HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001/08/20 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Regular 1
AGENDA - CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
August 20, 2001
7: 30 p.m.
5:00 p.m. – Park Commons Groundbreaking Ceremony
Economic Development Authority meeting has been cancelled
1. Call to Order
a. Pledge of Allegiance
b. Roll Call
2. Presentations
a. Recognition and resolution for Eileen Baron upon her retirement
b. Recognition and resolution for Darryl Sundberg upon his retirement
c. Junior Naturalists
3. Approval of Minutes
a. City Council Minutes of August 6, 2001
b. Study Session Minutes of July 9, 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 approve extension of Frauenshuh’s Final PUD and Final Plat
consideration until November 30, 2001 – Case No. 99-19-PUD
2. Motion to adopt second reading of the ordinance amendments, approve summary
ordinance, authorize 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, make the Certificate of Occupancy section of the
Zoning Ordinance consistent with the recodification of the City Ordinance Code,
and adopt a fee schedule for sheds.
3. Motion to approve second reading of rezoning ordinance subject to approval of
the Comprehensive Plan amendment by the Metropolitan Council, approve
summary ordinance, and authorize publication.
4. Motion to authorize the City Manager to execute a new contract for 2001-2002
North Hennepin Mediation Program Inc. for mediation, conciliation, information
and referral, and public education services for the remainder of 2001 and all 2002.
5. Motion to approve an application for Temporary On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor
License - Holy Family Fall Festival, September 15 & 16, 2001, 5900 West Lake
Street, St. Louis Park.
6. Motion to adopt a resolution approving Temporary Parking Restrictions for the
Holy Family Fall Festival – Lake Street between Zarthan and Alabama Avenues
September 15 and 16, 2001.
7. Motion to adopt resolutions recognizing Eileen Baron and Darryl Sundberg for
their many years of dedicated service to the City of St. Louis Park.
8. Bid Tabulation: Motion to designate Kovatch Mobile Equipment Corporation as
the lowest responsible bidder for one (1) Mini-Pumper for Rescue/Fire
Suppression and to authorize execution of a purchase agreement in the amount of
$130,565.00.
9. Bid Tabulation: Motion to designate Ron Kassa Construction as the lowest
responsible bidder and authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the
amount of $48,349.50 for alley paving – 2700 block Brunswick Avenue and the
C.P. Railroad tracks. – Project No. 01-18
10. Motion to accept the following reports for filing:
a. Planning Commission Minutes of August 1, 2001
b. Housing Authority Minutes of July 11, 2001
c. Vendor Claims
d. Human Rights Commission Minutes of July 18, 2001
e. Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes of May 16, 2001
3
Action: Motion to approve Consent Items
5. Public Hearings
6. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public
7. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions
7a. First Reading of an Ordinance deleting provisions for licensing of housing
compliance inspectors: City Code section 16-202.
Proposal to discontinue use of private licensed housing inspectors for home sale
inspections beginning January 2002.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve 1st reading of an ordinance deleting licensing
Section 16-202 in its entirety. Set 2nd reading for Sept. 6th.
7b. Approval of the City’s Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan and
Wetland Management Plan
This report recommends the City Council adopt the attached resolution approving
the City’s Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan and Wetland
Management Plan
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the attached resolution approving the City’s
Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan and Wetland
Management Plan
7c. 1st reading of Ordinance regarding Personnel Policies for City Employees
An Ordinance amending the St. Louis Park Municipal Code deleting chapter 3:
personnel and adoption of a resolution regarding personnel policies.
Recommended
Action:
1) Motion to waive the first reading of the Ordinance and to set
second reading for September 4, 2001.
2) Motion to approve resolution adopting personnel policies.
7d. The request of CSM/Rottlund for a major amendment to the approved
Planned Unit Development for Pointe West Commons to add two townhomes
onto an existing building.
Case No. 01-39-PUD
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt a resolution approving the major amendment to
the approved Planned Unit Development subject to conditions
listed in the resolution.
4
7e. The request of Costco Wholesale for a major amendment to the approved
Planned Unit Development for Park Place Plaza to permit a 12 station fueling
facility and an accessory building on Lot 9.
Case No. 95-51-PUD (Amended)
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt a resolution of denial for the major amendment
to the approved Planned Unit Development according to the
findings in the resolution.
7f. The request of Evan Johnson (Thermetic Products Inc.) for a Comprehensive
Plan amendment from Medium Density Residential to Commercial and a
rezoning from R4 to C2 for the property located at 1409 and 1413 Colorado
Avenue South.
Case No. 01-37-CP and 01-38-Z
Recommended
Action:
• Motion to adopt a resolution approving a Comprehensive
Plan amendment subject to approval by the Metropolitan
Council, approve summary and authorize publication.
• Motion to approve first reading of rezoning ordinance and set
second reading for September 4, subject to approval of the
Comprehensive Plan amendment by the Metropolitan
Council.
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 MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
August 6, 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 Public Works (Mr. Rardin);
Superintendent of Engineering (Mr. Moore); City Engineer (Ms. Hagen); Planner (Mr.
Smith); Recreation Supervisor (Mr. Langefels); Junior Leader Coordinator (Patti Reno);
City Clerk (Ms. Reichert); and Recording Secretary (Ms. Samson).
2. Presentations
a. Recognition for Bob Gill Resolution No. 01-063
Upon his retirement, Fire Chief Bob Gill was recognized for 28 years of service to the City
of St. Louis Park and the Fire Department, the last nine years as Fire Chief. Mayor Jacobs
presented a resolution; Mr. Luke Stemmer, Deputy Chief, presented a plaque and Mr. Gill’s
badge; and State Senate Representative Mr. Jim Rhodes presented a resolution from the
State Legislature to honor Mr. Gill. City Manager, Mr. Meyer, commented on Mr. Gill’s
accomplishments.
b. Junior Leader Appreciation Presentation
Ms. Patti Reno, Junior Leader Coordinator, presented awards for 35 junior leaders. Mr.
Doug Langefels, Recreation Supervisor, was also present to recognize junior park leader
volunteers.
3. Approval of Minutes
a. Study Session Minutes of July 23, 2001
The minutes were approved as presented with the following changes:
Councilmember Latz asked for clarification on Page 7 regarding the TexaTonka Study.
Councilmember Santa made a recommendation that the following change be made:
6
Sentence reading, “Ms. Erickson responded that they had, but only in light of the market and
demand of the neighborhood” be replaced with, “Ms. Erickson responded that the property
owners had accepted only some portions of the market study.”
b. Special Meeting Minutes of July 23, 2001
The minutes were approved as presented with the following changes:
Councilmember Latz said the vote tally for 3A is missing. Councilmember Santa pointed
out that “benn” should read “been.” Councilmember Nelson said the vote tally for 3B is
missing.
c. City Council Minutes of July 16, 2001
The minutes were approved as presented.
4. Approval of Agenda and Consent Items
NOTE: Consent items are those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or
which need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is
desired by either a Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to
an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion.
4a. Agenda
It was moved by Councilmember Latz, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to approve the
agenda.
The motion passed 7-0.
4b. Consent Agenda
It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Latz, to approve the
following Consent Agenda Items.
The motion passed 7-0.
1. Adopt Resolution No. 01-066 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. Adopt Resolution No. 01-067, accepting the 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. Approve final payments for:
7
Electrical Installation & Maintenance $ 5,806.21
Contract No. 82-00
Louisiana Avenue traffic improvements
signal interconnect & lane configurations
Nadeau Utility, Inc. $ 8,089.32
Contract No. 74-00
Entry signage – Project No. 98-16
4. 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
5. Public Hearings--None
6. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public—None
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 Resolution No. 01-068
Mr. Patrick Smith, Planner, said a benefit of locating a substation on this site is its proximity
to the existing transmission line that runs along the railroad. Staff recommends approval of a
comprehensive plan amendment from residential to industrial and the rezoning from multi-
family residential to industrial.
Councilmember Latz asked whether Xcel Energy was ready to proceed with building at this
time or if this was a preliminary step to ensure availability of the site when it was needed by
Xcel. Mr. Jim Rhodes from Xcel stated that as soon as Xcel receives the conditional use
permit, they will build perhaps as soon as late fall of this year.
Mr. Greg Schneider, Xcel’s right-of-way expert, addressed concerns regarding height of the
transmission structures stating that they will be almost exactly the same height as existing
transmission lines that run along the railroad grade. Mr. Rhodes commented on the
neighborhood meeting that was held at the Elliot Community Center. Of the 23-25 persons
in attendance, only one attendee expressed concern regarding the structure’s appearance.
Councilmember Latz asked about radio and television interference and health hazards from
energy radiation. Mr. Schneider replied there should be no significant change in reception,
and he foresees no concerns regarding energy radiation.
8
Councilmember Young said that he had attended the neighborhood meeting and confirmed
that Mr. Rhodes and Mr. Schneider had provided an accurate representation of that meeting.
It was moved by Councilmember Young, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to approve the
Resolution No. 01-068 amending the Comprehensive Plan rezoning the northern portion of
the property located at 2201 Edgewood Avenue from Residential to Industrial subject to
approval by the Metropolitan Council.
The motion passed 7-0.
It was moved by Councilmember Young, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to adopt first
reading of an ordinance amendment to the comprehensive Plan rezoning the north portion of
the property located at 2201 Edgewood Avenue from R2 – Single Family Residential to IP –
Industrial Park subject to approval by the Metropolitan Council, and set second reading for
August 20, 2001.
The motion passed 7-0.
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.
Mr. Tom Harmening, Community Development Director, outlined areas of the code Staff
was recommending be amended. A provision in the zoning ordinance which would require a
zoning permit for sheds under 120 square feet rather than a building permit; clarifying where
on a lot a shed could be located including information on setback and anchoring; and to
establish a permit fee of $25.00.
City code currently requires driveways to be paved and yards to be landscaped. Staff was
recommending a requirement that driveways be installed within one year of permit issuance
and that landscaping be completed as well.
An addition or a modification to a structure currently requires a Certificate of Occupancy in
order to ensure all zoning provisions are met. If simply a change in ownership, a new
approach called Certificate of Property Maintenance would suffice; and if a tenant change, a
Registration of Land Use Permit would be required.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to adopt first
reading of the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments and set second reading for the
August 20, 2001 City Council Meeting, and to direct staff to prepare a fee resolution for shed
permits.
9
The motion passed 7-0.
7c. City Engineer’s Report: 2001 Sidewalk Improvement Project: Phase A –
Project No. 99-07A Resolution No. 01-069
Ms. Maria Hagen, City Engineer, reported 12 segments of sidewalks were identified for
construction in 2001. The sidewalk segments have been divided into two portions:
sidewalks to be funded with General Obligation Funds and those that are State Aid routes.
The discussion tonight regards the State Aid routes, consisting of six segments. Guidelines
identify a sidewalk width of six feet and a boulevard width of seven feet. The City will
maintain the sidewalks.
Councilmember Young asked why the budget amount had increased so significantly since
previous discussions. Ms. Hagen responded that additional retaining walls were needed in
some areas and the cost of cement and mobilization had increased.
Councilmember Brimeyer asked if one contractor could be hired for all projects and if that
would help to contain costs. Ms. Hagen said there could be substantial savings if one
contractor were hired, however, it may mean a delay in project start until spring of 2002.
Councilmember Latz asked if the City could take a bid on everything and still receive partial
funding from State Aid. Mr. Mike Rardin, Director of Public Works, said to qualify the City
must have approved State Aid plans, and there would be no way to combine bids until after
State Aid payments had been determined. Councilmember Latz favored an evaluation
regarding the option of combining the bids if the timing works out with the State Aid
approvals.
Councilmember Young said he attended the neighborhood meeting and some residents
expressed concern about the intrusion into their properties by the six and seven foot widths;
He felt a five foot width was adequate as a city-wide standard.
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to adopt
Resolution No. 01-069 accepting the City Engineer’s report, establishing and ordering an
improvement project, approving plans and specifications and authorizing advertisement for
bids for construction of various sections of concrete sidewalk, Project No. 99-07A.
Councilmember Young offered an amendment to the motion to change the specific width on
the Hampshire/14th Street segment to five feet and a change in the design standard to five
feet, overall.
The Motion was seconded by Councilmember Latz for purposes of discussion.
Councilmember Sanger asked what the cost benefits would be as a result of narrowing a
sidewalk from six to five feet. Ms. Hagen replied that up-front costs would be slightly lower,
but there were maintenance concerns that should be considered. The City’s equipment is five
10
feet wide and Staff would like to have a clearance of one-half foot on either side and
maintenance costs would increase with narrower sidewalks. Ms. Hagen said the reason some
sidewalks are five feet in some cases due to council direction to design a plan that impacted
private property and vegetation as little as possible. In some areas trees and steep hillsides
prevented a wider sidewalk.
Mayor Jacobs and Councilmembers Latz, Nelson, and Brimeyer favored six-foot wide
sidewalks. Mayor Jacobs believed Staff has done a good job to minimize intrusion where
possible. Councilmember Santa was satisfied with Staff’s performance regarding the
directives they received from the Council and was supportive of the motion as originally
stated.
Councilmember Young withdrew the amendment stating that without this small change which
would reduce intrusion on residents’ properties and taking of vegetation and trees he could
not support the sidewalk improvement project as a whole.
The motion as originally stated passed 6-1 (Councilmember Young opposed).
7d. City Engineer’s Report: Improvements to flood Area No. 13A at W. 36th
Street and Wyoming Avenue, Sunset Park, and Elie Park- Project No. 01-07
Resolution No. 01-070
Mr. Carlton Moore, Superintendent of Engineering, reported on Flood Area No. 13A.
Councilmember Santa clarified that all improvements being discussed were external to the
Knollwood Mall property.
Councilmember Latz asked how many eligible residential units could exercise the
improvement option at a cost of $15,000-25,000 per residential unit. Mr. Moore said four to
five residents have experienced flooding and that potential costs would be paid from the
Flood Grant Program funded by the Storm Sewer Utility and not as a direct cost to the
project. Floodproofing could add up to an additional $100,000 in dealing with the flood
issues associated with Flood Area 13A. Councilmember Latz was unsure of approving
anything that would authorize the expenditure of an additional $100,000 to floodproof
homes.
It was moved by Councilmember Santa , seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer, to adopt
Resolution No. 01-070 accepting the City Engineer’s report, establishing and ordering an
improvement project, approving plans and specifications and authorizing advertisement for
bids for flood area 13A Project No. 01-07.
The motion passed 7-0.
7e. City Engineer’s Report: Storm Sewer Improvements to Flood Area No. 13B
at W. 33rd Street and Texas Avenue.- Project No. 01-08 Resolution No. 01-071
11
Mr. Moore informed council that residents had complained of sanitary sewer backups due to
heavy storms and upon inspection the sanitary sewer was found to be cracked and failing.
The Staff recommendation was to pay for the reconstruction of the Sanitary Sewer Fund at
the same time as the storm sewer improvement on this block.
It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer, to adopt
Resolution No. 01-071 accepting the City Engineer’s report, establishing and ordering an
improvement project, approving plans and specifications and authorizing advertisement for
bids for Flood Area 13B Project No. 01-08.
The motion passed 7-0.
7f. City Engineer’s Report: Storm Water Improvements to flood Area No. 15 at
Keystone, Roxbury, and Lake Street Parks. – Project No. 00-07
Resolution No. 01-072
Mr. Moore reported that at a neighborhood meeting residents asked when the park
improvements would be made. Mr. Moore clarified that the storm and park improvements
were separate processes. The park improvements would be initiated by the Park
Department, and they will utilize the master park improvement plan to proceed with those
improvements as they are budgeted.
Councilmember Sanger said residents would like to know when their streets will be torn up,
and Mr. Moore said it will depend on the bidder and the contractor. Staff proposes to go to
bid immediately, however, no contractor may begin work unless it can be finished prior to
winter.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to adopt
Resolution No. 01-072 accepting the City Engineer’s report, establishing and ordering an
improvement project, approving plans and specifications and authorizing advertisement for
bids for Flood Area 15, Project No. 00-07.
The motion passed 7-0.
8. Boards and Committees--None
9. Communications
From the Mayor—Mayor Jacobs encouraged residents to attend block parties for National
Night Out Against Crime on Tuesday, August 2nd.
10. Adjournment
Mayor J acobs adjourned the meeting at 9:24 p.m.
City Clerk Mayor
12
Item # 3b
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
July 9, 2001
The meeting convened at 6:01 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), Director of Inspections (Mr. Hoffman), Environmental
Health Official (Mr. Camilon), Director of Community Development (Mr. Harmening),
Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Kleve), Planning and Zoning Supervisor (Ms.
Jeremiah), Director of Finance (Ms. McGann), and City Clerk (Ms. Reichert).
1. Property Maintenance Code and Inspection Program
Mr. Hoffman presented a background and history of the housing code and justification for
adopting revisions to property maintenance code.
Councilmember Sanger felt rules should be added for driveways and storm windows. She asked
how this inspection program could be applied to condominium and townhome developments.
Mr. Hoffman replied that the Property Maintenance Code also applies to multi-family and
commercial properties.
Councilmember Nelson stated that he felt the fees should be adjusted. He would prefer that city
staff do the inspections. He had several questions and concerns regarding provisions in the
proposed code.
Mr. Hoffman reported that refinements would be made to the property maintenance code before
final adoption and publication. He said the existing document was developed as a teaching tool
and has since evolved over the years.
Mr. Hoffman proposed that the point of sale inspection program be moved to in-house staff to
achieve better consistency and improve the quality of inspections. Mayor Jacobs questioned
whether the supervision of the private licensed inspectors can be improved or if it is necessary to
move such inspections in-house. Mr. Camilon stated that bringing this duty in-house has other
benefits such the proximity to the building department and inspectors.
Councilmember Santa was concerned that four in-house inspectors would not be able to cover
the demand, therefore resulting in time delays.
Mr. Hoffman stated that more overlap is being built into all phases of inspections which allowed
for more flexible scheduling during busy periods. Other department Inspectors who do not
routinely conduct point of sale inspections could be called upon to assist during peak periods.
13
Councilmember Latz felt that administrative guidelines should include standards for turnaround
time.
Councilmember Sanger felt that neutrality would improve the quality of the inspection program.
Councilmember Nelson emphasized the need for setting appropriate fee amounts to cover the
cost of the in-house inspections program. Mr. Meyer stated that staff would like to finalize the
budget and will look at the fees in conjunction with the budgeting process.
Councilmember Nelson inquired about the reaction of the private inspectors that are already in
operation. Mr. Camilon replied that staff’s intent was to communicate with the private housing
inspectors the city’s intent prior to adoption of the ordinance. He also stated that there are still
many opportunities for private housing inspectors to perform independent inspections for buyers
and sellers.
Councilmember Sanger suggested that documents being distributed to buyers and sellers be
clarified to state the purpose and intent of the city’s property maintenance inspection program.
2. Park Commons
Present at the meeting were:
Mark Ruff – Ehlers and Associates
Jack Becker – FORECAST
Steve Bubul – Kennedy & Graven, Chartered
Mr. Harmening stated that staff would like to discuss with Council the amendments to the
development agreement, planning and design aspects, legislative impacts on the project, and the
Wolfe Park Amphitheater.
Mr. Bubul reported that there were several changes to the TOLD agreement. The proposed
changes include removing the Bally’s property requirements from the agreement and providing a
two and a half-year negotiation period for TOLD to come up with a proposal for the property; an
extension of TIF bonds from 15 to 20 years; and removal of SAC payments for existing credits.
Councilmember Nelson requested a summary pro forma. Mr. Harmening replied that it would be
provided with the development agreement.
Ms. Jeremiah spoke to the renaming of 38/39th St. She informed Council that the Park Commons
Final Plat and PUD would be going to the Planning Commission this week. She also clarified
how low income housing units would be distributed through the development.
Councilmember Brimeyer inquired if the Council had reached a consensus that 38/39th St. should
be renamed. Mayor Jacobs expressed his concern about the inconvenience of taking that action.
Council then discussed some concerns about the project name, Park Commons, and the
appropriateness of its use considering possible copyright infringements.
14
Legislative Impact
Mr. Bubul explained the changes in tax law recently enacted by the legislature and how it will
affect the project as well as other projects in the future.
Mr. Harmening asked for Council direction on the August 1 deadline for obligating debt, which
may become eligible for grant funds.
Mr. Meyer stated that the proposal has some risks associated with it but may be prudent in the
long run.
Council discussed whether that risk was acceptable.
Councilmember Nelson stated that each year they would be coming up short for revenue and he
felt this needed to be addressed in the budget. He commented on the possibility of raising
enacting an HRA tax.
Mr. Meyer stated that an Economic Development Authority or Housing and Redevelopment
Authority levy is authorized and could raise a large portion of revenue per year to apply towards
the revenue shortages. Staff has not yet recommended such action but is looking at the
possibility.
Councilmember Nelson commented that the shortfall needs to be covered and suggested that the
budget be looked at in a different way.
Councilmember Latz felt that the city needs to do an interfund loan transfer to make the city
eligible. He did not think that the city is prepared to look at additional taxes right now, but that a
general obligation bond should be done. Mayor Jacobs agreed.
Mr. Harmening said staff would research a tax levy. Councilmember Latz suggested that an
effort be made to educate residents of how these legislative decisions affect city tax dollars.
3. Wolfe Park Amphitheater Design
Present at the meeting was Damon Farber, Landscape Architect.
Ms. Walsh and Mr. Farber explained the configuration of the proposed amphitheater to the
Council.
Councilmember Nelson suggested that the original design group be consulted.
Councilmember Brimeyer questioned the amount of light and sound the amphitheater would
generate. Mr. Farber replied that there would be lights but sound should not be such a problem.
Councilmember Sanger inquired about dance performances at the amphitheater and asked if the
stage could be made larger.
15
Mr. Becker suggested that input be taken from potential users and then determine the
infrastructure of the amphitheater.
Councilmember Sanger commented that the space should be different from what was used at
Oak Hill Park.
Mr. Meyer would like to see recreational programming year round with variations throughout the
year so the public would know that there are on-going activities at Wolfe Park Amphitheater.
Councilmember Nelson inquired about space for a veteran’s memorial. Mr. Farber replied that
there was space for a memorial on the wall at the entrance and at other places within the
amphitheater. He suggested speaking to the various veterans’ groups within the community.
Ms. Walsh commented that state approval needs to happen first, and then talks can begin with
those community groups.
Councilmember Santa suggested contacting “orphans of veterans” groups for their input on
design of the memorial.
Staff will make the refinements and be back to Council.
4. Excelsior Blvd. Corridor Traffic Study
Jack Forslund of BRW was present at the meeting.
Staff reported that the neighborhood is asking that striping and a concrete choker happen
immediately.
Mr. Rardin stated that the neighborhood involvement process would be initiated in the near
future. He suggested working with the neighborhood before constructing traffic calming devices
and stated that the devices would be implemented only if they were the best option available.
5. Status Update on Storm Water Improvement Projects
Staff reported that they would like to provide Council with an update on the storm water
improvements already completed, discuss the flood problem areas, and seek Council input on
improvement alternatives for the problem flood areas.
Mr. Willenbring, WSB & Associates, outlined the proposed changes to the storm water drainage
system. He described budget impacts and the effect on Lake Street, Roxbury and Keystone
parks.
Councilmember Young expressed his concern that money from relatively small projects grew to
a system wide improvement with a much larger price tag.
Mr. Willenbring felt it was important to bring these issues to the attention of the Council.
Councilmember Nelson thought priority should be placed on structure improvements.
16
Councilmember Young said the policy would need to be expanded if this is the direction Council
wishes to go.
Mr. Willenbring suggested that the proposal would be using city funds more effectively in the
long run.
Mayor Jacobs would like staff to initiate the public input process. He is in favor of the proposed
changes and would like to see specs brought back to Council after the public input process.
Mr. Rardin stated that the program is set up to protect structures. A value decision needs to be
made to determine the most effective fix for the city’s water capacity.
Staff will move forward with the public input process.
Councilmember Sanger was concerned that park improvements may not be completed and this
would upset the public.
Councilmember Brimeyer suggested that the park improvements be considered on their own
merit in accordance with the master plan for park improvements.
6. Update on Southwest corner of Highway 7/Louisiana Ave
Mr. Kleve introduced Randy McKay with Fraeunshuh Companies as well as Dr. Saliterman, a
prospective tenant in the proposed medical building.
Mr. McKay spoke of the negotiations underway. He asked Council for a two week extension to
finalize the leases. He stated that construction would take place in the spring but some of the
structural work will be done yet this fall.
Mr. Kleve reported that Frauenshuh is in default of the their Development Agreement, as the
sixty day extension has expired and the city is no longer under obligation. However if Council
wishes to move forward, the planning approvals will run through August.
Mr. Kleve added that if the PUD expires, the billboard relocation becomes an issue.
Staff will move forward and return with more information for Council at a later date.
7. Smoking Ban
Mayor Jacobs introduced the subject saying he felt the city should take action which would
eliminate smoking in restaurants.
Councilmember Sanger felt any ordinance should be expanded to all public places and not
limited to restaurants only.
Councilmember Brimeyer felt that there may be options other than a no smoking ordinance that
could achieve the same results. He felt the subject needed to be studied further before moving
forward.
17
Councilmember Santa believed that personal choice needed to be considered and that imposition
of a smoking ban was a violation of those rights.
Councilmember Young stated that this is a sensitive issue in the business community.
Councilmember Nelson also was sensitive to the business community and was concerned that St.
Louis Park restaurants would be placed at an economic disadvantage if a smoking ban were
enacted just in St. Louis Park. He felt he could support such an ordinance only if all neighboring
communities enacted the same ordinance.
Councilmember Latz commented that he strongly supports the smoking ban and believed that no
progress would be made in eliminating second hand smoke until individual cities took the
initiative to pass ordinances restricting smoking.
After further discussion and debate, the Mayor agreed to continue the discussion of second hand
smoke and smoking restrictions in restaurants with members of the public and constituent groups
such as the business council, school board, and service clubs to try to increase public awareness
and gauge public support.
8. Communications – None
9. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 11:55 p.m.
City Clerk Mayor
18
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 7a
Meeting of August 20, 2001
7a. First Reading of an Ordinance deleting provisions for licensing of housing
compliance inspectors: City Code section 16-202.
Proposal to discontinue use of private licensed housing inspectors for home sale
inspections beginning January 2002.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve 1st reading of an ordinance deleting licensing
Section 16-202 in its entirety. Set 2nd reading for Sept. 6th.
Background:
The City established a Housing Code in 1963. An analysis of the City’s neighborhoods in 1969
found a need to be more active in maintaining the condition of housing and prevent community
deterioration. Council authorized city staff to perform inspection programs for multi-family and
single family homes in 1972. Guidelines to help with uniform code enforcement were developed
in 1985. During 1991, several factors led the City to modify the program and require
homeowners to hire an independent licensed inspector of their choice to perform the initial
inspection before sale of the property. City staff has conducted the follow-up reinspections and
issued the Certificates of Compliance.
Analysis:
Several components make up the current property maintenance inspection program:
• Complaint-initiated investigation
• Staff observed violations
• Neighborhood and alley observations
• Point-of-sale inspection for 1 & 2 family dwellings
• Biannual apartment licensing inspection
• Periodic Fire inspection of commercial/industrial
• Point-of-sale for multi-family/commercial/industrial
The initial point-of sale inspection for 1 & 2 family dwellings is the only portion of code
enforcement currently performed by someone other than City staff. Questions about this
program account for the majority of calls from residents (and future residents) frustrated with the
service they are being provided. Most are concerned over a perceived lack of consistency
between various inspectors and question the accuracy of inspection reports.
The City has about 35 inspectors licensed this year. Continual attempts have been made
throughout the years to encourage accurate and consistent work from the licensed inspectors.
Required meetings, handouts and participation in an annual test house are currently conditions of
maintaining licensure. Most of these are independent contractors who do a variety of work in
19
different communities, including truth-in-housing inspections, point-of-sale for other cities, and
as homebuyers representatives.
This system of license inspectors hired by the seller has created the following concerns:
1) Inconsistency of inspections between inspectors, especially when a house is resold within
a few years.
2) Inspectors are often writing commentary and observations to protect themselves from
litigation and not making the call whether an item meets code or not
3) Licensed inspectors are currently being asked to issue correction notices for the city, but
we have no direct control over their actions.
4) Community perception is that the licensed inspectors are city inspectors or working for
the city in some capacity. They believe the city is responsible for their actions.
Alternative solutions:
Inspection before the sale of a home is one portion of our property maintenance program and
critical to maintaining quality housing in the City. Staff and Council have been discussing ways
to evolve the overall program to better serve the community needs. Improving identification of
deteriorating property, encouraging reinvestment, improving inspector/property owner
interaction, and active follow-up of problems are essential to success of the program.
Three alternatives considered for the initial point-of-sale inspection in the property maintenance
program include:
1. Continue current licensing of independent inspectors - Continued use of licensed inspectors
is not expected to produce any substantial changes. Reasons for this include:
- Discussion and follow-up of citywide property maintenance & financial alternatives
with owner is beyond the scope of independent inspector.
- Each inspector may work with different inspection programs and a variety of codes in
several cities.
- Each inspector is understandably concerned about personal liability of what they
require or overlook on an inspection report.
- Continued potential for relationships between sellers/agents and some licensed
inspectors.
- Amount of city staff time to perform quality checks & follow-up inspections could be
better utilized.
- Revocation of a contractor's license is a difficult process.
2. Contract for services with a few selected independent contractors - With a reduced number
of contracted inspectors, the City will have similar problems as with licensed inspectors. The
City would need to deal with these inspectors as if they are City employees but without the
daily supervision that City employees presently receive. The City would need to set fees,
interview and select contractors, collect fees, process payments to the contract inspectors,
assign inspectors on a rotating basis, investigate complaints and assume much of the liability.
3. Use City inspection staff for the initial inspection - About 1000 initial inspections have been
performed each year over the last 2 years. Current staff cannot perform these additional 1,000
inspections with current resources. However, with the addition of another environmental
20
housing inspector, staff would be able to assume the total program of initial inspections and
reinspections, supported by a four-person housing team. Using City staff to provide the
initial point-of-sale inspection has many other benefits:
- We believe the total cost can be lowered. Revenue would support the position of
another inspector. Fees would be set later this year with other fees to meet the
following criteria:
♦ Sufficient to cover the costs of the inspections
♦ Slightly less than the current typical cost.
