HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001/06/04 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Regular 1
AGENDA - CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
June 4, 2001
7:30 p.m.
7:25 p.m. - Economic Development Authority
1. Call to Order
a. Pledge of Allegiance
b. Roll Call
2. Presentations
a. Recognition presentation for Jan Loftus
3. Approval of Minutes
a. Study Session Minutes of May 14, 2001
b. Special Meeting Minutes of May 21, 2001
c. City Council Minutes of May 21, 2001
Action: Corrections/amendments to minutes - Minutes approved as presented
4. Approval of Agenda and Consent Items
NOTE: Consent items are those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or
which need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is
desired by either a Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to
an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion.
a. Approval of Agenda
Action: Motion to approve (Alternatively, motion to add or remove items from
the agenda, motion to move items from consent to regular agenda for
discussion).
b. Approval of Consent Items
1. Motion to amend the financial terms of City Agreement No. 1897, between the
City and AT&T Wireless (AT&T) for space on the water tower at 2500 Nevada
Avenue for communications antenna.
2
2. Motion to adopt the Resolution granting the minor amendment to the existing
Special Permit for Park Glen Apartment at 4401 Park Glen Road to permit the
construction of a foyer addition, subject to the conditions in the resolution. Case #
01-23-SP
3. Motion to accept the following report for filing:
a. Vendor Claims
Action: Motion to approve Consent Items
5. Public Hearings
5a Public Hearing – Groves Academy Private Activity Revenue Bonds
Public Hearing to consider issuing Private Activity Revenue Bonds for Groves
Academy to finance the expansion of the existing schoolhouse facility and renovate
a existing building.
Recommended
Action:
Mayor to close the public hearing.
5b. Public Hearing and First Reading of an ordinance to vacate portions of
Natchez Avenue, Ottawa Avenue, 38th Street, Princeton Avenue, an alley and
an existing sidewalk easement in Park Commons East.
Case No. 01-08-VAC
Recommended
Action:
Mayor to close the public hearing. Motion to approve First
Reading of an ordinance to vacate portions of streets, an alley,
and a sidewalk easement in Park Commons East and set Second
Reading for June 18, 2001.
6. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public
7. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions
7a. TOLD Development Company is requesting approval of a Preliminary Plat
and Preliminary PUD with certain variances for Park Commons East
Case No. 01-06-S and 01-07-PUD and 01-19-Var
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt a resolution approving the Preliminary Plat,
Preliminary PUD and variances subject to the conditions
included in the resolution.
7b. 2001 Sojourner Contract
Renewal of existing contract with Sojourner Project, inc., to perform advocacy
3
services for victims of domestic violence.
Recommended
Action:
Authorize Mayor and City Manager to execute contract with
Sojourner Project, Inc. in the amount of $39,159.00 for advocacy
services for the period January 1 through December 31, 2001.
The contract has been reviewed by the City Attorney.
7c. Wolfe Park Amphitheater
This report considers approving a contact with Damon Farber Associates for the
design of the Wolfe Park Amphitheater.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve the contract with Damon Farber Associates
for the design of the Wolfe Park Amphitheater in an amount not
to exceed $40,825.
7d. City Engineer’s Report: Storm Water Flood Area No. 15 – Improvements at
Keystone, Roxbury and Lake Street Parks and Storm Sewer construction on
Dakota Avenue and W. 33rd Street. City Project No. 00-07
This report considers Storm Water and Park improvements at Keystone, Roxbury,
and Lake Street Parks and Storm Sewer construction on Dakota Avenue and W.
33rd Street to alleviate flooding in Area No. 15.
Recommended
Action:
Due to the significant increased cost of this project, it is
recommended the City Council defer action and schedule this for
the June 25, 2001 Study Session.
7e. City Engineer’s Report: Alley Paving – 2700 block between Brunswick
Avenue and the C.P. Railroad tracks – Project No. 01-xx
This report considers paving the alley in the 2700 block between Brunswick
Avenue and the C.P. Railroad tracks in response to a petition by the adjacent
property owners.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the attached resolution that accepts this report,
establishes Improvement Project No. 01-xx, directs staff to
sponsor an informational meeting with abutting property owners,
and sets a Public Hearing and Assessment Hearing date of
July 2, 2001.
8. Boards and Committees
9. Communications
10. Adjournment
4
Item # 3a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
May 14, 2001
The meeting convened at 6:02 p.m.
Present at the meeting were Councilmembers Jim Brimeyer, Chris Nelson, Susan Sanger, Sue
Santa, Robert Young, and Mayor Jeff Jacobs. Councilmember Ron Latz arrived at 7:21 p.m.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Meyer), Director of Community Development (Mr.
Harmening), Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Kleve), Planning and Zoning Supervisor
(Ms. Jeremiah), Director of Public Works (Mr. Rardin), Superintendent of Engineering (Mr.
Moore), City Engineer (Ms. Hagen), Director of Parks and Recreation (Ms. Walsh), Community
Outreach Coordinator (Ms. McDonell), and City Clerk (Ms. Reichert)
1. Park Commons
Bob Cunningham from TOLD was present at the meeting. He presented an overview of the
project, noting the absence of the Bally’s property because of the inability to reach a purchase or
lease agreement. Mr. Cunningham reviewed the height changes of certain buildings. He
reported that there will be a delay in the construction of one building due to changes in the
market.
A three dimensional model was shown of the project as well as various artist sketches.
Council discussed the phasing of the project as well as the progress on the leasing of retail space.
Mayor Jacobs questioned the amount of parking spaces. Ms. Jeremiah explained the phasing
involved with the parking and how the numbers were created. She reported that staff is
comfortable with the amount.
Councilmember Sanger expressed her disappointment in the delay of owner-occupied housing.
Mr. Cunningham assured Councilmember Sanger that despite the delay in the initial phase, the
owner-occupied housing that had been called for in later phases of the project would be
completed earlier than had been origianally anticipated .
Councilmember Nelson commented that it would be in TOLD’s best interest to also complete
future phases. He stated that the return on investment is lower on Phase I than the subsequent
phases. He also felt that there is a significant demand for owner-occupied housing. He
questioned how the Tax Increment Financing district would be affected by owner-occupied units
versus rental units. Mr. Cunningham replied that the revenue generated from owner-occupied
units is as little as one half the amount that would be generated by rental units.
Mr. Harmening explained that even though the construction of owner occupied units is now
farther into the project, completion of all units will actually be done more quickly.
5
Councilmember Nelson was concerned with how the empty building site would be treated as it is
very visible as the entrance to the project. Ms. Jeremiah agreed with his concerns and reported
that staff is currently working to create an attractive appearance during the construction.
Councilmember Nelson stated that he would like to receive information on public notices. Staff
replied they would mail more notices for upcoming meetings.
Councilmember Sanger was concerned the Hollman units would become concentrated over time.
She asked staff to include in the development agreement a plan for retaining space in the future.
Mr. Harmening explained how affordable housing units would be structured with Section 8
versus Hollman units. He further explained how the change in programs would affect the
developer and the City.
Mr. Harmening stated that staff would bring an amended development agreement to Council on
June 4th.
Council discussed the future development of the Bally’s site. They also discussed sight lines in
relation to the revised building heights.
Councilmember Santa inquired about street naming near the project and Councilmember Nelson
replied that he thought the City had an official street naming policy.
2. Human Rights Commission
Commissioners Kristin Siegesmund, Herb Isbin and Student Commissioner Cassandra Body
were present at the meeting.
The Commissioners informed the Council of their involvement with the Human Rights Essay
Award as sponsors of the event. A flyer was passed out inviting the community to a public
forum to end violence and discrimination and to learn about human rights. They briefly
reviewed the handbook that was compiled and made by the League of Women Voters and the
Human Rights Commission to inform new residents of services and resources within the
community. The handbooks are available in Spanish, Russian, and English.
Councilmember Brimeyer inquired about reaching out to the various communities within the
City on how to communicate among each other.
Ms. McDonell stated that she would provide the materials for the Human Rights Essay Award at
the meeting on May 21st.
The Commission asked Council if they would be interested in monitoring the Viking Council’s
pledge not to discriminate and Council agreed they would not be interested in such efforts.
However, they would be interested in information from the local Boy Scouts and urged the
Human Rights Commission to offer their services to those who feel they have been discriminated
against.
The commission recognized Lynn Schwartz and Martha McDonell for their staff efforts.
6
3. Excelsior Blvd. Corridor Traffic Study
Mr. Harmening introduced Mr. Forslund of BRW.
Mr. Harmening informed Council that the development scenarios as presented are extremely
aggressive and should be looked at as worst case scenarios.
Mr. Forslund went through the traffic study executive summary that was presented to Council.
Council discussed neighborhood issues and the impact that cut through traffic would have on the
surrounding neighborhoods. Councilmember Nelson inquired about using plate identifications to
track the destination of traffic traveling on Kipling Ave. Councilmember Sanger felt there was
cut through traffic throughout the city and did not perceive this situation to be more of a
problem.
Councilmember Brimeyer appreciated the identification of ‘trigger points’ as development
occurs.
Council asked that staff establish thresholds and triggers for the implementation of potential
traffic controlling measures that can be assessed to determine future roadway changes.
Councilmember Sanger suggested that this study could provide standards to be applied to other
areas in the city.
Mr. Forslund suggested that discussion take place very soon with the neighborhoods.
Councilmember Sanger asked how bicycling could be made easier on Excelsior Boulevard.
Councilmember Nelson stated that Excelsior Boulevard is not part of the trail and sidewalk plan.
He would prefer to discourage rather than encourage bicycling on Excelsior Boulevard.
Mr. Harmening reported that a neighborhood meeting notice is in the process of being sent and
the meeting will take place in the near future.
4. Stormwater Management Project Impacts on Keystone, Roxbury, and Lake Street
Parks
Pete Willenbring was in attendance at the meeting.
Staff explained the proposed stormwater projects that would affect Lake Street, Keystone, and
Roxbury Park. The plan would utilize local parks to alleviate flooding in the most severe
rainstorms. This proposal will return Lake Street Park to its natural state as a wetland, thereby
eliminating the hockey rinks. Rinks would then be placed at Parkview and Nelson parks. A sun
shelter and playground equipment would be removed from Roxbury Park and accommodated at
Keystone Park as well as a basketball court and an open space to be used for football or soccer.
The playground equipment at Roxbury Park will remain there.
Council discussed the depth of pond proposal. They also discussed how to prevent persons from
moving over the tracks and the expense of that option.
7
Councilmember Brimeyer suggested that the playground equipment be placed at both parks and
that any link between the two parks be eliminated as a cost effective alternative to the proposal .
Ms. Walsh stated that hockey could be accommodated at other parks. Councilmember Sanger
was concerned what the neighborhood’s reaction would be to moving the hockey rinks to Nelson
Park.
Staff was directed to move forward with the changes to the stormwater management plan and to
address other needs at a later time.
5. Communications
Mr. Rardin introduced the new City Engineer, Maria Hagen, to the City Council.
Mayor Jacobs inquired if Council would like to pursue an issue brought to his attention regarding
continuing non-conforming uses. Councilmember Santa stated that she was concerned about an
ordinance of that type and did not believe it to be good policy. Councilmember Young was
receptive to looking into the issue. Councilmember Brimeyer stated that the city’s goal is to
eliminate non-conforming uses and would not support an ordinance which allowed them to
continue. He added that the City needs a provision that can provide incentive to bring uses into
conformance. Councilmember Sanger felt security should be placed to provide incentives to
bring uses in conformance. She was concerned about discretionary allowances. Councilmember
Nelson said that non-conforming use needs to be stopped and a monetary security would not do
that. Councilmember Latz would prefer to see a staff report and the legal ramifications involved
with each option.
Mr. Harmening replied they will consider the staff resources needed to complete the requested
research. He asked for clarification from the Council on the extent of the information they want.
Councilmember Brimeyer would like a written report and research, stating it could be a one-page
summary. Mr. Meyer stated that would involve in-depth research for a future study session.
Mayor Jacobs inquired about a change of hours at the Rec Center. Mr. Meyer replied that staff is
looking into the issue.
6. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
City Clerk Mayor
8
Item # 3b
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
May 21, 2001
The meeting convened at 7:00 p.m.
The following Councilmembers were present: Chris Nelson, Sue Santa, Ron Latz, Robert
Young, Jim Brimeyer; Sue Sanger, and Mayor Jeff Jacobs.
Council met briefly prior to their regular meeting to discuss appointment of board and
commission members.
The meeting adjourned at 7:19 p.m.
City Clerk Mayor
9
Item # 3c
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
May 21, 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), City Attorney (Mr. Scott), Director of
Community Development (Mr. Harmening), Director of Inspections (Mr. Hoffman),
Manager of Grounds and Natural Resources (Mr. Vaughan), Human Resource Manager
(Ms. Gohman), Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Kleve), and Deputy City Clerk
(Ms. Stroth).
2. Presentations
a. Human Rights Essay presentation
Mayor Jacobs congratulated the contest winner Shalisa Wilson and recognized the
runners up to the Human Rights Essay Award.
Human Rights Commissioner Kristin Rudelius-Palmer spoke about the statewide
campaign to advance Human Rights and counter hate and bigotry. Mayor Jacobs
congratulated the Human Rights Commission for their good work and contributions.
3. Approval of Minutes
a. City Council Minutes of May 7, 2001
The minutes were approved with the following changes.
Item 7a, Paragraph 3, change sentence to read “Councilmember Sanger disagreed with
the assumption that this would be a safety hazard and not see the difference between
buses stopping on Louisiana Ave versus buses stopping on Minnetonka Blvd. and
Cedar Lake Rd.
Item 7a, Paragraph 5, 1st sentence, change Minnetonka Blvd. to Cedar Lake Rd. and add the
sentence “ Councilmember Santa made similar comments about Minnetonka Blvd.” after the
first sentence.
Item 7b, Paragraph 8, change sentence to read “He stated, based on information presented at
earlier meetings by the City’s forestry department, that the overwhelming source of
10
depletion of trees in St. Louis park was not a result of commercial development, but rather, a
result of loss of trees on residential lots.”
Item 7b, Paragraph 9, change 2nd sentence to read “ Ms. Jeremiah stated that the ordinance
requires tree replacement after completion of construction or the City would exercise a letter
of credit to do the replacement.
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
Councilmember Sanger would like to see the placement of the consent item # 2, property
sale to the JCC, placed on the regular agenda as Item # 7d. It was moved by
Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to approve the agenda with
the indicated change. Motion passed 6-0.
c. Approval of Consent Items
It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Nelson, to
approve the consent agenda with the removal of item 2. Motion passed 6-0.
1. Motion to approve a Temporary On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for Tom
Lehman Charities for the Dayton’s Challenge Golf Tournament to be held June
2-4 at the Minneapolis Golf Club, 2001 Flag Ave S, St. Louis Park.
2. Motion to approve second reading of an ordinance which amends Ordinance No.
2154-00 relating to the sale of certain City owned property located at 4326
Cedar Lake Road, adopt ordinance, approve summary and authorize publication;
and,
Motion to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute an Amendment to
Real Estate Purchase Agreement between the City of St. Louis Park and the
Jewish Community Center to adjust the sale price for the subject property.
3. Motion to approve Second Reading of proposed zoning ordinance amendment
for Section 14: 4-11 regarding restrictions for tree removal and standards for
replacement and section 14: 3-1 definitions, adopt summary ordinance and
authorize publication; and,
Motion to adopt a resolution establishing a fee of $90 per caliper inch for cash-
in-lieu of trees. Case number: 01-16-ZA
4. Motion to Vending Machine License and Various Temporary Use Permits;
approve the summary, and authorize summary publication; and
11
Motion to adopt the accompanying resolution setting fees for those licenses and
permits
5. Bid Tabulation: Motion to designate (TBD – See report) as the lowest
responsible bidder, and authorize execution of a contract for the 2001 removal
and replacement of the four tennis courts at Aquila Park in an amount not to
exceed $ (TBD) for Capital Improvement Project – Removal and Replacement
of four Tennis Courts at Aquila Park
6. Bid Tabulation: Motion to designate F. F. Jedlicki, Inc. the lowest responsible
bidder and authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of
$60,044.00 for stormwater improvement project at 8911 Westmoreland Lane –
Area No. 3 – City Project No. 01-13
7. Bid Tabulation: Motion to designate Bituminous Roadways, Inc. the lowest
responsible bidder for conventional and driveway bituminous mixture No. 2340,
and Midwest Asphalt the lowest responsible bidder for bituminous cold patch
material and authorize execution of contracts with the firms in the amount of
$58,250.00 and $4,900.00, respectively.
8. Motion to adopt the attached Resolution to enter into an Agreement with
Hennepin County for the installation of a traffic signal system at the intersection
of Excelsior Boulevard (CSAH 3) and Natchez Avenue
9. Motion to accept the following reports for filing:
a. Planning Commission Minutes of May 2, 2001
b. Housing Authority Minutes of April 11, 2001
c. Police Civil Service Commission minutes from May 15 to December 21,
2000
d. Fire Civil Service Commission Minutes from March 15 to December 21,
2000
e. Vendor Claims
f. Human Rights Commission Minutes of April 18, 2001
5. Public Hearings - None
6. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public - None
7. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions
7a. Public Safety Dispatch Contract for 1/1/01 – 12/31/01
Ms. Gohman gave a staff report outlining the details of the proposed contract. It was
moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to approve the
contract. Motion passed 7-0. Councilmember Latz felt it was a fair and mutual process
where both parties look to maximize their benefit and come to an agreement.
Councilmember Nelson wanted to congratulate both parties on a the contract agreement.
