HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002/04/01 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Regular 1
AGENDA - CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
April 1, 2002
7:30 p.m.
Economic Development Authority – Meeting has been cancelled
1. Call to Order
a. Pledge of Allegiance
b. Roll Call
2. Presentations
a. Proclamation for Cynthia Ahrens
3. Approval of Minutes
a. City Council Minutes of March 18, 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 an ordinance amending the city’s general parking restrictions
from a 12 hour limit to a 48 hour limit for vehicles to be continuously parked,
approve the summary and authorize summary publication.
2. Motion to adopt the attached resolution approving Cooperative Agreement No.
PW 66-05-01 with Hennepin County for for Excelsior Boulevard Streetscape
2
Improvements from Quentin Avenue to Monterey Drive – Project Nos. 99-05 and
01-04
3. Motion to designate Sunram Contruction as the lowest responsible bidder and to
authorize execution of a contract for the regrading and soil corrections in Wolfe
Park at a cost not to exceed $229,350.
4. Motion to designate Sunram Construction as the lowest responsible bidder and to
authorize execution of a contract for the construction of the Veterans Memorial
Amphitheater in Wolfe Park at a cost not to exceed $ 453,885.
5. Motion to accept the following reports for filing:
a. Planning Commission Minutes of March 6, 2002
b. Housing Authority Minutes of February 20, 2002
Action:Motion to approve Consent Items
5. Public Hearings
5a. Special Service District #3
Consideration of the establishment of Special Service District #3 (along Excelsior
Boulevard between Quentin Avenue and Monterey Drive) and the imposition of a
service charge within the district.
Recommended
Action:
1. Close public hearing.
2. Motion to approve 1st reading of the attached ordinance to
create Special Service District #3 and to set the 2nd reading of
the ordinance for April 15, 2002.
5b. Public Hearing and first reading (continued) 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:
Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to adopt first reading and
set second reading for April 15, 2002.
6. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public
7. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions
7a. Walser Motor’s Request for a Major Amendment to an Existing Special
Permit for a Car Wash Addition at 3555 S. Hwy. 100
3
Case No. 02-15-CUP
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt a resolution approving the major amendment to
the special permit subject to the conditions included in the
resolution.
7b. Approval of Preliminary Design Layout for Excelsior Boulevard Bridge
Widening, City Project No. 98-04
This report considers the approval of a preliminary design layout (No. 06) for the
redecking and widening of the bridge on Excelsior Boulevard (CSAH 3) from
Xenwood Avenue to Park Center Boulevard, over Highway 100.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the attached resolution that approves the
preliminary design layout for the bridge widening project and
authorizes Hennepin County to proceed with final design.
7c. City Engineer’s Report: 2001 Sidewalk Improvement Project: Phase B –
Project No. 99-07B
This report considers the construction of various sections of new sidewalk in
accordance with the city’s sidewalk, trails, and bikeway plan
Recommended
Action:
1. 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 construction of various sections of concrete
sidewalk.
2. Motion to adopt the attached resolutions relating to
installation of parking restrictions on W. 26th Street and
Texas Avenue.
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.
4
Item # 3a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
March 18, 2002
1. Call to Order
Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m.
The following Councilmembers were present at roll call: Jim Brimeyer, Chris Nelson, Susan
Sanger, Sue Santa, Sally Velick, and Mayor Jeff Jacobs.
Councilmember Ron Latz arrived at 7:43 p.m.
Also present were the City Manager (Mr. Meyer); City Attorney (Mr. Scott); Director of
Public Works (Mr. Rardin); Superintendent of Engineering (Mr. Moore); City Engineer (Ms.
Hagen); City Clerk (Ms. Reichert); and Recording Secretary (Ms. Samson).
2. Presentations--None
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. City Council Minutes of March 4, 2002
The minutes were approved as presented.
3b. Study Session Minutes of February 25, 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 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
Councilmember Sanger requested Item 6 be moved from the Consent Agenda to the
Regular Agenda.
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to move
Consent Agenda Item 6 to the Regular Agenda.
5
The motion passed 6-0.
4b. Approval of Consent Items
It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Nelson, to approve
the following Consent Agenda Items as amended.
The motion passed 6-0.
1. Approve Second Reading and adopt Ordinance No. 2220-02, 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. Approve Second Reading and adopt Ordinance No. 2221-02, 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. 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. 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. 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. Adopt Resolution No. 02-029 accepting the 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.
7. Adopt Resolution No. 02-030 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.
8. 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
6
5. Public Hearings
5a. Public Hearing: Alley Paving – 4000 Block between Toledo Avenue and Utica
Avenue.
City Engineer Maria Hagen said the City received a petition in December 2001 regarding
alley paving, which was signed by 69% of the abutting property owners. Staff requires
additional time to discuss the feasibility of alley paving with property owners and Holy
Family Church.
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to table
this item until May 6, 2002.
The motion passed 6-0.
The public hearing will continue until May 6, 2002.
5b. Assessment Hearing for Alley Paving Project in the 4000 block between Toledo
and Brunswick Avenues
Mayor Jacobs said, subject to a motion, the public hearing for this item will also be continued
until May 6, 2002.
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to table
this item until May 6, 2002.
The motion passed 6-0.
5c. Public Hearing and first reading of an ordinance reconfiguring ward boundaries
City Clerk, Cindy Reichert, reported St. Louis Park is ready to begin the process of
redistricting, which occurs every ten years following the census. It is the process used to
adjust the election district boundaries to account for population shifts. Ms. Reichert said the
directive is for wards to be as equal in population as practicable and to be composed of
compact and contiguous territories. St. Louis Park should try to achieve a deviation within
10% of 0 (zero) or not more than 5% above or 5% below. Ms. Reichert said some minor
ward boundary adjustments will be required. Ms. Reichert reported that Staff is requesting
that all of the Lenox neighborhood boundary be wholly situated in Ward 3; another requested
change regards the area north of West 28th Street and west of Louisiana Avenue (Louisiana
Courts and Victoria Ponds) be moved to Ward 4 to balance the population; and to redraw the
boundary line for the Elmwood neighborhood so that it will be entirely within Ward 2. The
suggested changes will bring St. Louis Park into an overall deviation of 4.13%; Ward 2
would be 2.17% and Ward 3 would be 1.96%.
Ms. Reichert said Councilmember Nelson called her attention to some problems with a legal
description in the ordinance, and Staff will work on that to clarify railroad lines.
7
Ms. Reichert said St. Louis Park sets its ward boundaries. Because precincts may not cross,
the legislative district plan to be released on March 20th may produce odd slivers of
properties that are too small to be a precinct. If that were the case, additional changes may be
brought forward at the continued public hearing. Councilmember Brimeyer stated precinct
boundaries must correspond to legislative boundaries, and Ms. Reichert replied yes, and ward
boundaries do not.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Latz, to continue
the public hearing and first reading to April 1, 2002.
The motion passed 7-0.
6. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public--None
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. Resolution No. 02-022
Ms. Reichert reported this item regards a renewal for a premises permit for the Minnesota
Youth Boxing Club (“MYBC”), and the MYBC was asked to submit information
demonstrating their compliance with the Trade Area Requirements (“TAR”). Staff believes
the Applicant is not entirely in compliance with St. Louis Park ordinance.
Scott McDonald, manager of MYBC, commented MYBC has been in St. Louis Park for
about seven years and there have been no enforcement problems, complaints registered by
gambling control, or citations or fines by the Department of Revenue. Mr. McDonald said,
in conjunction with Mr. David Payne, owner of Al’s Liquors, MYBC has contributed
$35,000 to Parktacular.
Mayor Jacobs asked if it is accurate that if the money is available to be used in St. Louis
Park, it must also be spent in the trade area? Ms. Reichert said the City ordinance states it is
lawful purposes conducted in the trade area but a distinction must be made between
allowable expenses, which are expenses used to operate the pull tab portion of the business,
and lawful purpose expenditures, which are used to support the programs and services. St.
Louis Park ordinance speaks to the lawful purpose expenditures, which are directly related to
the mission of the organization and those purposes must be in the trade area. Payroll is
considered an allowable expense and not a lawful purpose expenditure—even if the payroll
check is issued to one who lives in the trade area.
Ms. Reichert said when the TAR went into effect, the MYBC was not in compliance but it
was understood that they would come into compliance within the course of time.
City Manager Charlie Meyer stated he is unsure if the lawful purpose expenditures audit
report will specifically show that a program and its participants are operating in the trade
8
area; however, using the Hockey Association as an example, a City investigation reveals the
association operates in the City of St. Louis Park based on ice rental at the city ice arena, and
it is known that the kids are from St. Louis Park. The program is clearly in St. Louis Park
and the audit ultimately shows the monies being expended for those purposes. The purpose
of the audit is not to determine if hockey sticks are bought from a vendor outside of the trade
area, the purpose of the audit is to determine if the lawful purpose expenditures are made, are
auditable, and are supporting the program that has been determined to be in the trade area.
Mr. Meyer said the question before Council tonight is: Is the MYBC operating a program
within the trade area?
Councilmember Sanger said it appears the MYBC is not meeting the TAR.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Velick, to approve
Resolution No. 02-022 to deny issuance of a premises permit for lawful gambling for
Minnesota Youth Boxing Association at Al’s Liquors, located at 3912 Excelsior Blvd.
Councilmember Brimeyer said he thinks the MYBC is working toward compliance, and he
stated when the TAR was set up it wasn’t clear how to enforce it; he recognized the
significant contributions Al’s Liquors and MYBC have made to Parktacular, however, he
will vote against the permit issuance.
Councilmember Latz, who opposes the TAR, said the Applicant has had since 1999 to bring
their expenditures into compliance and, according to numbers submitted by the Applicant,
they fall short of the 90%. Councilmember Latz is open to changing the ordinance to meet
different needs.
Councilmember Nelson, who also opposes the TAR, voiced opposition to charitable
gambling some time ago and, if he were consistent, he would make it as tough as possible to
comply with this ordinance and eventually drive the TAR out—but that would be
inappropriate. He would vote for an amendment to the ordinance deleting the TAR.
Councilmember Santa said this is not charity, this is charitable gambling, and there is a
difference. She said all applicants must meet the same standard, and Councilmember Santa
will support denial for a premises permit renewal.
Councilmember Velick said to amend the ordinance at this time would be inappropriate.
Councilmember Sanger said this ordinance is not about telling owners of premises which
charities to support but rather any chosen charity must comply with the requirements of local
and state laws.