- Once an application is made, inspections could be scheduled immediately by front
service counter staff. Ideally, we could provide same day inspections. Realistically,
we feel a 1-3 day response time provides very reasonable service & is consistent with
our response for building inspectors. If the initial point of sale inspections schedule
should exceed 4 days, a total of 4 housing inspectors' schedule would be prioritized
to accommodate these inspections. This is part of the team approach demonstrating
the cross training of all the environmental housing inspectors.
- Supervision of staff and inspector training will provide accurate and consistent
inspections. Staff anticipates more consistency from this smaller team of inspectors.
Four environmental housing inspectors will have the same working knowledge of the
property maintenance code requirements, and application to complaints, apartments,
home sales and nuisance inspections. Inspectors will work with a computerized
tracking system with the support of the Department Secretary. Environmental staff
can be assigned to the duties requiring immediate attention, rotating the work
demands on a daily basis if necessary.
- A housing inspector training guidebook will be developed for continual reference. As
difficult decisions are made, a copy of the decision with its history will be added to
the guidebook for future consistency.
Summary: Staff's ability to assume initial inspection of homes is possible at this time because
of the internal organization structure currently being developed. Creation of an Environmental
Health Division within Inspections and the cross training of inspectors have significantly
expanded the department's capacity to provide quality service. Our goal with these proposals is
to provide a sound, ethical, and effective program focused on an owner’s responsibility to
maintain their property in St. Louis Park.
Attachment: Proposed Ordinance
Section 16.202
Prepared by: Manny Camilon, Brian Hoffman
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
21
ORDINANCE NO. _________-01
AN ORDINANCE DELETING CHAPTER 16, ARTICLE II
SECTION 16-202 OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE
CONCERNING REQUIREMENTS FOR CONTRACTOR LICENSES FOR
HOUSING COMPLIANCE INSPECTORS
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
SECTION 1. Chapter 16, Article II, Section 16.202 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code is
hereby deleted in its entirety.
SECTION 2. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect on January 1, 2002.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council August 20, 2001
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
22
ATTACHMENT
Section 16-202: Housing Compliance Inspector.
A. License Required. No person, other than a City employee, shall conduct housing
inspections of one and two family residential homes, as required by the City Code for a
Certificate of Housing Maintenance Compliance without first obtaining a license from
the City. Licenses shall be issued only to the individual actually performing the work.
B. Hold Harmless and Indemnity Agreement. The applicant must enter into a Hold
Harmless and Indemnity Agreement with the City of St. Louis Park, in a form acceptable
to the City, in which the applicant agrees to hold harmless and indemnify the City of St.
Louis Park from any claims, losses, judgments, damages, or costs incurred, including
attorney's fees, resulting from the issuance of the license and from the applicant's activities
as a housing compliance inspector for the City.
C. Competency Examination. A license will only be issued when the applicant proves
competency by achieving a passing score on a competency examination offered by the
City to potential Housing Compliance Inspectors on a semi-annual basis. If the applicant
fails to pass the test, they must wait until the next regularly scheduled test given by the
City. The City shall waive the examination requirement, provided the contractor holds a
valid license from the previous year and is in compliance with the continuing education
requirements of this Section.
D. Continuing Education. Each year the licensee must provide proof of attendance at a
minimum of three (3) hours of continuing education and a passing score from the annual
training/test house approved by the City before a new or renewal license will be issued
for the following year.
E. Insurance. Housing Compliance Inspectors are exempt from the insurance requirement
provided under Section 16-201(G)(1). Each applicant shall provide a certificate of errors
and omissions insurance or Housing Inspectors Professional Liability Insurance with a
company authorized to do business in the State of Minnesota in an amount of not less
than $250,000 per claim. The City of St. Louis Park shall be named as an additional
insured. The insurance must be maintained by the applicant for a minimum of three years
after expiration of the license for any reason including revocation or denial.
F. License revocation. A license may be revoked or denied by the City based on any or all
of the following performance criteria:
1. Complaints from homeowners regarding housing inspections and/or failure of the
Housing Compliance Inspector to respond to homeowner’s questions.
2. Failure to submit housing compliance inspection report and work orders to the
department of inspections within three (3) working days from the date of the
inspection.
23
3. Failure to write adequate work orders.
4. Failure to identify code violations on checklist and/or work orders.
5. Failure to accurately apply the requirements of the City Code related to the
housing compliance inspection program.
6. Failure to maintain a level of professionalism which reflects the City’s high standards.
7. Failure to comply with or violation of the terms of this Chapter.
G. Private Inspector-Transmittal of Paper Work to City. Private Housing Inspectors shall
transmit a copy of the Housing Condition Report and Work Order to the Dept. of
Inspections within three business days from the date of inspection, excluding Saturdays,
Sundays and legal holidays. It shall be the responsibility of the Private Inspector to
guarantee receipt of such reports by the City.
24
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 7b
Meeting of August 20, 2001
7b. Approval of the City’s Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan and
Wetland Management Plan
This report recommends the City Council adopt the attached resolution approving
the City’s Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan and Wetland
Management Plan
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the attached resolution approving the City’s
Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan and Wetland
Management Plan
Background:
At its August 13, 2001 Study Session the City Council received an update report on the results
of public meetings on the City’s proposed Wetland Management Plan and the Comprehensive
Water Resource Management Plan. With the completion of the Wetland Management Plan
(WMP) and the approval of the Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan (CWRMP)
by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and Bassett Creek Watershed Management
Organization, the City is now in a position to approve and adopt the CWRMP and WMP as
outlined in Minnesota Rules 8410 and 8420.
Discussion:
Should the City Council adopt the CWRMP and WMP staff will be bringing several ordinances
to the Council for adoption in the next few months. These ordinances will address the following
issues: Increasing freeboard above the 100 year flood elevation from one (1) foot to two (2) feet
(existing structures exempt); restricting the use of fertilizers containing phosphorous, parking lot
sweeping/cleaning and restrictions on wetland alterations.
In addition to the adoption ordinances, staff has begun developing an education program for both
City staff and the public regarding storm water quality management. The education program
will include articles in the newspaper, Park Perspective, website, cable TV, and flyers. The
education program will likely evolve over time as the most effective means of education efforts
become apparent.
Completion of the stormwater/flooding area improvement projects will likely carry over into the
2002 construction season. An improved maintenance plan for the City’s storm sewers will also
be part of the implementation of the CWRMP. Staff has also established a water quality
monitoring program using volunteers at the Westwood Hills Nature Center and is nearing
completion in a City-wide program.
25
Staff looks forward to implementation of the two (2) plans and will keep the City Council
informed on activities.
Attachment: Exhibit A
Resolution
Prepared By: Carlton Moore, Superintendent of Engineering
Reviewed By: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved By: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
26
Exhibit A
Administrative Timetable
• Develop ordinance increasing freeboard
requirement from one (1) to two (2) feet
(existing structures exempt)
6 months
• Develop ordinances regarding the proper use of
fertilizers
6 months
• Develop ordinance regarding parking lot
sweeping
6 months
• Develop ordinance restricting wetland alteration 6 months
• Promote the use of buffer areas adjacent to
water bodies(possibly through ordinance, as
suggested by the Met Council)
1 year
• Develop a water quality monitoring program
1 year
• Develop an educational program regarding
water quality management
1 year
• Develop formal agreements with bordering
communities to manage stormwater
2 years
• Obtain new topographic mapping for the City
Ongoing, now
20% complete
• Develop enhanced infiltration practices
Ongoing
• Eliminate illegal connections to storm sewer
system
Ongoing
• Develop pet waste disposal ordinance (as
outlined by MCWD)
Existing
27
Education Programs
•
Develop and implement education program aimed at fostering
responsible water quality management practices.
• Utilize City staff members to educate students in community schools
regarding the need for proper water resource management practices.
• Maintain an active participation in the activities of the watershed
district and watershed organizations within the City.
• Provide adequate review for all new development or redevelopment
of sites within the City to meet the objectives outlined in this plan.
Capital Projects
•
22 Flood Problem Areas
• Storm Sewer System Improvements
• Rehab/Replace ?
Maintenance
•
Ongoing Annual Maintenance of System
• Repairs
• Dredging
• Cleaning
28
RESOLUTION NO. 01-077
RESOLUTION ADOPTING
COMPREHENSIVE WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN
AND WETLAND MANAGEMENT PLAN
WHEREAS, the City has determined that a stormwater management plan and a wetland
management plan are beneficial to the community and ecology; and
WHEREAS, the City has established a Stormwater Utility to fund the Stormwater
Management Program; and
WHEREAS, the Stormwater Management Plan and Wetland Management Plan meets
the requirements of Minnesota Rules 8410 and 8420 and whereas the Comprehensive Water
Resource Management Plan and Wetland Management Plans have been reviewed and approved
by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and Bassett Creek Water Management Organization.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that the City hereby adopts the Comprehensive Water Resource Management
Plan and Wetland Management Plan.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council August 20, 2001
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
29
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 7c
Meeting of August 20, 2001
7c. 1st reading of Ordinance regarding Personnel Policies for City Employees
An Ordinance amending the St. Louis Park Municipal Code deleting chapter 3:
personnel and adoption of a resolution regarding personnel policies.
Recommended
Action:
1) Motion to waive the first reading of the Ordinance and to set
second reading for September 4, 2001.
2) Motion to approve resolution adopting personnel policies.
Background
As part of the recodification process, staff and the city attorney are recommending that chapter 3
of the municipal code (personnel) is deleted and that council adopt by resolution certain
provisions which were previously contained in ordinance. The proposed resolution replacing
chapter 3 also includes some policies already in use that have never been formally adopted by the
council and some changes and updates considered to be housekeeping items.
Policy review process
Over the past year human resources, along with an employee committee, has reviewed,
researched and recommended changes to various personnel policies. The employee committee
was comprised of supervisory and non-supervisory employees representing all departments. The
group met approximately every other week from August through February. The in-depth study
and discussion was an important step in achieving employee input to the policies and
recommending revisions. The policies and revisions have also been reviewed by the city
manager, the city attorney and presented to department heads through another series of
discussions.
As a result of this review process, staff has created a comprehensive Personnel Manual that
incorporates policies that exist in the form of ordinances, resolution and general administrative
policy statements into one document.
Study session review and follow up
On August 13, 2001, council reviewed and discussed provisions contained in the proposed
resolution relating to personnel policies. Following that discussion staff provided information to
department heads and employees regarding council’s direction to proceed. A memo has been
distributed to departments and a follow-up meeting is being held with employees in the very near
future. The purpose of the employee meeting is to explain the recodification process and its
effect on the format of existing policies, review the process that was used by the employee
committee and department heads and to present the resolution of council adopted personnel
policies. Another series of employee meetings will be held upon completion of the personnel
manual.
30
At the same study session, Staff was directed to draft a policy regarding council notification for
hiring of department heads. Because that policy will require future council discussion staff is
suggesting that Council continue to move forward with the resolution as proposed and defer that
discussion to a study session in the near future.
Recommendation
Two items are being presented for council’s approval:
a. first reading of an ordinance repealing Chapter 3: Personnel
b. resolution adopting personnel policies.
Council’s action to adopt the personnel policy resolution at the time of first reading will allow
staff to continue to work on the Personnel Manual. It is anticipated that the Manual will be
completed at approximately the same time as second reading so that employee information
sessions and distribution of the manual can take place in a timely manner.
Attachments: Draft ordinance rescinding chapter 3: personnel of the municipal code
Proposed resolution of council adopted personnel policies
Prepared By: Nancy Gohman, Human Resources Manager
Approved By: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
31
ORDINANCE NO. ______-01
An Ordinance Amending the St. Louis Park Municipal Code
Concerning Employees of the City of St. Louis Park
By Deleting Chapter 3: Personnel
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
SECTION 1. Chapter 3, Sections 3-100 through 3-801 are hereby deleted in their
entirety.
SECTION 2. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days following
publication.
SECTION 3. Exception to Effective Date. The deletion of Sections 3-609 Funeral
Leave, 3-610 Flex Leave for Supervisory Employees and 3-611 Flex Leave for Non-Supervisory
Employees shall be effective on September 30, 2001.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council September 4, 2001
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
32
RESOLUTION NO. 01-078
RESOLUTION ADOPTING CERTAIN PERSONNEL POLICIES
RELATED TO ADMINISTRATION, EMPLOYMENT, COMPENSATION, LEAVE,
REIMBURSEMENT PROGRAMS, AND POLICTICAL ACTIVITIES
OF EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
WHEREAS, The mission statement adopted by the City Council to guide the actions of
the City Council and City staff in conducting the City’s business is “Delivering responsive
municipal services to ensure a safe, welcoming and vital community now and in the future” and;
WHEREAS, The City Council recognizes that in order to carry out the mission statement,
the employees of the City of St. Louis Park must be provided with a safe and supportive working
environment; and
WHEREAS, The City Council wishes to adopt policies which ensure adequate
compensation, leave and benefits for city employees and which protect the ethical standards of
the City of St. Louis Park; and
WHEREAS, The City Council has conferred upon the City Manager the power to
establish and administer additional administrative policies and rules as may be appropriate to
administer the employment practices of the City.
NOW THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT, The City Council of the City of St.
Louis Park hereby adopts the policies attached as Appendix A to this resolution; and
LET IT BE FURTHER RESOLVED THAT, These policies and other policies and
administrative rules which govern the benefits, conduct and protection of the City’s employees
shall be compiled into a Personnel Manual to be maintained by the City Manager and made
available to all employees of the city.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council July 16, 2001
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
33
RESOLUTION NO. 01-078
APPENDIX A
COUNCIL ADOPTED PERSONNEL POLICIES
I. Purpose, Adoption and Administration
A. Responsibilities of City Manager
Personnel policies are administered by the city manager who is directly
accountable to the city council. The city manager may establish administrative
policies and rules as may be appropriate to administer the employment practices
of the city. The city manager is also responsible for administration of personnel
policies adopted by council. The manager is directed to develop and provide the
necessary forms, procedures and instruction for the implementation of policies.
The city manager has the authority to interpret, develop, change, add and delete
policies. The city manager shall make every appointment to a position of city
employment, except when state law, city charter or ordinance otherwise provides.
Each appointment shall be based on merit and qualifications for the position as
determined by the city manager. Except as otherwise provided by state law, city
charter, or ordinance, the city manager or designee shall make all decisions
regarding discipline of city employees, including suspension and termination.
II. Employment
A. Application
All offices, jobs and positions in city service and housing authority now existing
or hereafter established are subject to the personnel policies except the following
and unless otherwise specified:
• elected officials
• paid on call or volunteer firefighters
• city manager
• city attorney
• members of appointed commissions and committees
• persons engaged under contract (independent contractor) to supply expert,
professional, technical, or any other services; or those excluded by these
policies or law
B. At-will employment
All city employees are hired on an at-will basis, which means that the employer
can discharge an employee at any time for any reason, with or without notice, and
the employee can resign at any time for any reason, with or without notice.
C. Authorization of positions and recruitment
34
Department heads will notify the city manager and make recommendations when
a replacement vacancy exists in a department or when there is a desire to fill a
newly created position. The city manager will review the request and
recommendations and advise the department head on the proper course of action.
The city manager is the final authority in determining the number, types and
filling of all positions. The recruitment of applicants for employment with the
city shall take place at the direction of the city manager through human resources.
D. Employment of Relatives
The city will not employ two members of the same immediate family or those that reside
in the same household under any one of the following circumstances:
• Where one employee will directly and/or indirectly supervise another member of their
family (includes seasonal and temporary employees).
• Where one employee will be responsible for auditing the work of another member of
their family.
• Where confidentiality of the city would be compromised.
• Where a conflict of interest would arise from such employment.
The city manager has the final decision in regards to employment matters. This policy
also applies to mayor and council, their immediate family and household members. The
city manager has the final decision in regards to employment matters.
E. Probationary period
The probationary period for regular employees shall be six months beginning
immediately upon appointment to a regular position (unless otherwise stated or
extended by the appointing authority or their designee). Paid on call firefighters
will serve a one year probationary period.
The department head may recommend an earlier completion or extension of
probation of an employee. At anytime during the probationary period an
employee may be discharged, demoted, or reassigned summarily at the sole
discretion of the appointing authority.
F. Probationary period – leave benefits
An employee who separates from the city without successfully completing their
probationary period shall forfeit any flex, sick and vacation leave accrued.
G. Terminations
An employee wishing to leave the city service in good standing shall file with the
employee’s supervisor, at least 14 calendar days before termination of
employment, a written letter of resignation stating the effective date of the
resignation.
35
The employee’s separation date, upon resignation or retirement, shall be the
employee’s last actual working day unless the city manager determines it
appropriate to waive this requirement. Failure to comply with this procedure may
be considered cause for denying such employee future employment with the city
as well as loss of severance benefits. The city manager may waive the written
notice and time frame only when it is deemed to be in the best interest of the city.
An employee who is absent from work for a period of three working days or more
without notifying their immediate supervisor of the reasons for the absence and
receiving permission to remain away from work is deemed to have voluntarily
resigned.
H. Reduction in force
The city manager may lay off any employee whenever such action is made
necessary by reason of shortage of work or funds, the abolition of a position, or
because of changes in organization. However, a regular employee may not be
laid off while there are temporary or probationary employees serving in the same
position for which the regular employee is qualified, eligible and available. In the
case of a reduction in personnel, a four (4) week notice of reduction will be
provided, all of which may be provided as paid leave.
III. Compensation
A. Compensation plan
The council shall by resolution establish and revise a compensation plan as
needed. A copy of the compensation plan and subsequent revisions shall be
placed on file with the city clerk.
B. Overtime/comp time & call back
1. FLSA non-exempt employees-overtime
Regular non-exempt employees, who work more than a forty-hour
workweek, will be compensated at one and one-half times (1 ½) their
regular (base) rate of pay.
2. FLSA non-exempt employees comp time cash out
Non-exempt employees may cash out up to 40 hours comp time accrued
once each calendar as stated in policy approved by the city manager.
3. FLSA non-exempt employees call back
A non-exempt employee called back to work at a time other than a normal
scheduled shift for reasons other than training shall receive a minimum of
two hours pay at one and one-half times the employee’s regular base
hourly rate. Reporting early for a shift, extension for a shift or schedule
change shall not qualify for a callback premium.
36
IV. Leave
A. Holidays
The city recognizes ten 8-hour days (80 hours) as paid holidays for regular full-
time employees and ten pro-rated days as paid holidays for regular part-time
employees each year.
Holiday Date
New Year’s Day January 1
Martin Luther King Day Third Monday in January
President’s Day Third Monday in February
Memorial Day Last Monday in May
Independence Day July 4 th
Labor Day First Monday in September
Veteran’s Day November 11
Thanksgiving Day Fourth Thursday in November
Friday after Thanksgiving Friday after Thanksgiving
Christmas Day December 25th
When a holiday falls on a Saturday the previous Friday is designated as the
holiday; when on a Sunday, the following Monday is designated as the holiday.
A staff member wishing to take time off because of a holiday recognized by
his/her religion should be permitted to do so following consultation with his/her
supervisor. Time must be taken off without pay except where the employee has
accumulated flex, compensatory time or vacation and in that case such religious
holidays may be charged against such leave accumulations at the option of the
employee.
B. Regular part-time employees
Regular part-time employees are paid for holidays on a pro-rated basis, according
to their budgeted full-time equivalent (FTE) status. For example, if an employee
occupies a position budgeted as .5 FTE, he or she will receive 4 hours paid time
off for each holiday. Employees who occupy a position budgeted as .75 FTE
receive 6 hours paid time off for each holiday.
C. Holidays worked
A non-exempt employee who works on a holiday will be compensated for hours
worked as overtime in addition to pay for holiday.
D. Funeral leave
37
Effective October 1, 2001, funeral leave will be eliminated. Non-union benefit
earning employees who work for the city on October 1, 2001, will be issued a one
time credit of 3 days of funeral leave to be placed in a funeral leave bank. (No
credit will be given to hires after 10/1/01). This funeral leave bank may be
granted on account of a death in the immediate family of the employee. Once the
funeral leave bank is used it will not be replaced. If not used, it will not be
converted to pay or any other type of leave.
E. Flex leave
The city of St. Louis Park provides employees with paid time off for rest,
relaxation, illness or injury, and other personal activities. All regular non-
contractual (unless otherwise specified in contract) full-time and part-time
employees are eligible to receive flex leave. Flex leave is accrued on a per pay
period basis and may be used as earned. The official flex leave accrual schedule
including balances will be maintained in payroll. Full-time benefit earning
employees shall accrue leave as listed below in the flex leave accrual schedule.
F. Flex leave accrual – regular full-time employees effective October 1, 2001
Years of service Days off (8 hour days) Hours earned each year
Start through 4 24 192
5 through 10 29 232
11 30 240
12 31 248
13 32 256
14 33 264
15 34 272
Employees who leave city employment and who return shall be given credit for
their prior years of service with the city in determining their accrual rate. In the
best interest of the city, leave in excess of the established amount specified in the
flex leave accrual schedule may be granted by the city manager.
G. Flex leave–regular part-time employees
Regular part-time employees (who work 20 hours a week or more) earn flex leave
on a pro-rated basis, according to their budgeted full time equivalent (FTE) status.
Flex leave is also pro-rated based on FTE status for regular part-time employees
when determining flex leave cap, cash out, severance and other forms of leave.
H Flex leave cap
Employees may carry over two times their annual flex leave accrual plus 20 days
as of the first payday in September of each year. Flex leave above the cap will be
forfeited. The following chart depicts this maximum accumulation (cap) effective
October 1, 2001.
Flex leave
Years of service
First pay day in
September
accumulation
First pay day in
September
accumulation
38
Cap in 8 hour days Cap in Hours
Start through 4 68 544
5 through 10 78 624
11 80 640
12 82 656
13 84 672
14 86 688
15 88 704
I. Annual cash-out of accumulated flex leave
Employees may cash out a portion of their flex leave accrual. The cut-off is the
first payroll date of September of each year and is paid based on your current rate
of pay. Cash out occurs in October. In order to be eligible to cash out time you
must have, at a minimum, an accumulated flex leave balance of two times the
annual accrual plus 20 days. Cashing out is limited to 5 days (40 hours
maximum) of accumulated flex leave above the accumulation cap. Any flex time
above that is forfeited.
J. Flex leave – severance
At the time of separation from the city, if the employee leaves in good standing
along with a minimum of a 2 week written notice, the employee will receive
100% of their flex leave balance not to exceed flex leave cap listed above. In no
instance shall severance exceed this hourly total amount. Severance pay is based
on your current rate of pay on the date of separation of employment from the city.
K. Flex leave – frozen sick leave balance
Non-exempt employees, who were employed with the city on February 1, 1997
and were allowed to convert up to 120 day of sick leave to frozen sick leave
balance, shall be paid for such frozen sick balance at the time of separation with
the city. The rate of pay for sick leave frozen balance when paid as severance
shall be based on an employee’s wage rate at the time of the separation and shall
be paid in an amount equal to (50%) of the frozen sick leave balance.
L. Flex leave – new/probationary employees
New full time employees hired will begin with a flex leave accumulation of three
8-hour days (24 hours) and earn flex leave according to the above schedule titled
flex leave accrual for use as needed. (Pro-rated for benefit earning part-time.)
These three days are part of the total accrual for their first year of employment.
Probationary employees are allowed to use flex leave as it is accrued. If the
probationary employee voluntarily leaves in good standing before completing the
probationary period, they are eligible to receive earned flex leave. Employees
who do not successfully complete probation are not eligible to receive earned
leave benefits upon separation unless authorized by the city manager.
39
M. Flex leave request & transition to flex leave
The city manager will develop policies relating to use of flex leave and transition
from the sick leave program to flex leave.
N. Short term disability
1. Program eligibility
The city of St. Louis Park provides a short-term disability (STD) program
as a supplement to the flex leave program for regular full time and part
time employees. In order to qualify for the STD program, employees must
participate in the flex leave program and have successfully passed the
probationary period. Employees must be actively at work on the effective
date of coverage in order to qualify. Short term disability is available only
for an employee’s non-work related disability. It may not be used to care
for ill or injured family members.
Employees who are not off probation and/or are not on the flex leave
program are not eligible for STD. Hours are pro-rated for part-time
benefit earning employees under this section.
2. Program statement
Effective October 1, 2001, if, due to a disability, (non-work related illness
or injury) the employee is absent from work for more than 15 consecutive
work days or 120 consecutive work hours, (whichever is reached first), the
city will continue their salary at 66 2/3 % for non-exempt employees and
100% for exempt employees from the 16th work day through the 130th
work day (based on 8 hour work day, pro-rated for part time) of the
absence. The employee must provide documentation from a physician,
approved by the city, certifying that they cannot return to work in some
capacity the city finds acceptable. If the city determines for whatever
reason that the employee is not able to return to work, the city is not
obligated to provide 130 days minus the 15 eight-hour day waiting period
of income continuation. The city manager is responsible for
administration and program guidelines for STD.
V. Benefits
A. Tuition reimbursement
The city encourages it employees to enroll in job related educational programs
and may provide support through tuition reimbursement. Regular full and part-
time employees and paid on call firefighters who have successfully completed
probation may be eligible for tuition reimbursement for courses taken for credit
through accredited educational institutions.
Employees may be eligible for reimbursement of 80% up to $3,500 maximum per
calendar year for the cost of tuition, required books and fees required for class,
such as lab fees. If the employee is receiving another source of funding, such as a
grant or scholarship, they shall not be eligible for tuition reimbursement on the
40
amount funded by other sources. The city manager makes all final decisions
regarding the tuition reimbursement program and approval or denial of requests.
B. Educational incentive reimbursement program for community service cadets
The purpose of the educational incentive program for community service cadets
in the police department is to provide educational financial assistance to those
who are enrolled in a post-secondary institution to become eligible for POST
licensing. This program allows the police department the opportunity to observe,
encourage and recruit prospective police officer candidates in a public safety
work environment.
The community service cadet in the police department is a temporary, part-time
position with 100% tuition reimbursement for coursework at an accredited post-
secondary institution up to a maximum of $3,500 per calendar year as approved
by the chief of police. Cadets must attend an accredited post-secondary
institution with the intent to become eligible for POST licensure and maintain a C
average in their coursework. In the best interest of the city, and based on
financial needs, the chief of police may request prepayment of approved courses
for cadets.
C. Mileage reimbursement
The City reimburses mileage amounts to employees who are required to drive
their vehicle as a requirement of their employment and position at a mileage rate
consistent with IRS regulations.
D. Expense reimbursement
Reimbursements of travel expenses are intended to refund actual costs incurred by
city employees and elected officials while traveling as authorized representatives
of the city of St. Louis Park. To qualify for travel reimbursement, trips to a
destination exceeding 100 miles from St. Louis Park must have the prior approval
of the department head or supervisor. Requests for travel advances intended to
defray costs incurred while on a trip and prior to submission of an expense report
shall be submitted to the department head or supervisor for approval at least 10
calendar days in advance of the trip. Travel advances shall be limited to 90 % of
the estimated expenses for lodging, meals, and other related travel expenses.
Costs of transportation and registration shall be advanced in full.
1. A properly verified, itemized expense claim shall be submitted to the
department head for approval within 45 calendar days following the date
of return from an authorized trip. Expense claims shall be accompanied
by receipts for:
• Transportation costs to and from the destination via coach, tourist, or
economy class transportation.
• Lodging costs not to exceed a reasonable single-occupancy rate.
• Conference or meeting registration fees.
41
• Any unusual items for which advance approval has been obtained from
the department head.
• Receipt for meals or statement of cost required.
2. The mode of transportation must be approved by the department head
prior to any authorized trip. Personal automobile use for authorized trips
will be reimbursed at a rate consistent with IRS regulations, or an amount
equal to air travel tourist class, whichever is lesser.
3. Employees and officials of the city shall be reimbursed for individual or
actual meal cost unless meal cost is part of a function. The city will not
provide reimbursement for alcohol-type beverages, or personal phone
calls.
E. Car allowance
In lieu of mileage reimbursement, the city will provide a car allowance as follows:
• $300 per month: community development director, inspections director, parks
and recreation director and public works director;
• $250 per month: manager of buildings and structures (recreation), operations
superintendent, utilities superintendent and police Captain;
The city manager has the discretion to eliminate any car allowance to an
individual by providing this person with a thirty-day notice.
F. Civic club membership
The city encourages department heads to become more involved in local civic
organizations. Support, participation and involvement in our civic organizations
is important to the city of St. Louis Park. Membership dues for civic
organizations will be paid for department heads at the discretion of the city
manager. Membership is limited to one civic organization per individual per
calendar year. Civic organizations must be city of St. Louis Park based and
include: rotary, kiwanis, lions, optimists and other similar service based
organizations as determined by the city manager.
G. Uniforms & clothing allowance
Uniforms (including shirts or jackets) are provided to some city employees.
Uniforms should clearly be marked with city name and or logo and, if provided
by the city, be worn while at work unless an exception has been made by the
department head. The city manager has the discretion of authorizing a department
head to issue uniforms based on budget, needs of the department and if the
issuance of such uniform is in the best interest of the city.
The city manager may approve the issuance of identifiable shirts, jackets etc. with
the city logo or similar identification for staff.
Certain positions, due to responsibilities and nature of the position, may receive a
clothing allowance. Issuance of clothing allowance must be approved by city
council.
42
H. Flex/sick leave for fitness
This is a voluntary program which permits employees to convert accrued flex/sick
leave into cash payments for memberships in approved health clubs or other
similar programs as a part of a the employees fitness program. Approved means a
club that provides facilities for aerobic activities such as swimming, running,
aerobic exercise and one that is not primarily social as determined by the city
manager. Reimbursement level: 100% of the cost not to exceed $150.00 per
month per employee, including family membership. Minimum leave balances are
required to participate in the program.
Program criteria is established and approved by the city manager.
