HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001/03/05 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Regular 1
AGENDA - CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
March 5, 2001
7:30 p.m.
6:00 p.m. – Interviews for Board & Commission applicants
2nd Floor North 1 Conference Room
7:20 p.m. – Special Meeting to discuss Board & Commission appointments
2nd Floor North 1 Conference Room
Cancelled- Economic Development Authority
1. Call to Order
a. Pledge of Allegiance
b. Roll Call
2. Presentations
a. League of Women Voters presentation
3. Approval of Minutes
a. City Council Minutes of February 20, 2001
b. Study Session Minutes of February 12, 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
2
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 adopt second reading of an ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance
to add the land use definitions for Liquor Licenses and update the Land Use
Table, approve summary ordinance, and authorize publication. Case No. 00-62-
ZA
2. Motion to adopt the proposed amendments to the Planning Commission Rules of
Procedure to change meeting time, provide flexibility in meeting location, and
correct staff titles, reference to Robert’s Rules, and a typographical error.
3. Motion to approve second reading of ordinance to amend St. Louis Park Home
Rule Charter: Table of Contents, Chapters 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, and Index
(7 affirmative votes required for adoption).
4. Motion to adopt the following reports for filing:
a. Human Rights Commission Minutes of October 18, 2001
b. Human Rights Commission Minutes of November 15, 2001
c. Human Rights Commission Minutes of January 17, 2001
d. Planning Commisson Minutes of February 7, 2001
e. Vendor Claims
Action: Motion to approve Consent Items
5. Public Hearings
5a. Public Hearing to consider allocation of Community Development Block Grant
Funds – Year XXVII
Resolution approving the projected use of $280,059 in 2001/2002 Urban Hennepin
County CDBF Funds, and authorizing signature of Subrecipient Agreement with
Hennepin County and any related Third Party Agreements.
Recommended
Action:
Mayor to close the public hearing. Motion to adopt the Resolution
approving projected use of funds for 2001 Urban Hennepin County
Community Development Block Grant funds, and authorizing
signature of Subrecipient Agreement with Hennepin County and
any related Third Party Agreements.
3
6. Requests and Communications from the Public
6a. Local 49 Maintenance Contract Changes for 1/1/01 – 12/31/03
A three year agreement for International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE)
Local 49 Maintenance was reached settling the City and Union for 1/1/01 through
12/31/03.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the resolution approving a Labor Agreement
between the City and International Union of Operating Engineers
(IUOE) Local No. 49, AFL-CIO, establishing terms and
conditions of employment for the duration of 1/1/01 – 12/31/03.
6b. City Engineer’s Report: Street improvements on Zarthan Avenue from I-394
to W. 16th Street – Project No. 00-15; Traffic signal at Zarthan Avenue and W.
16th Street – Project No. 01-12; Street improvements on W. 16th Street from
Zarthan Avenue to Blackstone Avenue – Project No. 00-16
This report considers public improvements to Zarthan Avenue, W. 16th Street, and
the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Zarthan Avenue and W. 16th
Street.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the attached resolution accepting this report,
establishing Improvement Project Nos. 00-15, 00-16, and 01-12,
ordering Project Nos. 00-15, 00-16, and 01-12, approving plans
and specifications, and authorizing receipt of bids.
6c. Additional funding consideration for the Pilot Blackstone Neighborhood
Grant/Loan Program
Recommended
Action:
Motion to provide additional Housing Rehabilitation Fund and
CDBG dollars for the Pilot Blackstone Neighborhood
Grant/Loan Program.
6d. The request by Edina Development for a Major Amendment to a Conditional
Use Permit for the site plan, tree replacement and landscaping changes for
Excelsior Townhomes.
Case # 00-45-CUP
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the Resolution amending previous resolutions
and granting a major amendment to the Conditional Use Permit,
subject to the conditions in the resolution and authorize the
Mayor and City Manager to execute an amendment to the
Development Contract.
4
6e. First Reading of an Ordinance amending the Temporary Uses Ordinance.
Case No. 01-09-ZA
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve First Reading of an ordinance amending the
temporary uses ordinance.
7. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions
8. Boards and Committees
a. Appointment of new members
9. Communications
10. Adjournment
5
Item # 3a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
FEBRUARY 20, 2001
1. Call to Order and Roll Call
Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
The following Councilmembers were present at roll call: Jim Brimeyer, Ron Latz, Chris Nelson,
Susan Sanger, Sue Santa, Robert Young, and Mayor Jeff Jacobs.
Also present were the City Manager (Mr. Meyer); Deputy City Manager (Mr. Pires); City
Attorney (Mr. Scott); Director of Community Development (Mr. Harmening); Zoning
Administrator (Mr. Moore); Police Chief (Mr. Luse); Lieutenant (Mr. Dilorenzo); City Clerk
(Ms. Reichert); and Recording Secretary (Ms. Olson).
2. Presentations - None
3. Approval of Minutes
a. City Council Minutes of February 5, 2001
The minutes were approved as presented.
4. Approval of Agenda and Consent Items
NOTE: Consent items are those items of business, which are considered to be routine and/or
which need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired
by either a Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an
appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion.
a. Agenda
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to approve
the agenda with the following changes. Removal of Item 2 from the Consent Agenda
and move Item 4B1 from the Consent Agenda to the regular Agenda and combine Item
7c and Item 6a and add as Item 7d on the Agenda. The motion passed 7-0
b. Approval of Consent Items
6
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to
approve the following Consent Items. The motion passed 7-0.
1. Adopt Resolution No. 01-013 authorizing staff to implement the terms of a
reciprocal arrangement with Hopkins on a one-year trial basis for joint use of Skate
Park in Hopkins and the Family Aquatic Park in St. Louis Park.
2. Approve authorization to renew a one-year contract with West Suburban Mediation
Center for mediation, conciliation, information and referral, and public education
services.
3. Approve Resolution No. 01-014 final payment to E I M, EVP Signal System for
the amount of $6,963.40 – Contract #00-08
4. Accept the following reports for filing
a. Charter Commission Minutes of November 8, 2000
b. Planning Commission Minutes of January 2, 2001
c. Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes of January 10, 2001
d. Housing Authority Minutes of January 10, 2001
5. Public Hearings
5a. Competitive Cable TV System Franchises Public Hearing
Clint Pires, Deputy City Manager presented a staff report. Staff recommended that Council
continue this public hearing to March 19, 2001, with the hope that by then Everest and WOW
would be able to make enough progress to continue substantive negotiations with the City of St.
Louis Park.
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to continue the
public hearing to March 19, 2001. The motion passed 7-0.
5b. Proposed Amendments to the City Home Rule Charter
Clint Pires, Deputy City Manager presented a staff report and indicated that the City Attorney
had reviewed the proposed amendments. He recommended that Council approve the proposed
amendments and noted that seven affirmative votes were required for adoption on March 5,
2001.
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer, to waive first
reading of the ordinance to amend St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter: Table of Contents,
Chapters 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, and Index and set second reading for March 5, 2001. The motion
passed 7-0.
6. Requests and Communications from the Public
a. Petition from Sharon Abelson to cease deer removal efforts – This item combined with
Item 7c to be considered as 7d.
7. Resolutions, Ordinances and Motions
7
7a. Request by CSM Corporation and Rottlund Companies for a minor amendment to
the approved Planned Unit Development. Case #00-15-PUD Resolution No. 01-015
Scott Moore, Assistant Zoning Administrator, presented a staff report and recommended
approval of the minor amendment to the approved PUD, subject to the conditions in the
resolution and to authorize the execution for the First Amendment to Declaration of Easements.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to adopt
Resolution No. 01-015 approving final planned unit development (PUD) under section 14:6-7
relating to zoning for property zoned “o” office and R-4 multiple family residential located at
Northwest quadrant of West 16th Street & Zarthan Avenue and final plat – Pointe West
Commons one and two granting the minor amendment to the approved PUD, subject to the
conditions in the resolution and authorize the execution for the First Amendment to Declaration
of Easements.
Councilmember Sanger stated that it was unfortunate, but she didn’t see any option but to go
ahead and raise the level of these townhouses. She hoped that by including these administrative
fines, the City would have greater compliance and the neighborhood wouldn’t be as disturbed as
it has been. She asked if the park would be completed by July, 2001.
Dan Hulke, 1600 Alabama Avenue South, stated that he was concerned about flooding and
suggested extra drainage to keep the problem down to a minimum and completing the
playground as soon as possible.
Gary Berscheid, 1604 Blackstone Avenue South, stated that he was thankful that many of the
construction traffic problems were over with. He was also concerned about flooding and
believed that if the stormwater sewer size were corrected so that there was adequate drainage
then the floodplain would probably drop considerable. He was in favor of expediting the
completion of the park and would like unnecessary construction noise minimized.
Mr. Moore stated that the City’s storm water piping was only equipped for a 10 year event, so
resizing the pipes is not an issue. He stated that Rottlund and CSM are responsible for managing
their own storm water on the site and additional storm water run off will not be included in the
area of 16th Street, Zarthan and Alabama where it currently ponds and floods right now. He
stated that the park was basically at a rough grade currently and there weren’t any issues with
having this park turned over to the park for development by the mid-May.
Mr. Meyer, City Manager discussed the progress on this park with the Parks and Recreation
Director and it is certainly the intent to complete the park this summer.
Councilmember Latz questioned the enforcement provision and the fine of $750.00.
Mr. Moore stated that the code currently states that anyone found guilty of violating the code is
guilty of a misdemeanor. He was unaware that the maximum fine had gone up to $1000.
8
Mr. Harmening, Director of Community Development stated that the goal was to have a set
administrative fee that didn’t have a lot of discretion and that it was significant to cause the party
who was imposed the fine to pay attention and believed that $750 more than accomplished this
and didn’t have to be tied to the maximum fine for a misdemeanor. He indicated that the City
was in a transition about how to deal with these situation and learning curve about how to handle
this new approach. He stated that staff desired to discuss the incorporation of such an approach
for all PUD’s and CUP’s that might be issued at a Study Session in March.
Councilmember Latz believed that there may be some situation that comes up where there would
be ample justification for a technical violation of the PUD where no one would expect a citation
to be issued, but you would be bound in some way to do so. He incorporate an enforcement
mechanism that left some discretion.
It was moved by Councilmember Latz, seconded by Councilmember Nelson, to amend the
motion to make it discretionary to the staff whether or not a violation shall be noted and
discretionary to staff in the amount of the fine with a right to appeal to the City Council if the
developer challenges it. The motion failed 3-4.
Resolution No. 01-015 approving final planned unit development (PUD) under section 14:6-7
relating to zoning for property zoned “o” office and R-4 multiple family residential located at
Northwest quadrant of West 16th Street & Zarthan Avenue and final plat – Pointe West
Commons one and two granting the minor amendment to the approved PUD, subject to the
conditions in the resolution and authorize the execution for the First Amendment to Declaration
of Easements as moved earlier in the discussion passed 7-0.
7b. Proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to add land use definitions for
Liquor Licenses and update the Land Use Table. Case No. 00-62-ZA
Scott Moore, Assistant Zoning Administrator, presented a staff report. Staff and Planning
Commission recommended approval of the Zoning Ordinance text amendment to add land use
definition for liquor licenses and update the Land Use Table as proposed in the attached
ordinance.
It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Young, to approve 1st
reading of staff’s proposed text amendment adding land use definitions for liquor licenses and
updating the Land Use table and set second reading for the March 5, 2001 City Council meeting.
The motion passed 7-0.
7c. Second Reading of an ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance to change the
zoning requirements for restaurants and other uses with wine and beer licenses
Case No. 00-62-ZA
Councilmember Sanger stated that she had asked that some thought and discussion be given
about how to accommodate a restaurant that chose to stay open for a couple hours longer to just
serve food, and felt it wasn’t adequately addressed in the staff report.
9
Mr. Moore stated that the way the code was proposed, the establishment having a wine and or
beer license would be required to cease all the operations by 10:00 p.m. on week days and
11:00 p.m. on weekends. Staff believed it would be difficult to enforce the issue requiring just
the restaurant portion of the business to continue operating without service for wine or beer
after those limited hours. Staff had included provisions allowing additional hours of operation
for the wine and beer in some cases if requested by an applicant.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Young, to make an
amendment to change the hours of operation for establishments that have wine and beer
licenses to be consistent with the hours that restaurants that have intoxicating liquor licenses
have.
Councilmember Brimeyer believed that changing the ordinance we are throwing them in with
other types of establishments where we want a little stricter requirement. He believed the item
as presented would get better results and was not in favor of the amendment.
Councilmember Latz was concerned about imposing this type of restriction on a restaurant.
Councilmember Sanger pointed out that it would not be a solution to say that those restaurants
could go and apply for an intoxicating liquor license because there weren’t that many available
and that there was a need for a more uniform approach to dealing with both type of
establishments.
Councilmember Nelson was not in favor of the amendment.
It was moved by Councilmember Brimeyer, seconded by Councilmember Nelson, to move this
item to a future Study Session for discussion. The motion passed 7-0.
7d. Petition from Sharon Abelson to cease deer removal efforts and Consideration of a
citizen petition requesting an Environmental Assessment Worksheet prior to
continuing deer removal in the City. Resolution No. 01-016
Sharon Abelson, 4340 Cedarwood Road, stated that she was speaking on behalf of the many
resident of the Lake Forest and Fern Hill Neighborhoods and was asking the City Council to
cease the implementation of the plans to remove deer in both neighborhoods. She presented
information regarding the implementation of the deer management plan in the neighborhoods.
She also noted that some persons in the neighborhoods felt this situation was vastly different
than the deer issues in 1994 at the Westwood Hills Nature Center. She believed that the city was
basing its plan of action on inaccurate fly over counts and stated that she felt deer migrating into
the neighborhood was a direct result of illegal residential feedings. She felt better enforcement
would correct the situation. She felt is unfair to base the city’s decision to remove deer on what
she believed to be 3% of the residents in the area who had called in with damage complaints.
She suggested using alternative non-lethal methods to dealing with the problems being
experienced. She also stated that she had several legal concerns with the City’s implementation
of the deer management plan.
10
Dawn Van Tassel, 45 S. 7th Street, Minneapolis, an attorney representing some of the residents
stated her concern that the City had not followed its own procedures in implementing the deer
management plan and was proposing to take illegitimate action. She did not believe there was
sufficient evidence to lead to such an extreme measure as to kill the deer without examining less
obtrusive and less lethal methods, i.e. enforce feeding plan and use of repellents. She reiterated
that she felt this situation was vastly different than the deer issues in 1994 at the Westwood Hills
Nature Center. She noted that the adopted provisions to the resolution permit the use of
population reduction method in areas other than the Westwood Hills Nature Center, but were
contingent upon adequate notification procedure and Council approval. She had reviewed
minutes from 1994 and her interpretation was that deer issues outside of the nature center needed
to be addressed by a vote of the Council. She also questioned the legality of using the trap and
shoot method. She suggested that further consideration should be given before it was voted on.
Sam Abelson, 4330 Cedarwood Road, stated that this deer issue has been extremely polarizing
within the neighborhoods and the approach that the City has used in deer management has been
counterproductive. He also questioned the City’s interpretation of provisions in the deer
management plan. He stated there was a lack of ongoing comprehensive education which had
likely contributed to the presence of the deer in the Fern Hill Neighborhood. He was concerned
that the city had fallen behind in enforcement of the feeding ban. He believed that this situation
in the Fern Hill Neighborhood was a carbon copy of the situation in 1997 where the use on non-
lethal methods to solve the problem had been successful, not the Westwood Nature Center. He
read from City Council Minutes of February 22, 1994 where deer management plan was adopted
, “Mayor Pro-tem Freedman asked if Councilmembers Young and Jacobs would be amendable to
a friendly amendment to their motion where language in 3b and 3c be modified so that any plan
or request for heard population reduction be reviewed first by City Council before any action is
taken. Both Councilmembers agreed to the language modification, the motion passed 4-1.” The
minutes also state “Councilmember Dorfman referenced Section 3, Councilmember Jacobs
agreed and felt that before City staff proceeds with herd management by any means on public
property other than the nature center, he would like that to come back to Council first.” He urged
the Council to re-examine the deer management plan and properly implement the plan.
Terry Klepinski, 2124 Parklands Road, stated that the neighborhood have made the effort to
manage the deer, but this year the deer are eating through the plastic netting around the trees and
vegetation even though they have sprayed repellents. She didn’t feel there was anything that
could physically be done to protect the trees. She was frustrated with the amount of
manufactured information she was receiving from her neighbors. She was in favor of limiting
the deer herd.
Bob Klepinski, 2124 Parklands Road, stated he was also frustrated with the amount of
manufactured information and felt it was hard to get factual data on this issue. He believed that
the deer were losing their fear of man and the ecology was being thrown out of balance. He also
questioned the validity of the Deer Committee. He stated that there was a major problem with
deer coming into his yard and eating the vegetation despite all the efforts to protect his yard.
11
John Mclaughlin, 4213 S. Cedar Lake Road, stated that he would like to see the deer herd
thinned because there were too many deer in the neighborhood. He was in favor of the proper
implementation of the deer management plan and encouraged the City to move forward.
Carol Nulsen, 4107 Forest Road, stated that she didn’t believe the problem was deer, but rather
was a neighborhood tolerance problem. She believed that killing deer was a politically expedient
solution, but did nothing to solve the problem. She applauded the cooperative process and
believed that a more permanent biological solution using input from all stakeholders was needed.
Lee Renz, 4236 Basswood Road, stated that he felt that the deer population was out of hand and
needed to be controlled by the best measure determined. He felt that the DNR guidelines were
for rural communities and perhaps inappropriate for the community.
Lance Thornswood, 4330 Cedarwood Road, stated that a significant number of citizens in the
community believe that the killing is wrong and strenuously object to the current plan. He
suggested that the City not move forward to deer removal. He felt further discovery of public
opinion through a statistically valid survey or perhaps a binding vote should be held at the next
election. He felt harmony to the neighborhoods could be restored by approaching the matter in a
fair and rational manner that gives appropriate weight to the number of citizen holding each
point of view rather than bending to the will of the most vociferous complainers.
Stan Jurgensen, 2309 Westridge Lane, described the extensive damage to his yard by the deer
herd. He believed there were too many deer and was concerned that if the City did not do
anything, he would still have rock where he once had trees and would not do anymore
landscaping until the deer situation is controlled.
Mike Stolte, 4320 Cedarwood Road, stated that he had irrefutable evidence of deer eating trees
in his backyard, but believed that the plan had no statistical relevance to solving the problem
because there was no guarantee that if six deer were taken the problem would be solved. He
agreed that these people have unique problems, but urged the City not to take away a resource
away from hundreds of people in the community in a futile attempt to solve that problem.
Dorthea Moga, 2925 Monterey Avenue, suggested that because of the small number of deer to be
removed and the magnitude of the conflict that had arisen around the issue, that a provisional
moratorium on the removal of the deer would allow the active participants to collectively address
the deer population issues. She suggested contacting the West Suburban Mediation Center for
assistance.
Sam Ackerberg, 4200 Forest Road, stated that he didn’t believe that shooting the deer was the
right thing to do. He stated that this might not solve the problem and would send the wrong
message to people about how to deal with problems. .
Bert Gross, 2151 Glenhurst Road, stated that the deer situation was the worst that he has ever
seen and something needed to be done. He did believe that fewer deer would mean less damage.
He was concerned about the potential for an accident to occur with the amount of deer. He was
12
in favor of the City to proceed on all fronts to eliminate some of the deer, increase the
educational activities and enforce the feeding plan.
David Berdsle, 4822 W. 42 ½ Street, stated that reducing the deer population would not solve the
problem and suggested that fences may be part of the solution.
Anita Kolman, 2855 Ottawa Avenue South, stated that she has had a deer problem in her yard for
several years, but haven’t really complained in the past. She believed the deer were
overpopulated and were going to go in areas that were not suitable to them. She supported the
efforts of the City to manage the deer.
Paul C. Olfelt, 2206 Parklands Lane, stated that he was concerned that the deer population has
gone wild in the area and has become tamer. He supported the effort of the City to control the
deer so that we don’t see greater problems next year. He stated that he was amazed at the
amount of time and energy on this issue and suggested that if participants on all sides of the issue
could apply that same time and energy to other societal problems, the world would be a better
place.
Mayor Jacobs stated that he was proud of the community that they could have a fair and rational
discussion over this issue despite the strong feelings expressed on both sides. He stated that
although this issue was one that people disagree about, it ought not to be an issue that divides
neighborhoods.
Councilmember Sanger stated that City Council Meeting Minutes of February 3, 1997 indicated
that the City Council did delegate the authority to City Manager to authorize staff to use
approved methods for deer reduction. She also indicated that there had been deer/vehicle crashes
reported in the area of France Avenue and this was another reason for a deer reduction program
in order to try to minimize the risks of any additional occurrences. She believed that many of the
statistics presented by the petitioner were incorrect and there has actually been in increase in the
number of deer. She stated that there was an environmental protection issue because there were
a large number of people who were concerned about their vegetation in their yards as well as
others who were equally concerned about the number of deer and subsequent damage to their
natural environment. She believed that these are both valuable components to the environment
that exists in the city and there needed to be a balance. She stated that she felt that it was ironic
that a petition was filed to try to consider it as environmentally harmful to limit the deer when in
fact saving trees and promoting the development of native plants and vegetation is generally
considered to be a great enhancement to our environment. She believed that residents have
followed advice to deter deer from damaging vegetation, but did not believe that using these
methods alone the city could solve the problem of an overpopulated habitat. She felt that it was
important for the quality of life in this community to take action to try to protect our vegetation,
but that was not to say that we would ever totally solve the problem. She believed that the
program is about minimizing the risk and balancing the issues. She stated that there had been a
growth of the herd and that the size of the browsing range was growing. She believed that it was
important to work with neighboring communities to solve the problem. She felt the problem
had been misrepresented to the residents. She doesn’t believe the City could please everybody,
but the City’s plan does strike a reasonable balance to have some control over the deer herd and
13
some reduction of the risk to the damage to vegetation and vehicle accidents. She believed that
the amount of energy, passion, time, resources and efforts that has gone into this issue on both
sides has been astonishing. She stated that it was her hope that the neighborhood would heal in
time.
Mr. Meyer, City Manager clarified that more recent meetings with the DNR had indicated that
the carrying capacity for deer per acre was still a general range that they use for the state and
metro area, but they do not advise cities on what range they use for their own policies for deer
herd management.
He also indicated that in 1994 the original resolution called for a city wide deer management
policy. That resolution was adopted with one reading which is the legal requirement for
resolutions. At that time Councilmember Friedman had asked that the policy be amended to
state that those provisions which apply to deer removal from areas outside the Westwood Hills
Nature center be placed on a moratorium until such time as it was found necessary to address
them again in the future. He also requested that changes to that moratorium be made only upon
council approval. In 1997 Council was asked to give approval for deer removal in the
neighborhood, acted to lift that moratorium and directed the City Manager to implement the
provisions of the deer management program. Mayor Jacobs concurred with the City Manager’s
statements as he had also been part of that action.
The City Attorney agreed with the City Manager’s statements regarding procedural issues. He
advised that to eliminate any potential questions about authority to move forward, Council could
consider a motion to ratify the city Manager’s action, approve implementation of the plan with
specific authority for the staff to move ahead with implementation of the details.
Councilmember Sanger moved to ratify the deer management plan and the City Manager’s
decision to implement the plan in the Lake Forest and Fern Hill neighborhoods as set forth in the
letter that had been mailed out to the neighborhoods on February 14, 2000. Motion passed 7-0.
Councilmember Latz questioned some of the factual information regarding survey statistics and
process and number of deer/car collisions in the City. Mr. Abelson and Councilmember Sanger
responded to Councilmember Latz’s questions regarding the survey. Mr. Meyer was not able to
provide specific numbers for deer car collisions in the neighborhood as all data collected is
reported in city-wide numbers and does not break down be neighborhood. He believed the
number was 11 with at least one occurring on France avenue, near if not in the neighborhood.
Regarding the request for an environmental assessment worksheet, Mr. Meyer stated that a
similar request had been made in 1994 and that staff had prepared findings based on information
from that time as well as updates that had been received in subsequent years. He explained that
provisions of the EAW are generally applied to construction projects and other similar projects.
The petition had specifically requested that impacts to the wetland vegetation from foot traffic
and setting of traps be considered. The City’s response is that all wetland vegetation in question
is under a thick blanket of snow and ice and there was no likelihood of damage from any traffic
14
and that overbrowsing by deer was more likely to have an environmental impact. Similarly,
damage to trees and shrubs was more like to occur from overbrowsing by deer.
Mr. Abelson questioned whether the City had performed an adequate assessment of the issues
raised in the petition. He did not believe that damage to the recently restored wetlands had been
considered.
Mr. Meyer responded that the staff had consulted Eric Evanson of the Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District who had coordinated the project. The Watershed district’s opinion was that
the wetland was protected by ice and snow and that overbrowsing by deer was a greater threat to
the restored plantings.
To prepare the response to the petition, staff had consulted with the Watershed District, the DNR
and various professional staff from the City including the Westwood Hills Nature Center
Manager and the Manager of Grounds and Natural Resources.
He believed that the analysis adequately addressed issues set forth in petition and recommended
that the council move forward on the recommended action.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Young, to adopt
Resolution No. 01-016 determining not to order the preparation of an Environment Assessment
Worksheet (EAW) for the proposed implementation of the deer management plan in the Lake
Forest and Fern Hill neighborhoods. The motion passed 7-0.
8. Board and Committees - None
9. Communications
From the City Manager – None
From the Mayor – None
10. Adjournment
Mayor Jacobs adjourned the meeting at 10:04 p.m.
City Clerk Mayor
15
Item # 3b
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
February 12, 2001
The meeting convened at 7:00 p.m.
Present at the meeting were Councilmembers Jim Brimeyer, Chris Nelson, Susan Sanger, Sue
Santa, Ron Latz, 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 Public Works (Mr. Rardin);
Planning and Zoning Supervisor (Ms. Jeremiah); Finance Director (Ms. McGann); Supt. Of
Engineering (Mr. Moore); and Deputy City Clerk (Ms. Stroth).
1. Park Commons Update - Development Agreement and Town Green Design
Damon Farber, Damon Farber Associates architecture firm, gave a presentation on the Town
Green planning progress for Park Commons. He stated the options were to include more
greenspace, less structure, flexibility, space for activities, and be retail oriented. Mr. Farber
indicated the outdoor spaces would be defined by hedges, light poles, or trees and that the
environmental design would benefit crime prevention. He reviewed the following two options:
Option One - “Market Plan”
• Traditional street
• Island to separate in/out traffic
• East/west auto movement
• Angle parking
• Strong pedestrian movement
• Compliment Excelsior Blvd.
Option Two - “Park for the Town Green”
• Welcoming, more formalized, classical turnabout
• Broader Center Island 25 ft. wide
• Identifying Icon Excel. Blvd. entrance
• Walkway, speedbump
• Open area for farmers market, art fair
• Benches, special paving, lights, color
Discussion took place regarding trees, signage, buses, bicycling and bicycle parking. The public
will have an opportunity to review the plan at an Open House scheduled for February 22.
Ms. Jeremiah reviewed the upcoming public hearings and the preliminary Planned Unit
Development/Plat approval process.
Mr. Kleeve stated TOLD is planning to sign the Development Agreement by Friday, February 16.
16
Bob Cunningham, TOLD Development Company, indicated the need to continue giving
opportunities for developers. He stated if a developer falls through, tax increment financing
would be lost. Mr. Cunningham stated the council would be allowed to interview developers.
Mr. Kleeve stated Special Services District will maintain Excelsior Blvd. and private entity will
maintain the rest of the development.
Mr. Meyer questioned the status of the development financing.
Mr. Cunningham responded they have received 4 proposals for construction lending and are in
the process of negotiating terms.
2. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds for 2001
Ms. Schnitker discussed funding priorities for the 2001 CDBG program July 1, 2001 through
December 31, 2002. She stated the $280,059 funds being received will have the same national
objectives to benefit low and moderate income persons (single and multifamily), prevent or
eliminate slum, and meet a particular urgent community development need.
Ms. Larsen stated they are still clearing the 1998 year of allocation expended in year 2000. She
reviewed the status of the 2000 funding allocation and the proposed 2001 CDBG activities. Ms.
Larsen indicated the need to revise the deferral period to 15 years instead of the current 30 years.
Councilmember Sanger stated concern there was not enough funds to serve the 30 residents on
the waiting list for single family low income rehab loan program.
Mr. Harmening responded in the coming year $180,000 would finance approximately 9 loans
and along with rehab products, this would be sufficient.
Ms. Schnitker stated they also have extra funds for the home renewal program.
Councilmember Sanger stated she would like to see close monitoring of the CDBG Funds.
