HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001/07/16 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Regular 1
AGENDA - CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
July 16, 2001
7:30 p.m.
7:15 p.m. – Board and Commission Discussion - 3rd Floor Westwood Room
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 July 2, 2001
b. Study Session Minutes of June 25, 2001
Action: Corrections/amendments to minutes - Minutes approved as presented
4. Approval of Agenda and Consent Items
NOTE: Consent items are those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or
which need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is
desired by either a Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to
an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion.
a. Approval of Agenda
Action: Motion to approve (Alternatively, motion to add or remove items from
the agenda, motion to move items from consent to regular agenda for
discussion).
b. Approval of Consent Items
1. Motion to accept the following reports for filing:
A. Planning Commission Minutes of June 20, 2001
2
B. Vendor Claims
2. Motion to adopt resolution and authorize Chief of Police to execute the Mutual
Aid agreement with Hennepin County Chiefs of Police Association.
3. Motion to adopt the final draft of the Excelsior Blvd. Corridor Traffic Study as
prepared by BRW, Inc.
4. Motion to approve a contract with SRF Consulting Group, Inc. for the
redevelopment of the Oak Park Village area.
Action: Motion to approve Consent Items
5. Public Hearings
5a. Public Hearing – Newport on Seven Private Activity Revenue Bond
The Public Hearing is to consider issuing Private Activity Revenue Bonds for
Newport on Seven.
Recommended
Action:
Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to approve preliminary
resolution
6. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public
6a. Request of Robert Rappaport for a variance appeal to the Board of Zoning
Appeals decision to deny the request to permit a front yard setback of 25.3 feet
instead of the required 28.3 feet for property located in the R-1 Single Family
District at 3901 Basswood Road.
Case # 01-24-VAR
Recommended
Action:
Motion to uphold the Board of Zoning Appeals’ decision to deny
the request.
7. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions
7a. The request of Groves Academy for a minor amendment to the approved
Continued Special Permit to change the approved building 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.
7b. The request of Costco Wholesale for a major amendment to the approved
Planned Unit Development for Park Place Plaza to permit a 12 station fueling
facility and an accessory building on Lot 9.
3
Case No. 95-51-PUD (Amended)
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt a resolution of denial for the major amendment
to the approved Planned Unit Development according to the
findings in the resolution.
7c. Housing Improvement Area Policy
Cities have statutory authority to establish housing improvement areas for the
purpose of assisting condominium and townhouse associations with common
element improvements. The policy would provide a guide for reviewing and
processing applicants requesting Home Improvement Area (HIA) financing.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt resolution establishing a Housing Improvement
Area Policy.
8. Boards and Committees
a. Reappointment of Catherine Courtney to the Housing Authority
b. Appointment to the Board of Zoning Appeals
9. Communications
10. Recess to Executive Session to discuss:
a. Pending Litigation - Wolfe Park Fill
11. Reconvene regular meeting
12. 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
July 2, 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, Susan Santa, Robert Young, Ron Latz, and Mayor Jeff Jacobs.
Also present were the City Manager (Mr. Meyer); City Attorney (Mr. Jamnick); Director of
Community Development (Mr. Harmening); Director of Public Works (Mr. Rardin); City
Engineer (Ms. Maria Hagen); City Assessor (Mr. Bruce Stepnick); City Planner (Mr. Patrick
Smith); City Clerk (Ms. Reichert); and Recording Secretary (Ms. Samson).
2. Presentations--None
3. Approval of Minutes
a. City Council Minutes of June 18, 2001
The minutes were approved as presented.
b. Study Session Minutes of June 11, 2001
Councilmember Nelson said under Item 1, the term “archive” came up and, as a concluding
matter, the City Clerk, Ms. Reichert, stated she would meet with the City Manager, Mr.
Meyer, to review further how an updated book on the history of St. Louis Park might
involve staff and what staff can do to help. Councilmember Sanger added that
Councilmembers asked representatives of the St. Louis Park Historical Society to review
and reconsider some of the publication costs that they had cited to the Council.
The minutes of June 11, 2001 have been amended to add: “Councilmember Nelson felt that
creating an archive of the city’s history is an important activity. Ms. Reichert offered to
discuss the project with the City Manager to consider additional staff involvement with the
project. Ms. Sanger asked representatives of the St. Louis Park Historical Society to
review and reconsider some of the publication costs they had cited to the Council.”
4. Approval of Agenda and Consent Items
5
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 Latz, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to approve the
agenda. The motion passed 7-0.
4b. Consent Agenda
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to approve
the following Consent Agenda Items. The motion passed 7-0.
1. Adopt Resolution No. 01-054 accepting Engineer’s 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. Adopt the Resolution No. 01-055 authorizing installation of permit parking in
front of 3962 Xenwood Avenue South. Traffic Study No. 558
3. Adopt second reading of Ordinance No. 2201-01 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 monthsamendments related to zoning, approve summary ordinance, and
authorize publication.
4. To authorize Hennepin County to initiate a consultant selection process for the
Elmwood Area Study, Case Nos. 01-29-CP.
5. 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. Approve Resolution No. 01-056 final payment to F.F. Jedlicki, Inc. for storm
sewer relocation at 3043 Aquila Ave. in the amount of $10,002.00. City Project
No. 01-16, Contract No. 48-01.
7. 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
5. Public Hearings
6
5a. Public Hearing: Alley Paving—2700 Block between Brunswick Avenue and
the C.P. Railroad tracks. Resolution No. 01-057
Ms. Maria Hagen, City Engineer, reported the alley was petitioned for by 54% of the
abutting property owners. According to the City Special Assessment Policy, 51% of the
abutting property owners are required to sign the petition in order to bring it before the
Council for consideration. City Special Assessment Policy states property owners will be
assessed based on both a direct and an indirect benefit. Because the east side of the alley
abuts the railroad tracks, the City will fund the railroad portion of the project. At this time,
the estimated total cost to pave the existing gravel alley with concrete is $61,000.00,
including engineering and contingencies; the City’s portion is $30,500.00, to be paid from
the General Obligation Bond Proceeds. To proceed, a public hearing is required and there
will be a 30 day waiting period following to allow for any appeals. During that time the
project will be advertised and the city will receive bids. If there are no appeals, on August
6, 2001, the Council will award a bid. Construction time is expected to last three to four
weeks.
Mr. Jack Bryce appeared on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Robert and Mary Norby, 2701
Brunswick Avenue South. The Norby’s property is located on the corner, next to the park.
Their concern is for what are they are being assessed. Ms. Hagen said the portion of the
Norby’s assessment is along the eastern side, i.e., the railroad portion, and not the
perpendicular portion. Ms. Hagen said it is anticipated the alley will remain within the
right-of-way, however, the City is trying to modify the turning radius of the alley for safety
reasons.
Mr. Mike Daly, 2749 Brunswick Avenue South, asked why it has taken 30 years to improve
the road surface of the alley.
Mrs. Norby asked about markers placed by the City and if there is a possibility to go out
farther into her property and into the park hill to avoid her flowerbed and give her a longer
driveway. Mrs. Norby said when it rains, 27th Street and Colorado Avenue become flooded.
Ms. Hagen said staff will check on the capacity of the storm sewer to determine its ability or
lack of ability to handle additional water.
Mr. Mike Rardin, Director of Public Works, responded to Mr. Daly’s question saying that in
the past leftover asphalt was placed in alleys with no long-term intention of maintaining
alleys with asphalt. To Mr. Rardin’s knowledge, no residents were assessed for asphalt
alleys.
Councilmember Sanger said a land swap between the City and the Norbys may improve the
design features of the alley and the Norbys’ plat. Councilmember Nelson thinks a straight
alley on the east edge of the Norbys’ property, rather than cutting through their property,
makes more sense. Mr. Bryce thinks a land swap is logical.
7
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer, to adopt
Resolution No. 01-057 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. The motion passed 7-0.
5b. Assessment Hearing for Project - Alley Paving located at the 2700 block
between Brunswick Avenue and C.P. Railroad tracks. Resolution No. 01-058
Mr. Stepnick said the total cost is $61,000.00, and the City is assessing $30,500.00, which is
based on the front footage of each parcel, most of which are 40 feet. The exception is 2701
Brunswick Avenue South, which is two-40 foot lots, and assessed at 60 feet. The interest
rate is 7% over 20 years. The payment options are: Pay in full before November 1, 2001or
the assessment will be assessed with the property taxes. The average yearly payment with
property taxes, per half, would be approximately $133.00, and no higher.
Councilmember Latz inquired if it is standard practice to adjust the amount of direct and
indirect benefit for properties on the ends of alleys? Mr. Stepnick said, for assessment
purposes, end properties generally have double and triple amounts of footage. Costs are
apportioned in accordance with the City’s special assessment policy with direct and indirect
benefits Councilmember Latz asked if a property has driveway access from the alley or the
street, what is considered to be a direct or indirect benefit? Mr. Stepnick said if a garage
faces the street, it is considered to be an indirect benefit for that property.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer, to adopt
Resolution No. 01-058 establishing the assessment improvement for alley paving in the
2700 block between Brunswick Avenue and C.P. Railroad tracks. The motion passed 7-0.
6. Requests and Communications from the Public--None
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.
The new Planner, Mr. Patrick Smith, was introduced. Mr. Smith explained that last year the
City Council approved a 30,000 square foot addition for Groves Academy, which included
new gymnasium, classrooms, and conference rooms. The building material for the exterior
walls for the gymnasium consisted solely of brick. At this time, architect Mr. Todd
Mohagen, boardmember Mr. John Lavander, and the president of Groves Academy, Mr.
Michael Mongeau have returned with a proposal that introduces a fourth and new material
to the project called exposed aggregate pre-cast concrete panels (EAPCP). They chose
EAPCP because of its functional, financial, and design characteristics. Applicant and Staff
have met several times. The original proposal was to have it all brick, however, the
proposed change would be to have the south elevation all brick and the east and west
exterior portions would be EAPCP. Mr. Smith said Staff recommends approval subject to
the two conditions listed in resolution.
8
Mr. Mohagen, from Mohagen & Associates said City Staff recommended, and Mohagen &
Associates agreed, the south side will be brick. The previous proposal had brick on the east
face; currently, the signage “Groves Academy” is expected to complement the EAPCP, and
the east and west faces are relatively similar.
Councilmember Sanger asked staff if this change complies with the City’s architectural
design criteria? Mr. Harmening answered yes.
Councilmember Nelson said the change has zoning ordinance implications, the expansion
appears to be noncompliant. He would like to know why building expansions conform to
the original architectural design. Mr. Smith said the ordinance requires that new additions
be compatible with the existing structure and, Staff believes, the expansion of Groves
Academy meets the intent of the ordinance. Because the new material serves a function and,
because of that function, the design meets the intent of the ordinance. Mr. Smith said
EAPCPs are not Class 1 material, however, the 60% requirement is still being met—the
original approval exceeded the City’s requirement by 2%.
Mr. Mohagen said 75% of the east elevation is the addition, and the south elevation will be
all brick. Mayor Jacobs said conformance to the original design is the use of materials and
proportion. An average may meet the 60% requirement but falter in regard to proportion.
Councilmember Latz said he has grave concerns regarding an EAPCP exterior for the
gymnasium because it is completely inconsistent with the materials used in the rest of the
building.
Mr. Mongeau said when speaking of the east elevation one needs to include the entire
addition and not just the gymnasium.
Councilmember Nelson said a calculation indicates Groves Academy is comprised of 70%
Class 1 materials, 29% Class 2 materials, and 1% Class 3 materials. Mr. Smith said the
current proposal meets the ordinance requirements for Class 1 materials, however, the
question is, Does it meet the proportion requirement with respect to the existing structure?
Mr. Harmening cited three options: 1. continue and Staff will continue to work with the
applicant; 2. deny the amendment because it is incompatible with the existing building; or 3.
approve.
Councilmember Latz said he would like for Staff to continue to work with the applicant.
Councilmember Latz is bothered most by the bulk, height, and the large, flat face of the
gymnasium, however, he believes there may be a way to break-up the face architecturally.
It appears to him not to meet the architectural standard of the ordinance.
Mr. Lavander said the additional cost of using all brick would be $136,000.00; using the
EAPCPs would cost $25,000.00. Mr. Lavander would like to work with Staff and resolve
Council’s concerns. Staff and Groves Academy agreed the brick on the west side will stay
9
because the west side faces a residential area. Mr. Lavander believes the appearance of the
east side of the school is more crucial than the south side.
Councilmember Sanger moved to defer the request until the July 16, 2001 Council meeting
and ask Staff to work further with the Groves Academy representatives on all elevations.
Councilmember Nelson seconded the motion.
Mr. Mohagen said when the Groves Academy representatives appeared before Council
previously, there were more metal panels on the east face. He added the representatives
worked with Staff.
Mr. Harmening referred the Council to the Resolution on Page 29. He said the Council
approved an amendment to the Special Permit in October of 1999, and amended to extend
certain deadlines and the like. The only language in the resolution related to elevations and
materials is found on Page 29, #3, and it reads: “The elevations should be revised to show
no more than 10% Class 3 materials in any façade.” Class 3 may have been a reference to
the metal panels. Mr. Harmening said that is the only change that was asked to be made to
the elevation drawings that were submitted to the Council for approval. That change was
maintained throughout until the Groves Academy representatives made their most recent
amendment request. Mr. Harmening said the discussions took place with Ms. Sasha
Peterson, however, the applicant would have signed the approved plans for the project to
show the applicant agrees as to what will be built, and it is called signing an ascent form,
common to all resolutions.
Councilmember Young said it appears to him the Council did not give much leeway last
October when it asked Staff to work with Groves Academy. In the meantime, the proposal
has been significantly revised from what was presented to Council last fall. Councilmember
Young would like to postpone the request, increase the amount of brick or non-aggregate,
and move closer to what the Council was getting last fall.
Mr. Harmening said Staff was uncomfortable with what was originally submitted as an
amendment. A discussion between Staff and Groves Academy last week produced the
current proposal. Mr. Harmening thinks Staff’s perspective is that the panels on the east
side of the building provided some accent, and placing the proposed sign on the EAPCPs
would work. Likewise, Staff requested the south elevation be all brick because of its
appearance from Highway 100.
Mayor Jacobs caution Council the need to relay to Staff precisely what it is that Council
wants them to do in terms of working this out. Major Jacobs would like to send the matter
to Staff to continue to work on it
Mr. Charles Meyer, City Manager, asked if reducing the number of EAPCPs on the east
side, perhaps by four panels, would be an appropriate proportion to the Council?
10
Councilmember Sanger suggested Staff continue their dialogue with Groves Academy. Mr.
Meyer suggested perhaps the applicant would like to chose between a two-week delay or
denial of the amendment.
Councilmember Sanger moved to continue for two weeks and bring it back to the next
meeting on July16, seconded by Councilmember Nelson. Motion passed 5-2 with
Councilmember Brimeyer and Mayor Jacobs opposed.
Councilmember Sanger suggested that at a future Study Session, Council discuss the
ordinance(s) relevant to structures and do some fine-tuning, and to discuss architectural
standards. However, the ordinance discussion would be entirely separate from the Groves
Academy request.
8. Boards and Committees - None
9. Communications
From the City Manager – Mr. Meyer reported a mechanical problem at the pool. The pool
is expected to re-open on Saturday, July 7, 2001.
From the Mayor –Mayor Jacobs wished all a safe and happy holiday.
From Councilmember Latz—Councilmember Latz attended the Economic Development
Association Minnesota Meeting last week. At that meeting, an award was presented for a
development project, the Louisiana Oaks Housing Development, in St. Louis Park.
10. Adjournment
Mayor Jacobs adjourned the meeting at 9:35 p.m.
City Clerk Mayor
11
Item # 3b
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
June 25, 2001
The meeting convened at 6:06 p.m.
Present at the meeting were Councilmembers Jim Brimeyer, Ron Latz, Chris Nelson, Robert
Young, and Jeff Jacobs.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Meyer), Director of Community Development (Mr. Pires),
Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Kleve), Housing Supervisor (Ms. Schnitker), Housing
Coordinator (Ms. Larsen), Director of Finance (Ms. McGann), and City Clerk (Ms. Reichert).
1. Audit Presentation
Ms. McGann introduced Matt Mayor from Kern, DeWenter, Viere, Ltd. who presented an
overview of the city’s recent audit.
