HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001/08/06 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Regular
AGENDA - CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
August 6, 2001
7:30 p.m.
7:25 p.m. - Economic Development Authority
1. Call to Order
a. Pledge of Allegiance
b. Roll Call
2. Presentations
a. Recognition for Bob Gill
b. Junior Leader Appreciation Presentation
3. Approval of Minutes
a. Study Session Minutes of July 23, 2001
b. Special Meeting Minutes of July 23, 2001
c. City Council Minutes of July 16, 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).
2
b. Approval of Consent Items
1. Motion to adopt a resolution of approval for Robert Rappaport 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.
2. City Engineer’s Report: Motion to adopt the attached resolution accepting this
report, establishing and ordering an improvement project, approving plans and
specifications and authorizing advertisement for bids for replacement of various
segments of concrete sidewalk throughout the City – Project No. 01-02
3. Motion to approve final payments for:
Electrical Installation & Maintenance $ 5,806.21
Contract No. 82-00
Louisiana Avenue traffic improvements
signal interconnect & lane configuarions
Nadeau Utility, Inc. $ 8,089.32
Contract No. 74-00
Entry signage – Project No. 98-16
4. Motion to accept the following reports for filing:
a. Housing Authority Minutes of June 13, 2001
b. Planning Commission Minutes of July 11, 2001
c. Planning Commission Minutes of June 6, 2001
d. Human Rights Commission Minutes of June 20, 2001
e. Charter Commission Minutes of March 14, 2001
(Due to technical difficulties, the vendor claims will be deferred to
the meeting of August 20th.)
Action: Motion to approve Consent Items
5. Public Hearings
6. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public
7. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions
7a. The request of Xcel Energy for a Comprehensive Plan amendment from
Residential to Industrial and a rezoning from R2 to I-P for the northern
portion of property located at 2201 Edgewood Avenue South. (Cedar Lake
Road and Edgewood Avenue)
Case No. 01-31-CP and 01-32-Z
Recommended
Action:
1. Motion to adopt a resolution approving a Comprehensive
Plan amendment subject to approval by the Metropolitan
3
Council, approve summary and authorize publication.
2. Motion to approve first reading of rezoning ordinance and set
second reading for August 20, subject to approval of the
Metropolitan Council.
7b. Miscellaneous Zoning Ordinance amendments to Sections 14:5-4.1(C)(7), 14:6-
1.2(C)(5), 14:6-4.8(C)(3), and 14:8-2 to relocate the permit requirements and
add some flexibility for the construction of sheds under 120 square feet,
require a time frame for the installation of driveways and landscaping for one
and two-family homes, and make the Certificate of Occupancy section of the
Zoning Ordinance consistent with the recodification of the City Ordinance
Code.
Recommended
Action:
1. Motion to approve first reading of the proposed Zoning
Ordinance amendments and set second reading for the
August 20, 2001 City Council Meeting.
2. Motion directing staff to prepare a fee resolution for shed
permits.
7c. City Engineer’s Report: 2001 Sidewalk Improvement Project: Phase A –
Project No. 99-07A
This report considers the construction of various sections of new sidewalk in
accordance with the city’s sidewalk, trails, and bikeway plan
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the attached resolution accepting this report,
establishing and ordering an improvement project, approving
plans and specifications and authorizing advertisement for bids
for construction of various sections of concrete sidewalk
7d. City Engineer’s Report: Improvements to flood Area No. 13A
- Project No. 01-07
This report considers improvements at W. 36th Street and Wyoming Avenue,
Sunset Park, and Elie Park to address public storm water in Flood Area No. 13A.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the attached resolution accepting this report,
establishing and ordering an improvement project, approving
plans and specifications, and authorizing receipt of bids for flood
area 13A.
7e. City Engineer’s Report: Improvements to flood Area No. 13B
- Project No. 01-08
4
This report considers improvements at W. 33rd Street and Texas Avenue to address
storm sewer improvements in Flood Area No. 13B.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the attached resolution accepting this report,
establishing and ordering an improvement project, approving
plans and specifications, and authorizing receipt of bids for flood
area 13B.
7f. City Engineer’s Report: Improvements to flood Area No. 15
- Project No. 00-07
This report considers storm water improvements at Keystone, Roxbury, and Lake
Street Parks and storm sewer construction on Dakota Avenue and W. 33rd Street.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the attached resolution accepting this report,
establishing and ordering an improvement project, approving
plans and specifications, and authorizing receipt of bids for flood
area 15.
8. Boards and Committees
9. Communications
10. Adjournment
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make
arrangements, please call the Administration Department at 952/924-2525 (TDD
952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting.
5
Item # 3a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
July 23, 2001
The meeting was convened at 7:00 p.m.
Present at the meeting were Councilmembers Jim Brimeyer, Ron Latz, Chris Nelson, Susan
Sanger, Sue Santa, Robert Young, and Mayor Jeff Jacobs.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Meyer), Deputy City Manager (Mr. Pires), Police Chief (Mr.
Luse), Director of Community Development (Mr. Harmening), Planning and Zoning Supervisor
(Ms. Jeremiah), Housing Supervisor (Ms. Schnitker), Housing Coordinator (Ms. Larsen),
Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Kleve), Deputy Fire Chief (Mr. Stemmer), Finance
Director (Ms. McGann), and City Clerk (Ms. Reichert).
1. Police Advisory Committee
Chief Luse stated that it was staff’s recommendation to create an input group of between nine
and eleven individuals from various constituent groups to begin the detail work to determine the
structure and makeup of a Police Advisory Committee. Staff felt that some of these members
should be appointed in a short-term capacity and that a facilitator should be appointed by the
City Manager. The community policing philosophy should be considered as an integral part of
the group.
Councilmember Sanger asked what was the proposed timing and selection process of the input
group. She would also prefer to see the group termed as an input group rather than advisory
group. Chief Luse replied that staff would like to begin appointing individuals as soon as
Council gives their approval.
Mr. Meyer stated that based on the Council’s preference, either staff or Council could appoint
the input group. Council agreed that staff should make the appointments to the group.
2. Emergency Medical Response
Chief Gill presented a handout to the Council.
Chief Gill reported that staff’s initial reaction was that the number of calls was increasing
medical costs, as well as the city budget. Their minds were changed after careful study and
consideration.
(Councilmember Brimeyer arrived at 7:14 p.m.)
Chief Gill went through the statistics in the handouts. He stated that he believed that the number
of calls requiring a response would likely be no different if the city’s elderly population was
6
housed in single family homes rather than concentrated at a single address in the form of senior
housing.
Councilmember Nelson commented that he did not see the statistics showing a problem and also
was surprised that there was a charge for false alarms. Chief Gill responded that EMS was added
to false alarm calls with the last ordinance change.
Chief Gill stated that Fire Department staff has been working with managers of senior housing
and the senior housing managers have expressed a desire to work with the city to reduce EMS
calls for service.
Councilmember Santa was happy that the data was collected and felt it will be useful in helping
the city and users to understand the service and related cost.
Mayor Jacobs instructed staff to continue dialog with senior housing owners but felt the
ordinance did not need to be changed.
Councilmember Sanger was concerned that some facilities will want to transfer liability from
profit making entities. Mr. Meyer agreed and replied that staff is working with the facilities to
address the issue.
Mr. Meyer stated that no additional conditions to CUP’s related to senior housing was
recommended a this time. He added that staff will continue to address and meet with facility
managers of senior housing facilities.
3. 2002 Budget and 2002 Capital Improvement Projects.
Ms. McGann informed Council that projected General Fund expenditures exceed revenues for
the proposed 2002 budget. She explained the impact of legislative changes on HACA and Local
Government Aid payments. She also suggested that council enact a levy increase and an
additional HRA levy to mitigate the impact of anticipated shortfalls. Council directed staff to
move forward with budget planning using the maximum levy amount in their projections.
Following discussion, Ms. McGann informed the council that staff would be back to discuss the
HRA tax and other budget issues in late August.
Regarding the CIP, Mr. Pires stated that he would like Council to consider the merit of individual
projects, provide additional feedback to make the C.I.P. more productive, and allow staff to
incorporate suggested changes and to use these changes when drafting the final C.I.P for 2002-
2006 as well as the draft 2003-2007 C.I.P. He stated that levies would occur in the fall of 2002
and 2203.
Councilmember Santa inquired if the C.I.P. could be divided into Council and staff initiatives.
Ms. McGann replied that nothing goes into the C.I.P. without a funding source, and that an
identifier as to origin of the proposed projects could be included.
7
Mr. Pires informed Council that the Planning Commission will be reviewing the C.I.P. at their
next meeting. It will then go back to Council with the proposed budget. Staff hopes for final
adoption by September 4th.
4. Louisiana Court Redevelopment Project Update
Barbara McCormick, Project for Pride in Living Vice President, and Mark Ruff, Ehlers &
Associates, were both in attendance at the meeting.
Ms. Schnitker indicated that all work is being completed on time and may actually be completed
by the end of fall. Ms. Larsen outlined some of the financial concerns staff had, such as a
temporary shortfall in the cash flow and the lack of monthly payments by PPL into the Repair
and Replacement Fund.
Councilmember Brimeyer questioned the ability to recover from the cash shortfall. Mr. Ruff
replied that the projected revenue will make up the shortfall to cover the debt service.
Councilmember Santa stated that she is receiving very positive feedback from neighbors,
residents and school volunteers.
5. Texa Tonka Study
Geoff Martin of Dahlgren Shardlow and Uban was present at the meeting.
Mr. Martin presented the findings of the task force. He described the both the short and mid
term plans for a concept plan for improving the area. He stated that pedestrian, bicycle and
traffic safety was a key factor.
Council discussed the participation of the major property owner throughout the process. Council
agreed that though there has been some participation they felt that there is still some resistance.
Mr. Harmening felt that incremental steps in progressing with the improvements to the area are
the best option based on the reaction of business owners.
Councilmember Brimeyer inquired about funding for the improvements. Mr. Harmening replied
that some money was budgeted.
Councilmember Latz inquired if the property owners had accepted the McComb’s market study
report. Ms. Erickson responded that they had but only in light of the market and demand of the
neighborhood.
Ms. Erickson stated that the next steps would be to work with a transportation engineer and to
develop a streetscape.
Councilmember Nelson questioned when Hennepin County will improve Minnetonka Boulevard.
Ms. Erickson they will be ready to mill and overlay soon and the city will work with Hennepin
County on other desired improvements.
8
Mr. Harmening spoke briefly about obtaining future funding for improvements, costs of working
with the transportation consultant and streetscape.
Councilmember Sanger would like staff to keep the design of all of Minnetonka Boulevard in
mind as this moves forward.
6. Non-Conforming Duplexes
Councilmember Nelson felt that some of the duplexes should be rezoned to conform with the
Comprehensive Plan, but felt that some others should be left alone.
Councilmember Sanger suggested that staff develop criteria for determining viability of duplexes
in each ward.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that she would like to hear all of Council’s concerns with this issue. Staff
will provide lists of existing duplexes in each ward so that Councilmembers can view the
properties, assess their viability in each located and share their concerns with staff. If, after their
review there are issues councilmembers feel need to be addressed those issues can be brought
forward for further council discussion.
7. Railroad Advisory Task Force Final Report
Representatives of the Birchwood Neighborhood were present at the meeting. Lee Koppy, RLK
Kuusisto, Inc., was also present.
Mr. Meyer stated that the report of the task force reflects the most realistic strategy for rail in St.
Louis Park. He stated that they will be scheduling a series of meetings with neighborhood
groups. He added that the city does not have the authority to implement the various
recommendations on its own, but staff will continue to work with various decision making
bodies to facilitate movement on the report recommendations.
Councilmember Sanger felt the report should be shared with decision-making bodies that dictate
use of railroad property.
Councilmember Nelson felt the strategy should be reviewed and revised if any assumptions or
significant changes occur in rail traffic.
Mr. Meyer stated that Hennepin County is attempting to get the Environmental Response Fund
re-authorized. He added that he has been trying to clarify the dollar amount of funding set aside
for St. Louis Park.
The representatives of the Birchwood Neighborhood stated that the Birchwood Neighborhood is
opposed to the Iron Triangle option.
Mr. Meyer stated that staff will bring this item back following the public meetings for further
discussion.
8. Community Foundation
9
Council and staff discussed initiating a community foundation. They agreed that more research
must be done on this issue and that the city and school board should work together in
establishing a foundation.
9. Communications
Mr. Meyer briefed the Council on the traffic study and recommendations made by the Edina
Country Club neighborhood to the Edina City Council.
Councilmember Latz informed the Council that the Citgo gas station which has been unoccupied
for many months may have been sold. He also spoke about comments he has received on the
fireworks display that took place in St. Louis Park on July 4th.
Councilmember Latz suggested that publicity for the Park Commons development should be
done in the St. Louis Park Sun Sailor.
10. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 11:32 p.m.
City Clerk Mayor
10
Item # 3b
SPECIAL MEETING
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
July 23, 2001
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 7:40 p.m.
The following Councilmembers were present at the meeting: Jim Brimeyer, Ron Latz, Chris
Nelson, Susan Sanger, Sue Santa, Robert Young and Mayor Jeff Jacobs. City Attorney, Tom
Scott, was also present at the meeting.
Also present at the meeting were were the City Manager (Mr. Meyer); City Attorney (Mr. Scott);
Director of Community Development (Mr. Harmening); Planning & Zoning Supervisor (Ms.
Jeremiah); Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Kleve); City Clerk (Ms. Reichert); and
Recording Secretary (Ms. Samson).
2. Approval of Agenda and Consent Items
a. Approval of Agenda
The agenda was approved with a change to move consent Item 2b (1) to the regular
agenda as Item Number 3b.
b. Consent Item (s) - none
3a. TOLD Development Company is requesting approval of a Final Plat and Final PUD
for Park Commons East Phase One
A letter from Karen Waters questioning specific provisions of the project was entered into the
public record.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that TOLD is seeking final approval of the plat and PUD for phase one of
the Park Commons project. She also clarified that one change to the resolution presented was
being suggested and that was delaying renaming of the street until additional study had occurred.
Mr. Cunningham of TOLD spoke briefly about the aesthetics of the designs they have used.
Phil Freshman, 3912 Natchez Ave S, felt there should be a wider green, more architectural
diversity and a decrease in the number of rental units within the project. He did not feel the
proposal met the original intent of the charrette outcome.
Councilmember Nelson spoke to the process undergone by the staff, council and residents in the
years following the charrette. He believe that modifications made as the project moved through
the planning process were studied adequately, the public had benn included in the process and
11
believed that changes presented in the final PUD were warranted and needed to ensure a
successful project.
Councilmember Sanger stated that she still had concerns regarding the number of owner
occupied units.
Fran Rutherford, 4820 W 39th St. # 318, encouraged Council not to rename W 38/39th St. and
stated that it is not a simple process to rename a street.
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Latz to adopt a
resolution approving the Final Plat and Final PUD subject to the conditions included in the
resolution.
Councilmember Brimeyer clarified to the public that renaming of the street, though not included
in the resolution being adopted, was the desired outcome of the Council. He expressed sympathy
to those adversely affected by the change but believed it was vital for the success of the project.
Bob Jorvig, a resident of Wolfe Park Condominiums, congratulated Council and staff on the Park
Commons project and stated that he felt this would be an exciting future for St. Louis Park. He
said that he had moved to the area so that he could live in a downtown environment and
reassured his neighbors that even though there may be disruption to their daily lives through the
construction phase, the outcome promises to be something St. Louis Park and its residents can be
proud of.
Discussion ensued about the ratio of for sale and rental housing and design of the for sale units.
Mr. Cunningham and the staff stated that as future phase developments move forward, they will
be further discussing housing issues with the Council.
Councilmember Latz stated that he felt issues raised such as the width of the Town Green had
been adequately studied and addressed by the Council and that the final design was the result of
a great deal of discussion and deliberation. He was pleased with the design outcomes.
3b. Amended and Restated Contract for Private Redevelopment between the St. Louis
park Economic Development Authority the City of St. Louis Park, and Meridian
Properties Real Estate Development LLC.
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to approve the
resolution adopting the Amended and Restated Contract for Private Redevelopment between the
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority the City of St. Louis Park, and Meridian
Properties Real Estate Development LLC.
4. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 9:06 p.m.
City Clerk Mayor
12
Item # 3c
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
July 16, 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, Sue Santa, Robert Young, Ron Latz, and Mayor Jeff Jacobs.
Also present were the City Manager (Mr. Meyer); City Attorney (Mr. Scott); Director of
Community Development (Mr. Harmening); Director of Finance (Ms. McGann); Planning
& Zoning Supervisor (Ms. Jeremiah); Superintendent of Engineering (Mr. Moore); Planner
(Mr. Smith); Housing Manager (Ms. Schnitker); Housing Coordinator (Ms. Larsen); City
Clerk (Ms. Reichert); and Recording Secretary (Ms. Samson).
2. Presentations--None
3. Approval of Minutes
a. City Council Minutes of July 2, 2001
The minutes were approved as presented with the following changes:
Councilmember Sanger asked that the following sentence be added to Page 6, Item 5a, the
last paragraph:
“Staff agreed to discuss this option with the Norbys.”
Councilmember Nelson asked the following addition be made to Page 7, Item 5b, the next to
last paragraph:
“Councilmember Nelson suggested a 40-foot lot should be assessed for 40 feet of benefit,
which was the case, however, an 80-foot lot should be assessed for 80 feet—not 60 feet—
which reflects greater fairness.”
Delete the following sentences from Page 8, Item 7a, Paragraph 3:
“He would like to know why building expansions conform to the original architectural
design.” “Because the new material serves a function and, because of that function, the
design meets the intent of the ordinance.”
Make the following change on Page 8, Item 7a, Paragraph 3, Sentence 2:
“Mayor Jacobs” should be “Councilmember Nelson”
13
b. Study Session Minutes of June 25, 2001
The minutes were approved with the following changes:
Councilmember Nelson thinks the following change should be made on Page 11, Item 1,
Paragraph 3:
“Gazby” should be “GASB34”
Councilmember Nelson asked the following be added to Page 12, Item 3, Paragraph 7:
“Councilmember Nelson asked for a pro forma. Mr. Harmening suggested coming up with
a one-page fund sources/funding expenditure sheet and making it available to Council.”
Page 13, Item 5, Paragraph 5, Councilmember Nelson said “disclosure” should be changed
to “HIA assessment”
4. Approval of Agenda and Consent Items
NOTE: Consent items are those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or
which need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is
desired by either a Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to
an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion.
4a. Agenda
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to approve
the agenda. The motion passed 7-0.
City Manager, Mr. Meyer, suggested adding another issue to Item 10, Recess to Executive
Session, and the issue is pending litigation regarding garage variance on Coolidge Avenue
with the Christianson property.
4b. Consent Agenda
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Latz, to approve the
following Consent Agenda Items. The motion passed 7-0.
1. To accept the following reports for filing:
A. Planning Commission Minutes of June 20, 2001
B. Vendor Claims
2. To adopt Resolution No. 01-059 and authorize Chief of Police to execute the
Mutual Aid agreement with Hennepin County Chiefs of Police Association.
3. To adopt the final draft of the Excelsior Blvd. Corridor Traffic Study as prepared
by BRW, Inc.
14
4. To approve a contract with SRF Consulting Group, Inc. for the redevelopment of
the Oak Park Village area.