12
7b. Request by Sholom Community Alliance for preliminary and final plat and
PUD approval for Assisted Living Building with Alzheimer’s Pavilion
Case Nos. 01-07-S and 01-18-PUD
3610 Phillips Parkway
Mr. Harmening presented a staff report as well as an aerial view map. He stated that the
Zoning Ordinance does permit this development, there are no variances being requested
or requirement waivers for PUD or plats. He stated that there is one condition that still
must be addressed prior to issuing an occupancy certificate, which is non-emergency
medical calls. Fire department personnel are working on the issue and ways are being
explored throughout the City to address it.
Mr. Harmening stated then that the applicant is replatting the site. The Planning
Commission had voted unanimously to approve both the preliminary and final plat and
PUD subject to the conditions in the resolution.
Mr. Harmening introduced Robert Feller, project architect, and Herb Margolis, consultant
for Sholom Alliance.
Councilmember Santa stated that in the staff report, the project is required to 176 parking
spaces and the proposed number is 311. She felt this was excessive and wondered if this
was to be used as shared parking. Mr. Feller commented this would be shared parking
among the entire facility.
Councilmember Brimeyer inquired how the non-emergency calls were treated. Mr.
Harmening replied they are actual calls made for service and City personnel do show up,
mostly for calls that are not highly critical. He stated that the number of calls has been
increasing while more of these facilities being in built in St. Louis Park. Hew reporrted
that the Fire Department is interested in working with the applicants to find ways to
reduce the number of those calls by having on site medical personnel at the facilities. Mr.
Margolis explained that they have experienced a problem of this sort before and part of
the resolution to it is in the facility they would develop. He stated the different medical
needs of senior housing, nursing homes, and assisted living. Their intent is for the
Knollwood facility go back to the original intent of an adult living facility for the
building. He said they hope that they can have a facility that is used for those truly in
need of assistance and that the number of residents in nursing homes will go down due to
an increase of assisted living options. He stated that assisted living facilities are
receiving a large, favorable response locally and nationally. He added they would be a
help to the fire department because their assisted living facilities have nurses on each
floor that know how to respond to these situations and hopefully the fire department will
receive less calls, therefore resolving that problem. Councilmember Brimeyer did not
want city personnel to not respond to a call because nursing staff was on duty. He felt
that when facilities of that nature are in the community you must attend to the calls
received even if the call is non-emergency. Mr. Margolis state that by having nurses on
staff, they keep the situation monitored and they know whether it’s something they can
handle on their own. He hoped that the calls for service would decrease around sixty-five
percent by taking this measure.
13
Councilmember Nelson asked the Mayor and City Manager if the issue of non-
emergency calls will be brought forward to Council since the city personnel are looking
into the situation and he felt it is a citywide problem. Mr. Meyer replied that staff have
hopes to do so. However, as development proposals come in, assertions are made that
medical staff will be on site but seem to fade out as time goes on or efforts are not made
to contact medical staff, though that is not necessarily the case with this application. Mr.
Meyer stated that with the number of calls that go out to the facilities all over St. Louis
Park, staff will work with the facilities so that they have adequate staff and procedures so
that staff and residents would be able to properly handle situations as they arise.
It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Latz, to adopt a
resolution approving the preliminary and final plat and preliminary and final PUD for
Sholom Community Alliance, subject to the conditions included in the resolution. The
motion passed 7-0.
7c. Approve Sholom Community Alliance Private Activity Revenue Bonds
Mr. John Utley, bond counsel, was in attendance to answer any questions
Mayor Jacobs wanted clarification about the percentage of money the City receives from
issuing these bonds. Mr. Meyer replied that the ordinance states that one-eighth of one
percent of the outstanding bonds that are issued are paid over to the City. That fee could
be used for general revenue but is now used to fund neighborhood revitalization instead.
He added that this fee doe apply to this bond application as well.
Councilmember Sanger asked for an explanation of the financial interest or any other
interests that the City has in issuing these bonds. Mayor Jacobs stated it was his
understanding that the City has no particular interest or obligation in the interest of the
bonds. Mr. Utley stated that these transactions are structured for the City to issue the
bonds and proceeds are loaned to the borrower with the borrower agreeing to pay the City
in amounts that are sufficient for the City to pay the bonds. When speaking of a conduit
between the bond holder and the borrower, the City passes the proceeds and loan
payments through. The interest of the City in the obligations of the borrower to make
those payments. Mayor Jacobs wanted it to be clear that since this is a revenue bond, it
does not obligate the full faith and credit of the City of St. Louis Park. Mr. Utley
clarified that the payments and revenue come directly from the facility and the City is
procluded from using other assets to pay the bond.
Councilmember Nelson asked what security is provided to the bond holder in the event of
a default. Mr. Utley replied, that in this case, the bonds will be secured by the pledge of
revenue to the City as well as the mortgage.
It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Latz, to approve
resolution allowing Sholom Community Alliance to issue up to $19,000,000 in Private
Activity Revenue Bonds and approve all documents in connection with the bond issue.
14
7d. Approve 2nd Reading of ordinance relating to the Sale of City Property located
south of the Jewish Community Center at 4326 Cedar Lake Road and authorize
execution of the amendment
Councilmember Sanger explained that she removed this item from the consent agenda in
response to calls that she had received in which they inquired to what the use of the
property will be. She stated that the land in question provided a good buffer.
Councilmember Sanger stated that she is highly supportive of selling land to the JCC
though she understands the concern that has been expressed.
Mr. Harmening explained why the price reduction came to be as well as the need for a
new ordinance for the sale of land. He stated that no other changes are being proposed
for the purchase agreement. He said the agreement allowed both the JCC and the City
from closing on the property until all land use and planning approvals are given. He
added approvals that will be needed in the future are a plat, rezoning, and an amendment
to their special permit.
Mr. Harmening stated that the proposed use for this property is fairly limited. Based
upon conversations with the JCC, they hope to use a portion for parking lot extension.
Notifications will be sent out when plans come before Council.
Martha Abbott Lamar, 1414 Tyrol Trail (Golden Valley), informed Council that she was
a member of the the South Tyrol Hills Neighborhood Association and they had met with
Jeff Hachtman, director of the JCC, who told them that they do not intend to construct a
building on the land and would like to expand the parking lot. She felt that the land in
question provided a nice edge to the trail. She added that the neighborhood would like
Council to add a condition to the purchase agreement, a conservation requirement that the
land be maintained as a naturally wooded buffer that shields the JCC from the trail. She
stated that if that land were sold again that it forever be maintained as a buffer. She had
concerns over any future sale of the land. She hoped, if the land is later sold, this buffer
will be preserved and maintained by any and all future owners, and be a condition of any
sale. Mr. Harmening noted that the anyone who wanted to development or sell the land
for residential use must first have the property re-guided.
Councilmember Nelson stated that the purchase price was even with market value and tha
twith a condition such as the one suggested, they could not receive the same purchase
price. He felt that if the City wanted this land as a park, it should not be sold at all. He
noted that the tree replacement policy would apply to land and any trees destroyed in the
building of a parking lot would need to be replace in St. Louis Park. Mr. Harmening
explained the tree replacement policy to Ms. Lamar.
Councilmember Sanger stated that her understanding was that the JCC voluntarily is
willing to leave a majority of the trees for a buffer strip. She asked Mr. Harmening what
would be needed to see the land was not built upon and whether it would need to be
rezoned. Mr. Harmening replied that the JCC requested that the land be guided as civic
rather than residential. He added that the JCC had an incentive to leave as many trees as
possible, as it is very expensive to replace them..
15
Mayor Jacobs inquired about inserting a new clause into the agreement now. Mr.
Harmening replied that there is not currently anything with that type of condition now
and if it were to be done, the matter must go back to the JCC.
Mr. Harmening informed Ms. Lamar that there is public access to the land. He added
that developments could be placed on the site, however, there is an utility the runs along
the middle of the land.
Mr. Chachtman stated that it is the JCC’s intention to do as little with the property that
they can other than using it for . He would like to assure the neighbors that the JCC has
no desire to buy and then develop and sell the property.
Mr. Margolis, development consultant for the JCC, stated that the property has very large
amounts of rocks on it that would be very hard to move. He said that they would be
affecting less than ten percent of the trees and only one and a quarter acre of land on the
six acre lot. Mr. Margolis said that he was very concerned about the citizens to the north
in Golden Valley and providing the proper buffers. They are prepared to have
neighborhood meetings or on an individual basis. He stated they would be somewhat
uncomfortable placing other restrictions on the property because they do not know what
may happen in the future and feels there are enough measures in the approval process to
deal with anything that happens in the future.
Don Weiss, 1500 Alpine Pass (Golden Valley), inquired where the easement runs in
relation to his neighborhood. Mr. Harmening replied that the City’s easement runs east to
west through the middle of the property and is not near to the northern edge of the
property. Mr. Meyer stated that they have a sanitary sewer on the northern side of the
property that runs east to west. Mr. Weiss wanted Council to think about adding
additional conditions to the agreement because of the fact that the future for the property
is vague.
Councilmember Latz stated that there will be more time to look at buffer zones. He
asked for clarification on the sale price of $303,750.00 and he believed that it was a fair
and justifiable price.
Councilmember Sanger agreed that the additional steps in the approval process will allow
them to be sure than an adequate number of trees were placed on this property in the
process. She would like to give notice to the public on the expected timeline for this
process. Mr. Margolis stated that their intent is to apply for zoning and platting permits
almost immediately. The preliminary plans are being formalized. He anticipated that
they may start construction in September. Mr. Harmening asked Council if they would
be willing to extend the purchase agreement deadline for closing for a small amount of
time to allow for the planning process to be completed. The deadline is in August.
Mayor Jacobs stated they would address the issue at a later date.
16
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer, to
approve second reading of an ordinance which amends Ordinance No. 2154-00 relating
to the sale of certain City owned property located at 4326 Cedar Lake Road, adopt
ordinance, approve summary and authorize publication and to authorize the Mayor and
City Manager to execute an Amendment to Real Estate Purchase Agreement between the
City of St. Louis Park and the Jewish Community Center to adjust the sale price for the
subject property.
Councilmember Latz inquired if a closing date could be addressed tonight. Mr. Scott said
they could address the issue tonight, but it would not be necessary. Councilmember Latz
did not want to rush the approval process and feels it would be appropriate to extend the
purchase agreement deadline. Councilmember Nelson did not want to extend purchase
agreement but does agree with the purchase price that was set. Councilmember Sanger
supported an extension of the deadline. Mayor Jacobs stated that he had not yet made a
decision to extend the deadline, and there were other options he would like to explore.
Councilmember Sanger did not feel that this needed to be decided tonight. Mayor Jacobs
agreed and did not feel comfortable going forward at this time. Councilmember Santa
agreed.
8. Boards and Committees
a. Appointments to Boards and Commissions
Mayor Jacobs thanked all applicants who volunteered to serve on a board or commission.
It was motioned by Councilmember Young, seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer, to
appoint the applicants below to the boards and commissions list below.
Stephen Simon Community Education Advisory Council
Kirk Hawkinson Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission
Pat Rogers Human Rights Commission
John Mann Human Rights Commission
Tim Dornfield Board of Zoning Appeals
Mayor Jacobs stated that they still have one vacancy on the Human Rights Commission.
9. Communications
Mayor Jacobs reminded everyone of the conference at the High School on diversity that
was sponsored by the Human Rights Commission.
10. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m.
17
City Clerk Mayor
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 5a
Meeting of May 21, 2001
5a Public Hearing – Groves Academy Private Activity Revenue Bonds
Public Hearing to consider issuing Private Activity Revenue Bonds for Groves
Academy to finance the expansion of the existing schoolhouse facility and renovate
a existing building.
Recommended
Action:
Mayor to close the public hearing.
Background:
The City has been asked to consider the issuance of revenue bonds under Minnesota Statutes,
Chapter 462C for a program consisting of the expansion of the existing schoolhouse facility by
approximately 45,000 square feet and renovating the existing approximately 35,0000 square fool
building located at 3200 Highway 100 South in St. Louis Park. The project will be owned and
operated by Groves Academy.
The aggregate face amount of revenue bonds proposed to be issued to finance the Project is
presently estimated not to exceed $6,500,000. The revenue bonds will be issued by the City and
will be limited obligations of the City payable solely from the revenues pledged to the payment
thereof. The revenue bonds will not be general or moral obligations of the City and will not be
secured by or payable from any assets, revenues, or other property of the City (except the
interests of the City in the Project) and will not be secured by or payable from any revenues
derived from any application of the taxing powers of the City.
The application material and financial statements were provided to the City Council at the May
14, 2001 study session. Final approval of the Private Activity Revenue Bond Issue will be
requested at the June 18, 2001 City Council meeting.
Attachment: Resolution
Prepared by: Jean D. McGann, Director of Finance
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
18
RESOLUTION NO. ___________
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST.
LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA, AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE, SALE, AND
DELIVERY OF ITS EDUCATIONAL FACILITY REVENUE BONDS
(GROVES ACADEMY PROJECT), SERIES 2001; PAYABLE SOLELY FROM
REVENUES PLEDGED PURSUANT TO THE INDENTURE; APPROVING
THE FORM OF AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY
OF THE BONDS AND THE RELATED DOCUMENTS; AND PROVIDING
FOR THE SECURITY, RIGHTS, AND REMEDIES WITH RESPECT TO THE
BONDS
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota (the “City”), is a home rule city and
political subdivision duly organized and existing under its Charter and the Constitution and laws
of the State of Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota, particularly
Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.152-469.165, as amended (the “Act”), the City is authorized to
carry out the public purposes described therein and contemplated thereby by issuing its revenue
bonds or other obligations to make a loan to finance a revenue producing enterprise, including
the financing of the costs of the acquisition and preparation of a site and the construction of a
new educational facility; and
WHEREAS, the City received an application for private activity revenue bond financing
from Groves Academy, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation (the “Corporation”), with respect to
the renovation, expansion, and improvement of its independent co-educational day school
facilities located at 3200 Highway 100 South in the City (the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, the City has prepared an Application to the Minnesota Department of Trade
and Economic Development (“DTED”) for approval of the Project pursuant to the requirements
of Section 469.154 of the Act.
WHEREAS, a notice (the “Public Notice”) of a public hearing (in which a general,
functional description of the Project was provided, as well as the maximum aggregate face
amount of the obligations to be issued with respect to the Project, the identity of the initial
owner, operator, or manager of the Project, and the location of the Project by street address) was
published in a newspaper circulating generally in the City at least fifteen (15) days before the
regularly-scheduled meeting of the City Council of the City on June 4, 2001, the City Council
has conducted a public hearing at which a reasonable opportunity was provided for interested
individuals to express their views, both orally and in writing, on the proposed issuance of the
Bonds (as defined below), and the location and nature of the Project; and
WHEREAS, the proceeds derived from the sale of revenue bonds to be issued to finance
the Project (the “Bonds”) will be loaned to the Corporation pursuant to the terms of a Loan
19
Agreement, dated as of June 1, 2001 (the “Loan Agreement”), between the City and the
Corporation; and
WHEREAS, the loan under the terms of the Loan Agreement will be secured by a
Combination Mortgage, Security Agreement, and Fixture Financing Statement and Assignment
of Leases and Rents, dated as of June 1, 2001 (the “Mortgage”), executed by the Corporation in
favor of the City; and
WHEREAS, the Bonds will be issued under a Trust Indenture, dated as of June 1, 2001
(the “Indenture”), between the City and Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota, National Association, as
trustee (the “Trustee”), and the Bonds and the interest on the Bonds: (i) shall be payable solely
from the revenues pledged therefor; (ii) shall not constitute a debt of the City within the meaning
of any constitutional or statutory limitation; (iii) shall not constitute nor give rise to a pecuniary
liability of the City or a charge against its general credit or taxing powers; and (iv) shall not
constitute a charge, lien, or encumbrance, legal or equitable, upon any property of the City other
than the City’s interest in the Project and the Loan Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the loan repayments required to be made by the Corporation under the terms
of the Loan Agreement will be assigned to the Trustee under the terms of the Indenture and the
City’s rights as mortgagee under the Mortgage will be assigned to the Trustee under the terms of
an Assignment of Mortgage and Security Agreement, dated as of June 1, 2001 (the “Assignment
of Mortgage”), between the City and the Trustee;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA, AS FOLLOWS:
1. The publication of the Public Notice is hereby ratified and approved in all
respects.
2. The City Manager is hereby authorized to do all other things and take all other
actions as may be necessary or appropriate to prepare and submit the application to DTED
required by the terms of the Act and to take all other actions related thereto and required by any
other applicable laws and regulations.
3. The City acknowledges, finds, determines, and declares that the issuance of the
Bonds is authorized by the Act and is consistent with the purposes of the Act and that the
issuance of the Bonds and the other actions of the City under the Indenture, the Loan Agreement,
and this resolution constitute a public purpose and are in the best interests of the City.
4. The City understands that the Corporation will pay directly or through the City
any and all costs incurred by the City in connection with the Project, whether or not the Project is
completed, and whether or not the Bonds are issued.
5. In order to apply all or a portion of the proceeds of the Bonds to reimburse the
Corporation for Project expenditures paid prior to the date of issuance of the Bonds, Treasury
Regulations, Section 1.150-2 (the “Regulations”), require that the City adopt a statement of
20
official intent to reimburse such original expenditures not later than sixty days after payment of
the original expenditures. The Regulations also generally require that the Bonds be issued and
the reimbursement allocation made from the proceeds of the Bonds occur within eighteen
months after the later of: (i) the date the expenditure is paid; or (ii) the date the Project is placed
in service or abandoned, but in no event more than three years after the date the expenditure is
paid. The Regulations generally permit reimbursement of capital expenditures and costs of
issuance of the Bonds. The City expects to reimburse the Corporation for the expenditures made
for costs of the Project from the proceeds of the Bonds in an estimated maximum aggregate
principal amount not to exceed $1,000,000 after the date of payment of all or a portion of the
costs of the Project. All reimbursed expenditures shall be capital expenditures, a cost of issuance
of the Bonds, or other expenditures eligible for reimbursement under Section 1.150-2(d)(3) of
the Regulations and also qualifying expenditures under the Act.