I. Injury on duty – sworn employees
Leave of absence with pay shall be granted to regular police and fire sworn
employees should they become incapacitated as a result of injury or occupational
disease incurred through no misconduct of their own while in actual performance
of city assigned duties. This shall exclude any injuries sustained while
performing any voluntary off-duty services for which payment is made by a
contracting party other than the city.
Regular police and fire sworn employees injured during the performance of their
duties for the employer and thereby rendered unable to work for the employer will
be paid the difference between the employee’s regular gross pay and worker’s
compensation for a period not to exceed ninety (90) calendar days or 720 hours
whichever is reached first per calendar year not charged to the Employee’s flex
leave, after a five (5) working day (40 hour) initial waiting period per injury. The
five (5) working day (40 hour) initial waiting period shall be charged to the
employee’s flex leave account less Worker’s Compensation insurance payments.
J. Safety eyewear
The city will reimburse employees for basic protective eyewear up to $55.00 per
24 month period for employees who are required to wear safety eyewear as part of
their regular job duties as approved by the Department Head. Employees who
need replacement of the eyewear due to work-related damage or disrepair may be
reimbursed prior to the expiration of the 24 month waiting period if approved by
the Department Head. Reimbursement is limited to ANSI and O.S.H.A. approved
eyewear, coatings, lenses, industrial frames and industrial safety eyewear. Eye
examinations, ordering, fitting and photo tropic (photogray) or changeable tint
lenses are not eligible for reimbursement.
VI. Paid-on-call-employment
A. Definition
“Paid-on-call employment” shall mean regular employment that provides for the
continuity of fire service on an as needed basis where the normal work schedule is
less than fourteen (14) hours per week. The city manager and the fire chief will
develop and implement policies for paid on call firefighters.
VII. Fire Department Shift Supervisors
43
A. Flex leave
Battalion chiefs working 24-hour shifts have a flex leave accrual based on the flex
leave program for day employees. Shift supervisors benefits are determined by
the relationship between their hours worked per week and a 40-hour workweek.
Currently, shift supervisors work 56 hours a week which gives a 1.4 relationship
(56/40 = 1.4). The accrual amount for shift supervisors, based on years of
employment with the city is as follows:
Fire department shift supervisors flex leave accrual effective 10/1/01
Years of service Hours off
Start through 4 282
5 through 10 338
11 349
12 360
13 372
14 383
15 394
B. Flex leave cap
Employees may carry over two times their annual flex leave accrual plus 224
hours as of the first payday in September of each year. Flex leave above the cap
will be forfeited. The following chart depicts this maximum accumulation (cap)
effective October 1, 2001.
Flex leave
years of service
First pay day in
September Accumulation
cap in hours
First pay day in
September accumulation
cap in shifts
Start through 4 788 32.8333
5 through 10 900 37.5000
11 922 38.4166
12 944 39.3333
13 968 40.3333
14 990 41.2500
15 1012 42.1666
C. Annual cash-out of accumulated flex leave
The employee may cash out a portion of their flex leave accrual. The cut-off is
the first payroll date of September of each year and is paid based on your current
rate of pay. Cash out occurs in October. To be eligible to cash out time the
employee must have, at a minimum, an accumulated flex leave balance of two
times the annual accrual plus 224 hours. Cashing out is limited to 56 hours of
accumulated flex leave above the accumulation cap. Any flex time above that is
forfeited.
D. Flex leave – severance
44
At the time of separation from the city, if the employee leaves in good standing
along with a minimum of a 2 week written notice, the employee will receive
100% of their flex leave balance not to exceed flex leave cap listed above. In no
instance shall severance exceed this total amount.
F. New employees – fire department shift supervisors
New full time employees hired will begin with a flex leave accumulation of 34
hours and earn flex leave according to the above schedule flex leave accrual for
use as needed. The 34 hours are part of the total accrual for their first year of
employment. Probationary employees are allowed to use flex leave as it accrues.
G. Flex leave request
The city manager will develop policies relating to use of flex leave and transition
from the sick leave program to flex leave.
H. Holiday
Fire department shift supervisors receive six (6) 24 hour holidays, which are
earned at a rate of 12 hours per month and must be taken in 24-hour blocks.
(Shift supervisors are not eligible for holidays under 19.1) Holiday time may all
be used at the beginning of the year, and, if an employee leaves the city, they
must pay back holiday time not earned. Holiday time does not carry over from
year to year.
VIII. Political Activity
A. Political activity
As individuals, employees may express opinions on political issues and
candidates during off-work hours when not discharging city functions; they may
otherwise participate in public affairs but only to the extent that such endeavors
do not impair the neutral and efficient performance of official duties or create real
or apparent conflicts of interest.
Employees are prohibited from directly or indirectly, during their hours of
employment, soliciting or receiving funds or at any time using their authority or
official influence to compel any officer or employee to apply for membership in
or become a member of any organization, or to pay or promise to pay any
assessment, subscription, or contribution, or to take part in any political activity.
Employees are prohibited from using their position of municipal employment to
influence, interfere with, or affect an election campaign or the results of an
election.
Employees may not engage in political activity while on city time or while
discharging city responsibilities; nor may they act in a manner that suggests that
the city either supports a particular candidate or political issue or endorses the
personal political opinions of the municipal employee. Any act, which tends to
identify the city with any candidate or political issue, or which otherwise tends to
undermine the public perception of the city as a politically neutral and impartial
body, is prohibited.
45
Use of city vehicles, facilities, equipment, or other resources while engaging in
political activities in not permitted. This restriction does not apply to municipal
resources available to the public at large for use in connection with political
activities, such as use of meeting rooms.
B. Candidacy for office
Upon becoming a candidate for public office, an employee may request a leave of
absence for the duration of such candidacy.
If the candidacy of a city employee for public office involves the time
commitments that are inconsistent with the employee’s regular municipal
employment, so that the regularly assigned duties cannot be fulfilled, the
employee must request a leave of absence. The city manager may grant such
leave of absence if it is in the interests of the city and if the required duties of the
employee can be satisfactorily reassigned.
An employee shall be considered a candidate under this section upon filing for
political office.
C. Election or appointment to office
If an employee is elected or appointed to a position that is legally incompatible
with municipal employment, the employee must resign municipal employment
before assuming the responsibilities of the elected or appointed office. If an
employee is elected to the legislature or to another full-time public office, the
employee shall be granted leave of absence, as provided by law.
If an employee is elected or appointed to a part-time public office which is legally
incompatible with municipal employment, and cannot simultaneously effectively
discharge the responsibilities of employment, the employee shall either: resign
municipal employment, or request leave of absence to permit the employee to
exercise the part-time public office. The city manager may grant such leave of
absence if it is in the interest of the city, and if the required duties of the employee
can be satisfactorily reassigned.
D. Appointment to boards and commissions of the city
The city council will not consider applications for appointment to advisory
commissions from regular full-time or part-time employees. It is the policy of the
city, however, to encourage suggestions from all employees for the improvement
of city government. All employees are urged to serve in a staff capacity to the
advisory commission of their choice and the city manager will consider
expressions of interest from employees about such service.
46
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 7d
Meeting of August 20, 2001
7d. The request of CSM/Rottlund for a major amendment to the approved
Planned Unit Development for Pointe West Commons to add two townhomes
onto an existing building.
Case No. 01-39-PUD
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt a resolution approving the major amendment to
the approved Planned Unit Development subject to conditions
listed in the resolution.
Background:
On June 19, 2000, the St. Louis Park City Council adopted Resolution #00-75 approving a final
Planned Unit Development (PUD) and plat for the redevelopment of 11 acres south of I-394. The
development consisted of a 127-unit regular-stay hotel, a 106-unit extended stay hotel in two
buildings, 84 urban-style townhomes and a one-acre neighborhood park.
An amendment to the PUD was approved on February 20, 2001, to address required changes to
the grading plan. As of this date, CSM has not signed the assent form agreeing to the conditions
of approval of that amendment. The City Attorney has been working with CSM to address their
concerns. Alternate language for one of the conditions is proposed to ensure that CSM is not
fined for Rottlund’s violations.
CSM/Rottlund is now proposing to add two townhome units onto the southeast building near the
intersection of 16th and Zarthan.
On August 1, 2001, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and considered the PUD
amendment request. Three residents spoke at the public hearing. Their major concern was
construction activity occurring before the approved time as explained latter in this report. The
Planning Commission recommended approval on a vote of 5-1 subject to the conditions
recommended by staff and an additional condition to help address complaints (see analysis and
proposed resolution).
Issues:
Are the Zoning Ordinance requirements being satisfied?
What are the current PUD resolution and Development Agreement restrictions?
Are there outstanding issues with the Pointe West Commons?
What additional condition is recommended by the Planning Commission?
What alternate language is recommended to address CSM’s concerns regarding fines?
47
Are the Zoning Ordinance requirements being satisfied?
Dimensional Standards and Densities
The additional two townhomes do not bring the project out of compliance with regard to
Ordinance requirements or the PUD requirements. The maximum density for the R-4 Zoning
Districts is 30 units/acre. The resulting density is 18.5 units/acre. With 86 units the required
amount of usable open space is 34,400 square feet. The site has 34,731 square feet. The
Ordinance requires 155 parking stalls for 86 units. The site has 168 enclosed stalls and 27 stalls
for visitors. Finally, the two additional townhomes meet all required building setbacks.
Architectural Design
The proposed two units are designed as an extension of the townhouse building. Therefore, the
additional units meet the minimum Class I building material requirements.
What are the current PUD resolution and Development Agreement restrictions?
The PUD resolution restricts the hours of construction to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00
p.m. on weekdays, and 9:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on weekends and holidays. Construction
vehicles and equipment are prohibited from using Zarthan Avenue south of W. 16th Street,
Alabama Avenue, and Blackstone Avenue. In addition, construction vehicles shall be prohibited
from using 16th Street except for construction related to the park, 16th Street roadway
improvements and other improvements adjacent to 16th Street (e.g. sidewalks).
Furthermore, the site shall be kept free of dust and debris that could blow onto neighboring
properties, and public streets shall be maintained free of dirt and shall be cleaned as necessary.
Are there outstanding issues with the Pointe West Commons?
Community Development staff and the Police Department have received roughly 25 complaints
regarding the development activity at Pointe West Commons. Most of the calls are complaints
regarding construction activity earlier than the 7 a.m. time period. Some of the calls received by
staff complained of construction activity as early as 3 a.m. Staff has responded to all 25 calls but
only found three incidents when the applicant was in violation. A fourth incident involved Xcel
Energy working in the street associated with the City’s planned street improvements. Staff has
issued three citations to Rottlund Development. Rottlund or their contractors have paid the
citations.
An adjacent property owner and staff have discussed two potential solutions to restrict early
morning construction activity. Staff agrees that a sign should be installed indicating the limited
times for construction. Another option discussed, that staff has to investigate in further detail, is
to lock up the site from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. The applicants agree with the installation of signs and
should have signs installed prior to the City Council meeting.
48
Staff received a complaint last week regarding excessive dust on the site. Staff has contacted the
developer and requested the site to be periodically sprayed with water to control the dust.
What additional condition is recommended by the Planning Commission?
The Planning Commission added a recommendation in hopes of addressing the ongoing
violations of early construction activity. Specifically, the Planning Commission recommended
that Rottlund provide the site superintendent’s home phone number to the proximate residents.
Staff has included a condition that Rottlund provide the superintendent’s number to the
Blackstone Neighborhood president and City staff.
What alternate language is recommended to address CSM’s concerns regarding fines?
Based upon a relatively new Council policy, the last PUD amendment for the project included a
condition requiring the developer to pay an administrative fine of $750.00 per violation of any
condition included in the resolution. Since there are two developers involved with this project,
CSM was concerned that they would be fined for violations relating to Rottlund or Rottlund’s
contractors. This has not been the case. However, to address CSM’s concern and ensure that they
will sign the new assent form agreeing to the conditions, staff is recommending modifying the
condition to clarify that the administrative fine will be assessed solely against the offending
developer. This change is included in the proposed resolution.
Recommendation:
Motion to adopt resolution approving the request of CSM/Rottlund for a major amendment to the
approved Planned Unit Development for Pointe West Commons to add two townhomes onto an
existing building subject the conditions listed in the resolution (all previous conditions would
also continue to be in effect except as modified by this approval):
Attachments:
• Development Plans
• PUD agreement
• Proposed Resolution
Prepared by: Patrick Smith, Planner
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
49
RESOLUTION NO. 01-079
Amends and Restates Resolutions 00-060, 00-075, 00-118, and 01-015
A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION 01-015
APPROVED ON FEBRUARY 20, 2001
APPROVING FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) UNDER SECTION
14:6-7 OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING FOR
PROPERTY ZONED “O” OFFICE AND
R-4 MILTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOCATED AT
NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF WEST 16TH STREET & ZARTHAN AVENUE AND
FINAL PLAT – POINTE WEST COMMONS ONE AND TWO
WHEREAS, the City Council approved the Preliminary PUD and Preliminary Plat on
May 1, 2000 Resolution No. 00-060; and
WHEREAS, an application for approval of a Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) and
Final Plat for Pointe West Commons One and Two was received on May 22, 2000 from the
applicant, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the Final PUD and Plat at its meeting of
June 7, 2000, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Final PUD and Plat
on a 4-0 vote with all members present voting in the affirmative, and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 00-075 on June 19, 2000
approving the Final PUD and Final Plat – Pointe West Commons One and Two, and
WHEREAS, on August 7, 2000 an application was received for an amendment to the
preliminary and final plat for Pointe West Commons One and Two and a major amendment to
the approved Planned Unit Development, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, reviewed the amendments
at its meeting of September 6, 2000 and recommended approval of amendments on a vote of 6-0
with all members present voting in the affirmative, and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 00-118 on September 18, 2000
approving an amendment to the preliminary and final plat for Pointe West Commons One and
Two and a major amendment to the approved Planned Unit Development, and
WHEREAS, on January 11, 2001 an application was received for a minor amendment to
the approved Planned Unit Development to increase the setbacks and elevations of two
townhome buildings on 16th Street, and
50
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 01-015 on February 20, 2001
approving a minor amendment to the approved Planned Unit Development to increase the
setbacks and elevations of two townhome buildings on 16th Street, and
WHEREAS, on June 18, 2001 an application was received for a major amendment to the
approved Planned Unit Development to add two townhomes onto an existing building, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, reviewed the amendment at
its meeting of August 1, 2001 and recommended approval of the amendment on a vote of 5-1
with five members voting in the affirmative, and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the staff reports, Planning Commission
minutes and testimony of those appearing at the public hearing or otherwise including comments
in the record of decision.
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park:
Findings
1. CSM Hospitality, Inc. and Rottlund Companies have made application to the City Council for
a Planned Unit Development under Section 14:6-7 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code within
the “O” Office and R-4 Multiple Family Residential districts located at the Northwest quadrant
of West 16th Street and Zarthan Avenue:
and
CSM Hospitality, Inc. and Rottlund Companies, owners and subdividers of the land proposed to
be platted as Pointe West Commons One and Two have submitted an application for approval of
final plat of said subdivision in the manner required for platting of land under the St. Louis Park
Ordinance Code, and all proceedings have been duly had thereunder;
for the legal description as follows, to-wit:
See Attached Legal Description
2. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning
Commission (Case No. 01-39-PUD ) and the effect of the proposed PUD and Plat on the health,
safety and welfare of the occupants of the surrounding lands, existing and anticipated traffic
conditions, the effect on values of properties in the surrounding area, the effect of the use on the
Comprehensive Plan, and compliance with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance.
3. The City Council has determined that the PUD and Plat will not be detrimental to the health,
safety, or general welfare of the community nor with certain contemplated traffic improvements
will it cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards, nor will it seriously depreciate surrounding
property values. The Council has also determined that the proposed PUD and Plat is in harmony
with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan and
that the requested modifications comply with the requirements of Section 14:6-7.2(E).
51
4. The contents of Planning Case File 01-39-PUD are hereby entered into and made part of the
public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
Conclusion
The Final Planned Unit Development and Final Plat at the location described are approved based
on the findings set forth above and subject to the following conditions:
A. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with the Official Exhibits A
through M. Exhibit L, building elevations shall be revised to show only approved materials,
i.e. brick, glass, Hardiplank and rock face block, rather than vinyl on the fronts of the
townhouses and brick and rock face block on side townhouse elevations. Exhibit E, grading
plan shall be subject to further refinements on the park site as approved by Public Works and
Park and Rec Directors. Exhibit G, tree replacement plan to be revised to reflect correct
number of existing trees on site and trees to be removed. Exhibit M, building material
samples shall be submitted and approved. Exhibits B and E are replaced by revised plat and
plans per the approved plat and PUD amendments on September 18, 2000. Exhibits E and F
are replaced by revised grading and utility plans as approved on February 20, 2001. Exhibits
A, E and F are modified by revised site, grading and utility plans as approved on August 20,
2001.
B. Final plat and PUD approval and development is contingent upon developer meeting all
conditions of final approval including all MNDOT requirements.
C. Before a final plat is signed by the City, the developer shall comply with the following
requirements:
1. Building elevations to be revised as stated above.
2. Submit to the City a copy of owner’s policy of title insurance which insures the City’s
interest in the plat, in an amount to be determined by the City.
3. A development agreement shall be executed or amended between the developer and
the City/EDA which covers at a minimum, dedication of Outlot A, Pointe West
Commons Two, as City park land, grading of the park, cash in-lieu of additional park
and trail dedication, realignment of Zarthan Avenue and installation of a traffic signal
at 16th Street and Zarthan Avenue, conditions under which site work may occur
and/or building permits be issued for hotels and townhouse site, sidewalk
construction and maintenance, tree replacement, and repair and cleaning of public
streets. The development agreement shall also cite the approved ordinance
modifications.
4. Submit financial security in the form of cash escrow or letter of credit in the amount
of 125% of the costs of on-site tree replacement, public sidewalk installation, utility
repair, and repair/cleaning of public streets.
5. Execute formal agreement with City to allow park patrons to share on-site guest
parking for townhomes.
6. Submit cross-easement agreement(s) for shared parking between the two hotels and
the townhomes, to be approved by City attorney.
7. Submit townhouse association by-laws and covenant documents, to be approved by
the City attorney.
52
8. Submit cash in lieu of on-site tree replacement to the City. The exact amount shall be
determined by the number of off-site tree replacement inches required and shall be
approved by the Park and Recreation Director and the Community Development
Director, based upon a rate of $60 per caliper inch.
9. Submit cash reimbursement of City attorney’s fees in drafting/reviewing such
documents.
10. Submit cash park and trail dedication fee of $13,040.67.
D. Within 90 days of final plat approval by the City Council, the subdivider shall record the
final plat and easements with the County Recorder. The subdivider shall, immediately upon
recording, furnish the City Clerk with a print and reproducible tracing of the final plat and
copies of easement documents showing evidence of the recording. The subdivider shall also
provide a copy of the final plat on disc in an electronic data format.
E. Prior to any site work, the developer and property owner(s) shall meet the following
requirements:
1. A drainage permit shall be obtained from MNDOT, if required.
2. A copy of the Watershed District permit(s) shall be forwarded to the City.
3. Any other necessary permits from other agencies shall be obtained.
4. Sign assent form and all official exhibits, as approved by the City.
5. Meet conditions of City signing final plat.
6. Meet any other conditions as required by the Development Agreement.
F. The developer shall comply with the following conditions during construction:
1. Construction vehicles shall be prohibited from using Zarthan Avenue south of W. 16th
Street, Alabama Avenue, and Blackstone Avenue.
2. All City noise ordinances shall be complied with, including that there be no
construction activity between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m.
3. Loud equipment shall be kept as far as possible from residences at all times.
4. The site shall be kept free of dust and debris that could blow onto neighboring
properties.
5. Public streets shall be maintained free of dirt and shall be cleaned as necessary.
6. The Zoning Administrator may impose additional conditions if it becomes necessary in
order to mitigate the impact of construction on surrounding properties.
G. Prior to issuance of any building permits, which may impose additional requirements, the
developer shall comply with the following:
1. Meet any Fire Department emergency access requirements for during construction.
2. The subdivider shall furnish the City with evidence of having submitted the final plat
and cross-parking easement agreement for recording.
3. Lighting plans to be submitted to and approved by the Zoning Administrator for the
entire development. Lighting design is to be compatible throughout the development,
and shall meet all City standards.
4. Signage plans to be submitted and approved by the Zoning Administrator (a sign permit
is required).
5. Meet any other conditions as required by the Development Agreement.
H. A maximum of three 16-unit townhouse buildings may obtain Certificates of Occupancy,
provided other conditions are met, prior to the completion of the Zarthan Avenue
realignment and the traffic signal becoming operational at Zarthan Avenue and 16th Street.
Residents’ access to said townhomes shall be via 16th Street until the realignment of Zarthan
53
Avenue is complete unless flag people are directing traffic on Zarthan Avenue. (amended
September 18, 2000)
I. A PUD ordinance modification to allow 465 parking stalls rather than the required 466 stalls
and building and sign setbacks as shown on the approved site plan are contingent upon final
PUD approval.
J. Should the Zoning Administrator determine that parking is a problem in the future, the City
may require proof of parking to be converted to parking.
K. The developer shall attempt to obtain a written agreement to share parking during off-peak
hours with the bank across Zarthan Avenue as overflow parking for the hotels.
L. Hardiplank is approved for this development on a trial basis as a Class II material and may be
used as shown on the Official Exhibits.
M. The Preliminary and Final Plat for Pointe West Commons One and Two and the Final
Planned Unit Development shall be amended on September 18, 2000 to incorporate all of the
preceding conditions and add the following conditions:
1. Conditions A and H are modified as noted above.
2. If the CP Rail parcel does not become part of the publicly owned park, the developer
shall pay an additional $28,000 in park dedication fees to the City.
3. Construction vehicles shall be prohibited from using 16th Street except for construction
related to the park, 16th Street roadway improvements and other improvements adjacent
to 16th St (e.g. sidewalks). The developer shall observe all local and state weight
restrictions on roads within the City. Construction vehicles shall be permitted to use the
townhouse entrance on Zarthan Avenue, provided signage is placed on northbound and
southbound Zarthan Avenue and westbound 16th Street in accordance with the MN
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, to be approved by the Public Works
Department. If the City determines that construction activity is causing traffic conflicts,
it may require the developer to provide flag people to facilitate safe traffic on the adjacent
roads.
4. If the property is part of the Parade of Homes prior to realignment of Zarthan Avenue,
flag people shall be required to direct Parade traffic to and from the Zarthan Avenue
entrance, and Parade traffic shall be prohibited from using 16th Street. If Parade parking
cannot be accommodated on site, or is interfering with fire lanes, traffic circulation, etc.,
the Zoning Administrator may require the developer to provide alternative parking on
nearby private property.
N. The Preliminary and Final Plat for Pointe West Commons One and Two and the Final
Planned Unit Development shall be amended on February 20, 2001 to incorporate all of the
preceding conditions and add the following conditions:
1. Condition A is modified as noted above.
2. The materials for the retaining walls being constructed along West 16th Street shall be
similar to the materials used on adjacent retaining walls along West 16th Street east of
Zarthan Avenue. These materials shall be submitted and approved by the Zoning
Administrator prior to the construction of the walls.
O. The offending developer shall pay an administrative fine of $750.00 per violation of any
conditions set forth in this resolution.
P. The Preliminary and Final Plat for Pointe West Commons One and Two and the Final
Planned Unit Development shall be amended on August 20, 2001 to incorporate all of the
preceding conditions and add the following conditions:
54
1. Both CSM and Rottlund must sign the amended official exhibits and new assent form.
2. The developers shall install signs at each project entrance indicating the approved times
for construction.
3. Rottlund shall provide the Blackstone Neighborhood president and City staff with the site
supervisor’s home telephone number.
4. Conditions A and O are modified as noted above.
The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this resolution in the Office of the
Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council August 20, 2001
City Manager Mayor
Attest: 01-39-PUD:N/res-ord
City Clerk
55
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 7e
Meeting of August 20, 2001
7e. The request of Costco Wholesale for a major amendment to the approved
Planned Unit Development for Park Place Plaza to permit a 12 station fueling
facility and an accessory building on Lot 9.
Case No. 95-51-PUD (Amended)
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt a resolution of denial for the major amendment
to the approved Planned Unit Development according to the
findings in the resolution.
Background:
On June 3, 1996, the St. Louis Park City Council adopted Resolution #96-89 approving a final
Planned Unit Development (PUD) and plat for the redevelopment of the former Honeywell site
into a shopping center. This shopping center (Park Place Plaza) was divided into nine buildable
lots to accommodate over 325,000 square feet of retail and restaurant.
Under the original PUD a 110,000-square-foot retail building was approved for the Costco site.
On April 3, 2000, the St. Louis Park City Council adopted Resolution #00-037 approving a
major amendment to the approved PUD allowing the Costco building to increase in size from
110,000 square feet to 139,100 square feet. Along with the increased building size, the City
Council approved the conversion of Lot 8 originally proposed for a 5,000-square-foot bank to a
parking lot to accommodate the larger Costco building.
Costco is now proposing a 12 station fueling facility on Lot 9, the last buildable lot within the
Park Place Plaza development. Lot 9 is at the southwest corner of Park Place Boulevard and
Gamble Drive and north of Petsmart. When the PUD was originally approved by the City
Council, Lot 9 was approved for 5,000 square feet of retail.
The fueling facility proposal would relocate the existing entrance drive to Lot 9 so that it would
be farther from the main entrance drive through the shopping center. This results in some
changes to the landscaping and parking lot configuration.
Costco’s fueling facility concept is unique compared to other gas stations. First, the facility will
be available only to Costco members. Representatives of Costco estimate that 70% of the
station’s customers will also visit the store on the same visit. Second, a convenience store is not
part of the facility. Gas stations typically receive a majority of their revenue from in-store sales.
Costco, however, views the fueling facility as an additional benefit for Costco members not
necessarily to produce revenue. Payment will be made by credit card only.
56
On May 30, 2001, the developer had a neighborhood meeting to informally review the plans.
Three residents attended the meeting.
On June 20, 2001, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the major amendment. The
Planning Commission heard testimony and closed the public hearing. The Planning Commission
on a 4-0 vote recommended to the City Council denial of Costco’s fueling facility based on the
following:
1) the proposal not being the highest and best use (compared to the original PUD approval for
the site for a 5,000-square-foot retail building);
2) Any future development on the site should be tied to a correction of traffic problems (per the
required PUD findings for unified development with efficient circulation).
It should be noted that staff originally recommended to the Planning Commission approval of the
major PUD amendment with several conditions of approval. However, the applicant noted during
the Planning Commission meeting that Costco was not agreeing to make all of the necessary
traffic improvements as recommended by SRF Consulting. (Please see attached Planning
Commission minute excerpts and staff report with recommendations).
Without implementation of the traffic improvements recommended to improve safety and
efficient circulation within the PUD, the Planning Commission indicated that they could not
approve the fueling facility because it would exacerbate internal traffic circulation problems. The
Planning Commission also noted that it was not in keeping with the original approval, which had
included a small retail building on the site. They also noted that it did not enhance the
neighborhood as an amenity.
On July 16, 2001, the City Council reviewed Costco’s proposal and tabled the item to allow the
applicant time to address SRF’s traffic recommendations. The status of the Costco’s efforts are
outlined below. The Council also asked the City Attorney if it might be possible to use
condemnation to complete the improvements. Staff has asked the City Attorney to be prepared
to address that further during the meeting.
Issues:
What has transpired since the July 16th City Council meeting with regard to implementing
SRF’s traffic recommendations?
How does the fueling station relate to the original PUD agreement, and Neighborhood and
Comprehensive Plans?
Is a new Environmental Assessment Worksheet required?
What are the fire department’s safety requirements?
Are the Zoning Ordinance requirements being satisfied?
What are the current PUD resolution and Development Agreement restrictions?
Are there outstanding issues with the Park Place Plaza?
57
Analysis of Issues:
What has transpired since the July 16th City Council meeting with regard to implementing
SRF’s traffic recommendations?
The City Council may recall from the July 16th staff report that SRF’s traffic study found that the
proposed gas station can be supported by the existing external roadway system. With regard to
the internal roadway system, SRF identified four areas with operational problems within the Park
Place Plaza shopping center. (Please see attached SRF memorandum). The four areas include
Costco’s main intersection; the roadway between the central pond and small retail shops; the
Arby’s intersection with Gamble Drive Extension (this intersection would also serve the
proposed fueling facility); and the Home Depot access points along Gamble Drive Extension,
between the Costco Warehouse and proposed fueling facility sites.
Staff has outlined SRF’s recommendations for each of the four areas with operational problems
and the status of Costco’s efforts in the following table.
Area of Concern SRF’s recommendation Costco’s Progress
Area 1: Costco’s main
intersection
Implement improvements for
access to/from the Costco
Warehouse store and install a
stop sign at the Costco main
intersection.
Costco has agreed to this
recommendation.
Area 2: Roadway between
the central pond and
small retail shops
No recommendation given
Area 3: Arby’s intersection
with Gamble Drive
Extension
Eliminate four parking spaces
at the southwest end of the
Arby’s parking lot to improve
intersection safety and reduce
congestion in the immediate
entry area to Arby’s.
Unable to be implemented.
Costco has spoken with
Arby’s owner, who is opposed
to losing parking stalls.
Area 4: Home Depot access
points along Gamble
Drive Extension
Construct a raised island along
the southwest side of Gamble
Drive Extension to eliminate
all access points except for
one midway between the
Costco driveway and the four-
way stop to improve safety on
Gamble Drive Extension.
Costco is continuing
discussions with Home
Depot’s representatives. Home
Depot is opposed to SRF’s
recommendation, but is
considering eliminating four
of the eight access points.
Home Depot has yet to agree
to this solution.
SRF representatives will be present at the City Council meeting to help address any questions or
proposed alternatives to their recommendations.
58
How does the fueling station relate to the original PUD agreement, and Neighborhood and
Comprehensive Plans?
