HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001/01/16 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Regular
AGENDA - CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
January 16, 2001
7:30 p.m.
7:00 p.m. - Economic Development Authority
1. Call to Order
a. Pledge of Allegiance
b. Roll Call
2. Presentations
3. Approval of Minutes
a. City Council Minutes of December 18, 2000
b. Study Session Minutes of December 11, 2000
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. Authorize execution of a contract extension to Contract No. 1893 with Severn Trent
Services (STL – Denver) for laboratory services related to the Reilly Tar & Chemical
Corporation groundwater sampling program through year 2001.
2
2. Amend Professional Services Agreement with Campbell Knutson to reflect 2001
rates.
3. Adopt resolution designating the St. Louis Park Sun-Sailor as the City’s Official
Newspaper for 2001.
4. Approve 2001 City Council meeting dates.
5. Adopt an amendment to resolution #00-124 regarding issuance of on-sale intoxicating
liquor licenses in the city.
6. Adopt ordinance amending section 11-1003 and 11-004 of the St. Louis Park
Municipal code related to false alarms and approving resolution setting false alarm
fee, approve the summary and authorize its publication.
7. Accept the following reports for filing:
a. Planning Commission Minutes of December 6, 2000
b. Housing Authority Minutes of December 18, 2000
c. Vendor Claims
Action: Motion to approve Consent Items
5. Public Hearings
5a. Competitive Cable TV System Franchises Public Hearing
January 16, 2000 was set to continue the public hearing for competitive cable TV
franchises. Two applications have been received, one each from Everest
Connections Corporation (Everest) and Wide Open West LLC (WOW). This report
updates Council on the current status of negotiations and recommends continuing
the public hearing based on those negotiations.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to continue the public hearing to February 19, 2001.
5b. Park Commons Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District and Business Subsidy
Hearing
This report considers a resolution modifying Redevelopment Project No. 1,
removing parcels from the Excelsior Blvd. TIF District and establishing the Park
Commons Tax Increment Financing District (a redevelopment district) within
Redevelopment Project No. 1.
Recommend
ed Action:
Motion to close the TIF and Business Subsidy hearing. Motion
adopt the resolution modifying the Redevelopment Plan for
Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the TIF Plan for the Excelsior
Boulevard TIF District and establishing the Park Commons Tax
Increment Financing District and adopting its TIF Plan.
3
6. Requests and Communications from the Public
7. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions
7a. First Reading of the Ordinance Amending Water & Sewer Utility Rates for
2001
This action would increase the water and sewer utility rates by 2%. Rates effective
February 26, 2001.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to waive first reading and set second reading for
February 5, 2001.
7b. Second Reading of Amendment to Zoning Map to Change the Zoning from C-
2 General Commercial, R-C High Density Residential, and R-3 Two-Family
Residential to M-X Mixed-Use, R-C High-Density Residential and R-3 Two
Family Residential for Comprehensive Plan Consistency for Park Commons
East.
Case No.00-60-Z
Area east of Quentin Avenue, west of Monterey Drive, and north of Excelsior
Boulevard to the southern portion of Wolfe Park
Recommended
Action:
Approve Second Reading of Zoning Map Amendment, adopt
ordinance, approve summary, and authorize its publication.
7c. TOLD Development Agreement
This report considers a resolution approving a development agreement with
Meridian Properties Real Estate Development (TOLD) for the redevelopment of
Park Commons East.
Recommended
Action:
Motion adopt the resolution approving a Contract for Private
Redevelopment between the St. Louis Park Economic
Development Authority, the City of St. Louis Park, and
Meridian Properties Real Estate Development LLC.
7d. Request by Edina Development Company for a Major amendment to a
Conditional Use Permit for site plan, tree replacement and landscaping
changes and a variance for reduced bufferyard for Excelsior Townhomes
Case Nos. 00-45-CUP and 00-46-VAR
7100-7102 Excelsior Boulevard
Recommended
Action:
• Motion to adopt a resolution approving a variance for
reduced bufferyard along east lot line.
• Motion to adopt a resolution amending previous resolution
4
and granting a major amendment to the Conditional Use
Permit, subject to conditions in the resolution.
7e. Request by Westside Office Park to rezone property from R-4, Multiple Family to
C-2, General Commercial and to vacate a portion of W. 14th Street
6009 Wayzata Boulevard
Case Nos. 01-01-Z and 01-02–VAC
Recommended
Action:
• Approve first reading of Zoning Ordinance Map amendment
changing the designation on property located at 6009 Wayzata
Boulevard R-4, Multiple Family Residential to C-2, General
Commercial and set second reading for February 5, 2001.
• Approve first reading of an ordinance vacating a portion of W.
14th Street, subject to the condition described in the ordinance,
and set second reading for February 5, 2001.
7f. Election of Mayor Pro-tem
State Statute section 412.121 requires that Council choose an acting Mayor from
the Council members
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt resolution appointing a Mayor Pro-tem
8. Boards and Committees
a. Appoint members to the Human Rights Commission
Action: Motion to appoint Kristi Rudelius-Palmer, Cassandra Boddy, Maya Winoker, and
Jake Feldman to the Human Rights Commission.
9. Communications
10. Adjournment
5
Item # 3a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
DECEMBER 18, 2000
1. Call to Order and Roll Call
Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m.
The following Councilmembers were present at roll call: Jim Brimeyer, Ron Latz, Sue
Sanger, Sue Santa, Robert Young, and Mayor Jeff Jacobs.
Also present were the City Manager (Mr. Meyer); City Attorney (Mr. Scott); Finance
Director (Ms. McGann); Director of Community Development (Mr. Harmening); Director
of Parks and Recreation (Ms. Walsh); Zoning Administrator (Mr. Scott); and Recording
Secretary (Ms. Olson).
2. Presentations
a. Taiwan Delegation Recognition – Mayor Jacobs presented gifts to the delegation and
thanked them for their recent visit.
b. Human Rights Award – Mayor Jacobs presented Human Rights Awards to Robert and
Delores Sater, Rebecca Forest and Mike Rice, and Park Spanish Immersion School. The
St. Louis Park Children’s Choir performed.
3. Approval of Minutes
a. City Council Minutes of December 4, 2000
The minutes were approved as presented with the following changes.
Page 8, Item 5b, change “19.6 to 10.4” to “19.6 to 20.4”.
Page 10, Item 5e, change “He has noticed that Excelsior Boulevard was going down hill and
rental rates were dropping” to “He stated that prior to the improvements on
Excelsior Boulevard he noticed the area was going down hill and rental rates were
dropping”.
b. Study Session Minutes of October 9, 2000
The minutes were approved as presented.
c. Study Session Minutes of July 24, 2000
6
The minutes were approved as presented.
d. Study Session Minutes of August 28, 2000
The minutes were approved as presented with the following change.
Page 22, add “Councilmember Nelson was present”.
e. Study Session Minutes of October 23, 2000
The minutes were approved as presented.
4. Approval of Agenda and Consent Items
a. Agenda
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to approve
the agenda and move Item 7f to the beginning of the resolution section. The motion passed
7-0
b. Approval of Consent Items
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Latz, to approve the
following Consent Items. The motion passed 7-0.
1. Waive reading of resolutions and ordinances
2. Adopt Resolution No. 00-154 amending Special Use Permit and granting an
extension to August 31, 2001 for Groves Academy, 3200 Highway 100.
3. Approve Contract for the Administration of the Blackstone Neighborhood
Grant/Deferred Loan Program with the Center for Energy and Environment
effective 1/01/01
4. Accept the following reports for filing:
a. Cable Television Advisory Commission Minutes of October 19, 2000
b. Vendor Claims
5. Adopt Resolution No. 00-155 requesting the Minnesota Department of
Transportation (Mn/DOT) to advance funds in the amount of $145,000 to repay
MSA approved construction costs.
6. Adopt Resolution No. 00-156 authorizing installation and special assessment of a
fire sprinkler system at 5727 West 36th Street and directing the Mayor and City
Manager to execute a special assessment agreement with the property owner.
5. Public Hearings
5a. Public Hearing to Consider Resolution Authorizing Renewal of Gambling
Premises Permit for St. Louis Park Boy’s Traveling Basketball Association at
Texa-Tonka Lanes, located at 8200 Minnetonka Blvd. Resolution No. 00-157
7
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing.
With no one wishing to speak, Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to
approve Resolution No. 00-157 authorizing renewal of gambling premises permit for
St. Louis Park Boy’s Traveling Basketball Association at Texa-Tonka Lanes, 8200
Minnetonka Blvd. The motion passed 6-1. Councilmember Nelson was opposed.
5b. Year 2000 Local Law Enforcement Block Grant
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing.
With no one else wishing to speak, Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing.
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Latz, to the
grant fund award. The motion passed 6-0.
6. Requests and Communications from the Public - None
7. Requests and Communications from the Public
7a. First Reading of Amendment to Zoning Map to Change the Zoning from C-2
General Commercial, R-C High Density Residential, and R-3 Two-Family
Residential to M-X Mixed-Use, R-C High-Density Residential and R-3 Two Family
Residential for Comprehensive Plan Consistency for Park Commons East
Case No. 00-60-Z
East of Quentin Avenue, west of Monterey Drive, and north of Excelsior
Boulevard to the southern portion of Wolfe Park
Mr. Harmening, Community Development Director presented a staff report and
recommended approval of the proposed zoning map amendments to bring the zoning for the
area into consistency with the Comprehensive Plan amendments approved by the City
Council on December 4, 2000.
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to approve
First Reading of Zoning Map Amendment to be adopted contingent upon associated
Comprehensive Plan amendments being approved by the Metropolitan Council and set
Second Reading for January 16, 2001. The motion passed 7-0.
7b. Resolution Approving Oak park Area Master Plan. Resolution No.
00-158
Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation, presented a staff report. She noted that the
naming of the Oak Park Village Park Area and the possibility of phasing were still yet to be
considered.
8
Barry Warner, Senior Vice President of SRF Consulting, explained the proposed elements
and amenities of the Master Plan.
Bill Lubor, 4618 Cedarwood Road, stated that the City should consider how to serve the
youth in the community and believed that this plan was a signature point for the City with
the increased interest in soccer. He believed this project would allow the opportunity to
compete in soccer on a statewide basis and would reflect the community spirit. He
commended the Task Force and City Council for their work.
Florence Flugaur, 3320 Louisiana Avenue, #412, stated she lived in condominiums on 3300
on the Park and a Board Member of the Home Owners Association. She commended the
Park and Recreation Department for consulting the public for input. She stated that
residents were concerned about the proposal for additional parking and how it would affect
their entrance/exit to the condominiums and the proposed stoplight. She believed that this
naturally open area was very import for the community. She was concerned about the
adverse affect of the proposal to place picnic tables in the tree area and that that there was
not additional lighted fields. She also suggested more effort be made to clean the sidewalks
through the park which are affect by a multitude of geese.
Al Pooler, 3119 Sumter Avenue South, Member of Task Force, commented on the Oak Park
Village site and that it was a jewel and a rare commodity and very valuable. He was
concerned about SRF stating in the past that this area would become a gigantic organized
team sport complex and fully developed. He suggested that the master plan be revised to
provide a better balance between the organized team sport needs and those legitimate
recreational needs of the rest of the community and suggested that staff form a new or
expanded task force representing all of the recreational interests of the community.
Councilmember Nelson was in favor of the Master Plan recommended by the Task Force.
Councilmember Santa asked about staging and if a timetable had been discussed.
Ms. Walsh stated that these discussions would be the next logical step.
Councilmember Sanger was in favor of the Master Plan recommended by the Task Force,
but believed it would be important after the park development to monitor how much of the
park was being used by sports teams and if there has been other opportunities for other
persons to have passive use of the park or were they crowded out. She asked about the
timing and source of funds for the redevelopment.
Ms. Walsh explained the different timing scenarios.
Mr. Meyer, City Manager stated that the City would continue to look for funding options,
but anticipated that this was a project that the City would likely have to consider general
obligations bonds.
9
Councilmember Latz asked if Ms. Walsh had received input from the neighborhood
associations.
Ms. Walsh stated that all letters received has been distributed to the Council.
Councilmember Latz was in favor of the Master Plan recommended by the Task Force and
supported the open vistas throughout the plan.
Councilmember Brimeyer stated that the City has to be reminded that this plan has come a
long way and all of the uses discussed could be used with the elements and amenities
proposed in the Master Plan recommended by the Task Force. He stated that related to the
renaming of the park, he supported a re-identification of what this space used to be and
looking at this area as a revised concept and that this combined area might be a possible
showcase for a multi-use facility.
Mayor Jacobs stated that the City would probably never come up with a plan that would
satisfy everyone and that this plan strikes a good balance between passive place, open space,
and organized athletic fields. He thanked the City Council and staff for instituting a public
process that sought to receive all of the ideas from a number of stake holders.
It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Latz, to adopt
Resolution No. 00-158 approving the Oak Hill Area Parks Master Plan. The motion passed
7-0.
Councilmember Nelson left at 7:35 p.m.
7c. Amendment To Railroad Blocking Agreement
Charlie Meyer, City Manager briefly explained that this agreement authorized the City
Manager to negotiate some of the blocking procedures.
Councilmember Santa stated that there was a meeting with the South Oak Hill
Neighborhood and they were in favor of the agreement as long as the City continued to work
on a long term solution.
It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Latz, to authorize the
Mayor and City Manager to sign the contract amendment and to authorize the City Manager
to negotiate the execute memoranda of agreement establishing blocking procedures. The
motion passed 6-0.
7d. Adopt 2001 Budget, 2000 Revised Budget and 2001 Property Tax Levy
Resolution No.’s 00-159 and 00-160
Ms. McGann, Director of Finance presented a staff report and recommended approval.
10
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer, to
approve Resolution No. 00-159 adopting the 2001 budget and Revised 2000 budget and to
approve Resolution No. 00-160 approving the 2001 Property tax levy. The motion passed
6-0.
7e. First Reading of an Ordinance Amending Section 11-1003 and 11-104 of the St.
Louis Park Municipal Code related to False Alarms
Ms. McGann, Director of Finance presented a staff report and recommended approval.
It was moved by Councilmember Young, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to approve
first reading and set second reading for January 16, 2000. The motion passed 6-0.
7f. Request by Edina Development Company for a Major amendment to a
Conditional Use Permit for site plan, tree replacement and landscaping changes
and a variance for reduced bufferyard for Excelsior Townhomes
Case Nos. 00-45-CUP and 00-46-VAR
7100 – 7102 Excelsior Boulevard
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Latz, to continue
this item and associated resolution until the City Council Meeting on February 5, 2001. The
motion passed 6-0.
7g. First reading of miscellaneous Zoning Ordinance amendments pertaining to the
reduction of the 2nd story setbacks for property in the R-1, R-02, and R-3 Use
District, clarification of the retain sales and showroom land use definitions,
issuance of permits for properties with existing non-conformities, setbacks for
certain commercial and industrial uses from residentially zoned properties,
clarification of wall deviations for architectural design, notice requirements for
Comprehensive Plan land use and tax amendments, and setting the public hearing
at Planning Commission only for Comprehensive Plan Amendments.
Scott Moore, Zoning Administrator presented a staff report and recommended approval.
Councilmember Sanger raised some concerns about the section on modifications for
setbacks for commercial and industrial uses from residentially zoned properties.
Mr. Moore stated that the proposed amendments would not allow any of these uses to be
closer to any residentially zoned properties, but only allows these uses to get closer to
streets, railroad right of ways or parks.
Councilmember Sanger was concerned that now the residential use might have some
additional buffer space and under this new interpretation they would no longer have this
additional buffer space available. She suggested taking that section out and have a
subsequent discussion about it at a study session in January.
11
Mr. Scott stated in some instances it could happen that way because now the use would be
closer to the residential property because it was required to be set back that much further
from the street and closer to the residential property.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer, to
approve first reading of the ordinance amendments excluding the section reducing the
setbacks for certain commercial and industrial uses from residentially zoned property and set
second reading for the City Council meeting on February 5, 2001. The motion passed 6-0.
8. Board and Committees - None
9. Communications
From the City Manager – Mr. Meyer noted that there would be no Study Session Meeting
on December 25, 2000 and no City Council Meeting on January 2, 2001.
From the Mayor – Mayor Jacobs extended a holiday greeting to the staff and residents of
St. Louis Park.
10. Adjournment
Mayor Jacobs adjourned the meeting at 8:55 p.m.
City Clerk Mayor
12
Item # 3b
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
December 11, 2000
The meeting convened at 7:05 p.m.
Present at the meeting were Councilmembers Jim Brimeyer, Ron Latz, Susan Sanger, Chris
Nelson, and Mayor Jeff Jacobs.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Meyer), Director of Community Development (Mr.
Harmening), Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Kleeve), Civic Cable TV Coordinator
(Mr. McHugh), Community Outreach Coordinator (Ms. McDonell), and Deputy City Clerk (Ms.
Stroth).
1. Vision St. Louis Park and Telecommunications Surveys
Bill Morris, Decision Resources, Ltd. reviewed the results and major findings of the residential
and business surveys for Vision St. Louis Park and telecommunications needs. He gave
comparisons to data reported in previous surveys in St. Louis Park and from neighboring
suburban cities.
Major findings from the telecommunications needs study included the following:
• Competition in telecommunications in the city is welcomed.
• Local channels and local programming are valued.
• After business hours communications with telecommunications providers is valued.
• Computer use exists in 59% of homes.
• Wireless and cell phones usage 20% higher
• 80% of residents, 87% businesses satisfied in choices of service providers.
Discussion took place regarding public policy decisions and applications. Mayor Jacobs
indicated the need for more providers and more choices. Councilmember Sanger stated concern
about infrastructure and tearing up streets.
Major findings from the Vision St. Louis Park residential and business study included the
following:
• Quality of Life up 17% within previous 3-4 years. 47% Excellent, 48% Good
• Crime and poor upkeep was key concern to young families moving out.
• Most serious issues were crime and education quality. (Crime was down from 4 yrs. ago)
• 87% felt St. Louis Park was going in the right direction
• 98% have an overall feeling of safety. Ward 4 had the highest unsafe feeling of safety.
• 83% reported excellent or good that community needs were being addressed. Highest rating
found in the metro suburbs in past 3 years.
13
• Contact with City Hall were among the highest in the Metropolitan Area.
• Strong links and connectedness with neighbors along with high rate of volunteerism.
• Public Schools were losing their connectedness with the community.
• St. Louis Park remains one of the best regarded communities and one of the top five in the
Twin Cities Metropolitan Area.
Mayor Jacobs questioned what to do with the data. Mr. Morris stated Decision Resources will be
giving a presentation to the Schools. Councilmember Sanger suggested publishing the data. Ms.
McDonell stated that she felt the data was valuable for the community and setting future target
goals.
Mr. Morris felt the data indicated the need for St. Louis Park to address housing and safety
concerns. Councilmember Sanger added that additional lighting in streets and parks was needed.
Ms. McDonell did not feel the survey covered whether residents of diverse cultures were made to
feel welcome. She informed council that the Vision St. Louis Park (VSLP) Outcomes
Committee would continue reviewing the data and return to City Council at a later date with
updates regarding the Vision progress.
Mayor Jacobs thanked the VSLP Outcomes Committee, city staff, and Council for their concern
and support.
2. Park Commons East
Bob Cunningham, TOLD Development Company gave an overview of the site plan for park
Commons as it exists today. He had received criticism that the apartments units overlooked the
parking lot. He reviewed the following improvements:
• Less expensive ramps rather than massive parking lots
• Connected buildings
• Increased units (317)
• 7 story building compared to a 4 story building
• Public parking and below residential parking
• Wider towngreen
• Same retail but increased residential
• Unexcavated, planting of real trees, landscaping, private courtyards around residential
• Archway walkways
• Adding more density to increase 35 owned townhome units on Parkedge Road
Discussion took place regarding parking, pedestrian movement, and building heights view.
Mr. Harmening distributed Park Commons tentative schedule of events. He stated
groundbreaking is scheduled to take place in June.
14
3. Affordable Housing
Councilmember Brimeyer wished to discuss affordable housing in terms of home ownership and
rental housing. He felt that current rate per square foot was high. He would like to see housing
that meets the needs of those who live in the community.
Council had some concerns and discussed the market housing that would be used in the Park
Commons development. It was suggested that the market mix could be changed in the Park
Commons design and Councilmember Brimeyer did not want to see that.
Councilmember Latz felt that eighty percent of one’s income was inappropriate to be considered
as affordable housing, and would like to see fifty percent of the median income or below be
classified as affordable housing and within the working class bracket. He added that St. Louis
Park has currently met its affordable housing requirements without Park Commons being a large
concern.