5. Public Hearings
5a. Public Hearing to consider issuing Private Activity Revenue Bonds for Newport on
Seven. Resolution No. 01-060
Dominion Development and Acquisition Company and Mr. John Utley from Kennedy and
Graven were present to answer questions regarding the Private Activity Revenue Bonds for
Newport on Seven. With no one wishing to speak, Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Sanger abstained from voting due to a financial conflict of interest.
It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Latz, to approve
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
and 2001B. The motion passed 6-0-1. (Councilmember Sanger abstaining)
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
On June 28, 2001, the Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA) denied Mr. Robert Rappaport’s
request to permit a setback. Mr. Rappaport would like to construct an addition onto the front
of his garage which would encroach into the setback by three feet, thereby, requiring him to
obtain a variance. Because the Applicant had not submitted new information, Staff
recommended the Council uphold BOZA’s decision to deny the Applicant’s request.
Mr. Rappaport requested the Council to consider the appeal of a variance decision by BOZA
stating that the addition to the garage would be part of a complete upgrade to his property.
Mr. Scott Moore, Assistant Zoning Administrator, verified the current garage size to be 15
feet wide with a depth of 20 feet. Councilmembers stated they had visited the site.
The following persons spoke on behalf of the applicant stating they supported the proposed
modifications to the home and felt it would have a positive impact on the neighborhood: Mr.
William Hicks, 2715 Huntington Avenue; Mr. Mark Silverberg, 3900 Basswood Road; and
Mrs. Teresa Victor, 3908 Basswood Road.
Councilmember Latz said that the zoning ordinance should adequately provide for the type of
move-up housing Mr. Rappaport is requesting and which the City Council promotes in St.
Louis Park without forcing people to come to the variance process.
15
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Young, to overturn
the decision of BOZA and grant the variance permitting 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. The motion passed 7-0.
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)
Since the July 2nd City Council meeting, Staff and Groves Academy have met to discuss the
design of the building. Mr. Smith, Planner, stated that the Applicant had proposed the use of
the exposed aggregate on the east and west elevations and the addition of a 10-foot high
wainscotting of brick. Staff recommended that the exposed aggregate concrete panels be
changed to IFS, which is made of plastic and similar to stucco. The appearance of the two
materials are similar.
Councilmember Sanger asked if the Applicant agreed with the changes that Staff had
recommended. Mr. Smith said the Applicant favors the exposed aggregate as opposed to the
IFS.
Councilmember Nelson asked if IFS is a Class 2 material. Ms. Jeremiah, Planning and
Zoning Supervisor, said IFS is a Class 2 material, and Staff has recommended IFS because it
is already being used elsewhere on the building. Mr. Todd Mohagen, Groves Academy
architect, explained that IFS is an acrylic stucco; it has a foam backing with acrylic placed
on top. Regarding the current proposal, Ms. Jeremiah said the south elevation maintains the
brick, and cited the following percentages of materials: on the east elevation, Class 1
material comprises 75% and Class 2 material comprises 24%; previously, Class 1 material
had been in the mid-60%.
Councilmember Nelson said the ordinance requires two things: 1) plans must meet a certain
numerical criteria percentage of Class 1 materials, and this proposal did that; and 2) the
addition is required to match building materials proportionally with the original structure.
Councilmember Nelson said he was satisfied with either proposal and supported the design
changes that had been made.
Councilmember Young said he would like the applicant to complete the structure in all brick
as had been originally proposed and approved by the council.
Councilmember Sanger asked Councilmember Nelson for clarification as to which building
material he preferred. Councilmember Nelson responded that he did not feel comfortable
specifying the building material. Though he did not prefer the use of exposed aggregate, it
is not prohibited and is acceptable under code. Councilmember Nelson further commented
that the proposal for wains coating on the west elevation was an improvement.
16
Councilmember Sanger expressed concern regarding the appearance of the west elevation,
which faces a number of residents; it appears to be a warehouse with the panels stretching
all the way down and no windows.
Councilmember Santa agreed with Councilmember Sanger, and stated her support for
Staff’s recommendations.
Councilmember Latz asked if IFS is present on the original building, and Mr. Mohagen
replied no, it is not present.
Councilmember Sanger moved to approve the Continued Special Permit to change the
approved building elevations as modified by City Staff’s recommendations. The motion
was seconded by Councilmember Santa.
Councilmember Nelson said he would like to hear from Krause-Anderson as to the
durability of IFS. Mr. John Davis said he thinks IFS is about a 10-15 year product, with the
potential for nicks or dings, as it is acrylic. Mr. Davis added, one could drive a nail through
IFS and, typically, hail will not bother it. Ms. Jeremiah stated IFS is quite durable as long as
it is not exposed to damage by vehicles or people using a sharp object on it, and that is why
it is not recommended for use at a pedestrian level.
Councilmember Brimeyer asked if neighborhood meetings were held regarding the addition
to Groves Academy. Ms. Jeremiah said an initial neighborhood meeting was held regarding
the proposed expansion and, at that time, residents saw only the brick rendition and not the
exposed aggregate or IFS materials.
Councilmember Nelson asked Councilmember Sanger if she would consider a friendly
amendment, that they approve the plan as Staff had proposed with the west elevation having
the wainscotting, however, leaving it up to Groves Academy as to whether they want to use
IFS or exposed aggregate. Mayor Jacobs concurred with Councilmember Nelson.
Councilmember Sanger would be agreeable provided the wains coating is on both the east
and west elevations.
Councilmember Latz expressed his concern that there could be negative reaction from
residents who are expecting an all brick façade. He asked if the process, at this point,
provides for their input. Ms. Jeremiah said that minor amendments do not require a formal
public hearing and the building materials in this case fall into the category of a minor
amendment. Councilmember Latz suggested that the definition of minor amendment, when
dealing with an architectural ordinance as well as classification of building materials, may
need to be changed.
Councilmember Nelson suggested that discussion on minor amendments and neighborhood
notification take place at a future Study Session
Councilmember Sanger pointed out if neighborhood approval were to be sought at this
point, it should be approval for all of the elevations and not just the west elevation.
17
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to adopt
Resolution No. 01-062 minor amendment to the approved Continued Special Use Permit to
change the approved building elevations to allow expansion to a school at 3200 Highway
100. The motion passed 6-1. (Councilmember Young opposed.)
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. 95-51PUD(Amended) Resolution No. 01-063
Mr. Smith reported that in 2000 the City Council approved a major amendment approving
Costco Wholesale to increase the size of their building from 110,000 square feet to 140,000
square feet. Costco would like to build a 12-station fueling facility on Lot 9, the last
buildable lot in Park Place Plaza. The fueling facility will be for Costco members only, and
it is projected that 70% of station customers will extend their visits to the Costco warehouse
on the same visit; a convenience store is not part of the fueling facility. In June of 2001, the
Planning Commission reviewed the proposal and recommended denial of the fueling facility
because such a facility is not the highest and best use of the land, and any future
development should be tied to correcting existing traffic problems.
The City has received 655 postcards from residents of St. Louis Park and surrounding
communities supporting the fueling facility.
Mr. Jack Frank, Director of Real Estate Development for Costco; Mr. Ted Johnson,
Executive Vice President of Planning; and Mr. Allan Klugman, traffic engineer addressed
the Council. Mr. Klugman reported Costco fully supports the traffic recommendations
made by Staff. Mr. Frank said Costco may be willing to underwrite improvements with
regard to pre-existing problems such as the installation of cart corals on the Home Depot
property and traffic circulation in the parking lot.
Councilmember Nelson asked City Attorney, Mr. Scott, if it is appropriate for the Planning
Commission and City Council to inquire if the fueling facility is the highest and best use of
the land. Mr. Scott replied it is at the City Council’s discretion to determine if it is the
highest and best use of the land. Mr. Scott stated from a legal standpoint the question to ask
is: What was the original intended use when the Planned Unit Development (PUD) was
approved, and is it still a preferred and reasonable use?
Ms. Jeremiah said she thinks SRF would recommend the proposed traffic improvements
regardless of any additional development on Lot 9. She said the City has offered to
facilitate the improvement process.
Councilmember Nelson asked how Costco would guarantee members only use the fueling
facility. A Costco representative said a magnetic strip on the back of Costco members’
cards would activate the fueling process. Councilmember Nelson thinks the traffic concerns
are surmountable and, with Costco’s financial backing, will improve the circulation on this
18
site. Councilmember Nelson believes there is a need for a fueling facility and he supports
the proposal and the improvements to Area 3.
At this time, Councilmember Sanger is opposed to a fueling facility or any other
development on Lot 9 until the suggested SRF improvements are made.
Councilmember Young said the crux of the issue is whether Council wanted to delay
development on Lot 9 as leverage to force other improvments the Council would like to
have done. He did not believe that would be fair. Councilmember Young felt the fueling
facility is an amenity as there are so few in the area.
Councilmember Brimeyer asked if Gamble Drive extended is a public street, and Ms.
Jeremiah responded, no, it is not. Councilmember Brimeyer stated traffic circulation is an
internal problem, and the property storeowners at Park Place Plaza will have to solve it.
Councilmember Brimeyer thinks a fueling facility is not the most compatible facility with
the original approved PUD.
Councilmember Nelson stated Area 1 is a significant problem and Costco has agreed to
improve it. He agreed that Area 4 may or may not be problematic, however, Area 3 is a
problem and must be addressed regardless of the fate of Lot 9 and Costco’s willingness to
underwrite improvements there. Councilmember Nelson asked for the City Attorney’s
opinion as to whetehr a taking process would be viable in this situation.
Councilmember Sanger stated that she was prepared to make a motion to uphold the denial
at this time but suggested a two to four week continuance to give the City Attorney time to
research Councilmember Nelson’s question and see if it could be worked out contractually
among the property owners on the PUD.
Councilmember Nelson suggested that the matter be continued for two or four weeks
pointing out that if the City Attorney determines it is not possible for the City to take the
property and initiate the traffic changes, then the City Council must decide what to do with
Lot 9 given the traffic impacts.
Councilmember Sanger agreed and asked if City Staff and Costco representatives could use
the time to determine if there is a voluntary solution to the process.
Mayor Jacobs agreed that there are traffic impacts on that parcel for the remaining parcels,
but, didn’t want to hold up the process due to traffic problems created by other tenants and
felt that it unfairly penalized Costco.
Councilmember Santa said she finds the traffic problematic and felt a fueling facility would
add to the problem. She concurred with the recommendation to deny as nothing persuades
her that a fueling facility is the best use of this spot. Councilmember Santa also agreed that
a continuance would be appropriate.
19
Mayor Jacobs said he felt there was general concensus for further study on the issue of
traffic.
Councilmember Young suggested moving forward with the fueling facility and allowing
Costco to make the traffic improvements. Councilmember Young stated that he did not
believe condemnation for purposes of traffic improvements was good public policy.
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to continue
the request for a major amendment by Costco Wholesale to the approved planned unit
development for park place plaza to permit a 12 station fueling facility. The motion passed
7-0.
7c. Housing Improvement Area Policy
Resolution #01-061
Housing Manager, Ms. Michele Schnitker, said the policy before the Council had been
revised per council direction at the study session where it had first been presented.
Language had been added to ensure that the city is considered as a lender-of-last-resort for
an association. An average market-value threshold will be used to determine an
association’s eligibility. Councilmember Young said he is supportive of and appreciative of
the language changes in regard to the assessment fees and average market values.
Councilmember Young moved to adopt resolution #01-061 establishing a Housing
Improvement Area Policy, seconded by Councilmember Sanger. The motion passed 7-0.
8. Boards and Committees
a. Reappointment of Catherine Courtney to the Housing Authority
b. Councilmember Young moved to reappoint Catherine Courtney to the Housing
Authority, seconded by Councilmember Sanger. The motion passed 7-0.
c. Appointment to the Board of Zoning Appeals--None
9. Communications
From the City Manager – Mr. Meyer said a special City Council meeting will be held on
July 23, 2001 regarding the final PUD approval for the Park Commons development.
Mr. Meyer received notice from Fire Chief Bob Gill informing him of Chief Gill’s
retirement effective July 27, 2001.
20
10. Executive Session
Councilmember Nelson moved to adjourn to the Executive Session to discuss pending
litigation regarding fill at Wolfe Park and the Christianson Garage Variance. Motion
seconded by Councilmember Santa. The motion passed 7-0.
All councilmembers were present at the executive session.
Also in attendance were Charles W. Meyer, City Manager; Cynthia Reichert, City Clerk;
Brian Hoffman, Director of Inspections; Tom Scott, City Attorney; and Susan Sager, Senior
Land Use Attorney with the League of MN Cities.
As a result of discussion Council asked Mr. Scott to move forward with litigation
proceedings regarding Wolfe Park Fill.
Regarding the Christianson Garage, Council reviewed various settlement options
with their attorneys and gave direction on how to proceed.
10. Adjournment
Mayor Jacobs adjourned the meeting at 11:59 p.m.
City Clerk Mayor
21
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 7a
Meeting of August 6, 2001
7a. The request of Xcel Energy for a Comprehensive Plan amendment from
Residential to Industrial and a rezoning from R2 to I-P for the northern
portion of property located at 2201 Edgewood Avenue South. (Cedar Lake
Road and Edgewood Avenue)
Case No. 01-31-CP and 01-32-Z
Recommended
Action:
1) Motion to adopt a resolution approving a Comprehensive
Plan amendment subject to approval by the Metropolitan
Council, approve summary and authorize publication
.
2) Motion to approve first reading of rezoning ordinance and set
second reading for August 20, subject to approval of the
Metropolitan Council.
Background:
NSP purchased the 2.6 acre site in 1983 to help meet the growing electrical demand in the
growing St. Louis Park and Golden Valley area. At the time, the Comprehensive Plan depicted
the entire property as medium density multiple family. However, 2/3 of the property was zoned
residential while the southeastern 1/3 was zoned industrial.
On March 7, 1983, City Council approved a Special Permit for Northern State Power’s (NSP)
substation and placement of fill on the subject site. At that time an electrical substation was a
permitted use in both residential and industrial zoning districts. It appears NSP (now Xcel
Energy) complied with all of the conditions outlined in the special permit with the exception of
actually constructing the substation. NSP completed site preparation such as grading, drainage
relocation and fencing. NSP curtailed the development of the Edgewood site because of changes
in electric load projections and additions to the electric capacities of other substations that serve
the western suburban areas.
At that time, a provision of the Zoning Ordinance automatically terminated any Special Permit
that was not in compliance with the conditions within one year. Since one of the conditions of
approval was the actual construction of the substation, the resolution became void as of March 7,
1984.
In 1992, the Zoning Ordinance was revised to prohibit utility substations in residential districts.
The subject property was rezoned, reducing the amount of residential zoning on the parcel.
Currently a zoning line bisects this parcel so that approximately the northern half of the property
is zoned R2 while the southern portion is zoned IP.
In 1993, the Zoning Ordinance was amended to establish consistency in terms of setbacks for
substations. To alleviate these inconsistencies a Zoning Ordinance amendment was approved
22
which required substations in all the applicable zoning districts to be setback a minimum of 200
feet from any residential district. Due to the split zoning on the parcel, this change made it
impossible to locate a substation on the site.
Subsequently, the ordinance was amended in 2001 to clarify that such setbacks are measured
from properties that are used for residential, schools, religious institutions, and community
centers. This eliminates the setback being measured from the street right-of-way, which is
usually where the residential district line occurs. However, it did not resolve the split zoning
problem.
On July 11, 2001, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and considered the
Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezoning requests. No one other than the applicant’s
representative was present from the public, and no one spoke at the public hearing. However, a
resident did write a letter stating his objection of the project (please see attached letter). The
Planning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the rezoning and amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan.
Review Process
The Zoning Ordinance allows Comprehensive Plan amendments and zoning requests to be
considered concurrently, provided the rezoning is conditional upon approval of the
Comprehensive Plan amendment by the Metropolitan Council.
The Zoning Ordinance, however, prohibits Conditional Use Permits, PUDs and variances to be
considered until action on the Comprehensive Plan amendment has been completed.
The substation will require a Conditional Use Permit for excavation and fill in excess of 400
cubic yards to replace poor soils on the site. Assuming the applicant’s request is approved, staff
expects the Conditional Use Permit application will be ready for City Council review at its
September 24th meeting. In addition, a more thorough study of the development plans, including
grading, landscaping, and other code compliance issues, will be reviewed at that time. The
applicant held a neighborhood meeting on April 19, 2001.
Existing Conditions
The subject site is a vacant property south of Cedar Lake Road between the CP Rail north/south
railroad and Edgewood Avenue. Industrial development is located to the south, and single family
housing exists to the north and west beyond a small neighborhood park area. The subject
property is approximately 10 feet lower than Cedar Lake Road. A number of mature oak and
boxelder trees are located on the slope with understory shrubs. A grove of mature cottonwood
trees grows at the bottom of the hill along the northwestern portion of the site.
The advantage of the proposed site for the substation is the proximate existing transmission line
that runs along the easterly property line with the railroad. The proposed 115Kv substation will
tap this existing transmission line. Along with the transmission towers and lightening protectors,
23
a 20’x40’ control building is proposed. The applicant will need to submit building elevations
with the Conditional Use Permit review.
Issues:
What change or changing condition makes the Comprehensive Plan amendment and
rezoning necessary?
What is the expected effect of the Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezoning?
What other uses would be permitted if Xcel sold the property?
Are the Zoning Ordinance requirements being satisfied?
How does the development impact the proximate residential properties?
Is the property located in the flood plain?
Issues Analysis:
What change or changing condition makes the Comprehensive Plan amendment and
rezoning necessary?
The Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezoning is necessary because the Zoning Ordinance
was amended in 1992 prohibiting substations in residential zoning districts. When NSP received
their approval in 1983, substations were a permitted use in industrial as well as residential
districts; hence, a split zoning of the parcel was not an issue for the project at that time.
For the 1983 approval, the City and NSP completed a comprehensive review of suitable
locations for new utility substations to serve this area and to ensure adequate electrical capacity
in the future. NSP and the City determined that this site provided the best location for developing
a utility substation to meet future electrical needs while minimizing the impact on the
surrounding neighborhood.
What is the expected effect of the Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezoning?
The Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezoning to Industrial Park will enable Xcel Energy to
construct a substation at the subject site. The City originally reviewed the site and need for the
substation and approved the project in 1983. Staff does not believe any of the Comprehensive
Plan and Zoning Ordinance amendments that have occurred since 1983 were intended to prohibit
the construction of the substation on this site.
What other uses would be permitted if Xcel sold the property?
The following uses are permitted by right in the Industrial Park District: park and open space,
police and fire stations, post offices, business and trade schools, parcel delivery services,
recycling operations, showrooms, warehouse and storage, transit stations, and time transfer
stations.
The following uses are permitted with conditions but do not need a public hearing: group day
care or nursery schools, public service structures, utility substations, communication towers,
manufacturing uses, parking lots and parking ramps as an exclusive principal land use, high
24
impact sexually-oriented businesses (the site does not meet the minimum setback from
residential for this use), medical laboratories, and catering uses.
The following uses would need City Council approval through a public hearing process in the IP
zoning district: heliports and offices.
Are the Zoning Ordinance requirements being satisfied?
