If Change Order No. 2 is approved,
the consultant fees under this contract would be 17 percent of the estimated construction costs.
Recommendation: It is recommended the City Council adopt the attached resolution approving
Change Order No. 2 with SRF Consulting Group, Inc. in the amount of $90,200, increasing the
total contract amount from $192,400 to $282,600.
Attachments: Resolution
Change Order No. 2
Prepared by: Carlton Moore, Superintendent of Engineering
Reviewed by: Maria A. Hagen, City Engineer
Michael P. Rardin, Public Works Director
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
83
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOULTION PERTAINING TO CHANGE ORDER NO. 2
CONTRACT NO. 76-00
WHEREAS, on July 5, 2000, the City Council entered into Contract No. 76-00 with SRF
Consulting Group, Inc. for professional engineering service for Phase III Excelsior Boulevard
Streetscape improvements; and
WHEREAS¸ the City has determined that certain modifications must be made to the
contract to facilitate the construction of the project; and
WHEREAS, the consultant, SRF Consulting Group, Inc. has agreed to the prices for the
modifications noted above.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of
St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that Change Order No. 2, in the amount of $90,200, to Contract No.
76-00 with SRF Consulting Group, Inc. for professional engineering services for Phase III
Excelsior Boulevard Streetscape improvements between Quentin Avenue and Monterey Drive is
hereby approved.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council March 18, 2002
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
84
Contract No.: 76-00
Change Order No.: 2 Date: March 18, 2002
Project Name: Excelsior Boulevard Streetscape
Project Location: Excelsior Boulevard between Quentin Avenue and Monterey Drive
Contractor: SRF Consulting Group, Inc. One Carlson Parkway North, Suite 150
Minneapolis, MN 55447-4443 Phone No. 763/475-0010
Type of Work: Professional Engineering Services for the design and construction inspection
of Phase III
Amount of Original Contract: $150,000
Description of Work to be Added : Design, inspection of traffic signal at Natchez Avenue;
modifications to the signals at Quentin Avenue & Monterey Avenue/W. 38th Street; and roadway
& streetscape improvements to Monterey Drive and Quentin Avenue.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Unit Contract As Revised by
C.O.
Contract Item Unit Price Quantity Amount Quantity Amount
Change Order No. 2
$90,200.00
_________________________________________________________________________________
Total
Amount:
90,200.00
Funds Encumbered to date from Change Order No. 1: $192,400.00
Difference between Contract Amount and C.O. Amount (Add): 90,200.00
Total Funds Encumbered per this Change Order: $282,600.00
Above additional work to be performed under same conditions as specified in original
contract unless otherwise stipulated herein.
Approved: ___________________________________ _________________________________
Director of Public Works Date City Manager
Date
NOTE: This Revision becomes part of and in conformance with the existing contract.
85
Item # 9a
MINUTES JANUARY 24, 2002
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
The St. Louis Park Board of Zoning Appeals Committee conducted a regular meeting on
Thursday, January 24, 2002, at St. Louis Park City Hall, 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard, St. Louis
Park, Minnesota.
Members Present: Vice Chairperson Susan Bloyer
Commissioner Ryan Burt
Commissioner Tom Powers
Commissioner Paul Roberts
Members Absent: Chairperson James Gainsley
Staff Present: Janet Jeremiah, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Jeff Korman, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Tara Olson, Community Development Secretary
1. CALL TO ORDER – ROLL CALL
Acting Chairperson Bloyer called the regular meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.
2. APPROVE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMITTEE MINUTES
Motion by Commissioner Roberts, seconded by Commissioner Powers, to approve the following
minutes as presented:
1) Board of Zoning Appeals Committee public hearing and regular meeting minutes dated
December 27, 2001.
Motion by Commissioner Burt, seconded by Commissioner Powers, that the regular meeting
minutes dated December 27, 2001 are approved.
Motion Carried. Voting Yes: Bloyer, Burt, Powers and Roberts. Voting No: None.
3. CONSENT AGENDA
None
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS/COMMITTEE BUSINESS
A. Case No. 02-01-VAR - The request of Mark and Julia Fish Fredrickson for a
variance from the requirements of Section 36-163(f)(5) of the Ordinance Code
86
relating to zoning to permit a side yard setback of 3.5 feet instead of the required
6 feet for a new two-car attached garage and living space on the property located
in the “R-1” Single Family Residential District at 2851 Joppa Avenue South.
Mr. Korman presented a report – and concluded that since 7 of the 7 criterion have been
satisfied, it is recommended the request to reduce the side yard width from 6 feet to 3.5 feet be
granted.
Commissioner Roberts asked staff to explain the code provisions that allows additions to homes
with non-conforming setbacks.