Councilmember Latz responded the requirements of local law restrict where bar owners may
direct the charitable proceeds which are collected on their premises. He said, according to
the Applicant’s numbers, they can comply with an 86% restriction of the expenditure
requirement, however, the City analysis places that number at 75%. Councilmember Latz
9
asked if the 90% could be reduced to 75%, and Ms. Reichert said the City Council has the
discretion to lower the percentage.
Mr. Meyer said changing the ordinance to a lower percentage would require amending the
ordinance and that could not take effect in time for the Applicant’s April 1st deadline. The
owners of premises where charitable gambling occurs do not direct the use of the funds,
which is in fact prohibited by state statutes. The funds expended by MYCB for Parktacular
have met the TAR for local purpose expenditure but the City does not know if MYBC is
operating a program in the TAR that would meet the local area expenditure requirement for
lawful purpose expenditures.
Councilmember Nelson commented that Councilmember Sanger’s motion is telling Mr.
Payne that he may not select MYBC. Councilmember Sanger said whomever is selected
must comply with the rules. Councilmember Nelson said charitable gambling is an
inefficient way to distribute monies to charities, and it has all of the destructive elements of
gambling.
Councilmember Brimeyer said he will support the motion despite his disagreement with it in
this particular case.
It was moved by Councilmember Latz to offer a substitute motion that the ordinance be
changed from 90% to 70%. The motion died for lack of a second.
Mayor Jacobs summarized there is a motion and a second to deny the Applicant a premises
permit renewal at Al’s Liquors, located at 3912 Excelsior Blvd.
Councilmember Nelson announced the TAR will be discussed further at a Study Session.
The motion passed 7-0.
7b. 1st Reading of an ordinance amending the city’s general parking restrictions from
a 12 hour limit to a 48 hour limit
Ms. Reichert introduced the first reading, and she stated several residents have expressed
concerns that the 12-hour general parking restriction is too limiting. Ms. Reichert added that
other ordinance requirements may supercede the general parking restriction in question. For
example if street maintenance is scheduled or if a snow emergency is in effect, the
requirement is that vehicles must be moved according to different time schedules and the 48
hour provision is not applicable in those cases.
It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to approve 1st
reading of an ordinance amending the city’s general parking restrictions and set second
reading for April 4, 2002.
The motion passed 7-0.
10
7c. Restriping and parking restrictions on Minnetonka Boulevard.
Resolution No.’s 02-023, 02-024, 02-025
Ms. Hagen reported on restriping and parking restrictions.
Annie Brown, 4833 and 4825 Minnetonka Blvd., requested parking restrictions not be
imposed on Minnetonka Blvd. in front of her business. Ms. Hagen said Hennepin County is
insisting Minnetonka Blvd., east of Highway 100, be a four-lane roadway.
Councilmember Nelson asked who plows Minnetonka Blvd., and Mike Rardin, Director of
Public Works, said Hennepin County plows Minnetonka Blvd. Councilmember Nelson’s
concern is that if Hennepin County does not plow Minnetonka Blvd., a four-lane road will be
reduced to two lanes and the safety issues will remain and, in the meantime, business owners
will have been inconvenienced. Bob Byers, Hennepin County Public Works, Planning
Department, said Hennepin County Public Works tends to bypass areas from where cars have
not been removed.
Barry Greenberg, 4813 Minnetonka Blvd., has several elderly customers; he said parking
spaces on the side would be helpful. Ms. Hagen suggested signage to indicate parking is
available behind the businesses in the 4800 block of Minnetonka Blvd. Ms. Hagen said Staff
would be willing to work with business owners regarding parking concerns. Ms. Brown said
the businesses facing Minnetonka Blvd. do not have direct rear access to the parking spaces
behind the building, the customers, many of whom are elderly, would have to walk around
the building. It was noted that if Minnetonka Blvd. becomes a four-lane roadway, business
owners would be assessed for the cost to reconfigure parking on the side or behind the
building.
Gary Berscheid, 1604 Blackstone Avenue South, said a four-lane road will increase traffic.
He is a bicyclist who would feel safer if Minnetonka Blvd. remained a two-lane road with
parking permitted.
Councilmember Santa reluctantly supports the restriping, and Councilmember Sanger
acknowledges the inconvenience restriping would bring. Councilmember Sanger said
pedestrian safety, in regard to crossing Minnetonka Blvd., must be addressed.
Councilmember Latz commented the seniors from the Lenox Community Center, 6715
Minnetonka Blvd., have been requesting a semaphore be installed in front of their facility for
some time.
It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Nelson, to adopt
Resolution 02-023 to rescind existing parking resolutions along Minnetonka Boulevard.
The motion passed 7-0.
It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Nelson, to adopt
Resolution No. 02-024 to remove parking on the north side of Minnetonka Boulevard from
11
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.
The motion passed 7-0.
It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Nelson, to adopt
Resolution No. 02-025 installation of various parking controls on Minnetonka Boulevard
and streets adjacent to Minnetonka Boulevard.
The motion passed 7-0.
7d. City Engineer’s Report: Excelsior Boulevard Streetscape Improvements from
Quentin Avenue to Monterey Drive – Project Nos. 99-05 and 01-04
Resolution No.’s 02-026 and 02-027
Carlton Moore, Superintendent of Engineering, provided a background on the Excelsior
Blvd. streetscape project. He said the City is proposing to partner with TOLD Development
for work on the north side of Excelsior Blvd. There will be minor modifications made to the
38th Street entrance as a result of residents who voiced concerns at a neighborhood meeting.
Councilmember Nelson said business owners, on Excelsior Blvd., east of Monterey Drive,
have indicated to him that to abolish parking on Monterey Drive will hurt their businesses.
He asked if alternative parking may be provided to those business owners on Excelsior
Blvd.? Mr. Moore said one option would be to have some public parking areas on Excelsior
Blvd. and Monterey Drive.
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to adopt
Resolution No. 02-026 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.
The motion passed 7-0.
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to adopt
Resolution No. 02-027 rescinding parking on Excelsior Boulevard and on Monterey Drive.
The motion passed 7-0.
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to adopt
Resolution No. 02-028 authorizing parking restrictions on Excelsior Boulevard and on
Monterey Drive.
The motion passed 7-0.
7e. Item 6 from the Consent Agenda – Blackstone Neighborhood Parking Restrictions
12
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.
Councilmember Sanger said there has been no discussion with residents on this item, and she
thinks discussion with the Blackstone residents regarding the proposed parking changes
would be more appropriate after the completion of the Rottlund townhomes.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Latz, to defer this
item indefinitely until after Staff has a neighborhood meeting on the subject to discuss the
proposed parking restrictions and also discuss the proposed timing of the parking
restrictions.
The motion passed 7-0.
Mr. Moore said a neighborhood meeting could be scheduled quickly. Councilmember
Sanger said parking on 16th Street has been a long-standing concern with residents.
8. Boards and Committees--None
11. Communications—City Manager: Mr. Meyer said the budget plans at the legislature do
not appear to impact the City’s local government aid.
Mr. Meyer reported a bill to privatize building inspection for residential construction remains
active. Mr. Meyer said the bill is inappropriate and he is disappointed the bill continues to
survive because it would allow building contractors, who own properties, to hire his or her
own inspectors and there would be no oversight by any governmental agency.
Mayor: Mayor Jacobs reminded the community of the Empty Bowls fundraising event to
take place at the Rec Center on Thursday, March 21, at 4:30 p.m.
12. Adjournment
Mayor Jacobs adjourned the meeting at 9:08 p.m.
_______________________________ __________________________________
City Clerk Mayor
13
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 5a
Meeting of April 1, 2002
5a. Special Service District #3
Consideration of the establishment of Special Service District #3 (along Excelsior
Boulevard between Quentin Avenue and Monterey Drive) and the imposition of a
service charge within the district.
Recommended
Action:
1. Close public hearing.
2. Motion to approve 1st reading of the attached ordinance to
create Special Service District #3 and to set the 2nd reading of
the ordinance for April 15, 2002.
Background:
Over the past six years, the City has implemented two segments of the Excelsior Boulevard
Streetscape Improvement Program. The third and final segment will be built in 2002 and will
entail the installation of approximately $2 million worth of public improvements along Excelsior
Boulevard from Quentin Avenue to Monterey Drive.
As with both previous projects, the City has worked with adjacent property owners to create a
“special service district.” The District provides a means of ensuring that the investment made
through the various public improvements will be adequately maintained. A special service
district needs to be established for the final piece of the Excelsior Boulevard Improvements.
Attached is information on the proposed Special Service District, the Proposed District Budget
and the Proposed Service Charge Allocation as it would impact each property owner in the
designated area.
What has been the extent of communication with the affected property owners?
During December of 2001 and January 2002, City staff met individually with property owners
within the proposed area of Special Service District #3 to discuss the improvements and to
introduce the concept of a special service district. On January 25, 2002, a meeting was held at
which more specific information was provided including a Preliminary District Budget and Cost
Allocation for each property. Representatives of seven (out of the 15) affected property owners
attended the meeting. Information from the meeting was subsequently sent to all of the affected
properties. Staff then personally met with five of the property owners or their representatives
and has been in contact with all the property owners to answer questions or address any concerns
regarding the proposed District.
In addition, detailed information describing the District and how costs would be allocated was
distributed with the public hearing notice to all property owners. Staff then followed up the
mailing with telephone calls to remind property owners of the meeting and answered questions.
14
How many petitions have been received requesting the required public hearing?
There are a total of 19 separate, privately owned parcels in the proposed district. To date, 12
property owners representing 15 of the 19 taxable parcels along Excelsior Boulevard have
submitted petitions requesting that the City Council conduct a public hearing to discuss the
establishment of a special service district and impose service charges pursuant to Minn. Stat.
428A.01 - .101 (2000). These property owners represent approximately 87% of the affected land
area and 70% of the tax capacity of property that would be subject to the service charge.
According to state statute, 25% of the land area and 25% of the net tax capacity of property
subject to the service charge are required to petition in order for the Council to convene a public
hearing.
What services will the District provide?
The largest expenditure in the District’s budget is the cost of removing snow and ice and hauling
it away. Other significant cost items are the maintenance of landscape materials, decorative
lighting, banners, and the irrigation system as well as refuse removal (see attached Proposed
Operating Budget).
How were the costs allocated to the property owners?