Ms. Larsen stated performance goals and expectations will be set and that the 2001 contract will be
signed July 1. She also mentioned that a 4% interest rate loan will be available to 30 residents.
Councilmember Sanger suggested encouraging the vendor to also have performance standards.
Ms. Larsen stated there is still funds of $105,221 available from the home renewal program.
Mr. Meyer indicated these funds can be used in other areas such as multi-family, crime
awareness, and Perspectives, Inc. in Louisiana Court.
Discussion took place regarding usage of funds as contributions for solicitation of organizations,
and keeping with objectives set 4 years ago.
17
Mr. Meyer stated funding is needed for improvements to the Lenox Community Center because
the School District referendum funding could only be used for high school improvements.
After discussion regarding which CDBG funds could be used, Councilmember Latz suggested
looking for an alternative source. He stated Lenox does not meet criteria of single family usage
and how we might loose impact if CDBG is not used where it is intended to go.
Councilmember Nelson stated Lenox is a civic building which shouldn’t go in disrepair. He
indicated that CDBG funds were initially used for the transformation of the building and the
need to get back to fiscal responsibility.
Mr. Meyer felt a proposal would be needed from the school district before pursuing any further.
Mr. Harmening questioned the council if they approved the CDBG fund totals so a public
hearing notice could be published.
The council agreed on the CDBG fund totals.
3. Update Council on City’s Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan
(CWRMP) and Wetland Management Plan (WMP)
Andrea Moffet, WSB & Associates, Inc. presented an overview of the Wetland Management
Plan. She reviewed the 38 wetlands, the impact on residents and the city, the management of the
wetlands, and steps to be undertaken to implement the plan. The city is required to host a public
hearing to allow for input and comment.
Councilmember Sanger suggested public hearing notice be mailed to residents who live by the
wetlands and usage of signs near the wetlands.
Mr. Moore indicated the need for education by articles in Park Perspective, Sun Sailor, and at
neighborhood meetings.
Mr. Brimeyer felt the notice should be more than just a public meeting notice. He suggested
including education information regarding identification of major wetlands, mowing within 10
feet, and non-phosphorous fertilizing.
Mr. Moore stated they will get notice samples from other cities and prepare a public hearing
notice and educational information to be published and sent out soon.
4. Minnetonka Boulevard/Hennepin County Improvements
Mr. Moore reviewed the Hennepin County’s plans for milling/overlay of Minnetonka Boulevard
and the options for incorporating striping for bikeways.
Councilmember Brimeyer supported the bicycle accommodation option.
18
Councilmember Nelson supported on-street parking.
Councilmember Sanger asked how many people actually park on Minnetonka Boulevard.
Mr. Moore responded convenience parking is scattered and that all necessary parking currently
has off street parking or direct access. He stated most of the parking is for deliveries or visitors
and felt it would not have a huge impact if banned.
Councilmember Sanger suggested an alternative for striping could be to use it for biking but also
for parking. She questioned if the striping should go all the way to the east city border. She also
stated concern to not change the Texa Tonka area because of the Task Force.
Mr. Moore stated Cedar Lake Road bikers supported striping for bicycles.
Discussion took place on how far to do the striping with the City limits.
The council preferred that the County not defer this project another year, and to do both
segments all at once. If prioritizing segments, then the preferred option is to first go with the east
of Hwy 100 segment and extend to Hwy 7 with striping for parking.
Mr. Moore stated this was an opportunity to work with the County.
5. Storm Water Utility Bond Issue and Refunding of 1997b Taxable Bond.
Rusty Fifield, Ehlers & Associates, Inc. discussed the plans for the issuance of bonds to:
• Finance improvements to the Storm Water Management System
• Refinance the 1997B Taxable G.O. Tax Increment Bonds
Councilmember Nelson questioned if the two finance plans could be combined into one.
Ms. McGann responded the issuance cost would be reduced if they were combined.
Ms. McGann stated the 1997B Refunding Bonds are currently at 6.7% variable rate and felt now
would be a good time to refinance at a fixed rate.
Councilmember Brimeyer felt we should refinance now with the fixed rate and not wait for any
market changes.
Mr. Fifleid stated the two main issues are as follows:
• Market issue - whether interest rates will get lower
• Legislative changes - property tax issue
Councilmember Nelson supported delaying for 3-5 weeks to see if rates drop.
Mayor Jacobs supported delaying until the middle or end of March.
19
It was the consensus of the council to proceed with the refinancing paperwork but hold off on the
sale of the bonds until after the feds meet. Staff was directed to bring this issue back in 3-5
weeks. It was recommended to sell the bonds at a competitive sale with a low bid.
6. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m.
City Clerk Mayor
20
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 5a
Meeting of March 5, 2001
5a. Public Hearing to consider allocation of Community Development Block Grant
Funds – Year XXVII
Resolution approving the projected use of $280,059 in 2001/2002 Urban Hennepin
County CDBF Funds, and authorizing signature of Subrecipient Agreement with
Hennepin County and any related Third Party Agreements.
Recommended
Action:
Mayor to close the public hearing. Motion to adopt the Resolution
approving projected use of funds for 2001 Urban Hennepin County
Community Development Block Grant funds, and authorizing
signature of Subrecipient Agreement with Hennepin County and
any related Third Party Agreements.
Background:
The City annually receives about $280,000 in federal Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) funds via Hennepin County. Federal statutes and regulations determine what activities
are eligible under the CDBG program. The national objectives of the program are:
• Benefit low and moderate income persons (moderate is defined as up to 80% of median
income or about $55,000 for a family of four, and low is defined as up to 50% of median
income or about $32,850 for a family of four).
• Prevention or elimination of slum or blight.
• Meet a particular urgent community development need.
In recent funding years, the Council has expressed a continued interest in targeting the funds so
specific programs of interest could be addressed as opposed to spreading the funds over a variety
of concerns. Hennepin County allows communities to set aside up to 15% of the funds for public
service activities. In 2000, the City Council continued a strategy for CDBG to provide a more
comprehensive approach to single family and multifamily neighborhood revitalization: the
majority of funds supported capital hard cost activities and a portion was to be used for
multifamily crime free coalition services.
At the February 12, 2001 City Council study session, the Council reviewed and discussed the
previous three years of CDBG funding as well as the proposed allocation for 2001 CDBG
allocation. The Council re-affirmed the commitment to focus the limited CDBG funds on single
family and multifamily housing rehabilitation efforts. The Council discussed CDBG requests for
the Sojourner Project and the Lenox Community Center. The Council determined that funding
to assist the Sojourner Project with construction of a new battered women’s shelter in
Minnetonka did not meet the focused direction of rehabilitating the City’s housing stock. Also,
since information regarding the possible request for Lenox Center rehabilitation funds was not
available, the Council suggested that if the school district provided a more complete request for
assistance with the Lenox Community Center, it would be reviewed.
21
At the Housing Authority (HA) meeting of February 14, the HA requested that the City
reallocate $10,000 of 1999 CDBG funds approved for the TRAILS program to the Tenant
Opportunity Program (TOP) at Hamilton House. TRAILS, a self-sufficiency program for
Section 8 and public housing recipients, has secured funding independent of CDBG and,
consequently, will not be expending the allocated 1999 funds. TOP provides skill training,
resident association capacity building and coordination of case management services to residents
(elderly and adults with disabilities) at the SLPHA’s Hamilton House. TOP was funded with a
HUD grant and in-kind services from Jewish Family and Children Services. The TOP grant is
scheduled to expire on December 31, 2001. It is anticipated that the interim funding will provide
for the continuation of services while staff seeks alternative funding. This reallocation does not
require formal City action.
2001 CDBG Allocation of Funding:
The City will receive $280,059 in 2001/2002 CDBG funds. As was discussed during the City
Council study session on February 14, the proposed funding allocations would continue the
Council’s focused approach to single family rehab and multifamily revitalization and meet the
national objective of benefiting low and moderate-income persons. The Housing Authority of
St. Louis Park discussed the proposed allocation at its February 14, 2000 Board meeting.
Based on the study session discussion the Council is asked to approve the following use of
2001/2002 Community Development Block Grant funds. Additional detailed information
regarding the proposed allocation is provided in the attached staff memo from the February 12,
2001, study session.
Activity
Single Family Rehab: Low Income Deferred Loans. $120,559
Single Family Emergency Repair Program $ 30,000
Single Family Discount Loan Program $ 20,000
Multifamily Rehab - Pilot Revitalization Program $ 70,000
Multifamily Crime Awareness Public Service $ 4,500
Multifamily Rehabilitation – Perspectives, Inc. $ 35,000
Total $280,059
Next Steps:
After the public hearing on March 5, 2001, and authorization of the proposed CDBG funding by
the Council, staff will submit the Request for Funding to Hennepin County.
Attachments: Resolution
February 12, 2001 Study Session Memo regarding CDBG Funds for 2001
Prepared by: Kathy Larsen, Housing Programs Coordinator
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
22
RESOLUTION NO. 01-017
RESOLUTION APPROVING PROJECTED USE OF FUNDS FOR 2001
URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENTS
WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY AND ANY THIRD PARTY AGREEMENTS
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park, through execution of a Joint Cooperation
Agreement with Hennepin County, is cooperating in the Urban Hennepin County Community
Development Block Grant program; and
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park developed a proposal for the use of Urban
Hennepin County CDBG funds made available to it, and held a public hearing on March 5, 2001
to obtain the views of citizens on local and urban Hennepin County housing and community
development needs and priorities for the City’s proposed use of $280,059 from the 2001 Urban
Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant.
BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of St. Louis Park approves the following
projects for funding from the Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant
Program and authorizes submittal of the proposal to Hennepin County for review and inclusion
in the 2001 Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program.
Activity Budget
Single Family Rehabilitation $120,559
Single Family Emergency Repair Program $ 30,000
Single Family Discount Loan Program $ 20,000
Multifamily Rehab - Pilot Rehabilitation Program $ 70,000
Multifamily Crime Awareness Public Service $ 4,500
Multifamily Rehabilitation-Perspectives Inc. $ 35,000
Total $280,059
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby authorizes and directs the
Mayor and its City Manager to execute a Subrecipient Agreement and any required Third Party
Agreements on behalf of the City to implement the 2001 CDBG program.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council March 5, 2001
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
23
From February 12, 2001 Study Session
MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
THROUGH: Clint Pires, Deputy City Manager
FROM: Kathy Larsen, Housing Programs Coordinator
Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor
Tom Harmening, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds for 2001
Purpose of Discussion:
Staff would like to discuss with the City Council funding priorities for the 2001 CDBG program
that runs from July 1, 2001 through December 31, 2002.
Background:
The City will receive $280,059 in federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds
in 2001 through Hennepin County. The national objectives of the program are:
• Benefit low and moderate income persons (moderate is defined as up to 80% of median
income or $55,000 for a family of four, and low is defined as up to 50% of median income or
$32,580 for a family of four).
• Prevention or elimination of slum or blight.
• Meet a particular urgent community development need.
In recent funding years, the Council has expressed an interest in targeting the funds to specific
programs of interest, as opposed to spreading the funds over a variety of concerns. CDBG
allows communities to set aside up to 15% of the funds for public service activities. In 2000, the
City Council continued a strategy for CDBG to provide a comprehensive approach to single
family and multifamily neighborhood revitalization; the majority of funds supported capital hard
cost activities and a small portion was used for support services.
2000 CDBG ACTIVITY
The City expended a total of $419,451 CDBG dollars during the calendar year 2000. Although
this expenditure reflects funding from three grant years, it was primarily from the 1998 funds.
St. Louis Park was one of a few suburban cities to fully expend their 1998 funding. The attached
table shows expenditures and allocations for 1999, 2000 and 2001.
Status of 2000 Funding Allocation
24
Single Family Rehabilitation Target Neighborhood Allocated $50,000
The Blackstone Neighborhood Revitalization initiative is currently underway. The pilot program
has been designed and the grant/loan component was kicked off at a neighborhood meeting on
February 6, 2001. The other pilot components are scheduled for the remainder of the year.
Single Family Rehabilitation – Deferred Loans Allocated $58,000
The deferred loan program meets the needs of the lowest income households. The income limit
is $32,580 for a household of four, and rehab is focused on improvements to bring homes into
code compliance. The maximum loan amount is $15,000 and is forgiven after 30 years. The
County began administration of the low-income deferred loan program in July 1999. Under the
County administration six projects have been completed this past year, ten are in progress, and
there is a waiting list of 30 households. Staff has some concerns about the production rate of this
program, and has included suggested recommendations in the Proposed 2001 CDBG Activities
section of this report.
Single Family Emergency Repair Grant Allocated $30,000
The Emergency Repair Program provides a grant of up to $3,000 per household to the lowest
income households; the income limit is $32,580 for a household of four. Community Action for
Suburban Hennepin County (CASH) administers this program, and after a slow period in late
1999 and early 2000, has improved its rate of production, completing 20 jobs this past year,
primarily with 1998 funds. The ease and efficiency of administering the Emergency Repair
Program, primarily to seniors, warrants its continuation.
Single Family Discount Loan Program Allocated $20,000
The City’s discount loan program, funded through the Housing Rehabilitation Fund, provides a
2% interest rate write down for MHFA loans to 6%. Through the use of CDBG funds, an
additional 2% reduction in interest rates provides residents with incomes of $55,000 or less, a
loan with a 4% interest rate. The 4% rate was implemented in September of 2000; since then 16
residents have used this loan, compared to 6 residents in previous years without the 4% discount.
Currently Center for energy and Environment (CEE) administers this program for St. Louis Park
residents.
Multifamily Pilot Revitalization Program Allocated $110,000
The planning of the pilot is underway, and work with the Police, Fire and Assessing departments
has resulted in the identification of potential rental owners and properties. During rental coalition
meetings owners have identified obstacles to participating in “government” programs. The pilot
will likely address technical assistance issues as well as leveraging state funding to provide
owners a monetary incentive to improve their properties.
Multifamily Public Service – Crime Free Coalition Allocated $9,938
The Crime Free Multifamily Housing (CFMF) Coalition has been reactivated. The coalition
holds monthly meetings where 18 owners and managers attend, a steering committee has been
established, and a monthly newsletter is sent to all owners and managers in the City. The City
uses an outside consultant to organize and support activities of the coalition and works closely
with the Police Department and Community Development staff. However, the cost of the
coalition’s consultant is only a CDBG fundable activity if the service can be tied to assisting
low/moderate income tenants. With the progress achieved to date, one high-rent complex has
25
been certified, and one low-rent complex had been certified prior to coalition’s re-start.
Therefore reimbursement of the Coalition’s consultant was not an eligible activity, and the
funding has come from the Housing Rehab Fund. If the CFMF Coalition can demonstrate
assistance to low/moderate income tenants under the crime awareness category, we can secure
CDBG reimbursement. This can be achieved if complexes with verified low/moderate income
tenants are certified.
PROPOSED 2001 CDBG ACTIVITIES
Staff recommendations for the allocation of CDBG funds reflect the priorities described in
Vision St. Louis Park and the Economic Development Strategic Plan for Housing and Business.
Funding decisions about specific projects that may occur under the 2001 CDBG cycle will also
be based on these priorities.
A total of $280,059 in CDBG funds is available to St. Louis Park in 2001. The following ideas
would continue a comprehensive approach to single family rehab and multifamily revitalization
and include:
Single Family Activity
$120,559 Single Family Rehab – Low Income Deferred Loans. This is the primary rehab
loan program targeted for households with an annual income that is 50%, or less,
of the median area income ($32,580 for a household of 4). Staff suggests that the
length of the waiting list (30 residents) and anecdotal evidence support the need to
continue this program. Staff is working with the County to ensure that a higher
completion rate is achieved in the coming year.
The following factors have been identified as limiting the number of completions.
1) County staff have not performed as they had hoped, and are in the process of
adding another staff person. 2) Scarcity of contractors. 3) Newer homeowners
apply and start the process, but drop out when they are confronted with a 30-year
deferral period. The cities of Minnetonka and Hopkins have 10 and 6 to 12-year
deferral periods, respectively, and have higher completion rates. 4) The $15,000
maximum loan amount was set almost a decade ago and no longer reflects
escalated construction costs, which results in re-bidding, redoing of the scope of
work, and finding additional leveraged resources. These activities lengthen the
rehab process. In an effort to be more effective, staff suggests revising the
deferral period to 15 years, and increasing the maximum loan to $20,000. In
addition HUD is implementing a new lead based paint abatement protocol, which
will likely increase the cost of each project, so the increase in loan amount seems
more necessary. The planned allocation of $120,559 plus funds from 1999 will
allow 10 residents to be served.
$30,000 Single Family Emergency Repair Program. The emergency repair program
provides grants of up to $3,000 per household to the lowest income households;
the income limit is $32,580 for a household of four. CASH administers this
26
program for the City, and staff has worked extensively with CASH and the
County to ensure that the repair funds are used prudently. Staff recommends
continued funding of this program during 2001.
$20,000 Single Family Discount Loan Program. The City’s discount loan program,
funded through the Housing Rehabilitation Fund, provides a 2% interest rate write
down for MHFA loans, to 6%. Through the use of CDBG funds, an additional
2% reduction in interest rates provides residents with incomes of $55,000 or less,
a loan with a 4% interest rate. Staff suggests continuing this effective program.
The CDBG write down averages $700 per loan and an additional $20,000 would
allow almost 30 households to participate. CEE would administer this program
for St. Louis Park residents.
No Funding Home Renewal Program. The Home Renewal Program, designed to acquire
blighted properties for redevelopment, is limited by the number of blighted
properties in St. Louis Park. CDBG now requires that 20% of the projects funded
under the acquisition of blighted properties be developed with homes for low-
income families. The average non-reimbursed CDBG cost of Home Renewal
properties is $26,000, and $105,221 is still available.
$170,559 Single Family Subtotal
Multifamily Activity
$70,000 Multifamily Pilot Revitalization Program. The multifamily pilot revitalization
program is nearing the end of the planning stage, and staff recommends that
additional funds be allocated for implementation.
$4,000 Crime Awareness. The Crime Free Multihousing Coalition is only a fundable
activity if the service can be tied to assisting low/moderate income tenants. With
the progress achieved to date -- one high-rent complex certified and one low-rent
complex certified prior to coalition’s resumption -- the activity has not been
CDBG-eligible. To date, the coalition costs have come from the Housing Rehab
Fund. However, in March, training is scheduled that will involve eligible
apartment owners and tenants, and future outreach will include eligible apartment
owners and tenants.
$35,000 Perspectives Inc. As was discussed with the City Council last summer,
Perspectives Inc. plans to acquire and renovate two properties in Louisiana Court.
They have signed purchase agreements contingent upon funding, and hope to
complete the purchase by July 1, 2001. They have committed funding from HUD,
the MHFA, Hennepin County Affordable Housing Incentive Account and private
sources. The $35,000 will assist with closing the funding gap.
$109,500 Multifamily Subtotal
27
$280,059 Total
Reprogram TRAILS. Staff recommends reprogramming $10,000 of the 1999 funds from
TRAILS to the Tenant Opportunity Program (TOP) at Hamilton House. TRAILS,
a self-sufficiency program for Section 8 recipients, has secured funding
independent of CDBG and, consequently, will not be expending the projected
1999 funds. TOP provides social services and coordination of case management
services to residents (elderly and adults with disabilities) at the St Louis Park
Housing Authority's Hamilton House. TOP was funded with a HUD grant and in-
kind services from Jewish Family and Children Services. The grant is scheduled
to expire on December 31, 20001. It is anticipated that the interim funding will
provide for the continuation of services while staff seeks alternative funding.
Recommended Action:
Staff suggests that the Council consider the ideas presented above for funding guidance.
The following is a schedule of action required by the City to receive 2001 CDBG funds:
February 21, 2001 Submission of notice of public hearing for publication
March 5, 2001 Public hearing; passage of Resolution outlining proposed activities
March 9, 2001 Submission of application to Hennepin County
Attachment: Table of Expended and Allocated CDBG Funds Years 1999, 2000 and 2001.
28
2001 Proposed Allocation Total
Activity Budget Expended Balance Budget Expended Balance Budget Balance
Single Family
SF Rehab - Target Neighborhood 100,000$ 3,500$ 96,500$ 50,000$ -$ 50,000$ -$ 146,500$
SF Rehab -Low Income Deferred Loan 3,509$ 3,509$ 58,000$ -$ 58,000$ 120,559$ 182,068$
SF Emergency Repair Program (CASH)30,000$ 5,000$ 25,000$ 30,000$ 55,000$
SF Discount Loan Program 20,000$ 11,200$ 8,800$ 20,000$ 28,800$
Scattered Site Acquisition (Home Renewal)169,047$ 63,826$ 105,221$ 105,221$
Multifamily
MF Revitalization - Louisiana Court Project 21,509$ 21,509$ -$ -$
MF Revitalization Pilot Program 110,000$ -$ 110,000$ 70,000$ 180,000$
MF Crime Awareness 9,938$ -$ 9,938$ 4,500$ 14,438$
MF Revialization - Perspectives Inc.35,000$ 35,000$
TRAILS - Self Suffiency Program 10,000$ -$ 10,000$ 10,000$
Totals 304,065$ 88,835$ 215,230$ 277,938$ 16,200$ 261,738$ 280,059$ 757,027$
1999 Allocation 2000 Allocation
29
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 6a
Meeting of March 5, 2001
6a. Local 49 Maintenance Contract Changes for 1/1/01 – 12/31/03
A three year agreement for International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE)
Local 49 Maintenance was reached settling the City and Union for 1/1/01 through
12/31/03.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the resolution approving a Labor Agreement
between the City and International Union of Operating Engineers
(IUOE) Local No. 49, AFL-CIO, establishing terms and
conditions of employment for the duration of 1/1/01 – 12/31/03.
Background:
Negotiations with our Local 49 Maintenance Union began 5 months ago in October 2000. There
were many issues on the table, and after what we believed was a 2 year agreement in January, the
Union voted the proposal down. This brought us back to the negotiation table.
After more discussion, the Union accepted a new package from the City, which included a 3rd
year. This is the first contract setting wages and insurance for 2002 & 2003 in St. Louis Park.
Wages and Insurance for 2001 were a major concern to this bargaining unit. We were fortunate,
through negotiations, to keep the wage increase for 2001 at 3% (consistent with our other
employee groups). A number of cities have settled slightly above 3% for 2001 wages. Also,
insurance contribution for 2001 was settled with a $30 increase consistent with our other
employee groups during a time when the market showed high increases to premiums.
A summary of major changes to the contract is as follows:
Monetary adjustments were made to wages: 3% for 2001, consistent with other employee
groups, 3.5% for 2002, and 3.75% for 2003. Insurance for 2001 was increased to $440/mo. ($30
increase over 2000), consistent with our other employee groups $510/month as the Employer
contribution for 2002, and for 2003 the Insurance contribution will be set at the average dollar
amount contributed by the City to the non-supervisory employees, not less than $510/mo.
We currently have the following classifications: Maintenance I, Maintenance II, Maintenance III
and Maintenance IV. Effective 7/1/01, employees in Maintenance I classification will progress
to Maintenance II after 36 months of employment and successful performance of job duties. We
found that we continue to flex our Maintenance work force, and many times a Maintenance I will
be working alongside a Maintenance II performing the same functions at a slightly lower rate of
pay. To encourage flexibility in assignments and to fairly compensate employees, a progression
from MI to MII was put in place.
30
Other changes to the contract were to help clean up the procedures on how we apply working out
of class pay.
Overall, we believe this three year proposal is a good package for both union and management.
Listed below is a detailed summary of contract changes with comments for the various areas.
The proposed contract is on file with the City Clerk. More detail is available upon request.
Detail of Contract Changes
A. Duration – 3 years
B. Wages:
a. 3% increase to all classifications effective 1/1/01
b. 3.5% increase to all classifications effective 1/1/02
c. 3.75% increase to all classifications effective 1/1/03
d. Effective 7/1/01, employees in Maintenance I classification will progress to
Maintenance II after 36 months of employment and successful performance of
job duties.
e. Effective 2001 a 6month step is incorporated into the plan as shown below.
2000 2001 2002 2003
current 3% 3.50% 3.75%
Maintenance I Hire $13.97 $14.39 $14.89 $15.45
6 months $15.30 $15.83 $16.42
12+ months $15.73 $16.20 $16.77 $17.40
24+ months $17.50 $18.03 $18.66 $19.36
Effective 7/1/01, after 36 months as a Maintenance I employee with the City and
successful performance of job duties, employees in Maintenance I classification
will progress to Maintenance II.
Maintenance II $17.84 $18.38 $19.02 $19.73
Maintenance III $18.24 $18.79 $19.45 $20.18
Maintenance IV $18.79 $19.35 $20.03 $20.78
Comment: All of our employee groups in St. Louis Park settled at 3% for wage increase for
2001(with the exception of Dispatch, who are still in negotiations). We are finding that the 3%
for 2001 is a bit conservative as compared with other cities in our market. To ensure we are
positioning ourselves properly for 2002, we needed to move off the 3% standard increase, which
we have been holding at for the past 6 years. Also, with 2003, we are again hoping to position
ourselves at or slightly above average pay in our market by settling at a 3.75% increase for 2003.
31
The increases for 2002 & 2003, with any luck, will not be too conservative and will allow us to
keep up with the market when comparing our increases to other cities.
C. Insurance:
Effective Jan. 1, 2001 – Increase to $440.00
($30/mo. over 2000 for use in Cafeteria Benefit Plan)
Effective Jan. 1, 2002 – Increase to $510.00
($70/mo. over 2001 for use in Cafeteria Benefit Plan)
2003 Insurance: The Employer contribution will be set at the average dollar
amount contributed by the Employer to the non-supervisory employees of St.
Louis Park. The amount will not be less than $510.
Comment: We appeared to be falling behind in regard to our employer contribution for
insurance. Since all our groups were settled for 2001, we needed to look ahead to 2002
contribution. You will notice the increase for 2002 is $70 over 2001. This increase is to help us
catch up and position us with our other cities in our market. Also for 2003, we were unable to
determine where the insurance market will be in 2 years, so this area will be settled in line with
our other non-supervisory employee groups.
D. Article XXXIII Section 33.3
ADD the following to the Equipment List under Section 33.3
16) Rodding Machine
17) Snowplow Truck with extended wing apparatus
18) Any driver of equipment requiring a Class A CDL (as assigned by the Supervisor)
E. Article XXXIII ADD Section 3.5 – (NEW) To read as follows:
33.5 Employees assigned to the following by their Division Head or designee, shall
receive out of class pay:
M IV : Welding
M III: Special Project/Lead as assigned for temporary duration
of assignment. Maximum of one lead per project can be
assigned: the duration of the project must be eight (8)
hours or more.
Other: $3.00 per hour supplemental pay when assigned to fill in
(substitute), and perform the duties of a
Superintendent/Supervisor due to their absence. Must be
approved by Division Head in advance of assignment.
Comment: We developed new language to help define how “working out of class” pay will be
applied to our Maintenance group.
32
F. Article II Definitions: Add the definition for “work day” as follows:
2.10 Workday: Unless otherwise specified, a workday shall be defined as eight (8)
hours per day for the purpose of calculating an employee’s leave, benefits,
holidays, Injury on Duty (IOD), etc. (For calculation purposes five (5) (working)
days is defined as forty (40) hours.)
G. Article XVII Equipment
Increase tool allowance to $500.00 – Change language to read as follows:
17.1 The EMPLOYER agrees to a tool allowance policy, covering small tools for all
EMPLOYEES who are providing their personal tools and are working as
Mechanics in the Municipal Service Center. Tool allowance shall not exceed
$500 per calendar year.
Change the way supplemental clothing allowance is administered – to read as follows:
17.2 The EMPLOYER agrees to a $300 per year supplemental clothing allowance for safety
boots, gloves, coveralls or approved safety related apparel to be used for work purposes.
17.3 Allowances as listed in Sections 17.1 and 17.2 above, will be paid no later than the
second pay day in January of each year.
Comment: The tool allowance increase is $100, and is applied only to our 4 Mechanics.
H. Article XXII – Section 22.6 – Add language clarifying Flex Leave Severance as follows:
22.6 (ADD) - At the time of separation from employment with the City, providing the
employee is in good standing and has provided the City with a minimum of two week’s
written notice, employees will receive 100% of their Flex Leave balance not to exceed
the Flex Leave Cap maximum allowed (as listed under Section 22.4 above), which
includes the addition of five eight (8) hour days (40 hours) in addition to the cap. In
no instance shall severance exceed this hourly total amount.
Section 22.8 – Clarify that when an Employee makes a request for leave, approval is
granted by the Division Head (not Department Head). Language to read as follows:
22.8 Request for Leave. Requests to use Flex Leave should be made to each
Employee’s Division Head or their designee in accordance with three working
days advance…
I. Article XXVI Funeral Leave:
a. ADD the following under definition of “Immediate Family” – Niece, Nephew,
Aunt, Uncle and Grandchildren.