Mr. Korman explained that the house has encroached into the existing side yard, which basically
reduces the side yard from 6 feet to 3.5 feet, which is a non-conformity. Code allows that
someone can add to the garage or living space at the existing setback as long as they don’t reduce
the setback further. The applicants could add on without the need for the variance except for the
garage is substandard and it makes more sense to demolish and rebuild.
Commissioner Roberts asked staff if there is a percentage of existing structure that can be
removed and rebuilt.
Mr. Korman asked Ms. Jeremiah if 60% percent of the value is correct.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that if 60% of the value of a non-conforming structure is lost by fire or other
means it must be made to conform or they will need to apply for a variance. The maximum
length of the new addition is 40 feet, but the applicants were able to meet that and still have the
tandem garage.
Acting Chair Susan Bloyer asked staff if that would be considered an intensification of the non-
conformity.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that there are code provisions that addresses this and in a sense it
grandfathers the existing and does allow additions, but the provision requires at least 10 feet
between the house in question and the neighboring house. Not every parcel meets this condition,
but this one does.
Acting Susan Bloyer asked staff if the topography of the parcel causes the applicants to have to
construct the garage at the proposed location.
Mr. Korman stated that the applicants do have another alternative for the placement of the garage
that is legal for a detached garage but would like to preserve three adult trees. He also stated that
he had not inspected the applicants grading, but it does appear that if the applicants were to
construct the garage in the alternate legal location it may cause run-off into the neighboring
property.
With no more questions, Acting Chairperson Bloyer opened the public hearing.
87
Mark Fredrickson, applicant, of 2851 Joppa Avenue South, stated that he was in agreement with
staff’s report and would be happy to answer any questions the Commission may have.
Commissioner Roberts asked Mr. Fredrickson if he has spoken to the neighbors north of the
property.
Mr. Fredrickson stated that the Frank’s didn’t have a problem with this proposal.
Acting Chairperson Bloyer closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Burt stated he feels the necessary criteria has been met.
Commissioner Roberts feels that we’re not intensifying the non-conforming at this time and feels
the applicant should be able to build an attached two-car garage. Although, the lot is a legal
buildable site, but the size of the lot and the futures that go with the lot would make him not want
to force them to build the garage in the back yard by not granting this variance.
Commissioner Powers stated he had no objections to this variance and would like to move for a
motion.
Motion by Commissioner Powers, seconded by Commissioner Roberts, that the variance be
granted based on the staff report.
Motion Carried. Voting Yes: Bloyer, Powers, Roberts and Burt. Voting No: None.
B. Case No. 02-02-VAR- The request of Kongusn Lee for a variance at 6528 West
Lake Street from the requirements of Section 36-361 (c) (1) d 17 of the Ordinance
Code relating to zoning to permit a variance to permit a parking deduction for a
restaurant without liquor for property located in the “C-2” General Commercial
District.
Mr. Korman informed the Commission that this variance has been withdrawn on the written
request of the applicant.
Acting Chairperson Bloyer asked Commissioners for a motion to remove variance Case No. 02-
02-VAR from the agenda.
Motion by Commissioner Roberts, seconded by Commissioner Powers, that variance Case No.
02-02-VAR be removed from the agenda.
Motion Carried. Voting Yes: Bloyer, Roberts, Powers and Burt. Voting No: None.
C. Case No. 02-03-VAR- The request of Vail Place for variances at 3647 Sumter
Avenue South/7850 West 37th Street from the requirements of Sections 36-167 (g)
(5), 36-167 (c) (12) d, 36-361 (c) (1) a 4., 36-167 (c) (12) b and 36-361 (b) (3) 1.
of the Ordinance Code relating to zoning to allow a lot size of 13,000 square feet
instead of the required 15,000 square feet, allow 3.5 feet setback from the back of
the curb line of internal private roadways or parking lots instead of the required
88
15 feet, allow less than two parking spaces per dwelling unit, allow more than half
of usable open space in the front yard, allow parking lot setback of 10 feet in a
side yard abutting a street instead of the required 15 feet for an apartment
complex on property located in the “R-C” Multi-Family/Commercial District.
Mr. Korman presented a report for six individual variances – and concluded that 7 of the 7
criterion have been satisfied with four of the six variances, two of the six variances have
conditions applied in order to construct a two-story seven-unit apartment building on two parcels
located at 3647 Sumter Ave. S. and 7850 W. 37th Street.
Commissioner Roberts asked staff if the RC District has a minimum density for multi-family.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that there is not a minimum density but for comparison the next lower
category for multi-family allows up to 30 units per an acre. Therefore, you would expect
properties in the RC high density area to range between 30 –50 units per an acre, this property is
proposed at 23 units per an acre which would fit into a lower zoning category.
Commissioner Burt questioned staff on the proper zoning for this particular property due to its
lot size.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that the property adjoining to the east was probably expected to be combined
with this lot which is also zoned RC. However, that parcel is currently developed with a single-
family home.