Councilmember Young inquired about the PG & E investments. Ms. McGann reported that the
PG& E crisis in California had not negatively impacted the City.
Ms. McGann stated that the Gazby reporting format goes into effect for 2003. Staff is working
to respond to the modified format and to begin putting financial information together so that this
new state requirement can be met.
2. Purchase Agreement with the Jewish Community Center
Councilmember Latz arrived at 6:28 p.m.
Mr. Harmening stated that staff would like to discuss with Council the request recently made by
the Jewish Community Center (JCC). The JCC would like to extend the termination date of the
purchase agreement from August to October 31, 2001 or to close on the property before all of the
land use approvals have been given. Staff reported that the appropriate approvals could not be
given before August 8.
Councilmember Brimeyer asked staff’s preference to the proposed options and their
recommendation. Mr. Harmening stated that he was concerned that postponing the land sale, as
well as extending the closing to October 31, may create confusion for the public.
Council directed staff to bring back an amendment to the purchase agreement that would provide
for a closing date no later October 31, 2001. Mr. Harmening stated that he will prepare the
documents and bring them to the next Council meeting.
Mayor Jacobs stated that he would like to see feedback from the neighborhood meeting with the
JCC that will be held on the 28th of June.
12
3. Park Commons
Bob Cunningham, TOLD, gave a legislative and financial perspective of the Park Commons
project.
Steve Bubul, Kennedy & Graven, stated that TIF revenues may be reduced by legislative
actions. He stated that there would be an increase in the pay off of bonds to twenty years, rather
than fifteen, as well as who will control and develop an eighty feet property located on the west
side of the development area. Councilmember Brimeyer stated that TOLD already has rights to
develop that property and is trying to assist with filling in the funding gap.
Councilmember Nelson arrived at 6:53 p.m.
Council discussed flexibility in future phases, modifying the recapture provision, removal of
SAC payment, cost sharing changes, and accessing the state grant fund to make up deficits in
TIF payments.
The meeting was recessed at 7:04 p.m. to convene a special meeting of the Economic
Development Authority. The meeting reconvened at 7:06 p.m.
Councilmember Brimeyer would like to see some kind of matrix showing how funding works
with each option. Mr. Harmening replied that it would be difficult to provide numbers on some
of the items.
Councilmember Brimeyer felt that the City needs protection against dire circumstances.
Councilmember Latz stated that protection should be in place to protect the city’s interests if the
developer should change its sight to focus on other projects.
Mr. Harmening replied that the development agreement will highlight the proposed changes and
will be brought to Council. He added that Mr. Cunningham suggested that more cash
($180,000) needs to be brought into the project. More funding may be available through the
Metropolitan Council.
Mr. Kleve said that they would like to be back for the first study session in July and then to take
action at second regular meeting on the 16th.
Mr. Cunningham stated that they are looking at a longer-term mortgage and would like Council
to give them the ability to finalize that prior to conveying ownership.
TOLD proposed that 38/39th St. be renamed. Council agreed that a name change must be made.
Mr. Bubul gave a brief presentation on the activity that is going on in the legislature regarding
the grant program and relief for cities from the negative impacts of the reduction in TIF
financing.
13
Mr. Cunningham informed the group that the groundbreaking ceremony will be held on August
20th.
4. SW Highway 7 / Louisiana Ave
Mr. Kleve informed Council that since they had granted a sixty day continuation to put together
the project, Frauenshuh has been working hard to market the site. Doctors are still interested in
relocating to this site. A separate building could accommodate the relocation of a local business
and it’s warehouse.
Council directed staff to move forward with Frauenshuh on the development.
5. Housing Improvement Area
Mr. Harmening, Ms. Schnitker, and Ms. Larsen gave an update on housing improvement areas.
One of the goals of Vision St. Louis Park and the Comprehensive Plan is to ensure well-
maintained and safe housing. The current strategy still must address the aging townhome and
condominium housing, which is becoming a concern. The establishment of a Housing
Improvement Area (HIA) would help provide a tool to meet the housing goals.
Rusty Fifeld, Ehlers and Associates, explained the workings of an HIA. A specific area will be
targeted for improvement in which the costs incurred are paid in whole or in part by fees
imposed in that area. He suggested that the consensus of the homeowners be obtained on this
issue.
Councilmember Young asked why the owner association s are not just assessing the owner’s to
fund improvements. Mr. Fifeld replied that in a HIA, the city is “the lender of last resort”.
Councilmember Nelson stated that the City needs an agreement of sort to ensure that the
rents/fees charges are sufficient to fund the payback.
Councilmember Young inquired what protection the City has if the property is sold.
Councilmember Nelson also inquired how disclosure would show on property taxes.
Mayor Jacobs asked if the City was the appropriate agency to administer this program.
Councilmember Nelson felt that if the program maintained the housing stock and is fair to the
taxpayer’s properties, then he would support it.
Councilmember Latz felt this program could achieve property maintenance, although condo or
townhome owners may be restricted from making repairs to their own unit by the by-laws.
Councilmember Young had several concerns regarding the program, such as deferral of
maintenance by property owners.
Councilmember Latz felt the City would rather see property improve as long as the proper
safeguards exist for the City as a lender.
14
Councilmember Young would like to see included a threshold as to when a HIA program is
appropriate.
Councilmember Latz felt that restrictions should be consistent between single and multiple
family housing.
Mayor Jacobs would like to proceed but also wants to see strong thresholds included.
Councilmember Nelson suggested including a disclosure clause in the agreement.
6. Traffic Signal Considerations
Ms. Hagen provided samples of signal requests. She described how considerations were
reviewed to see if the improvement was warranted and if the cost of installation would be offset.
Councilmember Brimeyer believed that the proposed system is valuable but suggested weighting
criteria.
Mayor Jacobs felt the proposed criteria was good to use. He suggested staff move forward and
should apply the criteria in future decisions.
Council agreed that administrative discretion should be used in applying the criteria. Council
would like to be notified of traffic signal considerations and decisions through the City
Manager’s digest or some other means.
7. Communications
Councilmember Latz reported that his term of office stated in the Comprehensive Annual
Financial Report was incorrect.
Mr. Meyer informed Council of the protest that took place at the Novartis building.
Councilmember Brimeyer would like to add the St. Louis Park Foundation as an item to the
future agenda schedule.
8. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 9:32 p.m.
City Clerk Mayor
15
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 5a
Meeting of July 16, 2001
5a. Public Hearing – Newport on Seven Private Activity Revenue Bond
The Public Hearing is to consider issuing Private Activity Revenue Bonds for
Newport on Seven.
Recommended
Action:
Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to approve preliminary
resolution
Background: Dominium Development & Acquisition, LLC on behalf of Newport on Seven is
requesting the City of St. Louis Park to issue up to $12,924,832 in Private Activity Revenue
Bonds. The proceeds of this issue will be used to refund Private Activity Revenue Bonds issued
in 1985 by the City of St. Louis Park and to make capital improvements on the property.
The application material and financial statements were provided to the City Council at the July 9,
2001 study session. Preliminary approval of this bond issue is being requested to this meeting
with final approval to follow at the August 6, 2001 City Council meeting.
Recommendation: Motion to approve preliminary resolution to issue Private Activity Revenue
bonds for Newport on Seven in an amount not to exceed $12,924,932 and to approve the
amendment to the bond agreement.
Attachments: Notice of Public Hearing
Resolution granting preliminary authorization to issue bond
Bond resolution amendment agreement
Prepared By: Jean D. McGann
Approved By: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
16
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN
AMENDMENTS TO CERTAIN OUTSTANDING BONDS OF THE CITY
AND THE ISSUANCE OF REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS UNDER
MINNESOTA STATUTES, CHAPTER 462C, AS AMENDED
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council (the “Council”) of the City of St.
Louis Park, Minnesota (the “City”) will hold a public hearing on Monday, July 16, 2001, at or
after 7:00 p.m. at City Hall in the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, with respect to the
following proposed actions of the Council: (i) to consider certain amendments to the documents
executed and delivered with respect to the outstanding Multifamily Mortgage Revenue Bonds
(Walker Place Apartments Project), Series 1986 (the “Series 1986 Bonds”), issued by the City on
August 29, 2001, in the original aggregate principal amount of $10,124,832; and (ii) the issuance
of a series of tax-exempt refunding revenue bonds of the City (the “Series 2001A Bonds”), in the
original aggregate principal amount of $10,124,832, to refund the Series 1986 Bonds, and the
issuance of a series of taxable revenue bonds of the City (the “Series 2001B Bonds” and,
collectively with the Series 2001A Bonds, the “Series 2001 Bonds”), in the original aggregate
principal amount of $2,145,168, to refund the Series 1986 Bonds, pay transaction costs, and
finance certain capital improvements to the Project (as hereinafter defined). The foregoing
actions are proposed to be undertaken with respect to a 167-unit multifamily housing project
known as Newport on Seven Apartments (the “Project”) located at 7450 Highway 7 in the City.
The owner of the Project is currently St. Louis Park Housing Partners, A Limited Partnership, a
Minnesota limited partnership (the “Owner”). The managing general partner of the Owner is
Dominium Group-Newport, LLC (the “General Partner”). The proceeds of the Series 2001
Bonds are proposed to be loaned to the Owner or an entity related to the Owner and/or the
General Partner (the “Borrower”). The Owner or the Borrower will be the owner of the Project
after the issuance of the Series 2001 Bonds.
At the public hearing, the Council will consider a resolution that (i) approves the
amendments to the documents executed and delivered with respect to the outstanding Series 1986
Bonds; and (ii) preliminarily approves the issuance of the Series 2001 Bonds in one or more
series for the purposes set forth above. The aggregate face amount of the revenue bonds
proposed to be issued is presently estimated not to exceed $12,270,000. The revenue bonds will
be limited obligations of the City payable solely from the revenues pledged to the payment
thereof, and will not be a general obligation of or be secured by the taxing power of the City.
Anyone desiring to be heard during the public hearing will be afforded an opportunity to
do so.
Dated: [Date of Publication]
BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
By _/s/
17
RESOLUTION NO. 01-060
GRANTING PRELIMINARY AUTHORIZATION TO THE ISSUANCE,
SALE AND DELIVERY OF MULTIFAMILY HOUSING REVENUE
REFUNDING BONDS (NEWPORT ON SEVEN PROJECT), SERIES
2001A, IN THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF $10,124,832, AND TAXABLE
MULTIFAMILY HOUSING REVENUE BONDS (NEWPORT ON SEVEN
PROJECT), SERIES 2001B, IN THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF
2,800,000; APPROVING THE FORM OF AND AUTHORIZING AN
AMENDMENT TO A BOND RESOLUTION, DATED AS OF AUGUST 1,
1986, WITH RESPECT TO THE MULTIFAMILY MORTGAGE
REVENUE BONDS (WALKER PLACE APARTMENTS PROJECT),
SERIES 1986; AND AUTHORIZING CERTAIN OTHER ACTIONS WITH
RESPECT TO SUCH BONDS
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota (the “City”) is a home rule city and
political subdivision duly organized and existing under its charter and the Constitution and laws
of the State of Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota, particularly
Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C, as amended (the “Act”), the City has heretofore issued its
Multifamily Mortgage Revenue Bonds (Walker Place Apartments Project), Series 1986 (the
“Prior Bonds”), in the original aggregate principal amount of $10,124,832, pursuant to a Bond
Resolution, dated as of August 1, 1986 (the “Bond Resolution”); and
WHEREAS, by a Loan Agreement, dated as of August 1, 1986 (the “Prior Loan
Agreement”), between the City and St. Louis Park Housing Partners, A Limited Partnership, a
Minnesota limited partnership (the “Borrower”), the City agreed to lend the proceeds derived
from the sale of the Prior Bonds to the Borrower to finance a 167-unit multifamily rental housing
development located at 7450 Highway 7 in the City (the “Project”), and the Borrower agreed to
repay the loan at times and in amounts sufficient to pay the principal of and interest on the Prior
Bonds when due; and
WHEREAS, the Prior Bonds remain outstanding in the principal amount of $10,124,832
and are subject to redemption and prepayment at the option of the Borrower; and
WHEREAS, the Borrower proposes to refund the Prior Bonds and, for that purpose, has
requested the City to issue its Multifamily Housing Revenue Refunding Bonds (Newport on
Seven Apartments Project) Series 2001A (the “Series 2001A Bonds”), in an aggregate principal
amount not to exceed $10,124,832, and the Borrower proposes to finance the costs of the
proposed refunding and other transaction costs and the costs of certain capital improvements to
the Project (the “Additional Costs”) and, for that purpose, has requested the City to issues its
Taxable Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds (Newport on Seven Apartments Project) Series
18
2001B (the “Series 2001B Bonds”), in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $2,800,000
(the Series 2001A Bonds and the Series 2001B Bonds are hereinafter referred to collectively as
the “Bonds”); and
WHEREAS, the Bonds and the interest on the Bonds shall be payable solely from the
revenue pledged therefor and the Bonds shall not constitute a debt of the City within the meaning
of any constitutional, statutory, or charter imitation nor give rise to a pecuniary liability of the
City or a charge against its general credit, assets, or taxing powers, and shall not constitute a
charge, lien, or encumbrance, legal or equitable, upon any property of the City other than the
City’s interest in the Project; and
WHEREAS, a supplement and amendment to the Bond Resolution is necessary to ensure
that the Prior Bonds can be redeemed and prepaid with the proceeds of the Bonds and such
supplement and amendment must be approved by the Borrower and the owners of the Prior
Bonds;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City acknowledges, finds, determines, and declares that the City is
authorized by the Act to issue the Bonds and it is in the public interest that the City issue the
Bonds under the terms and conditions specified in the Indenture.
Section 2. For the purpose of refunding the Prior Bonds and financing the Additional
Costs of the Project, the City hereby grants preliminary authorization to the issuance of the
Bonds. Such preliminary authorization is subject to the mutual agreement of the City, the
Borrower, and any credit enhancer, trustee, guarantor, or other party to such financing as to the
details of the Bonds and the provisions for their payment. In all events, it is understood,
however, that the Bonds shall not constitute a charge, lien, or encumbrance, legal or equitable,
upon any property of the City (except the interests of the City in the Project), and the Bonds,
when, as, and if issued, shall recite in substance that the Bonds, including interest thereon, are
payable solely from the revenues received from the Borrower and the Project and any additional
security provided by the Borrower and pledged to the payment thereof. The Bonds are to be
special limited obligations of the City and do not constitute general obligations or moral
obligations of the City and are not secured by the full faith and credit of the City, any taxing
power of the City, or any other property or assets of the City (except the interest of the City in
the Project).
Section 3. The Bonds may be issued with a different name or series designation than set
forth in this resolution (the “Resolution”) and may be issued in greater or lesser aggregate
principal amounts than are set forth in this Resolution. The proceeds of the Bonds may be
applied to purposes not expressly set forth in this Resolution.
Section 4. In order to facilitate the redemption and prepayment and refunding of the
Prior Bonds, Section 4.04(a) of the Bond Resolution is amended to read as set forth below and,
19
in this regard, this Resolution shall constitute a “supplemental resolution” within the meaning of
Section 12.02 of the Bond Resolution:
Section 4.04. Mandatory Remarketing or Redemption of Bonds on each
Remarketing Date. (a) Subject to the further provisions of this Section, the
Bonds are subject to mandatory redemption or purchase and the Issuer shall cause
the Bonds to be redeemed or purchased prior to maturity on each Remarketing
Date for a price equal to the principal amount thereof, plus unpaid interest payable
through and including such date. The initial Remarketing Date shall be the latest
Business Day prior to the earliest of (i) December 31, 2001, (ii) any earlier
Interest Payment Date occurring on or after the thirteenth anniversary of the date
of initial delivery of the Bonds selected by the Bondholder in its absolute
discretion, notice of which is given to the Issuer and the Developer not less than
six months prior to such date, and (iii) any date selected by the Developer on
which the Bonds may be redeemed in whole in connection with the prepayment in
whole of the Loan at the option of the Developer pursuant to Section 4.05 of the
Agreement, notice of which has been given to the Issuer and the Bondholder not
later than the time for giving notice of such prepayment provided in the
Agreement.
Except as set forth above, the Bond Resolution shall remain unamended and in full force and
effect in accordance with its terms until the Prior Bonds are redeemed, prepaid, and refunded.