J. Article XXVI Certificates and Licenses
Eliminate Sections 32.1, 32.2 and 32.3 in their entirety. Rewrite entire Article to read
as follows:
33
32.1 The EMPLOYER shall reimburse EMPLOYEES who successfully pass and maintain a
CDL License as a requirement of their job, for the fee charges by the State
32.2 The EMPLOYER shall reimburse EMPLOYEES for the License fee charged, only if
such License or Certificate is required by the Division Head. Reimbursements will
apply to the following required licenses:
Water Supply System Operator Test or Certificate
Wastewater Treatment Facility Operator Test or Certificate
Minnesota Engineer’s (Boiler) License
ATSSA Work Zone Certification
ATSSA Pavement Marking
IMSA Signal and Lighting Technician
MN/DOT Bituminous Inspection Certificate
Tree Inspector Certification
Pesticide Certification
Playground Safety Certification
Pool Certification
DOT Vehicle Inspector
Any Licenses or Certifications not listed above that are required by the
Employer shall be classified by mutual agreement between the City and the
Union.
Reimbursement will be given once a year for Testing/Class Fee(s).
Comment: Once again this language was added to more clearly define which licenses will be
paid for by the City.
K. Article XXXIII Section 33.2 – Change to read as follows:
33.2 Employees serving a schedule on-call assignment shall receive supplemental pay
of $180 for each week the assignment is scheduled and worked (to be prorated if less
than one week).
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution approving a Labor
Agreement between the City and International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) Local 49
AFL-CIO, establishing terms and conditions of employment for the duration of 1/1/01 –
12/31/03.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Nancy Gohman, Human Resources Manager
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
34
RESOLUTION NO. 01-018
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE LABOR AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
AND
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS (UOE)
LOCAL #49, AFL-CIO
JANUARY 1, 2001 –DECEMBER 31, 2003
WHEREAS, the City and the Union have reached a negotiated settlement covering the
terms and conditions of a Labor Agreement as permitted by the State of Minnesota Public
Employees Labor Relations Act, and
WHEREAS, the City Council may enter into such agreements as authorized by its
Charter; now therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park that the Mayor and
City Manager are authorized to execute a Collective Bargaining Agreement, City Contract #
between the City of St. Louis Park and International Union of Operating Engineers Local #49
effective January 1, 2001 – December 31, 2003.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council March 5, 200
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
35
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 6b
Meeting of March 5, 2001
6b. City Engineer’s Report: Street improvements on Zarthan Avenue from I-394
to W. 16th Street – Project No. 00-15; Traffic signal at Zarthan Avenue and W.
16th Street – Project No. 01-12; Street improvements on W. 16th Street from
Zarthan Avenue to Blackstone Avenue – Project No. 00-16
This report considers public improvements to Zarthan Avenue, W. 16th Street, and
the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Zarthan Avenue and W. 16th
Street.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the attached resolution accepting this report,
establishing Improvement Project Nos. 00-15, 00-16, and 01-12,
ordering Project Nos. 00-15, 00-16, and 01-12, approving plans
and specifications, and authorizing receipt of bids.
Background: These projects are a result of redevelopment in the area immediately adjacent to
and West of Zarthan Avenue and north of W. 16th Street by CSM/Rottlund and Costco. One of
the conditions of the City Council’s approval of the proposed projects was public improvements
to Zarthan Avenue, the installation of a traffic signal at Zarthan/W. 16th Street intersection and
widening of W. 16th Street west of Zarthan Avenue. All of these projects and proposed funding
sources are included in the City’s recently adopted C.I.P.
Discussion:
Zarthan Avenue Street Improvements – Project No. 00-15: Under this project it is proposed to
construct a long radius curve at the intersection of Zarthan Avenue and the south frontage road of
I-394. The south frontage road east of Zarthan Avenue would ‘T’ into the long radius curve to
make the frontage road transition more smoothly into Zarthan Avenue. The same concept would
also be used at the intersection of Zarthan and W. 16th Street. This intersection would include a
traffic signal as recommended by the City’s Traffic Engineering Consultant (See SRF Consulting
Group report – April 24, 2000). The realignment of the intersection at W. 16th Street and
Zarthan Avenue will also continue the concept of making the frontage road transition from
Zarthan Avenue to W. 16th Street (See attached plan). This improvement is consistent with
recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan.
Traffic Signal Improvements at Zarthan Avenue and W. 16th Street – Project No. 01-12: City
approval for construction of the Costco Warehouse Club in the southeast quadrant of Zarthan
Avenue and W. 16th Street included the provision that the Developer would make a financial
contribution for the installation of a traffic signal at this intersection.
The April 2000 traffic study by the SRF Consulting Group indicated the post development
(Costco and CSM/Rottlund) p.m. peak hour would operate at a Level of Service F. With the
construction of a traffic signal, this intersection is expected to operate at a Level of Service B
36
during the p.m. peak hour. The proposed project includes the construction of a traffic signal at
this intersection.
W. 16th Street Roadway Improvements – Project No. 00-16: This project proposes to widen W.
16th Street to the north by nine (9) feet. This will increase the existing road width from twenty-
two (22) feet to thirty-one (31) feet. Widening the road width will allow for on-street parking on
the north side and improve access to the townhomes. This condition was also a part of the
approval of the CSM/Rottlund Development.
Right of Way Acquisition: The proposed project does require the acquisition of property from
the Park Place East Office Building. The property is a commercial office building and would
lose seven (7) parking spaces in the southwest corner of their south parking lot. Although the
spaces they would lose are rarely used. The City would still need to compensate the owners for
the loss. The property is required to have 717 parking spaces and will still be in compliance with
their parking requirements as they currently have 776 parking spaces.
Financial Considerations: It is proposed that these projects be funded by contributions from
the Developers, the EDA, and the City. No special assessments or other funding sources are
proposed to be used for these projects. A summary of the project costs and revenue sources is as
follows:
Project Costs
Project 00-15
(Zarthan Ave.)
Project 00-16
(W. 16th St.)
Project 01-12
(Traffic
Signal)
Total
Construction $ 235,000 $ 50,000 $ 140,000 $ 425,000
Contingency (10%) 23,500 5,000 14,000 42,500
Subtotal $ 258,500 $ 55,000 $ 154,000 $ 467,500
Engineering/Admin. (12% 31,000 7,000 18,000 56,000
Subtotal $ 289,500 $ 62,000 $ 172,000 $ 523,500
Right of Way 50,000 0 0 50,000
TOTAL $ 339,500 $ 62,000 $ 172,000 $ 573,500
Revenue Sources
Project 00-15
(Zarthan Ave.)
Project 00-16
(W. 16th St.)
Project 01-12
(Traffic
Signal)
Total
EDA (Development Fund) 244,440 62,000 94,600 401,040
Developer - - 77,400 77,400
City (G.O. Bonds) 95,060 - - 95,060
TOTAL $339,500 $ 62,000 $172,000 $573,500
37
Proposed Improvement Timetable: Should the City Council approve the City Engineer’s
Report, it is anticipated the following construction timetable could be met:
• City Engineer’s Report to City Council March 5, 2001
• Ad for Bids March/April
• Bid Opening April
• Bid Award April/May
• Construction May-August
Feasibility: These projects, as proposed herein, are necessary, cost effective, and feasible under
the conditions noted and at the costs estimated.
Attachments: Resolution
Easement Area (Color)
Proposed Construction Area (Color)
Prepared by: Carlton Moore/Michael P. Rardin, Public Works
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
38
RESOLUTION NO. 01-019
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE CITY ENGINEER’S REPORT,
ESTABLISHING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 00-15, 01-12, & 00-16,
ORDERING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 00-15, 01-12, & 00-16,
APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND AUTHORIZING
ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR IMPROVEMENT NOS. 00-15, 01-12, & 00-16
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the
City Engineer related to the improvements to Zarthan Avenue, W. 16th Street and the installation
of a traffic signal at the intersection of Zarthan Avenue and W. 16th Street.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that:
1. The City Engineer’s Report regarding the improvements to Zarthan Avenue, W. 16th
Street and the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Zarthan Avenue and W.
16th Street Project Nos. 00-15, 01-12, & 00-16 is hereby accepted.
2. The proposed project designated as Project Nos. 00-15, 01-12, & 00-16 is hereby
established.
3. Project Nos. 00-15, 01-12, & 00-16 is hereby ordered.
4. The plans and specifications for the making of the improvement as prepared under the
direction of the Director of Public Works are approved.
5. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted at least two weeks in the official
newspaper and in the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids for the making of
said improvement under said approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall
appear not less than twenty one (21) days prior to the date and time bids will be received
by the City Clerk, and that no bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the
City Clerk and accompanied by a cashier’s check, bid bond, or certified check payable to
the City for five (5) percent of the amount of the bid.
6. The bids shall be tabulated by the Director of Public Works who shall report his
tabulation and recommendation to the City Council.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council March 5, 2001
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
39
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 6c
Meeting of March 5, 2001
6c. Additional funding consideration for the Pilot Blackstone Neighborhood
Grant/Loan Program
Recommended
Action:
Motion to provide additional Housing Rehabilitation Fund and
CDBG dollars for the Pilot Blackstone Neighborhood
Grant/Loan Program.
Background:
At the September 11, 2000 Study Session, Council directed staff to implement a proposed pilot
neighborhood revitalization initiative with the single family Blackstone Neighborhood and
approved a pilot project budget of $84,350, see Table 1. The Council allocated $150,000 of FY
1999 and 2000 CDBG dollars for targeted neighborhood revitalization efforts, and Housing
Rehabilitation Funds have been budgeted for non-CDBG eligible neighborhood activities.
The Blackstone Neighborhood process has been an ongoing effort throughout 2000 and included
a study conducted by Decision Resources, neighborhood workshops, mailed surveys and
discussions with Council at Study Sessions. (See attachment “Blackstone Pilot Initiative”.)
The 2 year pilot project is designed to address the neighborhood’s general appearance and
livability issues. To that end one of the pilot components is a matching grant and deferred loan
program designed to stimulate exterior home improvements. Blackstone homeowners will be
eligible for a matching grant up to $2,000, or a deferred, 5% simple interest loan up to $4,000,
for qualifying exterior home improvements. The deferred loan will be forgiven after ten years if
the resident still lives in the home. The eligible improvements include exterior painting, repair
or replacement of: siding, stucco, railings, gutters, downspouts, fences, porches, decks, retaining
walls, doors, windows, garages, roofs, sidewalk, driveways, and steps as well as structural and
foundation repair and permanent landscaping. (See attachment “Blackstone Exterior Grant/Loan
Program”.) At the September 11, 2000 Study Session $80,000 was allocated to fund the grants,
loans and administrative costs associated with the program delivery. The target date for the first
completed improvement is May 2001.
Table 1: Pilot Budget
The table below outlines the pilot costs, funding sources, and timeline as approved at the
September 11, 2000 Study Session.
40
Pilot Component Pilot Costs Funding Source Staff Timeline
Matching Grant
and Deferred Loan
Program
$80,000 – Grants/Loan
Program
CDBG, Housing
Rehab Funds (HRF),
MHFA and Residents
CD Housing Completion
12/31/2002
Dumpster Day $2,000 - Dumpster
Rental
Neighborhood Grant
Funds
Community
Outreach
Spring 2001
Review of Zoning
Modifications
CD Planning and
Zoning
Ongoing
Low Cost
Initiatives
$500 - Remodeling
Resource Handbook
$175- Best Lawn Award
$500 – Intern Stipend
$1000 – Paint for paint-
a- thon
HRF
HRF or Association
HRF
HRF
CD Housing,
Community
Outreach &
Communication
Handbook –
March 2001
Fall 2001
Spring 2001
Summer 2001
Speed Reduction
Campaign
$250 – Lawn Signs HRF
3 “Local Traffic
Only” signs – MSC
Community
Development,
Police, MSC
Evaluation at
project end
Total Costs $84,350
Program Update:
The Blackstone Single Family Neighborhood Pilot Program kick-off meeting was held February
6, 2001, and was very well attended. In addition to the meeting, residents were mailed the
program information and applications for the grant/loan program. As this is a pilot program, a
determination of the actual resident interest was accomplished by requesting that residents
submit grant and loan pre-applications by February 16, 2001.
• 45%, or 39 of the eligible residents (homeowners within the defined neighborhood) applied
for either the exterior grant or loan. A projected participation rate of 33% had been based on
demonstrated participation rates of similar grant and loan programs in other cities.
• This high level of participation is exciting, yet requires additional funding if we are to fund
all applicants and avoid a lottery. Also, funding for future applications could be made
available to residents that may have adopted a “wait and see” approach and chose not to
apply for the pilot grant/loan program at this time. If the Council chooses not to fully fund
all applications, a lottery could be conducted and applicants awarded grant/loan funds until
the original allocation of $80,000 is expended.
The table below shows the breakdown of grant and deferred loan applications, and the estimated
cost if all applicants use the maximum grant and loan amounts for exterior improvements.
Table 2: Blackstone Neighborhood Pilot Grant/Loan Applications Received
Type Number
Applicants
Maximum
Amount
Admin Fee Loan Service
Fee
Total
Matching Grant 22 $2,000 $200 0 $48,400
Deferred Loan 17 $4,000 $350 $27 $74,409
TOTAL 39 $112,000 $10,350 $459 $122,809
41
The City had committed $80,000 to fund the grant/loan program. An additional $50,000 would
cover the $42,809 required to meet the submitted applications as well as future applications from
residents that have adopted a “wait and see” approach, and may be applying within the two year
timeline. Staff suggests that the funding source for the additional monies would be the allocated
$150,000 of CDBG dollars, as well as Housing Rehabilitation Funds to cover to grants and loans
to non-CDBG qualifying households (incomes greater than $55,000 for a household of four).
Any unspent funds would remain in the appropriate CDBG, or Housing Rehabilitation Fund
budgets.
The program is on schedule, and Community Development staff will be meeting with the
Blackstone Neighborhood Association following the Park and Recreation Department’s
neighborhood meeting on March 14, 2001. It is anticipated that the first grant/loan will be
processed by the end of March, with the target date of the first completion May 1, 2001. Staff
will monitor the contract administrator’s program delivery to ensure that all improvements meet
the exterior improvement guidelines developed. Staff will keep the Council updated with the
pilot’s progress.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Blackstone Pilot Grant/Loan Program be funded with an additional
$50,000 to meet the submitted applications, and allow funding for additional eligible Blackstone
Neighborhood owners that may apply within the two year timeline.
Attachments:
Program Description
Blackstone Exterior Grant/Loan Program
Prepared by: Kathy Larsen, Housing Programs Coordinator
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
42
BLACKSTONE PILOT INITIATIVE
A pilot program tailored to the Single Family Blackstone Neighborhood will begin in 2001. The
program incorporates the 5 components outlined below, which are listed in order of importance
as rated by residents. This pilot program coordinates neighborhood activity with City initiatives
and leverages City and other funds with private investment. The Blackstone Park is outside the
scope of this pilot, however, a status report is provided.
Status of Neighborhood Mini Park
• Residents and Park & Rec. staff have agreed on the park layout and park elements.
• The Park & Rec. Dept. will be meeting with residents to decide on playground equipment
and the possibility of using volunteers to assist with equipment assembly.
• Completion of the park improvements will occur in 2001.
1. Matching Grants Or Deferred Loans for Exterior Improvements. Eligible residents can
select a matching grant OR a deferred loan.
a. Income Limit: There is no income restriction.
b. Eligible Properties: Residents of owner occupied properties in the pilot area are eligible.
Applicants must be current on mortgage payments and property tax payments.
c. Grant Amount: The maximum grant is $2,000, and the minimum grant amount is $500.
Each household may receive one grant OR one loan for the duration of the program. The
grant funds must be matched on a one-to-one basis with funds from the owner.
d. Deferred Loan Amount: The maximum loan amount is $4,000, and the minimum loan
amount is $1,000. A Match Ratio is not required for the deferred loan. Each household
may receive one grant OR one loan for the duration of the program.
e. Eligible Exterior Improvement Guidelines: Guidelines will ensure that dollars are spent
to further the goal of neighborhood improvement. Eligible improvements are:
• Painting/siding/stucco (repair/replacement).
• Railings, gutters, and downspouts (repair/replacement).
• Fences, porches, decks, and retaining walls (new/repair/replacement).
• Structural and foundation problems on home and/or garage.
• Doors (repair or replace).
• Windows / Skylights (repair or replace).
• Garages (new garage/repair/addition).
• Roof replacement and repair.
• Sidewalks, driveways, steps (repair/replacement).
• Permanent landscaping, such as shrubs/trees.
f. Applications. Applications will be mailed to residents in Spring of 2001.
43
2. “Dumpster Day” - Neighborhood Clean-Up Day.
The neighborhood association will organize a neighborhood clean up effort by having “free”
dumpsters available one Saturday in June 2001. (Date to be announced.)
3. Citywide Zoning Modifications Related to Remodeling of Existing Homes.
The City zoning ordinance has been modified to reduce frontyard setbacks to allow for
porches and decks. Revisions are being made to the sideyard setback requirement to make
2nd story additions more feasible. These modifications are designed so variances are
unnecessary. For specifics on how the modifications affect remodeling plans, please call
Scott Moore, Zoning Administrator at 924-2592.
Staff is exploring the concern that the zoning code restricts garages to 25% coverage of the
rear yard, and the impact this code has on additions to single stall garages.
4. Low Cost – High Impact Initiatives. These initiatives are designed to compliment the
exterior improvement components and include:
a. Remodeling Resource Handbook. The association will distribute a handbook listing
remodeling resources ranging from financial resources, to remodeling ideas, advice on
hiring contractors, and landscaping resources, etc.
b. Neighborhood Annual Best Yard Award. This award will be sponsored by the
association to promote improving the general appearance of the neighborhood and will be
coordinated with the City Evergreen Award.
c. Yardscape Plans. Yardscape plans developed by the Design Center will be available and
interns from the Henn. Community College Landscape program are being sought to assist
with individualized plans based on the Design Center’s formats.
d. Discount Volume Purchasing. The neighborhood association & city staff will explore
discount volume purchasing of retaining wall stone, windows, driveway related
improvements and landscaping materials.
5. Residential Street Speed Reduction.
A campaign to reduce speed on residential streets was favored over the use of speed humps.
The “We live here, please slow down” campaign will include installation of three permanent
advisory “Local Traffic Only” signs, coordination with the Police Department’s
Neighborhood Block Watch to gain pledges from residents to drive respectfully on streets,
and posting lawn signs that promote the campaign.
Additional ideas that can be implemented include: exploring the Housing Improvement Area as a
lending mechanism to all income homeowners, conducting a seminar on zoning and inspection
requirements, and conducting an association-sponsored neighborhood Paint-a-Thon.
44
BLACKSTONE EXTERIOR MATCHING GRANT PROGRAM
OR DEFFERED LOAN PROGRAM
Program Overview: This matching grant/deferred loan program will stimulate exterior housing
improvements to homesteaded properties in the single family Blackstone neighborhood. Eligible
residents can select either a matching grant OR a deferred loan, whichever meets their needs
best. Only applicants meeting the guidelines and expressing intent to complete the work during
the years 2001-2 will receive final approval.
Grant/Loan Pool: In 2001-2, $40,000 will be available for matching grants and admin and
$40,000 will be available for deferred loans.
Income Limit: There is no maximum income limit for participants in this program.
Eligible Properties: The program is open to residents of owner occupied properties in the pilot
area. Applicant must be current on mortgage payments and property tax payments.
Grant Amount: The maximum grant will be $2,000. The minimum grant amount will be $500.
Each household may receive one grant OR one loan for the duration of the program.
Grant Match Ratio: The grant funds must be matched on a one-to-one basis with funds from
the owner.
Deferred Loan Amount: The max loan will be $4,000. The minimum loan amount will be
$1,000. A Match Ratio is not required for the deferred loan. Each household may receive one
grant OR one loan for the duration of the program.
Loan Term: Ten years. The borrower must remain in the property for 10 years from date of
closing in order for the loan to be 100% forgiven. If the borrower sells, transfers title, or moves
out of the property prior to the end of the tenth year, the borrower will be responsible for
repaying the full original loan amount.
Interest Rate: 5%.
Eligible Improvement Projects:
The program is limited to financing exterior rehab and repair projects. Eligible Improvements
are:
Painting/siding/stucco (repair/replacement).
Railings, gutters, and downspouts (repair/replacement).
Fences, porches, decks, and retaining walls (new/repair/replacement).
Structural and foundation problems on home and/or garage.
Doors (repair or replace).
Windows / Skylights (repair or replace).
Garages (new garage/repair/addition).
Roof replacement and repair.
Sidewalks, driveways, steps (repair/replacement).
Permanent landscaping, such as shrubs/trees.
45
Ineligible Improvement Projects: The following projects would not be eligible for financing
under this program:
New Home Construction.
Room additions or expansions, however impacted windows, doors, siding and roofing will be
eligible.
Repair or replace sewer or water lines.
Pools, whirlpools or saunas.
Interior decorating, or interior work.
Playground equipment and gazebos.
Refinancing or exterior work initiated prior to the grant/loan award.
Work by Owner: Work can be performed by the owner on a "sweat equity" basis. . Materials
must be purchased, installed, inspected and accounted for by original proofs of payment prior to
disbursement of any grant/loan proceeds, along with appropriate permits. Grant/loan funds will
not be used to compensate for labor or for purchase or rental of tools or equipment. The owner’s
ability to complete the work in a timely manner will be assessed.
Other General Conditions and Procedures
1. Initial application for funds will be submitted to CEE.
There will be widely published beginning and ending dates for submitting applications. If
there are more applications than can be funded; a public lottery will be conducted to identify
the sequence in which applications will be processed. If there are fewer applications than can
be funded, a lottery will not be conducted and additional applications may be submitted
directly to CEE and will be processed on a first-come, first-served basis until all program
funds have been committed.
2. Detailed Applications: After the lottery, an application form must be submitted. This form
will include:
Necessary personal information (i.e name, address, phone numbers).
A description of the proposed work and a cost estimate.
A copy of the applicant's most recent property tax statement.
A signed "Data Privacy Act Statement and Consent Form" (provided by CEE).
A statement from the mortgage company regarding status of mortgage payments.
3. Rehabilitation Counseling: A rehab consultant will be available to program participants to
provide advise on proposed work, assist with the bidding process and help select the
successful bidder(s).
4. Matching Funds: The grant program is a dollar-for-dollar matching grant with a maximum
grant amount of $2,000. The property owner must pay the contractor from his/her funds first,
provide proof of payment, after which the grant funds will be paid directly to the contractor.
The owner is responsible for any costs in excess of the City grant. Deferred loan recipients
will not be required to match program funds.
46
5. Contractors / Permits: Plumbers must be licensed by the City and other contractors by the
State of MN as applicable. Permits must be obtained when required by ordinance.
6. Underwriting Decisions: The applicant for the grant and loan funds must be current on
mortgage payments and real estate taxes for the property. CEE will determine applicant
eligibility for the program based on the criteria stated in these Guidelines. A denial decision
by CEE will be discussed with staff and the Association to assist resident.
7. Costs for Program Administration: Grant/loan origination fees are paid by the City budget
for this program.
8. Custody of Funds: Grant/loan funds will remain in the custody of CEE until payment for
completed work.
9. Work Completion: Weather permitting, all work items must be completed within 120 days
of the grant/loan closing (defined by the date the participation agreement is signed).
10. Disbursement Process:
a) Payment to the contractor (or owner - see "Work by Owner") will be made after
completion of the work. An inspection will be made by CEE when a permit is not
required or by the City Inspector when a permit is required to verify completion of the
work.
b) Final payment for work will also require the property owner to furnish proof of his/her
payment to the work contractor.
c) The following items must be received before funds can be released:
i. Original proposal or final invoice from contractor (or materials list from supplier);
ii. Completion certificates(s) signed by the participant and the contractor
iii. Evidence that the owners’ funds have been paid to the contractor
iv. Copies of all required city permits (also indicating final inspection by City);
v. Final inspection verification by CEE, when required
vi. Lien waiver for entire cost of project
Items # i. – iv. must be provided in order to prepare the check.
11. Program Timeline:
Guidelines accepted October 2000
Market program Feb 2001
Applications March 2001
Lottery (if necessary) April 3, 2001
Target for first job May 2001
47
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 6d
Meeting of March 5, 2001
6d. The request by Edina Development for a Major Amendment to a Conditional
Use Permit for the site plan, tree replacement and landscaping changes for
Excelsior Townhomes.
Case # 00-45-CUP
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the Resolution amending previous resolutions
and granting a major amendment to the Conditional Use Permit,
subject to the conditions in the resolution and authorize the
Mayor and City Manager to execute an amendment to the
Development Contract.
Background:
On January 16, 2001, the City Council heard this request for a major amendment to the
Conditional Use Permit and also heard a request for variance to allow a reduction in the
bufferyard requirement. At this meeting, the Council granted the variance but deferred
consideration of the major amendment pending an agreement between the City and developer to
assure the roadway will be plowed and maintained to its full width, and in the event it is not, that
the City be allowed to plow the street and assess the cost back to the property owner(s). The
overall purpose is to maintain emergency access on this private street.
Issues:
• How do the Resolution and Development Agreement ensure emergency access into the
townhouse development?
Analysis of Issues:
• How do the Resolution and Development Agreement ensure emergency access into the
townhouse development?
Staff is recommending an additional condition be adopted into the resolution for the
development. This condition will require that the roadway be maintained (plowed) to its full
width. In the event this condition is not complied with and the road is not maintained to its full
width, the City will have the authority to plow the roadway and assess this cost to the taxes on
the property. In addition, the City will also be given the authority to remove (tow) vehicles that
are parked along the drive lane of this north/south roadway to ensure that emergency vehicles
will have access throughout the site. The City will not be able to issue a citation to the parked
vehicles since this is a private street.
48
Staff also recommends that the Development Agreement be amended to incorporate these
changes as well. To do this, the Council would have to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to
execute the amendment after it has been reviewed and approved by the City Attorney.
Finally, an additional condition has been incorporated into the resolution that allows for an
administrative fee to be imposed in the event any of the conditions set forth in the resolution are
not complied with. This fee is proposed to be $750.00, which is consistent with the fee being
imposed on another development. In addition, an administrative fee of $750 has been
incorporated to reimburse the City for administrative and expenses incurred in processing the
past violations of the original CUP. The basis of potentially including administrative fines on a
regular basis will be discussed at the March 12th City Council Study Session.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the major amendment to the approved CUP, subject to the
conditions in the resolution and to authorize the execution for an amendment to the Development
Agreement.
Attachments:
Proposed Resolution
January 16th Council Report
Revised landscape/tree replacement/site plan
Detail of proposed east bumpouts
Prepared by: Scott Moore, Assistant Zoning Administrator, 952-924-2592
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
49
RESOLUTION NO. 01-020
Amends Resolutions 98-97
A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 98-97 ADOPTED ON
JULY 20, 1998 AND GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT UNDER
SECTION 14:5-4.5.D.1. OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE
RELATING TO ZONING TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF 38
TOWNHOMES FOR PROPERTY ZONED R-4, MULTIPLE FAMILY
RESIDENCE AT 7100-7102 EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD
FINDINGS
WHEREAS, Edina Development Corporation has made application to the City Council
for a conditional use permit under Section 14:5-4.D.1. of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code to
allow construction of 38 townhomes at 7100-7102 Excelsior Boulevard within a R-4, Multiple
Family Residence District having the following legal description:
Together with that part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of
Section 20, TWP 117, R21 Hennepin County described as beginning at the
Northeast corner of Tract A RLS 1674; thence North 25.00 feet along said East
Line of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; thence north 89 degrees
29 minutes 50 seconds west 32.00 feet; thence south 00 degrees 30 minutes 10
seconds west parallel with said East line, a distance of 5.00 feet; thence south
54.00 degrees 28 minutes 15 seconds west 34.00 feet to said Line A; thence south
89 degrees 29 minutes 50 seconds east 59.50 feet along said Line A to the point of
beginning. Tract A of Registered Land Survey 1674, Hennepin County,
Minnesota
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the information related to Planning Case
Nos. 98-20-CUP and 00-45-CUP and the effect of the proposed changes to the site plan, tree
replacement and landscaping plan on the health, safety, and welfare of the occupants of the
surrounding lands, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect on values of properties in
the surrounding area and the effect of the use on the Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, a conditional use permit was issued regarding the subject property pursuant
to Resolution No. 98-97 of the St. Louis Park City Council dated July 20, 1998 which contained
conditions applicable to said property; and
WHEREAS, due to changed circumstances, amendments to those conditions are now
necessary, requiring the amendment of that conditional use permit; and
WHEREAS, it is the intent of this resolution to continue and restate the conditions of the
permit granted by Resolution No. 98-97 to add the amendments now required, and to consolidate
all conditions applicable to the subject property in this resolution;
50
WHEREAS, the contents of Planning Case Files 98-20-CUP and 00-45-CUP are hereby
entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
CONCLUSION
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Resolution No. 98-97 (document not filed)
is hereby restated and amended by this resolution which continues and amends a conditional use
permit to the subject property for the purposes of amending the site plan, tree replacement and
landscape plans for construction of 38 townhomes within the R-4 Multiple Family Residential
District at the location described above based on the following conditions:
INCORPORATION OF OLD CONDITIONS:
1. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with Exhibits A
through E, with Exhibit E revised to comply with tree replacement requirements as
outlined in Section 14:4-11 of the Zoning Ordinance; such documents incorporated
by refe rence herein.