Mr. Korman stated that a majority of the properties on 37th Street between Texas Avenue and
Louisiana Avenue are R-2 Single Family Residential, but the southern most properties on each of
these blocks are zoned RC and include a few multi-family uses and offices that were present as
of March 1, 1999.
With no more questions, Acting Chairperson Bloyer opened the public hearing.
Mr. Paul Sinclair, Executive Director of Vail Place, stated that Vail Place is a private, non-profit
agency which has provided services to adults with mental illness for over 20 years in the
Hopkins, St. Louis Park and West Metro area. In 1992, the building at 7850 West 37th Street
was donated to Vail Place by Gloria Segal for the purpose of providing housing. Vail Place
rehabilitated the building and provided supportive housing to adults with mental health
disabilities from 1992 to 1999. During this period, seven adults lived there independently until
1999, when the building suffered fire damage. The costs associated with renovation and ongoing
structural concerns with the existing building led us to decide against renovating the building.
The building was demolished at the end of 1999. Vail Place proposes to build a two-story, seven
unit, one-bedroom apartment building to replace the housing for seven people that was lost in
1999. The new building will include a common lounge and an office, which will provide a
meeting place for support and building management staff.
Commissioner Roberts asked Mr. Sinclair if he was able to inform the residents of their proposal.
89
Mr. Sinclair stated that a neighborhood meeting was held several weeks ago and spoke to several
residents prior.
Commissioner Roberts ask Mr. Sinclair if he had considered reducing the amount of units so a
variance would not be required.
Mr. Sinclair stated that Vail Place was interested in proposing 11 units but decided on 7 units to
limit variances.
Mr. Korman stated he had researched the possibility of reducing the units but was unable to find
any possibilities that would not require any variances.
Kent Simon of MHP Architects is working with Vail Place, stated that this site is very limited to
possibilities but would like to point out that Mr. Sinclair and him have worked on several
different architectural plans for the exterior that will add character to the building which will fit
in well with the residential area. He also pointed out the nonrequired front porch; the exterior
finished materials, the bay window that projects facing south and the offset on the north side of
the building.
Mr. Simon also pointed out that he and staff worked closely on trying to accommodate all special
requests that were made by staff such as making adjustments to the setback requirements from
the street adding an additional parking space which then creates nine spaces requiring a variance
in the setback from the parking lot to the street.
Mr. Korman stated that during plan review staff had also requested Mr. Simon to reduce the
building width by 3 feet, which was also done.
Cindy Guddal, 7031 W. 24th Street, stated she was in support of this project and understands the
need for affordable housing for individuals with mental illness. In addition, she stated the
building exterior is appealing and creative and feels the variance request will not affect the
neighborhood.
Alison Blackowiak, 7700 Highway 7, stated that she was in support of this project, but is
concerned that more parking and open space may be needed if the project were to change use or
ownership. She also asked staff if the city has any performance standards in place for apartment
landowners. For example, what responsibilities do they have to the community and the
neighborhood in terms of illegal or legal activity.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that performance standards are in place regarding physical requirements.
The apartment owners are responsible for maintenance on the property such as proper refuse
removal, controlling loud noise nuisance complaints and parking problems. Therefore, we have
applied restrictions on the number of residents to control any possible parking problems. In
addition, the City police department has made improvements the past few years with landlords to
reduce crime.
90
Ms. Blackowiak stated she would like staff to consider adding a third condition onto the variance
which would require the landlord to insure an orderly apartment and if those conditions weren’t
met the variance approval could be reviewed at a future date.
Commission Powers stated that he is a renter and would like to be responsible for his own
actions. In addition, he stated that the city does put pressure on the landlords to keep an orderly
apartment.
Acting Chairperson Bloyer asked staff to clarify the responsibilities of the landlords and asked if
placing such a condition on the variance would be acceptable.
Ms. Janet Jeremiah stated that in order to place conditions on a variance you need to find a nexus
between the variance request and any conditions.
Acting Chairperson Bloyer stated that she understands the landlords do have a responsibility.
Lori Anderson-Tepley, 3253 Webster Avenue South, stated that she has a family member with a
disability and would like to see more supportive housing made available in the City of St. Louis
Park.
Nancy Wise, 3632 Quebec Avenue South, stated her concern about safety and questioned staff of
previous cause of fire.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that she believes the fire was caused by an arson, which could happen any
where in the community.
Rae Ann Annala, 3617 Sumter Avenue, stated the proposed building design is nice but feels the
building design and size does not fit into the neighborhood. She also stated that when this
building was occupied several years ago, she could hear individuals using vulgar language and
soliciting in the alley. In addition, stated her concern of snow removal and snow storage which
may cause the proposed complex parking to be reduced during the winter season causing
difficulty for the alley sharing residents.