Section 4. The amendment of the Bond Resolution pursuant to this Resolution is not
effective until such amendment is approved by the Borrower and the owner of the Prior Bonds
(the “Bondholder”). The Bond Resolution Amendment Agreement, to be dated as of July 1,
2001 (the “Agreement”), between the City, the Borrower, and the Bondholder, pursuant to which
the Borrower and the Bondholder approve the amendment to the Bond Resolution, is hereby
approved in the form now on file with the City. The Mayor and the City Manager are authorized
and directed to execute and deliver the Agreement and any and all certificates, agreements, or
other documents which are required by the Agreement, or any other certificates or documents
which are deemed necessary by bond counsel to evidence the validity or enforceability of the
Prior Bonds, the Agreement, or the other documents referred to in this Resolution, or to evidence
compliance with applicable provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended; and
all such agreements or representations when made shall be deemed to be agreements or
representations, as the case may be, of the City. The Mayor and the City Manager are hereby
designated and authorized to take such other administrative action as is permitted or required by
the Agreement.
Section 5. Except as herein otherwise expressly provided, nothing in this Resolution or
in the Agreement, expressed or implied, is intended or shall be construed to confer upon any
person, firm, or corporation other than the City, the Bondholder, and the Borrower any right,
remedy, or claim, legal or equitable, under and by reason of this Resolution or any provision
hereof or of the Agreement or any provision thereof; this Resolution, the Agreement and all of
their provisions being intended to be and being for the sole and exclusive benefit of the City, the
20
Borrower, and the Bondholder from time to time of the Prior Bonds issued under the provisions
of the Bond Resolution.
Section 6. In case any one or more of the provisions of this Resolution, of the Agreement
or of the Prior Bonds shall for any reason be held to be illegal or invalid, such illegality or
invalidity shall not affect any other provision of this Resolution, of the Agreement or of the Prior
Bonds, but this Resolution, the Agreement, and the Prior Bonds shall be construed as if such
illegal or invalid provision had not been contained therein.
Section 7. All acts, conditions, and things required by the laws of the State of Minnesota,
relating to the adoption of this Resolution and to the execution and delivery of the Agreement to
happen, exist, and be performed precedent to and in the enactment of this Resolution, and
precedent to the execution of the Agreement have happened, exist, and have been performed as
so required by law.
Section 8. The City Council, officers of the City, and attorneys and other agents or
employees of the City are hereby authorized to do all acts and things required of them by or in
connection with this Resolution and the Agreement and the other documents referred to therein
for the full, punctual, and complete performance of all the terms, covenants, and agreements
contained in the Agreement and this Resolution.
Section 9. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage.
PASSED AND APPROVED this _____ day of _________, 2001.
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
21
BOND RESOLUTION AMENDMENT AGREEMENT
This Bond Resolution Amendment Agreement is dated as of July 1, 2001 (the
“Agreement”), and is entered into between the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, a home rule
city and political subdivision of the State of Minnesota (the “City”), St. Louis Park Housing
Partners, A Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership (the “Borrower”), and
Municipal Mortgage & Equity, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“MuniMae”).
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota, particularly
Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C, as amended (the “Act”), the City has heretofore issued its
Multifamily Mortgage Revenue Bonds (Walker Place Apartments Project), Series 1986 (the
“Prior Bonds”), in the original aggregate principal amount of $10,124,832, pursuant to a Bond
Resolution, dated as of August 1, 1986 (the “Bond Resolution”); and
WHEREAS, by a Loan Agreement, dated as of August 1, 1986 (the “Prior Loan
Agreement”), between the City and the Borrower, the City loaned the proceeds derived from the
sale of the Prior Bonds to the Borrower to finance a 167-unit multifamily rental housing
development located at 7450 Highway 7 in the City (the “Project”), and the Borrower agreed to
repay the loan at times and in amounts sufficient to pay the principal of and interest on the Prior
Bonds when due; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the terms of the Bond Resolution, the Prior Bonds are required
to be purchased or redeemed on August 28, 2001; and
WHEREAS, the City and the Borrower have proposed to issue bonds (the “Refunding
Bonds”) to refund the Prior Bonds but such Refunding Bonds and related documents cannot be
prepared and executed, and the Refunding Bonds cannot be sold on terms acceptable to the City
and the Borrower, prior to August 28, 2001; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City adopted a resolution on July 16, 2001 (the
“Supplemental Resolution”), which constitutes a “supplemental resolution” (within the meaning
of Section 12.02 of the Bond Resolution) that amends Section 4.04 of the Bond Resolution to
extend the time to purchase or redeem the Prior Bonds to December 28, 2001; and
WHEREAS, any supplemental resolution which amends the Bond Resolution must be
approved by the Borrower and MuniMae (as owner of the Prior Bonds);
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, and for other good and valuable
consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby
agree as follows:
1. Approval of Supplemental Resolution. The Borrower and MuniMae hereby
approve the Supplemental Resolution and agree to an amendment of a portion of the definition of
Remarketing Date (as such term is employed in the Bond Resolution) from the “latest Business
22
Day prior to the earliest of (i) the fifteenth anniversary of the date of initial delivery of the
Bonds” to “the latest Business Day prior to the earliest of (i) December 31, 2001”.
2. Cooperation with respect to Reissuance Determination. In the event that Kennedy
& Graven, Chartered, acting as bond counsel, determines that the amendment made to the Bond
Resolution by the Supplemental Resolution constitutes a reissuance of the Prior Bonds for
federal income tax purposes under applicable provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986,
as amended (the “Code”), the City, the Borrower, and MuniMae agree to cooperate in taking all
actions necessary to ensure that the interest on the Prior Bonds will remain excludable from
gross income for federal income tax purposes. Such actions may include the preparation,
execution, and filing of an Information Return for Tax-Exempt Private Activity Bond Issues,
Form 8038 (Rev. December 2000), and the preparation, execution, and filing of one or more
certificates relating to arbitrage and rebate matters under Section 148 of the Code, and the
preparation and execution of agreements and certificates relating to compliance with other
applicable provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, and the Code.
(The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.)
23
Execution page of the City to the Bond Resolution Amendment Agreement.
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
By
Its Mayor
By
Its City Manager
24
Execution page of the Borrower to the Bond Resolution Amendment Agreement.
ST. LOUIS PARK HOUSING PARTNERS,
A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
By Dominium Group-Newport, LLC
By
Its
25
Execution page of MuniMae to the Bond Resolution Amendment Agreement.
MUNICIPAL MORTGAGE & EQUITY, LLC
By
Name:
Title:
26
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 6a
Meeting of July 16, 2001
6a. Request of Robert Rappaport for a variance appeal to the Board of Zoning
Appeals decision to deny the request to permit a front yard setback of 25.3 feet
instead of the required 28.3 feet for property located in the R-1 Single Family
District at 3901 Basswood Road.
Case # 01-24-VAR
Recommended
Action:
Motion to uphold the Board of Zoning Appeals’ decision to deny
the request.
Background:
The Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA), at their meeting on June 28, 2001, voted unanimously to
deny the applicant’s request to permit a front yard setback of 25.3 feet instead of the required
28.3 feet.
The applicant is proposing to construct a garage addition onto the front of the existing home.
The required setback, figured as five (5) feet less than the average of two existing homes within
150 feet along the same block, is 28.3 feet. The applicant proposed an addition that would have
a setback of 25.3 feet, thereby encroaching into the required setback by three (3) feet.
Since the applicant has submitted no new information to the City, staff is recommending that the
City Council uphold the BOZA’s decision to deny the request.
Prepared by: Scott Moore, Assistant Zoning Administrator, 952-924-2592
E-mail: smoore@stlouispark.org
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
Attachments:
• Staff report
• Adopted Resolution
• Minute Excerpts from the June 28, 2001 BOZA meeting
• Minneapolis Zoning Code pertaining to the required setbacks for the home directly east
• Site Map
27
CASE NO. 01-24-VAR
VARIANCE TO PERMIT A
25.3 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK
INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 28.3 FEET
SUBJECT
The request of the Robert Rappaport for a variance from Section 14:5-4.2(F)(6) of the Zoning
Ordinance to permit a front yard setback of 25.3 feet instead of the required 28.3 feet for
property located in the “R-1’ Single Family District at 3901 Basswood Road.
PROPOSAL
The applicant wishes to construct an addition onto the front of the existing home. The addition
would be used for a three-car garage, and the existing garage would then be converted into living
space. The addition for the garage would encroach into the front yard setback by three feet
thereby requiring the variance.
SITE DATA
Zoning R-1 Single Family
Owner Robert Rappaport
Lot Shape Rectangular
Lot Width 90 feet
Lot Depth 181 feet (avg.)
Lot Area 16,290 square feet
Existing Front Setback 50.4 feet
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The parcel is currently being used as a single-family dwelling and has frontage along Basswood
Road. Single-family homes abut the property on all sides.
28
ZONING MAP
ANALYSIS
Section 14:8-3.3 (E) of the Zoning Ordinance states that the Board of Zoning Appeals may grant
variances from the strict application of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and impose
conditions and safeguards provided that:
1. Where by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of the lot, or where by reason
of exceptional topographic or water conditions or other extraordinary and
exceptional conditions of such lot, the strict applications of the terms of this
ordinance would result in a peculiar and practical difficulties or exceptional or
undue hardship upon the owner of such lot in developing or using such lot in a
manner customary and legally permissible within the zoning district in which said
lot is located.
The applicant states that they have looked at several different alternatives and configurations to
accommodate a 3-car garage. However, with the layout of the existing home and the new
changes with the proposed design, nothing seemed to work without encroaching into the required
setback. This extra space is necessary for the storage of garbage and recycling containers.
Staff does not believe that any exceptional conditions apply to this lot. The applicant can
construct an addition onto the home without the need for the variance. By reducing the garage by
three or four feet, it would change from a three car to a two and one half-car
39013900390739083917392239213916R1
France AvenueCity of MinneapolisBasswood Road
Cedarwood Road
Subject
Parcel
29
garage, but the extra space would still be provided for the storage of garbage and recycling
containers. Since two parking stalls are all that is required by the code staff believes that this
criterion has not been satisfied.
2. Conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such
property or immediately adjoining property and do not apply generally to other
land or structures in the district in which said land is located.
The applicant believes that since the home on the property due east is setback less than 21 feet
and they are only asking to allow there proposed addition to be 25 feet from the property line that
unique conditions do apply.
This property is similar in width, depth, and area to the immediately surrounding properties.
There do not appear any unique conditions that would apply in this instance. The applicant
would like to construct an addition that would be encroaching and for a purpose serving the
applicant’s needs and not a code requirement or substantial property right. Staff believes that
this criterion has not been satisfied.
3. The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant.
The applicant states the variance is necessary to keep up and preserve the personal use of the
existing home and for the benefit of their pleasure and satisfaction.
As mentioned before, the addition is not necessary for satisfying a code requirement, only to
satisfy the applicant’s desires. A two and one half-car garage can still be accommodated on the
site and also allow for enough storage space for garbage cans and other items. The variance is
not necessary for the preservation of a property right, and therefore, staff believes that this
criterion has not been satisfied.
4. The granting of the variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to
the adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in the public streets,
increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety.
Staff agrees with the applicant that the addition will not impair the amount of light and air to the
surrounding properties. Staff believes that this criterion has been satisfied.
5. The granting of the variance will not unreasonably impact on the character and
development of the neighborhood, unreasonably diminish or impair the established
property values in the surrounding area, or in any other way impair the health,
safety, comfort, or morals of the area.
30
Staff agrees with the applicant that the addition will not unreasonably impact the character of the
neighborhood because the house to the east is set closer to the street than the proposed addition
would be. Staff believes that this criterion has been satisfied.
6. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the intent of the Zoning
Ordinance or Comprehensive Plan.
The applicant believes that the encroachment into the required front yard for the proposed
addition will not be contrary to the Zoning Ordinance or Comprehensive Plan.
Staff believes that the proposed addition’s encroachment into the front yard setback would be
contrary to the Zoning Ordinance since the addition is not necessary to satisfy another code
requirement. The addition will accommodate a three-car garage and by code, only two parking
spaces are necessary. With the two and one half-car garage, enough space can be provided to
allow for storage of such items as garbage cans, bikes, and lawn equipment. Staff believes that
this criterion has not been satisfied.
7. The granting of the variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant,
but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable undue hardship or difficulty.
The applicant states that the addition will allow the family to remain as citizens of St. Louis
Park. Both children attend school in St. Louis Park and moving them at this time would create
an undue hardship.
Staff believes that the request is to serve as a convenience to the applicant and will not alleviate
any type of hardship caused by the property. As mentioned prior, it is easy to remove 4 feet of
the proposed addition to satisfy the setback requirement and still be adding enough room for a
two and one half-car garage and for plenty of extra storage space. Staff believes that this
criterion has not been satisfied.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Inasmuch as staff believes that five of the seven criterion have not been satisfied, it is
recommended that the request to permit a front yard setback of 25.3 feet instead of the required
28.3 feet be denied.
31
VARIANCE
RESOLUTION NO. 01-061
A RESOLUTION OF FINDING REGARDING THE APPLICATION OF ROBERT
RAPPAPORT FOR A VARIANCE UNDER SECTION 14:5-4.2(F)(6) OF THE ST.
LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING TO PERMIT A FRONT
YARD SETBACK OF 25.3 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 28.3 FEET FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE “R-1” SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT, AT 3901
BASSWOOD ROAD.
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Zoning Appeals of St. Louis Park, Minnesota
FINDINGS
1. On June 28, 2001, Robert Rappaport filed an application seeking a variance to permit a
front yard setback of 25.3 feet instead of the required 28.3 feet for property located in the
“R-1” Single Family District, at 3901 Basswood Road for the following legal description,
to wit:
See Attached Exhibit “A”
2. On June 28, 2001, the Board of Zoning Appeals held a public hearing, received testimony
from the public, discussed the application and approved a resolution of denial.
3. Based on the testimony, evidence presented, and files and records, the Board of Zoning
Appeals makes the following findings:
a. The requested variance does not meet the requirements of Section 14:5-4.2(F)(6)
of the Zoning Ordinance necessary to be met for the Board of Zoning Appeals to grant
variances. There are no factors related to the shape, size or other extraordinary
conditions on the lot which prevent a reasonable use.
b. Granting of the requested variance is not necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right. The property has had a reasonable use in the
past.
c. Granting of the requested variance would be contrary to the intent and provisions
of the Zoning Ordinance since, if granted, it would permit a structure within the required
setback.
d. There are no demonstrable or undue hardships under the terms of the Zoning
Ordinance or Minnesota Statue, and therefore, conditions necessary for granting the
requested variance do not exist.
32
4. The contents of Planning Case File 01-24-VAR are hereby entered into and made part of
the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
CONCLUSION
The applicant’s request for a variance to permit a front yard setback of 25.3 feet instead of the
required 28.3 feet is hereby denied based on the findings setforth above.
Adopted by the Board of Zoning Appeals: June 28, 2001
_____________________________
James Gainsley, Acting Chair
ATTEST:
________________________
Scott Moore
Zoning Administrator
33
EXCERPTS MINUTES JUNE 28, 2001
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
The St. Louis Park Board of Zoning Appeals Committee conducted a regular meeting on
Thursday, June 28, 2001, at St. Louis Park City Hall, 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard, St. Louis
Park, Minnesota.
Members Present: Acting Chair James Gainsley
Commissioner Susan Bloyers
Commission Tom Powers
Members Absent: Chair Paul Roberts
Also Present: Scott Moore, Zoning Administrator
PUBLIC HEARINGS/COMMITTEE BUSINESS
a. Case No. 01-24-VAR - The request of Robert Rappaport 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 25.3 feet instead of
the required 28.3 feet setback for property located in the “R-1” Single
Family District at 3901 Basswood Road.
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 a front yard setback of 25.3 feet instead of
the required 28.3 feet be denied.
With no more questions, Acting Chair Gainsley opened the public hearing.
Robert and Susie Rappaport, applicant, of 3901 Basswood Road, gave Commissioners current
property photographs and a notarized copy of a statement from their neighbors. Mrs. Rappaport
stated that she felt that this addition would not have negative impact on the neighborhood, as
stated in the staff report.