Although the merit of the Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezoning request should be
judged based on the general use of the property for industrial and not the specific proposal of an
electrical substation, staff wanted to give the Council a brief review of Xcel’s substation
proposal. Utility substations are permitted in the IP – Industrial Park Zoning District with the
following conditions:
1. Structures shall be located a minimum of 25 feet from any property line.
2. Structures shall be located a minimum of 200 feet from any residential use.
3. A Bufferyard “E” shall be installed and maintained along all public ways.
4. This use shall be considered an intensity classification 7 for the purpose of establishing
adjacent bufferyard requirements.
The proposed substation is 200 feet from the residential properties north of Cedar Lake Road and
310 feet from the residential property west of Edgewood Avenue. Furthermore, the substation
meets the 25-foot setback from all property lines. As explained below, a detailed landscaping
plan analysis will be reviewed concurrently with the Conditional Use Permit request at the
September 24 meeting.
The proposed height of the transmission towers is 76 feet as measured from the grade at the base
of the towers. The maximum permitted height of structures in the IP zoning district is 75 feet.
However, the measured height per ordinance is from the mean curb level along the front lot line
or from the finished grade level, whichever is higher. The mean curb level along Edgewood
Avenue is 890 feet, while the finished grade level is 884 feet. Therefore, the towers are five feet
below the maximum permitted height.
How does the development impact the proximate residential properties?
The location of the actual substation on the site is at the southeast corner, which is the most
removed from residential activity and closest to the existing Xcel overhead line and the railroad
facility and other industrial development. However, the proposed development has a larger
footprint than the project that was approved in 1983. The actual developed area in 1983 was .62
acres compared to the current proposal of 1.17 acres.
Similarly, the height of the towers has increased. In 1983, the City Council approved 37-foot
transmission towers. As mentioned above, Xcel Energy is now proposing towers that are 76 feet
in height.
25
Finally, the 1983 staff report indicated that NSP was proposing to construct a decorative fence
around the substation. Staff, however, could not find any detailed drawings of the proposed
fence. Xcel Energy is now proposing a seven-foot, chain-linked fence topped with barbwire
around the site. Because the site is 15 feet lower than Cedar Lake Road, it is very difficult to
construct a berm that would effectively screen the substation and fence. The existing and
proposed deciduous trees will help screen the substation but will have little effect in the winter.
Thus, staff is recommending the applicant review the installation of a decorative fence around
the substation. Additional evergreen trees will be required along Cedar Lake Road and
Edgewood Avenue to meet bufferyard requirements between the street. Again, all of this will be
reviewed as part of a Conditional Use Permit request.
Is the property located in the flood plain?
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) shows a portion of the subject property
being in the flood plain on their 1986 flood insurance map. However, the City has since
completed a utility project that constructed a small dike that effectively removed the subject
property from the flood plain. Staff will attempt to confirm this change prior to CUP review to
ensure that flood plain restrictions do not apply. Staff may recommend a condition of approval of
the Conditional Use Permit that the applicant receives a letter from FEMA recognizing that the
property is out of the flood plain.
Recommendation:
Motion to adopt Resolution No. ____ amending the Comprehensive Plan reguiding the north
portion of the property located at 2201 Edgewood Avenue from Residential to Industrial subject
to the Comprehensive Plan amendment is approved by the Metropolitan Council.
Motion to adopt Ordinance No. ____ approving a Zoning Ordinance amendment rezoning the
north portion of the property located at 2201 Edgewood Avenue from R2 – Single Family
Residential to IP – Industrial Park subject to the Comprehensive Plan amendment is approved by
the Metropolitan Council.
Attachment:
• Zoning Map
• Proposed site and grading plans
• Resident’s letter
• Comprehensive Plan resolution and summary
• Rezoning ordinance
Prepared by: Patrick Smith, Planner
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
26
RESOLUTION NO. 01-068
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN 2000 TO THE YEAR 2020 FOR THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTES 462.351 TO 462.364
2201 EDGEWOOD AVENUE S.
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan 2000-2020 was adopted by the City Council on
May 17, 1999 (effective September 1, 1999) and provides the following:
1. An official statement serving as the basic guide in making land use, transportation and
community facilities and service decisions affecting the City.
2. A framework for policies and actions leading to the improvement of the physical,
financial, and social environment of the City, thereby providing a good place to live and work
and a setting conducive for new development.
3. A promotion of the public interest in establishing a more functional, healthful,
interesting, and efficient community by serving the interests of the community at large rather
than the interests of individual or special groups within the community if their interests are at
variance with the public interest.
4. An effective framework for direction and coordination of activities affecting the
development and preservation of the community.
5. Treatment of the entire community as one ecosystem and to inject long range
considerations into determinations affecting short-range action, and
WHEREAS, the use of such Comprehensive Plan will insure a safer, more pleasant, and
more economical environment for residential, commercial, industrial, and public activities and
will promote the public health, safety, and general welfare, and
WHEREAS, said Plan will prepare the community for anticipated desirable change,
thereby bringing about significant savings in both private and public expenditures, and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan has taken due cognizance of the planning activities
of adjacent units of government, and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan is to be periodically reviewed by the Planning
Commission of the City of St. Louis Park and amendments made, if justified according to
procedures, rules, and laws, and provided such amendments would provide a positive result and
are consistent with other provisions in the Comprehensive Plan, and
27
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of St. Louis Park recommended
adoption of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan 2000-2020 on July 11, 2001, based on
statutes, the Metropolitan Regional Blueprint, extensive research and analyses involving the
interests of citizens and public agencies;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of St. Louis Park that the
Comprehensive Plan, as previously adopted by the Planning Commission and City Council, is
hereby amended as follows:
Change the land use designation of a portion of the property shown on attached map
from Low-Density Residential to Industrial.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council August 6, 2001
Contingent upon approval of the Metropolitan
Council
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
01-31-CP:N/res
28
SUMMARY
RESOLUTION NO.________
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN 2000 TO THE YEAR 2020 FOR THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTES 462.351 TO 462.364
2201 EDGEWOOD AVENUE SOUTH
This resolution states that the land use designation of a portion of property located at 2201
Edgewood Avenue South shall be changed from Low-Density Residential to Industrial.
This resolution shall take effect upon approval by the Metropolitan Council.
Adopted by the City Council August 6, 2001
Contingent upon approval of the Metropolitan Council
Jeffrey W. Jacobs /s/
Mayor
A copy of the full text of this resolution is available for inspection with the City Clerk.
Published in St. Louis Park Sailor: August 15, 2001
01-31-Cpsum/N-res
29
ORDINANCE NO.__________
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE
CHANGING BOUNDARIES OF ZONING DISTRICTS
NORTHERN PORTION OF PROPERTY LOCATED
AT 2201 EDGEWOOD AVENUE SOUTH
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. The St. Louis Park Zoning Ordinance adopted December 28, 1959,
Ordinance No. 730; amended December 31, 1992, Ordinance No. 1902-93, as heretofore
amended, is hereby further amended by changing the zoning district boundaries by reclassifying
the following described lands from their existing land use district classification to the new land
use district classification as indicated for the tract as hereinafter set forth, to wit:
Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 916, Files of the Registrar of Titles, County
of Hennepin, except that part thereof which lies south of a line parallel with and
451.51 feet north of the south line of said Tract A.
from R-2 Single Family Residential to I-P Industrial Park.
Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication.
Adopted by the City Council August 20, 2001
Reviewed for Administration
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
30
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 7b
Meeting of August 6, 2001
7b. Miscellaneous Zoning Ordinance amendments to Sections 14:5-4.1(C)(7), 14:6-
1.2(C)(5), 14:6-4.8(C)(3), and 14:8-2 to relocate the permit requirements and
add some flexibility for the construction of sheds under 120 square feet,
require a time frame for the installation of driveways and landscaping for one
and two-family homes, and make the Certificate of Occupancy section of the
Zoning Ordinance consistent with the recodification of the City Ordinance
Code.
Recommended
Action:
1) Motion to approve first reading of the proposed Zoning
Ordinance amendments and set second reading for the
August 20, 2001 City Council Meeting.
2) Motion directing staff to prepare a fee resolution for shed
permits.
Background:
At the July 11, 2001 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission considered the proposed
ordinance amendments related to sheds, Certificates of Occupancy, and establishing a time frame
for the installation of driveways and landscaping. The Planning Commission recommended
approval of the proposed amendments on the vote of 6-0.
The City’s Ordinance code currently requires that all sheds under 120 square feet in area receive
a permit to ensure that they are secured to the ground by either a concrete slab or post footings.
This section is not being included with the recodification of the code, so staff is proposing to
incorporate this requirement into the Zoning Ordinance and allow alternatives for securing the
structure to the ground. As well, the Certificate of Occupancy section of the Ordinance Code is
being completely revised and the Zoning Ordinance should be amended to reflect these revisions.
A concern was also raised pertaining to driveways and landscaping not being installed in a
timely manner for one and two-family homes. In a recent ordinance amendment the city has
required that the exterior materials for a one and two-family home be installed within 1 year of
the issuance of the building permit. The proposed changes to require a time limit for driveways
and landscaping are in response to the same issues and concerns.
Issues:
• Why are changes proposed regarding permits for sheds under 120 square feet in area?
• Should a time limit for installing a driveway be required for one and two family homes?
• Should a time limit for installing landscaping be required for one and two family
homes?
31
• What changes to the Zoning Ordinance’s Certificate of Occupancy section need to be
made to make it consistent with the City’s recodified Ordinance Code?
Analysis of Issues:
Why are changes proposed regarding permits for sheds under 120 square feet in area?
The State Building Code does not require a building permit for a structure 120 square feet or less
in area. However, the City’s Ordinance Code does require that all sheds be secured to the
ground by either a concrete slab or post footings. Currently a building permit must be issued for
the installation of the slab or the post footings.
Due to some changes in State Law, it is no longer possible to require building permits that are
not required by the State Building Code. Therefore, staff is proposing to incorporate these
requirements into the Zoning Ordinance. This will still require a permit be issued for the
installation of the shed, but it will be a zoning permit, much like for a fence, instead of a building
permit. An inspection will still be conducted to ensure proper placement of the shed. The
previously proposed language required a concrete slab or post footings to secure the shed to the
ground. The Planning Commission noted that alternatives would be desirable for small sheds
and could be approved administratively with the current language. The City will be able to
approve alternative methods of securing the structure to the ground, which would include
hurricane straps, or other alternatives to a concrete slab or post footings.
The normal building permit fee for a shed ranges between $25.00 and $40.00. Staff is proposing
a shed permit fee of $25.00 to help cover the cost for processing and the inspection. The fee
resolution could be brought to the Council during second reading of the ordinance amendments.
Staff proposes adding the following ordinance language to the Zoning Code:
Section 14:5-4.1(C)(7) - Residential Restrictions and Performance Standards
“j. An accessory structure 120 square feet or less in area shall obtain a zoning permit
prior to its installation and must be anchored in a manner approved by the City.”
Should a time limit for installing driveways be required for one and two family dwellings?
The current code does not provide a time frame for installing a driveway for a one or two family
dwelling, but it does state that all driveways shall be surfaced with bituminous, concrete, or an
equivalent material approved by the city. Staff is proposing that the driveway be installed within
one year after the issuance of a building permit for the home. This would apply to new one and
two family homes as well as additions and garages, if the driveway was not previously paved.
Section 14:6-1.2(C)(5) -Design and Maintenance of Off-Street Parking Areas
“Surfacing. All driveways and all areas intended to be utilized for parking space for three
(3) or more vehicles shall be surfaced within a minimum of 1 1/2” of bituminous paving
32
on a suitable base, or six inches of non-reinforced concrete or equivalent material
approved by the city. All driveways for one and two family homes shall be surfaced
within 1 year of issuance of the building permit for new homes, additions, or garages.
Decorative concrete interlocking pavers may also be used in parking lots. ”
Should a time limit for installing landscaping be required for one and two family homes?
The City has received a few complaints regarding landscaping not being installed for single
family homes. The main concern is that the land has not been seeded or sodded. The current
code states that any area not used for buildings, driveways, patios, or storage must be landscaped
with a combination of trees, shrubs, flowers, sod, and ground cover materials. (Section 14:6-
7.7(B)
Staff is proposing that the minimum landscaping requirements be satisfied within 1 year from the
issuance of the building permit. This would apply to new one and two family homes as well as
additions and garages.
Section 14:6-4.8(C)(3) - Installation Requirements
“All areas within any landscaped area and bufferyards which do not contain trees or
shrubs shall be sodded or seeded with lawn or other ground cover unless such vegetation
is already fully established. Landscaping for one and two family homes shall be installed
within 1 year of issuance of the building permit for a new home, addition, or garage. All
trees and shrubs shall be mulched to preserve soil moisture.”
What changes to the Zoning Ordinance’s Certificate of Occupancy section need to be made
to make it consistent with the City’s recodified Ordinance Code?
Through the recodification of the City’s Ordinance Code, the requirements for obtaining a
Certificate of Occupancy are being structured to be more consistent with the State Building
Code. The State Building Code limits the requirements for Certificates of Occupancy to new
construction, additions, and changes in occupancy classification as defined by the State Building
Code. Currently, the Zoning Ordinance addresses when a Certificate of Occupancy is needed
which includes the State Building Code requirements as well as changes in ownership and tenant
changes which may not affect the occupancy classification. Changes in ownership will be
covered by a new Certificate of Property Maintenance requirement in the ordinance code.
Therefore, the only remaining item to be covered by the Zoning Ordinance is a change in tenants
that does not change the State Building Code occupancy classification. This will be called a
Registration of Land Use. For example, the Registration of Land Use will cover a change in
retail uses, so that staff is aware of the change and can check that the new retail use is legal per
the Zoning Ordinance. Some retail uses, such as Sexually Oriented Businesses, have specific
zoning requirements that must be enforced. However, staff is not concerned with changes in
office tenants, provided there is no change in the size of the office. Therefore, office replacing
office has been exempted from the requirements.
33
Staff is proposing that the Certificate of Occupancy language in the Zoning Ordinance is
amended to make it consistent with the other sections of the City’s Ordinance Code. Staff
proposes replacing Sections 14:8-2.0 - 14:8-2.8 with the new language shown as Sections 14:8-
2.0 - 14:8-2.4 below. In addition, staff proposes renumbering the existing Section 14:8-2.9
Public Hearings as Section 14:8-8.0, since it is a general requirement and does not pertain to the
Certificate of Occupancy. (See proposed ordinance)
Recommendation:
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed ordinance
amendments.
Prepared By: Scott Moore, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Approved By: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
Attachments:
• Proposed Ordinance with new language underlined.
34
ORDINANCE NO.______
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK
ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING BY
AMENDING SECTIONS 14:5-4.1(C)(7), 14:6-1.2(C)(5),
14:6-4.8(C)(3), and 14:8-2
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
Findings
Sec. 1. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning
Commission (Case No. 01-33-ZA)
Sec. 2. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Sections 14:5-4.1(C)(7), 14:6-1.2(C)(5),
14:6-4.8(C)(3), and 14:8-2 is hereby amended to read as follows:
Section 14:5-4.1(C)(7) – Residential Restrictions and Performance Standards
“j. An accessory structure 120 square feet or less in area shall obtain a zoning
permit prior to its installation and must be anchored in a manner approved
by the city.”
Section 14:6-1.2(C)(5) – Design and Maintenance of Off-Street Parking Areas
“Surfacing. All driveways and all areas intended to be utilized for parking space
for three (3) or more vehicles shall be surfaced within a minimum of 1 ½” of
bituminous paving on a suitable base, or six inches of non-reinforced concrete or
equivalent material approved by the city. All driveways for one and two family
homes shall be surfaced within 1 year of issuance of the building permit for new
homes, additions or garages. Decorative concrete interlocking pavers may also
be used in parking lots.”
Section 14:6-4.8(C)(3) – Installation Requirements
“All areas within any landscaped area and bufferyards which do not contain trees
or shrubs shall be sodded or seeded with lawn or other ground cover unless such
vegetation is already fully established. Landscaping for one and two family
homes shall be installed within 1 year of issuance of the building permit for a new
home, addition or garage. All trees and shrubs shall be mulched to preserve soil
moisture.”
35
Sections 14:8-2.0 – 14:8-2.8
Shall be replaced as follows:
Section 14:8-2.0 - Registration of Land Use
No person or business shall use or occupy any land or building within the City of St.
Louis Park without first obtaining approval of a Registration of Land Use for the
proposed use.
Exception:
a. When a Certificate of Occupancy or Certificate of Property
Maintenance is issued as required by Chapter 6 of the City’s
Municipal Code.
b. When a permitted office use replaces an existing office use,
provided the total office area of the building does not change in
size.
Section 14:8-2.1 - Responsibility
Both the property owner and the lessee shall be responsible for securing the Registration
of Land Use required by this section.
Section 14:8-2.2 - Application and Information
The applicant shall provide the following information to determine compliance with this
Ordinance:
a. Site Address
b. Present Use
c. Proposed Use
d. Size of Use(s)
e. Site Plan - if necessary
Section 14:8-2.3 - Approval of the Registration of Land Use
The City shall approve the Registration of Land Use provided that the use is legal per the
Zoning Ordinance and complies with all state codes and licensing requirements. Once
the Registration of Land Use has been approved, the use shall be permitted to occupy the
land or building.
Section 14:8-2.4 - Revocation of a Registration of Land Use
Any false statement or factual material submitted to the City for approval of a
Registration of Land Use shall automatically revoke the Registration of Land Use. After
36
the City has determined that false information was received, the City shall notify the
owner and lessee that the Registration has been revoked. The notification shall also
include that they have 10 days to either obtain a new Registration of Land Use or
terminate use of the land or building. If the use continues without a valid Registration of
Land Use, both the landowner and tenant shall be guilty of violating this ordinance.
Section 14:8-2.9 Public Hearings
Section will be renumbered as follows:
Section 14:8-8.0 Public Hearings
Any public hearing required by this Ordinance may be continued once. If a
hearing is continued more than once, another notice shall be given in accordance
with Section 14:8-4.2(B).
Sec. 3. The contents of Planning Case File 01-33-ZA are hereby entered into and
made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
Sec.4. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication.
Adopted by the City Council August 20, 2001
Reviewed for Administration
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
01-33-ZA/n-res
37
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 7c
Meeting of August 6, 2001
7c. City Engineer’s Report: 2001 Sidewalk Improvement Project: Phase A –
Project No. 99-07A
This report considers the construction of various sections of new sidewalk in
accordance with the city’s sidewalk, trails, and bikeway plan
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the attached resolution accepting this report,
establishing and ordering an improvement project, approving
plans and specifications and authorizing advertisement for bids
for construction of various sections of concrete sidewalk
Background: Making the City a safer and more pedestrian-friendly community was one of the
recommendations of Vision St. Louis Park. In response to this suggestion, a city-wide Sidewalk,
Trail, Bikeway and Crossing Plan was developed. This Plan, which has been incorporated into
the city’s Comprehensive Plan, identifies areas of the city in need of additional sidewalk, trails or
bikeways; and, busy roadway or railroad crossings where safety improvements can be made.
Substantial public involvement and input was solicited during the development of this program.
A Sidewalk and Trail Task Force, made up of concerned citizens, assisted in the development of
the Plan. To understand residents’ concerns, a random opinion survey was conducted. As the
Plan was developed, meetings were held with neighborhood associations, the City Council, Parks
and Recreation Commission and other community groups. Two open houses were conducted as
well as numerous publications and community newspaper articles.