2. The Final Plat shall be consistent with the minimum lot areas, widths, and setbacks as
shown on the preliminary plat.
3. Approval of the Conditional Use Permit is contingent upon filing of the final plat.
4. Prior to Final Plat approval, applicant shall submit landscaping plans which comply
with tree replacement, bufferyard, and landscaping requirements, and at least one
canopy tree shall be provided per lot.
5. Prior to Final Plat approval, applicant shall submit evidence that placement of
easements comply with any requirements of utility companies.
6. Dedication of drainage and utility easements as approved.
7. Fire sprinklers to be included in all townhome units per Fire Department
requirements.
8. Compliance with the General Residential District Regulations is required.
9. A development agreement, homeowner’s association and declaration of covenants is
required to ensure that all improvements are installed in a timely manner, parking is
prohibited on the private street system except where designated, and common areas
(including wetlands, open space, landscaping, ponds and private streets) are
adequately maintained in perpetuity. Approval of the Conditional Use Permit is
contingent upon review and approval of said documents by the City Attorney.
10. An Encroachment Agreement is to be executed between the developer and the City
for developer’s use of City land for turnaround area.
51
11. “No Parking Fire Lane” signs shall be installed per Fire Marshall’s determination.
12. Permits from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Hennepin County
Transportation, and other agencies shall be obtained by the applicant as required prior
to site work.
13. Final grading, utility plans, and stormwater calculations are to be approved by the
Public Works Department prior to issuance of a building permit.
14. An erosion and sedimentation control plan is to be approved by the Public Works
Department prior to any site work.
15. Lighting and irrigation plans are to be approved by the Zoning Administrator prior to
the issuance of building permits.
16. The conditional use permit shall be amended on March 5, 2001 to incorporate all of the
preceding conditions and add the following conditions:
a. The developer shall sign new assent forms and revised official exhibits by March
30, 2001.
b. Guest parking areas along the east lot line are to be further defined through
striping and posting of signs, such signs to be approved by the Fire Marshall and
Zoning Administrator.
c. The owner of the land shall be responsible for maintaining and plowing the
north/south roadway from curb to curb. If it is determined that the roadway is
not adequate for emergency vehicles in the sole discretion of the city, the city is
authorized to plow the street and assess this cost against the property pursuant to
Minn. Stat. 429.101
d. In the event vehicles are parked within the required emergency access drive lane,
the city will be authorized to tow the vehicles at the vehicle owner’s expense.
e. Trees are permitted to be planted on City park land per the approved landscape
plan (which plan is subject to further modification through the planning process
and approval by the City Council). The developer is responsible for installation
and maintenance of all plantings they install on public land.
f. The Development Agreement shall be amended to extend the timeframe for
completion of site improvements and landscape plantings to May 31, 2001 and
any other necessary provisions, including authorizing the city to plow the street
in the event it is not maintained from curb to curb and assess the costs and to tow
vehicles which are parked within the required emergency access drive lane. The
Mayor and City Manager are authorized to execute such amendment. The
current owner and mortgagee are required to also execute the amended contract.
If the required improvements are not installed within the required timeframe, the
City shall complete the improvements at the developer’s expense.
52
g. The developer will pay $750.00 at the time of execution of the Development
Agreement amendment as reimbursement for city staff time and expense for
addressing violations of conditions of the original CUP.
h. The developer will pay an administrative fee of $750.00 per violation for any
future violation of any conditions set forth in this resolution.
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 March 5, 2001
City Manager Mayor
Attest: 00-45-CUP/N/re/ord
City Clerk
53
City Council Agenda Item Meeting of January 16, 2001
. Request by Edina Development Company for a Major amendment to a
Conditional Use Permit for site plan, tree replacement and landscaping
changes and a variance for reduced bufferyard for Excelsior Townhomes
Case Nos. 00-45-CUP and 00-46-VAR
7100-7102 Excelsior Boulevard
Recommended
Action:
• Motion to adopt a resolution approving a variance for
reduced bufferyard along east lot line.
• Motion to adopt a resolution amending previous resolution
and granting a major amendment to the Conditional Use
Permit, subject to conditions in the resolution.
Zoning: R-4, Multiple Family
Residential
Comprehensive Plan Designation: RM, Medium Density Residential
Background:
In 1998 the City Council approved a Conditional Use Permit and plat for Excelsior Townhomes
(now called Creekside Townhomes), a 38-unit townhouse development. The townhomes have
been built and many of the exterior improvements completed. The site improvements were
installed differently from the approved plans in several ways, and with one exception (change to
building foundation plantings), approval from the Planning Division was not sought before
implementing the changes. The developer is also requesting approval to make some additional
changes to the approved plans at this time. The following changes are proposed to the approved
plans:
• The main private road, Excelsior Way, located along the east property line was reduced in
width from 30 feet wide to 28 feet wide.
• Landscaped bumpouts (landscaped parallel parking islands), which were to be installed along
the east property line to define the guest parking areas and provide areas for landscaping,
were not installed. In addition, trees existing on the site which were to have remained within
the bumpout areas were removed. The applicant is now proposing to install the landscaped
bumpouts per the originally approved plans, albeit slightly narrower and with different
landscaping, and to provide replacement trees for the trees that were removed.
• The tree inventory has been modified to take account of existing trees on site which were not
counted in the original inventory, as well as take account for trees which were to have been
preserved which were removed during the development process. The tree replacement plan
is proposed to be changed as well.
• Proposed changes to the approved landscaping plan, including a reduced landscape
bufferyard along the east property line, and a proposal to plant some trees on City-owned
park land.
54
The proposed changes require a Major Amendment to the Conditional Use Permit. In addition, a
variance is required for the proposed reduction in landscape bufferyard along the east lot line.
On October 4, 2000 the Planning Commission held public hearings and considered these
requests. The Planning Commission voted 3-2 to recommend approval of the CUP Amendment
and variance including conditions recommended by staff. The opposing members did not want
to grant approval for plan changes after the changes were already made on site by the developer.
Please see attached minutes (excerpts) of the October 4 meeting.
On December 18, 2000 the City Council continued the requests until the January 16, 2001
Council meeting. The applicant waived his rights under the state’s “120 day” rule and agreed to
the continuation until January 16, 2001.
Issues:
• Have the conditions been met for City Council consideration?
• Are the modified tree inventory and tree replacement plans acceptable?
• Are the proposed changes to the landscape plan acceptable?
• Are the proposed site changes acceptable (i.e., reduced road width and reduced width of
landscaped bumpouts)?
• Does the variance request for reduced landscape bufferyard meet the necessary criteria
for granting a variance?
• Are there any other issues?
Issues Analysis:
Have the conditions been met for City Council consideration?
Prior to City Council consideration, the applicant was required to meet the following conditions:
a. Modify tree inventory per staff’s comments to meet Ordinance requirements.
The tree inventory has been modified and appears accurate. See below for further discussion.
b. Work with City staff to modify the tree replacement plan to include as many
replacement trees as is reasonable on site and the remainder of the requirements
to be satisfied by donating cash in lieu of trees to the City at a rate to be approved
by the Community Development Director and Park and Recreation Director.
Staff believes the revised tree replacement plan is acceptable, and a condition is recommended
regarding providing the remaining tree replacement through cash in lieu of on-site trees. See
below for further discussion.
c. Modify the landscape plan to show eight foot wide, landscaped curbed bumpouts
along the east lot line in originally approved locations, and a planting plan for at
least 130 plant units within the bumpout areas. Plantings shall be of high point
55
value and quality and include overstory trees and at least 20% evergreen
plantings.
During the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant agreed to this condition, although they
had initially opposed installing the bumpouts. They apparently misunderstood the staff
recommendation for the bumpout design and had believed it to be unworkable. The revised
plans meet the above requirements (see below for further discussion).
Are the modified tree inventory and tree replacement plans acceptable?
Tree Inventory: The tree inventory, which documents the size, species and location of all existing
significant trees and notes trees to be removed, was modified to note additional trees that were
overlooked in the original tree inventory. It was also modified to show that all of the trees along
the east lot line were removed, even though some were to have been preserved in the original
plan. Per the revised plans, the required tree replacement has been reduced from 197.5 inches to
175 caliper inches.
Tree Replacement Plan: The tree replacement plan is proposed to be modified to show fewer
trees planted on site due to space constraints. The applicant has worked with staff to try to locate
as many trees as possible on site. Staff is recommending a condition that the remaining
replacement inches (approximately 120 inches) which cannot be planted on site, be donated to
the City as cash in lieu of trees, as has been done on other development projects.
Are the proposed changes to the landscape plan acceptable?
The proposed changes to the landscape plan (not including any tree replacement, which was
discussed above) include: 1) Changes to the approved landscape bufferyard along Excelsior
Boulevard; 2) Changes in the planting location of trees fulfilling the requirement for one canopy
tree per lot, including a proposal to plant some trees on City park land directly north of the
development site; 3) Changes to the approved foundation plantings around the townhomes; and
4) reduced landscape bufferyard along the east lot line.
Changes to landscape bufferyard along Excelsior Boulevard: The proposed landscaping
continues to meet bufferyard requirements for this area and staff believes the changes are
acceptable. More trees have been added in this area for greater screening from Excelsior
Boulevard and to increase on-site tree replacement.
Changes to the planting location of the required one canopy tree per lot: The developer is
proposing to plant some of the canopy trees throughout the site rather than next to each unit due
to lack of planting space near the units. They are requesting permission to plant some of the
trees directly north of the townhouse site on City park land. The City Forester is recommending
that permission be granted, provided the developer maintains the trees. Staff is recommending a
condition to this effect.
Changes to foundation plantings around townhomes: The proposed changes to the foundation
plantings were requested in advance of being installed, were approved by staff administratively,
and the plantings have been installed.
56
Reduced bufferyard along east lot line: The reduced east bufferyard requires a variance. Staff is
recommending approval of the variance, provided the landscaped bumpouts are installed as
shown on the proposed site/landscape plan. Please see Variance section below.
Are the proposed site changes acceptable (i.e., reduced road width and reduced width of
landscaped bumpouts)?
Reduced road width: The developer has stated that due to unexpected conditions on the site and
on the adjacent site, a typical retaining wall design would not have worked for the retaining wall
along the east lot line. Therefore, the developer states that they designed a retaining wall that
was extra deep, which required making the road two feet narrower than the 30 foot approved
width. The road is intended to be a two-way road with parking along the east side defined by
curbed, landscaped bumpouts. The bumpouts were not installed. The developer submitted
details of the retaining wall design to the Inspections Department for approval but did not
include any proposed site design of landscaping changes. The developer apparently
misunderstood that approval of the retaining wall construction details by the Inspections
Department did not constitute approval to reduce the road width to accommodate the new wall
design or to eliminate the landscaped bumpouts from the plan.
City staff, including the Fire Department, believe that, although the 30 foot width was preferred,
the 28 foot road width is an acceptable minimum width for this road type for regular and
emergency vehicles. However, there is a concern that the road could effectively become
narrower through inadequate snow removal or poorly defined guest parking areas. Therefore, in
recommending approval of the as-built 28 foot width, staff is also recommending conditions that
the road be maintained free of snow and snow storage at all times and that the City will enforce
this requirement through issuance of citations, fines, and other means. In addition, staff is
recommending that the landscaped bumpouts be installed as close as possible to the approved
plans, albeit somewhat narrower due to the narrower road width; and, that the guest parking
areas be striped and signed for clarity. The applicant has agreed to these conditions.
Does the variance request for reduced landscape bufferyard meet the necessary criteria for
granting a variance?
A landscape bufferyard “B” is required along the east lot line to provide screening between the
townhomes and the adjacent apartment complex. The applicant is proposing to leave this area as
it is currently developed, with a retaining wall that varies in height from four to seven feet, a row
of shrubs along the top of the retaining wall, and latticework along the top of the wall with vines
planted which will eventually cover the latticework and screen the adjacent garages. The
applicant has also agreed to install landscaped, curbed bumpouts similar to the originally
approved plans. Altogether, about 2/3 of the required buffer plantings are proposed.
Variance Criteria:
1. Where by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of the lot, or where by reason of
exceptional topographic or water conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional
conditions of such lot, the strict applications of the terms of this ordinance would result
in peculiar and practical difficulties or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of
57
such lot in developing or using such lot in a manner customary and legally permissible
within the zoning district in which said lot is located.
[Note: The applicant had originally proposed a variance which did not include installing the
landscaped bumpouts, so the applicant’s statements sometimes reflect this. They have now
agreed to install the bumpouts and are requesting a lesser variance, and the lesser variance is
addressed by staff below.] The applicant states that in order to protect the garage footings on the
adjoining property, they worked with the City’s building inspectors to correct the problems with
the Council-approved plan, which did not take into consideration “frost protection” (i.e. when the
contractor excavated for the retaining wall, footings from the garages on the adjacent property
were exposed because they were so near the property line, and the retaining wall design needed
to take into account protection of these footings).
According to the applicant, the design of the retaining wall means that they cannot install the
required landscaping along the east lot line. Staff agrees with the applicant’s landscape architect
that additional landscaping could not be planted along the top of the wall or anywhere else along
this lot line as the development currently exists. The only reasonable option to gain additional
planting space would be to install the curbed bumpouts. According to staff’s calculations, about
130 additional plant units maximum can be accommodated within the bumpout areas, and the
applicant is proposing 136 plant units. Overall, the plan is about 100 units short of the
bufferyard code requirement. Staff agrees that a hardship exists in meeting the full bufferyard
requirements, as there is no other space where more landscaping could be provided. The narrow
lot width and existence of wetlands limit the available space, especially the available width on
the lot to provide adequate road width, parking, and landscaping in this area. Therefore, staff
believes this criterion is met.
2. Conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or
immediately adjoining property and so do not apply generally to other land or structures in
the district in which said land is located.
As explained above, the applicant states that the adjoining property needs to be protected
because of the peculiar condition of the adjoining garage footing (therefore, the retaining wall
was designed in a particular way which requires the variance).
Staff has not explored whether there were other options for the retaining wall design which
would have addressed the site conditions and not resulted in a narrowing of the townhouse road.
However, staff agrees that there are unique site conditions that limit the ability to provide the full
landscape bufferyard in this area, given the narrowness of the lot and the shortage of space along
the east lot line. Therefore, staff believes this criteria has been met with regard to providing the
full landscaping requirements, provided that the bumpouts are installed and fully landscaped as
described above.
3. The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial
property right of the applicant.
58
The applicant states that the variance is needed for the preservation of the adjoining property, i.e.
the garages on the Meadowbrook property.
As noted above, staff does not believe that the proposed variance is related to preservation of
garages on the Meadowbrook property because the need for a variance is not fully related to the
retaining wall design. However, staff agrees that a variance for some reduction in bufferyard is
reasonable and necessary to preserve a substantial property right. In order to meet the bufferyard
requirements fully, the applicant would have to landscape all along the retaining wall and
eliminate all of the on-street guest parking. While the development currently exceeds ordinance
requirements for overall parking and for guest parking, the on-street parking along the east lot
line is the only area available to any guest, as the remainder of the parking is located in private
garages or on private driveways. Staff believes it would not be reasonable to force the developer
to eliminate all of the guest parking along the east lot line to install the required landscaping.
However, staff believes it is reasonable to require the developer to adhere to the original
landscaping and site plan as closely as possible, which allowed for 12 guest parking stalls
defined by bumpouts, which would increase the amount of landscaping in this area. Therefore,
staff believes this criterion is satisfied, provided the landscaped bumpouts are installed.
4. The granting of the variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to the
adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in the public streets, increase the
danger of fire, or endanger the public safety.
The applicant states that the granting of the variance would in no way impair light to the adjacent
property and will improve fire accessibility. [The applicant also states that not installing
bumpouts would lessen danger to the public by allowing clearer vision for outbound traffic or
emergency vehicles.]
Staff agrees that the variance would not impair an adequate supply of light or air, lead to public
street congestion, or endanger public safety. The private road should be safer once the
landscaped bumpouts are installed, because they will help define the guest parking areas and
green up the area. Staff believes that this criterion is met.
5. The granting of the variance will not unreasonably impact on the character and development
of the neighborhood, unreasonably diminish or impair the established property values in the
surrounding area, or in any other way impair the health, safety, comfort, or morals of the
area.
The applicant states that the granting of the variance will not diminish or impair the
neighborhood in any way, and that the variance is simply necessary to protect the adjoining
property.
Staff believes that some reduction in landscaping along the east lot line will not negatively affect
other properties. The retaining wall, garages and fencing provide visual barrier and the existing
and proposed landscaping provide an aesthetic buffer. Therefore, as currently proposed staff
believes this criterion is met.
59
6. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Ordinance or
Comprehensive Plan.
The applicant states that the retaining wall and the vines planted above the retaining wall will
provide the necessary screening between the two properties, and therefore the intent of the
Ordinance is met. [Note: relates to applicant’s original proposal which did not include
bumpouts.]
The intent of the Ordinance is not simply to provide a visual barrier between two properties, but to require
that a certain proportion of the buffer be met through plantings to maintain aesthetics and “green up”
projects. Given the proposed plan to install the landscaped bumpouts and to include significant
vegetation, i.e. overstory trees and evergreen plantings, staff believes the intent of the Code is preserved
and that this criterion is met.
7. The granting of the variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but
is necessary to alleviate demonstrable undue hardship or difficulty.
The applicant states that the variance is necessary to alleviate a hardship as described above.
Due to the narrow width of the lot and the lack of options for installing additional landscaping,
staff agrees that the landscaping proposed is the maximum feasible given the physical conditions
of the lot, and that the variance is not merely a convenience to the applicant. Therefore, staff
believes this criterion is met.
Are there any other issues?
The Development Agreement requires all improvements to be completed by October 31, 2000,
or the City will draw on the applicant’s letter of credit and make the improvements. Staff is
recommending that the Agreement be revised to extend this date to May 1, 2001.
Recommendation:
Staff and the Planning Commission believe the seven criteria have been met for the requested
variance, and are therefore recommending approval of the variance. Staff and the Planning
Commission are also recommending approval of the Major CUP Amendment, subject to the
conditions in the resolution.
Attachments:
• Proposed resolutions
• October 4, 2000 Planning Commission minutes (excerpts)
• Originally approved landscape/site plan
• Revised tree inventory
• Revised landscape/tree replacement/site plan
• Detail of proposed east bumpouts
Prepared by: Sacha Peterson, Planner
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
60
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
OCTOBER 4, 2000
3. Public Hearings:
A. Case No. 00-445-CUP Major – Request of Edina Development Corporation for
a major amendment to an approved Conditional Use Permit for Excelsior Blvd
Townhomes located at 7100 and 7102 Excelsior Boulevard.
B. Case No. 00-46-VAR – Request of Edina Development Corporation for a
variance for a reduced landscape buffer for Excelsior Blvd Townhomes located
at 7100 and 7102 Excelsior Boulevard
Chair Carver stated that there would be a joint public hearing for the variance and
conditional use items.
Sacha Peterson, Planner, presented a staff report and identified some site
landscape changes to the approved plan. She recommended an additional
condition to the CUP that for safety reasons some type of protective guard rails be
placed along the top of the retaining walls that exceed 36 inches in height. She
stated that staff recommends approval of the major CUP amendment and variance
subject to the conditions in the staff report and substantial plan changes.
Mr. Timian questioned the message the City is sending to the development
community when the City approves a project, but allows the developer not to
follow the plan.
Ms. Peterson stated that staff has taken enforcement action on the property as a
result of plan changes being implemented without prior approval which has
resulted in substantial delays for the developer.
Mr. Timian stated he is concerned about the loss of wetlands.
Mr. Morris asked what the ramifications would be if the amendment was not
approved.
Ms. Peterson stated that if the amendment is not approved, the developer would
have to go back and conform to the original plan.
Mr. Morris asked if Edina Development is the current owner.
Ms. Peterson stated that this is the case.
61
Mr. Morris questioned the ability of the property owner to follow up and maintain
the development.
Gary Rude, Site Superintendent for Edina Development, explained the
unanticipated problems that were experienced. He used pictures to illustrate the
problems resulting with the tree growth on the garages on the adjacent property
lines. Trees needed to be cut down at all costs in order to avoid damaging the
garages. He explained the need for the anchors for the walls. There are 38 rental
units proposed to be $1800 - $1900 a month. He stated the parking will be along
the wall and they intend to paint lines to prevent sloppy parking. Snow removal
will be easier without installing the landscaped bumpouts when not jogging in and
out of the bumpouts. The snow would be hauled off site. He stated that the safety
of some retaining wall heights is an issue and they agree guardrails should be
installed. He stated that all the plans and blueprints were approved by the City.
Mr. Timian asked why the developer decided to put in so many units.
Mr. Rude stated that the high cost of the property was the factor in determining
the number of units and profitability.
Mr. Timian questioned the quality of the development with the lack of green
space and asked the developer if he would live there.
Mr. Rude stated that he would live there. He also said he would be willing to put
more trees in where possible, but it is not possible on top of the retaining wall.
Chair Carver asked staff what the proposal is under the current (approved) plan
for how the bumpout areas would adjoin the existing wall.
Ms. Peterson stated that the approved plan showed a retaining wall along the east
lot line with curbed planting islands or bumpouts adjacent to the retaining wall
and extending about 8 feet into the roadway.
Chair Carver opened the public hearing.
Luke Charpentier, Landscape Architect for the developer, explained the landscape
design for spirea and engelman ivy along the top of the retaining wall.
Ms. Erickson, Planning Coordinator, asked Mr. Charpentier to explain why it was
not possible to place a soil mass in front of the retaining wall.
Mr. Charpentier explained his understanding of the bumpouts.
Ms. Peterson explained that the bump outs, as approved, would consist of
installing a curbed island similar to a landscaped island in a parking lot and
showed this through illustration.
62
Based on staff’s illustrations, Mr. Charpentier agreed the bumpouts could be
installed, but cautioned the size of tree that could be planted.
Mr. Rude raised a concern that the full 8 foot wide bumpouts could not be
installed due to the narrower road width.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chair Carver closed the public hearing.
Chair Carver asked for a clarification on the purpose of the bump outs.
Ms. Peterson stated that the key reasons for the bump outs are to meet landscape
requirements for aesthetics and provide definition of road area.
Mr. Morris asked for clarification of the location of the ivy that was to be planted
on top of the retaining wall and stet up the back of the garages, and whether
consent of the garage property owners was obtained.
Mr. Rude stated that the adjacent property owner did give permission for the ivy..
Mr. Garelick stated he believes that this property is an eyesore for the City and he
is opposed to the project.
Mr. Morris said he agrees with Mr. Garelick, but does not see the development
going away. He noted that the staff recommendation is well spelled out and the
property owner and developer are well aware of the sentiment of the Planning
Commission. He said he supports going forward with the amendment to fix the
problem.
Mr. Morris moved to recommend approval of the major CUP amendment and
variances subject to the conditions in the staff report and verbal recommendation
that the safety features to the retaining walls be worked on with staff to resolve
that issue.
Chair Carver stated that it would have been better to have handled the issues
earlier, however he realizes that sometimes plans must change out in the field.
The developer needs to realize the importance of the approval process and that it
is taken seriously by the Planning Commission, and you need to follow the
process. He noted that green space is important, and bump outs and guard rails
are absolutely necessary for safety.
Chair Carver called the question and the motion passed 3-2 with Carver,
Gothberg, Morris voting in favor and Garelick and Timian opposed.
63
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 6e
Meeting of March 5, 2001
6e. First Reading of an Ordinance amending the Temporary Uses Ordinance.
Case No. 01-09-ZA
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve First Reading of an ordinance amending the
temporary uses ordinance.
Background:
The Zoning Code currently includes a temporary use ordinance that regulates construction
structures, storage of equipment and materials during construction, temporary structures,
carnivals, festivals and promotional events, temporary outdoor sales, and the sale of agricultural
commodities. Staff is recommending certain amendments to the temporary use ordinance to
better address future events in the town green as well as certain current practices in parks and
closed right-of-ways.
The future town green in Park Commons East is expected to accommodate events such as
farmers’ markets and art fairs. In addition, there may be a demand for concession sales from
kiosks on a regular basis. The sale of concessions (temporary food service) in public parks is
currently not addressed in the temporary use ordinance, except when the concessions are
associated with carnivals or festivals (concession stands are interpreted as a normal part of
carnivals such as the one during the Parktacular celebration).
The north-south streets adjacent to the town green are expected to be closed north of 38th Street
during large events. Portions of the events, including temporary structures, are expected to be in
the closed right-of-way. Use of the right-of-way is currently not addressed in the temporary use
ordinance. Providing standards for such use will also better accommodate events throughout the
City, including block parties.
Carnivals, festivals, and promotional events are currently limited to no more than 14 days in a
calendar year and temporary outdoor sales are limited to 12 days. The programming for the
town green is not yet complete, but it is very likely that events will take place for more than 14
days in any given year. Therefore, the proposed amendments would provide some flexibility for
events and related sales (concessions, etc.) in public parks and closed right-of-way.
The temporary use ordinance also includes standards for parking and signage associated with
such things as farmers markets. Staff is recommending adding language that would allow the
parking and temporary signs to be regulated by an approved PUD.
64
On February 21, 2001 the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed
amendments. Bob Cunningham from TOLD Development was the only member of the public
present. The Planning Commission asked staff for some clarification that farmer’s markets in
the town green could include sales of items other than agricultural commodities. Staff noted that
sales of other items, including concessions, could be approved under the temporary sales section.
Sale of agricultural commodities is separated in the ordinance, because there are specific state
laws relating to that use. The Planning Commission also noted that they did not think Christmas
Tree sales would be appropriate in the town green. Bob Cunningham indicated that he agreed.
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed ordinance amendments on a
vote of 6-0.
Issues:
How would the temporary use of public right-of-way be regulated?
How would art fairs be classified?
Does the sale of concessions require a license to ensure health safety?
Would temporary uses be allowed in all Zoning Districts?
Analysis of Issues:
How would the temporary use of public right-of-way be regulated?
Currently, the temporary use ordinance does not allow any structure within 15 feet of a public
right-of-way. Staff recommends adding language that would allow temporary structures to be
closer to the right of way or in the right of way, as long as the right of way is closed for the event
as approved by the Fire Marshall or specified by PUD approval. (see attachment)
In addition, use of the public right-of-way for events, temporary sales, and farmers markets is
either prohibited or not addressed. Staff recommends adding language that allows the events to
take place in the right of way as long as the right of way is closed for the event as approved by
the City or specified by PUD approval. (see attachment)
How would art fairs be classified?
Art fairs are currently not called out in the temporary use ordinance. However, staff believes the
type of community art fairs anticipated for Park Commons are best classified along with
carnivals, festivals, and promotional events. Therefore, staff is proposing adding language to
that section noting that community art fairs are included in that category. Outdoor art sales on
private property would be classified as temporary outdoor sales and subject to the conditions of
approval of that section. (see attachment)
Does the sale of concessions require a license to ensure health safety?
The sale of concessions requires a license, and the City conducts an inspection of every food
vendor. However, the sale of concessions is not specifically addressed in the ordinance. As
noted, concession sales have been interpreted as a normal part of carnivals and festivals.
65
However, staff anticipates that concessions will also be desirable during farmers markets and
even when there are no special events in the town green. Therefore, staff recommends adding
language to the temporary outdoor sales section specifying that the temporary sales can include
licensed food service. Staff also recommends eliminating the requirement that the sale products
have to be associated with a retail building operating on the site provided the sales are in a public
park or closed right-of-way. (see attachment)
Would temporary uses be allowed in all Zoning Districts?
Currently, there is no zoning restriction on carnivals, festivals and promotional events. In other
words, these types of events can take place in residential as well as commercial and industrial
districts. Temporary outdoor sales are currently limited to the commercial, office, and industrial
districts, and the sale of agricultural commodities (e.g., farmers’ markets) are currently limited to
the commercial and mixed-use districts. However, the town green and part of the adjacent right-
of-way are zoned R-3 Two-Family Residential for consistency with Wolfe Park. Therefore, staff
recommends adding language to the temporary outdoor sales and agricultural commodities
sections allowing such sales in public parks and closed right-of-ways as approved by the City or
as specified by PUD approval. (see attachment)
Recommendation:
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed amendments to the
temporary use ordinance as shown in the attachment.