Mr. Rappaport has stated that his family presently owns three vehicles adding that the hardship
of parking has become an issue. Mr. Rappaport gave each Commissioner a proposed plan of the
garage and went on to say that his architect has designed the garage with a clearance of a one-
foot clearance from the automobile to the garage door with a four-foot clearance between each
vehicle and a one-foot clearance to the proposed laundry room which is presently the existing
garage.
34
Acting Chair Gainsley asked staff for the present standard size of vehicles.
Mr. Moore stated that a standard parking stall size is between 18 – 20 feet in length. The City’s
minimum parking stall requirements are 8 ½ feet wide and 18 feet deep.
Mr. Rappaport stated that the property directly east has a garage 20.8 feet would that had
required them to receive a variance.
Mr. Moore stated that property is located within the City of Minneapolis with different codes.
Mr. Rapport asked staff if a proposal of converting the existing single car garage into a living
space while building a two car garage in front of the existing single car garage, how would staff
feel about that proposal.
Mr. Moore stated that possibly a different plan could be developed to accommodate a two-car
garage conversion while still meeting the required setbacks.
Mr. Rappaport would like the Commissioners to know that this proposed extension would be 5
feet shorter than the property to the east.
Acting Chair Gainsley closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Bloyers stated that didn’t see the hardship that would require the variance.
Commissioner Powers agreed with Commissioner Bloyer.
Acting Chair Gainsley agrees with Commissioners Bloyers and Powers. He understands that the
home located east of Mr. Rappaport’s is located in the City of Minneapolis which may cause
some confusion regarding setback requirements, but feels there is no hardship to give order of
granting this variance.
Motion by Commissioner Bloyer, seconded by Commissioner Powers, that the variance be
denied based on the staff report.
Motion Carried. Voting Yes: Gainsley, Bloyer and Powers. Voting No: None.
35
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 7a
Meeting of July 16, 2001
7a. The request of Groves Academy for a minor amendment to the approved
Continued Special Permit to change the approved building 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.
On July 2, 2001 the City Council reviewed the proposed minor amendment to Groves
Academy’s Special Permit. The City Council consideration was then continued to allow staff
time to work with the applicant to address the Council’s concerns. The applicant proposed
changing the exterior of the new gymnasium from all brick to a combination of brick and
exposed aggregate pre-cast concrete panels.
The City Council had two concerns with the proposed changes to the exterior of the new
gymnasium. First, the amount of brick, or Class I material, was being reduced by 66% on the
east and west elevations. The south elevation was proposed to remain all brick. Although the
proposed elevation with the reduced amount of brick met City standards with regard to the
proportion of Class I material, the Council felt that a 66% reduction was too substantial. Second,
the City Council believed that the proposed alterations did not meet the ordinance requirement
that building additions conform to the original architectural design, including use of materials
and proportion, because of the introduction of exposed aggregate precast concrete panels as a
new material to the building complex.
Since the July 2nd City Council meeting, staff has met with the applicant to determine a solution
that would meet the functional and financial needs of the school while addressing the Council’s
concerns and conforming more closely to the intent of the Code for additions.
The applicant is proposing continuing the use of exposed aggregate precast concrete panels on
the east and west elevations but adding a 10-foot high section of wainscoting consisting of brick
on the east elevation. The amount of brick added is somewhat offset by adding two vertical
panels of exposed aggregate. Staff believes that this design is an appropriate solution to adding
brick to the east elevation. Staff, however, is recommending replacing the exposed aggregate
with EIFS on the east and west elevations. The existing building and proposed addition consist of
four materials: brick, EIFS, limestone accents, and aluminum. As stated in the previous staff
36
report, staff has concerns that introducing exposed aggregate as a fifth building material does not
meet the intent of the ordinance ensuring building additions conform to the original architectural
design, including use of materials. Replacing the exposed aggregate with EIFS, as proposed by
staff, would be compatible with the EIFS being used on the classroom portion of the new
addition.
Finally, staff would recommend a wainscoting of brick be added to the west elevation to protect
the EIFS from damage at the pedestrian level.
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 revised proposal did not meet the requirement that building additions conform to
the original architectural design, including use of materials and proportion. Staff recommends
replacing the proposed aggregate concrete with EIFS.
Do the proposed changes meet the architectural standards of the elevations that were
approved by the Planning Commission and City Council?
Staff is comfortable with the design changes as recommended by staff. Staff believes that the
solution recommended by staff addresses the Council’s concerns with regard to the applicant
significantly reducing the amount of brick on the gymnasium facades and conforms more closely
to the intent of the Code for compatible additions.
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
37
RESOLUTION NO. 01-062
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
38
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.
39
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 16, 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 July 9, 2001 subject to the following conditions:
a. The south elevation of the gymnasium shall be all brick.
b. The proposed exposed aggregate on the west elevation shall be replaced with
EIFS and a wainscoting of brick shall be added.
c. The proposed exposed aggregate on the east elevation shall be replaced with
EIFS.
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 16, 2001
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
40
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 7b
Meeting of July 16, 2001
7b. The request of Costco Wholesale for a major amendment to the approved
Planned Unit Development for Park Place Plaza to permit a 12 station fueling
facility and an accessory building on Lot 9.
Case No. 95-51-PUD (Amended)
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt a resolution of denial for the major amendment
to the approved Planned Unit Development according to the
findings in the resolution.
Background:
On June 3, 1996, the St. Louis Park City Council adopted Resolution #96-89 approving a final
Planned Unit Development (PUD) and plat for the redevelopment of the former Honeywell site
into a shopping center. This shopping center (Park Place Plaza) was divided into nine buildable
lots to accommodate over 325,000 square feet of retail and restaurant.
Under the original PUD a 110,000-square-foot retail building was approved for the Costco site.
On April 3, 2000, the St. Louis Park City Council adopted Resolution #00-037 approving a
major amendment to the approved PUD allowing the Costco building to increase in size from
110,000 square feet to 139,100 square feet. Along with the increased building size, the City
Council approved the conversion of Lot 8 originally proposed for a 5,000-square-foot bank to a
parking lot to accommodate the larger Costco building.
Costco is now proposing a 12 station fueling facility on Lot 9, the last buildable lot within the
Park Place Plaza development. Lot 9 is at the southwest corner of Park Place Boulevard and
Gamble Drive and north of Petsmart. When the PUD was originally approved by the City
Council, Lot 9 was approved for 5,000 square feet of retail.
The fueling facility proposal would relocate the existing entrance drive to Lot 9 so that it would
be farther from the main entrance drive through the shopping center. This results in some
changes to the landscaping and parking lot configuration.
Costco’s fueling facility concept is unique compared to other gas stations. First, the facility will
be available only to Costco members. Representatives of Costco estimate that 70% of the
station’s customers will also visit the store on the same visit. Second, a convenience store is not
part of the facility. Gas stations typically receive a majority of their revenue from in-store sales.
Costco, however, views the fueling facility as an additional benefit for Costco members not
necessarily to produce revenue. Payment will be made by credit card only.
41
On May 30, 2001, the developer had a neighborhood meeting to informally review the plans.
Three residents attended the meeting.
On June 20, 2001, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the major amendment. The
Planning Commission heard testimony and closed the public hearing. The Planning Commission
on a 4-0 vote recommended to the City Council denial of Costco’s fueling facility based on the
following:
1) the proposal not being the highest and best use (compared to the original PUD approval for
the site for a 5,000-square-foot retail building);
2) Any future development on the site should be tied to a correction of traffic problems (per the
required PUD findings for unified development with efficient circulation).
It should be noted that staff originally recommended to the Planning Commission approval of the
major PUD amendment with several conditions of approval. However, the applicant noted during
the Planning Commission meeting that Costco was not agreeing to make all of the necessary
traffic improvements as recommended by SRF Consulting. (Please see attached Planning
Commission minute excerpts and staff report with recommendations).
Without implementation of the traffic improvements recommended to improve safety and
efficient circulation within the PUD, the Planning Commission indicated that they could not
approve the fueling facility because it would exacerbate internal traffic circulation problems. The
Planning Commission also noted that it was not in keeping with the original approval, which had
included a small retail building on the site. They also noted that it did not enhance the
neighborhood as an amenity.
Issues:
How does the fueling station relate to the original PUD agreement, and Neighborhood and
Comprehensive Plans?
What are the results and recommendations of the traffic study?
Is a new Environmental Assessment Worksheet or Indirect Source Permit required?
What are the fire department’s safety requirements?
Are the Zoning Ordinance requirements being satisfied?
What are the current PUD resolution and Development Agreement restrictions?
Are there outstanding issues with the Park Place Plaza?
Analysis of Issues:
How does the fueling station relate to the original PUD agreement, and Neighborhood and
Comprehensive Plans?
The newly revised Comprehensive Plan does not specifically address the development of Park
Place Plaza. Since the site had already received PUD approval, the plan does state that all
development will be of high quality design, efficient and compatible with adjoining land uses
and properties. The previous Comprehensive Plan specifically stated that the City should
42
encourage uses at Park Place Plaza that serve or enhance the Blackstone Neighborhood area. The
approved 5,000-square-foot retail building was intended to provide neighborhood retail services.
To encourage developments that are tailored to individual sites and neighborhoods, the Planned
Unit Development process may permit developments greater flexibility from Zoning Ordinance
regulations provided certain findings are met. The intended benefits of the PUD process (as
stated in the ordinance findings and purpose) include projects that are of higher standards of site
and building design and that develop land in a more creative and efficient manner.
Before a PUD plan (including amendments) may be approved, the City Council shall find that
the quality of building and site design will substantially enhance aesthetics of the site and
implement relevant goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
In addition, the following criteria shall be satisfied (only the pertinent criteria are included):
A. The design shall consider the whole of the project and shall create a united environment
within project boundaries by insuring architectural compatibility of all structures, efficient
vehicular and pedestrian circulation, aesthetically pleasing landscape and site features, and
design and efficient use of utilities.
B. The design of a PUD shall achieve the maximum compatibility of the project with
surrounding land uses, both existing and proposed and shall minimize the potential adverse
impacts of the PUD on surrounding land uses and the potential adverse effects of the
sounding land uses on the PUD.
C. If a project for which PUD treatment has been requested involves construction over a period
of time or in two or more phases, the PUD applicant shall demonstrate that each phase is
capable of addressing and meeting these criteria independent of the other phases.
D. Maneuvering and truck storage areas shall be assigned a Land Use Intensity class of 7 for
purposes of determining bufferyard requirements of such areas.
The Planning Commission indicated that the findings were not met by the proposed fueling
facility.
What are the results and recommendations of the traffic study?
Because of the proposed use of Lot 9 changing from retail to a fueling facility, the City
commissioned SRF Consulting to perform a traffic study in order to determine the impact on
adjacent and internal roads of the change in use (the study has been paid for by the developer).
More specifically, the traffic study analyzed the traffic operations within the Park Place Plaza
shopping center and at the following key intersections:
- Park Place Boulevard and West 16th Street
- Park Place Boulevard and Gamble Drive
- Park Place Boulevard and Cedar Lake Road
- West 16th Street and Costco Driveway
43
Summary of the study: The study finds that the proposed gas station can be supported by the
existing external roadway system. With regard to the internal roadway system, SRF identified
four areas with operational problems within the Park Place Plaza shopping center. (Please see
attached SRF memorandum). The four areas include Costco’s main intersection; the roadway
between the central pond and small retail shops; the Arby’s intersection with Gamble Drive
Extension (this intersection would also serve the proposed fueling facility); and the Home Depot
access points along Gamble Drive Extension, between the Costco Warehouse and proposed
fueling facility sites. SRF included several recommendations for each of the four areas with
operations problems.
Is a new Environmental Assessment Worksheet or Indirect Source Permit required?
An Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) and Indirect Source Permit (ISP) were
required for the original PUD approval. The primary environmental impacts were related to
traffic, and substantial traffic improvements were required and implemented. Since the traffic
study has indicted no external additional traffic impacts from the fueling facility, staff is
recommending no need for a new EAW. Other potential environmental impacts from the fueling
facility are regulated by State laws and the Fire Department requirements for emergency
response.
What are the Fire Department’s safety requirements?
The Fire Department has worked closely with the applicant to address the department’s safety
concerns. The main concern of the fire department is that an attendant be available on site during
operational hours for emergency purposes. Besides emergencies, the attendant would direct
traffic and assist customers as needed. The applicant is proposing a 155-square-foot accessory
building with bathroom for the attendant. Costco representatives have indicated that 10% of
their fueling facilities have attendants on site.
Staff is somewhat uncomfortable with the solution of providing an on-site attendant to manage
emergency situations. Because of the lack of activity on-site, staff believes this may be a difficult
position to staff and foresees this becoming a potential enforcement issue in the future. Staff
would prefer the fueling station be located closer to the wholesale store to ensure that store
employees are available at all times for emergency purposes. However, as explained below,
Costco has reviewed locating the fueling facility closer to the building but the required number
of displaced parking makes this solution unacceptable to Costco.
Are the Zoning Ordinance requirements being satisfied?
Dimensional Standards and Densities
The proposed Costco development meets the setbacks, and building height requirements.
Conditions within the C-2 District
Motor fuel stations are permitted in the C-2 District as Conditional Uses. The Zoning Ordinance
lists eight conditions ranging from setbacks to the prohibition of outside sales. The proposal
meets all eight conditions.
44
Parking
Because there is no sale of lubricants, batteries, tires or motor vehicle accessories as part of the
fueling facility, it does not technically meet the definition of a motor fuel station. Therefore, staff
has determined that parking (in addition to the spaces provided at the pumps) should not be
required.
Costco has reviewed locating the fueling station on Lot 8, across the internal drive from the main
store. However, Costco representatives believe that the store will need this parking in the future
as more people become Costco members. They have indicated that stores in new markets, such
as this one, do not reach significant membership levels until after five years in operation. Hence,
even though Lot 8 is rarely used for parking now, Costco representatives believe it will be
heavily used in three to four years.
Including Lot 8, Costco has 612 parking stalls, which is 4.4 stalls/1000 square feet. Costco
strives for 5.0 stalls/1000 square feet for all of their stores. The Zoning Ordinance requires 537
parking spaces for a retail building the size of Costco’s, which is 3.9 stalls/1000 square feet. The
Zoning Ordinance allows the required amount of parking spaces to be reduced by 30% if shared
parking arrangements have been arranged between neighboring uses. Home Depot and Costco
have such arrangement. Thus, the minimum number of parking stalls required by ordinance
would be 375.
Landscaping
The landscaping plan exceeds the approved plan for the 5,000-square-foot retail building in
terms of quantity. The site is proposed to be heavily landscaped with a mixture of over-story
trees, evergreens, ornamental trees, a large variety of shrubs, and perennial planting beds.
Because of the amount of landscaping, only a few small areas are proposed to be sodded. The
applicant is proposing 12 evergreen trees of the same species, Colorado Green Spruce. Staff
would recommend a second species of evergreen tree be incorporated into the plan.
The Zoning Ordinance requires parking lots and driveways to be a minimum of six feet from
property lines. The curb along the north side of the proposal is four feet from the lot line. This
modification to the PUD would have to be approved by the City Council. Staff is comfortable
with the reduced setback because the site and adjacent sidewalk would not be negatively
impacted.
Signage
The Costco fueling facility is unique for gas stations in that they are not requesting a freestanding
sign advertising gasoline prices. Costco posts the gasoline prices in the main store for their
members. The proposed signs on the canopy meet the City’s size requirements. The canopy signs
are identical in design to the Costco building. The signs are proposed to be externally
illuminated.
Lighting
The applicant has submitted a lighting plan that meets City requirements. The plan depicts less
than a foot-candle at the property lines and a maximum light level of 43 foot-candles directly
45
underneath the canopy. While the Zoning Ordinance regulates the amount of light level along the
perimeter of a site and not within a development, the 43 foot-candles is less than other typical
gas stations. However, it is more than adequate to ensure safety. If approved, staff would
recommend a condition of approval that all light fixtures be completely recessed in the canopy.
Architectural Design
The proposed accessory building and canopy support columns comply with the minimum Class I
building material requirements. The amount of brick on any given elevation is proposed to be
over 60%. The other materials shown on the elevations include rock face block and a metal
canopy. The elevations appear to be consistent with the design and materials used in the
remainder of the shopping center. However, if approved, staff would like to review the building
materials and colors to ensure consistency prior to issuance of a building permit.