Councilmember Sanger questioned how much control over the developers is acceptable and was
concerned with imposing on private developers. She stated that affordable housing is a metro
wide issue.
Councilmember Nelson suggested that staff and Council consider how affordable housing is
defined.
4. Communications - None
5. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m.
City Clerk Mayor
15
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 5a
Meeting of January 16, 2001
5a. Competitive Cable TV System Franchises Public Hearing
January 16, 2000 was the date set to continue the public hearing for competitive
cable TV franchises. Two applications have been received, one each from Everest
Connections Corporation (Everest) and Wide Open West LLC (WOW). This report
updates Council on the current status of negotiations and recommends continuing
the public hearing based on those negotiations.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to continue the public hearing to February 19, 2001.
Purpose of Report
To brief Council on the status of applications from and negotiations with the two current
applicants for cable television franchises.
Everest Connections Corporation (Everest)
As part of on-going negotiations, staff received a letter dated December 15 from Everest with
proposed franchise provisions resulting from previous meetings. The City responded on
December 27 to Everest’s letter. Major responses were as follows:
• Staff commented on Everest’s proposed Institutional Network (I-Net) capability, requesting a
document showing the cost difference between a two and four strand network, and how it
compares to Time Warner Cable’s (TWC) current I-Net, to counter possible assertions that
their proposal is not equivalent.
• Staff further commented that we did not agree that that Everest’s I-Net proposal can be
provided in lieu of an ongoing Local Origination commitment.
• Staff submitted a copy of TWC’s current Public-Educational-Government (PEG) Access
equipment inventory and asked Everest to clarify how it will meet its application description,
specifically:
Everest further believes that its services to public, government and
educational facilities should be equivalent to that provided by the
incumbent. Consequently, Everest's proposed franchise with the
City duplicates the incumbent's obligations in this vital area.
• Staff asked Everest to contact our office to arrange a meeting prior to the second week in
January in order to continue negotiations on a basis timely with tonight’s public hearing.
Wide Open West (WOW)
City staff also communicated with WOW on December 27, following up on a December 13
phone conference, asking for further information concerning the following franchise items:
a) System design
16
b) Business office location
c) Studio facilities
d) Local Origination
e) Institutional network
f) Node splitting from 300-500 to 150 homes: passive split or separate signal from origination
point?
g) General construction schedule outlining activity once construction has commenced.
Staff also requested that WOW address the City Council on how its plan to obtain equity financing upon grant of a franchise compares to committed financial resources.
Staff returned a January 9, 2001 phone call from WOW, to consult with them concerning the
City’s December 27 letter. WOW responded on January 10, 2001 with two documents
addressing only items a, e, and f.
Both applicants are busy following up on their many applications in the Twin Cities metro area,
and the wide scope of their activity limits closure to the issues remaining.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council continue this public hearing to February 20, 2001. It is staff’s
hope that both companies will be able to respond to outstanding questions and allocate the time
necessary to conclude negotiations by that date.
Prepared by: Reg Dunlap, Cable TV Office
John McHugh, Cable TV Office
Clint Pires, Deputy City Manager
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
17
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 5b
Meeting of January 16, 2001
5b. Park Commons Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District and Business Subsidy
Hearing
This report considers a resolution modifying Redevelopment Project No. 1, removing
parcels from the Excelsior Blvd. TIF District and establishing the Park Commons Tax
Increment Financing District (a redevelopment district) within Redevelopment Project
No. 1.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to close the TIF and Business Subsidy hearing. Motion
adopt the resolution modifying the Redevelopment Plan for
Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the TIF Plan for the Excelsior
Boulevard TIF District and establishing the Park Commons Tax
Increment Financing District and adopting its TIF Plan.
Background:
On August 16, 1999 the City Council adopted a resolution calling for a public hearing to
consider the adoption of a resolution establishing the Park Commons Tax Increment Financing
District. The Planning Commission Reviewed the Tax Increment Financing Plan on October 6,
1999 and found that it was in conformance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
On October 18, 1999 the City Council held a public hearing on the proposed Park Commons TIF
District. At this meeting staff recommended that the EDA/Council not take action on the formal
adoption of the Tax Increment Financing plan until such time when a final development
agreement with Avalon Bay was approved. A final development agreement was never approved
since Avalon Bay left the project and no action was taken on creating the Park Commons TIF
District.
On July 5, 2000 the EDA/Council entered into a Preliminary Development Agreement (PDA)
with TOLD Development Company. TOLD has made substantial progress on the Park Commons
East project and it is time to revisit the creation of the Park Commons TIF District. Since it has
been over a year since the City Council held the public hearing on the creation of the Park
Commons TIF District, staff was advised to go through the process of creating the Park
Commons TIF District again. On November 20, 2000 the EDA/Council started the TIF creation
process again by calling for a public hearing on the establishment of the Park Commons TIF
District.
At the January 8, 2001 EDA/Council Study Session, staff presented the business points and
financing plan for the Park Commons East development project. Staff also answered questions
on the Park Commons East TIF Plan.
18
As part of the TIF creation process, the Planning Commission reviewed the Park Commons TIF
Plan at its January 3, 2001 meeting and found that the Park Commons TIF Plan is in
conformance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
Attached is a copy of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the establishment of Park Commons
Tax Increment Financing District within Redevelopment Project No. 1.
Synopsis of the proposed TIF:
The Park Commons Tax Increment Financing District consists of 38 parcels of land and the
adjacent and internal rights-of-way. This TIF District is being created to facilitate the Park
Commons East project. The total project cost for Park Commons East is estimated to be
approximately $128,550,000. The city has agreements to purchase all but 1 of the 38 parcels
included in the district. The EDA has filed a condemnation petition on the last parcel and expects
to have title on all the parcels prior to May 15, 2001.
TOLD Development Company, the developer of the project, is proposing to construct 125,000
sq. ft. of mixed use office/retail space, approximately 106,000 sq. ft. of retail/service/restaurant
uses; and 660 residential units (which include 35 owner occupied units, 18 Hollman units, and
607 market rate apartments) in a vertically mixed use environment. The owner occupied units
will be developed by another party yet to be determined.
Other Issues:
The new Park Commons Tax Increment District will involve removing some parcels from the
existing Excelsior Boulevard TIF district. This means that fewer parcels will be available to
finance the existing bonds. However, it has been determined that there will be enough increment
generated by the remaining parcels within the applicable tax increment districts to pay off
existing obligations. Because of this situation, staff did not want to present the TIF plan for
approval until a final development agreement with TOLD was also up for approval.
YHR, the city’s consultant, has reviewed the parcels and buildings that are proposed to be
included in the Park Commons TIF district. The results of the review confirm that this area does
qualify as a Redevelopment TIF District under Minnesota Statutes.
Fiscal disparities relating to the Park Commons TIF District are proposed to be paid from outside
the district. The city will be obligated to provide a local contribution that is estimated at $3.3
million over the life of the district. The city has received a $1.7 million LCDA grant and other
grants which can be used to offset this local contribution.
The public hearing that the City Council is holding covers both the TIF issues and the Business
Subsidy being provided to the developer.
Attachments: Tax Increment Financing Plan
Resolution
Prepared by: Tom Kleve, Economic Development Coordinator
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
19
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
HENNEPIN COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
Council member ______________________ introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 01-004
RESOLUTION MODIFYING THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1 AND THE TAX INCREMENT
FINANCING PLAN FOR THE EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD TAX
INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT AND ESTABLISHING THE
PARK COMMONS TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT
(WITHIN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1) AND ADOPTING ITS
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN THEREFOR.
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the "Council") of the City of St. Louis Park,
Minnesota (the "City"), as follows:
Section 1. Recitals.
1.01. The City and the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (“EDA”) have
heretofore established Redevelopment Project No. 1 and adopted the Redevelopment Plan
therefor. The City and Authority have determined a need to modify the Redevelopment Plan for
Redevelopment Project No. 1 by (a) modifying the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the
Excelsior Boulevard Tax Increment Financing District and (b) establishing the Park Commons
Tax Increment Financing District within Redevelopment Project No. 1 and adopting its Tax
Increment Financing Plan therefor (the ''Plans"); all pursuant to and in conformity with
applicable law, including Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.090 through 469.1081 and 469.174
through 469.179, all inclusive, as amended, (the "Act") all as reflected in the Plans, and
presented for the Council's consideration.
1.02. The City council held a public hearing regarding establishment of the Park
Commons Tax Increment Financing District on October 18, 1999, but elected not to approve a
resolution establishing the district pending finalization of agreements with a developer.
1.03. The Council has investigated the facts relating to the Plans and has caused the
Plans to be prepared.
1.04. The City has performed all actions required by law to be performed prior to the
adoption and approval of the proposed Plans, including, but not limited to, notification of
Hennepin County and School District No. 283 having taxing jurisdiction over the property to be
included in Park Commons Tax Increment Financing District, notice of a potential
redevelopment district to the local county commissioner, a review of and written comment on the
20
Plans by the City Planning Commission, and the holding of a public hearing upon published
notice as required by law.
1.05. Certain written reports and studies (the ''Reports") relating to the findings made in
this resolution been prepared by staff, consultants and the developer and submitted to the
Council and/or made a part of the City files and proceedings. The Reports are listed in
Subsection 2-25 of the Plans. The Council hereby adopts the Reports, which are hereby
incorporated into and made as fully a part of this resolution to the same extent as if set forth in
full herein.
Section 2. Findings for Modification of the Excelsior Boulevard Tax Increment
District.
2.01. The City has determined a need to eliminate certain parcels from the Excelsior
Boulevard Tax Increment Financing District, for inclusion in the Park Commons Tax Increment
Financing District.
2.02. The City has held the public hearing and other procedures required by law in
order to eliminate the designated parcels from the Excelsior Boulevard Tax Increment Financing
District.
Section 3. Findings for the Establishment of Park Commons Tax Increment
Financing District.
3.01. The Council hereby finds that Park Commons Tax Increment Financing District is
in the public interest and is a "redevelopment district" under Minnesota Statutes, Section
469.174, subd. 10 (a)(1).
3.02. The Council further finds that the proposed redevelopment would not occur solely
through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and that the increased
market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax
increment financing would be less than the increase in the market value estimated to result from
the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for
the maximum duration of Park Commons Tax Increment Financing District permitted by the Tax
Increment Financing Plan, that the Plans conforms to the general plan for the development or
redevelopment of the City as a whole; and that the Plans will afford maximum opportunity
consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development or redevelopment of
Park Commons Tax Increment Financing District by private enterprise.
3.03. The City elects to make a qualifying local contribution in accordance with
Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.1399, subd. 6(d), in order to qualify Park Commons Tax
Increment Financing District for exemption from state aid losses set forth in Section 273.1399.
3.04. The City elects to calculate tax increment from the Park Commons Tax Increment
Financing District according to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, subd. 3(a), under which
fiscal disparities contributions are made from outside the district.
21
3.05. The Council further finds, declares and determines that the City made the above
findings stated in this Section and has set forth The reasons and supporting facts for the findings
in this resolution are set forth the Plans and are summarized in Exhibit A, attached to this
resolution.
Section 4. Approval and Adoption of the Plans.
4.01. The Plans, as presented to the Council on this date, including without limitation
the findings and statements of objectives contained therein, are hereby approved, ratified,
established, and adopted and shall be placed on file in the office of the Community Development
Director.
4.02. The staff of the City, the City’s advisors and legal counsel are authorized and
directed to proceed with the implementation of the Plans and to negotiate, draft, prepare and
present to this Council for its consideration all further plans, resolutions, documents and
contracts necessary for this purpose.
4.03 City staff is authorized to file a copy of the Plans with the Hennepin County
Director of Property Taxation together with (a) a request to certify the original net tax capacity of
the Park Commons Tax Increment Financing District, as described in the Plans, and (b) a request
to eliminate the parcels from the Excelsior Boulevard Tax Increment Financing District that are
so designated for elimination in Appendix B to the Plans; and (c) a list of all properties within
Park Commons Tax Increment Financing District, for which building permits have been issued
during the 18 months immediately preceding the adoption of this resolution. Staff is authorized
to file such documents at any time after the date of this resolution that staff determines is
appropriate and in the best interests of the City, and is further authorized and directed to take any
other actions and file any other documents required by law in connection with the TIF Plans.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council
member _________________, and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor
thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
22
EXHIBIT A
RESOLUTION # 01-004
The reasons and facts supporting the findings for the adoption of the Tax Increment
Financing Plan for Park Commons Tax Increment Financing District as required pursuant to
M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 3 are as follows:
1. Finding that Park Commons Tax Increment Financing District is a redevelopment district as
defined in M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 10(a)(1).
Park Commons Tax Increment Financing District consists of 38 parcels, with plans to
redevelop the area for mixed use purposes. Parcels consisting of 91 percent of the
area of Park Commons Tax Increment Financing District are occupied by
buildings, streets, utilities, or other improvements and more than 81 percent of the
buildings in Park Commons Tax Increment Financing District, not including
outbuildings, are, or have been previously found to be, structurally substandard to
a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance. The information
supporting these findings is file at the City with the Community Development
Director and is summarized in Appendix F of the Plans.
2. Finding that the proposed development, in the opinion of the City Council, would not
reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably
foreseeable future and that the increased market value of the site that could reasonably be
expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase
in the market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the
present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of Park Commons
Tax Increment Financing District permitted by the Plan.
The proposed development, in the opinion of the City, would not reasonably be expected to
occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future: This
finding is supported by the fact that the proposed development consists of the
comprehensive redevelopment of a 14-acre site in the City. Redevelopment requires
assembly of land, relocation, demolition, site improvements, and construction of public
improvements for a mixed use housing and redevelopment that will become the “town
center” for the City of St. Louis Park. Such redevelopment is possible only with substantial
public assistance from various sources, including grants from the Metropolitan Council and
the Department of Trade and Economic Development. In determining the need for tax
increment financing, the City reviewed the entire project costs and the studies referenced in
Section 2-25 of the Plans. Those studies show that financing for the project is clearly
infeasible without the assistance provided in the Plans and from numerous other public
financing sources.
The increased market value of the site that could reasonable be expected to occur without
the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in market value estimated
to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected
tax increments for the maximum duration of the TIF District permitted by the Plan: Before
23
demolition commenced, this site consisted of substandard commercial buildings and aging
substandard homes. Any redevelopment of the area, even on a smaller scale, would require
public intervention to finance the substantial costs of conversion to new land uses.
Therefore, the City reasonably determined that without tax increment assistance, market
values were likely to decline or remain stable at the best. Even if some alternative
development proposal may have been possible, the proposed development will be one the
largest commercial and housing developments in the City’s history, and the increased value
created under the Plans would far exceed any alternative development that is conceivable.
To illustrate this point, a comparative analysis of estimated market values both with and
without establishment of Park Commons Tax Increment Financing District and the use of
tax increments is included in Appendix D of the Plans. If all development proposed to be
assisted with tax increment were to occur in Park Commons Tax Increment Financing
District, the total increase in market value would be up to $72,493,775. The present value of
tax increments from Park Commons Tax Increment Financing District is estimated to be
$25,803,861. The Council reasonably concludes that no development with a market value of
greater than $46,689,914 would occur without tax increment assistance in this district within
the foreseeable future.
3. Finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Park Commons Tax Increment
Financing District conforms to the general plan for the development or redevelopment of the
municipality as a whole.
The Plan was reviewed by the Planning Commission on January 3, 2001. The Planning
Commission found that the Plan conforms to the City comprehensive plan, contingent on
approval of the plan amendment by the Metropolitan Council.
4. Finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Park Commons Tax Increment
Financing District will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the
City as a whole, for the development or redevelopment of Redevelopment Project No. 1 by
private enterprise.
The project to be assisted by Park Commons Tax Increment Financing District will result in
the most significant opportunity for private redevelopment in the City’s recent history,
permitting construction of a major new housing and commercial area at a critical site on
Excelsior Boulevard.
24
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 7a
Meeting of January 16, 2001
7a. First Reading of the Ordinance Amending Water & Sewer Utility Rates for
2001
This action would increase the water and sewer utility rates by 2%. Rates effective
February 26, 2001.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to waive first reading and set second reading for
February 5, 2001.
Background:
This action provides for a two-percent (2%) rate increase for both water and sewer charges. The
2% increase applies for both the flat service charges as well as the volume charges. The
proposed increase is considered an inflationary increase. No change is proposed in refuse rates
in accordance with plans made when the rates were lowered when the service contract was
changed. There is also no change proposed in the storm water utility rates.
The City has provided for very moderate annual increases in the water and sewer rates. It is the
City’s intent to increase rates at modest levels each year and at the same time provide for
adequate levels of capital reserves. By maintaining adequate levels of capital reserves the need
for extraordinary rate increases is avoided. Maintaining adequate levels of capital reserves also
avoids the need to issue debt or otherwise borrow for necessary improvements to the utilities’
infrastructure systems.
The Utility Budgets and Capital Improvements for 2001
Significant to the operating budget of the Water utility is the ongoing cost for the Reilly “RAP”
activities. In 1999, a separate division was established to track these costs. The proposed total
budget for operation and maintenance of the three GAC treatment plants is $586,000. Water
utility revenues have been and are expected to continue to fund these activities.
The majority of the sanitary sewer budget operating expense (72%) is for wastewater treatment
by the Metropolitan Council – Environmental Services (MCES). 9% of the sanitary sewer
budget is for personnel services with the remainder of the budget being for maintenance and
operation of the system.
25
The various divisions of the Public Works Department are in the process of implementing the
computerized infrastructure management systems. These systems will provide a means for the
inventory, evaluation and management of the water, sewer and storm sewer infrastructure
systems. The inventorying and assessment of the infrastructure systems will help focus where
and when capital improvements dollars are needed.
There are no significant capital expenditures planned for 2001 within the Water of Sanitary
Sewer Utility Funds.
Summary
The recommended increase in water and sewer rates will provide a moderate increase in
revenues to help support operations and maintain capital reserve levels without adversely
affecting the typical residential customer.
Attachments: Ordinance amending the Municipal Code related to the 2001 water and Sewer
Rates
Rate comparison for different types of residential users
Prepared by: Jean D. McGann, Director of Finance
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
26
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED
TO THE 2001 WATER RATES, SECTION 9-101 AND THE 2001 SANITIARY SEWER
RATES, SECTION 9-231
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
Sec. 1. Section 9-101 of the Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
Rates: The rate due and payable to the City by each water user with the City for billings on or
after February 26, 2001 for water taken from the City water supply system shall be $.696 per 100
cubic feet.
All charges for single and multiple-family dwelling users shall be determined and payable on a
quarterly basis, and all charges for commercial, industrial and institutional users shall be
determined and payable on a monthly or quarterly basis provided, however, that there shall be a
service charge to each water user for each quarter year period during which water service
furnished as follows:
Service Charges -- January 1,2000 2001 2000 2001
Meter Size
5/8 inch $3.56 3.63 5.49 5.60
3/4 inch 4.00 4.08 6.67 6.80
1 inch 5.17 5.27 9.76 9.96
1 and 1/2 inch 7.62 7.77 16.49 16.82
2 inch 11.05 11.27 25.53 26.04
3 inch 19.43 19.82 48.07 49.03
4 inch 32.76 33.42 77.82 79.38
6 inch 63.31 64.58 152.51 155.56
8 inch 97.64 99.59 241.02 245.84
10 inch 134.07 136.75 324.88 331.38
12 inch 160.15 163.35 381.35 388.98
Monthly Quarterly
Water Rates $0.696 per 100 cubic feet
Sewer Rates $1.38 per 100 cubic feet of water
Monthly service charge of $3.55
Quarterl y service charge of $10.65
27
In case the meter if found to have stopped or to be operating in a faulty manner, the amount of
water used will be estimated in accordance with the amount previously used for the comparable
period of the last previous year.
Where service is for less than the billing period, the service charge will be prorated accordingly.
Section 2. Section 9-231 of the Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sewer Rental Rates. Charges for sewer service to residential and non-residential users within the
city provided in Section 9-23- hereof for billings of or after February 26, 2001 shall be: $1.38
per 100 cubic feet of water consumption as measured during the winter quarter (or otherwise
determined in Section 9-231 (1), and a service charge of $3.55 monthly or $10.65 quarterly per
dwelling or account.