6. For the purposes set forth above, there is hereby authorized the issuance, sale and
delivery of the Bonds in one or more series in the maximum aggregate principal amount not to
exceed $5,000,000. The Bonds shall bear interest at a rate not to exceed 8.00 percent per annum.
The Bonds shall be designated, shall be numbered, shall be dated, shall mature, shall be subject
to redemption prior to maturity, shall be in such form, and shall have such other terms, details,
and provisions as are prescribed in the Indenture, in the form now on file with the City, with the
amendments referenced herein. The City hereby authorizes the Bonds to be issued as “tax-
exempt bonds” the interest on which is not includable in gross income for federal and State of
Minnesota income tax purposes.
All of the provisions of the Bonds, when executed as authorized herein, shall be deemed
to be a part of this resolution as fully and to the same extent as if incorporated verbatim herein
and shall be in full force and effect from the date of execution and delivery thereof. The Bonds
shall be substantially in the forms in the Indenture on file with the City, which forms are hereby
approved, with such necessary and appropriate variations, omissions and insertions (including
changes to the aggregate principal amount of the Bonds, the stated maturities of the Bonds and
the maturity dates, the interest rates on the Bonds, the terms of redemption of the Bonds, and
variation from City policies regarding methods of offering conduit bonds) as the Mayor and the
City Manager (the “Mayor” and “City Manager”), in their discretion, shall determine. The
execution of the Bonds with the manual or facsimile signatures of the Mayor and the City
Manager and the delivery of the Bonds by the City shall be conclusive evidence of such
determination.
7. The Bonds shall be special limited obligations of the City payable solely from the
revenues provided by the Corporation pursuant to the Loan Agreement, and other funds pledged
pursuant to the Indenture. The City Council of the City hereby authorizes and directs the Mayor
and the City Manager to execute and deliver the Indenture, and to deliver to said Trustee the
Indenture, and hereby authorizes and directs the execution of the Bonds in accordance with the
terms of the Indenture, and hereby provides that the Indenture shall provide the terms and
conditions, covenants, rights, obligations, duties and agreements of the owners of the Bonds, the
City and the Trustee as set forth therein.
21
All of the provisions of the Indenture, when executed as authorized herein, shall be
deemed to be a part of this resolution as fully and to the same extent as if incorporated verbatim
herein and shall be in full force and effect from the date of execution and delivery thereof. The
Indenture shall be substantially in the form on file with the City, which is hereby approved, with
such necessary and appropriate variations, omissions and insertions as do not materially change
the substance thereof, or as the Mayor and the City Manager, in their discretion, shall determine,
and the execution thereof by the Mayor and the City Manager shall be conclusive evidence of
such determination.
8. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to execute and
deliver the Loan Agreement, the Assignment of Mortgage, and the Bond Purchase Agreement,
between the City, Miller Johnson Steichen Kinnard, Inc. (the “Underwriter”), and the
Corporation (the “Bond Purchase Agreement”). All of the provisions of the Loan Agreement,
Mortgage, Assignment of Mortgage, and Bond Purchase Agreement, when executed and
delivered as authorized herein, shall be deemed to be a part of this resolution as fully and to the
same extent as if incorporated verbatim herein and shall be in full force and effect from the date
of execution and delivery thereof. The Loan Agreement, Assignment of Mortgage, and Bond
Purchase Agreement shall be substantially in the forms on file with the City which are hereby
approved, with such omissions and insertions as do not materially change the substance thereof,
or as the Mayor and the City Manager, in their discretion, shall determine, and the execution
thereof by the Mayor and the City Manager shall be conclusive evidence of such determination.
9. The Bonds shall be revenue obligations of the City the proceeds of which shall be
disbursed pursuant to the terms of the Indenture and the Loan Agreement, and the principal,
premium, and interest on the Bonds shall be payable solely from the proceeds of the Bonds, the
revenues derived from the Loan Agreement, the revenues and assets pledged and assigned under
the terms of the Mortgage and the Assignment of Mortgage, and the other sources set forth in the
Indenture.
10. The Trustee is hereby appointed as Paying Agent and Bond Registrar for the
Bonds.
11. The Mayor and City Manager of the City are hereby authorized to execute and
deliver, on behalf of the City, such other documents as are necessary or appropriate in
connection with the issuance, sale, and delivery of the Bonds, including the City Tax Certificate,
the Tax Exemption Agreement, the Information Return for Tax-Exempt Private Activity Bond
Issues, Form 8038, and all other documents and certificates as shall be necessary and appropriate
in connection with the issuance, sale, and delivery of the Bonds. The City hereby approves the
execution and delivery by the Trustee of the Indenture and all other instruments, certificates, and
documents prepared in conjunction with the issuance of the Bonds that require execution by the
Trustee. The City hereby authorizes Kennedy & Graven, Chartered, as bond counsel of the City,
to prepare, execute, and deliver its approving legal opinion with respect to the Bonds.
12. The City has not participated in the preparation of the Preliminary Official Statement
or the Official Statement relating to the offer and sale of the Bonds (the “Official
Statement”), and has made no independent investigation with respect to the
22
information contained therein, including the appendices thereto, and the City assumes
no responsibility for the sufficiency, accuracy, or completeness of such information.
Subject to the foregoing, the City hereby consents to the distribution and the use by
the Underwriter in connection with the sale of the Bonds of the Official Statement, in
the form on file with the City. The Official Statement is the sole material consented
to by the City for use in connection with the offer and sale of the Bonds. The City
hereby approves the Continuing Disclosure Agreement, dated as of June 1, 2001 (the
“Continuing Disclosure Agreement”), between the Corporation and the Trustee, in the
form now on file with the City, and hereby authorizes the Trustee to execute and
deliver the Continuing Disclosure Agreement.
The Bonds are not rated but will be publicly offered in minimum denominations of
$5,000 to individuals and other non-institutional investors. The City Council elects to depart
from its guidelines (as set forth in Part III - Miscellaneous Matters of its Procedure for
Application to City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota for Private Activity Revenue Bond Financing)
with respect to the public offer and sale of non-rated bonds due to the level of merit and public
purpose of the Project, the good standing of the Corporation in the City, and the reputation and
experience of the Underwriter.
13. Except as otherwise provided in this resolution, all rights, powers and privileges
conferred and duties and liabilities imposed upon the City or the City Council by the provisions
of this resolution or of the aforementioned documents shall be exercised or performed by the
City or by such members of the City Council, or such officers, board, body or agency thereof as
may be required or authorized by law to exercise such powers and to perform such duties.
No covenant, stipulation, obligation or agreement herein contained or contained in the
aforementioned documents shall be deemed to be a covenant, stipulation, obligation or
agreement of any member of the City Council of the City, or any officer, agent or employee of
the City in that person’s individual capacity, and neither the City Council of the City nor any
officer or employee executing the Bonds shall be liable personally on the Bonds or be subject to
any personal liability or accountability by reason of the issuance thereof.
No provision, covenant or agreement contained in the aforementioned documents, the
Bonds or in any other document relating to the Bonds, and no obligation therein or herein
imposed upon the City or the breach thereof, shall constitute or give rise to any pecuniary
liability of the City or any charge upon its general credit or taxing powers. In making the
agreements, provisions, covenants and representations set forth in such documents, the City has
not obligated itself to pay or remit any funds or revenues, other than funds and revenues derived
from the Loan Agreement, Mortgage, and Assignment of Mortgage which are to be applied to
the payment of the Bonds, as provided therein and in the Indenture.
14. Except as herein otherwise expressly provided, nothing in this resolution or in the
aforementioned documents expressed or implied, is intended or shall be construed to confer upon
any person or firm or corporation, other than the City or any holder of the Bonds issued under
the provisions of this resolution, any right, remedy or claim, legal or equitable, under and by
reason of this resolution or any provisions hereof, this resolution, the aforementioned documents
23
and all of their provisions being intended to be and being for the sole and exclusive benefit of the
City and any holder from time to time of the Bonds issued under the provisions of this resolution.
15. In case any one or more of the provisions of this resolution, other than the
provisions contained in the first sentence of Section 3 hereof, or of the aforementioned
documents, or of the Bonds issued hereunder shall for any reason be held to be illegal or invalid,
such illegality or invalidity shall not affect any other provision of this resolution, or of the
aforementioned documents, or of the Bonds, but this resolution, the aforementioned documents,
and the Bonds shall be construed and endorsed as if such illegal or invalid provisions had not
been contained therein.
16. The Bonds, when executed and delivered, shall contain a recital that they are
issued pursuant to the Act, and such recital shall be conclusive evidence of the validity of the
Bonds and the regularity of the issuance thereof, and that all acts, conditions, and things required
by the laws of the State of Minnesota relating to the adoption of this resolution, to the issuance of
the Bonds, and to the execution of the aforementioned documents to happen, exist and be
performed precedent to the execution of the aforementioned documents have happened, exist and
have been performed as so required by law.
17. The officers of the City, bond counsel, other attorneys, engineers, and other
agents or employees of the City are hereby authorized to do all acts and things required of them
by or in connection with this resolution, the aforementioned documents, and the Bonds for the
full, punctual and complete performance of all the terms, covenants and agreements contained in
the Bonds, the aforementioned documents and this resolution. In the event that for any reason
the Mayor of the City is unable to carry out the execution of any of the documents or other acts
provided herein, any other member of the City Council of the City shall be authorized to act in
his capacity and undertake such execution or acts on behalf of the City with full force and effect,
which execution or acts shall be valid and binding on the City. If for any reason the City
Manager of the City is unable to execute and deliver the documents referred to in this
Resolution, such documents may be executed by any member of the City Council or any officer
of the City delegated the duties of the City Manager, with the same force and effect as if such
documents were executed and delivered by the City Manager of the City.
18. This resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, this 4th day of
June, 2001.
Mayor
City Manager
24
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 5b
Meeting of June 4, 2001
5b. Public Hearing and First Reading of an ordinance to vacate portions of
Natchez Avenue, Ottawa Avenue, 38th Street, Princeton Avenue, an alley and
an existing sidewalk easement in Park Commons East.
Case No. 01-08-VAC
Recommended
Action:
Mayor to close the public hearing. Motion to approve First
Reading of an ordinance to vacate portions of streets, an alley,
and a sidewalk easement in Park Commons East and set Second
Reading for June 18, 2001.
Background:A Redevelopment Plan for Park Commons East was adopted by the City Council
on December 4, 2000 and approved by the Metropolitan Council as part of our Comprehensive
Plan in late December. The Redevelopment Plan shows the realignment of certain streets in the
Park Commons East area. Implementation of the plan requires vacation of portions of streets and
dedication of new street right-of-ways. There is also an existing alley that would need to be
vacated as well as on old sidewalk easement along Excelsior Boulevard. The new street right-of-
ways are being dedicated through the platting process (see Park Commons East Preliminary
PUD, Plat and variances report). New sidewalk easements are also being required prior to
execution of the final plat.
Notices of the public hearing for the street vacations and Council consideration of the
Preliminary PUD, Plat and variances have been mailed to a list of 1800 property owners. The
Planning Commission considered the proposed vacations on May 16, 2001 and recommended
approval on a vote of 5-0 subject to the following conditions:
1. The legal descriptions of the proposed vacations shall be approved by the City Attorney prior
to City Council consideration.
2. The ordinance vacating the streets, alley and sidewalk easement shall be subject to final plat
approval for Park Commons East and shall not become effective until evidence has been
submitted to the City that the final plat and required easements have been recorded.
The City Attorney is currently reviewing the legal descriptions. Since the proposed ordinance
requires two readings, staff recommends that the City Attorney verifies the accuracy prior to
Second Reading. The proposed ordinance states that it does not become effective until the final
plat and required easements have been recorded.
Attachment: Proposed Ordinance
Map of Streets Being Vacated
Prepared By: Janet Jeremiah, Planning & Zoning Supervisor
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
25
ORDINANCE NO.___________
AN ORDINANCE VACATING CERTAIN STREETS, AN ALLEY AND A SIDEWALK
EASEMENT IN PARK COMMONS EAST
East of Quentin Avenue, North of Excelsior Boulevard to the
Southern Portion of Wolfe Park, and
West of Monterey Drive
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. A petition in writing signed by a majority of all of the owners of all
property abutting upon both sides of the streets, alley and sidewalk easement proposed to be
vacated has been duly filed with the City Clerk, requesting vacation of the streets, alley and
sidewalk easement and the City Clerk has furnished a copy of said petition to the City Manager
who has required filing of same to the newspaper, the St. Louis Park Sailor, on May 23, 2001, as
directed by the said notice and has conducted a public hearing upon said petition and has
determined that the streets, alley and sidewalk easement are not needed for public purposes, and
that it is for the best interest of the public that said streets, alley and sidewalk easement be
vacated.
Section 2. The following described streets, alley and sidewalk easement as now
dedicated and laid out within the corporate limits of the City of St. Louis Park, are vacated:
See Attached Legal Description
reserving, however, to the City of St. Louis Park any and all easements that may exist in, over,
and across the described property for storm sewer, sanitary sewer, water main, and public utility
purposes.
Section 3. The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this ordinance in
the Office of the Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be.
Sec.4. This Ordinance shall take effect upon evidence of recording the final plat
and required easements for Park Commons East.
Adopted by the City Council June 18, 2001
Reviewed for Administration
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
26
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 7a
Meeting of June 4, 2001
7a. TOLD Development Company is requesting approval of a Preliminary Plat
and Preliminary PUD with certain variances for Park Commons East
Case No. 01-06-S and 01-07-PUD and 01-19-Var
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt a resolution approving the Preliminary Plat,
Preliminary PUD and variances subject to the conditions
included in the resolution.
Background:
On December 4, 2000, the City Council approved a Redevelopment Plan and land use
designations for Park Commons East as amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. The
Metropolitan Council approved the Comprehensive Plan amendments on December 13, 2000.
The City Council then rezoned the properties on January 16, 2001 for consistency with the
Comprehensive Plan land use designations.
The City currently owns all of the properties in the 16 acre Park Commons East area except
Bally’s, which is not included in the proposed plat and PUD. The Preliminary PUD site is
bounded by Bally’s and Wolfe Lake condominiums on the west, Excelsior Boulevard on the
south, Westmoreland condominiums and Monterey Drive on the east, and the southern portion of
Wolfe Park on the north.
TOLD is currently proposing 660 housing units, 37,500 square feet of office, and 82,200 square
feet of retail in a phased project (see attached Project Description for details). On May 2, 2001,
the Planning Commission opened the public hearing for the Preliminary Plat, PUD and
variances. Notices of the May 2nd public hearing had been mailed to a list of 1800 property
owners. The Planning Commission heard testimony from several residents. One resident raised
a concern regarding fire response time to the Minikahda Vista neighborhood. A memo from the
City Fire Marshal responding to that concern is attached to this report. The Planning
Commission continued the public hearing until May 16 to allow completion of a parking study
and a full analysis of the plans. On May 16, 2001, the Planning Commission considered a
complete staff review and heard additional testimony. The Planning Commission recommended
approval of the Preliminary Plat, PUD and variances on a vote of 5-0 subject to conditions
recommended by staff and one additional condition. The Planning Commission recommended
naming the park edge road “Wolfe Parkway” instead of “Walden Parkway” as proposed by the
developer.
Notice has been sent to the list of 1800 property owners that the City Council is considering the
Preliminary Plat, PUD, variances and vacations (see separate report) on June 4, 2001.
27
Issues:
Does the Preliminary Plat meet the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance?
Are there any agency or utility comments that need to be addressed?
How will the phasing of construction be handled at final plat?
Is the Preliminary PUD information complete?
Is the Preliminary PUD generally consistent with the adopted Redevelopment Plan?
How are the park edge and town green designs being refined?
What are the traffic recommendations and how have they been integrated into the
plans?
What are the parking study recommendations and how have they been integrated into
the plans?
How is pedestrian/bicycle/transit circulation being handled?
Analysis of Issues:
Does the Preliminary Plat meet the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance?
Future Phase Lots: Those lots in future development phases that will include for-sale townhome
or condominium units do not currently include enough preliminary plat information relative to
the condominium lots. Therefore, those lots will need to apply for subsequent preliminary and
final plat approval. This has been included as a condition of approval.
Tree Replacement: The Planning Commission required submission of a tree replacement plan
prior to City Council consideration. The plan has been submitted and is included in your
packets. It does not yet include the impact on trees in Wolfe Park, due to the construction of the
new park edge road. Plans for that area are being revised based upon input from the Park and
Recreation Director. A new tree replacement plan is being required as part of the Final PUD
submittal for Phase 1. This is included as a condition of approval.
Blocks and Pedestrianways: The Subdivision Ordinance specifies that in blocks longer than 300
feet, pedestrianways or easements may be required near the center of the blocks. Block 1 (Phase
One West and Future Phase W) and Block 2 (Phase One East and Future Phase E) are over 300
feet. Private access drives with pedestrian sidewalks are shown between the lots of these blocks,
although the drives/sidewalks are not centered in the blocks. The widest individual lots are
Phase One West, which is over 500 feet wide and Phase One East, which is over 400 feet wide.
Neither include internal “pedestrianways” or easements. However, public parking ramps are
shown near the center of these lots. Since most people will be parking in these central ramps and
using them to gain pedestrian access to the rest of the development, staff believes the intent of
the provision has been met.