Barbara Lewis, 3631 Rhode Island Avenue South, stated she was concerned with parking spaces
made available during the snow season due to snow storage and questioned the amount of open
space for recreation for future use of children. In addition, she stated she would like to see the
building decreased in size if possible.
Mr. Korman stated each unit is approximately 600 square feet and would not foresee children
occupying this complex in the future.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that the intent of the requirement for half of the open space to be in the rear
yard is that generally the rear yard is a safer place. Most lots are interior and the front yard is the
only yard adjacent to a street. However, in this case it’s a corner lot and there is no additional
safety in the backyard. Safety measures for any children in the future would be to fence the front
yard. Also, staff thought that providing all of the open space in the front yard and keeping with
91
the average setbacks in the neighborhood was a better fit instead of trying to force open space in
the backyard.
Kevin Westrup, 3640 Rhode Island Avenue South, stated parking is a concern and would like
staff to explain the city on-street parking restrictions and if parking is allowed on both sides of
the street.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that there is a minimum distance from the intersection of Sumter and the
frontage road and parking restrictions on over-night parking, but everyone shares the public
street, so there’s no designated on-street parking for various uses. Staff thoughts with regards to
restricting the occupancy to eight adults is that there are nine parking spaces and a small office.
Assuming everyone was home and all eight adults owned one vehicle that would leave one
available space for the office worker or a guest. Any additional guests would need to park on the
street. Generally by ordinance we allow the on-street parking to count towards some of the
requirements for guest parking with any apartment complex.
Mr. Westrup asked staff if the on-street parking pertains to both sides of the street.
Ms. Jeremiah stated we generally look at the parking immediately adjacent to the property.
Mr. Westrup questioned the placement of the corner fire hydrant, which will cause a limited
amount of available on-street parking.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that we are not assuming that they are required to use any on-street parking.
Mr. Westrup also stated there will be an increase in traffic on Sumter Avenue because there is
only one way to enter onto 37th Avenue, on Texas Avenue you are unable to cross due to the
divider so you will need to enter onto Highway 7 to Texas Avenue to 37th Avenue into the
complex parking lot.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that the circulation patterns being addressed are the same regardless of how
the property develops. This doesn’t appear to be a big increase in vehicles compared to a single-
family district.
Mr. Westrup informed the Commissioners that his property size is larger than the applicants and
would like to know if the Commissioners have inspected the lot size. In addition, he would like
to address the issue of future arson since this has happened in the past.
Gregory Scott, 5741 33rd Avenue South #1, Minneapolis, stated he would like to live in a
complex such as the one being addressed. He stated that he has a background of mental illness
and has had to overcome several obstacles. In addition, he stated that the Twin Cities has a lack
of affordable housing and would like people to know that individuals with disabilities should
have the right to be able to live in a safe and affordable home.
Jonathan Farmer, Executive Director of Minnesota Supportive Housing Consortium and a
member of the Hennepin County Shelter Advisory Board, stated he would like to encourage the
92
Commission to grant the variance needed to move this project forward. He pointed out that
parking would not be an issue due to majority of the tenants rely mostly on public transportation.
In addition, he has worked closely with the management company that will be assisting the Vail
Place and would like the Commission to know they are invested into making tenants good
renters and they also own a vehicle that does have a snow plow which will relieve several of the
residents snow issues.
Shawn Anderson, Housing Manager of Community Involvement Programs, stated he would be
involved in managing the property with Vail Place. He stated that his role as a manager will be
to review applications from interested tenants and screen credit and criminal records, give tours,
collect rents, enforce housing policies, visit with tenants weekly, assist in employment, monitor
health and safety issues, be main point of contact for the neighbors, tenants and support
providers, coordinator with staff on building maintenance issues such as snow removal, and
trimming of shrubs. In addition, only 20% of their tenants own vehicles so parking should not be
a problem. To address the fire issue, Vail Place will be installing a sprinkler system inside the
complex.
Paul Sinclair, Executive Director of Vail Place, stated that a parking survey was done by Vail
Place and found that only 20.4 % are car users, so with a 7-unit building there will be an
estimated amount of 1.4 cars parking at the proposed complex. He also stated that the tenants
are low income and rely on public transportation and a sprinkler system will be installed. In
addition, he received several letters of support from the following: Mark and Chris Johnson at
3606 Rhode Island Avenue, former Mayor of St. Louis Park and current District Three Hennepin
County Commissioner Gail Dorfman.
Acting Chairperson Bloyer thanked the residents for their comments.
Acting Chairperson Bloyer closed the public hearing.
Acting Chairperson Bloyer stated as a reminder that this variance goes with the land and not the
particular use so we do need to keep in mind the parking issues and the conditions that are stated
in the staff report would be applied if the Commission did decide to support this variance. In
addition, she would like to support this variance due to the substandard lot, the Planning
Commission has zoned this property accordingly.