The final Plan was adopted on July 5, 2000 with the Council requesting that the proposed new
sidewalk, trail and bikeway segments be constructed within a 3-year time period. Although this
report only addresses the construction of sidewalk, a Program Status memo is attached which
gives an overall view of the program to-date.
Analysis: Twelve (12) segments of street were identified for the installation of sidewalk within
the Year 1 area (see attached map). Staff has prepared plans for each of these segments based
upon the guidelines established within the program. These guidelines established a preferred
design of a 6’-wide concrete sidewalk with a 7’-wide grass boulevard. When necessary to
protect trees, the boulevard can be narrowed or the sidewalk width can be narrowed. In two
cases, Texas Avenue, between 14th Street and Wayzata Boulevard, and 26th Street, between
Salem Avenue and France Avenue, the road will be narrowed to accommodate the sidewalk.
Two Open House meetings were held for affected property owners. The one on July 24th for
Ward 4 sidewalks was attended by nearly 40 residents. The one on July 25th for Ward 1
sidewalks was attended by 9 property owners. The majority of the attendees were interested in
reviewing the proposed design and determining how it would affect their individual property.
38
Several, especially residents along Flag Avenue, expressed concern about the width of sidewalk
(proposed at 6’), the width of the boulevard (proposed at 7’), and its impact on their homes. A
summary of the comments received, both at the meetings and through telephone conversations, is
attached.
Design/Construction Considerations: The various segments are anticipated to be funded using
both General Obligation bonds and Municipal State Aid funds. Those segments located along
Municipal State Aid routes are eligible for State Aid funding. However, this means that the
detailed plans and specifications must be reviewed and approved by the Minnesota Department
of Transportation (Mn/DOT) prior to soliciting bids. This process can often take four to six
weeks which jeopardizes beginning construction during 2001.
Therefore, staff has divided the sidewalk construction segments into two projects based upon
their funding source. Those that will be funded using General Obligation bonds are proposed for
approval at this meeting. Bids for this work will be solicited immediately so that work can begin
this Fall. Once Mn/DOT has approved the plans for the State Aid segments, those will be
brought before the City Council for approval as a separate project, probably in late September.
Work on these segments may begin this Fall or, most likely, next Spring.
Financial Considerations: Estimated costs, based upon the proposed plans, are higher than
originally anticipated when the program was developed. $220,073 was budgeted in 2001 for
non-State Aid routes. The total anticipated cost for the 2001 non-State Aid routes is $322,904.
A summary of the anticipated construction costs for the non-State Aid routes follows:
Estimated Costs:
Street From To Side Width
Cost
Franklin Ave. Westwood Nature
Center
Texas Ave. North 5.0 $66,555
16th Street Pennsylvania Ave. Louisiana Ave. North 5.0 $53,237
Hampshire Ave. 14th Street Wayzata Blvd. East 6.0 $52,205
Idaho Avenue 22nd Street Franklin Ave. East 5.0 $35,778
Hampshire Ave. Cedar Lake Rd. Franklin Ave. West 5.0 $27,622
28th Street Xenwood Ave. Webster Ave. South 5.0 $26,700
Sub-Total $262,097
Contingency $ 26,210
Subtotal $288,307
Engineering &
Admin.
$ 34,597
TOTAL $322,904
Revenue Sources: General Obligation Bonds $ 323,000
Project Timeline: Should the City Council approve the City Engineer’s Report, it is anticipated
that the following schedule could be met:
39
• City Engineer’s Report to City Council August 6, 2001
• Advertise for bids August/September
• Bid Opening September 6, 2001
• Bid Tab Report to City Council September 17, 2001
• Construction Sept. 2001 through May, 2002
Summary of Feasibility: The proposed project is necessary, cost effective, and feasible under
the conditions noted and at the costs estimated.
Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution
approving the City Engineer's report, approving and ordering a project for these improvements,
approving the plans and specifications, and authorizing staff to solicit bids for this work.
Attachment: Plan Implementation Update
Property Owner Comments Summary
Map
Resolution
Prepared by: Maria A. Hagen, City Engineer
Reviewed By: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
40
RESOLUTION NO. __________
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE CITY ENGINEER’S REPORT,
ESTABLISHING AND ORDERING AN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF SIDEWALKS, AND
APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS & AUTHORIZING
ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR THE SAME
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the
City Engineer related to the need for construction of various segments of concrete sidewalk in the
area of the city identified as Year 1 in the Sidewalk, Trail, Bikeways and Crossing plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that:
1. The City Engineer’s Report regarding the construction of various segments of sidewalk
within the city right-of-way is hereby accepted.
2. The proposed project, designated as Project No. 99-07A, is hereby established and ordered.
3. The plans and specifications for the making of the improvement, as prepared under the
direction of the City Engineer, are approved.
4. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted at least two weeks in the official
newspaper and in the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids for the making of
said improvement under said-approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall
appear not less than twenty-one (21) days prior to the date and time bids will be received
by the City Clerk, and that no bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the
City Clerk and accompanied by a cashier’s check, bid bond, or certified check payable to
the City for five (5) percent of the amount of the bid.
5. The bids shall be tabulated by the City Engineer who shall report her tabulation and
recommendation to the City Council at the September 17, 2001 regular City Council meeting.
Attest: Adopted by the City Council August 6, 2001
City Clerk Mayor
Reviewed for Administration:
City Manager
41
Sidewalk/Trail/Bikeway & Crossing Plan
Implementation Update-Year 1
Prepared: 7/30/01
Sidewalk:
Twelve (12) segments were identified for construction in Year 1. The various segments are
anticipated to be funded using both General Obligation bonds and Municipal State Aid funds.
Those segments located along Municipal State Aid routes are eligible for State Aid funding.
However, this means that the detailed plans and specifications must be reviewed and approved
by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) prior to soliciting bids. This process
can often take four to six weeks which jeopardizes beginning construction during 2001.
Therefore, staff has divided the sidewalk construction segments into two projects based upon
their funding source. Those that will be funded using General Obligation bonds are proposed for
approval at this meeting. Bids for this work will be solicited immediately so that work can begin
this Fall. Once Mn/DOT has approved the plans for the State Aid segments, they will be brought
before the City Council for approval as a separate project, probably in late September or early
October. Work on these segments may begin this Fall or, most likely, next Spring.
Trails:
One trail, connecting Twin Lake Park and 26th Street to Benilde-St. Margaret’s High School and
the TH 100 frontage road, was proposed to be constructed in Year 1. Staff has observed that
Benilde has nearly completed their parking lot construction. Staff is planning to meet with
Benilde staff in August to establish a timeline for surveying, design, and construction. Most
likely the trail will be constructed in the summer of 2002.
Bikeways:
Several areas throughout the Year 1 area are proposed to have bike lanes added by installing
either “Share the Road” signage or striping and “Bike Lane” signage. Staff is collecting an
inventory of the existing roadway widths to verify if a bike lane can be established. Once this is
determined, city maintenance crews will install the striping and signage as necessary.
Crossings:
Evaluation of the identified crossings for Year 1 and Year 2 will be done this winter to identify
potential safety improvements at the intersections. This work will be incorporated into a future
construction project. Crossing improvements identified on Trunk Highway 7, west of TH 100,
were incorporated in the Mn/DOT mill and overlay project on TH 7 and are currently under
construction.
7/26/01
Sidewalk Segment/Address Note
26th Street West:
Quentin Townhomes Some trees, on private property, may hang over the trail; these can be removed
Princeton Court Townhomes catch basin near the driveway entrance backs up in heavy rains; full of sand and debris
Princeton Court Townhomes Need additional parking for the park (12 stalls shown)
28th Street West:
2800 Webster Avenue Need to match existing retaining wall material along street side
Flag Avenue:
2406 Flag Avenue In favor of the project; wouldn't mind if the pine tree is taken
2424 Flag Avenue VERY opposed to sidewalk; suggested buying new equipment so that 5' walks could be installed
2530 Flag Avenue Move sidewalk closer to street
2524 Flag Avenue Sprinkler system
2506 Flag Avenue Sprinkler system
2500 Flag Avenue Sprinkler system; doesn't like project
2048 Flag Avenue Sidewalk is too close to houses in this block, move to other side of street
9301 Franklin Avenue
1830 Flag Avenue Won't have sidewalk in front of his house but is opposed to having it on Flag Avenue
8505 Flag Avenue
8505 Flag Avenue Elderly; sprinkler system; doesn't want sidewalk
Franklin Avenue:
8132 Franklin Avenue In favor of sidewalk; concerned about relocation of hostas and trimming up of evergreens
Texas Avenue:
1319 Texas Avenue Very opposed to sidewalk; has rebar in their driveway
1409 Texas Avenue In favor of project; would like information on concrete contractors
1821 Texas Avenue In favor of project
Pennsylvania Avenue:
1333 Pennsylvania Avenue Would like sidewalk closer to curb; concerned about parking from nearby apartments
1341 Pennsylvania Avenue
16th Street West:
1454 Louisiana Avenue Does not want to lose pine trees; check on requirements for garage setbacks
7318 16th Street City can remove mulberry bush if needed
General Would like Stop Sign petition for 16th/Maryland intersection
Hampshire Avenue
2000 Hampshire Avenue
2006 Hampshire Avenue Does not want retaining wall or steep slope in front yard
Idaho Avenue:
2005 Idaho Avenue Mark approximate construction limits so she can remove/relocate her perennials
Does not want retaining wall or steep slope in front yard; investigate authorization to allow use of
public property for her driveway
In favor of sidewalk but doesn't want large lilacs taken, would like something to block lights from cars
exiting the golf club
Isn't opposed to sidewalk but feels it's a waste of money in this segment because people won't use
it; feels it should be on golf club side the entire length of Flag
Concerned about how sidewalk will be constructed with large dropoff between her property and
property to the south; is nto against sidewalk but is opposed to such a wide boulevard
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 7d
Meeting of August 6, 2001
7d. City Engineer’s Report: Improvements to flood Area No. 13A
- Project No. 01-07
This report considers improvements at W. 36th Street and Wyoming Avenue,
Sunset Park, and Elie Park to address public storm water in Flood Area No. 13A.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the attached resolution accepting this report,
establishing and ordering an improvement project, approving
plans and specifications, and authorizing receipt of bids for flood
area 13A.
Background: This project is the result of the City’s analysis of flood problem Area 13a,
conducted as part of the 22 flood problem areas throughout the City. This project is included in
the City's 2001 capital improvement Program. The studies performed on this flood problem area
identified corrective alternatives and recommendations with varying cost estimates, to alleviate
the flooding in the area. The proposed project incorporates a combination of alternatives for this
area.
Discussion: The proposed project elements will: 1) restrict flow from W. 34th Street trunk storm
sewer and utilize available storm water storage within Sunset Park to limit the volume of storm
water tributary to the flood problem area located at W. 36th Street and Wyoming Avenue. This
proposed plan will incorporate the installation of an orifice within the storm sewer trunk system
and allow overflow into Sunset Park from W. 34th Street; 2) modify the W. 36th Street and
Wyoming Avenue low point to incorporate additional catch basins to improve the in-flow
capacity to the trunk storm sewer system; 3) flood proof 3-5 impacted residences in this area;
and, 4) increase the height of the north curb/overflow from W. 36th Street to the W. 36th Street
low point. The W. 36th Street portion of the project proposes to raise the boulevard elevation and
pedestrian ramp to limit the storm water overflow to the low point. This additional volume of
water would then be directed to the Knollwood parking lot, South of W. 36th Street. Installation
of a flap gate in the storm sewer trunk line system is also proposed at Minnehaha Creek, in order
to restrict/limit the ability of the storm sewer system to convey back water from the creek
upstream into Elie Park and the W. 36th Street and Wyoming Avenue low point.
The flood proofing of these number residential units could be implemented as part of the City’s
Flood Grant Program. Staff has mailed the Flood Grant Information to several of the residents
who expressed interest in this program.
Public Meetings: A number of meetings have been held with area residents. The most recent
meeting was on July 24, 2001. A total of 19 people representing 14 properties attended the
2
meeting. Staff and the City’s consultant reviewed the proposed project and responded to
questions regarding design, construction, and restoration. The residents supported the proposed
project and were notified this project would be presented to the City Council at its August 6,
2001 meeting.
Financial Considerations: The flood problem area analysis completed in 1997, recommended
implementing options #1, #2, and #3 with a cost estimate of $449,000. The revised project,
which proposes to install the flap gate, overflow protection, and storm sewer diversion into
Sunset Park, is estimated to cost $250,000. Flood proofing of the eligible residential units is
optional with the owners. This could cost an additional $15,00 - $25,000 per residence if the
owners pursue this work. Following is a summary of the project costs and revenue sources:
Project Costs
Construction Costs $250,000
Contingency (10%) $25,000
Subtotal $275,000
Consultant $44,000
Administration (3%) $8,250
Subtotal $52,250
TOTAL $327,250
Revenue Sources
Stormwater Utility Fund
Revenue Bonds
$327,250
Feasibility: The project, as proposed, is necessary, cost-effective, and feasible under the
conditions noted and at the costs estimated.
Proposed Improvements Timetable: Should the City Council approve the City Engineer’s
Report, it is anticipated this project would be bid in September/October. The construction of the
storm sewer improvements is anticipated to commence in October/November 2001 with all work
completed by June 2002. The final restoration/turf establishment is anticipated to occur on a
site-to-site basis once the flood proofing grant applications have been processed.
Attachments: Plan
Resolution
Prepared by: Carlton B. Moore, Superintendent of Engineeirng
Maria A. Hagen, City Engineer
Reviewed by: Michael Rardin, Public Works Director
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
3
RESOLUTION NO. __________
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE CITY ENGINEER’S REPORT,
ESTABLISHING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 01-07
ORDERING THE IMPROVEMENT,
APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING
ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR THE SAME
WHEREAS, the City Council of St. Louis Park has received a report from the City Engineer
relating to proposed improvements at W. 36th Street and Wyoming Avenue, Sunset Park, and
Elie Park to address public storm water in Flood Area No. 13A.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that:
1. The City Engineer’s Report regarding the improvements to address public storm water in
Flood Area No. 13A at W. 36th Street and Wyoming Avenue, Sunset Park, and Elie Park
– Project No. 01-07 is hereby accepted.
2. The proposed project, designated as project No. 01-07, is hereby established.
3. Project No. 01-07 is hereby ordered.
4. The plans and specifications for the making of the improvement, as prepared under the
direction of the City Engineer, are approved.
5. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted at least two weeks in the official
newspaper and in the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids for the making of
said improvement under said approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall
appear not less than twenty one (21) days prior to the date and time bids will be received
by the City Clerk, and that no bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the
City Clerk and accompanied by a cashier’s check, bid bond, or certified check payable to
the City for five (5) percent of the amount of the bid.
6. The bids shall be tabulated by the City Engineer who shall report her tabulation and
recommendation to the City Council.
Reviewed for Administration : Adopted by the City Council August 6, 2001
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
4
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 7e
Meeting of August 6, 2001
7e. City Engineer’s Report: Improvements to flood Area No. 13B
- Project No. 01-08
This report considers improvements at W. 33rd Street and Texas Avenue to address
storm sewer improvements in Flood Area No. 13B.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the attached resolution accepting this report,
establishing and ordering an improvement project, approving
plans and specifications, and authorizing receipt of bids for flood
area 13B.
Background: This project is the result of 22 flood problem areas in St. Louis Park and is
included in the 2001 Capital Improvement Program. The Study identified the flooding issues of
each area, corrective alternatives to consider, cost estimates, and a recommendation on
alternatives to be implemented. The City’s consultant, WSB & Associates, Inc., evaluated the
recommended alternative for this area and developed an improvement option, not considered as
part of the original study.
Discussion: The improvement option developed involves construction of a storm sewer system
from the W. 33rd Street and Texas Avenue intersection, east along W. 33rd Street to Sumter
Avenue and north along Sumter Avenue discharging into the City property located in the
northeast quadrant of W. 32 ½ Street and Sumter Avenue. The City parcel located in the
northeast quadrant of W. 32 ½ Street and Sumter will be excavated to accommodate the
additional storm water directed to this area. This alternative would also direct storm water away
from flood problem area No. 13A (Elie Park/W. 36th Street and Wyoming Avenue), thus
decreasing impacts downstream in that area. This improvement option is different than that
originally recommended in the flood problem area analysis; however, this alternative will
provide significantly expanded, system-wide benefits as well as correct the flooding problem
which was originally identified at W. 33rd Street and Texas Avenue. The proposed storm sewer
project includes installation of a thirty inch (30”) reinforced concrete (RC) pipe from the
intersection of W. 33rd Street and Texas Avenue to the intersection of W. 33rd Street and Sumter
Avenue. The storm sewer will then be increased in size to a thirty-six inch (36”) RC pipe in
order to accommodate additional flow at W. 33rd Street and Sumter Avenue, going north and
discharging to the City parcel located in the northeast quadrant of W. 32 ½ Street and Sumter
Avenue.
The sanitary sewer system was also televised as a result of residents indicating periodic backups
from the Sumter Avenue sanitary sewer system. Based on the report generated as part of this
investigation, replacement of this system is warranted as part of this project. The sanitary sewer
has severe cracks; and as a result, groundwater infiltration to the pipe can backup into homes. It
would be advantageous for the City to repair the sanitary sewer system in conjunction with the
storm sewer installation thus requiring only one street excavation.
5
Public Meetings: Several neighborhood meetings associated with this project were conducted
over the last year or so. Comments received from residents were generally supportive with the
only concern being if there was an alternative to excavating the parkland to create a storm water
holding pond. After discussing this with area residents it was determined that the proposed
storm sewer will add an additional volume of water to the area requiring the increased storage.
Residents accepted this and staff assured them the pond area would be more aesthetically
pleasing than other ponds with proper landscaping and maintenance.
Financial Considerations: Flood problem Area No. 13B at W. 33rd Street and Texas Avenue
was originally evaluated based on the most inexpensive solution and was estimated to be
constructed for a cost of $140,000. This involved constructing an overflow swale and flood
proofing the structures impacted in this area. Based on the proposed expanded alternative, the
project is anticipated to cost $350,000 for the storm sewer portion of this project. The sanitary
sewer replacement on Sumter Avenue is estimated to cost $75,000. The sanitary sewer is
proposed to be funded by the Sanitary Utility Fund. No special assessments are proposed.
Revenue Source:
General Obligation Revenue Bonds
Project Costs
Construction $ 425,000
Contingency (10%) 42,500
Subtotal $ 467,500
Consultant 74,800
Administration (3%) 14,025
Subtotal $ 88,825
TOTAL $ 556,325
Revenue Sources
Sanitary Sewer Utility Fund
Storm Water Utility Revenue
Bonds
$ 98,175
$ 458,150
TOTAL $ 556,325
Project Schedule: It is anticipated that this project could be prepared for bid in late August
2001. The award of the project would be in September of 2001. The storm sewer and sanitary
sewer and street construction could begin in late Fall 2001 or Spring 2002 with the final
restoration and seeding of the proposed basin to occur by June, 2002.
6
Feasibility: The project, as proposed, is necessary, cost-effective, and feasible under the
conditions noted and at the costs estimated.