Street ROW widths and street sections Variances are requested to the Subdivision Ordinance to
allow street right-of-way widths and street sections as shown on the Preliminary Plat and PUD
plans. The street right-of-way width along 38th/39th (shown as Grand Avenue) is less than the 60
feet usually required. However, sidewalk easements will be conveyed to the City along both
28
sides of the right-of-way. Therefore, staff believes the widths are adequate and when combined
with the easements, meet the intent of the ordinance provisions. The street sections require
variances to approve the one-way design along the town green as well as the angled parking on
the town green and park edge road. The Fire Marshal has approved the proposed street widths
and the angled parking is shown on the adopted Redevelopment Plan. Therefore, staff believes
the street sections are adequate and in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan for the area.
Street names: The City Clerk has researched the issue of naming streets and has determined that
the City does not have a street naming policy, other than the provisions included in the
Subdivision Ordinance. Any street name with the word “park” in it requires a variance to the
Subdivision Ordinance. The developer has requested to use the name Walden Parkway for the
park edge road and Parker Street for the roadway bisecting Block 2. Staff believes “parkway” is
the most appropriate name for the park edge road, and therefore supports the variance. The
Planning Commission also supports the variance for use of “parkway”. However, the Planning
Commission has recommended naming the street “Wolfe Parkway” to eliminate confusion. This
has been included as a condition of approval. Parker Street is currently shown as a private road.
However, the City may require it to be dedicated as right-of-way as part of the final plat.
Therefore, the proposed variance would also apply to Parker Street.
The developer is also requesting approval for the one-way streets on either side of the town green
to be named Market Street. The Subdivision Ordinance states that any street that is a logical
extension of an existing street shall use the same name. Although the town green streets could
be considered a logical extension of Natchez, the section north of Excelsior Boulevard was
previously named Ottawa. There is also existing right-of-way named Natchez north of 38th on
the west side of the Westmoreland Hills Condominiums. Therefore, staff does not believe it is
appropriate to use Natchez around the town green. However, “streets” run east and west in St.
Louis Park, and “avenues” run north and south. Therefore, staff recommends naming the town
green streets “Market Avenue”.
The developer is also requesting renaming 38th/39th Street. The Preliminary Plans show it as
“Grand Avenue”. However, that name is associated with St. Paul, so the developer is now
requesting naming it “Grand Place”. The idea of renaming 38th/39th was raised at a meeting that
included about 35 residents of the Wolfe Lake and Westmoreland Hills condominiums. At that
time, there was not a specific proposal, and there was no consensus regarding whether or not the
street should be renamed. If the Council is interested in exploring this further, staff recommends
sending a survey to the condominium residents to determine interest in renaming 38th/39th to
“Grand Place”. Staff could bring the results of the survey to the Council prior to action on the
final plat.
Drainage/utility easements: The Subdivision Ordinance requires drainage and utility easements
around the perimeter of all lots. The developer is not showing such easements and they have
been deemed unnecessary by the Public Works Department and utility companies. Therefore,
staff and the Planning Commission support a variance to the Subdivision Ordinance to eliminate
this requirement.
29
Lot sizes: The Preliminary Plat shows Lot 2, Block 2 with a minimum width of 68 feet. That
parcel is zoned R-C, which has a minimum lot width requirement of 80 feet. This is in Future
Phase E, which will have to come back through Preliminary Plat approval, since it will likely be
subdivided as condominium lots. Additional R-C lot width variances may also be needed for
future Phase W and NE.
The Planning Commission has recommended approval of all of the proposed variances based
upon the following findings:
1) that there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property such that strict
application of the ordinance would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the land;
2) that the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and
welfare or injurious to other property;
3) that the variance is to correct inequities resulting from an extreme physical hardship; and
4) that the variance is not contrary to the intent of the Comprehensive Plan.
Preliminary Grading and Utility Plans: The Preliminary Grading Plan for the park edge has not
yet been approved by the City. The developer, Park and Recreation Director and other staff have
met at the site and discussed potential changes, which are being made and will be part of the
Final PUD/Plat submittal for Phase 1. The Preliminary Grading and Utility Plan for 38th/39th
Street has also not yet been approved. There is a utility issue (see below) as well as potential
impacts on Westmoreland condominium property trees with the proposed plan. The grading plan
for 38th/39th is also being revised for the Final PUD/Plat submittal. Approval of the plans by
Public Works and the Park and Recreation Director has been included as a condition of approval.
Are there any agency or utility comments that need to be addressed?
Hennepin County has submitted letters indicating their acceptance of the plan provided the
appropriate permits are obtained for work in the right-of-way.
Qwest has raised a concern regarding the potential effects of the proposed Preliminary grading
plan on a fiberoptic line that is under 38th/39th Street. Staff has included a condition requiring
this issue to be resolved by protection of the existing location or relocation of the fiberoptic line,
which may need to be buried deeper under the street.
How will the phasing of construction be handled at final plat?
As noted, future phase lots will need to reapply for preliminary as well as final approval to
address condominium lots. Final Plat submittals will be phased. The Final Plat for Phase 1 will
show all future development lots as outlots. Building construction will not be allowed to
commence on the future development lots until all final approvals are received. Construction of
access drives, interim parking, and other interim improvements, such as temporary sidewalks and
landscaping, will be allowed on the future development lots subject to City approval.
Is the Preliminary PUD information complete?
30
At the time of Planning Commission consideration, there were a few minor outstanding issues.
The Planning Commission recommended revision of certain plans prior to City Council
consideration. Most of the changes have been made and are included in your packets. There is
still an inconsistency with the Utility Plan showing development on Future Phase W. This can
be rectified with a note on the official exhibit.
Is the Preliminary PUD generally consistent with the adopted Redevelopment Plan?
The Preliminary PUD appears to be generally consistent with the Redevelopment Plan that was
adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan.
Density: The amount of retail has decreased compared to the Redevelopment Plan, due in part to
Bally’s no longer being included. The amount of office has also decreased compared to the
Redevelopment Plan, due to the Bally’s site not being included at this time for redevelopment as
office. The number of proposed residential units is consistent with the Redevelopment Plan (see
attached Project Description for proposed uses).
Height: The Redevelopment Plan states that building heights south of 38th/39th Street
will generally be 2-4 stories, while building heights north of 38th/39th Street will generally be 6-8
stories. TOLD’s current proposal includes mostly 4 story buildings south of 38th/39th Street with
a portion of the future boutique office building at the corner of Monterey and Excelsior
Boulevard shown as 2-stories. North of 38th Street, TOLD is proposing a 7-story building on the
west side of the town green. This is consistent with the 6-8 stories anticipated by the
Redevelopment Plan. On the east side of the town green, TOLD is currently proposing a 4 story
building, which is somewhat lower than what was anticipated by the Redevelopment Plan.
However, TOLD has indicated that they would like some flexibility in that block to address a
market study that is currently underway and may recommend additional for-sale units in a
somehat taller condominium building. This could be considered under the 6-8 story guidance of
the Redevelopment Plan. Number of stories and heights of the for-sale townhomes are not yet
included and will need to go through subsequent preliminary review and approval. The City has
previously indicated a desire for more for-sale units by stacking them in 3-4 story buildings. The
heights as proposed are generally consistent with the Redevelopment Plan.
Mixed-Use Criteria: The Redevelopment Plan notes that daycare can be considered a
retail/service use for meeting ground floor mixed-use criteria, and a fitness center (Bally’s) can
be considered an office for meeting upper story mixed-use criteria. A daycare is still being
considered and will likely occupy the ground floor of Building 1B. This is a change from the
Redevelopment Plan, which showed the daycare close to the park. As noted, a new location is
no longer proposed for Bally’s.
Access to Multiple-Family: The Redevelopment Plan states that access to residential units will
be approved through the PUD process. Westmoreland Hills condominium owners have
expressed some concern over previous proposals that showed an entry drive to the new
apartments directly west of their building. Their concern was that headlights would shine into
their units. TOLD’s current proposal shows the entry drive on the east side of Future Phase NE,
31
which may need to be redesigned or effects mitigated. This should be addressed when that
future phase applies for preliminary and final approvals.
Right-of-Way: The Redevelopment Plan states that design of public right-of-ways, including
exact location and width of streets, on-street parking design, and width of boulevards and
sidewalks will be approved through the PUD and platting process. As noted, TOLD is
requesting certain variances to the street right-of-way widths and sections to accommodate one-
way designs and angled parking. Existing right-of-way will be vacated subject to dedication of
the new platted right-of-ways. Exact dimensions and designs of boulevards, sidewalks and
transit stops will be further addressed in Final PUD plans.
Open Space: Open space has been significantly increased compared to the Redevelopment Plan
to incorporate courtyards in the center of buildings south of 38th/39th Street. Total usable open
space in this plan is 1.4 acres more than the Redevelopment Plan. This is the net gain after
considering the impacts of additional for-sale townhomes that are conceptually proposed along
the park edge road in these plans. The townhomes will have to go through subsequent
preliminary and final PUD and Plat approval.
FAR and GFAR: The Redevelopment Plan states that Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and Ground Floor
Area Ratio (GFAR) shall be generally consistent with the redevelopment concept plan and as
specifically approved by PUD. TOLD’s current proposal is generally consistent with the
previous plan, except that the FAR of the building north of 38th Street and east of the town green
has decreased, while the GFAR of that building has increased. In other words, the building has
less overall floor space, since the height has been reduced, but it covers more ground area,
because the footprint has been increased. Ground floor area on Excelsior Boulevard has
decreased, due to spaces between buildings to allow access to new above-ground parking
structures (see Off-Street Parking section).
Building Setbacks: The Redevelopment Plan states that building setbacks, including distances
for internal roadways and parking lots, should be generally consistent with the redevelopment
concept plan and as approved by PUD. Building setbacks are generally consistent with the
redevelopment concept plan. Building lot lines have generally been placed 5-8 feet from the
building facades to eliminate potential Building Code problems with balconies, door openings,
etc.
Landscaping and Bufferyards: The Redevelopment Plan states that landscaping and bufferyards
will be as specifically approved by PUD. A general landscape plan is required for Preliminary
PUD consideration and is included with the submittal. As noted, more information is needed to
adequately determine tree replacement requirements. Detailed landscape plans are required for
Final PUD consideration.
Off-Street Parking: The Redevelopment Plan states that parking should be generally consistent
with the redevelopment concept plan and as specifically approved by PUD. TOLD’s current
proposal includes a significant change in the off-street parking design compared to the
redevelopment concept plan. Rather than surface lots between the buildings leading to additional
underground parking for the retail south of 38th/39th Street, the majority of retail parking would
32
be provided in above-ground structures between the buildings. This was done to accommodate
the courtyard design and increase the amenities for apartment dwellers. Residential parking and
most of the office parking would still be below ground, but in a single level below ground, rather
than two levels as previously proposed. Below-ground residential parking is proposed at 1.2
spaces per unit for the buildings south of 38th/39th Street and 1.4 spaces per unit for the buildings
north of 38th/39th Street. Some residents and guests would share on-street or ramp parking with
other uses. The townhomes are proposed to have 2 reserved spaces per unit, which should be
adequate. The overall number of parking spaces has been reduced compared to the previous
plan. In order to verify that there is adequate parking for all uses, including park and town green
events, the City has contracted with Walker Parking Consultants to undertake a detailed parking
analysis. That study is complete and is included as an attachment. It is discussed further below.
How are the park edge and town green designs being refined?
The proposed design of the park edge has not yet been approved by the Park and Recreation
Director. Staff and the developer have met at the site and the plans are being revised based upon
staff comments. The proposed conditions of approval require the preliminary plans to be
approved by the Park and Recreation Director and more detailed plans for the park edge to be
submitted as part of the final PUD and plat applications. The detailed town green design will
also be part of the Final PUD submittal. The proposed town green design was recommended by
a task force and has been accepted in concept by the City Council. Details regarding public art
and specific site materials are still being considered by the design professionals.
What are the traffic recommendations and how have they been integrated into the
plans?
Signal at Excelsior Boulevard and Natchez/Market Street (Town Green): A traffic signal has
been a recommendation for this intersection since the town center community design process in
1996. The traffic signal has also been recommended by the traffic study that was included in the
previous packet and by the MPCA as part of their review of the EAW. The signal has been
approved by Hennepin County subject to an agreement that is currently being reviewed by the
City.
Town green traffic recommendations: The traffic study recommends two lanes of approach
southbound on the west side of the town green at Excelsior Boulevard. The study recommends
an exclusive left-turn lane and a through/right-turn lane. The plans are currently showing an
increased street width to accommodate this improvement. Staff has also asked the traffic
consultant for recommendations regarding traffic control around the town green, due to the
proposed angled parking and traffic circle. The traffic consultant has recommended that there
not be a passing lane around vehicles waiting to park in the angled parking, because such passing
would cause vehicular and pedestrian safety issues. It appears that the proposed size of that lane
(approximatley 16 feet) would not accommodate passing. The traffic consultant is comfortable
with the proposed traffic circle, provided stop signs are also included at that intersection to
ensure pedestrian safety. A traffic control/signage plan is being required as part of the final PUD
submittal.
33
Actuated-coordinated timing plans on Excelsior Boulevard: Sensitive timing of signals on
Excelsior Boulevard will allow efficient movement of vehicles on the County road while
accommodating pedestrian crossings at signalized intersections. The coordinated system
currently ends at Quentin Avenue. The traffic study recommends developing timing plans to
include the signals east to Monterey Drive. The City will work with the County on this
recommendation.
Access at Monterey Drive/38th–39thStreet: The traffic study recommends a full movement one
way stop controlled intersection, as existing, at the Monterey Drive/38th-39th Street entrance to
the project area. The traffic study recommends modifying Monterey Drive to add a northbound
left-turn lane onto 38th-39th Street from Monterey Drive. This does not appear to be shown on
the Preliminary PUD plans but has been addressed in the proposed conditions of approval. The
Traffic Study also recommends having one through lane and one through/right-turn lane from
southbound Monterey Drive onto 38th-39th Street. The plans attempt to reflect these
improvements, but details of the exact lane widths are currently being refined, and some
revisions to the plans may be made. Details to address pedestrian and bicycle provisions along
Monterey and elsewhere are also being required as part of the final PUD submittal.
Excelsior Boulevard/Monterey Drive Intersection: The traffic study recommends reconstruction
of the Excelsior Boulevard/Monterey Drive intersection to better accommodate southbound
traffic on Monterey Drive. Recommendations include two left turn lanes onto Excelsior
Boulevard This should help prevent unnecessary cut-through traffic into the neighborhood to the
south, especially with a long left-turn signal time. There would be only one through lane and
one right-turn lane. Again, the developer has attempted to show these improvements in the
plans, but further details are being required for final PUD.
Eliminate On-Street Parking on Portion of Monterey: The traffic study recommends eliminating
on-street parking for the section of Monterey Drive between 36-1/2 Street/Rec. Center entrance
and 38th-39th Street to accommodate three to four traffic lanes and to improve sight lines and
safety. The study recommends two lanes in the southbound direction and one or two lanes in the
northbound direction depending upon space availability. The City is considering this further.
Parking on Monterey between 38th/39th and Excelsior Boulevard will also be eliminated. The
City is working on plans to address the needs of the businesses immediately east of Monterey.
What are the parking study recommendations and how have they been integrated into
the plans?
The parking study looks at two alternative scenarios. Scenario One assumes future
redevelopment of the Bally’s parcel (which is not currently proposed), and Scenario Two
includes redevelopment as currently proposed without the Bally’s parcel. The study analyzes
available parking at different times of the day and days of the year for all of the combined uses
and by individual phase. The study concludes that the overall planned parking supply is
adequate to meet the projected demand under peak annual conditions and endorses the current
proposal.
34
The study shows that the current proposal includes about 9% more parking at build-out than peak
demand. Often, a 15% “cushion” is built into projects to alleviate potential problems when
parking is lost due to inadequate snow plowing, one car taking 2 spaces, temporary construction
closures, etc. However, most of the parking in this project will be below-ground or in covered
portions of ramps. Therefore, very little parking should be lost during snow plowing, and the 9%
“cushion” should be adequate. If not, an additional 70 stalls could be added to the Phase One
West ramp by adding a level. The structure is being designed to accommodate the expansion if
needed, and this has been addressed in a condition of approval. Interim parking (temporary
surface lots) might also be necessary to accommodate park and town green uses if either Future
Phase NW or Future Phase NE is built prior to the boutique office (which will provide shared
evening/weekend spaces with park users). This has also been addressed in a condition of
approval.
How is pedestrian/bicycle/transit circulation being handled?
Sidewalks are being shown and are required to be constructed along both sides of all streets and
access drives. Bicycles will have the option of riding on-street through most of the area or using
off-street facilities being designed on Monterey Drive. Details on pedestrian and bicycle
provisions are being required as part of the final PUD submittal.
The transit circulators and one mainline bus are currently using Natchez/Ottawa from Excelsior
Boulevard north to 38th/39th and are then going west on 39th and south on Quentin to service the
area and turn around. Temporary transit routes will have to be devised for the area during street
construction. Permanent transit stops and waiting areas for connections between circulators and
mainline routes will be addressed as part of the final PUD submittal.
Recommendation:
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat, Preliminary
PUD and variances subject to the conditions included in the attached resolution.