Attachment: Proposed Ordinance
Prepared By: Janet Jeremiah, Planning & Zoning Supervisor
Approved By:Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
66
ORDINANCE NO.______
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK
ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING BY
AMENDING SECTION
14:4-12 TEMPORARY USES
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
Findings
Sec. 1. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning
Commission (Case No. 01-09-ZA)
Sec. 2. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Section 14:4-12 is hereby amended to read as
follows:
14:4-12 TEMPORARY USES
C. TEMPORARY STRUCTURES
1. Temporary structures shall not be permitted for a period of time exceeding 6 months.
2. Temporary structures shall not be permitted within 15 feet of any public right of way or
where prohibited under Section 14:4-6 unless such right of way will be closed for the
event as approved by the Fire Marshall or as specified by PUD approval.
3. No significant tree shall be removed for the placement of a temporary structure.
4. Any other landscaping materials which are displaced by the temporary structure shall be
replaced upon removal of the temporary structure.
5. Temporary structures shall not be permitted in any required bufferyard.
CARNIVALS, FESTIVALS AND PROMOTIONAL EVENTS
1. Carnivals, festivals, and promotional events, including community art fairs, shall not be
permitted for more than 14 days in any calendar year except in public parks or closed
right of way as approved by the City or as specified by PUD approval.
2. Carnivals, festivals, and promotional events shall be permitted within required front, side,
or rear yards; except where prohibited under Section 14:4-6. Carnivals, festivals, and
promotional events shall not be allowed within the public right of way unless such right
of way will be closed for the event as approved by the Fire Marshall.
3. Carnivals, festivals, and promotional events shall not be permitted within any required
bufferyards.
E. TEMPORARY OUTDOOR SALES
1. Temporary sales, including licensed food service, shall only be permitted within a
“C”, “O”, “M-X”, or “I” District or in public parks or closed right of way as
approved by the City or as specified by PUD approval.
2. Temporary outdoor sales which do not exceed 100 square feet shall be permitted.
However, no merchandise shall be stored outside overnight.
67
3. Temporary sales which exceed 100 square feet shall be permitted for a period not
to exceed 4 consecutive days or a total of 12 days in a calendar year except in
public parks or closed right of way as approved by the City or as specified by
PUD approval.
4. Temporary sales shall only be allowed if associated with a permitted retail
business operating within a building on the site in which the same or similar
merchandise is offered for sale except in public parks or closed right of way as
approved by the City or as specified by PUD approval.
5. Temporary sales shall be permitted in required front, side, and rear yards unless
prohibited under Section 14:4-6; however, temporary outdoor sales shall not be
allowed in any required landscaped area or bufferyard or within the public right of
way unless such right of way will be closed for the event as approved by the Fire
Marshall or as specified by PUD approval.
F. AGRICULTURAL COMMODITES – NOT MORE THAN 45 DAYS
1. Christmas Tree sales or the sale of other agricultural commodities may be located
within required yards; but not within 15 feet of any public right of way or where
prohibited under Section 14:4-6.
2. Shall be permitted on a parcel for not more than 45 days within any calendar year.
3. Shall not be permitted in any required bufferyard.
G. AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES – UP TO 6 MONTHS
The sale of agricultural commodities, including seasonal farmers’ markets, greenhouses,
and gardening supplies, which are offered for sale directly from the grower/producer,
shall be allowed as a temporary use provided the following standards are satisfied:
1. A Site Plan must be submitted to the City.
2. The temporary use shall be located in the C-1 Neighborhood Commercial District, C-2
Commercial District, or the M-X Mixed Use District, in a public park or closed right of
way as approved by the City, or as specified by PUD approval.
3. The owner of the any private property on which the temporary use is proposed to be
located shall submit a letter in support of the use to the Zoning Administrator.
4. In the event the temporary use is located on a surface parking lot or area, such use shall
not encumber more than 10 percent of the total amount of available parking spaces.
5. Products shall be limited to produce, vegetable, flowers, plants and related items.
6. Sales activities may be conducted within a required yard provided the area is
paved and the activity does not interfere with parking, traffic circulation or
emergency access. Temporary sales on unpaved landscaped areas are prohibited
except in public parks as approved by the City or as specified by PUD approval.
7. Tents, stands and other similar temporary structures may be utilized, provided
they are clearly identified on the submitted plan and provided it is determined that
they will not impair parking capacity, emergency access, or the safe and efficient
movement of pedestrian and vehicular traffic on or off the site.
8. The submitted plan shall clearly demonstrate that adequate off-street parking for
the proposed temporary use can and will be provided for the duration of the
68
temporary use. Determination of compliance with this requirement shall include
the consideration of the nature of the temporary use and applicable parking
requirements set forth in Section 14:6-1.0 or the approved PUD. Consideration
shall be given to the parking needs and requirements of the principal uses located
on the same property. If unforeseen circulation or congestion problems occur on
the site, or causes traffic to back up on public streets, the Zoning Administrator
may order the use to relocate on the same property or to be removed.
9. Signage related to the temporary use shall be in compliance with the applicable
standards set forth in the approved PUD, or Section 14:6-2.0 and below:
• Freestanding signs shall not exceed 16 square feet
• All other signage shall be placed on a tent or canopy
• No sign face shall exceed 100 square feet
Special signage for purposes of traffic direction and control may be authorized by the
Zoning Administrator.
10. The maximum time for sales activities shall be six (6) months per calendar year per
property.
11. All stands, equipment, signs, and other structures shall be maintained in good repair.
12. All stands, equipment, signs and other structures shall be removed on the last day of the
temporary use.
Sec. 3. The contents of Planning Case File 01-09-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.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council March 21, 2001
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
69
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
March 5, 2001
ITEMS TO BE ACTED UPON BY CONSENT
Consent items are those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which need no
discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a
Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of
the regular agenda for discussion.
1. Motion to adopt second reading of an ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance
to add the land use definitions for Liquor Licenses and update the Land Use
Table, approve summary ordinance, and authorize publication. Case No. 00-62-
ZA
2. Motion to adopt the proposed amendments to the Planning Commission Rules of
Procedure to change meeting time, provide flexibility in meeting location, and
correct staff titles, reference to Robert’s Rules, and a typographical error.
3. Motion to approve second reading of ordinance to amend St. Louis Park Home
Rule Charter: Table of Contents, Chapters 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, and Index
(7 affirmative votes required for adoption).
4. Motion to adopt the following reports for filing:
f. Human Rights Commission Minutes of October 18, 2001
g. Human Rights Commission Minutes of November 15, 2001
h. Human Rights Commission Minutes of January 17, 2001
i. Planning Commisson Minutes of February 7, 2001
j. Vendor Claims
70
CONSENT ITEM # 1
St. Louis Park City Council
Meeting of March 5, 2001
1. Motion to adopt second reading of an ordinance amending the Zoning
Ordinance to add the land use definitions for Liquor Licenses and update
the Land Use Table, approve summary ordinance, and authorize
publication. Case No. 00-62-ZA
Background:
On February 20, 2001, the City Council passed first reading of the proposed Zoning Ordinance
text amendments and update of the Land Use Table. The Council had no questions or concerns
regarding the proposed changes and passed 1st reading on a vote of 7-0.
Recommendation:
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend that the Council adopt second reading of the
Zoning Ordinance text amendments to add the land use definitions for Liquor Licenses and
update the Land Use Table, approve summary ordinance, and authorize publication.
Attachments: Proposed Ordinance
Proposed Summary Ordinance
Prepared by: Scott Moore, Assistant Zoning Administrator, 952-925-2592
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
71
ORDINANCE NO. 2192-01
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK
ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING BY
AMENDING SECTION 14:3-1 and
TABLE 5-2.1A IN SECTION 14:5-2.1
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, Section 14:3-1 and Table 5-2.1A in Section
14:5-2.1 are hereby amended to add the following:
SECTION 14:3-1 DEFINITIONS
Intoxicating liquor license (On-sale): An on-sale liquor license issued by the City Council which
permits sale and consumption on the licenses premises of all types of legal liquor including
spirits, wine, and malt liquor.
Wine and/or beer license (On-sale): An on-sale liquor license issued by the City Council which
permits the sale and consumption on the licensed premises, of wine not exceeding 14% alcohol
by volume; and/or 3.2 percent malt liquor; and/or intoxicating malt liquor.
TABLE 5-2.1A
COMMERCIAL USES
Restaurants w/o Intoxicating Liquor License
R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-C C-1 C-2 O I-P I-G M-X
N N N N N PC PC PC N N PUD
Clubs and Lodges w/o Intoxicating Liquor License
R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-C C-1 C-2 O I-P I-G M-X
N N N N N PC PC PC N N PUD
72
Private Entertainment (indoor) w/o Intoxicating Liquor License
R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-C C-1 C-2 O I-P I-G M-X
N N N N N PC PC PC N N PUD
Restaurants with Intoxicating Liquor License
R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-C C-1 C-2 O I-P I-G M-X
N N N N N N CUP CUP N N PUD
Clubs and Lodges with Intoxicating Liquor License
R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-C C-1 C-2 O I-P I-G M-X
N N N N N N CUP CUP N N PUD
Private Entertainment (indoor) with Intoxicating Liquor License
R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-C C-1 C-2 O I-P I-G M-X
N N N N N N CUP CUP N N PUD
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 March 5, 2001
Reviewed for Administration
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
73
SUMMARY
ORDINANCE NO. 2192-01
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK
ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING BY
AMENDING SECTION 14:3-1 and
TABLE 5-2.1A IN SECTION 14:5-2.1
This ordinance states that the Definitions Section shall be amended to clarify the definitions for
Intoxicating Liquor License (On-sale) and Wine and/or Beer License (On-sale); and to update
the Land use Table to include new language regarding restaurants and similar use with
intoxicating liquor licenses and restaurants and similar uses without an intoxicating liquor
license.
This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication.
Adopted by the City Council March 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: March 14, 2001
00-62-definitions-sum/N/res/ord
74
CONSENT ITEM # 2
St. Louis Park City Council
Meeting of March 5, 2001
2. Motion to adopt the proposed amendments to the Planning Commission Rules
of Procedure to change meeting time, provide flexibility in meeting location,
and correct staff titles, reference to Robert’s Rules, and a typographical error.
Background:
The Planning Commission discussed establishing an earlier regular meeting time in June, 2000
and again at their regular meeting of February 7, 2001. The six Planning Commissioners in
attendance on February 7th agreed to change the meeting time to from 7:00 pm to 6:00 pm by
amending the Rules of Procedure (By Laws) at their next regular meeting. Staff noted that
although it is not required, the Council is generally requested to confirm the amendments before
they go into effect.
During the February 7th discussion, the Commission asked staff if there are any other provisions
in the By Laws that should be amended. Staff noted that the Commission might want to consider
some flexibility in the meeting place (see Analysis of Issues below). The By Laws currently
state that all regular meetings shall be held in City Hall. After discussion, the Planning
Commission agreed that some flexibility should be included. After the February 7th meeting,
staff reviewed the By Laws more thoroughly and recommended some additional changes to
correct staff titles and a typographical error.
The Planning Commission formally considered the proposed amendments to their Rules
of Procedure on February 21, 2001, and adopted the amendments on a 6-0 vote subject to
confirmation by the City Council. The Planning Commission also noted that the By Laws
reference Robert’s Rules of Order, whereas they have been using Sturgis’ Standard Code of
Parliamentary Procedure. The Planning Commission directed staff to inquire into this and ensure
that the By Laws reference the correct rules. Staff checked with the City Clerk and determined
that the By Laws should reference Sturgis’ Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure, since
those are being used. Sturgis’ Code is generally consistent with Robert’s Rules yet easier to
follow. Therefore, the attached amendments to the By Laws include the change to reference
Sturgis’ Code.
Issues:
Is a 6:00 pm Meeting Time Good Customer Service?
Is Flexibility in the Meeting Place Necessary and How Will Confusion be Avoided?
What Other Changes are being Recommended and Why?
75
Analysis of Issues:
Is a 6:00 pm Meeting Time Good Customer Service?
The Planning Commission discussed whether an earlier meeting time is good customer service.
The Planning Commission initially considered meeting as early as 5:00 pm but determined that
some Commissioners and members of the public would have difficulty getting from work to the
meeting in time. Staff noted that when we have open houses, they are often held from 5:00-7:00
pm, and people generally arrive before 6:00 pm. The Commission agreed that most people
would not have any difficulty getting from work to a meeting that starts at 6:00 pm. There is an
advantage of getting people home to their families earlier after the meeting. People who work
evening shifts would have difficulty regardless of whether the meetings are held at 6:00 or 7:00
pm.
Is Flexibility in the Meeting Place Necessary and How Will Confusion be Avoided?
There have been times when the Council Chambers is not available due to remodeling or other
activities. Other rooms in City Hall have proven inadequate for large public hearings, and staff
would have suggested holding the meeting at the Recreation Center or other facility with a large
auditorium-style room. However, the current By Laws prevent this, due to a provision stating
that all regular meetings shall be held in City Hall. Staff recommends modifying the language to
add “or other public building as noticed.” Meetings would still be held in City Hall unless there
was some compelling reason to hold them elsewhere. In such event, confusion would generally
be avoided by publishing the location in the official newspaper and in any mailed notices sent to
affected property owners. Notice would also be posted in City Hall in case someone
inadvertently showed up there. If the meeting location was changed due to an unavoidable last-
minute problem, notice of the changed location would be posted at City Hall, and the Planning
Commission could provide adequate time for people to travel to the new location before closing
any public hearings.
What Other Changes are being Recommended and Why?
Staff is also recommending some changes to address references to staff titles and a typographical
error. In Section 1, the By Laws state: “The Planning Director or his or her designate shall be
the Secretary of the Commission”. Staff recommends changing “Planning Director” to
“Community Development Director”, since there is not a staff person with the Planning Director
title. The Planning Director title is also used in Section 5 regarding presentation of the case to
the Commission. Since a variety of Planning staff members present reports, staff recommends
changing “Planning Director” to “Planning staff” in that section. Staff also found a
typographical error in Section 1, which is corrected in the proposed amendment. Finally, staff
confirmed with the City Clerk that the By Laws should reference Sturgis’ Code of Parliamentary
Procedure.
76
Recommendation:
The Planning Commission has adopted the proposed amendments to the Rules of Procedure
(ByLaws) subject to confirmation by the City Council. If the Council confirms the amendments
on March 5th, the amendments will go into effect for the first meeting in April (i.e., staff will
advertise the April 4th meeting to begin at 6:00 pm).
Attachment:
Proposed Amendments to Rules of Procedure
Prepared By: Janet Jeremiah, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Approved By: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
77
Planning Commission City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota Adopted August 6, 1969 Revised June 19, 1989 Revised November 18, 1992 Revised February 21, 2001 RULES OF PROCEDURE Article I -Officers and Their Duties Section 1. At its first meeting in January of each year, the Commission shall elect from its membership a Chair and a Vice-chair. The Planning Community Development Director or his or her designate shall be the Secretary of the Commission.
Section 2. The Chair and Vice-chair shall take office immediately following their
election and shall hold office for a term of one year and until their successors are elected and
assume office.
Section 3. The Chair shall preside at all meetings, appoint committees, and perform such other duties as may be ordered by the Commission. Section 4. The Vice-chair shall act in the capacity of the Chair in the absence of the Chair. In the event the office of the Chair becomes vacant, the Vice-chair shall become Chair, and the Commission shall elect a successor to the office of Vice-chair for the unexpired term. Article II-Election of Officers Section 1. Nomination of officers shall be made from the floor at the annual organization meeting and the elections shall follow immediately thereafter . Section 2. A candidate receiving the vote of a majority of the entire membership of the Commission shall be declared elected. Section 3. Vacancies in offices shall be filled by regular election procedures for the
unexpired term.
Article Ill -Meetings Section 1. The Commission shall hold regular meetings on the first and third Wednesday of each month at 7:00 6:00 p.m., provided however, than that when the day fixed for any regular meeting of the Commission falls upon any of the following holidays: Ash Wednesday, Chanukah, Christmas, Veterans Day, Independence Day, New Year's Day, Passover (first two nights and last two nights), Rosh Hashanah, and Yom Kippur, such meeting shall be held at the same hour on the next succeeding Wednesday not a holiday. (For Chanukah, Christmas, Passover, Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, the holiday includes the evening before the holiday.) All regular meetings of the Commission shall be held in the City Hall of the City or other public building as noticed.
78
Section 2. The Chair or any four members of the Commission may call a special meeting of the Commission after having given notice not less than twenty-four hours in advance of such meeting to each member of the Commission. Such notice shall be delivered personally to each member or be left at the member's usual place of residence with a person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein, or written notice thereof shall be left in a conspicuous place at the residence if no such person be found there. Section 3. A quorum shall consist of a simple majority of the members eligible to vote on matters before the Commission. Passage of any matter before the Commission shall require the presence of a quorum and the affirmative vote of a majority of the quorum. Section 4. Voting on regular motions shall be by voice and will be recorded by yeas and nays unless a roll call is requested by a member of the Commission. Section 5. In all points not covered by these rules, the Commission shall be governed on its procedure by Robert's Rules of Order Sturgis Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure. Section 6. All regular and special meeting, records, and accounts shall be open to the public. Article IV - Order of Business Section 1. The order of business shall be as follows:
1. Roll Call 2. Approval of Minutes 3. Hearings
4. Unfinished Business
5. New Business a. Consent Items b. Other New Business 6. Communications 7. Miscellaneous 8. Adjournment Section 2. Unless objection is made by motion of the Commission, the Presiding Officer may modify the foregoing order of business in order to accommodate citizens present or to expedite the business of the Commission. Section 3. Unless a reading of the Commission meeting minutes is requested by a member of the Commission, such minutes may be approved without reading if the secretary has previously furnished each member with a copy thereof. Section 4. Unless there is objection from the Commission, Staff or anyone in attendance at the meeting, Consent Items may be acted upon without discussion. Section 5. The case before the Commission shall be presented in summary by the Planning Director staff or a designated member of the Commission and parties in interest shall have privilege of the floor thereafter. In those instances where the matter is considered non-controversial and does not warrant a summary, the Presiding Officer may entertain a motion without presentation of the summary, unless an objection is expressed by anyone present.
79
Section 6. The Commission may postpone any case or continue any case for further study and information until the next regular meeting unless otherwise designated. Section 7. Any person desiring to address the Commission shall first secure the permission of the Presiding Officer to do so. Section 8. Each person addressing the Commission, shall, if requested by the Presiding Officer, step up in front of the rail, shall give his/her name and address in an audible tone for the records, and unless further time is granted by the Presiding Officer, shall limit his/her remarks to five minutes. All remarks should be addressed to the Commission as a body and not to any member thereof. No person, other than the Commission and the person having the floor, shall be permitted to enter into any discussion, either directly or through a member of the Commission, without the permission of the Presiding Officer. No question shall be asked a Commission member except through the Presiding Officer . Section 9. No person, except City Officials, their representatives, and newspaper reporters, shall be permitted on the elevated portions of the Council Chambers without the express consent of the Commission. Article V - Hearings Section 1. In addition to those required by law, the Commission may, at its discretion, hold public hearings when it declares such hearings will be in the public interest. Section 2. In the event of a public hearing, notice of such hearing shall be published in
the official newspaper of the municipality not less than ten days before the time of the hearing.
Article VI - Miscellaneous Section 1. The Commission may suspend any of these rules by motion upon an affirmative vote of majority of the entire membership. Section 2. These rules may be amended at any regular or special meeting by an affirmative vote of a majority of the entire membership after notice in writing, containing the form of the section as it will appear if amended as proposed, shall have been given at least five days prior to the meeting at which such vote will be taken.
80
CONSENT ITEM # 3
St. Louis Park City Council
Meeting of March 5, 2001
3. Motion to approve second reading of ordinance to amend St. Louis Park
Home Rule Charter: Table of Contents, Chapters 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, and Index
(7 affirmative votes required for adoption).
Background:
Amendments to the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter have been made periodically since its
original adoption in December 1954. Minnesota statutes provide for four methods to amend the
Charter, which are summarized below:
1. Upon submission of a petition, the Charter Commission submits amendment to voters.
2. Charter Commission directly submits amendment to referendum at regular or special
election.
3. City Council proposes amendment, subject to Charter Commission review, and submits to
referendum.
4. Charter Commission recommends amendment to the City Council for unanimous
enactment by ordinance. After notice, public hearing, no petition calling for a referendum,
and necessary waiting period, the ordinance/amendment takes effect. This is the method
proposed for current proposed amendments, and the method historically used in St. Louis
Park.
Changes Since First Reading
There were no requests for modifications of the proposed amendments from the Council or
public at the public hearing held on February 20. The only modification recommended since then
came from staff, based on consultation with Human Resources consultants. It is recommended
that, in Section 11.05, the word “permanent” be changed to “regular” to describe City
employees. This would both be consistent with standard terms used in records of City
employees, and remove any implication that any City employee is guaranteed a job in perpetuity.
This recommended modification has been incorporated into the second reading of this ordinance.
Charter Commission’s Proposed Amendments:
During 2000, the Charter Commission studied and approved several recommendations for
modifications to the City Charter. Many of these proposed changes are fairly minor and are
designed to maintain consistency with the City’s current recodification project; others have to do
with updates to make the Charter more consistent with current State law (e.g., Chapter 5 –
Administration of City Affairs / Purchases and Contracts, Chapter 9 – Franchises). Commission
members, staff and others suggested some minor editing corrections and language intended to
simplify and clarify the Charter. These proposed corrections include properly titling Section
7.04, correction of the last word of Section 11.02, and completion of the Minnesota Statute
citation in Section 11.04. Finally, Section 11.02 also allows sale of real property by ordinance or
81
resolution. The rationale is that Council ought to have the option to use the tool that makes sense
given the significance of the sale (e.g., resolution for smaller parcels, ordinance and public
hearing for larger parcels of greater interest).
In addition to year 2000 proposed modifications already approved by the Commission, the
Charter Commission approved proposed language modifications regarding the purchasing and
civil service commission sections at its January 10, 2001 meeting. These changes are more
significant, and warrant additional explanation as provided below.
Civil Service Commissions: 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 February 2000, the Council requested the Charter
Commission to study and make recommendations regarding both the police and fire civil service
commissions. At its study session on November 13, 2000, the City Council discussed the Charter
Commission’s report and recommendations. Council took action to abolish the police Civil
Service Commission at its February 5, 2001 meeting.
Parallel to the above-described Council action, on November 13 Council requested the Charter
Commission to consider related language changes to the Charter. The Charter Commission
drafted and approved such proposed language changes at its January 10, 2001 meeting. These
changes are included in the proposed ordinance and, in effect, remove references to only fire and
police civil service commissions. The Charter Commission rationale was that (1) the scope of the
Charter Commission study included only fire and police civil service, and not civil service in
general and (2) the Council ought to retain the option to establish civil service or merit systems
in future. The Commission felt that to suggest deletion of all references to civil service and merit
systems in the Charter would have exceeded the scope of the Charter Commission’s study and
informed recommendations.
Purchases and Contracts: In the mid-1990’s, concurrent with the last competitive bidding
threshold change to Minnesota Statute 471.345, most Charter cities changed their charters to
“refer to” rather than adopt Statute wording. St. Louis Park last revised the Charter in this area in
1996. At that time, the primary concern was increasing the competitive bidding threshold from
the then $15,000 to the $25,000 of the Statute. In its 2000 session, the State legislature again
revised the competitive bid threshold for cities and counties. For cities greater than 2,500
population, the threshold was increased from $25,000 to $50,000. It is anticipated that the
statutes will continue to be modified over the next several years due to increased use of
electronic bidding, new product specification rules, and other technology advances.
On August 9 and November 8, 2000 and January 10, 2001, the Charter Commission reviewed
various staff recommendations regarding suggested modifications to Charter language related to
purchasing. The recommended language approved by the Charter Commission on January 10,
2001 is included in the proposed ordinance. Staff recommends the adoption of this language to
refer only to statute instead of specific dollar amount, thereby obviating the need to amend the
Charter each time the legislature changes Minnesota Statute 471.345.
82
All proposed 2000 and 2001 changes have been published and included in the attached Council
ordinance per state law. The public notice is also attached. The entire City Home Rule Charter is
available for review in the City Clerks Office, or may be e-mailed to Councilmembers as
requested.
Summary:
The City Attorney has reviewed the proposed amendments. It is recommended that Council
approve the proposed amendments. The proposed schedule for enactment is as follows:
January 24 two weeks public notice of hearing published in official newspaper
February 20 public hearing, first reading of ordinance
March 5 second reading of ordinance (7 affirmative votes required)
March 14 publication of ordinance in official newspaper
June 12 amendment effective date (90 days after passage and publication)
Attachments: Proposed Ordinance
Notice of Public Hearing
Submitted by: Clint Pires, Deputy City Manager
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
83
ORDINANCE NO. 2193-01
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK HOME RULE CHARTER
TABLE OF CONTENTS, CHAPTERS 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, AND INDEX
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
SECTION 1. The St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter TABLE OF CONTENTS is hereby
amended to delete references to subchapters 5.07, 9.03, 9.04, 9.05, 9.06, 9.07, 9.08, and 9.09.
SECTION 2. The St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter Section 1.02, paragraph 7, is hereby
amended to read:
Section 1.02. Powers of the City. The City of St. Louis Park:
may grant franchises or licenses for the construction, operation and maintenance of public
utilities in, over, upon and under the streets and public places in the City, and shall have power to
fix and regulate the fares, tolls or charges which may be collected, the extensions which shall be
made, and for the services which shall be rendered by any owner or operator of a public utility
franchise or license;
SECTION 3. The St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter Section 2.06 is hereby amended to read:
Section 2.06. The Mayor. The Mayor shall be the presiding officer of the Council, except that
the a Mayor Pro Tem shall be Mayor in case of the Mayor’s disability, absence from the City, or
in the case of vacancy in the office of Mayor until a successor is appointed and qualified chosen
to hold office at the pleasure of the Council who shall act as Mayor in case of the Mayor’s
disability or absence from the City. The Mayor shall vote as a member of the Council. The
Mayor shall exercise all powers and perform all duties conferred or imposed upon the Mayor by
this Charter, the ordinances of the City and laws of the State. The Mayor shall be recognized as
the official head of the City for all ceremonial purposes, by the courts for the purpose of serving
civil process, and by the governor for the purposes of martial law.
SECTION 4. The St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter Section 2.08 is hereby amended to read:
Section 2.08. Investigation of City Affairs. The Council shall have power to make
investigations into the City’s affairs including, but not limited to, neglect, dereliction of duty or
waste on the part of any officer or department of the City, to subpoena witnesses, administer
oaths and compel the production of books, papers, and other documentary evidence. The
Council may provide for an examination or audit of the accounts of any officer or to department
of the City government, or it may direct a survey or research study of any problem affecting the
City or its inhabitants at any time. Each such investigation shall be authorized by resolution of
the Council.
SECTION 5. The St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter Section 3.01 is hereby amended to read:
84
Section 3.01. Council Meetings. On the first (lst) regularly scheduled meeting of a new year
following a municipal election as specified in Sections 4.02 and 4.04 of this Charter, the Council
shall meet at the City Hall at the usual time for the holding of Council meetings. At this time,
the newly-elected members of the Council shall assume their duties. Thereafter, the Council
shall meet at such times as may be prescribed by resolution, except that it shall meet at a fixed
time not less than once a month. The Mayor or any three (3) members of the Council may call
special meetings of the Council upon at least twelve (12) hours’ notice to each member of the
Council. Such notice shall be delivered personally to each member or be left in a conspicuous
place at the residence if no such person be found there. The presence of any member of the
Council at a special meeting shall constitute a waiver of any formal notice unless the
Councilmember appears for the special purpose of objecting to the holding of such meeting. The
Council may provide by ordinance a means by which a minority of the Councilmembers may
compel the attendance of absent members. All meetings of the Council shall be public and any
person shall have access to the minutes and records thereof at all reasonable times. The Mayor
and Councilmembers shall each have one vote.
SECTION 6. The St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter Section 3.03 is hereby amended to read:
Section 3.03. Rules of Procedure and Quorum. The Council shall determine its own rules and
order of business, and shall keep a record of its proceedings. A majority of all the
Councilmembers shall constitute a quorum.
SECTION 7. The St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter Section 3.07. Signing and Publication of
Ordinances and Publication of Minutes, Resolutions, and Administrative Rules and Regulations
subsection (d) is hereby amended to read:
(d) Any administrative rule or regulation of any department of the State of Minnesota affecting
the City, any statute of the State of Minnesota, any published code, specification, or regulation
prepared by an official or unofficial organization for general circulation and use may be adopted
and incorporated in an ordinance by reference thereto by marking three (3) copies thereof a copy
“official copies copy” and filing them it for reference and inspection in the City offices of the
City Clerk. The publication requirements of this Charter shall be deemed to be fully satisfied in
such cases by use of this reference method.