What are the current PUD resolution and Development Agreement restrictions?
The approved resolution and Development Agreement have certain restrictions for hours of
construction, routes for construction vehicles, hours for delivery and service vehicles.
The PUD resolution restricts the hours of demolition, hauling, and construction to the hours
between 7:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. on weekdays, and 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. on weekends and
holidays. Likewise, the construction vehicles and equipment are prohibited from using Zarthan
Avenue between Cedar Lake Road and West 16th Street.
Fueling trucks are also limited to servicing the facility to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00
p.m. on weekdays, and 9:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on weekends and holidays. These vehicles are
also prohibited from using Zarthan Avenue between Cedar lake Road and West 16th Street. If
approved, the City Council may want to add a condition limiting the hours further to prevent
conflicts with customers driving at busy times. Costco has suggested prohibiting service during
the lunch hour.
Are there outstanding issues with the Park Place Plaza?
Staff has surveyed the development and noticed that Home Depot has not installed the curbed,
landscaped cart corrals that are required by ordinance for stores that provide carts. Staff
discussed this issue with Costco and Ryan representatives during the June 15th meeting. Since
this is one overall PUD site that is reviewed as a whole, staff suggested that Costco might be able
to help facilitate the Home Depot improvements.
Staff also noted that a bus shelter pad had not been adequately furnished. Ryan Companies has
been notified and is working on completion of that area. Staff has also noted that the Costco
Warehouse has not adequately screened the rooftop equipment. There are some are some
landscape maintenance and external storage issues, and a sign has been installed that
misidentifies the truck entrance.
Staff will continue to work on compliance issues. Compliance of the PUD site is a current
condition for the Costco Warehouse receiving a permanent Certificate of Occupancy.
46
Recommendation:
Motion to adopt Resolution No. _____ denying the request of Costco Wholesale for a major
amendment to the approved Planned Unit Development for Park Place Plaza to permit a 12
station fueling facility and an accessory building on Lot 9 according to the findings in the
Resolution.
Attachments:
• Resolution
• Proposed plans for Lot 9
• SRF Traffic Analysis
• June 20th Planning Commission report
• June 20th Planning Commission minutes
Prepared by: Patrick Smith, Planner
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
47
RESOLUTION NO. 01-063
A RESOLUTION OF DENIAL REGARDING THE APPLICATION OF COSTCO
WHOLESALE FOR A MAJOR AMENDMENT TO THE APPROVED PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR PARK PLACE PLAZA TO PERMIT A 12
STATION FUELING FACILITY AND AN ACCESSORY BUILDING ON LOT 9
FOR PROPERTY ZONED C-2, GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5600, 5640, 5680, 5700, 5800 AND 5900 CEDAR
LAKE ROAD; AND 1620, 1650, 1690 AND 1700 PARK PLACE BOULEVARD;
AND 5601, 5699 AND 5799 WEST 16TH STREET AND 1625 ZARTHAN AVENUE
(TOTAL SITE FORMERLY KNOWN AS 1625 ZARTHAN AVENUE)
FINDINGS
1. WHEREAS, on June 3, 1996, the City Council approved a Final PUD for Park Place
Plaza in the C-2 Commercial District for the following legal description, to wit: Lots 1-9, Block
1 and Outlots A, B and C, Park Place Plaza (Torrens); and
2. WHEREAS, on April 16, 2001, Costco Wholesale filed an application seeking a major
amendment to the approved Planned Unit Development for Park Place Plaza to construct a
fueling facility on Lot 9.
3. WHEREAS, on June 20, 2001, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, received
testimony from the public, reviewed the application, and on a vote of 4-0 moved that the
Planning Commission deny the proposed major amendment to the PUD based upon certain
findings included below.
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of St. Louis Park, Minnesota
1. Because of the proposed remote location of the fueling facility from the applicant’s
warehouse and because the fueling facility would require customers and large trucks to
use the internal road system throughout the PUD to access and service the facility without
implementing all recommended internal circulation improvements, the proposed major
amendment to construct a fueling facility on Lot 9 does not meet the required PUD
criteria that:
E. The design shall consider the whole of the project and shall create a united
environment within project boundaries by insuring architectural compatibility of
all structures, efficient vehicular and pedestrian circulation, aesthetically pleasing
landscape and site features, and design and efficient use of utilities.
B. The design of a PUD shall achieve the maximum compatibility of the project with
surrounding land uses, both existing and proposed and shall minimize the
potential adverse impacts of the PUD on surrounding land uses and the potential
adverse effects of the sounding land uses on the PUD.
48
2. The proposal is not the highest and best use compared to the original PUD approval for
the site for a 5,000-square-foot retail building; and
3. Any future development on the site should be tied to a correction of on-site traffic
problems per the required PUD findings for unified development with efficient
circulation.
4. The contents of Planning Case File 95-51-PUD Major Amendment are hereby entered
into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
5. There is no evidence that the site cannot be developed in accordance with the original
PUD.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park:
The applicant’s request for a major amendment to an approved Planned Unit
Development for Park Place Plaza to permit a 12 station fueling facility and an accessory
building on Lot 9 is hereby denied based on the findings setforth above.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council July 16, 2001
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City C lerk
N:95-51-PUDamend-den
49
OFFICIAL MINUTES
Planning Commission
June 20, 2001
4. Unfinished Business
A. Case 95-51-PUD – Request of Costco Wholesale for a major amendment to
the approved Planned Unit Development for Park Place Plaza to permit a 12
station fueling facility and an accessory building on Lot 9.
Patrick Smith, Planner, presented a staff report. He stated that the request was tabled at
the June 6 Planning Commission to allow staff time to review the plan in accordance with
the PUD and the Comprehensive Plan. He added that the Planning Commission had
made a separate motion asking for staff’s recommendation regarding internal circulation
and Home Depot cart corrals.
Mr. Smith reported that staff met with the Fire Dept. and made amendments to the Fire
Department’s recommendations.
Mr. Smith reported that discussions regarding Home Depot cart corrals had taken place
and the store manager generally agreed that cart corrals were needed. Staff suggests
including a condition of approval requiring that Home Depot improvements be installed
by November 15, 2001.
Mr. Smith addressed changes to conditions regarding compliance of the entire PUD site
with conditions of the final PUD approval, traffic improvement implementation, signage
at 16th Street, and service truck entrance and hours.
Mr. Smith introduced Marie Cote, of SRF. Ms. Cote reported on the additional review of
the internal site circulation of the proposed site undertaken by SRF. She reviewed SRF’s
recommendations.
Chair Velick commented that the recommendations are a big improvement and could
eliminate congestion.
Ted Johnson, Executive Vice-President of Thompson Dyke Associates, said that Costco
met with staff recently and discussed many alternatives. He said Costco representatives
did agree that the recommendations Ms. Cote presented would improve site circulation
and they are willing to make the improvements that are recommended for their
warehouse property. Mr. Johnson presented a graphic illustrating single lane in/single
lane out with a full right-turn lane which could take a driver from the Costco warehouse
to the fueling facility. He said with this modification there would be a loss of 13-14
spaces and Costco would then request approval to stripe the same number of proof of
parking into parking spaces.
50
Mr. Johnson presented a graphic illustrating how fueling trucks could maneuver using the
service drive.
Mr. Johnson discussed other midwestern Costco fueling sites and typical fuel delivery
schedules.
Mr. Johnson stated that Costco is not agreeing to Condition No. 6 regarding traffic
improvements involving Areas 3 and 4, property which Costco does not own.
Mr. Johnson also expressed concern regarding Condition No. 8 as a condition of
approval. He said that Costco informed staff that they would work cooperatively with
Home Depot and the City by offering to install cart corrals while Costco contractors are
on the site. He said he objected to making the installation a condition of approval for
Costco’s proposal as Costco does not own the land.
Mr. Johnson stated that he believes Condition No. 9, referencing violations and fines, is
a provision of the Zoning Ordinance, and is unnecessary as a condition of approval.
Roger Barrons, Faegre and Benson, representing Costco, commented that Costco’s
application shouldn’t be held up because of Home Depot’s outstanding issues. Mr.
Barrons stated that suggested traffic improvements involving Areas 3 and 4 are not on
Costco property, and therefore Costco cannot build on the property.
Ms. Jeremiah said the concerns have been discussed with the City attorney. The City
attorney feels that the City does have good standing in this case based upon the site as an
overall PUD as well as the property owner agreements to share parking, access to one
another’s sites, and to operate as one entity. Ms. Jeremiah added that Condition No. 6
regarding overall PUD compliance is a condition to which Costco has already agreed in
approvals for the warehouse. The only change is the addition regarding traffic
improvements and signage.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that some of the traffic issues on the site were the result of changes
Costco made with the warehouse facility by limiting access to that property and through
the site. She gave details about an additional access on 16th Street that Costco requested
be removed, resulting in traffic concentrating onto the remaining internal circulation
drive. Ms. Jeremiah added that as part of the hearing process Costco stated that
approximately 70% of the trips to the fueling facility would be between the warehouse
facility and the fueling facility, impacting the remaining internal circulation drive known
as Gamble Drive extended. Ms. Jeremiah stated that staff feels the traffic issues along
the entire Gamble Drive extended are very relevant to the application. She said that staff
is willing to facilitate discussions with other property owners and has already begun to
work with the other property owners to resolve conditions of approval.
Chair Velick asked for clarification on the parking limit. She asked why Lot 9 was
chosen over Lot 8.
51
Ms. Jeremiah said it was Costco’s decision to utilize Lot 9. Staff had asked Costco to
look more closely at trying to have the fueling facility on the warehouse facility lot or on
the overflow parking lot on Lot 8. Costco feels that they need all the parking that is
shown, although that is far in excess of the City’s requirements. Ms. Jeremiah described
the requirements, including those for proof of parking.
Mr. Johnson talked about a series of site plans which had been developed, including plans
for Lot 8. He said the remaining parking available for the Costco store on Lot 8 was well
under what Costco requires. Mr. Johnson said typically he plans 750 parking spaces
when developing Costco site plans. He explained that it takes 3-5 years for a store to
become seasoned and all parking would be utilized at that point.
Commissioner Garelick said he approved of SRF’s recommendations. He stated that the
Planning Commission’s concern was not solely with traffic conditions, but also to
determine if the facility was the highest and best use for the site. Mr. Garelick said that
he doesn’t believe an off-site members-only fueling facility supplements the area.
Commissioner Robertson commented that there is a better opportunity, although it
reduces parking spaces, of having a fueling facility contiguous with the warehouse. He
stated that Costco has chosen to go across the site that already has traffic problems. He
went on to say that SRF has come up with good solutions which would improve the site.
Mr. Robertson said there is still the question of the highest and best use. He remarked
that regardless of who is responsible for correcting problems, as long as the issues exist
the Planning Commission has a problem with the facility.
Commissioner Gothberg commented that many of the remarks convey an overall
disappointment with the site. He commented on the original concept of the site which
included a bank and a variety of retail. He expressed concern about whether the fueling
facility is the best use and direction for the property. Commissioner Gothberg said his
major concern regards traffic and said he would have a difficult time approving any kind
of further development on the site without evidence of traffic improvement or traffic
improvements as a condition of approval.
Mr. Garelick moved that the Commission not accept the recommendation of approval
based on 1) the proposal not being the highest and best use (compared to the original
PUD approval for the site); and 2) that any future development on the site should be tied
to a correction of traffic problems (per the required PUD findings for unified
development with efficient circulation). The motion passed on a vote of 4-0 with
Commissioners Garelick, Gothberg, Robertson and Velick voting in favor.
52
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 7c
Meeting of July 16, 2001
7c. Housing Improvement Area Policy
Cities have statutory authority to establish housing improvement areas for the
purpose of assisting condominium and townhouse associations with common
element improvements. The policy would provide a guide for reviewing and
processing applicants requesting Home Improvement Area (HIA) financing.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the resolution establishing a Housing
Improvement Area Policy.
Background:
The Housing Improvement Area (HIA) financing for private housing improvements for
condominium and townhouse associations was discussed at the June 25, 2001 City Council
Study Session. Vision St. Louis Park and the City’s Comprehensive Plan state the two primary
housing goals are to provide a balanced and sustainable housing stock and to ensure all housing
is safe and well maintained. The City’s strategy to preserve and enhance its housing stock
currently addresses single family detached homes and multifamily buildings but does not address
condominium and townhouse structures. The HIA tool is similar to commercial special service
districts in that cities may issue bonds to pay for improvements, and levy fees to the owners, via
property taxes. After much discussion at the Study Session, Council directed staff to proceed
with policy development ensuring that the HIA tool would serve as “lender of last resort”.
Issues:
The Council discussed and identified the following issues as requiring further definition and
specificity to ensure the HIA tool meets the needs of the City. The policy (attached) has been
revised to address the issues, and the revisions appear as underlined statements in the policy text.
1. Council Authority
The City Council has the authority to review each HIA petition submitted by an association.
Each petition will include proposed improvements, financial analysis, long term financial plan,
and membership support.
2. HIA Approval Criteria
a. Association assessments for improvements.
53
HIA financial assistance is to be last resort financing, and associations will have to
demonstrate why they can not impose assessment fees upon its membership to pay for the
required improvements, or secure a loan. This demonstration must entail more than
simply stating that the existing By Laws disallow assessments of the amount required to
make improvements.
b. Notification to New Owners
Associations will be required to notify new buyers that they will be responsible for the
levied fees. Generally, special assessments and levied fees are disclosed to new buyers
during the closing period. In addition to this disclosure, the association will be expected
to notify new buyers.
c. Type of Improvements
Associations will be required to have a third party conduct a facility needs assessment to
ensure that the scope of improvements to be financed are necessary and comprehensive.
Along with the facility assessment the association will be required to develop a long-
range financial plan to meet subsequent capital improvements and maintenance costs
without the use of the HIA tool.
d. Income Threshold – Average Market Value of Units
The average unit market value within an association’s complex must not exceed the
maximum home purchase price established for MHFA’s First Time Homebuyer Program.
In 2001, the metro amount is $175,591.
The City provides low interest loans to owners of single family detached housing based
on household income guidelines. For example, the City discounts the MHFA single
family rehab loans to households with incomes of 115% or less of the median area
income. Since income verification of association membership is cumbersome at best, an
income threshold was not recommended for the HIA, however, a reasonable standard
could be set for the market value of units within the association.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Council adopt the revised Housing Improvement Area Policy.
Attachments: Housing Improvement Area Policy
Prepared By: Kathy Larsen, Housing Programs Coordinator
Approved By: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
54
RESOLUTION NO. 01-061
RESOLUTION ADOPTING
A HOUSING IMPROVEMENT AREA POLICY
WHEREAS, Vision St. Louis Park and the City’s Comprehensive Plan state the two
primary housing goals are to provide a balanced and sustainable housing stock and to ensure all
housing is safe and well maintained; and
WHEREAS, The City Council wishes to preserve and enhance its entire housing stock
including single family detached homes, multifamily buildings, condominiums and townhouse
structures; and
WHEREAS, Cities have statutory authority to establish Housing Improvement Areas for
the purpose of assisting condominium and townhouse associations with common element
improvements.
NOW THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT, The City Council of the City of St.
Louis Park hereby adopts a Housing Improvement Area Policy (Exhibit A) as a guide for
reviewing and processing applicants requesting Home Improvement Area (HIA) financing and to
establish the City's position relating to the use of Housing Improvement Area (HIA) financing
for private housing improvements.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council July 16, 2001
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
55
EXHIBIT A
Resolution 01-061
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
DRAFT HOUSING IMPROVEMENT AREA POLICY
1. PURPOSE
1.01 The purpose of this policy is to establish the City's position relating to the use of Housing
Improvement Area (HIA) financing for private housing improvements. This policy shall
be used as a guide in processing and reviewing applications requesting HIA financing.
1.02 The City shall have the option of amending or waiving sections of this policy when
determined necessary or appropriate.
2. AUTHORITY
2.01 The City of St. Louis Park has the authority to establish HIAs under Minnesota Statutes,
Sections 428A.11 through 428A.20. This authority is currently scheduled to sunset on
June 30, 2005.