Attachments:
Proposed Resolution
Memo from John Lindstrom, Fire Marshal
Project Description Submitted by TOLD
Parking Study by Walker Parking Consultants
Reduced Preliminary Plat and PUD Drawings
Prepared By: Janet Jeremiah, Planning & Zoning Supervisor
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
35
RESOLUTION NO. 01-049
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
(PUD) UNDER SECTION 14:6-7 OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE
RELATING TO ZONING FOR PROPERTY
ZONED “M-X” MIXED USE, “R-C” MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL,
AND “R-3” TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
LOCATED EAST OF THE BALLY’S PROPERTY AT QUENTIN AVENUE, WEST OF
MONTEREY DRIVE, AND NORTH OF EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD TO THE SOUTHERN
PORTION OF WOLFE PARK, COMMONLY KNOWN AS PARK COMMONS EAST
AND
PRELIMINARY PLAT – PARK COMMONS EAST
AND VARIANCES TO THE “R-C” LOT WIDTH REQUIREMENTS AND
SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS REGARDING RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTHS,
STREET SECTIONS/NAMES AND UTILITY EASEMENTS
WHEREAS, applications for approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD),
Preliminary Plat and variances for Park Commons East were received from the applicant on
January 16, 2001 (accepted as complete applications on May 9, 2001), and
WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing on the Preliminary PUD and Plat and Variances
was mailed to 1800 property owners including all owners of property within 500 feet of the
subject property plus additional property owners, and
WHEREAS, notice of public hearing on the Preliminary PUD and Plat and Variances
was published in the St. Louis Park Sailor on February 7, 2001, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing at the meeting of
February 21, 2001, and continued discussion to the March 21, 2001 meeting, and
WHEREAS, notice of public hearing was published in the St. Louis Park Sailor on April
4, 2001, and
WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing scheduled for April 18, 2001 was rescinded, and
WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing on the Preliminary PUD and Plat and variances
was mailed to 1800 property owners including all owners of property within 500 feet of the
subject property plus additional property owners, and
WHEREAS the notice of public hearing was published in the St. Louis Park Sailor on
April 18, 2001, and
WHEREAS the Planning Commission opened the public hearing at the meeting of May
2, 2001, heard testimony and continued discussion to May 16, 2001, and
36
WHEREAS, on May 16, 2001, the Planning Commission heard additional testimony and
recommended approval of the Preliminary PUD and Plat and Variances on a 5-0 vote with all
members present voting in the affirmative, and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the staff reports, Planning Commission
minutes and testimony of those appearing at the public hearing or otherwise including comments
in the record of decision.
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park:
Findings
1. TOLD Development Company made application to the City Council for a Planned Unit
Development under Section 14:6-7 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code within the M-X, R-C,
and R-3 districts located east of the Bally’s property at Quentin Avenue, west of Monterey
Drive, and north of Excelsior Boulevard to the southern portion of Wolfe Park, commonly
known as Park Commons East
and
TOLD Development Company, and the City of St. Louis Park, owners and subdividers of the
land proposed to be platted as Park Commons East have submitted an application for approval of
preliminary plat of said subdivision with variances in the manner required for platting of land
under the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, and all proceedings have been duly had thereunder;
for the legal description as follows, to-wit:
See Attached Legal Description
2. The proposed preliminary plat has been found to be in all respects consistent with the
City Plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and the
ordinances of the City of St. Louis Park.
3. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning
Commission (Case Nos. 01-06-S, 01-07-PUD, and 01-19-VAR) and the effect of the proposed
PUD, Plat, and Variances 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, the effect of the use on the Comprehensive Plan, and compliance with the
intent of the Zoning Ordinance.
4. The City Council has determined that the PUD, Plat, and Variances will not be detrimental to
the health, safety, or general welfare of the community nor with certain contemplated traffic
improvements will it cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards, nor will it seriously depreciate
surrounding property values. The Council has also determined that the proposed PUD, Plat, and
Variances are in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the
37
Comprehensive Plan and that the requested modifications comply with the requirements of
Section 14:6-7.2(E).
5. Consideration has been given to the effect of the proposed variances upon the health, safety
and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of
fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect of the variances upon the Comprehensive Plan.
6. Because of special conditions on the subject property and surrounding property that are
peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property, it has been found that applying the
strict requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance will cause a demonstrable hardship or difficulty
to the property owner.
7. The contents of Planning Case Files 01-06-S, 01-07-PUD, and 01-19-VAR are hereby entered
into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
Conclusion
The Preliminary Planned Unit Development, Preliminary Plat for Park Commons East and
Variances at the location described are approved based on the findings set forth above and
subject to the following conditions:
1. The Preliminary Plat is approved subject to Final Plat and PUD approvals and the
following conditions:
a. future phase lots that are required or proposed to include owner-occupied units,
including Lot 2, Block 2, Lot 2, Block 3 and possibly Lot 1, Block 3, must reapply
for preliminary approval of such condominium lots prior to or concurrent with final
plat applications for those phases.
b. all street right-of-way (R.O.W.) shall be dedicated to the City or Hennepin County as
shown subject to approval of the final plat, and vacation of existing City streets, an
alley, and an existing sidewalk easement along Excelsior Boulevard; Final Plat
approval of Lot 2, Block 1 and Lots 2 and 3, Block 2 are subject to future right-of-
way dedication or public easements for access drives on those lots.
c. Outlots A, B and C shall be retained for public purposes.
d. proposed street names shall be revised as follows: “Walden Parkway” shall be
revised as “Wolfe Parkway” and “Market Street” shall be revised as “Market
Avenue”; all proposed street names are subject to further consideration and final
approval.
e. The Phase 1 Final Plat shall show all future development parcels as outlots; such
outlots shall be subject to future final plat approval prior to any permanent building
construction; construction of access drives, interim parking and transit facilities is
permitted on Phase 1 Final Plat outlots provided City approval is obtained and any
necessary access easements or agreements are executed.
f. Preliminary grading plans are subject to the approval of the Director of Public Works
and Park and Recreation Director; preliminary utility plans are subject to the approval
of the Director of Public Works and must accommodate protection or relocation of
the existing fiberoptic line in 38th/39th Street.
38
g. The Preliminary Plat approval includes the following variances to the Subdivision
Ordinance:
i) Street right-of-way and street sections shall be as shown on the approved
preliminary plat subject to the conditions of final plat and PUD approval for
each phase; street names may include the word “park” subject to final plat
and PUD approval.
ii) Drainage and utility easements shall not be required around the perimeter of
all lots.
iii) Lots sizes may be less than the “R-C” Zoning District requirement per
Preliminary and Final PUD approval.
h. Minimum building setbacks are subject to Preliminary and Final PUD approval for
each phase.
i. Prior to execution of the Final Plat for each phase:
i) the existing development agreement shall be amended as necessary and a new
planning development agreement shall be executed between the developer and
City/EDA.
ii) public sidewalk easements shall be approved by the City Attorney for those
areas of private development lots between the public street and building
setback.
j. Prior to any site work, the Final Plat and PUD for Phase 1 shall be approved, the
Final Plat for Phase 1 shall be executed, and required erosion control permits, utility
permits, and other required permits shall be obtained from the City, Hennepin
County, Watershed District and any other required agencies; prior to any grading in
Wolfe Park, MPCA shall be informed of the plans and MPCA approval shall be
received, if required.
k. All street improvements shall be completed and sidewalks shall be installed along all
public and private streets and access drives subject to Preliminary and Final PUD
approval and City approval of detailed construction drawings.
l. Prior to issuance of any building permits, which may impose additional conditions:
i.) Evidence of recording the final plat and easements shall be submitted to the City.
ii.) . the Indirect Source Permit shall be approved by the MPCA
2. Future phases of the Preliminary PUD are approved in general concept only and subject
to the following conditions of approval:
a. All future phases are required to apply for subsequent Preliminary and Final PUD
approval for those phases; such Preliminary and Final approval may be considered
concurrently subject to Code and any pertinent provisions of the development
agreements.
b. A minimum of 35 stacked townhomes for owner-occupants shall be included in
Future Phase E and/or Future Phase NE; additional condominiums and changes to
proposed building height may be approved for Future Phase NE based upon
recommendations of a market study.
c. The City may consider proposals for permanent use of Future Phase W either on its
own or combined with potential redevelopment of the property to the west. However,
the City may retain the Future Phase W property indefinitely and use it for such uses
as the City may deem appropriate, including potential transit and parking uses.
39
d. Variances to the 80 feet minimum lot width of the “R-C” District may be approved
subject to Preliminary and Final Plat and PUD approvals.
e. Allowable Code deviations are subject to the approved Redevelopment Plan and
future Preliminary and Final PUD approvals.
f. Approval for construction of future phases is contingent upon provision of adequate
parking, which may include interim parking as approved by the City, and must
include 75 weekday and 200 evening/weekend parking spaces, in excess of other
needs of the development, for town green and Wolfe Park uses.
3. Phase 1 of the Preliminary PUD is approved subject to Final PUD and Plat approval and
the following conditions:
a. Phase 1 shall include construction of all streets, on-street parking, utilities, sidewalks
and private access drives within the entire PUD area; Phase 1 shall include
completion of streetscape adjacent to all Phase 1 properties and Wolfe Park; Phase 1
shall include construction of temporary sidewalks along the side of streets and drives
that are adjacent to future phases; curb cuts, permanent sidewalks and streetscape
adjacent to future phases shall be completed during construction of each future phase.
b. Phase 1 shall include regrading of the southern portion of Wolfe Park,
relocation/reconstruction of the existing trail, and construction of the park edge road,
parking, approved hard surface sidewalk between parking and trail, and streetscape
subject to the approval of the Park and Recreation Director.
c. Phase 1 shall include construction of the entire town green from Excelsior Boulevard
to Wolfe Park with temporary sidewalks north of 38th/39th until permanent
sidewalks/streetscape are completed during construction of each future phase
d. Phase 1 buildings shall include a police substation and adjacent public restrooms as
approved by the City.
e. Code deviations to allow daycare as a retail/service use, right-of-way and street
designs, open space, FAR/GFAR, building setbacks, landscaping/bufferyards, and
off-street parking as shown are approved based upon a finding of general consistency
with the approved Redevelopment Plan and subject to final PUD approval.
f. outdoor seating is permitted in association with restaurants and food service uses
subject to Final PUD approval, easement provisions, and subsequent City approval of
specific outdoor seating plans.
g. all parking shall be open to the general public at all times except as follows: on-street
parking may be restricted by the City, and below-ground parking may be restricted to
building residents as indicated by Final PUD approval.
h. if parking is deemed inadequate by the Zoning Administrator based upon evidence of
parking in fire lanes, drive aisles or other inappropriate areas, the developer shall be
required to rectify the situation by construction of interim parking, an additional level
to the Phase 1 West ramp, or other means as approved by the City subject to any
pertinent provisions of the development agreements.
i. proposed “Market Street” north of 38th/39th (proposed Grand Avenue/Place) may be
closed for events as approved by the City.
j. the developer is required to comply with all provisions of the Final Plat resolution,
development agreements, Metropolitan Council LCDA grant agreement, Indirect
Source Permit, and other MPCA and Watershed District approvals.
4. Phase 1 Final Plat and PUD plans shall include the following:
40
a. all requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance for Final Plat submittal.
b. all requirements of the Zoning Ordinance for Final PUD submittal.
c. final plans and cross sections of the park edge improvements based upon
recommendations of the Park and Recreation Director.
d. plans for dispersion of 18 income-assisted two-bedroom rental units throughout the
Phase 1 East and West buildings.
e. plans for the police substation and public restrooms.
f. plans for construction of traffic improvements in conformance with recommendations
of the traffic study, including a left-turn lane from northbound Monterey Drive to 38th
Street (proposed Grand Avenue).
g. traffic control and directional signage plans.
h. plans to accommodate an off-street pedestrian/bicycle connection on the west side of
Monterey Drive between Excelsior Boulevard and 38th Street (proposed Grand
Avenue); plans for bicycle parking within the entire Phase 1 PUD area.
i. plans to accommodate temporary and permanent transit stops, connections, and bus
parking as necessary in conformance with Metro Transit recommendations.
j. town green and streetscape plans for local streets, private access drives, and Excelsior
Boulevard in conformance with plans from the City’s streetscape consultant.
k. plans for location of newspaper boxes.
l. detailed tree replacement and landscape plans.
m. lighting and photometric plans.
n. building elevations, proposed building materials and colors, and proposed private
signage locations.
o. construction phasing and mitigation plans including plans for any necessary
temporary access or proposed permanent changes to adjacent properties.
p. interim maintenance plans for future phase properties.
Pursuant to Section 14:6-7.5(F) of the Zoning Ordinance, the City will require execution of a
development agreement as a condition of approval of the Final P.U.D. The development
agreement shall address those issues which the City Council deems appropriate and necessary.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council June 4, 2001
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk 01-06-S-01-07-pud-01-19-var-prelim
41
MEMO
DATE: 05/10/01 7:35 AM
TO: Janet Jeremiah
FROM: JOHN LINDSTROM, FIRE MARSHAL
SUBJECT: Park Commons Traffic
JANET: After reviewing the proposed plans for the Park Commons project, I do not
see anything in the street designs that would impede the response of fire department
apparatus through this area. It is my understanding that a number of the new
intersections will be equipped with the Opticom (Optical Traffic Control) devices,
which should, actually, enhance our response through this area.
John A. Lindstrom
Fire Marshal
42
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 7b
Meeting of June 4, 2001
7b. 2001 Sojourner Contract
Renewal of existing contract with Sojourner Project, inc., to perform advocacy
services for victims of domestic violence.
Recommended
Action:
Authorize Mayor and City Manager to execute contract with
Sojourner Project, Inc. in the amount of $39,159.00 for advocacy
services for the period January 1 through December 31, 2001.
The contract has been reviewed by the City Attorney.
Background:
The City has allocated funding to Sojourner Project, Inc., since 1989. During that time,
Sojourner has provided the advocacy component to the victims of domestic violence within the
City. These services are available 24 hours a day, 365 days per year.
In 1997, funding for Sojourner was transferred from the General Services budget unit to the
police department for review of service needs and development of a contract. The first annual
contract with Sojourner was executed in 1997. The 2001 contract has been modified with the
addition of an automatic renewal provision. There are no automatic rate increases in the
provision.
Analysis:
Intervention case statistics in St. Louis Park for the last five years are:
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Police/Sojourner
Interventions: 124 153 135 138 177
City
Funding: $38,204 $38,204 $39,159 $39,159 $39,159
For the purpose of this report, an intervention has been defined as an arrest, or a request for
complaint charge in which Sojourner, Inc. provided follow up services or counseling. According
to Sojourner, Inc., from 1996 through 2000, there were 727 interventions done in St. Louis Park.
During that same time period, the City paid $193,885 for those services. Averaging those figures
shows that the City has paid approximately $267 per intervention over the last five years. These
figures do not include non-arrest counseling and services provided to City residents.
43
Staff is aware that the City Council wishes departments to competitively bid services whenever
possible to do so. The domestic abuse advocacy contract has not been put out for competitive
bids for the following reasons:
1. Sojourner Project, Inc. has been performing the advocacy work for the City since 1989
and is aware of the City’s policy for the deliverance of these services.
2. Sojourner Project, Inc. has adequate staff to meet the City’s needs for an advocacy
program.
3. There are a very limited number of advocacy organizations in the metro area that could
meet the requirements of the contract, and these organizations focus their service delivery
on specific geographic pieces of the metro area.
Attachments: Proposed 2001 Agreement with Sojourner Project Inc.
Request for Funding dated 12/11/00 (on file in Clerk’s office)
Prepared by: John D. Luse, Chief of Police
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
44
AGREEMENT
This AGREEMENT is effective January 1, 2001, between the CITY OF
ST. LOUIS PARK, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("City"), and SOJOURNER
PROJECT, INC., a duly organized Minnesota non-profit corporation ("Sojourner").
WHEREAS, Sojourner has organized a Domestic Assault Intervention Project
within the Hennepin County suburban area for the general purpose of intervening in
domestic assault cases by providing information and advocacy for victims of domestic
assault and by advocating appropriate responses to assailants within the criminal justice and
human services systems; and
WHEREAS, City, recognizing its commitment to the exploration and development
of appropriate community actions in response to domestic violence has pledged the sum of
Thirty Nine Thousand One Hundred Fifty-nine and 00/100 Dollars ($39,159.00) for 2001,
to contract with Sojourner for the services of Sojourner in accordance with its Domestic
Assault Intervention Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual covenants, the parties agree
as follows:
1. Initial Term and Automatic Renewal Provision. Sojourner shall render
services to City in accordance with its Domestic Assault Intervention Project, for a period of
one year, beginning January 1, 2001, and ending December 31, 2001 and continuing
thereafter on an annual basis under the same terms and conditions unless either party gives
written notice to the other by November 30 of any year of its intent to terminate the contract
at year end.
2. Duties of Sojourner. Sojourner shall provide the following services:
a) Administer and supervise its Domestic Assault Intervention Project in the
City of St. Louis Park, as more fully described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto.
b) Work with the City Attorney and the court system to seek court outcomes that
offer maximum safety for victims and hold assailants accountable for violent
behavior. Assist the City Attorney in the development and annual review of a
domestic assault prosecution plan. Work with the City's Police Department as
set forth in this Agreement.
c) Recruit, train, and supervise volunteers in accordance with its Domestic
Assault Intervention Project.
45
d) Upon notification by the City Police Department, trained volunteers or
Sojourner staff will follow domestic assault arrests with telephone contact
with the victim within one hour of receiving notice from the City. If the
victim does not have a telephone, Sojourner shall make reasonable efforts to
contact the victim; taking into consideration the safety of the victim and
availability of Sojourner staff and volunteers.
e) Throughout the arrest and court process, trained volunteers or Sojourner staff
will provide domestic assault victims with information concerning emergency
shelter, protective orders, legal services, and support/educational groups
available to domestic assault victims.
f) Maintain a twenty-four hour telephone service to be staffed by trained
volunteers or Sojourner staff. Sojourner through its twenty-four hour
telephone service shall (1) provide information to callers regarding services
and alternatives available to victims of domestic assault, and (2) contact the
appropriate Sojourner staff or volunteers as soon as domestic assaults are
called in by the City Police Department.
g) Provide support/educational groups for victims. Provide community
education designed to inform residents about the problem of domestic assault
and the services available through Sojourner. In conjunction with designated
City staff, provide educational sessions to young adults concerning the legal
and social aspects of domestic assault.
h) Develop and provide a training program to the City Police Department on the
Domestic Assault Intervention Project, if requested by the City Police
Department. The training program shall include policy/procedure updates,
judicial and legislative actions affecting domestic assault arrests.
i) Sojourner staff and volunteers may not advocate to the Court or to the City
Attorney on behalf of any individual who is identified as a suspect or
defendant in any criminal matter involving the City. Sojourner may contact
another advocacy organization regarding said individual. If Sojourner is
unable to arrange advocacy through another individual or organization, a
Sojourner representative who is not a primary advocate assigned to City cases
may be present in court to support a defendant in a criminal matter involving
the City. The volunteer shall not publicly announce their presence or
affiliation with Sojourner. Sojourner shall not use its relationship with the
City, the City Police Department, or the City Attorney's office to obtain
information on a defendant in a criminal matter involving the City. If
Sojourner desires public data on such defendant, the request shall be in
writing, and shall disclose that it is on behalf of such defendant.
46
j) Act as a support network for City domestic assault victims and their children.
k) Provide quarterly reports to the City within 30 days after the end of each
quarter. The quarterly reports must contain data on referrals from the City
Police Department, actual service numbers, staff time, studies and other data
requested by City Staff to verify that the funding provided by the City is used
for City residents. Upon request, Sojourner will allow City staff reasonable
access to all of its records for the purpose of verifying information submitted
in quarterly reports.
l) The Community Team Coordinator of Sojourner shall meet at least annually
with designated City staff. Additional meetings may be held as deemed
necessary.
All of the above duties shall be performed by Sojourner in consultation with the City Police
Chief or designee.
3. Consideration. The total annual obligation of the City for all
reimbursements to Sojourner in the year 2001 and any automatic renewal year thereafter
shall not exceed Thirty Nine Thousand One Hundred Fifty-nine and 00/100 Dollars
($39,159.00).
4. Terms of Payment. Consideration for all services performed by Sojourner
pursuant to this Agreement shall be paid by the City as follows:
a) Reimbursement shall be four payments of Nine Thousand Seven Hundred
Eighty-nine and 75/100 Dollars ($9,789.75).
b) Payments shall be made by the City within thirty (30) days after Sojourner's
presentation of invoices for services performed.
c) Invoices shall be submitted to the City by Sojourner quarterly, no later than
the 10th day of the month following the end of the quarter.
5. Conflict Resolution/Termination. The City and Sojourner agree to contact
each other if there is a disagreement or the services or information provided are
unsatisfactory, describe the problem in writing, and make a good faith effort to resolve the
problem. If the problem cannot be resolved, this Agreement may be terminated by the City
or Sojourner, in the terminating party’s sole discretion, upon thirty (30) days written notice
to the other party. In the event of such a termination, Sojourner shall only be entitled to
payment determined on a pro rata basis for work or services performed up to the date of
47
termination. This paragraph does not apply to a decision by either party to terminate at year
end pursuant to Paragraph 1.
6. Liability. Sojourner is acting as an independent contractor. All Sojourner
staff or volunteers provided hereunder, or other agents, or employees of Sojourner shall not
be employees of City, and Sojourner agrees to be responsible for any and all worker's
compensation, employee benefits, withholding, F.I.C.A., and taxes applicable to such
persons. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall render either party an agent of the other
for any purpose, or either party liable for any debts, liabilities, or obligations of the other,
whether now or existing or incurred in the performance of this Agreement, and neither party
shall have the authority by virtue of this Agreement to represent or bind the other in any
manner whatsoever.
7. Insurance. Sojourner shall carry and keep in force insurance including but
not limited to general liability and automobile liability insurance and worker's compensation
insurance in compliance with applicable statutes. Said insurance policies shall be from an
insurance company licensed to do business in Minnesota.
8. Indemnification. Sojourner agrees to indemnify and keep indemnified and
defend, hold and save City harmless from and against any and all actions or cause of action,
claims, demands, loss, damage or expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees, which City
shall or may at any time sustain, precipitate, or incur arising out of or in relation to the
conduct of Sojourner or employees, agents, volunteers or servants of Sojourner acting
within the scope of and in connection with Sojourner's Domestic Assault Intervention
Project.
9. Non-Assignability. This Agreement is personal to the parties specified
herein and may not be transferred or assigned by either party hereto.
10. Integration. This Agreement supersedes all prior discussions and
negotiations and contains all agreements and understandings between the City and
Sojourner. This Agreement shall not be altered or modified except by an instrument in
writing signed by the parties.
11. Equal Opportunity. Services to be rendered pursuant to this Agreement
shall be provided regardless of race, color, national origin, religion or sex. Sojourner shall
require its staff and volunteers to receive ongoing training to increase awareness and
sensitivity to racial, cultural and religious diversity.
48
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused the execution of this
Agreement on their behalf by their duly authorized representatives.
SOJOURNER PROJECT, INC.
BY: ________________________________
Its Executive Director
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
BY: ________________________________
Its Mayor
AND _______________________________
Its City Manager
Attest:
City Clerk
49
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 7c
Meeting of June 4, 2001
7c. Wolfe Park Amphitheater
This report considers approving a contact with Damon Farber Associates for the
design of the Wolfe Park Amphitheater.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve the contract with Damon Farber Associates
for the design of the Wolfe Park Amphitheater in an amount not
to exceed $40,825.
Background:
The Wolfe Park amphitheater design and construction has been on hold until the Park Commons
development plans were refined. It was critical that the location of Park Edge Road was
established before the design of the amphitheater continued. Since the road alignment is close to
being finalized, staff would like to proceed with the design of the amphitheater.
Selection of a Landscape Architect
Staff is recommending that Damon Farber Associates be hired to complete the design and
construction documents. Staff has worked with this firm on the landscape plans for the Town
Green and Park Commons areas and has been impressed with the creativity of the staff at Damon
Farber Associates.
Damon Farber will be the lead staff person working on this project and has also worked on other
amphitheater projects in the Minneapolis/St.Paul area. Some of these projects include:
• Black Dog Amphitheater in Burnesville
• City of Plymouth Amphitheater
• ADA improvements to the Minnesota Zoological Garden Amphitheater
• Central Park Bandshell and Amphitheater concepts in Eagan
Scope of the Project and Costs
Staff will direct Damon Farber Associates to work within the original scope of the project. As
the site was not laid out in a manner that is conducive to a "band shell" type structure, it will be
designed to have a hard surface area for performers and a terraced seating area for visitors.
The original budget for the project was $405,000 ($315,000 from the State and $90,000 from the
Wolfe Park project). Damon Farber's contract for design fees will not exceed $40,825. Staff
would like to proceed and present conceptual design concepts to the City Council at a Study
Sessions in July. At that time the consultant should have some idea of what can be constructed
for $364,175, which is the money remaining after consulting fees. If staff and the consultant
believe that the budgeted amount of money will compromise the design of the amphitheater, staff
will bring the issue to Council for discussion.
50
Timelines
Staff would like to begin working with Damon Farber Associates in June of 2001. At this time,
staff is estimating the construction of the project would happen in the Spring of 2002. This
would allow for the area to be under construction at the same time as the first phase of Park
Commons. Staff will bring this item to the City Council at a Study Session in July once an initial
design has been developed and cost estimates have been refined.
Attachments: Attachment A outlining the consultant fees
Prepared by: Cindy S. Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
51
Attachment A
Our work will be prepared using a survey plan, which will be supplied by the City of St. Louis
Park. The design process and products must be tied to a realistic bidding and construction
schedule. The materials and construction methods for the amphitheater will have a major impact
on the schedule and the budget.
Site Analysis Fee Fee
1. Evaluate context of Amphitheater site $ 225
2. Prepare an existing Conditions and opportunities
assessment $ 1,500
3. Review Precedent Studies $ 600
4. Meet with Parks and Recreation Department to
discuss Scope and Schedule $ 450
Site Analysis Subtotal $ 2,775
Schematic Design
1. Prepare three preliminary options $ 3,600
2. Meet with Parks and Recreation Department to
review preliminary layouts $ 450
3. Revise consensus choice and prepare preliminary
cost estimate $ 2,400
4. Meet with Parks and Recreation Department to
review revised layout $ 450
Schematic Design Subtotal $ 6,900
Design Development
1. Refine design of Amphitheater $ 2,400
2. Coordinate design of Town Green terminus $ 1,200
3. Prepare detailed cost estimate of entire project $ 800
4. Meet with Parks and Recreation Department to
review detail layouts $ 450
5. Revise detail designs based on Parks and
Recreation Department input $ 1,500
6. Prepare preliminary details & specifications $ 1,600
7. Prepare illustrative plan drawings of preliminary layout $ 600
8. Meet with Parks and Recreation Department to review $ 450
Design Development Subtotal $ 9,000
52
Construction Documents
1. Demolition plans – 1 sheet $ 600
2. Construction plans – 2 sheets $ 2,400
3. Layout & grading plans – 2 sheets $ 2,400
4 Restoration & planting plans – 2 sheets $ 1,200
5. Details – 2 sheets $ 2,400
6. Specifications $ 800
7. Meeting to review 50% CD $ 450
8. Prepare final construction budget $ 600
9. Meeting to review 95% CD $ 450
10. Submit 100% CD plans and specs $ 600
11. Print 20 sets of Contract documents for bidding $ 800
Construction Document Subtotal $ 12,700
Construction Assistance
1. Twelve weekly meetings and site construction visits $ 2,100
Construction Assistance Subtotal $ 2,100
Subtotal of Landscape Architectural Design Services $ 33,475
Approx. Reimbursable Expenses (to be billed at cost) $ 1,350
Total of Landscape Architectural Design Services $ 34,825
Electrical and Structural Engineering Services (if needed) $ 6,000
Total Design Services not to exceed $ 40,825
53
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 7d
Meeting of June 4, 2001
7d. City Engineer’s Report: Storm Water Flood Area No. 15 – Improvements at
Keystone, Roxbury and Lake Street Parks and Storm Sewer construction on
Dakota Avenue and W. 33rd Street. City Project No. 00-07
This report considers Storm Water and Park improvements at Keystone, Roxbury,
and Lake Street Parks and Storm Sewer construction on Dakota Avenue and W.
33rd Street to alleviate flooding in Area No. 15.
Recommended
Action:
Due to the significant increased cost of this project, it is
recommended the City Council defer action and schedule this for
the June 25, 2001 Study Session.
Background:
As a result of severe storms and subsequent flooding in 1997, the City initiated a Storm Water
Management Program to address flooding in 22 problem areas. A number of homes in the area
of W. 31st and 32nd Streets and Dakota Avenue experience frequent flooding. After studying this
area, the City’s Engineering consultant has recommended using nearby Parks for temporary
storm water storage to alleviate flooding during the more intense and severe rainstorms.
Construction to relieve flooding also presents an opportunity to upgrade the affected parks. As
part of this, it is also proposed to construct a new storm sewer on Dakota Avenue and W. 33rd
Street to divert storm water to Lake Street Park.
Discussion:
Following is a description of the impacts on the three parks:
Keystone Park – The existing ballfield would be eliminated and the field lowered
approximately five (5) feet. The sliding hill on the South side of the park would be extended
to the elevation of the new multi-use field. A bituminous trail would circle the field and
connect to a volleyball court, play area, swing set and sun shelter in the Southwest corner of
the park. The trail would also extend South and connect to Blackstone Avenue. Lights will
be included around the trail at the request of the residents. The multi-use field would be
designed with a sub-grade drain tiles and a granular base to provide a more stable and better
draining surface. The parking lot on Alabama Avenue will be enlarged with an area for
portable toilets and a drinking fountain on the South end.
The estimated cost for improvements to Keystone Park is $632,755.
Roxbury Park – The North end of the park would be excavated approximately eight (8) feet
to provide storm water storage. A storm sewer pipe will connect Roxbury to Keystone to
equalize storm water storage and drainage. The existing trail would be reconstructed to
match proposed grades and encircle the storm water storage area. There will be lighting
54
included around the trail. There would also be an area for a swing set and a separate play
area on the South end of the park.
The estimated cost for improvements to Roxbury Park is $157,696.
Lake Street Park – The two (2) hockey rinks at Lake Street Park would be eliminated. One
rink will be moved to Parkview Park and the other location is yet to be determined. Lake
Street Park would be excavated approximately fifteen (15) to eighteen (18) feet and returned
to its original state as a wetland. The edges of the wetland will have 10 to 1 slopes to
encourage growth of wetland vegetation and aquatic plants. This will also provide some
filtering and nutrient absorption for the wetland. Connections to the storm sewer system will
also be constructed.
The estimated cost for improvements to Lake Street Park is $284,222.
In summary, the Storm Water Improvement Project impacts on the three parks are:
Eliminate the two hockey rinks at Lake Street Park. One rink will be moved to Parkview
Park and the other rink location is unknown at this time.
Excavate Lake Street Park to return it to its original state as a wetland
Construct the playground equipment at Roxbury Park
Move the basketball court and sun shelter from Roxbury Park to Keystone Park
Reconstruct Keystone Park to accommodate a sun shelter, playground equipment and a
basketball court and create an open space that could be used for football and soccer. After
this summer, Keystone would no longer be used for adult softball.
Abandon the pedestrian underpass at this time.
Move the trail to the bottom of the hill on the South side of Keystone Park.
Eliminate parking on the south side of Keystone Park off the cul-de-sac.
Add lights adjacent to the trails at both Keystone and Roxbury Parks.
Storm Sewer Construction
The storm sewer construction consists of installing a new storm sewer trunk line beginning at the
intersection of West 33rd Street and Edgewood Avenue and carrying this line easterly to the
intersection of 33rd Street and Dakota Avenue. From this point, the storm sewer will be installed
north along Dakota Avenue to West 33rd Street and then continue east to Lake Street Park. This
project will also include installing additional catch basins on Dakota Avenue and along Colorado
Avenue north of West 33rd Street to further alleviate flooding problems in these locations and to
allow for the diversion of storm water runoff from existing systems north of this area back to
Lake Street Park. The trunk storm sewer line will range in size from a 36-inch to a 42-inch
diameter reinforced concrete pipe.
The estimated cost for improvements to the storm trunk system is $554,400.
Public Meetings:
55
On April 18, 2001, the plans for the park revisions were presented to the City’s Park and
Recreation Commission and were approved. On April 24, 2001, the proposed plans were
presented to area residents. Although the general concept plans were acceptable, residents did
request minor revisions. Some of the revisions included relocating trails, providing input on the
selection of playscape equipment, lighting locations, landscaping, parking, and eliminating the
pedestrian underpass at this time.
Financial Considerations:
During the preliminary Feasibility Study for Storm Water Food Area #15, three alternatives were
developed. Alternative No. 1 provided for flood proofing homes and garages and some
redirection of storm water. This alternative was estimated to cost $172,000. Alternative No. 2
provided for the excavation of Lake Street Park for storm water storage and construction of
storm sewer pipe to divert water to Lake Street Park. The estimated cost of this alternative is
$410,000. Alternative No. 3 was to purchase homes impacted by the flooding. The estimated
cost of this alternative is $875,000.
During the design process, it was determined that Alternative No. 1 would not remedy the
flooding situation in Area #15 and it was decided to pursue Alternative No. 2. During the
design/development process, Alternative No. 2 evolved into the proposal described above at the
cost of $1,629,074.
Project Costs Keystone Park Roxbury Park Lake Street Park Storm Sewer Total
Construction Costs $513,600 $128,000 $230,700 $450,000 $1,322,300
Contingency (10%)$51,360 $12,800 $23,070 $45,000 $132,230
Subtotal $564,960 $140,800 $253,770 $495,000 $1,454,530
Consultant Eng/Adm (12%)$67,795 $16,896 $30,452 $59,400 $174,544
Total $632,755 $157,696 $284,222 $554,400 $1,629,074
Revenue Sources
General Obligation Revenue Bonds
Summary and Recommendation
Based upon the increased scope of the project beyond which was planned and budged for, staff
recommends the City Council accept comments from any members of the public in attendance at
the meeting (they had been told this would be on the June 4th agenda). Upon review of the cost
estimates from the City’s consultant we further recommend that the Council direct City staff and
consultant to review the project scope and determine if a more cost effective alternative can be
developed, and schedule this for the June 25, 2001 Council Study Session.
Attachments: Plan
Prepared by: Carlton B. Moore/Maria A. Hagen, City Engineer
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
56
57
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 7e
Meeting of June 4, 2001
7e. City Engineer’s Report: Alley Paving – 2700 block between Brunswick
Avenue and the C.P. Railroad tracks – Project No. 01-xx
This report considers paving the alley in the 2700 block between Brunswick
Avenue and the C.P. Railroad tracks in response to a petition by the adjacent
property owners.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the attached resolution that accepts this report,
establishes Improvement Project No. 01-xx, directs staff to
sponsor an informational meeting with abutting property owners,
and sets a Public Hearing and Assessment Hearing date of
July 2, 2001.
Background:
On September 15, 2000 the residents in the 2700 block between Brunswick Avenue and the C.P.
Railroad tracks submitted a petition to the City requesting the alley be paved in accordance with
the City’s standard for alleys. The petition was signed by more property owners (54.15%) than
the 51% needed to advance the project.