The Annual Service Charge is derived by the sum of two components. Snow and ice removal
costs are determined on the basis of the area (square footage) of sidewalk in front of each
property. All other costs would be allocated based on the amount of front footage of each
property. When these two components are combined, they equal each property owners’ Annual
Service Charge.
How will the service charges be collected?
The service charge would appear on District property owners’ annual property tax statements
starting in May 2003.
Is there a cap on the amount of the annual service charges?
Yes, the maximum Service Charges to be imposed in 2002 and 2003 are outlined in the attached
Proposed Operating Budget and Service Charge Allocation. Pursuant to the proposed resolution,
the annual service charges may increase or decrease from the maximum authorized budgeted
amount in the preceding year based upon changes in the Consumer Price Index (All Items) for
the Minneapolis/St. Paul area. Such increases or decreases may not fluctuate more than 5% per
year (which is the same for the other two districts).
Why is there a separate budget for the period of September 2002 – June 2002?
Since the District will not receive any service charge revenues via property tax payments until
July 2003, the resolution allows the City to undertake a separate, direct billing to District
15
property owners for winter 2002/03 snow removal and spring 2003 landscape maintenance
expenses. This approach was also used for Special Service District #2.
Who determines and controls the annual operating budget?
As with the other two districts, an advisory board consisting of District property owners
appointed by the City Council will be formed to oversee the District’s operation. The advisory
board will advise the City Council in connection with the maintenance and operation of the
improvements and the furnishing of special services in the District. The advisory board will
recommend the annual budget to the City Council. It will also make recommendations to the City
Council on requests and complaints of owners, occupants, and users of property within the District
and members of the public.
How will the activities approved by the advisory board be implemented?
The City’s Public Works Coordinator will coordinate the advisory board and ensure that the
District’s services are properly implemented.
What is the term of the District? Are there limitations?
The proposed district has a term of 10 years (same as the other two districts) at which time
property owners must formally reapprove the district.
Recommendation:
Given that the minimum petition requirements have been overwhelmingly satisfied, staff
recommends approval of the 1st reading of the ordinance creating Special Service District #3
and that the 2nd reading of the ordinance be scheduled for April 15, 2002.
Next Steps:
Assuming the City Council approves the recommended action, Council will be asked at the April
15, 2002 meeting to approve the 2nd reading of the ordinance creating Special Service District #3
and adopt a resolution for the imposition of a service charge within the District. A 45-day veto
period then begins. In order for the creation of the District to be stopped, at least 35% of the
affected property owners must submit a petition to veto the formation of the District. Assuming
this does not happen, the District is then in full force and affect.
Attachments:
• Proposed Special Service District #3 map
• Proposed Operating Budget
• Proposed Cost Allocation
• Special Service District handout
• Ordinance Authorizing Creation of SSD #3
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
16
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 5b
Meeting of April 1, 2002
5b. Public Hearing and first reading (continued) 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:
Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to adopt first reading and
set second reading for April 15, 2002.
Background:
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.
At its meeting of March 18, 2002, the city council opened a public hearing to consider alterations
to the ward lines of the city. The city has since received the legislative redistricting plan and has
made an adjustment to the ward lines based on the location of the legislative line which now runs
east to west across the city. Because the line splits a small triangle on the far east side of the city
between the proposed ward lines, a change will be made to include that area in ward one rather
than in ward two as previously proposed. The legal description contained in the ordinance has
been changed accordingly. This change does not alter the population deviation of the overall
plan. All other ward line changes proposed at the initial meeting are being brought forward as
stated at the initial 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.
• 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.
• 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.
17
REVISED SINCE FIRST READING:
• The parcel which is bounded on Highway 7 to the south, Lynn Ave to the West and
Minnetonka Blvd to the north which is currently in Ward 2 is annexed to Ward 1 consistent
with the legislative district line.
Attachments: Map of Proposed City Wards
Prepared By: Cynthia Reichert, City Clerk
Approved By: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
18
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 7a
Meeting of April 1, 2002
7a. Walser Motor’s Request for a Major Amendment to an Existing Special
Permit for a Car Wash Addition at 3555 S. Hwy. 100
Case No. 02-15-CUP
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt a resolution approving the major amendment to
the special permit subject to the conditions included in the
resolution.
Background:
David Phillips of Phillips Architects is applying on behalf of Walser Motors for a major
amendment to their existing Special Permit for the Walser Ford dealership at the northeast corner
of 36th Street and Highway 100. The property is currently zoned C-2 General Commercial. The
Special Permit was last amended in 1996 to add a showroom and office to the west façade of the
building. The current request is to build a new 20 by 65 feet addition for an automatic car wash
on the north side of the building. The car wash would not be open to the general public but
would be used to wash vehicles that have been serviced or are being prepared for sale. The new
car wash would replace a car wash that currently exists inside the service area. The old car wash
space would be converted to a detail and clean up shop. The new addition would remove 13
existing customer-parking spaces.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 6, 2002 and recommended approval
on a vote of 6-0 subject to the conditions recommended by staff. Those conditions have been
included in the attached resolution.
Issues:
Does the proposal meet the conditions for amending Special Permits?
Can parking requirements still be met?
Does the proposal meet the architectural Code requirements?
Are there any other concerns?
Analysis of Issues:
Does the proposal meet the conditions for amending Special Permits?
Section 36-36 of the Zoning Code states that Special Permits issued for land uses that are now
conditional uses are continued in full force and effect. It also states that the property covered by
a Continued Special Permit shall comply with all provisions of the Special Permit that were in
effect at the time of adoption of our most recent Zoning Code (December 31, 1992). Assuming
such compliance, the property may be expanded, altered or modified provided such change
complies in all respects with applicable provisions of the Zoning Code and does not result in an
expansion or intensification of any existing non-conformities. Finally, any existing non-
conformities shall be brought into greater or complete compliance with other provisions of the
19
ordinance, except that greater or complete compliance is not required for non-conformities
involving lot area, lot width, required yards, building height, floor area ratio, ground floor area
ratio, density, and usable open space.
Compliance with the Existing Special Permit: In reviewing the applicant’s proposal, staff has
found that the exterior treatment of the building is not in compliance with the conditions of
approval adopted as part of the 1996 amendment. The 1996 request involved a new
showroom/office addition with an exterior of glass, white brick, white stucco and white EIFS.
The older portion of the building was brown brick. Staff had recommended that the new
addition incorporate brick to match the older building in keeping with the architectural
ordinance. However, a compromise was reached at Planning Commission whereby the new
materials were approved provided the applicant painted a white band near the top of the old brick
building to help blend the two appearances. Instead of painting just the white band, the applicant
painted the entire surface of the building white. Staff does not believe this meets the Class I
building material requirements, since all surface-painted materials are categorized as Class III.
However, given the dramatic difference between the old building and new materials approved in
1996, staff believes the result is at least as good as the approved solution. Due to the unique
circumstances in this case, staff and the Planning Commission are not recommending restoration
of the brick surface at this time.
Compliance of Expansion with Applicable Code Provisions: Car washes are permitted as
accessory uses to motor vehicle service and repair with certain conditions relating to stacking of
vehicles, drainage and surfacing, and location of ingress/egress. As long as the car wash is not
open to the general public, it complies with the conditions.
Existing Non-Conformities brought into Compliance: Most of the existing parking area does not
meet current standards for curbed islands, landscaping and location of light poles. The applicant
has expressed Walser’s interest in making improvements to the parking areas in the near future.
Generally, in considering amendments to Special Permits, those areas that are affected by the
application are brought into compliance with current standards and other areas are maintained in
conformance with the approved Special Permit. In this case, staff and the Planning Commission
are recommending adding a curbed, landscaped island to the parking area that is just east of the
car wash. This would involve extending the limits of their parking lot reconstruction
approximately 5 feet. The applicant has agreed to make this improvement.
Can parking requirements still be met?
As noted, the proposed building addition will displace 13 existing customer parking spaces.
However, the 1996 analysis showed that the use required a total of 234 parking spaces, while 427
spaces existed on the site. This means that almost 200 excess spaces exist for display of
vehicles. Walser is currently displaying more than 200 vehicles in the parking areas. However,
some of the display spaces could be viewed as proof of parking. Staff recommends that the
applicant submit a breakdown of how all of the existing building space will be used, so that a
new parking analysis can be completed and documented. In the event that there is evidence of
parking in drive aisles, fire lanes, or overflow on public streets, staff recommends that Walser be
required to reduce the number of display vehicles and reserve additional spaces for customers
and employees via signage.
20
Does the proposal meet the architectural Code requirements?
The elevation drawings indicate that the exterior of the proposed addition will be white rock face
block and white glazed block. These materials do not meet the Class I architectural
requirements. Therefore, staff and the Planning Commission recommend use of true cement
stucco, which meets the Class I requirements and will blend better with the showroom materials.
The applicant has agreed to this change.
Are there any other concerns?
Public Works, Police and Inspections reviewed the plans and did not have any comments, other
than the fact that the addition and any interior remodeling will need to meet Building Code
requirements.
Recommendation:
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the major amendment to the
continued Special Permit subject to the following conditions:
1. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in conformance with the official exhibits as
amended by the car wash plans, which shall be revised as follows:
a. to use true cement stucco on the exterior of the car wash addition; and
b. to include a curbed, landscaped island at the end of the parking spaces that are
immediately east of the new addition.
2. The applicant shall submit information regarding the use of all interior space so that a new
parking requirement can be documented. In the event that there is evidence of parking in
drive aisles, fire lanes, or overflow parking on the public streets, the owner shall be required
to reduce the number of display vehicles and reserve parking spaces for employees and
customers via signage in accordance with a parking plan approved by the Zoning
Administrator.
3. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, which may impose additional conditions, the applicant
and owner shall sign the assent form and revised official exhibits.
4. The applicant shall obtain sign permits for any proposed change to signage on the property.
5. All required improvements shall be complete prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
or use of the new car wash.
6. The car wash shall be used for sale and service vehicles only and shall not be open to the
general public.