The newly revised Comprehensive Plan does not specifically address the development of Park
Place Plaza. Since the site had already received PUD approval, the plan does state that all
development will be of high quality design, efficient and compatible with adjoining land uses
and properties. The previous Comprehensive Plan specifically stated that the City should
encourage uses at Park Place Plaza that serve or enhance the Blackstone Neighborhood area. The
approved 5,000-square-foot retail building was intended to provide neighborhood retail services.
To encourage developments that are tailored to individual sites and neighborhoods, the Planned
Unit Development process may permit developments greater flexibility from Zoning Ordinance
regulations provided certain findings are met. The intended benefits of the PUD process (as
stated in the ordinance findings and purpose) include projects that are of higher standards of site
and building design and that develop land in a more creative and efficient manner.
Before a PUD plan (including amendments) may be approved, the City Council shall find that
the quality of building and site design will substantially enhance aesthetics of the site and
implement relevant goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
In addition, the following criteria shall be satisfied (only the pertinent criteria are included):
A. The design shall consider the whole of the project and shall create a united environment
within project boundaries by insuring architectural compatibility of all structures, efficient
vehicular and pedestrian circulation, aesthetically pleasing landscape and site features, and
design and efficient use of utilities.
B. The design of a PUD shall achieve the maximum compatibility of the project with
surrounding land uses, both existing and proposed and shall minimize the potential adverse
impacts of the PUD on surrounding land uses and the potential adverse effects of the
sounding land uses on the PUD.
C. If a project for which PUD treatment has been requested involves construction over a period
of time or in two or more phases, the PUD applicant shall demonstrate that each phase is
capable of addressing and meeting these criteria independent of the other phases.
D. Maneuvering and truck storage areas shall be assigned a Land Use Intensity class of 7 for
purposes of determining bufferyard requirements of such areas.
The Planning Commission indicated that the findings were not met by the proposed fueling
facility.
Is a new Environmental Assessment Worksheet required?
An Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) and Indirect Source Permit (ISP) were
required for the original PUD approval. The primary environmental impacts were related to
traffic, and substantial traffic improvements were required and implemented. Since the traffic
study has indicted no external additional traffic impacts from the fueling facility, staff is
recommending no need for a new EAW. Other potential environmental impacts from the fueling
59
facility are regulated by State laws and the Fire Department requirements for emergency
response.
What are the Fire Department’s safety requirements?
The Fire Department has worked closely with the applicant to address the department’s safety
concerns. The main concern of the fire department is that an attendant be available on site during
operational hours for emergency purposes. Besides emergencies, the attendant would direct
traffic and assist customers as needed. The applicant is proposing a 155-square-foot accessory
building with bathroom for the attendant. Costco representatives have indicated that 10% of
their fueling facilities have attendants on site.
Staff is somewhat uncomfortable with the solution of providing an on-site attendant to manage
emergency situations. Because of the lack of activity on-site, staff believes this may be a difficult
position to staff and foresees this becoming a potential enforcement issue in the future. Staff
would prefer the fueling station be located closer to the wholesale store to ensure that store
employees are available at all times for emergency purposes. However, as explained below,
Costco has reviewed locating the fueling facility closer to the building but the required number
of displaced parking makes this solution unacceptable to Costco.
Are the Zoning Ordinance requirements being satisfied?
Dimensional Standards and Densities
The proposed Costco development meets the setbacks, and building height requirements.
Conditions within the C-2 District
Motor fuel stations are permitted in the C-2 District as Conditional Uses. The Zoning Ordinance
lists eight conditions ranging from setbacks to the prohibition of outside sales. The proposal
meets all eight conditions.
Parking
Because there is no sale of lubricants, batteries, tires or motor vehicle accessories as part of the
fueling facility, it does not technically meet the definition of a motor fuel station. Therefore, staff
has determined that parking (in addition to the spaces provided at the pumps) should not be
required.
Costco has reviewed locating the fueling station on Lot 8, across the internal drive from the main
store. However, Costco representatives believe that the store will need this parking in the future
as more people become Costco members. They have indicated that stores in new markets, such
as this one, do not reach significant membership levels until after five years in operation. Hence,
even though Lot 8 is rarely used for parking now, Costco representatives believe it will be
heavily used in three to four years.
60
Including Lot 8, Costco has 612 parking stalls, which is 4.4 stalls/1000 square feet. Costco
strives for 5.0 stalls/1000 square feet for all of their stores. The Zoning Ordinance requires 537
parking spaces for a retail building the size of Costco’s, which is 3.9 stalls/1000 square feet. The
Zoning Ordinance allows the required amount of parking spaces to be reduced by 30% if shared
parking arrangements have been arranged between neighboring uses. Home Depot and Costco
have such arrangement. Thus, the minimum number of parking stalls required by ordinance
would be 375.
Landscaping
The landscaping plan exceeds the approved plan for the 5,000-square-foot retail building in
terms of quantity. The site is proposed to be heavily landscaped with a mixture of over-story
trees, evergreens, ornamental trees, a large variety of shrubs, and perennial planting beds.
Because of the amount of landscaping, only a few small areas are proposed to be sodded. The
applicant is proposing 12 evergreen trees of the same species, Colorado Green Spruce. Staff
would recommend a second species of evergreen tree be incorporated into the plan.
The Zoning Ordinance requires parking lots and driveways to be a minimum of six feet from
property lines. The curb along the north side of the proposal is four feet from the lot line. This
modification to the PUD would have to be approved by the City Council. Staff is comfortable
with the reduced setback because the site and adjacent sidewalk would not be negatively
impacted.
Signage
The Costco fueling facility is unique for gas stations in that they are not requesting a freestanding
sign advertising gasoline prices. Costco posts the gasoline prices in the main store for their
members. The proposed signs on the canopy meet the City’s size requirements. The canopy signs
are identical in design to the Costco building. The signs are proposed to be externally
illuminated.
Lighting
The applicant has submitted a lighting plan that meets City requirements. The plan depicts less
than a foot-candle at the property lines and a maximum light level of 43 foot-candles directly
underneath the canopy. While the Zoning Ordinance regulates the amount of light level along the
perimeter of a site and not within a development, the 43 foot-candles is less than other typical
gas stations. However, it is more than adequate to ensure safety. If approved, staff would
recommend a condition of approval that all light fixtures be completely recessed in the canopy.
Architectural Design
The proposed accessory building and canopy support columns comply with the minimum Class I
building material requirements. The amount of brick on any given elevation is proposed to be
over 60%. The other materials shown on the elevations include rock face block and a metal
canopy. The elevations appear to be consistent with the design and materials used in the
61
remainder of the shopping center. However, if approved, staff would like to review the building
materials and colors to ensure consistency prior to issuance of a building permit.
What are the current PUD resolution and Development Agreement restrictions?
The approved resolution and Development Agreement have certain restrictions for hours of
construction, routes for construction vehicles, hours for delivery and service vehicles.
The PUD resolution restricts the hours of demolition, hauling, and construction to the hours
between 7:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. on weekdays, and 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. on weekends and
holidays. Likewise, the construction vehicles and equipment are prohibited from using Zarthan
Avenue between Cedar Lake Road and West 16th Street.
Fueling trucks are also limited to servicing the facility to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00
p.m. on weekdays, and 9:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on weekends and holidays. These vehicles are
also prohibited from using Zarthan Avenue between Cedar lake Road and West 16th Street. If
approved, the City Council may want to add a condition limiting the hours further to prevent
conflicts with customers driving at busy times. Costco has suggested prohibiting service during
the lunch hour.
Are there outstanding issues with the Park Place Plaza?
Staff has surveyed the development and noticed that Home Depot has not installed the curbed,
landscaped cart corrals that are required by ordinance for stores that provide carts. Staff
discussed this issue with Costco and Ryan representatives during the June 15th meeting. Since
this is one overall PUD site that is reviewed as a whole, staff suggested that Costco might be able
to help facilitate the Home Depot improvements.
Staff also noted that a bus shelter pad had not been adequately finished. Ryan Companies has
been notified and recently stated that they have now completed that area. Staff has also noted
that the Costco Warehouse has not adequately screened the rooftop equipment. There are some
are some landscape maintenance and external storage issues, and a sign has been installed that
misidentifies the truck entrance.
Staff will continue to work on compliance issues. Compliance of the PUD site is a current
condition for the Costco Warehouse receiving a permanent Certificate of Occupancy.
Recommendation:
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution denying the
request of Costco Wholesale for a major amendment to the approved Planned Unit Development
for Park Place Plaza to permit a 12 station fueling facility and an accessory building on Lot 9
according to the findings in the Resolution.
Since the City Council seemed to encourage Costco to work out the traffic issues, staff has
attached a resolution approving Costco’s request for a major amendment for a 12 station fueling
62
facility and an accessory building on Lot 9. The conditions listed in the resolution are the same
conditions that were included in staff’s original recommendation of approval to the Planning
Commission except that the Home Depot cart corrals are not mentioned. That issue is being
dealt with separately.
Attachments:
• Proposed Resolution of Denial
• Alternate Resolution of Approval with conditions
• SRF Traffic Analysis
• June 20th Planning Commission minutes
• Letter from Thompson Dyke and Associates
Prepared by: Patrick Smith, Planner
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
63
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF DENIAL REGARDING THE APPLICATION OF COSTCO
WHOLESALE FOR A MAJOR AMENDMENT TO THE APPROVED PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT FOR PARK PLACE PLAZA TO PERMIT A 12 STATION FUELING
FACILITY AND AN ACCESSORY BUILDING ON LOT 9 FOR PROPERTY ZONED C-
2, GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5600, 5640,
5680, 5700, 5800 AND 5900 CEDAR LAKE ROAD; AND 1620, 1650, 1690 AND 1700
PARK PLACE BOULEVARD; AND 5601, 5699 AND 5799 WEST 16TH STREET AND
1625 ZARTHAN AVENUE (TOTAL SITE FORMERLY KNOWN AS 1625 ZARTHAN
AVENUE)
FINDINGS
1. WHEREAS, on June 3, 1996, the City Council approved a Final PUD for Park Place
Plaza in the C-2 Commercial District for the following legal description, to wit: Lots 1-9, Block
1 and Outlots A, B and C, Park Place Plaza (Torrens); and
2. WHEREAS, on April 16, 2001, Costco Wholesale filed an application seeking a major
amendment to the approved Planned Unit Development for Park Place Plaza to construct a
fueling facility on Lot 9.
3. WHEREAS, on June 20, 2001, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, received
testimony from the public, reviewed the application, and on a vote of 4-0 moved that the
Planning Commission deny the proposed major amendment to the PUD based upon certain
findings included below.
4. WHEREAS, on July 16, 2001, the City Council considered the request for a major
amendment, and on a vote of 7-0 moved to continue the request.
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of St. Louis Park, Minnesota
1. Because of the proposed remote location of the fueling facility from the applicant’s
warehouse and because the fueling facility would require customers and large trucks to
use the internal road system throughout the PUD to access and service the facility without
implementing all recommended internal circulation improvements, the proposed major
amendment to construct a fueling facility on Lot 9 does not meet the required PUD
criteria that:
E. The design shall consider the whole of the project and shall create a united
environment within project boundaries by insuring architectural compatibility of
all structures, efficient vehicular and pedestrian circulation, aesthetically pleasing
landscape and site features, and design and efficient use of utilities.
64
B. The design of a PUD shall achieve the maximum compatibility of the project with
surrounding land uses, both existing and proposed and shall minimize the
potential adverse impacts of the PUD on surrounding land uses and the potential
adverse effects of the sounding land uses on the PUD.
2. The proposal is not the highest and best use compared to the original PUD approval for
the site for a 5,000-square-foot retail building; and
3. Any future development on the site should be tied to a correction of on-site traffic
problems per the required PUD findings for unified development with efficient
circulation.
4. The contents of Planning Case File 95-51-PUD Major Amendment are hereby entered
into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
5. There is no evidence that the site cannot be developed in accordance with the original
PUD.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park:
The applicant’s request for a major amendment to an approved Planned Unit
Development for Park Place Plaza to permit a 12 station fueling facility and an accessory
building on Lot 9 is hereby denied based on the findings setforth above.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council August 20, 2001
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
N:95-51-PUDamend-den
65
RESOLUTION NO. 01-080
Amends and Restates Resolutions 96-89, 96-158, 97-3, 97-39, 98-23, 00-037, 00-133
A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 00-133 APPROVED ON
NOVEMBER 6, 2000 APPROVING A FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD)
UNDER SECTION 14:6-7 OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE RELATING
TO ZONING FOR PROPERTY ZONED C-2, GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT,
LOCATED AT 5600, 5640, 5680, 5700, 5800 and 5900 CEDAR LAKE ROAD; AND
1620, 1650, 1690 AND 1700 PARK PLACE BOULEVARD; AND
5601, 5699 AND 5799 WEST 16TH STREET AND1625 ZARTHAN AVENUE
(TOTAL SITE FORMERLY KNOWN AS 1625 ZARTHAN AVENUE)
WHEREAS, the St. Louis Park City Zoning Ordinance permits shopping centers in
excess of 200,000 square feet by Planned Unit Development (PUD) under certain conditions in
the C-2 Commercial Zoning District, and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 96-38 approving the Preliminary
PUD on March 18, 1996, and
WHEREAS, the City staff were informed on April 12, 1996 that certain environmental
remediation would be necessary and such remediation would affect the timing process of
demolition of the existing building and resulted in the need to amend the conditions of
preliminary approval, and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 96-71 rescinding Resolution No.
96-38 and approving the Preliminary PUD subject to certain revised conditions on May 6, 1996,
and
WHEREAS, a complete application for a Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) was
received on April 26, 1996, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the Final PUD application at the
meeting of May 1, 1996, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Final PUD subject
to 17 conditions of approval on a 3-1 vote with three members present voting in the affirmative
and one member voting against, and
WHEREAS, the City Council received an overview from City staff and the City Attorney
of the necessary agreements related to the PUD at its May 13, 1996 Study Session, and
WHEREAS, the applicant and current and prospective property owners have entered into
a development agreement, supplemental development agreements, sidewalk easements
agreement, reciprocal easement and operation agreement, and a reversion agreement, which
66
agreement nullifies and voids without any further action required on the part of the City Council
the preliminary and final approval if certain conditions are not met, and
WHEREAS, on March 3, 1997 Franchise Associates, Inc. (current owner of 1690 Park
Place Boulevard) and Ryan Construction Company of Minnesota, Inc. as developer and with the
consent of Honeywell, Inc. (fee owner of 1625 Zarthan Avenue) submitted an application for a
minor amendment to the approved Final PUD to allow the use of neon on the building at 1690
Park Place Boulevard and to revise the Landscape Plan for 1625 Zarthan Avenue and 5600, 5640
and 5680 Cedar Lake Road, and
WHEREAS, certain amendments to the approved Final PUD have been approved by the
City Council on 10/22/96 (Res. 96-158) and 1/6/97 (Res 97-3), and 3/17/97 (Res 97-39), and
WHEREAS, on December 11, 1997 Office Max (current owner of 5600 Cedar Lake
Road) and Ryan Construction Company of Minnesota, Inc. as developer and with the consent of
Honeywell, Inc. (fee owner of 1625 Zarthan Avenue) submitted an application for a minor
amendment to the approved Final PUD to allow the placement of a new 12.8 s.f. flat wall
identification sign on the east face of the building at 5600 Cedar Lake Road.
WHEREAS, on February 22, 2000 CostCo Wholesale and Ryan Companies US, Inc as
developer with the consent of Honeywell, Inc. submitted an application for a major amendment
to the approved Final PUD to allow the construction of a 139,444 square foot wholesale, retail
and tire service facility at 5801 West 16th Street.
WHEREAS, on October 23, 2000 CostCo Wholesale and Ryan Companies US, Inc. as
developer with the consent of Honeywell, inc. submitted a minor amendment to the approved
Final PUD to allow changes to the traffic improvements at 16th Street and the main access into
the site.
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 01-133 on November 6, 2000
approving a minor amendment to the approved Final PUD to allow changes to the traffic
improvements at 16th Street and the main access into the site, and
WHEREAS, on April 16, 2001, Costco Whole filed an application seeking a major
amendment to the approved Planned Unit Development for Park Place Plaza to construct a
fueling facility on Lot 9, and
WHEREAS, on June 20, 2001, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, received
testimony from the public, reviewed the application, and on a vote of 4-0 moved that the
Planning Commission deny the proposed major amendment to the PUD, and
67
WHEREAS, on July 16, 2001, the City Council considered the request for a major
amendment, and on a vote of 7-0 moved to continue to the request.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park:
A. Recitals
The recitals set forth above are incorporated herein and made part of this resolution.
B. Findings
1. Ryan Construction Company of Minnesota, Inc., as developer with the consent of the
property owner Honeywell, Inc., has made application to the City Council for approval of a Final
Planned Unit Development (“Final PUD”) within the C-2 General Commercial Zoning District
under Section 14:6-7 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance for property formerly known as 1625
Zarthan Avenue for the legal description as follows, to-wit:
Lots 1-9 and Outlots A, B and C; Block 1, Park Place Plaza (Torrens)
2. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning
Commission (Case No. 95-51-PUD) and the effect of the proposed Final PUD and amendments
thereto on the health, safety and welfare of the occupants of the surrounding lands, existing and
anticipated traffic conditions, the effect on values of properties in the surrounding area, the effect
of the use on the Comprehensive Plan, with specific consideration given to the Plan By
Neighborhood Section of the Comprehensive Plan, and compliance with the provisions of the
Zoning Ordinance.
3. The City Council has determined that approval of a Final PUD and the proposed amendments
thereto will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community nor with
certain contemplated traffic improvements will it cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards,
nor will it seriously depreciate surrounding property values. The Council has also determined
that the proposed Final PUD and amendments thereto is in harmony with the general provisions,
purpose and intent of the City’s Zoning Ordinance and its Comprehensive Plan and that the
requested modifications comply with the requirements of Section 14:6-7.2(E).
4. The contents of Planning Case File 95-51-PUD are hereby entered into and made part of the
public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
C. Conditions and Approval
A Final PUD at the location described in paragraph 1 of the above findings is approved based on
the recitals and the findings set forth above, the Approved Final Plans, and subject to the
following conditions:
1. Issuance of demolition and erosion control permits shall be subject to the following
conditions as required in the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Resolution and
subsequently modified on March 18, 1996 and May 6, 1996 as follows:
68
a. Demolition, hauling and construction activities shall be limited to the hours
between 7:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. on weekdays and 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. on
weekends and holidays.
b. Trucks and construction equipment shall be prohibited from using Zarthan
Avenue between Cedar Lake Road and 16th Street and shall enter and exit the site
from 16th Street and Park Place Boulevard only.
c. During demolition of the existing building, the western wall of the building shall
be left intact as a sound barrier for as long as practicable.
d. Use of explosives shall be prohibited.
e. All demolition and construction equipment shall utilize state of the art muffler
systems.
f. On-site crushing and recycling operations shall be located as far from existing
residential land uses as practicable.
2. Approval of the Preliminary and Final Planned Unit Development and Plat shall be
subject to the following conditions as required in the EAW Resolution and subsequently
modified on March 18, 1996 and by this resolution as follows:
a. Installation of all roadway improvements associated with anticipated traffic from
the proposed use and dedication of public right-of-way to accommodate public
infrastructure .
b. Adjustments to existing traffic lights, street lights and other utilities.
c. Installation of sidewalks along the length of Cedar Lake Road, Park Place
Boulevard, 16th Street, and Zarthan Avenue adjacent to the project and
connecting to public plaza areas within the site.
d. Dedication of drainage and utility easements to a depth of 10 feet back from
planned right-of-way and execution of a sidewalks easement agreement. Such
sidewalk easements shall extend 1 foot beyond required perimeter sidewalks.
e. Installation of on-site directional signs to I-394 and Highway 100 to prevent
unnecessary traffic in residential neighborhoods.
f. Delivery and garbage service trucks shall be prohibited from using Zarthan
Avenue between Cedar Lake Road and 16th Street and shall be limited to
servicing the uses between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on weekdays
and 9:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on weekends and holidays. Unoccupied delivery
and garbage trucks shall be prohibited from idling on site during nighttime hours
as defined by Section 11-507(3)(a).
g. Overnight parking of vehicles, semi-trailers, refrigeration units and the like shall
be prohibited unless parked wholly within any of the enclosed loading dock bays.
h. Openings of rooftop fans and air circulation equipment shall be required to face
away from residential neighborhoods and all exhaust openings except bathroom
fans shall be prohibited on exterior walls facing residential neighborhoods. In the
event bathroom fan exhausts exceed the maximum nighttime allowable noise
limits, operation of these fans shall be terminated until compliance with the City
of St. Louis Park Noise Ordinance is achieved.
i Compliance with ordinance provisions relating to exterior lighting and prevention
of unnecessary nighttime site lighting.
j. Compliance with all applicable City ordinance provisions shall be required unless
modifications are specifically authorized by this Final Planned Unit
69
Development approval or by more stringent requirements of the development
agreement or supplemental development agreements.
3. The following modifications to ordinance requirements are authorized as part of this
Final PUD approval:
a. Bufferyards are not required between drive through facilities and adjacent
properties that are part of the Final PUD.
b. The temporary hoop structures associated with Home Depot’s “Garden Center”
outdoor sales area are not required to be architecturally integrated with the
principal building (utilize same building materials) provided masonry walls
surrounding the outdoor sales area are provided as shown on the Approved Final
Plans.
c. A Bufferyard “D” may be substituted for the required Bufferyard “F” between the
truck circulation and loading areas for the Retail/Service/Restaurant building on
Lot 5 and Park Place Boulevard.
d. Buildings are not required to utilize at least 60% brick or other natural stone on
each building face but are approved with percentages of brick and other materials
as shown on the Approved Final Plans.
e. Buildings on Lots 2 and 3 may have more than 5% bright, pure accent colors on
each facade and are approved with the percentages of accent colors shown on
colored elevations “stamped” as received by the City on March 15, 1996 and on
April 19, 1996 (Exhibits B2 and B3 of the Approved Final Plans).
f. The area of all wall signs may exceed 7% of the building wall area but may not
exceed the wall sign area shown on the Approved Final Plans. Exhibit A7 of the
Approved Final Plans shall be revised to reduce cumulative wall signage by at
least 37 square feet in accordance with the Preliminary PUD approval.
g. Individual wall signs may exceed 150 square feet but may not exceed the
individual wall sign areas shown on the Approved Final Plans.
h. Two free standing “off-premise signs”, advertising uses on properties within the
PUD only, are allowed as shown on the Approved Final Plans. Such signs are
denoted on the Approved Final Plans as “Center Pylon Signs” and also as
“Monument Signs”. Such signs may also be referenced as “Project Identification
Signs” or “Tenant Identification Signs”.
i. The maximum size of the “Center Pylon Sign” faces may exceed 300 square feet
and may be 320 square feet each as shown on the Approved Final Plans.
j. The maximum total sign area of the “Center Pylon Signs” may exceed 400 square
feet and may be 1,280 square feet as shown on the Approved Final Plans.
k. One Monument Sign measuring no more than 4 feet 4 inches in height and 16
feet in width and identifying only the name of the Shopping Center may be placed
in Outlot A as shown on the Approved Final Plans. Such sign shall include
seating on one side, shall be faced primarily with brick, and shall not be counted
toward the total approved sign areas.
l. Exterior lighting spillover may exceed 1.0 footcandle at property lines that abut
other properties within the Final PUD but may not exceed ordinance restrictions
at property lines that abut properties that are not within the PUD.
70
m. The Bufferyard “D”s separating the in-vehicle sales and service uses (drive-
throughs) on Lots 4,5,6,7 and 8 of the Plat from 16th Street and Park Place
Boulevard are not
required to include a minimum of 95 plant units per 100 linear feet and may
include a total of 225 fewer plant units than required as shown on the Approved
Final Plans.
n. Certain canopy trees may be installed at sizes less than 2-1/2” caliper as shown
on the Approved Final Plans and such trees shall be given full plant unit credits.
o. Certain evergreen trees may be installed at sizes less than 6 feet (height) as shown
on the Approved Final Plans and such trees shall be given full plant unit credits.
4. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with the Approved Final
Plans, which are incorporated herein as Exhibits P1, P2, S1, S2, C1, C2, C3, L1, L2, L3,
L4, L5, A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6, A7 as revised by condition 3f of this resolution, A8,
A9, F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6 (“Park Place Plaza” Monument Sign Detail), B1, B2 and B3,
and the following conditions:
a. MPCA approval of the remediation plan relating to environmental contamination
on the site and conformance with the conditions of the approved remediation plan.
b. Final PUD approval is contingent upon the developer and current/prospective
property owners, including Home Depot, signing the required agreements and
conforming with all provisions of the executed special assessment agreements for
construction of required off-site improvements, executed development agreement
and executed supplemental development agreements that cover all on-site
improvements within the PUD in accordance with Section 14:6-7.5(F), executed
sidewalk easements agreement, executed reciprocal easements and operation
agreement, and the executed reversion agreement. Wherever there is a conflict
between the requirements of any of said documents, City Code, and/or this
resolution, the more stringent requirements shall apply.
c. The type and colors of all exterior building materials (including building facades,
canopies, screen walls, fences, trash enclosures, and permanent exterior signage)
throughout the Final PUD must match those adopted as part of the Approved
Final Plans, and no exterior building materials other than doors may be surface
painted (this requirement does not prohibit the use of standing seam metal with a
baked enamel finish, as approved). Said doors shall be painted to match the
approved brick or rock face block color. All exterior building materials must be
maintained in an aesthetic manner as determined in the sole discretion of the City.
d. Wherever brick is denoted on the Approved Final Plans, a full 4” thick face brick
must be applied in a masonry technique except that an alternative brick
application, face brick cast in structural panels, is specifically approved for the
Home Depot building on Lot 2. The alternative brick application for Lot 2 must
match the color, texture and visual aesthetics of the brick used throughout the
remainder of the PUD.
e. Permanent exterior signage is limited to that shown on the Approved Final Plans.
Additional window signage, temporary banners and the like are restricted in
accordance with the terms of the “Maintenance and Operational Restrictions”
Exhibit of the development agreement and supplemental development
agreements.
71
f. All light poles must be included within curbed areas.
g. All rooftop equipment must be screened from ground level view using parapet
walls and all rooftop equipment must be painted to match the color of the rooftop
to ensure that it is minimally visible from nearby office towers.
h. Prior to issuance of any building permits, the developer must reimburse the City
for all costs incurred by the City in connection with processing the applicant’s
PUD, and preparation and implementation of the development agreements and
associated agreements.
i. In lieu of meeting certain bufferyard requirements as waived in Paragraph 3l
above, the developer shall donate 225 plant units to the City in the form of twenty
2-1/2” canopy trees by June 1, 1997 for use on nearby lands to provide screening
of the project.
j. The subsequent phase of the PUD is approved in concept only as including
110,000 square feet of gross retail building area, 495 parking spaces and 55 proof
of parking spaces on Lot 1. The details of the subsequent phase shall be reviewed
as a minor amendment to the approved Final PUD, unless additional off-site
impacts or modifications to Code or PUD requirements are anticipated, in which
case, the details of the subsequent phase shall be reviewed as a major amendment.
In either case, the City Council reserves the right to hold a public hearing
regarding the subsequent phase. The subsequent phase shall require amendment
to the development agreement and/or supplemental development agreement for
Lot 1.
k. No administrative subdivision of any property within the PUD shall be granted
due to the interrelatedness of the PUD, plat, and Approved Final Plans.
l. The developer and/or property owner shall dedicate, at no expense to the City,
any right-of-way which may be necessary and required in the future to facilitate
improvements at the intersection of 16th Street and Zarthan Avenue and/or to
provide access from Cedar LakeRoad into the PUD. Developer and/or property
owner shall be responsible for the costs associated with these potential future
improvements based upon the benefit to the project and/or the demands the
project has placed on the roadway system. Any such improvements would
require a major amendment to the Approved Final Plans for the PUD
m. The developer and/or owner shall obtain all necessary permits to complete any
further required environmental remediation of the site and undertake said
remediation pursuant to local, state and federal regulations, as applicable.
n. The developer shall receive all other necessary permits and approvals from the
City including, but not limited to sanitary sewer, water tapping permit, demolition
permit, building permits, and erosion control permit.
o. The developer shall obtain approval by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
as well as any other approvals required by state and federal agencies, including
the required Indirect Source Permit, and the developer shall comply with all
conditions of said approvals and permits.
p. The Final Plat shall be submitted to the County for recording prior to initiating
any site work relating to construction of the PUD project; evidence of filing of
the final plat or other assurances pertaining to required easements shall be
72
presented to the City prior to issuance of any permits other than demolition and
associated temporary noise permits.
q. The Preliminary and Final Plat are inherent components of the Preliminary and
Final PUD approvals and are subject to the conditions of Preliminary and Final
PUD approval and the Approved Final Plans. Access to the platted properties
shall be limited to the means provided in the Approved Final Plans.
r. No certificate of occupancy for any building in the PUD shall be issued until all
the circulation drives and internal sidewalks throughout the PUD and all the
improvements, other than landscaping and wear coat of asphalt, for that building’s
lot, have been installed and accepted by the City. All landscaping on the lot shall
be completed within one (1) year from the date the certificate of occupany is
issued.
s. The general public shall have the right to utilize the internal sidewalks for
pedestrian access, including walking bicycles, through the PUD property and for
access to the outdoor seating plaza, which shall remain available to the general
public in perpetuity
for passive recreational use that is not disruptive to the operation of the shopping
center. No provision of the reciprocal easement and operations agreement shall be
interpreted as overriding this requirement.
t. The Approved Final Plan Exhibits may be revised to include a 4,450 square feet
Arby’s restaurant on Lot 4 in accordance with the plans reviewed by the Planning
Commission on May 1, 1996, and further revised as follows: to clarify building
materials; to ensure that building materials match materials used throughout the
remainder of the development; and to reduce the width of the metal door on the
rear elevation to a maximum of 8 feet.
u. The obligations and conditions herein imposed on the developer by this Final PUD
shall also apply to any property owner, successor or assign.
v. The City may enforce any provision of this resolution in the same manner as
provided for a violation of the City’s Zoning Ordinance and/or as provided in the
development agreement or supplemental development agreements.