Section 3. Effective date. This ordinance shall become effective 15 days after its
publication.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council January 16, 2001
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to form and execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
28
Customer #1 Small family-using 23 units of water-one can garbage service
04/01/2000 PROPOSED 2001
Refuse $30.50 $30.50 $0.00
Water -svc chg (flat)6.67 6.80 0.13
Water-volume chg 15.69 16.01 0.32
Subtotal-water 22.36 22.81 0.45
Sewer-svc chg (flat)10.65 10.65 0.00
Sewer-volume chg 31.05 31.74 0.69
Subtotal-sewer 41.70 42.39 0.69
Total Quarterly Bill $94.56 $95.70 $1.14
Customer #2 Small family-using 10 units of water-one can garbage service
04/01/2000 PROPOSED 2001
Refuse $30.50 $30.50 $0.00
Water -svc chg (flat)6.67 6.80 0.13
Water-volume chg 6.82 6.96 0.14
Subtotal-water 13.49 13.76 0.27
Sewer-svc chg (flat)10.65 10.65 0.00
Sewer-volume chg 13.50 13.80 0.30
Subtotal-sewer 24.15 24.45 0.30
Total Quarterly Bill $68.14 $68.71 $0.57
Customer #3 Larger family-using 40 units of water-full service garbage
04/01/2000 PROPOSED 2001
Refuse $40.50 $40.50 $0.00
Water -svc chg (flat)6.67 6.80 0.13
Water-volume chg 27.28 27.84 0.56
Subtotal-water 33.95 34.64 0.69
Sewer-svc chg (flat)10.65 10.65 0.00
Sewer-volume chg 54.00 55.20 1.20
Subtotal-sewer 64.65 65.85 1.20
Total Quarterly Bill $139.10 $140.99 $1.89
Assumptions:
Water consumption = .696 per 100 cubic feet
Water service charges listed at top of sheet
Sewer consumption = 1.38 per 100 cubic feet
Sewer service charges = no change: 3.55 per month or 10.65 per quarter
Change 01 over 00
Change 01 over 00
Change 01 over 00
Rate comparison for different types of residential users
29
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item #7b
Meeting of January 16, 2001
7b. Second Reading of Amendment to Zoning Map to Change the Zoning from C-
2 General Commercial, R-C High Density Residential, and R-3 Two-Family
Residential to M-X Mixed-Use, R-C High-Density Residential and R-3 Two
Family Residential for Comprehensive Plan Consistency for Park Commons
East.
Case No.00-60-Z
Area east of Quentin Avenue, west of Monterey Drive, and north of Excelsior
Boulevard to the southern portion of Wolfe Park
Recommended
Action:
Approve Second Reading of Zoning Map Amendment, adopt
ordinance, approve summary, and authorize its publication.
Background:
On December 18, 2000, the City Council approved first reading of zoning map amendments to
change the zoning for parcels within the Park Commons East development area. These map
amendments are consistent with amendments to the Comprehensive Plan 2000-2020 adopted by
the City Council on December 4, 2000, and approved by the Metropolitan Council in late
December.
The amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map are to facilitate redevelopment of
the Park Commons East area. In September 1999 the current Comprehensive Plan 2000-2020
became effective. This Comprehensive Plan included mixed-use, high-density residential, and
park land use designations to accommodate the redevelopment of the Park Commons East area.
A redevelopment concept plan was also adopted into the Redevelopment Chapter of the
Comprehensive Plan. The adopted land use designations and redevelopment concept plan for
Park Commons East were prepared prior to considering plans by potential developers of the site.
Therefore, it was recognized that some amendments to the Comprehensive Plan might be
necessary, and rezoning the area to bring the properties into conformance with the 1999
Comprehensive Plan was delayed until a concept plan could be produced together with a
developer.
On November 15, 2000, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and recommended
certain amendments to the land use designations and Redevelopment Chapter of the
Comprehensive Plan to accommodate revisions to the redevelopment concept plans for Park
Commons East. Those amendments were approved by the City Council on December 4, 2000.
The Metropolitan Council approved the amendments on December 13, 2000.
On December 6, 2000, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and unanimously
recommended approval of the proposed zoning map amendments to bring the zoning for the area
30
into consistency with the Comprehensive Plan amendments approved by the City Council on
December 4. The City Council approved first reading of these map amendments on December
18, 2000.
Recommendation:
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of second reading of the zoning map
amendments.
Attachments:
Proposed Ordinance and the current and proposed Zoning Maps
Adopted Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations.
Prepared by: Judie Erickson, Planning Coordinator
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
31
ORDINANCE NO. 2186-01
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE
CHANGING BOUNDARIES OF ZONING DISTRICTS
Park Commons East
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. The St. Louis Park Zoning Ordinance adopted December 28, 1959,
Ordinance No. 730; amended December 31, 1992, Ordinance No. 1902-93, as heretofore
amended, is hereby further amended by changing the zoning district boundaries by reclassifying
the following illustrated lands from their existing land use district classification to the new land
use district classification as indicated for the property as hereinafter set forth, to wit:
See Attached Maps
from “C-2” General Commercial, “R-C” High Density Residential and “R-3” Two-Family
Residential to “M-X” Mixed-Use, “R-C” High Density Residential and “R-3” Two-Family
Residential
Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication.
Adopted by the City Council January 16, 2001
Reviewed for Administration
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney 00-60-Z/N/res/ord
32
SUMMARY
ORDINANCE NO. 2186-01
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE
CHANGING BOUNDARIES OF ZONING DISTRICTS
Park Commons East
This ordinance states that the zoning map shall be amended by changing the zoning district
boundaries by reclassifying some lands located within the Park Commons project area (West of
Monterey Ave, North of Excelsior Boulevard, East of Quentin Avenue and South of Wolfe Park)
from “C-2” General Commercial, “R-C” High Density Residential and “R-3” Two-Family
Residential to: “M-X” Mixed-Use, “R-C” High Density Residential and “R-3” Two-Family
Residential.
This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication.
Adopted by the City Council January 16, 2001
Jeffrey W. Jacobs /s/
Mayor
A copy of the full text of this ordinance, including maps identifying the location of the changes,
is available for inspection with the City Clerk.
Published in St. Louis Park Sailor: January 24, 2001
00-60-sum/N/res/ord
33
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 7c
Meeting of January 16, 2001
A COPY OF THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WILL BE SENT
SEPARATELY FRIDAY JANUARY 12, 2001
7c. TOLD Development Agreement
This report considers a resolution approving a development agreement with
Meridian Properties Real Estate Development (TOLD) for the redevelopment of
Park Commons East.
Recommende
d Action:
Motion to adopt the resolution approving a Contract for Private
Redevelopment between the St. Louis Park Economic
Development Authority, the City of St. Louis Park, and Meridian
Properties Real Estate Development LLC.
Background:
On July 5, 2000 the EDA/Council entered into an amended Preliminary Development Agreement
(PDA) with TOLD Development Company. Since that time, TOLD has made substantial
progress on the Park Commons East project and staff has been working out the development
agreement business points related to the project. At the January 8, 2001 EDA/Council Study
Session, staff presented the business points and financing plan for the Park Commons East
development project to the EDA/Council.
Development Agreement/Business Subsidy Agreement:
The EDA/Council is being asked to consider approval of the final development agreement
between the EDA, the city and Meridian Properties (TOLD) for the development of
approximately 125,000 sq. ft. of mixed use office/retail space, approximately 106,000 sq. ft. of
retail/service/restaurant uses, and 660 residential units (which include about 35 owner occupied
units, 18 Hollman units, and 607 market rate apartments) in a vertically mixed use environment.
A summary of the business points in the development agreement is attached. The adoption
resolution does allow for modifications that do not alter the substance of the transaction without
bringing the agreement back to the EDA/Council.
As part of the Business Subsidy Act (Minnesota Statutes 116J.993-116J.995), the EDA/Council
is required to hold a public hearing before granting a business subsidy. This hearing will be held
as part of the Park Commons Tax Increment Finance District hearing. The EDA/Council is
required to enter into a Business Subsidy Agreement with each individual business to which it
34
grants a subsidy. A copy of the Business Subsidy Agreement with Meridian Properties (TOLD)
is located in the development agreement as Section 6.4.
Attachments: Development Agreement (sent separately)
Summary of Development Agreement (included in EDA report)
Resolution
Prepared by: Tom Kleve, Economic Development Coordinator
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
35
RESOLUTION NO. 01-005
RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE
REDEVELOPMENT BETWEEN THE ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK AND
MERIDIAN PROPERTIES REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT LLC
BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council ("Council") of the City of St. Louis Park,
Minnesota ("City") as follows:
Section 1. Recitals.
1.01. The St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (“Authority”) has determined a
need to exercise the powers of a housing and redevelopment authority, pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes, Sections. 469.090 to 469.108 ("EDA Act"), and is currently administering Redevelopment
Project No. 1 ("Redevelopment Project") pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to
469.047 ("HRA Act").
1.02. Among the activities to be assisted by the Authority in the Redevelopment Project is
redevelopment of the area in the City known as Park Commons East (the “Park Commons Project”).
1.03. There has been presented before the Council a Contract for Private Redevelopment
(the “Contract”) between the Authority, the City and Meridian Properties Real Estate Development
LLC (the “Redeveloper"), setting forth the terms and conditions of development of the Park
Commons Project and the Authority’s and City’s participation in that effort.
1.04. The Contract provides for certain financial assistance by the City and the Authority
that constitutes a “business subsidy” exceeding $100,000 within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes,
Section 116J.993 to 116J.995 (the “Business Subsidy Act”).
1.05. The “business subsidy agreement” as required under the Business Subsidy Act is
included as Section 6.4 of the Contract, and the City (on behalf of both the City and Authority) has
on this date conducted a duly noticed public hearing regarding the business subsidy agreement at
which all interested persons were give an opportunity to be heard.
1.06. The Council has reviewed the Contract and finds that the execution thereof and
performance of the City’s obligations thereunder are in the best interest of the City and its residents.
Section 2. Authority Approval; Further Proceedings.
2.01. The Contract as presented to the Council, including without limitation the business
subsidy agreement, is hereby in all respects approved, subject to modifications that do not alter the
substance of the transaction and that are approved by the Mayor and City Manager, provided that
execution of the documents by such officials shall be conclusive evidence of approval.
36
2.02. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute on behalf of the City
the Contract and any documents referenced therein requiring execution by the City, and to carry out,
on behalf of the City its obligations thereunder.
Approved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota this 16th day of
January, 2001.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
37
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 7d
Meeting of January 16, 2001
7d. Request by Edina Development Company for a Major amendment to a
Conditional Use Permit for site plan, tree replacement and landscaping
changes and a variance for reduced bufferyard for Excelsior Townhomes
Case Nos. 00-45-CUP and 00-46-VAR
7100-7102 Excelsior Boulevard
Recommended
Action:
• Motion to adopt a resolution approving a variance for
reduced bufferyard along east lot line.
• Motion to adopt a resolution amending previous resolution
and granting a major amendment to the Conditional Use
Permit, subject to conditions in the resolution.
Zoning: R-4, Multiple Family Residential
Comprehensive Plan Designation: RM, Medium Density Residential
Background:
In 1998 the City Council approved a Conditional Use Permit and plat for Excelsior Townhomes
(now called Creekside Townhomes), a 38-unit townhouse development. The townhomes have
been built and many of the exterior improvements completed. The site improvements were
installed differently from the approved plans in several ways, and with one exception (change to
building foundation plantings), approval from the Planning Division was not sought before
implementing the changes. The developer is also requesting approval to make some additional
changes to the approved plans at this time. The following changes are proposed to the approved
plans:
• The main private road, Excelsior Way, located along the east property line was reduced in
width from 30 feet wide to 28 feet wide.
• Landscaped bumpouts (landscaped parallel parking islands), which were to be installed along
the east property line to define the guest parking areas and provide areas for landscaping,
were not installed. In addition, trees existing on the site which were to have remained within
the bumpout areas were removed. The applicant is now proposing to install the landscaped
bumpouts per the originally approved plans, albeit slightly narrower and with different
landscaping, and to provide replacement trees for the trees that were removed.
• The tree inventory has been modified to take account of existing trees on site which were not
counted in the original inventory, as well as take account for trees which were to have been
preserved which were removed during the development process. The tree replacement plan
is proposed to be changed as well.
38
• Proposed changes to the approved landscaping plan, including a reduced landscape
bufferyard along the east property line, and a proposal to plant some trees on City-owned
park land.
The proposed changes require a Major Amendment to the Conditional Use Permit. In addition, a
variance is required for the proposed reduction in landscape bufferyard along the east lot line.
On October 4, 2000 the Planning Commission held public hearings and considered these
requests. The Planning Commission voted 3-2 to recommend approval of the CUP Amendment
and variance including conditions recommended by staff. The opposing members did not want
to grant approval for plan changes after the changes were already made on site by the developer.
Please see attached minutes (excerpts) of the October 4 meeting.
On December 18, 2000 the City Council continued the requests until the January 16, 2001
Council meeting. The applicant waived his rights under the state’s “120 day” rule and agreed to
the continuation until January 16, 2001.
Issues:
• Have the conditions been met for City Council consideration?
• Are the modified tree inventory and tree replacement plans acceptable?
• Are the proposed changes to the landscape plan acceptable?
• Are the proposed site changes acceptable (i.e., reduced road width and reduced width of
landscaped bumpouts)?
• Does the variance request for reduced landscape bufferyard meet the necessary criteria
for granting a variance?
• Are there any other issues?
Issues Analysis:
Have the conditions been met for City Council consideration?
Prior to City Council consideration, the applicant was required to meet the following conditions:
a. Modify tree inventory per staff’s comments to meet Ordinance requirements.
The tree inventory has been modified and appears accurate. See below for further
discussion.
b. Work with City staff to modify the tree replacement plan to include as many
replacement trees as is reasonable on site and the remainder of the requirements
to be satisfied by donating cash in lieu of trees to the City at a rate to be approved
by the Community Development Director and Park and Recreation Director.
39
Staff believes the revised tree replacement plan is acceptable, and a condition is
recommended regarding providing the remaining tree replacement through cash in lieu of
on-site trees. See below for further discussion.
c. Modify the landscape plan to show eight foot wide, landscaped curbed bumpouts
along the east lot line in originally approved locations, and a planting plan for at
least 130 plant units within the bumpout areas. Plantings shall be of high point
value and quality and include overstory trees and at least 20% evergreen
plantings.
During the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant agreed to this condition, although
they had initially opposed installing the bumpouts. They apparently misunderstood the staff
recommendation for the bumpout design and had believed it to be unworkable. The revised
plans meet the above requirements (see below for further discussion).
Are the modified tree inventory and tree replacement plans acceptable?
Tree Inventory: The tree inventory, which documents the size, species and location of all existing
significant trees and notes trees to be removed, was modified to note additional trees that were
overlooked in the original tree inventory. It was also modified to show that all of the trees along
the east lot line were removed, even though some were to have been preserved in the original
plan. Per the revised plans, the required tree replacement has been reduced from 197.5 inches to
175 caliper inches.
Tree Replacement Plan: The tree replacement plan is proposed to be modified to show fewer
trees planted on site due to space constraints. The applicant has worked with staff to try to locate
as many trees as possible on site. Staff is recommending a condition that the remaining
replacement inches (approximately 120 inches) which cannot be planted on site, be donated to
the City as cash in lieu of trees, as has been done on other development projects.
Are the proposed changes to the landscape plan acceptable?
The proposed changes to the landscape plan (not including any tree replacement, which was
discussed above) include: 1) Changes to the approved landscape bufferyard along Excelsior
Boulevard; 2) Changes in the planting location of trees fulfilling the requirement for one canopy
tree per lot, including a proposal to plant some trees on City park land directly north of the
development site; 3) Changes to the approved foundation plantings around the townhomes; and
4) reduced landscape bufferyard along the east lot line.
Changes to landscape bufferyard along Excelsior Boulevard: The proposed landscaping
continues to meet bufferyard requirements for this area and staff believes the changes are
acceptable. More trees have been added in this area for greater screening from Excelsior
Boulevard and to increase on-site tree replacement.
Changes to the planting location of the required one canopy tree per lot: The developer is
proposing to plant some of the canopy trees throughout the site rather than next to each unit due
40
to lack of planting space near the units. They are requesting permission to plant some of the
trees directly north of the townhouse site on City park land. The City Forester is recommending
that permission be granted, provided the developer maintains the trees. Staff is recommending a
condition to this effect.
Changes to foundation plantings around townhomes: The proposed changes to the foundation
plantings were requested in advance of being installed, were approved by staff administratively,
and the plantings have been installed.
Reduced bufferyard along east lot line: The reduced east bufferyard requires a variance. Staff is
recommending approval of the variance, provided the landscaped bumpouts are installed as
shown on the proposed site/landscape plan. Please see Variance section below.
Are the proposed site changes acceptable (i.e., reduced road width and reduced width of
landscaped bumpouts)?
Reduced road width: The developer has stated that due to unexpected conditions on the site and
on the adjacent site, a typical retaining wall design would not have worked for the retaining wall
along the east lot line. Therefore, the developer states that they designed a retaining wall that
was extra deep, which required making the road two feet narrower than the 30 foot approved
width. The road is intended to be a two-way road with parking along the east side defined by
curbed, landscaped bumpouts. The bumpouts were not installed. The developer submitted
details of the retaining wall design to the Inspections Department for approval but did not
include any proposed site design of landscaping changes. The developer apparently
misunderstood that approval of the retaining wall construction details by the Inspections
Department did not constitute approval to reduce the road width to accommodate the new wall
design or to eliminate the landscaped bumpouts from the plan.
City staff, including the Fire Department, believe that, although the 30 foot width was preferred,
the 28 foot road width is an acceptable minimum width for this road type for regular and
emergency vehicles. However, there is a concern that the road could effectively become
narrower through inadequate snow removal or poorly defined guest parking areas. Therefore, in
recommending approval of the as-built 28 foot width, staff is also recommending conditions that
the road be maintained free of snow and snow storage at all times and that the City will enforce
this requirement through issuance of citations, fines, and other means. In addition, staff is
recommending that the landscaped bumpouts be installed as close as possible to the approved
plans, albeit somewhat narrower due to the narrower road width; and, that the guest parking
areas be striped and signed for clarity. The applicant has agreed to these conditions.
Does the variance request for reduced landscape bufferyard meet the necessary criteria for
granting a variance?
A landscape bufferyard “B” is required along the east lot line to provide screening between the
townhomes and the adjacent apartment complex. The applicant is proposing to leave this area as
it is currently developed, with a retaining wall that varies in height from four to seven feet, a row
of shrubs along the top of the retaining wall, and latticework along the top of the wall with vines
41
planted which will eventually cover the latticework and screen the adjacent garages. The
applicant has also agreed to install landscaped, curbed bumpouts similar to the originally
approved plans. Altogether, about 2/3 of the required buffer plantings are proposed.
Variance Criteria:
1. Where by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of the lot, or where by reason of
exceptional topographic or water conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional conditions
of such lot, the strict applications of the terms of this ordinance would result in peculiar and
practical difficulties or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such lot in developing
or using such lot in a manner customary and legally permissible within the zoning district in
which said lot is located.
[Note: The applicant had originally proposed a variance which did not include installing the
landscaped bumpouts, so the applicant’s statements sometimes reflect this. They have now
agreed to install the bumpouts and are requesting a lesser variance, and the lesser variance is
addressed by staff below.] The applicant states that in order to protect the garage footings on the
adjoining property, they worked with the City’s building inspectors to correct the problems with
the Council-approved plan, which did not take into consideration “frost protection” (i.e. when the
contractor excavated for the retaining wall, footings from the garages on the adjacent property
were exposed because they were so near the property line, and the retaining wall design needed
to take into account protection of these footings).
According to the applicant, the design of the retaining wall means that they cannot install the
required landscaping along the east lot line. Staff agrees with the applicant’s landscape architect
that additional landscaping could not be planted along the top of the wall or anywhere else along
this lot line as the development currently exists. The only reasonable option to gain additional
planting space would be to install the curbed bumpouts. According to staff’s calculations, about
130 additional plant units maximum can be accommodated within the bumpout areas, and the
applicant is proposing 136 plant units. Overall, the plan is about 100 units short of the
bufferyard code requirement. Staff agrees that a hardship exists in meeting the full bufferyard
requirements, as there is no other space where more landscaping could be provided. The narrow
lot width and existence of wetlands limit the available space, especially the available width on
the lot to provide adequate road width, parking, and landscaping in this area. Therefore, staff
believes this criterion is met.
1. Conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or
immediately adjoining property and so do not apply generally to other land or structures in
the district in which said land is located.
As explained above, the applicant states that the adjoining property needs to be protected
because of the peculiar condition of the adjoining garage footing (therefore, the retaining wall
was designed in a particular way which requires the variance).
