HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001/07/02 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Regular 1
AGENDA - CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
July 2, 2001
7:30 p.m.
7:25 p.m. - Economic Development Authority
1. Call to Order
a. Pledge of Allegiance
b. Roll Call
2. Presentations
3. Approval of Minutes
a. City Council Minutes of June 18, 2001
b. Study Session Minutes of June 11, 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. City Engineer’s Report: Motion to adopt the attached resolution accepting this
report, establishing and ordering an improvement project, approving plans and
specifications and authorizing advertisement for bids for construction of a bus bay
at the northwest corner of Louisiana Avenue at W. 28th Street.
2
2. Traffic Study No. 558: Motion to adopt the attached resolution authorizing
installation of permit parking in front of 3962 Xenwood Avenue South.
3. Motion to adopt second reading of the ordinance amendments, approve summary
ordinance, and authorize publication for the Proposed Miscellaneous Zoning
Ordinance Text Amendments to consistently classify a sign as a structure instead
of a use, establish a 1 year time limit for the installation of exterior finishes for
single and two family homes, and lengthen the time to file the final plat from 60
days to 6 months.
4. Motion to authorize Hennepin County to initiate a consultant selection process for
the Elmwood Area Study, Case Nos. 01-29-CP.
5. Motion to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute the Second
Amendment to the Real Estate Purchase Agreement between the Jewish
Community Center and the City of St. Louis Park for certain City owned property
located at 4326 Cedar Lake Road.
6. Motion to approve final payment to F.F. Jedlicki, Inc. for storm sewer relocation
at 3043 Aquila Ave. in the amount of $10,002.00. Contract number 48-01
7. Motion to accept the following reports for filing:
a. Human Rights Commission Minutes of May 16, 2001
b. Vendor Claims
c. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of March 22, 2001
Action: Motion to approve Consent Items
5. Public Hearings
5a. Public Hearing: Alley Paving – 2700 Block between Brunswick Avenue and
the C.P. Railroad tracks
This report considers paving the alley in the 2700 block between Brunswick
Avenue and C.P. Railroad tracks.
Recommended
Action:
Mayor to close Public Hearing. Motion to adopt the attached
Resolution ordering the construction of a concrete alley in the
2700 block between Brunswick Avenue and C.P. Railroad tracks,
approving plans and specifications and authorizing receipt of
bids.
5b. Assessment Hearing for Project
Alley Paving located at the 2700 block between Brunswick Avenue and C.P.
Railroad tracks
Recommended
Action:
Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to adopt the attached
resolution establishing the assessment
3
6. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public
7. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions
7a. The request of Groves Academy for a minor amendment to the approved
Continued Special Permit to change the approved elevations.
Case No. 01-30-CUP (Amended)
Recommended
Action:
Motion to recommend approval of the minor amendment to the
approved Special Permit subject to the conditions in the
resolution.
8. Boards and Committees
9. Communications
10. Adjournment
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make
arrangements, please call the Administration Department) at 952/924-2525 (TDD
952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting.
4
Item # 3a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
June 18, 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, Chris Nelson,
Susan Sanger, Robert Young, Ron Latz, and Mayor Jeff Jacobs.
Councilmember Susan Santa was absent.
Also present were the City Manager (Mr. Meyer); City Attorney (Ms. Poehler); Director of
Community Development (Mr. Harmening); Director of Public Works (Mr. Rardin);
Superintendent of Engineering (Mr. Moore); City Clerk (Ms. Reichert); and St. Louis Park
City Housing Coordinator (Kathy Larsen).
2. Presentations
a. Wallace Sanford Recognition
Mayor Jacobs presented a resolution and plaque to Wallace Sanford in recognition of 33
years of service to the City of St. Louis Park and Public Works Department.
3. Approval of Minutes
a. City Council Minutes of June 4, 2001.
The minutes were approved with the following changes:
Councilmember Nelson noted that where the corrections called for on June 4th to the
minutes of May 21st read:
"Page 16, item 7c, the vote was missing from the minutes. The clerk offered to review
the tape and make corrections.”
The minutes should be corrected to continue with the following statement:
“The review of the tape showed the following and the minutes of May 21, 2001 have
been corrected to read, ‘It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by
Councilmember Latz, to approve Resolution No. 01-045 allowing Sholom
5
Community Alliance to issue up to $19,000,000 in Private Activity Revenue Bonds
and approve all documents in connection with the bond issue. Motion passed 7-0’.”
4. Approval of Agenda and Consent Items
NOTE: Consent items are those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or
which need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is
desired by either a Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to
an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion.
4a. Agenda
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to approve
the agenda. The motion passed 6-0.
4b. Consent Agenda
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Latz, to approve the
following Consent Agenda Items. The motion passed 6-0.
1. To accept the following reports for filing:
a. Planning Commission Minutes of May 16, 2001
b. Housing Authority Minutes of May 9, 2001
c. Vendor Claims
2. To approve Second Reading of an ordinance to vacate portions of streets, an alley,
and a sidewalk easement in Park Commons East, to adopt Ordinance No. 2200-
01, approve the Summary ordinance, and authorize publication. Case No. 01-08-
VAC
4. To designate Ron Kassa Construction, Inc. the lowest responsible bidder and
authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of $30,269.40 for
City-wide random curb and gutter and gutter repair work – City Project No. 01-
01.
5. To adopt Resolution No. 01-052 for authorization to enter into a lease agreement
between the City and Sprint Spectrum L.P. (Sprint) for space on the water tower
at 2500 Nevada Avenue for communications antenna for an initial lease term of
five (5) years with option for four (4) additional five (5) year renewal terms.
6. To adopt Resolution No. 01-051 recognizing Wallace Sanford for 33 years of
dedicated service to the City of St. Louis Park in the Public Works Department,
Operations Division.
5. Public Hearings
6
5a Public Hearing to consider reallocation of Community Development Block
Grant Funds and authorize execution of any Third Party Agreements.
Resolution No. 01-053.
Kathy Larsen, Housing Coordinator, reported the deadline for contracting 1999 CDBG
funds is June 30, 2001. Currently, there is $52,000 in 1999 CDBG funds to be recaptured
by the county. The following reallocation would prevent this: Allocate the 1999 Home
Renewal Funds to two previously approved projects, Prospectives, which was approved for
grant year 2001; and the Cash Emergency Repair Program, which was allocated in 2000. In
turn, the 2000 Cash Emergency Repair Program and the 2001 Prospectives allocations
would be reallocated to the Home Renewal Program. The funding level of the three projects
would remain unchanged, only the grant year status would change. According to Ms.
Larsen, if the Home Renewal monies allocated for 2001 were available, the City would be
able to purchase blighted properties when those properties are identified.
It was moved by Councilmember Latz, seconded by Councilmember Young, to adopt
Resolution No. 01-053 approving reallocation of Urban Hennepin County Community
Development Block Grant funds, and authorizing execution of any related Third Party
Agreements. The motion passed 6-0.
6. Requests and Communications from the Public--None
7. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions
7a. Miscellaneous Zoning Ordinance amendments to Sections 14:6-2.6, 14:6-
6.2(F)(1), and 14:912 (F) to consistently classify a sign as a structure instead of
a use, establish a 1 year time limit for the installation of exterior finishes for
single and two family homes, and lengthen the time to file the final plat from
60 days to 6 months.
Mr. Harming, presented a staff report summarizing proposed amendments to the ordinance,
and noted that two sections pertaining to shed permits and certificates are being pulled for
further review. The remaining items pertain to consistently referencing a sign as a structure
instead of a use, setting a time limit for the installation of exterior finished and setting a time
limit for filing a final plat.
Councilmember Latz questions the provisions regarding the 60-day time limit. Mr.
Harmening responded that the purpose of a time limit is to ensure that approved plats are
recorded in a timely fashion. It is at the City Council’s discretion to determine the length of
time to allowed to file the final plat, and 60 days has proven to be inadequate for developers
working on complicated projects.
Ms. Poehler concurred that 60 days is an inadequate time period. Typically, she has seen
time limits from 90-120 days, considered 6 months to be a reasonable time period
Councilmember Latz commented that if progress is inadequate in regard to a final plat
deadline, the City has the option of not granting an extension.
7
It was moved by Councilmember Latz, seconded by Councilmember Sanger to adopt first
reading of the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments and set second reading for the July
2, 2001 City Council Meeting. The motion passed 6-0.
7b. Authorize Hennepin County to initiate a consultant selection process for the
Elmwood Area Study. Case Nos. 01-29-CP (moved from consent agenda item
#3)
Councilmember Sanger had requested that the Elmwood Study be placed on the regular
agenda for discussion due to concerns that conflict of interest may exist in having the
Hennepin County Railroad Authority pay for a study in which railroad issues could play a
fairly predominant role. She noted that the rail bridge replacement has been a subject of
study for the railroad task force for some time and did not think that it should be included in
the scope of a study given the fact that the study is to be funded by the Hennepin County
Railroad Authority. She believed the type of bridge built or rebuilt over Highway 100 is an
issue of construction, engineering, and railroad operations and not a question of land use in
the Elmwood Area.
City Manager, Mr. Meyer, stated the type of railroad bridge to be built over Highway 100, to
some extent, dictates the type of rail traffic that will occur in the vicinity of Elmwood; and
freight, commuter, or light rail will have some bearing on how the planning is done. The
scope of study could be further clarified to call for study of each type of rail use and how
each use would affect the redevelopment of the Elmwood Area.
Councilmember Sanger asked it the revised draft would come back to the Council for
approval.
Mayor Jacobs responded that the document itself does not require council approval. The
intent of the council’s action at this time would be to authorize Hennepin County to initiate a
selection process, and ultimately there would be a contract between a consultant and
Hennepin County.
Councilmember Sanger asked if the Council will have further input into the scope of the
study and, if so, how and when.
Mr. Meyer stated that it was his understanding that the Council could provide further input
and that the document could be redrafted to satisfy councilmembers’ concerns.
Councilmember Nelson stated his concern that the document is too heavily oriented toward
transportation issues. The first five of the study issues, relate to transportation, and it is only
the sixth and final area that addresses redevelopment interests. He felt more balance should
be provided by the desired study outcomes.
Mr. Meyer said that in light of Councilmembers’ concerns he would like to redraft sections
of the document. The redraft will not be sent to Hennepin County until the Council is
8
satisfied, and the redraft could be provided at a Study Session as a written report or
attachment to the City Manager Digest for council review. Mr. Meyer agreed with
Councilmember Nelson’s concern that the document is heavily oriented towards
transportation. Mr. Meyer wants to show that a focus is being placed on some problems that
are facing the City as opposed to simply looking at opportunities.
Councilmember Brimeyer agreed but for different reasons. He said from the standpoint of a
consultant it would be difficult to respond because there are so many “what ifs” that will
have an impact on land use. Perhaps the focus should be a land use study first.
Councilmember Nelson moved approval to authorize Hennepin County to initiate a
consultant selection process for the Elmwood Area Study.with the understanding that
Council will have an opportunity to see another draft of the scope of study prior to
requesting proposals from consultants.
Councilmember Sanger did not feel it was appropriate to move approval to initial at a
consultant selection process until the draft scope of study had been finalized. She suggested
continuing to a subsequent meeting to give council an opportunity to further review the
draft.
Councilmember Brimeyer moved continuance of the item to a future meeting. The motion
was seconded by Councilmember Latz. Motion passed 6-0.
8. Boards and Committees - None
9. Communications
From the City Manager – Mr. Meyer distributed a brief report compiled on June 18, 2001
regarding the impact of an impending shutdown of State government on St. Louis Park
services and employees.
From the Mayor –Mayor Jacobs commented that Parktacular was a wonderful success. He
thanked those on the Parktacular committee who helped to fund and put it together.
10. Adjournment
Mayor Jacobs adjourned the meeting at 8:12 p.m.
City Clerk Mayor
9
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
June 11, 2001
The meeting convened at 7:00 p.m.
Present at the meeting were Councilmembers Jim Brimeyer, Ron Latz, Chris Nelson, Susan
Sanger, and Mayor Jacobs.
Staff present: Deputy City Manager (Mr. Pires), Director of Community Development (Mr.
Harmening), Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Kleve), Planning and Zoning Supervisor
(Ms. Jeremiah), Planning Coordinator (Ms. Erickson), Director of Inspections (Mr. Hoffman),
Environmental Health Officer (Mr. Camilon), Recreation Supervisor (Ms. Wynn-Kienenberger),
and City Clerk (Ms. Reichert).
1. St. Louis Park Historical Society
Richard Lang of the St. Louis Park Historical Society was present at the meeting. He presented a
request from the St. Louis Park Historical Society for funding to create an updated book on the
history of St. Louis Park.
Councilmember Sanger inquired about the proposed focus of study. Mr. Lang replied that the
book would focus on the most recent twenty-five years.
Discussion took place on existing publications about St. Louis Park. Councilmembers
questioned what format the results would be published in. Councilmember Brimeyer suggested
that the primary focus be on compiling the City’s history, with the production format as a
secondary focus.
Council expressed interest in including the city’s history in the public arts program currently
being developed.
Councilmember Nelson asked what kind of staff support would be needed. Mr. Lang felt that
there would be opportunity for involvement by city staff in all phases of the project.
2. Public Art
Jack Becker of FORECAST was present at the meeting.
After listening to the previous presentation, Mr. Becker felt confident that history could be
incorporated in the public art program. He also reported that the public art survey is currently
underway and a report on the survey’s results will be available in late July 2001.
He also reported that Requests for Quotations will be going out for artists to be included in the
Park Commons design team. The design team will then bring design feasibility and construction
information to Council.