5. The Final PUD shall be amended on October 22, 1996 to incorporate all of the preceding
conditions and add the following condition:
a. The height of the future Retail 1 tenant space at 5680 Cedar Lake Road may be
reduced from 30’8” to not less than 20’0”.
6. The Final PUD shall be amended on January 6, 1997 to incorporate all of the preceding
conditions and add the following condition:
a. The rear door configuration in the tenant space on the south end of the 1650 Park
Place Boulevard building (Bruegger’s Bagels) is revised in accordance with
Exhibit A5.1 - Exterior Elevations dated 12-23-96
7. The Final PUD shall be amended on March 17, 1997 to incorporate all of the preceding
conditions and add the following conditions:
73
a. The building at 1690 Park Place Boulevard (Arby’s) may utilize neon lighting in
accordance with Exhibits A4.1, A4.2 and A4.3, Arby’s Exterior Elevations
provided said exhibit and assent form are signed by Franchise Associates, Inc.
b. The Landscape Plan may be revised in accordance with Exhibit L.1, Landscape
Plan revised 2/28/97 and stamped received 3/3/97 provided the following
conditions are met.
i) a revised Grading Plan that accurately reflects the proposed retention of
existing berms shall be submitted and approved by the City Engineer and
Zoning Administrator. The Zoning Administrator shall ensure that the plan
meets requirements relating to minimum berm heights adjacent to truck
circulation areas.
ii) Prior to implementing the changes, Ryan Construction Company, Inc.
and the current fee owner of 1625 Zarthan Avenue must sign the Assent form
and revised exhibits.
8. The Final PUD shall be amended on January 5, 1998 to incorporate all of the preceding
conditions and add the following conditions:
a. An Office-Max sign may be installed on the east facade of the building located at
5600 Cedar Lake Road (Office-Max) in the location shown on the Exhibit A3.1
Elevation.
b. Prior to issuance of a sign permit, Ryan Construction Company, Inc. and Office
Max must sign the Assent Form and revised exhibit.
9. The Final PUD shall be amended on April 3, 2000 to incorporate all of the preceding
conditions, find no need for a new EAW, and add the following conditions:
a. The Costco site (Lots 1 and 8) shall be developed, used and maintained in
accordance with the official exhibits, which shall be amended to address the
following conditions:
i) The plans shall be amended as determined necessary by the Director of
Public Works to show dedication of right-of-way near 16th/Zarthan as
anticipated in the original development agreement sketch. Landscape
plans shall be amended as necessary and approved by the Zoning
Administrator to accommodate future improvements to this intersection
while preserving existing berming/screening to the extent feasible.
ii) The plans shall be amended to include proof of parking in excess of
minimum requirements as approved by the Zoning Administrator. If
excess proof of parking is shown, details of the proposed curb cuts and
effects on existing landscaping shall be submitted and approved by the
Zoning Administrator.
iii) Elevation drawings shall be amended to show screen wall heights of 12
feet as measured from the main service drive elevation unless evidence is
approved by the Zoning Administrator that the proposed heights will
adequately screen service vehicles.
iv) Elevation drawings and sign details shall be amended to comply with
ordinance requirements unless a variance for proposed signage has been
approved.
74
b. Prior to beginning any site work, the following conditions shall be met:
i) a copy of the required Watershed District permit shall be submitted to the
City.
ii) an erosion and sediment control plan shall be submitted and approved by
Public Works.
iii) a letter from the MPCA shall confirm no need for a new ISP based upon
the final traffic study by SRF.
iv) The official exhibits and assent form shall be signed by the applicant,
owner, and City.
c. Costco shall adhere to the restrictions on construction times and routes as
included in the final PUD approval for Park Place Plaza except that additional
restrictions may be imposed as necessary to prevent conflicts with customers
during peak restaurant times.
d. Costco shall adhere to restrictions on temporary signage as included in the Final
PUD approval for Park Place Plaza.
e. Prior to issuance of a building permit, which may impose additional restrictions,
the following conditions shall be met:
i) The development agreement shall be amended and executed and shall
address, at a minimum, land dedication, design, construction, financial
sureties for on- and off-site improvements, and maintenance.
ii) A revised light distribution plan, landscape irrigation plan, and all building
material samples and colors shall be submitted and approved by the
Zoning Administrator.
f. Prior to issuance of an Occupancy Permit, the following conditions shall be met:
i) the required traffic improvements at 16th Street and the main access drive,
including installation of a traffic signal paid for by the applicant, shall be
complete and operational; the applicant shall also pay its share of a traffic
signal at 16th and Zarthan, which may be installed at a later date.
ii) the entire PUD site shall be found to be in compliance with the conditions
of final PUD approval, or a Letter of Credit shall be submitted in the
amount of 125% of the cost of any outstanding improvements, including
but not limited to completion of improvements near the intersection of
Park Place Boulevard and 16th Street, public transit improvements on 16th
Street as approved by Metro Transit, and all conditions of the final PUD
resolution and executed development agreement.
g. Costco shall adhere to restrictions on delivery and garbage service hours and
routes as included in the final PUD approval for Park Place Plaza except that
additional restrictions on garbage service may be imposed on Costco as necessary
to prevent conflicts with customers during peak restaurant hours.
h. All sidewalks throughout the PUD site shall be maintained in a clear, walkable
condition at all times during which one or more buildings within the PUD are
open to the public.
10. The Final PUD shall be amended on November 6, 2000 to incorporate all of the
preceding conditions and add the following condition:
a. Temporary Certificate of Occupancy may be issued prior to the signal at 16th and
the main access drive being operational provided CostCo installs a stop sign at the
75
exit to 16th Street and employs off-duty police officers to direct traffic from the
date of opening until such time as the traffic signal is operational or the City
agrees it is no longer necessary.
11. The final PUD shall be amended on August 20, 2001 to incorporate all of the preceding
conditions and add the following conditions:
a. The Costco fueling facility site (Lot 9) shall be developed, used and maintained in
accordance with the official exhibits which shall be amended to address condition
11.f.iv.
b. Costco shall adhere to the Fire Department’s requirements for the fueling facility
including:
i) An employee must be available on-site while the fueling station is open.
ii) A key-actuated manual reset switch shall be installed inside the attendant
building.
iii) A fire department access key box shall be installed on the exterior of the
attendant building.
iv) Instructions shall be provided in English and Spanish.
v) Spill control equipment and supplies to contain and dispose of a 30-gallon
(150% of customer limit) fuel spill. Include storm drain covers, absorbent
materials, containers and tools. Protective clothing and equipment to be
provided for trained attendants.
vi) Dispensing nozzles shall be UL 842 listed.
vii) One 40-B:C fire extinguisher shall be located outside the attendant
building with a cabinet tamper switch to automatically activate emergency
shut-off controls.
c. Prior to beginning any site work, the following conditions shall be met:
i) A copy of the required Watershed District permit or letter from the
Watershed District indicating no need for a permit shall be submitted to
the City.
ii) An erosion and sediment control plan shall be submitted and approved by
Public Works.
iii) The MPCA shall confirm that an ISP amendment is not necessary.
d. Costco shall adhere to the restrictions on construction times and routes as
included in the final PUD approval for Park Place Plaza except that additional
restrictions may be imposed as necessary to prevent conflicts with customers
during peak restaurant times.
e. Costco shall adhere to restrictions on temporary signage as included in the Final
PUD approval for Park Place Plaza.
f. Prior to issuance of a building permit, which may impose additional restrictions,
the following conditions shall be met:
i) The development agreement shall be amended and executed and shall
address, at a minimum, design, construction, financial sureties for on-site
improvements, and maintenance.
ii) A dimensional signage plan, landscape irrigation plan, and all building
material samples and colors shall be submitted and approved by the
Zoning Administrator.
iii) All lights shall be completely recessed in the canopy.
76
iv) Revised site and landscaping plans shall be submitted to and approved by
the Zoning Supervisor showing the curb locations around the gasoline
storage tanks and the reduced landscaping island.
g. Prior to issuance of a permanent Occupancy Permit for the Costco warehouse
facility or temporary Occupancy permit for the fueling facility, the entire PUD
site shall be found to be in compliance with the conditions of final PUD approval,
the applicant shall implement traffic improvements recommended by SRF and
shall change the sign at the 16th Street customer entrance to direct service vehicles
to the 16th Street service drive.
h. Service trucks shall use the service entrance on 16th Street and shall be prohibited
from using Zarthan Avenue between Cedar Lake Road and 16th Street and shall be
limited to servicing the fueling facility between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00
p.m. on weekdays and 9:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on weekends and holidays and as
recommended by the traffic study.
i. Violation of any condition of PUD approval, including these amendments, shall
result in a fine of $750 per day.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council August 20, 2001
City Manager Mayor
Attest: 95-51-PUDamendfueling
City Clerk
77
Excerpts
Planning Commission Minutes
June 20, 2001
4. Unfinished Business
A. Case 95-51-PUD – Request of Costco Wholesale for a major amendment to the
approved Planned Unit Development for Park Place Plaza to permit a 12 station
fueling facility and an accessory building on Lot 9.
Patrick Smith, Planner, presented a staff report. He stated that the request was
tabled at the June 6 Planning Commission to allow staff time to review the plan in
accordance with the PUD and the Comprehensive Plan. He added that the
Planning Commission had made a separate motion asking for staff’s
recommendation regarding internal circulation and Home Depot cart corrals.
Mr. Smith reported that staff met with the Fire Dept. and made amendments to the
Fire Department’s recommendations.
Mr. Smith reported that discussions regarding Home Depot cart corrals had taken
place and the store manager generally agreed that cart corrals were needed. Staff
suggests including a condition of approval requiring that Home Depot
improvements be installed by November 15, 2001.
Mr. Smith addressed changes to conditions regarding compliance of the entire
PUD site with conditions of the final PUD approval, traffic improvement
implementation, signage at 16th Street, and service truck entrance and hours.
Mr. Smith introduced Marie Cote, of SRF. Ms. Cote reported on the additional
review of the internal site circulation of the proposed site undertaken by SRF.
She reviewed SRF’s recommendations.
Chair Velick commented that the recommendations are a big improvement and
could eliminate congestion.
Ted Johnson, Executive Vice-President of Thompson Dyke Associates, said that
Costco met with staff recently and discussed many alternatives. He said Costco
representatives did agree that the recommendations Ms. Cote presented would
improve site circulation and they are willing to make the improvements that are
recommended for their warehouse property. Mr. Johnson presented a graphic
illustrating single lane in/single lane out with a full right-turn lane which could
take a driver from the Costco warehouse to the fueling facility. He said with
this modification there would be a loss of 13-14 spaces and Costco would then
78
request approval to stripe the same number of proof of parking into parking
spaces.
Mr. Johnson presented a graphic illustrating how fueling trucks could maneuver
using the service drive.
Mr. Johnson discussed other midwestern Costco fueling sites and typical fuel
delivery schedules.
Mr. Johnson stated that Costco is not agreeing to Condition No. 6 regarding
traffic improvements involving Areas 3 and 4, property which Costco does not
own.
Mr. Johnson also expressed concern regarding Condition No. 8 as a condition of
approval. He said that Costco informed staff that they would work cooperatively
with Home Depot and the City by offering to install cart corrals while Costco
contractors are on the site. He said he objected to making the installation a
condition of approval for Costco’s proposal as Costco does not own the land.
Mr. Johnson stated that he believes Condition No. 9, referencing violations and
fines, is a provision of the Zoning Ordinance, and is unnecessary as a condition
of approval.
Roger Barrons, Faegre and Benson, representing Costco, commented that
Costco’s application shouldn’t be held up because of Home Depot’s outstanding
issues. Mr. Barrons stated that suggested traffic improvements involving Areas 3
and 4 are not on Costco property, and therefore Costco cannot build on the
property.
Ms. Jeremiah said the concerns have been discussed with the City attorney. The
City attorney feels that the City does have good standing in this case based upon
the site as an overall PUD as well as the property owner agreements to share
parking, access to one another’s sites, and to operate as one entity. Ms. Jeremiah
added that Condition No. 6 regarding overall PUD compliance is a condition to
which Costco has already agreed in approvals for the warehouse. The only
change is the addition regarding traffic improvements and signage.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that some of the traffic issues on the site were the result of
changes Costco made with the warehouse facility by limiting access to that
property and through the site. She gave details about an additional access on 16th
Street that Costco requested be removed, resulting in traffic concentrating onto
the remaining internal circulation drive. Ms. Jeremiah added that as part of the
hearing process Costco stated that approximately 70% of the trips to the fueling
facility would be between the warehouse facility and the fueling facility,
impacting the remaining internal circulation drive known as Gamble Drive
extended. Ms. Jeremiah stated that staff feels the traffic issues along the entire
79
Gamble Drive extended are very relevant to the application. She said that staff is
willing to facilitate discussions with other property owners and has already begun
to work with the other property owners to resolve conditions of approval.
Chair Velick asked for clarification on the parking limit. She asked why Lot 9
was chosen over Lot 8.
Ms. Jeremiah said it was Costco’s decision to utilize Lot 9. Staff had asked
Costco to look more closely at trying to have the fueling facility on the warehouse
facility lot or on the overflow parking lot on Lot 8. Costco feels that they need
all the parking that is shown, although that is far in excess of the City’s
requirements. Ms. Jeremiah described the requirements, including those for proof
of parking.
Mr. Johnson talked about a series of site plans which had been developed,
including plans for Lot 8. He said the remaining parking available for the Costco
store on Lot 8 was well under what Costco requires. Mr. Johnson said typically
he plans 750 parking spaces when developing Costco site plans. He explained
that it takes 3-5 years for a store to become seasoned and all parking would be
utilized at that point.
Commissioner Garelick said he approved of SRF’s recommendations. He stated
that the Planning Commission’s concern was not solely with traffic conditions,
but also to determine if the facility was the highest and best use for the site. Mr.
Garelick said that he doesn’t believe an off-site members-only fueling facility
supplements the area.
Commissioner Robertson commented that there is a better opportunity, although it
reduces parking spaces, of having a fueling facility contiguous with the
warehouse. He stated that Costco has chosen to go across the site that already
has traffic problems. He went on to say that SRF has come up with good
solutions which would improve the site. Mr. Robertson said there is still the
question of the highest and best use. He remarked that regardless of who is
responsible for correcting problems, as long as the issues exist the Planning
Commission has a problem with the facility.
Commissioner Gothberg commented that many of the remarks convey an overall
disappointment with the site. He commented on the original concept of the site
which included a bank and a variety of retail. He expressed concern about
whether the fueling facility is the best use and direction for the property.
Commissioner Gothberg said his major concern regards traffic and said he would
have a difficult time approving any kind of further development on the site
without evidence of traffic improvement or traffic improvements as a condition of
approval.
80
Mr. Garelick moved that the Commission not accept the recommendation of
approval based on 1) the proposal not being the highest and best use (compared to
the original PUD approval for the site); and 2) that any future development on the
site should be tied to a correction of traffic problems (per the required PUD
findings for unified development with efficient circulation). The motion passed
on a vote of 4-0 with Commissioners Garelick, Gothberg, Robertson and Velick
voting in favor.
81
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 7f
Meeting of August 20, 2001
7f. The request of Evan Johnson (Thermetic Products Inc.) for a Comprehensive
Plan amendment from Medium Density Residential to Commercial and a
rezoning from R4 to C2 for the property located at 1409 and 1413 Colorado
Avenue South.
Case No. 01-37-CP and 01-38-Z
Recommended
Action:
• Motion to adopt a resolution approving a Comprehensive
Plan amendment subject to approval by the Metropolitan
Council, approve summary and authorize publication.
• Motion to approve first reading of rezoning ordinance and set
second reading for September 4, subject to approval of the
Comprehensive Plan amendment by the Metropolitan
Council.
Background:
On January 17, 1995, the City Council approved a Comprehensive Plan amendment changing the
designation of the two adjacent properties to the north, 1401 and 1405 Colorado, from High
Density Residential to Commercial. The Planning Commission reviewed that case on December
7, 1994, and recommended approval based on a finding that adverse impacts would be
minimized due to the size of the parcels.
On March 6, 1995, the City Council approved a rezoning of the two adjacent properties to the
north, 1401 and 1405 Colorado, from R4-Multiple Family Residential to C2-General
Commercial. The Planning Commission reviewed that case on February 1, 1995, and
recommended approval based on the earlier Comprehensive Plan amendment.
In 1998, Evan Johnson combined the lots at 1401 and 1405 Colorado and added onto the north
side of the existing building to accommodate his business expansion. In April of 2001, the
single-family dwelling units located on the subject properties, 1409 and 1413 Colorado, were
demolished.
Evan Johnson is requesting the Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezoning of 1409 and 1413
Colorado to accommodate a second building expansion.
On August 3, 2001, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and considered the
Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezoning requests. No one was present from the public.
The Planning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the rezoning and amendment to
the Comprehensive Plan.
Existing Conditions
82
Both of the subject properties, 1409 and 1413 Colorado, are vacant and have lot dimensions of
50 feet in width by 126 feet in length. As explained above, the adjacent properties to the north
are zoned C2 as well as the Westside Office Park property to the east. The abutting property to
the south and the property across the street to the west is zoned R4-Multiple Family Residential.
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 the applicant sold the property?
Are the Zoning Ordinance requirements being satisfied?
How does the development impact the proximate residential properties?
Issues Analysis:
What change or changing condition makes the Comprehensive Plan amendment and
rezoning necessary?
The Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezoning is desirable because of the redesignation and
rezoning of the adjacent parcels to the north from High Density Residential to Commercial. This
change in land use limits the redevelopment potential of the remaining two lots on this block; the
lots are undersized at 50 feet in width. A Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezoning will
enable a more unified development than if the properties on this block had a split zoning.
What is the expected effect of the Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezoning?
The Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezoning to Commercial are necessary steps to enable
the applicant to expand his Thermetic Products business. Assuming the future building
expansion will cross existing platted property lines, the applicant will also need to replat the
property in accordance with the new Subdivision Ordinance. The current building is 3,800
square feet in size. A building expansion would enable the applicant to increase the number of
employees from 20 to 35.
What other uses would be permitted if the applicant sold the property?
The following uses are permitted by right in the Commercial District: park and open space,
police and fire stations, post offices, business and trade schools, medical and dental offices,
funeral homes, libraries, museums, banks, offices, retail shops, service facilities, studios, show
rooms, parking lots, transit stations, and time transfer stations.
The following uses are permitted with conditions but do not need a public hearing: adult day
care; group day care or nursery schools; dry cleaning; park/recreation; public service structures;
utility substations; animal handling; appliance, small engine, and bicycle repair; clubs without
liquor license; convention halls; food service; hotel/motel; in-vehicle sales or service; medical,
optical and dental laboratories; outdoor sales (display); printing process facilities; shopping
center; communication towers; parking lots and parking ramps as an exclusive principal land
83
use; limited and high impact sexually-oriented businesses (the site does not meet the minimum
setback from residential for these uses), and education.
The following uses would need City Council approval through a public hearing process in the
Commercial zoning district: motor fuel stations, motor vehicle sales and repair, restaurants with
liquor licenses, multiple family housing, and elderly housing.
Are the Zoning Ordinance requirements being satisfied?
Thermetic Products makes small electronic equipment for computers. Fifty percent of the
existing building is used for office space for the business while 30% of the building is used for
small assembly and 10% used for warehouse. Office is a permitted principal use in the C2 zoning
district while incidental processing and warehousing are permitted accessory uses if they do not
exceed 40% of the building’s floor area. The applicant has noted that the business expansion
would consist of the same ratios of the existing operations.
How does the development impact the proximate residential properties?
The existing site design poses minimal impacts to the apartments to the west and south of the
subject property. The site design of Thermetic Products is optimal with regard to the residential
apartment across Colorado Avenue. The parking lot is located behind the building providing a
more aesthetic view from the apartment and public roadway. Moreover, the combination of the
existing vegetation on the south side of the subject property and the access drive to the
apartments to the south provide an effective buffer for the apartments south of the property.
Any future expansion of the building would have to meet setback and bufferyard requirements
from the residential property to the south.
Recommendation:
Motion to adopt a resolution amending the Comprehensive Plan reguiding property the
properties located at 1409 and 1413 Colorado Avenue South from High Density Residential to
Commercial subject to the Comprehensive Plan amendment is approved by the Metropolitan
Council.
Motion to approve First Reading of a Zoning Ordinance amendment rezoning the properties
located at 1409 and 1413 Colorado Avenue South from R4 – Multi-Family Residential to C2 –
General Commercial subject to approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment by the
Metropolitan Council.
Attachment: Location Map
Zoning Map
Proposed Resolution, Summary Resolution
Proposed Ordinance
Prepared by: Patrick Smith, Planner
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
84
RESOLUTION NO. 01-081
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
1409 and 1413 COLORADO AVENUE SOUTH
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
85
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of St. Louis Park recommended
adoption of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan 2000-2020 on August 1, 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 1409 and 1413 Colorado Ave. S. (Lots 7 and 8, Block
4, John A. Johnsons Addition) from Medium Density Residential to Commercial
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council August 20, 2001
Contingent upon approval of the Metropolitan
Council
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
01-37-CP:n\res-ord
86
SUMMARY
RESOLUTION NO. 01-081
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
1409 and 1413 COLORADO AVENUE SOUTH
This resolution states that the land use designation of 1409 and 1413 Colorado Avenue South
shall be changed from Medium-Density Residential to Commercial.
This resolution shall take effect upon its publication.
Adopted by the City Council August 20, 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 29, 2001
01-37-CP-sum
87
ORDINANCE NO.__________
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE
CHANGING BOUNDARIES OF ZONING DISTRICTS
1409 and 1413 COLORADO 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:
Lots 7 and 8, Block 4, John A. Johnsons Addition
from R4 Multi-Family Residential to C-2 General Commercial.
Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect upon Metropolitan Council approval of
associated Comprehensive Plan amendment.
Adopted by the City Council September 4, 2001
Reviewed for Administration
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
88
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
August 20, 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 approve extension of Frauenshuh’s Final PUD and Final Plat
consideration until November 30, 2001 – Case No. 99-19-PUD
2. Motion to adopt second reading of the ordinance amendments, approve summary
ordinance, authorize 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, make the Certificate of Occupancy section of the
Zoning Ordinance consistent with the recodification of the City Ordinance Code,
and adopt a fee schedule for sheds.
3. Motion to approve second reading of rezoning ordinance subject to approval of
the Comprehensive Plan amendment by the Metropolitan Council, approve
summary ordinance, and authorize publication.
4. Motion to authorize the City Manager to execute a new contract for 2001-2002
North Hennepin Mediation Program Inc. for mediation, conciliation, information
and referral, and public education services for the remainder of 2001 and all 2002.
5. Motion to approve an application for Temporary On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor
License - Holy Family Fall Festival, September 15 & 16, 2001, 5900 West Lake
Street, St. Louis Park.
6. Motion to adopt a resolution approving Temporary Parking Restrictions for the
Holy Family Fall Festival – Lake Street between Zarthan and Alabama Avenues
September 15 and 16, 2001.
7. Motion to adopt resolutions recognizing Eileen Baron and Darryl Sundberg for
their many years of dedicated service to the City of St. Louis Park.
8. Bid Tabulation: Motion to designate Kovatch Mobile Equipment Corporation as
the lowest responsible bidder for one (1) Mini-Pumper for Rescue/Fire
Suppression and to authorize execution of a purchase agreement in the amount of
$130,565.00.
9. Bid Tabulation: Motion to designate Ron Kassa Construction as the lowest
responsible bidder and authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the
89
amount of $48,349.50 for alley paving – 2700 block Brunswick Avenue and the
C.P. Railroad tracks. – Project No. 01-18
10. Motion to accept the following reports for filing:
a. Planning Commission Minutes of August 1, 2001
b. Housing Authority Minutes of July 11, 2001
c. Vendor Claims
d. Human Rights Commission Minutes of July 18, 2001
e. Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes of May 16, 2001
90
City of St. Louis Park
Consent Item # 1
Meeting of August 20, 2001
1. Motion to approve extension of Frauenshuh’s Final PUD and Final Plat
consideration until November 30, 2001 – Case No. 99-19-PUD
Background:
On August 2, 1999, the City Council approved a Preliminary PUD and Plat for Frauenshuh to
construct a 3-story, 60,000 square feet medical office building on the site with a future 7,000
square feet restaurant. Due to financial difficulties stemming from the need to move an existing
billboard and correct soils on the site, the developer also requested tax abatement from the City,
County and School District. The tax abatement was approved for the medical office proposal, in
part due to the public purpose of retaining local doctors in St. Louis Park.
On September 15, 1999, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Final PUD and
Plat for the medical office proposal. Subsequently, many of the doctors who were expected to
relocate to this site were told that they could remain in their existing leased space on the
Methodist Hospital site. Some of the doctors were still interested in relocating and Frauenshuh
continued to market the site for medical office. However, they did not have enough medical
office space committed to feel comfortable moving forward with the 60,000 square feet medical
office building.
During the July 9, 2001 Study Session, staff and Frauenshuh updated the Council on the status of
Frauenshuh’s plans. So far, they have requested and received five extensions for consideration
of their Final PUD, and the most recent extension expires this month.
Frauenshuh will be providing another update to the Council on August 27, 2001. However, the
planning approval will expire unless the Council acts at this meeting.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends extending consideration of the Final PUD and Plat until November 30, 2001
to allow additional time to work with Frauenshuh and/or market the site and update the Council.
Attachments:
Letter from Frauenshuh
Prepared by: Janet Jeremiah, Planning & Zoning Supervisor
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
91
CONSENT ITEM # 2
St. Louis Park City Council
Meeting of August 20, 2001
2. Motion to adopt second reading of 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, make the Certificate of Occupancy
section of the Zoning Ordinance consistent with the recodification of the City
Ordinance Code, and adopt a fee schedule for sheds.
Background:
On August 6, 2001, the City Council passed first reading of the proposed miscellaneous Zoning
Ordinance text amendments. No other questions or concerns were raised regarding the proposed
changes and Council passed 1st reading on a vote of 7-0.
With the shed requirements being relocated into the Zoning Ordinance, a new fee needed to be
established for the permit. A cost analysis showed that on average, the normal building permit
fee for sheds range 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 proposed amendments will become effective 15 days after the date of its publication, except
for section 14:8-2 (Certificate of Occupancy) which will be effective on September 1, 2002 or
upon the effective date of the recodification of the City Ordinance Code, whichever occurs first.
Recommendation:
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend that the Council adopts second reading of the
Zoning Ordinance text amendments for relocating the requirements for shed permits, requiring a
time frame for the installation of driveways and landscaping, and make the Certificate of
Occupancy section consistent with the recodified City Ordinance Code, approve summary
ordinance, and authorize publication. Staff further recommends adoption of the fee resolution
for shed permits.
Attachments: Proposed Ordinance
Proposed Summary Ordinance
Proposed Fee Resolution
Prepared by: Scott Moore, Assistant Zoning Administrator, 952-925-2592
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
92
ORDINANCE NO. 2202-01
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 or be renumbered 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.
In areas where parking spaces are used on an average of two or fewer days per
week, grass road pavers, Ritter rings or other such pavers may be used which
permit the growth of ground covers and the infiltration of surface water. Such
previous paving material shall be approved by the Director of Public Works.”
Section 14:6-4.8(C)(3) – Installation Requirements
93
“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.”
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
94
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
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, except
for Section 14:8-2 (Certificate of Occupancy) which will be effective on September 1,
2002 or upon the effective date of the recodification of the City Ordinance Code,
whichever occurs first.
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
95
SUMMARY
ORDINANCE NO. 2202-01
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
This ordinance states that the Zoning Ordinance shall be amended relative to the following: to
relocate the permit requirements and add some flexibility for the construction of sheds 120
square feet or less, 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.
This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication, except for Section 14:8-2 (Certificate
of Occupancy) which will be effective on September 1, 2002 or upon the effective date of the
recodification of the City Ordinance Code, whichever occurs first.
Adopted by the City Council August 20, 2001
Jeffrey W. Jacobs /s/
Mayor
A copy of the full text of this ordinance is available for inspection with the City Clerk.
Published in St. Louis Park Sailor: August 29, 2001
01-33-ZA-sum:N/res-ord
96
RESOLUTION NO. 01-075
AMENDMENT TO CITY’S FEE RESOLUTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIVITIES
RELATED TO PLANNING AND ZONING TO ESTABLISH A FEE FOR
SHED PERMITS
WHEREAS, various section of the City Code authorize the City Council to establish fees
for specified administrative procedures, and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2202-01 relocating permit
requirements for sheds 120 square feet or less to the Zoning Ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT pursuant to Section 14:5-4.1(C)(7)
and other Sections as may be applicable, the following fee for permits for sheds 120 square feet
or less is hereby established:
ACTIVITY FEE
Shed permit fee $25.00
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council August 20, 2001
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
97
CONSENT ITEM # 3
St. Louis Park City Council
Meeting of August 20, 2001
3. Motion to approve second reading of rezoning ordinance for Excel Energy
substations subject to approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment by the
Metropolitan Council, approve summary ordinance, and authorize publication.
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
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
98
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.
On August 6, 2001, the City Council voted 7-0 to approve the Comprehensive Plan amendment
and the first reading of the rezoning of the subject property from R2 – Single Family Residential
to IP – Industrial Park.
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. Roughly 25 residents attended the
meeting.
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,
a 20’x40’ control building is proposed. The applicant will need to submit building elevations
with the Conditional Use Permit review.
99
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
impact sexually-oriented businesses (the site does not meet the minimum setback from
residential for this use), medical laboratories, and catering uses.
100
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 (70 feet by Code).
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
101
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 an ordinance 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. The ordinance would not become effective until Metropolitan Council
approval is obtained.
Attachments:
• Zoning Map
• Rezoning ordinance
• Summary ordinance
Prepared by: Patrick Smith, Planner
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
102
SUMMARY
ORDINANCE NO. 2203-01
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE
ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE
CHANGING BOUNDARIES OF ZONING DISTRICTS
2201 EDGEWOOD AVENUE SOUTH
This ordinance states that the zoning for the northern portion of the property located at 2201
Edgewood Avenue South shall be changed from R-2 Single Family Residential to I-P Industrial
Park.