2.02 Within a HIA, the City has the authority to:
A. Make housing improvements
B. Levy fees and assessments
C. Issue bonds to pay for improvements
2.03 The City Council has the authority to review each HIA petition, which includes the scope
of improvements, association’s finances, long term financial plan, and membership
support. The City may request any other information it deems necessary to consider the
petition.
3. ELIGIBLE USES OF HIA FINANCING
3.01 As a matter of adopted policy, the City of St. Louis Park will consider using HIA
financing to assist private property owners only in those circumstances in which the
proposed private projects address one or more of the following goals:
A. To promote neighborhood stabilization and revitalization by the removal of blight
and/or the upgrading of the existing housing stock in a neighborhood.
B. To correct housing or building code violations as identified by the City Building
Official.
C. To maintain or obtain FHA mortgage eligibility for a particular condominium or
townhome association or single family home within the designated HIA.
56
D. To increase or prevent the loss of the tax base of the City in order to ensure the
long-term ability of the City to provide adequate services for its residents.
E. To stabilize or increase the owner-occupancy level within a neighborhood or
association.
F. The improvements financed through the HIA should primarily be exterior
improvements and other improvements integral to the operation of the project, e.g.
boilers. In the case of a homeowner's association, the improvements should be restricted
to common areas. The improvements must be of a permanent nature. The association
must have a qualified third party conduct a facility needs assessment to determine and
prioritize the scope of improvements.
G. The average market value of units in the association should not exceed the maximum
home purchase price for existing homes under the State’s first time homebuyer program.
(In 2001, the metro amount is $175,591)
H. To meet other uses of public policy, as adopted by the City of St. Louis Park from
time to time, including promotion of quality urban design, quality architectural design,
energy conservation, decreasing the capital and operating costs of local government, etc.
4. APPLICATION
4.01 City staff shall establish forms and procedures to facilitate the review of requests for the
establishment of a HIA.
4.02 At a minimum all requests shall include:
A. Name of association and contact person.
B. Summary of of proposed improvements including cost, basis of cost estimate, and
need for improvement.
C. Financial statements for past three fiscal years.
D. Budget for current fiscal year.
E. By-laws.
F. Listing of dues.
G. Petition for establishing and imposing fees.
H. Application fee.
I. Any other information required by this policy or deemed necessary by the City to
consider the proposal.
5. HIA APPROVAL CRITERIA
5.01 All HIA financed through the City of St. Louis Park should meet the following minimum
approval criteria. However, it should not be presumed that a project meeting these
criteria would automatically be approved. Meeting these criteria creates no contractual
rights on the part of any association.
57
A. The project must be in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning
Ordinances, or required changes to the Plan and Ordinances must be under active
consideration by the City at the time of approval.
B. The HIA financing shall be provided within applicable state legislative restrictions,
debt limit guidelines, and other appropriate financial requirements and policies.
C. The project should meet one or more of the above adopted HIA Goals of the City of
St. Louis Park.
D. The term of the HIA should be the shortest term possible while still making the annual
fee affordable to the association members. The term of any bonds or other debt incurred
for the area should mature in 20 years or less.
E. The association in a HIA should provide adequate financial guarantees to ensure the
repayment of the HIA financing and the performance of the administrative requirements
of the development agreement. Financial guarantees may include, but are not limited to
the pledge of the association's assets including reserves, operating funds and/or property.
F. The proposed project, including the use of HIA financing, should be supported by a
majority of the owners within the association. The association should include the results
of a membership vote along with the petitions to create the area and to impose the fees.
G. The Association must have adopted a financial plan that provides for the Association
to finance maintenance and operation of the common elements within the Association
and a long-range plan to conduct and finance capital improvements therein, which does
not rely upon the subsequent use of the HIA tool. The financial plan and long range plan
must be conducted by a qualified independent third party.
H. HIA financial assistance is last resort financing and should not be provided to projects
that have the financial feasibility to proceed without the benefit of HIA financing.
Evidence that the association has sought other financing for the project should be
provided and should include an explanation and verification that an assessment or other
internal financing by the association is not feasible along with letters from private lenders
or other evidence indicating a lack of outside financing options.
I. The homeowner's association must be willing to enter into a development agreement,
which may include, but is not limited to, the following terms:
establishment of a reserve fund
staffing requirements
annual reporting requirements
conditions of disbursement
required dues increases
notification to new owners of levied fees, including the process for doing so
58
J. HIA financing should not be provided to those projects that fail to meet good public
policy criteria as determined by the Council, including: poor project quality; projects that
are not in accord with the Comprehensive Plan, zoning, redevelopment plans, and the
City policies; projects that provide no significant improvement to the neighborhood
and/or the City; and projects that do not provide a significant increase in the tax base
and/or prevent the loss of tax base.
K. The financial structure of the project should receive a favorable review by the City's
Financial Advisor and Bond Counsel. The review will include a review of performance
and level of outstanding debt of previous HIAs.
L. The association is to submit an application along with application fee as set from time
to time by resolution of the City Council.
M. The City will include a fee for administering the HIA as part of the overall finance
plan.
6 FINANCING
6.01 The City Council has sole discretion on the form and structure of financing for HIA projects.
6.02 The City may finance projects through the issuance of bonds, the use of internal loans, or
any other form of financing deemed appropriate.
6.03 The City may require a debt service reserve, interest rate adjustment, or other terms
necessary to provide adequate cash flow protection.
6.04 The City Council will set the initial period for the prepayment of fees. After this initial
period, the fees may not be prepaid while bonds or other obligations are outstanding.
Adopted by the City of St. Louis Park on the_______day of __________________, 2001.
59
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
July 16, 2001
ITEMS TO BE ACTED UPON BY CONSENT
Consent items are those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which need
no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a
Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section
of the regular agenda for discussion.
1. Motion to accept the following reports for filing:
C. Planning Commission Minutes of June 20, 2001
D. Vendor Claims
2. Motion to adopt resolution and authorize Chief of Police to execute the Mutual
Aid agreement with Hennepin County Chiefs of Police Association.
3. Motion to adopt the final draft of the Excelsior Blvd. Corridor Traffic Study as
prepared by BRW, Inc.
4. Motion to approve a contract with SRF Consulting Group, Inc. for the
redevelopment of the Oak Park Village area.
60
CONSENT ITEM # 1A
OFFICIAL MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
June 20, 2001--6:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Michael Garelick, Ken Gothberg, Carl Robertson,
Sally Velick
MEMBERS ABSENT: Michelle Bissonnette, Dennis Morris, Jerry Timian
STAFF PRESENT: Judie Erickson, Janet Jeremiah, Patrick Smith,
Nancy Sells
1. Call to Order - Roll Call
Chair Velick called the meeting to order at 6:15 p.m.
2. Approval of Minutes of June 6, 2001
Commissioner Robertson moved approval of the minutes and the motion passed on a vote
of 4-0 with Commissioners Garelick, Gothberg, Robertson, and Velick voting in favor.
3. Hearings
A. Case 01-28-ZA – Request of the Jewish Community Center to change the zoning
classification at 4326 South Cedar Lake Road from R-1 Single Family Residential
to R-4 Multi-Family Residential to permit expansion of a parking lot in
association with a proposed building expansion.
Ms. Jeremiah presented a staff report.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that due to neighborhood concerns with the proposed
expansion of a Multiple-Family District, instead of rezoning the adjacent City-
owned property from Single Family to Multi-Family, staff is initiating a rezoning
of the JCC property from Multi-Family to Single Family. She said the property
owner has consented to this and is withdrawing the application for Case 01-28-
ZA. Ms. Jeremiah said until such time as a withdrawal letter is received, staff
recommends that the public hearing be continued until July 11.
Chair Velick opened the public hearing.
Lou Schoen, 4661 Cedar Lake Road, said the neighborhood is under the general
impression that the trees along the south side of the current JCC parking lot would
61
be eliminated. Mr. Schoen said the neighborhood is also concerned about traffic
density. He asked if there would be a possibility of accommodating the expansion
by opening an access road from France Ave. on the east side of the property to
help absorb some of the traffic. Mr. Schoen added that the neighborhood has had
some conversations with the Public Works Dept. regarding improved traffic
control.
Chair Velick made a motion to continue the public hearing. The motion passed
on a vote of 4-0 with Commissioners Garelick, Gothberg, Robertson and Velick
voting in favor.
Patrick Smith, Planner, said that the JCC is planning on holding a neighborhood
meeting on June 28, 7:00 p.m.
4. Unfinished Business
A. Case 95-51-PUD – Request of Costco Wholesale for a major amendment to the
approved Planned Unit Development for Park Place Plaza to permit a 12 station
fueling facility and an accessory building on Lot 9.
Patrick Smith, Planner, presented a staff report. He stated that the request was
tabled at the June 6 Planning Commission to allow staff time to review the plan in
accordance with the PUD and the Comprehensive Plan. He added that the
Planning Commission had made a separate motion asking for staff’s
recommendation regarding internal circulation and Home Depot cart corrals.
Mr. Smith reported that staff met with the Fire Dept. and made amendments to the
Fire Department’s recommendations.
Mr. Smith reported that discussions regarding Home Depot cart corrals had taken
place and the store manager generally agreed that cart corrals were needed. Staff
suggests including a condition of approval requiring that Home Depot
improvements be installed by November 15, 2001.
Mr. Smith addressed changes to conditions regarding compliance of the entire
PUD site with conditions of the final PUD approval, traffic improvement
implementation, signage at 16th Street, and service truck entrance and hours.
Mr. Smith introduced Marie Cote, of SRF. Ms. Cote reported on the additional
review of the internal site circulation of the proposed site undertaken by SRF.
She reviewed SRF’s recommendations.
Chair Velick commented that the recommendations are a big improvement and
could eliminate congestion.
62
Ted Johnson, Executive Vice-President of Thompson Dyke Associates, said that
Costco met with staff recently and discussed many alternatives. He said Costco
representatives did agree that the recommendations Ms. Cote presented would
improve site circulation and they are willing to make the improvements that are
recommended for their warehouse property. Mr. Johnson presented a graphic
illustrating single lane in/single lane out with a full right-turn lane which could
take a driver from the Costco warehouse to the fueling facility. He said with
this modification there would be a loss of 13-14 spaces and Costco would then
request approval to stripe the same number of proof of parking into parking
spaces.
Mr. Johnson presented a graphic illustrating how fueling trucks could maneuver
using the service drive.
Mr. Johnson discussed other midwestern Costco fueling sites and typical fuel
delivery schedules.
Mr. Johnson stated that Costco is not agreeing to Condition No. 6 regarding
traffic improvements involving Areas 3 and 4, property which Costco does not
own.
Mr. Johnson also expressed concern regarding Condition No. 8 as a condition of
approval. He said that Costco informed staff that they would work cooperatively
with Home Depot and the City by offering to install cart corrals while Costco
contractors are on the site. He said he objected to making the installation a
condition of approval for Costco’s proposal as Costco does not own the land.
Mr. Johnson stated that he believes Condition No. 9, referencing violations and
fines, is a provision of the Zoning Ordinance, and is unnecessary as a condition
of approval.
Roger Barrons, Faegre and Benson, representing Costco, commented that
Costco’s application shouldn’t be held up because of Home Depot’s outstanding
issues. Mr. Barrons stated that suggested traffic improvements involving Areas 3
and 4 are not on Costco property, and therefore Costco cannot build on the
property.
Ms. Jeremiah said the concerns have been discussed with the City attorney. The
City attorney feels that the City does have good standing in this case based upon
the site as an overall PUD as well as the property owner agreements to share
parking, access to one another’s sites, and to operate as one entity. Ms. Jeremiah
added that Condition No. 6 regarding overall PUD compliance is a condition to
which Costco has already agreed in approvals for the warehouse. The only
change is the addition regarding traffic improvements and signage.
63
Ms. Jeremiah stated that some of the traffic issues on the site were the result of
changes Costco made with the warehouse facility by limiting access to that
property and through the site. She gave details about an additional access on 16th
Street that Costco requested be removed, resulting in traffic concentrating onto
the remaining internal circulation drive. Ms. Jeremiah added that as part of the
hearing process Costco stated that approximately 70% of the trips to the fueling
facility would be between the warehouse facility and the fueling facility,
impacting the remaining internal circulation drive known as Gamble Drive
extended. Ms. Jeremiah stated that staff feels the traffic issues along the entire
Gamble Drive extended are very relevant to the application. She said that staff is
willing to facilitate discussions with other property owners and has already begun
to work with the other property owners to resolve conditions of approval.
Chair Velick asked for clarification on the parking limit. She asked why Lot 9
was chosen over Lot 8.
Ms. Jeremiah said it was Costco’s decision to utilize Lot 9. Staff had asked
Costco to look more closely at trying to have the fueling facility on the warehouse
facility lot or on the overflow parking lot on Lot 8. Costco feels that they need
all the parking that is shown, although that is far in excess of the City’s
requirements. Ms. Jeremiah described the requirements, including those for proof
of parking.
Mr. Johnson talked about a series of site plans which had been developed,
including plans for Lot 8. He said the remaining parking available for the Costco
store on Lot 8 was well under what Costco requires. Mr. Johnson said typically
he plans 750 parking spaces when developing Costco site plans. He explained
that it takes 3-5 years for a store to become seasoned and all parking would be
utilized at that point.
Commissioner Garelick said he approved of SRF’s recommendations. He stated
that the Planning Commission’s concern was not solely with traffic conditions,
but also to determine if the facility was the highest and best use for the site. Mr.
Garelick said that he doesn’t believe an off-site members-only fueling facility
supplements the area.
Commissioner Robertson commented that there is a better opportunity, although it
reduces parking spaces, of having a fueling facility contiguous with the
warehouse. He stated that Costco has chosen to go across the site that already
has traffic problems. He went on to say that SRF has come up with good
solutions which would improve the site. Mr. Robertson said there is still the
question of the highest and best use. He remarked that regardless of who is
responsible for correcting problems, as long as the issues exist the Planning
Commission has a problem with the facility.
64
Commissioner Gothberg commented that many of the remarks convey an overall
disappointment with the site. He commented on the original concept of the site
which included a bank and a variety of retail. He expressed concern about
whether the fueling facility is the best use and direction for the property.
Commissioner Gothberg said his major concern regards traffic and said he would
have a difficult time approving any kind of further development on the site
without evidence of traffic improvement or traffic improvements as a condition of
approval.
Mr. Garelick moved that the Commission not accept the recommendation of
approval based on 1) the proposal not being the highest and best use (compared to
the original PUD approval for the site); and 2) that any future development on the
site should be tied to a correction of traffic problems (per the required PUD
findings for unified development with efficient circulation). The motion passed
on a vote of 4-0 with Commissioners Garelick, Gothberg, Robertson and Velick
voting in favor.
5. Communications
A. Single Family Housing Discussion
Ms. Erickson presented a staff report.
Commissioner Gothberg asked if staff knows how many residents have
made major additions to their homes in the last few years.
Ms. Erickson said she would provide some building permit information at
the next Planning Commission meeting.
Chair Velick asked about the regulations for subdividing a large lot.
Ms. Erickson responded that a minimum lot size is required in each
residential district. In order for a lot to be divided both remaining lots
have to meet the minimum requirement (9,000 square feet in R-1). She
added that often lots were platted smaller and two lots are purchased. A
house is built on one lot, and later the extra lot is sold off separately.
Commissioner Robertson asked staff to comment on setback requirements.
He wondered if the reduced setback requirements for 2-story homes could
just apply to additions to existing homes rather than new homes or would
there be equity issues.
Ms. Jeremiah replied that the Planning Commission and City Council
were comfortable with the changes to setback requirements and wanted to
implement more move-up housing and encourage people to take on
remodeling projects.
65
Commissioner Garelick commented on the remodeling planbook available
from the City. He suggested an on-going promotion of remodeling
options which are available to residents.
Mr. Gothberg agreed that it would be helpful to promote the remodeling
book again.
B. Transportation Issues
Ms. Erickson updated the Commission on current transportation matters.
She discussed the planning process underway for Highway 100
reconstruction.
Ms. Erickson discussed the work of the Railroad Task Force which has
studied freight traffic through St. Louis Park. The final recommendation
is that freight rail continue without routing changes. The task force
recommends that freight traffic continues to go through Kenilworth until it
is displaced by some sort of active transit, and only then can it be rerouted
through St. Louis Park.