Attachments: Plan
Resolution
Prepared by: Carlton B. Moore, Superintendent of Engineering
Maria A. Hagen, City Engineer
Reviewed by: Michael Rardin, Public Works Director
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
7
RESOLUTION NO. __________
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE CITY ENGINEER’S REPORT,
ESTABLISHING IMPROVMENET PROJECT NO. 01-08
ORDERING THE IMPROVEMENT,
APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS & AUTHORIZING
ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR THE SAME
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the
City Engineer related to proposed improvements at W. 33rd Street and Texas Avenue to address
public stormwater in Flood Area No. 13B.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that:
1. The City Engineer’s Report regarding the improvements to address public stormwater in
Flood Area No. 13b at W. 33rd Street and Texas Avenue – Project No. 01-08 is hereby
accepted.
2. The proposed project is hereby established.
3. The project is hereby ordered.
4. The plans and specifications for the making of the improvement, as prepared under the
direction of the City Engineer, are approved.
5. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted at least two weeks in the official
newspaper and in the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids for the making of
said improvement under said approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall
appear not less than twenty one (21) days prior to the date and time bids will be received
by the City Clerk, and that no bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the
City Clerk and accompanied by a cashier’s check, bid bond, or certified check payable to
the City for five (5) percent of the amount of the bid.
7. The bids shall be tabulated by the City Engineer who shall report her tabulation and
recommendation to the City Council.
Reviewed for Administration : Adopted by the City Council August 6, 2001
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
8
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 7f
Meeting of August 6, 2001
7f. City Engineer’s Report: Improvements to flood Area No. 15
- Project No. 00-07
This report considers storm water improvements at Keystone, Roxbury, and Lake
Street Parks and storm sewer construction on Dakota Avenue and W. 33rd Street.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the attached resolution accepting this report,
establishing and ordering an improvement project, approving
plans and specifications, and authorizing receipt of bids for flood
area 15.
Background: Several years ago, the City initiated a Storm Water Management Program to
address flooding in 22 problem areas of which flood area No. 15 is one. A number of homes
located in Flood Area #15 experience frequent flooding. The City’s engineering consultant
recommended utilizing Keystone, Roxbury, and Lake Street Parks as storm water storage areas
along with the installation of a storm sewer trunk line to alleviate flooding in these areas.
Modifications to the parks, due to their proximity to the existing storm sewer system, has been
recommended by the City’s engineering consultant.
Discussion: Following is a more detailed description of the proposed project and its impact on
each park and the proposed storm sewer construction on W. 33rd Street and Dakota Avenue:
Keystone Park: The existing softball field would be lowered approximately five feet
and converted into a soccer field. The sliding hill on the south side of the park would be
extended and lowered to the new soccer field elevation. Installation of a drain-tile system
and storm sewer connections to the lower field would be incorporated along with re-
installation of the existing irrigation system. The proposed project would not expand the
existing parking lot located on Alabama Avenue. The proposed project does not
incorporate modifications to the existing trail system or installation of additional park
amenities such as volleyball courts, play area, swing set, or a sun shelter in the southwest
corner of the park.
The total estimated cost for improvements to Keystone Park is $234,025
Roxbury Park: The Roxbury Park improvement would lower the north end of the park
approximately eight feet to provide storm water storage. The existing storm sewer pipe
within Roxbury Park would be allowed to discharge into this newly excavated storm
water basin. The existing trail within the park is not anticipated to be impacted as part of
this project. In addition, no additional amenities, such as swing set and play areas on the
south end of the park, would be incorporated into this project.
The total estimated cost of the Roxbury Park improvements is $161,920
9
Lake Street Park: The Lake Street park improvement would eliminate the two existing
hockey rinks and relocate one rink to Parkview Park and the other rink to be installed at a
location to be determined in the future. The park would be excavated to a maximum
depth of 18 feet lower than its existing elevation in order to construct the proposed storm
water storage basin/wetland proposed as part of these plans. The basin side slopes, near
the bottom of the basin, will have a 10:1 slope at the edge for safety purposes and to
encourage diverse wetland growth and develop open water to provide storm water
treatment. The existing storm sewer system , located in Lake Street Park, will serve as
the outlet for this basin.
The total estimated cost for Lake Street Park is $291,835
Storm Sewer Construction: The storm sewer construction consists of installing a new trunk
storm sewer line beginning at the intersection of W. 33rd Street and Edgewood Avenue and
carrying this line Easterly to the intersection of W. 33rd Street and Dakota Avenue. From this
point, the storm sewer will be installed North along Dakota Avenue to W. 33rd Street, and then
continue East to Lake Street Park. The project will also include installing additional catch basins
on Dakota Avenue, North of W. 33rd Street and along Colorado Avenue, to further alleviate
flooding problems in these locations and to allow for the diversion of storm water run-off from
existing systems north of this area back to Lake Street Park. The storm sewer line will range in
size from a 36-inch to 42-inch diameter reinforced concrete pipe.
The total estimated cost for improvements to the trunk storm sewer system is $569,250
Public Meetings: A number of meetings have been held with area residents. The most recent
meeting was on July 24, 2001. A total of 25 people representing 19 properties attended the
meeting. Staff and the City’s consultant reviewed the proposed project and responded to
questions regarding design, construction, and restoration. The residents supported the proposed
project and were notified this project would be presented to the City Council at its August 6,
2001 meeting.
Financial Considerations: The total project cost to construct the proposed improvements to
Keystone Park, Roxbury Park, Lake Street Park, and the storm sewer is estimated to be
$1,257,030 and is outlined below. Park amenities included in the concept plan for Keystone and
Roxbury Parks were eliminated from this project. They will be reviewed by the Parks
Department as they prioritize park improvements for upcoming years. As a result, the proposed
storm water improvements to Roxbury Park and Keystone Park have been reduced from
$790,451 to $395,945. The Lake Street Park and storm sewer construction were evaluated based
on the cost benefit for this portion of the project. It was determined that the project costs could
not be reduced and still alleviate the flooding in this area. Therefore, the project costs for Lake
Street Park and the storm sewer construction at $861,085 is deemed necessary to remedy the
flooding in the Area No. 15.
10
Project Costs:
Estimated Costs:
Keystone Park Roxbury Park Lake Street Park Storm Sewer TOTAL
Construction Costs $ 185,111 $ 128,000 $ 230,700 $ 450,000 $ 993,700
Contingency (10%) $ 18,500 $ 12,800 $ 23,070 $ 45,000 $ 99,370
Subtotal $ 203,500 $ 140,800 $ 253,770 $ 495,000 $ 1,093,070
Consultant $ 24,420 $ 16,896 $ 30,452 $ 59,400 $ 131,168
Administration
(3%)
$ 6,105 $ 4,224 $ 7,613 $ 14,850 $ 32,792
Subtotal $ 30,525 $ 21,120 $ 38,065 $ 74,250 $ 163,960
TOTAL $ 234,025 $ 161,920 $ 291,835 $ 569,250 $ 1,257,030
Revenue Sources:
Storm Water Utility Fund Revenue Bonds $1,257,030
Feasibility: The project, as proposed, is necessary, cost-effective, and feasible under the
conditions noted and at the costs estimated.
Proposed Improvements Timetable: It is anticipated this project could be prepared for bid in
late August 2001. It is anticipated the award of this project would be in September 2001. It is
also recommended that, as part of this project, the work within Roxbury, Keystone, and Lake
Street parks be completed during the winter of 2001-2002. It is anticipated that the storm sewer
construction within W. 33rd Street and Dakota Avenue may occur in the spring of 2002
depending upon the contractor’s schedule. The specifications will require all street work
initiated this fall to be paved before winter. The completion of this project is estimated to be
July of 2002.
Attachments: Plan
Resolution
Prepared by: Carlton B. Moore, Superintendent of Engineering
Maria A. Hagen, City Engineer
Reviewed by: Michael Rardin, Public Works Director
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
11
RESOLUTION NO. __________
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE CITY ENGINEER’S REPORT,
ESTABLISHING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 00-07
ORDERING THE MPROVEMENT,
APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING
ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR THE SAME
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the
City Engineer related to proposed improvements to Keystone, Roxbury and Lake Street Parks and
Storm Sewer Construction on Dakota Avenue and W. 33rd Street – Flood Area No. 15.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that:
1. The City Engineer’s Report regarding the improvements to address public storm water in
Flood Area No. 15 at Keystone, Roxbury and Lake Street Parks and storm sewer construction
on Dakota Avenue and W. 33rd Street – Project No. 00-07 is hereby accepted.
2. The proposed project, designated as project No. 00-07, is hereby established.
3. Project No. 00-07 is hereby ordered.
4. The plans and specifications for the making of the improvement, as prepared under the
direction of the City Engineer, are approved.
5. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted at least two weeks in the official
newspaper and in the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids for the making of
said improvement under said approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall
appear not less than twenty one (21) days prior to the date and time bids will be received
by the City Clerk, and that no bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the
City Clerk and accompanied by a cashier’s check, bid bond, or certified check payable to
the City for five (5) percent of the amount of the bid.
8. The bids shall be tabulated by the City Engineer who shall report her tabulation and
recommendation to the City Council.
Reviewed for Administration : Adopted by the City Council August 6, 2001
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
12
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
August 6, 2001
ITEMS TO BE ACTED UPON BY CONSENT
Consent items are those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which need
no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a
Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section
of the regular agenda for discussion.
1. Motion to adopt a resolution of approval for Robert Rappaport 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.
2. City Engineer’s Report: Motion to adopt the attached resolution accepting this
report, establishing and ordering an improvement project, approving plans and
specifications and authorizing advertisement for bids for replacement of various
segments of concrete sidewalk throughout the City – Project No. 01-02
3. Motion to approve final payments for:
Electrical Installation & Maintenance $ 5,806.21
Contract No. 82-00
Louisiana Avenue traffic improvements
signal interconnect & lane configuarions
Nadeau Utility, Inc. $ 8,089.32
Contract No. 74-00
Entry signage – Project No. 98-16
4. Motion to accept the following reports for filing:
f. Housing Authority Minutes of June 13, 2001
g. Planning Commission Minutes of July 11, 2001
h. Planning Commission Minutes of June 6, 2001
i. Human Rights Commission Minutes of June 20, 2001
j. Charter Commission Minutes of March 14, 2001
(Due to technical difficulties, the vendor claims will be deferred to
the meeting of August 20th.)
13
CONSENT ITEM # 1
St. Louis Park City Council
Meeting of August 6, 2001
1. Motion to adopt a resolution of approval for Robert Rappaport 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.
Background:
At the July 16, 2001 City Council meeting, the Council overturned the Board of Zoning Appeals
decision denying the applicants request for a front yard setback.
The City Attorney has stated that the attached Resolution of Approval should be adopted by the
Council to validate the variance.
Prepared By: Scott Moore, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Approved By: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
14
RESOLUTION NO. 01-066
A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE FROM 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 City Council of St. Louis Park, Minnesota:
FINDINGS
1. Robert Rappaport applied for a variance from Section 14:5-4.2(F)(6) of the Ordinance
Code relating to zoning to permit a front yard setback of 25.3 feet instead of the required
28.3 feet for property in the “R-1” Single Family District at the following location, to-
wit:
See attached Exhibit “A”
2. The Board of Zoning Appeals held a public hearing, received testimony from the public,
discussed the application for a variance Case No. 01-24-VAR and upon finding that the
request did not satisfy the Ordinance necessary for granting a variance, approved a
Resolution of Denial on a vote of 4-0.
3. On June 29, 2001, the applicant, Robert Rappaport, filed an appeal of this decision to the
City Council.
4. On Monday July 16, 2001, the City Council considered the appeal of Robert Rappaport
of the Board of Zoning Appeals’ decision.
5. The Council has considered the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety
and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air,
danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on values of property in the surrounding
area, and the effect of the proposed variance upon the Comprehensive Plan.
6. Because of conditions on the subject property and surrounding property, it is possible to
use the property in such a way that the proposed variance will not impair an adequate
supply of light and air to the adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in
the public streets, increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety, unreasonably
diminish or impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to
the intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
7. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such
property or immediately adjoining property and do not apply generally to other land or
structures in the district in which such land is located.
15
8. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant. It will not merely serve as a convenience to
the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty.
9. The contents of Planning Case File 01-24-VAR are hereby entered into and made part of
the public record and the record of decision of this case.
10. Under the Zoning Ordinance, this variance shall be deemed to be abandoned, revoked, or
canceled if the holder shall fail to complete the work on or before one year after the
variance is granted.
CONCLUSION
The application for the variance to permit a front yard setback of 25.3 feet instead of the required
28.3 feet is granted based upon the findings set forth above.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
16
CONSENT ITEM # 2
St. Louis Park City Council
Meeting of August 6, 2001
2. City Engineer’s Report: Motion to adopt the attached resolution accepting this
report, establishing and ordering an improvement project, approving plans and
specifications and authorizing advertisement for bids for replacement of various
segments of concrete sidewalk throughout the City – Project No. 01-02
Background: There is currently 85 miles of concrete sidewalk within the city right-of-way.
Most of the original walk was constructed before 1970 in the areas of the city that were laid out
in a traditional block-pattern. These sidewalks were built with relatively narrow boulevards and
numerous trees. All of these factors create the need for continuous replacement of individual
sidewalk segments.
Earlier this year, staff finalized a city-wide sidewalk inspection and repair program to address the
increasing amount of sidewalk in need of repair or replacement. This program consists of:
• An annual inspection and rating of all walks in the city
• A complaint system process where all sidewalk complaints are received, recorded, and
reviewed
• Repair or replacement of all unacceptable walks on an annual basis
Analysis: The following rating scheme is used for evaluating sidewalks. A ¾” tripping hazard
(rating #5 or #6) is deemed unacceptable and is intended to be corrected on an annual basis. In
these cases, immediate temporary repairs are made (installation of bituminous wedges) by city
maintenance forces until the annual repair program can correct the problem.
RATING
1: Unobstructed, solid, in good condition; needs no attention
2: May have minor cracks or settling of ¼ inch or less
3: Has minor defects; faulting less than ½ inch, spalled surface, cracks or backpitch;
does not pose a definite hazard.
4: Has cracks or settlement of ½ inch to ¾ inch; needs repair soon
5: Cracks or settlement greater than ¾ inch; definite safety hazard; immediate repair needed
6: Crack or settlement containing a temporary bituminous wedge
Design/Construction Considerations: The replacement segments of sidewalk will be installed
to their existing width and depth except near driveways where the depth may be extended from
four inches to six inches to prevent cracking from vehicles that drive over the sidewalk.
Engineering Inspection staff will work with the City Forester when cutting or trimming tree roots
in order to limit damage to boulevard trees.
A letter will be mailed to affected property owners, prior to construction, informing them of the
approximate construction schedule and anticipated completion date.
17
Financial Considerations: Based on an inspection conducted in the summer of 2000, the
following amounts of sidewalk are deemed to be eligible for replacement:
Approx. Length of Estimated
Defect Rating # of Defects Repair Area (ft) Cost
6 & 5 87 1,148 $ 21,660
4 82 1,479 $ 28,845
3 793 10,437 $198,790
After programming the #5- and #6-rated walks for repair, sidewalks with ratings of #4 will be
repaired as a proactive measure. The remaining budgeted amount will be used to repair #3-rated
sidewalks adjacent to #4- and #5-rated walks or in high pedestrian traffic areas. These areas will
be identified by staff.
$84,000 was budgeted in 2001 for random sidewalk repair. A summary of the anticipated
construction costs follows:
Estimated Costs:
#6- and #5-rated Sidewalk $ 21,660
#4-rated Sidewalk $ 28,845
Portion of #3-rated Sidewalk $ 21,295
Sub-Total $ 71,800
Contingency (10%) $ 7,180
Sub-Total $ 78,980
Engineering & Administrative $ 5,000
TOTAL $ 83,980
Revenue Sources:
City-wide Operations Budget $ 84,000
Project Timeline: Should the City Council approve the City Engineer’s Report, it is anticipated
that the following schedule could be met:
• City Engineer’s Report to City Council August 6, 2001
• Advertise for bids August/September
• Bid Opening September 6, 2001
• Bid Tab Report to City Council September 17, 2001
• Construction Sept. through October, 2001
Summary of Feasibility: The proposed project is necessary, cost effective, and feasible under
the conditions noted and at the costs estimated.
18
Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution
approving the City Engineer’s Report, approving and ordering a project for these improvements,
approving the plans and specifications, and authorizing staff to solicit bids for this work.
Attachment: Resolution
Prepared by: Maria A. Hagen, City Engineer
Reviewed By: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
19
RESOLUTION NO. 01-067
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE CITY ENGINEER’S REPORT,
ESTABLISHING AND ORDERING AN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FOR THE REPAIR
OF SIDEWALKS THROUGHOUT THE CITY, AND
APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS & AUTHORIZING
ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR THE SAME
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the
City Engineer related to the need for repair of various segments of concrete sidewalk throughout
the city
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that:
1. The City Engineer’s Report regarding the repair of various segments of sidewalk within the
city right-of-way is hereby accepted.
2. The proposed project, designated as Project No. 01-02, is hereby established and ordered.
6. The plans and specifications for the making of the improvement, as prepared under the
direction of the City Engineer, are approved.
7. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted at least two weeks in the official
newspaper and in the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids for the making of
said improvement under said-approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall
appear not less than twenty-one (21) days prior to the date and time bids will be received
by the City Clerk, and that no bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the
City Clerk and accompanied by a cashier’s check, bid bond, or certified check payable to
the City for five (5) percent of the amount of the bid.
8. The bids shall be tabulated by the City Engineer who shall report her tabulation and
recommendation to the City Council at the September 17, 2001 regular City Council meeting.
Attest: Adopted by the City Council August 6, 2001
City Clerk Mayor
Reviewed for Administration:
City Manager
20
CONSENT ITEM #4a
MINUTES
Housing Authority
St. Louis Park, Minnesota
Wednesday, June 13, 2001
Community Room
5:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Catherine Courtney, William Gavzy, Anne Mavity,
Judith Moore, Shone Row
STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Anderson, Tamra Bokal, Tom Harmening, Kathy Larson,
Cindy Stromberg, Tanya Warren, Sue Wiseman
OTHERS PRESENT: None
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 5:10 p.m.
2. Approval of Minutes for May 9, 2001
Commissioner Courtney moved approval of the amended minutes of May 9th, 2001.
Commissioner Mavity seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 5-0 with
Commissioners Courtney, Gavzy, Mavity, Moore and Row voting in favor.
3. Hearings: None
4. Reports and Committees: None
5. Unfinished Business: None
6. New Business
a. Resolution No. 491 – Recognition of Contributions of Sue Wiseman
Commissioner Gavzy read the resolution to all present and thanked Ms. Wiseman
for her contribution to the HA.
Ms. Anderson thanked Sue Wiseman for all of her time and efforts with the
Housing Authority and presented her with the framed resolution. Mr. Harmening
stated that Ms. Wiseman's patience and understanding will be missed by the HA.
Ms. Wiseman thanked the Commissioners for their support of the HA and the
staff.
21
Commissioner Gavzy moved to approve the resolution recognizing the
contributions of Sue Wiseman. Commissioner Courtney seconded the motion, and
the motion passed on a vote of 5-0 with Commissioners Courtney, Gavzy,
Mavity, Moore and Row voting in favor.