This ordinance shall take effect upon approval by the Metropolitan Council of a related
Comprehensive Plan amendment.
Adopted by the City Council August 20, 2001
Jeffrey W. Jacobs /s/
Mayor
A copy of the full text of this ordinance is available for inspection with the City Clerk.
Published in St. Louis Park Sailor: August 29, 2001
01-32-Z-sum:N\res-ord
103
ORDINANCE NO. 2203-01
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.
Approximately the northern 135 feet of the parcel from R-2 Single Family Residential to I-P
Industrial Park.
Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect upon approval by the Metropolitan
Council of a Comprehensive Plan amendment reguiding approximately the northern 135 feet of
the subject parcel from Low-Density Residential to Industrial.
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
01-32-Z:N/res
104
CONSENT ITEM # 4
St. Louis Park City Council
Meeting of August 20, 2001
4. Motion to authorize the City Manager to execute a new contract for 2001-2002
North Hennepin Mediation Program Inc. for mediation, conciliation, information
and referral, and public education services for the remainder of 2001 and all
2002.
Background
The city was informed earlier this year that the previous provider of mediation services, West
Suburban Mediation Center, would be ceasing operations due to a lack of funding. While an
annual contract for services had been signed with West Suburban, they were only paid for the
months in which service was provided. North Hennepin Mediation Program, Inc. was able to
immediately take over offering services in our city. They are now requesting funding at the
same level as provided to the City’s previous contractor. The request, which is supported by
City staff, is $1,900 for the remainder of 2001 and $3,900 for the entirety of 2002. North
Hennepin Mediation Program offers similar, if not better, services as the previous provider.
New Provider History
Since 1983, North Hennepin Mediation Program Inc.(NHMP) has been offering high quality
mediation services to the people of North and Northwest Hennepin County. They began by
handling neighborhood issues and quickly expanded to include Conciliation Court and juvenile
first time offenders. They next expanded into the area of post-divorce mediation and family
mediation. In 1995, NHMP began mediating in Hennepin County Housing Court. In 1997 they
began Visitation Expediting for Hennepin County and started a Property Exchange Program. In
1998, NHMP began working with the GAP Runaway Program.
The backbone of the organization continues to be the volunteer mediators. Over 7,000 hours of
volunteer time was donated to the organization in 2000. There are only three paid staff
members, a part time Executive Director, a full time Program Manager and a part time
Community Liaison. North Hennepin Mediation Program’s annual operating budget is
$133,272. Regular program funding comes from the following sources:
Funding Sources
State of Minnesota 34%
Foundations 24%
Hennepin County 17%
Municipalities 11%
Board of Directors 11%
Organizations 2%
105
Fees For Service .7%
Interest .3%
Improved Service Levels
There are a few areas of service that NHMP will be able to provide that were not provided by the
City’s previous contractor. First, NHMP offers a property exchange program whereby a
separated couple under protection restrictions can arrange for the exchange of property without
meeting. This program is a time saver for our City’s police officers, who have in the past spent
unnecessary time dealing with such arrangements. Second, NHMP, as standard procedure,
mediates with two peer volunteer mediators, one of each gender. This allows all parties involved
in the mediation to feel that unbiased assistance is being provided. This system works especially
well in mediating family and post-divorce cases. Thirdly, NHMP provides enhanced follow-up
to prospective service recipients and City staff. In the past, a City staff person or police officer
may have recommended mediation to residents. However, it was not always known if the
residents actually engaged in mediation services. NHMP will take recommendations from City
staff, invite residents to participate, and report back to the City as to whether the residents
engaged or refused their services.
North Hennepin Mediation Program Inc.
Year 2000 Case Statistics
♦ 1,095 cases were opened. 7,800 people were served.
♦ 86% of cases opened resulted in mediation or conciliation.
♦ 90% of voluntary mediated cases resulted in a Settlement Agreement.
♦ 98% of all clients surveyed replied that the process was professional, fair, and helpful and
that they would use it again.
♦ In 95% of mediated cases, parties complied with the Settlement Agreement.
Status of Cases - Year 2000
Mediated/Conciliated 86%
Refused to Mediate 4%
Unable to Contact 4%
Case Pending 3%
Other 3%
Types of Cases
Business 60%
Landlord/Tenant 17%
Post Divorce 11%
Neighbors 5%
Juvenile 4%
Interpersonal 2%
Family 1%
Employer/Employee <1%
Victim Offender* 30%
*Reflected in above numbers.
106
Recommendations
It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached contract to fund the North
Hennepin Mediation Program in the amount of $1,900 for the remainder of 2001 and $3,900 for
2002. North Hennepin Mediation Program and the City Attorney have reviewed this contract.
Attachments: Contract with North Hennepin Mediation Program
Prepared by: Martha McDonell, Community Outreach Coordinator
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
107
AGREEMENT
This AGREEMENT is effective July 1, 2001 between the CITY OF ST. LOUIS
PARK, a Minnesota municipal corporation (“City”), and NORTH HENNEPIN MEDIATION
PROGRAM INC., (hereinafter to as “Mediation Program”), a Minnesota non-profit corporation.
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park recognizes, as reflected in Vision St. Louis Park,
the importance of strong connections to the community, civic commitment, mutual respect, and
neighborliness and strongly supports individuals, neighborhoods, and community institutions
working together to solve problems; and
WHEREAS, mediation services can help resolve disputes or problems within the St.
Louis Park community for neighbors, family members, businesses, employers, employees,
landlords, tenants, juveniles and others; and
WHEREAS, the Mediation Program has organized community based mediation
programs within the Hennepin County suburban area for the purpose of offering neutral,
impartial, results oriented mediation services that focus on serving parties in a dispute and
providing citizens with a quick, accessible and inexpensive forum to resolve their disputes; and
WHEREAS, the City has an interest in supporting the provision of alternative dispute
resolution services for members of the City of St. Louis Park community who are not able to
resolve grievances alone.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED by and between the parties hereto as follows:
A. Term of the Agreement. The term of this Agreement is July 1, 2001 through December 31,
2002, subject to termination as provided in Section G.
B. Services Provided. In consideration of the amount paid by the City, the Mediation Program
shall provide the following services.
1. The Mediation Program will provide free, confidential, voluntary, and speedy mediations,
conciliation, information and referral, and public education to resolve conflicts, disputes and
problems for members of the City of St. Louis Park community in conformance with guidelines
and rules established pursuant to Minnesota statues, Chapter 494 - Community Dispute
Resolution Program.
2. The Mediation Program will send to the City Manager a quarterly report, commencing with
the 2001 3rd quarter report to be provided in September, 2001, summarizing the number and
nature of the activities provided to St. Louis Park community members pursuant to the
agreement.
3. The Mediation Program shall provide services under this agreement without regard to race,
color, creed, religion, national origin, gender, martial status, familial status, sexual orientation,
age or status with regard to public assistance or disability.
108
C. Eligibility. St. Louis Park community members eligible for the services are those persons
with a conflict or dispute appropriate for mediation and not excluded under Minnesota Statues
Chapter 494-03 or other guidelines and rules promulgated by the State Court.
D. Indemnification. The Mediation Program agrees to indemnify and keep indemnified and
defend, hold and save City harmless from and against any all actions or cause of which City shall
or may at any time sustain, precipitate or incur arising out of or in relation to the conduct of
Mediation Program or employees, agents, volunteers or servants of Mediation Program acting
within the scope of and in connection with the Mediation Program.
E. Non-Assignability. This agreement is personal to the parties specified herein and may not be
transferred or assigned by either party hereto.
F. Insurance. The Mediation Program shall carry and keep in force insurance, including
workers compensation insurance, and any other coverage required by applicable statutes. Said
insurance policies shall be from an insurance company licensed to do business in Minnesota.
G. Termination.
1. Prior to the expiration of December 31, 2002, either party for any reason upon the giving of
thirty- (30) days written notice may terminate the agreement.
2. If the agreement is terminated before expiration pursuant to this section, the Mediation
Program will be paid a pro-rata portion of the total compensation based upon the number of days
in the contract period prior to contract termination.
3. The City reserves the right to cancel this Agreement at any time in event of default or
violation by the Mediation Program of any provision of this Agreement. The City may take
whatever action at law or in equity that may appear necessary or desirable to collect damages
arising from a default or violation to enforce performance of this agreement.
H. Consideration. For the performance of the services described in this document, the City
agrees to pay the Mediation Program one thousand nine hundred dollars for services through
December 31, 2001 and three thousand nine hundred dollars for services from January 1,
2002 through December 31, 2002.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused the execution of this Agreement on their
behalf by their duly authorized representatives.
109
2001 Agreement - City & Mediation Program
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK NORTH HENNEPIN MEDIATION
BY:______________________________ BY:______________________________
Its City Manager Its Executive Director
BY:______________________________
Its Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
110
CONSENT ITEM # 5
St. Louis Park City Council
Meeting of August 20, 2001
5. Motion to approve an application for Temporary On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor
License - Holy Family Fall Festival, September 15 & 16, 2001, 5900 West Lake
Street, St. Louis Park.
Background:
The Holy Family Fall Festival is an annual event sponsored by the Holy Family Church, at 5900
West Lake Street. Staff has administratively approved all required permits for the event, with
the exception of the Liquor License which must be approved by Council.
In the past, Holy Family has requested a temporary on-sale liquor license for non-intoxicating
liquor (3.2 beer) only. In 2000 they added the service of wine to their Saturday night dinner and
would like to do the same this year.
Police Investigation
The principals were investigated and no record or warrants were found.
Prepared by: Cynthia D. Reichert, City Clerk
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
111
CONSENT ITEM # 6
St. Louis Park City Council
Meeting of August 20, 2001
6. Motion to adopt a resolution approving Temporary Parking Restrictions for
the Holy Family Fall Festival – Lake street between Zarthan and Alabama
Avenues September 15 and 16, 2001.
Background:
The Holy Family Church will conduct its annual fall festival on September 15th and 16th and has
applied for a temporary parking restriction on Lake Street between Zarthan and Alabama
Avenues. The Festival is an annual event sponsored by the Holy Family Church, at 5900 West
Lake Street.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Cindy Reichert, City Clerk
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
112
RESOLUTION NO. 01-076
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING TEMPORARY PARKING
RESTRICTIONS ALONG LAKE STREET BETWEEN ZARTHAN AND
ALABAMA AVENUES DURING THE HOLY FAMILY FALL FESTIVAL
BE IT RESOLVED by the City of St. Louis Park City Council that the Director of Public Works
is hereby authorized to install the following controls:
To restrict parking along both sides of Lake Street between Zarthan and
Alabama Avenues on September 15th and 16th, 2001
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council August 20, 2001
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
113
CONSENT ITEM # 7
RESOLUTION NO. 01-074
RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING EILEEN BARON
FOR 26 YEARS OF DEDICATED SERVICE
TO THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
WHEREAS, Eileen began her employment with the City of St. Louis Park in
1975. She originally began as a permit clerk and is now the department secretary in
Inspections, and;
WHEREAS, she has participated as the chair of the Credit Union Committee for
fifteen years and is a member of the Employee Recognition Committee,
and;
WHEREAS, she is admired by her peers for her customer service skills and
professionalism, and;
WHEREAS, Eileen is very active in her home community of St. Louis Park where
she in on the Board of Trustees at her synagogue, the co-chair of the Adult Education, a
tutor through Children First, as well as making the holidays more enjoyable to the elderly
by serving meals, and;
WHEREAS, she has made many friends with city staff and members within the
community. She will be greatly missed by all, and
NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved that the City Council of St. Louis Park wishes
Eileen the best in her retirement and to thank her for her years of service to the city and
the community.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council August 20, 2001
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
114
CONSENT ITEM # 7
RESOLUTION NO. 01-073
RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING DARRYL SUNDBERG FOR
29 YEARS OF DEDICATED AND ACCOMPLISHED
SERVICE TO THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
FIRE DEPARTMENT
WHEREAS, Darryl Sundberg began his employment with the City of St. Louis
Park as a Firefighter in January of 1972. He was promoted to Fire Lieutenant and then to
Battalion Chief, a position he has held for the last three and a half years, and;
WHEREAS, Darryl was on the Fire Department’s steering committee which
resulted in fundamental changes to the structure and mission of the department. He
served on the St. Louis Park Fire Relief Association and was instrumental in it’s
consolidation into PERA, and;
WHEREAS, Darryl has been responsible for all Fire Department apparatus and
equipment, and has worked diligently to initiate changes to reflect the Fire Department’s
changing mission and stewardship, and;
WHEREAS, Darryl has shown great pride and commitment in his career as a
Firefighter and is known for the standards by which he conducts himself as well as those
he applies to the job,
NOW THEREFORE, let it be known, that the City Council of St. Louis Park
would like to thank Darryl Sundberg for his great contributions and dedicated service to
the St. Louis Park Fire Department and the community and wish him the best in his
retirement.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council August 20, 2001
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
115
CONSENT ITEM # 8
St. Louis Park City Council
Meeting of August 20, 2001
8. Bid Tabulation: Motion to designate Kovatch Mobile Equipment Corporation as
the lowest responsible bidder for one (1) Mini-Pumper for Rescue/Fire
Suppression and to authorize execution of a purchase agreement in the amount
of $130,565.00.
Background: Bids were received on August 8, 2001 for the purchase of one (1) Mini-Pumper
designed specifically for rescue/fire suppression as provided in the 2001 Equipment
Replacement Plan. An advertisement for bids was published in the St. Louis Park Sun-Sailor on
July 11, and 18, 2001. Bid packages were issued to a number of vendors nationally. A summary
of the bid results is as follows:
Vendor Net Purchase Price
Kovatch Mobile Equipment Corporation (KME) $ 130,565.00
Estimated Cost $ 118,450.00
Evaluation of Bids: One (1) company submitted a bid. A review of the bid indicates Kovatch
Mobile Equipment Corporation (KME) met all specifications with no exceptions. KME has
constructed a similar Mini-Pumper for St. Louis Park in 2000. This vehicle has performed
satisfactorily. KME also has satisfactorily constructed a number of similar Fire Apparatus trucks
nationally and in surrounding communities. Staff has determined that KME submitted the lowest
responsible bid and recommends a contract be awarded to the firm in the amount of $130,565.00.
Financial Considerations: Council authorized purchase of this unit in 2000 through adoption
of the 2001 Equipment Replacement Plan. The Equipment Replacement Fund pays for the
purchase of this Mini-Pumper Fire Apparatus for Rescue/Fire Suppression. The net purchase
price reflects a gross bid price of $129,990.00 plus the Option 2 price of $575.00 for a total net
purchase price of $130,565.00. Option 2 is for brackets designed to hold self contained
breathing apparatus bottles on the rear seat.
Prepared By: Harlan Backlund, Public Works
Reviewed by: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
116
CONSENT ITEM # 9
St. Louis Park City Council
Meeting of August 20, 2001
9. Bid Tabulation: Motion to designate Ron Kassa Construction as the lowest
responsible bidder and authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the
amount of $48,349.50 for alley paving – 2700 block Brunswick Avenue and the
C.P. Railroad tracks. – Project No. 01-18
Background: Bids were received on August 9, 2001 for the construction of a concrete alley in
the 2700 block Brunswick Avenue and the C.P. Railroad tracks - Project No. 01-18.
Advertisement for bids were published in the St. Louis Park Sun-Sailor on Judy 25, and August
1, 2001 and in the Construction Bulletin on Judy 27, and August 3, 2001. Following is a
summary of the bid results:
Bidder Bid Amount
Ron Kassa Construction $ 48,349.50
Jay Brothers $ 48,770.00
O”Malley Construction, Inc. $ 59,692.50
Nadeau Utility, Inc. $ 83,397.70
Engineer’s Estimate $ 61,000.00
Evaluation of Bids: A total of four (4) contractors submitted bids. A review of the bids
indicates Ron Kassa Construction submitted the lowest bid. Ron Kassa Construction has
satisfactorily completed a number of projects for the City. Staff has determined that Ron Kassa
Construction submitted the lowest responsible bid and recommends a contract be awarded to the
firm in the amount of $48,349.50.
Financial Considerations: The proposed alley paving project is to be funded entirely through
special assessments. No other funds are proposed to be utilized on this project.
Contingent Award: The proposed project is to be assessed 100% to the benefiting property
owners. Property owners have 30 days to file an appeal of the proposed special assessment from
the date of the assessment hearing. The assessment hearing was held on July 2, 2001. Thus the
30 day appeal period expired on August 2, 2001.
Prepared by: Maria Hagen, City Engineer
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
117
CONSENT ITEM # 10a
OFFICIAL MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
AUGUST 1, 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: Judie Erickson, 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 July 11, 2001
Commissioner Morris moved approval of the minutes and the motion passed on a vote of
5-0 with Commissioners Garelick, Gothberg, Morris, Robertson, and Velick voting in
favor. (Commissioner Bissonnette arrived at 6:03 p.m.)
3. Hearings
A. Case Nos. 01-34-Z, 01-35-S, 01-36-VAR - The request of the Jewish Community
Center for zoning classification change at 4330 South Cedar Lake Road from R-4
Multi-Family Residential to R-1 Single Family Residential, Preliminary Plat and
variances to permit the expansion of a parking lot in association with a proposed
building expansion.
Mr. Smith presented a staff report. Mr. Smith noted the addition of item 2e. to the
conditions of preliminary plat approval requiring the applicant to receive Watershed
District approval.
Commissioner Gothberg asked if the facility remained in the R-4 District if the
height variance would be four feet rather than fourteen feet. Mr. Smith responded
that was correct.
Commissioner Gothberg asked who would be responsible for the cost of a traffic
signal if that should become necessary. Mr. Smith said he thought the applicant was
usually responsible for those costs.
Commissioner Bissonnette asked for details regarding the proposed traffic
circulation getting up to the addition.
118
Mr. Smith reviewed circulation for dropping off students at the classroom addition.
Chair Velick asked if the turnaround has been checked by the Police and Fire
departments. Mr. Smith responded that the Fire Dept. has approved the turnaround
radius.
Chair Velick opened the public hearing.
Douglas Kline, 1509 Alpine Pass, Golden Valley, president of the South Tyrol Hills
Neighborhood Association, outlined four major concerns of the association. A letter
outlining these concerns was distributed to commissioners. The concerns are
adverse effects of the building height variance, the new driveway on the north side
of the building, emergency vehicle access, and the desire for a land conservation
easement along the Cedar Lake Trail.
Mr. Kline stated that adverse effects of the building height variance would impair the
supply of light, endanger public safety, diminish property values, create an adverse
impact on the character of the neighborhood, and increase air, noise and light
pollution.
Mr. Kline commented on the proposed turnaround driveway on the north side of the
building. He noted concerns regarding run-off and water quality and steps the JCC
will take with the Watershed District. Mr. Kline mentioned tree removal
eliminating much of the natural green buffer occurring between the JCC and the
adjacent residential properties. He said residents want to know more about plans
for landscaping. Mr. Kline remarked on the idling of vehicles resulting in noise
and air pollution. He mentioned concerns about nuisance crimes and asked if the
JCC has plans to strengthen security, other than more intrusive lighting. Mr. Kline
asked that the JCC lessen negative impacts to the neighborhood by designing the
new driveway as a one-way ring road rather than a turnaround. He asked that a
detailed landscaping plan in compliance with City ordinances be provided. Mr.
Kline suggested that guidelines and restrictions on idling by buses and cars be
developed.
Mr. Kline said the association would like to see a better plan for providing
emergency vehicle access. He stated that the association opposes any JCC
development which would cause emergency vehicle access paths to be rerouted
through neighboring residential properties in Golden Valley. He added that the
association is opposed to any plan that would require changes in the status of vacated
portions of any roads in Golden Valley contiguous to the JCC property.
In regards to the undeveloped, wooded parcel of land, Mr. Kline remarked that the
association asks that the JCC enter into a conservation easement requiring that the
parcel be maintained as a permanent naturally wooded buffer.
119
Russ Moen, 4325 Douglas Ave., Golden Valley, stated that he represents the four
neighbors most directly effected by the proposed expansion. A letter stating their
concerns was distributed to the Planning Commission. Mr. Moen said all four
neighbors have been or are currently members of the Jewish Community Center.
He stated that the neighbors are sympathetic to the needs of the JCC but they request
that the height variance be denied.
Mr. Moen said the proposed addition would be less than 200 feet from the nearest
residence. He stated that the turnaround would be very close to the residential
properties. Mr. Moen stated that the addition would exceed the height of most of
the existing building, the construction would be much closer to single family homes
and would cover a wider area than the auditorium, privacy would be reduced, a
minor entrance at the back of the building would become a major entrance, idling
vehicles would create air pollution, security would be compromised and property
values would be reduced.
Ruth Jones, 2928 Dean Parkway, Minneapolis, spoke on behalf of the Cedar Lake
Park Association. She commented that millions of dollars were required for the
acquisition of the land for the trail, and thousands of dollars, including many private
donations, subsequently led to the completion of the trail. She stated that a
conservation easement is essential. Ms. Jones noted concern regarding pollution
due to idling engines. She commented on tree removal and stated that trees are one
of the best cleaners of air, and at a minimum it should be required that trees be
replaced on a one-on-one basis. Ms. Dean said granting a variance along the Cedar
Lake trail would set a very damaging precedent for trails. She said she believed the
proposed construction would be visible from the trail. She said it was essential that
the City and applicant are in conformance with all Watershed District requirements.
Ms. Jones added that the Cedar Lake Park Association believes the South Tyrol
Neighborhood Association is doing an excellent job on behalf of everyone.
Bob Provost, 1429 S. Tyrol Trail, Golden Valley, a 39-year resident, reported that
when the Cedar Trails housing project was developed the original proposal was for
three stories. The cities of Golden Valley and St. Louis Park determined that it
should be only two stories. Mr. Provost stated that precedent is significant and
should be reviewed relative to the JCC’s proposal.
John Rossman, 10400 Viking Drive, Eden Prairie, spoke on behalf of his mother
Marie Rossman who resides at 4345 Douglas Ave. He outlined the three step test
set by state statute to determine if a variance request can demonstrate undue
hardship. He stated that he did not feel the applicant could meet that test.
Regarding down zoning, Mr. Rossman said the Minnesota Supreme Court standard
states that the burden is on the property owner to show either a mistake in the
original zoning or that the character of the neighborhood is changed to such an
extent that no reasonable use can be made of the property in its current zoning
classification. He said he did not believe the owner has been able to justify the
rezoning.
120
Herb Margolis, Seneca Group, consultant for the JCC, said a neighborhood meeting
was held on June 28 where many of the same questions were answered. He stated
the down zoning was done to accommodate the neighborhood. He said the
applicant is in compliance with all landscaping ordinances and they are trying to
accommodate all parties. Mr. Margolis explained that the JCC is also willing to
plant trees on the yards of the four most impacted neighbors.
Mr. Margolis remarked that at the request of neighbors, the JCC agreed to change
the building material from metal to stucco. He stated that he doesn’t believe there
will be a huge increase in people or traffic. Mr. Margolis said that traffic has been
studied extensively to minimize impact on neighbors.
Jeffrey Schachtman, JCC Executive Director, said he desired to clarify traffic issues.
He explained that there is only one entrance and egress from the property. He went
on to say they would never propose any exit or entrance on the eastern edge of the
property or through the Golden Valley neighborhood. Mr. Schachtman commented
on the JCC’s existing security system.
Mr. Schachtman said traffic has been studied in great detail. He said the JCC
believes the proposed plan will decrease the idling time significantly and will allow
traffic to enter in a more efficient way.
Mr. Schachtman said the project has been studied for over five years and many
options have been looked at. He explained that the site has several limitations. He
stated that the JCC tries to address all concerns of neighbors and he believes its
record on this stands for itself.
Mr. Margolis spoke about lighting. He said lighting is now manufactured with
shading to stop light at the property line.
Mr. Margolis said he didn’t think a traffic signal would be necessary and he hoped
that all parties would wait to decide on this.
Commissioner Garelick commented that the JCC and its proposed expansion is a
plus for the community. He said he did not believe the expansion would have an
adverse affect on property values.
Commissioner Robertson said his quick calculations do not indicate that a southern
sun, even at the lowest point in the winter, could cast shadows reaching the adjacent
properties. He commented on the tree buffer. He said that he uses the trail a great
deal and he does not believe the addition would be visible over the existing building.
He stated that watershed issues are taken very seriously by the city.
Commissioner Robertson went on to say that if the JCC was not able to get a 3-story
building at that site and they desired the same square footage, they could build larger
121
further to the north, and that could impact neighboring properties. He said he
believes the JCC has taken great efforts to do an architecturally interesting building.
Commissioner Morris asked if the height of the structure includes rooftop
equipment.
Mr. Smith responded that the 45 ft. height does not include rooftop equipment.
Commissioner Morris asked if there was a Public Works issue regarding full growth
trees straddling an easement.
Mr. Smith said that Public Works has directed that no significant landscaping be
planted in the easement except for shrubs.
Commissioner Morris asked if residents would then be looking at low growth shrub
as a screening on north side parking.
Mr. Smith responded that there is a 15 foot wide planted area between the property
boundary to the north and the expanded easement.
Commissioner Morris said he recalled that several years ago the issue of the trail and
sale of property to the JCC was before the Planning Commission. He said it was his
understanding that the sale was approved by the City to the JCC.
Ms. Erickson stated that a purchase agreement is in place. The agreement states that
a trail easement will be dedicated but there is nothing in the agreement related to a
conservation easement. The City has a substantial easement along the east end of
the property for a holding pond. She added that there is a utility easement through
the center of the property.
Commissioner Robertson commented that the rooftop unit looks to be about 8 feet
above the roof, but it is set back about 20 feet.
Commissioner Bissonnette remarked that she empathized with the neighbors who are
used to seeing trees on the property, but that the JCC proposal was a positive
development. She commented that generally neighborhoods with schools continue
to hold their value. Commissioner Bissonnette remarked on a study recently
undertaken by her company regarding tree removal. They learned that most
pollution is absorbed during the first ten years of new tree growth. She said that
she approves of the building design.
Chair Velick thanked the neighborhood representatives for their comments. She
stated that the JCC is in compliance with City guidelines. Chair Velick said she is
confident that the JCC will remain a good neighbor and will work with the
neighborhood.
122
Chair Velick closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Garelick moved approval of the rezoning, preliminary plat, and
certain variances subject to the conditions and stipulations listed in the staff report,
with the addition of condition 2e. regarding Watershed District approval. The
motion passed on a vote of 6-0 with Commissioners Bissonnette, Garelick,
Gothberg, Morris, Robertson and Velick voting in favor.
B. Case No. 01-39-PUD -- Request of CSM /Rottlund for a major amendment to the
approved Planned Unit Development for Pointe West Commons to add two
townhomes onto an existing building.
Mr. Smith distributed new site plans to the Commission. He presented a staff
report.
Commissioner Velick opened the public hearing.
Gary Berscheid, 1604 Blackstone Ave., commented on continuous noise problems
with the project of contractors working outside of the permitted hours of operation.
Mr. Berscheid’s data from the Police Dept. indicated there were eleven violations in
nine weeks. He explained that many incidents and complaints have not been
reported. Mr. Berscheid reviewed the noise complaints contained in the Police log.
He commented that tempers are getting short. He said he believed the site
superintendent isn’t strict enough about hours and noise. The site superintendent has
said he can’t control all the subcontractors. Subcontractors have commented that
they haven’t been informed of all agreements.
Mr. Berscheid stated that there has been no dust or dirt control of the project. He
said neighbors have lived with construction for 10 months and none of the buildings
have been finished yet. They are concerned because there are five more buildings
and they wonder how many years they will have to put up with construction
disturbances. He commented on the lack of significant progress made and wished a
timetable could be adhered to. Mr. Berscheid said his calls to the Rottlund Company
have not been returned.
Commissioner Morris said the issues are administrative and cannot be acted on by
the Planning Commission. He added that the Planning Commission can only act on
the amendment request to the PUD.
Mr. Berscheid said he hoped the Planning Commission would not reward bad
behavior by approving the amendment.
Dan Hulke, 1600 Alabama Ave. S., stated that he shared Mr. Berscheid’s
viewpoints. He is cautious about additional amendments. He said he lives directly
across from the units and he commented on dust control, noise issues, and safety
123
issues. He said a lack of respect has been shown to the neighborhood and he
doesn’t understand why Rottlund would be allowed to make additional requests.
Hans Widmer, 1601 Alabama Ave. S., agreed that granting the amendment would
reward bad behavior. He said he is a 15-year resident and he has always felt that
St. Louis Park is a good neighborhood building community. He doesn’t believe
Rottlund and CSM have provided a good neighborhood relationship. Heavy
equipment has been moved at off hours including 3:00 a.m., midnight, 10:30 p.m.,
and there have been repeated early start times. He added that it is an ineffective use
of Police time to deal with noise complaints. He commented on heavy equipment
being moved on 16th Street and the wear and tear on the street. Mr. Widmer stated
that recently in one week’s time there were seven disturbances. Rottlund has
blamed subcontractors and denied that incidences occurred. Mr. Widmer said he
approved of locking up the site and the use of a security company.
J. Michael Noonan, Rottlund Inc., said he didn’t believe there was any disagreement
with respect to the planning merits of the application. He explained that the reason
Rottlund is coming forward with two additional units is because at the time the
initial PUD application was made, roadwork details on the adjacent road were not
settled. That has recently been resolved and that allowed Rottlund to look at the
southeast corner and they determined that there is room for two additional units. He
stated that the additional two units will generate tax revenue which can be used to
help retire the TIF sooner.
Mr. Noonan said he understands the frustration of the neighbors and he cannot
answer why workers are on site at 3 a.m. He went on to say that Rottlund does take
the complaints very seriously. He asked for the opportunity to work with the
neighborhood, to put into effect certain recommendations which are contained
within the staff report, and to rely upon V.P. of Operations to organize a meeting of
the principals of the firms to make rules clear so there are no misunderstandings.