Ms. Erickson reported on the Dan Patch commuter rail study. She said
there is great opposition to commuter rail by residents on the corridor.
She added that if the study shows it is technically and financially feasible,
an EIS could be ordered to study impacts.
Commissioner Garelick asked if any commuter rail is being suggested
near 394. Ms. Erickson responded that the 394 express bus route is very
successful and Park and Ride locations will be expanded. She
commented on the growth of traffic congestion in the last five years and
the necessity for all agencies to study alternative ways of traveling.
There was a discussion about recent congestion on Louisiana Avenue.
Ms. Erickson commented that improved signal timing on 27th and 28th
Streets should be implemented soon.
C. Elmwood Area Study
Ms. Erickson presented a staff report. She said that Hennepin County is
willing to pay for a study of the area.
Chair Velick asked if funding for a study was available through the Met
Council’s Livable Communities Demonstration Account. Ms. Erickson
responded that some funding is set aside for studies. However, staff has
not pursued this option since Hennepin County has offered assistance.
66
Commissioner Gothberg commented that he likes the proposed study. He
said that mixed-use development seems appropriate because of available
trails, bus lines and proximity to Park Commons.
There was a discussion about historic Lilac Way and picnic tables and
beehives in historic rest areas.
Chair Velick made a motion supporting the preservation of the Lilac Way
beehives. The motion passed on a vote of 4-0 with Commissioners
Garelick, Gothberg, Robertson and Velick voting in favor.
D. Cablecasting
Ms. Jeremiah reported that the City Council is agreeable to a six-month
trial period of cable TV coverage of Planning Commission meetings
which could possibly begin as early as July.
Chair Velick requested feedback from commissioners.
Commissioner Garelick responded that most communities do televise
Planning Commission meetings and he believes the public should see how
policy is shaped.
There was a discussion about the 6:00 meeting time.
Commissioner Robertson said he thought televised meetings could
encourage more participation by the public.
Commissioner Gothberg suggested that cablecasting might be an
opportunity to work together with media students from the St. Louis Park
schools.
E. City of Richfield’s Request for Joint Meeting
Ms. Jeremiah discussed Richfield’s proposal for a joint meeting on
September 11 at 6:00 p.m. Commissioners Gothberg and Velick indicated
they would be interested in attending. Commissioner Gothberg suggested
a discussion topic of development projects which can’t quite meet code
but which would be beneficial to the community.
Ms. Erickson commented on a presentation regarding neighborhood
revitalization which she made two years ago to the Richfield Planning
Commission. She said at that time they indicated interest in doing a joint
meeting. Ms. Erickson said the Richfield Planning Commission regularly
conducts study sessions.
67
F. Next Planning Commission Meeting – July 11
Ms. Jeremiah reported that the next regular meeting date of the
Commission will be on July 11th, due to the July 4th holiday. She stated
that the July 11th meeting will have a number of agenda items. Ms.
Jeremiah said that a tour of the Planning Commission will be planned for
July 18, with no other business scheduled for that evening.
8. Adjournment
Chair Velick adjourned the meeting at 8:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Nancy Sells
Administrative Secretary
68
CONSENT ITEM # 1B
July 6, 2001
VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
5 AND 10 GENERAL SUPPLIES 26.11
ABC MONTESSORI CHILDRENS HOUSE AQUATIC PARK DAILY TICKETS 4.00
ADVANCED BAR CODE SOLUTIONS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 100.00
AIRTOUCH CELLULAR TELEPHONE 95.86
ALAMA, GERALD CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 25.00
ALL WHEELS SALES & SERVICES OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 168.69
AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS ASSOCIAT SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 113.00
AMERIPRIDE LINEN AND APPAREL S CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 201.89
ANDERSON, JEFF YOUTH ATHLETICS/LEAGUES-exempt 40.00
APACHE GROUP OF MINNESOTA GENERAL SUPPLIES 641.18
APACHE HOSE & BELTING INC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 223.87
ARAMARK UNIFORM CORPORATE ACCT GENERAL SUPPLIES 660.31
ARMADILLO TRUCKVAULT INC. MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT (150.00)
ASPEN EQUIPMENT COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS 79.06
BAUER BUILT TIRE & BATTERY EQUIPMENT PARTS 54.50
BEEKS PIZZA TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 52.80
BIRNO, RICK TELEPHONE 144.31
BOB BARKER COMPANY INC SUBSISTENCE SUPPLIES 278.59
BOBS PERSONAL COFFEE SERVICE GENERAL SUPPLIES 319.44
BRADFORD PUBLISHING SERVICE SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 50.00
BROADWAY RENTAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT (1.66)
BRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 757.95
BRYANT GRAPHICS INC PRINTING & PUBLISHING 509.07
BUCHMAN PLUMBING BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 1,302.00
CAHNERS BUSINESS INFORMATION PRINTING & PUBLISHING 228.20
CAPITOL COMMUNICATIONS RADIO COMMUNICATIONS 160.79
CARLSON TRACTOR & EQUIP CO EQUIPMENT PARTS (59.08)
CATCO PARTS SERVICE EQUIPMENT PARTS 217.98
CAVANNAUGH, DAVID CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 25.00
CITY OF SAINT PAUL TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 2,170.00
COLLISYS ELECTRIC CO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 10,713.63
COMM ACTION FOR SUBURBAN HENNE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 4,073.00
COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 13.38
CONCEPT SEATING INC GENERAL SUPPLIES (180.00)
CONTINENTAL RESEARCH CORP GENERAL SUPPLIES 318.20
CUB FOODS FIRE PREVENTION SUPPLIES 193.28
CUMMINS NORTH CENTRAL INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 605.04
CUSTOM PRODUCTS & SERVICES LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 3,991.59
DAMBERGER, TIMOTHY CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 25.00
DANKO EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 40.77
DELTA MEDICAL SUPPLY GROUP INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 15.50
DOCK RITE INC BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES 26,071.20
DRIVEWAY DESIGN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 23,100.00
E GROUP INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 326.52
ELECTRIC PUMP WALDOR GROUP EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 1,572.36
ELECTRICAL INSTALLATION & MAIN OTHER IMPROVEMENTS 14,680.17
ELIOT NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOC. OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 500.00
69
EMBEDDED SYSTEMS INC EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS 972.00
EMERGENCY MEDICAL PRODUCTS GENERAL SUPPLIES 498.80
ENGINEERING REPRO SYSTEMS OFFICE FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT 16,474.05
ENLICH, STEVE YOUTH ATHLETICS/LEAGUES-exempt 40.00
ENSR CONSULTING & ENGINEERING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 19,135.06
ERICKSON, JUDIE TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 40.00
EVERGREEN LAND SERVICES CO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 803.85
F.F. JEDLICKI INC. OTHER IMPROVEMENTS 10,002.00
FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (30.67)
FIREHOUSE MAGAZINE SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 28.97
FISHER'S RESORT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 300.00
FORCE, JENNIFER AQUATIC PARK SEASON TICKETS 10.00
GARDNER, HEIDI SPECIAL PROGRAMS 15.00
GENUINE PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (27.83)
GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC RADIO COMMUNICATIONS 915.20
GRAFIX SHOPPE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 98.02
GUSTAFSON, JULIE AQUATIC PARK SEASON TICKETS 33.50
HARKEMA, KAY SPECIAL PROGRAMS 10.00
HASLERUD, CARRIE GENERAL SUPPLIES 150.00
HAWKINS WATER TREATMENT GROUP GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,633.61
HILL, ROBERT GENERAL SUPPLIES 11.40
HOISINGTON KOEGLER GROUP INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 793.02
HOME DEPOT BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES 65.91
HOME DEPOT/GECF FIRE PREVENTION SUPPLIES 49.20
HOPP, JEN GENERAL SUPPLIES 76.50
HORK, BETSY SPECIAL PROGRAMS 5.00
HUBBARD, LYNN & SUSAN CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 25.00
HUIRAS, SHIRLEY OFFICE SUPPLIES 237.03
HYDRO SUPPLY COMPANY OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 3,397.51
IND SCHOOL DIST #283 OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 27,500.00
INDELCO EQUIPMENT PARTS 54.57
IOS CAPITAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT 364.23
JACOBSON, DEBORAH CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 25.00
JAY, SARA PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 901.85
JEWISH FAMILY/CHILDREN SVC OF OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,977.00
KATHLEEN HARNEY TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 388.34
KEVITT EXCAVATING INC OTHER IMPROVEMENTS 131,693.10
KIEFER, ADOLF GENERAL SUPPLIES 315.00
KREMER SPRING & ALIGNMENT EQUIPMENT PARTS 958.63
KUBITZA, ANN SPECIAL PROGRAMS 8.00
LACAL EQUIPMENT INC EQUIPMENT PARTS (235.63)
LAKE RESTORATION INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 200.00
LAKELAND ENGINEERING EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT PARTS 206.40
LARSON SPORTS INC, GREG OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 44.73
LASER QUIPT EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 111.77
LEARNING INNOVATIONS INC OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 4,320.00
LOGIS COMPUTER SERVICES 33,050.48
LORIMER, SUSAN SPECIAL PROGRAMS 5.00
MACQUEEN EQUIP CO EQUIPMENT PARTS 211.84
MARK HOPPE MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 155.25
MARONGA, DIANE SPECIAL PROGRAMS 5.00
MASTERSON PERSONNEL INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 735.00
70
MEAD, KRISTA CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 25.00
MEDTRONIC PHYSIO-CONTROL CORP EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 222.00
MENARDS GENERAL SUPPLIES 378.34
METHODIST HOSPITAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 227.25
METRO FIRE INC NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 1,405.62
METROCALL TELEPHONE 280.50
MIDWEST BADGE & NOVELTY CO FIRE PREVENTION SUPPLIES 1,151.78
MIDWEST LUBE INC. EQUIPMENT PARTS 44.61
MINN DEPT OF ADMINISTRATION TELEPHONE 3,898.02
MINNESOTA CONWAY FIRE PREVENTION SUPPLIES 106.50
MN DRIVER & VEHICLE SVCS EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT CHARGE (46.00)
MS. FARREL BRAUNSTEIN GENERAL SUPPLIES 100.64
MTI DISTRIBUTING CO EQUIPMENT PARTS (263.76)
MUNICILITE EQUIPMENT PARTS 669.72
NAPA GENUINE PARTS CO/FINANCE EQUIPMENT PARTS 598.49
NATIONAL AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER C BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 3,600.00
NATROGAS INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 60.20
NEENAH FOUNDREY OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 64.97
NELSON, CHISTOPHER MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 129.38
NORTHERN WATER TREATING CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 27.37
NORTHLAND ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 43.96
NSP CO ELECTRIC SERVICE 189.90
OCCUPATIONAL DEVELOPMENT CENTE GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,729.66
OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE SUPPLIES 301.01
OFFICE TEAM PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 714.10
OLSEN CHAIN & CABLE CO INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 190.42
OPERATING ENGINEERS TRAINING TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 1,200.00
OTTO LANDSCAPING INC LANDSCAPING SERVICE 2,900.00
OTTO PACKAGING MIDWEST LLC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES (72.00)
PASTOOR, KRISTI SPECIAL PROGRAMS 8.00
PC SOLUTIONS INC. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 47.74
PERSONNEL DECISIONS INTERNATIO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,500.00
PETERSON, SUSAN SPECIAL PROGRAMS 10.00
PLYMOUTH OFFICE EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 86.58
POLK COMPANY OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 178.92
PRESTIGE LINCOLN MERCURY EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 63.49
PRINTERS SERVICE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 56.60
PRO PRODUCTS INC GENERAL SUPPLIES (92.32)
PROPANE GAS PRODUCTS OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 31.47
QUANTERRA INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 39,110.00
QUEST ENGINEERING INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 4.05
R.D. HANSON ASSOC. INC. FIRE PREVENTION SUPPLIES 16.33
RADIO DISNEY OTHER ADVERTISING 1,275.00
RANDY'S SANITATION INC GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE 3,746.61
RC INDENTIFICATIONS GENERAL SUPPLIES 10.65
RESCUE ONE EQUIPMENT PARTS 1,816.56
RUTTGERS BAY LAKE LODGE TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 90.00
SAFETY-KLEEN CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 235.76
SCHARBER & SONS INC EQUIPMENT PARTS (3.51)
SCHWARTZ, STEPHANIE SPECIAL PROGRAMS 10.00
SEH PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 378.20
SHANK CONSTRUCTION INC. EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 4,325.00
71
SHOOP, PATRICIA PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 225.00
SLP CRIME PREVENTION FUND UNREALIZED REV-SAFETY CAMP 0.00
SPS COMPANIES INC GENERAL SUPPLIES (37.91)
SRF CONSULTING GROUP INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 9,120.75
ST JOSEPH'S EQUIPMENT INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 398.53
STAR TRIBUNE SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 111.80
STAT MEDICAL GENERAL SUPPLIES 51.80
STREICHER'S GENERAL SUPPLIES 2,827.73
SUBURBAN TIRE CO TIRES 250.32
TEKSYSTEMS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 140.00
TENNANT EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 288.49
TERMINIX INTERNATIONAL BUILDING MTCE SERVICE (52.18)
THEIS, DEANNE YOUTH RECREATION-tax exempt 18.00
THOMPSON MEDICAL SPECIALTIES GENERAL SUPPLIES 34.00
THOMPSON, LINDA YOUTH RECREATION-tax exempt 26.10
TRACY/TRIPP FUELS MOTOR FUELS 10,661.39
TWIN CITY OPTICAL CO TREE MAINTENANCE (12.86)
U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE 816.46
UNITED RENTALS OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 456.85
UNIVERSITY OF MINN SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 50.00
US FILTER DISTRIBUTION GROUP BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 227.49
W & W GENERATOR REBUILDERS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 90.53
WALSER FORD EQUIPMENT PARTS 10.17
WELLS FARGO REMITTANCE CTR TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 2,531.30
WILLIAMS, STEPHANIE YOUTH ATHLETICS/LEAGUES-exempt 63.00
WM H MC COY PETROLEUM FUELS MOTOR FUELS 51.12
WSB ASSOCIATES INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 28,605.95
ZEMBRYKI, MARK GENERAL SUPPLIES 34.00
ZIEGLER INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 332.70
ZIP PRINTING OFFICE SUPPLIES 218.00
ZIP SORT POSTAGE 12.28
483,589.81
July 13, 2001
VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
A-AARONS PLUMBING OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 585.00
AAA-LICENSE DIVISION MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT 247.47
ACE SUPPLY COMPANY INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 49.10
ACTION RADIO & COMM INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 43.44
AICPA TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 125.00
AIRTOUCH CELLULAR TELEPHONE 2,269.22
ALBERS MECHANICAL SERVICES BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 415.00
ALBINSONS GENERAL SUPPLIES 62.09
AMERICAN LEAK DETECTION PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 250.00
ANCHOR PAPER CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 607.05
ANN'S TOOL SUPPLY GENERAL SUPPLIES 145.02
ARAMARK UNIFORM CORPORATE
ACCT
GENERAL SUPPLIES 451.93
ARMADILLO TRUCKVAULT INC. MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT (150.00)
ARROWWOOD RADISSON RESORT TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 208.74
72
AWWA SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 3,322.00
BACHMANS BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 106.50
BAKER, BETSY OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 434.88
BATTERIES PLUS EQUIPMENT PARTS 66.56
BCA/TRAINING & DEVELOPMENT TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 80.00
BERNDT ELECTRIC SERVICE BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 245.18
BOT, SUZANNE MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 53.13
BOYER TRUCK PARTS EQUIPMENT PARTS 56.68
BRENTS SIGNS GENERAL SUPPLIES 107.35
BRO TEX INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 114.22
BROADWAY RENTAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT (1.66)
BROWNDALE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSN OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 95.00
BUDGET HELPER OTHER ADVERTISING 225.00
CAPITOL COMMUNICATIONS RADIO COMMUNICATIONS 376.29
CARLSON TRACTOR & EQUIP CO EQUIPMENT PARTS 70.84
CARTRIDGE CARE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 352.89
CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK UNREALIZED REVENUE 1,367.60
COFFEE MILL INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 129.80
COLICH & ASSOCIATES LEGAL SERVICES 12,337.79
COLLINS COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 11,856.56
COLLINS, MICHAEL CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 25.00
COMM ACTION FOR SUBURBAN HENNE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 8,036.00
CONCEPT SEATING INC GENERAL SUPPLIES (180.00)
CONSECO FINANCE VENDOR SERV CO OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 751.89
CROWN MARKING INC OFFICE SUPPLIES 12.00
CUB FOODS GENERAL SUPPLIES 164.74