SECTION 8. The St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter Section 5.05 is hereby amended to read:
Section 5.05. Purchases and Contracts. The City Manager is the chief purchasing agent of the
City. All purchases on behalf of the City shall be made, and all purchases and contracts shall be
let, by the City Manager, provided that the approval of the Council must be given whenever the
amount of such purchase or contract exceeds $25,000 the amount at which competitive bids are
required by law. Except for purchases and contracts made by the City Manager as set forth
herein, All contracts, bonds, and instruments of every kind to which the City is a party must the
shall be executed in the name of the City and shall be signed by the Mayor and City Manager on
behalf of the City.
SECTION 9. The St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter Section 5.06 is hereby amended to read:
85
Section 5.06. Contracts - How Let. City contracts must be made in compliance with law. When
competitive bids are submitted the contract must be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder.
The City Council may reject any and all bids.
(a) In all cases of contracts for the purchase of supplies, merchandise or materials, for the
purchase or rental of equipment, or for any kind of construction, alteration, repair or maintenance
work undertaken by the City, which are estimated to require an expenditure of more than
$25,000 unless the Council shall by emergency ordinance otherwise provide, the City Manager
shall advertise for bids by at least one (1) week’s published notice in the official newspaper.
Contracts and purchases in excess of $25,000 shall be let to the lowest responsible bidder as
determined by the Council. The Council may, however, reject any and all bids.
(b) In all cases of purchases or contracts that are estimated to require an expenditure of
more than $10,000 but not more than $25,000, the City Manager may make the purchase or
contract either through competitive sealed bidding or through direct negotiation. The City
Manager may reject any and all bids. In the case of any contract to be made upon direct
negotiation, the City Manager shall obtain two or more quotations for the purchase or contract
whenever possible, but advertising for bids and otherwise complying with competitive bidding
procedures shall not be required.
(c) In all cases of purchases or contracts that are estimated to require an expenditure of
$10,000 or less, the City Manager may make the purchase or contract either upon direct
negotiation, as provided in subsection (b) or in the open market, in the discretion of the City
Manager.
(d) Nothing contained in this section shall prevent the Council from contracting for work
with patented processes or from the purchasing of patented appliances.
(e) All public improvements which require that the City issue bonds to secure funds to
pay the costs of construction of the improvements shall be ordered and approved in the manner
provided in Chapter 7 of this Charter.
SECTION 10. The St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter Section 5.07 is hereby deleted in its
entirety:
Section 5.07. Further Purchase Regulations. Further regulations for the making of
bids and the letting of contracts may be made by ordinance.
SECTION 11. The St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter Section 7.04 is hereby amended to read:
Section 7.04. Local Governments Improvements. The Council may prepare and adopt an
ordinance, prescribing the procedure which shall be followed in making all local improvements
and levying assessments. Such ordinance, when adopted, shall supersede all other municipal
provisions of the law on the same subject and may be amended only by an affirmative vote of at
least five (5) members of the Council. Until the adoption of such an ordinance, and in absence of
86
such ordinance, all local improvements may be made and assessments levied as prescribed by
applicable law.
SECTION 12. The St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter Section 9.02 is hereby amended to read:
Section 9.02. Franchise Ordinances. The Council may grant franchises by ordinance. Every
ordinance granting a franchise shall contain all the terms and conditions of the franchise and
shall be adopted in the manner prescribed by Chapter 3 of the Charter, except that no franchise
will be granted by emergency ordinance. In addition to the requirements of Chapter 3 of the
Charter, no franchise ordinance shall be granted until a public hearing has been held by the City
Council. Notice of the public hearing must be published at least once in the City’s official
newspaper at least twenty (20) days prior to the public hearing. The Council may grant
franchises by ordinance adopted by an affirmative vote of at least five (5) members of the
Council, but in no case shall a franchise be granted by an emergency ordinance, nor within
twenty (20) days or later than sixty (60) days after a public hearing has been held as provided in
Section 9.09. Franchise rights shall always be subject to the superior right of the public to the
use of streets and public places. All corporations, co-partnerships, persons or other entities
desiring to make an especially burdensome use of the streets or public places, inconsistent with
the public’s right in such places, or desiring the privilege of placing any permanent or semi-
permanent fixtures in, over, upon or under any street or public place for the purpose of
constructing or operating street or other railways, or for telephoning or telegraphing or
transmitting electricity, or transporting by pneumatic tubes, or for furnishing to the City or its
inhabitants or any portion thereof transportation facilities, water, light, heat, power or any other
public utility, or for any other purpose, shall be required to obtain a franchise before proceeding
to put such fixtures in place. Every ordinance granting or extending any franchise shall contain
all the terms and conditions of the franchise. A franchise shall not be valid until it has been
unconditionally accepted in all its terms, property executed by the grantee, filed with the City
Clerk and approved by all other governmental agencies whose approval is required by applicable
laws.
SECTION 13. The St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter Sections 9.03 through 9.09 are hereby
deleted in their entirety:
Section 9.03. Cost of Publication of Franchise. The grantee shall bear the cost of publication of
the franchise ordinances and shall make a deposit with the City Clerk in a sufficient amount to
guarantee the publication before the ordinance is passed.
Section 9.04. Power of Regulation Reserved. The City shall have the right and power to
regulate and control the exercise by any corporation, co-partnership, person or other entity, of
any franchise however and whenever acquired.
Section 9.05. Rates and Charges. Every franchise making use of the streets or public
places within the City shall give courteous, efficient and adequate service at reasonable rates. A
reasonable rate shall be construed to be one which will, with efficient management, normally
yield a fair return on all property used and useful in furnishing service to the City and its
inhabitants. This shall not be construed as a guaranty of a return and, in no case, shall there be
87
any return upon the value of the franchise. Within these limits, the determination of maximum
rates, fares or charges to be charged by a franchisee for service rendered to the City or to any
person, persons, firm or corporation within the City shall be made, if possible, by direct
negotiations between the franchisee and the City.
Section 9.06. Provisions of Franchises.
(a) Every franchise shall contain, among other things, provisions relating to the
following:
(1) The term of the franchise granted, which shall not exceed twenty-five (25)
years.
(2) Rates, fares and charges to be charged by the franchisee in compliance with
the terms and provisions of Section 9.05.
(3) The rights reserved to the City in connection with the erection of poles, masts,
or other fixtures in the streets or public places and the attachment or wires thereto,
the laying of tracks in or of pipes or conduits under the streets or public places,
and the placing in the streets or other public places of any permanent or semi-
permanent fixtures or equipment by the franchisee.
(4) The prompt repair by the franchisee of all damages to the public streets,
alleys, and public property occasioned by the acts or omissions of the franchise.
(5) The rights of the City to have access to all books, records, and papers of the
franchisee which in any way deal with, affect or record its operations within and
pertaining to the City.
(b) Every franchise may contain, among other things, provisions relating to the
following:
(1) The power and right of the City to submit to arbitration the fixing of any
rates, fares or charges to be made by the franchisee.
(2) The right of the franchisee to receive compensation for its franchise or the
value thereof, if any, upon condemnation proceedings brought by the City to
acquire the assets of the franchisee.
Section 9.07. Further Provisions of Franchises. The enumeration and specification of
particular matters which must be provided for in every franchise, renewal or extension thereof
shall not be construed to impair the right of the City to provide in any franchise, renewal,
extension or such other conditions and restrictions as the Council may deem proper to protect the
City’s interests, nor shall anything contained in this Charter limit any right or power possessed
by the City over existing franchises.
88
Section 9.08. Renewals or Extensions of Franchises. Every extension, renewal or
modification of any existing franchise or of any franchise granted hereunder shall be subject to
the same limitations and shall be granted in the same manner as a new franchise.
Section 9.09. Public Hearings. Before any franchise ordinance is adopted or any rates,
fares or charges to be charged by a public utility are fixed, a public hearing shall be held by the
Council. Notice of such public hearing shall be published at least once in the official newspaper
not less than twenty (20) days prior to the date of the public hearing. Additional notice of such
public hearing may be given in such manner as the Council shall determine.
SECTION 14. The St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter Section 11.02 is hereby amended to read:
Section 11.02. Sale of Real Property. No real property of the City shall be sold or disposed of
except by ordinance or resolution. The proceeds of any such sale shall be used as far as possible
to retire any outstanding indebtedness incurred by the City in the purchase, construction or
improvement of this or other property used for the same public purpose. If there is no such
outstanding indebtedness, the Council may, by a resolution adopted by an affirmative vote of at
least five (5) members of the Council, designate some other public use for such process
proceeds.
SECTION 15. The St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter Section 11.04 is hereby amended to read:
Section 11.04. Damage Suits. The State of Minnesota has regulated actions for the recovery of
damages for injuries to persons and property by Statute. Therefore, the Minnesota Tort Claims
Act, applicable to Minnesota municipalities as it may be amended from time to time, Minnesota
Statute Section 3.736, is hereby adopted by reference. The City expressly preserves all rights
and defenses accorded to it by law, including the right to bring claims for contribution or
indemnity.
SECTION 16. The St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter Section 11.05 is hereby amended to read:
Section 11.05. Civil Service Commission. Subject to Minnesota statutes and the provisions of
this Charter, the City Council may establish, alter from time to time, or abolish, by ordinance, a
civil service or merit system for all permanent regular City employees or for such classifications
as may be deemed advisable. The City Council may create and appoint a civil service
commission to administer and supervise such civil service or merit system.
The civil service commissions for police and firefighters shall be continued in force pursuant to
the laws under which they are organized, and the amendments thereto from time to time, until
abolished according to law. Subject to the Minnesota statutes governing police and firefighters
and the provisions of this Charter in regard thereto, the City Council may establish by ordinance,
and alter from time to time, a civil service or merit system for all permanent City employees or
for such classifications as may be deemed advisable. The City Council may create and appoint a
civil service commission to administer and supervise such civil service or merit system.
89
SECTION 17. The St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter INDEX is hereby amended to delete the
following references:
Contracts - Regulations by Ordinance 5.07
Franchises - Arbitration 9.05 - 9.06
Franchises - Change 9.07
Franchises - Contents 9.06
Franchises - Power 9.04
Franchises - Publication, Cost 9.03
Franchises - Rates 9.05
Franchises - Renewal 9.07 - 9.08
Ordinances - Franchise Costs 9.03
Public Property - Damage by Utility 9.06
Regulation - Utilities 9.04
Streets - Utilities, Facilities 9.06
Streets - Utilities Repair 9.06
Utilities - Books Inspected 9.06(5)
Utilities - Facilities 9.06
SECTION 18. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be in force and take effect in the City Home
Rule Charter ninety (90) days after its passage and publication.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council March 5, 2001
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to form and execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
90
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON
ST. LOUIS PARK CHARTER AMENDMENTS –
TABLE OF CONTENTS; CHAPTERS 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11; AND INDEX
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the St. Louis Park City Council will meet at City Hall on
Tuesday, February 20, 2001 at 7:30 p.m. and will conduct a public hearing on the following
proposed amendments to City Charter: Table of Contents; Chapters 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11; and Index
as recommended by the St. Louis Park Charter Commission Auxiliary Aides for persons with
disabilities to assist in participation at this meeting are available upon request at least 96 hours in
advance. Please call 952/924-2520 or TDD 952/924-2518 to make arrangements. If you have
questions, please contact City Administration at 952/924-2525.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Delete references to subchapters 5.07, 9.03, 9.04, 9.05, 9.06, 9.07, 9.08, and 9.09.
Chapter 1 – Name, Boundaries, Powers and Construction
Section 1.02. Powers of the City. Amend paragraph 7 to read as follows:
“may grant franchises or licenses for the services which shall be rendered by any owner or
operator of a franchise or license;”
Chapter 2 – Government and Officers
Section 2.06. The Mayor. Amend the first sentence to read as follows:
“The Mayor shall be the presiding officer of the Council, except that the Mayor Pro Tem shall be
Mayor in case of the Mayor’s disability, absence from the City, or in the case of vacancy in the
office of Mayor until a successor is appointed and qualified.”
Section 2.08. Investigation of City Affairs. Amend second sentence to read as follows:
“The Council may provide for an examination or audit of the accounts of any officer or
department of the City government, or it may direct a survey or research study of any problem
affecting the City or its inhabitants at any time.”
Chapter 3 – Procedure of Council
Section 3.01. Council Meetings. Amend last sentence to read as follows:
“The Mayor and Councilmembers shall each have one vote.”
Section 3.03 Rules of Procedure and Quorum. Amend entire section to read as follows:
“The Council shall determine its own rules and order of business, and shall keep a record of its
proceedings. A majority of the Council shall constitute a quorum.”
Section 3.07. Signing and Publication of Ordinances and Publication of Minutes, Resolutions,
and Administrative Rules and Regulations. Amend subsection (d) to read as follows:
“Any administrative rule or regulation of any department of the State of Minnesota affecting the
City, any statute of the State of Minnesota, any published code, specification, or regulation
prepared by an official or unofficial organization for general circulation and use may be adopted
91
and incorporated in an ordinance by reference thereto by marking a copy “official copy” and
filing it for reference and inspection in the City offices. The publication requirements of this
Charter shall be deemed to be fully satisfied in such cases by use of this reference method.”
Chapter 5 – Administration of City Affairs
Section 5.05. Purchases and Contracts. Amend entire section to read as follows:
“The City Manager is the chief purchasing agent of the City. All purchases on behalf of the City
shall be made, and all purchases and contracts shall be let, by the City Manager, provided that
the approval of the City Council must be given whenever the amount of such purchase or
contract exceeds the amount at which competitive bids are required by law. Except for
purchases and contracts made by the City Manager as set forth herein, contracts, bonds and
instruments to which the City is a party must be signed by the Mayor and the City Manager on
behalf of the City.”
Section 5.06. Contracts – How Let. Amend entire section to read as follows:
“City contracts must be made in compliance with law. When competitive bids are submitted the
contract must be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder. The City Council may reject any and
all bids.”
Section 5.07. Further Purchase Regulations. Delete this section in its entirety.
Chapter 7 – Public Improvements and Special Assessments
Section 7.04. Local Governments. Amend title of this section to read as follows:
“Local Improvements”
Chapter 9 – Franchises
Section 9.02. Franchise Ordinances. Amend entire section to read as follows:
“The Council may grant franchises by ordinance. Every ordinance granting a franchise shall
contain all the terms and conditions of the franchise and shall be adopted in the manner
prescribed by Chapter 3 of the Charter, except that no franchise will be granted by emergency
ordinance. In addition to the requirements of Chapter 3 of the Charter, no franchise ordinance
shall be granted until a public hearing has been held by the City Council. Notice of the public
hearing must be published at least once in the City’s official newspaper at least twenty (20) days
prior to the public hearing.”
Sections 9.03 through 9.09. Delete these sections in their entirety.
Chapter 11 – Miscellaneous Provisions
Section 11.02. Sale of Real Property. Amend first sentence by adding “or resolution” at the end
of the sentence. Amend last sentence by substituting “proceeds” for “process”.
Section 11.04. Damage Suits. Amend second sentence by adding, “Section 3.736” immediately
after “Minnesota Statute”.
Section 11.05. Civil Service Commission. Amend entire section to read as follows:
92
“Subject to Minnesota statutes and the provisions of this Charter, the City Council may establish,
alter from time to time, or abolish, by ordinance, a civil service or merit system for all permanent
City employees or for such classifications as may be deemed advisable. The City Council may
create and appoint a civil service commission to administer and supervise such civil service or
merit system.”
INDEX
Delete the following references:
Contracts - Regulations by Ordinance 5.07
Franchises - Arbitration 9.05 - 9.06
Franchises - Change 9.07
Franchises - Contents 9.06
Franchises - Power 9.04
Franchises - Publication, Cost 9.03
Franchises - Rates 9.05
Franchises - Renewal 9.07 - 9.08
Ordinances - Franchise Costs 9.03
Public Property - Damage by Utility 9.06
Regulation - Utilities 9.04
Streets - Utilities, Facilities 9.06
Streets - Utilities Repair 9.06
Utilities - Books Inspected 9.06(5)
Utilities - Facilities 9.06
93
CONSENT ITEM # 4a
City of St. Louis Park
Human Rights Commission
Meeting Minutes – October 18, 2000
MEMBERS PRESENT: Marc Berg, Kristin Siegesmund, Chris Smith and Emily Wallace-
Jackson
MEMBERS ABSENT: Kim Fischer, Herb Isbin, Lynn R. Littlejohn, Betty Merritt
STAFF PRESENT: Martha McDonell, Commission Liaison
1. Call to Order
Chairperson Marc Berg called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m.
September Minutes:
It was moved by Kristin Siegesmund, and seconded by Emily Wallace-Jackson, to
approve the September minutes with the changes noted below. Motion passed
unanimously.
October Agenda: It was moved by Chris Smith, and seconded by Kristin Siegesmund,
to approve the September Agenda. Motion passed unanimously.
2. New Business
a. Discussion of the School District’s Ethnographic Study
Emily Wallace-Jackson explained that she felt that the report was interesting and there
were several specific suggestions that would be great for the school to examine. She
stated she wrote a letter to Barbara Pulliam asking her if there was any process happening
at this point and that she would like to serve on any committees that would be formed to
discuss the study and implement suggestions. Emily Wallace-Jackson informed the
Commission that she met with Marlee Israel who was the staff advisor for Human Mosaic
at the High School who was just hired in August, 2000 and informed her of the study.
Ms. Israel stated that she was not aware of the study, but was excited about it and thought
they the group might be able to implement some of the suggestions in the study. Ms.
Israel stated that she said Human Mosaic has been an active group in the past, but has had
some turnover. Ms. Israel informed Ms. Wallace-Jackson that this year there were about
twelve Jewish students who were active in the group. Ms. Wallace-Jackson informed her
about the Human Rights Poster Contest and the opportunities to serve on the Human
Rights Commission. Ms. Israel requested some applications for membership to the
Human Rights Commission and would forward some to the other student groups.
Commissioners discussed the Human Rights Poster Contest and agreed to pursue having
prize categories for the contest winners and allowing the High School groups to use the
94
winning artwork. Emily Wallace-Jackson stated that she would follow-up with this issue
and suggested having an another discussion at the December meeting.
b. Report from the League of Women Voters Committee Meeting – Oct. 11th
Chair Marc Berg reported that he had attended the recent meeting of the League of
Women Voters, and that those in attendance at the meeting were working on the resource
guide for new immigrants. He provided brochures about the Human Rights Award to the
group who suggested nominating Linda Trummer of Meadowbrook for the award. Mr.
Berg encouraged that the League of Women Voters submit an nomination and that the
Commission could extend the deadline to receive additional nominations to Friday,
November 10th and re-post in the Sun Sailor. Martha McDonell stated that she had
recently forwarded an application to Spanish Immersion School, but has not yet received
a completed application back from them. Emily Wallace-Jackson noted that a place just
opened in Minneapolis called New Citizen’s Work that would be a good resource for the
League of Women Voters and would contact Joanne Howe with the information.
c. Boy Scouts and school sponsorship
Martha McDonell, Commission Liaison presented a brief report on her recent discussion
with Elaine at the School Board office on what was going on with the School Board in
response to this recent Boy Scout issue. The Commission questioned St. Louis Park
school’s level of involvement with direct sponsorship and recruitment assistance for the
Boy Scouts. Ms. McDonell asked the School Board how this issue could be pursued
further by the Human Rights Commission and the School Board recommended formally
requesting information from Barbara Pulliam. The Commissioners agreed to request the
information encouraging the School Board to take some action that would express the
disapproval of the Boy Scouts policy and after the Commission finds out what the School
District was doing, the Human Rights Commission could be more specific on their
viewpoint. Commissioners agreed that policies established needed to equally applicable
to every group and that discrimination was wrong and the School District has to take a
position that no way fosters discrimination. The Commission also was interested in
finding out if student directories were currently available in St. Louis Park and discussed
the need for training on how to recognize discrimination.
Martha McDonell suggested drafting a letter to the School District stating that in
response to the recent article in the Star and Tribune entitled “Minneapolis schools to join
protest against Boy Scouts”, the Commission has become aware of the action of the
Minneapolis Public Schools which they feel was a positive action in sending a message
against discrimination and would encourage the St. Louis Park School’s to consider or
other issues to also send a message, and while the Commission realizes that this issue was
being discussed internally, the Commission would like to be kept updated as to what the
St. Louis Park School’s response was. The Commission questioned if the Minneapolis
response go far enough and the need to maybe consider further action.
95
Emily Wallace-Jackson reported on the article on Medtronic donation to the United Way
and the Red Wing Human Right Commission call to action. The Commission discussed
how this could negatively affect other groups and agreed to put this issue on the agenda
for the August, 2001 meeting.
Commission unanimously agreed to pass a resolution authorizing Chris Smith to draft a
letter to the School Board as discussed and for the Commission to review at the
November 15, 2000 meeting.
3. Old Business
a. Review Human Rights Award nomination
Martha McDonell informed the Commission that she has received the following
nominations for the Human Rights Award:
Robert and Delores Sater
Rebekah Forrest and Mike Rice
The Commission reviewed the nomination of Robert and Delores Sater and felt that it
was in more of a community/volunteer service catergory and should not be considered for
the Human Rights Award.
The Commission reviewed the nomination of Rebekah Forrest and Mike Rice. Chair
Marc Berg agreed to call for additional references in order to further consider the
nomination at the November 15th meeting.
Martha McDonnell noted that the League of Women Voters and Spanish Immersion
School were still interested in making a nomination. The Commission discussed
extending the deadline and agreed to extend the nomination deadline until Wednesday,
November 8th instead of November 10th as previously discussed in order to have
additional time for Commissioners to review information before November 15th meeting.
The Commission agreed to review all nominations received in detail at the November
15th meeting. Martha McDonnell explained the next steps in the process and stated she
would check Council dates for presentation of the Human Rights Award.
b. Phone Line Resource and Referral List
Marc Berg informed the Commission that there wasn’t any new information available on
this item.
c. Diversity Training
Chris Smith gave an update. He stated that the City was interested if there were any
Commissioners that had a knowledge of diversity training or ideas to implement. He also
noted that the training would have an emphasis on inter-generational training. The
96
Commission discussed the challenges the City faced with the recruitment of employees
from diverse backgrounds.
d. Review of first draft of Community Partners List
Chair Marc Berg reviewed a draft of the list of Community Partners. He stated that it
was important to identify key persons in the community on the list and meet with them
annually on a personal basis to discuss programming ideas and concerns.
The Commission noted that the St. Louis Business Council and the Academic Business
Alliance should be included on list. The Commission agreed that the next step was to
determine what it meant to be a community partner and establish a set of basic discussion
questions to get information about each organization and receive feedback on each
organization’s viewpoint on the issue of community diversity. Martha McDonnell stated
she would distribute the draft to the Commissioners for review before the next meeting.
4. Commissioner Reports
A. Commissioner Reports
B. Staff Report, including phone line report
Martha McDonell, Staff Liaison informed the Commission about the League of Human
Rights Essay Contest and stated she would place the March, 2001 deadline on the
calendar for additional discussion.
Martha McDonell, Staff Liaison informed the Commission about a call she received on
the phone line related to discrimination at work and that she referred the caller to the
State of Minnesota.
Martha McDonell, Staff Liaison showed the Commission the latest issue of the Block
Captains Newsletter which featured an article from the Human Rights Commission.
5. Set Agenda for Next Meeting
Members agreed to add the following items to the November agenda:
School District response to letter sent related to Boy Scouts issue
Human Rights Award
6. Adjournment
Moved by Kristin Siegesmund, and seconded by Chris Smith to adjourn. Motion passed
unanimously. With no further business, the Commission adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Shirley Olson
Recording Secretary
Martha McDonell, Commission Liaison
City of St. Louis Park
97
CONSENT ITEM # 4b
City of St. Louis Park
Human Rights Commission
Meeting Minutes – November 15, 2000
Second Floor Conference Room – City Hall
MEMBERS PRESENT: Marc Berg, Herb Isbin, Kristin Siegesmund, Betty Merritt, Chris
Smith and Emily Wallace-Jackson
MEMBERS ABSENT: Kim Fischer, Lynn R. Littlejohn
STAFF PRESENT: Martha McDonell, Commission Liaison
I. Call to Order
Chairperson Marc Berg called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m.
Chris Smith noted that Kim Fischer has been absent for the past three meetings. Martha
McDonnell stated that commissioners would be considered resigned if they were absent
from three meetings without a reasonable excuse. Chris Smith suggested that Kim
Fischer be removed from the Human Rights Commission Roster.
October Minutes: It was moved by Chris Smith, and seconded by Emily Wallace-
Jackson, to approve the October minutes with the changes noted below. Motion passed
unanimously.
- Item 3A, Paragraph 4, delete “and accepted”.
- Item 4, Paragraph 1, change to “March, 2001 deadline on the calendar”.
Herb Isbin requested that the minutes include contributions made by the Commission to
the Block Captain’s Report.
November Agenda: It was moved by Chris Smith, and seconded by Betty Merritt, to
approve the November Agenda with the addition of Item 2a: Diversity Issue and Renter’s
Handbook presented by Pat Henderson of the League of Women Voters of St. Louis
Park. Motion passed unanimously.
II. New Business
A. Presentation by Pat Henderson of the League of Women Voters of SLP on
Diversity and Renter’s Handbook
Pat Henderson stated that the League of Women Voters was in support of
community diversity and explained that the League has recently targeted new
renters in the community for some information and developed a handbook that
would be useful for renters. Ms. Henderson reviewed the design, content and
estimated budget for the handbook. She stated that the handbook would be
98
printed in three languages – English, Russian, and Spanish. A pilot mailing of
100 copies of each version will be distributed to various stakeholders of the Study
in St. Louis Park to ensure that the information included in the handbook is useful
and correct. Revisions will be made if necessary. Once a final copy in each
language has been completed, the League plans to print 500 copies of each
version for distribution. She asked if the Commission was aware of any
assistance or funding from the City for printing, graphics and translator services
to get the project started.
Chair Marc Berg commended the League for its efforts and stated that it was
important for the Human Rights Commission to support this project. He stated
that the City Council has indicated that it would be in favor of monetary support
for a project of this type.
Betty Merritt asked if the League had any other potential funding sources. Ms.
Henderson stated that they were not aware of any other funding sources, but the
league was considering grant applications.
Kristin Siegesmund recommended considering a corporate sponsor. i.e. Target,
Cargill, General Mills.
Herb Isbin suggested accepting the proposal for the Renters’ Handbook and
recommended that Council consider supporting the budget.
Martha McDonell indicated that the City could print 300 black and white copies
of the pilot versions at no cost and that she would check to see if the pilot mailing
of the 300 copies and layout and graphic design could also be done internally.
She stated that she would refer this proposal to the City Manager’s Office and ask
for a recommendation on the required procedure and whether the commission
could present a funding request to the City Council in December or January
Kristin Siegesmund recommended Ms. Thistle from the Legal Aid Office (332-
1441) as a Spanish translator.
Ms. Henderson stated that she has also contacted the recommended student as a
translator and it would be determined if he would be available for this project.
She stated that a member of the League could be available for the City Council
meeting.
B. Minnesota Department of Human Rights 17th Annual Conference, Friday,
December 1, 2000
Herb Isbin encouraged attendance at the upcoming meeting and recommended
that the attendees come back and present a full report to the Human Rights
Commission. Martha McDonell indicated that there was funding available for
anyone interested attending the conference. Herb Isbin stated he was willing to
99
attend the conference. He stated that the League of Minnesota Human Rights
Commissions was interested in establishing a web site that would link
commissions. Martha McDonell stated that she would follow-up with the League,
but believed the Commission should discuss the issue further if this was more
than a link.
III. Old Business
A. Review of Human Rights Award nominations
Chair Marc Berg informed the Commission that the following nominations for the
Human Rights Award have been received:
- Rebekah Forrest and Mike Rice
- Spanish Immersion School
- Robert and Delores Sater
Chair Marc Berg asked the Commissioners to give a report on their reference
checks.
Chair Marc Berg reported on the nomination of Rebekah Forrest and Mike Rice
by Linda Trummer of the Meadowbrook Collaborative. Marc indicated that he
checked the references and they were both highly recommended for the award and
to be commended for their volunteer work and community service.
Kristin Siegesmund affirmed that the Meadowbrook community has reached
across different socio-economic lines and increased human rights understanding.
Kristin Siegesmund was concerned about the eligibility of Spanish Immersion
School since the nomination guidelines state that the organization was supposed
to be voluntary or one that is above and beyond a usual paid employees job
responsibilities. The Commission questioned how bound they were to this
language.