Mr. Noonan said recently a reminder letter of construction rules has been sent to the
principals of the firms. Mr. Noonan said the project has been cited with fines three
times. Mr. Noonan said the $750 fines are significant to the firms fined. Rottlund
will make it clear that they will not tolerate disrespect and rule breaking. He added
that the site superintendent may need some additional assistance. Mr. Noonan said
he hoped Rottlund would be given the chance to improve relations with the
neighborhood.
Mr. Noonan remarked that he thinks the site is fairly clean. They have standard
procedures for cleaning and they will do their best to keep on top of sweeping and
dust control through watering.
Commissioner Garelick remarked that Rottlund’s reputation has been very good in
the Twin Cities. He asked if subcontractors or Rottlund employees have been
directed to stay off site during certain hours.
124
Mr. Noonan responded that Rottlund is vigilant about describing the rules and
conducts weekly meetings on how the site is to be operated.
Commissioner Garelick asked if someone at the corporate level could be the main
contact for neighborhood concerns.
Chair Velick said she appreciates Mr. Noonan’s candor and efforts in working with
neighbors but stated that she is disappointed that the neighbors have experienced so
much frustration in their dealings with Rottlund. Chair Velick proposed that Mr.
Noonan become the contact for neighbors.
There was a brief discussion about use of a chain link fence surrounding the site.
Commissioner Bissonnette commented that in a similar case, the Planning
Commission included provisions relating to neighborhood concerns in an
amendment to a PUD. She wondered if more forceful actions besides sign
installation could be taken, such as use of a security guard. She suggested that
memos which go to firm principals also be copied to neighbors for improved
communication.
Commissioner Garelick asked Mr. Noonan for a timeline on completion of the
project.
Mr. Noonan responded that if the market cooperates he anticipates construction will
be completed in two years. He explained that the construction is complicated and
the site is very tight, preventing many workers from being on the site at one time.
Commissioner Robertson suggested that the site supervisor’s home phone number be
provided to neighbors.
Commissioner Gothberg asked about the status of CSM’s signature on the assent
form and official exhibits for the February 20 PUD amendment.
Mr. Noonan responded that CSM is prepared to sign the documents following the
decision of the Planning Commission and City Council on the PUD amendment.
Commissioner Gothberg commented on the need for compliance and due diligence
by Rottlund and subcontractors. He encouraged the City to document violations and
issue citations when necessary.
Commissioner Morris asked staff if the sideyard setback from the mechanical area
meets ordinance requirements.
Mr. Smith responded that the minimum building setback is 15 feet. The mechanical
equipment can encroach 5 feet.
125
Commissioner Morris asked about a wall which appears to be a mechanical area.
Mr. Noonan stated that it is an enclosure for a mechanical area which does not have
a structural support to the building.
Commissioner Morris inquired about the additional 20 feet extending out towards
Zarthan Ave. to accommodate two townhomes. He asked if the measurement of all
the townhomes would be changed to accommodate two more homes. Commissioner
Morris said he was concerned about bringing the whole development, which
includes a high roof peak at the end, closer to the street intersection.
Mr. Noonan stated that with the original 20 unit plan, the end unit would have been
just as high. He explained that it is as if an inside unit is being shifted over. The
end unit would be identical regardless of either alternative.
Commissioner Gothberg recalled that during discussions about 16th St. and Zarthan
Ave. there was concern about visibility issues if the building was too close to the
intersection.
Commissioner Morris remarked that he believed the Planning Commission had
looked at the intersection as part of the development. He commented that the
townhomes will remain longer than the street configuration. He went on to say that
if there was a petition to vacate it he could understand allowing a closer development
to the corner. He concluded by saying that the higher elevation townhome closer to
the property line is not desirable aesthetically or for the plan as a whole compared to
the entire site review for the PUD.
Mr. Berscheid asked if the mechanical building would extend into the site line of
Zarthan Ave.
Mr. Smith said it does extend closer to the setback line than what is established in
nearby residential property but that different setbacks are allowed in PUDs. He
added that this is a sideyard setback which meets the 15 foot setback, not a front
yard setback.
Chair Velick closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Robertson moved to approve the major amendment to the approved
Planned Unit Development subject to conditions listed in the staff report. Chair
Velick added a friendly amendment that the superintendent’s phone number be
provided to neighbors, as well as that other suggestions discussed about improving
relations be addressed with Rottlund staff. The motion passed on a vote of 5-1 with
Commissioners Bissonnette, Garelick, Gothberg, Robertson and Velick voting in
favor and Commissioner Morris opposed.
126
C. Case Nos. 01-37-CP and 01-38-Z – Request of Evan Johnson (Thermetic Products
Inc.) for a Comprehensive Plan amendment from Medium Density Residential to
Commercial and a rezoning from R4 to C2 for property located at 1409 and 1413
Colorado Ave. S.
Mr. Smith presented a staff report.
Chair Velick opened the public hearing.
Evan Johnson, the applicant, stated that the request would provide for a unified
development and would serve the neighborhood well.
Chair Velick asked if apartments surround the properties.
Mr. Smith responded that apartments are located to the south and west. Land uses
to the north and east are commercial.
Commissioner Morris asked if a structure on the east was a parking garage. Mr.
Smith responded that it was a parking garage for apartments.
Commissioner Robertson said he believes the request does unify the zoning.
Chair Velick closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Morris moved approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment and
rezoning 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.
4. Miscellaneous
Commissioner Garelick inquired about changes in the code of compliance process of the
Inspections Department. Ms. Erickson remarked that the City is considering having both
the initial and follow-up inspections done by City staff to provide for consistency in
interpretation.
5. Adjournment
Chair Velick adjourned the meeting at 8:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Nancy Sells
Administrative Secretary
127
CONSENT ITEM # 10b
MINUTES
Housing Authority
St. Louis Park, Minnesota
Wednesday, July 11, 2001
Westwood Room
5:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Catherine Courtney, Anne Mavity, Judith Moore,
William Gavzy (5:50 p.m.)
MEMBERS ABSENT: Shone Row
STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Anderson, Tamra Bokal, Michele Schnitker, Cindy
Stromberg
OTHERS PRESENT: None
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 5:05 p.m.
2. Approval of Minutes for June 13, 2001
Commissioner Moore moved approval of the amended minutes of June 13th, 2001.
Commissioner Mavity seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of
3-0 with Commissioners Courtney, Mavity and Moore voting in favor.
3. Hearings: None
4. Reports and Committees: None
5. Unfinished Business: None
6. New Business
a. Annual Election of Officers
Commissioner Courtney proposed that the election of officers be postponed until
the August meeting due to the absent commissioners. The other commissioners
present concurred.
128
b. Amendment of Waiting List Preferences for Section 8 Program, Resolution No.
493
Ms. Schnitker explained the new preference proposed for the Section 8 waiting
list. This preference would give residents of St. Louis Park who intend to lease-
in-place additional points. All other preferences would remain the same. She
went on to explain that this would increase the utilization rates in order to avoid
losing any of the Section 8 allocation.
Commissioner Mavity asked if the target market would be individuals who are
currently leasing in St. Louis Park, but the landlord may not currently participate
in Section 8. Ms. Schnitker replied that this would give a preference to
individuals who currently lease in St. Louis Park and stay in their unit or
individuals who move into St. Louis Park while on the waiting list and intend to
lease-in-place. She also explained that the HA would need to receive something
from the landlord indicating that they would participate.
Commissioner Moore asked why a person would not lease-in-place. Ms.
Schnitker explained that the landlord may not want to participate because of the
paperwork involved. She also explained that the participants cannot pay more
than 40% of their income toward rent and since HUD will not fund rent amounts
above the payment standard, some rental units will not qualify because the rents
are too high.
Commissioner Courtney asked how much this preference will increase the
utilization. Ms. Schnitker responded that she is hopeful this will take care of the
shortfall in utilization.
Commissioner Mavity moved to approve Resolution No. 493. Commissioner
Moore seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 3-0 with
Commissioners Courtney, Mavity and Moore voting in favor.
c. Proposed Bond Issuance by the Hennepin County Housing and Redevelopment
Authority, Resolution No. 494
Ms. Schnitker explained that state statute requires that any housing authority
which operates in the jurisdiction of another housing authority must obtain
approval from that housing authority. She stated that Hennepin County HRA is
requesting approval to issue bonds to refinance debt related to various properties
owned by Opportunity Partners throughout the metro area, including St. Louis
Park.
129
Commissioner Moore moved to adopt Resolution No. 494 authorizing issuing of
bonds by the Hennepin County HRA. Commissioner Mavity seconded the
motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 3-0 with Commissioners Courtney,
Mavity and Moore voting in favor.
d. Hamilton House Caretaker
Ms. Anderson stated that the Kilbys left the position of caretaker at Hamilton
House. She made mention that the HA had received numerous responses
including referrals from employees and tenants and through advertising in the
paper. After screening and interviews, Ms. Anderson stated the HA was
recommending Alvin Jones for the caretaking contract. She explained that he has
cleaning and maintenance experience. Final approval of a contract with Alvin
would be contingent on clearing up a traffic ticket and providing proof of liability
insurance.
Commissioner Mavity moved to authorize the execution of the contract with
Alvin Jones. Commissioner Moore seconded the motion, and the motion passed
on a vote of 3-0 with Commissioners Courtney, Mavity and Moore voting in
favor.
Commissioner Gavzy arrived at 5:50 p.m.
7. Communications from the Executive Director
a. Claims List No. 07-2001
Commissioner Moore asked about Perspectives. Ms. Schnitker explained that it is
the Shelter Plus program managed by Perspectives. It is a grant program that
operates similar to Section 8, and the HA earns an administration fee for
processing the housing assistance payments.
Commissioner Courtney moved ratification of Claims List No. 07-2001.
Commissioner Moore seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 4-
0 with Commissioners Courtney, Gavzy, Mavity and Moore voting in favor.
b. Communications
Ms. Schnitker stated that the information requested by the commissioners
explaining the monthly Section 8 report was included. The commissioners will
review the information and bring back any questions to the August meeting.
Ms. Schnitker reported on the status of Louisiana Court. She provided a copy of
the letter the HA's attorney sent to Project for Pride in Living (PPL). She reported
that the construction is going along fine. PPL has been experiencing a cash flow
shortage due to a higher number of vacancies than anticipated. She also discussed
130
that PPL had agreed to put money into a maintenance account on a monthly basis
and had not done so due to the cash shortage. PPL has now rented almost all of
the vacant apartments, and Ms. Schnitker stated that she feels the cash flow
situation should improve by year-end. PPL, in the response to the attorney's
letter, asked the HA to set up the operating subsidy reserve for the MHOP units
from the undistributed developer funds.
Commissioner Gavzy questioned how PPL thought they could make up for the
lost developer fee. Ms. Schnitker responded that after the construction is
completed, PPL may try to recapture excess cash flow. Ms. Schnitker also
explained that PPL missed the 4-D filing deadline so they underestimated $52,000
in tax expense.
Ms. Schnitker mentioned the HA still has not received the change factors from
HUD for the final budget. One item she mentioned that will be added to the
budget is a new computer server for the HA.
Ms. Schnitker talked about the National NAHRO conference to be held in
Nashville in October. Commissioner Gavzy asked if the national conference
would be better to attend than the state conference. Ms. Schnitker replied that the
national conference has a commissioner track. She asked that the commissioners
decide who might want to attend by the August meeting.
Commissioner Courtney exited the meeting at 6:15 p.m.
Ms. Schnitker mentioned that the closing had taken place on the Minnetonka
Blvd. property.
Commissioner Moore asked why the Action Plan was being updated monthly.
Ms. Schnitker replied that there were no updates this month. Commissioner
Mavity suggested that the Action Plan be presented every six months instead of
monthly. The remaining commissioners agreed that six-month intervals make
sense for discussing the Action Plan.
8. Adjournment
Commissioner Moore moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:23 p.m. Commissioner Gavzy
seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 3-0 with Commissioners Gavzy,
Mavity and Moore voting in favor.
Respectfully submitted,
________________________
Shone Row, Secretary
131
CONSENT ITEM # 10c
July 27, 2001
VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
AAA LAMBERTS LANDSCAPE PRODUCT GENERAL SUPPLIES 21.30
ACE SUPPLY COMPANY INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 8.09
ACT ELECTRONICS INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 765.84
ADVANTAGE PAPER OFFICE SUPPLIES 510.43
AIRTOUCH CELLULAR TELEPHONE 803.57
ALMSTEAD'S SUPERVALU GENERAL SUPPLIES 12.92
ALTENBURG, AMY PROGRAMMING 57.60
ANDERSON, CORAL CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 25.00
APPLE PRINTING AND SECRETARIAL PRINTING & PUBLISHING 463.28
APPLIANCE RECYCLING CENTERS OF GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE 45.00
ARAMARK UNIFORM CORPORATE ACCT GENERAL SUPPLIES 871.55
ARMADILLO TRUCKVAULT INC. MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT (150.00)
AUTOMATIC SYSTEMS INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 864.00
BANNER CREATIONS LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS 1,421.54
BATTERIES PLUS GENERAL SUPPLIES 217.23
BAUER BUILT TIRE & BATTERY EQUIPMENT PARTS 314.05
BEEKS PIZZA GENERAL SUPPLIES 54.85
BERGERSON CASWELL EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 8,187.30
BITUMINOUS ROADWAYS INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 3,461.41
BKBM ENGINEERS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 902.35
BOBS BINDING & SERGING INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 117.84
BOBS PERSONAL COFFEE SERVICE GENERAL SUPPLIES 216.43
BOYER TRUCK PARTS EQUIPMENT PARTS 50.76
BROADWAY RENTAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT (1.66)
CALGON CARBON CORPORATION CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY 11,764.10
CAMPBELL KNUTSON PROFESSIONAL LEGAL SERVICES 11,416.57
CAPITOL COMMUNICATIONS RADIO COMMUNICATIONS 668.98
CDW GOVERNMENT INC. COMPUTER SUPPLIES 89.34
CENTRAL POOL SUPPLY GENERAL SUPPLIES 70.08
COLLISYS ELECTRIC CO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 6,211.06
COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 316.63
COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 84.00
CONCEPT SEATING INC GENERAL SUPPLIES (180.00)
CRAMER BUILDING SRVCS BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 2,615.20
CREATIVE CRAFTS GENERAL SUPPLIES 46.80
CRILEY, KATHI L GENERAL SUPPLIES 92.03
CRIPPS, LAURA SPECIAL PROGRAMS 8.00
CROWN TROPHY GENERAL SUPPLIES 645.05
CUB FOODS CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY 44.69
CUMMINS NORTH CENTRAL INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 240.48
CURTIS 1000 INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,513.95
CUSTOM PRODUCTS & SERVICES LANDSCAPING SERVICE 3,052.60
CYTRON, BARRY OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 1,356.95
DALCO EQUIPMENT PARTS 184.95
DALSIN & SON INC, JOHN A BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 2,300.00
DIAMOND VOGEL PAINTS OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 4,892.93
132
E GROUP INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 2,414.90
EDELMANN & ASSOCIATES INC NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 853.07
EGAN FIELD & NOWAK INC OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,106.32
ELECTRIC PUMP WALDOR GROUP NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 8,046.08
ENSR CONSULTING & ENGINEERING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 4,016.78
EVERGREEN LAND SERVICES CO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 973.50
FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (30.67)
FILTRATION SYSTEMS INC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 39.62
FIREHOUSE MAGAZINE SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 28.97
FLANNIGAN, JANE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 7.42
FLOYD TOTAL SECURITY BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 228.45
FRANKLIN COVEY TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 504.56
G & K SERVICES CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY 134.93
GARELICK STEEL CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 107.37
GENUINE PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (27.83)
GLENWOOD INGLEWOOD GENERAL SUPPLIES 78.03
GOODYEAR BRAD RAGAN TIRE & SER EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 213.46
GOVERNMENT TRAINING SERVICE TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 207.00
GRAFIX SHOPPE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 175.00
GRAINGER INC, W W GENERAL SUPPLIES 376.35
GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 80.29
GREENMAN TECHNOLOGIES OF MN IN CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY 34.60
HASLERUD, CARRIE GENERAL SUPPLIES 64.73
HAWKINS WATER TREATMENT GROUP GENERAL SUPPLIES 3,237.31
HEDBERG AGGREGATES OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 141.60
HENN CO INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY COMPUTER SERVICES 424.71
HIGHVIEW PLUMBING INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 4,035.90
HOISINGTON KOEGLER GROUP INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 150.00
HOME DEPOT/GECF GENERAL SUPPLIES 818.68
HOME HARDWARE GENERAL SUPPLIES 7.41
HONDA ELECTRIC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,103.70
HUTCHINSON, CITY OF TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 300.00
HYDRO SUPPLY COMPANY OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 704.43
IOS CAPITAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT 694.93
IOWA PAINT MFG CO INC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 809.00
J H LARSON COMPANY GENERAL SUPPLIES 846.95
JERRY STAMM EQUIPMENT PARTS 20.11
KEYS WELL DRILLING CO EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 100.00
KIEFER & ASSOCIATES, ADOLPH GENERAL SUPPLIES 42.00
KIENENBERGER, BRIDGET MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 29.66
KLM ENGINEERING INC. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,295.00
KNR COMMUNICATION SERVICES INC BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 100.00
KONICA BUSINESS TECHNOLOGIES I BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 84.41
LACAL EQUIPMENT INC EQUIPMENT PARTS (235.63)
LAND CARE EQUIPMENT CO EQUIPMENT PARTS 284.40
LAPOINTE SIGN INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 937.20
LEAGUE MN CITIES INS TRUST MOTOR VEHICLE LIAB INSURANCE 186.00
LINDSTROM, JOHN GENERAL SUPPLIES 68.01
LOGIS COMPUTER SERVICES 30,049.40
LUBRICATION TECHNOLOGIES INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 8,263.02
LYNDALE GARDEN CENTER OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 225.00
MASTERSON PERSONNEL INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,338.75
133
MC DONELL, MARTHA MEETING EXPENSE 24.00
MENARDS GENERAL SUPPLIES 188.81
MERRILL CORPORATION GENERAL SUPPLIES 257.40
METRO CASH REGISTER SYSTEMS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 388.51
METRO SYSTEMS GENERAL SUPPLIES 4,911.15
METROCALL TELEPHONE 60.42
METZ BAKING CO. CONCESSION SUPPLIES 107.04
MICRO CENTER COMPUTER SUPPLIES 190.64
MIDWEST ASPHALT CORP OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 5,160.49
MIDWEST GREASE BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 40.00
MILLER HANSON WESTERBECK BERGE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 800.00
MINN BLUE DIGITAL GENERAL SUPPLIES 47.93
MINNEHAHA ACADEMY AQUATIC PARK GROUP ADMIN 109.00
MINNESOTA STATEWIDE 9-1-1 PROG TELEPHONE 101.75
MINT CONDITION DETAILING EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 150.00
MINVALCO INC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 148.35
MN DEPT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 1,183.31
MN DEPT OF LABOR & INDUSTRY LICENSES/TAXES 30.00
MN DEPT OF PUBLIC SAFETY LICENSES/TAXES 125.00
MN DRIVER & VEHICLE SVCS EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT CHARGE (46.00)
MN POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 135.00
MPLS DEPT OF HEALTH/FAMILY SUP OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 95.00
MTI DISTRIBUTING CO EQUIPMENT PARTS (147.80)
MULCAHY CO INC, BERNARD J BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 565.09
MYERS TIRE SUPPLY COMPANY GENERAL SUPPLIES 313.03
NAPA GENUINE PARTS CO/FINANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES 642.78
NATIONAL SEMINARS GROUP TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 456.00
NORTHSTAR REPRO PRODUCTS INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 106.83
NRPA SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 35.00
OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE SUPPLIES 526.90
OFFICE TEAM PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 772.00
ON SITE SANITATION OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,116.06
OTTO PACKAGING MIDWEST LLC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES (72.00)
PARK PET HOSPITAL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,828.00
PC SOLUTIONS INC. EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 89.00
PEPSI-COLA COMPANY CONCESSION SUPPLIES 834.11
PRAXAIR DISTRIBUTION INC. GENERAL SUPPLIES 56.88
PRESTIGE LINCOLN MERCURY EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 9,101.52
PRINTERS SERVICE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 147.35
PRO PRODUCTS INC GENERAL SUPPLIES (92.32)
PROCESS MEASUREMENT CO BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 316.25
QUEST ENGINEERING INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 188.14
QUICKSILVER EXPRESS COURIER EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 99.50
QUILL CORPORATION OFFICE SUPPLIES 111.34
RADIO SHACK GENERAL SUPPLIES 9.57
RC INDENTIFICATIONS GENERAL SUPPLIES 5.33
RELIANT ENERGY HEATING GAS 7,701.26
ROBINSON, REED CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 41.65
SAM'S CLUB CONCESSION SUPPLIES 2,866.48
SCHARBER & SONS INC EQUIPMENT PARTS (3.51)
SCHROEDER SPORTS, LCBS GENERAL SUPPLIES 3,760.50
SEARS GENERAL SUPPLIES 288.74
134
SECURITYLINK FROM AMERITECH OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 36.10
SEDGWICK CLAIMS GMT SERVICES PROF/CONSULT SERVICES 3,335.50
SEH PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 102.70
SEITZ BROTHERS PLUMBING PERMIT 96.60
SIEGEL DISPLAY PRODUCTS GENERAL SUPPLIES 311.13
SLP COMMUNITY ED DIST #283 OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 93,004.50
SLP CRIME PREVENTION FUND UNREALIZED REV-SAFETY CAMP 0.00
SMITH, CHARLES CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 25.00
SMITH, CHRISTOPHER CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 25.00
SOKKIA MEASURING SYSTEMS GENERAL SUPPLIES 37.13
SPS COMPANIES INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 9.37
SRF CONSULTING GROUP INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 3,979.42
ST LOUIS PARK COMMUNITY BAND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 400.00
STATE OF MINNESOTA PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 9.50
STREICHER'S EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 2,111.08
SUBURBAN PROPANE MOTOR FUELS 45.34
SUBURBAN TIRE CO TIRES 476.42
SWEENEY BROS TRACTOR EQUIPMENT PARTS 69.73
TARGET/DAYTONS GENERAL SUPPLIES 92.57
TERMINIX INTERNATIONAL BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 143.18
THYMES TWO CATERING MEETING EXPENSE 156.66
TIERNEY BROTHERS INC OFFICE SUPPLIES 57.22
TIME WARNER CABLE TELEPHONE 147.41
TRIPLE L TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 205.00
TWIN CITY OPTICAL CO TREE MAINTENANCE (12.86)
TWIN CITY OXYGEN CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 4.80
U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 57.78
UNITED RENTALS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 169.47
UNIVERSITY OF MINN SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 50.00
USI INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 74.37
VEIT & COMPANY CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 375.00
VERMEER OF MINNESOTA EQUIPMENT PARTS 290.18
VIKING INDUSTRIAL CENTER GENERAL SUPPLIES 166.14
WALSER FORD EQUIPMENT PARTS 145.56
WASTE MANAGEMENT GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE 118.37
WATSON CO INC CONCESSION SUPPLIES 4,244.81
WELLS FARGO REMITTANCE CTR SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 1,702.19
WHEELER LUMBER OPERATIONS OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 776.75
WILD MOUNTAIN GENERAL SUPPLIES 570.00
WILENSKY, BARBARA CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 25.00
WISCONSIN MAGNETO INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 413.19
WM H MC COY PETROLEUM FUELS OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 12.78
WSB ASSOCIATES INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,680.37
ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE GENERAL SUPPLIES 101.87
ZEMBRYKI, MARK OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 168.69
ZEP MANUFACTURING GENERAL SUPPLIES 138.36
ZIMMERMAN, JEAN MEETING EXPENSE 177.26
ZIP SORT POSTAGE 127.84
309,695.91
135
August 3, 2001
VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
AIRTOUCH CELLULAR TELEPHONE 62.25
APACHE GROUP OF MINNESOTA GENERAL SUPPLIES 994.77
ARAMARK UNIFORM CORPORATE
ACCT
GENERAL SUPPLIES 219.63
ARMADILLO TRUCKVAULT INC. MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT (150.00)
ASPHALT SPECIALTIES CO OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 6,941.00
BOBS PERSONAL COFFEE SERVICE GENERAL SUPPLIES 93.15
BRIGGS, CHERYL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 95.20
BROADWAY RENTAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT (1.66)
BRONX PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCI OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 221.50
CAMPBELL KNUTSON PROFESSIONAL LEGAL SERVICES 228.00
CENTER FOR ENERGY & ENVIRONMEN OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 31,886.00
CITY OF SHOREVIEW AQUATIC PARK GROUP ADMIN 312.50
CONCEPT SEATING INC GENERAL SUPPLIES (180.00)
COOPER, GARY AQUATIC PARK SEASON TICKETS 15.00
CUB FOODS GENERAL SUPPLIES 150.22
CULLIGAN PLUMBING PERMIT 28.00
CUSTOM PRODUCTS & SERVICES LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 975.00
DALCO GENERAL SUPPLIES 562.76
DELANO KID STOP AQUATIC PARK GROUP ADMIN 73.50
EARTHGRAINS CONCESSION SUPPLIES 203.54
EMPIREHOUSE INC. BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 357.00
ENGFER, JOHN CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 25.00
FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (30.67)
GENUINE PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (27.83)
GONALEZ, VICKY AQUATIC PARK SEASON TICKETS 34.00
GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC RADIO COMMUNICATIONS 545.60
HAGEN, BETH AQUATIC PARK RENTAL 30.00
HALLS, MOLLY TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 335.00
HAWKINS WATER TREATMENT GROUP GENERAL SUPPLIES 937.57
HIGHVIEW PLUMBING INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 747.79
HOME DEPOT GENERAL SUPPLIES 4.22
HOME DEPOT/GECF GENERAL SUPPLIES 5.14
HONEYWELL INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 308.32
HPI INTERNATIONAL INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 275.00
HUIRAS, SHIRLEY OFFICE SUPPLIES 239.77
IAPE TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 575.00
IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 908.93
IOS CAPITAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT 193.83
JAK TREES INC. CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 3,889.50
JEWISH FAMILY/CHILDREN SVC OF OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,977.00
KELLOG, TODD CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 25.00
KENNEDY & GRAVEN LEGAL SERVICES 2,145.98
LACAL EQUIPMENT INC EQUIPMENT PARTS (235.63)
LAKESHORE LEARNING MATERIALS GENERAL SUPPLIES 32.87
LOME, STACY AQUATIC PARK RENTAL 40.00
MEDSOFT CORPORATION OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 325.00
MENARDS GENERAL SUPPLIES 280.44
METHODIST HOSPITAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 454.50
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL SEWER AVAILABILITY CHARGE 61,095.99
136
MIDWEST ASPHALT CORP OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 9,245.66
MN BOARD OF PEACE OFFICER STAN OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 270.00
MN DRIVER & VEHICLE SVCS EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT CHARGE (46.00)
MN GFOA TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 230.00
MN VALLEY YMCA AQUATIC PARK GROUP ADMIN 60.50
MTI DISTRIBUTING CO EQUIPMENT PARTS (147.80)
NSP CO ELECTRIC SERVICE 24,889.23
OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE SUPPLIES 205.30
OLSEN CHAIN & CABLE CO INC SMALL TOOLS 56.84
OTTO PACKAGING MIDWEST LLC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES (72.00)
PARK PET HOSPITAL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,200.00
PEIL, BARBARA CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 25.00
PEPSI-COLA COMPANY CONCESSION SUPPLIES 2,014.25
PITCHER, KATHRYN OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 60.00
POSTMASTER POSTAGE 2,994.84
PRO PRODUCTS INC GENERAL SUPPLIES (92.32)
RAINBOW TREE CARE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 17,577.47
RANDY'S SANITATION INC GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE 2,753.07
RARDIN, MICHAEL TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 112.12
ROTARY CLUB OF SLP SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 296.00
SAVAGE, MICHAEL CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 25.00
SAYAH, MICHAEL TREE MAINTENANCE 854.66
SCHARBER & SONS INC EQUIPMENT PARTS (3.51)
SCHUSSLER, STEVEN CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 25.00
SIGNATURE CONCEPTS GENERAL SUPPLIES 285.66
SLP CRIME PREVENTION FUND UNREALIZED REV-SAFETY CAMP 0.00
SMITH & WESSON POSTAGE 7.89
SMITH, CARY S GENERAL SUPPLIES 147.00
SMITH, TIM TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 335.00
SOUTHTOWN PLUMBING PLUMBING PERMIT 40.00
SPS COMPANIES INC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 98.44
STREICHER'S GENERAL SUPPLIES 2,246.94
STS CONSULTANTS LTD OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 5,188.27
SWEENEY BROS TRACTOR EQUIPMENT PARTS (138.42)
TARGET/DAYTONS GENERAL SUPPLIES 217.71
TRUGREEN-CHEMLAWN LANDSCAPING SERVICE 8,564.74
TWIN CITY OPTICAL CO TREE MAINTENANCE (12.86)
TWIN WEST CHAMBER OF COMMERCE MEETING EXPENSE 63.94
U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE 38.57
U S WEST INTERPRISE TELEPHONE 785.65
UNGER, DARRICK OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 593.77
WATSON CO INC CONCESSION SUPPLIES 3,451.36
WEDDING GUIDE OTHER ADVERTISING 900.00
WELLERS DISPOSAL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 694.26
WELLS FARGO REMITTANCE CTR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,534.50
WM H MC COY PETROLEUM FUELS OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 12.78
206,813.19
August 10, 2001
VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
137
ADVANTA BANK CORP OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 389.80
