Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001/02/05 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Regular 1 AGENDA - CITY COUNCIL MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA February 5, 2001 7:30 p.m. 7:25 p.m. - Economic Development Authority 1. Call to Order a. Pledge of Allegiance b. Roll Call 2. Presentations 3. Approval of Minutes a. Study Session Minutes of January 22, 2001 b. City Council Minutes of January 16, 2001 c. Study Session Minutes of January 8, 2001 Action: Corrections/amendments to minutes - Minutes approved as presented 4. Approval of Agenda and Consent Items NOTE: Consent items are those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion. a. Approval of Agenda Action: Motion to approve (Alternatively, motion to add or remove items from the agenda, motion to move items from consent to regular agenda for discussion). b. Approval of Consent Items 1. Motion to approve 2nd reading of miscellaneous ordinance amendments, adopt the proposed ordinance amendments, approve the summary and authorize its publication. 2 2. Motion to adopt a resolution amending final plat resolution and extending plat filing deadline to March 20, 2001 for Marshall Kieffer and to adopt a resolution amending variance resolution to include the property address 2621 Virginia Avenue South. 3. Motion to approve second 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, adopt ordinance, approve summary, and authorize publication Motion to approve second reading of an ordinance vacating a portion of W. 14th Street, subject to the condition described in the ordinance, adopt ordinance, approve summary, and authorize publication. 4. Motion to approve second reading of ordinance to increase the water and sewer utility rates by 2%, effective February 26, 2001, adopt ordinance, approve summary, and authorize publication. 5. Motion to adopt the attached resolution authorizing application for a Hennepin County grant to fund the City’s curbside recycling program. 6. Motion to accept the following reports for filing a. Vendor Claims b. Human Rights Commission Minutes of December 20, 2000 Action: Motion to approve Consent Items 5. Public Hearings 6. Requests and Communications from the Public 7. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions 7a. Civil Service Commissions The City Council is presented with the option to take action pursuant to City Council consideration of the report and recommendations from the Charter Commission regarding police and fire Civil Service Commissions. Recommended Action: Motion to adopt resolution abolishing the Police Civil Service Commission (7 affirmative votes required); continue pursuit of enabling State legislation allowing Council the option to abolish the Fire Civil Service Commission only in St. Louis Park; and seek citizen input on matters of police- and fire-related citizen concern as deemed advisable. 7b. Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments to change the zoning requirements for restaurants and other uses with wine and/or beer liquor licenses Case No. 00-62-ZA 3 Recommended Action: Motion to adopt first reading of an ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance to change the zoning requirements for restaurants and other uses with wine and beer licenses and set second reading for February 20, 2001. 7c. Resolution Entering Into Agreement With MDA For Food Inspection MN Department of Agriculture and the City would enter into a delegation agreement for the inspection of wholesale and retail food facilities Recommended Action: Approve resolution entering into delegation agreement with the Minnesota Department of Agriculture for inspection of certain food facilities within St. Louis Park 8. Boards and Committees a. Reappointments FN LN COMMITTEE STATUS Carl Robertson BOZA Tom Powers BOZA Chris Smith Human Rights Ashley Tomoson Parks and Recreation Student Jeff Davidman Parks and Recreation David Peters Parks and Recreation Michelle Bissonette Planning Commission Ken Gothberg Planning Commission 9. Communications 10. Adjournment 4 Item # 3a UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION January 22, 2001 The meeting convened at 7:00 p.m. Present at the meeting were Councilmembers Jim Brimeyer, Ron Latz, Chris Nelson, Susan Sanger, Sue Santa, Robert Young, and Mayor Jacobs. Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Meyer), Director of Public Works (Mr. Rardin), Community Outreach Coordinator (Ms. McDonell), Director of Inspections (Mr. Hoffman), Planning and Zoning Supervisor (Ms. Jeremiah), Environmental Health Officer (Mr. Camilon), Zoning Administrator (Mr. Moore), and City Clerk (Ms. Reichert). 1. Human Rights Commission and League of Women Voters Marc Berg and Lynn Littlejohn from the Human Rights Commission were present, along with Dorothy Karlson and Barb Person from the League of Women Voters (LOWV). Mr. Berg referred to memoranda received from regarding needs of neighbors and needs of immigrant population. He passed along a draft version of a new renter’s handbook and reported that funds had already been received toward printing the booklet. Ms. Karlson spoke about the research completed by LOWV on whether St. Louis Park is a welcoming community. She indicated that she was pleased with the progress of the publication. Mayor Jacobs was very enthusiastic and felt that this project was a good goal for the Human Rights Commission. Councilmember Sanger inquired what the Human Rights Commission and LOWV needed for the project from Council. Ms. Karlson replied that they would like funding for the project and help with distribution of the booklet. Councilmember Brimeyer inquired if work had been done to identify the pockets of immigrant residents in the city. Ms. Person stated that the census results would be helpful. Councilmember Nelson commented that landlords could help distribute the materials. Ms. Persons stated that updating the booklet will be necessary as info changes. Ms. Karlson stated that no other city has a booklet of this kind available, and St. Louis Park will be a leader. She added that kids at the High School are often communicators for their families and this should be distributed there as well. Mr. Meyer suggested that the Neighborhood Revitalization Fund and the Multi-Family Housing Coalition Fund would both be appropriate sources for funding. 5 Councilmember Nelson suggested that options given in the booklet should be presented in an unbiased way and that options presented should be inclusive rather than exclusive. 2. Friends of the Arts Update Rick Person, Erin Christianson, Susan Schneck, and Carole Humphries were present from Friends of the Arts. Ms. Schneck updated Council on their accomplishments which included hiring an Administrative Coordinator and obtaining funding from the City. She stated they had several goals for the year such as to provide coordination between the schools, the city and themselves. They would also like to begin a newsletter, resource center, and plan arts events. They hoped to get the newsletter out to the entire community within the next several weeks. Ms. Christianson discussed content of the newsletter and stated that a community arts calendar would be part of the newsletter each time it was published. Councilmember Sanger asked if Friends of the Arts had been working with Jack Becker of FORECAST Public Artworks, a private non-profit that helps cities and other agencies with public art initiatives. Mr. Meyer stated that in the context of Park Commons, staff and FORECAST have a meeting planned. He added that the first priority is establishing a relationship with them and then projects will be discussed at a later date. Ms. Schneck reported that Friends of the Arts was surprised that new members were already inquiring about the potential for an arts center in Park Commons. Mr. Meyer stated that the potential for an arts center simply was not realistic for the current phase of Park Commons, but that this was the time to begin planning and determining actual community needs so that future development on the Park Commons West site could include a compatible arts use. Councilmembers Nelson and Brimeyer echoed Mr. Meyer’s statements and urged Friends of the Arts to work with constituent groups to ascertain community needs. Ms. Humphries felt that private teachers and schools could provide better quality programs and a niche for a segment of the population not currently served. Mr. Person felt that Friends of the Arts needs to undergo a rigorous process to determine community needs in terms of art and what should be offered. He suggested that they be ready with a concrete proposal at the next phase of Park Commons. Mr. Meyer suggested that perhaps FORECAST can help explore the issue and work with them to include it in the scope of service. Mr. Persons stated that as a result of some visioning Friends of the Arts had done, a basis existed that could be checked out with FORECAST. Councilmember Sanger inquired if there will be an art fair this year. Ms. Schneck replied that they were planning an arts event called Celebrate the Arts in conjunction with the Ice Cream Social in May. 6 3. Traffic Signal Mr. Rardin presented to Council a set of criteria staff had proposed for evaluating traffic signal requests. Council indicated support for the recommendations and asked questions to clarify some points. Councilmember Santa felt that staff and the Council should be prepared to evaluate all citizen requests on criteria presented. She wanted to be sure that the criteria were all sound. Councilmember Brimeyer inquired if the criteria will need to be ranked or prioritized. Council initially felt that “weighting” criteria would be helpful. Mr. Meyer interjected that different requests may require different considerations and that for some requests weighting one criteria over another may be appropriate, but in others the same criteria may be very different. Mayor Jacobs suggested that flexibility be left in the process. Mr. Rardin agreed. Councilmember Nelson felt Council should always be respectful of staff presenting alternative ideas. His concern was that even thought the criteria are all reasonable, each request still needs to be evaluated individually. Mr. Rardin suggested applying criteria to a couple of existing situations and then bring their recommendation back to Council using the criteria. The criteria could be formalized upon approval. 4. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Allowing Uses Closer to Residential Districts Mr. Moore explained that staff would like to discuss with Council the topic of allowing certain uses closer to residential areas. This had been presented to Council previously and Council had asked that it be brought to a study session for discussion. Councilmember Sanger was opposed to the amendment but would consider variances on a case by case basis. Councilmember Young pointed out that the buffer that would be eliminated was of an extraordinary size. Councilmember Latz felt that the ordinance should be written so that it could be applied consistently to all cases. Ms. Jeremiah suggested keeping the setback for resident and institutional use. She added that the setback should be removed for industrial and commercial use. Council agreed. 5. Liquor License Referendum Options Ms. Reichert reported to Council that there was a need to add more liquor licenses in the City and that a ballot question to do that should be presented to the public. After discussion Council directed staff to contact members of the business community to get their input and to research restrictions regarding campaigning. 6. Recodification – Chapter 6, Building and Property Maintenance Mr. Hoffman stated that the current building code is an assembly of various ordinances adopted throughout the years and recodification provides the opportunity to adopt State and model codes. 7 Mayor Jacobs was concerned that the code could be open to a broad interpretation by enforcement officers. He did not want to criminalize property maintenance violations. Councilmember Latz felt that provisions for penalties should be kept as written. He suggested that administrative policies be created to guide staff members on enforcement standards. Council had several questions regarding individual provisions of the property maintenance code. Councilmember Sanger asked if the code would apply equally to rental or owner occupied properties. She would like to see inspections done at the time a rental property was sold. Mr. Hoffman suggested that rental properties be included in the survey to be done later in the year. Councilmember Sanger inquired about putting time limits on construction projects. Mr. Hoffman replied that the state will not allow cities to impose time limits. Councilmember Sanger inquired how the City can ensure compliance. Mr. Hoffman replied that they staff had made significant progress in working through the court system. 7. Communications Councilmember Nelson questioned the impact of investments in Pacific Gas and Electric on the City. Councilmember Sanger raised the issue of the ice rink at Twin Lakes and stated that she had received several calls from residents disappointed that the rink was not being maintained. Council had agreed at a previous study session to cease maintenance of the Twin Lakes rink. At Councilmember Sanger’s request, Council requested staff to remove snow for the remainder of this year and to consider alternatives for providing ice rink facilities for the neighborhood for the next. 8. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 10:25. City Clerk Mayor 8 Item # 3b UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA JANUARY 16, 2001 1. Call to Order and Roll Call Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. The following Councilmembers were present at roll call: Ron Latz, Chris Nelson, Sue Sanger, Robert Young, and Mayor Jeff Jacobs. Also present were the City Manager (Mr. Meyer); City Attorney (Mr. Scott); EDA Attorney (Mr. Bubul); Finance Director (Ms. McGann); Director of Community Development (Mr. Harmening); Planning Associate (Ms. Peterson); and Recording Secretary (Ms. Olson). 2. Presentations - None 3. Approval of Minutes a. City Council Minutes of December 18, 2000 The minutes were approved as presented with the following change. Item 7b, Paragraph 3, change “Lubor” to “Lubov”. b. Study Session Minutes of December 11, 2000 The minutes were approved as presented with the following change. Item 3, Paragraph 3, change “one’s” to “the median”. 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. Agenda It was moved by Councilmember Latz, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to approve the agenda. The motion passed 5-0 b. Approval of Consent Items 9 It was moved by Councilmember Latz, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to approve the following Consent Items. The motion passed 5-0. 1. Authorize execution of a contract extension to Contract No. 1893 with Severn Trent Services (STL – Denver) for laboratory serviced related to the Reilly Tar & Chemical Corporation groundwater sampling program through year 2001. 2. Adopt amendment to Professional Services Agreement with Campbell Knutson to reflect 2001 rates. 3. Adopt Resolution No. 01-001 designating the St. Louis Park Sun-Sailor as the City’s Official Newspaper for 2001. 4. Approve 2001 City Council meeting dates. 5. Adopt Resolution No. 01-002 an amendment to Resolution No 00-124 regarding issuance of on-sale intoxicating liquor licenses in the City. 6. Adopt Resolution No. 01-003 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 5. Public Hearings 5a. Competitive Cable TV System Franchises Public Hearing It was moved by Councilmember Latz, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to continue the public hearing to February 19, 2001. The motion 5-0. 5b. Park Commons Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District and Business Subsidy Hearing. Resolution No. 01-004 Tom Kleve, Economic Development Coordinator presented a staff report and recommended approval. He stated that the Park Commons TIF district is being created to help facilitate the redevelopment of the Park Commons East project. He explained the construction phases relating to the TIF plan for the Park Commons East development and indicated that Phase 1 must be completed by February 2003. He stated that he received a letter from Hennepin County that will be added into the pubic record as Exhibit A. Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. Steve Buffington, Minikahda Vista Neighborhood Association, stated that the neighborhood association objected to the approval of the TIF District and the adoption of the Park Commons East project. He presented some documents to be added into the public record as Exhibit B. 10 With no one else wishing to speak, Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing. Councilmember Nelson asked staff to comment on the spreadsheet provided by the neighborhood association. Mr. Harmening, Director of Community Development stated that the parcels met the statutory tests required by the City to create a TIF District just as the City’s third party assessment found as well. Councilmember Nelson asked when the City Council would vote on issuing general obligation TIF bonds. Mr. Buffington questioned the use of general obligation tax increment bonds and that he would review his questions with Mr. Kleve after the meeting. Mr. Kleve, Economic Development Coordinator stated that the TIF bonds would not be issued until all of the public improvements are complete around the end of next year. He stated that they could not be issued until there was at least 120% coverage of the bond payments. Mark Ruff, Ehlers and Associates, stated that the tax increment plan states that as proposed the development may be financed by a variety of revenue sources including proceeds of existing general obligation tax increment bonds (cured by increment from other tax increment districts). It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Latz, to close the TIF and Business Subsidy hearing and to adopt Resolution No. 01-004 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. The motion passed 5-0. 6. Requests and Communications from the Public - None 7. Requests and Communications from the Public 7a. First Reading of the Ordinance Amending Water & Sewer Utility Rates for 2001 Jean McGann, Finance Director presented a brief staff report and recommended approval. It was moved by Councilmember Latz, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to waive first reading and set second reading for February 5, 2001. The motion passed 5-0. 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 11 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. Ordinance No. 2186-01 Tom Harmening, Director of Community Development presented a staff report and recommended approval. It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to approve Second Reading of Zoning Map Amendment, adopt Ordinance No. 2186-01, approve summary, and authorize its publication. The motion passed 5-0. 7c. TOLD Development Agreement. Resolution No. 01-005 Councilmember Nelson stated that the City has made a commitment to study traffic impacts of this development and be aware of potential mitigation costs. It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Latz, to adopt Resolution No. 01-005 approving a Contract for Private Redevelopment between the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority, the City of St. Louis Park, and Meridian Properties Read Estate Development LLC with the changes discussed at the EDA meeting. The motion passed 5-0. 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 Sacha Peterson, Associate Planner presented a staff report. Staff and the Planning Commission believed the seven criteria had been met for the requested variance and recommended approval of the variance. Staff and the Planning Commission also recommended approval of the Major CUP Amendment, subject to the conditions in the resolution. Ms. Peterson noted the following change to condition 16b: to add “In addition, all roadways shall be maintained free of snow and snow storage from curb to curb with snow being transported off site if necessary and the City will aggressively enforce snow clearing requirements and parking limitations”. Councilmember Latz asked if there were any provisions in the ordinance for penalties for parties that fail to comply with the requirement of coming forward to the Council prior to making their own modifications to a site plan without getting a variance. Ms. Peterson stated that she was not aware of any provision. 