Emily Wallace-Jackson reported on the nomination from Spanish Immersion
School. She indicated that she checked the references of the Spanish Immersion
School and highly recommended the school for the award based on its community
outreach mission and its approach to cultural diversity.
Kristin Siegesmund stated that she would support the nomination only if the
Commission would delete the word voluntarily from the nomination guidelines.
Herb Isbin reported on the nomination of Robert and Delores Sater by Portia
Byrd, a past Human Rights Award winner. He compared the Sater’s outreach to
the goals of School District’s Ethnographic study which seeks to eliminate
boundaries. He indicated that many references were unanimous in highly
recommending Robert and Delores Sater and believing they deserve the award.
100
Herb Isbin suggested offering a special recognition to the Spanish Immersion
School for the work they were doing and not a Human Rights Award.
Kristin Siegesmund believed that the mission of the school was to have a
language immersion school, but the impact was broader because of its cultural
emphasis.
Chris Smith stated he was in favor of amending the criteria.
Chair Marc Berg was opposed to amending the criteria for this year.
Emily Wallace-Jackson was in favor of recommending the school for the award if
the Commission would allow other organizations that make similar efforts to be
eligible for the award.
Chris Smith moved to award the Spanish Immersion school.
Chair Marc Berg did not accept the motion and asked if there were any additional
discussion and then asked for a vote.
The Commission unanimously agreed to grant Rebekah Forrest and Mike Rice the
Human Rights Award.
The Commission unanimously agreed to grant Robert and Delores Sater for the
Human Rights Award.
Chris Smith, Kristin Siegesmund and Emily Wallace-Jackson were in favor of
granting Spanish Immersion School the Human Rights Award; Marc Berg, Herb
Isbin and Betty Merritt were opposed to granting Spanish Immersion School the
Human Rights Award. The Commission discussed the possibility of a separate
letter of recommendation instead of the award, but agreed that awarding the
school the Human Rights Award would raise awareness. Herb Isbin and Betty
Merritt changed their vote and were in favor of granting the award. The
Commission agreed on a vote of 5-1 to grant Spanish Immersion School the
Human Rights Award.
Martha McDonell noted that the Human Rights Awards would be presented to the
recipients at the City Council meeting on December 18, 2000.
B. Discuss the purpose and need for the HRC phone line - The Commission
postponed this agenda item until the December meeting.
C. Boy Scouts, letter to the schools by Commissioner Chris Smith - The
Commission reviewed the letter and unanimously agreed to approve it.
Commissioner Smith stated he tried to inform the School District that the Human
101
Rights Commission felt that the School District should try to take some type of
action.
Martha McDonell informed the Commission that the City Council was aware of
the draft of the letter. She stated that after the letter was approved by the
Commission, the City Manager offered to check the City Council’s acceptance
level. The Commission agreed to wait to mail the letter until hearing back from
the City Manager.
D. Schools poster contest – Due to time constraints, the Commission postponed this
item until the December meeting.
E. Community education publication, can class offerings benefit the mission of
the HRC? – Due to time constraints, the Commission postponed this item until
the December meeting.
F. Select diversity posters for display in City Hall conference rooms – Due to
time constraints, the Commission postponed this item until the December
meeting.
IV. Commissioner Reports
A. Commissioner Reports – No reports were given.
B. Staff Report - No reports were given.
V. Set Agenda for Next Meeting
Members agreed to add the following items to the December agenda:
- School poster contest
- Community education publication and class offering benefit the mission of the HRC?
- Select diversity posters for display in City Hall conference rooms
- Essay Contest
- Vision St. Louis Park
- Redesign of Human Rights Brochure
- Water bill publicity insert
VI. Adjournment
It was moved by Betty Merritt, and seconded by Chris Smith to adjourn. Motion passed
unanimously. The Commission adjourned at 9:10 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Shirley Olson
Recording Secretary
Martha McDonell
Commission Liaison
City of St. Louis Park
102
CONSENT ITEM # 4c
City of St. Louis Park
Human Rights Commission
Meeting Minutes – January 17, 2001
Second Floor Conference Room - City Hall
Present
Commission Members: Marc Berg, Cassandra Boddy, Herb Isbin, Lynn Littlejohn, Betty
Merritt, Kristin Siegesmund, Chris Smith and Maya Winoker
Staff: Martha McDonell, staff liaison, and Lynn Schwartz, recording secretary
Guests: Dorothy Karlson, League of Women Voters
Call to Order
Chair Lynn Littlejohn called the meeting to order at 7:08 p.m. Members were introduced to the
Commission’s new student representatives: Cassandra Boddy and Maya Winoker. Body and
Winoker are St. Louis Park High School students who are involved with the Human Mosaic
Project, a group that works to promote acceptance of diversity and cultural awareness.
December Minutes: Moved by Herb Isbin and seconded by Betty Merritt to accept the
December minutes. Motion passed unanimously.
January Agenda: Moved by Marc Berg and seconded by Chris Smith to approve the agenda.
Motion passed unanimously.
New Business
There was no new business on this agenda.
Old Business
League of Women Voters Renters’ Handbook: The League of Women Voters was asked to
update the commission on its efforts to draft a handbook targeted at new immigrants. Martha
McDonell reminded commissioners that the City is assisting the league by providing graphic
design and copy editing services as well as printing and mailing the first 300 copies. League of
Women Voters representative Dorothy Karlson thanked commissioners and the city staff for
103
their support and reported that, thanks to the service donations, the league was able to cut its
financial request in half. Karlson also noted that two Russian immigrants will translate the
English into Russian longhand and Jewish Family and Children’s Service with have it typeset
into Russian.
In a discussion of the handbook’s content, Herb Isbin questioned whether the league ought to
name a few businesses rather than listing all businesses within the community. Karlson
answered that the businesses listed were ones that the immigrant community had found to be
particularly receptive to their needs. It was noted that a disclaimer could be added stating that
the businesses listed do not represent all businesses providing that particular service.
Isbin also wondered whether the title could be changed from Immigrants’ Guide to Newcomers’
Guide even though distribution would remain targeted to immigrants. Kristen Siegesmund noted
that the booklet is really a guide to negotiating their new home and that the title should make it
clear that it tells readers how to “move through the system.” Commissioners agreed that the
league is correct in using simple words to help immigrants find resources.
Marc Berg asked the student representatives whether they believed that the ESL (English as a
Second language) students at the High School might appreciate the information in the booklet.
The students said they thought the booklet would be very helpful and would be used by families.
They noted that it might free the ESL students from having to do so much translation for their
parents.
Lynn Littlejohn asked whether the Human Rights Commission is mentioned in the booklet;
Karlson replied that it is.
Kristen Siegesmund noted that the booklet provides a lot of helpful information but suggested
that adding some County programs would be a valuable addition.
Maya Winoker suggested that a version be produced in Hebrew for the Israelis working here for
a year or two.
Moved by Marc Berg and seconded by Kristen Siegesmund that the Human Rights Commission
endorse the league’s project and request that the City Council grant $2,500 to the league to
defray publication costs. Passed unanimously. The commission will bring this funding request
to the January 22 City Council study session.
Commission’s 2000 Annual Report: Marc Berg distributed a draft of the commission’s annual
report for 2000. Commissioners had the following suggestions:
The review of survey results should be presented as an ongoing effort
The text on diversity training should be changed to state that the commission is gathering
information for diversity training and will submit this information to city staff
The text on the block captain contact should note that an article about the commission was
published in a block captains’ newsletter.
104
2001 Work Plan and Goals: Kristen Siegesmund urged the commission to focus on a limited
number of projects that could be accomplished within one year. She would like the commission
to continue with some past projects but also select a few new specific projects. Siegesmund’s
priority is for projects that get people to be more tolerant and think about the ramifications of
their beliefs.
Maya Winoker suggested that that the commission could help the Human Mosaic’s group with
its Walk for Respect.
Betty Merritt suggested that the commission become more involved with existing family
activities such as the Ice Cream Social, National Night Out and Parktacular.
Marc Berg felt that last year’s plan was too general and a greater focus on specific, concrete
projects that espouse the commission’s mission would be more effective. He suggested issuing
an annual Human Rights Award, having a table at Parktacular and helping the Human Mosaic
project with its Walk for Respect.
Lynn Littlejohn liked a community and school focus when worked through a specific activity.
Herb Isbin felt the commission must embark on a program of self-education and invite speakers
to commission meetings. He would like the commission to learn more about Plymouth’s “Make
a Difference Day” and efforts made by the Minnesota League of Human Rights Commissions.
Siegesmund also liked the self-education component. Cassandra Boddy suggested inviting Pam
Canning from the High School to talk about the counseling services offered at the High School
and the issues facing students. Commissioners also discussed inviting Deanna Gallagher,
Partners in Human Rights Education, to a future commission meeting. Moved by Kristen
Siegesmund and seconded by Herb Isbin to invite Gallagher to the February meeting since she
might be able to have some suggestions for the commission’s work plan. Herb Isbin offered to
contact Gallagher.
Martha McDonell said she would summarize these ideas for discussion at next month’s meeting.
Reports
Commissioner Reports: Cassandra Boddy told commissioners about a poster being defaced at
the high school with the words “hate breeds success.” Kristen Siegesmund asked Boddy what
the high school does in these situations; Boddy responded that they paint over graffiti and
remove defaced posters. Boddy noted that she will be bringing this issue to the Human Mosaic
Committee
Marc Berg mentioned the Vision St. Louis Park survey and felt the commission needs to talk
about what it says about St. Louis Park residents’ attitudes. Martha McDonell said the survey
has some general information but focus groups will be used to provide insight into diversity
issues.
105
Herb Isbin reported that each commissioner received a report from the League of Minnesota
Human Rights Commissions.
Staff Reports: Martha McDonell reminded commissioners that an appreciation event for board
and commission members will be held at 6:45 p.m. on February 15, and all commissioners are
invited to attend. Part of the event will involve a five minute presentation by each commission
on the commission’s goals and accomplishments. McDonell also reported that Herb Isbin has
obtained guidebooks on accessibility and they are available for commissioners to review.
Set Agenda For Next Meeting
Members agreed to invite a speaker to make a presentation and discuss 2001 goals and projects.
A discussion of the Bias/Hate Crimes Resource list and the Vision St. Louis Park survey would
be moved to a future meeting.
Adjournment
Moved by Marc Berg and seconded by Chris Smith to adjourn. Motion passed unanimously.
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:53 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lynn Schwartz, Recording Secretary
106
CONSENT ITEM # 4d
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 7, 2001 – 7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Michelle Bissonnette, Michael Garelick, Ken Gothberg, Dennis
Morris, Jerry Timian
MEMBERS ABSENT: Sally Velick
STAFF PRESENT: Jan Loftus, Janet Jeremiah, Scott Moore
1. Call to Order
Vice Chair Gothberg called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.
2. Approval of Minutes of January 3, 2001
Mr. Morris moved approval of the Minutes of January 3, 2001 and the motion passed on a vote
of 4-0-1 with Garelick, Gothberg, Morris and Timian voting in favor. Bissonnette abstained.
3. Public Hearings:
A. Case No. 01-04-CUP – Request of Marshall Kieffer for a Conditional Use
Permit to permit the removal of more than 400 cubic yards of material for
the construction of two single family homes and a large holding pond for
properties zoned R-2 Single Family located at 2839 and 2843 Toledo Avenue.
Scott Moore, Assistant Zoning Administrator, presented a staff report. He stated that
Marshall Kieffer is seeking to construct two single-family homes at 2839 & 2843 Toledo
Avenue. Both of these parcels are zoned R-2 Single Family Residential and are currently
vacant. However, both lots do serve as a storm water run off ponding area for the
surrounding areas. Staff has been working with the applicant and his engineer for over a
month trying to ensure that the proposed plan can satisfy both the storm water ponding
and building code requirements. From an engineering standpoint, staff believes that the
applicant can meet the ponding requirements, but to date the final documentation has not
been submitted for final approval. The City’s Building Official has reviewed the plans
for the walls and has some concerns regarding its design. At this time, the building
official is unable to accept the design as proposed since the structure would cross the
property lines and the depth of the pond is a safety concern. With these three items that
have not been completely rectified, staff is recommending continuance to allow time to
address the building, planning and safety concerns.
107
Mr. Timian asked for clarification on the exact location of the properties.
Mr. Moore stated that the two vacant lots are directly across from the entrance ramp onto
Highway 100 north of Minnetonka Boulevard.
Mr. Garelick asked where the water would go if this property, which is currently being
used as a water collection area, was developed.
Mr. Moore stated that this would be the purpose of the holding pond. Mr. Kieffer has
been working with City staff and a storm water consultant who did the storm water
management plan for the City of St. Louis Park. The proposed pond would be sufficient
to handle the run off from the surrounding areas.
Vice Chair Gothberg asked if the reason for the need for excavation is because the
applicant is actually going to fill in part of the current holding pond area.
Mr. Moore stated that Mr. Kieffer will be filling in a portion of the existing ponding area
for the two new homes. The net excavation is going to be more than 400 cubic yards, but
the exact amount is still unknown depending on how things are going to work out with
the building code requirements.
Mr. Gothberg stated that if an acceptable pond area construction can not be agreed upon,
would that preclude the use of these lots for individual homes or would there be room for
only one home.
Mr. Moore stated that one of the options is that, if the applicant is unable to meet the
storm water ponding and building requirements for the pond, he could build one home
and redesign the pond so it is on one of the lots.
Ms. Bissonnette stated that she believes that 400 cubic yards is a lot of material to
remove and questioned if there is a location in St. Louis Park for this material.
Mr. Moore stated that currently there are no plans for where the fill would go, but it
would be our assumption that it will be contracted out and taken to another construction
site. It is typical when there is extra excavation that contractors work amongst
themselves for either the removal or bringing in the fill for different projects.
Vice Chair Gothberg opened the public hearing. With no one wishing to speak, he closed
the public hearing.
Mr. Morris stated that he believes that we are being requested to continue the public
hearing.
Mr. Morris moved to adopt staff’s recommendation to continue the public hearing until
the February 21st Planning Commission meeting The motion passed on a vote of 5-0
with Bissonnette, Garelick, Gothberg, Morris and Timian voting in favor.
108
B. Case No. 00-62-ZA – Zoning Ordinance text amendment to add land use
definitions for Liquor License definitions.
Scott Moore, Assistant Zoning Administrator, presented a staff report. He stated that on
January 3, 2001 the Planning Commission considered a text amendment to the Zoning
Ordinance to distinguish between the requirements for restaurants and other uses with a
full liquor license and restaurants that only have a wine and beer license. The proposed
amendment was approved on a vote of 4-0 and the City Council approved first reading of
the ordinance on February 5, 2000. Land use definitions are needed in the Zoning
Ordinance to distinguish between the different types of liquor licenses. Staff is proposing
two definitions be added to the land use definitions as outlined in the staff report. Staff
believes that the proposed terms are most consistent with the liquor license ordinance,
and the proposed amendment has been changed to include these terms. Staff is
recommending approval of the Zoning Ordinance text amendment to add land use
definitions for liquor licenses as proposed. Staff is also proposing to add the definitions
to the table in the Zoning Ordinance that lists all of the land uses and which zoning
districts they are permitted in.
Vice Chair Gothberg opened the public hearing. With no one wishing to speak, he closed
the public hearing.
Vice Chair Gothberg asked if the Planning Commission understood the difference
between intoxicating liquor and wine and beer.
Mr. Timian stated that both can become intoxicating liquor.
Ms. Bissonnette moved to recommend approval of staff’s proposed text amendment
adding land use definitions for liquor licenses and adding those land uses to the land use
table as well. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0 with Bissonnette, Garelick, Gothberg,
Morris and Timian voting in favor.
C. Case No. 01-03-ZA – Request of Anne Quinlan to amend Sections 14:5-7.2
and 14:5-7.3 of the Zoning ordinance to permit dry cleaning processing in the
I-G and I-P Industrial Districts.
Scott Moore, Assistant Zoning Administrator, stated that this request was brought
forward by the applicant Anne Quinlan, however, since the report was written she is no
longer seeking this change. The building she was looking to move into has been rented
to a different tenant so she is no longer backing this ordinance amendment, but as staff
we feel that the amendment does make sense and therefore we are bringing it forward.
Mr. Moore presented the staff report and concluded that staff recommends approval of
the proposed ordinance amendment with the conditions as recommended by staff in the
proposed language as outlined in the staff report.
109
Mr. Morris stated that he is not in complete agreement with staff’s analysis of the reason
that we were dissuaded from adding this particular use into the other districts. He said
traffic was one of the factors. He can agree with the staff recommendation for the
industrial general which has a lot of other uses that are high manufacturing, vehicle repair
and other associated uses, but the Industrial Park District is really more of a white collar
office and clean environmental manufacturing type of environment. Industrial parks are
typically laid out with a greater amount of landscaping and the buildings are usually
tailored to the park district itself. I do believe that dry cleaning and laundering is a higher
use than what is normally permitted in an Industrial Park District. He noted that in the C-
1, C-2 and Industrial General Districts, vehicle repair and small engine and motor repair
are permitted. There are restrictions about separation from residential, but none of that
exists in the I-P District. To include dry cleaning in the I-P District is intensifying the
industrial impact. Although the words may imply that it is an industrial park, I think the
intent is that industrial park is more of a planned development rather than a
manufacturing district that just grows up in a grid system of streets. I do support the dry
cleaning in the I-G District, but I do not support it in the I-P District.
Mr. Garelick stated that he received a call yesterday from Tom Peterson, an Eliotview
neighborhood resident, and he asked us to reflect on his concern. Mr. Peterson’s main
concern is the traffic issue with traffic backing up to the Eliot View area. With all that is
going on with Costco, this further deteriorates his neighborhood and he wanted us to
basically discuss how this might have a negative impact on the neighborhood. Mr.
Garelick asked if there is anything in the area that would be offensive to anybody at this
moment in time. He said he seems to recall that a dry cleaning establishment does have a
lot of odors associated with it. Is this going to be a small or large facility, who is Anne
Quinlan and who does she represent?
Mr. Moore stated that Anne Quinlan operates the business at the corner of Utah and
Minnetonka Boulevard. The size of her operation was going to be less than 5000 square
feet.
Mr. Garelick stated that there is a possibility that the applicant will be making a request
in the future. If we approve something like this in the industrial area, would it have any
impact on traffic and odors that might emanate from the site?
Mr. Moore said he does not believe that the traffic would become an issue. We would
not permit customer visits to the site, thereby limiting the only trips that are going there
to the employees which come and go to the site. The number of deliveries that she would
have, would be limited to two (one in the morning and a pick-up at the end of the day).
The odors themselves must fall within the guidelines of the MPCA regulations.
Mr. Garelick asked what is the difference between the C-2 District and I-P District.
Mr. Moore stated that the C-2 is general commercial which would allow retail,
restaurants and offices, where the Industrial District permits a lot more of the
manufacturing, small office, warehouse, and larger bulky type uses.
110
Mr. Garelick asked if staff was looking to open it up to both areas.
Mr. Moore stated that this is correct.
Janet Jeremiah, Planning and Zoning Supervisor, explained staff’s rational for allowing it
in the I-P District. Currently, we do allow all types of manufacturing and processing in
the I-P District although it is permitted with conditions. If you look at the definition of
manufacturing and processing, it does say that the characteristic may include heavy truck
traffic, odor, and noise of process equipment, refuse storage issues, and the use of toxic
and hazardous materials. Staff basically feels that the definition, as it exists, would
include dry cleaning processing. In other words, we feel that, based on that definition,
we would be hard pressed to turn them away from an I-P District. Since we had a dry
cleaning definition in our Commercial District it was a little bit confusing whether we
were looking at the dry cleaning definition or the processing definition. Therefore, we
thought this would really be a clarification in our code. However, I do take the
Commissioners comments to heart and notice that in the industrial park district, there is a
minimum set back from residential for manufacturing and processing uses. Perhaps the
dry cleaning use should have a similar standard in the Industrial Park if that would aid the
Commission’s comfort level as far as the interpretation that it is a typical manufacturing
and processing type of use.
Mr. Morris stated that he noted that the IP District’s purpose and intent section has a
phrasing in it that none of the other districts have. It reads “The purpose of the I-P
Industrial Park District is to provide locations for large and small scale industrial
enterprises engaged in such activities as assembly, storage, warehousing, and light
manufacturing which are not typically associated with high levels of noise, soot, odors
and other potential nuisance impacts upon adjoining properties in an industrial park
setting”. That definition is missing from the C-2 and from the I-G Districts which I am
assuming that the industrial park was intended as industrial, but a lower level industrial
than the IG and the C-2. What I am trying to distinguish is that we keep industrial park at
a lower intensity than the others. Certainly the manufacturing is in there, but it is a vague
definition of manufacturing process. I do not know if a sheet metal stamping plant, by
definition, could go in and if it could, why couldn’t a dry cleaning use. Lacking any
other definition, I’m trying to distinguish in our ordinance that C-2 and I-G are very high
intensity and they do associate with numerous conditions, where in the I-P, I believe the
intent would have been lower level industrial uses to try and have two different industrial
definitions in our zoning code. A high level which is I-G, Industrial General, and a lower
level which is the Industrial Park concept.
Mr. Garelick stated that he is going to vote against this mostly because he sees no reason
to add another element of pollution to an industrial park area.
Vice Chair Gothberg opened the public hearing. With no one wishing to speak, he closed
the public hearing.
111
Vice Chair Gothberg stated that currently we allow dry cleaning establishments in the C-
2 District which is a long way from any industrial classification. Quite frankly, relative
to a dry cleaning establishment where you are limiting and avoiding the customer
interaction, there is never going to be a lot of truck traffic unless you get a major dry
cleaning establishment in town. The dry cleaning business has been under the strictest
emission regulations of any other industry in this country since the MPCA and the NPCA
started submitting strict regulations. A lot of that was, not only the nature of the
materials, but also because so many of the dry cleaning establishments were located in
residential areas. He said he is in favor of approving the recommendation.
Mr. Morris asked if dry cleaning operations are regulated as to the days and hours of
business.
Mr. Moore stated that the City does not regulate hours or days of operation.
Mr. Morris asked if there is an odor nuisance or a perceived odor nuisance.
Mr. Moore stated that he has not received any complaints.
Ms. Bissonnette asked how many dry cleaning establishments there are in the City.
The Commission and Staff discussed the known establishments.
Mr. Moore believed that most of the existing establishments do their own processing.
Mr. Morris moved to deny staff’s recommendation for a zoning ordinance text
amendment to permit dry cleaning processing operations within the “I-G” and “I-P”
zoning districts and the motion passed on a vote of 3-2 with Garelick, Morris and Timian
voting in favor and Bissonnette and Gothberg opposed.
Ms. Bissonnette recommended further study about moving dry cleaning processing
operations from commercial areas to industrial areas so they are further from residential
areas.
Mr. Morris stated that he supports further review of this issue. I do disagree strongly
with changing our zoning code to accommodate a business that can not go some where.
Possibly this type of use with conditions, or as a CUP, in one of the districts would be
more applicable where we could put more restrictions on a specific location review. I
believe that the I-P District should be a lower intensity district than the other two.
4. Old Business - None
5. New Business
A. Consent Agenda: None
B. Other New Business
112
i. Discussion on changing the PC meeting time (5:30 or 6:00 p.m.)
The Commission discussed changing the PC meeting time. It was the consensus of the
Commission to change the time to 6:00 p.m. Ms. Jeremiah stated that since the time is
listed in the Commission’s bylaws, they would need to be amended and the process is to
give written notice at least five days prior to the meeting at which you would take a vote.
An amendment requires the approval of the majority of the entire membership. She
stated that the amendment should be confirmed by the City Council. Ms. Jeremiah also
suggested the Commission may want to amend the language related to their meeting
place to state that the meeting be held in a “City facility” rather than City Hall. Vice
Chair Gothberg recommended that the by-law amendments be placed on February 21st
Planning Commission meeting and asked staff to prepare the appropriate language for
review.
ii. Vision SLP Outcomes (Decision Resources – tape 45 min) –
The Commission decided not to review the tape at the meeting. Ms. Jeremiah stated that
she would make a copy of the tape and circulate to Commissioners. Ms. Jeremiah stated
that she would include Vision SLP outcomes summaries in the next agenda packet.
6. Communications
A. Recent City Council Action – February 5, 2001
B. Verbal update on Park Commons Project
Ms. Jeremiah updated the Commission on the upcoming public hearing schedule for the
Park Commons PUD review.
C. Other
7. Miscellaneous
Vice-Chair Gothberg requested that staff draft resolutions of appreciation for Paul Carver and
Sacha Peterson.