Commissioner Powers stated he would like to support the variance and does believe there is a
hardship with the lot due to the zoning for multi-family. He stated his biggest concern was the
parking issue but feels staff has addressed that by limiting the number of tenants.
Commissioner Roberts stated he has concern with the amount of variances that are required for
this proposal. He feels the applicants may be over building on the lot and considers a hardship
due to the lot size. However, a reasonable use for this multi-family property would be a duplex,
the hardship is a push because they cant get a reasonable use of the property. In addition, the
parking is a concern and the condition of approval stated in the staff report which states “the
apartment complex shall be limited to a maximum of 8 adults residents”, with this statement he
feels this use is not going with the land but understanding it to go with the use of the land with
93
that use being an apartment complex which could be a problem in the future and would like the
city attorney to review.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that the city attorney has reviewed the conditions. If there are not conditions
limiting the apartment use of the property, then the variance would run with the land without
restrictions.
Commissioner Roberts wanted to clarify with staff that the conditions are tied to the use of adult
residency of an apartment complex and not the use of the parking.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that was correct and that the parking standards would be revisited if the use
were to change from an apartment to something else or even if a request were made to increase
the number of units beyond 7-units. At that time the variance would disappear and the request
would be reviewed as a new proposal, which was the intent of adding the conditions. In
addition, she stated that the use of a duplex is not a permitted use in the multi-family district.
Commissioner Roberts stated that he feels the size of the proposed complex could be reduced to
4-units which would give them a reasonable use of the property and asking if there is a hardship
to the property.
Acting Chairperson Bloyer asked if reducing the complex to 4-unit would be an economical
option and making it difficult to get a reasonable use of the property.
Commissioner Roberts stated that economics could not be a sole hardship.
Commissioner Burt stated he would like to see more open space provided which would allow the
building to fit in better within the neighborhood and allow tenants more outside recreational
activities.
Mr. Korman responded that the consideration of meeting code definition of usable open space is
a minimum dimension of 30 feet, which was difficult because of the front porch and the setback
requirements of the front yard. In addition, staff worked on keeping the building setback with
the current homes in the area and tried working on meeting the numerical requirements for the
open space, which is 2,800 square feet.
Commissioner Burt asked staff if removing the front porch would still not allow meeting the
minimum open space dimension of 30 feet.
Mr. Korman stated that would allow only 2,200 square feet of open space compared to the
required 2,800 square feet, so staff felt to having all open space in the front be proposed.
Commissioner Burt asked staff if the trash receptacle could be relocated to allow for an
additional parking space, and do the neighbors to the north mind looking at the receptacle?
Mr. Korman stated that this proposal is required to meet landscape and buffer yard requirements,
which provides the north property line several bushes and the applicant proposes to build a 6 foot
94
decorative fence along the length of the building. The trash receptacle will be screened on three
sides.
Motion by Commissioner Powers, seconded by Commissioner Burt, that the variance be granted
based on the following conditions: prior to issuance of a building permit for the apartment
complex the property shall be replatted into one lot and the condition that the lease restrictions be
imposed, preventing occupancy by more than eight adults, unless additional off-street parking
can be accommodated per Code as long as used as an apartment complex.
Motion Carried. Voting Yes: Bloyer, Powers and Powers. Voting No: Roberts.
5. Old Business:
None
6. New Business:
Ms. Jeremiah introduced Commissioner Ryan Burt.
7. Communications:
None
8. Miscellaneous:
None
9. Adjournment:
Commissioner Roberts moved and Commissioner Powers seconded the motion for
adjournment. The regular meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals adjourned at 9:14
p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Tara Olson
Community Development Secretary
95
Item # 9b
City of St. Louis Park
Human Rights Commission
Meeting Minutes – January 16, 2002
Community Room - City Hall
______________________________________________________________________________
Present
Commission Members: Cassandra Boddy, Herb Isbin, Paul Pyykkonen, Patrick Rogers, Kristi
Rudelius-Palmer, Kristin Siegesmund and Emily Wallace Jackson
Staff: Martha McDonell, staff liaison, and Lynn Schwartz, recording secretary
Call to Order
Chairperson Kristin Siegesmund called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m.
December Minutes: Moved by Herb Isbin and seconded by Cassandra Boddy to approve the
December minutes. Motion passed unanimously.
January Agenda: Members agreed to add a discussion of the annual work plan and new
member recruitment to the agenda. Moved by Kristi Rudelius-Palmer and seconded by Herb
Isbin. Motion passed unanimously.
Election of Officers: Moved by Herb Isbin and seconded by Paul Pyykkonen to elect Kristin
Siegesmund chairperson and Kristi Rudelius-Palmer vice-chairperson. Motion passed
unanimously.
Reports
Commissioner Reports: Cassandra Boddy mentioned Human Mosaic is beginning to plan its
annual Diversity Week program. She said the group may be asking Sabina Zimering, the recent
Human Rights Award recipient, and Herb Isbin to speak to a high school group.