Attachments:
Proposed Resolution
Existing Site Plan
Proposed Car Wash Plans
Prepared By: Janet Jeremiah, Planning & Zoning Supervisor
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
21
RESOLUTION NO. 02-032
Amends and Restates Resolution No. 96-133
A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 96-133 ADOPTED ON
SEPTEMBER 3, 1996 AND GRANTING AN AMENDMENT TO A CONTINUED
SPECIAL PERMIT UNDER SECTION 36-36(d)(4) OF THE ORDINANCE CODE
RELATING TO ZONING TO ALLOW A CAR WASH ADDITION FOR PROPERTY
ZONED C-2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL AT 3555 SOUTH HIGHWAY 100
WHEREAS, Walser Motors, Inc. has made application to the City Council for an
amendment to a continued special use permit under Section 36-36(d)(4) of the St. Louis Park
Ordinance Code to allow a car wash addition at 3555 South Highway 100 within a C-2 General
Commercial District having the following legal description:
All of Lot 1 and 4, Block 3, Belt Line Industrial Park, except parcel 1 Minnesota
Department of Transportation Right-of-way Plat 27-11 (Abstract)
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the information related to Planning Case
Nos. 77-97, 81-104, 81-46, 82-79, 84-92, 90-56, 91-46, 96-18-CUP, and 02-15-CUP and the
effect of the proposed car wash addition on the health, safety, and welfare of the occupants of the
surrounding lands, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect on values of properties in
the surrounding area and the effect of the use on the Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, an amendment to a conditioned special permit was issued regarding the
subject property pursuant to Resolution 96-133 of the St. Louis Park City Council dated
September 3, 1996 which contained conditions applicable to said property; and
WHEREAS, due to changed circumstances, amendments to those conditions are now
necessary, requiring the amendment of that conditional use permit; and
WHEREAS, it is the intent of this resolution to continue and restate the conditions of the
permit granted by Resolution 96-133 to add the amendments now required, and to consolidate all
conditions applicable to the subject property in this resolution;
WHEREAS, the contents of Planning Case Files Nos. 77-97, 81-104, 81-46, 82-79, 84-
92, 90-56, 91-46, 96-18-CUP, and 02-15-CUP are hereby entered into and made part of the
public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
CONCLUSION
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Resolution No. 96-133 is hereby amended
and restated by this resolution which continues and amends a continued special use permit to the
subject property for the purposes of allowing a car wash addition within the C-2 General
Commercial District at the location described above based on the following conditions:
22
1. The site shall be developed, used, and maintained in accordance with Exhibit A,
Dimension, Lighting, and Landscape Planting Plan as modified by the Planning
Department on February 10, 1978; Exhibit B, Floor Plans and Elevations; Exhibit C,
Floor Plans and Elevations; and Exhibit D, Lighting Standard as modified by the
Planning Department on February 10, 1978. However, said plans are hereby modified to
allow placement of the car wash on the east side of the building in accordance with
construction drawings dated June 14, 1978. (Exhibit A modified by Exhibit J; Exhibit B
deleted. See Condition No. 19)
2. There shall be no outside storage of trash, debris, or junk or waste material of any kind on
any part of the site.
3. No truck trailers, flatbeds, or similar pieces of equipment shall be stored, repaired, or
placed anywhere on the site.
4. There shall be no more than three free-standing signs (one not to exceed 42 feet on Utica
Avenue; two not to exceed 25 feet on West 35th Street, and the 42 feet shall be lowered to
the maximum allowable height when the grade of Highway 100 is lowered), and no free-
standing sign shall contain more than 325 square feet counting all sides. In addition,
informational signs no more than 64 inches in height and containing no more than 35
square feet shall not constitute a free-standing sign.
5. All lighting, including special lighting to highlight automobiles and especially the hoods
and grilles of such automobiles, must be directed downward and shielded with can-type
shades so that the shade and the axis of the light is perpendicular with the ground.
6. All rooftop equipment must be completely screened using similar metals and colors to
those used on the exterior of the building. Screening includes the sides and tops of such
rooftop equipment.
7. All access to the site is limited to West 35th Street. (Deleted, see Condition No. 21)
8. Any car testing done outside of the Belt Line Industrial Park area shall be done towards
Highway 100 and using Highway 100.
9. All drainage shall be in accordance with the Drainage Plan, Exhibit E.
10. All site improvements, including buildings, landscaping, and access, shall be completed
by October 15, 1978.
11. That the applicants, including current owner and purchaser of the property, agree to
delete Condition 2 of the slope easement dated September 18, 1975; to work with the
City to clarify Condition No. 3 of said easement and the development of a landscape plan
for said slope within 60 days after obtaining a construction permit, and to further make
adjustments to the agreements or easements necessary to effectuate these conditions
hereby approved.
23
12. The sale and display of motor vehicles on the site shall be permitted in accordance with
Exhibit A-1a, so that the prior designed write up area may be utilized as a showroom for
vehicle sales and display as shown on said Exhibit A-1a and the lighting of the adjacent
outdoor area may be made comparable to that area adjacent to the prior existing
showroom.
13. The applicant represents and warrants that Town’s Edge Ford, Inc. has determined to
cease the sale and service of heavy duty trucks and pursuant to said determination has
reduced its inventory of said heavy duty trucks and shall cease the sale, service, and
display of heavy duty trucks on or before June 30, 1981.
14. The applicant represents and warrants that Kay Motors, Inc., has determined to cease its
use of the premises at 5101-5125 Minnetonka Boulevard for the sale of new and used
motor vehicles and, from and after the date of the adoption of this resolution, shall not
utilize said premises for the sale of new and used motor vehicles. There shall be no
service of vehicles after December 31, 1982.
15. That a service write-up area be allowed to be located at the north side of the building and
a new driveway be allowed on 35th Street in accordance with Exhibit F and subject to the
following conditions:
a. That the sign be placed on the western edge of the driveway at least twenty feet
off the lot line and shall not be any more than five feet in height or a sign no
greater than thirty inches in height be allowed within the setback area.
b. That the easterly driveway be closed and the area resodded.
c. That existing tree(s) located at the proposed point of the new driveway be
relocated to the boulevard area to the east or west of the curb cut and that any
lighting or other utility be relocated according to City specifications.
d. That the curb cut be designed in accordance with City specifications.
e. That all work be completed by May 15, 1982.
16. That modifications to the exterior elevation will be allowed as related to the removal of
the small windows at the west end of the north elevation of the easterly building and
replacement by a large window approximately fourteen feet long and a door and a second
window area without a door measuring approximately fourteen feet long as shown on
Exhibit G.
17. That variations in the existing plan for street entrances and modifications in signage by
allowed subject to the following conditions:
24
a. The site should be developed, used, and maintained in accordance with Exhibit H,
Dimension, Lighting, and Landscape Planting Plan.
b. The applicant shall submit a proposed sign policy by January 15, 1983 to City
staff for evaluation and review. Said policy shall generally adhere to the
parameters listed in the staff report.
c. All improvements shall be completed by December 31, 1982.
18. An addition not exceeding 450 square feet in floor area may be constructed on the east
side of the building as shown on Exhibit I, Body Shop Remodel, which is included for
purpose of the addition only. (Exhibit on file in the City Development Department at the
City of St. Louis Park.)
19. That the site be developed, used and maintained in accordance with Exhibit J – Site Plan
and Exhibit K – Building Elevations. (Deleted by Condition No. 20.)
20. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with Exhibit L – Site
Plan, Exhibit M – Landscaping Plan, Exhibit N – Building Elevations and Exhibit O –
Proposed Driveway Site and Grading Plan, such documents incorporated by reference
herein; Condition No. 19 is hereby deleted. (Revised by Condition No. 23.)
21. The proposed access from 36th Street shall be inbound to the site only and the applicant
must execute an agreement with the City to construct the access and all necessary
intersection improvements at the applicant’s sole expense subject to approval of plans
and specifications by the City; Condition No. 7 is hereby deleted.
22. All improvements shall be completed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
(Revised by Condition No. 23.)
23. The conditional use permit shall be amended pursuant to Planning Case No. 96-18-CUP
to permit a showroom and office addition subject to the following conditions:
a. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with Exhibit P –
Proposed Site Plan, Exhibit Q – Proposed Addition and Remodeling Plan, Exhibit
R – Second Floor Plan and Exhibit S – Building Elevations; such documents
incorporated by reference herein. Condition No. 20 is hereby revised to delete
reference to Exhibit L – Site Plan and Exhibit N – Building Elevation. (Revised
by Condition No. 24).
b. Assent form and approved exhibits must be signed by applicant and owner prior
to issuance of building permit.
c. All improvements shall be completed prior to issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy for the addition. A temporary Certificate of Occupancy may be issued
25
prior to completion of all landscaping improvements, provided a Letter of Credit
in the amount of 125% of the remaining improvements is submitted to the City in
a form acceptable to the City Attorney. Condition No. 22 is hereby revised.
24. The conditional use permit shall be amended on April 1, 2002 to incorporate all of the
preceding conditions and add the following conditions:
a. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in conformance with the official
exhibits as amended by the car wash plans, which shall be revised as follows:
i. to use true cement stucco on the exterior of the car wash addition; and
ii. to include a curbed, landscaped island at the end of the parking spaces that are
immediately east of the new addition.
b. The applicant shall submit information regarding the use of all interior space so
that a new parking requirement can be documented. In the event that there is
evidence of parking in drive aisles, fire lanes, or overflow parking on the public
streets, the owner shall be required to reduce the number of display vehicles and
reserve parking spaces for employees and customers via signage in accordance
with a parking plan approved by the Zoning Administrator.
c. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, which may impose additional conditions,
the applicant and owner shall sign the assent form and revised official exhibits.
d. The applicant shall obtain sign permits for any proposed change to signage on the
property.
e. All required improvements shall be complete prior to issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy or use of the new car wash.
f. The car wash shall be used for sale and service vehicles only and shall not be
open to the general public.
The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this resolution in the Office of the
Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Register of Titles as the case may be.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council April 1, 2002
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
26
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 7b
Meeting of April 1, 2002
7b. Approval of Preliminary Design Layout for Excelsior Boulevard Bridge
Widening, City Project No. 98-04
This report considers the approval of a preliminary design layout (No. 06) for the
redecking and widening of the bridge on Excelsior Boulevard (CSAH 3) from
Xenwood Avenue to Park Center Boulevard, over Highway 100.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the attached resolution that approves the
preliminary design layout for the bridge widening project and
authorizes Hennepin County to proceed with final design.
Background:
In 1997, the City submitted a proposal to the Metropolitan Council for the widening of the
Excelsior Boulevard bridge over Highway 100. The proposal sought $1.6 million in federal
funding under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Equity Act’s (ISTEA), Surface
Transportation Program (STP). This improvement was identified in the City’s Comprehensive
Plan, in response to the anticipated increase in regional traffic volumes and the more intense
development planned for the Town Center and Park Commons areas. In February, 1998, the
City was notified that the project had been selected for funding assistance at the requested level.