10
Councilmember Young inquired about the possibilities for temporary art installations like the
project in Meisner Park in Boca Raton. Mr. Becker replied that the use of borrowed and
temporary are will both be options they’ll be looking at. He outlined some of the issues that
would arise in developing those programs such as funding and artist incentive to participate.
Mr. Becker stated that development of the strategic plan for art will provide a structure within
which many forms of public art can be developed.
3. Dan Patch Commuter Rail
Stephanie Eiler, Consultant with Parsons Brinkerhof, and Scott Peters, Dakota County Project
Manager, were present at the meeting to provid council with results of their research to date.
The presentation included information about projected ridership, cost of the system, safety
concerns, public feedback, station location, funding, infrastructure and development issues.
Ms. Eiler also encouraged the council to consider location of stations in St. Louis Park as they
move forward with development over the coming years.
Staff informed council that copies of the technical reports which form the basis for the report are
available in the Community Development Office.
4. Park Commons East
Ms. Jeremiah discussed the realignment of the Park Edge Road and the location where stakes had
been set. She stated that in fact this would not be the place of the road and the stakes would be
moved to the proper location. Council would like to be notified when the new stakes are set.
Ms. Jeremiah also informed council that the Parks and Recreation Department was very
concerned that the road would adversely affect Wolfe Park and every effort is being made to
mitigate that effect.
Ms. Jeremiah spoke about the entrance to ramps from Excelsior Blvd. and 38th/39th St. She
added that if Council directed a change in the access to the ramps, it would significantly impact
the project.
Dennis Sutliffe, ES&G Architects, spoke about the design of the sidewalk and pedestrian
movement.
The signage plan will be submitted with the final PUD and safety will be addressed throughout
the design.
Ms. Jeremiah reported that Hennepin County had accepted the plan without comment and
thought it a major improvement over existing conditions.
Bob Cunningham explained the parking configuration as well as materials to be used for the
facades. Mr. Sutliffe spoke about the design of the facades.
11
Councilmember Latz said he does not feel it is necessary to make everything look the same in
this development and wanted it to show variation in design. Mr. Sutliffe agreed, stating that he
did not want to see a conglomeration of disparate parts, but variation in design was a desired
goal. He believed that a great deal of interest would also be created by facades, signage,
displays, awnings, etc.
Council agreed to discuss the Park Commons project at the next meeting and place the Final
PUD on the first meeting in August if not earlier.
Mr. Kleve stated that the legislature was in session again and there may potential hits to the
project funding. He informed Council that more news would be available later as the legislature
continues. Mr. Kleve gave options for recovering funding that would be lost, such as applying
for grant funds for which the City may qualify.
Mr. Harmening replied that the City would like to fill the 1 million dollar gap but is in the same
position as the developer, having difficulty fulfilling its TIF obligations. Staff will continue to
work toward resolution of the issues.
5. Snow Removal Enforcement Ordinance Revisions
Mr. Rardin met with Council to discuss possible changes to the snow removal enforcement
ordinance. Council agreed with the concept of authorizing non-police staff to issue citations for
violations of parking restriction for a snow fall.
Council discussed a possible administrative process to impose penalties for failure to maintain
sidewalks free of ice and snow. Council instructed staff to move forward with the process and
develop a plan for future discussion. They also urged staff to develop an educational program
for homeowners on snow removal.
6. Point-of-Sale Home Inspection Program
Mr. Hoffman presented a brief overview of the history of this program and asked the council
what kinds of feedback they had received about the program. Mr. Hoffman pointed out some
problems with the program as currently structured and informed council that he would be
incorporating their comments into a plan for restructuring which would be brought back for
discussion at a future meeting.
7. Communications
Councilmember Sanger raised concerns about the Elmwood Study Program and possible a
possible conflict of interest. Staff agreed to follow up on those concerns.
8. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 11:19 p.m.
12
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 5a
Meeting of July 2, 2001
5a. Public Hearing: Alley Paving – 2700 Block between Brunswick Avenue and
the C.P. Railroad tracks
This report considers paving the alley in the 2700 block between Brunswick
Avenue and C.P. Railroad tracks.
Recommended
Action:
Mayor to close Public Hearing. Motion to adopt the attached
Resolution ordering the construction of a concrete alley in the
2700 block between Brunswick Avenue and C.P. Railroad tracks,
approving plans and specifications and authorizing receipt of
bids.
Background: At its June 4, 2001 meeting, the City Council approved the City Engineer’s
Report for construction of a concrete alley in the 2700 block between Brunswick Avenue and
C.P. Railroad tracks, and scheduled a Public Hearing and Assessment Hearing for July 2, 2001.
Summarized below is the background information for the Public Hearing scheduled for July 2,
2001.
Location: 2700 block between Brunswick Avenue and C.P. Railroad tracks
Proposed Project: Paving existing gravel alley with concrete
Estimated Cost $61,000
Assessment Data: Half of the entire cost for the concrete alley paving is proposed to be
assessed to the abutting property owners. The remaining half is proposed to be funded through
the use of City General Obligation Bond proceeds. The costs will be apportioned in accordance
with the City’s special assessment policy with direct and indirect benefits. The estimated
assessment for a typical 40 foot lot is $2,222.00 payable over 20 years.
Parcels Within Assessment District: 14
Neighborhood Meeting Comments: On Thursday, June 21, 2001 staff held a Neighborhood
meeting for abutting property owners to discuss the proposed project. A two (2) week notice of
this meeting was sent to all 14 property owners on this project. A total of three (3) residents
representing three (3) properties attended the meeting. Staff reviewed the proposed project,
construction issues and schedule along with the assessment costs. Staff responded to residents’
questions and had the preliminary plans available for their review. All the residents who
attended the meeting supported the alley paving project.
13
Attachments: Resolution
City Engineer’s Report
Typical Assessment
Attendance List
Prepared by: Carlton B. Moore, Superintendent of Engineering
Maria Hagen, City Engineer
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
14
RESOLUTION NO. 01-057
RESOLUTION ORDERING
THE CONSTRUCTION OF A CONCRETE ALLEY IN THE
2700 BLOCK BETWEEN BRUNSWICK AVENUE AND C.P. RAILROAD TRACKS,
APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND
AUTHORIZING RECEIPT OF BIDS
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from
the City Engineer related to the construction of a concrete alley in the 2700 block between
Georiga Avenue and 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 Council, being fully advised of the pertinent facts, the improvement is ordered
to be constructed in accordance with the description in the City Engineer’s Report.
2. The plans and specifications for the improvement are hereby approved.
3. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted at least two weeks in the official
newspaper and in the Construction Bulletin, an advertisement for bids for the making of
said improvement under said approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall
appear not less than twenty one (21) days prior to the date of receipt of bids, and specify
the work to be done, state the date and time bids will be received by the City Clerk, and
that no bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the City Clerk and
accompanied by a cashier’s check, bid bond, or certified check payable to the City for
five (5) percent of the amount of the bid.
4. The City Engineer is authorized to advertise for the receipt of bids.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council July 2, 2001
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
15
ATTENDANCE LIST
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING
JUNE 21, 2001
27000 BLOCK GEORGIA/C.P. RAILROAD TRACKS
CONCRETE ALLEY PAVING
Name Address Phone #
Maureen Miller 2733 Brunswick Ave. So. 928-9794
William Donlon 2729 Brunswick Ave. So. 929-5462
Mike Daly 2749 Brunswick Ave. So. 922-0009
16
REPORT FROM MEETING OF JUNE 4, 2001
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
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 an Improvement Project, 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
17
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.
18
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 No. 01-050 (not attached)
Plan
Property owner list with estimated assessments
Prepared by: Carlton Moore/Michael P. Rardin, Public Works
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
19
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
( dust, noise, mud, and
service )
PAYMENT SCHEDULE FOR ESTIMATED
ASSESSMENT
TYPICAL ASSESSMENT = = $2,222
INTEREST RATE = 0.07
YEARS = = = = = = = 20
PRINCIPAL PRINCIPAL INTEREST
YEAR BALANCE PAYMENT PAYMENT TOTAL
1 $2,222 $111 $156 $267
2 $2,111 $111 $148 $259
3 $2,000 $111 $140 $251
4 $1,889 $111 $132 $243
5 $1,778 $111 $124 $236
6 $1,667 $111 $117 $228
7 $1,555 $111 $109 $220
8 $1,444 $111 $101 $212
9 $1,333 $111 $93 $204
10 $1,222 $111 $86 $197
11 $1,111 $111 $78 $189
12 $1,000 $111 $70 $181
13 $889 $111 $62 $173
14 $778 $111 $54 $166
15 $667 $111 $47 $158
16 $556 $111 $39 $150
17 $444 $111 $31 $142
18 $333 $111 $23 $134
19 $222 $111 $16 $127
20 $111 $111 $8 $119
TOTAL $2,222 $1,633 $3,855
20
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 5b
Meeting of July 2, 2001
5b. Public Hearing to Consider Assessment Hearing for Alley Paving at the 2700
block between Brunswick Ave and CP Railroad
Recommended
Action:
Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to adopt the attached
resolution establishing the assessment
Background: At its June 4, 2001 meeting, the City Council approved the City Engineer’s
Report for construction of a concrete alley for the 2700 block between Brunswick Avenue and
the C.P. Railroad tracks. The City’s policy for funding alley improvements requires abutting
property owners to pay 100 % of the improvement costs and that a signed petition by at least
51% of the benefited properties is submitted to the City.
A petition was received in the Assessing Division that was signed by 59% of the benefited
property owners. Because the construction project abuts railroad property, a non-benefiting
property owner, special assessments comprise 50% of the construction cost.
A neighborhood meeting attended by 3 property owners was held June 21, 2001. Staff reviewed
the proposed construction, assessment costs and construction schedule. The property owners who
attended the meeting favored the construction project and assessments. The purpose of holding
the assessment hearing prior to completion of the project is to allow the City to consider any
objections to the assessment or the project before it is built. All affected property owners
received direct notice of this assessment hearing.
Estimated cost: $61,000 Total Assessment: $30,500
Number of parcels: 14
Assessment Period: 20 years Interest rate: 7.00%
Assessment Charge for a 50 front foot lot: $2222
Annual Payment -
• Principal $111
• Interest $155
Total Payment $266
Attachments: Assessment Spread Sheet
Map
Resolution
Prepared by: Bruce Stepnick, City Assessor
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
21
RESOLUTION NO. 01-058
RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT
IMPROVEMENT NO. _________,
ALLEY PAVING IN THE
2700 BLOCK BETWEEN BRUNSWICK AVENUE AND the C.P RAILROAD TRACKS.
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park as follows:
1. Notice of hearing on this improvement was duly mailed on June 19, 2001 and published in
the official City newspaper, the St_Louis_Park_Sailor, on June 20, 2001 and June 27, 2001 as
required by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429.
2. A public hearing having been held on this date and opportunity having been given at the
hearing to all persons to make known their objections to the proposed assessment, and the
Council being fully advised of the pertinent facts, the proposed assessment as it deems just is
adopted and shall constitute the special assessment levied against the respective lands therein
described, and each tract of land is found to be specifically benefited by the improvements in
the amount of assessment levied against it.
3. The assessment shall be payable, unless prepaid, in equal annual installments extending
over the period of 20 years. The first installment shall be payable concurrently with general
taxes levied in the year 2001, and payable in the year 2002 , and shall bear interest at the rate of
7.00 percent per annum. To the first installment shall be added interest on the entire assessment
from November 1, 2001, until December 31, 2001, the year in which the assessment will be
levied. For subsequent installments, interest shall be added for one year on the total of all
unpaid installments. No interest will be charged as to any parcel if the entire assessment is paid
at the Office of the Treasurer within 30 days from the date of adoption of the assessment
resolution.
4. The location of the construction improvement over which installments are to be extended
for a period of 20 years is as follows:
Improvement # Type of Improvement Location
01-______ Alley Paving 2700 Block Brunswick Avenue S. and C.P.
Railroad tracks.
5. The Assessor’s Office shall transmit a certified copy of this assessment to the county
auditor to be extended on the proper tax lists of the county, and such assessments shall be
collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes.
22
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council July 2, 2001
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
23
ESTIMATED COST: $61,000 Property Owners assessed at 50% of the cost $30,50070% Direct Benefit (garage or access)City Cost $30,50030% Indirect Benefit (dust, noise, and mud)
(A) Direct Benefit total footage 540 feet or $3 39.54 per front foot
(B) Indirect Benefit total footage 571 feet or $16.29 per front foot
total $30,500
direct $21,350
indirect $9,150
TotalIndirectDirectDirect &Address Ind feet % Indirect Allocation Dir feet % Direct Allocation Indirect
2701 Brunswick Ave S 60 10.51 $961 60 11.11 $2,372 $3,334
2709 Brunswick Ave S 40 7.01 $641 40 7.41 $1,581 $2,222
2713 Brunswick Ave S 40 7.01 $641 40 7.41 $1,581 $2,222
2717 Brunswick Ave S 40 7.01 $641 40 7.41 $1,581 $2,222
2721 Brunswick Ave S 40 7.01 $641 40 7.41 $1,581 $2,222
2725 Brunswick Ave S 40 7.01 $641 40 7.41 $1,581 $2,222
2729 Brunswick Ave S 40 7.01 $641 40 7.41 $1,581 $2,222
2733 Brunswick Ave S 40 7.01 $641 40 7.41 $1,581 $2,222
2737 Brunswick Ave S 40 7.01 $641 40 7.41 $1,581 $2,222
2741 Brunswick Ave S 40 7.01 $641 40 7.41 $1,581 $2,222
2745 Brunswick Ave S 40 7.01 $641 40 7.41 $1,581 $2,222
2749 Brunswick Ave S 40 7.01 $641 40 7.41 $1,581 $2,222
2753 Brunswick Ave S 40 7.01 $641 40 7.41 $1,581 $2,222
2757 Brunswick Ave S 31 5.43 $497 0 0.00 $0 $497
Total 571 100.00 $9,150 540 100.00 $21,350 $30,500
Indirect Direct
24
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 7a
Meeting of July 2, 2001
7a. The request of Groves Academy for a minor amendment to the approved
Continued Special Permit to change the approved elevations.