12 Councilmember Latz asked if there were any provision that prevents the City from amending the ordinance to provide penalties or from adding penalties at the present time to an existing case. Tom Kleve, City Attorney stated the a provision can be made to the zoning ordinance which would make a violation of a condition of a CUP the same as a violation of the zoning ordinance, a misdemeanor or petty misdemeanor. He stated he couldn’t envision how we could apply that retroactively to this situation after the violation has occurred. Councilmember Latz stated that it couldn’t be done from a criminal standpoint, but asked about an administrative penalty. Mr. Kleve stated that he didn’t see any reason why the City couldn’t have an administrative penalty. He stated the argument for being applied retroactively would be that it would be a continuing violation. He stated if the Council took some action tonight that would basically make the situation in compliance by granting a variance or granting a major amendment to a CUP and then they would be in compliance and it would no longer be a continuing violation. Councilmember Latz stated that the City was being put in a very awkward position. He did not want the city to be put into the same position again and wanted to send a substantial message to any future developers. He wanted developers to know that in addition to convincing the Council to grant a variance retroactively, that may be substantial financial administrative penalties that the Council could choose to impose. He suggested bringing this policy issue of amending the ordinance to provide for the discretion on the part of the Council to a future study session for discussion. He stated that what the city is left with is a situation where either the developer is forced to go back and tear down whole buildings because they built it too close to a lot line without getting a variance. In this case big trees were removed which left no ability for staff to independently confirm that those trees had to be removed. He felt the City was put in a no win situation and the only way to resolve these kind of issues is with penalties. Ms. Peterson stated that as far as the variance is concerned staff believes that all seven criteria are met, regardless of whether the site has already been developed or not because there is a physical hardship with the shape of the lot and the wet lands. As far as the CUP, staff recognized that there was already a development there and looking at the existing road width would meet the minimum requirement of 28 feet from the Fire Department and Public Works. Councilmember Nelson stated that he was also concerned about coming in retroactively and seeking a variance. He believed this needed to be discussed as a general policy issue a future study session. He reviewed some highlights from a Council Packet of July 20, 1998 outlining staff recommendations for the development. He noted the importance of aggressively monitoring the snow removal and the no parking zones in order to ensure 20 feet of usable roadway. He suggested that the turn around be 13 extended and the cost be absorbed by the developer. He asked if the sidewalks are indeed five feet in width. Ms. Peterson stated that she didn’t have a grading plan, therefore didn’t know if extending the turnaround was possible. If it was feasible, the agreement between the City and the developer would need to be amended to increase the area where the develop is leasing land from the City in order to provide the turnaround and this would be at the developer’s expense. She believed the sidewalks were less than five feet. She stated that is would be possible to have an arrangement where the City would clear the snow if necessary and assess it back to the property owner. Jack Kranovich, Edina Development Corporation believed that the Council had a misconceived idea that the developer had gone in and totally altered the site without the City’s knowledge. He provided some photos to be added into the public record of the trees on the property which were impossible to save because of their roots that went under neighboring garages. He stated that he talked with the Inspections Department about the retaining wall and obtained an approved permit. He stated that he talked to the Fire Marshall who approved the plan. He stated that the snow is being adequately removed at the present time. Councilmember Nelson stated he would like to determine a mechanism to ensure compliance for adequate snow removal in the future. Mr. Kranovich said that it would be beneficial to come up with a fine for improper snow removal instead of tearing out the retaining wall and extending the turnaround. The Project Manager explained that the trees and their roots were pushing into the neighboring garages and the garages needed to be protected with the retaining wall. He stated that the sidewalks were five feet. Councilmember Nelson asked if the developer was amenable to work out some type of liquidated damages if the streets don’t get plowed. Mr. Kranovich, Edina Development Corporation stated that he would be amendable to this. Councilmember Sanger asked if permission was granted by the Inspections Department for all of the deviations from the plan without informing Community Development. Ms. Peterson stated that the developer came in with a design change for the retaining wall which does not require any changes to the planning approval. The Inspections Department was not made aware of the fact that changes to the retaining wall necessitated other changes and so planning staff was not informed. She stated that it should have been clear to the developer that tree removal should have been notified because there was a specific tree removal plan that was approved. Councilmember Sanger stated that she did not believe that the criteria for the variance has been satisfied because self imposed problems that cause the hardship do not 14 constitute hardship under our ordinance. She believed all the problems were caused by either the developer’s failure to do adequate planning on the site or from failure to pick up the phone and call the people who needed to be called. She was opposed to granting the variance. She believed that perhaps too many units were on this lot and more diligent planning would have prevented this problem. She was not in favor of voting on approval and saw this as a developer seeking forgiveness rather than seeking permission in the first place. Mr. Kranovich, Edina Development Corporation reiterated that anything that was done was discussed with the Inspections Department. Mayor Jacobs stated that he was uncomfortable with the way this was done and the 20 feet road width. He asked what discretion the City had to approve or disapprove a major amendment of this nature. He asked staff how tied the two motion were together. Tom Scott, City Attorney stated that the Council has this within its complete discretion whether it wants to amend any of the conditions to the CUP. Ms. Peterson indicated that if the variance was approved there still would be several areas in which the actual site does not conform to the CUP. Councilmember Nelson suggested that the City build into the condition some way to ensure compliance of maintaining a 20 feet roadway. Recovery of costs to the City could run with the land. Tom Scott, City Attorney stated that this could be accomplished through an agreement with the developer and current owner that the City would have the right to assess any costs incurred that would be built into the Development Contract or CUP or make it a condition of the CUP that runs with the land Councilmember Sanger asked if the best way to accomplish this would be to set up an escrow account. Mr. Scott, City Attorney stated that this option could be looked at also. Mayor Jacobs was not concerned about the variance, but was concerned about road width. Councilmember Latz asked why the developer couldn’t have lowered the site with the edge of the development. Gary Rude of Edina Development Corporation stated that the root systems were too extensive. Councilmember Latz asked why it was not evident that the tree roots would be extending beyond the range on the property when the original plan was designed. 15 Mr. Rude stated that the project would have not been possible without the removal of the trees. He indicated that he talked with Helen Bigos who owned the garages and the roots were pushing her garages in and agreed with the removal of the trees. Councilmember Latz did not agree with the garage issue as a factor of the tree removal. He believed the developer created his own hardship by paying too much for the property and having to load the density on the site. He believed the developer denied the City the opportunity to basically force the developer to redesign the project. Councilmember Sanger asked the developer what the emergency was that prevented him from calling the Community Development Department before taking action. Mr. Rude stated that Scott Moore from Inspections had been out at the site and they had made the cut along the side and the trees had to come down. We possibly could have made a phone call. Councilmember Young stated that he was convinced by the photos that the trees had to come down because of the potential future liability by the landowner. He noted that this road width was not uncommon in the City, i.e. Victoria Ponds. Councilmember Latz asked what the tree replacement requirements were. Mr. Harmening stated that the trees that were removed were cottonwood trees and a cash contribution and plantings on the site would meet the City’s tree replacement ordinance. Ms. Peterson stated the tree replacement requirements in this case are proposed to be met by a combination of on site replacement and cash in lieu of on site which would be approximately $9,600. Councilmember Sanger suggested that this was not the City’s problem, but let the developer go back and do some planning and thinking and how he might intend to remedy his own mistakes. Councilmember Nelson supported the variance issue and stated he was going to make a recommendation with respect to the roadway. Councilmember Latz asked the City Attorney if it was possible to levy any kind of administrative penalty on the developer for failure to follow the required process in this case. Mr. Scott, City Attorney stated that he didn’t see any way to impose any sort of administrative penalty since it was not in any existing ordinance on this developer. He indicated that the City could make a provision in the zoning ordinance that makes violation of a CUP a misdemeanor. 16 The Council discussed the various options that would remedy the situation. It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Young, to approve Resolution No. 01-006 approving a variance for reduced bufferyard along east lot line. The motion passed 4-1. Councilmember Sanger opposed. Mr. Meyer, City Manager stated that it would also be helpful to review the issue of the enforcement of the parking to ensure public safety. Mr. Harmening stated that if this issue was to be continued it would need to be with the understanding that the developer was willing to write a letter agreeing to extend the period of time to work through this on a cooperate basis. Mr. Kravanovich agreed to extend the required time period for 60 days. It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Young, to defer considering the major amendment to the CUP to the next Council Study Session and we come back with an agreement between the City and the developer as to how we are going to implement an enforcement mechanism with some form of damages. If the condition continued unabated for a reasonable time the City would recover any cost incurred. He suggested that staff also look at the police departments increased enforcement costs. The motion passed 5-0. It was moved by Councilmember Latz , seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to refer this matter to the City Attorney for consideration of misdemeanor charges for violation of the zoning ordinance. The motion passed 5-0. Councilmember Nelson believed the act of referring the issue to the City Attorney speaks to the mindset of the City Council. A violation has occurred and he felt by directing to the City Attorney it was direction to pursue the issue. 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-A and 01-02-VAC Sacha.Peterson, Planner presented a staff report and recommended approval. It was moved by Councilmember Young, seconded by Councilmember Nelson, to 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. The motion passed 5-0. 17 It was moved by Councilmember Young, seconded by Councilmember Nelson, to 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. The motion passed 5-0. Mr. Meyer, City Manager noted that this would be Sacha Peterson’s last meeting. 7f. Election of Mayor Pro-tem. Resolution No. 01-007 It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Young, to adopt Resolution No. 01-007 appointing Councilmember Latz as Mayor Pro-tem. The motion passed 4-1. Councilmember Latz abstained. 8. Board and Committees 8a. Appoint members to the Human Right Commission It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Latz, to appoint Kristi Rudelius-Palmer, Cassandra Boddy, Maya Winoker, and Jake Feldman to the Human Rights Commission. The motion passed 5-0. 9. Communications From the City Manager – None From the Mayor – None 10. Adjournment Mayor Jacobs adjourned the meeting at 9:50 p.m. City Clerk Mayor 18 Item # 3c UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION January 8, 2001 The meeting convened at 7:00 p.m. Present at the meeting were Councilmembers Jim Brimeyer, Chris Nelson Susan Sanger, Sue Santa, and Mayor Jeff Jacobs. Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Meyer), Director of Community Development (Mr. Harmening), Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Kleve), Housing Programs Coordinator (Ms. Larsen), Housing Supervisor (Ms. Schnitker), Director of Inspections (Mr. Hoffman), Environmental Health Official (Mr. Camilon), and City Clerk (Ms. Reichert). 1. Park Commons TIF District / TOLD Development Agreement Bob Cunningham of TOLD, Mark Ruff of Ehlers & Associates, and Steve Bubul of Kennedy Graven, Chartered were present at the meeting. Mr. Cunningham gave an overview of changes made to the plan. He spoke of parking, traffic, and phasing. Councilmember Brimeyer questioned the position of the amphitheater. Mr. Bubul reviewed the business points of the agreement. He updated Council on the status of the land acquisition needed for the project, stating that only one property remained and the developer is currently working with the owners of that property. Mr. Bubul reported that the final plat and PUD for Phase I will be ready to go before Council for approval. Once passed, each subsequent phase will be continued in accordance to the development agreement. Mr. Kleve presented a construction schedule. It showed October 2002 as the target date for public improvements, small office, and for sale housing construction to be completed. All Phase I construction, including the public improvements and the Town Green, is expected to be completed by February 2003. Apartment and large office/housing construction for Phases II through IV are anticipated to be completed by August 2004. Mr. Kleve spoke of the construction schedule for portions of the project such as private improvements, public improvements and public financing. Councilmember Nelson asked how the current proposal compared to previous proposal from Avalon Bay. Mr. Harmening replied that this proposal has gone farther into the project than Avalon had done previously and added that the financial details for the project are more complete. Councilmember Sanger asked about pending Legislative changes in regards to tax increment financing. Mr. Bubul replied that the City is protected and TOLD would have the burden. 19 Councilmembers and staff present felt that Legislative proposal would not be likely to go through. Mr. Bubul stated that the developer must build all four phases to compensate for money expended in Phase I. Councilmember Nelson asked about the developer’s negotiations with the lenders for Phases II through IV. Mr. Cunningham replied that TOLD has spoken with lenders, but specific terms have not been identified. Mr. Bubul stated that a special service district will be established and some fee wavers will be given such as park dedications, etc. He added that he City is in an excellent financial position going into this project. Mr. Bubul suggested transfer restriction and default remedy to be put in place. Councilmember Santa was concerned about the construction schedule and would like to see the project keep moving forward with constant visible progress. Mr. Cunningham replied that it would not be in TOLD’s best interest to delay construction start dates and the schedule has built in protection against unforeseen economic problems. Mr. Harmening stated that the dates as presented are in consideration for the developers to ensure that economic recession would not provide the opportunity for the City to remove them from the project for not meeting crucial date requirements. He added that the development agreement force negotiations to be based on worst case scenarios. Councilmember Nelson stated that the schedule is vastly accelerated compared to the charrette schedule. Mr. Ruff felt that it was important to see this project as a moment in time and that negotiations are continuing and will change as time and the project progresses. Mr. Ruff then presented a brief overview of the financial aspect of the project and the underlying assumptions supporting the Tax Increment plan. Key TIF assumptions are a 2.7 percent inflation rate and 22 years of tax increment capture. Public financing will fund land acquisition, parking, and infrastructure. Mr. Harmening asked for further Council direction. Mayor Jacobs inquired if staff would be ready with the PUD for the next regular Council meeting. Mr. Harmening replied that it would be subject to Council authorization for staff to make several non-substantive changes. Council agreed. Mr. Harmening stated that there would be an update on the Jennings option and suggested that Council exercise the option. Ms. Reichert reported to Council that a resolution will be coming forward in which it clarifies that five liquor licenses will be held for the Park Commons development. She stated that the developers had wanted reassurance that five licenses were to be reserved for the development to help in their negotiations for lease space. 2. Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Study Jack Forsland, BRW, was present at the meeting. He distributed a handout indicating the study approach and the results of the analyzed traffic conditions. Mr. Forsland explained that Phase I of the study has been completed and consisted of public outreach, identification of issues and 20 needs, and review/analysis of existing traffic date. He reported that Phase II of the study is currently underway. Phase II addresses the identified issues of safety and speed, pedestrian/bicycle access, cut-through traffic, and mobility/congestion. Council and staff looked at graphs detailing traffic patterns in the area. Mr. Forsland stated they analyzed factors that had contributed to the increase and decline in numbers for various years. He explained the cut-through traffic indications. Councilmember Nelson asked about the basis of the formula used to analyze the data. Mr. Forsland explained how the Hennepin County model is used. Council and staff discussed mitigation measures for the flow of traffic in the Excelsior Boulevard area. Councilmember Sanger expressed her concern about traffic lights and the amount of time needed on them to allow pedestrians adequate time to cross. She was also concerned about the single northbound lane on Monterey Ave. Councilmember Nelson inquired if money has been budgeted for additional studies. Mr. Meyer replied that money has been budgeted through the mitigation stage. Councilmember Nelson felt money should be allowed through the build out stage to address concerns as the project moves forward and concepts become real. Council agreed and felt it was necessary. 3. Preservation and Enhancement of City Housing Stock Mr. Harmening reported to Council that staff felt it was appropriate to review the existing housing programs and future initiatives based upon the results from the recent Vision St. Louis Park – Residential Survey conducted by Decision Resources, Ltd. Mayor Jacobs commented that he enjoys working with Representative Rhodes on legislation for repair of blighted property and the neighborhood clean up program. Councilmember Sanger felt that the code should be more specific on the definition of “blight”. Mr. Camilon stated that perception differs widely between individuals. Mr. Hoffman felt they should first determine if there is a problem with blighted houses in the city. Councilmember Nelson felt there were only a few major problems within the City but many people have identified those few as major problems. Mr. Hoffman stated that a money incentive program would be possible but inquired how the problem would be assessed. He suggested doing an inventory of blighted homes and possibly a windshield survey. Councilmember Sanger cautioned against moving forward unless the ability to do so was present. Councilmember Santa inquired about landlord/tenant problems. Councilmember Brimeyer felt that enforcement would be a problem in that sense. He also commented about housing court. Mr. Hoffman stated that the Housing code needs to be updated and they would bring the issue back after refinement. He suggested adopting the property maintenance standards. 21 Mayor Jacobs asked if abatement was possible in the nuisance ordinance. Mr. Meyer asked Council if they supported conducting an inventory of housing conditions. Councilmember Sanger replied that she would support it but only if follow through occurred. Mr. Hoffman suggested categorizing the problem areas and working over time to correct the violations. Councilmember Nelson felt that it would be difficult to determine the amount of money and staff time needed to address the issue without doing an inventory. Councilmember Nelson would like to see the worst problems addressed first. Councilmember Santa was concerned that qualification standards are too high for many residents to qualify for assistance programs to make improvements on property. She wanted to be certain that resources to assist applicants are available before publicizing new programs. Mr. Harmening felt that an assessment and inventory are necessary to tailor programs to the needs of the community. Mr. Camilon stated that this program would help achieve the third tier of the “Philosophy of Inspections” that was adopted last year. Councilmember Nelson suggested removing barriers on existing programs. Councilmember Sanger inquired if there were problems with deterioration of rental homes. Mr. Hoffman replied that it is difficult to determine at the moment but an assessment would help identify any problems. 4. Historical Society Councilmember Nelson suggested discussion of this issue at a later date. However, he did report that the Historical Society has an interest in developing a book. 5. Board and Commissions Update Councilmember Brimeyer suggested that two to three students from the Mosaic program at the High School Staff should be on the Human Rights Commission. Staff recommended the appointment of Kristi Rudelius-Palmer, Cassandra Boddy, Maya Winoker, and Jake Feldman to the Human Rights Commission. 6. Communications Staff and Council discussed the remodeling of City Hall and felt that pictures of both staff and Council should be displayed. 7. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m.. City Clerk Mayor 22 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 7a Meeting of February 5, 2001 7a. Civil Service Commissions The City Council is presented with the option to take action pursuant to City Council consideration of the report and recommendations from the Charter Commission regarding police and fire Civil Service Commissions. Recommended Action: Motion to adopt resolution abolishing the Police Civil Service Commission (7 affirmative votes required); continue pursuit of enabling State legislation allowing Council the option to abolish the Fire Civil Service Commission only in St. Louis Park; and seek citizen input on matters of police- and fire-related citizen concern as deemed advisable. Background: The 1999 Legislature adopted a law allowing cities to abolish police civil service commissions by a unanimous vote of the city council. Previously, a commission could only be abolished by a citizen vote. In light of this new authority, other cities (including Minnetonka, Spring Lake Park, and Columbia Heights) have been examining the issue. In February of 2000, the St. Louis Park City Council asked the Charter Commission to act as a neutral, third party to study the issue and make recommendations. The Charter Commission took testimony from a former League of Minnesota Cities lobbyist, past and present Civil Service Commission members, union representatives, Council members, the City Attorney’s office, and staff. In taking testimony, the Charter Commission utilized a consistent set of questions or asked those giving testimony to address similar relevant issues. Charter Recommendations and Council Direction: At its September 13, 2000 meeting, based on seven months of work, the Charter Commission (1) voted unanimously to recommend abolishing the Police Civil Service Commission by Council vote; (2) voted unanimously to recommend pursuit of State legislation enabling the abolishment of the Fire Civil Service Commission; and (3) voted unanimously to recommend that the City seek citizen input on matters of fire and police related concern. At its study on November 13, 2000, the City Council discussed the Charter Commission’s report and recommendations with several members of the Commission who were present. Relevant minutes of the study session are attached. The report and recommendations concluded, in part, that Civil Service Commissions were redundant with other City personnel practices. The Council noted the thoroughness of the report and the diligent and fair work of Commission members on 23 the project since February 2000. Council requested that the Charter Commission recommend language changes consistent with elimination of civil service commissions in the City. City Personnel Practices Without Civil Service Commissions: In addition to the redundancy with other City personnel practices, valid questions have been raised with respect to how personnel activities would be conducted in the absence of one or both civil service commissions. Nancy Gohman, Human Resources Manager, has provided the attached memo in response to such questions. In summary, current personnel practices would provide more flexibility and streamlining should civil service commissions, which create restrictions and redundancies, be eliminated. Next Actions: Two actions are now required to further the report’s recommendations: 1. City Council action to formally abolish the Police Civil Service Commission (requires 7 affirmative votes); continue pursuit of enabling State legislation allowing Council the option to abolish the Fire Civil Service Commission only in St. Louis Park; and seek citizen input on matters of police- and fire-related citizen concern as deemed advisable. Such input could be on a broad variety of policy and staffing matters, and would be consistent with the approach taken to citizen input by Council in other City service areas. Adoption of the attached resolution would complete this action. 2. Parallel to the above-described Council action, consider language changes to the Charter, as Council requested on November 13. The Charter Commission has drafted and approved such proposed language changes consistent with direction given by Council on November 13. The changes were published on January 24, and a public hearing has been scheduled at the February 20 City Council meeting to consider such changes. Attachments: November 13, 2000 City Council Study Session Minutes (excerpt) Memo from Nancy Gohman, Human Resources Manager Resolution Prepared by: Clint Pires, Deputy City Manager Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 24 (EXCERPT) OFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION November 13, 2000 The meeting convened at 7:00 p.m. Present at the meeting were Councilmembers Jim Brimeyer, Chris Nelson, Susan Sanger, Sue Santa, and Mayor Jeff Jacobs. Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Meyer), Deputy City Manager (Mr. Pires), Director of Finance (Ms. McGann), Police Captain (Mr. Walker), Grounds and Natural Resources Manager (Mr. Vaughan), and City Clerk (Ms. Reichert). 1. Charter Commission Study on Civil Service Commissions Mr. Pires and members of the Charter Commission addressed the Council regarding the final report prepared by the Charter Commission on the matter of Police and Fire Civil Service Commissions. Mr. Pires commended the Charter Commission for conducting a thorough study while acting as a fair and neutral third party. Present at the meeting were Charter Commission members Dorothea Moga, Cynthia Ahrens, Cheryl Ernst, Brian Fiderlein, Carol Walsh, and Chair George Beck. Chair Beck described the process the Charter Commission used to reach their decision, stating they had interviewed with past and present Commission members, City staff, City Attorney’s office, union representatives, and a lobbyist from the League of Minnesota Cities. He reported that the Charter Commission recommended the following actions: pursue State Legislation to enable the abolishment of the Fire Civil Service Commission, abolish the Police Civil Service Commission, and seek citizen input on matters of fire and police related concern. He indicated that the Charter language changes would be required if Council chooses to abolish the Police and Fire Civil Service Commissions. Council asked the Charter Commission to bring forward proposed changes to the Charter. Commissioner Moga wanted to be sure that citizen input would still continue to be part of the hiring process for police and fire. Commissioner Ahrens felt that the Council, City Administration and Human Resources should design a process for public input. Captain Walker stated that citizen input was already a part of the process on all levels. Councilmember Nelson agreed that citizen input was important but was hesitant to structure a board without a clear mission. Councilmember Sanger said she was pleased with the work the Charter Commission had done and the outcome of their study. She asked how the Police and Fire Departments were different than other City positions in their need for public input in the hiring process. Commissioner Moga responded that Police and Fire Department employees are intimately involved with the public in times of stress. 25 Mr. Pires stated that the Charter Commission had provided the Council with some flexibility in this issue. He added that meaningful public input was also important in other processes, not only for hiring of candidates. Mr. Meyer stated that the police department must reflect the community and public’s input. Councilmember Sanger asked what the next steps are to abolish the Fire Civil Service Commission. Mr. Meyer replied that there are lobbying efforts that the City can undertake to petition the State legislature to pass new legislation allowing Cities to abolish Fire Civil Service Commissions. 26 HUMAN RESOURCES To: Charlie Meyer, City Manager From: Nancy Gohman, Human Resources Manager Subject: Hiring process - overview Date: 1/10/01 With the possibility of elimination of Civil Service Commissions for both Police and Fire, a number of questions have been raised about hiring processes for Police and Fire without a Commission. The purpose of this memo is to provide a guide on how hiring processes could be conducted without Civil Service. Recruitment: We must ensure a fair, valid and non-discriminatory recruitment process when coordinating all hiring for the City. HR manages all hiring for the City including hiring for Civil Service positions. Recruitment for Police and Fire would continue, as in the past, with many similarities. Hiring Process: Job Descriptions: HR works with Department Heads to ensure our job descriptions are up to date listing essential requirements of the position as well as minimum qualifications. Each job description is reviewed and updated before recruitment for a vacancy. Developing a process: Due to the number of applications, a detailed hiring process must be developed for Police and Fire positions prior to advertising for the position. This hiring process may include: -review of applications to ensure they meet minimums -application of veterans preference -written testing from a validated source -other validated testing may be used in combination with interviews and/or written test(s) -series of interviews which include members from both staff and public -overall review and analysis of testing and interview scores -development of a list based on scores -background investigation, physical examination, psychological evaluation -final interview of top candidate(s) with Department Head -recommendation to City Manager regarding the hire Hiring a Police Officer or Firefighter: The City Manager has final approval of hiring over all City staff including Police and Fire. A process without Civil Service would continue to require a Department Head to make final recommendations of hire to the City Manager. The top candidates are considered based on scores from the process. 27 Internal Promotions: Under the Police Civil Service, we were uncertain how to conduct an internal promotional process for Police Officers. The existing by-laws were very specific on opening Police Officer recruitment to the public and maintaining a list for one year. This conflicted with our attempts to hire more females and minorities in our department. As you know, we hire and train Cadets, many of whom are females and minorities, to prepare and train them for the position of Police Officer. Without Civil Service, we would have the opportunity to add an internal promotional process for Police Officers. By having the ability to internally promote Police Officers, we can then encourage our Cadets, who meet minimum requirements, to apply. The advantage to internal promotions is the better opportunity we will have to hire our Cadets who are trained and have become familiar with our City. Unfortunately, in the past, because no internal promotional process was established, we lost several viable candidates. Public participation: As with many of our current processes for hiring, we use the public (non- city employees) as part of the interview panel. For example, in the recruitment process for City Engineer, one interview panel member was an Engineering Consultant from a local firm. Another example was in hiring our Police Services Liaison where members from the public were involved in the interview process for hiring of the position. Having public participation has been, and will continue to be, part of the interview/review process when hiring various positions with the City regardless of Civil Service. In my opinion, development of a new board or commission to replace Civil Service is not needed in order to ensure we continue to include the public in hiring processes for Police and Fire. As stated in the above paragraph, public participation has been utilized in many recruitment processes not covered by Civil Service. If the City determines to move away from Civil Service, public input can continue in Police and Fire even without a board or commission. Our Department Heads typically ask that several members of the public (non-city staff) be included in a variety of recruitment. In absence of Civil Service or new board or commission, City Manager can also send a directive that the public be involved with recruitment if it is in the best interest of the City. Our recent Sergeant promotional process included an oral presentation in which candidates presented materials to internal staff and members of the public. In the past, the Police Civil Service Commission also included additional members of the public to participate in interviews and scoring of written tests. In our most recent Fire Lieutenant promotional process, public participation was part of the interview process. We used one Civil Service Commissioner, 2 internal staff and a Fire Chief from another City. For our most recent Firefighter recruitment process, we had the public involved with the interviews. The panel consisted of Commissioners, department staff, city staff and representatives from outside agencies and members of the community. Flexibility: To ensure we are reaching out to recruit the best candidates for the City in all of our positions, we need flexibility in our recruitment processes. The flexibility is needed to ensure the hiring process is developed specifically to meet the needs of each recruitment process. In addition, with our current job market we must keep in mind that what worked in recruitment for 28 positions 2 – 5 years ago, may not work now. After each recruitment process, HR reviews the process to determine success, problems and changes for the future. We would prefer to continue to allow flexibility in our recruitment processes to ensure we continue to recruit the best people for the City in a fair and non-discriminatory manner. For example, if a certain written test is used in one Police or Fire hiring process, a different test may be selected for a future recruitment, or instead of a written test, a series of oral interviews or peer evaluations may be used on a future process. Summary: In general, we will, for the most part, continue with recruitment processes in the same manner for Police and Fire if Civil Service is eliminated. I expect we would continue to obtain input from the public on hiring even without a formal Civil Service Commission or another board or commission. Our hiring processes will continue to be developed before posting of a position to ensure a fair, valid and non-discriminatory process keeping the goal in mind of hiring the best employees for the citizens of St. Louis Park. If more information or questions arise from this discussion, please do not hesitate to ask and more information will be provided. 29 RESOLUTION NO. 01-008 A RESOLUTION TO ABOLISH THE POLICE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION; PURSUE ENABLING STATE LEGISLATION TO ABOLISH THE FIRE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION ONLY IN ST. LOUIS PARK; AND SEEK CITIZEN INPUT ON MATTERS OF POLICE- AND FIRE-RELATED CITIZEN CONCERN WHEREAS, the State of Minnesota has declared in Chapter 419 that cities may abolish Police Civil Service Commissions; and WHEREAS, the St. Louis Park City Council requested that the St. Louis Park Charter Commission investigate the need for a Police Civil Service Commission and a Fire Civil Service Commission; and WHEREAS, the Charter Commission analyzed the Police and Fire Civil Service rules and regulations; gathered statistics from other Minnesota cities; analyzed other cities’ experience with Police and Fire Civil Service Commissions; interviewed a former representative of the League of Minnesota Cities; accepted all written comments concerning the need for the Commissions; interviewed City employees, the Police Chief, the Fire Chief, a Police Union representative, a Fire Union representative, and current and former members of the Police and Fire Civil Service Commissions; and WHEREAS, in making this recommendation, the Charter Commission finds that the work of the Police and Fire Civil Service Commissions is redundant of City and Union procedures and State and Federal law. The limited duties, with which the Police and Fire Civil Service Commissions are charged, are or can be carried out by other City, Union, and ad hoc entities. The concerns the Police and Fire Civil Service Commissions are obligated to examine are adequately addressed by State and Federal law, and City policies applicable to all other City employees; and WHEREAS, the City Council and Charter Commission recognize the work of past and present Police and Fire Civil Service Commissions; and WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully reviewed the report and recommendations of the Charter Commission and met with said Commission on November 13, 2000; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the St. Louis Park City Council that: 1. The City of St. Louis Park Police Civil Service Commission is hereby abolished. 2. The City shall pursue State legislation enabling only St. Louis Park to abolish its Fire Civil Service Commissions by unanimous vote of the City Council. 3. The City shall seek citizen input on matters of police- and fire-related citizen concern as advisable. 30 Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council February 5, 2001 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk 31 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 7b Meeting of February 5, 2001 7b. Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments to change the zoning requirements for restaurants and other uses with wine and/or beer liquor licenses Case No. 00-62-ZA Recommended Action: Motion to adopt first reading of an ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance to change the zoning requirements for restaurants and other uses with wine and beer licenses and set second reading for February 20, 2001. Background: Staff is proposing to change the zoning requirements for restaurants with liquor and similar uses. The Zoning Ordinance currently does not distinguish between a full “intoxicating” liquor license and a wine and beer license. Staff is proposing to make the zoning requirements different for the different types of liquor licenses. On January 3, 2001 the Planning Commission held a public hearing, reviewed the request, and voted 4-0 to recommend approval. The Commission requested staff to research how other suburbs treat such uses with liquor, and requested staff to further consider whether “intoxicating liquor license” and “non-intoxicating liquor license” were the appropriate terms to use, versus some other terms which reflect the fact that all types of liquor can be intoxicating. One member of the public spoke, Bob Cunningham with Told Development, to ask whether the amendment should apply to the M-X District as well. These issues are addressed below. Issues: • Is there a difference between uses with a full “intoxicating” liquor license and a wine and/or beer license? • What are the proposed text amendments? • How are the Planning Commission’s comments addressed? • What are the anticipated effects of the proposed amendments? • How would such amendments affect the ThanDo restaurant’s desire to obtain a wine and beer license? Issues Analysis: Is there a difference between uses with a full “intoxicating” liquor license and a wine and/or beer license? Liquor License Ordinance: Through the City’s Liquor License Ordinance, the City issues two main types of on-sale liquor licenses. The City issues an on-sale “intoxicating” liquor license, which is a full liquor license. The City currently is limited to 24 of these licenses total for the 32 whole City. The City also issues an on-sale wine and beer license which allows sale and consumption of wine up to 14.0% alcohol by volume, 3.2% malt liquor (beer), and intoxicating malt liquor. There is no established limit on the number of wine and beer licenses the City can issue. Three such licenses were issued in 1999. The annual license fees are $7500 for the intoxicating liquor license and $2000 for the wine and beer license. As a third type of on-sale license, the City may also issue an “on-sale 3.2% malt liquor license” for 3.2 malt liquor only. There are no on-sale 3.2 beer licenses issued by the City currently. Restaurants, clubs, and hotels which obtain a liquor license must demonstrate annually that over 50% of the receipts are from food rather than liquor sales; therefore the liquor license ordinance is consistent with the zoning ordinance in not allowing bars as a principal use. Zoning Ordinance: The Zoning Ordinance currently does not distinguish between different liquor licenses. All uses with liquor licenses require a Conditional Use Permit (or PUD or Redevelopment Plan in the M-X District) including certain conditions such as setback from residential, buffering requirements from residential, and parking standards. In addition, any nonconformities on a property must be removed as a condition of granting any Conditional Use Permit. The conditions are geared towards protecting against the potential nuisance effects of the more intense uses, i.e. an intoxicating liquor license. Staff believes that there is a difference between uses with a full intoxicating liquor license versus a wine and/or beer license. Uses with a wine and/or beer license tend to be less intense uses overall, tend to require fewer changes to the property, and tend to result in fewer off-site impacts (i.e. noise, late hours, excess traffic), than uses with a full intoxicating liquor license. Uses with an intoxicating liquor license often have accessory bars and become a de facto bar on late nights and weekends. This results in typically more traffic, noise, and late hours than uses without an intoxicating liquor license. What are the proposed text amendments? Staff is proposing that uses (i.e. restaurants, clubs and lodges, and private indoor entertainment) with a wine and/or beer license be permitted with conditions rather than a CUP. Uses with an intoxicating liquor license are proposed to remain under a CUP in the Commercial Districts, with the same requirements. (A PUD or Redevelopment Plan would still be required in the M-X District.) Uses with a wine and/or beer license would be treated similarly to the same uses without a liquor license, but with additional conditions to ensure limited off-site impacts. The additional conditions are proposed to include limited hours of operation and the requirement that there be no separate bar area within the use. If the use with a wine and/or beer license did not meet the requirements under permitted with conditions, they could apply for a Conditional Use Permit. For example, if a restaurant with a wine and beer license wanted to stay open later on the weekends, they could apply for a CUP under the “restaurant with intoxicating liquor license” section provided they could meet the more stringent conditions. The proposed amendment would treat a wine and beer license (see explanation above) and an on-sale 3.2% malt liquor license the same (categorized together as a “wine and/or beer license”). Staff is also proposing that the parking requirements for restaurants with wine and/or beer license be made similar to that of restaurants without liquor, since it is typically the separate bar area in restaurants with liquor which result in the additional parking demand. 