42
Staff has not explored whether there were other options for the retaining wall design which
would have addressed the site conditions and not resulted in a narrowing of the townhouse road.
However, staff agrees that there are unique site conditions that limit the ability to provide the full
landscape bufferyard in this area, given the narrowness of the lot and the shortage of space along
the east lot line. Therefore, staff believes this criteria has been met with regard to providing the
full landscaping requirements, provided that the bumpouts are installed and fully landscaped as
described above.
2. The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial
property right of the applicant.
The applicant states that the variance is needed for the preservation of the adjoining property, i.e.
the garages on the Meadowbrook property.
As noted above, staff does not believe that the proposed variance is related to preservation of
garages on the Meadowbrook property because the need for a variance is not fully related to the
retaining wall design. However, staff agrees that a variance for some reduction in bufferyard is
reasonable and necessary to preserve a substantial property right. In order to meet the bufferyard
requirements fully, the applicant would have to landscape all along the retaining wall and
eliminate all of the on-street guest parking. While the development currently exceeds ordinance
requirements for overall parking and for guest parking, the on-street parking along the east lot
line is the only area available to any guest, as the remainder of the parking is located in private
garages or on private driveways. Staff believes it would not be reasonable to force the developer
to eliminate all of the guest parking along the east lot line to install the required landscaping.
However, staff believes it is reasonable to require the developer to adhere to the original
landscaping and site plan as closely as possible, which allowed for 12 guest parking stalls
defined by bumpouts, which would increase the amount of landscaping in this area. Therefore,
staff believes this criterion is satisfied, provided the landscaped bumpouts are installed.
3. The granting of the variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to the
adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in the public streets, increase the
danger of fire, or endanger the public safety.
The applicant states that the granting of the variance would in no way impair light to the adjacent
property and will improve fire accessibility. [The applicant also states that not installing
bumpouts would lessen danger to the public by allowing clearer vision for outbound traffic or
emergency vehicles.]
Staff agrees that the variance would not impair an adequate supply of light or air, lead to public
street congestion, or endanger public safety. The private road should be safer once the
landscaped bumpouts are installed, because they will help define the guest parking areas and
green up the area. Staff believes that this criterion is met.
4. The granting of the variance will not unreasonably impact on the character and development
of the neighborhood, unreasonably diminish or impair the established property values in the
43
surrounding area, or in any other way impair the health, safety, comfort, or morals of the
area.
The applicant states that the granting of the variance will not diminish or impair the
neighborhood in any way, and that the variance is simply necessary to protect the adjoining
property.
Staff believes that some reduction in landscaping along the east lot line will not negatively affect
other properties. The retaining wall, garages and fencing provide visual barrier and the existing
and proposed landscaping provide an aesthetic buffer. Therefore, as currently proposed staff
believes this criterion is met.
5. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Ordinance or
Comprehensive Plan.
The applicant states that the retaining wall and the vines planted above the retaining wall will
provide the necessary screening between the two properties, and therefore the intent of the
Ordinance is met. [Note: relates to applicant’s original proposal which did not include
bumpouts.]
The intent of the Ordinance is not simply to provide a visual barrier between two properties, but
to require that a certain proportion of the buffer be met through plantings to maintain aesthetics
and “green up” projects. Given the proposed plan to install the landscaped bumpouts and to
include significant vegetation, i.e. overstory trees and evergreen plantings, staff believes the
intent of the Code is preserved and that this criterion is met.
7. The granting of the variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but
is necessary to alleviate demonstrable undue hardship or difficulty.
The applicant states that the variance is necessary to alleviate a hardship as described above.
Due to the narrow width of the lot and the lack of options for installing additional landscaping,
staff agrees that the landscaping proposed is the maximum feasible given the physical conditions
of the lot, and that the variance is not merely a convenience to the applicant. Therefore, staff
believes this criterion is met.
Are there any other issues?
The Development Agreement requires all improvements to be completed by October 31, 2000,
or the City will draw on the applicant’s letter of credit and make the improvements. Staff is
recommending that the Agreement be revised to extend this date to May 1, 2001.
44
Recommendation:
Staff and the Planning Commission believe the seven criteria have been met for the requested
variance, and are therefore recommending approval of the variance. Staff and the Planning
Commission are also recommending approval of the Major CUP Amendment, subject to the
conditions in the resolution.
Attachments:
• Proposed resolutions
• October 4, 2000 Planning Commission minutes (excerpts)
• Originally approved landscape/site plan
• Revised tree inventory
• Revised landscape/tree replacement/site plan
• Detail of proposed east bumpouts
Prepared by: Sacha Peterson, Planner
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
45
RESOLUTION NO. ____
Amends Resolutions 98-97
A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 98-97 ADOPTED ON
JULY 20, 1998 AND GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT UNDER
SECTION 14:5-4.5.D.1. OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE
RELATING TO ZONING TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF 38
TOWNHOMES FOR PROPERTY ZONED R-4, MULTIPLE FAMILY
RESIDENCE AT 7100-7102 EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD
FINDINGS
WHEREAS, Edina Development Corporation has made application to the City Council
for a conditional use permit under Section 14:5-4.D.1. of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code to
allow construction of 38 townhomes at 7100-7102 Excelsior Boulevard within a R-4, Multiple
Family Residence District having the following legal description:
Together with that part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of
Section 20, TWP 117, R21 Hennepin County described as beginning at the
Northeast corner of Tract A RLS 1674; thence North 25.00 feet along said East
Line of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; thence north 89 degrees
29 minutes 50 seconds west 32.00 feet; thence south 00 degrees 30 minutes 10
seconds west parallel with said East line, a distance of 5.00 feet; thence south
54.00 degrees 28 minutes 15 seconds west 34.00 feet to said Line A; thence south
89 degrees 29 minutes 50 seconds east 59.50 feet along said Line A to the point of
beginning. Tract A of Registered Land Survey 1674, Hennepin County,
Minnesota
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the information related to Planning Case
Nos. 98-20-CUP and 00-45-CUP and the effect of the proposed changes to the site plan, tree
replacement and landscaping plan 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, a conditional use permit was issued regarding the subject property pursuant
to Resolution No. 98-97 of the St. Louis Park City Council dated July 20, 1998 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 No. 98-97 to add the amendments now required, and to consolidate
all conditions applicable to the subject property in this resolution;
46
WHEREAS, the contents of Planning Case Files 98-20-CUP and 00-45-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. 98-97 (document not filed)
is hereby restated and amended by this resolution which continues and amends a conditional use
permit to the subject property for the purposes of amending the site plan, tree replacement and
landscape plans for construction of 38 townhomes within the R-4 Multiple Family Residential
District at the location described above based on the following conditions:
INCORPORATION OF OLD CONDITIONS:
1. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with Exhibits A
through E, with Exhibit E revised to comply with tree replacement requirements as
outlined in Section 14:4-11 of the Zoning Ordinance; such documents incorporated
by reference herein.
2. The Final Plat shall be consistent with the minimum lot areas, widths, and
setbacks as shown on the preliminary plat.
3. Approval of the Conditional Use Permit is contingent upon filing of the final plat.
4. Prior to Final Plat approval, applicant shall submit landscaping plans which
comply with tree replacement, bufferyard, and landscaping requirements, and at least
one canopy tree shall be provided per lot.
5. Prior to Final Plat approval, applicant shall submit evidence that placement of
easements comply with any requirements of utility companies.
6. Dedication of drainage and utility easements as approved.
7. Fire sprinklers to be included in all townhome units per Fire Department
requirements.
8. Compliance with the General Residential District Regulations is required.
9. A development agreement, homeowner’s association and declaration of covenants
is required to ensure that all improvements are installed in a timely manner, parking
is prohibited on the private street system except where designated, and common
areas (including wetlands, open space, landscaping, ponds and private streets) are
adequately maintained in perpetuity. Approval of the Conditional Use Permit is
contingent upon review and approval of said documents by the City Attorney.
10. An Encroachment Agreement is to be executed between the developer and the
City for developer’s use of City land for turnaround area.
11. “No Parking Fire Lane” signs shall be installed per Fire Marshall’s
determination.
12. Permits from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Hennepin County
Transportation, and other agencies shall be obtained by the applicant as required
prior to site work.
13. Final grading, utility plans, and stormwater calculations are to be approved by
the Public Works Department prior to issuance of a building permit.
14. An erosion and sedimentation control plan is to be approved by the Public
Works Department prior to any site work.
47
15. Lighting and irrigation plans are to be approved by the Zoning Administrator
prior to the issuance of building permits.
16. The conditional use permit shall be amended on January 16, 2001 to incorporate all of the
preceding conditions and add the following conditions:
a. The developer shall sign new assent forms and revised official exhibits by January
31, 2001.
b. Guest parking areas along the east lot line are to be further defined through
striping and posting of signs, such signs to be approved by the Fire Marshall and
Zoning Administrator.
c. Trees are permitted to be planted on City park land per the approved landscape plan
(which plan is subject to further modification through the planning process and
approval by the City Council). The developer is responsible for installation and
maintenance of all plantings they install on public land.
d. The Development Agreement shall be amended to extend the timeframe for
completion of site improvements and landscape plantings to May 31, 2001 and any
other necessary provisions. The Mayor and City Manager are authorized to execute
such amendment. If the required improvements are not installed within the required
timeframe, the City shall complete the improvements at the developer’s expense.
The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this resolution in the Office of the
Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council January 16, 2001
City Manager Mayor
Attest: 00-45-CUP/N/re/ord
City Clerk
48
VARIANCE
RESOLUTION NO. 01-006
A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 14:6-4 OF THE
ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING TO PERMIT A REDUCED
BUFFERYARD FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE R-4 MULTIPLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AT 7100-7102 EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of St. Louis Park, Minnesota:
FINDINGS
1. Edina Development Company has applied for a variance from Section 14:6-4 of the
Ordinance Code relating to zoning to permit a reduced bufferyard as shown on the
approved landscape plan instead of the required Bufferyard B along the east lot line for
property located in the R-4 Multiple Family Residential District at the following location,
to-wit:
Together with that part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter
of Section 20, TWP 117, R21 Hennepin County described as beginning at
the Northeast corner of Tract A RLS 1674; thence North 25.00 feet along
said East Line of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; thence
north 89 degrees 29 minutes 50 seconds west 32.00 feet; thence south 00
degrees 30 minutes 10 seconds west parallel with said East line, a distance
of 5.00 feet; thence south 54.00 degrees 28 minutes 15 seconds west 34.00
feet to said Line A; thence south 89 degrees 29 minutes 50 seconds east
59.50 feet along said Line A to the point of beginning. Tract A of
Registered Land Survey 1674, Hennepin County, Minnesota
2. On October 4, 2000, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, received testimony
from the public, discussed the application and recommended approval of a variance on a
3-2 vote.
3. The Planning Commission has considered the effect of the proposed variance upon the
health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions,
light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on values of property in
the surrounding area, and the effect of the proposed variance upon the Comprehensive
Plan.
4. Because of conditions on the subject property and surrounding property, it is possible to
use the property in such a way that the proposed variance will not impair an adequate
supply of light and air to the adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in
the public streets, increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety, unreasonably
49
diminish or impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to
the intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
5. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such
property or immediately adjoining property and do not apply generally to other land or
structures in the district in which such land is located.
6. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant. It will not merely serve as a convenience to
the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty.
7. The contents of Planning Case File 00-46-VAR are hereby entered into and made part of
the public hearing record and the record of decision of this case.
8. Under the Zoning Ordinance, this variance shall be deemed to be abandoned, revoked, or
canceled if the holder shall fail to complete the work on or before one year after the
variance is granted.
CONCLUSION
The application for the variance to permit a reduced bufferyard as shown on the Approved
Landscape plan instead of the required Bufferyard B on the east lot line is granted based upon
the finding(s) set forth above.
The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this resolution in the Office of the
Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council January 16, 2001
City Manager Mayor
Attest: 00-46-var/N/res/ord
City Clerk
50
(EXCERPT)
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
OCTOBER 4, 2000
3. Public Hearings:
A. Case No. 00-445-CUP Major – Request of Edina Development Corporation for a
major amendment to an approved Conditional Use Permit for Excelsior Blvd
Townhomes located at 7100 and 7102 Excelsior Boulevard.
B. Case No. 00-46-VAR – Request of Edina Development Corporation for a variance
for a reduced landscape buffer for Excelsior Blvd Townhomes located at 7100 and
7102 Excelsior Boulevard
Chair Carver stated that there would be a joint public hearing for the variance and conditional
use items.
Sacha Peterson, Planner, presented a staff report and identified some site landscape changes to
the approved plan. She recommended an additional condition to the CUP that for safety reasons
some type of protective guard rails be placed along the top of the retaining walls that exceed 36
inches in height. She stated that staff recommends approval of the major CUP amendment and
variance subject to the conditions in the staff report and substantial plan changes.
Mr. Timian questioned the message the City is sending to the development community when the
City approves a project, but allows the developer not to follow the plan.
Ms. Peterson stated that staff has taken enforcement action on the property as a result of plan
changes being implemented without prior approval which has resulted in substantial delays for
the developer.
Mr. Timian stated he is concerned about the loss of wetlands.
Mr. Morris asked what the ramifications would be if the amendment was not approved.
Ms. Peterson stated that if the amendment is not approved, the developer would have to go back
and conform to the original plan.
Mr. Morris asked if Edina Development is the current owner.
Ms. Peterson stated that this is the case.
Mr. Morris questioned the ability of the property owner to follow up and maintain the
development.
51
Gary Rude, Site Superintendent for Edina Development, explained the unanticipated problems
that were experienced. He used pictures to illustrate the problems resulting with the tree growth
on the garages on the adjacent property lines. Trees needed to be cut down at all costs in order
to avoid damaging the garages. He explained the need for the anchors for the walls. There are 38
rental units proposed to be $1800 - $1900 a month. He stated the parking will be along the wall
and they intend to paint lines to prevent sloppy parking. Snow removal will be easier without
installing the landscaped bumpouts when not jogging in and out of the bumpouts. The snow
would be hauled off site. He stated that the safety of some retaining wall heights is an issue and
they agree guardrails should be installed. He stated that all the plans and blueprints were
approved by the City.
Mr. Timian asked why the developer decided to put in so many units.
Mr. Rude stated that the high cost of the property was the factor in determining the number of
units and profitability.
Mr. Timian questioned the quality of the development with the lack of green space and asked the
developer if he would live there.
Mr. Rude stated that he would live there. He also said he would be willing to put more trees in
where possible, but it is not possible on top of the retaining wall.
Chair Carver asked staff what the proposal is under the current (approved) plan for how the
bumpout areas would adjoin the existing wall.
Ms. Peterson stated that the approved plan showed a retaining wall along the east lot line with
curbed planting islands or bumpouts adjacent to the retaining wall and extending about 8 feet
into the roadway.
Chair Carver opened the public hearing.
Luke Charpentier, Landscape Architect for the developer, explained the landscape design for
spirea and engelman ivy along the top of the retaining wall.
Ms. Erickson, Planning Coordinator, asked Mr. Charpentier to explain why it was not possible to
place a soil mass in front of the retaining wall.
Mr. Charpentier explained his understanding of the bumpouts.
Ms. Peterson explained that the bump outs, as approved, would consist of installing a curbed
island similar to a landscaped island in a parking lot and showed this through illustration.
Based on staff’s illustrations, Mr. Charpentier agreed the bumpouts could be installed, but
cautioned the size of tree that could be planted.
52
Mr. Rude raised a concern that the full 8 foot wide bumpouts could not be installed due to the
narrower road width.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chair Carver closed the public hearing.
Chair Carver asked for a clarification on the purpose of the bump outs.
Ms. Peterson stated that the key reasons for the bump outs are to meet landscape requirements
for aesthetics and provide definition of road area.
Mr. Morris asked for clarification of the location of the ivy that was to be planted on top of the
retaining wall and stet up the back of the garages, and whether consent of the garage property
owners was obtained.
Mr. Rude stated that the adjacent property owner did give permission for the ivy..
Mr. Garelick stated he believes that this property is an eyesore for the City and he is opposed to
the project.
Mr. Morris said he agrees with Mr. Garelick, but does not see the development going away. He
noted that the staff recommendation is well spelled out and the property owner and developer are
well aware of the sentiment of the Planning Commission. He said he supports going forward
with the amendment to fix the problem.
Mr. Morris moved to recommend approval of the major CUP amendment and variances subject
to the conditions in the staff report and verbal recommendation that the safety features to the
retaining walls be worked on with staff to resolve that issue.
Chair Carver stated that it would have been better to have handled the issues earlier, however he
realizes that sometimes plans must change out in the field. The developer needs to realize the
importance of the approval process and that it is taken seriously by the Planning Commission,
and you need to follow the process. He noted that green space is important, and bump outs and
guard rails are absolutely necessary for safety.
Chair Carver called the question and the motion passed 3-2 with Carver, Gothberg, Morris voting
in favor and Garelick and Timian opposed.
53
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item #7E
Meeting of January 16, 2001
7E. Request by Westside Office Park to rezone property from R-4, Multiple Family to
C-2, General Commercial and to vacate a portion of W. 14th Street
6009 Wayzata Boulevard
Case Nos. 01-01-Z and 01-02–VAC
Recommended
Action:
• Approve first reading of Zoning Ordinance Map amendment
changing the designation on property located at 6009 Wayzata
Boulevard R-4, Multiple Family Residential to C-2, General
Commercial and set second reading for February 5, 2001.
• Approve first reading of an ordinance vacating a portion of W.
14th Street, subject to the condition described in the ordinance,
and set second reading for February 5, 2001.
Zoning: R-4, Multiple Family Residential and C-2, General
Commercial
Comprehensive Plan Designation: C, Commercial
Background:
Westside Office Park, located at 6005-6009 Wayzata Boulevard, is requesting rezoning of a small
(approximately 13,000 square feet) piece of their property that is zoned R-4, Multiple Family
Residential to C-2, General Commercial. The rest of the office/warehouse property is zoned C-2,
General Commercial and the entire parcel is guided C, Commercial in the Comprehensive Plan. The
applicant is also requesting a street vacation of a small portion of W. 14th Street that is bounded by
their property to the north, south, and east (the property proposed to be vacated is shown on the
attached map). The applicant’s property currently contains an office/warehouse building near
Wayzata Boulevard and associated parking on the rest of the property.
On January 3, 2001 the Planning Commission reviewed these requests and recommended approval
on a vote of 4-0. One resident spoke at the hearing to clarify the location of the proposed street
vacation.
Issues:
• Is the proposed rezoning consistent with the Comprehensive Plan?
• What is the current land use?
• Is the proposed street vacation acceptable?
54
Area Map:
Interstate 394
CSM/Rottlund
Costco
14th St
Colorado AveCP RailSubject
Parcel to beRezoned
Wayzata Blvd
Issues Analysis:
Is the rezoning consistent with the Comprehensive Plan?
On May 17, 1999 the City Council adopted Comprehensive Plan 2000-2020. The updated
Comprehensive Plan reguided this parcel from “Residential Up to 30 Units per Acre” to Commercial.
State statute requires the City to bring “official controls” into conformance with the Comprehensive
Plan within nine months of its effective date (September 1, 1999). While the City rezoned several
parcels to bring them into conformance within the last year and intended to comply with this
statutory requirement, the inconsistency of this parcel was overlooked until now. The proposed
rezoning would bring the property into conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, albeit after the
nine month deadline.
55
56
Comprehensive Plan Map:
Comp Plan DesignationCIVCIV-MXCMXCOMINDOFCPRKRHRLRMROWRRR
6009 Wayzata-
Interstate 394
CSM
Rottlund
CostcoCP RailSubject
14th St.Colorado AveComp Plan Designations
N
EW
S
57
The Plan by Neighborhood Chapter states of this area that there shall be adequate buffering
between commercial and residential uses. Any further development of this property (other than
the existing parking) would require substantial buffering from the residential uses to the west and
south.
Is the rezoning consistent with current and anticipated future land uses?
The current land use is for parking associated with the office/warehouse on the property. While this
use may technically be permitted in the R-4 District, which allows parking as an accessory use, a
rezoning to C-2 would make the zoning more consistent with the current land use. The property
owner has also indicated a desire to develop the southern portion of the property for additional
office/warehouse space, which the rezoning would allow for. Any further development of the
property would require a Conditional Use Permit and replatting, including public hearings at
Planning Commission.
Existing Zoning map:
C2
R4
O
R3
R2
Interstate 394
Subject
CP RailColorado Ave14th St.
Parcel Proposedfor Rezoning
58
Proposed Zoning map:
R2
14th St.Colorado AveCP RailSubject
Interstate 394
R2
R3
O
R4
C2 Subject
Parcel Proposedfor Rezoning
Is the proposed street vacation acceptable?
As shown on the attached plan, the portion of 14th Street that is proposed to be vacated starts at the
western edge of the applicant’s property and extends about 100 feet. [Note: 14th Street to the east of
this portion was previously vacated.] This portion of 14th street is bounded on three sides by the
applicant’s property and does not serve any other properties. Access to the applicant’s property
would be maintained via 14th Street further west and Wayzata Boulevard. Therefore, staff agrees
with the applicant that there is no longer a public purpose for retaining this portion of 14th Street as a
public street. However, there are public utilities under the right of way, and staff is recommending
that the City retain a utility easement over the vacated property. A condition of the street vacation is
recommended to this effect.
Recommendation:
Staff and the Planning Commission are recommending approval of first reading of Zoning Ordinance
Map amendment changing the designation on property located at 6009 Wayzata Boulevard R-4,
Multiple Family Residential to C-2, General Commercial and to set second reading for February 5,
2001. Staff and the Planning Commission are also recommending approval of first reading of an
59
ordinance vacating a portion of W. 14th Street, subject to the condition described in the ordinance,
and to set second reading for February 5, 2001.
Attachment:
• Proposed ordinances
• Excerpts of January 3, 2001 Planning Commission minutes (unapproved)
• Map showing portion of 14th Street proposed to be vacated
Prepared by: Sacha Peterson, Planner
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
60
ORDINANCE NO.__________
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE
CHANGING BOUNDARIES OF ZONING DISTRICTS
6005-6009 Wayzata Boulevard
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. The St. Louis Park Zoning Ordinance adopted December 28, 1959, Ordinance
No. 730; amended December 31, 1992, Ordinance No. 1902-93, as heretofore amended, is hereby further
amended by changing the zoning district boundaries by reclassifying the following described lands from
their existing land use district classification to the new land use district classification as indicated for the
tract as hereinafter set forth, to wit:
See Attached Legal Description
from R-4 Multiple Family to C-2 General Commercial.
Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication.
Adopted by the City Council February 5, 2001
Reviewed for Administration
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney 01-01-Z/n/res/ord
61
ORDINANCE NO.___________
AN ORDINANCE VACATING STREET
A portion of West 14th Street that is approximately 190 feet east of Colorado Avenue
as described below
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. A petition in writing signed by a majority of all of the owners of all property
abutting upon both sides of the street proposed to be vacated has been duly filed with the City Clerk,
requesting vacation of the street, and the City Clerk has furnished a copy of said petition to the City
Manager who has required filing of same to the newspaper, the St. Louis Park Sailor, on December
20, 2000 as directed by the said notice and has conducted a public hearing upon said petition and has
determined that the street is not needed for public purposes, and that it is for the best interest of the
public that said street be vacated.
Section 2. The following described street, as now dedicated and laid out within the
corporate limits of the City of St. Louis Park, is vacated:
See Attached Legal Description
retaining, however, to the City of St. Louis Park an easement over, across, on, under and through the
described property for storm sewer, sanitary sewer, water main, and public utility purposes.
Section 3. The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this ordinance in the
Office of the Hennepin County Recorder or Registrar of Titles as the case may be.
Sec.4. This Ordinance shall not take effect until an easement over, across, on, under
and through the described property for storm sewer, sanitary sewer, water main, and public
utility purposes has been recorded or fifteen days after its publication, whichever is later.
Adopted by the City Council February 5, 2001
Reviewed for Administration
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney 01-02-VAC/N/res/ord
62
UNAPPROVED PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
ST LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
January 3, 2001
3. Public Hearings:
A. Request of Westside Office Park:
Case No. 01-01-Z – Change the zoning from R-4 Multi-Family Residential to C-2
General Commercial for property located at 6009 Wayzata Boulevard
And
Case No. 01-02-VAC – The vacation of a portion of West 14th Street
Sacha Peterson, Planner, presented a staff report and recommended approval of the
street vacation subject to the condition that a utility easement be granted before the
vacation would take effect, and recommended approval of the zoning ordinance map
amendment that would change that parcel from R-4 Multi-Family Residential to C-2
General Commercial and bring the parcel into conformance with the Comprehensive
Plan.
Acting Chair Morris stated that typically when the request for rezoning and the
vacating of an easement is not really essential, it precludes a development. Are we
aware of any plans for development of this site that this is being requested to bring
the parcel into conformance?
Ms. Peterson stated that the applicant has had some discussions with staff about the
possibility of developing this property further by putting another office/warehouse
building on the south part of the property. There are some non-conformities that
would need to be addressed that would be a part of the approval process and the
applicant has been made aware of those. They would need to pursue a conditional
use permit to put a second building on a property and a replatting because there are a
number of old lot lines that they would be crossing. Any further development would
entail public hearings at Planning Commission and City Council approval.
Acting Chair Morris opened the public hearing for the vacation and zoning change.
Evan Johnson, of Eden Prairie, owner of the property at 1405 Colorado, stated that he
had no problems with the zoning request. He referred to the plans shown by staff and
stated that the only question he has is what portion of this street will be vacated.
Ms. Peterson stated that the area outlined in green on the plan is the proposed street
vacation.
Mr. Johnson stated that as long as the vacation only goes to that spot, it is okay. His
concern was that they were going to go back further and there are a lot of cars parked
on the street because the offices on the other side don’t have parking lots. He would
63
not want the vacation to interfere with the parking now taking place on the street. He
stated that he has no problem with the zoning changes or the vacation. He said there
are two lots to the south of his property that, for some reason, land use was attempted
to be changed to commercial in the comprehensive plan as well, but was denied.
Right now it is a vacant house that is serving no purpose so a zoning change is
something you may want to look at in the future.
With no one else wishing to speak, Acting Chair Morris closed the public hearing.
Ms. Velick asked what is the word “Johnson’s” refers to on the plan?
Acting Chair Morris stated that Johnson’s Addition is the plat name.
Mr. Gothberg moved to recommend approval of the zoning ordinance map
amendment to change zoning from R-4 Multi-Family Residential to C-2 General
Commercial for Case No. 01-01-Z and recommend approval of the street vacation of
a portion of West 14th Street for Case No. 00-62-ZA subject to conditions
recommended by staff. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0 with Garelick, Gothberg,
Morris, Timian and Velick voting in favor.
64
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 7f
Meeting of January 16, 2000
7f. Election of Mayor Pro-tem
State Statute section 412.121 requires that Council choose an acting Mayor from
the Council members each year.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt resolution appointing a Mayor Pro-tem
Background:
Minnesota State Statute section 412.121 and Council Rules and Procedures require the Council
to choose an acting Mayor from the Council members at the first regular meeting of each year.
The acting Mayor shall perform the duties of Mayor during the disability or absence of the
Mayor from the City or, in case of vacancy in the office of Mayor, until a successor has been
appointed and qualifies.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Kimberly A. Olson, Administration Secretary
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
65
RESOLUTION NO. 01-007
A RESOLUTION APPOINTING RON LATZ
TO THE OFFICE OF MAYOR PRO-TEM
WHEREAS, Minnesota State Statute Section 412.121 requires cities to choose each year
an acting Mayor from the Council members; and
WHEREAS, the acting Mayor shall perform the duties of Mayor during the disability or
absence of the Mayor from the City or, in case of vacancy in the office of Mayor until a
successor has been appointed and qualifies; and
WHEREAS, the Council has carefully reviewed the qualifications of all Council
members and has considered the desires of the residents and the welfare of the City as a whole,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the St. Louis Park City Council that Ron
Latz is hereby appointed Mayor Pro-tem of the City of St. Louis Park and shall serve in that
capacity until a duly elected successor assumes the office at the first regular City Council
meeting of the year 2002.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council January 16, 2001
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
66
CONSENT CALENDAR
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
January 16, 2001
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. Authorize execution of a contract extension to Contract No. 1893 with Severn
Trent Services (STL – Denver) for laboratory services related to the Reilly Tar &
Chemical Corporation groundwater sampling program through year 2001.
2. Amend Professional Services Agreement with Campbell Knutson to reflect 2001
rates.
3. Adopt resolution designating the St. Louis Park Sun-Sailor as the City’s Official
Newspaper for 2001.
4. Approve 2001 City Council meeting dates.
5. Adopt an amendment to resolution #00-124 regarding issuance of on-sale
intoxicating liquor licenses in the city.
6. Approve second reading of ordinance amending section 11-1003 and 11-004 of
the St. Louis Park Municipal code related to false alarms and approving resolution
setting false alarm fee, adopt the ordinance, approve the summary and authorize
summary publication.
7. Accept the following reports for filing:
a. Planning Commission Minutes of December 6, 2000
b. Housing Authority Minutes of December 18, 2000
c. Vendor Claims
67
CONSENT ITEM # 1
St. Louis Park City Council
Meeting of January 18, 2001
1. Motion to authorize execution of a contract extension to Contract No. 1893
with Severn Trent Services (STL – Denver) for laboratory services related
to the Reilly Tar & Chemical Corporation groundwater sampling program
through year 2001.
Background:
The City has maintained a contractual relationship with Severn Trent Services (formerly
Quanterra Corporation and previously Rocky Mountain Analytical Laboratory) for the analysis
of groundwater in accordance with the provisions of the consent decree with Reilly Tar &
Chemical Corporation (Reilly) since 1988. Staff has identified only two firms capable of
providing necessary laboratory services, Quanterra and CH2M Hill, the laboratory used by the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Insofar as the USEPA remains
opposed to the use of its laboratory consultant by either the City or Reilly, STL – Denver
remains the only available consultant for laboratory services.
The contract with STL – Denver has been amended each year since its award in 1988.
The City Council has previously authorized staff to negotiate contract amendments with STL –
Denver. The staff has completed negotiations with a continuing freeze in costs (unit prices) for
the laboratory analysis to be performed in year 2001.
Financial Considerations:
Based on the water sampling activity and revised reporting requirements contained in the
proposed year 2001 plan, staff requested that STL – Denver provide a proposal for further
amendment to the contract. In response, STL – Denver indicated they would again freeze their
unit prices at 1998 contract levels. It should be noted that the average annual cost for
groundwater analysis had been generally increasing over time until 1998. This was due to slight
increases in testing costs (about 10% since 1991) but mostly because of additional testing due to
more wells being added to satisfy groundwater containment and monitoring requirements.
During 1998, staff negotiated a reduction in the unit prices and since then annual laboratory
service costs have averaged about $130,000.
Contract authorizations from 1988 through 2000 provide for a cumulative contract amount of
$1,937,000 with total estimated expenses of $1,920,327 thereby creating an estimated contract
balance of $16,673 at the end of 2000. Based on STL – Denver’s proposal to freeze unit prices,
68
staff estimates that approximately $124,500 will be expended for water sample analysis during
year 2001. Therefore, staff is seeking an additional authorization of $114,000 to the contract
amount to cover the expected year 2001 costs plus unanticipated contingencies of $6,000.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends Contract No. 1893 be amended to increase the contract amount by $114,000
to provide for groundwater sample analysis during year 2001.
Attachments: Amendment No. 11 to Contract No. 1893
Prepared By: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved By: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
69
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
AMENDMENT NO. 11 TO CONSULTING SERVICES CONTRACT NO. 1893
THIS AMENDMENT NO. 11 to Contract No. 1893 is made on January 16, 2001, by
and between the CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, a Minnesota municipal corporation hereinafter
referred to as “CITY”, and SEVERN TRENT SERVICES (formally QUANTERRA
CORPORATION AND PREVIOUSLY ROCKY MOUNTAIN ANALYTICAL
LABORATORY/ENSCO) hereinafter referred to as “STL - DENVER”.
BACKGROUND
On December 12, 1988, the CITY and STL - DENVER entered into Contract No. 1893
for consultant services related to certain rights and responsibilities the CITY accepted under an
agreement with Reilly Tar & Chemical Corporation (Reilly) which is attached as Exhibit B to a
Consent Decree in United States of America, et al. vs. Reilly Tar & Chemical Corporation,
Housing and Redevelopment Authority of St. Louis Park, Oak Park Village Associates, Rustic
Oaks Condominium, Inc. and Philips’s Investment Company, United States District Court,
District of Minnesota, Civil File No. 4-80-469.
Pursuant to communication between the CITY and STL – DENVER, it has been determined that
it is in the best interests of the CITY and STL - DENVER to extend the term of Contract No.
1893 to December 31, 2001, and amend the provisions of Contract No. 1893 and amendments
issued thereto dated June 29, 1989, March, 1990, November 18, 1991, February 22, 1994,
January 11, 1995, February 20, 1996, December 2, 1996, March 2, 1998, December 7, 1998, and
December 6, 1999, incorporating responsibilities each party will assume through year 2001 to
discharge those responsibilities the CITY has accepted under Exhibit B to the Consent Decree.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above facts and mutual covenants herein
contained, it is hereby agreed that Contract No. 1893 and all previous Amendments are amended
as follows:
I. Contract Period
1. The length of Contract No. 1893 shall be extended to December 31, 2001.
2. Total compensation to STL – DENVER for all services rendered pursuant to
Contract No. 1893, as amended, shall not exceed $2,051,000.
IT IS FURTHER AGREED that all other provisions of Contract No. 1893 and all
previous Amendments shall remain unchanged and fully effective, and this Amendment shall
become an integral part thereof.
EXECUTED as to the day and the year first above written.
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK,
MINNESOTA
SEVERN TRENT SERVICES
70
CONSENT ITEM # 2
St. Louis Park City Council
Meeting of January 16, 2001
2. Motion to Amend Professional Services Agreement with Campbell Knutson to
reflect 2001 rates.
ADDENDUM TO AGREEMENT
FOR PROFESSIONAL CITY ATTORNEY SERVICES
Effective January 1, 2001, City Contract # 4078 between the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota
(“City”) and Campbell Knutson, P.A. (“Contractor”) is amended to provide for the following
hourly rates for legal services:
Attorney $120.00/hr
Law Clerks/Paralegals $65.00/hr
Approved by City Council January 16, 2001
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk City Manager
CONTRACTOR
Campbell Knutson, P.A.
By
Attachments: Letter from Campbell Knutson
Prepared by: Cynthia D. Reichert, City Clerk
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
71
CONSENT ITEM # 3
City Council of St. Louis Park
Meeting of January 16, 2001
3. Motion to adopt resolution designating the St. Louis Park Sun-Sailor as the
City’s Official Newspaper for 2001.
Background:
MS 331A.02 and Charter Section 3.07 require that a legal newspaper of general circulation be
designated for publication of the City’s official proceedings and notices and such other matters
and measures as are required by law and City Charter.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The paper is delivered to nearly all residences in the City, thereby providing city-wide
coverage of legal notices and other city government issues to residents.
2. The paper has served well as the official newspaper for many years.
3. The paper has expressed a desire to continue to provide this service.
4. The cost for legal publications is reasonable.
Attachment: Resolution
Letter from Sun Newspapers
Prepared by: Kimberly A. Olson, Administration Secretary
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
72
RESOLUTION NO. 01-001
A RESOLUTION DESIGNATING AN OFFICIAL
ST. LOUIS PARK NEWSPAPER
FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2001
WHEREAS, MS 331A.02 and Charter Section 3.07 require that a legal newspaper of
general circulation be designated for publication of the City’s official proceedings and notices
and such other matters and measures as are required by law and City Charter; and
W HEREAS, the St. Louis Park Sun Sailor is a duly qualified medium of legal publication;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the St. Louis Park City Council hereby
designates the St. Louis Park Sun Sailor as the City’s Official Newspaper for Calendar Year
2001.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council January 16, 2001
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
73
CONSENT ITEM # 4
St. Louis Park City Council
Meeting of January 16, 2001
4. Motion to approve 2001 City Council meeting dates.
Background:
St. Louis Park City Council Rules and Procedures require Council to set and approve meeting
dates for 2001.
The City Council's policy is not to meet on New Year's Day, Martin Luther King Day,
President's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Veteran's Day, Christmas Day,
Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur, Sukkot, Passover and Shavuot. For New Year's, Christmas and
Yom Kippur this includes the evening before the holiday. For Rosh Hashanah, Sukkot, Passover
and Shavuot this includes the first and second evenings of the holiday.
When a holiday falls on the first or third Monday, the meeting is rescheduled to the same hour on
the next Tuesday. If the next Tuesday is also a holiday, the meeting is moved to the same hour
on the next succeeding Monday that is not a holiday.
Several meeting dates for 2001 will fall on holidays. Two regular meetings happen to fall on the
first day of both Rosh Hashanah and Sukkot and cannot be moved to the next Tuesday, which is
also the second evening for each holiday. These meetings will be marked as tentative and may
be changed by order of the City Manager. Study session meetings will fall during Passover,
Shavuot, and Hanukkah. However, the meetings are after the first two evenings of each holiday
and are not required to be changed. The study session for December 24 will be cancelled.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the meeting dates.
Attachments:
2001 meeting date schedule
Prepared by: Kimberly A. Olson, Administration Secretary
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
74
2001
CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATES
Jan. 8 Study Session Jul. 2 Regular Meeting
Jan. 16 Regular Meeting (Tuesday) Jul. 9 Study Session
Jan. 22 Study Session Jul. 16 Regular Meeting
Feb. 5 Regular Meeting Jul. 23 Study Session
Feb. 12 Study Session Aug. 6 Regular Meeting
Feb. 20 Regular Meeting (Tuesday) Aug. 13 Study Session
Feb. 26 Study Session Aug. 20 Regular Meeting
Mar. 5 Regular Meeting Aug. 27 Study Session
Mar. 12 Study Session Sep. 4 Regular Meeting (Tuesday)
Mar. 19 Regular Meeting Sep. 10 Study Session
Mar. 26 Study Session Sep. 17 Regular Meeting (Rosh HaShanah)-Tentative
Apr. 2 Regular Meeting Sep. 24 Study Session
Apr. 9 Study Session (Passover) Oct. 1 Regular Meeting (Sukkot) - Tentative
Apr. 16 Regular Meeting Oct. 8 Study Session
Apr. 23 Study Session Oct. 15 Regular Meeting
May. 7 Regular Meeting Oct. 22 Study Session
May 14 Study Session Nov. 5 Regular Meeting
May 21 Regular Meeting Nov. 12 Study Session
May 29 Study Session (Tuesday), (Shavuot) Nov. 19 Regular Meeting
Jun. 4 Regular Meeting Nov. 26 Study Session
Jun. 11 Study Session Dec. 3 Regular Meeting
Jun. 18 Regular Meeting Dec. 10 Study Session (Hanukkah)
Jun. 25 Study Session Dec. 17 Regular Meeting
Dec. 26 Study Session (Cancelled)
75
CONSENT ITEM # 5
St. Louis Park City Council
Meeting of January 16, 2001
5. Motion to adopt an amendment to resolution #00-124 regarding issuance of
on-sale intoxicating liquor licenses in the city.
Background:
Staff has received several inquiries in recent weeks about availability of on-sale intoxicating
liquor licenses in the city. Because the number of licenses that can be issued by the city is
limited to 26 and only 5 licenses remain, Council recently passed resolution # 00-124 restricting
issuance of on-sale intoxicating liquor licenses to the Park Commons East development area.
Discussions with Bob Cunningham of TOLD indicate that the five licenses remaining are
adequate for the Park Commons development. In addition to these five licenses, it is expected
that at least one and possibly two existing licenses may become available in the very near future,
which would bring the total number of open licenses up to 7, more than is needed for the Park
Commons development area.
Staff is asking Council to amend resolution # 00-124 to state that five licenses are reserved for
the Park Commons area which will allow for licenses to be issued in other parts of the city as
they become available.
Attachments: Amended Resolution # 00-124
Prepared by: Cynthia D. Reichert, City Clerk
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
76
RESOLUTION NO. 01-002
Amending Resolution #00-124
Adopted December 2, 2000
A RESOLUTION LIMITING ISSUANCE OF
INTOXICATING ON-SALE LIQUOR LICENSES
TO THE PARK COMMONS EAST REDEVELOPMENT AREA
IN THE CITY
WHEREAS, the Municipal Code states that the City Council may, by resolution, restrict
issuance of on-sale intoxicating liquor licenses to certain areas within the city, and
WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes the statutory limitations on the number of on-
sale intoxicating liquor licenses that may be issued by a municipality and further recognizes that
this number may only be raised by conducting a public referendum; and
WHEREAS, the City Council understands that the successful redevelopment of the Park
Commons East area is dependent on the inclusion of several restaurants as an integral part of that
development;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that effective October 2, 2000 and until
further resolved by the City Council, issuance of on-sale intoxicating liquor licenses shall be
restricted to the five on-sale intoxicating liquor licenses are reserved for issuance to businesses
located within the Park Commons East development area described as follows:
Property located North of Excelsior Boulevard,
South of Wolfe Park, East of Quentin Ave and West
of Monterey Drive
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council January 16, 2000
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
77
CONSENT ITEM # 6
St. Louis Park City Council
Meeting of January 16, 2001
6. Motion to approve second reading adopting ordinance amending section 11-
1003 and 11-004 of the St. Louis Park Municipal code related to false
alarms, to adopt the ordinance, to approve the summary, to authorize
summary publication and approving resolution setting false alarm fee.
Background: At the November 27, 2000 City Council Study Session, Council received a report
on False Alarms. This report indicated that a cost analysis was done in preparation for the 2001
budget. The analysis showed that the fee of $75.00 per false alarm is not sufficient to cover the
costs of responding to the false alarm call. The analysis further showed that $90.00 per false
alarm would be the appropriate amount to charge in order to recover costs. This type of analysis
was last done in 1995 and the false alarm fee of $75.00 has not changed since that time.
The first reading of this ordinance revision was held on December 18, 2000. There were no
objections or concerns raised.
Recommendation: Staff is recommending increasing the false alarm fee to $90.00 per call.
This increase in fees would not change the status of one “free” false alarm call per year. Staff
also recommends removing the fee amount from the ordinance and replacing with language
stating that fees will be set by resolution. A resolution setting the false alarm fee at $90.00 per
call is attached.
Attachments: False Alarm Ordinance
Ordinance Summary
Resolution setting false alarm fee
Prepared by: Jean D. McGann, Director of Finance
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
78
ORDINANCE NO. 2187-01
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO ALARMS: AMENDING
SECTION 11-1003 AND SECTION 11-1004
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1: The St. Louis Park Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
PART 10 – Alarms
Section 11-1001. Purpose and Scope.
(1) The purpose of this ordinance is to protect the public safety services of the City
from misuse and to provide for the maximum possible service to alarm users.
(2) This ordinance provides regulation for the use of fire, burglary and safety alarms.
Section 11-1002. Definitions
(1) “Public safety personnel” means duly authorized City employees or employee.
(2) “Alarm user” means the person, firm, partnership, association, corporation,
company or organization of any kind in control of any building, structure, or
facility wherein an alarm system is maintained.
(3) “Public safety answering point” is the City facility used to receive emergency
requests for service and general information from the public, and which
dispatches public safety units as appropriate.
(4) “Alarm system” means and includes any alarm installation designed to be used for
the prevention or detection of burglary, robbery, fire or hazardous conditions on
the premises which contain an alarm installation. Medical (panic) alarms are
included in this definition. Automobile alarm devices shall not be considered an
alarm system under the terms of this ordinance.
(5) “False alarm” means an alarm signal eliciting a response by public safety
personnel when a situation requiring a response does not exist, and which is
caused by the activation of the alarm system through mechanical failure, alarm
malfunction, improper installation or the inadvertence of the owner or lessee of an
alarm system or of their employee or agents.
False alarms do not include alarms caused by climatic conditions such as
tornadoes, thunderstorms, utility line mishaps, violent conditions of nature or any
other conditions which are clearly beyond the control of the alarm manufacturer,
installer or owner.
Section 11-1003. False Alarm Fees.
79
(1) Fees shall be set by City Council resolution and may be reviewed and altered
from time to time as deemed necessary.
(2) An alarm system user which reports more than one false alarm(s) to the City in a
single calendar year will cause the alarm user to be charged a false alarm fee.
(3) A false alarm fee will not be charged if the alarm system user notifies the public
safety answering point that the alarm is unfounded and responding units are
cancelled prior to their arrival.
(4) Any alarm user who is required by the City to pay a fee as a result of a false alarm
may make a written appeal of the false alarm charge to the City Manager, or
designee, within 10 days of notice by the City of the false alarm charge. The City
Manager will have authority to make a final determination as to whether the
appellant is to be charged with a false alarm.
Section 11-1004. Payment of fees.
(1) Payment of fees provided for under Section 11-1003 must be paid to the City
Treasurer within 30 days from the date of notice by the City to the alarm user.
(2) All delinquent charges shall be certified by the Clerk to the City Assessor who
shall prepare an assessment roll each year providing for assessment of the
delinquent amounts against the respective properties served, which assessment
roll shall be delivered to the City Council for adoption on or before November 29
of each year.
Section 11-1005. Administrative rules.
(1) The City Manager, or designee, shall promulgate such rules as may be necessary
for the implementation of this ordinance and the administration thereof.
Section 11-1006. Confidentiality.
(1) All information submitted in compliance with this ordinance shall be held in
confidence and shall be deemed a confidential record exempt from discovery to
the extent permitted by law.
(2) Subject to requirements of confidentiality, the Chief of Police or the Fire Chief, or
designee(s), may develop and maintain statistics of the purpose of ongoing alarm
systems evaluation.
Section 11-1007. Communications Center.
(1) No automatic dialing devices shall be connected to the public safety answering
point through any telephone line. Use of automatic dialing devices will be
considered a violation of this ordinance.
(2) The City Manager, or designee, shall have the authority to promulgate rules and
regulations for the efficient operation of the public safety answering point.
Section 11-1008. Enforcement and Penalties.
80
(1) Failure or omission to comply with any section of this ordinance shall be deemed
a misdemeanor with penalties as defined in Section 2-203 of this Code and may
be so prosecuted.
Section 2: Effective Date: This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after is publication.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to form and execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
81
SUMMARY
ORDINANCE NO. 2187-01
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO ALARMS: AMENDING
SECTION 11-1003 AND SECTION 11-1004
Increasing the false alarm fee from $75.00 to $90.00 per call
This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication.
Adopted by the City Council January 16, 2001
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: January 24, 2001
82
RESOLUTION NO. 01-003
A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING FEES FOR FALSE ALRMS
WHEREAS, the Municipal Code authorizes the City Council to establish fees for false
alarms and
WHEREAS, false alarm fees are set by individual municipalities taking into account the
cost of the service.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the effective February 12, 2001, the false
alarm fee is established at $90.00 per alarm with the first alarm of each year at no charge.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council January 16, 2001
City Manage r Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
83
CONSENT ITEM # 7A
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
ST LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
December 6, 2000 --7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Michelle Bissonnette, Michael Garelick, Ken Gothberg,
Dennis Morris, Sally Velick
MEMBERS ABSENT: Paul Carver, Jerry Timian
STAFF PRESENT: Judie Erickson, Tom Harmening, Scott Moore,
Nancy Sells
1. Call to Order - Roll Call
Vice Chair Michelle Bissonnette called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
2. Approval of Minutes of November 15, 2000
Mr. Morris moved approval of Minutes of November 15, 2000 with two corrections and
the motion passed on a vote of 4-0-1 with Garelick, Gothberg, Morris, and Velick voting
in favor and Bissonnette abstaining.
Page 19, change “the next Minnetonka” to “to annex Minnetonka”.
Page 1, change “Chair Morris” to “Chair Carver”.
3. Public Hearings:
A. Case No. 00-60-Z – Change in zoning from C-2 General Commercial, R-C
High Density Residential and R-3 Two Family Residential to M-X Mixed
Use, R-C High Density Residential and R-3 Two Family Residential –
Park Commons East area.
Judie Erickson, Planning Coordinator, presented a staff report. She stated that the City
was required by statute to bring all zoning into conformance with the Comprehensive
Plan and that the proposed zoning map amendments are consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan amendments.
Mr. Morris questioned if a zoning designation was being attached to the two small areas
near the street.
84
Ms. Erickson stated that all the streets are zoned and all zoning lines go to the center line
of the street.
Mr. Morris stated that this was misleading since the areas looked like private property
that was being zoned rather than actually being part of the street.
Ms. Erickson clarified that the area in question would be sidewalk.
Vice Chair Bissonnette opened the public hearing.
Steve Buffington, 3800 Huntington Avenue, of the Minikihda Vista Neighborhood
Association stated that he made a presentation to the City Council on December 4 on the
neighborhood’s position regarding changes in the Comprehensive Plan. He said that he
wanted to address Chair Carver’s concern about the proportions of the uses in the plan
that were relevant to zoning and express the apprehensions of many residents in the
neighborhood about the configuration of the uses. He submitted a document for the
public record that included petitions, correspondence, a position paper, a presentation of
opposition to City Council approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendments, and
documents regarding the current Walser Automobile dealership challenge to the City of
Richfield regarding TIF. He said the current plan has changed from the one developed
during the past charrette. He stated that the neighborhood was not opposed to good
proportionate development. He explained that the three reasons why the City should
reconsider the development were TIF, a variety of issues presented in the position paper,
and the serious lack of move-up housing in the plan. He doesn’t think that the houses and
businesses affected in this area were blighted and asked then if TIF qualification had
been met. He also discussed the current lawsuit being considered in Richfield regarding
TIF. Mr. Buffington said that the question was not what was being built, but how this
project was going to be financed and what densities and building heights were being
used.
Mr. Garelick questioned if it was Mr. Buffington’s strategy to bring a lawsuit in order to
bring his point across.
Mr. Buffington stated that this was absolutely not the case, but that the Richfield case
was an example of a relevant lawsuit and had implications for this development.
Mr. Garelick asked if Mr. Buffington felt that due process was not successfully
completed.
Mr. Buffington deferred the question to Claudia Johnston-Madison from the
neighborhood.
Mr. Morris asked if the petitions submitted were historical or new.
Mr. Buffington responded that the petitions were historical and completed in the past.
85
Mr. Morris asked if this area was already a TIF district.
Tom Harmening, Director of Community Development, stated that the property was
located in the Excelsior Boulevard Tax Increment District that has already been
established and would expire in 2009. He stated that in order to provide the necessary
TIF to the project to make it feasible, it would require the decertification of the parcels,
taking them out of the existing district and creating a new tax increment district that can
have a life of up to 25 years. He explained the completed procedures and said that the
area was inspected and met state statute requirements. The City Council will hold a
public hearing on January 16, 2000 on the topic.
Mr. Morris asked if the Planning Commission would see the request for the new TIF
district before the PUD request.
Mr. Harmening stated that the Planning Commission was scheduled to review TIF
District conformance with the Comprehensive Plan on January 3, 2001.
Claudia Johnston-Madison, 3931 Joppa Avenue, president of Minikahda Vista
Neighborhood Association, stated that she was a resident of 23 years and was concerned
about the small amount of move-up housing in the project and wanted to get additional
input in the record from the developer and staff. She questioned that if the Commission
agreed that there was a greater need for move-up housing, why build the two buildings
with the potential to covert them to condominiums at a future date. She asked if the
Planning Commission could make a resolution asking the City Council and TOLD
Development to develop a better solution to the issue.
Ms. Velick asked what amount of move-up housing Ms. Johnston-Madison would like to
see.
Ms. Johnston-Madison stated that she was concerned about the 180 units in the northern
tier adjacent to the park.
Bob Cunningham, Vice President of TOLD Development, explained that the two
buildings contain approximately 180-190 units in the current plan and are seven stories
tall. He stated that both of the buildings were planned to be luxury apartments with
higher amenities than a normal garden style apartment with higher preponderance
towards two bedrooms and larger than a normal apartment mix. He stated that
approximately 50% of the total number of apartment units in the entire project are in
these two buildings. He stated that these two buildings were candidates for a possible
conversion from rental to owner occupied housing at some point. The construction plans
would permit a future conversion. The units would serve the same function in terms of
move-up housing except in the instance that these would be rental properties versus
owner-occupied properties. He explained that TOLD has talked with a broad range of
people in the market including bankers, developers, real estate agents and experts in the
field of multi-family owner occupied housing. He stated that generally the reason why
TOLD was staying away from the concept of condominium ownership in any large scale
86
was because TOLD’s perception was that there was a market, but questioned if there was
a market for bringing a 180-190 unit building on at one time. Mr. Cunningham stated
that people are much more willing to sign a one year lease and the initial sell-out costs
would simply be too high to build these as condos. He referred to a condominium project
in the Bush Lake area in Bloomington that was not successful.
Ms. Johnston-Madison stated that she appreciated the comments but disagreed with Mr.
Cunningham’s explanation of these units as move-up housing. She explained that she
was not representing the neighborhood association, but explained that the neighborhood
felt comfortable with the plan until they became aware of the increase in density.
Mr. Morris asked staff to clarify that the zoning supports many more uses than those in
the redevelopment plan.
Ms. Erickson stated that this was the correct.
Mr. Garelick stated that the term move-up housing was an ambiguous term just like
affordable housing. He stated he would not look favorably at an amendment to tie this
development into an owner-occupied scenario when that would be used to hamper the
City down the road. He stated that the City needs all types of housing and believes
marketing for this type of housing should be phased in.
Ms. Erickson stated that as an additional response to Mr. Morris’ question that the
Comprehensive Plan includes the redevelopment plan for Park Commons and a future
development must be consistent with both zoning and the Comprehensive Plan.
Betsy Baker, 3905 Kipling Avenue, stated she has been a resident for 18 years. She
stated that the neighborhood association would like to see less density and wanted to take
another look at the whole plan. She referred to a letter to the Planning Commission from
Mike Sixel that was read at the November 15, 2000 Planning Commission meeting. She
believed that there were some things that were misleading in the letter. Ms. Baker
paraphrased a letter that Claudia Johnston-Madison e-mailed to Chair Carver related to
Mr. Sixel’s letter.
Ms. Baker said that as members of the Minikahda Vista Neighborhood Association
Governmental Task Force, she and Ms. Johnston-Madison attended a meeting of the
Browndale Neighborhood Association at the invitation of its president, Pat Swaderski.
The purpose in attending the meeting was to give the Browndale neighborhood an update
of the Park Commons East Redevelopment Project from the perspective of the
Minikahda, Wolfe Park and Westmoreland neighborhoods. Ms. Baker said that Mr. Sixel
apologized that evening because there were only about 20 people at that meeting and that
included the Mayor, Councilperson Chris Nelson, and staff person Janet Jeremiah. Ms.
Baker said that Mr. Sixel stated that he really didn’t have time to investigate the issues
involved with the project because he was remodeling his home. Ms. Baker stated that he
still has not investigated the issues as thoroughly as he probably should have before
speaking out. She explained that during that meeting the Browndale neighbors asked a
87
lot of good questions and it was apparent that they were also unaware of how dense the
development had become. Ms. Baker said that after the meeting about 10 people—half
the people in attendance--came up to talk to she and Claudia, and they were concerned
that the density of the project had gotten much larger and were totally surprised that they
had not been told the true story by Janet Jeremiah and the other City staff. Because of
this reaction, she and Ms. Johnston-Madison were surprised when reading the letter that
Mike Sixel had submitted which said that “the mood of the meeting was quite
unanimous, Browndale wants the Park Commons Project to go ahead”. Mike Sixel went
on in the letter to suggest that the City not listen to the vocal minority on this issue. Ms.
Baker stated that 650 people are not a minority and in many cases, a lot of them are not
very vocal because they feel that the City Council has not been listening to them. She
said they feel that the City Council has been putting them off. The neighborhood feels
alienated and frustrated that they are not being heard and little by little they have been
dropping out and giving those members kudos who have continued keeping up the fight
to have a proportionate development examined. She said a lot of people are frustrated
that the City is not listening. Ms. Baker said they have concerns about this as well as the
letter that was put in the record.
With no one else wishing to speak, Vice Chair Bissonnette closed the public hearing.
Mr. Gothberg stated that what was being considered at this meeting was the zoning issue.
He stated that at this point he has not heard anyone who would disagree with the general
concept from a zoning perspective. He stated that the Commission understands resident
concerns with density and will have to consider this when further proposals and the
traffic study are completed.
Ms. Velick moved to recommend approval of the Zoning Map Amendment to be adopted
contingent upon associated Comprehensive Plan amendments being approved by the
Metropolitan Council, and the motion passed on a vote of 5-0 with Bissonnette, Garelick,
Gothberg, Morris, and Velick voting in favor.
B. Case No. 00-61-ZA – Zoning Ordinance Amendments:
• 2nd Story Setbacks (eliminate in R-1, R-2 and R-3)
• Clarify Definition of Showroom
• Non-Conforming Dates Certain
• Setbacks from Residentially Zoned Properties
• Notification of neighboring cities for Comp Plan text amendments
• Architectural Design
Scott Moore, Assistant Zoning Administrator, presented a staff report.
Mr. Gothberg asked if this would eliminate the setback issues relative to building heights
and existing non-conformities and what impact would this have on a home of two or
three stories.
88
Mr. Moore stated that the code section changes the elimination of the setback distance for
any building height 18 feet or higher and may eliminate non-conformities. It won’t affect
existing buildings negatively, but will allow those who want to do additions.
Mr. Gothberg asked if the change in wall deviations for architectural design would result
in a large number of new conformities.
Mr. Moore stated that this would not be the case because of the 2 to 1 requirements and
this would clarify the way staff is interpreting and enforcing the code.
Mr. Gothberg asked how the City decides which non-conformities to focus on.
Mr. Moore stated that the date certain deals only with four non-conformities including
landscaping, lighting, parking lot, and signage. He stated that the City received the most
numerous complaints about lighting.
Mr. Morris referred to the last page of the report under the Comprehensive Plan
notifications. He indicated that the first change where new language was inserted it
states “may have impact on the affected school or watershed districts” and then in the
second which is Section 14:8 4-4(c) the word affected was dropped. He suggested
inserting the affected to clarify that it is not all watershed districts and school districts
that would be noticed.
Mr. Moore stated that he could make that change.
Mr. Morris noted the concern about the dwarfing effect of additions and questioned the
elimination of the 18 foot height requirement.
Mr. Moore stated that staff proposed eliminating the setback for buildings greater than 18
feet and the height would still be governed by maximum height requirements in the
district.
Vice Chair Bissonnette opened the public hearing.
John A. Miller, 3550 France Avenue, stated that he doesn’t have any problem or
objections with the changes.
With no one else wishing to speak, Vice Chair Bissonnette closed the public hearing.
Mr. Gothberg moved to recommend adoption of the proposed Zoning Ordinance
amendments with amendment by Dennis Morris, and the motion passed on a vote of 5-0
with Bissonnette, Garelick, Gothberg, Morris, and Velick voting in favor.
Claudia Johnston-Madison asked what would have happened procedurally if the Planning
Commission had voted against the recommendation of any item on the agenda.
89
Ms. Erickson and Commissioners explained that the Planning Commission is a
recommending body to the City Council.
4. Old Business: None
5. New Business
A. Consent Agenda
i. Appointment of Dennis Morris to the Texa-Tonka Study Task Force
The Planning Commission endorsed Mr. Morris’ appointment to the Texa-
Tonka Study Task Force. Ms. Erickson gave a brief report on the market
study completed on Texa-Tonka. She said a copy would be provided to
the Planning Commission in January.
B. Other New Business
i. There was a discussion about the halt of development activities at
Knollwood Shopping Center.
ii. Sally Velick commented on the sign at the new McDonald’s and
recommended encouraging McDonald’s to reduce the size. Mr. Morris
said he suspected that it is a permitted sign and if removed a similar size
sign would not be permitted.
6. Communications
A. Recent City Council Action – November 20, 2000 and December 4, 2000
B. Planning Commission Meeting of December 20th Cancelled
C. Other
7. Miscellaneous - None
8. Adjournment
Vice Chair Michelle Bissonnette adjourned the meeting at 8:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Nancy Sells
Secretary
Prepared by:
Shirley Olson
Recording Secretary
90
CONSENT ITEM # 7B
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING
HOUSING AUTHORITY
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
Wednesday, December 18th, 2000
North (1) Conference Room - 2nd Floor
5:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: William Gavzy, Judith Moore, Bridget Gothberg,
and Shone Row
MEMBERS ABSENT: Catherine Courtney
STAFF PRESENT: Thomas Harmening, Michele Schnitker, Jean McGann
Kathy Larsen, Sharon Anderson, Cindy Stromberg
and Paula Jordan
OTHERS PRESENT: None
1. Call to Order: The meeting was called to order at 5:12 P.M.
2. Approval of the Minutes for October 11th, 2000
Commission Gothberg moved to approve the amended minutes of October 11th, 2000.
Commissioner Moore seconded the motion. The motion was passed on a vote of 3-0 with
Commissioners Gavzy, Moore and Gothberg voting in favor. Commissioner Row arrived
at the meeting at 5:45 p.m. after the vote was approved.