Case No. 01-30-CUP (Amended)
Recommended
Action:
Motion to recommend approval of the minor amendment to the
approved Special Permit subject to the conditions in the
resolution.
Background:
On December 18, 2000, the St. Louis Park City Council adopted Resolution #00-154 granting a
major amendment to the continued Special Use Permit to allow the expansion of Groves
Academy. The 30,000-square-foot expansion included a new gymnasium, classrooms,
conference rooms and other amenities.
The applicant is proposing a number of design changes to the building elevations that were
approved as part of the Special Use Permit. The proposed changes respond to financial,
functional and design considerations. Most of the alterations are minor and improve the exterior
appearance of the building. The minor changes include reducing the amount of windows,
replacing the existing window blocks with brick and an EIFS material, replacing the prefinished
architectural panels above the main entrance with a blue aluminum panel to give the school a
more modern look, and introducing more vertical elements along the east and west facades to
reduce the strong horizontal element of the original proposal.
The major change proposed is introducing a new building material, exposed aggregate pre-cast
concrete panels on the gymnasium portion of the addition. The approved elevations of the
gymnasium consisted of all brick. The applicant proposes replacing the middle sections of the
brick exterior walls on all three sides of the gymnasium with pre-cast concrete panels.
Staff has met with the applicant to determine a solution that would meet the functional and
financial needs of the school while conforming more closely to the architectural standards of the
elevations that were approved by the Planning Commission and City Council and the intent of
the Code for additions.
The applicant and staff discussed a solution that would leave the south elevation all brick and
increase the pre-cast concrete panels on the west elevation by one panel. In effect, under this
scenario, three of the proposed twenty-five concrete panels would be returned to brick. The
25
applicant seemed amenable to this solution and asked their architect to explore it along with
other potential alternatives to address staff’s concerns and meet the architectural code.
Issues:
• Are the Zoning Ordinance requirements being satisfied?
• Do the proposed changes meet the architectural standards of the elevations that were
approved by the Planning Commission and City Council?
Issues Analysis:
Are the Zoning Ordinance requirements being satisfied?
The proposed exterior modifications comply with the minimum Class I building material
requirements. The amount of brick and glass on any given elevation is over 60%. However, staff
noted that the original proposal did not meet the requirement that building additions conform to
the original architectural design, including use of materials and proportion. This was particularly
problematic on the south side, where a substantial proportion of pre-cast concrete panels was
proposed in a new vertical feature. Staff recommends returning the south side of the gymnasium
to brick as originally approved while allowing use of the pre-cast panels on the east and west
elevations in a manner that is more harmonious with the overall building design. The other
materials shown on the elevations include EIFS, limestone accents, and aluminum.
Do the proposed changes meet the architectural standards of the elevations that were
approved by the Planning Commission and City Council?
Staff is comfortable that, with the design changes as recommended by staff, the architectural
standards approved by the Planning Commission and City Council would be met. The minor
changes on the classroom portion of the building enhance the exterior appearance of the
building. In regard to the gymnasium portion, staff believes that the solution reached by the
applicant and staff is acceptable. There would still be an overall reduction of Class I materials,
but staff believes the revisions generally meet the architectural standards of the elevations that
were approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. Staff believes the concrete panels
on the east elevation, facing Hwy. 100, are appropriate because they will accent the school’s wall
sign; while the visible south façade, which faces the schools parking lot and is visible from Hwy.
100, would remain all brick.
Staff has indicated that we would consider other alternatives provided the intent of the Code and
previous approvals were met. Language regarding administrative approvals is included in the
attached resolution.
26
Recommendation:
Motion to adopt Resolution No. ____ amending Resolution No. 00-154 granting continued
Special Use Permit to allow expansion to Groves Academy at 3200 Highway 100 subject to the
conditions and stipulations listed in said Resolution.
Attachments:
• Proposed Resolution
• Proposed Building Elevations
• Approved Building Elevations
Prepared by: Patrick Smith, Planner
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
27
RESOLUTION NO. ______
Amends and Restates Resolution No. 00-154
A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 00-154 ADOPTED ON
DECEMBER 18, 2000 AND GRANTING CONTINUED SPECIAL USE PERMIT UNDER
SECTION 8-6 OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO
ZONING TO ALLOW EXPANSION TO A SCHOOL AT
3200 HIGHWAY 100
FINDINGS
WHEREAS, Groves Learning Center has made application to the City Council for an
amendment to a continued special use permit under Section 8-6 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance
Code to permit a change in the approved building elevations for the expansion of a school at
3200 Highway 100 within a R-4 Multiple Family Residence District having the following legal
description:
Lots one (1), two (2), three (3), four (4), five (5), six (6), seven (7), eight (8), nine
(9) and ten (10), inclusive, “Oak Park 2nd”, according to the recorded plat thereof,
being also described as the South eight hundred fifty (850) feet of that part of the
Northwest one-quarter (NW ¼) of the Northwest one-quarter (NW ¼) of Section
Six (6), Township Twenty-eight (28) North, Range Twenty-four (24) West of the
Fourth Principal Meridian lying East of the West 172.7 feet thereof and West of
State Highway No. 100, according to the United States Government survey
thereof
The South 850 feet of the West 172.7 feet of the West one-half (W ½) of the West
one-half (W ½) of the Northwest quarter (NW ¼) of the Northwest quarter (NW
¼) of Section Six (6), Township Twenth-eight (28) North, Range Twenty-four
(24) West of the Fourth Principal Meridian according to the United States
Government Survey thereof
Lot 29 in “Norwaldo” according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the
office of the Register of Deeds of Hennepin County, Minnesota
(Abstract and Torrens)
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the information related to Planning Case
Files 82-52-SP, 99-23-CUP, and 01-30-CUP and the effect of the proposed school expansion on
the health, safety, and welfare of the occupants of the surrounding lands, existing and anticipated
traffic conditions, the effect on values of properties in the surrounding area and the effect of the
use on the Comprehensive Plan; and
28
WHEREAS, a special use permit was issued regarding the subject property pursuant to
Resolution No. 7202 of the St. Louis Park City Council dated August 16, 1982 which contained
conditions applicable to said property; and
WHEREAS, an amendment to a continued special use permit was issued regarding the
subject property pursuant to Resolution No. 99-112 of the St. Louis Park City Council dated
October 4, 1999 which contained conditions applicable to said property, and
WHEREAS, an amendment to a continued special use permit was issued regarding the
subject property pursuant to Resolution No. 00-154 of the St. Louis Park City Council dated
December 18, 2000 which contained conditions applicable to said property, and
WHEREAS, due to changed circumstances, amendments to those conditions are now
necessary, requiring the amendment of that conditional use permit; and
WHEREAS, it is the intent of this resolution to continue and restate the conditions of the
permit granted by Resolution No. 7202 to add the amendments now required, and to consolidate
all conditions applicable to the subject property in this resolution;
WHEREAS, the contents of Planning Case Files 82-52-SP, 99-23-CUP, and 01-30-CUP
are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for
this case.
CONCLUSION
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Resolution No. 00-154 filed as Document
No. 7401329 is hereby restated and amended by this resolution which continues and amends a
continued special use permit to the subject property for the purposes of permitting an expansion
to a school within the R-4 Multiple Family Zoning District at the location described above based
on the following conditions:
1. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with Exhibit A, Site Plan,
as modified by the addition of eleven parking spaces.
2. Any new planting improvements on the site plan shall be completed by October 15, 1982.
3. The continued special permit shall be amended on October 4, 1999 to incorporate all of
the preceding conditions and add the following conditions:
a. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with Exhibits B
through H, Exhibit E to be revised per condition b.3) below, and condition 5
(amended July 2, 2001), such documents incorporated by reference herein.
b. Prior to any site work, the applicant shall comply with the following:
1) Obtain an erosion control permit from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District and forward a copy of permit to the City.
29
2) Obtain written permission from MNDOT for storm sewer pipe on public right
of way and driveway access changes along Highway 100 frontage road.
3) Exhibit E, Elevations, shall be revised to show no more than 10% Class III
materials on any façade. In addition, building materials samples shall be
submitted to and approved by the Zoning Administrator and Planning
Supervisor to ensure architectural integration and compatibility of all
materials used.
c. Approval of a building permit, which may impose additional requirements.
d. A sign permit shall be obtained prior to installation of any new signage.
e. If it becomes necessary to increase the number of parking stalls to meet City
requirements for the approved building expansion, an increase of up to 10 stalls
may be approved administratively, provided that setback and bufferyard
requirements are met.
f. Assent form and official exhibits must be signed by applicant (or applicant and
owner if applicant is different from owner) prior to issuance of building permit.
4. The conditional use permit shall be amended on December 18, 2000 to incorporate all of
the preceding conditions and extend the time to obtain a building permit to August 31,
2001.
5. The conditional use permit shall be amended on July 2, 2001 to incorporate all of the
preceding conditions and to approve the proposed amendment to Exhibit E Elevations
dated as received by the City on June 13, 2001 subject to the following conditions:
a. The south elevation of the gymnasium shall be all brick and the west elevation
may include one additional exposed aggregate concrete panel.
b. An alternative that meets the architectural Code in commensurate manner may be
approved by the Zoning Administrator.
The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this resolution in the Office of the
Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council July 2, 2001
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
30
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
July 2, 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. City Engineer’s Report: Motion to adopt the attached resolution accepting this
report, establishing and ordering an improvement project, approving plans and
specifications and authorizing advertisement for bids for construction of a bus bay
at the northwest corner of Louisiana Avenue at W. 28th Street.
2. Traffic Study No. 558: Motion to adopt the attached resolution authorizing
installation of permit parking in front of 3962 Xenwood Avenue South.
3. Motion to adopt second reading of the ordinance amendments, approve summary
ordinance, and authorize publication for the Proposed Miscellaneous Zoning
Ordinance Text Amendments to consistently classify a sign as a structure instead
of a use, establish a 1 year time limit for the installation of exterior finishes for
single and two family homes, and lengthen the time to file the final plat from 60
days to 6 months.
4. Motion to authorize Hennepin County to initiate a consultant selection process for
the Elmwood Area Study, Case Nos. 01-29-CP.
5. Motion to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute the Second
Amendment to the Real Estate Purchase Agreement between the Jewish
Community Center and the City of St. Louis Park for certain City owned property
located at 4326 Cedar Lake Road.
6. Motion to approve final payment to F.F. Jedlicki, Inc. for storm sewer relocation
at 3043 Aquila Ave. in the amount of $10,002.00. Contract number 48-01
8. Motion to accept the following reports for filing:
d. Human Rights Commission Minutes of May 16, 2001
e. Vendor Claims
f. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of March 22, 2001
31
CONSENT ITEM # 1
St. Louis Park City Council
Meeting of July 2, 2001
1. City Engineer’s Report: Motion to adopt the attached resolution accepting this
report, establishing and ordering an improvement project, approving plans and
specifications and authorizing advertisement for bids for construction of a bus
bay at the northwest corner of Louisiana Avenue at W. 28th Street.
Background:
The Louisiana Court Project for Pride in Living (PPL) development is adjacent to the west side
of Louisiana Avenue at W. 28th Street. As a part of the amendment to the Planned Unit
Development, this project was granted parking reduction considerations based on the creation of
a transit stop and sidewalk improvements along Louisiana Avenue.
In January, 2000 Public Works staff began investigating traffic congestion on Louisiana Avenue
between Minnetonka Boulevard and W. 27th Street. The engineering consulting firm of WSB
and Associates completed a traffic study and recommended developing a center left-turn lane for
the intersections at W. 27th Street and W. 28th Street. By providing dedicated lanes for left-turn
movements, the right lane now functions as the only available through lane.
Analysis:
Since the through lane is now adjacent to the sidewalk on south-bound Louisiana Avenue, busses
stopping at the intersection would block through traffic. Creation of a bus bay allows the busses
to pull out of the through lane while dropping off and picking up passengers. It is anticipated
that south-bound vehicles turning right onto W. 28th Street will use the bus bay as a right turn
lane, further decreasing the number of conflicts and delay for through-moving vehicles.
Relocation of the existing sidewalk will allow for the creation of a boulevard area between the
sidewalk and the through lane. This will improve pedestrians’ feeling of safety as they walk
along the street.
Design Considerations:
In exchange for the necessary land needed for the bus bay and sidewalk improvements, the city
agreed to design and construct the project.
Installation of a bus bay will necessitate moving the existing traffic signal base on the corner
back approximately 7-8 feet, relocation of the existing sidewalk, and moving an existing street
light pole and associated wiring.
The City-Wide Sidewalk, Trail and Crossing Improvement Program calls for new sidewalk to be
installed on the north side of W. 28th Street in 2002. Relocation of the signal base will consider
this new sidewalk location.
32
Plans and specifications for this project will be prepared by city staff. WSB and Associates will
assist staff by preparing plans for the signal base relocation. City staff will solicit bids and
manage & inspect the improvements.
Financial Considerations:
The estimated cost for this project is $72,000 including engineering and contingencies. Funding
for the project is proposed to come from the City’s 1999 General Obligation Bond proceeds.
Feasibility:
The project, as proposed, is necessary, cost-effective, and feasible under the conditions noted and
at the costs estimated.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution approving the City
Engineer’s report, approving and ordering a project for these improvements, approving the plans
and specifications, and authorizing staff to solicit bids for this work.
Attachments: Plan
Resolution
Prepared by: Maria A. Hagen, City Engineer
Reviewed by: Michael Rardin, Public Works Director
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
33
RESOLUTION NO. 01-054
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE CITY ENGINEER’S REPORT,
ESTABLISHING AND ORDERING AN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A BUS BAY AND RELOCATION OF NECESSARY
INFRASTRUCTURE AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF
LOUISIANA AVENUE AND W. 28TH STREET, AND
APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS & AUTHORIZING
ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR THE SAME
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the
City Engineer related to the need for construction of a bus bay at the northwest corner of
Louisiana Avenue at W. 28th Street.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that:
1. The City Engineer’s Report regarding the need for a bus bay on Louisiana Avenue at W.
28th Street is hereby accepted.
2. The proposed project is hereby established.
3. The project is hereby ordered.
4. The plans and specifications for the making of the improvement, as prepared under the
direction of the City Engineer, are approved.
5. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted at least two weeks in the official
newspaper and in the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids for the making of said
improvement under said approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall appear
not less than twenty one (21) days prior to the date and time bids will be received by the
City Clerk, and that no bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the City Clerk
and accompanied by a cashier’s check, bid bond, or certified check payable to the City for
five (5) percent of the amount of the bid.
6. The bids shall be tabulated by the City Engineer who shall report her tabulation and
recommendation to the City Council.
Reviewed for Administration : Adopted by the City Council July 2, 2001
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
34
CONSENT ITEM # 2
St. Louis Park City Council
Meeting of July 2, 2001
2. Traffic Study No. 558: Motion to adopt the attached resolution authorizing
installation of permit parking in front of 3962 Xenwood Avenue South.
Background: The City has received a request from Ms. Claudette Maerz of 3962 Xenwood
Avenue South to restrict on-street parking in front of her house. Ms. Maerz is handicapped by
rhumatoid arthritis and can only walk short distances. She has handicapped license plates and
her need to access vehicles in front of her property has prompted this request.
Staff has discussed this request with Ms. Maerz and informed her the City’s practice does allow
for permit parking in this situation. The installation of handicapped parking signs is not feasible,
as the parking stall design requirements cannot be met on our local street. However, it is the
City’s practice to use permit parking, which is removed when the individual who needs the
access at the curb no longer resides there or no longer needs the access.
Staff considers the resident’s request to be valid and supports the installation of permit parking
for handicap access in front of 3962 Xenwood Avenue South. This recommendation is based on
the following:
1. The resident of the household is handicapped.
2. Access to the curb in front of the residence is needed to provide more convenient
access.
3. Conflicting parking tendencies with neighbors will be eliminated.
Options: Staff has identified the following options available to the Council at this time.
* 1. Approve the request. If so, the attached resolution authorizing the installation of the
parking regulations may be utilized.
2. Deny the request.
* Staff recommendation
Attachments: Map
Resolution
Prepared By: Carlton Moore/Maria Hagen, Public Works
Approved By: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
35
RESOLUTION NO. 01-055
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PARKING RESTRICTIONS
ALONG XENWOOD AVENUE SOUTH AT 3962
TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 558
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota that it
is in the best interest of the City to establish a parking restriction based upon permit issuance
along Xenwood Avenue South at 3962.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that parking shall not be permitted at any time unless
the vehicle prominently displays a City issued parking permit on the left rear windshield.
Emergency vehicles, governmental vehicles and commercial vehicles parked at curbside while
work is conducted are exempt from these restrictions.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the parking restriction enacted herein shall remain
in effect as long as the resident resides at the above address.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that the Director of Public Works is hereby authorized to install the following
controls:
1. Permit parking at 3962 Xenwood Avenue South.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council July 2, 2001
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
36
CONSENT ITEM # 3
St. Louis Park City Council
Meeting of July 2, 2001
3. Motion to adopt second reading of the ordinance amendments, approve
summary ordinance, and authorize publication for the Proposed
Miscellaneous Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments to consistently classify a
sign as a structure instead of a use, establish a 1 year time limit for the
installation of exterior finishes for single and two family homes, and lengthen
the time to file the final plat from 60 days to 6 months.
Background:
On June 18, 2001, the City Council passed first reading of the proposed miscellaneous Zoning
Ordinance text amendments. The Council’s only question dealt with why a time limit is needed
for filing of plats. Staff and the City Attorney responded by saying that a time limit helps ensure
that plats are not approved without them ever being filed. No other questions or concerns were
raised regarding the proposed changes and Council passed 1st reading on a vote of 6-0.
Recommendation:
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend that the Council adopts second reading of the
Zoning Ordinance text amendments to consistently classify a sign as a structure instead of a use,
establish a 1 year time limit for the installation of exterior finishes for single and two family
homes, and lengthen the time to file the final plat from 60 days to 6 months, approve summary
ordinance, and authorize publication.
Attachments: Proposed Ordinance
Proposed Summary Ordinance
Prepared by: Scott Moore, Assistant Zoning Administrator, 952-925-2592
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
37
ORDINANCE NO. 2201-01
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK
ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING BY
AMENDING SECTIONS
14:6-2.6, 14:6-6.2(F), 14:912(F)
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
Findings
Sec. 1. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning
Commission (Case No. 01-20-ZA)
Sec. 2. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Sections 14:6-2.6, 14:6-6.2(F), and
14:912(F) are hereby amended to read as follows:
Section 14:6-2.6 - Sign Regulations General Provisions
“Subject to the following regulations, signs are a permitted accessory structure in all Use
Districts.”
…items A-T remain the same
Section 14:6-6.2(F) - Architectural Design Standards
…items 1 – 3 remain the same; subsequent paragraphs numbered 4 and 5; 6 added
4. In addition to the minimum criteria, other…
5. Generally, buildings of lower height…
6. “All exterior finishes for one and two family dwellings and accessory structures
shall be installed within 1 year from the issuance of the building permit.”
Section 14-912 (F) - Subdivision Ordinance Final Plat
“Recording Final Plat: If the final plat is approved by the City Council, the
subdivider shall record it with the County Recorder within 6 months after the approval or
the approval of the final plat shall be considered void, unless a request for time extension
is submitted in writing prior to the 6 month deadline and approved by the City Council.
The subdivider shall, immediately upon recording, furnish the City Clerk with a print and
reproducible tracing of the final plat showing evidence of the recording. The subdivider
shall also provide a copy of the final plat on disc in an electronic data format.”
38
Sec. 3. The contents of Planning Case File 01-20-ZA are hereby entered into and
made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
Sec.4. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication.
Adopted by the City Council July 2, 2001
Reviewed for Administration
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
01-20-ZA:n\res-ord
39
SUMMARY
ORDINANCE NO. 2201-01
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE
RELATING TO ZONING BY AMENDING SECTIONS 14:6-2.6, 14:6-6.2(F), 14:912(F)
This ordinance states that the Zoning Ordinance shall be amended relative to the following: to
consistently classify a sign as a structure instead of a use, establish a 1 year time limit for the
installation of exterior finishes for single and two family homes, and lengthen the time to file the
final plat from 60 days to 6 months.
The ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication.
Adopted by the City Council July 2, 2001
Jeffrey W. Jacobs /s/
Mayor
A copy of the full text of this ordinance is available for inspection with the City Clerk.
Published in the St. Louis Park Sailor: July 11, 2001
01-20-ZA-sum:N-res-ord
40
CONSENT ITEM # 4
St. Louis Park City Council
Meeting of July 2, 2001
4. Motion to authorize Hennepin County to initiate a consultant selection process
for the Elmwood Area Study, Case Nos. 01-29-CP.
Background:
On April 23, 2001, the City Council discussed the nature and timing of a Comprehensive Plan
Study of a portion of the Elmwood Neighborhood bounded by Wooddale Avenue, TH 7, and TH
100. The study was budgeted for 2001. Due to the proximity of the HCRRA transit corridor,
HCRRA has since committed to pay the full cost of the study up to $100,000. Since the funds
utilized will be Federal dollars, the County is required to hold the consultant contract. This
means that they will solicit consultant proposals directly based upon the City’s stated
requirements. The City will retain the ability to recommend the consultant and to manage the
study. The County Board must authorize the RFQ.
On June 18, the City Council reviewed a draft RFQ intended to be incorporated into the standard
format used by Hennepin County and then posted to the Hennepin County Web site. The City
Council deferred the draft RFQ requesting that several changes be made that would place more
focus on the land use aspects of the study.
Attached is a revised draft for review and approval. If the Council approves the draft, it will be
provided to Hennepin County for their adaptation and will be posted to their Web site.
The City Attorney is drafting an agreement to be executed with Hennepin County to identify the
roles and responsibilities of each agency as this study moves forward.
Recommendation:
Authorize Hennepin County to initiate a consultant selection process for the Elmwood Area
Study
Attachments: Draft RFQ
Prepared by: Judie Erickson, Planning Coordinator
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
41
DRAFT
REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS FOR
LAND USE/TRANSIT/TRANSPORTATION STUDY
ELMWOOD AREA, ST. LOUIS PARK, MN.
I. Introduction
The City of St. Louis Park adopted Comprehensive Plan 2000 – 2020 in May 1999. One goal of
the Plan is to study land use and transportation in an old industrial area constructed primarily in
the late 1940s and 1950s. The area has good access to regional highways and is bisected by a
former rail corridor now owned by Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority (HCRRA) and
designated for future LRT or other transit.
HENNEPIN
ANOKA
CARVER
SCOTT DAKOTA
RAMSEY
WASHINGTONSt. Louis Park
#
St. Paul
#
Minneapolis
.-,394
(/100
(/169
(/7
Study Area
Future LRT Corridor
42
DRAFT
The St. Louis Park Comprehensive Plan 2000 – 2020 identified the need for a study of the
Elmwood area. The area has excellent visibility as well as good access to the regional highways,
trail, and transit. Several industrial uses still continue in the area, but many old industrial
buildings have been converted to commercial uses. There is both internal and external
redevelopment interest as well as impending changes to TH100. The Comprehensive Plan
recommends a study to review issues related to land use, a possible future bus route in the
HCRRA corridor, pedestrian and bicycle trails, proximity to the Park Commons redevelopment
area, general circulation and access, and possible changes in railroad service. The Plan also
suggests, “This area is subject to redevelopment, and uses compatible with the future transit
potential of the CP Rail Bass Lake Corridor are encouraged. This may include a transit station,
and a mixture of residential, work place, and retail/service uses.” One desirable result of a land
use study would be to precisely locate the most favorable site for a transit station.
II. Project Description
A study of this area will be complex, as there are a number of “moving parts” involving other
agencies and landowners. The study will involve land use planning, urban design, engineering,
traffic/transportation planning, financial analysis, and development and facilitation of a public
process. There are many stakeholders as well. These include the City of St. Louis Park, Metro
Transit, MnDOT, Hennepin Co. Regional Rail Authority, Hennepin Parks, existing business
owners and tenants, the Elmwood Neighborhood residents and prospective developers.
TH100
TH7
Wooddale Ave
43
DRAFT
Study Issues
1. Future Land Use
The Elmwood Area as defined for this study is a 115-acre area containing primarily commercial
and industrial uses that occupy buildings constructed in the late 1940s and 1950s. A large
warehouse retail building (Shopper’s City) was constructed in 1962. This building is still
occupied by commercial uses.
The area was originally an industrial area served by the adjacent railroads. As industrial methods
changed, many buildings were converted to commercial uses. None of the businesses currently
ship by rail. Redevelopment has only occurred on one property within the study area. In 1988
an old grain elevator located in the souhwest quadrant of TH 100 and TH 7 was torn down and
replaced by Cityscape Apartments. Other properties in the area appear to have redevelopment
potential.
In 1991 the Comprehensive Plan land use designations changed from industrial to commercial on
several properties within the study area. When the City Council adopted a new Comprehensive
Plan in 1999, it recognized the need for a comprehensive study of this area to identify the most
appropriate future uses that would maximize the area’s assets and opportunities. Some of these
assets include:
• Excellent metropolitan location
• Proximity to recreation, parks, and services offered in Park Commons
• High visibility from major transportation corridors.
• Improved access from TH 100
• Access to multi-modal transportation
• Recreational trail access
2. Redevelopment Interest
• The owners of property at the SW quadrant of TH 7 and Wooddale are interested in
redeveloping their site at this time. The Comprehensive Plan designation for the site is
Civic/Mixed Use with a zoning designation of MX – Mixed Use. The civic designation was
placed on the property in anticipation of a busway and the need for a transit stop. This
property is also impacted by the realignment of the south frontage road of TH 7 identified in
the Comprehensive Plan.
• The property located at the southeast corner of TH7 and Wooddale is now vacant. This
property will also be impacted by a realignment of the south frontage road of TH 7.
• Quadion Corp. is planning to reduce significantly the size of its operation in St. Louis Park.
This corporation owns a substantial portion of property within the study area.
• Hoigaards has expressed interest in some additional development on a part of their property
currently occupied by a parking lot.
44
DRAFT
• Staff has received inquiries into the redevelopment of this part of the City. One such inquiry
from a developer included a concept plan showing the redevelopment of all properties,
except Hoigaards, for office, residential, and retail uses. The study area enjoys high visibility
and excellent access to the regional highway system. The outcome of the study will help
staff respond to future redevelopment requests.
3. Transportation Issues
• The Redesign of TH 100
A redesign of TH 100 to eliminate the bottleneck between West 36th Street and Cedar Lake Road
is on MnDOT’s agenda for construction beginning in 2006. Planning and roadway design will
begin much sooner and the final design will affect the interchange at West 36th Street and the rail
bridge over TH 100.
An important issue relative to the reconstruction of TH100 is the establishment of a true
interchange at West 36th Street to alleviate some of the congestion at Excelsior Boulevard and
improve access to the Elmwood Area. Other issues include how remnants of the original historic
“Lilac Way” might be preserved. (These remnants include the clover leaf design at TH7, the
limestone picnic tables and beehive barbecue, and the original lilac plantings.)
• The replacement of the rail bridge over TH 100
The final design of a replacement bridge connecting the railroad corridors over TH 100 is a key
component that will impact many other decisions and eventual land uses. The structure of the
existing bridge is massive accommodating heavy rail freight on two parallel railroad corridors.
The future uses for these corridors will in part determine the final design of the replacement
bridge. Other issues related to the bridge reconstruction include the City’s identified
Comprehensive Plan goal to extend the TH7 frontage road across TH 100, the future use of the
HCRRA right of way for a busway or LRT, connecting the regional trail on the HCRRA right of
way, and the future of commuter rail to Norwood Young America.
• Commuter rail.
Currently, the north/south CP Rail corridor, also known as the Dan Patch Corridor, is being
studied for future commuter rail use. Commuter rail on the Dan Patch is not likely to occur
within the next 10 to 20 years. However, if commuter rail were implemented in the future, a
feasible station location and options for land uses that support commuter rail around a station
would be sensible. The proposed study area is within walking distance of the CP Rail
north/south track. Future station locations for commuter rail would be considered as part of the
study.
45
DRAFT
• Busway
Metro Transit, Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority, and the Metropolitan Council are
pursuing a study of the Southwest LRT corridor for a busway. The projected completion date for
the study is December 2001. Many issues are unresolved at this time, including transit station
locations, the final route into downtown, reverse commute options, park and ride options, etc.
The Elmwood Study Area is ideally located for a future transit-oriented development that could
take full advantage of enhanced transit.
If a busway or other transit is constructed, details related to transit stations and multi-modal
transit connections would be identified. And construction could begin as early as 2004. One
outcome of the Elmwood Area Study is to locate a transit station within the study area
boundaries.
Proposed Future BusWay
Major City Trail
Circulator Transit Route
Regional
Trail
Hwy 7
#
Wooddale
#Frontage Rd
46
DRAFT
• Frontage Road
MnDOT will be reconstructing TH7 between the western city limits and TH 100 in 2001. This
reconstruction will include a mill and overlay as well as median improvements. The
reconstruction will also improve the pedestrian crossing at Wooddale Avenue. Discussion is
occurring at this time about moving the south frontage road of TH7 at Wooddale to the south.
The existing location is in very close proximity to TH 7 and interferes with a safe and efficient
use of the Wooddale/TH 7 intersection. A realignment to the south would also improve the
safety of the City’s trail along Wooddale Avenue.
The property owners for properties in the southwest quadrant of TH7 and Wooddale are eager to
redevelop that site and are willing to incorporate the frontage road realignment into their
development plans. The alignment shown on the above map also impacts a portion of right of
way owned by Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority. Staff has indicated to them that
the City may be requesting the use of that property.
III. Desired Study Outcomes
• Recommended future land uses
• A plan that complements the preferred lrt/busway alignment
47
DRAFT
• Transit station locations
• Concept alignment for TH100/West 36th Street Interchange
• Desired Circulation Concept (cars, pedestrian, transit)
• Recommended Redevelopment Plan
• Financial and market feasibility analysis relating to a recommended redevelopment plan.
• Recommended Implementation Strategy
IV. Anticipated Services
Hennepin County desires to retain a firm or team of firms to assist the County and the City of St.
Louis Park in completing the study. The study will be used to achieve the following:
• To aid the City in making decisions related to future land use
• To aid in establishing the best location for a transit station.
• To show how other land uses can be developed to promote the use of transit.
• To work with MNDOT and other agencies to ensure the best design for TH 100.
• To aid MNDOT in establishing a design for the TH 100/West 36th Street interchange.
• To provide both optimum multi-modal circulation within the study area and connections to
surrounding areas.
The specific services that would be asked of the selected firm(s) could include, but not be
limited to, the following:
• Develop and facilitate a process that involves all stakeholders including affected agencies,
property owners, and the public.
• Develop a method for ongoing communication with the public that reports the progress and
recommendations of the study.
• Recommend future land use for all properties within the Study Area.
• Recommend a site for a transit station integrating the findings of the busway study.
• Develop a Concept design for transit station.
• Work with MNDOT to develop a concept design for the TH100/West 36th Street interchange.
• Evaluate the local transportation needs, including the needs of proposed new land uses in the
study area, and identify essential frontage roads and preferred alignments (such as the south
frontage road of TH 7).
• Evaluate how the alternative rail corridor uses and TH100 bridge design would impact the
land uses in the study area.
• Evaluate the need and recommend an alignment for a street and/or pedestrian crossing across
TH 100 between West 36th Street and Excelsior Boulevard.
48
• Develop concept design plans for the area including land use, pedestrian and automobile
circulation, access, general building location and massing, densities, parking, transitions and
connections to adjacent areas.
• Undertake an analysis of the financial and market feasibility of a redevelopment project
consistent with the recommended land use plan, e.g. property acquisition, infrastructure
improvements, relocation, timing, etc. and recommend a proposed approach.
• Recommend an implementation strategy.
V. Desired Qualifications
Hennepin County desires to retain a single firm that can provide multi-disciplinary services or a
group of firms that have proven experience and tested ability in the following areas: facilitation,
landscape architecture, planning, transportation planning, engineering, and economic
development. It is highly desirable that the selected firm provides a locally based project
manager. In addition to the above, the following will be evaluated:
• Ability to develop and maintain a good rapport with County and City staff.
• Excellent communication skills.
• Experience with completing schedules on time.
• Competitive Fees
Timing
It is desired that the study commences in September 2001 and is completed within a 10 to 12
month period.
VI. Information Meeting
An information meeting will be held at (Time and Place) to answer questions from prospective
candidates.
VII. Submission of Information
Each qualified firm is requested to submit ten copies of its response to this Request for Proposal.
The response should provide a process for stakeholder and other public participation along with
sufficient detail to allow the City to assess the consultant’s experience, ability, and cost range in
carrying out the services requested. The consultant’s proposal should be submitted to:
Contact Person
Hennepin County _____________
Address.
City, State, Zip, phone
Responses must be submitted not later than 4:00 p.m. on Friday, (Date) .
49
VIII. Evaluation of Submittals
Responding firms will be evaluated based on the following criteria:
1. Grasp of Project Requirements
2. Design Approach/Methodology/Creativity/Problem Solving abilities
3. Proposed process for public involvement, stakeholder input and communications.
4. Qualifications and professional skills of Key Personnel and their roles
5. Pertinent Firm Experience
6. Pertinent Individual Experience and availability of key personnel.
7. Consultant/In-House Resources
8. Technical Project Management and functions such as cost control, scheduling.
9. Responsiveness to Hennepin County and City of St. Louis Park Concerns
10. Method of Compensation
11. Other Relevant Issues
IX. Selection of Firm
Based upon the submissions made, the County in consultation with the City of St. Louis Park
will evaluate the responses received. Several candidate firms may then be selected for further
interviews or discussions. The County in consultation with the City may then negotiate a
specific scope of work with a single selected firm.
50
CONSENT ITEM # 5
St. Louis Park City Council
Meeting of July 2, 2001
5. Motion to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute the Second
Amendment to the Real Estate Purchase Agreement between the Jewish
Community Center and the City of St. Louis Park for certain City owned
property located at 4326 Cedar Lake Road.
Background:
On February 8, 2000 the City of St. Louis Park and the JCC entered into a purchase agreement
for the City’s property located just south of the JCC campus. On May 21, 2001 the City Council
approved an amendment to the purchase agreement to adjust the purchase price.
The purchase agreement indicates the closing shall occur within 18 months of execution of the
agreement. This results in a closing date which should occur on or before August 8, 2001.
The purchase agreement also indicates that the obligations of the buyer and the seller are
contingent on a variety items being met. One specific contingency that runs to the benefit of
both JCC and the City relates to the approval of the project. In this case, neither the City or JCC
is obligated to close on the property until the JCC has received all approval from the City of St.
Louis Park and any other public entity for their campus expansion project. The purchase
agreement indicates that if this contingency has not been satisfied at least seven days before the
closing date, the buyer and the seller may terminate the agreement. The purchase agreement
goes on to say that the buyer and seller have the right to waive any contingency in the purchase
agreement. The applicant is currently in the process of making necessary land use applications
for the project. However, it is clear that JCC will not receive all necessary approvals by early
August, 2001.
Attached is a letter from the JCC dated June 7, 2001 which purposes two options for the City to
consider that would allow the JCC to close on the property. The first option proposed would be
for the City to extend the closing date to no later than October 31, 2001. The JCC feels that this
would provide the necessary time to obtain all necessary approvals. The second option proposed
by the JCC would be for the City to waive the contingency for plan approval and allow the
closing to occur as soon as possible [before August 8, 2001].
On June 25, 2001 the City Council discussed this matter at a Study Session. The Council
directed staff to bring back an amendment to the purchase agreement which would provide for a
closing date no later October 31, 2001.
Attachments: Letter from JCC
Second Amendment to Purchase Agreement
Prepared By: Tom Harmening, Community Development Director
Approved By: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
51
CONSENT ITEM # 6
RESOLUTION NO. 01-056
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK ON
STORM SEWER RELOCATION
AT 3043 AQUILA AVENUE SOUTH
CITY PROJECT NO. 01-16
CONTRACT NO. 48-01
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, as
follows:
1. Pursuant to a written contract with the City dated May 17, 2001, F. F. Jedlicki, Inc. has
satisfactorily completed the storm sewer relocation at 3043 Aquila Avenue South as per
Contract No. 48-01.
2. The Director of Public Works has filed his recommendations for final acceptance of the
work.
3. The work completed under this contract is accepted and approved. The City Manager is
directed to make final payment on the contract, taking the contractor's receipt in full.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council July 2, 2001
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
52
CONSENT ITEM # 7a
City of St. Louis Park
Human Rights Commission
Meeting Minutes - May 16, 2001
Second Floor Conference Room - City Hall
______________________________________________________________________________
Present
Commission Members: Marc Berg, Cassandra Boddy, Jake Feldman, Herb Isbin, Betty
Merritt, Kristi Rudelius-Palmer, Kristin Siegesmund, Chris Smith, Emily Wallace-Jackson and
Maya Winoker
Staff: Martha McDonell, Commission Liaison and Lynn Schwartz, Recording Secretary
Call to Order
Chairperson Kristin Siegesmund called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m.
April Minutes: Moved by Kristi Rudelius-Palmer and seconded by Maya Winoker to approve
the April minutes with a minor correction. Motion passed unanimously.
May Agenda: Moved by Jake Feldman and seconded by Kristi Rudelius-Palmer to approve the
agenda with the addition of a discussion about speakers for the Human Rights Commission.
Motion passed unanimously.
Reports
Commissioner Reports: Maya Winoker reported that they were having difficulty getting
students to sign up for the Diversity Week events at the high school. Commissioners suggested
that students work with teachers who have related curriculum so teachers could bring classes to
sessions. Commissioners also suggested that Human Mosaic members speak with the principal
or superintendent to garner more support.
Herb Isbin reported that Red Wing is having a diversity festival. Isbin also said the commission
needs to set aside time to discuss when it is and isn’t appropriate for individual commissioners to
push individual interests and make these commission agenda items. Martha McDonell offered to
put this issue on an agenda for a future meeting. Isbin also noted that Roseville had much higher
student participation in its essay contest and suggested that the commission learn more about
what Roseville does to promote the contest. Isbin also noted that the commission has unfinished
business with the bias/hate crime response plan and support network. He felt the commission
needs guidance on how it should respond to illegal discrimination complaints. Kristen
Siegesmund suggested that this issue be placed on a future agenda.
Staff Report: Martha McDonell reported that the Human Rights Commission has one
application. The applicant is a minister and the commission has been seeking a representative
53
from the faith community for membership. However, she pointed out that the applicant also
serves on another commission and the City Council has been reluctant to appoint individuals to
more than one commission.
Kristi Rudelius-Palmer urged commissioners to recruit more individuals to better reflect the
community’s racial diversity. Members agreed this was a good goal, but also expressed
reservations about turning down interested applicants because they do not increase the
commission’s racial diversity.
Martha McDonell reported that the commission’s regular September meeting would fall on the
second day of Rosh Hashanah. Because the holiday ends at sundown, the September 19 meeting
is technically not in conflict with the holiday; however, members felt it would nonetheless be a
barrier to participation. Members agreed to reschedule the meeting to September 12.
Martha McDonell then distributed the League of Women Voter’s final draft of the New
Renter/Immigrant welcome booklet. McDonell asked members to forward any comments or
corrections to her by May 21 so she could forward suggestions to the League. After several
commissioners expressed concern about the commission’s lack of prominence in the booklet,
Kristen Siegesmund reminded commissioners that this is the league’s booklet and the audience is
new immigrants with basic needs. Siegesmund suggested commissioners forward their
comments to the league via Martha McDonell.
Old Business
Meetings With City Council: Kristen Siegesmund reported that the commission received a lot
of feedback from the City Council at its May 14 study session. Siegesmund noted that the
council expressed an interest in having the commission facilitate more information about St.
Louis Park’s changing ethnicity and how residents can learn about one another and work
together. The council also expressed interest in the Human Rights essay contest and its
participation in community events such as the Children First Ice Cream Social and the High
School Diversity Week forum. Council members were also were very supportive of the
commission’s participation in the League of Women Voter’s guidebook for new renters and
immigrants. Herb Isbin added that council also expressed an interest in continuing its work with
the school district to promote cultural understanding and acceptance.
Ice Cream Social Plans: Betty Merritt offered to get remaining supplies for the May 20
Children First Ice Cream Social. Merritt asked for more volunteers to staff the event.
Volunteers are needed at the craft table and to help set up and take down the display. Merritt and
Martha McDonell will be at the social for the entire afternoon; Mark Berg, Cassandra Boddy and
Maya Winoker offered to come for part of the afternoon. Kristi Rudelius-Palmer will prepare a
flier on preventing teasing and hurtful language to hand out at the event.
Kristen Siegesmund suggested that the commission get a Girl Scout troop or other youth group
to help out at the event next year.
Diversity Week Plans: Kristi Rudelius-Palmer and Kristen Siegesmund have coordinated plans
for an evening forum on the impact of teasing and social isolation on youth.
54
Essay Contest Presentation: Members discussed plans for honoring essay contest winners at
the May 21 City Council meeting. Herb Isbin suggested that someone from the commission read
the personal action pledge. Kristi Rudelius-Palmer volunteered to read the pledge and urge
attendees to sign the pledge.
Marc Berg stated that he was not comfortable with the pledge or the push to get others to sign it.
Berg felt that the pledge has a number of shortcomings especially since it tells people how to
think when it may only be realistic to suggest how people should act. Berg also cited his
personal philosophical opposition to signing pledges. He added, however, that he did not object
to the commission members reading the pledge at the City Council meeting. An informal show
of hands indicated that two commissioners opposed use of the pledge and eight supported its use.
Since most commissioners supported the pledge, they agreed to read the pledge at the meeting.
Kristi Rudelius-Palmer suggested that the pledge form could be revised to read the “St. Louis
Park Human Rights Commission” not the League of Minnesota Human Rights Commissions.
Herb Isbin suggested leaving the pledge as is so that requests for information can be forwarded
to the league.
Parktacular Plans: Martha McDonell reported that she checked into the cost and availability of
having the Heart of the Beast participate in Parktacular. McDonell reported that groups must
book at least one year ahead of time and it would cost $1,000 to have them march in the parade
and $2,000 to lead workshops to show residents how to make puppets which could then be used
in the parade.
Members then discussed how the commission could participate in this year’s parade. One idea
was to march under a banner with signs showing census data and the community’s diversity.
Another idea was to get representative from various neighborhoods or communities to represent
various cultures. After a discussion, members felt there was not enough time to prepare for the
commission’s participation in this year’s parade. Members agreed, however, to plan to
participate in next year’s parade.
Boy Scouts/United Way Funding: Members discussed what role they might play is supporting
youth who might feel discriminated against by local boy scout groups. Herb Isbin suggested
working with the school board on this issue. Chris Smith offered to contact United Way to find
out how they are monitoring the situation. Then the commission could update the school board
on the situation.
New Business
No new business was discussed.
June Agenda
Members agreed to place the following items on the June agenda:
Speakers for commission meetings
Ice Cream Social and Diversity Week forum follow-up
Vision St. Louis Park presentation
55
Responding to complaints of illegal discrimination
How to educate the community about diversity and learn about diverse populations
Adjournment
Moved by Betty Merritt and seconded by Marc Berg to adjourn. Motion passed unanimously.
With no further business, the commission adjourned at 9 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lynn Schwartz, Recording Secretary
56
CONSENT ITEM # 7b
June 22, 2001
VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
AASEN, PAM YOUTH ATHLETICS/LEAGUES-exempt 63.00
ABEL, GORDY OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 200.00
ACT ELECTRONICS INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 7,724.99
ACTION RADIO & COMM INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 82.75
AIRTOUCH CELLULAR TELEPHONE 248.57
ALL TIME FAVORITES OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 6,485.39
ALLIANCE MECHANICAL SERVICES I BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 356.00
ALMSTEAD'S SUPERVALU CONCESSION SUPPLIES 14.13
AMUNDSON, LYLE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 25.00
ANCHOR PAPER CO OFFICE SUPPLIES 482.27
ARAMARK UNIFORM CORPORATE ACCT GENERAL SUPPLIES 506.62
ARMADILLO TRUCKVAULT INC. MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT (150.00)
ASPEN EQUIPMENT COMPANY EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 300.00
ASSN OF METRO MUNICIPALITIES MEETING EXPENSE 30.00
BACHMANS LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 219.09
BCA/TRAINING & DEVELOPMENT TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 180.00
BISSONNETTE, DAVID GENERAL SUPPLIES 34.18
BITUMINOUS ROADWAYS INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 6,416.16
BOBS PERSONAL COFFEE SERVICE OFFICE SUPPLIES 116.82
BOURNE, DEAN CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 25.00
BOYER TRUCK PARTS EQUIPMENT PARTS 10.13
BRENTS SIGNS GENERAL SUPPLIES 31.95
BRO TEX INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 866.79
BROADWAY RENTAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT (1.66)
BROCK WHITE CO LLC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 1,562.36
CAMPBELL KNUTSON PROFESSIONAL LEGAL SERVICES 12,331.96
CAPITOL COMMUNICATIONS RADIO COMMUNICATIONS 360.48
CARLSON TRACTOR & EQUIP CO EQUIPMENT PARTS (59.08)
CARTER, JEREMY STUDY INCENTIVE & MERIT PAY 274.25
CARTRIDGE CARE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 380.71
CDW GOVERNMENT INC. OFFICE FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT 532.78
CENTER FOR ENERGY & ENVIRONMEN OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 46,141.00
CHUN, TRACY YOUTH ATHLETICS/LEAGUES-exempt 35.00
COLLINS COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 216.00
COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 135.00
CONCEPT SEATING INC GENERAL SUPPLIES (180.00)
COORDINATED BUSINESS SYSTEMS L OFFICE SUPPLIES 725.00
CRILEY, KATHI L OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 101.47
CROWN MARKING INC OFFICE SUPPLIES 8.50
CSC CREDIT SERVICES INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 100.00
CUMMINS NORTH CENTRAL INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 467.70
CUSTOM PRODUCTS & SERVICES LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 3,991.25
DALCO GENERAL SUPPLIES 628.85
DIGITAL BIOMETRICS INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 485.00
DUNDEE NURSERY LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 2,063.88
E & A DISTRIBUTING EQUIPMENT PARTS 356.78
E GROUP INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 345.60
ELMER, SUSAN YOUTH ATHLETICS/LEAGUES-exempt 35.00
57
EMERGENCY MEDICAL PRODUCTS GENERAL SUPPLIES 241.63
EPA AUDIO VISUAL INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 355.22
ERV'S LAWN MOWER REPAIR SMALL TOOLS 75.23
EXCELSIOR, CITY OF MEETING EXPENSE 25.00
FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (30.67)
FAIR'S NURSERY & LANDSCAPING TREE REPLACEMENT FEE 20,685.00
FERGUSON, BILL YOUTH ATHLETICS/LEAGUES-exempt 35.00
FIX, PATRICK OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 250.00
FLANNIGAN, JANE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 33.02
FUGLIE, LISA OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 200.00
GENUINE PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (27.83)
GLENWOOD INGLEWOOD GENERAL SUPPLIES 180.18
GRAINGER INC, W W EQUIPMENT PARTS 179.49
GRAYBOW COMMUNICATIONS GENERAL SUPPLIES 336.02
HANSEN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 4,860.00
HARKMA, KAY YOUTH ATHLETICS/LEAGUES-exempt 140.00
HATCH SALES CO EQUIPMENT PARTS 7,312.78
HAWKINS WATER TREATMENT GROUP GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,652.93
HIRSHFIELDS GENERAL SUPPLIES 12.45
HOME DEPOT GENERAL SUPPLIES 74.39
HOME DEPOT/GECF LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 79.53
HOME HARDWARE GENERAL SUPPLIES 216.38
ICE SKATING INSTITUTE OF AMERI SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 275.00
INDEPENDENT BLACK DIRT CO INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 1,094.60
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST #283 OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 463.00
INFRASTRUCTURE TECHNOLOGIES IN EQUIPMENT PARTS 297.79
J H LARSON COMPANY BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 234.26
JAK TREES INC CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 1,478.25
JERRY STAMM GENERAL SUPPLIES 21.55
JOHNSON, CHRIS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 250.00
JOHNSON, KERRY GENERAL SUPPLIES 47.25
KARL, BETTY OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 82.77
KATH FUEL OIL SERVICE LUBRICANTS/ADDITIVES 183.12
KNAEBLE, KEVIN YOUTH ATHLETICS/LEAGUES-exempt 35.00
KNOX LUMBER GENERAL SUPPLIES 181.22
KOEHNEN & ASSOCIATES INC, LEON PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 3,671.00
KRECH, BARBARA MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 63.82
LACAL EQUIPMENT INC EQUIPMENT PARTS (235.63)
LEAGUE MN CITIES INS TRUST OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 517.04
LEASE FINANCE GROUP INC OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 680.48
LONG LAKE POWER EQUIPMENT NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 174.47
MASTERSON PERSONNEL INC SALARIES - TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES 1,039.51
MATHEW'S LAWN SERVICE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,437.75
MAYNARD, MARY OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 33.01
MEDSOFT CORPORATION OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 232.50
MENARDS BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES 67.36
MESKAN, LEONARD CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 157.51
METRO SYSTEMS NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 423.72
METROCALL TELEPHONE 340.92
METZ BAKING CO. CONCESSION SUPPLIES 223.12
MIDWEST GANG INVESTIGATORS ASS SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 15.00
MILLER HANSON WESTERBECK BERGE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 800.00
58
MINN DEPT OF HEALTH & FAMILY S OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 730.00
MINNEGASCO HEATING GAS 36.16
MINNETONKA SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. AQUATIC PARK GROUP ADMIN 22.00
MINUTEMAN PRESS PRINTING & PUBLISHING 1,400.00
MN DEPT OF LABOR & INDUSTRY LICENSES/TAXES 15.00
MN DRIVER & VEHICLE SVCS EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT CHARGE (46.00)
MOHLER CHIMNEY REPAIR BUILDING PERMIT 48.08
MORIARTY, MATTHEW OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 250.00
MR PRINT PRINTING & PUBLISHING 120.00
MTI DISTRIBUTING CO EQUIPMENT PARTS (410.46)
NAPA GENUINE PARTS CO/FINANCE EQUIPMENT PARTS 1,333.93
NORIT AMERICAS INC. CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY 16,725.19
NORTH MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 120.00
NSP CO ELECTRIC SERVICE 53,210.82
OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE SUPPLIES 1,060.06
OFFICE TEAM SALARIES - TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES 550.05
ORKIN PEST CONTROL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 83.07
OTTO PACKAGING MIDWEST LLC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES (72.00)
PALM BROTHERS CONCESSION SUPPLIES 101.04
PRESTIGE LINCOLN MERCURY EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 63.49
PRO PRODUCTS INC GENERAL SUPPLIES (92.32)
PUMP & METER SERVICE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 155.49
QUILL CORPORATION OFFICE SUPPLIES 109.27
RC INDENTIFICATIONS GENERAL SUPPLIES 5.33
REICHO, ELLEN YOUTH ATHLETICS/LEAGUES-exempt 35.00
RELIANT ENERGY HEATING GAS 5,098.67
ROEHL, JACKIE YOUTH ATHLETICS/LEAGUES-exempt 35.00
ROTO-ROOTER OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 258.20
SAM'S CLUB SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 496.06
SCHARBER & SONS EQUIPMENT PARTS 378.42
SCHARBER & SONS INC EQUIPMENT PARTS (3.51)
SLP CRIME PREVENTION FUND UNREALIZED REV-SAFETY CAMP 0.00
SPECTRASITE RADIO COMMUNICATIONS 87.00
ST CROIX RECREATION COMPANY NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 4,537.06
ST LOUIS PARK FAST PITCH OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 350.00
ST LOUIS PARK LIONS CLUB GENERAL SUPPLIES 400.00
STEFFENHAGEN, SERENA YOUTH ATHLETICS/LEAGUES-exempt 35.00
STS CONSULTANTS LTD OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 855.46
SUBURBAN TIRE CO TIRES 7.33
SUN NEWSPAPERS LEGAL NOTICES 514.80
SUSSEL CORP BUILDING PERMIT 239.25
TARGET/DAYTONS GENERAL SUPPLIES 377.45
TERMINIX INTERNATIONAL BUILDING MTCE SERVICE (52.18)
TRIARCO ARTS & CRAFTS GENERAL SUPPLIES 220.68
TWIN CITY OPTICAL CO TREE MAINTENANCE (12.86)
UNITED PARENTING PUBLICATONS I OTHER ADVERTISING 263.00
UNIVERSITY OF MINN TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 320.00
VEIT & COMPANY GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,505.00
VIEAU, DURELL MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 89.70
VIKING OFFICE PRODUCTS OFFICE SUPPLIES 91.84
WALSER FORD EQUIPMENT PARTS 36.75
WATSON CO INC CONCESSION SUPPLIES 1,421.75
59
WELLS FARGO REMITTANCE CTR OFFICE FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT 453.01
WEST, ELIZABETH YOUTH ATHLETICS/LEAGUES-exempt 35.00
WISCONSIN MAGNETO INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 6.27