33 A few additional editing changes are also proposed for language clarification only. In addition, the language relating to setbacks from Residential Districts has been changed for consistency with the new ordinance that is being considered for Second Reading on February 5, 2001. The proposed text amendments are included in the attached ordinance. What are the anticipated effects of the proposed amendments? If the proposed amendment passes, restaurants and other uses with a wine and/or beer license would have somewhat less stringent conditions to meet in the areas of setback and buffering from residential and parking requirements. Because the use would be permitted with conditions rather than a Conditional Use Permit, no public hearing or City Council approval would be needed unless a variance were requested from the Board of Zoning Appeals. In addition, there would not be a requirement to bring all the nonconformities on the property up to current standards. Provided that recent zoning ordinance amendments pass second reading, if the use or building expanded certain nonconformities would have to be addressed. (Staff and the Planning Commission are proposing that the “date certain” nonconformities, i.e. parking, lighting, signage, and bufferyard requirements, be brought into conformance when there is an expansion or addition to the building. The City Council passed first reading of the Zoning Ordinance amendments on December 18, 2000 and is anticipated to pass second reading on February 5, 2001.) How are the Planning Commission’s and public’s comments addressed? Use of “intoxicating” and “non-intoxicating”: Per the Planning Commission’s comments and to better reflect the liquor license ordinance, staff is proposing to identify the different types of liquor licenses in the zoning ordinance as “intoxicating liquor license,” which is a full on-sale liquor license, and “wine and/or beer license,” which is either an on-sale wine and beer license or an on-sale 3.2 beer license. While the term “intoxicating liquor license” is somewhat misleading because wine and beer can also be intoxicating, the proposed terms are consistent with the liquor license ordinance and with state statute language. Staff had previously proposed the term “non- intoxicating liquor license” instead of “wine and/or beer license,” which is not as consistent with the City ordinance and state statute and is even more misleading. Staff is proposing to add definitions of “intoxicating liquor license” and “wine and/or beer license” to the Zoning Ordinance land use definitions sections, and anticipates this coming before the City Council at the February 20, 2001 meeting. Requirements in other cities: The Community Development intern researched how 12 other suburbs handle restaurants with liquor licenses. In general, the requirements varied in each suburb and there were no universal themes. Some allowed all types of restaurants in commercial districts without a CUP; some required a CUP for all restaurants; some distinguished between restaurants with and without liquor; some distinguished between restaurants with a full liquor license and restaurants with a wine and beer license. The City of Minnetonka handles restaurants with liquor similarly to the proposed text amendment. Please see the attached summary for more information. 34 Uses within the M-X District: Restaurants with or without a liquor license in the M-X District currently require either a PUD as part of a mixed use development, or to be consistent with a Redevelopment Plan that has been adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan. As noted, there are no changes proposed to the M-X District for requirements for restaurants and other uses with or without liquor. How would the proposed amendments affect the ThanDo restaurant’s desire to obtain a wine and beer license? ThanDo Restaurant, located in a small shopping center at Minnetonka Blvd and Utah Avenue, applied for a wine and beer license in fall 2000. The zoning requirements to allow them to obtain the license were for a Conditional Use Permit and to eliminate all nonconformities from the site as a condition of granting the CUP (required by the zoning ordinance). The restaurant owner applied for the CUP and several variances related to meeting the CUP conditions. Staff recommended denial based on the fact that the proposed use would have intensified nonconformities on the site, that the proposed variances did not meet the necessary criteria, and that there was no means proposed by the applicant to address most of the nonconformities. The Planning Commission considered the request on November 15, 2000 and was supportive of the applicant’s request provided some of the nonconformities could be addressed. The Planning Commission directed staff to continue working with the applicant. ThanDo Restaurant has withdrawn its previous CUP and variance application pending the outcome of the proposed text amendments. If the proposed amendments are approved, ThanDo would need to meet the conditions under “Restaurants without intoxicating liquor license” but would not need to obtain a Conditional Use Permit. Variances for parking and for reduced bufferyard adjacent to residential property would probably still be needed. In addition, the applicant has indicated a desire to expand the restaurant if the zoning approvals and wine and beer license are granted. Assuming certain zoning ordinance amendments are passed by the City Council, any expansion of the restaurant would require the “date certain” nonconformities to be addressed on this property, including parking standards, landscaping, signage and lighting. This property is also included in the TexaTonka study that is currently underway with a task fore, including input from the property owners. Recommendations from that study may affect the type and timing of future improvements to the property. Recommendation: Staff and the Planning Commission are recommending approval of first reading of an ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance to change the zoning requirements for restaurants and other uses with wine and/or beer licenses and to set second reading for February 20, 2001. Attachments: Proposed ordinance Summary of requirements for restaurants with liquor in other suburbs Prepared by: Sacha Peterson, Planner Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 35 ORDINANCE NO.______ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING BY AMENDING SECTIONS 14:5-5.3, 14:5-6.2 & 14:6-1.3 THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN: Findings Sec. 1. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission (Case No. 00-62-ZA) Sec. 2. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Sections 14:5-5.3, 14:5-6.2 & 14:6-1.3 are hereby amended to read as follows: SECTION 5-5.3 “C-2” COMMERCIAL DISTRICT C. USES PERMITTED WITH CONDITIONS 18. RESTAURANTS WITHOUT INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE Conditions: a. Access shall be to a roadway identified in the Comprehensive Plan as a collector or arterial or shall be otherwise located so that access can be provided without generating significant traffic on local residential streets. b. Buildings shall be located a minimum of 25 feet from any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential or has an occupied institutional building including but not limited to a school, religious institution or community center. feet from any abutting property in an “R” Use District. c. A Bufferyard “E” shall be installed and maintained along all property lines which abut property in an “R” Use District. This bufferyard shall at a minimum include a berm “B2” or fence “F5”. d. If there is a wine and/or beer liquor license, the following additional conditions shall apply: 1) Hours of operation shall be limited to 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. on weekdays and 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. on weekends. 2) There shall be no separate bar area within the restaurant. 3) If the above conditions are not met, a restaurant with a wine and/or beer license may apply for a Conditional Use Permit under Section 14:5-5.3D4, provided that the parking requirements for restaurant with intoxicating liquor license are met. 9. CLUBS AND LODGES WITHOUT INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE 36 Conditions: a. Access shall be to a roadway identified in the Comprehensive Plan as a collector or arterial or shall be otherwise located so that access can be provided without generating significant traffic on local residential streets. b. Buildings shall be located a minimum of 25 feet from any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential or has an occupied institutional building including but not limited to a school, religious institution or community center. feet from any property located in an “R” Use District. c. A Bufferyard “E” shall be installed and maintained along all property lines which abut property in an “R” Use District. This bufferyard shall at a minimum include a berm “B2” or fence F5 as illustrated under Section 14:6-4. d. If there is a wine and/or beer license, the following additional conditions shall apply: 1) Hours of operation shall be limited to 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. on weekdays and 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. on weekends. 2) There shall be no separate bar area within the club or lodge. 3) If the above conditions are not met, a club or lodge with a wine and/or beer license may apply for a Conditional Use Permit under Section 14:5-5.3D5. 17. PRIVATE ENTERTAINMENT (INDOOR) WITHOUT INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE Conditions: a. The structure in which the use is conducted shall be located a minimum of 60 feet from any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential or has an occupied institutional building including but not limited to a school, religious institution or community center. feet from any “R-1,” “R-2,” or “R-3” Use District. b. A Bufferyard “F” shall be provided along all property located within an “R” Use District. This bufferyard shall include a wall “F6” or berm wall “BW4” as illustrated under Section 14:6-4. c. If there is a wine and/or beer license, the following additional conditions shall apply: 1) Hours of operation shall be limited to 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. on weekdays and 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. on weekends. 2) There shall be no separate bar area within the establishment. 3) If the above conditions are not met, private indoor entertainment with a wine and/or beer license may apply for a Conditional Use Permit under Section 14:5-5.3D9. D. USES PERMITTED BY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 4. RESTAURANTS WITH INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE 37 Conditions a. Access shall be to a roadway identified in the Comprehensive Plan as a collector or arterial or shall be otherwise located so that access can be provided without generating significant traffic on local residential streets. b. Buildings shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential or has an occupied institutional building including but not limited to a school, religious institution or community center. feet from any property located in a “R” Use District. c. Separate pedestrian ways shall be constructed to allow for the separation of pedestrian and vehicular movements within the parking lot. d. A bufferyard “F” shall be installed and maintained along abutting property in a “R” Use District. 5. CLUBS AND LODGES WITH INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE Conditions: a. Access shall be to a roadway identified in the Comprehensive Plan as a collector or arterial or shall be otherwise located so that access can be provided without generating significant traffic on local residential streets. b. Buildings shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential or has an occupied institutional building including but not limited to a school, religious institution or community center. feet from any property located in a “R” Use District. c. Separate pedestrian ways shall be constructed to allow for the separation of pedestrian and vehicular movements within the parking lot. d. A bufferyard “F” shall be installed and maintained along any abutting property in a “R” Use District. 9. PRIVATE ENTERTAINMENT (INDOOR) WITH INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE Conditions: a. Access shall be to a roadway identified in the Comprehensive Plan as a collector or arterial or shall be otherwise located so that access can be provided without generating significant traffic on local residential streets. b. Buildings shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential or has an occupied institutional building including but not limited to a school, religious institution or community center. feet from any property located in a “R” Use District. c. Separate pedestrian ways shall be constructed to allow for the separation of pedestrian and vehicular movements within the parking lot. d. A bufferyard “F” shall be installed and maintained along any abutting property in a “R” Use District. 38 SECTION 14:5-6.2 “O” OFFICE DISTRICT C. USES PERMITTED WITH CONDITIONS 15. RESTAURANTS WITHOUT INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE Conditions: a. This use shall be permitted as part of a larger development which contains at least one other principal use or as part of a PUD. b. Access shall be to a roadway identified in the Comprehensive Plan as a collector or arterial or shall be otherwise located so that access can be provided without generating significant traffic on local residential streets. c. All refuse shall meet the requirements of the Ordinance Code regulating refuse. d. Buildings shall be located a minimum of 25 feet from any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential or has an occupied institutional building including but not limited to a school, religious institution or community center. feet from any abutting property in an “R” Use District. e. A Bufferyard “E” shall be installed and maintained along all property lines which abut property located within an “R” Use District. This bufferyard shall include at a minimum a berm “B2” or fence F5 as defined in Section 14:6-4. f. If there is a wine and/or beer license, the following additional conditions shall apply: 1) Hours of operation shall be limited to 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. on weekdays and 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. on weekends. 2) There shall be no separate bar area within the restaurant. 3) If the above conditions are not met, a restaurant with a wine and/or beer license may apply for a Conditional Use Permit under Section 14:5-5.3D2, provided that the parking requirements for restaurant with intoxicating liquor license are met. 9. CLUBS AND LODGES WITHOUT INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE Conditions: a. Access shall be to a roadway identified in the Comprehensive Plan as a collector or arterial or shall be otherwise located so that access can be provided without generating significant traffic on local residential streets. b. Buildings shall be located a minimum of 25 feet from any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential or has an occupied institutional building including but not limited to a school, religious institution or community center. feet from any property located in an “R” Use District. c. A Bufferyard “E” shall be installed and maintained along all property lines which abut property in an “R” Use District. This bufferyard shall at a minimum include a berm “B2” or fence F5. 39 d. If there is a wine and/or beer license, the following additional conditions shall apply: 1) Hours of operation shall be limited to 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. on weekdays and 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. on weekends. 2) There shall be no separate bar area within the club or lodge. 3) If the above conditions are not met, a club or lodge with a wine and/or beer license may apply for a Conditional Use Permit under Section 14:5-6.2D6. 14. PRIVATE ENTERTAINMENT (INDOOR) WITHOUT INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE Conditions: a. This use shall only be permitted as part of a larger development which contains at least one other principal use or as part of a PUD. b. The structure in which the use is conducted shall be located a minimum of 60 feet feet from any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential or has an occupied institutional building including but not limited to a school, religious institution or community center. from any “R-1,” “R-2,” or “R-3” Use District. c. A Bufferyard “F” shall be provided along all property which abuts an “R” Use District. This bufferyard shall at a minimum include a berm “B3”, berm wall “BW2” or fence “F5.” d. If there is a wine and/or beer license, the following additional conditions shall apply: 1) Hours of operation shall be limited to 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. on weekdays and 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. on weekends. 2) There shall be no separate bar area within the private indoor entertainment. 3) If the above conditions are not met, private indoor entertainment with a wine and/or beer license may apply for a Conditional Use Permit under Section 14:5-6.2D8. D. USES PERMITTED BY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2. RESTAURANTS WITH INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE Conditions: a. Shall be permitted only as part of a larger development which contains at least one other principal use or as part of a PUD. If the land upon which the restaurant with intoxicating liquor license is to be located is immediately adjacent to, and is able to share parking with an office building, it shall be deemed to have complied with this condition. b. Access shall be to a roadway identified in the Comprehensive Plan as a collector or arterial or shall be otherwise located so that access can be provided without generating significant traffic on local residential streets. 40 c. The building housing the use shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential or has an occupied institutional building including but not limited to a school, religious institution or community center. feet from any property in an “R” Use District. d. All refuse shall meet the requirements of the Ordinance Code regulating refuse. e. Separate pedestrian ways shall be constructed to allow for the separation of pedestrian and vehicular movements within the parking lot. f. A Bufferyard “F” shall be installed and maintained along any abutting property located within an “R” Use District. 6. CLUBS AND LODGES WITH INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE Conditions: a. Access shall be to a roadway identified in the Comprehensive Plan as a collector or arterial or shall be otherwise located so that access can be provided without generating significant traffic on local residential streets. b. The building housing the use shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential or has an occupied institutional building including but not limited to a school, religious institution or community center. feet from any property located in an “R” Use District. c. Separate pedestrian ways shall be constructed to allow for the separation of pedestrian and vehicular movements within the parking lot. d. A Bufferyard “F” shall be installed and maintained along all property lines which abut property in an “R” Use District. a) PRIVATE ENTERTAINMENT (INDOOR) WITH INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE Conditions: a. Access shall be to a roadway identified in the Comprehensive Plan as a collector or arterial or shall be otherwise located so that access can be provided without generating significant traffic on local residential streets. b. The building housing the use shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from any property located in an “R” Use District. c. Separate pedestrian ways shall be constructed to allow for the separation of pedestrian and vehicular movements within the parking lot. d. A Bufferyard “F” shall be installed and maintained along all property lines which abut property in an “R” Use District. SECTION 14:6-1.3 NUMBER OF REQUIRED OFF STREET PARKING SPACES. A. REQUIRED PARKING COMMERCIAL USES 39. Restaurants with Intoxicating Liquor License. One (1) parking space for each fifty (50) square feet of gross floor area. 41 40. Restaurants without Intoxicating Liquor License. One (1) parking space for each sixty (60) square feet of gross floor area. Sec. 3. The contents of Planning Case File 00-62-ZA are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case. Sec.4. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication. Adopted by the City Council February 20, 2001 Reviewed for Administration City Manager Mayor Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution: City Clerk City Attorney 00-62-ZA/N/res/ord 42 Restaurants and Liquor: A Multifarious Relationship Edina  Regulated through licensing  3.2 beer and wine are allowed in PCD-1 Neighborhood Commercial but intoxicating liquor is not.  