Herb Isbin reported on several projects that Plymouth students are working on that relate to
human rights issues (aftermath of September 11 terrorism, world religions and tolerance
workshop, and an inter-generational service project). Isbin also mentioned an upcoming Afghani
heritage celebration.
Herb Isbin reported the members are welcome to attend the January 26th board meeting of the
League of Minnesota Human Rights Commissions. He also noted that the league is sponsoring a
training session for police on January 24th that focuses on understanding, reporting and
countering hate crimes.
Old Business
96
Annual Awards: Members commented on how well the award presentation went. They were
also pleased with the new plaques and the publicity in the St. Louis Park Sun-Sailor newspaper.
Hate Crimes Response Plan: Martha McDonell reported that she met with the Police
Department concerning the commission’s Hate Crime Response Plan. The only concern voiced
by the Police Department had to do with privacy concerns. That issue was subsequently
reviewed by the City attorney, and he found no problem with the plan’s wording. McDonell felt
the revised plan is now ready to take to a City Council study session. McDonell and Sergeant
Lorin Kramer will attend the study session. McDonell asked that commission members also
attend: Kristen Siegesmund and Paul Pyykkonen volunteered to attend.
Student Essay Contest: Martha McDonell reported that she created a new fact sheet to
publicize the essay contest to area schools. She also shared a list of schools and contact persons.
Kristi Rudelius-Palmer suggested that the commission purchase enough copies of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights to accompany the contest information. Members agreed the
commission should do this.
Kristen Siegesmund asked each commissioner to volunteer to call one school to urge their
participation in the contest. Below is the list of commissioners and the contacts they agreed to
make:
Cassandra Boddy Cedar Manor School
Patrick Rogers Benilde St. Margaret’s and Most Holy Trinity School
Paul Pyykkonen Torah Academy
Jake Feldman St. Louis Park Junior High (as volunteered by Cassandra
Boddy)
Kristen Siegesmund Susan Lindgren School
Emily Wallace-Jackson Dr. Barbara Pulliam and Groves Academy
Kristi Rudelius-Palmer Minneapolis Jewish Day School and Talmud Torah
Herb Isbin Did not volunteer
Several members stated that they found the league’s essay questions vague and difficult to
understand—especially for youth. Emily Wallace-Jackson felt the commission should provide
some feedback to the league on making the essay questions more kid-friendly and require less
teacher preparation. Kristi Rudelius-Palmer offered to provide information for teachers for this
year’s mailing. She will get this information to Martha McDonell within the next week.
New Business
Recruiting new members: Members commented that they liked the revised flier designed by
Kelli Burrows, the City’s web/graphic designer.
Herb Isbin volunteered to take fliers to the Lenox Senior Program and the St. Louis Park Public
Library. Martha McDonell suggested that fliers be distributed to local churches and synagogues.
Kristi Rudelius-Palmer said the commission should be more proactive in personally recruiting
new members. She felt the commission should recruit a principal or teacher, a representative
from the St. Louis Park Public Library, a representative from the Parks and Recreation
97
Department and a representative from the Police Department. Rudelius-Palmer also felt a City
Council representative should attend the Human Rights Commission meetings.
Kristen Siegesmund said the commission has to make an effort to recruit minority members.
Emily Wallace Jackson suggested contacting Linda Trummer to see if she might suggest
someone from the Meadowbrook apartment complex. She also felt fliers should be handed out at
the school district’s cultural competency forums.
To recruit a more diverse membership, Paul Pyykkonen suggested placing fliers at the
Minneapolis YMCA or other gathering places where the diversity is greater. Members suggested
that this could be the break rooms of places that employ a higher percentage of minority
members and at places where minority members shop (i.e. Cub foods).
Commissioners then noted several concerns about the appointment process. Commissioners felt
the City Council interview process can be intimidating to applicants. They also felt it took too
long for the council to get around to interviewing applicants. Martha McDonell explained that
the commission is an advisory group to the City Council and that’s why the council does the
interviewing and appointing. McDonell felt the problem with vacancies had more to do with the
lack of applicants, rather than the interview process.
Emily Wallace Jackson suggested contacting the City Council to tell them the kind of
commission members the commission is seeking. She also suggested asking the council’s
permission to participate in the interview process. Kristi Rudelius-Palmer felt that applications
should first go to the Human Rights Commission so the commission could express a preference
before the City Council conducts the interview. Patrick Rogers offered to write a letter to the
City Council summarizing their concerns and suggestions.
2002 Work Plan: After a brief discussion on process, members agreed to brainstorm ideas.
Members brainstormed these possible mission statements –
Human rights is an everyday thing.