YARDLEY, DEBRA YOUTH ATHLETICS/LEAGUES-exempt 30.00
ZEP MANUFACTURING GENERAL SUPPLIES 81.87
ZIP SORT POSTAGE 20,301.46
260,488.49
June 29, 2001
VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
A V SOLUTIONS INC NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 1,932.98
ACT ELECTRONICS INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 356.34
ADVANCED STATE SECURITY RADIO COMMUNICATIONS 1,257.85
AIRTOUCH CELLULAR TELEPHONE 175.33
ALBINSONS GENERAL SUPPLIES 171.04
ALL STAR SPORTS INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 236.75
ALL TIME FAVORITES UNREALIZED REVENUE 150.00
ALMSTEAD'S SUPERVALU GENERAL SUPPLIES 9.35
AMAD, MARGARET GENERAL SUPPLIES 28.55
ANCHOR PAPER CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 598.16
ARAMARK UNIFORM CORPORATE
ACCT
GENERAL SUPPLIES 567.44
ARMADILLO TRUCKVAULT INC. MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT (150.00)
BATTERIES PLUS GENERAL SUPPLIES 65.68
BELZER, JOSEPH YOUTH ATHLETICS/LEAGUES-exempt 16.00
BENSEN, CHRIS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 17.52
BERNDT ELECTRIC SERVICE BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 1,167.20
BITUMINOUS ROADWAYS INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 3,675.55
BOBS PERSONAL COFFEE SERVICE GENERAL SUPPLIES 187.94
BRENTS SIGNS GENERAL SUPPLIES 383.00
BROADWAY RENTAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT (1.66)
CALL ONE INC RADIO COMMUNICATIONS 190.92
CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY LICENSES/TAXES 109.01
CAPITOL COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 63.29
CARLSON TRACTOR & EQUIP CO EQUIPMENT PARTS (59.08)
CARTRIDGE CARE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 159.43
CONCEPT SEATING INC GENERAL SUPPLIES (180.00)
CONNEY SAFETY PRODUCTS SMALL TOOLS 161.66
CROWN MARKING INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 141.51
CUB FOODS SUBSISTENCE SUPPLIES 388.09
CUMMINS NORTH CENTRAL INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 260.09
CUSHMAN MOTOR COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS 54.48
DEVRIES, PETER CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 25.00
DEWOLF, DAN A TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 2,284.48
DINIUS PLUMBING COMPANY MECHANICAL PERMIT 40.00
DUNLOP SLAZENGER RECREATION DE GENERAL SUPPLIES 156.00
ELECTRIC MOTOR REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 2,040.35
ELECTRIC PUMP WALDOR GROUP BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 770.53
ELVIN SAFETY SUPPLY, INC. GENERAL SUPPLIES 159.62
EMERGENCY MEDICAL PRODUCTS GENERAL SUPPLIES 71.19
ERV'S LAWN MOWER REPAIR NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 424.94
60
FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (30.67)
GENUINE PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (27.83)
GOPHER SPORT GENERAL SUPPLIES 130.17
GOVERNING SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 19.95
GREEN ACRES GENERAL SUPPLIES 3.20
HAUGEN, DOUG OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 368.43
HAWKINS WATER TREATMENT GROUP CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY 1,838.04
HENN CO INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY COMPUTER SERVICES 406.73
HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER POSTAGE 1,361.52
HERBST, HELENE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 69.45
HIGHVIEW PLUMBING INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 801.95
HIRSHFIELDS BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 42.56
HOME DEPOT/GECF SMALL TOOLS 12.42
HYDRO SUPPLY COMPANY OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 8,443.47
IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS RENTAL EQUIPMENT 54.00
INDELCO EQUIPMENT PARTS 82.79
INFO USA OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 913.69
INFRASTRUCTURE TECHNOLOGIES IN EQUIPMENT PARTS 192.85
INST FOR FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 700.00
IOS CAPITAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT 516.53
J H LARSON COMPANY OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 117.80
JESSEN PRESS INC PRINTING & PUBLISHING 420.68
JOHN HENRY FOSTER MINNESOTA LUBRICANTS/ADDITIVES 19.38
JUSTUS LUMBER COMPANY GENERAL SUPPLIES 13.42
KELLER, DANIEL CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 25.00
KEVITT EXCAVATING INC OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 19,627.00
KEYS WELL DRILLING CO EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 19,300.00
LACAL EQUIPMENT INC EQUIPMENT PARTS (235.63)
LANGEFELS, DOUGLAS GENERAL SUPPLIES 57.58
LEAGUE OF MN CITIES GENERAL SUPPLIES 270.83
LITTER-GITTER INC. SMALL TOOLS 60.00
LITTLE TYKES COMMERCIAL PLAY S OTHER IMPROVEMENTS 24,673.39
LOUIS DEGIDIO SERVICES INC. BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 2,346.34
LUBRICATION TECHNOLOGIES INC MOTOR FUELS 183.90
M A C T A TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 600.00
MANN THEATER CORPORATION GENERAL SUPPLIES 2,035.00
MASTERSON PERSONNEL INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,155.00
MAYNARD, MARY OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 322.36
MCCOLLISTER & CO LUBRICANTS/ADDITIVES 2,540.83
MECKLE, JODIE MEETING EXPENSE 20.00
MEIDLINGER'S INC. EQUIPMENT PARTS 6,138.00
METRO ATHLETIC SUPPLY GENERAL SUPPLIES 575.52
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 206,425.27
METZ BAKING CO. CONCESSION SUPPLIES 388.16
MIDWEST ASPHALT CORP OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 95.69
MINN HIGHWAY SAFETY CENTER TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 2,168.00
MINN UC FUND UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 61.26
MN DRIVER & VEHICLE SVCS EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT CHARGE (46.00)
MTI DISTRIBUTING CO EQUIPMENT PARTS (410.46)
MUTCHLER, J. YOUTH ATHLETICS/LEAGUES-exempt 16.00
MVTL LABORATORIES INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 163.00
NADEM, SIAR STUDY INCENTIVE & MERIT PAY 1,508.00
61
NAPA GENUINE PARTS CO/FINANCE EQUIPMENT PARTS 255.78
NATL RECREATION & PARKS ASSOC TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 380.00
NORTHERN PYROTECHNICS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 9,000.00
NORTHERN WATER TREATING CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 630.48
NYHOLM, EDNA CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 25.00
OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE SUPPLIES 714.50
OFFICE TEAM PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,544.00
OLD DOMINION BRUSH MSC REPAIR CHARGES 1,251.38
ORTMAN, WALTER CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 25.00
OTTO PACKAGING MIDWEST LLC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES (72.00)
PAGE ELECTRICAL CONTRACTING IN EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 590.72
PALM BROTHERS CONCESSION SUPPLIES 101.02
PARK NICOLLET CLINIC HSM PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 855.41
PARR EMERGENCY PRODUCT SALES I GENERAL SUPPLIES 36.19
PEDERSEN, VICKI CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 25.00
PLYMOUTH OFFICE EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 86.58
POSTMASTER OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 165.21
PRO PRODUCTS INC GENERAL SUPPLIES (92.32)
PROFILE EVALUATIONS INC. TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 878.63
PRYOR RESOURCES INC TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 59.00
RADIO SHACK NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 572.73
RAH! SPORTS GENERAL SUPPLIES 752.40
RC INDENTIFICATIONS GENERAL SUPPLIES 5.33
RECREONICS ETAL GENERAL SUPPLIES 222.94
REICHO, ELLEN FACILITY RENTALS - taxable 40.00
REYNOLDS WELDING SUPPLY CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 11.23
RICHARD ALAN PRODUCTIONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 700.00
RIDGEVIEW BUSINESS HEALTH OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 840.00
RILEY, BERNARD TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 108.90
ROUSE MECHANICAL INC DEPOSITS PAYABLE 3,120.00
RUTTGERS BAY LAKE LODGE TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 868.17
S & S WORLDWIDE GENERAL SUPPLIES 224.48
S B S MECHANICAL BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 395.00
SALLY DISTRIBUTERS MEETING EXPENSE 61.66
SALONEK, MYRON TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 75.00
SCHARBER & SONS INC EQUIPMENT PARTS (3.51)
SEARS SMALL TOOLS 415.51
SECURITYLINK FROM AMERITECH OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 36.10
SEDGWICK CLAIMS GMT SERVICES PROF/CONSULT SERVICES 1,352.50
SEWERMAN INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 1,250.00
SHARE, JOHN & JO ANN OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 93.66
SINGLETON, DIANA YOUTH ATHLETICS/LEAGUES-exempt 16.00
SKILLPATH SEMINARS TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 149.00
SLP CRIME PREVENTION FUND UNREALIZED REV-SAFETY CAMP 0.00
SMITH, DEBORA CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 25.00
SOMMERS, GENE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 25.00
SONUS INTERIORS INC BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 3,411.00
SPS COMPANIES INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 3.40
SRF CONSULTING GROUP INC DEPOSITS PAYABLE 4,716.28
ST LOUIS PARK EMERGENCY PROGRA OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 30,000.00
STREICHER'S GENERAL SUPPLIES 175.57
SWEENEY BROS TRACTOR MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT 177,551.48
62
TENNANT EQUIPMENT PARTS 52.88
TERMINIX INTERNATIONAL BUILDING MTCE SERVICE (52.18)
THE LIFEGUARD STORE INC. GENERAL SUPPLIES 285.25
TIME WARNER CABLE TELEPHONE 147.41
TISOR, BRIAN CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 25.00
TOTAL RENTAL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 498.38
TWIN CITY OPTICAL CO TREE MAINTENANCE (12.86)
TWIN CITY OXYGEN CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 4.96
US FILTER DISTRIBUTION GROUP EQUIPMENT PARTS 35.93
VISU-SEWER CLEAN & SEAL INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 775.00
WALDOR PUMP & EQUIPMENT CO. OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 6,123.00
WATSON CO INC CONCESSION SUPPLIES 1,993.38
WELLS FARGO REMITTANCE CTR GENERAL SUPPLIES 2,147.53
WHEELER LUMBER OPERATIONS OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 2,130.36
WHITNEY, CINDY SUMMER PLAYGROUNDS 40.50
YOUNG, EUGENE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 25.00
ZAMBONI & CO INC, FRANK J. MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT 30,975.00
ZIMMERMAN, JEAN MEETING EXPENSE 315.79
ZIP PRINTING UNREALIZED REVENUE 56.03
ZIP SORT POSTAGE 136.35
614,018.22
63
CONSENT ITEM # 7c
MINUTES
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING
MARCH 22, 2001
CITY HALL, COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: James Gainsley, Tom Powers, Carl Robertson, Susan Bloyer, Paul
Roberts
STAFF PRESENT: Scott Moore, City Staff Liaison
1. Call to order – Roll Call
Chair Roberts called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
2. Approval of Minutes of December 5, 2000
Correction to the minutes of December 2, 2000. On page 3 Chair Roberts is mentioned, but it
should actually be Chair Robertson.
Mr. Gainsley moved and Tom Powers seconded the motion to correct and approve the
amended minutes of December 5, 2000. Motion passed unanimously.
3. Consent Agenda: None
4. Public Hearings:
a. Case No. 01-11-VAR – The request of Larry Shapiro for a variance from the
requirements of Section 14:5-4.2(F)(6) of the Ordinance Code relating to zoning to
permit a building with a front yard setback of 8 feet instead of the required 30 feet
setback for property located in the “R-1” Single Family District at 1801 Westwood Hills
Drive.
Mr. Moore presented a report – and concluded that since 5 of the 7 criteria have not been
satisfied, it is recommended that the request to permit an 8-foot front yard instead of the
required 30-foot be denied.
Mr. Powers asked where the grade change in the side yard starts, and if this would
interfere with the relocation of the addition into the back yard vs. converting the garage
over.
Mr. Moore stated the SW corner of the property, there is an elevation of about 199 feet.
As you move NW across the property, the elevation quickly increases to about 204 feet.
The 5-foot increase occurs in the first 20 ft of the property, and then levels off behind the
existing house. So, the addition that the staff is suggesting be located in the rear would
not be hampered by the topography of the land.
64
Mr. Gainsley asked whether they are adding a master bedroom where the present garage is, and
wouldn’t this disrupt the flow of the house on what they are proposing to add in the actual
design.
Mr. Moore responded that the floor plan that is in the packet is the proposed floor plan
where the existing garage is located. He stated that the with the floor plan being changed
for the addition that the applicant has proposed, it can also be changed to accommodate
the same kind of flow and harmony, it will just take a little more work.
Mr. Gainsley asked if converting the 3-car garage to a 2-car would give enough of a
setback.
Mr. Moore said no, it still would not meet the required setbacks.
Mr. Gainsley asked if the front yard were considered a side yard, would that meet the
setback requirements
Mr. Moore stated that it would depend on where the additional stall furthest to the North
was cut off.
With no more questions, Chair Robertson opened the public hearing.
Larry Shapiro, applicant, of 1801 Westwood Hills Drive, stated that he needs to add
another bedroom out of necessity, not convenience. They looked at many alternatives to
figure out where they could put a bedroom in the house, as well as looking at staff
recommendations, and it doesn’t work for a number of reasons. The two main reasons
are that if a bedroom were added to the rear of the house, there is no way to access that
bedroom without going through a bathroom or a bedroom, and the addition as proposed
would severely limit the amount of light and ventilation to the existing rooms in the
house.
Mr. Shapiro went on to add that the plan that is proposed up does require a variance, but
it keeps the integrity of house. It puts the 4 bedrooms next to each other and it keeps the
flow of the house roughly the same as it is now. The guest areas are at one end of the
house the bedrooms are at the other.