Restaurants w/ intox. cannot have more than 150 seats in the PCD-2 (50th & France)  Restaurants with or without any license are treated equally, with no conditions in the PCD-3 General Regional commercial district  Cannot be within 300 ft of a school Minnetonka  Restaurants with intoxicating liquor licenses must get a CUP  Specific CUP conditions are: • Meeting parking requirements • Not negatively impacting road service • 100 ft from low density residential or adjacent to medium or high density residential  Need to have all performance standards in compliance for a CUP (parking, lighting, noise, odor, smoke, radiation, electromagnetic fields, toxic waste, solid and liquid waste, heat and humidity.  Restaurants with 3.2 or wine licenses are permitted uses in the limited and general business districts Robbinsdale  Restaurants with liquor are permitted in the two general commercial districts as a permitted use  Regulated primarily through the licensing: • Intoxicating license: 40% of sales must be food and non alcoholic beverage and the building must have a fair market value of $500,000 or more • Wine license: 70% of sales must be for food and non-alcoholic beverages and the building must have a fair market value of $200,000 or more • 3.2 malt beverage: no licensing restrictions like above Richfield  No restaurants with liquor in the C-1 Neighborhood Commercial District  Restaurants w/ liquor require a CUP in the C-2 General Commercial District  The conditions are that the restaurant must abut an arterial or collector street and be 25ft from a residential parcel 43 Golden Valley  Restaurants with liquor need a CUP  They must have a fair market value of $850,000 or more and have 150 seats or more Plymouth  Restaurants are not permitted in the C-1 convenience commercial district  On-sale liquor needs a CUP in the C-2 and C-3 districts (Neighborhood and Highway commercial.  No distinction between intoxicating, wine and 3.2 malt liquor license.  Licensing requires a restaurant with an intoxicating license to have 150 or more seats, and the building must have a fair market value of $500,000 or more New Hope  Restaurants with or without liquor are permitted uses  Licensing requires a restaurant with an intoxicating license to have a fair market value of $750,000+ Crystal  Restaurants with or without liquor are permitted uses in the B-4 Highway Business district Bloomington  Restaurants in most districts require a CUP but there is no discrimination between restaurants with liquor licenses and restaurants w/o liquor licenses Eden Prairie  Restaurants with or with out liquor are allowed in all commercial districts as permitted uses Maple Grove  Restaurants with or without liquor are permitted uses in the commercial district Hopkins  Restaurants with or without liquor are permitted uses in the commercial districts 44 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 7c Meeting of February 5, 2001 7c. Resolution Entering Into Agreement With MDA For Food Inspection MN Department of Agriculture and the City would enter into a delegation agreement for the inspection of wholesale and retail food facilities Recommended Action: Approve resolution entering into delegation agreement with the Minnesota Department of Agriculture for inspection of certain food facilities within St. Louis Park Background: The City of St. Louis Park and the Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) have both been conducting food inspections of certain food facilities such as: warehouses, retail stores, and vending machines. This duplication of inspection and fees between MDA and local health agencies has been a point of contention in the industry for many years. In a reversal of their previous position, the MDA has agreed to eliminate duplication of inspections through the use of delegation agreements, sharing the inspection workload with the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) and local cities with Health Departments. Staff and the MDH support this move as a cost efficient way to provide service. Analysis: • The City Health Division would be authorized to inspect for the purpose of this agreement, "grocery and convenience stores", vending machines, and food establishments within the City’s jurisdiction that are referenced in Minnesota Rules Chapter 4626.0020 subbed. 35. A stipulation of this contract states that health agencies must adopt and enforce the Minnesota Food Code, Chapter 4626 in its entirety. The MN Food Code was adopted by the City in conjunction with the licensing ordinance and became effective at the beginning of this year. • This delegation agreement would continue in effect until terminated by the either party. • The City would see a minor increase of duties in our food inspection program. There will be some additional annual reporting, and periodic food sampling to be sent to the MDA for testing. No increase in current staffing is necessary. • MDA is providing delegation training to standardize health agencies in conducting inspections, consultation on problems, food emergencies, recalls, investigative and supportive services. Our food inspectors would continue to do what they are presently doing, but now in cooperation with the MDA and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 45 • Restaurant inspections done by the City will not be effected by this agreement. • A minor amendment to our licensing chapter of the City Code would have to be adopted to establish license fees for inspection of food vending equipment. Benefits: For the past year, Inspection staff have been working to streamline and improve the various programs the department administers. Combining our health inspection efforts with the MDA will result in a better regulatory climate for food establishments and the maintaining of public safety. Significant benefits include: • Eliminate duplication of fees. • A single food code to administer (Minnesota Food Code) • Increased one-on-one service available from City Inspectors • Simplified licensing process • “One-stop” shopping for inspections, plan reviews, and questions • No budget amendments are necessary Attachments: • Resolution for Delegation Agreement Prepared by: Manny Camilon, Environmental Health Official Reviewed by: Brian Hoffman, Director of Inspections Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 46 RESOLUTION NO. 01-009 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK TO ENTER INTO A DELEGATION AGREEMENT WITH THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE WHEREAS, THE Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) as set out in the Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 17, 28A, and 31, has the responsibility to inspect and regulate facilities for the purpose of preventing and minimizing communicable disease and environmental health hazards; and to inspect and regulate food establishments and vending machines for the purpose of furthering the public interest in a safe, wholesome unadulterated and properly represented and advertised food supply; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Section 28A.075 (Supp.1999), provides that the State must enter into agreements with local boards of health to delegate certain licensing and inspection duties of the Commissioner of Agriculture pertaining to food handlers that are grocery or convenience stores; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Section 28A.09 allows the Health Agency to license and inspect vending machines; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes 1998, Section 31.04 authorizes State agents to enter and inspect food establishments; and WHEREAS, it has been determined that the Health Agency has an environmental health staff capable of providing technical advice, reviewing plans, collecting food samples, inspecting food establishments and enforcing the statutes and rules of the State for the types of facilities set forth in Minnesota Statutes, Section 28A.05 (a). NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the St. Louis Park City Council that the Mayor Jeff Jacobs and the City Manager Charles W. Meyer are authorized to enter into a delegation agreement with the Minnesota Department of Agriculture. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council February 5, 2001 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk 47 CITY COUNCIL MEETING August 7, 2018 ITEMS TO BE ACTED UPON BY CONSENT Consent items are those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion. 1. Motion to approve 2nd reading of miscellaneous ordinance amendments, adopt the proposed ordinance amendments, approve the summary and authorize its publication. 2. Motion to adopt a resolution amending final plat resolution and extending plat filing deadline to March 20, 2001 for Marshall Kieffer and to adopt a resolution amending variance resolution to include the property address 2621 Virginia Avenue South. 3. Motion to approve second 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, adopt ordinance, approve summary, and authorize publication Motion to approve second reading of an ordinance vacating a portion of W. 14th Street, subject to the condition described in the ordinance, adopt ordinance, approve summary, and authorize publication. 4. Motion to waive second reading of ordinance to increase the water and sewer utility rates by 2%, effective February 26, 2001 and approve summary ordinance for publication 5. Motion to adopt the attached resolution authorizing application for a Hennepin County grant to fund the City’s curbside recycling program. 6. Motion to accept the following reports for filing c. Vendor Claims d. Human Rights Commission Minutes of December 20, 2000 48 CONSENT ITEM # 1 St. Louis Park City Council Meeting of February 5, 2001 1. Motion to approve 2nd reading of miscellaneous ordinance amendments, adopt the proposed ordinance amendments, approve the summary and authorize its publication. Second reading of miscellaneous Zoning Ordinance amendments pertaining to: • the reduction of the 2nd story setbacks for property in the R-1, R-2, and R-3 Use District, • clarification of the retail 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 text amendments, • and setting the public hearing at Planning Commission only for Comprehensive Plan Amendments. Case # 00-61-ZA Background: On December 18, 2000, the City Council moved to approve the first reading on the proposed ordinance amendments with the condition that the amendment for establishing where to start the setbacks for certain uses from residential districts be reviewed further at a City Council Study Session. Staff brought this amendment to the Study Session on January 22, 2001. At the meeting, the Council and staff agreed upon requiring the setback not only from residentially used land, but also from certain institutional uses such as schools, community centers, and religious institutions. The Planning Commission, at their meeting on December 6, 2000, voted unanimously to recommend approval of the ordinance modifications included in the attached resolution. The only minor change to the language proposed to the Planning Commission relates to the setback from institutional uses, which has been incorporated into the language that is being presented to the City Council. Issues: • What has changed since first reading? Analysis of Issues: What has changed since first reading? As discussed at the Study Session, staff has changed the language relative to setbacks from residential districts to ensure that institutional uses that have occupants, such as schools, community centers, and religious institutions, are also protected by the extraordinary setbacks. 49 At first reading, it was recommended that the extraordinary setbacks apply only to parcels that are “zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use.” The proposed language has been modified in all 57 sections of the code to require the extraordinary setbacks from any “parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers.” With the proposed language, the extraordinary setback would not apply to certain institutional uses that are not occupied such as communication towers, utility sub-stations, and parks that do not include community centers. Recommendation: Staff recommends adoption of the proposed ordinance with the amendment that was discussed at Council Study Session. The ordinance would take effect 15 days after its publication. Attachments: Proposed Ordinance Proposed Summary Publication Prepared by: Scott Moore, Assistant Zoning Administrator, 952-924-2592 Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 50 ORDINANCE NO.2188-01 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING BY AMENDING SECTIONS 14:5-3.2(D)(26), 14:5-3.2(E)(10), 14:5-4.2(F)(5), 14:5-4.3(F)(5), 14:5-4.4(F)(6), 14:5-5.2, 14:5-5.3, 14:5-6.2, 14:5-7.2, 14:5-7.3, 14:6-6.2(G), 14:7-2(F), 14:8-4.4(B)(2), 14:8-4.4(C) THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN: Findings Sec. 1. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission (Case No. 00-61-ZA) Sec. 2. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Sections 14:5-3.2(D)(26), 14:5-3.2(E)(10), 14:5-4.2(F)(5), 14:5-4.3(F)(5), 14:5-4.4(F)(6), 14:5-5.2, 14:5-5.3, 14:5-6.2, 14:5-7.2, 14:5-7.3, 14:6-6.2(G), 14:7-2(F), 14:8-4.4(B)(2) and 14:8-4.4(C) are hereby amended to read as follows: Section 14:5-3.2 (D)(26) RETAIL - A facility where merchandise or equipment is displayed, rented, or sold and where delivery of merchandise or equipment to the ultimate consumer is made; includes limited production, repair or processing as an accessory use. Hours of operation generally begin after the a.m. peak traffic period and extend to time ranges from 5:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.; although some convenience stores and grocery stores are open 24 hours per day. Characteristics generally include high parking demand and high off peak traffic generation; generally prefers high visibility and access to major thoroughfares. This use includes but is not limited to camera shops, clothing stores, department stores, grocery stores, discount stores, jewelry stores, delicatessens, retail bakeries, toy stores; but excludes restaurants, bars, pawn shops, motor vehicle sales, and motor fuel stations. Section 14:5-3.2(E)(10) SHOWROOM - The display only of samples of merchandise and equipment where a sales agreement with a consumer is conducted and delivery of purchased merchandise is made from a warehouse that is not accessible to the consumer and is physically separated from the showroom by a minimum 8’-0” tall permanent wall. Merchandise or equipment which is displayed is typically large bulky items and includes, but is not limited to furniture, appliances, plumbing fixtures, lighting, and carpeting. Characteristics include hours of operation between 9:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. weekdays and during some weekend hours. 51 Section 14:5-4.2(F)(5) The following minimum requirements… Side Yard Width. Nine (9) feet on one yard and 6 feet on the other, except when there is an attached garage accessible from the street or when the lot abuts an alley, both may be 6 feet. Section 14:5-4.3(F)(5) The following minimum requirements… Side Yard Width. Seven (7) feet on one yard and 5 feet on the other, except when there is an attached garage accessible from the street or when the lot abuts an alley, both may be 5 feet. Section 14:5-4.4(F)(6) The following minimum requirements… Side Yard Width. Nine (9) feet on one yard and 6 feet on the other, except when there is an attached garage accessible from the street or when the lot abuts an alley, both may be 6 feet. Section 14:5-5.2(C)(6)(b) All structures shall be located a minimum of 15 feet from any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers. Section 14:5-5.2(C)(7)(b) Where animals are boarded, the facility shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers. Section 14:5-5.2(C)(8)(a) Engines shall not be operated or tested outside of a structure if the use is located within 300 feet of any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers. Section 14:5-5.2(C)(11)(b) The building housing the use shall be located a minimum of 25 feet from any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers. 52 Section 14:5-5.2(C)(12)(c) No building may be located a minimum of 25 feet of any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers. Section 14:5-5.2(C)(16)(a) The structures in which the use is conducted shall be located a minimum of 60 feet from any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers. Section 14:5-5.2(C)(17)(b) Buildings shall be located a minimum of 25 feet from any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers. Section 14:5-5.3(C)(5)(b) All structures shall be located a minimum of 10 feet from any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers. Section 14:5-5.3(C)(6)(b) No structures shall be located within 200 feet of any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers. Section 14:5-5.3(C)(7)(b) Where animals are boarded, the facility shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers. Section 14:5-5.3(C)(8)(a) Engines shall not be operated or tested outside of a structure if the use is located within 300 feet of any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers. 53 Section 14:5-5.3(C)(9)(b) The building housing the use shall be located a minimum of 25 feet from any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers. Section 14:5-5.3(C)(10)(a) All buildings, structures, and truck maneuvering areas shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers. Section 14:5-5.3(C)(11)(b) Building shall be located a minimum of 25 feet from any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers. Section 14:5-5.3(C)(12)(b) All buildings and structures shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers. Section 14:5-5.3(C)(15)(e) The use shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers. Section 14:5-5.3(C)(17)(a) The structures in which the use is conducted shall be located a minimum of 60 feet from any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers. Section 14:5-5.3(C)(18)(b) Buildings shall be located a minimum of 25 feet from any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers. 54 Section 14:5-5.3(C)(19)(d) All buildings and structures shall be setback a minimum of 25 feet from any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers. Section 14:5-5.3(C)(21)(a) The height of any parking ramp located within 200 feet of any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers, may not penetrate the height of a line commencing at and perpendicular to said parcel and extending upward away from said parcel at a slope of 5 horizontal feet for each vertical foot. Section 14:5-5.3(C)(21)(b) The minimum yard requirement for any parking ramp located within 200 feet of any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers, shall be 50 feet. Section 14:5-5.3(C)(21)(e) If the parking ramp is located within 400 feet of any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers, all light sources on the top deck of a parking ramp shall be below the sight lines drawn from a point one (1) foot above the light source to any point within said parcel ten feet lower than the maximum structure height of that Use District at a distance of 400 feet from the wall of the parking ramp nearest to said parcel. Section 14:5-5.3(D)(1)(h) No public address system shall be audible from any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers. Section 14:5-5.3(D)(3)(a) No public address system shall be audible from any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers. 55 Section 14:5-5.3(D)(4)(b) The building housing the use shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers. Section 14:5-5.3(D)(5)(b) The building housing the use shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers. Section 14:5-5.3(D)(9)(b) The building housing the use shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers. Section 14:5-6.2(C)(3)(a) Buildings located within 100 feet of any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers, shall be limited to four stories or 45 feet. Section 14:5-6.2(C)(8)(b) All structures shall be located a minimum of 10 feet from any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers. Section 14:5-6.2(C)(9)(b) The building housing the use shall be located a minimum of 25 feet from any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers. Section 14:5-6.2(C)(10)(a) All buildings, structures, and truck maneuvering areas shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential, or 56 has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers. Section 14:5-6.2(C)(11)(a) Building heights shall be limited to four stories or 45 feet within 100 feet of any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers. Section 14:5-6.2(C)(14)(b) The structures in which the use is conducted shall be located a minimum of 60 feet from any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers. Section 14:5-6.2(C)(15)(d) Buildings shall be located a minimum of 25 feet from any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers. Section 14:5-6.2(C)(19)(a) The height of any parking ramp located within 200 feet of any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers, may not penetrate the height of a line commencing at and perpendicular to said parcel and extending upward away from said parcel at a slope of 5 horizontal feet for each vertical foot. Section 14:5-6.2(C)(19)(b) The minimum yard requirement for any parking ramp located within 200 feet of any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers, shall be 50 feet. Section 14:5-6.2(C)(19)(e) If the parking ramp is located within 400 feet of any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers, all light sources on the top deck of a parking ramp shall be below the sight lines drawn from a point one (1) foot above the light source to any point within said parcel ten feet lower than the 57 maximum structure height of that Use District at a distance of 400 feet from the wall of the parking ramp nearest to said parcel. Section 14:5-6.2(D)(1)(g) No public address system shall be audible from any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers. Section 14:5-6.2(D)(2)(c) The building housing the use shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers. Section 14:5-6.2(D)(6)(b) The building housing the use shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers. Section 14:5-6.2(D)(8)(b) The building housing the use shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers. Section 14:5-7.2(C)(2)(a) All structures shall be located a minimum of 10 feet from any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers. Section 14:5-7.2(C)(3)(b) No structures shall be located within 200 feet of any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers. Section 14:5-7.2(C)(5)(a) 58 All outdoor activities such as loading and unloading shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers, and where possible shall be located on the side of the building farthest from any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers. Section 14:5-7.2(C)(7)(a) The height of any parking ramp located within 200 feet of any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers, may not penetrate the height of a line commencing at and perpendicular to said parcel and extending upward and away from said parcel at a slope of 5 horizontal feet for each vertical foot. Section 14:5-7.2(C)(7)(b) The minimum yard requirement for any parking ramp located within 200 feet of any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers, shall be 50 feet. Section 14:5-7.2(C)(7)(d) If the parking ramp is located within 400 feet of any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers, all light sources on the top deck of a parking ramp shall be below the sight lines drawn from a point one (1) foot above the light source to any point within said parcel ten feet lower than the maximum structure height of that Use District at a distance of 400 feet from the wall of the parking ramp nearest to said parcel. Section 14:5-7.2(C)(10)(a) All outdoor activities such as loading and unloading shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers, and where possible shall be located on the side of the building farthest from any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers. Section 14:5-7.2(F)(3)(a) 59 The height of any parking ramp located within 200 feet of any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers, may not penetrate the height of a line commencing at and perpendicular to said parcel and extending upward and away from said parcel at a slope of 5 horizontal feet for each vertical foot. Section 14:5-7.2(F)(3)(b) The minimum yard requirement for any parking ramp located within 200 feet of any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers, shall be 50 feet. Section 14:5-7.2(F)(3)(d) If the parking ramp is located within 400 feet of any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers, all light sources on the top deck of a parking ramp shall be below the sight lines drawn from a point one (1) foot above the light source to any point within said parcel ten feet lower than the maximum structure height of that Use District at a distance of 400 feet from the wall of the parking ramp nearest to said parcel. Section 14:5-7.2(F)(6)(b) No outdoor repair or maintenance shall be conducted within 100 feet of any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers. Section 14:5-7.3(C)(2)(c) Structures shall be located a minimum of 10 feet from any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers. Section 14:5-7.3(C)(3)(b) No structure shall be located within 200 feet of any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers. Section 14:5-7.3(C)(5)(a) 60 Where animals are boarded, the facility shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers. Section 14:5-7.3(C)(6)(a) Outside operating or testing of engines shall be prohibited within 300 feet of any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers. Section 14:5-7.3(C)(7)(b) The facility shall be located a minimum of 300 feet from any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers. Section 14:5-7.3(C)(13)(a) The height of any parking ramp located within 200 feet of any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers, may not penetrate the height of a line commencing at and perpendicular to said parcel and extending upward away from said parcel at a slope of 5 horizontal feet for each vertical foot. Section 14:5-7.3(C)(13)(b) The minimum yard requirement for any parking ramp located within 200 feet of any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers, shall be 50 feet. Section 14:5-7.3(C)(13)(e) If the parking ramp is located within 400 feet of any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers, all light sources on the top deck of a parking ramp shall be below the sight lines drawn from a point one (1) foot above the light source to any point within said parcel ten feet lower than the maximum structure height of that Use District at a distance of 400 feet from the wall of the parking ramp nearest to said parcel. Section 14:5-7.3(E)(7)(b) 61 No outdoor repair or maintenance shall be conducted within 100 feet of any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers. Section 14:6-6.2(G) … on adjacent sites. Building wall deviations are required where the unbroken building wall length to wall height ratio meets or exceeds 2:1. The minimum depth of each building wall deviation at the 2:1 ratio shall be 2 feet. The unbroken wall length to wall height ratio may be increased to 3:1 if the depth of the building wall deviations is increased to 3 feet. The unbroken wall length to wall height ratio may be increased to 4:1 if the depth of the building wall deviations is increased to 4 feet. The building wall deviations must extend from grade to the roof, or top of the parapet. Section 14:7-2(F) City Approvals - The City may not issue a Conditional Use Permit, Planned Unit Development, or building permit for an addition which increases the leasable floor area or density for any property which contains a non-conformity unless the non-conformity is removed as a condition of the approval. Amendments to existing Special Permits shall be administered in accordance with Section 14:8-6(D) of this ordinance. a. Exception: If a new use requiring a CUP, PUD, or Special Permit Amendment is proposed for part of a multi-tenant building, and there are no exterior modifications needed to accommodate the new tenant which would result in an increase in FAR, GFAR, building height, density, or a decrease in required yards, or other substantial change (other than property improvement to meet Building Code requirements); then the City may issue a CUP, PUD, or Special Permit Amendment provided the following standards are met:… Section 14:8-4.4(B)(4) The Planning Commission shall consider the testimony received at the public hearing, the staff reports, and other material it deems pertinent and shall report its findings and recommendations to the City Council. Section 14:8-4.4(B)(2) When Comprehensive Plan land use amendments are proposed within 500 feet of a municipal boundary or County Road, or when land use or text amendments may have impacts on the affected school or watershed districts, the Director of Community Development shall forward a copy of the proposed request to adjacent municipalities, the 62 affected school district, Hennepin County, and the affected watershed district within ten (10) working days of receipt of the request by the City Section 14:8-4.4(C) Exceptions: When changes to the Comprehensive Plan involve a complete Comprehensive Plan revision, notice to individual property owners is not required. However, notice of public hearing at the Planning Commission shall be published in the official newspaper on three consecutive weeks, the latest at least 10 days prior to the public hearing. Notice shall be sent to adjacent municipalities, Hennepin County, affected watershed districts, and affected school districts for review and comment of the proposed plan revision. Sec. 3. The contents of Planning Case File 00-61-ZA are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case. Sec.4. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication. Adopted by the City Council February 5, 2001 Reviewed for Administration City Manager Mayor Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution: City Clerk City Attorney 00-61-ZA-N/res/ord 63 SUMMARY ORDINANCE NO. 2188-01 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING BY AMENDING SECTIONS 14:5-3.2(D)(26), 14:5-3.2(E)(10), 14:5-4.2(F)(5), 14:5-4.3(F)(5), 14:5-4.4(F)(6), 14:5-5.2, 14:5-5.3, 14:5-6.2, 14:5-7.2, 14:5-7.3, 14:6-6.2(G), 14:7-2(F), 14:8-4.4(B)(2), 14:8-4.4(C) This ordinance states that the Zoning Ordinance shall be amended relative to the following: reduction of second story setbacks in the R-1, R-2 and R-3 Residential Districts, clarify the definitions of retail sales and showroom, 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, requiring a public hearing for Comprehensive Plan amendments at the Planning Commission only, and clarifying notification requirements for Comprehensive Plan amendments. This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication. Adopted by the City Council February 5, 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: February 14, 2001 00-61-sum/N/res/ord 64 CONSENT ITEM # 2 St. Louis Park City Council Meeting of February 5, 2001 2. Motion to adopt a resolution amending final plat resolution and extending plat filing deadline to March 20, 2001 for Marshall Kieffer and to adopt a resolution amending variance resolution to include the property address 2621 Virginia Avenue South. Case Nos. 00-53-S and 00-54-VAR 2621 Virginia Ave So. And 8019, 8025 W. 26th Street Background: On November 20, 2000 the City Council approved preliminary and final plat with variances to the Subdivision Ordinance for Kieffer’s Addition, which split off portions of the lot at 2621 Virginia Avenue South to be combined with two adjacent lots that front on W. 26th Street. The applicant is requesting a 60-day extension to the plat filing deadline, which expired on January 19, 2001, to March 20, 2001. As explained in the attached letter, the delay pertains to the need to refinance a mortgage on one of the properties in order to obtain the necessary signatures for the plat. Staff believes the extension request is reasonable. Variances were also approved along with the platting for reduced building setbacks on existing buildings. Only two of the three addresses involved were noted in the variance resolution that is approved; therefore staff is requesting that the City Council amend the variance resolution to include 2621 Virginia Avenue South. Are there any other issues? The vast majority of the plats which have been approved in the recent past have sought time extensions to the 60 day limit for filing the plat with Hennepin County. Given that for the most part, the reasons for seeking extensions have been reasonable and the extensions have been granted, staff believes the 60 day filing deadline should be extended. Staff will be proposing an amendment to the Subdivision Ordinance in the near future to extend the plat filing deadline. Recommendation: Staff is recommending adoption of a resolution amending final plat resolution for Kieffer’s Addition and extending the plat filing deadline to March 20, 2001. Staff is also recommending adoption of a resolution amending variance resolution to include the property address 2621 Virginia Avenue South. Attachments: Proposed resolutions Letter from applicant requesting extension Prepared by: Sacha Peterson, Planner Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 65 RESOLUTION NO. 01-010 Amends Resolution 00-147 RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION 00-147 ADOPTED ON NOVEMBER 20, 2000 APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT OF KIEFFER’S ADDITION WITH VARIANCES TO THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE FOR REDUCED SIDEWALKS, REDUCED PERIMETER LOT EASEMENTS AND TO WAIVE THE REQUIREMENT FOR A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (EXTENSION FOR FILING OF PLAT) BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of St. Louis Park: Findings 1. Marshall Kieffer, owner and subdivider of the land proposed to be platted as Kieffer’s Addition have submitted an application for approval of preliminary and final plat of said subdivision, with variances to the subdivision ordinance for reduced sidewalks, reduced perimeter lot easements and to waive the requirement for a development agreement, in the manner required for platting of land under the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code and all proceedings have been duly had thereunder. 2. The proposed preliminary and final plat have been found to be in all respects consistent with the City Plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and the ordinances of the City of St. Louis Park. 3. The subdivider has requested a 60 day extension for the filing of the final plat with Hennepin County due to refinancing issues. 4. The proposed plat is situated upon the following described lands in Hennepin County, Minnesota, to-wit: Lot 15 & Lot 16, Block 3, South Westwood Hills Second Addition together with part of the north half of the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter, Section 7, Township 117, Range 21, Hennepin County Minnesota lying northerly of B.N.S.F. Railroad and easterly of Virginia Avenue Conclusion 1. The proposed preliminary and final plat of Kieffer’s Addition, with variances to the Subdivision Ordinance, is hereby approved and accepted by the City as being in accord and conformity with all ordinances, City plans and regulations of the City of St. Louis Park and the laws of the State of Minnesota, subject to the following conditions: A. Variances are approved from the Subdivision Ordinance for no sidewalks along 26th Street adjacent to lots 1 and 2 and to no improvements to the sidewalk on Virginia Avenue adjacent to lot 3, drainage and utility easements as shown on the final plat, and to waive the requirement for a Development Agreement, in accordance with the following findings: 66 a) That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property such that the strict applicant of the provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance would deprive the applicant/owner of the reasonable use of the land. b) That the granting of the variances will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to other property in the territory in which property is situated. c) That the variances are to correct inequities resulting from extreme physical hardship; d) That the variances are in harmony with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. B. Before a final plat is signed by the City, the developer shall submit to the City a copy of owner’s policy of title insurance which insures the City’s interest in the plat, in an amount to be determined by the City. C. Within 60 days of final plat approval by the City Council, the subdivider shall record the final plat with the County Recorder. The subdivider shall, immediately upon recording, furnish the City Clerk with a print and reproducible tracing of the final plat showing evidence of the recording. The subdivider shall also provide a copy of the final plat on disc in an electronic data format. D. A 60-day extension from the original date approved for plat filing of January 19, 2001 shall be granted for filing of the final plat by March 20, 2001. provided, however, that this approval is made subject to the opinion of the City Attorney and Certification by the City Clerk as provided for in Sections 14-303(3)(d) and (e) of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code. 2. The City Clerk is hereby directed to supply two certified copies of this Resolution to the above-named owner and subdivider, who is the applicant herein. 3. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute all contracts required herein, and the City Clerk is hereby directed to execute the certificate of approval on behalf of the City Council upon the said plat when all of the conditions set forth in Paragraph No. 1 above and Section 14-303(3)(e) of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code have been fulfilled. 4. Such execution of the certificate upon said plat by the City Clerk, as required under Section 14-303(3)(e), shall be conclusive showing of proper compliance therewith by the subdivider and City officials charged with duties above described and shall entitle such plat to be placed on record forthwith without further formality. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council February 5, 2001 City Manager Mayor City Clerk 00-53-AMEND12/N/res/ord 67 VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. 01-011 Amends Resolution 00-146 A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTON NO. 00-146 APROVED ON NOVEMBER 20, 2000 AND GRANTING A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 14:5-4.2 OF THE ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING TO PERMIT REDUCED LOT WIDTHS OF 73.8 and 74.9 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 75 FEET AND REDUCED BUILDING SETBACKS OF 5.2 FEET SIDE YARD AND 23.7 FRONT YARD INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 6 FEET AND 30 FEET RESPECTIVELY FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE R-1 LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AT 2621 VIRGINIA AVENUE SOUTH, 8019 26TH STREET WEST AND 8025 26TH STREET WEST (ADDS 2621 VIRIGINIA AVENUE SOUTH ) BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of St. Louis Park, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. Marshall Kieffer has applied for variances from Section 14:5-4.2 of the Ordinance Code relating to zoning to permit reduced lot widths of 73.8 and 74.9 feet instead of the required 75 feet and reduced building setbacks of 5.2 feet side yard and 23.7 feet front yard instead of the required 6 feet and 30 feet respectively for property located in the R-1 Low Density Single Family Residential District at the following location, to-wit: Lot 15 & Lot 16, Block 3, Southwestwood Hills Second Addition together with part of the north half of the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter, Section 7, Township 117, Range 21, Hennepin County Minnesota lying northerly of B.N.S.F. Railroad and easterly of Virginia Avenue 2. On November 1, 2000 The Planning Commission held a public hearing, received testimony from the public, discussed the application and recommended approval of variances with a 5-0 vote. 3. The Planning Commission has considered the effect of the proposed variances 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 variances 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 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. 68 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 00-54-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 variances to permit reduced lot widths of 73.8 and 74.9 feet instead of the required 75 feet and reduced building setbacks of 5.2 feet side yard and 23.7 feet front yard instead of the required 6 feet and 30 feet respectively 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 February 5, 2001 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk 00-54-amend1/N/res/ord 69 CONSENT ITEM # 3 St. Louis Park City Council Meeting of February 5, 2001 3. • Motion to approve second 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, adopt ordinance, approve summary, and authorize publication • Motion to approve second reading of an ordinance vacating a portion of W. 14th Street, subject to the condition described in the ordinance, adopt ordinance, approve summary, and authorize publication. 6009 Wayzata Boulevard Case Nos. 01-01-Z and 01-02 –VAC 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. On January 16, 2001 the City Council approved first reading of both ordinances with no changes. Colored copies of the maps in this report were included in the First Reading report and are available upon request from the Community Development Department. Issues: • Is the proposed rezoning consistent with the Comprehensive Plan? • What is the current land use? • Is the proposed street vacation acceptable? 70 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. 71 Comprehensive Plan Map: Comp Plan DesignationCIVCIV-MXCMXCOMINDOFCPRKRHRLRMROWRRR 6009 Wayzata- Interstate 394 CSM Rottlund CostcoCP RailSubject 14th St.Colorado AveComp Plan Designations N EW S 72 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 73 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. 74 Recommendation: Staff and the Planning Commission are recommending approval of second reading of Zoning Ordinance Map amendment changing the designation on property located at 6009 Wayzata Boulevard from R-4, Multiple Family Residential to C-2, General Commercial, adopt ordinance, approve summary ordinance, and authorize publication. Staff and the Planning Commission are also recommending approval of second reading of an ordinance vacating a portion of W. 14th Street, subject to the condition described in the ordinance, adopt ordinance, approve summary ordinance, and authorize publication. Attachment: • Proposed ordinances • Proposed summary 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 75 ORDINANCE NO. 2189-01 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 76 ORDINANCE NO. 2190-01 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 77 SUMMARY ORDINANCE NO. 2190-01 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE CHANGING BOUNDARIES OF ZONING DISTRICTS 6005-6009 Wayzata Boulevard This ordinance states that the zoning for a portion of the property located at 6005-6009 Wayzata Boulevard shall be changed from R-4 Multiple Family to C-2 General Commercial. This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication. Adopted by the City Council February 5, 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: February 14, 2001 01-01-sum/N/res/ord 78 SUMMARY ORDINANCE NO._____________ AN ORDINANCE VACATING STREET A portion of West 14th Street that is approximately 190 feet east of Colorado Avenue This ordinance states that a portion of West 14th Street that is approximately 190 feet east of Colorado Avenue shall be vacated. This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication. Adopted by the City Council February 5, 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: February 14, 2001 01-02-vac/N/res/ord 79 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 not want the vacation to interfere with the parking now taking place on the street. He stated 80 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. 