Ms. Anderson introduced Tanya Warren as the replacement for Ms. Wiseman.
b. Minnetonka Boulevard Home Renewal Developer Award
Ms. Larson requested authorization for the execution of a development agreement
with Al Stobbe Homes to develop the property at 6513 Minnetonka Boulevard.
This is a Home Renewal project, providing move-up housing within St. Louis
Park. Ms. Larson stated that at the March 8th meeting, the Board approved
purchasing the property for $30,000. The demolition expense of $20,000 was
higher than anticipated.
Ms. Larson explained that 60 bid and design proposals were mailed out and two
proposals were received. The design committee felt the Stobbe home better met
the design criteria due to a more balanced design and larger size.
There was considerable discussion about how proposals are sought, the bidding
practice, etc. Commissioner Moore questioned whether the property should go on
the open market, rather than seeking out developers. Commissioner Gavzy
explained that the legal obligation is fulfilled with a public notice being printed in
the Sun Sailor newspaper.
Commissioner Gavzy mentioned that a sign could be placed on a property,
advertising that a home will be developed for the Home Renewal Program and
will be sold. Mr. Harmening stated that the traditional method is to choose the
developer and allow them to market the property. He further stated that it would
take substantial additional staffing if the Housing Authority were to market real
estate.
Commissioner Courtney moved to approve the contract with Al Stobbe Homes.
Commissioner Moore seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 5-
0 with Commissioners Courtney, Gavzy, Mavity, Moore and Row voting in favor.
c. PHAS Certification - Resolution No. 492
Ms. Anderson explained that PHAS is a scoring mechanism to evaluate Public
Housing in four areas. These areas include physical condition, financial,
management and resident service and satisfaction. She went on to explain that to
achieve a high performer status, a score of 90% or greater must be obtained. The
HA achieved a high score in physical condition, therefore no inspections will be
needed this year. The HA will receive a financial score once the audited financial
22
statements have been reviewed by HUD. In the service and satisfaction area,
HUD will send out surveys to residents this summer. She went on to explain that
under the management operation indicator, HUD measures the operations and
responsibilities of in-house management to assess management capabilities.
Commissioner Mavity inquired about the score of 88.4%. Ms. Anderson
explained that because of the audit findings last year, the overall score was
lowered, falling just below the high performer status. She also explained that this
is an advisory score only.
Commissioner Gavzy asked if there is a way to predict what the score will be for
this year. Ms. Anderson responded it is very difficult to assess. Mr. Harmening
stated that if all other areas remain the same, with the exception of financial
management, the score should increase because there are no findings in this year's
audit.
Commissioner Row moved to adopt Resolution No. 492 authorizing the execution
of the PHAS certification. Commissioner Courtney seconded the motion, and the
motion passed on a vote of 5-0 with Commissioners Courtney, Gavzy, Mavity,
Moore and Row voting in favor.
d. SEMAP Certification
Ms. Stromberg explained that SEMAP Certification is similar to PHAS
certification, with the exception that the HA audits a percentage of the Section 8
files and then provides HUD with the findings. She further explained the one area
where the HA may lose points is utilization. Any score below 95% utilization
will lose points and the HA is at 94.5%. She stated that Ms. Schnitker is
contacting HUD about rounding up this number.
Commissioner Mavity moved to authorize the execution of the SEMAP
certification. Commissioner Row seconded the motion, and the motion passed on
a vote of 5-0 with Commissioners Courtney, Gavzy, Mavity, Moore and Row
voting in favor.
e. Training and Resources to Attain Individual Long-Term Success (TRAILS)
Contract Renewal
Ms. Anderson explained this program began on July 15, 1995 as a partnership
with the Plymouth Housing and Redevelopment Authority. She stated that St.
Louis Park & Plymouth contract with the Employment Action Center to provide
case management services. Because the HA began this program without a
mandate, it is not externally funded. St. Louis Park pays 60% of the contract
costs, and the remainder is paid by Plymouth HRA. Ms. Anderson explained
TRAILS currently serves 66 clients and 38 or 53% of these are St. Louis Park
23
residents. During the past year, 11 people have successfully completed the
program.
Ms. Anderson stated that the TRAILS program would receive grant funding of
$23,000 to cover next year's costs. The HA will also receive $13,000 from Public
Housing and Park National has donated $1,000. The projected budget is $56,036,
with $32,622 the portion to be borne by the HA and the remainder by the
Plymouth HRA.
Commissioner Moore pointed out 38 St. Louis Park residents out of 66 total
clients is greater than 53%. Commissioner Gavzy calculated that is should be
58%. Ms. Anderson agreed to report back at the July meeting if this was a
typographical error and should be 58%.
Commissioner Courtney pointed out discrepancies in the amendment number and
asked for clarification at the next Board meeting. Commissioner Courtney made
other suggested changes to the contract amendment.
Commissioner Gavzy motioned to renew the TRAILS contract with the changes
noted subject to the contract not having gone to the Plymouth HRA Board
meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mavity and passed on a
vote of 5-0 with Commissioners Courtney, Gavzy, Mavity, Moore and Row
voting in favor.
7. Communications from the Executive Director
a. Claims List No. 06-2001
Commissioner Courtney questioned a $10,000 payment to Angstrom Analytical.
Ms. Anderson explained this was the company used to perform the lead based
paint testing required by HUD. Ms. Anderson stated that Angstrom Analytical
was the low bidder.
Commissioner Moore moved ratification of Claims List No. 06-2001.
Commissioner Courtney seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of
5-0 with Commissioners Courtney, Gavzy, Mavity, Moore and Row voting in
favor.
b. Communications
Commissioner Courtney asked how Park Commons was being affected by the
indecision on tax increment financing (TIF). Mr. Harmening responded that if a
decision is put off for another year, it will be difficult to determine how to finance
projects. In relation to Park Commons, he said that there would be a shortfall of
$1,000,000 if proposed TIF financing changes are made.
24
Commissioner Gavzy inquired about the Louisiana Court project. Mr. Harmening
explained that the developer fees are being used to fund the draws, which raises
concerns. This is due to a lower lease-up rate than anticipated for several reasons
including slow construction. Mr. Harmening stated that he will discuss with the
attorneys whether the HA can put a hold on future draws until PPL has a plan in
place to improve cash flow.
Commissioner Gavzy asked that the HA bring back another update regarding
Louisiana Court at the next Board meeting.
Ms. Anderson mentioned a pending eviction relative to updates on the properties.
Commissioner Courtney questioned if the dates on the financial statements were
correct. Ms. Anderson stated that she would check with Finance on this.
Commissioner Courtney stated that her term on the Board would expire on June
30, 2001. She stated that she was willing to continue as a commissioner. Ms.
Anderson said that staff would initiate action for her re-appointment.
Commissioner Mavity questioned allocated contracts on the monthly report for
Section 8. Ms. Stromberg explained allocated contracts as the number of Section
8 vouchers the HA should be able to fund. Several other terms from the monthly
report were discussed. Commissioner Mavity requested that the HA provide a
detailed description of the terms on the monthly report at a future Board meeting.
Commissioner Gavzy asked if there is any training that the Commissioners could
attend. Ms. Stromberg explained that there are Commissioner tracks at the
National NAHRO conferences. Commissioner Gavzy asked that staff report back
on possible funding sources to send one or two commissioners each year.
Commissioner Mavity had a comment about the objectives of the Section 8
Project-Based Selection Policy. The integration of housing and supportive
services goal stated previously was not included in the objectives section. Ms.
Anderson stated that staff will make this change.
8. Adjournment
Commissioner Moore moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:00 p.m. Commissioner
Courtney seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 5-0 with
Commissioners Courtney, Gavzy, Mavity, Moore and Row voting in favor.
Respectfully submitted,
________________________
Shone Row, Secretary
25
CONSENT ITEM # 4b
OFFICIAL MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
JULY 11, 2001--6:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Michelle Bissonnette, Michael Garelick, Ken Gothberg,
Dennis Morris, Carl Robertson, Sally Velick
MEMBERS ABSENT: Jerry Timian
STAFF PRESENT: Janet Jeremiah, Patrick Smith, Nancy Sells
1. Call to Order - Roll Call
Chair Velick called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m.
2. Approval of Minutes of June 20, 2001
Commissioner Robertson moved approval of the minutes and the motion passed on a vote
of 4-0 with Commissioners Garelick, Morris, Robertson, and Velick voting in favor.
(Commissioners Bissonnette and Gothberg arrived at 6:03 p.m.)
3. Hearings
A. Case Nos. 01-31-CP and 01-32-Z – Request of Xcel Energy for a Comprehensive
Plan amendment from Residential to Industrial and a rezoning from R2 to I-P for the
northern portion of property located at 2201 Edgewood Avenue South
Mr. Smith presented a staff report.
Chair Velick opened the public hearing.
Commissioner Morris asked if Edgewood Avenue bisects the parcel or if it is a
private roadway in the parcel.
Mr. Smith said it is unclear. The plan submitted to the City shows that Edgewood
Avenue is within the parcel and is not a public right-of-way.
Ms. Jeremiah said there may be an easement for Edgewood Avenue rather than
dedicated right-of-way, but it is a public street.
Commissioner Morris asked if Edgewood Avenue ends in a cul-de-sac or if it
continues through and services other residences. Mr. Smith responded that it is a
continuous street.
26
In response to questions about the surrounding property, Mr. Smith stated that
property to the south is industrial and residential property to the west is 300 feet from
the proposed substation.
Commissioner Bissonnette stated that Xcel is one of her clients, although she is not
working on the substation. Chair Velick and Ms. Jeremiah confirmed that
Commissioner Bissonnette did not need to abstain from the vote in this case.
Chair Velick closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Morris made a motion to recommend approval of the Comprehensive
Plan amendment from Residential to Industrial and a rezoning from R2 to I-P for the
northern portion of property located at 2201 Edgewood Avenue South, subject to
approval by the Metropolitan Council. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0 with
Commissioners Bissonnette, Garelick, Gothberg, Morris, Robertson, and Velick
voting in favor.
Mr. Smith stated that he had forgotten to distribute a letter from Marlyn Desens, 6520
Eliot View Road, stating opposition to the Xcel substation with regards to lowering of
property values, health hazards, and aesthetics. Mr. Smith distributed copies of the
letter to the Planning Commission. Ms. Jeremiah said the letter will be included in
the Xcel report packet to the City Council. She noted the required procedure should
the Planning Commission wish to reopen the public hearing. Ms. Jeremiah reported
that a neighborhood meeting was held prior to the public hearing.
B. Case No. 01-33-ZA – Miscellaneous Zoning Ordinance amendments to Sections 14:5-
4.1(C)(7), 14:6-1.2(C)(5), 14:6-4.8(C)(3), and 14:8-2 to move the permit
requirements and add some flexibility for the construction of sheds under 120 square
feet, require a time frame for the installation of driveways and landscaping for one
and two-family homes, and make the Certificate of Occupancy section of the Zoning
Ordinance consistent with the recodification of the City Ordinance Code.
Ms. Jeremiah presented a staff report.
Chair Velick opened the public hearing.
Commissioner Gothberg asked about language on page 3 of the report, relative to off-
street parking areas. He asked if all driveways and all areas intended to be utilized
for three or more parking spaces should read all driveways and all areas large enough
to be utilized for three or more parking spaces.
Ms. Jeremiah responded that the language of that section was the subject of staff
discussion regarding interpretation. She said she consulted the rules of construction
in the zoning ordinance to make sure the interpretation was correct. Ms. Jeremiah
added that if a parking lot, or any other parking area not necessarily part of the
27
driveway, is intended to be used for three or more vehicles, it has to be surfaced.
Intended for use implies that we may have to witness the parking. Otherwise, a large
grassy area might have to be paved unneccessarily.
Commissioner Gothberg commented that landscaping requirements being satisfied
within one year of issuance of the building permit might be problematic because of
winter time issues.
Commissioner Morris said that Minneapolis’ site plan review has a landscaping
requirement to be met within a growing season. He explained that St. Louis Park’s
proposed requirement of one year should encompass two growing seasons.
Ms. Jeremiah said residents would be made aware of the requirements when they
come in for permits. The enforcement process starts after the year. A letter would
be sent giving them a reasonable amount of time based on the amount of work to be
done, and the season. Ms. Jeremiah explained further that staff doesn’t require a
landscape plan for one and two family residences, but wants to make sure that the
ground is covered.
Commissioner Garelick asked about enforcement provisions.
Ms. Jeremiah said the provisions are worked into the zoning ordinance and any
violations are a misdemeanor and fines of up to $1,000/day can be utilized if parties
aren’t working towards bringing properties up to code.
In reference to Certificate of Occupancy, Commissioner Garelick mentioned the wall
of a townhouse complex which didn’t meet code. He said he thought modifications
were going to be made to the Certificate of Occupancy and asked if modifications
included fines.
Ms. Jeremiah replied that the fines were the major change and are being written into
the conditions of approval. She said staff will also provide greater attention to ensure
that the conditions of approval are adhered to at each check point.
In regards to shed permits, Commission Robertson asked if staff would offer residents
guidance by preparing a pamphlet of potential ways to anchor a shed. Ms. Jeremiah
said that criteria could be developed. She explained that staff did not want to box
people into solutions. She added that in writing an ordinance it isn’t always possible
to foresee what the market might come up with, so staff tries to use language that
isn’t too prescriptive.
Chair Velick suggested that direction would be helpful, but setting a standard might
be preferred.
Ms. Jeremiah said that concrete slabs and post footings would always be viable
alternatives but staff recognizes that can be overdone in some cases.
28
Chair Velick closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Gothberg made a motion to recommend adoption of the proposed
Zoning Ordinance amendments. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0 with
Commissioners Bissonnette, Garelick, Gothberg, Morris, Robertson, and Velick
voting in favor.
C. Request of 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 the expansion of a parking lot in association with a proposed
building expansion. (continued from 6-20-01)
Patrick Smith presented a staff report. He explained that due to neighborhood
concerns with the proposed expansion of a Multiple-Family District, the JCC agreed
to withdraw their application. Instead of rezoning the adjacent city-owned property
from R-1 to R-4, staff is initiating a rezoning of the JCC property from R-4 to R-1,
with the property owner’s consent. The hearing is scheduled for the August 1
Planning Commission meeting.
Commissioner Garelick asked about the neighborhood meeting held on June 28. Ms.
Jeremiah said that about 20 residents attended. She said that questions from residents
regarded site development, tree removal, landscaping, the City trail, and aesthetics.
She said some willingness by the JCC was indicated to adjust their plans to try to
address neighborhood comments.
Commissioner Gothberg asked if further discussion has taken place regarding traffic
concerns.
Ms. Jeremiah replied that it has been discussed. A traffic study that was done some
time ago will be reviewed. She said the option of extending Cedar Lake Road out to
France has been discussed and there is no potential for that change.
Commissioner Velick closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Robertson made a motion to accept the applicant’s letter withdrawing
the rezoning application and the motion passed on a vote of 6-0 with Commissioners
Bissonnette, Garelick, Gothberg, Morris, Robertson, and Velick voting in favor.
4. Unfinished Business:
A. Request by Westside Office Park, LLC for a Conditional Use Permit with
Variances to construct a second building on a single lot. The variances include
reductions in number of parking spaces, parking lot design and architectural
standards.
Case Nos. 01-21-CUP and 01-22-VAR
29
6005 Wayzata Boulevard (request tabled on 6/6/01)
Commissioner Gothberg stated that all Commissioners received the applicant’s letter
of withdrawal. Commissioner Gothberg said he believed the primary issue regarded
the non-conforming used auto dealership and not the other problems.
Commissioner Garelick asked for clarification regarding used auto dealerships.
Ms. Jeremiah responded that there is a prohibition on used car dealerships in the City.
Car dealerships have to have at least 50% of their inventory in new cars. Ms.
Jeremiah said the only reason that it wasn’t part of the staff review is that the
application indicated that the used car dealership would be removed from the building
and the premises prior to the new construction. The applicant was aware of this
requirement and indicated to staff that the non-conforming use would be removed,
possibly as a means to get it reviewed by Planning Commission, but apparently was
not really interested in closing out those uses.
Commissioner Morris made a motion to remove Case Nos. 01-21-CUP and 01-22-
VAR from the table and adopt a motion to accept the applicant’s withdrawal of the
application for CUP with variances for Westside Office Park. The motion passed on
a vote of 6-0 with Commissioners Bissonnette, Garelick, Gothberg, Morris,
Robertson, and Velick voting in favor.
5. New Business
A. Consent Agenda
B. Other New Business
i. Request of TOLD Development for Phase I Final PUD and Plat
Park Commons East Phase I
Case Nos. 01-7-PUD and 01-6-S
Ms. Jeremiah reported that as of July 9, 115 surveys sent to condominium
residents regarding a request to rename a segment of 38th/39th Street were returned
to her. She said that most of the surveys returned indicated a preference for no
change due to the effort and cost involved in changing personal address items.
The remainder of the surveys were split between a preference for Grand Place and
preference for a different name. Ms. Jeremiah said she would compile a list of
proposed alternative names. She reported that an update was provided at the City
Council study session on July 9 and the Council indicated they are still interested
in renaming the street. Ms. Jeremiah stated that the Planning Commission does
not necessarily need to comment on the street renaming, but any remarks can be
forwarded to the City Council if desired.
Ms. Jeremiah noted that the preliminary approval required submission of a
number of plans and many details have been submitted for Phase I. She added
that a temporary sidewalk plan and interim use/maintenance plans have just been
30
submitted. The lighting photometric plan can be deferred until the application of
the building permit. It will be reviewed by staff for conformance with ordinances.
Ms. Jeremiah reported that staff is working with the developer regarding the tree
replacement plan.
Ms. Jeremiah stated the approval is only for Phase I and the remainder of the
project would be phased in over time. The next lot to be developed would be the
future northeast lot. Subsequent development will require public hearings as part
of the preliminary and final approval process.
Ms. Jeremiah commented on access to parking structures and whether or not that
could be modified to eliminate access from Excelsior Blvd. She said she didn’t
believe that issue was raised at the Planning Commission and it was raised at the
City Council. The traffic consultant studied the matter and determined the effects
were relatively serious, resulting in loading traffic on the Town Green streets as
well as 38th/39th St. It would also adversely effect Monterey Drive. The City
Council did not recommend any change.
Commissioner Garelick asked for details regarding the amphitheater.
Ms. Jeremiah responded that it would be generally located at the end of the Town
Green. Terraced seating is expected to accommodate approximately 300 people.
Bob Cunningham, of TOLD Development, distributed a small scale concept
drawing of the amphitheater.
Chair Velick requested that the July 18 tour of the Planning Commission include
a guided tour at the Park Commons area.
Dennis Sutliff, ESG Architects, presented color drawings illustrating design
changes such as varied articulation on top of buildings, differing window widths,
diverse textures and colors, individual awning treatments and stone and brick
variations. Mr. Sutliff discussed the glass design of the parking structure elevator.
He also commented on signage design.
Josh Gruber, 4608 W. 39th Street, said he didn’t believe parking had been
adequately disclosed or sufficiently discussed by the City Council. Mr. Gruber
commented that TOLD Development said in November that it has not wavered
from principles of a transit/pedestrian friendly environment. Mr. Gruber stated
that the widths of entrances and exits from parking structures, 120 feet, is double
that of the Town Commons, and does not provide a pedestrian friendly
environment.