Building a human rights culture/community in St. Louis Park
Members brainstormed these possible goals –
Increase diversity within the Human Rights Commission
Increase interaction between the commission and the City Council
Promote greater cultural awareness within the community
Educate about diversity across generational lines
Create partnerships with community organizations
Increase awareness within the community of the commission’s meaningful work
Engage a greater percentage of the community in human rights (rather than simply
“preaching to the choir”)
Enable the community to see human rights as a component of everyday life, not something
only mentioned at newsworthy events
Kristi Rudelius-Palmer suggested these categories –
98
1. Media Outreach –
Contribute op-ed or personal pieces to the Sun
Sailor (written by commissioners and
members of the community)
Have a minimum of four human rights stories
published in the Sun Sailor (i.e. essay contest,
annual award, etc.)
4. Community Connections –
City Council
Organizational partnerships
2. Education –
Non-formal
Formal
5. Training –
Human rights training for police officers
Incorporation of human rights into the City’s
organizational development program
3. Events –
Forums
Special events
Petitions
6. Infrastructure –
Develop a data base
Improve recruitment/appointment process
Technology
7. Response to calls –
Time for brainstorming ran out. Members were asked to review the topics and bring suggestions
to the February meeting. Herb Isbin asked that members consider the commission’s mission and
bylaws as they review the proposed topics.
Set Agenda
Meet Human Rights Award winner Sabina Zimering, MD
Discuss how to support Human Mosaic’s Diversity Week efforts at the High School
Select an essay contest winner
Finalize the commission’s annual report to the City Council
Review a draft of Pat Roger’s letter to the City Council concerning the commissioner
appointment process
Set the commission’s 2002 work plan.
Adjournment
Moved by Cassandra Boddy and seconded by Herb Isbin to adjourn. Motion passed
unanimously. With no further business, the commission adjourned at 9:02 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lynn Schwartz
Recording Secretary
99
Item # 9c
Official Minutes
PLANNING COMMISSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
February 20, 2002 -- 6:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Phillip Finkelstein, Ken Gothberg, Carl Robertson, Jerry Timian
MEMBERS ABSENT: Michelle Bissonnette, Michael Garelick, Dennis Morris
STAFF PRESENT: Janet Jeremiah, Judie Erickson, Cindy Walsh, Nancy Sells
1. Call to order - Roll Call
Chair Gothberg called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m.
2. Approval of Minutes of February 6, 2002
Commissioner Robertson moved approval of the minutes of February 6, 2002. The motion
passed 4-0.
3. Hearings:
A. continued from 2/6/02
Case No. 02-05-CUP Request for Major Amendment to a special permit to
permit special events on the roof of the existing restaurant and consider changes
to approved parking and landscape plans for property located at 9920 and 9908
Wayzata Boulevard – Santorini Restaurant
Janet Jeremiah, Planning and Zoning Supervisor, said Santorini Restaurant has
indicated they need additional time to resubmit site plans showing compliance with the
continued special permit and other concerns raised by staff. The City Attorney is
reviewing the billboard conformance issue and whether or not the billboard needs to be
removed under certain circumstances with the restaurant’s application. Recently, Ms.
Jeremiah learned the owner of the property is the billboard company and Santorini
Restaurant is the lessee. The billboard company did not sign the application.
However, staff is contacting them to be certain they assent to the application as well.
Staff recommends a second continuance; and this item, along with applicable variances
if necessar y, will be re-advertised. Ms. Jeremiah recommends a continuance to a date
not certain.
Commissioner Robertson asked who owns the billboard company. Ms. Jeremiah said
the name of the company is Restaurants No Limit, Inc. However, the original special
permit application was signed by Mr. Naegele and Ms. Jeremiah thinks Restaurants No
Limit, Inc. is a sub-company of the billboard company, and the Santorini group leases
the restaurant space.
100
Chair Gothberg opened the public hearing.
Mr. David Brandt, 600 South Highway 169, #700, property manager for the buildings
adjacent to Santorini Restaurant, stated he would be interested in hearing discussion
about the terms of the lease and information on the existing continued special permit.
Ms. Jeremiah said staff does not have current information on the lease but information
on property ownership and the existing special permit can be provided. Ms. Jeremiah
added that the Santorini Restaurant is actually requesting an amendment to the special
permit, and she will furnish the original Resolution of Approval and the original site
plans for anyone who is interested.
It was moved by Commissioner Robertson to continue the public hearing indefinitely.
The motion passed 4-0.
B. Case No. 02-08-CUP Request by City of St. Louis Park for Conditional Use
Permit for the placement of approximately 20,000 cubic yards of topsoil fill on
Oak Park Village Park in the northwest quadrant of Louisiana Avenue and Walker
Street
Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation, provided a report on the placement of
topsoil fill on Oak Park Village Park, which will be mainly for the field areas. The
topsoil will be a mix of about 80% sand and 20% topsoil.