Excelsior Boulevard is a Hennepin County road and, therefore, under their jurisdiction. As a
result of discussions between County and City staff, the County has agreed to design the
improvements, inspect the construction, and contribute $100,000 towards the project. They have
completed a preliminary design layout showing the bridge widening and the roadway
improvements at each end of the bridge. The City Council is being asked to approve this layout
in order to proceed with the development of final plans and specifications and minor right-of-
way acquisition.
Project Overview:
The proposed project would install double left-turn lanes from Excelsior Boulevard to
northbound Highway 100 and southbound Highway 100 while still maintaining two thru lanes in
each direction across the bridge. Just west of the bridge, a right-turn lane from eastbound
Excelsior Boulevard to the southbound Highway 100 ramp would also be added. The sidewalk
on the north side of the bridge will be widened to 6 feet and an 8-foot wide multi-use trail (11
feet total with 1.5-foot reaction space on each side) will be built on the south side, separated
from the traffic by a concrete barrier. Currently, there is only a 2 ½ foot wide walk on the south
side of the bridge. Painted crosswalks will be added to enhance pedestrian crossings at both
signalized intersections. The steel superstructure of the bridge will be painted and the entire
concrete deck will be removed and replaced with this project.
The only known issue associated with this project is funding the gap between available project
funds and the estimated cost of the project. As the project is currently proposed, this gap is
27
$300,000 to $550,000. The most probable source of funds available for this are either Municipal
State Aid funds or General Obligation Bond funds. The following discussion provides
information on this issue.
Issues:
The initial proposal identified an approximate cost of $4 million for these improvements
(including the bridge redecking). At that time, only $2.5 million was committed from various
sources including $200,000 from the City’s Tax Increment Financing Redevelopment Fund.
The current construction estimate is $3.6 million. The City has learned that the federal funding
amount has received one adjustment due to inflation and may receive another, bringing the
federal share up from $1.6 million to $2 million. Hennepin County has also identified $100,000
in their construction budget towards this project. City and County staff have also had
preliminary discussions with Mn/DOT regarding their willingness to share in the costs of
redecking and signal revisions. But they have not yet committed to a specific dollar amount.
Assuming that Mn/DOT’s share is $750,000 to $1 million, this still leaves the project with an un-
funded balance of $300,000 to $550,000.
Funding Source Initial Proposal Current Estimate
Federal $1,600,000 $2,000,000
City (TIF) $100,000 $200,000
County (services in lieu) $100,000 + (services in lieu)*
Mn/DOT $300,000 $750,000-$1,000,000
Undetermined $2,000,000 $300,000 - $550,000
Total $4,000,000 $3,600,000
* approx. $600,000
Aesthetic Treatments:
At their December 10, 2001 Study Session, the City Council requested staff to examine costs for
upgrading the aesthetic elements of the bridge-fascia, lighting, and railing. The above-listed
costs include approximately $200,000 for these decorative elements.
Specifically, the decorative stone fascia would be added to both sides of the bridge. Decorative
railing, similar to that found along Excelsior Boulevard to the east, would be installed on the
bridge. Pedestrian and overhead lighting, similar to that used along Excelsior Boulevard, would
also be incorporated. This would allow for continuity between the Streetscape elements on the
east side of the bridge and any future improvements on the west side.
Project Timing:
In order for Mn/DOT to authorize the utilization of the federal funding, the final plans,
environmental documentation, and other necessary paperwork must be approved by the Mn/DOT
prior to September 30, 2002. Anticipating no unforeseen issues, the plans should be ready for
submittal by the end of July. This would set a letting date for later this Fall or early 2003 so that
construction can begin in March and end in November of 2003.
28
Recommendation:
Adopt the attached resolution approving the preliminary design layout of the bridge widening
project at Excelsior Boulevard over Highway 100. Adopting preliminary design does not
commit the City to providing additional monies to fund the gap but does anticipate that we will
work to resolve the funding gap.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared By: Maria A. Hagen, City Engineer
Reviewed By: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Tom Harmening, Community Development Director
Approved By: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
29
RESOLUTION NO. 02-033
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY DESIGN LAYOUT
LAYOUT NO. 06
FOR THE EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD (CSAH 3) BRIDGE
WIDENING AND REDECKING PROJECT,
FROM XENWOOD AVENUE TO PARK CENTER BOULEVARD
CITY PROJECT NO. 98-04
WHEREAS, Layout No. 06, prepared by Hennepin County, showing proposed
improvements to the Excelsior Boulevard bridge and adjacent roadway from Xenwood Avenue
to Park Center Boulevard, within the limits of the City, has been prepared and presented to the
City Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that:
1. The preliminary design layout (Layout No. 06) for bridge and roadway improvements
under Project No. 98-04 is hereby approved.
2. Hennepin County is hereby authorized to acquire all rights-of-way, permits, and/or
easements required for said improvements in accordance with Layout No. 06.
3. Hennepin County is directed to proceed with the development of final plans and
specifications and, at such time as they are ready, present these to the City Council for
review and acceptance.
4. The City intends to use Tax Increment Financing from a Redevelopment District to
finance a portion of the project cost.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council April 1, 2002
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
30
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 7c
Meeting of April 1, 2002
7c. City Engineer’s Report: 2001 Sidewalk Improvement Project: Phase B –
Project No. 99-07B
This report considers the construction of various sections of new sidewalk in
accordance with the city’s sidewalk, trails, and bikeway plan
Recommended
Action:
3. 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 construction of various sections of concrete
sidewalk.
4. Motion to adopt the attached resolutions relating to
installation of parking restrictions on W. 26th Street and
Texas Avenue.
Background: Making the City a safer and more pedestrian-friendly community was one of the
recommendations of Vision St. Louis Park. In response to this suggestion, a city-wide Sidewalk,
Trail, Bikeway and Crossing Plan was developed. This Plan, which has been incorporated into
the city’s Comprehensive Plan, identifies areas of the city in need of additional sidewalk, trails or
bikeways; and, busy roadway or railroad crossings where safety improvements can be made.
Substantial public involvement and input was solicited during the development of this program.
A Sidewalk and Trail Task Force, made up of concerned citizens, assisted in the development of
the Plan. To understand residents’ concerns, a random opinion survey was conducted. As the
Plan was developed, meetings were held with neighborhood associations, the City Council, Parks
and Recreation Commission and other community groups. Two open houses were conducted as
well as numerous publications and community newspaper articles.
The final Plan was adopted on July 5, 2000 with the Council requesting that the proposed new
sidewalk, trail and bikeway segments be constructed within a 3-year time period.
Analysis: Twelve (12) segments of street were identified for the installation of sidewalk within
the Year 1 area. Six (6) of these segments were built in 2001 under Project No. 99-07A. The
remaining six segments were on designated State Aid routes and, therefore, had to be routed
through the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) for review. Staff has received
comments back from Mn/DOT and has incorporated them into the final plans proposed herein.
Each of the sidewalk segments were designed based upon the guidelines established for the
program. These guidelines indicate a preferred design of a 6’-wide concrete sidewalk with a 7’-
wide grass boulevard. When necessary to protect trees, or where existing yard slopes are
significant, the boulevard can be narrowed or the sidewalk width can be narrowed. In two cases,
31
Texas Avenue, between 14th Street and 13th Lane, and 26th Street, between Salem Avenue and
France Avenue, the road will be narrowed to accommodate the sidewalk.
Two Open House meetings were held for affected property owners in 2001. The one on July 24th
for Ward 4 sidewalks was attended by nearly 40 residents. The one on July 25th for Ward 1
sidewalks was attended by 9 property owners. The majority of the attendees were interested in
reviewing the proposed design and determining how it would affect their individual property.
Several residents along Flag Avenue expressed concern about the width of sidewalk (proposed at
6’), the width of the boulevard (proposed at 7’), and the proximity of the sidewalk to their
homes.
Two special meetings were held in 2002 for residents of Texas Avenue, between 14th Street and
13th Lane, to discuss the removal of parking from their side of the street in conjunction with the
street narrowing; and, on Flag Avenue, north of Franklin Avenue, where the sidewalk was
relocated to the east side of the road. One resident attended the Texas Avenue meeting, but did
not feel the removal of parking was an impact as long as the west side of the street could still be
used for guest parking. No one attended the meeting for Flag Avenue residents, but one resident
called to inform staff that they could not attend and that their neighbor could not attend either but
that both were opposed to the project.
A summary of the comments received, both at the meetings and through telephone
conversations, is attached.
Design/Construction Considerations:
Flag Avenue (Cedar Lake Road to Franklin Avenue-west side): This segment was shown, in the
original Plan, to receive a 10-foot wide bituminous trail to facilitate both walkers and bicyclists.
Due to significant resident input and concern, the City Council instead decided to install a
sidewalk with on-road biking. Because of the ample amount of right-of-way (15 feet from the
back of curb), staff designed the sidewalk according to the established guidelines of a 7-foot
boulevard plus a 6-foot sidewalk. These guidelines were set to allow ample room for snow
storage in the boulevard and room for the City’s equipment to plow the walks. Residents feel
this design encroaches too far into their yards and will be detrimental to their properties.
Flag Avenue (Franklin Avenue to West 18th Street-east side): This segment was added after staff
determined that the grades of the yards on the west side of Flag Avenue, north of Franklin, could
not feasibly accommodate a sidewalk. Therefore, the walk would cross the street at Franklin
Avenue and continue north along the east side of Flag Avenue. This intersection is just beyond
the main entrance to the Minneapolis Golf Club. Staff has met with the General Manager of the
Golf Club who expressed concern about crossing pedestrians on the south side of Franklin
Avenue and recommended modifying the crosswalks to accommodate this crossing so as to
minimize opportunities for vehicle/pedestrian conflicts. Two of the three residents, north of the
golf club, have expressed opposition to the construction claiming that no one will cross the road
to use it.
As previously mentioned, a trail was proposed to run from Cedar Lake Road to West 18th Street.
From here north, due to lack of right-of-way, on-road biking was proposed on West 18th Street,
32
Hillsboro Avenue, and West 14th Street, as a route to the frontage road. Since the trail was
changed to a walk, on-road biking will take place all along Flag Avenue. Therefore, the
sidewalk could be ended at Franklin Avenue, or just after the golf course, rather than extending
it.
Financial Considerations: The various segments are anticipated to be funded using primarily
Municipal State Aid funds. Some minor items are not eligible for State Aid reimbursement and,
therefore, are proposed to be funded from General Obligation bond funds.