Mr. Gruber said that in February, 1999, members of the Planning Commission
stated that the four story structures would create canyons instead of a street level
31
feeling. Mr. Gruber said he felt that nothing has changed in the intervening time
to change that perception.
Mr. Gruber read a Planning Commissioner’s statement from February, 1999 that
the plan was very far removed from the original goal of the City. He said
change should enhance the experience of residents and those who visit. Mr.
Gruber went on to say that the consequences of the project will be lasting and he
encouraged Commissioners not to rush approval of the project. Mr. Gruber said
the request to change the parking ramp was presented as a revision. He said last
November schematics were presented which showed parking ramp entrance and
exist onto side streets so that traffic would not encumber Monterey Drive or the
Town Green. He asked if traffic studies have taken into consideration the effect
of having hundreds of cars emptying onto Excelsior Blvd. and stopping halfway
between lights to turn into a parking ramp. He said that could be a significant
change from what the original plans looked like.
Mr. Gruber asked the Planning Commission to give consideration to postponing a
decision on the PUD and plat because of its importance and lasting consequences.
He asked if commissioners whose statements he referred to from 1999 still felt the
same way. Mr. Gruber said he felt the character of the development has changed
very dramatically from the conception at the charrette stage.
Fran Rutherford, 4820 W. 39th St., #318, Wolfe Lake Condominiums, expressed
concerns about changing the name of a segment of 38th/39th Street. She said she
felt residents of the condominiums are being inconvenienced by the development
by dust, noise, a yearlong street closing, added traffic, and now the further
inconvenience of a street renaming. She commented on her experience with a
street name change.
Commissioner Gothberg stated that comments made in February, 1999 by
Planning Commissioners referred to the previous developer’s proposal. He
added that significant improvement and continued refinement has been made with
TOLD Development.
Commissioner Gothberg said he objects to the name Grand Place. He stated that
he hopes the City Council will take its time in renaming the street. He asked for
the current proposed name along the park edge as some recently submitted plans
use both Walden and Wolfe Parkway.
Commissioner Gothberg asked what the process will be for minor changes.
Ms. Jeremiah responded that the development agreement will address specific
criteria for potential administrative amendments to the official exhibits. She said
that generally the language for those criteria is that minor changes can be made to
exact colors and specific location of materials as long as they are in keeping with
the original approval and there is no reduction in the use of Class I materials.
32
Ms. Jeremiah added that there are also specific criteria in the PUD ordinance
which address public hearing requirements.
In reference to public art on the Town Green, Commissioner Gothberg
commented that he hopes a great deal of green space will be retained.
Mrs. Carl Holzinger, 3765 Kipling, said she feels the outcome of the charrette and
taxpayer’s vote has been lost sight of. She said that condominiums do not
enhance the area. She commented on the loss of green space. Mrs. Holzinger
stated that if a revote was taken today she doubted whether the development
would be supported by residents. She said that good improvements have been
made on Excelsior Blvd. to the east. She mentioned current traffic congestion on
Excelsior Blvd. Mrs. Holzinger said she didn’t believe additional stop signs
would help, but would only bring more cars onto the residential streets. She
urged the Planning Commission to not rush into project approval. She said the
new concept is a 360-degree turnabout from the one supported by taxpayers. Mrs.
Holzinger said that residents had envisioned bicycle paths, benches and a great
deal of green space.
Chair Velick said she believed much green space would remain in Wolfe Park and
the amphitheater area. She said she believes the charrette focus to have a town
center flow into the park has been retained. She asked staff to comment on
remarks made by residents.
Ms. Jeremiah commented on the entrances and exists of the parking structures.
She said the architect’s reference to 120 feet is the full width of the parking
structures, not the entrances to them. She said the November plans did show the
entrances into the parking structures from side streets. However, the side streets
also brought people to and from Excelsior Blvd. mid-block between traffic lights,
so the impacts on Excelsior Blvd. haven’t changed. She said it is true that there
has never been a plan where the parking structure was directly entered from the
town green. She said at one time an entrance to some parking on Monterey Drive
was proposed but there were traffic problems with that. Ms. Jeremiah said all
the traffic studies have looked very closely at the specific plan and determined
that exiting at Excelsior half-way between traffic signals is considered a good,
safe distance with no stacking problems. She went on to say that the developer
and staff have looked closely at visibility coming in and out of those parking
structures and how that relates to the sidewalk.
Ms. Jeremiah said she would provide all name change responses to the City
Council. As regards Walden Parkway or Wolfe Parkway, Ms. Jeremiah said the
developer has agreed to make the change to Wolfe Parkway. She said that
residents have indicated their preference for street names to relate to the area. Ms.
Jeremiah commented that aside from the platting issue, there is also follow-up
that would have to be done by ordinance to rename streets. She said there will be
more discussion and follow-up on renaming before it is finalized.
33
Ms. Jeremiah said that some of the details regarding bike paths and park amenities
might need more explanation. She described local and regional bike path
connections. She explained that benches are proposed in many locations along
the Town Green. Ms. Jeremiah elaborated on the different kinds of spaces which
will be created in the Town Green, some spaces being very quiet and others more
active. She said more grass is preserved in the center of the Town Green, and the
edge will include more hardscape for special events.
Ms. Jeremiah remarked on the amount of review undertaken for the project. She
said all parties have their own individual idea of the best direction for the project.
She said the outcome has been a compilation of ideas discussed over time with the
City trying to address the primary comments that have been heard.
Chair Velick asked for clarification on the parking ramp. She asked also for more
information on the flow of traffic.
Mr. Cunningham pointed out the area of Phase I east of the Town Green which
showed the parking ramp. He said the traffic flow is anticipated to be a right turn
in and right turn out onto Excelsior Blvd. Along the proposed Grand Place there
will be an all-way motion allowing left and right turn motions. He said TOLD
believes it is a very safe traffic situation. The design provides for an enhanced
site line at the exit, unlike most parking structures, which are built right up to the
sidewalk.
Mr. Robertson remarked that the scope of the project was to develop a downtown
which uses a scale reminiscent of small towns throughout the state, where
relatively tall buildings are clustered on a narrow main street for a few blocks.
Mr. Robertson said he advocated for more diversity on the building facades so
that they looked like individual buildings built over time. He said the architect
has been very creative in approaching that feeling. He commented on the street
opening up to the gateway on the park. He said it can be difficult to visualize
scale but he believes the scale works very well. Mr. Robertson encouraged
residents to look past the inconveniences and look forward to the time when they
will be able to walk from their residences to a vibrant part of the city. He said
mixed-use is beneficial for a vibrant town center. Mr. Robertson said that he is
pleased at how the project has developed.
Commissioner Garelick remarked that he believes the project will be beneficial to
the neighboring residents. He commented on the appreciating value of homes in
the area.
Commissioner Bissonnette said she is in agreement that the project design is
much improved. She commended the developer for its response to requests for
revisions. She said her main concern is with traffic. She said the project design
34
does create a downtown feeling and she remarked on the connections to the Rec
Center, Wolfe Park, retail, and residential areas.
Chair Velick said she had concerns with the parking ramp but that she is
comfortable with the developer’s explanation of how traffic will enter and exit.
She said she thinks that traffic back up can be worked out with sequenced traffic
lights. She went on to say that the project would energize the area. Chair Velick
commented on the efforts of the Planning Commission to make the project
happen.
Ms. Rutherford, 4820 W. 39th St., said she wanted to make it clear that she
doesn’t object to the development, but that she does object to the street renaming
at 38th/39th Street. She suggested that the retail area be called Wolfe Park Center
or Wolfe Lake Center.
Commissioner Gothberg made a motion to recommend approval of the Final Plat
and Final PUD subject to the conditions recommended by staff. The motion
passed on a vote of 6-0 with Commissioners Bissonnette, Garelick, Gothberg,
Morris, Robertson, and Velick voting in favor.
Mr. Cunningham thanked the Commission for its consideration to date. He
provided an update on leasing activities.
6. Communications
A. Confirm Attendance for September 11 Joint Meeting at Richfield
Ms. Jeremiah said that the City of Richfield had requested a tentative attendance
list for the joint Richfield, Edina, Bloomington and St. Louis Park Planning
Commission meeting at Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland Ave. on September 11
at 6:00 p.m. All commissioners in attendance indicated they would probably
attend the meeting.
B. Requested Information Regarding Building Permits
Ms. Jeremiah distributed a hand-out of residential building permit values by year
from 1999 through June, 2001. It was provided in response to a request from the
Planning Commission after a discussion about single family homes and in-fill
development.
7. Adjournment
Chair Velick adjourned the meeting at 8:05 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Nancy Sells
Administrative Secretary
35
CONSENT ITEM # 4c
OFFICIAL MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 6, 2001 -- 6:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Michael Garelick, Ken Gothberg,
Dennis Morris, Carl Robertson, Sally Velick
MEMBERS ABSENT: Michelle Bissonnette, 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 6:00 p.m.
2. Approval of Minutes of May 16, 2001
Mr. Morris moved approval of the minutes and the motion passed on a vote of 4-0 with
Commissioners Gothberg, Morris, Robertson, and Velick voting in favor. (Mr. Garelick
arrived at 6:40 p.m.)
3. Hearings:
A. Case 01-20-ZA Miscellaneous Zoning Amendments
Ms. Jeremiah, Planning and Zoning Supervisor, presented a staff report. She explained
that the items are primarily housekeeping amendments and policies are not being
substantially changed. The amendments are a means to improve enforcement and
streamline the process.
Mr. Morris asked if residents would be required to submit a plan for sheds under 120
square feet in area.
Ms. Jeremiah responded that the review process would require submission of a site plan
showing location so that setbacks could be verified and total area of accessory structures
could be checked. Ms. Jeremiah added that the primary issue is to insure that the shed is
properly attached to the ground. The requirements are not being changed, just moved
from the Building Code to the Zoning Code.
Mr. Morris commented that many accessory structures are pre-manufactured sheds and
do not sit on concrete slabs or post footings. He said he understood the need for an
anchoring system but thought concrete slabs, post footings and related expenses could
equal the cost of the shed. Mr. Morris suggested that language be added to item k. such
36
as or in a manner approved by the Zoning Administrator so that someone could design an
alternative method of anchoring a structure. He said he didn’t recommend a change, but
requested staff review of the issue.
Mr. Gothberg asked if the proposed amendment for sign classification as structure
includes banners as temporary signs.
Ms. Jeremiah responded that the existing ordinance does cover additional limitations
placed on temporary signs.
Mr. Robertson asked if the proposed amendment for sign classification refers to a
freestanding sign or an attached sign.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that the definition of structure is very broad, including anything that
is man-made. She said that regulations for signs on a building face are clarified in other
sections of the ordinance code.
Mr. Gothberg asked if the proposed language regarding time limits for exterior finishes
would also apply to new construction. He also asked about penalties.
Ms. Jeremiah responded that it would apply to new construction. She said with new
construction a Certificate of Occupancy would not be issued until the exterior is
complete. Ms. Jeremiah said the other enforcement mechanism is that any violation of
the zoning code is a misdemeanor and up to $1,000 per day can be charged. Ms.
Jeremiah noted that staff is also looking at the possibility of including time limits for
installing hard surface driveways and landscaping.
Ms. Jeremiah reviewed Certificate of Occupancy language and said that discussions have
been on-going regarding the name change. She said staff is suggesting that the language
be changed to Certificate of Conformance rather than Certificate of Compliance before it
goes to the City Council for review.
Mr. Morris said he assumed that the one-year time limit being proposed for filing an
approved plat is in conformance with Hennepin County and state guidelines. He stated
that one year seems like a lengthy extension and he asked the length of a typical
extension request.
Ms. Jeremiah said the general policy has been that an applicant can’t request more than
60 days. She added that some applicants have come back several times and have always
been granted the extension. These extensions have sometimes totaled one year’s time.
Mr. Morris remarked that if offered one year, all applicants would consider it a deadline
period. An approved plat would exist without filing records.
37
Ms. Jeremiah said she would look into Mr. Morris’ concern. She said that most
applicants who request a plat are anxious to get started with construction and most delays
are related to serious issues.
Mr. Robertson said he felt a one-year extension was lengthy if it is the norm. He said he
favored 120 – 150 days with an occasional extension when really needed.
In response to Mr. Robertson’s question about Certificate of Conformance, Ms. Jeremiah
answered that it does not change any requirements but prevents duplication in different
portions of the ordinance and makes sure that all requirements are retained.
Mr. Robertson noted that Section 14:8-2.1 Responsibility should reflect the new
Certificate of Conformance language.
Chair Velick opened the public hearing.
Mr. Morris asked if the Planning Commission was comfortable amending the zoning
ordinance if the actual text language presented to the City Council is modified.
Ms. Jeremiah responded that the exact text language needs to be presented to the City
Council by second reading at the latest. She said that if substantial changes need to be
made or more research time is needed, consideration by the City Council would be
delayed. If changes no longer reflected the public hearing description of the
amendments, the case would come back to the Planning Commission for its
consideration.
Mr. Morris moved that the Commission accept staff recommendation for the proposed
Zoning Ordinance amendments subject to consideration of Planning Commission
comments. The motion passed on a vote of 4-0 with Commissioners Gothberg, Morris,
Robertson and Velick voting in favor.
B. Case 95-51-PUD Request of Costco Wholesale for a major amendment to the
Park Place Plaza PUD to permit the construction of a fueling facility containing
12 fueling stations and an accessory building at the southwest corner of Park
Place Blvd. and Gamble Drive
Mr. Smith presented a staff report. He reviewed two changes to conditions listed in the
staff report. Staff proposes adding the phrase Upon further review of the Fire
department to condition 1. The second addition is 5d: A revised site and landscaping
plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning and Zoning Supervisor showing
the curb location around the gasoline tanks and the reduced landscaping island.
Mr. Gothberg asked if the traffic study took into account Costco’s projected five-year
membership growth.
38
Mr. Smith responded that the parking study did take into account the full development of
the site and the surrounding area. He added that the parking study evaluated the
conditions at the four intersections, not the parking or internal drives.
Mr. Gothberg asked if the study considered congestion caused by people driving in who
are unaware that Costco is a members-only fuel station.
Mr. Smith said he did not know if this was considered.
Mr. Gothberg commented on the difficult turning radius for fuel trucks.
Mr. Smith responded that the recommended path of the fueling trucks would be on the
perimeter of the site.
Ms. Velick said her concern was within the parking lot itself as it appears as though the
fueling truck would have to make a very sharp turn.
Mr. Morris asked if any turn templates had been run on the plan.
Ted Johnson, Executive Vice-President of Thompson Dyke Associates, introduced
himself. He said the issue of congestion caused by non-members was discussed when
Thompson Dyke went over the site plan. He said the development is different from a
typical gas station. Mr. Johnson explained that the distance between the pumping islands
is three lanes, allowing passing of vehicles, rather than the typical two lanes. He added
that signage at the entry way indicates it is members-only. An attendant will indicate the
way out. Mr. Johnson said the traffic consultant was provided with a site plan that was
developed by an AutoCAD program called Autoturn. A template for a 62-foot long
tanker trailer was used to show entrance and exit. The consultant determined there was
sufficient area on site for tanker entrance and exit. Mr. Johnson went on to say that
when the Autoturn program was developed, the site plan was tweaked to make
accommodation for the tanker truck’s movement.
Mr. Morris asked if the fuel truck when exiting would have to go into opposing traffic.
Mr. Johnson responded that was true, but the consultant did not feel the traffic volumes
on that driveway were a problem for the number of times it would occur.
Mr. Robertson asked if road markings would be provided for the truck driver for
maneuvering in the driveway.
Mr. Johnson responded that professional drivers can make the turns when there is
sufficient area in a driveway and sufficient radii to maneuver the vehicle.
Mr. Garelick remarked on recently seeing a semi-truck on West 16th Street turn into the
Costco facility and become tied up on the center divider, backing-up traffic considerably
on 16th.
39
Mr. Johnson described the route fuel trucks would take into the facility.
Mr. Garelick said he is very concerned about the amount of traffic on 16th Street and
incidences of semi-trucks not being able to maneuver smoothly in and out of the existing
Costco facility.
Mr. Johnson said when the area was improved for the warehouse, they increased the radii
and the width by realigning the entrance so it would be opposite the Doubletree access.
He said the location of Costco’s loading dock and service access would prevent the
situation Mr. Garelick described.
Chair Velick opened the public hearing.
Cindy Commers, 2655 Perry Ave. N., Golden Valley, stated that her office is in the Park
Place Plaza area and she is a member of Costco. She said she appreciates the stores and
restaurants in the development and frequents the area on a daily basis. She commented
that she was in traffic during the incident Mr. Garelick described. Ms. Commers said the
entire area is extremely hazardous traffic-wise. As a property manager hears daily
complaints about the traffic flow, internal circulation, lack of signage and parking
problems.
Chair Velick asked if staff can provide an update on circulation problems.
Mr. Smith responded that Planning staff has looked at the traffic issues raised by the
Planning Commission at its previous meeting. These issues need to be reviewed with the
City Engineer.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that prior to construction of the Costco Warehouse there used to be
another entrance drive along what is now the front of the Costco store which dispersed
the traffic a little bit. The traffic consultant felt that limited entrances on 16th Street
shouldn’t have a significant impact. She said that obviously it has had impacts and
warrants revisiting to insure safety. Ms. Jeremiah said the traffic study for the gas station
proposal also looked at noon hour traffic, which is known to be an internal site issue.
The consultant did not feel the gas station proposal would exacerbate the problem. Four-
way stops have been suggested on the main entrance drive, but that may create stacking
problems. She reported that staff will continue to look at the situation.
Jeff Godo, General Manager of the Costco facility, stated that the truck incident Mr.
Garelick described involved a Home Depot truck. The trucks are supposed to use the
Park Place entrance. Signage has been placed at that entrance regarding trucks.
Mr. Robertson stated that the amendment to the PUD is an opportunity to correct
circulation problems. He said he is cautious to approve without some language regarding
corrections.
40
Mr. Johnson said the traffic study evaluated site circulation and the conclusion was that
the fueling facility would not have an adverse impact.
Mr. Robertson commented that the traffic study did not focus on the internal circulation.
Mr. Johnson responded that the need for another study regarding internal circulation
shouldn’t hold up this PUD amendment request.
Chair Velick closed the public hearing. She said that all commissioners have voiced a
concern about internal traffic. Chair Velick said that she is cautious about approving the
amendment which could further impact traffic problems.
Mr. Morris said he is opposed to the fueling station but not specifically regarding the
traffic issues. He stated his opposition is related to the Comprehensive Plan, the
neighborhood plan and the redevelopment plan of the City. He commented that the area
had been guided for retail/restaurant and a members-only gas station restricts the space
and is not a neighborhood or community amenity. Mr. Morris went on to say that the
fueling facility wouldn’t bring in jobs and that he doesn’t approve of the location.
Mr. Gothberg stated that he agrees with Mr. Morris. He asked if Costco would address
issues it has with conditions of recommendation proposed by staff.
Peter Kahn, Real Estate Development, Costco, introduced himself. Mr. Kahn said the
facility would be manned during hours of operation to assist members. He said that Mr.
Smith had addressed the condition regarding Fire Department review. He said most of
the remaining conditions have been met or are in progress. Mr. Kahn said Costco has
very serious concerns about condition No. 6, construction of required cart corrals on the
Home Depot site. Mr. Kahn said the PUD amendment and the Home Depot issue are
two separate issues. He said he suggests that the City present its concerns about car
corrals directly to Home Depot.