AIRTOUCH CELLULAR TELEPHONE 2,491.89
ALLIANCE MECHANICAL SERVICES I BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 2,716.00
AMEM TREASURER TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 200.00
ANCHOR PAPER CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 77.00
ANDERSEN INC, EARL F OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,311.57
APACHE GROUP OF MINNESOTA CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY 2,007.95
AQUA LOGIC INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 550.23
ARAMARK UNIFORM CORPORATE
ACCT
GENERAL SUPPLIES 950.60
ARMADILLO TRUCKVAULT INC. MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT (150.00)
AUTOMATIC SYSTEMS INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 516.27
BAKEBERG, LORI YOUTH RECREATION-tax exempt 10.80
BATTERIES PLUS EQUIPMENT PARTS 63.37
BCL APPRAISALS INC. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 350.00
BERNDT ELECTRIC SERVICE BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 639.53
BOBS PERSONAL COFFEE SERVICE GENERAL SUPPLIES 63.98
BONSU-SAIFA, KOLEEN YOUTH RECREATION-tax exempt 9.90
BROADWAY RENTAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT (1.66)
BUCHMAN PLUMBING BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 540.00
CAPITOL COMMUNICATIONS RADIO COMMUNICATIONS 692.49
CARTRIDGE CARE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 793.52
CBIZ BENEFITS & INSURANCE SERV PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 18,000.00
COFFEE MILL INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 129.80
CONCEPT SEATING INC GENERAL SUPPLIES (180.00)
CRIPPS, LAURA SPECIAL PROGRAMS 13.50
CROWN MARKING INC OFFICE SUPPLIES 11.50
CUB FOODS GENERAL SUPPLIES 236.21
DAYTON'S GENERAL SUPPLIES 557.88
DUDA, CHRIS MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 38.23
DZUBAY, KATHERINE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 25.00
E GROUP INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 915.43
EARTHGRAINS CONCESSION SUPPLIES 107.04
ELECTRICAL INSTALLATION & MAIN OTHER IMPROVEMENTS 5,806.21
ERV'S LAWN MOWER REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES 10.65
EVERGREEN LAND SERVICES CO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 604.95
FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (30.67)
FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP POSTAGE 90.83
FIRE INSTRUCTORS ASSN OF MINN TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 75.62
FORESTRY SUPPLIERS INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 258.95
FRESTEDT, ROBERT L CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 25.00
G & K SERVICES CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY 45.35
GARELICK STEEL CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 649.31
GENUINE PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (27.83)
GRAFIX SHOPPE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 110.00
GRAINGER INC, W W GENERAL SUPPLIES 4.76
GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO RADIO COMMUNICATIONS 1,563.99
GREENMAN TECHNOLOGIES OF MN IN CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY 20.80
HAWKINS WATER TREATMENT GROUP CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY 4,350.26
HENDRICKS, MARK CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 25.00
HENN CO ACCOUNTING SERVICES SUBSISTENCE SERVICE 2,635.00
HOME DEPOT GENERAL SUPPLIES 38.03
138
HOME DEPOT/GECF GENERAL SUPPLIES 90.00
HOME HARDWARE GENERAL SUPPLIES 345.74
HUSBY, JOANNE PROGRAMMING 6.00
HYDRO SUPPLY COMPANY OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 5,174.92
ICE SKATING INSTITUTE OF AMERI GENERAL SUPPLIES 251.97
IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS RENTAL EQUIPMENT 54.00
INST FOR FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,050.00
INTERNATIONAL ASSOC. OF ARSON SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 50.00
INVER HILLS COMMUNITY COLLEGE TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 895.00
IOS CAPITAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT 865.24
J H LARSON COMPANY OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 432.52
JERRY STAMM GENERAL SUPPLIES 21.33
KEVITT EXCAVATING INC OTHER IMPROVEMENTS 182,088.87
KREMER SPRING & ALIGNMENT EQUIPMENT PARTS 946.79
LACAL EQUIPMENT INC EQUIPMENT PARTS (235.63)
LEAGUE OF MN CITIES TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 30.00
LEASE FINANCE GROUP INC OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 630.48
LUBRICATION TECHNOLOGIES INC LUBRICANTS/ADDITIVES 507.73
MACQUEEN EQUIP CO EQUIPMENT PARTS 30.08
MANAGER'S EDGE SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 169.00
MANZ, CAROLINE MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 20.01
MASTERSON PERSONNEL INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 791.25
MBC PRESENTATIONS TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 665.00
MCGANN,JEAN MEETING EXPENSE 253.97
MENARDS OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 72.44
METRO ATHLETIC SUPPLY BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 148.04
METROCALL TELEPHONE 596.37
MICRO CENTER COMPUTER SUPPLIES 93.66
MIDWEST ASPHALT CORP OTHER IMPROVEMENTS 15,472.04
MILLAR ELEVATOR SERVICE CO BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 320.00
MINN DEPT OF ADMINISTRATION TELEPHONE 4,724.14
MINNEAPOLIS FINANCE DEPT ELECTRIC SERVICE 3,703.11
MINUTEMAN PRESS OFFICE SUPPLIES 1,829.50
MN DEPT OF LABOR & INDUSTRY WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE 7,733.49
MN DRIVER & VEHICLE SVCS EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT CHARGE (46.00)
MRPA OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,000.00
MTI DISTRIBUTING CO EQUIPMENT PARTS 72.36
NADEAU UTILITY INC OTHER IMPROVEMENTS 8,089.32
NANCY GOHMAN GENERAL SUPPLIES 61.74
NAPA AUTO PARTS LUBRICANTS/ADDITIVES 217.94
NATIONAL BAND & TAG CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 29.50
NATL NOTARY ASSOCIATION SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 39.00
NEENAH FOUNDREY OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 595.34
NORTHERN WATER TREATING CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 188.21
NORTHLAND ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 75.23
NSP CO ELECTRIC SERVICE 24,531.39
O'BRIEN, CATHERINE PROGRAMMING 28.80
OESTREICH, MARK MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 102.12
OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE SUPPLIES 389.64
OFFICE MAX GENERAL SUPPLIES 40.45
OFFICE TEAM PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 603.13
OLSEN CHAIN & CABLE CO INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 135.31
139
ON SITE SANITATION OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 121.31
ORKIN PEST CONTROL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 83.07
OTTO PACKAGING MIDWEST LLC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES (72.00)
PALMS BAKERY MEETING EXPENSE 28.18
PAPA JOHNS INTERNATIONAL GENERAL SUPPLIES 100.54
PARK NICOLLET CLINIC HSM PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 552.91
PC SOLUTIONS INC. EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 92.96
PEPSI-COLA COMPANY CONCESSION SUPPLIES 678.53
PERSONNEL DECISIONS INTERNATIO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,500.00
PETERSON, GUY SPECIAL PROGRAMS 11.00
PINKERTON SERVICES GROUP PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 384.00
PIRES, CLINTON E COMPUTER SERVICES 145.08
PRAXAIR DISTRIBUTION INC. GENERAL SUPPLIES 71.34
PRESTIGE LINCOLN MERCURY EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 165.31
PRINTERS SERVICE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 56.60
PRO PRODUCTS INC GENERAL SUPPLIES (92.32)
PULVER, LAURIE SPECIAL PROGRAMS 11.00
R & R SPECIALTIES EQUIPMENT PARTS 52.05
RADIO DISNEY OTHER ADVERTISING 425.00
RELIANT ENERGY HEATING GAS 3,461.26
RIGID HITCH INCORPORATED EQUIPMENT PARTS 25.53
SANDERS, WACKER, BERGLY PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 783.75
SCHARBER & SONS INC EQUIPMENT PARTS (3.51)
SEH PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 305.06
SERVOCAL INSTRUMENTS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 256.50
SLP CRIME PREVENTION FUND UNREALIZED REV-SAFETY CAMP 0.00
SPS COMPANIES INC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 12.90
SRF CONSULTING GROUP INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 532.01
STACKE, RACHEL CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 25.00
STERLING FENCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 804.00
SUBURBAN PROPANE MOTOR FUELS 67.22
SWANSON & YOUNGDALE INC BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 2,140.00
SWEENEY BROS TRACTOR EQUIPMENT PARTS (138.42)
THOMPSON PUBLISHING GROUP INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 367.00
TRI STATE BOBCAT EQUIPMENT PARTS 16.20
TWIN CITY OPTICAL CO TREE MAINTENANCE (12.86)
TYPPO, NICOLA M STUDY INCENTIVE & MERIT PAY 650.25
UNIFORMS UNLIMITED GENERAL SUPPLIES 3,944.09
VIKING COUNCIL JUVENILE DIV PR DUE FROM OTHER GOVTS 4,735.75
VOELKER, STACY M GENERAL SUPPLIES 164.71
WALSER FORD EQUIPMENT PARTS 25.75
WATSON CO INC CONCESSION SUPPLIES 3,008.08
WELLS FARGO REMITTANCE CTR NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 4,833.95
WENTZEL, SUE SPECIAL PROGRAMS 31.50
WHEELER LUMBER OPERATIONS OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 1,546.04
WILD MOUNTAIN RENTAL EQUIPMENT 180.00
WM H MC COY PETROLEUM FUELS OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 12.78
WSB ASSOCIATES INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 22,486.35
ZIP SORT POSTAGE 1,907.13
372,797.16
140
August 17, 2001
VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
ACT ELECTRONICS INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 344.00
AIRTOUCH CELLULAR TELEPHONE 1,763.16
ALMSTEAD'S SUPERVALU GENERAL SUPPLIES 186.15
ALTEK GENERAL SUPPLIES 76.00
AMERIPRIDE LINEN AND APPAREL S CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 161.87
ANCHOR PAPER CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 419.35
APACHE GROUP OF MINNESOTA GENERAL SUPPLIES 498.68
ARAMARK UNIFORM CORPORATE
ACCT
GENERAL SUPPLIES 202.76
ARMADILLO TRUCKVAULT INC. MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT (150.00)
ASPEN EQUIPMENT COMPANY EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 85.00
BACHMANS BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 180.86
BATTERIES PLUS GENERAL SUPPLIES 112.81
BETH HOLIDA GENERAL SUPPLIES 103.43
BIRNO, RICK TELEPHONE 7.20
BITUMINOUS ROADWAYS INC OTHER IMPROVEMENTS 43,995.00
BOBS PERSONAL COFFEE SERVICE GENERAL SUPPLIES 74.67
BOUND TREE PARR, LLC GENERAL SUPPLIES 67.25
BROADWAY AWARDS GENERAL SUPPLIES 79.88
BROADWAY RENTAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT (1.66)
CAMPBELL KNUTSON PROFESSIONAL LEGAL SERVICES 10,923.94
CAPITOL COMMUNICATIONS RADIO COMMUNICATIONS 535.26
CARTRIDGE CARE OFFICE FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT 1,707.65
CENTER FOR ENERGY & ENVIRONMEN OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 6,093.00
COLICH & ASSOCIATES LEGAL SERVICES 10,016.10
CONCEPT SEATING INC GENERAL SUPPLIES (180.00)
COWELL, MICHAEL CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 25.00
CROWN TROPHY GENERAL SUPPLIES 300.84
CUB FOODS GENERAL SUPPLIES 463.42
DALCO GENERAL SUPPLIES 101.54
DATABASE TECHNOLOGIES INC OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 45.00
DOBBINS & ASSOCIATES, MARY G PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 50.00
DUFFY, THERESA CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 25.00
DUO-SAFETY LADDER CORP GENERAL SUPPLIES 70.27
EARTHGRAINS CONCESSION SUPPLIES 93.16
ELECTION SYSTEMS & SOFTWARE IN NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 9,919.00
ELECTRIC PUMP WALDOR GROUP EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 654.38
ENGINEERING REPRO SYSTEMS GENERAL SUPPLIES 1.94
ERV'S LAWN MOWER REPAIR SMALL TOOLS 13.72
FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (30.67)
FASTENAL COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS 419.87
FLEXIBLE PIPE TOOL EQUIPMENT PARTS 682.58
FLOYD TOTAL SECURITY BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 120.00
GARELICK STEEL CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 92.36
GENUINE PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (27.83)
GILLILANO, OTTILA CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 25.00
GOV OFFICE.COM COMPUTER SERVICES 2,120.00
GRAINGER INC, W W GENERAL SUPPLIES 44.60
GRAND SLAM SPORTS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 190.90
141
HACH CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 119.89
HARMENING, TOM GENERAL SUPPLIES 89.02
HASLERUD, CARRIE GENERAL SUPPLIES 131.79
HENNEPIN COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS D PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 217.50
HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 12,980.00
HOME HARDWARE GENERAL SUPPLIES 162.94
INDELCO EQUIPMENT PARTS 40.37
INDEPENDENT BLACK DIRT CO LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 218.92
INST FOR FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 700.00
IOS CAPITAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT 252.41
IRON MOUNTAIN GENERAL SUPPLIES 58.00
J & F REDDY RENTS RENTAL EQUIPMENT 1,214.85
J H LARSON COMPANY BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 113.56
JAK TREES INC. CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 2,632.25
JERRY STAMM OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 25.25
LACAL EQUIPMENT INC EQUIPMENT PARTS (235.63)
M/A ASSOCIATES INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 50.84
MACQUEEN EQUIP CO EQUIPMENT PARTS 320.26
MARK HOPPE MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 57.96
MASTERSON PERSONNEL INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 746.25
MENARDS GENERAL SUPPLIES 43.68
METRO SALES INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 1,284.50
METROCALL TELEPHONE 141.87
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL SEWER AVAILABILITY CHARGE 33,660.00
MEYER, CHARLES TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 242.50
MICRO CENTER COMPUTER SUPPLIES 367.38
MILLER HANSON WESTERBECK BERGE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 800.00
MINN CHIEFS POLICE ASSOCIATION OFFICE SUPPLIES 175.25
MINN REAL ESTATE JOURNAL GENERAL SUPPLIES 75.00
MN DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVIC BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 170.00
MN DEPT OF TRADE & ECONOMIC DE TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 200.00
MN DRIVER & VEHICLE SVCS EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT CHARGE (46.00)
MN SHERIFFS' ASSOCIATION TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 100.00
MPLS DEPT OF HEALTH/FAMILY SUP OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 131.00
MTI DISTRIBUTING CO OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 24.74
MTOA TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 1,600.00
NAPA GENUINE PARTS CO/FINANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES (487.14)
NATIONAL SEMINARS GROUP TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 295.00
NORTHERN WATER TREATING CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 443.04
NORTHLAND ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO EQUIPMENT PARTS 75.23
NSP CO ELECTRIC SERVICE 30,112.99
OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE SUPPLIES 325.29
OFFICE TEAM PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 617.60
OTTO PACKAGING MIDWEST LLC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES (72.00)
PALM BROTHERS CONCESSION SUPPLIES 2,271.29
PRAXAIR DISTRIBUTION INC. GENERAL SUPPLIES 57.20
PRESTIGE LINCOLN MERCURY EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 5,812.22
PRINTERS SERVICE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 112.00
PRO PRODUCTS INC GENERAL SUPPLIES (92.32)
QUICKSILVER EXPRESS COURIER POSTAGE 851.18
R & R SPECIALTIES EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 245.00
RADIO SHACK GENERAL SUPPLIES 626.98
142
RAINBOW TREE CARE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 11,577.93
REYNOLDS WELDING SUPPLY CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 67.87
RIGID HITCH INCORPORATED EQUIPMENT PARTS (55.35)
ROTO-ROOTER OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 258.45
SAVIN CORPORATION EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 552.15
SCHARBER & SONS INC EQUIPMENT PARTS (3.51)
SENSIBLE LAND USE COALITION TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 30.00
SLP CRIME PREVENTION FUND UNREALIZED REV-SAFETY CAMP 0.00
SOJOURNER PROJECT INC OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 9,789.75
STAR TRIBUNE OTHER ADVERTISING 478.88
STATE TREASURER STATE SURCHARGE PAYABLE 3,315.31
STEMMER, LUKE GENERAL SUPPLIES 73.42
SUBURBAN PROPANE MOTOR FUELS 23.48
SUN NEWSPAPERS LEGAL NOTICES 610.82
SWEENEY BROS TRACTOR EQUIPMENT PARTS (138.42)
TARGET/DAYTONS GENERAL SUPPLIES 23.79
TERMINIX INTERNATIONAL BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 695.27
TRACY/TRIPP FUELS MOTOR FUELS 9,167.67
TRUGREEN-CHEMLAWN LANDSCAPING SERVICE 894.46
TWIN CITY OPTICAL CO TREE MAINTENANCE (12.86)
U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE 4,542.83
UNITED RENTALS GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,817.06
VERTICAL ENDEAVORS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 25.00
WATERHOUSE, SANDRA YOUTH RECREATION-tax exempt 9.90
WELLS FARGO BANK MINNESOTA OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 520.00
WESTMAN FLORAL INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 21.98
WHEELER LUMBER OPERATIONS OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 766.75
WIECKERT, JEFF YOUTH ATHLETICS/LEAGUES-exempt 81.00
WINKSTROM, ERIC CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 25.00
WM H MC COY PETROLEUM FUELS MOTOR FUELS 57.51
ZIP PRINTING PRINTING & PUBLISHING 291.36
ZIP SORT POSTAGE 408.45
238,678.30
143
CONSENT ITEM # 10d
City of St. Louis Park
Human Rights Commission
Meeting Minutes – July 18, 2001
Westwood Room - City Hall
Present
Commission Members: Marc Berg, Cassandra Boddy, Herbert Isbin, Betty Merritt, Patrick
Rogers, Kristi Rudelius-Palmer, Chris Smith and Emily Wallace-Jackson. The following
members were absent: Jake Feldman, Kristin Siegesmund and Maya Winoker
Staff: Martha McDonell, staff liaison, and Linda Samson, recording secretary
Call to Order
Vice-chair Marc Berg called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
Newly appointed Commission member Patrick Rogers introduced himself.
June Minutes: Moved by Herb Isbin and seconded by Patrick Rogers to accept the June
minutes. Motion passed unanimously.
July Agenda: Moved by Herb Isbin and seconded by Betty Merritt to approve the agenda with
the following items to be added to New Business: A. Commitments; B. Resources; and C.
Questions from guest.
Cassandra Boddy moved to approve the agenda, seconded by Herb Isbin. Motion passed
unanimously.
Commissioner Reports
Emily Wallace-Jackson said farewell to the Commission because she will be living in Hopkins as
of July 22. Martha McDonell asked Wallace-Jackson if she would be willing to continue until a
replacement is found. Wallace-Jackson replied she will continue, however, she will have no
voting power.
Martha McDonell said Bridget Gothberg has been hired by the City to work as an organizational
development coordinator; she will assist with staff training. Ms. Gothberg will be asked if she
can obtain inputs from the police department regarding hate crimes or diversity training.
Kristi Rudelius-Palmer said she will be attending the United Nations World Human Rights
Conference in Africa.
Herb Isbin reported on the League of Minnesota Human Rights Commission (LMHRC). Isbin is
a boardmember of LMHRC and he represents the district encompassing Eden Prairie, Hopkins,
Plymouth and St. Louis Park. He encourages Commission members to attend LMHRC forums.
144
Isbin also mentioned that the St. Louis Park Human Rights Commission nominee for the school
essay contest received an honorable mention from the State.
At 7:34 p.m. two visitors, Janelle Neal and Jim Anderson, both from St. Louis Park, arrived.
Kristi Rudelius-Palmer said the week preceding September 22, will be Human Rights Week at
the University of Minnesota, and several activities will be taking place on the campus. She will
send information to the Commission regarding the activities.
Old Business
Cultural Competency Forums: Martha McDonell reported Dr. Barbara Pulliam,
Superintendent of St. Louis Park schools, would like to partner with the community and the
Human Rights Commission in regard to cultural competency forums. McDonell told Dr. Pulliam
she believes the Commission would be interested in participating in the planning and with the
community outreach phases of the cultural competency forums. For example, the topic for the
first forum might be: who is living in our city, where do they live in our city and what does it
mean for our city? Dr. Pulliam will provide training to her school district staff. Kristi Rudelius-
Palmer and Emily Wallace-Jackson volunteered to partner with the school district and assist in
the planning of the cultural competency forums; Marc Berg and Kristin Siegesmund volunteered
at the last meeting.
Guidelines: Herb Isbin stated he believes the Commission should be careful in what it states it
is willing to do to help someone file a discriminatory allegation, and he called members’
attention to The Rights Stuff. Isbin cautioned members the task of the Commission is to make
referrals and not to investigate. Chris Smith stated it may be acceptable for the Commission to
inform individuals who wish to file a complaint what the necessary paperwork requirements are,
however, it would not be the Commission’s task to determine if an individual was discriminated
against. Smith also said there may be exceptional or extreme cases when it may be appropriate
for the Commission to offer some assistance. Emily Wallace-Jackson said the Department of
Human Rights is not necessarily the great answer for all complainants but it has a role
nonetheless. Kristi Rudelius-Palmer brought up the 12 ombudsperson services of the State,
which may be a helpful resource for those with complaints. Rudelius-Palmer will pursue seeking
a speaker from one of those offices to speak to the Human Rights Commission.
Betty Merritt departed at 8:02 p.m.
Vision St. Louis Park: A survey company, Decision Resources, was hired last year to complete
the Vision St. Louis Park telephone survey. Although the telephone survey is completed, it did
not include questions pertaining to diversity indicators. A telephone survey is an unreliable
method to measure the thoughts of specific, diverse and minority residents. Martha McDonell
discussed the shortcomings of the telephone survey, and the need to form focus groups to
ascertain specific information. Patrick Rogers volunteered to assist in identifying and forming
focus groups to gather information on diversity indicators. The Human Rights Commission has
been asked to assist the Vision Committee to determine what constitutes a diverse population,
and should those population groups be categorized by age, income, race, language or immigrant
145
status? Rogers will attend the Vision St. Louis Park committee meeting and report to the Human
Rights Commission on that meeting.
New Business
Commitments: Herb Isbin urged members to follow through with their commitments; first of
all by making it clear who will do what. He referred specifically to the written report
summarizing Diversity Week (Meeting minutes of June 20, 2001, page 2, paragraph 2), and the
pledge to be submitted to the St. Louis Park Sun-Sailor (Meeting minutes of June 20, 2001, page
2, paragraph 3). Martha McDonell said she will submit a pertinent pledge. Kristi Rudelius-
Palmer committed to pursuing an ombudsperson speaker. McDonell said assigned tasks can be
added to agendas for upcoming meetings to check on the status of commitments made. Ibsin
noted work remains to be done on the referral list, that is, mainly to update the list.
Resources: Herb Isbin suggested the Commission should be asked to evaluate the staff who
helps the Commission. He would like to reinforce and support the need for an intern for Martha
McDonell. Isbin said an intern would be beneficial to substantiate the resources in which the
Human Rights Commission operates.
Emily Wallace-Jackson pointed out a change to be made regarding the meeting minutes of June
20, 2001. She said on page 2, paragraph 2, heading Commission Recruitment, Siegesmund
should read Wallace-Jackson.
Questions From Guest: Invited by Kristi Rudelius-Palmer, guest Cigdem Akyil, from Northern
Cyprus, asked questions of the members.
Set Agenda For Next Meeting
Marc Berg said items 3A, regarding cultural competency forums, and 3C, regarding Vision St.
Louis Park need to be continued. Martha McDonell noted the review of the pledge; updating the
referral list; and review of Kristi Rudelius-Palmer’s flier for recruiting should also be continued.
A letter of support for McDonell will also be discussed at the next meeting.
Adjournment
Moved by Cassandra Boddy and seconded by Kristi Rudelius-Palmer to adjourn. Motion passed
unanimously. With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda Samson, Recording Secretary
146
CONSENT ITEM # 10e
OFFICIAL MINUTES
PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY COMMISSION
MAY 16, 2001 – 7:00 P.M.
WOLFE PARK PAVILION
MEMBERS PRESENT: Gretchen Halverson, Richard Johnson, Layne Otteson, and
Ashley Tomoson
MEMBERS ABSENT: Jeff Davidman, Nancy Nelson, and Tom Worthington
STAFF PRESENT: Cindy Walsh, Mark Oestreich, Caroline Manz
1. CALL TO ORDER
Layne Otteson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
2. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE AGENDA
Mr. Otteson motioned to approve moving item 5a, Work Plan Distribution, to another
meeting, Gretchen Halverson seconded. The motion passed 4-0. Cindy Walsh inquired if
Commission members are available to attend the meeting in July. As members would be
absent, there will be no meeting in July. Dick Johnson advised he would not be available
to attend the June meeting. No other adjustments were made.
Mr. Ahles, resident of St. Louis Park, advised he was unsatisfied with the open public
skating times. Ms. Walsh and Mr. Johnson advised they would look into it and see what
could be done.
*3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF APRIL 18, 2001
Gretchen Halverson motioned to approve the minutes, Dick Johnson seconded. The
motion passed 4-0.
*4. NEW BUSINESS
A. Naming of Oak Park Village: Mr. Otteson asked the Commission for ideas on
how they would like to name the park. Suggestions included holding a
competition, opening it up to the community, or asking elementary kids for ideas.
Mr. Johnson inquired on why it has to be named and Ms. Walsh indicated that as
a park, it needs a name. Mr. Johnson brought up selling the name of the park.
Ashley Tomoson suggested having a suggestion box located at City Hall and The
Rec Center in which Mr. Johnson agreed. Ms. Walsh advised the Commission
does not need to decide tonight and also stated that naming suggestions could be
advertised in the fall brochure. Commission members suggested names such as
Central Park, Tavern Park, and Carl Holmstrom Park as he was the founder of
Children First. Mr. Johnson suggested having a due date of January 15 to decide
on a name. Ms. Peterson felt the due date should be earlier. Ms. Walsh indicated
the suggestions could be collected by the end of the year so the Commission could
147
discuss it in January. Gretchen Peterson motioned for the Parks and Recreation
Advisory Commission to hold a naming contest in which Ashley Tomoson
seconded. The motion passed 4-0.
5. OLD BUSINESS
A. 2001 Work Plan Distribution Among Members: The Commission decided to
discuss this item at a future meeting.
B. Park Commons/Town Green Update: Cindy Walsh showed the Commission a
draft of the town green and park commons project on Excelsior Boulevard. The
Commission was advised construction would start in August or September of this
year and the total project consists of three phases which will take approximately
six years to complete. Dick Johnson inquired if there were any changes to the
plans in which Ms. Walsh advised there were none since the Commission saw
last.
C. Parks Affected by Storm Water Projects: Ms. Walsh advised the Commission that
four park areas would be affected by the storm water management project. Lake
Street Park will be constructed back to its original state, which would be a
standing water pond. Keystone/Roxbury Park will also under go some major
changes. The City Council wants to put play equipment on both sides of the parks.
Staff will upscale the current equipment at Roxbury. The adult softball field at
Keystone will be a soccer/football playing area. The playground and basketball
area will be higher so it won’t flood. Staff feels making these parks into multi-use
parks will fit the neighborhood better. One of the hockey rinks will be moved to
Parkview Park by the High School with lights on one side of the rink (residents
agreed). Staff is considering moving the other hockey rink to Nelson Park, which
will be discussed at a neighborhood meeting scheduled in July. Nelson Park has
one rink currently but two rinks at the park for broomball, hockey or in-line
skating would be nice. Staff needs to test the soil before that decision is made.
Also, residents feel more police enforcement is needed.
Gretchen Halverson inquired if Lamplighter Park would see more changes. Ms.
Walsh advised the Lamplighter Park is still in the design phase. Dick Johnson
asked if staff and the School District have come to a conclusion on the wall. Ms.
Walsh advised they have agreed on a retaining wall but the actual design is still
under discussion. Ms. Walsh advised the City wanted to buy the Park Assembly
of God Church property at the north end of the area and also indicated the ball
field is church property. The City would lease the ball field from the Church as
they agreed to an easement. This would leave green space or open space for the
church. Ms. Halverson inquired on when the meeting was to be held with the
Church and Ms. Walsh advised it would be in July or September.
6. COMMUNICATIONS
A. Chair: Layne Otteston advised he will be moving out of the city but will be able to
make the June meeting.
148
B. Commissioners: Dick Johnson indicated he was impressed with the City’s Web
site and how much information was included in it. Ms. Walsh advised that not a
lot of people are using the on-line registration yet. The Commission discussed that
more people who live in the Cities of Plymouth and Eagan have computers in
their homes versus St. Louis Park with the numbers increasing every year. Ms.
Walsh advised season pool passes cannot be purchased through on-line
registration and the Commission feels that would help for next year. Ms. Walsh
also advised that not all programs are available for on-line registration at this
time. Mr. Johnson inquired on how the publications are going. Ms. Walsh
indicated that people are getting used to looking for it and also learning what we
have to offer. Ms. Halverson feels our brochure is the best. Ms. Walsh advised the
rooms at the Rec Center are getting more reservations. Also, Ms. Walsh indicated
the Brick House could not be rented at this time as it is not handicapped
accessible. Remodeling to make the Brick House handicapped accessible may be
in included in the long-range park plans.
Mr. Johnson advised that he is receiving the Keeping Up publication and any
ideas could be brought to this publication. Ms. Walsh advised the Commission of
the public art show on May 20th from 1-2 p.m. Mr. Johnson advised he would not
be able to attend. Ms. Walsh indicated ideas could also be sent in.
Ms. Walsh indicated new members would be present next month as Dave Peters
verbally resigned. The Commission inquired on where Jeff is and was advised he
is at the legislature.
C. Program Report – Mark Oestreich: Mr. Oestreich advised the Commission of the
new programs they are working on which include the 20th Anniversary celebration
and building construction. Mr. Oestreich advised the number of registrants for
Family Fireside, Bird Watching, adults and seniors drawing & sketching program,
spring waterfalls, adults with disabilities, and canoeing programs. Ms. Halverson
inquired about programs for disabilities. Mr. Oestreich indicated staff is
considering having a fishing lake for kids, which would need to be seven or eight
feet deep where kids could catch little fish. The Commission was also updated on
the improvements to the boardwalk which would be available to disabled people.
The boardwalk will be 650 to 700 feet long. Mr. Oestreich also informed the
Commission of the T-shirt contest they held in which which 150 - 175 people
responded. A sixth grader at Cedar Manor won the contest, which means that
child’s drawing will be put on the front of the 20th Anniversary shirts. These T-
shirts will be sold for $5 - $7 from 1 – 4 p.m. at the 20th Anniversary celebration
and will be available at the Rec Center and Westwood Hills Nature Center after
the event.
D. Director’s Report: None.
7. ADJOURNMENT: Gretchen Halverson motioned to adjourn the meeting and Ashley
Tomoson seconded. The motion passed 4-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted, Caroline Manz, Office Assistant