Estimated costs, based upon the proposed plans, are higher than originally anticipated when the
program was developed. $520,046 was budgeted in 2001 for State Aid routes. The total
anticipated cost for the 2001 State Aid routes is $740,462. A summary of the anticipated
construction costs follows:
Estimated Costs:
Street From To Side Walk Width Blvd. Width Cost
Flag Avenue Cedar Lake Rd. Franklin Ave. West 6’ 7’ $137,169
Flag Avenue Franklin Ave. W. 18th Street East 6’ 0’
Texas Avenue Franklin Ave. W. 14th Street East 5’ Varies, 0’ to 4’ $93,364
Texas Avenue W. 14th Street I-394 frontage
road
East 6’ Varies, 0’ to 4’
Pennsylvania
Avenue
W. 14th Street I-394 frontage
road
East 5’ Varies, but
mostly 7’
$22,652
West 26th Street Salem Ave. Monterey
Ave.
North 6’ 6’ $158,060
West 26th Street Monterey Ave. France Ave. South 6’ 0’ $156,652
France Avenue W. 26th Street Cedar Lake
Ave.
West 6’ Varies, but
mostly 7’
$39,039
Sub-Total $606,936
Contingency $ 60,694
Subtotal $667,630
Engineering &
Admin.
$ 72,832
TOTAL $740,462
Revenue Sources: Municipal State Aid Funds $711,576
General Obligation Bonds $ 28,886
Parking Removals:
Areas where the street will be narrowed, require the removal of parking to accommodate
sidewalk construction. Areas affected are:
W. 26th Street: Monterey Avenue to France Avenue (south side). This area is already
designated as “No Parking” under Resolution No. 3531, dated 5/13/68.
W. 26th Street: Monterey Avenue to W. 25 ½ Street (north side).
Texas Avenue: Franklin Avenue to W. 14th Street (east side).
33
Removal of parking was discussed at the neighborhood meetings. Neighbors along W. 26th
Street preferred to narrow the street and lose parking rather than construct the walk behind the
curb. A special meeting to discuss parking was held for the Texas Avenue residents.
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 April 1, 2002
• Advertise for bids April/May
• Bid Opening May 9, 2002
• Bid Tab Report to City Council May 20, 2002
• Construction May through August, 2002
Summary of Feasibility: 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 these improvements,
approving the plans and specifications, and authorizing staff to solicit bids for this work.
Attachment: Sidewalk Guidelines
Property Owner Comments Summary
Map
Resolutions
Prepared by: Maria A. Hagen, City Engineer
Reviewed By: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
34
RESOLUTION NO. 02-034
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE CITY ENGINEER’S REPORT,
ESTABLISHING AND ORDERING AN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 99-07B
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF SIDEWALKS, 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 construction of various segments of concrete sidewalk in the
area of the city identified as Year 1 in the Sidewalk, Trail, Bikeways and Crossing plan.
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 construction of various segments of sidewalk
within the city right-of-way is hereby accepted.
2. The proposed project, designated as Project No. 99-07B, 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 May 20, 2002 regular City Council meeting.
Attest: Adopted by the City Council April 1, 2002
City Clerk Mayor
Reviewed for Administration:
City Manager
35
RESOLUTION NO. 02- 035
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PARKING RESTRICTIONS
ON WEST 26TH STREET AND TEXAS AVENUE
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota has studied and has determined that
traffic controls are necessary at this location to allow for the installation of community
sidewalks.
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 north side of West 26th Street from France Avenue to
West 25 ½ Street except as follows:
• In the parking bay, adjacent to Twin Lakes Park, from a point 350 feet east of
the intersection of 26th Street with Princeton Avenue to 340 feet easterly
2. “No Parking” along the east side of Texas Avenue from West 14th Street to 13th
Lane.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council April 1, 2002
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
36
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
April 1, 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 an ordinance amending the city’s general parking restrictions
from a 12 hour limit to a 48 hour limit for vehicles to be continuously parked,
approve the summary and authorize summary publication.
2. Motion to adopt the attached resolution approving Cooperative Agreement No.
PW 66-05-01 with Hennepin County for for Excelsior Boulevard Streetscape
Improvements from Quentin Avenue to Monterey Drive – Project Nos. 99-05 and
01-04
3. Motion to designate Sunram Contruction as the lowest responsible bidder and to
authorize execution of a contract for the regrading and soil corrections in Wolfe
Park at a cost not to exceed $229,350.
4. Motion to designate Sunram Construction as the lowest responsible bidder and to
authorize execution of a contract for the construction of the Veterans Memorial
Amphitheater in Wolfe Park at a cost not to exceed $ 453,885.
5. Motion to accept the following reports for filing:
c. Planning Commission Minutes of March 6, 2002
d. Housing Authority Minutes of February 20, 2002
37
CONSENT ITEM # 1
St. Louis Park City Council
Meeting of April 1, 2002
1. Motion to approve an ordinance amending the city’s general parking restrictions
from a 12 hour limit to a 48 hour limit for vehicles to be continuously parked,
approve the summary and authorize summary publication.
Background:
At the City Council meeting of March 18, 2002, Council voted to set the second reading of an
ordinance establishing a 48-hour parking restriction for on-street parking for April 1, 2002.
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.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the ordinance establishing the 48 hour parking restriction to
replace the current 12 hour parking restriction.
Attachments: Ordinance
Summary Ordinance
Prepared by: Kim Olson, Administration Secretary
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
38
ORDINANCE NO. 2222-02
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.
This ordinance shall take effect May 1, 2002.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council April 1, 2002
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
39
SUMMARY
ORDINANCE NO. 2222-02
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING GENERAL PARKING
RESTRICTIONS TO ALLOW A 48-HOUR TIME LIMIT FOR
VEHICLES TO BE CONTINUOUSLY PARKED
This ordinance states that no vehicles may be parked continuously at any place in any public
street for a period of more than forty-eight (48) hours.
This ordinance shall take effect May 1, 2002.
Adopted by the City Council April 1, 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: April 10, 2002
40
CONSENT ITEM # 2
St. Louis Park City Council
April 1, 2002
2. Motion to adopt the attached resolution approving Cooperative Agreement
No. PW 66-05-01 with Hennepin County for for Excelsior Boulevard
Streetscape Improvements from Quentin Avenue to Monterey Drive – Project
Nos. 99-05 and 01-04
Background: Streetscape improvements along Excelsior Boulevard, from Quentin Avenue to
Monterey Drive, are scheduled to be constructed beginning this May. Since Excelsior Boulevard
is a county road, Hennepin County requires the City to enter into an agreement with them to
outline responsibilities and liabilities associated with work and facilities on their roadway.
Similar agreements have been signed for the previous Streetscape projects.
Discussion: Hennepin County has drafted an agreement similar to the previous ones. The City
Attorney has reviewed the document and has no changes or additions to recommend.
Highlights:
The City is responsible for preparing all plans and specifications, and inspecting the
construction work in accordance with the plans and specifications
The City is responsible for acquiring all necessary right-of-way; all permanent right-of-way
will be conveyed to the County upon completion of the project
The County will reimburse the City for its proportionate share of the construction costs,
(currently estimated at $341,087.50)
All street lighting, water main, sanitary sewer, sidewalk and landscaping infrastructure and
associated maintenance become the responsibility of the City
The City will provide electrical energy for the operation of the street lights and signal at
Grand Way
The City is responsible for the removal of any snow placed in parking bays or sidewalks as a
result of Hennepin County plowing operations
Any contract let by the City for work on the County road must require certain insurance
levels, indemnify the County, and list Hennepin County as an additional insured
Recommendation: Adopt the attached resolution approving Cooperative Agreement No. PW
66-05-01 with Hennepin County.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Maria Hagen, City Engineer
Reviewed by: Michael P. Rardin, Public Works Director
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
41
RESOLUTION NO. 02-031
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT NO. PW 66-05-01WITH
HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS ON EXCELSIOR
BOULEVARD (CSAH 3) FROM QUENTIN AVENUE TO MONTEREY DRIVE,
PROJECT NOS. 99-05 & 01-04
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has been requested to enter
into a Cooperative Agreement with Hennepin County No. PW 66-05-01 for construction of
Streetscape improvements on Excelsior Boulevard (CSAH 3) from Quentin Avenue to Monterey
Drive; and
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park agrees with the terms and conditions of the
agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that:
The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute Hennepin County
Cooperative Agreement No. PW 66-05-01 for construction of Streetscape improvements
on Excelsior Boulevard (CSAH 3) from Quentin Avenue to Monterey Drive in
accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in the same agreement, a copy of
which was before the City Council.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council April 1, 2002
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
42
CONSENT ITEM # 3
St. Louis Park City Council
Meeting of April 1, 2202
3. Motion to designate Sunram Contruction as the lowest responsible bidder and to
authorize execution of a contract for the regrading and soil corrections in Wolfe
Park at a cost not to exceed $229,350.
Background:
Staff has been working with STS Consultants, Ltd. on a plan to correct the soil problem at Wolfe
Park. There are particles of glass and debris that were left in the park as a result of the previous
park project.
Proposed Corrections:
The proposed corrections call for six to twelve inches of existing soil to be stripped off. The
excavated materials would stay on-site and would be used for site regrading. The excavated
materials can be buried when the hill is recreated for the Wolfe Parkway road. After the soil has
been stripped away, a goetextile fabric will be placed over the existing material. The geotextile
fabric will then be covered with one foot of topsoil. Irrigation will also be added to the site.
Additional Park Items in this Bid:
The trail reconstruction that is necessary due to the construction of Wolfe Parkway is a part of
this bid. A portion of this cost will be reimbursed by TOLD.
The soil corrections will begin in April or early May.
Bid Analysis:
Bids were opened March 26, 2002 at City Hall. .Six firms submitted bids, with the amounts
shown as follows:
Company Amount Bid
Sunram Construction $208,500
Veit & Company
Arrigoni Brothers
Bolander
Frattalone Excavating
DMJ Corporation
$238,583.95
$285,700
$259,490
$236,610
$278,009
The apparent low bid was received from Sunram Construction. They are also the low bidder on
the amphitheater project. Having the same firm doing both projects will aid in construction
process and coordination.