Mr. Kahn said he understood the Commission’s concerns about traffic. He said Costco
believes the fuel facility works from a traffic point-of-view. Mr. Kahn said Costco is
more than willing to work with the other PUD parties to improve existing traffic
conditions. He added that typically 70% of Costco members stopping for fuel will go to
the warehouse to shop. Less than 5% of people coming to Costco fuel stations represent
new trips.
Mr. Morris asked how many Costco fueling stations are non-contiguous to Costco
warehouses.
Mr. Kahn responded that there are several stations of that design.
Mr. Garelick said he doesn’t feel the fueling station adds to the mix of the development
and that cannot give approval because of internal traffic concerns.
41
Commissioner Velick re-opened the public hearing. With no one wishing to speak, Chair
Velick closed the public hearing.
Chair Velick commented that from the north to the southeast it appears there will be more
traffic, due to trips between the warehouse and proposed fueling facility. She said she
doesn’t see the traffic flow as being a workable plan and would like to see it reworked.
Mr. Gothberg suggested that two motions be considered.
Mr. Gothberg moved to request that staff return to the Planning Commission with
recommendations for improving existing traffic deficiencies on the site as well as
informing the Commission on actions to be taken to have cart corrals constructed on the
Home Depot site.
The motion passed on a vote of 5-0 with Commissioners Garelick, Gothberg, Morris,
Robertson and Velick voting in favor.
Mr. Gothberg moved that the request be deferred until staff can present full review of the
proposal’s fit to the Comprehensive Plan by neighborhood as well as the original PUD,
past decisions and documents.
The motion passed on a vote of 5-0 with Commissioners Garelick, Gothberg, Morris,
Robertson and Velick voting in favor.
Mr. Morris stated that when the Costco site was first reviewed, the cart corral issue was
raised. He said his recollection was that development of the Costco site was contingent
upon the Home Depot cart corrals and other deficiencies in the PUD being brought up to
standards.
C. Cases 01-20-CUP and 01-22-VAR -- Request of Westside Office Park for
conditional use permit and variances to permit construction of a second building
on a single parcel for property in C-2 General Commercial Zoning District and
variances allowing a reduction in the parking lot design standards, reduction in
required number of parking stalls and a new building to be constructed which
does not conform to architecture of existing building for property located at 6005-
6009 Wayzata Blvd.
Ms. Erickson presented a staff report.
The owner of the property, Cyril Silberman, suggested that Ms. Erickson stop presenting
the report as the City did not support the project.
Commissioner Morris asked if the applicant was withdrawing his request.
Mr. Silberman said he received the report earlier in the day. He said he had no idea the
report would recommend denial and he thought all issues had been resolved.
42
Chair Velick asked if Mr. Silberman wished to withdraw his application.
Mr. Silberman responded that he did wish to withdraw the application.
Chair Velick opened the public hearing.
Cyril Silberman, property owner, said he has been working on this idea for nearly two
years. He said that as a result of taxes on the property being raised 240% in the last 3-4
years and subsequent conversations with the City Assessor, who stated that the property
is not used to the highest and best use, he began working with the City to try to work on a
plan which would increase the value of the property. Mr. Silberman said that many
changes were made to the plan and he was told by planner Sacha Peterson, that only 5-6
materials could be used on 60% of the building, copper being one of those materials. He
selected copper as he understood it was approved by the City. Mr. Silberman went on to
say that he would build it out of any material but followed City guidance on what is
allowed.
Mr. Silberman said the only problem identified to him prior to receiving the report was
the used car dealership in the building. He explained that by law he cannot violate the
dealership’s lease. He said he has asked the City numerous times if the use could be
amortized so that redevelopment of the property could go forward. Mr. Silberman said
the City has not responded to this inquiry. He added that while working with the City to
develop a plan to redevelop the property, the City passed an ordinance making it
impossible for him to buy a building permit to fix the property. Mr. Silberman said the
remaining alternative is to abandon the new building proposal until the leases end.
Ms. Jeremiah said that staff had been assured that the proposal would meet City
requirements. The application indicates that the used car dealerships will be removed.
She added that when staff reviewed it and pointed out the need for a number of variances,
the applicant did apply for some of the variances rather than rectify the situation.
Materials, such as stucco, have been pointed out which meet the 60% requirement and
would be in keeping with the existing building. Ms. Jeremiah said an option of buying
the railroad property has been raised to help address the variance related to parking. She
said although the applicant is withdrawing the request, staff would work with them on
any alternative request. She stated that staff’s position is that the current proposal is an
overbuilding of the site.
Ms. Jeremiah said if the applicant submits a new application, a new public hearing could
occur.
Mr. Robertson commented on the odd-shaped space as it relates to parking problems.
Regarding building materials, Mr. Robertson said he cautioned staff on the compatibility
aspect of the ordinance, which can be subject to interpretation. He said he encouraged
the applicant to try and resolve a few of the issues regarding parking and design.
43
In response to Mr. Garelick’s question about the planning process, Mr. Silberman
responded that after materials were submitted, 5-6 items were changed by the request of
planning staff. The request was then put on the Planning Commission agenda. Mr.
Silberman said that one to two days before the deadline for submission of the public
hearing notice they received a call saying it could not be put on the agenda. Mr.
Silberman commented on a voice mail he received from Ms. Jeremiah regarding tree
removal and the application’s subsequent removal from the agenda. He said trees were
not removed, but rather a neighbor had trimmed bushes.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that an inspector was on the site who noticed the tree removal. She
indicated in her message that she was informed trees were being removed and, if so, tree
replacement requirements would have to be adhered to. Ms. Jeremiah said the fact that
the request was not put on the Planning Commission agenda was not directly related to
tree removal but the fact that the application was incomplete, in part because the
applicant had not applied for variances. She commented that some confusion that has
resulted is due to the fact that there have been a number of different applicant contacts.
Ms. Jeremiah said that staff has done its best to keep the various contacts informed with
phone calls and letters, and staff has maintained written records regarding the project.
Chair Velick closed the public hearing.
Ms. Erickson said that a written withdrawal request is generally required. She said the
Planning Commission can defer the case and await confirmation of the withdrawal.
Mr. Morris asked about return of fees or reinstating requests within one year.
Ms. Jeremiah responded that return of fees depends on whether or not the public hearing
has been published and notices sent. She added that there are also restrictions on the
period of time for reapplication of a variance. The City will honor requests for return of
fees within Ordinance guidelines.
Mr. Morris commented that the Planning Commission wants to see successful plans,
rehabilitation of existing properties, increased employment, and increased tax base.
Mr. Gothberg asked if the applicant should receive an agreement with the railroad
relative to parking, if parking areas were upgraded, and if the building design met the
architectural standards, would the used car dealership still pose a problem for the
development.
Ms. Jeremiah responded that it would still be a problem and could not remain if a new
building or expansion is desired.
Mr. Gothberg asked if the same problem would exist if the property was subdivided into
two lots.
44
Ms. Erickson responded that the used car dealership would still have to be removed
before the property could be subdivided.
Mr. Morris commented on past discussions, the Than Do request specifically, about the
feasibility of requiring 100% compliance in non-conformities as opposed to the ability to
create a development that is beneficial to the City.
Ms. Jeremiah noted that the Than Do property did not involve a non-conforming use, and
the City Attorney has been consulted and concurs with staff regarding this situation.
Mr. Morris made a motion to table the request. He suggested that staff and the developer
take a second look at developing a new proposal. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0
with Commissioners Garelick, Gothberg, Morris, Robertson and Velick voting in favor.
4. Unfinished Business – None
5. New Business
A. Consent Agenda
B. Other New Business
Mr. Morris suggested that the Planning Commission schedule a tour. Mr.
Gothberg suggested that the Planning Commission schedule the tour on a
different night than a regularly scheduled meeting to allow for adequate time.
Ms. Jeremiah said the City of Richfield has asked if the Planning Commission
would attend a joint meeting in September of the Planning Commissions of Edina,
Bloomington and Richfield to discuss metro issues. Commissioners said they
would consider attendance and would like additional information.
Mr. Garelick said that the cities of New Hope and Golden Valley are also
interested in a joint meeting.
6. Adjournment
Chair Velick adjourned the meeting at 8:25 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Nancy Sells
Administrative Secretary
45
CONSENT ITEM # 4d
City of St. Louis Park
Human Rights Commission
Meeting Minutes - June 20, 2001
Westwood Room - City Hall
______________________________________________________________________________
Present
Commission Members: Marc Berg, Cassandra Boddy, Jake Feldman, Herb Isbin, Kristin
Siegesmund and Maya Winoker
Staff: Martha McDonell, Commission Liaison and Lynn Schwartz, Recording Secretary
Call to Order
Chairperson Kristin Siegesmund called the meeting to order at 7:12 p.m.
May Minutes: Moved by Herb Isbin and seconded by Marc Berg to approve the May minutes
with a correction. Motion passed unanimously.
June Agenda: Moved by Herb Isbin and seconded by Cassandra Boddy to approve the agenda
with one addition: viewing a short videotape on world diversity. Motion passed unanimously.
Reports
Commissioner Reports: Herb Isbin shared materials from the League of Minnesota Human
Rights Commissions meeting. Isbin noted that the League is having a meeting on June 23 which
will include a forum on the Boy Scouts and a presentation of the winning Human Rights essay
contest. Kristen Siegesmund suggested that Isbin get copies of the winning essays so the
commission can use them as samples for future St. Louis Park contests. Isbin also mentioned the
Plymouth Human Rights Commission’s sponsorship of a workshop on desegregation and the
NAACP lawsuit.
Old Business
Ice Cream Social: Kristen Siegesmund noted that she was impressed with the commission’s
booth and said the balloons really helped draw visitors. She reported that many parents took the
booklets, and several teachers were given crayon packets. Despite the lower turnout due to the
rain, Marc Berg said the effort was worthwhile in advancing the commission’s visibility.
Members agreed that the commission should participate in the Ice Cream Social again next year.
Diversity Week – Teasing Forum: Kristen Siegesmund reported that more than a dozen people
participated in the May 23rd forum on teasing. Siegesmund reported that the participants were
very engaged and very positive. She added that Kristi Rudelius-Palmer did a good job of
presenting the Children’s Declaration of Human Rights and connecting this document to the
ramifications of teasing. She was also commended for leading participants to identify action
steps to reduce this problem. Marc Berg added that the session was more of an empowerment
seminar than a lecture. Siegesmund said the commission could easily offer this forum again.
46
Herb Isbin suggested that Siegesmund prepare a report on this event for presentation at the
League of Human Rights Commissions.
Diversity Week – Human Mosaic Sessions: Cassandra Boddy reported that Human Mosaic
initially had difficulty attracting students to the first day of Diversity Week events at the High
School; however, the subsequent days were well attended. The English as a Second Language
students and several other classes attended the session on religion and the subsequent discussion
generated a lot of participation. The Native American Dancing session engaged the audience,
and the dancers were appreciative of the teaching opportunity. All of the student representatives
felt the effort went well and would do even better next year.
Kristen Siegesmund suggested that Human Mosaic survey students to gauge their interest in
session topics as they plan next year’s presentations. Siegesmund also suggested that student
organizers get the involvement of the administration and teachers earlier next year to boost the
effort’s attendance. Herb Isbin suggested that some of the Diversity Week sessions could be
videotaped next year for cablecast on local access television (similar to what was done with the
immigration forum). Isbin also suggested that one of the students submit a written report
summarizing Diversity Week for inclusion in the commission’s records.
Herb Isbin suggested that the commission submit the Human Rights Personal Action Pledge to
the Sun-Sailor for publication. Commissioners felt that pledge should be revised to be specific to
St. Louis Park prior to sending it to the newspaper.
Speakers: Herb Isbin asked that Nancy Gohman, the City’s Human Resources Director, be
invited to a meeting to update the commission on what the city is doing to recruit and hire a more
diverse workforce. Martha McDonell will make the invitation to Gohman.
Marc Berg suggested that the commission invite Barbara Pulliam, Superintendent of Schools, to
a meeting to see how the district is moving along with its five year plan and update the
commission on plans for the Spanish immersion program.
Cassandra Boddy suggested that John Shell be invited to discuss issues related to religious
diversity.
Commissioner Recruitment: Members discussed options for recruiting more diverse
membership on the commission. Suggestions included recruiting at Meadowbrook and
recruiting a representative from the Somali population. Kirsten Siegesmund offered to draft a
recruiting flier for review at a future meeting.
Marc Berg asked why the minister who applied for membership on the Human Rights
Commission was not appointed. Martha McDonell offered to research what happened and report
back to the commission. McDonell added that Emily Wallace-Jackson has moved out of St.
Louis Park and is no longer eligible for commission membership. McDonell will notify the
school board that Wallace-Jackson has agreed to serve on the commission until the board
appoints a replacement.
47
Vision St. Louis Park: Martha McDonell gave a brief background report on Vision St. Louis
Park, a strategic planning process begun in 1995, and then updated the commission on the efforts
of the Outcomes Committee which is charged with measuring how well the community is
progressing toward vision achievement. Although a random phone survey was used to measure
citizen opinions on some vision topics, McDonell noted that the diversity indicators are harder to
measure in a phone survey. For this topic, focus groups will be used. McDonell added that the
Outcomes Committee is still working on how to conduct the focus group process and may ask
the Human Rights Commission for advice and input. Kristen Siegesmund noted that she likes
the idea of partnering with other groups and asked that this topic be placed on next month’s
agenda. Maya Winoker urged the Outcomes Committee to involve youth and ESL students in
the focus groups to represent young people as well as gain access to their non-English speaking
parents.
New Business
Cultural Competency Forums: Martha McDonell reported that the school district is
considering sponsoring cultural competency forums on the ramifications of the community’s
changing demographics. The school district is seeking a grant to help fund this project and
would like commission input on the forums. Maya Winoker suggested that Pulliam also involve
the students from the Human Mosaic project once school resumes. Martha McDonell would like
to see mini-presentations on the census made to community groups. McDonell suggested that
one or two commissioners serve as liaison to the school district’s cultural competency forum
planning team. Kristen Siegesmund and Marc Berg offered to work on this project.
Commissioner Issues: Because each commissioner has his/her own causes or issues to
champion, Herb Isbin said it would be worthwhile for the commission to discuss when it is
appropriate for the commission to take a stand on another group’s issue. Isbin felt commissioner
reports should not turn into a vote on a particular issue or cause. Isbin felt the commission
should not endorse a cause until the issue has been placed on the agenda and discussed at a
meeting. After a general discussion, members agreed this was an appropriate process.
Illegal Discrimination: Isbin said the commission should discuss how it would assist a person
who has faced an alleged discriminatory incident. He noted that such a response plan is more
ambitious than the commission’s Bias/Hate Crime Response Plan. The commission needs to
decide if it would do anything other than make referrals. Isbin felt it’s very easy to be swayed by
the person making the complaint and the commission should not take sides until both sides have
been heard. Herb Isbin suggested waiting to further discuss this issue until Chris Smith is in
attendance.
Bias/Hate Crime Response Plan: Herb Isbin said the commission’s referral list should be
updated and information from the Minnesota Human Rights web site could be added. Members
agreed to postpone further discussion until the next meeting to see if anyone will volunteer to
update the list.
Videotape: Members then watched the videotape entitled, “Village of 100.”
48
July Agenda
Members agreed to place the following items on the July agenda:
Vision St. Louis Park – focus groups
Guidelines for responding to allegations of illegal discrimination
Cultural competency forums
Adjournment
Moved by Jake Feldman and seconded by Cassandra Body to adjourn. Motion passed
unanimously. With no further business, the commission adjourned at 8:43 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lynn Schwartz, Recording Secretary
49
CONSENT ITEM # 4e
MINUTES
CHARTER COMMISSION MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
March 14, 2001
City Hall, Council Chambers
Call to Order
Chair Ahrens called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m.
II. Introductions and Attendance
It was moved by Commissioner Carver and seconded by Commissioner Sixel to excuse the
absence of the following members: Cheryl Ernst, Christopher Johnson, Norm Kirschner, and
Ruth Kirschner. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
A. Members Present: Cynthia Ahrens, Paul Carver, Michael Sixel, Nathan Busch, Brian
Fiderlein, Bryan Leary, Dorothea Moga, David Ornstein, James Schaefer, Christopher Smith,
and Carol Walsh.
B. Members Excused: Cheryl Ernst, Christopher Johnson, Norm Kirschner, and Ruth Kirschner.
C. Members Unexcused: None.
D. Staff and Guests Present: City Staff Liaison Clint Pires.
E. Vacancies: None, as Nathan Busch filled the final vacancy.
III. Approval of Minutes
It was moved by Commissioner Carver and seconded by Commissioner Fiderlein that the
minutes of January 10, 2001 be approved. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
IV. Annual Election of Officers
Commissioner Smith stated that the nominating committee is recommending a slate of
candidates for officers. The slate presented includes:
Chair – Cynthia Ahrens
Vice Chair – Paul Carver
Secretary – Mike Sixel
50
It was moved by Commissioner Smith and seconded by Commissioner Moga that the
recommended slate of candidates be approved. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
V. Mission and Activities
Chair Ahrens highlighted the Boards and Recognition event and suggested that the information
provided regarding the Charter Commission be shared with the entire Commission and included
as part of the Charter document and orientation materials.
VI. Charter Commission Appointment and Re-appointments
The Commission welcomed its newest court-appointed member, Mr. Nathan Busch. Re-
appointments confirmed by the District Court include Commissioners Carver, Sixel, Fiderlein,
and Ornstein.
VII. Status of Home Rule Charter Amendments
Mr. Pires reported Council approval of proposed amendments on March 5, publication of
amendments on March 14, and the effective date of June 12, assuming no petitions are filed. At
that point, the document will be re-printed and distributed to commissioners.
VIII. Citizen Input Mechanism on Police Policy and Staffing Matters
Mr. Pires reviewed the report on this subject to be sent to interested parties. The report was
provided to the Charter Commission as a follow-up to its role in this process and in the event any
members are interested in attending the April 9 Council study session at which the report will be
discussed.
IX. Boards and Recognition Event Feedback
Chair Ahrens reminded members to return the event feedback form as soon as possible to
enhance this already great event the next time it is held, 2 years hence.
X. 2001 Projects / Work Plan Discussion
Potential 2001 projects discussed include:
Consideration of final Charter amendments related to recodification (only as requested by staff)
Continued legislative monitoring on bills related to charter cities
Special attention to bills that may further affect Chapter 9 – Franchises
Request to City Council for any special project assignments
Consider Commission role in helping celebrate the 50-year anniversary of Charter in 2004
Overall Charter review only for significant governance functions not already included (and not
focus again on those functions fully reviewed and revised in 1998). Commissioners Busch,
Fiderlein, and Moga volunteered to form a task force to review model charters and charters from
51
other cities to identify potential governance functions for full Commission consideration. Mr.
Pires will organize and call meetings of this task force.
XI. Meeting Schedule
The Commission agreed to meet next on June 13, 2001.
XII. Adjournment
As there was no other business, at 8:01 p.m., Commissioner Carver moved and Commissioner
Walsh seconded adjournment. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Respectfully submitted,
Clint Pires
Staff Liaison