81 CONSENT ITEM # 4 St. Louis Park City Council Meeting of February 5, 2001 4. Motion to waive second reading of ordinance to increase the water and sewer utility rates by 2%, effective February 26, 2001 and approve summary ordinance for publication 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 in 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. The City has provided for very moderate annual increases in the water and sewer rates. It is the City’s intent to increase rates a 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 “impact” of the rate increase is different for each customer. This is because a portion of the rate is volume-based. The more water consumed the higher the impact of the rate increase. The proposed increase for 2001 is the same percentage increase that was approved for 2000. Attachments: Proposed Ordinance Summary notice for publication Prepared by: Jean D. McGann, Director of Finance Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 82 ORDINANCE NO. 2191-01 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO THE 2001 WATER RATES, SECTION 9-101, AND THE 2001 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 is furnished as follows: Service Charges -- February 26, Meter Size 5/8 inch $3.56 3.63 5.49 5.6 3/4 inch 4.00 4.08 6.67 6.8 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 Water Rates--0.696 per 100 cubic feet Sewer Rates--1.38 per 100 cubic feet of water monthly service charge of $3.55 quarterly service charge of $10.65 Monthly Quarterly 2001 2001 83 In case the meter is 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. Sec. 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 9-230 hereof for billings on 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.” Sec. 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective 15 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 84 Summary ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO THE WATER RATES, SECTION 9-101 AND T THE SEWER RATES, CECTION 9-231 Summary: This ordinance established the water and sewer rates for all utility bills generated on or after February 26, 2001. Both water and sewer rates will be increased by 2%. Effective Date: This ordinance shall be in effect 15 days following its publication Adopted by the City Council February 5, 2001 Jeffrey Jacobs Mayor \s\ A copy of the full text of this ordinance is available for inspection with the City Clerk Published in the Sun-Sailor February 85 CONSENT ITEM # 5 St. Louis Park City Council February 5, 2001 5. Motion to adopt the attached resolution authorizing application for a Hennepin County grant to fund the City’s curbside recycling program. Background: Since 1988 the City has received annual grants from Hennepin County as an aid in supporting the residential curbside recycling program that serves all single family through fourplex residential structures. From the beginning through 1992, the County’s recycling grant program provided reimbursement of 50% to 80% of eligible costs based on the amount of recyclable material diverted from the waste stream. St. Louis Park always received the maximum reimbursement of 80% of program costs, or about $1.75 per household per month. In 1993 and again in 1994, the county changed its program to provide an entitlement of $1.75 per household per month regardless of the amount of recyclable material diverted from the waste stream. The County’s current funding policy (grant program) covers the period from January 1, 2000 through December 31, 2004, and provides for the proportional distribution of SCORE funds, which the County receives from the State of Minnesota. SCORE (Select Committee On Recycling and the Environment) was established by Governor Perpich to provide a funding source for solid waste programs throughout Minnesota. SCORE funds are derived from a 6.5% tax on garbage collection and disposal fees. These funds are then distributed to Counties for solid waste programs, particularly recycling collection. Hennepin County’s share of SCORE funds is approximately $3 million per year. This is divided evenly between Cities on a proportional basis. St. Louis Park’s share is about $110,000. In 1995 the City authorized a grant application and agreement for the duration of this program. Since that time, staff has prepared grant applications and agreements for the Mayor’s signature annually. In December of 1997, Hennepin County informed staff that a Council Resolution authorizing each application and agreement would be necessary. This report and request is based on that Hennepin County requirement. Summary: Attached to this report is a resolution authorizing the application to Hennepin County for a grant to fund the City’s curbside recycling program. The grant application and the County funding Policy are attached for Council for information purposes only. Attachments: Resolution 2000 Municipal Recycling Final Report / 2001 Grant Application Hennepin County Residential Recycling Funding Policy (on file in Clerk’s office) Prepared by: Mike Roth, Public Works Administrative Supervisor Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 86 RESOLUTION NO. 01-012 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR A GRANT AND EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK AND HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR FUNDING ASSISTANCE FOR RESIDENTIAL CURBSIDE RECYCLING PROGRAM WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statute 115A.552, Counties shall ensure that residents have an opportunity to recycle; and WHEREAS, Hennepin County Ordinance 13 requires each City to implement a recycling program to enable the County to meet its recycling goals; and WHEREAS, the County has adopted a funding assistance policy for source separated recyclables to distribute funds to Cities for the development and implementation of waste reduction and recycling programs; and WHEREAS, to be eligible to receive these County funds, Cities must meet the conditions set forth in the funding policy; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that the City Council authorizes the submittal of the 2001 Hennepin County grant application for municipal source separated recyclables and that the Mayor, City Manager and City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to execute on behalf of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota an agreement in its entirety which covers the furnishing of a recycling program during 2001. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that as a condition to receive funds under the Hennepin County funding assistance policy, the City agrees to implement a waste reduction and recycling program as committed to by its submission of the 2001 Hennepin County recycling grant application and that the City will use such County funds for the limited purpose of implementing the City’s waste reduction and recycling program and that the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a certified copy of this resolution with the agreement with the Hennepin County Contract Compliance Officer. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council February 5, 2000 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk 87 CONSENT ITEM # 6a January 19, 2000 VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT AIRTOUCH CELLULAR TELEPHONE 1,301.04 AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS ASSOCIAT SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 137.50 ANCHOR PAPER CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 575.63 ANDERSEN INC, EARL F OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 1,451.45 APPLIANCE SMART GENERAL SUPPLIES 243.88 ARAMARK UNIFORM CORPORATE ACCT GENERAL SUPPLIES 637.82 AUTO GLASS SPECIALISTS INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 536.80 AUTO SERVICE COMPANY EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 233.12 BACHMANS BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 106.50 BATTERIES PLUS GENERAL SUPPLIES 21.28 BAUER BUILT TIRE & BATTERY EQUIPMENT PARTS (35.87) BEACON BALLFIELDS TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 170.00 BEEKS PIZZA GENERAL SUPPLIES 125.45 BERTELSON OFFICE PRODUCTS OFFICE SUPPLIES (9.07) BETH HOLIDA MEETING EXPENSE 82.78 BOBS PERSONAL COFFEE SERVICE GENERAL SUPPLIES 277.55 BOYER TRUCK PARTS EQUIPMENT PARTS 762.43 BROADWAY RENTAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT (1.66) BROWN TRAFFIC PRODUCTS INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 108.63 CAMPBELL KNUTSON PROFESSIONAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 7,235.34 CARTRIDGE CARE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 1,055.02 CENTER FOR ENERGY & ENVIRONMEN OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 11,885.53 CHARLES J. VOLKE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 25.00 CHEROKEE POWER EQUIPMENT CO NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 628.34 CHIEF SUPPLY GENERAL SUPPLIES 213.99 CHIEF'S TOWING INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 150.00 CITY OF ANOKA SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 24.00 CONCEPT SEATING INC GENERAL SUPPLIES (180.00) CONSECO FINANCE VENDOR SERV CO OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 751.89 CORTNEY J. JOHNSON CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 25.00 CRILEY, KATHI L GENERAL SUPPLIES 56.54 CSC CREDIT SERVICES INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 25.00 CUMMINS NORTH CENTRAL INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 122.51 CURTIS 1000 INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,457.20 CUSTOM PRODUCTS & SERVICES OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 7,687.50 DAKOTA COUNTY TECHNICAL COLLEG TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 60.00 DANKO EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 231.93 DATABASE TECHNOLOGIES INC OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 25.00 DELI DOUBLE MEETING EXPENSE 122.46 DEPT OF PUBLIC SAFETY RADIO COMMUNICATIONS 510.00 EDWARDS SALES GENERAL SUPPLIES 22.62 EHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC DEPOSITS PAYABLE 2,468.50 ELAN TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 334.29 EMERGENCY MEDICAL PRODUCTS GENERAL SUPPLIES 522.77 EMERY'S TREE SERVICE INC CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 8,991.81 ENGINEERING REPRO SYSTEMS GENERAL SUPPLIES 31.95 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (15.67) FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP POSTAGE 392.71 88 FORCE AMERICA INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 133.72 FREDDY'S READY INC. OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 592.16 FREEWAY RADIATOR SERVICE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 1,030.02 GARDNER HARDWARE GENERAL SUPPLIES 31.95 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (27.83) GIEBEL, JOHN TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 62.40 GOODYEAR BRAD RAGAN TIRE & SER EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 112.10 HARMENING, TOM DEPOSITS PAYABLE 17.00 HAWKINS WATER TREATMENT GROUP CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY 1,446.52 HEALTH AND CARING SERVICES OF OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 852.00 HPI INTERNATIONAL INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 347.50 IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 1,308.61 INDELCO EQUIPMENT PARTS 10.46 INGRAHAM & ASSOCIATES INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,404.32 INTERNL SOCIETY ARBORICULTURE SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 105.00 INTERSTATE DETROIT DIESEL EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 2,190.63 IOS CAPITAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT 446.24 IPMA SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 100.00 J-CRAFT INC. EQUIPMENT PARTS 1,637.16 KENNEDY & GRAVEN DEPOSITS PAYABLE 3,224.49 KOVATCH MOBILE EQUIPMENT CORP EQUIPMENT PARTS 35.44 LABOR RELATIONS ASSOCIATES OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 5,180.00 LAURIE PULVER MSC Special Work 53.63 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 60.00 MACQUEEN EQUIP CO EQUIPMENT PARTS 2,077.45 MAIL BOXES ETC # 1236 DEPOSITS PAYABLE 324.72 MARK E. LUGER CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 25.00 MARK HOPPE MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 113.75 MASTERSON PERSONNEL INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 840.00 MCCOLLISTER & CO LUBRICANTS/ADDITIVES 413.17 MENARDS GENERAL SUPPLIES 74.54 METROCALL TELEPHONE 226.74 MIDWEST MAILING SYSTEMS INC POSTAGE 30.98 MILLER HANSON WESTERBECK BERGE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 800.00 MINN DEPT OF AGRICULTURE TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 50.00 MINNESOTA GFOA SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 30.00 MINNESOTA PARK SUPERVISORS ASS SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 75.00 MINVALCO INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 60.76 MN CHIEFS OF POLICE ED FOUNDAT TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 280.00 MN DEPT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 36.23 MN DRIVER & VEHICLE SVCS EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT CHARGE (46.00) MN SOCIETY OF ARBORICULTURE SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 100.00 MOBILE RADIO ENGINEERING RADIO COMMUNICATIONS 229.50 MOLLY KRAFT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 72.50 MPELRA SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 150.00 MTI DISTRIBUTING CO EQUIPMENT PARTS 139.65 MUNICI-PALS SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 20.00 MUNICILITE EQUIPMENT PARTS 143.69 MYRON J. SALONEK MEETING EXPENSE 736.95 NAPA GENUINE PARTS CO/FINANCE EQUIPMENT PARTS (577.77) NATIONAL CAMERA EXCHANGE & VID GENERAL SUPPLIES 468.55 NATL ARBOR DAY FOUNDATION SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 40.00 89 NATL ASSOC OF FLEET ADMINISTRA SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 390.00 NATL AUTOMOBILE DEALERS SERVIC SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 55.00 NATL RECREATION & PARKS ASSOC SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 55.00 NCITE TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 50.00 NENA TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 350.00 NORTHERN BATTERY EQUIPMENT PARTS 59.22 NORTHLAND ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 90.99 NSP CO ELECTRIC SERVICE 10,810.96 OESTREICH, MARK MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 52.33 OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE SUPPLIES 166.36 OTTO PACKAGING MIDWEST LLC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES (72.00) PAPA JOHNS INTERNATIONAL MEETING EXPENSE 82.20 PARTS PLUS EQUIPMENT PARTS 137.23 PC MAGAZINE SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 49.97 PERSONNEL DECISIONS INTERNATIO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,250.00 POMEROY COMPUTER RESOURCES INC OFFICE SUPPLIES 219.30 PRESTIGE LINCOLN MERCURY EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 107.30 PRINTERS SERVICE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 192.00 PRO PRODUCTS INC GENERAL SUPPLIES (92.32) PROFESSIONAL EQUIPMENT GENERAL SUPPLIES 87.63 PUMP & METER SERVICE BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 396.47 QUICKSILVER EXPRESS COURIER EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 54.50 RADISSON SUITE HOTEL TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 297.72 RELIANT ENERGY HEATING GAS 18,950.71 REYNOLDS WELDING SUPPLY CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 11.23 ROCKWELL AUTOMATION EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 172.40 SA-AG INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 856.29 SAFETY-KLEEN CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 228.15 SAVIN CORPORATION GENERAL SUPPLIES 2,457.20 SCHARBER & SONS INC EQUIPMENT PARTS (3.51) SCHWARTZ, LYNN MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 21.78 SCHWIETZ,JULIANNE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 699.10 SCIENCE MUSEUM OF MINNESOTA TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 139.00 SEARS SMALL TOOLS 25.46 SLP CRIME PREVENTION FUND UNREALIZED REV-SAFETY CAMP 0.00 SOUTHWEST SALES AND RENTAL MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT 7,029.80 SPORTS TURF MANAGERS ASSOCIATI SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 25.00 STANTON BUILDING SPECIALTIES OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,125.00 STAT MEDICAL CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY 63.17 STREICHER'S GENERAL SUPPLIES 15.98 SUBURBAN PROPANE MOTOR FUELS 113.99 SUBURBAN TIRE CO TIRES 413.95 SUN NEWSPAPERS LEGAL NOTICES 323.53 SWEENEY BROS TRACTOR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 566.25 SYMPRO NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 24,000.00 TERMINIX INTERNATIONAL BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 52.18 TRACY/TRIPP FUELS MOTOR FUELS 10,204.62 TWIN CITY OXYGEN CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 4.96 U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE 4,217.85 VIEAU, DURELL STUDY INCENTIVE & MERIT PAY 1,241.25 VIKING AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 192.00 VOELKER, STACY M GENERAL SUPPLIES 102.35 90 WALSER FORD EQUIPMENT PARTS 183.76 WASTE MANAGEMENT-BLAINE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 165,919.51 WATSON CO INC CONCESSION SUPPLIES 2,197.36 WEST WELD GENERAL SUPPLIES 151.51 WOLFE, STEPHEN D MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 78.98 ZIEGLER INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 230.29 ZIP SORT POSTAGE 73.30 335,749.68 January 26, 2000 VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT AAA-LICENSE DIVISION MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT 1,004.56 AEI ELECTRONIC PARTS GENERAL SUPPLIES 29.54 AIRTOUCH CELLULAR TELEPHONE 196.49 ALLIANCE MECHANICAL SERVICES I BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 1,340.00 AMERIPRIDE LINEN AND APPAREL S CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 160.56 ANGELL, MARY PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 52.00 ARAMARK UNIFORM CORPORATE ACCT GENERAL SUPPLIES 393.95 ATD-AMERICAN CO SUBSISTENCE SUPPLIES 543.33 B & C PLUMBING & HEATING MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS 45.00 BARON, EILEEN GENERAL SUPPLIES 208.57 BAUER BUILT TIRE & BATTERY EQUIPMENT PARTS (35.87) BEACON BALLFIELDS OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 1,399.00 BERNDT ELECTRIC SERVICE BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 2,056.96 BERTELSON OFFICE PRODUCTS OFFICE SUPPLIES 13.82 BIG RIVER DELI & SANDWICHES MEETING EXPENSE 58.31 BIRNO, RICK TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 32.22 BLOMBERG, MARILYN OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 34.44 BOBS PERSONAL COFFEE SERVICE GENERAL SUPPLIES 266.91 BOHN WELDING COMPANY OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 242.98 BROADWAY RENTAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT (1.66) CALHOUN TOWERS APARTMENTS RADIO COMMUNICATIONS 600.00 CAPITOL COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 166.25 CENTRAL SALT OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 23,259.03 COLLISYS ELECTRIC CO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,017.05 COMM CENTER RADIO COMMUNICATIONS 252.62 CONCEPT SEATING INC GENERAL SUPPLIES (180.00) CORNERHOUSE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 5,305.00 CROWN TROPHY GENERAL SUPPLIES 623.18 CURRAN-BAKKEN, E T GENERAL SUPPLIES 63.69 CUSTOM PRODUCTS & SERVICES OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 248.00 DELTA MEDICAL SUPPLY GROUP INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 221.28 DIGITAL BIOMETRICS INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 485.00 DOER/TIF CONFERENCE TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 110.00 ELECTRIC PUMP WALDOR GROUP BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 791.52 EMPLOYERS ASSOCIATION INC MEETING EXPENSE 395.00 ENGINEERING REPRO SYSTEMS GENERAL SUPPLIES 193.31 ESCOM SOFTWARE SERVICES LTD OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 266.25 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (15.67) FISCHLER & ASSOCIATES PA, GARY TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 300.00 91 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (27.83) GLO GERM COMPANY GENERAL SUPPLIES 46.85 GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC RADIO COMMUNICATIONS 145.60 HENNEPIN TECHNICAL COLLEGE TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 260.00 HOWARD R. GREEN COMPANY LEGAL SERVICES 345.00 INTL ASSN ASSESS OFFICERS TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 130.00 INVER HILLS COMMUNITY COLLEGE TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 345.00 IPMA OTHER ADVERTISING 125.00 J H LARSON COMPANY BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 372.57 JAMES H. LAMOUREUX CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 25.00 JANATHAN S. LANGDOK CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 25.00 JOSH HORN GENERAL CUSTOMERS 66.42 KEYS WELL DRILLING CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 14,935.00 KOHL'S DEPARTMENT STORE GENERAL CUSTOMERS 72.63 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 49.00 LAURA SILBERFARB SKATING LESSONS-tax exempt 49.50 LENOX NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 18.93 LIVON, BARBARA CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 25.00 LUIS MIGUEL OCAMPO OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 160.00 LYNCH, DEBRA TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 260.70 M A C T A TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 900.00 M G F O A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 30.00 MASTERSON PERSONNEL INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,132.50 MEDSOFT CORPORATION OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 503.90 METRO AREA MGMT ASSN SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 45.00 METRO SALES INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 526.58 METRO VOLLEYBALL