3. Hearings: None
4. Reports and Committees: None
5. Unfinished Business: None
6. New Business
a. Audit Presentation
Michele Schnitker reported that the Official Audited Financial Statement and
Management Letter presented at the meeting was performed by Niewedde & Wiens,
Certified Public Accountants.
91
Because a representative from the audit firm was not available to attend the meeting,
Jean McGann, Director of Finance for the City of St. Louis Park, gave the audit
report.
Ms. McGann reported that the overall financial status of the HA is very good. There
were five points in the management letter that were addressed, which were
immaterial, but still warranted review. Ms. McGann stated that the five points
included monthly reconciliation on pooled investments; recording of capital
purchases; correction of interfund transfers; collection of doubtful accounts; and
review of outstanding checks. Ms. McGann stated that all the items noted have been
corrected.
Ms. McGann stated that the significant change required by the Housing Authority this
year was the accounting conversion to GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting
Practices).
Commissioner Gothberg asked Ms. McGann how she felt the financial services
transition was working for staff.
Ms. McGann replied that she felt overall it was working well, now that the software
was running, as it should be. There are some quirks to workout and additional budget
software will be added to help out with controls and to assist the Housing Authority
staff in preparing the budget.
Tom Harmening, Executive Director and Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor confirmed Ms.
McGann's statement, noting that it was anticipated that it would take time to get the
system to 100%.
Ms. McGann notified the Commissioners that Niewedde & Weins, our current
auditors, sent a letter stating they will not be able to perform the third year of their
three-year contract. They are asking to be released from that contract. There are no
issues in releasing them from this contract. Ms. McGann felt that better service can be
gotten from a firm that would provide more interactions throughout the year as
opposed to only at year-end, after the audit.
Commissioner Moore inquired whether the Authority could be looking at increased
fees to obtain a new accounting firm.
Ms. McGann replied that taking the mid range bid has proven to be the best choice
for the City when choosing an auditor and that the fees hopefully will remain close to
what had been paid to the existing firm. A letter of inquiry will be mailed to several
firms who can apply for the services. A resolution is not required releasing Niewedde
& Weins from their contract.
b. Approval of Architectural Contract for Capital Improvement Activities 2000.
92
Sharon Anderson, Public Housing Manager, reported that HUD awarded $229,200
for capital improvement work, to the Housing Authority for FYs 2001-2002.
Ms. Anderson stated that Studio Five Architect's agreed to a fee of $21,120, plus a reimbursable
amount of $5,000, for a total of $26,120. The high projection for reimbursable is due to a staff request
for five bid packages. The bid packages include resurfacing of driveways, landscape work, garage at
3973 Alabama, carpet and vinyl replacement at Hamilton House and general work at 26 single family
home sites. Thomas Hunt’s, Studio Five Architects, work has been satisfactory. His familiarity with
the housing authority stock has also been beneficial.
Commissioner Gavzy requested that in the future additional bids should be acquired
for architectural services for future capital improvements.
Commissioner Gothberg moved approval of the Architectural Contract with Studio
Five Architects. Commissioner Moore seconded the motion. The motion was passed
on a vote of 4-0 with Commissioners Gavzy, Row, and Moore and Gothberg voting in
favor.
c. Amendment to the Section 8 Administrative Plan Revisions: Chapters 8-20,
Resolution No 482.
Ms. Schnitker reported that Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act
(QHWHA) of 1998 included a number of new requirements. The merger of the
Section 8 Certificate and Voucher programs took effect on October 1, 1999. The
new ruling made it necessary for the Housing Authority (HA) to revise the Section 8
Administrative Plan to reflect the new program requirements. Because of significant
changes part of the revisions were presented at the October meeting and the
remaining changes at the December meeting. Language that has been revised is
underlined. Final formatting will be completed following Board approval.
Ms. Schnitker stated that staff is recommending the Authority Approve Resolution
No. 482 amending the Administrative Plan, Chapters 8 through 20.
Commissioner Gothberg moved to approve the Resolution No. 482. Commissioner
Moore seconded the motion. The motion was passed on a vote of 4-0 with
Commissioners Gavzy, Row, Moore and Gothberg voting in favor.
d. Approval of Section 8 Payment Standard at 110% of FMRs.
Cindy Stromberg, Section 8 Housing Manager reported that the Housing Choice
Voucher program permits Authorities to set the Payment Standards between 90% and
110% of the HUD published Fair Market Rents (FMRs). When the new FMRs were
published in October 2000, the Authority authorized Payment Standards at 110% of
FMR. HUD recently issued new FMRs. All Authorities throughout the Metro area
are experiencing difficulty in renting units with the existing Payment Standards. Less
than full utilization is a concern for HUD. Staffs' goal is to maximize the number of
units available for Section 8 participants to rent.
93
Ms. Stromberg stated that staff is recommending that the Housing Authority authorize
Payment Standards for the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher
Program at 110% of the Fair Market Value effective February 1, 2001.
Commissioner Gavzy moved approval. Commissioner Moore seconded the motion.
The motion was passed on a vote of 4-0 with Commissioners Row,
Gothberg, Gavzy and Moore voting in favor.
e. Renewal of CEE Contract to Administer Discount Loan Program
Michele Schnitker stated that staff is seeking the Housing Authority's approval to
enter into an amended contract with the Center for Energy and Environment (CEE) to
continue administration of the single family housing rehabilitation Discount Loan
Program.
Kathy Larsen, Housing Programs Coordinator, reported that the original contract
covers administration of the City's Housing Rehab Funds to "buy
down" the interest rate of the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency's (MFHA) home
improvement loans from an interest rate of 8% to 6%. The term of the
original contract is August 11, 1999 to December 31, 2000. It was noted that at the
6% discount rate homeowners of an income of $55,000 were not using
the programs even after lowering the rate to 4%.
Ms. Larsen noted that since we’ve received an additional $50,000 from MHFA to
match the City's Discount Loan Program, those qualified will receive an additional
2% interest rate buy-down. The MHFA/Met Council also agreed to provide $50,000
in matching funds. An additional $96,000 of City's Rehab Housing Funds is being
allocated for the Discount Loan Program. In 1999 there were 15 loans compared to
60 loans in 2000.
Ms. Larsen stated that staff is recommending that the Authority authorize the
Chairman and the Executive Director to sign the Amended Contract with the CEE to
administer the Discount Loan Program for a fee of $125.00 per loan for each loan
closed and sold under the program.
Commissioner Gavzy inquired about CEE's administrative performance for this year.
Ms. Larsen stated that they have been very responsive and have provided
documentation upon request on a monthly basis, noting the amount of loans given out
along with names and address or respondents.
Commissioner Moore moved to approve the recommendation. Commissioner
Row seconded the motion. The motion was passed on a vote of 4-0 with
Commissioners Gavzy, Gothberg, Row and Moore voting in favor.
94
f. Blackstone Neighborhood Update
Kathy Larsen, Housing Programs Coordinator, reported that staff and the Blackstone
Neighborhood Association's Executive Committee have met and have committed to a
project timeline. A pilot program tailored to the Single Family Blackstone
Neighborhood will begin in 2001.
The program incorporates 5 components, outlined in the report, in order of
importance as rated by the residents. The residents have been alerted to the
availability of the upcoming home improvement grants and loans. Residents may
begin submitting loan applications by March 30, 2001. The City Council was alerted
to the report and gave approval for the loan process.
Tom Harmening noted that there would be additional projects like the Blackstone
neighborhood in the near future, but at this time there has not been a neighborhood
designated.
g. Action Plan Update - Year 2001
Michele Schnitker reported that the Mission Statement and Vision Elements for the
Housing Authority continue to be applicable for the year 2001. Update action items
are presented to reflect the one -year and five-year goals, which create a work plan for
the staff. New items were underlined and old items were stricken in the report. Ms.
Schnitker noted the changes in the Plan.
h. Agency Plan Revision Review
Michele Schnitker stated that this draft Plan is for the Boards' review and discussion.
A copy of the draft Plan will be distributed to the Resident Advisory Committee, the
Hamilton House Council and displayed for public review both at Hamilton House and
City Hall. A required Public Hearing is also scheduled for the January meeting.
8. Communications from the Executive Director
a. Claims Lists No. 10 & 11- 2000
Commissioner Gothberg moved to ratify Claims Lists No. 10 & 11- 2000.
Commissioner Row seconded the motion. The motion was passed on a vote of 4-0
with Commissioners Moore, Gavzy, Gothberg and Row voting in favor.
b. Communications
(1) Monthly Report for November and December, 2000
(2) Scattered Site Houses and Hamilton House (verbal report)
None
95
(3) Home Renewal Program Habitat Program Update (verbal report)
Michele Schnitker reported that one of the things the Board will be dealing with
in the near future is the 18 MHOP units proposed to be included in the Park
Commons project. There is a meeting scheduled with the Minneapolis Housing
Authority and TOLD Development Company, the Developer for Park Commons,
to start working on the application process. All MHOP activities will need to be
reviewed by the Board.
Commissioner Gavzy asked if the 18 MHOP units were the original projection for
this project.
Tom Harmening, Executive Director stated that originally there was 6 MHOP
units and 12 tax credit units. It was suggested that we consider doing all MHOP,
as there was simplicity associated in dealing with one approach as opposed to
several plans. The MET Council and the City Council were both comfortable
with one approach. The present plan has no tax credit units. Tom informed the
Board that the project is a mixed-use project including retail and residential.
Construction will begin late spring 2001. There were over 30 properties to
acquire; the last property will be purchased late March of 2001. Demo will occur
in May or June on the remaining buildings on Excelsior Boulevard near
Monterey.
Kathy Larsen reported on Home Renewal stating that the property on 1454 Jersey
went up for sale with multiple offers. Property at 2929 Ottawa is progressing well
and hoping to be completed at the end of 2000.
Commissioner Gavzy inquired if there were any Home Renewal Projects in sight.
Ms. Schnitker stated that of this date there were none, but that staff continues to
seek out possible properties.
(4) Action Plan
(5) Draft Financial Statements - Distributed at the meeting.
9. Other
Michele Schnitker stated that Martha McDonell, Community Outreach Director notified
her that there will be a Volunteer Recognition evening, February 15th, notification will be
mailed. Commissioners are asked to do a short presentation regarding the work of the
Commission.
96
Commissioner Gothberg noted that now that she is a City of St. Louis Park employee, she
might not be able to continue as a board member. She did state that she would be willing
to serve until a replacement is found.
10. Adjournment
Commissioner Moore moved to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Row seconded the
motion. The motion was passed on a vote of 4-0 with Commissioners Gavzy, Gothberg,
Row and Moore voting in favor. The meeting adjourned at 6:42 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted
____________________________
Shone Row, Secretary
97
CONSENT ITEM # 7C
December 22, 2000
VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
ADMINISTRATION RESOURCES AND C OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 700.00
AIRTOUCH CELLULAR TELEPHONE 587.47
AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSOC GENERAL SUPPLIES 158.00
AMERIPRIDE LINEN AND APPAREL S CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 204.48
ANCHOR PAPER CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 603.10
ARAMARK UNIFORM CORPORATE
ACCT
GENERAL SUPPLIES 617.24
ASPEN ENVIRONMENTAL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 627.07
AUTO SERVICE COMPANY EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 54.95
B & H PHOTO-VIDEO INC. GENERAL SUPPLIES 80.50
BATTERIES PLUS GENERAL SUPPLIES 78.71
BAUER BUILT TIRE & BATTERY EQUIPMENT PARTS (35.87)
BCA/FORENSIC SCIENCE LABORATOR TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 200.00
BELL, LISA GENERAL CUSTOMERS 11.59
BERTELSON OFFICE PRODUCTS GENERAL SUPPLIES (0.29)
BETH HOLIDA LICENSES/TAXES 75.67
BOBS PERSONAL COFFEE SERVICE GENERAL SUPPLIES 219.93
BOYER TRUCK PARTS EQUIPMENT PARTS 104.19
BRENTS SIGNS GENERAL SUPPLIES 570.84
BRIMEYER, JAMES TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 891.80
BRITISH LANDSCAPES OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 280.80
BROADWAY RENTAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT (1.66)
BUDGET HELPER OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 225.00
BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE PREPAID EXPENSES 10,000.00
BURNETT, BETH & MORLEY EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 50.00
CAPITOL COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 831.25
CARTEGRAPH SYSTEMS INC. EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 1,980.00
CARTRIDGECARE INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 636.65
CATCO PARTS SERVICE EQUIPMENT PARTS 69.16
CENTRAL SALT OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 8,154.99
CHIEF'S TOWING INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 200.00
CLARKLIFT OF MINNESOTA INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 73.20
COLLINS COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 11,715.00
COLLISYS ELECTRIC CO OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,223.06
CONCEPT SEATING INC GENERAL SUPPLIES (180.00)
CURTIS 1000 INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 843.78
CUSTOM PRODUCTS & SERVICES OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,033.50
DALCO GENERAL SUPPLIES 45.09
DANKO EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 700.25
DELI DOUBLE MEETING EXPENSE 96.85
DIGITAL BIOMETRICS INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 485.00
DREIER, LORI A TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 47.93
E & S ELECTRONICS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 90.00
EDTECH EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 1,184.20
EHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC DEPOSITS PAYABLE 1,593.75
ELECTRIC PUMP WALDOR GROUP EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 2,128.22
ELVIN SAFETY SUPPLY, INC. GENERAL SUPPLIES 30.70
ENGINEERING CONTACTS OTHER ADVERTISING 139.00
98
ENGINEERING REPRO SYSTEMS GENERAL SUPPLIES 34.03
ENSR CONSULTING & ENGINEERING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 4,292.91
FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (15.67)
FAIRMONT FIRE SYSTEMS BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 71.78
FISCHLER & ASSOCIATES PA, GARY PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 300.00
FLOYD TOTAL SECURITY OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 32.18
FREEWAY RADIATOR SERVICE EQUIPMENT PARTS 408.96
GENERAL SPORTS CORP GENERAL SUPPLIES 248.20
GENUINE PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (27.83)
GLENWOOD INGLEWOOD GENERAL SUPPLIES 106.47
GLOBAL COMPUTER SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES 59.80
GOVERNING SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 30.00
GRAINGER INC, W W GENERAL SUPPLIES 238.53
HALLOCK COMPANY INC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 17.62
HAMLINE UNIVERSITY TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 168.00
HARMON INC BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 1,094.50
HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER POSTAGE 517.92
HEWLETT-PACKARD CO OFFICE SUPPLIES 60.57
HIGH POINT CREATIVE LLC PRINTING & PUBLISHING 9,160.00
HIGHLAND MGMT GROUP INC GENERAL CUSTOMERS 177.43
HIGHUM, BILL ADULT ATHLETIC/LEAGUES -EXEMPT 250.00
HOME DEPOT/GECF GENERAL SUPPLIES 75.93
HOME HARDWARE EQUIPMENT PARTS 12.68
HPI INTERNATIONAL INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 51.00
ICI DULUX PAINT CENTERS GENERAL SUPPLIES 46.75
ICMA SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 345.00
IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS RENTAL EQUIPMENT 547.21
INDELCO EQUIPMENT PARTS 66.29
INGRAHAM & ASSOCIATES INC DEPOSITS PAYABLE 2,483.81
INTL INSTITUTE MUNICIPAL CLERK SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 130.00
INVENSYS METERING SYSTEMS GENERAL SUPPLIES 350.00
IOWA PAINT MFG CO INC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 1,637.40
IRON MOUNTAIN OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 29.00
J H LARSON COMPANY BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 114.82
JEANE THORNE INC. SALARIES - TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES 1,807.86
JOHN HOLMES OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 38.00
KIENENBERGER, BRIDGET MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 3.58
KOENS INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 201.40
KOVATCH MOBILE EQUIPMENT CORP EQUIPMENT PARTS 68.31
LAKELAND ENGINEERING EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT PARTS 288.50
LANGEFELS, DOUGLAS GENERAL SUPPLIES 50.00
LEAGUE MN CITIES INS TRUST OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,500.00
MASTERSON PERSONNEL INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 824.25
MC GRAW-HILL INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 147.15
MCGANN,JEAN TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 48.53
MEDTRONIC PHYSIO-CONTROL CORP EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 222.00
METHODIST HOSPITAL GENERAL CUSTOMERS 6,433.55
METRO SYSTEMS GENERAL SUPPLIES 23.00
METROCALL TELEPHONE 22.57
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 456,836.07
MIDWEST ASPHALT CORP OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 3,079.05
MILLAR ELEVATOR SERVICE CO BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 249.00
99
MILLER HANSON WESTERBECK BERGE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 800.00
MINN STATE FIRE CHIEFS ASSOCIA SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 200.00
MINNESOTA PIPE & EQUIPMENT OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 749.37
MINUTEMAN PRESS PRINTING & PUBLISHING 40.47
MN DEPT OF HEALTH OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 17,703.00
MN DRIVER & VEHICLE SVCS EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT CHARGE (46.00)
MN POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 1,260.00
MOORE, BETTY GENERAL SUPPLIES 8.69
MOSS & BARNETT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,000.00
MPELRA SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 150.00
MYRON MANUFACTURING CORP GENERAL SUPPLIES 194.34
NAPA GENUINE PARTS CO/FINANCE EQUIPMENT PARTS 513.69
NATIONAL AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER C BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 6,000.00
NORTHERN BATTERY EQUIPMENT PARTS 92.83
NOVARTIS NUTRITION CORP. GENERAL CUSTOMERS 30,966.33
NSP CO ELECTRIC SERVICE 58,703.43
NYSTROM PUBLISHING PRINTING & PUBLISHING 10,565.86
OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE SUPPLIES 569.71
OLSEN CHAIN & CABLE CO INC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 159.92
ONE CALL CONCEPTS INC RADIO COMMUNICATIONS 256.00
OTTO PACKAGING MIDWEST LLC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES (72.00)
PAINTERS GEAR INC. EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 176.22
PANASONIC SERVICES COMPANY EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 116.26
PARTS PLUS EQUIPMENT PARTS 10.20
PC MAGAZINE SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 49.97
PEPSI-COLA COMPANY CONCESSION SUPPLIES 368.22
PETER HOBART PTAO UNREALIZED GRANT REVENUE 600.00
PETERSON MACHINERY CO INC, G C BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 15.01
POMMER MFG CO INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 80.83
PORTER CABLE CORPORATION BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 12.60
PRECISION BUSINESS SYSTEMS INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 3,451.00
PRESTIGE LINCOLN MERCURY EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 1,614.74
PRO PRODUCTS INC GENERAL SUPPLIES (92.32)
QUICKSILVER EXPRESS COURIER POSTAGE 851.18
QUINLAN PUBLISHING CO INC SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 73.76
RELIANT ENERGY HEATING GAS 4,171.62
RESCUE ONE EQUIPMENT PARTS 112.89
REYNOLDS WELDING SUPPLY CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 147.70
ROHLIK, CHAR OFFICE SUPPLIES 155.31
SCHARBER & SONS INC EQUIPMENT PARTS (3.51)
SCIENCE MUSEUM OF MINNESOTA TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 278.00
SELA INVESTMENTS LTD. GENERAL CUSTOMERS 184.40
SHELTON, JENNIFER GENERAL CUSTOMERS 22.29
SLP CRIME PREVENTION FUND UNREALIZED REV-SAFETY CAMP 0.00
SLP POLICE RESERVES OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 422.79
SNAP-ON INDUSTRIAL SMALL TOOLS 28.05
SPECTRASITE RADIO COMMUNICATIONS 87.00
SRF CONSULTING GROUP INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 5,904.35
ST LOUIS PARK FASTPITCH ASSO YOUTH ATHLETICS/LEAGUES-exempt 287.12
STANDARD SPRING OF MPLS EQUIPMENT PARTS 41.68
STEPNICK, BRUCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 210.68
STREICHER'S EQUIPMENT PARTS 370.88
100
SUBURBAN PROPANE MOTOR FUELS 99.51
SUBURBAN TIRE CO EQUIPMENT PARTS 465.22
SUN NEWSPAPERS LEGAL NOTICES 909.08