43
Costs and Funding:
Until the pending lawsuit is resolved, the cost of the project will be paid for from the 1999 GO
Bonds. The engineer's estimate on the project was $259,000. We are pleased that the bid came
back considerably lower. The low bid was $208,500. Staff is recommending that a 10%
contingency be added to that amount. Thus, the bid amount will be $229,350.
Prepared by: Cindy S. Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
44
CONSENT ITEM # 4
St. Louis Park City Council
Meeting of April 1, 2002
4. Motion to designate Sunram Construction as the lowest responsible bidder and
to authorize execution of a contract for the construction of the Veterans
Memorial Amphitheater in Wolfe Park at a cost not to exceed $ 453,885.
Background:
The Veterans Memorial Amphitheater is partially funded by the State of Minnesota under the
supervision of the Department of Trade and Economic Development. The amphitheater will have
ADA accessible seating on the top and bottom and will also include an accessible trail that
weaves through the area. Staff has met with the American Legion and the VFW to seek input
from their members. Both groups are excited about the plan and look forward to using it for their
Memorial Day celebrations.
Pending Council approval tonight, the project could begin in April or early May when the
weather conditions allow for construction to begin.
Bid Analysis:
Bids were opened March 21, 2002 at City Hall. There were seven firms that submitted bids, with
the amounts shown as follows for the amphitheater work. :
Company Amount Bid
Sunram Construction $382,779
Environmental Assoc. $401,877
Monette Const. $385,710
Meisinger Const. $459,550
Arrigoni Bro $427,391
Gladstone Const. $421,797
LS Black Const. $454,804
The apparent low bid was received from Sunram Construction. The City has not worked with
this company recently on any park construction projects. At this time, we have no reason to
deny them as the low bidder.
Additional Bid Items for Wolfe Park
As a part of this bid, there were additional items added to replace the landscape, lighting and
trails that were removed as a part of the construction of Wolfe Parkway. We have been
reimbursed by TOLD developers for this work. The amount of this contract for the items to be
reimbursed by TOLD total $71,106. This amount is added to the above amphitheater bid and is
included in the total contract about for Sunram Construction.
45
Funding Sources:
There will be $25,000 of the amphitheater contract amount spent on trees in and around the
amphitheater. The money for trees will be taken out of the tree replacement fund. The
remaining of the money needed to construct the amphitheater, $357,779, will be paid for from
the State of Minnesota DTED grant and the EDA money that was originally budgeted for this
project. As mentioned above, the amount of $71,106 will be reimbursed from TOLD. Thus, the
total contract with Sunram Construction will the $453,885.
Prepared by: Cindy S. Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
46
CONSENT ITEM # 5a
Official Minutes
PLANNING COMMISSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
MARCH 6, 2002 -- 6:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Michelle Bissonnette, Michael Garelick, Ken Gothberg, Dennis
Morris, Carl Robertson, Jerry Timian
MEMBERS ABSENT: Phillip Finkelstein
STAFF PRESENT: Janet Jeremiah, Judie Erickson, Nancy Sells
1. Call to order - Roll Call
Chair Gothberg called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m.
2. Approval of Minutes of February 20, 2002
Commissioner Robertson moved approval of the minutes of February 20, 2002. The
motion passed 6-0.
3. Hearings:
A. Case No. 02-15-CUP Request for Major Amendment to an Existing Special
Permit for a Car Wash Addition at 3555 S. Hwy. 100 – Walser Motors
Janet Jeremiah, Planning and Zoning Supervisor, presented a staff report. Ms.
Jeremiah said staff recommends a curbed landscaped island be placed at the east
end of the car wash. Staff also recommends the façade of the new car wash be
true cement stucco.
Chair Gothberg opened the public hearing.
David Phillips, Walser’s architect, said he agreed with staff’s recommendations
on the exterior finish and curb island and he confirmed that the car wash is not
open to the public. Mr. Phillips said he will meet with staff regarding a revised
parking layout and new lighting on the lot. He also stated a new maintenance
upgrade program is to be implemented over the next year.
Chair Gothberg closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Morris raised an issue he felt was recurring in regard to special use
permits. He commented that when asking for amendments, some property
47
owners are not in conformance with pervious permits and he is tired of some
applicants not taking the City’s conditions of approval seriously.
Ms. Jeremiah said within the last three years, the City has moved the zoning
administration and enforcement division from Inspections to the Planning
division. She stated that she believes a better process is now in place to follow
through on conditions of approval and their implementation before Certificates of
Occupancy are issued.
Commissioner Morris said property owners who fail to comply with City
requirements risk losing approval for special permit amendments or for new
permits issued.
It was moved by Commissioner Bissonnette to approve the major amendment to
the special permit subject to the conditions recommended by staff. The motion
passed 6-0.
B. Case Nos. 02-13-S and 02-14-VAR Request for Preliminary and Final Plat
approval including a variance to the subdivision ordinance sidewalk requirements
for the Evan Johnson Addition at 1401-1413 Colorado Avenue South -
J.Evan Johnson (Thermetics, Inc.)
Ms. Jeremiah presented a staff report. She said a replat is required in order to
accommodate an expansion of the building to the south. The purpose of the replat
is to remove the current property lines and to be in conformance with building
permit provisions and the City’s subdivision ordinance. Given the request,
sidewalks would be required along the Colorado Avenue and 14th Street frontage.
However, the applicant is requesting a variance to the sidewalk requirements.
Commissioner Morris supports the need for sidewalks but thinks it would be
excessive to remove any landscaping to install sidewalks that would not connect
to anything at this time. He would support the requirement that a sidewalk be
installed on 14th Street and the northern half of Colorado Avenue, and grant the
variance to have the sidewalk continue until such time as a new improvement is
made to the site. Ms. Jeremiah said Thermetics, Inc. is pursuing the building
addition as quickly as possible, and the sidewalk requirement could be fulfilled
when Thermetics does its site improvements for the building addition.
Commissioner Morris stated he was agreeable to that.
Chair Gothberg opened the public hearing.
The applicant, Evan Johnson, commented on landscaping for the property.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that staff would be agreeable to working with the applicant to
preserve landscaping in trying to resolve the sidewalk issue.
48
Chair Gothberg closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Garelick moved to table the request until staff and the owner can
work out an agreement.
Chair Gothberg asked if Commissioner Garelick would consider a motion that the
Planning Commission supports the addition of sidewalks assuming an appropriate
design can be worked out versus tabling the motion.
Commissioner Garelick moved to support the staff recommendation to deny the
variance with the understanding that staff will meet with the applicant to discuss
sidewalk issues prior to consideration of the request by City Council. The motion
passed 6-0.
It was moved by Commissioner Morris to recommend approval of the preliminary
and final plat subject to the conditions recommended by staff. The motion passed
6-0.
C. Case No. 02-12-CP Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan Designation for
a parcel located at 4624 Minnetonka Boulevard from Residential Low Density to
Civic - Congregation Bais Yisroel
Judie Erickson, Planning Coordinator, presented a staff report. She explained that
the amendment is being requested for the property to allow the construction of a
religious facility to house a Mikvah pool. She stated that one issue is that the
parcel is insufficient in size to meet the required setbacks. Variances would be
necessary, which puts the Board of Zoning Appeals in a difficult situation, since
the change would be made knowing that ordinance requirements could not be
met. She added that the change would also be inconsistent with the
Comprehensive Plan goal to preserve single-family homes. However, it is
consistent with certain community goals.
Commissioner Morris asked if the building was currently occupied, if the existing
structure was livable, and if the structure was blighted.
Ms. Jeremiah responded that it was currently vacant and there were no known
structural problems preventing its use as a single family dwelling.
Chair Gothberg opened the public hearing.
Janet Polach, 4716 Minnetonka Blvd., expressed her opposition to a change in
zoning because the current owners of the property have demonstrated no interest
in the community or in maintaining the property. Ms. Polach wants to keep her
neighborhood residential. She commented that when purchasing her property,
which she has invested in heavily, she was assured by City staff that there would
be no zoning changes in the neighborhood.
49
Linda Tucker, 2930 Monterey Avenue, is opposed to the request due to an
anticipated increase in traffic and a desire to keep housing for families.
Nick Krawczyk, 2936 Monterey Avenue, is opposed due to traffic concerns, and
he stated the yard is in a state of great disrepair. He stated that he desires to keep
the neighborhood residential.
Rabbi Chaim Goldberger, 2621 Lynn Avenue, favors the Comprehensive Plan
change but he thinks the designation Civic is problematic and inappropriate. He
said a Mikvah is an intensely private event, and only one or two women will
occupy the facility at one time for approximately 30-45 minutes per visit. Rabbi
Goldberger agreed that complaints about maintenance of the property are
legitimate and that will be addressed.
Commissioner Morris asked why, given the small parcel size and the need for a
variance, Bais Yisroel is pursuing this property and not other sites in other parts
of the city.
Rabbi Goldberger explained that visits may occur on a Friday evening, and for
those who are observant, Friday evening is a time when automobiles are not used.
Therefore, the facility needs to be within walking distance.
Commissioner Morris asked what volume should be anticipated. Rabbi
Goldberger said the facility would be used by one woman and one attendant at a
time. He said it would be a rare occasion that more than two cars would occupy
the parking lot at any one time. The facility would probably not be used every
night, and additional parking spots have been requested in the event of
overlapping participants. Two to three appointments would be expected in the
evening between the hours of about 7:30 p.m. to no later than 10:30 p.m. Rabbi
Goldberger said the only time it would be used during the day would be by a new
bride.
Commissioner Robertson commented that the use is not quite Civic and not quite
Residential. He added that as no other Civic use would occur on the site, it really
isn’t a Civic use.
It was noted that no monies would exchange hands on site as participants are
annual members who pay a membership fee during an annual fundraising drive.
Commissioner Garelick said he received a call from the Trapp family, who voiced
their opposition fearing property values would decline and traffic would increase.
Rabbi Moshe Lieff, 4612 West 28th Street, addressed the Commission,
apologized that the property has not been properly maintained. Rabbi Lieff said
the facility is to look like a home and have traffic patterns much less than a home.
50
There will be no signage, as a Mikvah is a very private place. He commented
that Orthodox observance and ritual is an integral part of St. Louis Park’s success
and survival. He added that it has become impossible to maintain privacy at the
current Mikvah.
Rick Peterson, 2930 Natchez Avenue, stated he is opposed to the Comprehensive
Plan change.
Dave Clark, WCL Architects, said the facility would fit with the character of the
neighborhood. He presented sketches of the facility to be built.