OFFICIALS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 164.00 METROCALL TELEPHONE 53.19 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 226,556.07 MFAPC SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 35.00 MILLERSVILLE UNIVERSITY TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 590.00 MIND SHARP TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 129.00 MINIKAHDA OAKS NEIGHBORHOOD AS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 109.19 MINNESOTA D A R E OFFICERS ASS TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 135.00 MN DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 87.62 MN DRIVER & VEHICLE SVCS EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT CHARGE (46.00) MN RECREATION & PARK ASSOC SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 1,263.00 NAPA GENUINE PARTS CO/FINANCE EQUIPMENT PARTS (577.77) NATHENSON & ASSOCIATES, JUDITH AWARDS/INDEMNITIES 474.47 NELSON-RUDIE ASSOCIATES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 180.00 NORIT AMERICAS INC. CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY 26,651.40 NORTHLAND CHEMICAL CORP GENERAL SUPPLIES 104.25 NORTHLAND ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 22.67 NSP CO ELECTRIC SERVICE 28,821.20 OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE SUPPLIES 1,323.78 OMAR MCMILLIAN OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 60.00 OTTO PACKAGING MIDWEST LLC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES (72.00) PAPER WAREHOUSE-GENERAL OFFICE GENERAL SUPPLIES 32.15 PARK LAND COMPANY OTHER IMPROVEMENTS 1,914.44 PERSONNEL DECISIONS INTERNATIO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 5,000.00 POSTMASTER NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 726.10 PRO PRODUCTS INC GENERAL SUPPLIES (92.32) 92 QUEST ENGINEERING INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 42.92 R & R SPECIALTIES EQUIPMENT PARTS 253.85 RC INDENTIFICATIONS GENERAL SUPPLIES 21.30 RELIANT ENERGY HEATING GAS 28,617.08 ROMERO, FRANK OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 122.61 ROTARY CLUB OF SLP MEETING EXPENSE 326.00 SA-AG INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 699.78 SALVATION ARMY AQUATIC PARK GROUP ADMIN 159.50 SANDY KLINE SPECIAL PROGRAMS 40.00 SCHARBER & SONS INC EQUIPMENT PARTS (3.51) SCHWIETZ,JULIANNE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,337.05 SECURITYLINK FROM AMERITECH OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 36.10 SEDGWICK CLAIMS GMT SERVICES PROF/CONSULT SERVICES 870.00 SEH PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,993.05 SENSIBLE LAND USE COALITION TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 60.00 SIGN IMAGES BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 319.93 SILVER CREEK SLED DOGS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 350.00 SLP CRIME PREVENTION FUND UNREALIZED REV-SAFETY CAMP 0.00 SOKKIA MEASURING SYSTEMS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 95.00 SPS COMPANIES INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 17.22 SRF CONSULTING GROUP INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 7,477.69 STAR TRIBUNE SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 111.80 STATE CHEMICAL MFG CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 397.31 STROMBERG, AMBER MEETING EXPENSE 33.17 SUBURBAN PROPANE MOTOR FUELS 113.99 THE J.P. COOKE COMPANY GENERAL SUPPLIES 299.89 TRI-STATE PUMP & CONTROL EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 2,346.46 TURKINGTON, ARLENE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 21.30 U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE 145.77 ULTIMATE OFFICE OFFICE SUPPLIES 160.92 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,748.29 US POSTAL SERVICE POSTAGE 125.00 VALLEY-RICH CO INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 7,089.60 VIKING OFFICE PRODUCTS OFFICE SUPPLIES 110.62 VOELKER, STACY M GENERAL SUPPLIES 37.26 WATSON CO INC CONCESSION SUPPLIES 1,494.40 WM H MC COY PETROLEUM FUELS OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 12.78 WSB ASSOCIATES INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 5,080.25 420,518.79 February 2, 2001 VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT AAA-LICENSE DIVISION MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT 1,167.87 ABLE COURIER GENERAL SUPPLIES 8.00 ALBERS MECHANICAL SERVICES BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 743.00 ALLIANCE MECHANICAL SERVICES I BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 590.00 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 350.00 AMERICAN RED CROSS GENERAL SUPPLIES 102.35 ANCHOR PAPER CO OFFICE SUPPLIES 467.54 ANDERSON, DONALD SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 40.00 93 ARAMARK UNIFORM CORPORATE ACCT GENERAL SUPPLIES 471.43 ASPEN EQUIPMENT MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT 4,414.43 ATD-AMERICAN CO SUBSISTENCE SUPPLIES 342.35 BATTERIES PLUS GENERAL SUPPLIES 85.99 BAUER BUILT TIRE & BATTERY EQUIPMENT PARTS (35.87) BKBM ENGINEERS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 607.50 BOBS PERSONAL COFFEE SERVICE GENERAL SUPPLIES 199.94 BROADWAY RENTAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT (1.66) BRW INC DEPOSITS PAYABLE 8,650.10 CAREERTRACK TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 179.00 CARTRIDGE CARE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 728.67 CHENEY SIGNS OFFICE SUPPLIES 316.66 CHRISTOPHER NELSON MEETING EXPENSE 14.63 COLLINS COMMUNICATIONS BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 28.76 COMPRESSAIR & EQUIPMENT CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 36.95 CONCEPT SEATING INC GENERAL SUPPLIES (180.00) CRONSTROM HEATING & AIR BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 118.00 CRYSTEEL TRUCK EQUIP INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 78.86 CUB FOODS SUBSISTENCE SUPPLIES 256.34 DAKOTA CO TECH COLLEGE TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 450.00 DANKO EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,915.19 DARTEK.COM OFFICE SUPPLIES 210.13 DECISION RESOURCES LTD OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 6,000.00 E & S ELECTRONICS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 409.56 EDTECH OFFICE FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT 5,571.00 ELAN GENERAL SUPPLIES 5,123.34 ELEMENT K JOURNALS SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 89.00 EMERY'S TREE SERVICE INC CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 2,130.00 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (15.67) FALCON ASSOCIATES INC OTHER ADVERTISING 172.80 FIBAR INC. OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 472.00 FINE WOODWORKING SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 32.00 FIRE CHIEFS CONFERENCE TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 2,000.00 G & K SERVICES CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY 52.75 GARLAND'S INC. GENERAL SUPPLIES 112.00 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (27.83) GLAPA, SHAWN GENERAL SUPPLIES 147.00 GLENWOOD INGLEWOOD GENERAL SUPPLIES 48.50 GMAC MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT 15,172.50 GRAINGER INC, W W SMALL TOOLS 258.39 GRAYBOW COMMUNICATIONS GENERAL SUPPLIES 862.97 HASLERUD, CARRIE GENERAL SUPPLIES 130.15 HENN CO INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY COMPUTER SERVICES 464.73 HENN CO TREASURER SUBSISTENCE SERVICE 8,543.36 HENNEPIN TECHNICAL COLLEGE TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 780.00 HOME DEPOT NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 2,386.06 HOME DEPOT/GECF BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 88.45 HONEYWELL INC. EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 266.60 I A F C TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 610.00 ICE SKATING INSTITUTE OF AMERI GENERAL SUPPLIES 11.00 INACOM EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 650.00 94 IOS CAPITAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT 516.53 IRON MOUNTAIN OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 29.00 J H LARSON COMPANY OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 24.83 JOSEPH CATERING OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 398.73 KARL KUEMMERLING INC SMALL TOOLS 280.06 KENNEDY & GRAVEN DEPOSITS PAYABLE 5,810.08 LARSEN, KATHY MEETING EXPENSE 40.54 LAWRENCE, MONTE TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 49.68 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 150.00 LOFFLER BUSINESS SYSTEMS INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 5,127.34 LOFTUS, JANICE MEETING EXPENSE 26.10 LOGIS COMPUTER SERVICES 30,263.23 LUIS MIGUEL OCAMPO OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 80.00 M F E A UNREALIZED REVENUE 50.00 MACQUEEN EQUIP CO EQUIPMENT PARTS 283.68 MARKERTEK VIDEO SUPPLY GENERAL SUPPLIES 108.82 MASTERSON PERSONNEL INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 931.88 MENARDS GENERAL SUPPLIES 6.77 METRO ATHLETIC SUPPLY GENERAL SUPPLIES 439.95 METROCALL TELEPHONE 14.46 MICRO CENTER OFFICE FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT 1,186.92 MIDWEST GREASE CONCESSION SUPPLIES 40.00 MINN COMMERCE DEPT SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 160.00 MINUTEMAN PRESS PRINTING & PUBLISHING 3,057.42 MN DRIVER & VEHICLE SVCS EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT CHARGE (46.00) MOORMAN JOHN, INC. TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 189.00 MULCAHY CO INC, BERNARD J BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 554.55 NAPA GENUINE PARTS CO/FINANCE EQUIPMENT PARTS (245.02) NELSON, MARK R. GENERAL SUPPLIES 147.00 NIEHANS, MICHAEL PROGRAMMING 8.00 NORTHLAND CHEMICAL CORP GENERAL SUPPLIES 250.17 NORTHSTAR REPRO PRODUCTS INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 166.34 OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE SUPPLIES 567.36 OLD DOMINION BRUSH EQUIPMENT PARTS 1,011.75 OLSEN CHAIN & CABLE CO INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 92.98 OTTO PACKAGING MIDWEST LLC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES (72.00) P.A. DOUGLAS & ASSOCIATES INC. TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 1,895.00 PARTS PLUS EQUIPMENT PARTS (23.59) PEPSI-COLA COMPANY CONCESSION SUPPLIES 804.73 POOLE, KATE PROGRAMMING 15.00 POSTMASTER POSTAGE 2,650.00 PRAXAIR DISTRIBUTION INC. GENERAL SUPPLIES 80.48 PRINTERS SERVICE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 56.60 PRO PRODUCTS INC GENERAL SUPPLIES (92.32) QUICKSILVER EXPRESS COURIER EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 876.73 REID & ASSOCIATES, JOHN E TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 375.00 ROTH, MICHAEL J STUDY INCENTIVE & MERIT PAY 1,675.00 SA-AG INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 1,443.54 SAM'S CLUB GENERAL SUPPLIES 322.34 SARICH, TERESA E. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 25.00 SCHARBER & SONS INC EQUIPMENT PARTS (3.51) SEARS SMALL TOOLS 16.96 95 SELLS, NANCY MEETING EXPENSE 47.11 SEVERN TRENT LABORATORIES, INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 5,310.00 SIMPLEX TIME RECORDER CO BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 172.50 SLP CRIME PREVENTION FUND UNREALIZED REV-SAFETY CAMP 0.00 SOKKIA MEASURING SYSTEMS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 47.50 SPECTRASITE RADIO COMMUNICATIONS 87.00 SPS COMPANIES INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 5.36 STAR ELECTRIC INC. OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,767.00 STREICHER'S GENERAL SUPPLIES 755.34 SUBURBAN PROPANE MOTOR FUELS 86.91 TARGET/DAYTONS GENERAL SUPPLIES 23.28 TEKSYSTEMS COMPUTER SERVICES 574.00 THE JOURNAL OF LIGHT SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 39.95 THE NATURE CONSERVANCY SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 15.00 TOTAL AIR INC. FOOD AND BEVERAGE PERMIT 38.94 TWIN WEST CHAMBER OF COMMERCE MEETING EXPENSE 68.40 U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE 38.88 U S WEST INTERPRISE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 1,253.80 UHL CO INC BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 1,193.73 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE GENERAL SUPPLIES 15.00 UNIVERSITY OF MINN TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 735.00 VISU-SEWER CLEAN & SEAL INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 3,901.75 VISUAL COMMUNICATIONS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 90.00 VOELKER, STACY M STUDY INCENTIVE & MERIT PAY 521.04 W & W GENERATOR REBUILDERS EQUIPMENT PARTS 198.04 WALSER FORD EQUIPMENT PARTS 18.33 WASTE MANAGEMENT-BLAINE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 138,016.04 WATSON CO INC CONCESSION SUPPLIES 575.36 WEST GROUP SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 30.35 WINLAW, SHIRLEY A. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 25.00 ZIEGLER INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 265.14 ZIP SORT POSTAGE 581.88 293,211.56 IMMEDIATE PAYABLES February 2, 2001 VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT COLICH & ASSOCIATES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 7,796.53 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 3,546.19 KANSAS STATE BANK OF MANHATTAN CAPITALIZED INTEREST 642.43 MNAPA TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 25.00 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA MEETING EXPENSE 45.00 12,055.15 96 CONSENT ITEM # 6b City of St. Louis Park Human Rights Commission Meeting Minutes - December 20, 2000 Second Floor Conference Room - City Hall ______________________________________________________________________________ Present Commission Members: Marc Berg, Herb Isbin, Lynn Littlejohn, Betty Merritt, Kristin Siegesmund and Chris Smith Staff: Martha McDonell, staff liaison, Jennifer Oftelie, intern, and Lynn Schwartz, recording secretary Call to Order Chair Marc Berg called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m. November Minutes: Moved by Lynn Littlejohn and seconded by Herb Isbin to accept the November minutes with modifications and corrections for typographical errors. Motion passed unanimously. December Agenda: Moved by Herb Isbin and seconded by Lynn Littlejohn to approve the agenda with the addition of a report on the League of Minnesota Human Rights Commissions board meeting. Motion passed unanimously. New Business Election of Officers: After suggesting that the commission could benefit from new members taking on leadership roles, Herb Isbin nominated Chris Smith for chair; Smith declined. Isbin then nominated Kristin Siegesmund; Siegesmund declined. Isbin then nominated Lynn Littlejohn for chairperson. Motion seconded by Marc Berg. After a brief discussion, Littlejohn agreed to serve as chairperson, and Siegesmund agreed to serve as vice-chair. Motion passed unanimously. Human Mosaic Group: Martha McDonell reported that she met with representatives of Human Mosaic, a group of students at St. Louis Park High School who promote acceptance of diversity and cultural awareness. McDonell reported that the students are interested in following up on the District’s ethnographic study recommendations. She also suggested that the commission could support Human Mosaic’s efforts such as their mural, poster and video projects. Recruiting New Commissioners: Martha McDonell reported that she encouraged Human Mosaic members to submit applications for commission membership, and three students have submitted applications. She also reported that one application from an interested adult has been submitted, and the City Council will interviewing that individual in January. 97 League of Minnesota Human Rights Commissions: Herb Isbin suggested that the St. Louis Park Human Rights Commission host a league meeting sometime during the upcoming year. The league meets monthly on either a Saturday or a Sunday at various locations. Isbin also said the league would like an updated membership roster from St. Louis Park; Martha McDonell agreed to send the league a new roster. Commission members expressed their thanks to Isbin for bringing the league’s work to their attention and suggested that future updates can be handled in the “reports” section of the agenda. Old Business League of Women Voters Renters’ Handbook: After the League of Women Voters had asked for the commission’s help in producing a handbook targeted at new immigrants, Martha McDonell reported that the City’s graphic designer agreed to design the booklet, the City’s communications coordinator would help copy edit the booklet, and the City’s print shop agreed to print and mail the first 300 copies. Any additional financial support—translation services, additional printing, etc.—would have to go to the City Council for Council approval. Herb Isbin said he had second thoughts about the project because the commission had failed to ask whether these resources already exist within the community. Isbin wondered whether the league had explored obtaining translation services from the Minnesota Department of Human Services. Kristin Siegesmund responded that the league is trying to accomplish a different mission: create a simple, reference guide to help immigrants find the services they need. The league is not planning on providing these services. Siegesmund also noted that she was impressed by the thoroughness of the league’s research. Commissioners agreed to ask a league representative to come to its January 17 commission meeting to answer the commission’s questions. The commission could then bring any funding requests to the January 22 City Council study session. Human Rights Award: Marc Berg reported on the Human Rights Award presentation ceremony at the December 18 City Council meeting. Members reported that they were pleased with the ceremony and the large attendance. Herb Isbin thanked Martha McDonell for handling the preparations needed to ensure that the presentation went smoothly. Boy Scouts: Chris Smith reported on his meeting with the St. Louis Park School Board concerning Boy Scouts troops’ use of school facilities and the commissions’ concern about the organization’s policy prohibiting gay scouts and scout leaders. Smith reported that the school district does not directly sponsor troops; instead, it allows recruiting fliers to be sent home with students and lets troops use school facilities at no charge. Smith reported that the board took no action at the meeting although some board members appeared concerned about the scout’s exclusionary policy. Herb Isbin said he believes Superintendent Barbara Pulliam would like the Human Rights commission to continue its discussions with the school board. He noted that this is the beginning of the process for the board. Isbin also reported that the League of Minnesota Human Rights Commissions has not taken a formal stand on the scout issue. 98 Several members felt the school board could simply move the Boy Scouts to a different category for use of school facilities. The schools could place the boy scouts into the category of groups with restrictive membership policies. With that switch, the scouts could still use facilities; however, they would have to pay a small rental fee. Commissioners felt this would still allow scouting to be offered but would send a message about the board’s stance on the Boy Scouts’ policy. Commissioners then wondered how strong a stance the commission could take on this issue given the fact that the City Council appears reluctant to take a stand on an issue that concerns another governmental entity. After a discussion, commissioners felt the best approach was to draft a letter thanking the board for inviting it to speak to them on this issue and offering to return to discuss the issue again, if requested. Chris Smith agreed to write the letter. Annual Conference: Herb Isbin provided the commission with a written report from the Minnesota Human Rights 17th Annual Conference. He also provided Martha McDonell with conference handouts which can be kept on file at City Hall for interested commissioners. Martha McDonell reported that some sessions—immigrant discrimination and the increase in anonymous harassment, for example—did a good job of documenting problems but didn’t provide suggestions on how to correct these problems. She said the session on women’s pay equity did offer remedies and solutions. Phone Line: In response to Lynn Littlejohn’s concern about the effectiveness of the Human Rights Commission Phone Line, commissioners discussed the phone line’s history and use. Although there have been few callers, members felt the line isn’t costly or difficult to maintain and does provide a valued service that has helped several individuals. Members felt the low usage stemmed from the fact that the St. Louis Park Human Rights Commission does not have enforcement powers and many people want to contact an organization that can solve their problems. Members felt that publicity might increase phone line awareness but believed the commission was better served by taking on projects that engage people in meaningful ways rather than conducting publicity for publicity’s sake. Members felt several of the remaining Old Business items (poster contest, essay contest, community education class, and publicity) should be postponed to the January discussion of commission goals and projects for 2001. Vision St. Louis Park: Martha McDonell provided members with a summary of the results from the recent Vision St. Louis Park survey. She reported that focus group sessions will be conducted in 2001 to learn how welcoming St. Louis Park is to diverse residents. McDonell urged members to read the survey results and keep the information in mind when setting goals for 2001. Reports Staff Report: Herb Isbin shared information about the newspaper in education program that the commission could use to support diversity in schools. 99 Set Agenda For Next Meeting Members agreed to discuss goals and projects for 2001. Marc Berg will draft an annual report for commissioner review, and Martha McDonell will bring a 2001 calendar of events to the January meeting. Adjournment Moved by Lynn Littlejohn and seconded by Betty Merritt to adjourn. Motion passed unanimously. With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lynn Schwartz, Recording Secretary