He also commented that the addition has no negative impact on the neighborhood, as
stated in the staff report. The addition is within 8 ft of the city’s easement at its closest
point, there will be adequate light, its far enough way from the corner that it won’t impact
anybody’s vision turning either onto or off of W. 18th St.
At this point, the applicant began a side discussion about adding a second driveway if the
initial variance was granted. The board then directed questions to Mr. Moore about the
legality of 2 driveways and the width of the curb cuts.
65
Messrs. Robertson and Powers then directed more questions to Mr. Moore about the floor
plans and logistics of staff recommendations.
Mr. Moore responded that a redesign would be in order, and also said that at this
time, staff recommendation was only that there was space behind the existing
building. An exact floor plan would need to be worked out by the applicant.
Mr. Gainsley pointed out that the main issue here is that the lot is not substandard in size,
the house is large and the applicant is already getting sufficient use of the property. Mr.
Gainsley directed the question of what hardship was requiring the applicant to seek the
variance at Mr. Shapiro.
Mr. Shapiro responded that he needs another bedroom to continue to live in the house and
has not been able to come up with another alternative, this is the one that works.
Chair Roberts closed the public hearing.
Mr. Powers cited Mr. Gainsley’s point about the lack of hardship as a starting ground,
and asked Mr. Robertson to start with his comments about the issue.
Mr. Robertson said that he agreed with Mr. Gainsley and the staff that this is not a
hardship lot, and there are probably other legal alternatives to the variance. He also
added that he felt that even at an angle, encroaching that far onto the side lot would have
a negative impact on the neighborhood and it looks like overbuilding. He concluded by
agreeing that he didn’t see the hardship that would require the variance.
Ms. Bloyer stated that the applicant did have some persuasive arguments, especially the
angled building, but that she agreed with Mr. Gainsley and Mr. Robertson that it was
bordering on overbuilding on the property. She stated that she could see no way around
the legal alternative.
Mr. Gainsley moved that the variance be denied based on the staff report. Mr. Powers
seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
b. Case No. 01-12-VAR – The request of David Meyer for a variance from the requirements
of Section 14:5-4 of the Ordinance Code relating to zoning to permit the temporary
conversion of a single family dwelling into a duplex for property located in the “R-1”
Single Family District at 9210 Minnetonka Boulevard.
Mr. Moore presented a report - the applicant requests the conversion to let their daughter,
who has Lou Gehrig’s disease, to receive the necessary medical care she needs, as well as
to let her be eligible for public assistance that requires her to live in a separate unit from
her family.
Mr. Moore cited state statute Section 462.357(6) which states that the Board of Zoning
Appeals may permit as a variance, a temporary use of a one family dwelling as a two
66
family dwelling, that the board may impose conditions granting the variance to ensure
compliance to protect the neighboring properties.
Staff recommends that the applicants’ request be granted with the condition that only the
family member uses it. In the event that the daughter no longer lives in the converted
unit, the applicants’ convert it back into a single family dwelling within one year’s time.
Chair Roberts opened the public hearing.
Jill Meyer, applicant, resides at 9210 Minnetonka Boulevard with her husband Dave,
daughter Tammy and her dog. Ms. Meyer reiterated the reasons for the request, adding
that they moved to 9210 Minnetonka Blvd for their daughter, who can no longer climb
stairs, and also adding that it is Tammy’s wish to be at home with her parents for
whatever time she has left to live.
Chair Roberts closed the public hearing.
Mr. Gainsley moved and Ms. Bloyer seconded the motion to grant the variance. The
motion passed unanimously.
c. Case No. 01-13- VAR – The request of Minneapolis Golf Course for a variance from the
requirements of Section 14:5-4.2(F)(1) of the Ordinance Code relating to zoning to
permit a structure (netted fence) with a height of 75 feet instead of the maximum 30 feet
for property located in the “R-1” Single Family District at 2001 Flag Avenue.
Mr. Moore presented a report – staff believes that since all 7 of the criterion have been
satisfied it is recommended that the request to permit a 75-foot structure instead of the
maximum 30 feet be approved.
Mr. Moore concluded by saying that he had received phone calls from neighbors
surrounding the golf course, 4 of the callers’ property abuts the driving range on the west.
They are in favor of having the net to the north, because there is already a 30 foot fence
there and they see the need for it, but they are opposed to having the net to the west, next
to the back of their properties.
He also said that while speaking with the applicant this afternoon he found that the golf
course is in favor of putting the fence up on the north part of the property and to the west
in front of the swimming pool only.
Mr. Gainsley asked about the lay of the driving range.
Mr. Moore responded that to the west, the neighbors have no concerns about golf balls on
their properties. However, to the north one house has had windows broken more than
once, and the golf course actually has a stock supply of the custom made windows in the
event that a window is broken.
67
Mr. Powers asked if there was an elevation difference between the houses to the north
and the driving range.
Mr. Moore responded that the houses are lower than the end of the driving range.
Mr. Robertson asked how large are the supports, diameter of column.
Mr. Moore said he would need to defer to the applicant, that information was not made
available to him.
Mr. Gainsley asked if the poles would look like the ones along highway 394.
Mr. Moore said they would resemble the poles along 394.
Mr. Gainsley inquired about the legal responsibility, if any, that the City of St. Louis Park
would have if they were to deny the request for the variance on the west side of the golf
course past the pool and somebody were to get hit with a golf ball.
Mr. Moore answered that he didn’t believe that the city would be held responsible,
although he also stated that the question was more of legal issue for the city attorney.
Chair Roberts opened the public hearing
Applicant, Dale Caldwell, Golf Course Superintendent – The Minneapolis Golf Club,
started off by clarifying for the board and staff that the poles he is proposing are made of
wood unlike the ones alongside highway 394, and that they will be a full 30 feet shorter
as well. Mr. Caldwell also noted that there are quite a few trees between 50-60 feet high
along the north side of the driving range, and that they would mask the net and poles
somewhat.
Chair Roberts asked Mr. Caldwell if he knew the diameter of the support poles.
Mr. Caldwell did not have the information either at this time.
Mr. Gainsley asked how many poles there would be on the structure on the left.
Mr. Caldwell said there would be 9 poles across.
Ed Christianson, 1830 Flag Ave., across the road from the pool. He stated that his
concern was about the fence over the pool, where the poles would be visible when
viewing the city from his front yard or front window. He recommended that since the golf
course is planning to build another golf course to the west of the cities, they might
consider putting their driving range there.
John Chyzempa, 1820 Flag Ave, directly across from the pool area. He said we’re up on
a hill that overlooks the golf course. What they have now I can live with, but I don’t like
68
it. Our concern is that they have outgrown this range and that they will need to increase
the height of the fence every couple years. He also added that a fence like this would
affect his property value.
Rodney Meyer, 1831 Flag Ave, last house on the block. He said the reason he bought the
house was for the open view of the course, because there was not a fence there and that
he doesn’t want a 75-foot fence in front of his property (on the west), but one to the north
is fine.
Rick Bolan, 1801 Flag Ave, house just south of Mr. Meyer. He wanted to clarify that the
4 houses along the west end of the driving range are not opposed to the fence along the
north side, but they aren’t in approval of it either.
Mr. Gainsley asked if the fence on the left side is a part of this variance request.
Mr. Moore answered that the variance request, at this time, is for a 75-foot high structure;
a site plan will be adopted with the resolution. Where the fence is going to be installed at
the 75-foot height will be built into the site plan, staff and the applicant will sign off
when and if the variance is approved.
Mr. Gainsley inquired if the meeting was for approving the height only and not the
location.
Mr. Moore responded that at this time height and location can be approved, conditions
can be put in the resolution saying that a 75-foot fence can be installed wherever it is
agreed upon. If it was agreed upon by everyone that it made sense to install along the
north side, but not along the west side or the swimming pool, the variance can be granted
with the condition that it will only be installed around the north side. An exhibit can then
be adopted with the resolution showing of the fence in the driving range area only.
Mr. Robertson asked the applicant if there are any other options for along the pool, or
does it have to be 75 feet high.
Mr. Caldwell stated that he thought 75 feet was a little extreme, but that a little more
protection that what is there right now is necessary, it is something we are going to
investigate and look at.
He went on to cite a community meeting at the golf club the previous night. Some
residents on the north side were there and were 100% behind the proposal, they didn’t
want to lose any more windows.
Chair Roberts asked the applicant what is against the pool right now
Mr. Caldwell stated that there is a 25-foot fence there right now, including the cyclone
fence at the base. He then added in reference to the new golf course on the west of the
69
metro, they are no longer involved in that. It’s not going to be part of the Mpls Golf Club
any longer.
Chair Roberts asked Messrs. Christianson and Chyzempa if they had any opposition to
the north fence
Neither had any oppostion
Joe Silbert, 8247 Westwood Hills Curve, he clarified that 75 feet is actually 8 stories, he
wanted to make sure everyone understood that they were discussing an 8 story fence. He
commented that a 75-foot fence seems to be going overboard. He was concerned that
there may be a need to put mandatory lights on top of the fence (for aircraft) and wanted
to make sure this would be looked into before the fence was put up.
Chair Roberts responded that this question is outside the scope of the variance itself.
Mr. Gainsley asked where he did live, Mr. Silbert gave his address, and Mr. Gainsley
clarified that the residence was not in the area where the fence was going to be.
Mr. Silbert agreed but stated that he was a resident of St. Louis Park who lives in the
neighborhood and would be against a structure that high.
Chair Roberts asked him if he would be against the structure height on all sides, north
side, any side.
Mr. Silbert responded by saying that if residents on the north side agreed to it, and most
people in the neighborhood support it, then he would not have a problem with it at 75 feet
on the north side.
Randi Felacope, 2200 Flag Ave, she suggested that maybe it is time to reevaluate the
space. She added that she certainly wouldn’t want to compromise the safety of the
residents that this affects, but questioned whose responsibility the safety is. I would
choose not to have any addition to any structure height that is already there.
Mr. Silbert asked how the 75-foot height is determined, why not 60 or 50.
Mr. Caldwell responded it was an aerodynamic study of a golf ball, that takes the height
of the tee area, the height at the end of the range, and all possible wind conditions into
account and comes up with what height is necessary at this distance that would stop the
ball from going into back yards and the houses.
Mr. Silbert asked so you think that 75 feet might be over-kill.
Mr. Caldwell responded that it guarantees no ball would ever go over that height.
70
Mr. Christianson asked Mr. Caldwell if there was a way to lower the driving platform on
the driving range
Mr. Caldwell responded that if the platform was lowered as well as the wall behind it,
golfers would be closer to the net, and the net would actually have to be raised.
Mr. Christianson asked would it be up 10 yards vs. down 20.
Mr. Caldwell responded that yes it would.
Mr. Chyzempa asked about nets around individual tee boxes, do they have them in place
now.
Mr. Caldwell responded that they weren’t in place and had not been investigated.
Mr. Chyzempa suggested it be investigated, and asked about the materials that would be
used, he commented that he would like to see something on paper about the pool area,
instead of the applicant simply being granted 75-foot variance.
Mr. Gainsley directed the following comments at Chair Robertson, Only item 5 seems to
be in contention and it has to do with the pool area. There seems to be flexibility on both
sides and I would like to find some way to incorporate that or work that out.
Chair Roberts agreed that it would be nice to work it out, but added that he wasn’t sure
this was the right forum to work it out in. He commented that it’s preferable to have this
stuff worked out beforehand and then presented without the Board intervening in the
discussion.
Mr. Gainsley added that it is beyond the Board’s area of expertise to be making
judgments of the engineering value of the fence heights. He added that the Board might
make a general enabling motion to allow the process to continue after this meeting so
they can reach an agreement.
Mr. Chyzempa asked Mr. Caldwell if the net could be brought down during the winter.
Mr. Caldwell answered that the net as designed now does not come down, but the
installer said it could be done. The one at Brookview does come down, the installer said
they have problems taking it down and putting it back up, he doesn’t recommend it.
Chair Roberts closed the public hearing
Chair Roberts began by saying that at this point he has no problem approving the north
side, hearing no opposition to the north fence, and seeing that no one from the north side
spoke against it.
71
He added that he doubted there would need to be lights on the structure because the
topography in nearby areas is taller than that.
He would not approve anything along the west side, and felt there needed to be more
discussion on that.
Mr. Gainsley asked would it be reasonable to go the Daniel Webster route and to give a
variance on the north end. He added that the north side seems to be problem that has to
be dealt with, the west side just didn’t know.
Chairs Roberts added that the variance for the north side would not preclude a variance
for the west side further down the road
Ms. Bloyer added that if the applicant was bringing up 40 or 50 feet for the west side then
I think we could grant him that. Clearly on the north side there is a health and safety
issue and that has to override any aesthetic concerns.
Mr. Powers said that he agreed with Mr. Gainsley that he didn’t have a problem with the
north side, and seeing that there is room for negotiating between the sides, could approve
the north side but not the west side
Chair Roberts motioned to approve the 75 foot structure along the north side of the
property only. Mr. Powers seconded the motion. The motion passed on a 4-1 vote with
Gainsley, Roberts, Robertson and Powers in favor and Ms. Bloyer in opposition.
5. Old Business: None
6. New Business:
a. Carl Robertson has been appointed to the planning commission, he is just filling
space right now until we can appoint a new Board of Zoning Appeals
Commissioner.
b. Next meeting there will need to be an election of officers
7. Communications: None
8. Miscellaneous: None
9. Adjournment:
Mr. Gainsley moved and Ms. Bloyer seconded the motion for adjournment. The meeting
was adjourned at 8:20 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Scott Moore
Zoning Administrator Prepared by: Amy McGarrigle