City Alley Paving Special Assessment Policy:
The following is the City’s Alley Paving Special Assessment Policy:
A. The cost of alley improvements for residential properties shall be assessed as follows when
at least 51 percent (alley front feet) of the property owners petition for the improvement:
1. Thirty (30) percent of the cost of the improvement shall be assessed against all
properties abutting the alley. (INDIRECT BENEFIT)
2. Seventy (70) percent of the cost of the improvement shall be assessed against directly
benefited properties as defined in paragraph 5(B). (DIRECT BENEFIT)
B. A property is directly benefited if it has an existing garage with direct access to the alley, if
an access to the alley could be constructed from an existing garage, or if, no garage exists,
there is sufficient area on the lot to build a garage with access to the alley.
C. Commercial and multi-family property owners shall be assessed 100 percent of the cost of
the improvement.
D. Alleys shall be constructed of concrete and shall be assessed for a period of 20 years.
Discussion:
The City’s standard design for alley paving includes six (6)-inch thick concrete pavement 10 feet
in width with driveway apron connections between the paved alley and abutting paved
driveways. Private driveways outside the alley right-of-way are the responsibility of the property
owner. In accordance with City practice, the driveway connections will match existing materials
58
and grades. It is proposed that pavement grades be established to provide positive drainage
without requiring storm sewer construction.
Financial Considerations:
The City’s Policy for funding alley improvements requires the abutting property owners to pay
100% of the improvement costs. The Policy also provides for the assessments to be levied as
direct and indirect benefits based upon abutting frontage. Since this alley abuts the C.P. Railroad
tracks, the City’s practice, in similar situations, is to fund the railroad portion of the alley cost
which amounts to 50%. Estimated assessments and an estimated payment schedule have been
attached for informational purposes. A summary of the estimated costs and proposed
assessments, based upon the City’s Assessment Policy for alley improvements is as follows:
Estimated Costs:
Construction Costs $ 50,000
Contingency (10%) $ 5,000
Subtotal $ 55,000
Engineering & Administrative (12%) $ 6,000
TOTAL $ 61,000
Revenue Sources:
Special Assessments $ 30,500
City G. O. Bonds $ 30,500
TOTAL $ 61,000
Alley Improvement Project Timetable:
Should the City Council approve the City Engineer’s Report, it is anticipated that the following
schedule could be met:
• City Engineer’s Report to City Council, June 4, 2001
Council sets date for Public Hearing and Assessment Hearing
• Staff holds informational meeting with residents June
• City Council holds Public Hearing & Assessment Hearing July 2, 2001
• Advertise for bids July
• Bid Opening Late July
• End of 30 Day Appeal on Assessments August 2, 2001
• Bid Tab Report to Council, Council can award the bid and order
the project or delay the project if there are any assessment
appeals
August 6, 2001
• Construction August/September
Feasibility:
The project, as proposed herein, is necessary, cost effective, and feasible under the conditions
noted and at the costs estimated.
59
Note:
Staff will schedule an informational meeting prior to the Public Hearing/Assessment Hearing and
will notify the City Council of the meeting place and time.
Attachments: Resolution
Plan
Property owner list with estimated assessments
Prepared by: Carlton Moore/Michael P. Rardin, Public Works
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
60
RESOLUTION NO. __________
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE CITY ENGINEER’S REPORT,
ESTABLISHING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 01-xx,
DIRECTING STAFF TO SPONSOR AN INFORMATIONAL MEETING,
AND SET A PUBLIC HEARING AND ASSESSMENT HEARING
DATE OF JULY 2, 2001
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the
City Engineer related to the alley paving in the 2700 block between Brunswick Avenue and the C.P.
Railroad tracks.
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 alley paving in the 2700 block between Brunswick
Avenue and the C.P. Railroad tracks Project No. 01-xx is hereby accepted.
2. The proposed project designated as Project No. 01-xx is hereby established.
3. An improvement hearing is to be held on July 2, 2001 for affected property owners.
4. Staff is authorized to hold a neighborhood meeting for those owners.
Attest: Adopted by the City Council June 4, 2001
City Clerk Mayor
Reviewed for Administration:
City Manager
61
PROPOSED ALLEY PAVING
2700 BLOCK BETWEEN BRUNSWICK AVE AND THE C P RAILROAD
ESTIMATED COST: 50% Total $30,500
A. 70% DIRECT BENEFIT direct $21,350
( garage, or drive access )
B. 30% INDIRECT BENEFIT indirect $9,150
(reduction of dust, noise, and
mud; improvement in service )
PAYMENT SCHEDULE FOR ESTIMATED
ASSESSMENT
TYPICAL ASSESSMENT = = $1,550
INTEREST RATE = 0.07
YEARS = = = = = = = 20
PRINCIPAL PRINCIPAL INTEREST
YEAR BALANCE PAYMENT PAYMENT TOTAL
1 $1,550 $78 $109 $186
2 $1,473 $78 $103 $181
3 $1,395 $78 $98 $175
4 $1,318 $78 $92 $170
5 $1,240 $78 $87 $164
6 $1,163 $78 $81 $159
7 $1,085 $78 $76 $153
8 $1,008 $78 $71 $148
9 $930 $78 $65 $143
10 $853 $78 $60 $137
11 $775 $78 $54 $132
12 $698 $78 $49 $126
13 $620 $78 $43 $121
14 $543 $78 $38 $115
15 $465 $78 $33 $110
16 $388 $78 $27 $105
17 $310 $78 $22 $99
18 $233 $78 $16 $94
19 $155 $78 $11 $88
20 $78 $78 $5 $83
TOTAL $1,550 $1,139 $2,689
62
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
June 4, 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 amend the financial terms of City Agreement No. 1897, between the
City and AT&T Wireless (AT&T) for space on the water tower at 2500 Nevada
Avenue for communications antenna.
2. Motion to adopt the Resolution granting the minor amendment to the existing
Special Permit for Park Glen Apartment at 4401 Park Glen Road to permit the
construction of a foyer addition, subject to the conditions in the resolution. Case #
01-23-SP
3. Motion to accept the following report for filing:
a. Vendor Claims
63
CONSENT ITEM # 1
St. Louis Park City Council
Meeting of June 4, 2001
1. Motion to amend the financial terms of City Agreement No. 1897, between the
City and AT&T Wireless (AT&T) for space on the water tower at 2500 Nevada
Avenue for communications antenna.
Background: In 1988, the City negotiated an antenna lease agreement with AT&T for
placement of a communications antenna on our water tower. This was the first water tower
antenna lease in the City and numerous others have occurred since.
The financial terms of this agreement required the monthly rent remain fixed for the initial
five-year term of the Agreement and for the rent to be adjusted based upon the Consumer Price
Index (CPI) for the remainder of the Agreement. In all other City antenna lease agreements, the
rent adjustment is based on an annual percent (%) increase and not the CPI.
Issue: The City and AT&T have historically had a problem agreeing on the CPI adjustment
calculation. While the agreement clearly defines the CPI and region of the country to be used for
the calculation, we have continually had minor differences in the adjustment amount to be used.
In addition, the CPI adjustment methodology requires some administrative effort to implement
annually. The City Finance Department calculated the average annual rent increase using the
CPI over the past years to be approximately 2.4%. In an effort to eliminate this administrative
problem, the Finance Department has recommended elimination of the CPI adjustment and
simply provide for an annual rent increase of 3%. This change has been proposed to AT&T and
is acceptable to them.
Recommendation: Staff recommends approving the amendment which changes the method of
rent adjustment by eliminating the CPI adjustment in favor of an annual 3% increase for the
remainder of City Agreement No. 1897 with AT&T, as outlined in attached Exhibit A.
Attachments: Amendment No. 1
Rent Schedule
Prepared by: Scott Merkley, Public Works Coordinator
Through: Mike Rardin, Director of Public Works
Jean McGann, Director of Finance
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
64
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
AMENDMENT NO. 1
TO WATER TOWER LEASE AGREEMENT
CONTRACT NO. 1897
THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 to Water Tower Lease Agreement (this “Amendment”) is
entered into as of the _____________ day of _______________, 20_______, by and between the
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, a Minnesota municipal corporation hereinafter referred to as
“LANDLORD”, and AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES OF MINNESOTA, INC. d/b/a AT&T
Wireless, a Nevada corporation successor-in-interest to Minnesota Cellular Telephone Company,
a Minnesota corporation hereinafter referred to as “Tenant”.
WHEREAS, Landlord and Tenant entered into that certain Water Tower Lease
Agreement dated December 13, 1988 (the “Agreement”); and
WHEREAS, Landlord and Tenant desire to amend the Agreement to provide for an
annual Rent increase of three percent (3%); and
WHEREAS, Landlord and Tenant hereby express their mutual desire and intent to
amend the Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements set
forth herein, and for other good and valuable consideration, Landlord and Tenant hereby agree as
follows:
1. Landlord and Tenant hereby acknowledge and agree that the current Rent under the
Agreement is Eight Hundred Sixteen and 49/100 Dollars ($816.49) per month.
2. Paragraph 3(02) of the Agreement is hereby replaced in its entirety with the
following paragraph.
(02) Beginning on January 1, 2002, and each January 1 thereafter,
including throughout any renewal terms exercised, the Rent
payable by Tenant shall be increased by three percent (3%) over
the previous year’s Rent.
3. All capitalized terms not herein defined shall have the same definitions as in the
Agreement.
4. In the event of any inconsistencies between the Agreement and this Amendment,
the terms of this Amendment shall take precedence.
65
5. Except as expressly set forth in this Amendment, the Agreement otherwise is
unmodified, remains in full force and effect, and is incorporated and restated herein as if fully
set forth at length. Each reference in the Agreement to itself shall be deemed also to refer to
this Amendment.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties below have caused this Amendment to be
executed as of the date first written above.
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES OF
MINNESOTA, INC., d/b/a AT&T
WIRELESS
___________________________________
Jeffery W. Jacobs, Mayor ___________________________________
Theodore P. Broich
Its System Development Manager
___________________________________
Charles W. Meyer, City Manager By ________________________________
Its ________________________________
Attest:
__________________________________
Cynthia D. Reichert, City Clerk
66
Exhibit A
CITY CONTRACT NO. 1897
RENT SCHEDULE
Term Term Monthly %
Year Start Year Amount Due Increase
1988 11-28-88 signed agreement
1989 Initial
1994 Renewal 1
1999 Renewal 2
2001 3 $816.49
2002 4 $840.98 3%
2003 5 $866.21 3%
2004 Renewal 3 1 $892.20 3%
2005 2 $918.97 3%
2006 3 $946.54 3%
2007 4 $974.93 3%
2008 5 $1,004.18 3%
2009 Renewal 3 1 $1,034.31 3%
2010 2 $1,065.33 3%
2011 3 $1,097.29 3%
2012 4 $1,130.21 3%
2013 5 $1,164.12 3%
Agreement No. 1897 expires Dec. 31, 2013
67
CONSENT ITEM # 2
St. Louis Park City Council
Meeting of June 4, 2001
2 Motion to adopt the Resolution granting the minor amendment to the existing
Special Permit for Park Glen Apartment at 4401 Park Glen Road to permit the
construction of a foyer addition, subject to the conditions in the resolution. Case
# 01-23-SP
Background:
On February 18, 1986, the City Council heard Case # 86-003-SP and adopted Resolution #86-24
to permit the construction of two (2) apartment buildings containing a total of 290 dwelling units.
The apartment units were constructed in accordance with the approved plans and are currently in
compliance.
The applicant wishes to construct a foyer with the dimension of 11 feet x 14 feet. This addition
will be located completely within the “courtyard” of the building and will not encroach into any
required setback or the existing parking lot.
Issues:
• Does the proposed addition comply with the Zoning Ordinance?
Analysis of Issues:
• Does the proposed addition comply with the Zoning Ordinance?
The proposed addition will not add leasable space or dwelling units; therefore, additional parking
is not required. The proposed addition will not encroach into the required setback since it is
located within the building’s perimeter and it will not reduce the usable open below what is
required. The addition will be constructed of glass and brick for exterior materials, so it will also
meet the architectural requirements of the code.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the minor amendment to the existing Special Permit, subject to
the conditions in the resolution. (The amendments to the original resolution are underlined.)
Attachments:
Addendum to Exhibit A - Site Plan
Addendum to Exhibit G - Elevations
Proposed Resolution
Prepared by: Scott Moore, Assistant Zoning Administrator, 952-924-2592
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
68
RESOLUTION NO. 01-048
AMENDING RESOLUTION 86-24
A RESOLUTION GRANTING SPECIAL (CONDITIONAL USE) PERMIT
UNDER SECTION 14-195(3) OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE
RELATING TO ZONING TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 290-
UNIT APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT FOR PROPERTY ZONED R-4,
MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT, LOCATED AT THE
PROPOSED INTERSECTION OF BELT LINE BOULEVARD EXTENDED
AND PARK GLEN ROAD AND A FOYER ADDITION
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park:
Findings
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution 86-24 approving the Special Permit on
February 18, 1986 and,
WHEREAS, the property owner has applied for a minor amendment to the Special Permit to
allow a foyer addition,
NOW THEREFORE:
1. Franz Klodt and Son, Inc. has made application to the City Council for a special
permit under Section 14-195(3) of the St. Louis Park ordinance code for the purpose of
constructing a 290-unit apartment development for property zoned R-4, located at the proposed
intersection of Belt Line Boulevard extended and Park Glen Road for the legal description as
follows, to-wit:
That of the West Half of Section 6, Township 28, Range 24, lying Northerly of
Belt Line Industrial Park and Belt Line Industrial Park 2nd Addition, according to
the recorded plats thereof and lying Easterly of the Easterly right-of way line if
State Highway no. 100 and Southerly of the following described line:
Commencing at the center of said Section 6: thence on an assumed bearing of
North 1 degree 14 minutes 46 seconds East along the East line of said West Half
822.58 feet to the point of beginning of said line; thence South 65 degrees 20
minutes 12 seconds West 2566.30 feet to the intersection with the centerline of
State Highway No. 100 and said line there terminating. ALSO
That part of the Northeast Quarter of Section 6, Township 28, Range 24 lying
Southerly of the first described line described as follows:
Commencing at the Southwest corner of said Northeast Quarter; thence on an
assumed bearing of North 1 degree 14 minutes 46 seconds East, along the West
69
lone said Northeast Quarter 822.58 feet to the point of beginning at said first line;
thence Northeasterly 272.51 feet along a non-tangential curve, concave to the
Southeast, having a radius of 2926.07 feet and a central angle of 5 degrees 20
minutes, 10 seconds, the chord of said curve bears North 73 degrees 54 minutes
17 seconds East; thence North 70 degrees 40 minutes 22 seconds East, tangent to
last described curve, concave to the Southeast, having a radius of 2507.46 feet and
a central angle of 18 degrees 59 minutes 38 seconds; thence North 89 degrees 39
minutes 59 seconds East, tangent to last described curve, 340.32 feet; thence
Easterly 395.11 feet along a tangential curve, concave to the North having a
radius of 2015.74 feet and a central angle of 11 degrees 13 minutes 51 seconds to
the intersection with the East line of said Northeast Quarter and said first line
there terminating.
And North of the second described line described as follows:
Commencing at the Southwest corner of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest
Quarter of said section 6; thence on an assumed bearing of South 88 degrees 47
minutes 27 seconds East along the South line of said Northeast Quarter of the
Southwest Quarter 618.28 feet to the point of beginning; thence North 30 degrees
44 minutes 36 seconds East 1185.78 feet; thence South 59 degrees 15 minutes 24
seconds East 40.00 feet; thence Northeasterly 572.29 feet along a non-tangential
curve concave to the Southeast, having a radius of 1286.71 feet and a central
angle of 25 degrees 29 minutes 00 seconds, the chord of said curve bears North 43
degrees 29 minutes 06 seconds East; thence North 56 degrees 13 minutes 36
seconds East, tangent to last described curve, 49.40 feet; thence Northeasterly
1177.25 feet along a tangential curve, concave to the Southeast, having a radius of
9582.80 feet and a central angle of 7 degrees 02 minutes 20 seconds; thence North
26 degrees 44 minutes 04 seconds West, not tangent to last described curve, 50.00
feet; thence Northeasterly 1206.77 feet along a non-tangential curve, concave to
the Southeast, having a radius of 9632.80 and a central angle of 7 degrees 10
minutes 40 seconds, the chord of said curve bears North 66 degrees 51 minutes 16
seconds East; thence North 70 degrees 26 minutes 35 seconds East, tangent to last
described curve 237.52 feet to the intersection with the East line of said Section 6
and said second line there terminating.
(Also to be known as Lot 1, Block 1, Belt Line Business Park, a new subdivision
approved by the City Council on February 3, 1986 by Resolution No. 86-21. Said
plat is required to be filed under Condition No. 2.)
2. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning
Commission (Case No. 86-03-SP) and the effect of the 290-unit apartment development 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 areas, the effect of use on
the comprehensive plan, and compliance with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance.
70
3. The Council has determined that the proposed 290-unit apartment development will
not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community, nor will it cause
serious traffic congestion nor hazards, nor will it seriously depreciate the surrounding property
values, and the proposed 290-unit apartment development is in harmony with the general
purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
Conclusion
The special permit to permit the construction of a 290-unit apartment development at the location
described is granted based on the finding set forth above and subject to the following conditions:
1. That the site be developed, used and maintained in accordance with Exhibit A – Site Plan;
Exhibit B – Landscape plan; Exhibit C – Grading Plan; Exhibit D – Utility Plan; Exhibit E –
Garage Plan, Building One and Building Two (to generally show the location of the parking
stalls and trash facilities); Exhibit F – Floor Plan Typical, Building One and Building Two
(to generally show the location of the units, exterior walls, building geometric and
balconies); Exhibit G – Building One and Building Two Elevation Plans, as modified by the
following: (Exhibits are on file in the City Development Department at the City of St. Louis
Park.). (Amended by Condition 15)
2. That the plat of Belt Line Business Park be filed with the County and that the applicant and
subdivider execute the subdivision contract providing for the dedication of roadway, utility,
and drainage easements, and providing for the construction of roadway and public
improvements as specified and required in the ordinance and subdivision regulations.