8. Adjournment
Vice-Chair Gothberg adjourned the meeting at 7:58 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Janice Loftus
Administrative Secretary
Prepared by:
Shirley Olson
Recording Secretary
113
CONSENT ITEM # 4e
February 9, 2000
VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
3M COMPANY GENERAL SUPPLIES 17.47
ADVANCED CONCRETE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 757.25
AIRTOUCH CELLULAR TELEPHONE 2,405.71
ALLIANCE MECHANICAL SERVICES I BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 11,168.00
ALMSTED'S NEW MARKET CONCESSION SUPPLIES 6.87
AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS ASSOCIAT SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 37.00
ANCHOR PAPER CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 712.80
ANN'S TOOL SUPPLY GENERAL SUPPLIES 130.62
APACHE GROUP OF MINNESOTA GENERAL SUPPLIES 558.43
APPLE PRINTING AND SECRETARIAL PRINTING & PUBLISHING 203.42
ARAMARK UNIFORM CORPORATE ACCT GENERAL SUPPLIES 815.84
ASPEN EQUIPMENT COMPANY EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 140.80
AUTO GLASS SPECIALISTS INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 168.42
AUTO SERVICE COMPANY EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 112.16
BARRY & SEWALL INDUSTRIAL SUPP SMALL TOOLS 230.31
BAUER BUILT TIRE & BATTERY EQUIPMENT PARTS (35.87)
BIRCHWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOC OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 133.00
BIRNO, RICK MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 80.89
BOBS PERSONAL COFFEE SERVICE GENERAL SUPPLIES 165.95
BROADWAY RENTAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT (1.66)
BUCHMAN PLUMBING BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 182.00
CARTRIDGE CARE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 241.82
CITY OF CRYSTAL TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 100.00
CITY OF EDINA OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 20,734.66
CITY OF HOPKINS ELECTRIC SERVICE 618.82
COFFEE MILL INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 129.80
COLLINS COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 1,346.46
COLLISYS ELECTRIC CO BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 1,473.60
CONCEPT SEATING INC GENERAL SUPPLIES (180.00)
CRILEY, KATHI L GENERAL SUPPLIES 135.25
CUSTOM PRODUCTS & SERVICES OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,801.50
D.J.'S MUNICIPAL SUPPLY INC. SMALL TOOLS 170.75
D.K. SWARTZENDRUBER CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 25.00
DONALD SALVERDA & ASSOC. TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 600.00
DVORAK, BRAD TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 260.00
EARL F ANDERSEN INC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 786.98
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY DUE TO OTHER FUNDS 11,392.00
EDTECH OFFICE FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT 5,679.80
ELAN OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 175.50
ELVIN SAFETY SUPPLY, INC. SMALL TOOLS 21.47
ENGINEERING REPRO SYSTEMS GENERAL SUPPLIES 15.98
ERICKSONS SEWER SERVICE BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 165.00
FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (15.67)
G & K SERVICES CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY 35.17
GENUINE PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (27.83)
GIWOYNA, NANCY OFFICE SUPPLIES 115.90
GMAC MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT 17,685.98
GOODYEAR BRAD RAGAN TIRE & SER EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 507.26
114
GRAFIX SHOPPE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 117.19
GRAINGER INC, W W EQUIPMENT PARTS 834.32
HELICOPTER FLIGHT INC OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 148.20
HENN CO OFFICE OF PLAN & DEV DUE TO OTHER GOVTS 6,287.00
HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPT SUBSISTENCE SERVICE 397.48
HILLMAN, LAURA OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 168.70
HOME DEPOT GENERAL SUPPLIES 45.68
HOME DEPOT/GECF GENERAL SUPPLIES 95.10
HOME HARDWARE GENERAL SUPPLIES 204.03
HONEYWELL INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 30.00
HUIRAS, SHIRLEY OFFICE SUPPLIES 217.06
HYDRO SUPPLY COMPANY OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 912.48
IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 563.78
IND SCHOOL DIST #283 OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 720.47
INDELCO EQUIPMENT PARTS 2,283.67
INTERSTATE DETROIT DIESEL EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 163.29
INTOXIMETERS INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 207.00
IOS CAPITAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT 1,199.77
J H LARSON COMPANY GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,587.84
JCCMINNEAPOLIS MEETING EXPENSE 50.00
JUSTUS LUMBER COMPANY BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 34.38
KIENENBERGER, BRIDGET GENERAL SUPPLIES 54.05
KNR COMMUNICATION SERVICES INC BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 546.25
LAWSON PRODUCTS INC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 105.58
LIBERTY INDUSTRIES OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 291.80
LOCAL PUBLICE HEALTH ASSOC. SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 125.00
LUIS MIGUEL OCAMPO OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 80.00
LUTHERAN CHURCH OF REFORMATION OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 335.08
M/A ASSOCIATES INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 50.28
MACQUEEN EQUIP CO EQUIPMENT PARTS 1,069.00
MENARDS EQUIPMENT PARTS 104.63
METRO ATHLETIC SUPPLY GENERAL SUPPLIES 23.96
METRO FIRE INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 345.45
METRO SALES INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 368.00
METRO VOLLEYBALL OFFICIALS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 328.00
MINIKAHDA OAKS NEIGHBORHOOD AS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 344.50
MINN DEPT OF ADMINISTRATION TELEPHONE 3,884.28
MINNEGASCO HEATING GAS 28,259.08
MINNESOTA CONWAY GENERAL SUPPLIES 218.01
MINUTEMAN PRESS PRINTING & PUBLISHING 1,745.44
MN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIO SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 89.20
MN DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 483.68
MN DRIVER & VEHICLE SVCS EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT CHARGE (46.00)
MN PUBLIC WORKS ASSOC TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 100.00
MOORE, CARLTON B TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 26.91
NAPA GENUINE PARTS CO/FINANCE EQUIPMENT PARTS (157.52)
NATIONAL CAMERA EXCHANGE & VID GENERAL SUPPLIES 598.79
NATL ASSOC for INTERPRETATION SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 125.00
NCI TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 295.00
NEWS ON EARTH SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 10.00
NORTHERN BATTERY EQUIPMENT PARTS 299.60
NORTHSTAR REPRO PRODUCTS INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 82.06
115
NSP CO ELECTRIC SERVICE 15.76
OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE SUPPLIES 749.74
OLSEN CHAIN & CABLE CO INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 413.35
OTTO PACKAGING MIDWEST LLC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES (72.00)
PALMS BAKERY MEETING EXPENSE 19.60
PARTS PLUS EQUIPMENT PARTS (23.59)
PATRICIA A. PEELOR CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 25.00
PHASOR ELECTRIC COMPANY PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 3,600.00
PINKERTON SERVICES GROUP PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 456.00
PIRES, CLINTON E TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 266.51
POSTMASTER POSTAGE 243.32
PRAXAIR DISTRIBUTION INC. GENERAL SUPPLIES 90.71
PRESTIGE LINCOLN MERCURY EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 2,169.65
PRINTERS SERVICE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 28.30
PRO PRODUCTS INC GENERAL SUPPLIES (92.32)
RANDY'S SANITATION INC GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE 1,765.23
RELIABLE HIGH PERFORMANCE PROD COMPUTER SUPPLIES 174.87
RIVERLAND COMMUNITY COLLEGE GENERAL SUPPLIES 75.00
SA-AG INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 1,808.04
SCHARBER & SONS INC EQUIPMENT PARTS (3.51)
SCHWAAB INC OFFICE SUPPLIES 13.85
SCIENCE MUSEUM OF MINNESOTA TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 139.00
SERGEANT BRADLEY WAYNE SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 60.00
SHARE, JOHN SKATING LESSONS-tax exempt 76.00
SIGNATURE CONCEPTS GENERAL SUPPLIES 724.50
SLP CRIME PREVENTION FUND UNREALIZED REV-SAFETY CAMP 0.00
SOCIETY FOR HUMAN RESOURCE MGM SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 160.00
SOJOURNER PROJECT INC OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 9,789.75
STANDARD SIDEWALK INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 341.30
STAR TRIBUNE SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 111.80
STEMMER, LUKE GENERAL SUPPLIES 71.22
STREICHER'S EQUIPMENT PARTS 1,576.80
SUBURBAN PROPANE MOTOR FUELS 115.34
SUBURBAN TIRE CO TIRES 12.50
TARGET/DAYTONS GENERAL SUPPLIES 85.12
TEKSYSTEMS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,456.00
TOP NOTCH TREECARE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 319.50
TRACY/TRIPP FUELS MOTOR FUELS 15,635.51
UNIVERSITY OF MINN TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 245.00
VIKING DISCOUNT BLINDS BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 1,446.88
WALSER FORD EQUIPMENT PARTS 62.30
WESTSIDE EQUIPMENT BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 587.03
WSB ASSOCIATES INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 22,990.95
YMCA CAMP IHDUHAPI OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 100.00
ZEP MANUFACTURING GENERAL SUPPLIES 251.01
ZIEGLER INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 241.50
ZIP PRINTING OFFICE SUPPLIES 189.94
ZIP SORT POSTAGE 406.13
209,355.75
FEBRUARY 16,2000
116
VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
ACTION RADIO & COMM INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 118.52
ADVANTA BANK CORP OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 97.45
AIRTOUCH CELLULAR TELEPHONE 735.12
ALBINSONS GENERAL SUPPLIES 3.62
ALLIANCE MECHANICAL SERVICES I BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 844.00
ARAMARK UNIFORM CORPORATE
ACCT
GENERAL SUPPLIES 711.33
ASIAN PAGES OTHER ADVERTISING 105.00
AUTO GLASS SPECIALISTS INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 404.27
AUTOMATIC GARAGE DOOR CO BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 480.00
AUTOTRAAC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 250.00
BACHMANS BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 106.50
BARRY & SEWALL INDUSTRIAL SUPP BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 752.95
BATTERIES PLUS GENERAL SUPPLIES 47.91
BAUER BUILT TIRE & BATTERY EQUIPMENT PARTS (35.87)
BEACON BALLFIELDS SMALL TOOLS 413.55
BOBS PERSONAL COFFEE SERVICE GENERAL SUPPLIES 235.33
BOYER TRUCK PARTS BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES (249.80)
BRENTS SIGNS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 658.27
BROADWAY RENTAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT (1.66)
BROWNING-FERRIS INDUSTRIES GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE 69.85
Babett's In The Park MEETING EXPENSE 299.68
CARTRIDGE CARE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 1,691.67
CENTER FOR ENERGY & ENVIRONMEN OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 21,493.01
CENTRAL SALT OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 15,309.82
COLICH & ASSOCIATES LEGAL SERVICES 12,032.43
COLLISYS ELECTRIC CO BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 71.00
CONCEPT SEATING INC GENERAL SUPPLIES (180.00)
CONSECO FINANCE VENDOR SERV CO OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 751.89
CONTINENTAL RESEARCH CORP GENERAL SUPPLIES 321.58
CRILEY, KATHI L TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 95.15
CRYSTEEL TRUCK EQUIP INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 38.91
CSC CREDIT SERVICES INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 145.00
CUMMINS NORTH CENTRAL INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 104.97
CUSTOM PRODUCTS & SERVICES OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,398.50
DARTEK.COM COMPUTER SUPPLIES 11.80
DATABASE TECHNOLOGIES INC OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 182.00
DAVID DAMLOW LICENSES/TAXES 58.50
DAVIES WATER EQUIPMENT COMPANY TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 90.00
DEREK G. DIESEN CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 25.00
DNR WATERS LICENSES/TAXES 11,551.30
DONALD SALVERDA & ASSOC. TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 822.43
ELVIN SAFETY SUPPLY, INC. GENERAL SUPPLIES 763.45
ENGINEERING REPRO SYSTEMS GENERAL SUPPLIES 9.59
FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (15.67)
FANCHER PLANNING & DESIGN INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 55.50
FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 34.60
FLOYD TOTAL SECURITY BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 46.31
GARELICK STEEL CO EQUIPMENT PARTS 85.60
GARTNER REFRIG & MFG INC BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 922.25
GENERAL SAFETY EQUIPMENT CORP EQUIPMENT PARTS 68.62
117
GENUINE PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (27.83)
GERALD GALLATI CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 25.00
GLENWOOD INGLEWOOD GENERAL SUPPLIES 132.85
GOODYEAR BRAD RAGAN TIRE & SER EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 465.83
GOVERNMENT TRAINING SERVICE TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 200.00
GRAINGER INC, W W GENERAL SUPPLIES 61.17
HALLOCK COMPANY INC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 23.43
HAWKINS WATER TREATMENT GROUP CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY 2,105.00
HENNEPIN CO DEPT OF COMM CORRE SALARIES - TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES 6,400.00
HENNEPIN CO-OPERATIVE SEED EXC GENERAL SUPPLIES 79.88
HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER LICENSES/TAXES 50.00
HIGHVIEW PLUMBING INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 1,947.00
HOME DEPOT/GECF SMALL TOOLS 256.72
HOME HARDWARE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 150.37
HORTON SALES COMPANY INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 27.30
HYDRO SUPPLY COMPANY OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 4,230.70
IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 403.92
IND SCHOOL DIST #283 OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 93,004.50
INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL OF MN SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 145.00
INTL ASSO FINANCIAL CRIMES INV TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 495.00
IOS CAPITAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT 252.41
IRON MOUNTAIN OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 29.00
J H LARSON COMPANY GENERAL SUPPLIES 425.13
JAQUELINE HELM CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 25.00
JEAN LAUE-PARKTACULAR UNREALIZED REVENUE 1,232.74
JUSTUS LUMBER COMPANY OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 229.42
KDV PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 5,080.20
LANGEFELS, DOUGLAS MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 40.54
LAURIE PULVER MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 213.21
LEAGUE MN CITIES INS TRUST OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 449.99
LEAGUE OF MN CITIES SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 20.00
LUIS MIGUEL OCAMPO OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 80.00
MASTERSON PERSONNEL INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,713.75
MCGRAW-HILL COMPANIES GENERAL SUPPLIES 147.15
MENARDS SMALL TOOLS 5.62
MERKLEY, SCOTT TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 36.22
METROCALL TELEPHONE 853.58
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL SEWER AVAILABILITY CHARGE 21,279.15
MID-AMERICA BUSINESS SYSTEMS GENERAL SUPPLIES 115.70
MIDWEST ASPHALT CORP OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 3,191.80
MIND SHARP TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 645.00
MINN BLUE DIGITAL GENERAL SUPPLIES 15.19
MINN STATE TREASURER STATE SURCHARGE PAYABLE 4,567.39
MINNEAPOLIS FINANCE DEPT GENERAL SUPPLIES 490.00
MINNESOTA CONWAY EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 292.02
MINNESOTA PIPE & EQUIPMENT OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 2,855.76
MINUTEMAN PRESS OFFICE SUPPLIES 52.00
MN CHAPTER OF IAPMO SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 50.00
MN DEPT OF HEALTH TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 600.00
MN DRIVER & VEHICLE SVCS EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT CHARGE (46.00)
MSSA SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 25.00
MTI DISTRIBUTING CO EQUIPMENT PARTS (70.91)
118
NAPA GENUINE PARTS CO/FINANCE EQUIPMENT PARTS (157.52)
NATIONAL AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER C BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 300.00
NATIONAL DISTRICT ATTORNEYS AS TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 339.00
NEENAH FOUNDREY OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 183.18
NORWEST BANK MINNESOTA NA OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 900.00
NOVARTIS NUTRITION CORP. GENERAL CUSTOMERS 7,557.52
NSP CO ELECTRIC SERVICE 24,493.67
OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE SUPPLIES 337.87
OTTO PACKAGING MIDWEST LLC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES (72.00)
PAGE ELECTRICAL CONTRACTING IN EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 130.00
PARTS PLUS EQUIPMENT PARTS (23.59)
PEPSI-COLA COMPANY CONCESSION SUPPLIES 142.55
PRESTIGE LINCOLN MERCURY EQUIPMENT PARTS (132.22)
PRINTERS SERVICE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 128.00
PRO PRODUCTS INC GENERAL SUPPLIES (92.32)
PUBLIC SAFETY EQUIPMENT CO EQUIPMENT PARTS 408.57
PUMP & METER SERVICE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 194.45
QUICKSILVER EXPRESS COURIER EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 19.45
RC INDENTIFICATIONS GENERAL SUPPLIES 15.98
REYNOLDS WELDING SUPPLY CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 64.93
SAVITT, MADELINE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 59,422.50
SCHARBER & SONS INC EQUIPMENT PARTS (3.51)
SCHOELL & MADSON INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,799.32
SEARS SMALL TOOLS 57.47
SENSIBLE LAND USE COALITION TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 90.00
SLP CRIME PREVENTION FUND UNREALIZED REV-SAFETY CAMP 0.00
STAR TRIBUNE OTHER ADVERTISING 3,693.15
STATE OF MINNESOTA LICENSES/TAXES 30.00
STREICHER'S SMALL TOOLS 609.93
SUBURBAN PROPANE MOTOR FUELS 167.51
SUN NEWSPAPERS LEGAL NOTICES 814.26
SUSAN AUSTIN REC CENTER RENTAL-TAXABLE 392.00
TARGET/DAYTONS GENERAL SUPPLIES 75.16
TERMINIX INTERNATIONAL BUILDING MTCE SERVICE (1.06)
TKDA PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,559.78
U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE 4,757.40
UNIFORMS UNLIMITED GENERAL SUPPLIES 5,772.67
UNIVERSITY OF MN TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 70.00
USI INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 124.31
VIDEO SERVICE OF AMERICA OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 167.00
VIKING INDUSTRIAL CENTER SMALL TOOLS 18.44
WANZEK CONSTRUCTION INC. OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 7,500.00
WARNING LIGHTS OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 2,266.33
WASTE MANAGEMENT-BLAINE GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE 60.05
WATSON CO INC CONCESSION SUPPLIES 180.00
WEST WELD GENERAL SUPPLIES 289.34
ZACKS INC SMALL TOOLS 127.80
ZIP PRINTING GENERAL SUPPLIES 430.45
ZIP SORT GENERAL SUPPLIES 843.52
357,154.47
119
FEBRUARY 23,2001
VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
AAA-LICENSE DIVISION MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT 1,180.55
AHLGREN CONSTRUCTION CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 46.21
AIRTOUCH CELLULAR TELEPHONE 145.48
AMEM TREASURER SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 20.00
AMERIPRIDE LINEN AND APPAREL
S
CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL
SERVICE
185.71
ANCHOR PAPER CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 545.38
ARAMARK UNIFORM CORPORATE
ACCT
GENERAL SUPPLIES 360.74
BACHMANS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 79.86
BATTERIES PLUS GENERAL SUPPLIES 232.66
BAUER BUILT TIRE & BATTERY EQUIPMENT PARTS (35.87)
BIRNO, RICK GENERAL SUPPLIES 19.29
BOBS PERSONAL COFFEE SERVICE GENERAL SUPPLIES 249.31
BORDER STATES ELECTRIC
SUPPLY
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 310.51
BOYER TRUCK PARTS BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 558.71
BRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 9,724.00
BRO TEX INC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 249.30
BROADWAY RENTAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT (1.66)
CAMPBELL KNUTSON
PROFESSIONAL
LEGAL SERVICES 10,173.26
CAPITOL COMMUNICATIONS RADIO COMMUNICATIONS 94.51
CENTER FOR ENERGY &
ENVIRONMEN
OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 5,522.41
CENTRAL SALT OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 4,197.67
COLLISYS ELECTRIC CO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,279.00
CONCEPT SEATING INC GENERAL SUPPLIES (180.00)
CONTINENTAL RESEARCH CORP GENERAL SUPPLIES 158.00
CROWN PLASTIC INC. GENERAL SUPPLIES 133.42
CUMMINS NORTH CENTRAL INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 83.67
DANKO EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT
CO
NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 1,094.24
DELTA MEDICAL SUPPLY GROUP
INC
GENERAL SUPPLIES 115.89
DIGITAL BIOMETRICS INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 485.00
ECONOMICS PRESS INC SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 27.27
ED M. FELD EQUIPMENT CO. NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 2,379.00
ELECTRICAL INSTALLATION &
MAIN
OTHER IMPROVEMENTS 6,963.40
ELEMENT K JOURNALS SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 89.00
EMERGENCY APPARATUS MTNCE EQUIPMENT PARTS 200.00
EMERGENCY MEDICAL PRODUCTS GENERAL SUPPLIES 806.03
EMERY'S TREE SERVICE INC CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL
SERVICE
5,993.83
ENGINEERING REPRO SYSTEMS GENERAL SUPPLIES 15.34
ENSR CONSULTING &
ENGINEERING
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,496.84
ERICKSONS SEWER SERVICE BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 279.00
FACTORY MOTOR PARTS EQUIPMENT PARTS (30.67)
120
COMPANY
FIRE INSTRUCTORS ASSN OF MINN TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOL
S
169.34
FREEWAY RADIATOR SERVICE EQUIPMENT PARTS 627.90
GARELICK STEEL CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 25.52
GARY GROEN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,950.00
GENUINE PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (27.83)
GLOBAL EQUIPMENT COMPANY GENERAL SUPPLIES 502.90
GOVT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOC TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOL
S
219.00
GRAINGER INC, W W EQUIPMENT PARTS (61.18)
HASLERUD, CARRIE GENERAL SUPPLIES 114.02
HENN CO FIRE CHIEFS ASSOCIATIO SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 10.00
HENN CO INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY
COMPUTER SERVICES 418.41
HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL
SERVICE
7,428.26
HOME DEPOT/GECF GENERAL SUPPLIES 44.69
HOPKINS FAMILY PHYSICIANS EQUIPMENT PARTS 441.45
HOWARD R. GREEN COMPANY LEGAL SERVICES 608.75
HUIRAS, SHIRLEY OFFICE SUPPLIES 202.44
HYDRO SUPPLY COMPANY OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 1,408.79
ICI DULUX PAINT CENTERS GENERAL SUPPLIES 16.93
INDELCO EQUIPMENT PARTS 39.12
INTERSTATE BEARING COMPANY EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 90.72
INTL CONFERENCE BLDG
OFFICIALS
GENERAL SUPPLIES 187.50
JENNIFER J. MEHRA CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 25.00
JERRY STAMM GENERAL SUPPLIES 37.55
KANSAS STATE BANK OF
MANHATTAN
CAPITALIZED INTEREST 642.44
KREMER SPRING & ALIGNMENT EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 4,187.33
MACQUEEN EQUIP CO EQUIPMENT PARTS 121.26
MASTERSON PERSONNEL INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 600.00
MENARDS SMALL TOOLS 144.75
METROCALL TELEPHONE 7.23
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL
SERVICE
226,556.07
MILLER HANSON WESTERBECK
BERGE
OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 800.00
MINN CHIEFS POLICE
ASSOCIATION
OFFICE SUPPLIES 15.31
MINN DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 87.04
MINN SAFETY COUNCIL TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOL
S
499.00
MINNESOTA BOOK STORE GENERAL SUPPLIES 470.72
MINNESOTA CONWAY EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 171.74
MINNESOTA STEAKHOUSE SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 50.00
MN DRIVER & VEHICLE SVCS EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT
CHARGE
(46.00)
MOORE MEDICAL CORP GENERAL SUPPLIES 103.22
MTI DISTRIBUTING CO EQUIPMENT PARTS (70.91)
MUNICILITE EQUIPMENT PARTS 397.35
121
NAPA GENUINE PARTS
CO/FINANCE
EQUIPMENT PARTS 199.16
NORTH STAR WIPER MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT 17,867.40
NORTHERN BATTERY EQUIPMENT PARTS 75.63
NORTHERN TOOL & EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT PARTS 69.89
NSP CO ELECTRIC SERVICE 42,550.85
NYSTROM PUBLISHING PRINTING & PUBLISHING 2,757.00
OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE SUPPLIES 1,082.41
OTTO PACKAGING MIDWEST LLC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES (72.00)
PARTS PLUS EQUIPMENT PARTS 51.65
PEPSI-COLA COMPANY CONCESSION SUPPLIES 128.78
PERFECT SURFACE CO TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOL
S
275.00
PERSONNEL DECISIONS
INTERNATIO
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 4,408.16
PIRTEK PLYMOUTH BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 35.00
POLICE EXECUTIVE RESEARCH
FORU
SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 125.00
POSTMASTER OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 150.00
POWER PROCESS EQUIPMENT INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 308.09
PRAXAIR DISTRIBUTION INC. GENERAL SUPPLIES 35.79
PRESTIGE LINCOLN MERCURY EQUIPMENT PARTS 61.56
PRO PRODUCTS INC GENERAL SUPPLIES (92.32)
PROVOST, PETER EQUIPMENT PARTS 158.99
QWEST DEX DATA PRODUCTS
GROUP
OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 175.50
R & R SPECIALTIES EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 223.97
RC INDENTIFICATIONS GENERAL SUPPLIES 15.98
RELIANT ENERGY HEATING GAS 43,836.27
RESCUE ONE EQUIPMENT PARTS 1,650.00
REYNOLDS WELDING SUPPLY CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 56.64
RLK-KUUSISTO LTD ENGINEERING SERVICES 1,520.67
SAM'S CLUB GENERAL SUPPLIES 222.55
SCHARBER & SONS INC EQUIPMENT PARTS (3.51)
SCHELEN-GRAY AUTO ELECTRIC EQUIPMENT PARTS 263.22
SLP CRIME PREVENTION FUND UNREALIZED REV-SAFETY CAMP 0.00
SPECTRASITE RADIO COMMUNICATIONS 87.00
SPEEDY LOCK & KEY EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 25.00
ST JOSEPH'S EQUIPMENT INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 48.45
STANDARD SIDEWALK INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 95.60
STI-CO INDUSTRIES INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 320.62
STREICHER'S GENERAL SUPPLIES 508.10
SUBURBAN CHEVROLET EQUIPMENT PARTS 43.61
SUBURBAN PROPANE MOTOR FUELS 111.98
SUBURBAN TIRE CO TIRES 57.62
SUN NEWSPAPERS LEGAL NOTICES 409.33
SUNDEM CARBURETOR SERVICE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 119.00
TARGET/DAYTONS GENERAL SUPPLIES 29.52
TEKSYSTEMS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,141.00
TERMINIX INTERNATIONAL BUILDING MTCE SERVICE (1.06)
TWIN CITY OXYGEN CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 4.96
U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE 58.52
U S WEST INTERPRISE TELEPHONE 486.40
122
VELOCITY EXPRESS DEPOSITS PAYABLE 22.72
VIDEO UPDATE GENERAL SUPPLIES 300.00
VIKING OFFICE PRODUCTS OFFICE SUPPLIES (9.61)
VISU-SEWER CLEAN & SEAL INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 4,569.18
WALSER FORD EQUIPMENT PARTS (3.26)
WATER ENGINEERING &
MANAGEMENT
SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 40.00
WATSON CO INC CONCESSION SUPPLIES 875.05
WESTPORT PROPERTIES INC. OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,030.00
WORLD WATERPARK ASSOC. SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 525.00
ZIEGLER INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 483.90
iATN SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 30.00
435,008.08
March 2, 2001
VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
OLESEN, PETER GENERAL CUSTOMERS 47.32
ALBERS MECHANICAL SERVICES EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 138.00
AMEM TREASURER SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 20.00
ANCHOR PAPER CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 190.26
ANOKA-HENNEPIN TECHNICAL
COLLE
TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 120.00
APACHE GROUP OF MINNESOTA GENERAL SUPPLIES 606.99
ARAMARK UNIFORM CORPORATE
ACCT
GENERAL SUPPLIES 250.08
ASKEGAARD,DELL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 12.86
ASSN OF RECYCLING MANAGERS
INC
SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 20.00
ASSOC OF TRAINING OFFICERS SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 25.00
BAUER BUILT TIRE & BATTERY EQUIPMENT PARTS (35.87)
BEEKS PIZZA OFFICE SUPPLIES 750.00
BETH HOLIDA TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 80.87
BKBM ENGINEERS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 665.75
BROADWAY RENTAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT (1.66)
CAMPBELL KNUTSON
PROFESSIONAL
LEGAL SERVICES 60.00
CARTRIDGE CARE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 233.26
CHARLES A. VIEN CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 25.00
CLEMENT COMMUNICATIONS GENERAL SUPPLIES 262.60
COMM CENTER RADIO COMMUNICATIONS 170.40
CONCEPT SEATING INC GENERAL SUPPLIES (180.00)
CRAGUNS CONFERENCE CENTER TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 43.95
CRILEY, KATHI L TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 53.06
CUSTOM PRODUCTS & SERVICES OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 7,213.25
DALCO GENERAL SUPPLIES 910.37
DANKO EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT
CO
OFFICE FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT 1,725.30
DPMS PANTHER ARMS GENERAL SUPPLIES 535.72
EDTECH OFFICE FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT 582.97
ELAN TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 4,599.24
ENGINEERING REPRO SYSTEMS GENERAL SUPPLIES 127.80
123
FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (30.67)
FIRE ENGINEERING SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 28.50
GENUINE PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (27.83)
GRAINGER INC, W W EQUIPMENT PARTS (61.18)
HAMLINE UNIVERSITY TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 168.00
HEADWATERS OUTDOORS
MARKETING
GENERAL SUPPLIES 288.02
HENN CO ACCOUNTING SERVICES OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 180.00
HENN CO TREASURER DUE TO OTHER GOVTS 77,099.31
HENNEPIN CO-OPERATIVE SEED
EXC
GENERAL SUPPLIES 99.84
HOISINGTON KOEGLER GROUP INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 112.50
IOS CAPITAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT 694.93
ISA OFFICE SUPPLIES 90.95
JAY CANTINE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 25.00
JOHNSTON-MADISON, CLAUDIA M OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 12.98
KARL, BETTY OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 12.94
LAKE SUPERIOR COLLEGE TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 85.00
LINDSTROM, BRENT PROGRAMMING 10.00
LUGGAGE WORLD OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 33,656.00
MAKI, DENNIS TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 346.75
MAMA/GMC LABOR RELATIONS
SUBSC
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 5,495.00
MASTERSON PERSONNEL INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 326.25
MC DONELL, MARTHA MEETING EXPENSE 22.28
MC QUAID, PHYLLIS DOGS 15.00
MEDSOFT CORPORATION OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 239.50
MENARDS GENERAL SUPPLIES 16.82
METRO FIRE INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 70.00
MIDWEST GANG INVESTIGATORS
ASS
TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 70.00
MINN BLUE DIGITAL GENERAL SUPPLIES 7.99
MINN DEPT OF REVENUE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL
SERVICE
50.00
MINNEAPOLIS GOLF CLUB GENERAL CUSTOMERS 3,642.22
MINUTEMAN PRESS OFFICE SUPPLIES 94.29
MN DEPT OF HEALTH OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 17,702.00
MN DRIVER & VEHICLE SVCS EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT
CHARGE
(46.00)
MTI DISTRIBUTING CO EQUIPMENT PARTS (70.91)
NAPA GENUINE PARTS CO/FINANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES 9.61
NORMA HEUER GENERAL CUSTOMERS 11.47
NTOA TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 614.00
OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE SUPPLIES 412.31
OTTO PACKAGING MIDWEST LLC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES (72.00)
PALMS BAKERY MEETING EXPENSE 15.48
PRO PRODUCTS INC GENERAL SUPPLIES (92.32)
QUICKSILVER EXPRESS COURIER POSTAGE 851.18
R & O ELEVATOR COMPANY GENERAL SUPPLIES 112.14
R & R SPECIALTIES EQUIPMENT PARTS 313.11
ROSS, MOLLY PROF/CONSULT SERVICES 120.00
SCAN AIR FILTER INC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 261.05
SCHADE, MEGAN PROF/CONSULT SERVICES 120.00
124
SCHARBER & SONS INC EQUIPMENT PARTS (3.51)
SECURITYLINK FROM AMERITECH OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 36.10
SEH PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,052.18
SHADYWOOD TREE EXPERTS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 9,611.63
SLP CRIME PREVENTION FUND UNREALIZED REV-SAFETY CAMP 0.00
SRF CONSULTING GROUP INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 6,713.72
STATE CHEMICAL MFG CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 271.00
STREICHER'S GENERAL SUPPLIES 21.25
SUBURBAN FEED & SUPPLY GENERAL SUPPLIES 73.49
SUBURBAN PROPANE MOTOR FUELS 139.58
TEKSYSTEMS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 700.00
TERMINIX INTERNATIONAL BUILDING MTCE SERVICE (1.06)
TUMA, CARL GENERAL CUSTOMERS 73.41
UNIFORMS UNLIMITED GENERAL SUPPLIES 293.10
UNIVERSITY OF MINN TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 150.00
VIKING OFFICE PRODUCTS OFFICE SUPPLIES (9.61)
VMAM SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 20.00
WALSER FORD EQUIPMENT PARTS (3.26)
WASTE MANAGEMENT-BLAINE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL
SERVICE
141,968.32
WENGER MSC REPAIR CHARGES 94.78
WSB ASSOCIATES INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 8,648.00
ZIP SORT POSTAGE 127.81
333,330.96