TEENS ALONE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,000.00
TEKSYSTEMS OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 350.00
TENNANT EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 146.11
TERMINIX INTERNATIONAL BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 52.18
THADDEUS COMPUTING EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 19.95
TWIN CITY OXYGEN CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 4.80
TWIN WEST CHAMBER OF COMMERCE PREPAID EXPENSES 110.00
U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE 115.56
U S WEST INTERPRISE TELEPHONE 573.05
UNIFORMS UNLIMITED GENERAL SUPPLIES 247.72
UNITED RENTALS EQUIPMENT PARTS 318.27
UNIVERSITY OF MINN TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 1,200.00
VIKING INDUSTRIAL CENTER GENERAL SUPPLIES 93.89
WATSON CO INC CONCESSION SUPPLIES 992.02
WHEELER HARDWARE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 459.00
WILLIAMS STEEL & HDWE GENERAL SUPPLIES 145.08
WSB ASSOCIATES INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 9,838.52
ZEP MANUFACTURING GENERAL SUPPLIES 11.50
ZIEGLER INC EQUIPMENT PARTS (31.87)
ZIMMERMAN, JEAN TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 127.46
ZIP SORT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 16,248.38
ZIPSORT GENERAL SUPPLIES 10.00
730,453.20
December 29, 2000
VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
A-1 HYDRAULIC SALES AND SERVIC EQUIPMENT PARTS 48.18
ADAMS, MARY B MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 28.28
AGGREGATE & READY MIX ASSOC OF TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 415.00
AIR CHEK INC MERCHANDISE PURCH FOR RESALE 1,523.55
AIRTOUCH CELLULAR TELEPHONE 51.59
ALMSTEAD'S SUPERVALU GENERAL SUPPLIES 19.55
ANDERSON, DONALD TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 1,135.00
ANN'S TOOL SUPPLY GENERAL SUPPLIES 122.39
ARAMARK UNIFORM CORPORATE
ACCT
GENERAL SUPPLIES 308.34
ASPEN EQUIPMENT COMPANY MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT 6,463.60
ATI TITLE GENERAL CUSTOMERS 293.65
BARTLEY SALES CO INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 83.07
BAUER BUILT TIRE & BATTERY EQUIPMENT PARTS (35.87)
BEEKS PIZZA MEETING EXPENSE 100.60
BERTELSON OFFICE PRODUCTS GENERAL SUPPLIES (0.29)
BOBS PERSONAL COFFEE SERVICE CONCESSION SUPPLIES 316.54
BOOMER, KRISTIN TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 770.95
BOYER TRUCK PARTS EQUIPMENT PARTS 65.50
BRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 677.75
BROADWAY RENTAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT (1.66)
101
BUSKEY, JENNIFER MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 138.77
CAPITOL COMMUNICATIONS BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 3,232.40
CHENEY SIGNS GENERAL SUPPLIES 10.65
COLICH & ASSOCIATES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 18,372.95
COLLISYS ELECTRIC CO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,803.50
CONCEPT SEATING INC GENERAL SUPPLIES (180.00)
CUSTOM PRODUCTS & SERVICES OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 11,982.00
DAKOTA COUNTY TECHNICAL COLLEG TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 75.00
DARTNELL SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 182.50
DAVID L. GAUTHIER INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
DENNIS G. BECKMANN INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
DEREK R. BROWER INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
DONALD SALVERDA & ASSOC. TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 822.43
ELAN MEETING EXPENSE 932.10
EMERGENCY APPARATUS MTNCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 796.48
FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (15.67)
FORCE AMERICA INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 140.61
GARDNER HARDWARE GENERAL SUPPLIES 70.00
GENUINE PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (27.83)
GOODPOINTE TECHNOLOGY CORP. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,410.00
GRIMSRUD, TOM MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 21.12
HANCOCK FABRICS PROGRAMMING 26.14
HENN CO INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY COMPUTER SERVICES 469.66
HENNEPIN CO SHERIFF'S ACCT RADIO COMMUNICATIONS 4,256.93
HENNEPIN CO-OPERATIVE SEED EXC GENERAL SUPPLIES 37.80
HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,418.55
HOME DEPOT OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 28.61
HOME DEPOT/GECF OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 38.00
HUIRAS, SHIRLEY CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY 246.37
I A P M O SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 200.00
IACP HOUSING BUREAU SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 100.00
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST 283 OTHER STATE REVENUE 25,098.25
INST FOR FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,625.00
IOS CAPITAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT 1,513.37
JOHNSTON-MADISON, CLAUDIA M OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 10.06
K & K SALES GENERAL SUPPLIES 184.86
LOGIS COMPUTER SERVICES 28,932.76
MAPET SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 45.00
MASTERSON PERSONNEL INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,029.00
MC CONNELL, BECKY CONCESSION SUPPLIES 84.91
MENARDS GENERAL SUPPLIES 12.31
MID-AMERICA BUSINESS SYSTEMS PREPAID EXPENSES 16,880.00
MILLER, CAROL MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 40.95
MINUTEMAN PRESS GENERAL SUPPLIES 170.38
MINVALCO INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 89.31
MN DRIVER & VEHICLE SVCS EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT CHARGE (46.00)
MOORE MEDICAL CORP GENERAL SUPPLIES 8.69
MTI DISTRIBUTING CO EQUIPMENT PARTS 67.69
MYRON J. SALONEK MEETING EXPENSE 736.95
NAPA GENUINE PARTS CO/FINANCE EQUIPMENT PARTS 717.31
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 90.00
NSP CO ELECTRIC SERVICE 394.60
102
OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE SUPPLIES 533.93
OMAR MCMILLIAN OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 240.00
OTTO PACKAGING MIDWEST LLC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES (72.00)
PARTS PLUS EQUIPMENT PARTS 28.25
PAULA EVENSON PROGRAMMING 12.00
PEPSI-COLA COMPANY ELECTRIC SERVICE 756.68
PLEAA SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 60.00
PRECISION BUSINESS SYSTEMS INC NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 1,402.14
PRINTERS SERVICE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 28.30
PRO PRODUCTS INC GENERAL SUPPLIES (92.32)
RELIANT ENERGY HEATING GAS 7,120.78
RICHFIELD CRIME PREVENTION UNI PREPAID EXPENSES 20.00
SCHARBER & SONS INC EQUIPMENT PARTS (3.51)
SECURITYLINK FROM AMERITECH OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 36.10
SIMPLEX TIME RECORDER CO BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 408.96
SLP CRIME PREVENTION FUND UNREALIZED REV-SAFETY CAMP 0.00
SRF CONSULTING GROUP INC OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,722.56
ST JOSEPH'S EQUIPMENT INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 131.26
STS CONSULTANTS LTD OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,375.00
SUBURBAN FEED & SUPPLY PROGRAMMING 14.26
SUBURBAN PROPANE MOTOR FUELS 104.23
SWEENEY BROS TRACTOR EQUIPMENT PARTS 136.88
TERMINIX INTERNATIONAL BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 91.00
TRACY/TRIPP FUELS MOTOR FUELS 9,866.21
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 1,575.00
WALSER FORD EQUIPMENT PARTS 203.65
WESTBURNE SUPPLY INC-PLYMOUTH GENERAL SUPPLIES 99.84
WSB ASSOCIATES INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 9,664.70
ZIEGLER INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 991.75
ZIPSORT POSTAGE 34.36
176,225.20
JANUARY 05,2000
VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
ABLE COURIER DEPOSITS PAYABLE 14.10
AIRTOUCH CELLULAR TELEPHONE 188.55
ALLIANCE MECHANICAL SERVICES I BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 5,510.00
AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 216.00
ARAMARK UNIFORM CORPORATE
ACCT
GENERAL SUPPLIES 702.16
ASPEN EQUIPMENT COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS 444.86
ATD-AMERICAN CO SUBSISTENCE SUPPLIES 249.35
AUTOMATIC GARAGE DOOR CO EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 8,740.00
AUTOMOBILE SERVICE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 120.96
BAUER BUILT TIRE & BATTERY EQUIPMENT PARTS (35.87)
BEEKS PIZZA MEETING EXPENSE 45.85
BERNDT ELECTRIC SERVICE BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 9,975.45
BERTELSON OFFICE PRODUCTS GENERAL SUPPLIES (0.29)
BOB JORGENSON CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 100.00
BOBS PERSONAL COFFEE SERVICE GENERAL SUPPLIES 30.99
103
BRAGER INC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 9,255.00
BRO TEX INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 665.41
BROADWAY RENTAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT (1.66)
BUCHMAN PLUMBING BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 2,930.00
CAPITOL COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 406.15
CARTRIDGE CARE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 233.26
CHESAPEAKE AUDIO/VIDEO COMMUNI GENERAL SUPPLIES 50.45
COMMUNITY INTERPRETING SERVICE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 227.50
CONCEPT SEATING INC GENERAL SUPPLIES (180.00)
COOPERATIVE EXTENSION PUBLICAT GENERAL SUPPLIES 3.35
CUB FOODS SUBSISTENCE SUPPLIES 955.75
CUSTOM PRODUCTS & SERVICES OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,233.00
DONALD SALVERDA & ASSOC. TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 1,444.86
DONATH, MAX & PAULETTE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 2,000.00
DREIER, LORI A STUDY INCENTIVE & MERIT PAY 2,781.25
DRYWALL SUPPLY INC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 398.18
ELAN GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,824.05
EMERGENCY APPARATUS MTNCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 2,027.20
EMPLOYER EDUCATION SERVICES TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 575.00
FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (15.67)
FIRST CHOICE GENERAL SUPPLIES 453.30
GENUINE PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (27.83)
GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 392.27
HAMLINE UNIVERSITY TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 203.00
HARMON INC BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 1,439.56
HARNEY, KATHLEEN OTHER CUSTOMER SERVICES 375.12
HARVEY D. WITHERSPOON III CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 25.00
HAWKINS WATER TREATMENT GROUP CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY 602.71
HENN CO ACCOUNTING SERVICES SUBSISTENCE SERVICE 7,606.47
HOME DEPOT/GECF GENERAL SUPPLIES 55.26
HOME HARDWARE EQUIPMENT PARTS 149.37
HYDRO SUPPLY COMPANY OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 4,367.58
INTERSTATE DETROIT DIESEL EQUIPMENT PARTS 866.08
INTL CONFERENCE BLDG OFFICIALS GENERAL SUPPLIES 147.75
J H LARSON COMPANY BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 1,849.14
JIM MAGREW CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 100.00
JOHN HENRY FOSTER MINNESOTA EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 1,969.45
LUIS MIGUEL OCAMPO OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 207.00
M E H A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 135.00
MASTERSON PERSONNEL INC SALARIES - TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES 539.25
MAUMA SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 30.00
METHODIST HOSPITAL GENERAL CUSTOMERS 704.91
METRO SYSTEMS NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 68,687.71
METROCALL TELEPHONE 22.57
MICRO CENTER COMPUTER SUPPLIES 26.61
MIDWEST ASPHALT CORP OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 1,851.82
MIDWEST BADGE & NOVELTY CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 377.44
MINN DEPT OF ADMINISTRATION TELEPHONE 3,882.61
MINN STATE TREASURER STATE SURCHARGE PAYABLE 1,965.10
MINNESOTA CONWAY GENERAL SUPPLIES 100.65
MINNESOTA PIPE & EQUIPMENT OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 1,204.47
MN DRIVER & VEHICLE SVCS EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT CHARGE (46.00)
104
MN TRANSPORTATION ALLIANCE SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 565.00
MUNICILITE EQUIPMENT PARTS 228.12
MVTL LABORATORIES INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 190.50
N A H R O SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 20.00
NAPA GENUINE PARTS CO/FINANCE EQUIPMENT PARTS 274.83
NORTHERN BATTERY EQUIPMENT PARTS 37.99
NORTHLAND ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 2,803.00
NSP CO ELECTRIC SERVICE 58.85
OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE SUPPLIES 296.17
OLSON, FERDA C PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 6.50
ORAL & MAXILLOFACIAL SURGICAL DENTAL INSURANCE 34.09
OTTO PACKAGING MIDWEST LLC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES (72.00)
PARKER-HANNIFIN CORPORATION EQUIPMENT PARTS 103.23
PARTS PLUS EQUIPMENT PARTS 161.74
PERSONNEL DECISIONS INTERNATIO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 3,085.00
PRAXAIR DISTRIBUTION INC. GENERAL SUPPLIES 102.33
PRESTIGE LINCOLN MERCURY EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 1,471.29
PRO PRODUCTS INC GENERAL SUPPLIES (92.32)
PUMP & METER SERVICE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 55.71
QUANTERRA INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 5,150.00
QUICKSILVER EXPRESS COURIER EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 57.25
RANDY BLACKOWANK CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 100.00
RANDY'S SANITATION INC GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE 1,837.98
RIGID HITCH INCORPORATED EQUIPMENT PARTS 111.23
SCHARBER & SONS INC EQUIPMENT PARTS (3.51)
SCHWAAB INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 55.64
SEARS SMALL TOOLS 304.59
SIEGEL DISPLAY PRODUCTS GENERAL SUPPLIES 287.77
SLP CRIME PREVENTION FUND UNREALIZED REV-SAFETY CAMP 0.00
SONUS INTERIORS INC BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 11,146.90
ST. LOUIS PARK EDA DEPOSITS PAYABLE 1,515.00
SWANSON & YOUNGDALE INC BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 1,810.05
SWEENEY BROS TRACTOR EQUIPMENT PARTS 99.48
TCALMC TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 120.00
TEKSYSTEMS COMPUTER SERVICES 1,120.00
TERMINIX INTERNATIONAL BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 52.18
U S WEST INTERPRISE TELEPHONE 722.09
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE POSTAGE 100.00
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 60.00
VALIANT INCORPORATED NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 3,390.00
VEIT & COMPANY CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 408.75
WASTE MANAGEMENT-BLAINE GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE 60.05
WESSELS & PAUTSCH P.C. TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 120.00
WHEELER HARDWARE BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 12,160.06
WILLIAMS STEEL & HDWE EQUIPMENT PARTS 6.34
WM H MC COY PETROLEUM FUELS OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 258.80
ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE GENERAL SUPPLIES 58.13
ZIEGLER INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 126.99
ZION MEN'S CLUB CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 100.00
205,044.36
105
JANUARY 12,2001
VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
ADVANTA BANK CORP OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 97.45
AEI ELECTRONIC PARTS GENERAL SUPPLIES 11.86
AIRTOUCH CELLULAR TELEPHONE 2,210.16
AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HIS SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 25.00
APACHE GROUP OF MINNESOTA OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 948.94
ARAMARK UNIFORM CORPORATE
ACCT
GENERAL SUPPLIES 392.99
ASSN OF METRO MUNICIPALITIES SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 8,945.00
ATD-AMERICAN CO SUBSISTENCE SUPPLIES 451.08
AVR INC OTHER IMPROVEMENTS 519.08
BASSETT CREEK WATER MGMT COMM VENDORS & OTHERS 11,210.00
BATTERIES PLUS GENERAL SUPPLIES 20.83
BAUER BUILT TIRE & BATTERY EQUIPMENT PARTS (35.87)
BERTELSON OFFICE PRODUCTS GENERAL SUPPLIES 109.41
BOB & ALISSA BAER YOUTH ATHLETICS/LEAGUES-exempt 45.00
BRENTS SIGNS BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES 42.60
BROADWAY RENTAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT (1.66)
BRW INC DEPOSITS PAYABLE 1,825.00
CALL ONE INC RADIO COMMUNICATIONS 686.33
CAPITOL COMMUNICATIONS RADIO COMMUNICATIONS 60.90
COFFEE MILL INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 103.84
COLLISYS ELECTRIC CO OTHER IMPROVEMENTS 3,533.82
COMPRESSAIR & EQUIPMENT CO EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 901.00
CONCEPT SEATING INC GENERAL SUPPLIES (180.00)
DANKO EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 2,489.37
DAY-TIMERS INC OFFICE SUPPLIES 32.08
DONALD SALVERDA & ASSOC. GENERAL SUPPLIES 58.46
EDTECH OFFICE FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT 37,840.05
ELNESS SWENSON GRAHAM ARCHITEC DEPOSITS PAYABLE 1,544.65
EMERY'S TREE SERVICE INC CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 13,618.18
ESCOM SOFTWARE SERVICES LTD MOTOR FUELS 6,444.00
FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (15.67)
FANCHER PLANNING & DESIGN INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 360.00
FIRE INSTRUCTORS ASSN OF MINN GENERAL SUPPLIES 31.95
FRANKIES GENERAL SUPPLIES 100.72
GARDNER HARDWARE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 300.88
GENUINE PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (27.83)
GRAINGER INC, W W GENERAL SUPPLIES 624.94
GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 657.06
HENN CTY CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSN SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 160.00
HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF SUBSISTENCE SERVICE 2,490.65
HOME DEPOT GENERAL SUPPLIES 32.82
HOME DEPOT/GECF GENERAL SUPPLIES 74.10
HOME HARDWARE EQUIPMENT PARTS 299.40
ICI DULUX PAINT CENTERS GENERAL SUPPLIES 38.22
IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 111.60
INGRAHAM & ASSOCIATES INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,797.33
INTOXIMETERS INC NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 2,420.00
JEFF BIRD YOUTH ATHLETICS/LEAGUES-exempt 45.00
106
KOEHNEN & ASSOCIATES INC, LEON PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 728.80
KUSTOM SIGNALS INC NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 1,822.31
LANGEFELS, DOUGLAS MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 23.24
LENOX NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 35.95
M I A M A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 100.00
MAAO MEMBERSHIP COORDINATOR TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 330.00
MANOR ELECTRIC INC. ELECTRICAL PERMIT 71.25
MASTERSON PERSONNEL INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 299.25
MAXIMUM SOLUTIONS INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 400.00
MENARDS GENERAL SUPPLIES 127.70
MERRILL CORPORATION GENERAL SUPPLIES 293.48
METRO SYSTEMS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 23.00
METROCALL TELEPHONE 413.49
MICRO CENTER OFFICE SUPPLIES 119.10
MINN LEGAL REGISTER SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 60.00
MINN MULTI HOUSING ASSOCIATION TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 398.00
MINNEAPOLIS AREA ASSOC SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 177.86
MINNESOTA FIRE SERVICE TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 350.00
MINNESOTA PARK SUPERVISORS ASS SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 25.00
MINNESOTA POSTER COMPLIANCE CE SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 42.25
MN CHAPTER I A A I TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 170.00
MN DRIVER & VEHICLE SVCS EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT CHARGE (46.00)
MYRON MANUFACTURING CORP OFFICE SUPPLIES 235.57
N A T O A TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 495.00
NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 20.00
NATL WILDLIFE FEDERATION SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 17.00
NATOA SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 435.00
NEPM GENERAL SUPPLIES 525.00
NEWMECH CO INC BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 806.93
NSP CO ELECTRIC SERVICE 10,178.62
OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE SUPPLIES 466.72
OTTO PACKAGING MIDWEST LLC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES (72.00)
PAPER WAREHOUSE-GENERAL OFFICE GENERAL SUPPLIES 15.28
PENNIE ENGHUSEN YOUTH ATHLETICS/LEAGUES-exempt 45.00
PEPSI-COLA COMPANY CONCESSION SUPPLIES 629.90
POST BOARD OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 90.00
PRO PRODUCTS INC GENERAL SUPPLIES (92.32)
PUBLIC SAFETY EQUIPMENT CO EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 350.00
RICHFIELD CRIME PREVENTION UNI TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 20.00
RIVERLAND COMMUNITY COLLEGE TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 250.00
SCHARBER & SONS INC EQUIPMENT PARTS (3.51)
SELLS, NANCY DEPOSITS PAYABLE 17.73
SEVEN CORNERS ACE HDWE NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 1,199.11
SIMPLEX TIME RECORDER CO BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 697.04
SLP CRIME PREVENTION FUND UNREALIZED REV-SAFETY CAMP 0.00
SRF CONSULTING GROUP INC DEPOSITS PAYABLE 139.08
ST. LOUIS PARK EDA DUE TO OTHER FUNDS 462.39
STATE CHEMICAL MFG CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 118.09
STEFONOWICZ, JODY OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 450.00
STREICHER'S GENERAL SUPPLIES 37.28
STS CONSULTANTS LTD DEPOSITS PAYABLE 1,936.65
SUBURBAN FEED & SUPPLY GENERAL SUPPLIES 89.78
107
SUBURBAN PROPANE MOTOR FUELS 219.24
TERMINIX INTERNATIONAL BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 91.00
THE MITOGRAPHERS INC. PRINTING & PUBLISHING 436.49
THYMES TWO CATERING DEPOSITS PAYABLE 90.78
THYSSEN LAGERQUIST ELEVATOR BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 477.40
TWIN CITY OPTICAL GENERAL SUPPLIES 38.95
U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE 39.93
UNIFORMS UNLIMITED GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,250.64
VEIT & COMPANY CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 308.05
VOELKER, STACY M MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 31.56
WATSON CO INC CONCESSION SUPPLIES 3,216.55
WEIGEL, GREGORY TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 821.90
ZIP PRINTING PRINTING & PUBLISHING 289.08
136,286.31