3. That easements for pond, wetland and pedestrian ways, sidewalks and trails shall be granted
to the City. The developer shall be responsible for construction maintenance and
preservation in accordance with exhibits described in Condition No. 1 above. The City shall
be responsible only for the removal of silt from the pond.
4. That erosion protection measures be taken to protect the slope on the South and Southwest
sides of the site and the adjacent wetlands and a plan consistent with City policies be
submitted with construction plans at the time the applicant seeks a building or construction
permit.
5. That the applicant and its successors and assigns understand that the proposed Park Glen
Road is not designed or to be used to include onstreet parking.
6. That the applicant and its successors and assigns recognize that the landscape plan identified
above is considered minimal and agree to augment such plan with additional landscaping to
provide at least 20% more plantings.
7. That all driveways and parking lots are to be delineated by poured in place concrete curbing
measuring six inches above and below the grade.
8. That at least 2.0 parking spaces per dwelling unit be provided on the site
71
9. That all trash and trash containers be stored in the building.
10. That all onsite lighting is directed perpendicular to the ground and not measure more than 25
feet in height unless globe lighting is used.
11. That all rooftop equipment be screened or painted to match the colors of the roof and that any
outside transformers or similar equipment is screened with landscaping.
12. That all utilities to the building are provided underground, including but not limited to,
electrical, gas, water, sewer and cable TV.
13. That the grades within the parking lot not exceed 4%.
14. That all improvements including buildings, parking lots, landscaping, walkways, open space
improvements, and other improvements as contained on the exhibits, be completed by May
15, 1987.
15. The special permit shall be amended on June 4, 2001 to incorporate all of the preceding
conditions and add the following conditions:
a) Exhibit “A” – Site Plan shall incorporate addendum “A.1” illustrating the addition of the
foyer onto the building
b) Exhibit “G” – Building One and Two Elevations shall incorporate addendum “G.1”,
illustrating the elevation of the foyer addition.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to form and execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
72
CONSENT ITEM # 3
May 25, 2001
VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
3CMA TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 530.00
AASEN, PAM YOUTH ATHLETICS/LEAGUES-exempt 40.50
ABARA, JENNIFER CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 25.00
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS IN POSTAGE 9.00
AIRTOUCH CELLULAR TELEPHONE 135.81
ALBRECHT MARY TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 55.00
ANCHOR PAPER CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 94.12
APACHE GROUP OF MINNESOTA GENERAL SUPPLIES 451.29
ARAMARK UNIFORM CORPORATE ACCT GENERAL SUPPLIES 164.43
ARMADILLO TRUCKVAULT INC. MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT (150.00)
BALLENGER, KRISTEN YOUTH ATHLETICS/LEAGUES-exempt 40.50
BAUER BUILT TIRE & BATTERY EQUIPMENT PARTS 398.95
BETH HOLIDA GENERAL SUPPLIES 98.73
BIG RIVER DELI & SANDWICHES MEETING EXPENSE 48.56
BIOSYSTEMS INC. OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 471.18
BITUMINOUS ROADWAYS INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 331.62
BOBS PERSONAL COFFEE SERVICE OFFICE SUPPLIES 254.30
BOYER TRUCK PARTS EQUIPMENT PARTS 114.80
BROADWAY RENTAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT (1.66)
CAMPBELL KNUTSON PROFESSIONAL LEGAL SERVICES 924.00
CARLSON TRACTOR & EQUIP CO EQUIPMENT PARTS (59.08)
CARTER, JEREMY STUDY INCENTIVE & MERIT PAY 275.25
CARTRIDGE CARE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 540.28
CENTER FOR ENERGY & ENVIRONMEN OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 24,525.59
CHENEY SIGNS OFFICE SUPPLIES 14.48
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY GENERAL CUSTOMERS 248.30
CONCEPT SEATING INC GENERAL SUPPLIES (180.00)
COSTELLO, JAIMEE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 25.00
CSC CREDIT SERVICES INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 123.65
DANKO EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 31.72
DUNDEE NURSERY LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 71.94
E GROUP INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,669.16
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,046.15
EDTECH COMPUTER SUPPLIES 420.11
ENGINEERING REPRO SYSTEMS GENERAL SUPPLIES 204.33
ENSR CONSULTING & ENGINEERING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 3,287.35
ERV'S LAWN MOWER REPAIR NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 2,980.35
EVERGREEN LAND SERVICES CO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 3,319.00
FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (30.67)
GEARS GROUP LIMITED OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 350.00
GENERAL SAFETY EQUIPMENT CORP EQUIPMENT PARTS 59.64
GENUINE PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (27.83)
GOEBEL, KIM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 250.00
GOODYEAR BRAD RAGAN TIRE & SER EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 357.90
GRAINGER INC, W W BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 233.71
HALLMAN OIL LUBRICANTS/ADDITIVES 187.27
HEEREN, ANNIE LANDSCAPING SERVICE 44.63
HOISINGTON KOEGLER GROUP INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 212.50
73
HOME DEPOT/GECF SMALL TOOLS 244.94
HPI INTERNATIONAL INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 275.00
INDEPENDENT BLACK DIRT CO INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 668.48
INTL SECURITY PRODUCTS OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 58.87
J & F REDDY RENTS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 219.84
JOHNSON, DANIEL R. YOUTH ATHLETICS/LEAGUES-exempt 40.00
JUSTUS LUMBER COMPANY OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 35.38
KENNEDY & GRAVEN LEGAL SERVICES 1,817.06
KENNETZ, DEBRA YOUTH ATHLETICS/LEAGUES-exempt 40.00
KNOX LUMBER GENERAL SUPPLIES (36.84)
KROOG, RACHEL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 150.00
KULICK, DAVID CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 25.00
LACAL EQUIPMENT INC EQUIPMENT PARTS (235.63)
LARSEN, KATHY MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 69.89
LARSON SPORTS INC, GREG GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,467.25
LEAGUE MN CITIES INS TRUST OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 4,162.09
LECLERCQ, DEBORAH CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 25.00
LINHOFF PHOTO & DIGITAL IMAGIN GENERAL SUPPLIES 22.42
LUCEY, ANDREW BUILDING PERMIT 55.40
MACQUEEN EQUIP CO EQUIPMENT PARTS 55.06
MAEDER, PHYLLIS AQUATIC PARK SEASON TICKETS 4.00
MAIL BOXES ETC # 1236 PRINTING & PUBLISHING 21.09
MASTERSON PERSONNEL INC SALARIES - TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES 622.88
MC DONELL, MARTHA STUDY INCENTIVE & MERIT PAY 1,068.75
MCNULTY, KYLE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 25.00
MENARDS GENERAL SUPPLIES 179.31
MERKLEY, SCOTT MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 86.25
METRO CASH REGISTER SYSTEMS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 175.00
METROCALL MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 53.19
MIDWEST MAILING SYSTEMS INC POSTAGE 38.05
MIND SHARP TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 50.00
MINN SAFETY COUNCIL TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 320.00
MINUTEMAN PRESS OFFICE SUPPLIES 52.00
MN BOARD OF ASSESSORS SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 165.00
MN DRIVER & VEHICLE SVCS EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT CHARGE (46.00)
MTI DISTRIBUTING CO EQUIPMENT PARTS 811.05
MUNICILITE EQUIPMENT PARTS 9.69
NORTHERN TOOL & EQUIPMENT OFFICE SUPPLIES 4.94
NORTHSTAR REPRO PRODUCTS INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 103.39
NSP CO ELECTRIC SERVICE 372.75
OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE SUPPLIES 199.85
OLSON, JEAN YOUTH ATHLETICS/LEAGUES-exempt 67.50
ORKIN PEST CONTROL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 372.75
OTTO PACKAGING MIDWEST LLC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES (72.00)
PARK NICOLLET CLINIC HSM PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 565.70
PHASOR ELECTRIC COMPANY PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,925.00
PIRES, CLINTON E TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 172.39
POTTERS INDUSTRIES (ALBERTA) OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 2,988.00
PRAXAIR DISTRIBUTION INC. GENERAL SUPPLIES 75.21
PRINT GRAPHICS PRINTING & PUBLISHING 660.30
PRO PRODUCTS INC GENERAL SUPPLIES (92.32)
R & R SPECIALTIES EQUIPMENT PARTS 83.22
74
RADIO SHACK GENERAL SUPPLIES 13.61
RARDIN, MICHAEL MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 86.24
RELIANT ENERGY HEATING GAS 3,976.34
RHODES ,BRUCE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 25.00
S & S WORLDWIDE GENERAL SUPPLIES 231.69
SCHARBER & SONS EQUIPMENT PARTS 94.63
SCHARBER & SONS INC EQUIPMENT PARTS (3.51)
SEARS SMALL TOOLS 18.05
SLP CRIME PREVENTION FUND UNREALIZED REV-SAFETY CAMP 0.00
STAT MEDICAL GENERAL SUPPLIES 135.41
STATE OF MINNESOTA OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 53.50
STREICHER'S GENERAL SUPPLIES 275.90
SUBURBAN PROPANE MOTOR FUELS 68.48
SUBURBAN TIRE CO TIRES 515.33
TERMINIX INTERNATIONAL BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 54.30
TIME WARNER CABLE TELEPHONE 147.41
TREMAINE, DAVID CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 25.00
TWIN CITY OPTICAL CO TREE MAINTENANCE (12.86)
TWIN CITY OXYGEN CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 4.80
U S WEST INTERPRISE TELEPHONE 777.08
VISU-SEWER CLEAN & SEAL INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 3,008.75
VITALE, MICHAEL & HOURLY YOUTH ATHLETICS/LEAGUES-exempt 35.00
WALSER FORD EQUIPMENT PARTS 102.09
WARNING LITES OF MN INC TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 232.00
WASTE MANAGEMENT GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE 59.02
WELIN, SPENCER CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 25.00
WELLS FARGO REMITTANCE CTR GENERAL SUPPLIES 233.79
WM H MC COY PETROLEUM FUELS MOTOR FUELS 36.00
WSB ASSOCIATES INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 22,950.06
ZEBEC OF NORTH AMERICA INC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 1,496.57
ZIP PRINTING GENERAL SUPPLIES 191.70
101,294.39
June 1, 2001
VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
A T S S A INC SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 154.00
AIR CHEK INC MERCHANDISE PURCH FOR RESALE 1,875.00
ALLIANCE MECHANICAL SERVICES I BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 1,998.00
AMERIPRIDE LINEN AND APPAREL S CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 160.90
APACHE GROUP OF MINNESOTA GENERAL SUPPLIES 725.39
ARAMARK UNIFORM CORPORATE
ACCT
GENERAL SUPPLIES 663.70
ARMADILLO TRUCKVAULT INC. MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT (150.00)
AUDIO-TECH BUSINESS BOOK SUMMA SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 158.69
AUTOMATIC SYSTEMS INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 201.00
BACHMANS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,786.64
BAHR, MARK CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 25.00
BIG RIVER DELI & SANDWICHES TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 91.06
BOBS PERSONAL COFFEE SERVICE CONCESSION SUPPLIES 422.32
BOWLING, DEBORAH FACILITY RENTALS - taxable 25.00
BRENTS SIGNS BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 47.93
BROADWAY RENTAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT (1.66)
75
BRONX PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCI OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 455.82
CAHNERS BUSINESS INFORMATION OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 114.10
CAPITOL COMMUNICATIONS RADIO COMMUNICATIONS 423.79
CARLSON TRACTOR & EQUIP CO EQUIPMENT PARTS (59.08)
CARTRIDGE CARE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 571.24
CARY, ROBERT CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 25.00
CENTRAL POOL SUPPLY GENERAL SUPPLIES 94.02
COLLISYS ELECTRIC CO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 501.00
COLOR TILE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 128.77
COMMUNICATION SRVC FOR DEAF/VI GENERAL SUPPLIES 100.00
CONCEPT SEATING INC GENERAL SUPPLIES (180.00)
CUB FOODS SUBSISTENCE SUPPLIES 253.40
CUMMINS NORTH CENTRAL INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 38.72
CUSTOM PRODUCTS & SERVICES LANDSCAPING SERVICE 8,186.88
D'FENCE CO OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 410.00
DALSIN & SON INC, JOHN A BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 211.16
DANKO EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 248.58
DOBESH, MICHAEL TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 59.50
DOCK RITE INC BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES 7,085.23
EDTECH OFFICE FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT 889.58
ELAN GENERAL SUPPLIES 29.00
ELEMENT K JOURNALS SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 109.00
EMI AUDIO GENERAL SUPPLIES 11,708.38
ERV'S LAWN MOWER REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTS 72.42
FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (30.67)
FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,395.76
FLOYD TOTAL SECURITY GENERAL SUPPLIES 12.98
G & K SERVICES CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY 100.00
GARELICK STEEL CO OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 29.10
GENUINE PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (27.83)
GRAINGER INC, W W PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 8.26
GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 322.41
HASLERUD, CARRIE MEETING EXPENSE 67.88
HENNEPIN COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS D PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 194.37
HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPT SUBSISTENCE SERVICE 530.69
HIRSHFIELDS BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 87.10
HOME DEPOT BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES 396.87
HOME DEPOT/GECF GENERAL SUPPLIES 319.39
HORTON SALES COMPANY INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 125.23
HPI INTERNATIONAL INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 667.60
HUIRAS, SHIRLEY OFFICE SUPPLIES 283.90
HYDRO SUPPLY COMPANY OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 4,585.33
IOS CAPITAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT 686.93
IOWA PAINT MFG CO INC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 1,827.38
J H LARSON COMPANY BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 782.36
JUSTUS LUMBER COMPANY BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 3.18
KDV PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 10,000.00
KIEFER, ADOLPH & ASSOC GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,628.75
KNOX LUMBER GENERAL SUPPLIES (36.84)
LACAL EQUIPMENT INC EQUIPMENT PARTS (235.63)
LANGEFELS, DOUGLAS MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 41.57
MASON-CUTTERS GENERAL SUPPLIES 180.00
76
MASTERSON PERSONNEL INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,532.25
MENARDS GENERAL SUPPLIES 179.45
METROCALL TELEPHONE 7.23
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 208,305.40
MIDWEST LANDSCAPES TREE REPLACEMENT 3,400.00
MIND SHARP TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 129.00
MINN DEPT LABOR & INDUSTRY LICENSES/TAXES 15.00
MINN HIGHWAY SAFETY CENTER TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 1,476.00
MINNESOTA NURSERY AND LANDSCAP TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 75.00
MINNESOTA PLAYGROUND INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,298.47
MN DRIVER & VEHICLE SVCS EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT CHARGE (46.00)
MOBIUS INC OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 60.00
MOTOROLA RADIO COMMUNICATIONS 72.94
NATIONAL EAGLE CENTER OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 250.00
NORTH STAR TURF SUPPLY MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT 6,203.63
NSP CO ELECTRIC SERVICE 25,986.37
OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE SUPPLIES 218.52
OFFICE TEAM SALARIES - TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES 1,389.60
ONE CALL CONCEPTS INC RADIO COMMUNICATIONS 120.00
OTTO PACKAGING MIDWEST LLC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES (72.00)
PALM BROTHERS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 549.96
PALM'S HOME BAKERY MEETING EXPENSE 104.65
PAZDERA, TODD PLUMBING PERMIT 28.00
PELI GENERAL SUPPLIES 257.00
PEPSI-COLA COMPANY FIRE PREVENTION SUPPLIES 186.38
POST BOARD OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 90.00
PRO PRODUCTS INC GENERAL SUPPLIES (92.32)
PROPANE GAS PRODUCTS OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 27.68
QUANTERRA INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 3,400.00
RICE WORKS CONSULTING OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 975.00
ROTH, MICHAEL J STUDY INCENTIVE & MERIT PAY 325.00
ROTO-ROOTER BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 273.70
SCHARBER & SONS INC EQUIPMENT PARTS (3.51)
SECURITYLINK FROM AMERITECH OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 36.10
SEDGWICK CLAIMS GMT SERVICES PROF/CONSULT SERVICES 560.00
SHARE, JOHN OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 51.00
SLP CRIME PREVENTION FUND UNREALIZED REV-SAFETY CAMP 0.00
SRF CONSULTING GROUP INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 40,486.78
STEMMER, LUKE FIRE PREVENTION SUPPLIES 73.41
SUBURBAN PROPANE MOTOR FUELS 46.19
TARGET/DAYTONS GENERAL SUPPLIES 34.06
TERMINIX INTERNATIONAL BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 91.00
TWIN CITY OPTICAL CO TREE MAINTENANCE (12.86)
U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE 38.95
UNITED RENTALS OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 2,009.50
VEIT & COMPANY CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 1,950.00
VOELKER, STACY M PETTY CASH 597.80
WASTE MANAGEMENT-BLAINE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 155,078.10
WELLER'S DISPOSAL INC OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,000.00
WELLS FARGO REMITTANCE CTR GENERAL SUPPLIES 3,114.67
WENGER MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT 1,912.29
WHEELER LUMBER OPERATIONS OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 776.75
77
WILSONS NURSERY TREE REPLACEMENT 7,730.84
WSB ASSOCIATES INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 5,581.10
ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE GENERAL SUPPLIES 621.25
ZIMMERMAN, JEAN OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 5.28
ZIP PRINTING GENERAL SUPPLIES 327.52
ZIP SORT POSTAGE 278.77
543,716.45