Commissioner Timian asked about parking availability. Ms. Walsh said there are
approximately 200 parking spaces in the southeastern corner of the park and 35-50
parking spaces just south of Oak Leaf Drive. Staff will pursue a no parking policy for
the cul de sac.
Ms. Jeremiah reported that staff recommends approval with conditions placed on the
hours of operation for hauling and the City shall ensure the contract addresses dust
control as necessary.
Chair Gothberg opened the public hearing. With no one wishing to speak, Chair
Gothberg closed the public hearing.
It was moved by Commissioner Robertson to approve the conditional use permit
subject to conditions listed in the staff report. The motion passed 4-0.
C. Case No. 02-09-CUP Request by City of St. Louis Park for Conditional Use
Permit for the placement of approximately 10,400 cubic yards of fill on Wolfe
Park for soil corrections and final amphitheater and parkway grading at 3700
Monterey Drive
Ms. Walsh explained the amphitheater design, and spoke about soil corrections in
regard to Wolfe Park.
101
Commissioner Timian asked how many inches of topsoil will be placed over the fabric,
and Ms. Walsh responded it will be about twelve inches. He also asked about debris
migration into the pond. Ms. Walsh said the construction limits are up to the edge of
the trail. Ms. Walsh noted the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency recommended
placing fabric in the amphitheater area, and staff will follow that recommendation.
Ms. Jeremiah reported that staff recommends approval with conditions placed on truck
traffic routes to limit impacts on existing condominiums and control dust.
Chair Gothberg opened the public hearing. With no one wishing to speak, Chair
Gothberg closed the public hearing.
It was moved by Commissioner Robertson to approve the conditional use permit
subject to conditions listed in the staff report. The motion passed 4-0.
D. Case Nos. 02-07-CUP and 02-6-S Request by Vernon Partnership LLC for
Conditional Use Permit for 8 unit townhome project (cluster housing) and
Preliminary Plat Approval – Townhomes of Vernon Oaks 2601 Vernon Ave. S.
Judie Erickson, Planning Coordinator, reported that the proposal for eight units does
not meet the maximum density requirements of the zoning ordinance. The applicant has
asked the Planning Commission to continue the public hearing until they can revise
plans or perhaps request a zoning change to R2 to accommodate eight units.
Commissioner Robertson asked if an analysis has been done on tree replacement. Ms.
Erickson said the applicant submitted a tree replacement plan based on eight units,
however, the plan showed that the applicant would request cash in lieu of planting in
approximately the vicinity of 900 caliber inches. The analysis has been halted as there
are some floodplain issues and the application will require a permit from the Watershed
District.
Ms. Jeremiah said one of staff’s concerns is the possibility of even meeting the findings
for cluster housing. She explained that one purpose of cluster housing provisions is to
preserve natural topographic features, as well as woods and trees. Another goal is to
create a superior development by trying to preserve those types of open spaces and
cluster the density in smaller areas rather than a single-family type of development
under the zoning. Ms. Jeremiah said, at this time, staff does not have a full analysis of
whether there would be a better way to preserve trees because much of that relates to
the Watershed District issues on regrading.
Chair Gothberg opened the public hearing.
Mr. Scott Martinson, 2558 Vernon Avenue South, and Mr. Stanley Heath, 2624 Vernon
Avenue South, voiced their objections to the request by Vernon Partnership. Their
102
concerns include the potential loss of trees and increased traffic on Vernon Avenue.
The need for trail connections was also discussed.
It was moved by Commissioner Robertson to continue the public hearing. The motion
passed 4-0.
Chair Gothberg asked if re-notice will be given to the neighborhood, and Ms. Erickson
replied yes. Ms. Erickson said staff will have to meet with the applicant to determine
the options. She said this item will have to go to the Park and Recreation Commission
for them to make a statement regarding park dedication as far as land is concerned or
cash in lieu of park plan dedication for this site. Ms. Erickson said regarding the
wetlands associated with this property, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District is the
governmental unit that regulates wetlands and they have requested a wetland
delineation be made for this property.
Ms. Ruth Heath, 2624 Vernon Avenue South, said a creek was buried some time ago
before the Courtyard Apartments were built. It is Ms. Heath’s opinion that this is
definitely a wetland.
4. Unfinished Business: None
5. New Business
A. Consent Agenda: None
B. Other New Business
Chair Gothberg mentioned a mailing by the Metropolitan Council regarding planning
workshops.
6. Communications
A. Recent City Council Action – Feb. 19, 2002
B. Other
Ms. Erickson announced SRF has been selected to be the consultant for the
Elmwood Area Study (EAS), and a member of the Planning Commission is
requested to be on the steering committee for the EAS. The first meeting will be
at 7:30 a.m. on Wednesday, March 13th.
7. Miscellaneous
8. Adjournment
Chair Gothberg adjourned the meeting at 6:55 p.m.
Minutes prepared by: Respectfully submitted by:
Linda Samson Nancy Sells