Naomi Pederman, 2725 Huntington Avenue, said the reason for four dressing
rooms is to ensure that a clean dressing room is always available. Ms. Pederman
said visits are scheduled by appointments and approximately three women per
evening would visit five evenings per week.
Dawn Felchle, 4625 Minnetonka Blvd., said she would like everyone to consider
the term family in regard to this facility, and if something can be done that is safe,
quiet, and maintained, and if it brings the community together, the Mikvah facility
should be scrutinized for its potential good.
Albert Miller, 2631 Quentin Avenue, said the Mikvah is centered around family,
which brings stability. He mentioned the value of the Mikvah would be
approximately $350,000. He stated that he hopes the Planning Commission will
approve the request.
Commissioner Garelick said he would vote for approval because the Mikvah will
not hurt property values and St. Louis Park is about diversity. He commented
that the need for community growth in this case is larger than the zoning need.
Commissioner Robertson said he would rather see a text amendment and he does
not want to change the Comprehensive Plan amendment to Civic. Commissioner
Bissonnette agreed.
Commissioner Morris said there are many undesirable things this property could
become and a Mikvah is probably a benign use. He recommended the item be
held over or tabled to allow staff to seek solutions to accommodate the
neighborhood and the applicant. Commissioner Morris agreed that a Civic
designation doesn’t work for this property.
Commissioner Timian said, so far, Bais Yisroel has not been a good neighbor but
given the opportunity he thinks the neighbors will change their minds. He would
like to see this item come back at a later date after the two communities have had
discussions on how best to develop the parcel.
51
Chair Gothberg referenced a letter from Gregory Zdeb, 4610 Minnetonka Blvd.,
which was distributed to the Planning Commission. He explained that Mr. Zdeb
opposed the request citing its poor fit in a residential neighborhood, poor
maintenance history, traffic, and parking concerns, although he understood the
need for a Mikvah in the community.
Chair Gothberg stated his recommendations: the congregations involved are to
put forth a diligent effort to shape up the appearance of the property; have
discussions with the neighbors; the land use designation does not fit Civic,
therefore, he would like staff and the congregations to get examples from other
cities with Mikvahs in single-family residential areas and report the findings to
the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Garelick moved to table this item to a date certain of 60 days.
In response to Commissioner Bissonnette’s question about staff’s
recommendation, Ms. Erickson stated she thinks an ordinance amendment may be
the most appropriate way to handle this issue.
Commissioner Morris offered a friendly amendment to Commissioner Garelick’s
motion. He proposed tabling the item for 60 days or sooner should staff develop a
solution to present to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Garelick agreed
to the amendment.
With Commissioner Garelick’s agreement, Chair Gothberg moved that the public
hearing be continued for a maximum time period of 60 days to be reopened when
staff and the applicant are ready to bring it back for consideration. The motion
passed 6-0.
4. Unfinished Business: None
5. New Business
A. Consent Agenda
B. Other New Business
Chair Gothberg reported that Commissioner Robertson has volunteered to be on
the Elmwood Area Study committee. Chair Gothberg made a motion in favor of
Commissioner Robertson’s appointment. The vote passed 5-0. (Commissioner
Timian was not present for the vote.)
Chair Gothberg asked for the Commission’s feedback regarding televised
Planning Commission meetings. Commissioners Garelick, Morris, and Timian
replied it is beneficial and informational. Chair Gothberg stated that the general
opinion is to continue television coverage.
52
Commissioner Garelick announced he is available to present a State of the Real
Estate Report in St. Louis Park to the Planning Commission. Chair Gothberg
asked him to speak with staff about scheduling the presentation.
There was a short discussion regarding Park Commons construction and design
activity.
6. Communications
A. Recent City Council Action - Feb. 19, March 4
B. Board of Zoning Appeals agenda – Feb. 28
C. Board of Zoning Appeals minutes – Jan. 24
7. Miscellaneous
8. Adjournment
Chair Gothberg adjourned the meeting at 7:59 p.m.
Minutes prepared by: Respectfully submitted by:
Linda Samson Nancy Sells
Recording Secretary Administrative Secretary
53
CONSENT ITEM # 5b
MINUTES
Housing Authority
St. Louis Park, Minnesota
Wednesday, February 20, 2002
Aquila Room
5:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Catherine Courtney, William Gavzy, Anne Mavity, Judith Moore
and Shone Row
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Anderson, Tamra Bokal, Tom Harmening, Kathy Larsen
and Cindy Stromberg
OTHERS PRESENT: None
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 5:17 p.m.
2. Approval of Minutes for January 9, 2002
Commissioner Courtney moved approval of the amended minutes of January 9th, 2002.
Commissioner Row seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 5-0 with
Commissioners Courtney, Gavzy, Mavity, Moore and Row voting in favor.
3. Public Hearing: None
4. Reports and Committees: None
5. Unfinished Business: None
6. New Business:
a. Revised Section 8 Operating Budget for FY 2002
Ms. Stromberg stated that the FY 2002 budget was being revised due to an
increased payment standard. With this increase, more families have been finding
units, thereby increasing the amount of money expended over what was
previously budgeted.
54
Commissioner Gavzy asked what the utilization rate is. Ms. Stromberg answered
that the utilization is now 103%. Commissioner Gavzy commented about a copy
of a letter from HUD stating that the HA must increase their utilization. Ms.
Stromberg replied that this letter was based on data from a year ago.
Commissioner Courtney moved approval of the Revised Section 8 Operating
Budget for FY 2002. Commissioner Moore seconded the motion, and the motion
passed on a vote of 5-0 with Commissioners Courtney, Gavzy, Mavity, Moore
and Row voting in favor.
b. Section 8 Operating Budget for FY 2003
Ms. Stromberg stated that this budget includes using the project reserves in
addition to the HAP funds in order to maximize the amount of money that can be
used to cover the increased utilization.
Commissioner Mavity asked if this would be an appropriate time to request
additional Section 8 units. Ms. Stromberg replied that the HA must wait for a
"Fair Share" allocation at which time an application could be submitted. Ms.
Stromberg also stated that the issues of staff capacity and increasing the amount
of affordable housing in St. Louis Park would need to be discussed.
Commissioner Gavzy asked how often "Fair Share" allocations become available.
Ms. Stromberg replied they are not available on a regular basis. Commissioner
Mavity asked that the Board be notified the next time that a "Fair Share"
allocation is available.
Commissioner Mavity moved approval of the Section 8 Operating Budget for FY
2003. Commissioner Moore seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a
vote of 5-0 with Commissioners Courtney, Gavzy, Mavity, Moore and Row
voting in favor.
c. Public Housing Utility Allowance
Ms. Anderson stated that the utility allowances are adjusted annually and are
based on actual consumption averaged over the previous three years. She
explained that tenants are responsible for paying gas and electric but receive a
utility allowance for these costs. The HA pays the remainder of the utilities.
Commissioner Courtney asked why there are four categories of three- bedroom
houses as well as several categories of the four- and five- bedroom homes. Ms.
Anderson responded that the houses are grouped into similar size and type
categories.
Commissioner Courtney moved approval of the Public Housing Utility
Allowance. Commissioner Row seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a
55
vote of 5-0 with Commissioners Courtney, Gavzy, Mavity, Moore and Row
voting in favor.
d. CDBG 2002 Allocation
Ms. Larsen explained that she was updating the board on the CDBG allocation
discussed by the City Council on February 11th. Ms. Larson stated the total
amount of FY 2002 CDBG funds is $270,000, which is down slightly from
$280,000. She went on to explain the preliminary usage approved by the City
Council including funding of the Home Renewal program in the amount of
$75,000. $75,000 would be allocated for blight renewal, and Wayside House
would receive $40,000 for exterior improvements. Meadowbrook Collaborative
would receive $20,000 for a park shelter and Vail Place would get $25,000 for the
construction of a seven-unit apartment building (reallocation from FY 2001). A
reallocation of $10,000 to the Tenant Opportunities Program (TOP) from the
Multi Housing Coalition is also proposed.
Commissioner Moore asked about the funding allocated to Lennox. She
questioned why more funds would be given to them when they just received
money through school bonding. Ms. Larsen explained that the school bonding did
not include upgrading the rest rooms or the common space and the school district
requested the CDBG funds be used to cover these areas.
Commissioner Gavzy asked how the prioritization of the funding takes place. Mr.
Harmening explained that the City Council asked the staff to provide
recommendations for the use of the monies based on direction received through
the Comprehensive Plan as well as other planning tools provided by the Council
throughout the year.
No action was required on this item.
e. Public Housing Assessment System (PHAS) Annual Score
Ms. Anderson mentioned that staff is very pleased with the score of 96 compared
with 88 last year. She explained that the four indicators that are scored are
included in the report. She stated that the biggest difference was in the unaudited
financial portion. Ms. Anderson explained that because the HA is in the high
performer category, an additional $7,000 is anticipated in Capital Funds next year.
No action was required on this item.
7. Communications from the Executive Director
a. Claims List No. 2-2002
56
Commissioner Courtney moved ratification of Claims List No. 2-2002.
Commissioner Row seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 5-0
with Commissioners Courtney, Gavzy, Mavity, Moore and Row voting in favor.
b. Communications
Mr. Harmening discussed an article enclosed in the board packets, describing a
new 88-unit apartment development on Phillips Parkway. The developer is
requesting that the City issue private activity housing revenue bonds for the
project. Mr. Harmening explained that this type of bonding funds the Housing
Rehab Program. He stated in order to issue the bonds, 20% of the units would
have to be at 50% or below the median income or 40% of the units would have be
at 60% or below median income. Mr. Harmening said that the City Council was
more likely to vote favorably for the project with 20% affordable units.
Mr. Harmening mentioned that Park Commons is in phase one, which represents
about 60% of the entire project. He stated that the developers expect the first
occupancy to occur in November or December.
Ms. Anderson talked about a termination that was taking place due to not
reporting income. Ms. Anderson stated that an agreement was signed that would
allow the tenant to remain until the end of May. This would allow the children in
the home to complete the school year.
Ms. Anderson mentioned that the Finance Department was able to add the detail
required by the Board in regard to the reserves. Mr. Harmening added that the
Finance Department hired a staff accountant named Brian Swanson to assist
Community Development, including the HA.
8. Adjournment
Commissioner Moore moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:38 p.m. Commissioner Mavity
seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 5-0 with Commissioners
Courtney, Gavzy, Mavity, Moore and Row voting in favor.
Respectfully submitted,
________________________
Shone Row, Secretary