CUMMINS NORTH CENTRAL INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 4,249.32
CURRAN-BAKKEN, E T GENERAL SUPPLIES 36.77
CURTIS 1000 INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 985.34
CUSTOM PRODUCTS & SERVICES LANDSCAPING SERVICE 2,767.51
DATABASE TECHNOLOGIES INC OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 101.00
DELEGARD TOOL CO SMALL TOOLS 102.40
DELI DOUBLE MEETING EXPENSE 139.72
DEPT OF PUBLIC SAFETY RADIO COMMUNICATIONS 510.00
DOWNTOWNER CAR WASH EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 117.65
E GROUP INC UNREALIZED REVENUE 512.85
ELECTRIC SERVICE CO EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS 604.71
ELVIN SAFETY SUPPLY, INC. GENERAL SUPPLIES 85.63
ERV'S LAWN MOWER REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTS 33.35
FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (30.67)
FASTENAL COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS 98.38
FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP POSTAGE 663.48
FLOYD TOTAL SECURITY BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 117.60
G & K SERVICES CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY 223.16
GENE'S WATER & SEWER INC. OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 2,800.00
GENUINE PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (27.83)
GITA SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 95.00
GOLDEN VALLEY PARK & REC DEPT. GENERAL SUPPLIES 54.00
GRAINGER INC, W W GENERAL SUPPLIES 382.02
GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO EQUIPMENT PARTS 682.53
GREENMAN TECHNOLOGIES OF MN IN CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY 21.60
HANSEN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIE TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 645.00
73
HASLERUD, CARRIE GENERAL SUPPLIES 107.51
HAWKINS WATER TREATMENT GROUP CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY 1,331.04
HENNEPIN CO DEPT OF COMM CORRE SALARIES - TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES 6,400.00
HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 12,517.53
HILLCREST REHABILITATION & HEA UNREALIZED REVENUE 325.27
HOME DEPOT/GECF GENERAL SUPPLIES 77.50
HOME HARDWARE GENERAL SUPPLIES 349.02
HRENO, PATTI MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 74.35
HYDROLOGIC GENERAL SUPPLIES 99.64
ICMA PRODUCT FULFILLMENT SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 46.50
IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 140.51
INDUSTRIAL ARTS SUPPLY CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 25.29
IOS CAPITAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT 1,078.85
ISD #273 AQUATIC PARK DAILY TICKETS 78.00
JAYTECH INC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 880.29
JERRY STAMM GENERAL SUPPLIES 32.20
JESSEN PRESS INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 3,895.26
K AND R COMMUNICATION SERVICES BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 4,181.17
KENNEDY & GRAVEN BOND ISSUE COSTS 3,085.00
KIENENBERGER, BRIDGET GENERAL SUPPLIES 164.72
KUSTOM SIGNALS INC MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT 1,822.31
LACAL EQUIPMENT INC EQUIPMENT PARTS (235.63)
LAMSON, TED CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 25.00
LANGEFELS, DOUGLAS GENERAL SUPPLIES 200.00
LAUE, JEAN UNREALIZED REVENUE 1,917.89
LEAGUE OF MN CITIES SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 110.22
LEE, KATHLEEN MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 50.37
LOFFLER BUSINESS SYSTEMS INC OFFICE FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT 378.08
LUBRICATION TECHNOLOGIES INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 81.71
MACQUEEN EQUIP CO EQUIPMENT PARTS 168.15
MANSKE, DAVID CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 25.00
MASTERSON PERSONNEL INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 735.00
MCDONELL, MARTHA STUDY INCENTIVE & MERIT PAY 1,118.75
MENARDS GENERAL SUPPLIES 164.05
METHODIST HOSPITAL GENERAL CUSTOMERS 3,425.05
METROCALL TELEPHONE 335.78
METROPOLITAN AREA MANAGEMENT
A
MEETING EXPENSE 48.00
METZ BAKING CO. CONCESSION SUPPLIES 338.75
MICRO CENTER COMPUTER SUPPLIES 229.73
MINUTEMAN PRESS PRINTING & PUBLISHING 1,277.06
MISTER CAR WASH GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,755.12
MN DRIVER & VEHICLE SVCS EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT CHARGE (46.00)
MN GFOA TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 440.00
MN PIPE & EQUIPMENT OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 2,883.27
MN RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 175.00
MOHN, KATHLEEN CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 25.00
MTI DISTRIBUTING CO EQUIPMENT PARTS (236.05)
MUNICILITE EQUIPMENT PARTS 453.26
NAPA GENUINE PARTS CO/FINANCE SMALL TOOLS 1,363.77
NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 3,013.00
NEW PIG CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY 67.99
74
NORTHERN WATER TREATING CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 153.72
NSP CO ELECTRIC SERVICE 25,377.76
NYHUS, SENA CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 25.00
OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE SUPPLIES 930.90
OLSEN CHAIN & CABLE CO INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 155.55
OLSON, SHARON BUILDING PERMIT 290.60
ON BELAY OUTDOOR ADVENTURES OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 380.00
ON SITE SANITATION OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 5,358.57
ORTON, PAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 150.23
OTTO PACKAGING MIDWEST LLC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES (72.00)
PALMS BAKERY MEETING EXPENSE 4.40
PARTNERSHIP RESOURCES INC. REC CENTER RENTAL-TAXABLE 155.00
PEPSI-COLA COMPANY CONCESSION SUPPLIES 2,636.58
PIONEER RIM & WHEEL CO EQUIPMENT PARTS 381.39
PRAXAIR DISTRIBUTION INC. GENERAL SUPPLIES 73.72
PRESTIGE LINCOLN MERCURY EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 1,055.79
PRINTERS SERVICE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 28.30
PRO PRODUCTS INC GENERAL SUPPLIES (92.32)
PUBLIC WORKS MANAGEMENT & POLI SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 25.00
QUICKSILVER EXPRESS COURIER POSTAGE 851.18
QUILL CORPORATION OFFICE SUPPLIES 143.52
RADIO SHACK GENERAL SUPPLIES 54.25
RELIANT ENERGY HEATING GAS 5,023.62
RIGID HITCH INCORPORATED EQUIPMENT PARTS 55.35
S B S MECHANICAL INC. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 48,165.00
SAVIN CORPORATION EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 1,917.00
SCHARBER & SONS INC EQUIPMENT PARTS (3.51)
SIGNUM GRAPHIC SYSTEMS UNREALIZED REVENUE 276.90
SIMPLEX TIME RECORDER CO BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 517.00
SLP CRIME PREVENTION FUND UNREALIZED REV-SAFETY CAMP 0.00
SPS COMPANIES INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 269.40
STAR TRIBUNE OTHER ADVERTISING 1,297.72
STATE OF MINNESOTA PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 9.50
STATE TREASURER STATE SURCHARGE PAYABLE 6,805.93
STEPP MANUFACTURING CO INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 380.28
STREICHER'S GENERAL SUPPLIES 606.62
STS CONSULTANTS LTD OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 4,639.80
SUBURBAN FEED & SUPPLY GENERAL SUPPLIES 9.57
SUBURBAN TIRE CO TIRES 1,153.12
SUN NEWSPAPERS UNREALIZED REVENUE 782.47
SWANSON FLO-SYSTEMS CO EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 18.98
TEMPLE, DEAN CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 25.00
TERMINIX INTERNATIONAL BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 38.82
THE MOBILE PHONE COMPANY GENERAL SUPPLIES 149.70
THE TAPE COMPANY GENERAL SUPPLIES 118.83
THYSSEN LAGERQUIST ELEVATOR BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 491.72
TRI STATE BOBCAT EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 161.30
TRIARCO ARTS & CRAFTS GENERAL SUPPLIES 18.12
TWIN CITY CATERING INC OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,540.94
TWIN CITY OPTICAL CO TREE MAINTENANCE (12.86)
UNIFORMS UNLIMITED GENERAL SUPPLIES 3,066.38
VEIT & COMPANY GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,385.00
75
VILLAGE CHEVROLET EQUIPMENT PARTS 87.77
VOELKER, STACY M PETTY CASH 1,000.00
WALSER FORD EQUIPMENT PARTS 183.57
WATSON CO INC CONCESSION SUPPLIES 10,361.54
WAYTEK GENERAL SUPPLIES 29.13
WELLS FARGO REMITTANCE CTR GENERAL SUPPLIES 2,218.17
WEST HENNEPIN COMM SVCS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,951.25
WEST, JAMIE MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 63.14
WHEELER LUMBER OPERATIONS BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 431.69
WISCONSIN MAGNETO INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 6.23
WM H MC COY PETROLEUM FUELS OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 76.68
WSB ASSOCIATES INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,787.50
ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE GENERAL SUPPLIES 26.25
ZIP SORT POSTAGE 429.75
iATN SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 30.00
256,142.61
76
CONSENT ITEM # 2
St. Louis Park City Council
Meeting of July 16, 6001
2. Motion to adopt resolution and authorize Chief of Police to execute the Mutual
Aid agreement with Hennepin County Chiefs of Police Association.
Background:
A mutual aid pact for police agencies within Hennepin County was originally created in 1968.
The purpose of the agreement is to permit agencies to share law enforcement resources with
other agencies in Hennepin County. This mutual aid agreement was entered pursuant to
Minnesota Statute, Section 471.59, which authorizes the joint and cooperative exercise of powers
common to the parties involved.
The mutual aid committee of the Hennepin County Chiefs of Police Association was tasked with
updating the mutual aid pact. The update was conducted to reflect accurately the procedures,
address current issues and enhance the ability of departments to share resources with each other.
The City of St. Louis Park is currently a member of the original pact.
The agreement specifically allows a requesting agency to select the resources that best meets the
needs of a given situation. A requesting agency may call upon any other participating party for
mutual aid. There is no requirement to make requests through a particular party. Participating
agencies can utilize the resources for many reasons including routine circumstances such as
training efforts and back-up patrol service. This pact provides the flexibility for all agencies to
use the resources located among all participating parties in Hennepin County. The decision as to
when to invoke mutual aid and whether to respond is left to the discretion of the requesting and
responding agency.
If the City of St. Louis Park elects to enter into the new mutual aid agreement, participation in
the old pact will cease.
Attachments:
• Resolution Adopting the Joint and Cooperative Agreement for Use of Law Enforcement
Personnel and Equipment of July 1, 2001.
• Agreement on file in the City Clerk’s Office
•
Prepared by: John D. Luse, Chief of Police
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
77
RESOLUTION NO. 01-059
A Resolution Adopting the Joint and Cooperative Agreement for
Use of Law Enforcement Personnel and Equipment of July 1, 2001
From the Hennepin County Chiefs of Police Association Mutual Aid Pact
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park has previously approved and participated in a mutual
aid agreement between the police agencies within Hennepin County to provide cooperative use
of police personnel and equipment; and
WHEREAS, the participating governmental units have determined that it is advisable to
clarify and update the language of that agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park that the Joint and Cooperative Agreement for Use of Law Enforcement Personnel and
Equipment (“Agreement”), dated July 1, 2001, from the Hennepin County Chiefs of Police
Association be approved; that the City of St. Louis Park is withdrawing from the previous
Hennepin County Mutual Aid Agreement on the effective date in the new agreement and that
John D. Luse, Chief of Police, is authorized and directed to execute said Agreement on behalf of
the City of St. Louis Park as a participating member of the Agreement.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council July 16, 2001
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
78
CONSENT ITEM # 3
St. Louis Park City Council
Meeting of July 16, 2001
3. Motion to adopt the final draft of the Excelsior Blvd. Corridor Traffic Study as
prepared by BRW, Inc.
Background:
In May of 2000, the EDA entered into a contract with BRW, Inc. to undertake a comprehensive
analysis of current and future traffic conditions on Excelsior Boulevard and in the adjacent
neighborhoods for the area between Highway 100 and France Avenue. The study involved a
scoping process as well as the actual analysis of existing and projected traffic conditions for the
study area based upon certain development assumptions. As a part of the overall study,
extensive public input was solicited through focus groups, questionnaires, an open house, and
general large scale meetings with interested stakeholders. The last meeting was held on June 14,
2001, during which time a final draft of the traffic study was presented. The study has now been
completed and staff is requesting that the City Council acknowledge this by approving the final
draft of the traffic study.
As was discussed during the July 9 study session, Public Works and other appropriate staff will
be undertaking follow-up steps with neighborhood or sub-neighborhood groups to deal with
specific issues and concerns within the study area (e.g. 38th Street).
Attachments:
Complete study and Executive Summary on file in the Community Development office.
Prepared by: Tom Harmening, Community Development Director
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
2030:n
79
CONSENT ITEM # 4
St. Louis Park City Council
Meeting of July 16, 2001
4. Motion to approve a contract with SRF Consulting Group, Inc. for the
redevelopment of the Oak Park Village area.
Background
The City Council approved the concept plan for the design of the Oak Hill area parks on
December 18, 2000. The master plan included plans to develop the Oak Park Village site,
improve and redevelop some of the Oak Hill Park, and reconfigure the ball field area in Walker
Park. The next phase in developing these areas is to hire a consultant to continue the process.
Scope of Services
This contract would authorize the Parks and Recreation Department to work with SRF
Consulting Group, Inc. to work with the project all the way to completion. The scope of services
includes: project initiation, data collection and base mapping, design development, construction
documents, bidding and award of construction, and in-construction services.
The contract also includes working with three sub-contractors. MTI will design the project
irrigation system. Rehbein will consult on the turf and soil elements. STS Consultants will
provide geotechnical analysis of the site and perform the soil borings necessary for the parking
areas and light poles. The cost of the above sub-contractors is included in the contract price.
The contract does not include working with Bill Gregg from ENSR. We will continue to contract
separately with ENSR to assist in working with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and
other remediation issues. In discussing the project with Mr. Gregg, he indicated that an estimate
of $3,000 should cover any expenses that are needed from ENSR. He will invoice the City of St.
Louis Park on a per hour basis as he has done in the past.
Cost Estimate
The total contract amount with SRF Consulting Group Inc. will be $115,850. This includes the
cost of in-construction services. During construction, SRF will provide construction observation,
quality control testing and review at critical points of the construction sequence. This is intended
to augment inspection provided by the City of St. Louis Park staff. SRF is not proposing full-
time resident inspection.
The total cost of construction is estimated to be about a million dollars. As mentioned above
there will be some improvements made to Oak Hill Park and Walker Park as part of this project.
Those improvements, with the exception of the new warming shelter at Oak Hill Park, are
included in the cost estimate.
80
Funding
The funding sources for this project are from the Park Improvement Fund, Minnesota Amateur
Sports Commission, and G.O. Bonds. The planning money was budgeted in 2001 as a Capital
Improvement Project and funded from the Park Improvement Fund.
Park Building at the Oak Park Village Site
The cost and design of the building on the Oak Park Village site is not included in the cost
estimate. It is not necessary to construct the building at the same time as the park as it can be
done later, but staff would prefer to have it constructed at the same time. A separate CIP item for
the park building on the Oak Park Village site is included in the Capital Plan for 2002. Staff is
proposing that the building be funded by G.O. Bonds in 2002 if possible. Jean McGann, Director
of Finance, is tabulating the proposed projects using G.O. Bonds to see if there is money
available in 2002. If not, the building project will be proposed for 2003. The City Council will be
asked to approve a contract for a building architect at a later date.
Timelines
Once the contract with SRF Consulting Group, Inc. has been approved, the consultant will begin
working with staff to determine how much fill is required on site. Staff will use fill from Park
Commons wherever possible. It is likely that staff will have to stockpile fill on site at Oak Park
Village. Staff is proposing that the northwest corner of the park be used to stockpile fill until it
can be spread next spring or summer. The northwest corner of the park is an area that is not
currently programmed for use.
Staff would like to proceed with the project so that we can bid it in February or March of 2002.
That timeline will allow park construction to take place in May of 2002. Ideally, the park will be
ready for use by the fall of 2003.
Prepared by: Cynthia S. Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager