Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001/12/17 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Regular 1 AGENDA - CITY COUNCIL MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA December 17, 2001 7:30 p.m. 6:30 p.m. – Open House for Bobby Young 7:15 p.m. - Economic Development Authority 1. Call to Order a. Pledge of Allegiance b. Roll Call 2. Presentations a. Farewell to Robert Young, departing Ward 4 Councilmember 3. Approval of Minutes a. City Council Minutes of December 3, 2001 b. Study Session Minutes of November 26, 2001 Action: Corrections/amendments to minutes - Minutes approved as presented 4. Approval of Agenda and Consent Items NOTE: Consent items are those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion. a. Approval of Agenda Action: Motion to approve (Alternatively, motion to add or remove items from the agenda, motion to move items from consent to regular agenda for discussion). b. Approval of Consent Items 1. Motion to accept report stating there will be no increase in any of the four enterprise funds for 2002 2. Motion to adopt the ordinance adopting the 2002 Code of Ordinances for the City of St. Louis Park (2nd reading), approve the summary and authorize its publication. 3. Motion to adopt a resolution approving a Minor Amendment to the Knollwood Mall Planned Unit Development (PUD) to allow façade changes and two additional entrances at 8332 State Highway 7. 4. Motion to adopt the attached resolution authorizing execution of a contract with ENSR Consulting and Engineering for consultant activities related to the 2 implementation of the Reilly Tar & Chemical Corporation Remedial Action Plan in 2002. 5. Motion to adopt the attached resolution approving a grant agreement between the Hennepin County Department of Environmental Services and the City of St. Louis Park. 6. Motion to authorize execution of a contract extension to Contract No. 1893 with Severn Trent Services (STL - Denver) for laboratory services related to the Reilly Tar & Chemical Corporation groundwater sampling program through year 2002. 7. Traffic Study No. 559: Motion to adopt the attached resolution authorizing installation of permit parking in front of 2900 Blackstone Avenue South. 8. Traffic Study No. 560: Motion to adopt the attached resolution authorizing restricting parking along the south side of Wayzata Boulevard from Pennsylvania Avenue to a point 75 feet west. 9. Motion to accept the following report for filing: a. Charter Commission Minutes of September 12, 2001 b. Planning Commission Minutes of November 21, 2001 c. Vendor Claims 10. Police Uniform Contract. Motion to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute a contract with Uniforms Unlimited for police uniforms for a two-year period from January 1, 2002, through December 31, 2003. Action: Motion to approve Consent Items 5. Public Hearings 5a. Public Hearing and Second Reading of Sale of City Owned Property at 3900 Meadowbrook Road Case 00-42-RE Public hearing and second reading of Ordinance authorizing the sale of City owned property at 3900 Meadowbrook Road to adjacent property owner. Recommended Action: Recommend that the City Council take the following actions: Mayor to close public hearing; motion to approve second reading of Ordinance to sell City owned property at 3900 Meadowbrook Road, approve summary publication and authorize its publication. 6. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public 7. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions 7a. Resolution Authorizing Renewal of Gambling Premises Permit for VFW Post 5632 operating at 5605 West 36th Street 3 Recommended Action: Motion to approve the resolution authorizing renewal. 7b. Amendment to Resolutions Regarding the Issuance of Building Permits Prior to the Park Commons East Plat being Recorded This report considers action by the City Council to amend Resolution Nos. 01-090 and 01-091 (resolutions approving Plat and PUD) regarding issuance of building permits prior to the Park Commons East plat being recorded. Recommended Action: Motion to adopt resolutions amending Resolution Nos. 01-090 and 01-091 waiving provisions in the Subdivision Ordinance to allow issuance of building permits prior to recording of the Park Commons East plat. 7c. Adopt 2002 Budget, 2001 Revised Budget, 2002 Property Tax Levy, HRA Levy and 2000 Fund Balance Allocations This is the final step in the 2002 Budget process. The levy must be certified and budget information submitted to the County by the end of December. Recommended Action: Motion to approve resolutions adopting the 2002 budget, Revised 2001 Budget, HRA Levy, 2002 Property Tax Levy and 2000 Fund balance allocation. 7d. Preliminary approval for issuance of revenue bonds for the benefit of West Suburban Housing Partners West Suburban Housing Partners is requesting the City to issue up to $9,000,000 in Private Activity Revenue bonds to fund the construction of an 88-unit apartment building. Recommended Action: Motion to approve preliminary resolution for issuance of a Private Activity Revenue Bond not exceeding $9,000,000 7e. Subordination Agreement – Park Commons East Consider of the adoption of a Subordination Agreement between Glaser Financial Group, Inc., the City of St. Louis Park, and the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority relating to the Excelsior and Grand/Park Commons East Project Recommended Action: Motion to approve the Subordination Agreement between Glaser Financial Group, Inc., the City of St. Louis Park, and the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority relative to the Excelsior and Grand/Park Commons East Project 4 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 December 3, 2001 7:30 p.m. 1. Call to Order Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m. The following Councilmembers were present at roll call: Jim Brimeyer, Ron Latz, Chris Nelson, Susan Sanger, Sue Santa, Robert Young, and Mayor Jeff Jacobs. Also present were the City Manager (Mr. Meyer); City Attorney (Mr. Scott); Police Chief (Mr. Luse); Director of Finance (Ms. McGann); City Assessor (Mr. Stepnick); Director of Parks and Recreation (Ms. Walsh); City Clerk (Ms. Reichert); and Recording Secretary (Ms. Samson). 2. Presentations 2a. Departing Employee Recognition Presentation for Rob Molstad, Patrick Collins, Richard Johansen, Daniel Morgan, Harlan (Jim) Hildebrandt, and Brent Polivany. Mayor Jacobs presented departing employee recognition presentations for Rob Molstad, Harlan (Jim) Hildebrandt, Richard Johansen, Brent Polivany, Patrick Collins, and Daniel Morgan. Police Chief John Luse participated in the presentations. 3. Approval of Minutes 3a. City Council Minutes of November 19, 2001 The minutes were approved as presented. 3b. Special Meeting Minutes of November 19, 2001 The minutes were approved as presented. 3c. Special Meeting Minutes of November 13, 2001 The minutes were approved as presented. 3d. Study Session Minutes of November 13, 2001 6 The minutes were approved as presented with the following changes: Councilmember Sanger asked that the notes from the discussion about property at Club Road be modified to include her comments about the need to protect the existing wetlands on the property. Add to Page 12, Item 3, regarding property on Club Road, Paragraph 6. Councilmember Sanger suggested that there was no consensus regarding the proposed siting for the WMEP school as indicated on Page 13, paragraph beginning “Council discussed possible sites” and ending “They felt that the Eliot site was a good choice.” She thought it would be appropriate to say, “Some members felt that the Eliot site was a good choice.” 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. Approval of Agenda It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to approve the agenda. The motion passed 7-0. 4b. Approval of Consent Items It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to approve the following Consent Agenda Items. The motion passed 7-0. 1. Adopt Resolution No. 01-136 which makes minor revisions to the official Sidewalk and Trail Systems and designates Exhibit A as the official Trail and Sidewalk Map of the City. 2. Adopt Resolution No. 01-137 that declares the petition adequate for the purposes of preparing a formal City Engineer’s Report on the feasibility and costs associated with a proposed alley improvement project in the 4000 block between Toledo and Utica Avenues. 3. Approve Resolution No. 01-138 completed work by Veit & Company transporting granular fill to Oak Park Village and authorizing final payment. 4. Motion to accept recognition Resolution No. 01-139 for Patrick Collins, Resolution No. 01-140 for Richard Johansen, Resolution No. 01-141 for Daniel 7 Morgan, Resolution No. 01-142 for Harlan (Jim) Hildebrandt, and Resolution No. 01-143 for Brent Polivany. 5. Motion to accept the following reports for filing: a. Planning Commission Minutes of November 7, 2001 b. Housing Authority Minutes of October 10, 2001 c. Human Rights Commission Minutes of October 17, 2001 d. Vendor Claims 5. Public Hearings 5a. Public Hearing on the 2002 Proposed Budget and Tax Levy Charlie Meyer, City Manager, Jean McGann, Finance Director, and Bruce Stepnick, City Assessor, presented background information on the 2002 proposed budget and associated tax levies. Mr. Meyer said, when Council considered the preliminary adoption of the levy in September of 2001, the City had been in a rather unusual position of having little information. The lack of information was due to significant changes to the property tax laws of Minnesota and, as of September, 2001, it was difficult to make definitive statements about the future. One of the most significant property tax law changes was that the State legislature decided the State should pick up the costs of operating schools, and school operating costs should not be costs borne by local property taxpayers except through special referendum levies that communities may autonomously pursue. One way for the State to pay for school operating costs is to shift tax burdens to cities; additionally, a local aid category was eliminated, in the case of St. Louis Park, the eliminated local aid category amounts to $3,000,000 per year. When the legislature took its action, the City anticipated the $3,000,000 would be levied against City property taxes—and that was the case. Mr. Meyer continued: The legislature sets yearly levy limits, and the 2001 levy limit for St. Louis Park is 29%--approximately 21% of the levy increase acknowledges the shift in State aid, i.e., the shifting of a school property tax to a City property tax. The legislature’s premise for the shift is that local services such as police, fire, and public works are tailored to their locality and are more appropriately paid for by local property taxes, and schools should be more uniform throughout the State, therefore, schools should be funded by the State. Mr. Meyer stated it is not necessarily bad, but it is significant, to shift local property taxes from the school to the City, especially when the increase in the local property tax levy is so large. Ms. McGann and Mr. Stepnick spoke on legislative changes, market trends, community impacts on residential and commercial properties, St. Louis Park’s proposal for a levy increase, and how the levy increase impacts the 2002 budget. Ms. McGann said the Homestead and Agricultural Credit Aid (“HACA”), a State aid credit, has been eliminated; for St. Louis Park, HACA amounted to approximately $3,000,000. The distribution of local government aid has changed significantly; for St. Louis Park, the reduction in this category is $50,000, however, some communities are 8 receiving substantial increases in local government aid. The new State property tax does not benefit St. Louis Park. Mr. Stepnick said classification rates, and its subsequent shift of tax burdens, have changed this year. He said, for 2002 the maximum property tax refund will be $1,450 compared to $440 in 2001; and the income eligibility for a property tax refund increased from $62,000 in 2001 to $77,500 in 2002. Ms. McGann said there is a 29% increase in the general operating levy, and 21% of that is due to the elimination of State aid, therefore, there is a net levy increase of 8%. A final budget will be presented to the Council on December 17, 2001. Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. The following St. Louis Park residents asked questions and/or made statements about the proposed budget and tax levy: Mr. William Magdziarz-Rainey, 8610 West 34th Street; Mr. Jon Swanson, 2901 Nevada Ave. So.; Mr. Earl Erickson, 2216 Jersey Ave. So.; Mr. Mark Shirley, 2840 Vernon Ave. So.; and Mr. Nachbor, 2410 Gettysburg Ave. So. Mr. Meyer said the City does not plan to use the General Fund reserves to reduce the property tax levy; the surplus is used for cash flow purposes. According to Mr. Meyer, there are two issues pertaining to the 2002 budgetary spending compared to the 2001 budgetary spending: the City’s increase in its budget, and the changes made at the Federal and State levels, which consequently reflect on St. Louis Park. Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing. He said no action will be taken on the budget tonight, formal action will be taken on December 17th. Councilmember Latz is frustrated about the fallout from the legislative changes. He said St. Louis Park derives its income from property taxes, and the State fully expected local government to have to impose higher taxes to make up for the changes and shifting of the tax burden. Councilmember Nelson said the State does not reciprocate in-kind to St. Louis Park in that more taxes are taken out than are returned. He prefers property taxes raised in St. Louis Park remain in St. Louis Park as opposed to having those dollars sent somewhere else in the State. Councilmember Sanger asked, What is the proposed overall percentage increase in actual spending by the City? Ms. McGann responded the net impact is approximately 8%. Councilmember Sanger said the sources of the funding are what has changed so dramatically and not the City’s expenditures. Councilmember Brimeyer said, given the legislative tax changes, St. Louis Park took a $3,000,000 hit, and 2002 will be a devastating year for State funding. 9 Mayor Jacobs said, essentially, $3,000,000 of St. Louis Park’s budget was, in one fell swoop, taken away. Consequently, there are two choices: shift St. Louis Park’s revenue source or determine how to cut $3,000,000 out of the 2002 budget. Such a cut would be inappropriate, and it appears to Mayor Jacobs the question to ask is: Do you perceive value for what you are paying? Mayor Jacobs perceives the payment of taxes to the City to be one of the best values in town. He added: Government does not become more expensive because of what it costs, it becomes more expensive because of what it does. Councilmember Young said the Council is constantly being asked to do more, and St. Louis Park residents are requesting City improvements to boost their quality of life. Councilmember Nelson asked Ms. McGann two questions for the December 17th meeting: Question 1. City spending has increased 8%, however, it appears the General Fund revenue has risen by 5%, which suggests a spend down of a surplus somewhere because the City is spending more than it is taking in and the City must balance, is that the case? Question 2. How does the spending increase of 8% breakdown? Councilmember Santa said the requests for services provided by the City are increasing yearly, and the Council is very conscientious of its expenditures. Mayor Jacobs reminded everyone that no formal action will be taken tonight, the action date will be December 17th, and that meeting is open to the public. 6. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public --None 7. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions 7a. Oak Park Village area building architect selection. Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation, reported a correction saying the selection is for the architect and not the building. Ms. Walsh stated this contract is separate from the park itself, and will begin about one or two months after park construction due to the design nomenclature. She said the building is expected to be completed by May 2003, and available for use in late August or early September 2003. Councilmember Nelson asked if landscaping and irrigation will be included for the rest of the park and Ms. Walsh said yes to both, and its cost is included in the CIP amount for the master park design. Councilmember Nelson also asked if the City is bonding for this, and Mr. Meyer said the payment will come from the 1999 General Operating bonds; the 1999 bond will cover all CIP projects in the 1999-2002 timeframe. Councilmember Brimeyer suggested anyone wishing to see the St. Louis Park debt schedule may do so. It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer, to authorize execution of an agreement for professional design and architectural services with Bentz/Thompson/Rictow, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $450,000. 10 The motion passed 7-0. 7b. 1st Reading of the ordinance adopting the 2002 Code of Ordinances for the City of St. Louis Park. City Clerk, Cindy Reichert, reported the arrival of the 2002 Code of Ordinances for the City of St. Louis Park, which incorporates amendments made subsequent to the most recent adoption date of 1976. The Code of Ordinances will be available on the Internet, the City’s website, and City’s servers. The first update will take place two months after adoption. Anything passed since June 18, 2001until adoption is continued in full force and effect through a provision of adopting ordinance and those ordinances will be incorporated with the first update. Publishing will take place immediately after approval of the second reading. The Code will be in effect 15 days after publication and that date will be January 2, 2002. Copies will be distributed to City departments, Hennepin County Court, and City attorneys. Municipal Code Corporation will provide updates to St. Louis Park in paper and electronic form, maintain the website, and offer supplement services to those who wish to purchase certain chapters or provisions of the Code in paper or electronic form. Councilmember Latz reported two corrections to the Code of Ordinances: Section 4, Line 3, insert guilty of immediately following “Pursuance thereof shall be”. Three lines following that, the line beginning with the word “offense”, Councilmember Latz recommends that in the subclause, in the middle of the line “unless another penalty is expressly provided”, begin the sentence with that, insert a comma after “provided”, and continue with “penalty provided by this section (delete the comma) shall apply to the amendment code of any section”. It was moved by Councilmember Latz, seconded by Councilmember Nelson, to approve first reading of the adopting ordinance and set second reading for December 17, 2001, the ordinance with the amendments as proposed. The motion passed 7-0. 8. Boards and Committees--None 9. Communications From Councilmember Brimeyer—Councilmember Brimeyer said he attended the League’s legislative conference on November 23rd, and received information on the tax changes. He has asked the City Manager to copy and distribute that information to the Mayor and Council. 10. Adjournment Mayor Jacobs adjourned the meeting at 9:14 p.m. (signature block) 11 Item # 3b UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION Minutes of November 26, 2001 The meeting convened at 7:00 p.m. Present at the meeting were Councilmembers Jim Brimeyer, Ron Latz, Sue Santa and Mayor Jeff Jacobs. Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Meyer), Director of Community Development (Mr. Harmening), Human Resources Manager (Ms. Gohman), and City Clerk (Ms. Reichert). 1. Dan Patch Commuter Rail Study Presentation Scott Peterson and Stephanie Eilers of Parsons Brinkerhoff were present at the meeting. Ms. Eicher discussed the process used over the past few months in their analysis, such as an interactive public process, identifying technical, community, and environmental issues and using technical and policy advisory committees. She also shared results and findings and stated that the Dan Patch Commuter Rail Line was no longer considered to be a viable option. Councilmember Brimeyer asked if the reaction by the public to the line was different south of the metro area. Mr. Peterson stated that there was better acceptance closer to the metro area. Councilmember Latz asked what the experiences in start-up lines around the country was in terms of projected ridership compared to the actual numbers after start-up. Ms. Eicher replied that projections became more accurate as different phases of the projects were brought on line. 2. Private Activity Revenue Bonds Mr. Harmening stated that West Suburban Housing Partners has a proposal for a multi-family housing project for the old Hutchinson Spur right-of-way located south of 36th St and west of Rainbow Foods. Staff would like to receive feedback from Council as to whether they would have interest in issuing private activity revenue bonds for the project. Todd Urness, West Suburban Housing Partners, explained the proposal to the Council. He said they would like to build an 88-unit apartment building with approximately 41 units set aside for households whose income is sixty percent of the gross median income. They have requested that the City of St. Louis Park issue private activity revenue bonds that would be used to construct the building and finance the land acquisition. Councilmember Brimeyer inquired about the availability of private financing. Mr. Urness stated that is difficult to get rents on this site high enough to meet the standards of a private financier. 12 Councilmember Brimeyer asked if this type of proposal is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Harmening stated that it was located in the highest density land use designation and was also close to transit systems and services. Councilmember Brimeyer asked staff about the goals for affordable housing in St. Louis Park. Mr. Harmening replied that St. Louis Park has met or will soon meet the goals. Councilmember Santa said that residents were concerned that the apartments would house a lot families, but have no amenities for the children such as parks, playground, etc. Mr. Harmening listed several issues that need to be considered in relation to this proposal: pedestrian crossings to shopping areas, sidewalk improvement, playground space, scheduling a meeting with adjacent property owners, and having the pro-forma reviewed. Mr. Harmening informed Council that staff would be presenting a preliminary resolution for this project on December 17. Councilmember Brimeyer stated that he did not want to see a variance presented for this project. Mayor Jacobs was concerned about the number of affordable units and the impact on schools, traffic and adjacent properties. Councilmember Latz stated that he very much wants to see more affordable housing in the city. 3. Salary Cap Ms. Gohman explained that Minnesota statutes place an upper limit on the amount of compensation that can be provided to City Managers. The compensation can not be more than ninety-five percent of the governor’s salary. In keeping with the standard 3.5 % adjustment at the end of the year, the City Manager’s salary would go over that cap. Ms Gohman asked Council to support the process of a formal request for an exemption to the salary cap for 2002. She added that staff plans to work with the city’s compensation consultant, Rod Kelsey, as well as several other cities. Council agreed that staff should move forward with the exemption process. 4. Appoinment and Dismissal of Department Heads Ms. Gohman stated that the City Charter requires Council approval for the appointment and dismissal of department heads. Several member of the Council had expressed some interest in a past meeting on removing that language from the Charter and giving the City Manager power to hire and dismiss department heads. Council discussed how the dismissal of a department head should take place and if Council should be involved. 13 After considering different scenarios, councilmembers present at the meeting reached concensus that the Charter provisions as written provide reasonable protection for department heads and should remain in the Charter. 5. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m. City Clerk Mayor 14 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 5a Meeting of December 17, 2001 5a. Public Hearing and Second Reading of Sale of City Owned Property at 3900 Meadowbrook Road Case 00-42-RE Public hearing and second reading of Ordinance authorizing the sale of City owned property at 3900 Meadowbrook Road to adjacent property owner. Recommended Action: Recommend that the City Council take the following actions: Mayor to close public hearing; motion to approve second reading of Ordinance to sell City owned property at 3900 Meadowbrook Road, approve summary publication and authorize its publication. Background: On September 18, 2000, the City Council approved first reading of an Ordinance to sell a City- owned land-locked parcel of land at 3900 Meadowbrook Road to the adjacent property owner. (The parcel is considered unbuildable due to its lack of access and substandard size.) The Ordinance was in response to a petition from Gary Woods, president of Wellington Window & Door Co., requesting the sale of City owned property. The conditions of first reading were that the petitioner prepares an appraisal and signs a purchase agreement prior to second reading. The appraisal has been completed and purchase agreement prepared and signed by the petitioner. The City Council has adopted a policy and procedure for selling City owned property. The criteria for such a sale is discussed below. Mr. Woods is planning an expansion of the building and intends to use the additional property to accommodate parking. The Planning Commission met on August 2, 2000, and after reviewing the request recommended approval of the sale. Legal Description: That part of the Southwest ¼ of the Northwest ¼ of Section 20, Township 117 North, Range 21, West of the 5th Principal Meridian lying Southeasterly of railroad right of way and Northeasterly of Minnehaha Creek bed and Northwesterly of Carlsons Creekside Addition. 15 Site Location: Applicant Eligibility Requirements: The applicant meets eligibility requirements as required in the City’s policy for purchasing an unbuildable lot because the applicant is the owner of abutting property. Land Eligibility Requirements: In order for public land to meet the eligibility requirements of the City for sale, it must meet all of the following criteria: 1. The City Council must find that the land in question has no existing or future public need. 2. The land must not have been acquired by the City through tax delinquency (forfeiture) or dedication. 3. The land must not be designated on the Comprehensive plan as park or open space. 4. Land requested to be sold or vacated must be under the jurisdiction of the City. 5. The land shall not contain any wetland. 6. The parcel must meet all of the size requirements of the Zoning Ordinance for a buildable parcel, except that an unbuildable parcel may be sold to an abutting property owner. Meadowbrook RdSubject Parcel WellingtonWindows Site 16 7. The sale will not result in a remnant parcel that does not meet Zoning Ordinance requirements for a buildable parcel or which does not have direct access from a public street. Analysis: Does the request meet all of the eligibility criteria? 1. The City Council must find that the land in question has no existing or future public need. The land in question is a vacated railroad spur that was purchased in 1967 by the City for park and other public purposes. The land, however, has never been used for park purposes and is designated on the Comprehensive Plan as Industrial. This is a land-locked parcel abutting the railroad track that does not contain any City owned utilities. 2. The land must not have been acquired by the City through tax delinquency (forfeiture) or dedication. The City holds a quit claim deed for the parcel. 3. The land must not be designated on the Comprehensive Plan as park or open space. The parcel is designated as “Industrial” on the Comprehensive Plan. 4. Land requested to be sold or vacated must be under the jurisdiction of the City. The parcel is located within the municipal boundaries of St. Louis Park. 5. The land shall not contain any wetland. According to the National Wetland Inventory Map, this parcel does not contain a wetland. A portion of the parcel is within the 100 year flood plain. 6. The parcel must meet all of the size requirements of the Zoning Ordinance for a buildable parcel, except that an unbuildable parcel may be sold to an abutting property owner. The parcel is not a buildable parcel as defined by the Zoning Ordinance because it does not meet the minimum size requirements and it does not have access from a public right of way. The request for sale is from an abutting property owner and a replat to combine the two properties, so it cannot be resold, is being processed. 7. The sale will not result in a remnant parcel that does not meet Zoning Ordinance requirements for a buildable parcel or which does not have direct access from a public street. The applicant is requesting to purchase the entire parcel and has submitted an application for a preliminary and final plat to combine the property with his parcel. The City Attorney 17 has suggested that actual closing of the sale not occur until the final plat is approved. However, since the City will be the owner of the property until closing, it is necessary for the City to sign the applications for preliminary and final plat. Will the acquisition of this property accommodate the future plans of the applicant? The applicant has submitted a survey of the property, showing conceptually how the area will be used to provide parking for a future building expansion. The survey shows that the distance between the existing building and the northern property line of the subject property is of adequate size to accommodate one row of parking with a drive aisle. Circulation and other site plan considerations will need to be submitted with any building plans for any future building addition. What is the value of the land? The value of the land has been determined by the appraisal prepared for the petitioner by an outside consultant. The appraiser, Bakken, Liedl, Janssen, Day & Reach, Inc., has been satisfactorily used by the City numerous times in the past. The sale price is $19,400 and was confirmed by the City Assessor as an appropriate figure. The attached purchase agreement was prepared by the City Attorney. Recommendation: The request for public sale meets all of the requirements set forth in the City’s policy for Permanent Disposition By Sale, and staff and the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve second reading of the Ordinance authorizing the sale. Attachments: Draft Ordinance Summary Ordinance Appraisal Letter Purchase Agreement Prepared By: Judie Erickson Approved By: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 18 ORDINANCE NO. 2217-01 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING SALE OF CITY PROPERTY 3900 MEADOWBROOK ROAD THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN: Sec. 1. The property located at 3900 Meadowbrook Road was purchased by the City with the intent of owning the entire Minnehaha Creek bank for public use. This property is adjacent to property abutting Minnehaha Creek that is in public ownership. Sec. 2. The property located at 3900 Meadowbrook Road is designated in the Comprehensive Plan for an industrial land use. Sec. 3. The property located at 3900 Meadowbrook Road does not meet the criteria of the City’s Zoning Ordinance for a buildable lot. Sec. 4. The City of St. Louis Park has received a petition from an adjacent property owner requesting the sale of the property to accommodate additional parking. Sec. 5. The petitioner meets all eligibility requirements of the City for purchasing an unbuildable lot. Sec. 6. The petitioner has requested that the City of St. Louis Park sign the petition in order to provide signatures for the majority of the surrounding land. Sec. 7. The Planning Commission, at its meeting of August 16, 2000, recommended that the City Council sign the petition and find no current or future public need for the property. Sec. 8. The City Council authorized the City Manager on behalf of the City to sign the application as an abutting property owner on September 18, 2000. Sec. 9. The City Council has determined that there is no current or future public need for the property. Sec. 10. The sale of the property will allow for the expansion of a local business and is supported by the Comprehensive Plan. Sec. 11. An independent Minnesota Certified General Real Property Appraiser has made a determination of market value based upon conditions of the property and value of other industrial property in the area. Sec. 12. The sale of the property by the City to Wellington Window and Door Co. is for a total sale price of $19,400. The property is legally described as follows: 19 That part of the Southwest ¼ of the Northwest ¼ of Section 20, Township 117 North, Range 21, West of the 5th Principal Meridian lying Southeasterly of railroad right of way and Northeasterly of Minnehaha Creek bed and Northwesterly of Carlson’s Creekside Addition. Sec. 13. The sale of the property shall not take place until a replat occurs. Sec. 14. The Mayor and City Manager are authorized to execute a purchase agreement and other necessary documents to facilitate the sale of this property. Sec. 15. This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after its publication. Sec. 16. The City Clerk shall record the deed for the sale. Adopted by the City Council _______________ Reviewed for Administration City Mana ger Mayor Attest:: Approved as to Form and Execution: City Clerk City Attorney 00-42-re/N/res/ord 20 SUMMARY ORDINANCE NO. 2217-01 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING SALE OF CITY PROPERTY 3900 MEADOWBROOK ROAD This ordinance states that the sale of 0.36 acres of property by the City to Wellington Window and Door Co. for a total sale price of $19,400 is hereby authorized. The property is located directly north of the Wellington Window & Door Co. located at 3938 Meadowbrook Road This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication. Adopted by the City Council December 17, 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: December 26, 2001 00-42-re-SUM:N\res/ord 21 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 7a Meeting of December 17, 2001 7a. Resolution Authorizing Renewal of Gambling Premises Permit for VFW Post 5632 operating at 5605 West 36th Street Recommended Action: Motion to approve the resolution authorizing renewal. Background: VFW Post 5632 has submitted a renewal application for a Gambling Premises Permit at their hall located at 5605 West 36th Street in St. Louis Park. This organization has operated continuously in the City since 1985. Prior to 1985, it conducted bingo on a regular basis. The City Council must act to approve or deny the renewal before it is submitted to the State Gambling Control Board. A copy of the resolution passed by the Council will be submitted to the State. All current requirements for issuance of the license have been met. The Police Department has conducted a background investigation and no records or warrants were discovered by using conventional police methods of investigation. Attachments: Resolution Prepared by: Cynthia D. Reichert, City Clerk Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 22 RESOLUTION NO. 01-144 A RESOLUTION OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK CITY COUNCIL APPROVING ISSUANCE OF A PREMISES PERMIT FOR LAWFUL GAMBLING FOR VFW POST 5632 5605 WEST 36TH STREET, ST. LOUIS PARK WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 349 and St. Louis Park Ordinance Section 13-1600 , provide for lawful gambling licensing by the State Gambling Control Board; and WHEREAS, a licensed organization may not conduct lawful gambling at any site unless it has first obtained from the Board a premise permit for the site; and WHEREAS, the Board may not issue or renew a premises permit unless the organization submits a resolution from the City Council approving the premises permit; therefore, BE IT RESOLVED by the City of St. Louis Park City Council that the applicant listed below meets the criteria necessary to receive a premises permit, and the application is hereby approved VFW POST 5632 ST. LOUIS PARK 5605 WEST 36TH STREET ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416 Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 17, 2001 City Manage r Mayor Attest: City Clerk 23 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 7b Meeting of December 17, 2001 7b. Amendment to Resolutions Regarding the Issuance of Building Permits Prior to the Park Commons East Plat being Recorded This report considers action by the City Council to amend Resolution Nos. 01-090 and 01-091 (resolutions approving Plat and PUD) regarding issuance of building permits prior to the Park Commons East plat being recorded. Recommended Action: Motion to adopt resolutions amending Resolution Nos. 01-090 and 01-091 waiving provisions in the Subdivision Ordinance to allow issuance of building permits prior to recording of the Park Commons East plat. Background: When the City Council approved the final plat and PUD for the Park Commons East/Excelsior and Grand project in July, 2001 (and as amended in September, 2001), certain conditions were contained in the resolution which limited work which could take place on the site prior to the final plat being recorded (excavation, grading and public utility work was allowed). Due to complications which the City and TOLD have experienced in processing the plat through the Torrens office at Hennepin County, the plat is not yet available to be recorded. As TOLD is now ready to pour footings and commence building construction, staff has had to instruct TOLD to stop work until such time as these conditions were met. Based upon a contact which the City has made with the Torrens office, it now appears that the plat is moving along again and should be available for recording in the near future. However, this still results in no building construction work being allowed on the site. TOLD is anxious to continue construction work and is asking the City Council to amend its previous approvals to allow them to continue. Staff and legal counsel have discussed this matter and are recommending action to allow them to continue work with the understanding that the plat needs to be recorded by January 15, 2002. The changes to the resolution are either struck out or underlined. Attachments: Amendment to Plat resolution Amendment to PUD resolution Prepared By: Tom Harmening, Community Development Director Approved By: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 24 RESOLUTION NO. 01-145 Amends and Restates Resolutions No. 01-065 and 01-090 A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION 01-090 ADOPTED ON SEPTEMBER 4, 2001 APPROVING A FINAL PLAT - PARK COMMONS EAST WHEREAS, the City Council approved the Preliminary Plat on June 4, 2001, Resolution No. 01-049; and WHEREAS, an application for approval of a Final Plat for Park Commons East was received on January 16, 2001 (accepted as complete application on May 9, 2001) from the applicant, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the Final Plat at the meeting of July 11, 2001, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Final Plat on a 6- 0 vote with all members present voting in the affirmative, and WHEREAS, the City Council approved the Final Plat for Park Commons East on July 23, 2001, Resolution 01-065, and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 01-090 on September 4, 2001 approving an amendment to the approved Final Plat to change the name of the north-south Town Green streets to Grand Way and separate the plat and PUD resolutions, WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the staff reports, Planning Commission minutes and testimony of those appearing at the public hearing or otherwise including comments in the record of decision. BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park: Findings 1. TOLD Development Company , and the City of St. Louis Park, owners and subdividers of the land proposed to be platted as Park Commons East have submitted an application for approval of 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. 01-06-S) and the effect of the proposed Plat on the health, safety and 25 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 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 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). 4. The contents of Planning Case File 01-06-S are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case. Conclusion The Final Plat at the location described is approved based on the findings set forth above and subject to the following conditions: 1. The site shall be developed, used, and maintained in conformance with the Final PUD official exhibits, which may be amended according to the provisions of the planning contract between TOLD and the City of St. Louis Park and to meet the conditions of Final PUD approval. The Final Plat shall be amended prior to recording to change the name of the north-south town green streets to “Grand Way” and to keep the current name of 38th/39th Street. 2. Outlots A, B and C of the Park Commons East Final Plat shall be retained by the City of St. Louis Park for public purposes. 3. Future phases shown as Outlots D, E, F, G, H, and I on the Park Commons East Final Plat must receive subsequent preliminary and final PUD and plat approval, including approval of condominium lots, prior to construction of any permanent improvements on those properties. Interim parking and transit facilities are permitted on Outlots D, E, F, G, H, and I provided City approval is obtained and any necessary access easements or agreements are executed. 4. All street right-of-way (R.O.W.) shall be dedicated to the City or Hennepin County as shown on the Park Commons East Final Plat; an ordinance vacating existing City streets, an alley, and an existing sidewalk easement along Excelsior Boulevard shall become effective upon recording of the Final Plat. 5. Prior to the City signing the Final Plat: a. A sidewalk easement shall be executed which retains that portion of the developable lot between the building face and public right-of-way for public sidewalk purposes. b. A planning contract shall be executed between the City and developer which addresses at a minimum: final plat/PUD and construction phasing; interim use and maintenance plans for future phase outlots, construction of permanent public improvements and temporary sidewalks, provisions for ensuring adequate parking, conditions for administrative approval of amendments to the official exhibits, terms for meeting tree replacement requirements. 26 6. The Park Commons East Final Plat approval includes the following variances to the Subdivision Ordinance: a. Street right-of-way and street sections shall be as shown on the approved final plat; street names may include the word “park” subject to final plat and PUD approval. b. Drainage and utility easements shall not be required around the perimeter of all lots. c. Lots sizes in future phases may be less than the “R-C” Zoning District requirement subject to any conditions of subsequent preliminary and final PUD/Plat approval. 7. The developer is required to comply with all provisions of the planning contract, development agreement with the EDA, Metropolitan Council LCDA grant agreement(s), MPCA and Watershed District approvals. 8. Specific responsibility for financing and construction of the following required Phase 1 improvements shall be addressed by the Planning Contract: a. construction of all streets, on-street parking, and utilities, within the entire PUD area. b. completion of streetscape improvements, including bicycle and transit amenities, adjacent to all Phase 1 properties and Wolfe Park. c. construction of temporary bituminous sidewalks in accordance with a plan approved by the Zoning Administrator. d. regrading of the southern portion of Wolfe Park, relocation/reconstruction of the existing trail, and construction of the park edge road, parking, approved hard surface sidewalk between parking and trail, plantings and streetscape subject to approved final plans. e. construction of the entire town green from Excelsior Boulevard to Wolfe Park in accordance with approved final town green plans with temporary sidewalks north of 38th/39th until permanent sidewalks/streetscape are completed during construction of each future phase. f. construction of the Phase 1 public parking ramps in accordance with approved final plans. g. construction of the police substation and public restrooms in accordance with approved final plans. h. construction of traffic improvements and installation of traffic control and directional signage in accordance with approved final plans. i. construction of 18 project-based two-bedroom Section 8 units in accordance with public housing agreements. 9. Prior to any site work other than demolition for Park Commons East Phase One: a. the Final Plat and PUD for Phase 1 shall be approved. and the Final Plat shall be signed by the City. b. final construction documents for public infrastructure (street, underground utilities; not streetscape) improvements shall be approved by the Public Works Director. c. required erosion control permits, utility permits, and other required permits shall be obtained from the City, Hennepin County, Watershed District and any other required agencies. 27 d. the MPCA shall be informed of the plans to regrade the southern portion of Wolfe Park and approval shall be received prior to regrading the park, if needed. e. a final tree preservation plan shall be approved by the Zoning Administrator and any necessary construction fencing shall be in place. f. plans for maintaining access to existing private condominium parking during construction shall be approved by Public Works and the affected property owners, if temporary construction easements are necessary. 10. Prior to issuance of any building permits, which may impose additional conditions: a. Evidence of recording the final plat, easements, and planning contract shall be submitted to the City, except that Section 14.912F of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code and the recording requirements are waived to allow, prior to recording of the plat, easement and planning contract, the issuance of building permits authorizing work through and including January 15, 2002. b. the Indirect Source Permit shall be approved by the MPCA, if necessary. c. A lighting and photometric plan shall be approved by the Zoning Administrator. d. An irrigation plan shall be approved by the Zoning Administrator. e. Exterior building material/colors shall be approved by the Zoning Administrator. f. Final plans for a police substation and adjacent public restrooms shall be approved by the Police Chief and Community Development Director. 11. Future phases of the Final Plat and PUD are approved in general concept only and subject to the following conditions of approval: a. All future phases are required to apply for subsequent Preliminary and Final Plat and PUD approval for those phases; such Preliminary and Final approval may be considered concurrently subject to Code and any pertinent provisions of the development agreements. b. Curb cuts, permanent sidewalks and streetscape adjacent to future phases shall be completed during construction of each future phase. c. A minimum of 35 stacked townhomes for owner-occupants shall be included in Future Phase E and/or Future Phase NE; additional condominiums and changes to proposed building height may be approved for Future Phase NE based upon recommendations of a market study. d. The City may consider proposals for permanent use of Future Phase W, subject to the provisions in the existing development contract between TOLD, EDA and City, either on its own or combined with potential redevelopment of the property to the west. However, the City may retain the Future Phase W property indefinitely and use it for such uses as the City may deem appropriate, including potential transit and parking uses. e. Variances to the 80 feet minimum lot width of the “R-C” District may be approved subject to Preliminary and Final Plat and PUD approvals. f. Allowable Code deviations are subject to the approved Redevelopment Plan and future Preliminary and Final PUD approvals. g. Approval for construction of future phases is contingent upon provision of adequate parking, which may include interim parking as approved by the City, and must include 75 weekday and 200 evening/weekend parking spaces, in excess of other needs of the development, for town green and Wolfe Park uses. 12. Prior to execution of the Final Plat for each subsequent phase: 28 a. preliminary and final plat/PUD approval shall be obtained for that phase. b. the existing development agreement shall be amended as necessary and a new planning contract shall be executed between the developer and City/EDA. c. public sidewalk easements shall be approved by the City Attorney for those areas of private development lots between the public street and building setback. 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 December 17, 2001 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk 01-06-S-amend2 29 RESOLUTION NO. 01-146 Amends and Restates Resolutions No. 01-065 and 01-091 A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION 01-091 ADOPTED ON SEPTEMBER 4, 2001 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 “M-X” MIXED USE, “R-C” MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, AND “R-3” TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOCATED EAST OF THE BALLY’S PROPERTY AT QUENTIN AVENUE, WEST OF MONTEREY DRIVE, AND NORTH OF EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD TO THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF WOLFE PARK, COMMONLY KNOWN AS PARK COMMONS EAST WHEREAS, the City Council approved the Preliminary PUD on June 4, 2001, Resolution No. 01-049; and WHEREAS, an application for approval of a Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) for Park Commons East was received on January 16, 2001 (accepted as complete application on May 9, 2001) from the applicant, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the Final PUD at the meeting of July 11, 2001, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Final PUD on a 6- 0 vote with all members present voting in the affirmative, and WHEREAS, the City Council approved the Final PUD for Park Commons East on July 23, 2001, Resolution 01-065, and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 01-091 on September 4, 2001 approving an amendment to the approved Final PUD to change the name of the north-south Town Green streets to Grand Way and separate the plat and PUD resolutions, WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the staff reports, Planning Commission minutes and testimony of those appearing at the public hearing or otherwise including comments in the record of decision. BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park: Findings 1. TOLD Development Company has made application to the City Council for a Planned Unit Development under Section 14:6-7 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code within the M-X, R-C, and R-3 districts located east of the Bally’s property at Quentin Avenue, west of Monterey 30 Drive, and north of Excelsior Boulevard to the southern portion of Wolfe Park, commonly known as Park Commons East for the legal description as follows, to-wit: Lot 1, Block 1; Lot 1 Block 2; and Outlots A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H, Park Commons East 2. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission (Case No. 01-07-PUD ) and the effect of the proposed PUD 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 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 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). 4. The contents of Planning Case File 01-07-PUD is 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 at the location described is approved based on the findings set forth above and subject to the following conditions: 1. The site shall be developed, used, and maintained in conformance with the Final PUD official exhibits, which may be amended according to the provisions of the planning contract between TOLD and the City of St. Louis Park and to meet the conditions of Final PUD approval. a. to address the recommendations of the Public Works Department dated 7/3/01. b. to address the Plumbing Inspector’s comments dated 7/2/01. c. to preserve the trees on the north side of 38th Street (proposed Grand Place) in front of Westmoreland Hills condominiums. d. to increase the length of the median at Market Avenue and Excelsior Boulevard per the recommendation of the traffic consultant. e. to meet minimum tree replacement ordinance requirements (that are not related to a cash in lieu payment). f. to coordinate town green and public streetscape improvements with Excelsior Boulevard streetscape plans and input from the selected artist consultant. g. to coordinate park edge improvements with amphitheater plans. h. to address comments from Metro Transit regarding transit locations and improvements. i. to address conditions of required permits from the Watershed District, MPCA, and City. 31 j. to show the names of streets as approved on the Final Plat and current names of 38th/39th Street, which may be changed later by ordinance. 2. The Park Commons East Phase 1 Final PUD approval includes code deviations to allow daycare as a retail/service use, right-of-way and street designs, open space, FAR/GFAR, building setbacks, bufferyards, and off-street parking as shown on the official exhibits based upon a finding of general consistency with the approved Redevelopment Plan and subject to any other conditions of final approval. 3. Outdoor seating is permitted in association with restaurants and food service uses subject to any conditions of Final PUD approval for that phase, easement provisions, health codes, and approval of specific outdoor seating plans by the Zoning Administrator. 4. All parking shall be open to the general public at all times except as follows: on-street parking may be restricted by the City, below-ground parking may be restricted to building residents, and a plan for valet parking may be approved by the City. 5. If parking is deemed inadequate by the City based upon evidence of parking in fire lanes, drive aisles or other inappropriate areas, the developer shall be required to rectify the situation in accordance with the provisions of the planning contract. 6. Proposed “Grand Place” north of 38th/39th may be closed for events as approved by the City. 7. The developer is required to comply with all provisions of the planning contract, development agreement with the EDA, Metropolitan Council LCDA grant agreement(s), MPCA and Watershed District approvals. 8. Specific responsibility for financing and construction of the following required Phase 1 improvements shall be addressed by the Planning Contract: j. construction of all streets, on-street parking, and utilities, within the entire PUD area. k. completion of streetscape improvements, including bicycle and transit amenities, adjacent to all Phase 1 properties and Wolfe Park. l. construction of temporary bituminous sidewalks in accordance with a plan approved by the Zoning Administrator. m. regrading of the southern portion of Wolfe Park, relocation/reconstruction of the existing trail, and construction of the park edge road, parking, approved hard surface sidewalk between parking and trail, plantings and streetscape subject to approved final plans. n. construction of the entire town green from Excelsior Boulevard to Wolfe Park in accordance with approved final town green plans with temporary sidewalks north of 38th/39th until permanent sidewalks/streetscape are completed during construction of each future phase. o. construction of the Phase 1 public parking ramps in accordance with approved final plans. p. construction of the police substation and public restrooms in accordance with approved final plans. q. construction of traffic improvements and installation of traffic control and directional signage in accordance with approved final plans. r. construction of 18 project-based two-bedroom Section 8 units in accordance with public housing agreements. 32 9. Prior to any site work other than demolition for Park Commons East Phase One: a. the Final Plat and PUD for Phase 1 shall be approved and the Final Plat shall be signed by the City. b. final construction documents for public infrastructure (street, underground utilities; not streetscape) improvements shall be approved by the Public Works Director. c. required erosion control permits, utility permits, and other required permits shall be obtained from the City, Hennepin County, Watershed District and any other required agencies. d. the MPCA shall be informed of the plans to regrade the southern portion of Wolfe Park and approval shall be received prior to regrading the park, if needed. e. a final tree preservation plan shall be approved by the Zoning Administrator and any necessary construction fencing shall be in place. f. plans for maintaining access to existing private condominium parking during construction shall be approved by Public Works and the affected property owners, if temporary construction easements are necessary. 10. Prior to issuance of any building permits, which may impose additional conditions: g. Evidence of recording the final plat, easements, and planning contract shall be submitted to the City ,except that Section 14.912F of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code and the recording requirements are waived to allow, prior to recording of the plat, easement and planning contract, the issuance of building permits authorizing work through and including January 15, 2002. h. the Indirect Source Permit shall be approved by the MPCA, if necessary. i. A lighting and photometric plan shall be approved by the Zoning Administrator. j. An irrigation plan shall be approved by the Zoning Administrator. k. Exterior building material/colors shall be approved by the Zoning Administrator. l. Final plans for a police substation and adjacent public restrooms shall be approved by the Police Chief and Community Development Director. 11. Prior to installation of any private signage, sign permits shall be approved by the Zoning Administrator. 12. Future phases of the Final Plat and PUD are approved in general concept only and subject to the following conditions of approval: h. All future phases are required to apply for subsequent Preliminary and Final Plat and PUD approval for those phases; such Preliminary and Final approval may be considered concurrently subject to Code and any pertinent provisions of the development agreements. i. Curb cuts, permanent sidewalks and streetscape adjacent to future phases shall be completed during construction of each future phase. j. A minimum of 35 stacked townhomes for owner-occupants shall be included in Future Phase E and/or Future Phase NE; additional condominiums and changes to proposed building height may be approved for Future Phase NE based upon recommendations of a market study. k. The City may consider proposals for permanent use of Future Phase W, subject to the provisions in the existing development contract between TOLD, EDA and City, either on its own or combined with potential redevelopment of the property to the west. However, the City may retain the Future Phase W property 33 indefinitely and use it for such uses as the City may deem appropriate, including potential transit and parking uses. l. Variances to the 80 feet minimum lot width of the “R-C” District may be approved subject to Preliminary and Final Plat and PUD approvals. m. Allowable Code deviations are subject to the approved Redevelopment Plan and future Preliminary and Final PUD approvals. n. Approval for construction of future phases is contingent upon provision of adequate parking, which may include interim parking as approved by the City, and must include 75 weekday and 200 evening/weekend parking spaces, in excess of other needs of the development, for town green and Wolfe Park uses. 13. Prior to execution of the Final Plat for each subsequent phase: d. preliminary and final plat/PUD approval shall be obtained for that phase. e. the existing development agreement shall be amended as necessary and a new planning contract shall be executed between the developer and City/EDA. f. public sidewalk easements shall be approved by the City Attorney for those areas of private development lots between the public street and building setback. Pursuant to Section 14:6-7.5(F) of the Zoning Ordinance, the City will require execution of a development agreement as a condition of approval of the Final P.U.D. The development agreement shall address those issues which the City Council deems appropriate and necessary. 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 December 17, 2001 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk 01-07-PUDamend2 34 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 7c Meeting of December 17, 2001 7c. Adopt 2002 Budget, 2001 Revised Budget, 2002 Property Tax Levy, HRA Levy and 2000 Fund Balance Allocations This is the final step in the 2002 Budget process. The levy must be certified and budget information submitted to the County by the end of December. Recommended Action: Motion to approve resolutions adopting the 2002 budget, Revised 2001 Budget, HRA Levy, 2002 Property Tax Levy and 2000 Fund balance allocation. Background: The 2002 budget and 2001 revised budget document was presented to the City Council in August of this year. In September, the City Council approved the preliminary tax levy, budget and HRA levy for 2002. A Public Hearing was held on December 3, 2001 as part of the regular City Council meeting. At the Public Hearing, there were a number of questions from residents and council members.. Each of the questions are indicated below along with a response. General Questions: Question: Is St. Louis Park planning to use any of the unreserved funds in 2002? There was 53.6% unreserved as a percentage of total current expenditures. What is the reserve right now? Answer: The City of St. Louis Park is not planning to use any of the unreserved fund balance for offsetting the tax levy for 2002. The unreserved fund balance on December 31, 2000 was $6,621,310. Of that amount $6,092,749 was designated for cash flow purposes and $511,551 was designated for future expenditures. The City is intending to utilize the $511,551 to fund the replacement of computer equipment, park facilities and repairs to City buildings as indicated later in this report. With the exception of a 1% tax levy for park improvements, none of the above sources have a dedicated revenue source. It should be noted that the only way a surplus is generated is by spending less than is budgeted. We do not realize excess revenues. In 1994, on the recommendation of the audit firm of Tautges, Redpath & Co., Ltd., the City approved a resolution indicating how fund balance reserves are to be calculated. This calculation consists of 50% of the subsequent years’ Local Government Aid allotment along with 50% of the General Fund’s property tax levy and HACA that is scheduled to be received in the following year. Due to cash flow timing differences, it is essential to maintain adequate reserves. Expenditures are incurred somewhat evenly throughout the year. Property taxes and State aid revenue are received in two payments in July and December. The fund balance provides cash flow until these payments are received. 35 Question: Why can’t the City manage to take the same lead the Federal and State government has? Answer: As stated above, the City generates revenue from property tax, State aid and fees. Once the City Council levies the property tax that dollar amount is fixed and there can be no increase in the amount received regardless of changes in property value or changes in the economy. Similarly State Aid is based on a formula and fixed. The only variable revenue is fee collections and experience has shown relatively little variation. Federal and State revenues are largely based on economy sensitive taxes such as income and sales tax. In recent years large surpluses have amassed due to high tax collections. The recent tax reductions at the Federal and State levels were based upon those high tax collections. The City is continually evaluating the cost and benefit associated with services provided. An analysis is done to determine if the service should be part of the property tax base or if the individual user should be paying for the service. An example of this is false alarm charges. The fee charged for false alarms is based on the cost of providing the service. The same concept holds true on other types of services provided for a fee. Budget related questions The following questions are addressed together. Questions: 1. If there is a cost savings and we are only paying people 3.5% more each year, what more activities are we doing every year that require us to increase the budget by and average of 11% 2. Where are you expanding? 3. Do you believe it could be possible to do the City’s business by keeping the proposed 2002 spending to no more than the current year’s expenditures? 4. Our spending is going up 8%, yet our revenue is only going up 5% even with the levy increase. This implies that we are tapping our reserves. 5. Please break down the 8% increase. We approved a 3.5% average payroll increase and benefits were higher. Utilities were high for most of year. How does it break out? Answer: The chart below indicates the differences between the 2001 Adopted budget and the 2002 budget. In reviewing this chart, you will see that the City is not expanding programs nor is it increasing the budget dramatically. 36 In order to make the chart understandable, changes in accounting methods that are budget neutral and the expansion of the Inspections programs that are offset by revenues are not shown. These changes do not impact the 2002 budget. Similarly, the chart excludes the shift of approximately $3 million from the loss of HACA State Aid to the property tax. The proposed budget reflects maintaining existing levels of service. This objective was set in discussion with the City Council. It would not be possible to maintain the existing level of service with the same amount of expenditure as was established for the 2001 budget. Virtually all of the increase in the 2002 proposed budget is for employee related costs. The largest increase is to fund a projected wage increase of 3.5% for all employees. While that amount has been set by Council for non-union employees, there are 4 open public safety employee contracts yet to be negotiated. In addition, the Council adopted a wage plan for non- union employees that set the objective of moving maximum pay to the market average. The amount of $169,310 is budgeted to fund that wage plan. The State increased pension rates which accounts for a small portion of the increase. Additionally, the City’s contribution to employee benefit package has not kept pace with increases in the costs of those benefits to the employee. Even with a 16% increase in the City’s contribution to such plans our employees will be picking up a larger share. The balance of increases reflect utility costs and other miscellaneous increases. The 8% increase in revenue is reflective of property taxes and state aids, not the budget in its entirety. Increase Description (Decrease) Local Levy Increase 881,506$ Other Revenue increases 163,534 Total levy and revenue increase 1,045,040 Expenses General Wage Increase at 3.5%441,645 Market adjustment on wages 169,310 Pension Cost 34,287 Benefits 223,526 Utilities 114,581 Inflation 61,691 Total Expenditures Increases 1,045,040$ City of St. Louis Park - General Fund 2002 Budget Compared to 2001 Adopted Budget 37 Other Issues: In addition to approving the property levy and General Fund budget, the Council is being asked to approve all other fund budgets as presented in the 2002 budget book. Within the 2002 budget, there is one technical correction to be made. The Water Enterprise Fund budget narrative indicates that a 2% increase is being proposed. The proposed rate increase was to have applied only to the service fee which amounted to $.14 per quarter for a standard residential customer and would have generated less than $10,000 in revenue. Staff has changed it’s recommendation. There is no increase being proposed for the Water Enterprise Fund. The City maintains four Enterprise Funds; Water, Sanitary Sewer, Storm Sewer and Refuse. For 2002, there are no rate increases being proposed for the Enterprise Funds. During 2002, the Storm Water Utility Fund may need to be analyzed if the Basset Creek Management Watershed District implements their Capital Plan. If this happens, only the northwest section of the City will be affected. HRA Levy: For the first time, the City is proposing to issue a Housing and Redevelopment (HRA) levy. The reason for proposing an HRA levy is because of legislative changes in the tax increment statutes. The legislative changes have severely hampered the ability of the City to do future redevelopment projects. The HRA levy will generate $433,371 of revenue. These dollars will be used for infrastructure improvements in redevelopment areas. The City has always had the authority to issue this type of levy. The levy itself is based on a percentage of taxable market value within the community. The revenue generated from this levy is found in the Development Fund budget located in the EDA tab in your budget document. Fund Balance Transfers: At the end of each year, the General Fund balance is evaluated for compliance with the policy statement. The policy statement indicates the amount of fund balance the City is required to maintain. A copy of the resolution outlining the requirements as well as the Auditor recommendation is attached. At the end of 2000, this balance was evaluated and found to be $500,000 more than the required amount. Staff is recommending that the $500,000 be allocated as follows; Park Improvement Fund $200,000 Technology Replacement Fund 200,000 Municipal Building Fund 100,000 Total $500,000 A resolution authorizing this transfer is attached. 38 Recommendation: Adopt 2002 budget, 2001 revised budget, cancel 1987A GO debt levy, approve 2001 property tax levy collectible in 2002, approve HRA levy and approve transfer of funds. Attachments: Resolution approving the 2001 tax levy, collectible in 2002, Adopting the 2002 budget, revisions to the 2001 budget and canceling the 1987A GO Debt Levy Resolution approving the 2002 HRA Levy Resolution authorizing transfer of funds 1994 resolution establishing minimum fund balance requirements Excerpts from the 1994 Management Report prepared by Tautges, Redpath & Co., Ltd. Prepared By: Jean D. McGann, Director of Finance Approved By: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 39 RESOLUTION NO. 01-147 RESOLUTION APPROVING 2001 TAX LEVY, COLLECTIBLE IN 2002, ADOPTING BUDGET FOR 2002, REVISED BUDGET FOR 2001 AND CANCELING 1987A GO DEBT LEVY WHEREAS, The City of St. Louis Park is required by Charter and State law to approve a resolution setting forth an annual tax levy to the Hennepin County Auditor; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes currently in force require approval of a property tax levy and a budget on or before December 25th of each year; and WHEREAS, the City Council has received the budget document; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park that the 2001 revised budget is approved and the 2002 budget for all Governmental Funds, (including Economic Development Authority Funds), Enterprise Funds and Internal Service Funds shall be as follows: AVAILABLE RESOURCES:REQUIREMENTS: Revenues:Appropriations: General Property Taxes 18,114,328$ Personal Services 19,065,752$ Business License Permits 348,550 Supplies, Services and Other Char 20,803,078 Non-Business License Permits 1,705,500 Capital Outlay 6,749,606 Integovernmental 4,372,174 Transfers Out 9,059,695 Charges for Services 4,099,225 Fines, Forfeits and Penalties 289,000 Enterprise 8,968,695 Special Assessments 121,515 Miscellaneous 4,264,528 Refunds and Reimbursements 2,542,181 Transfers In 9,291,778 Total Revenue 54,117,474$ Total Appropriations 55,678,131$ Fund Balance/Reserves - January 1 99,972,219 Fund Balance/Reservices - Dec 31 98,411,562 Total Available 154,089,693$ Total Available 154,089,693$ and as supported by the 2002 budget document; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, a Public Hearing on this budget was held on December 3, 2001; and 40 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota, that the following sums of money be levied in 2001, collectible in 2002 upon the taxable property in said City of St. Louis Park for the following purposes: General Fund $11,018,025 Parks and Recreation Fund 2,745,974 Parks Improvement Fund 179,160 G.O. Debt Service 327,500 Total $ 14,271,459 and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the 1987A General Obligation tax levy previously certified to the County for collection is cancelled; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to transmit a certified copy of this resolution to the County Auditor of Hennepin County, Minnesota and to the Local Government Aids/Analysis Division, Department of Revenue, State of Minnesota as required by law. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 17, 2001 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk 41 RESOLUTION NO. 01-148 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE HRA LEVY FOR 2002 WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.090 to 469.108 (the “EDA Act”), the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park created the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (the "Authority"); and WHEREAS, pursuant to the EDA Act, the City Council granted to the Authority all of the powers and duties of a housing and redevelopment authority under the provisions of the Minnesota Statutes, sections 469.001 to 469.047 (the "HRA Act"); and WHEREAS, Section 469.033, subdivision 6 of the Act authorizes the Authority to levy a tax upon all taxable property within the City to be expended for the purposes authorized by the HRA Act; and WHEREAS, such levy may be in an amount not to exceed 0.0144 percent of taxable market value of the City; and WHEREAS, the Authority has filed its budget for the special benefit levy in accordance with the budget procedures of the City; and WHEREAS, based upon such budgets the Authority will levy all or such portion of the authorized levy as it deems necessary and proper; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the St. Louis Park City Council: 1. That approval is hereby given for the Authority to levy, for taxes payable in 2002, such tax upon the taxable property of the City as the Authority may determine, subject to the limitations contained in the HRA Act. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk 42 RESOLUTION NO. 01-149 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A TRANSFER FROM THE GENERAL FUND TO THE PARK IMPROVEMENT FUND, TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT FUND AND THE MUNICIPAL BUILDING FUND WHEREAS; The City of St. Louis Park established a minimum fund balance policy on December 19, 1994 and WHEREAS; It is considered sound financial practice to analyze fund balances on a continuing basis and WHEREAS; It has been determined that $500,000 should be transferred out of the General Fund to provide funding for Park Improvements, Technology Replacements and Municipal Building functions NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City of St. Louis Park City Council That approval is given to transfer funds from the General Fund in the amounts Park Improvement Fund $200,000 Technology Replacement Fund 200,000 Municipal Building Fund 100,000 Total Transfer $500,000 Approved this 17th day of December, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk 43 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 7d Meeting of December 17, 2001 7d. Preliminary approval for issuance of revenue bonds for the benefit of West Suburban Housing Partners West Suburban Housing Partners is requesting the City to issue up to $9,000,000 in Private Activity Revenue bonds to fund the construction of an 88-unit apartment building. Recommended Action: Motion to approve preliminary resolution for issuance of a Private Activity Revenue Bond not exceeding $9,000,000 Background: West Suburban Housing Partners has submitted the application for private activity revenue bonds and paid the required application fee. At the November 26, 2001, Council discussed the multi-family housing project being proposed by West Suburban Housing Partners. The private activity bond will provide for the acquisition of property and construction of an 88- unit multifamily rental housing development. This development will be know as “At the Park” and be located near the intersection of 36th Street and Phillips Parkway. At least 40% of the units will have rents that meet income affordability requirements. The total bond issue will not exceed $9,000,000 and will be conduit debt to the City. This means the City is not liable for the repayment of the debt. West Suburban Housing Partners will be required to pay the City an administrative fee of 1/8th of 1% of the outstanding principle balance of the debt. At this time, the Council is requested to give preliminary approval of this bond issuance. West Suburban Housing Partners is requesting an allocation from the State in order to proceed with this project. Due to this, a Public Hearing date will be set in 2002 and will be in conjunction with the final resolution giving approval for this bond issue. A representative from Kennedy & Graven as well as West Suburban Housing Partners will be available to answer questions and provide additional information. Recommendation: Motion to approve preliminary resolution giving preliminary approval for issuance of a Private Activity Revenue Bond Attachments: Resolution granting preliminary approval to the issuance of Bonds Program for a Multifamily Housing Development “At the Park” Project Prepared By: Jean D. McGann, Director of Finance Approved By:Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 44 RESOLUTION NO. 01-150 RESOLUTION RELATING TO A MULTIFAMILY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT TO BE ACQUIRED, CONSTRUCTED, OWNED AND OPERATED BY WEST SUBURBAN HOUSING PARTNERS VII, LIMITED. PARTNERSHIP, A MINNESOTA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP AND THE ISSUANCE OF REVENUE BONDS TO FINANCE THE COSTS THEREOF UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTES, CHAPTER 462C, AS AMENDED; GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL THERETO, ESTABLISHING COMPLIANCE WITH CERTAIN REIMBURSEMENT REGULATIONS UNDER THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986, AS AMENDED, AND TAKING CERTAIN OTHER ACTIONS WITH RESPECT THERETO BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota (the “City”), as follows: Section 1. Recitals. 1.01. The City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota is a home rule charter city duly organized and existing under its Charter and the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota. 1.02. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C, as amended (the “Act”), the City is authorized to carry out the public purposes described in the Act by providing for the issuance of revenue bonds to provide funds to finance or refinance multifamily housing developments located within the City. As a condition to the issuance of such revenue bonds, the City must adopt a housing program providing the information required by Section 462C.03, subdivision 1a, of the Act (the “Housing Program”). A public hearing must be held in accordance with the requirements of Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”) and the requirements of the Act. The City Council of the City must also adopt one or more resolutions approving the Housing Program, granting preliminary approval to the issuance of revenue bonds to finance the multifamily housing development referred to in the Housing Program, and authorizing the submission of an application to the Minnesota Department of Finance for an allocation of bonding authority with respect to the Project (as hereafter defined). 1.03. West Suburban Housing Partners VII, Limited Partnership, a Minnesota Limited Partnership (the “Borrower”) has proposed that the City, pursuant to the Act, issue its revenue bonds in the approximate aggregate principal amount not to exceed $9,000,000, in one or more series at one time or from time to time (the “Bonds”), the proceeds of which will be loaned by the City to the Borrower to be applied by the Borrower to the acquisition and construction of an eighty-eight unit multifamily housing development known as “At the Park” (the “Project”) located near the intersection of 36th Street and Phillips Parkway in the City (the “Project”). The Borrower will apply the proceeds of the loan to the acquisition costs of the Project, the costs the construction of the Project, and the payment of certain costs related to the issuance of the Bonds. 1.04. Under Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), prior to the issuance of the Bonds a public hearing duly noticed must be held by the City Council. Under Section 462C.04, subdivision 2, of the Act, a public hearing must be held 45 on each housing program after one publication of notice in a newspaper circulating generally in the City, at least fifteen days before the hearing. 1.05. Under Section 146 of the Code, the Bonds must receive an allocation of the bonding authority of the State of Minnesota. An application for such an allocation must be made pursuant to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 474A, as amended (the “Allocation Act”). Section 2. Preliminary Findings. Based on representations made by the Borrower to the City to date, the City Council of the City hereby makes the following preliminary findings, determinations, and declarations: (a) The Project consists of a multifamily housing development designed and intended to be used for rental occupancy. (b) The proceeds of the Bonds will be loaned to the Borrower and the proceeds of the loan will be applied to the acquisition of the Project, the construction of the Project, and the payment of costs related to the issuance of the Bonds. The City will enter into a loan agreement (or other revenue agreement) with the Borrower requiring loan repayments from the Borrower in amounts sufficient to repay the loan when due and requiring the Borrower to pay all costs of maintaining and insuring the Project, including taxes thereon. (c) In preliminarily authorizing the issuance of the Bonds and the financing of the construction of the Project and the related costs, the City’s purpose is and the effect thereof will be to promote the public welfare of the City and its residents by retaining and improving multifamily housing developments and otherwise furthering the purposes and policies of the Act. (d) The issuance of the Bonds to finance all or a portion of the costs of the Project is in the public interest. (e) The Bonds will be limited obligations of the City payable solely from the revenues pledged to the payment thereof, and will not be a general obligation of or be secured by the taxing power of the City. Section 4. Public Hearing. The City Manager or his designee is hereby authorized to establish a date for a public hearing to be conducted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City in conformity with the requirements of Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”) and the requirements of the Act. The City Council will conduct the public hearing with respect to: (i) the approval of a Housing Program; and (ii) the approval of the issuance of the Bonds to finance the Project. It shall be the Borrower’s responsibility to pay the costs of publication of a notice of the proposed public hearing in substantially the form attached hereto as EXHIBIT A in the official newspaper and in a newspaper of general circulation in the City once, at least fifteen days prior to the date of the public hearing. Section 5. Housing Program. The Housing Program shall be prepared by the Borrower and delivered to the City for its review and approval. Upon approval of the Housing Program 46 following the public hearing thereon, the City shall submit the Housing Program for review if required by the terms of the Act. Section 6. Preliminary Approval. This Council hereby gives preliminary approval to the issuance of the Bonds in the approximate aggregate principal amount not to exceed $9,000,000 to finance all or a portion of the costs of the Project pursuant to the Housing Program of the City, subject to final approval following the preparation of bond documents, and subject to final determination by this Council that the financing of the Project and the issuance of the Bonds are in the best interest of the City. Section 7. Submission of an Application for an Allocation of Bonding Authority. Under Section 146 of the Code, the Bonds must receive an allocation of the bonding authority of the State of Minnesota. An application for such an allocation must be made pursuant to the requirements of the Allocation Act. The City Council hereby authorizes the submission of an application for allocation of bonding authority pursuant to Section 146 of the Code and the Allocation Act in accordance with the requirements of the Allocation Act. The Mayor of the City, the City Manager, and Kennedy & Graven, Chartered, acting as bond counsel with respect to the Project and the Bonds, shall take all actions, in cooperation with the Borrower, as are necessary to submit an application for an allocation of bonding authority to the Minnesota Department of Finance. Section 8. Reimbursement of Costs under the Code. 8.1. The United States Department of the Treasury has promulgated final regulations governing the use of the proceeds of tax-exempt bonds, all or a portion of which are to be used to reimburse the City or a borrower from the City for project expenditures paid prior to the date of issuance of such bonds. Those regulations (Treasury Regulations, Section 1.150-2) (the “Regulations”) require that the City adopt a statement of official intent to reimburse an original expenditure not later than sixty days after payment of the original expenditure. The Regulations also generally require that the bonds be issued and the reimbursement allocation made from the proceeds of the bonds occur within eighteen months after the later of: (i) the date the expenditure is paid; or (ii) the date the project is placed in service or abandoned, but in no event more than three years after the date the expenditure is paid. The Regulations generally permit reimbursement of capital expenditures and costs of issuance of the bonds. 8.2. To the extent any portion of the proceeds of the Bonds will be applied to expenditures with respect to the Project, the City reasonably expects to reimburse the Borrower for the expenditures made for costs of the Project from the proceeds of the Bonds after the date of payment of all or a portion of such expenditures. All reimbursed expenditures shall be capital expenditures, a cost of issuance of the Bonds, or other expenditures eligible for reimbursement under Section 1.150-2(d)(3) of the Regulations and also qualifying expenditures under the Act. Based on representations by the Borrower, other than (i) expenditures to be paid or reimbursed from sources other than the Bonds, (ii) expenditures permitted to be reimbursed under prior regulations pursuant to the transitional provision contained in Section 1.150- 2(j)(2)(i)(B) of the Regulations, (iii) expenditures constituting preliminary expenditures within 47 the meaning of Section 1.150-2(f)(2) of the Regulations, or (iv) expenditures in a “de minimus” amount (as defined in Section 1.150-2(f)(1) of the Regulations), no expenditures with respect to the Project have been made by the Borrower more than sixty days before the date of adoption of this resolution. 8.3. Based on representations by the Borrower, as of the date hereof, there are no funds of the Borrower reserved, allocated on a long term-basis or otherwise set aside (or reasonably expected to be reserved, allocated on a long-term basis or otherwise set aside) to provide permanent financing for the expenditures related to the Project to be financed from proceeds of the Bonds, other than pursuant to the issuance of the Bonds. This resolution, therefore, is determined to be consistent with the budgetary and financial circumstances of the Borrower as they exist or are reasonably foreseeable on the date hereof. Section 9. Costs. The Borrower will pay any administrative fees of the City and pay, or, upon demand, reimburse the City for payment of, any and all costs incurred by the City in connection with the Project and the issuance of the Bonds, whether or not the Bonds are issued. Section 10. Commitment Conditional. The adoption of this resolution does not constitute a guarantee or a firm commitment that the City will issue the Bonds as requested by the Borrower. If, based on comments received at a public hearing to be held pursuant to this resolution, or other information made available to or obtained by the City during its review of the Project, it appears that the Project or the issuance of Bonds to finance or refinance the costs thereof is not in the public interest or is inconsistent with the purposes of the Act, the City reserves the right not to give final approval to the issuance of the Bonds. The City also retains the right, in its sole discretion, to withdraw from participation and accordingly not issue the Bonds should the City Council, at any time prior to the issuance thereof, determine that it is in the best interests of the City not to issue the Bonds or should the parties to the transaction be unable to reach agreement as to the terms and conditions of any of the documents for the transaction. Section 11. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 17, 2001 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk 48 EXHIBIT A FORM OF NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUANCE OF REVENUE BONDS UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTES, CHAPTER 462C NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council (the “Council”) of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota (the “City”) will hold a public hearing on Monday, _________________, 2002, at or after 7:30 p.m. at City Hall at 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard in the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, to consider the approval and adoption of a housing program (the “Program”) in accordance with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C, as amended (the “Act”) for the issuance of revenue bonds to finance the acquisition, construction, and certain other costs with respect to a eighty-eight unit multifamily rental housing development known as “At the Park” located near the intersection of 36th Street and Phillips Parkway in the City (the “Project”). The proceeds of the revenue bonds will be loaned to West Suburban Housing Partners VII Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership, or a related entity (the “Borrower”), and used by the Borrower for the following purposes: (1) acquisition of the Project; (2) construction of the Project; and (3) financing the costs of issuing the revenue bonds. At the public hearing, the Council will consider the adoption of a Housing Program and granting preliminary approval to the issuance of one or more series of revenue bonds by the City for and on behalf of itself for the purposes set forth above. The aggregate face amount of the revenue bonds proposed to be issued is presently estimated not to exceed $9,000,000. The revenue bonds will be limited obligations of the City payable solely from the revenues pledged to the payment thereof, and will not be a general obligation of or be secured by the taxing power or any property or assets of the City. Anyone desiring to be heard during the public hearing will be afforded an opportunity to do so. Dated: [Date of Publication] BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA SA140-060 (JU) 49 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA PROGRAM FOR A MULTIFAMILY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT “AT THE PARK” PROJECT Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C (the “Act”), the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota (the “City”) is authorized to develop and administer programs to finance the acquisition and construction of multifamily housing developments under the circumstances and within the limitations set forth in the Act. Minnesota Statutes, Section 462C.07 provides that such programs for multifamily housing developments may be financed by revenue bonds issued by the City. The City has received a proposal that it approve a program providing for the acquisition and construction of an 88-unit multifamily rental housing development known as “At the Park” (the “Project”). The Project is comprised of eighty-eight units of rental housing located in a single four-story building located near the intersection of 36th Street and Phillips Parkway in the City. The Project units are comprised of one-bedroom, two-bedroom and three-bedroom units. The acquisition and construction of the Project is to be funded through the issuance of up to $9,000,000 in revenue bonds to be issued by the City (the “Bonds”). West Suburban Housing Partners VII Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership (the “Owner”) will own and operate the Project. The general partner of the Owner is West Suburban Housing Partners VII, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company. It is expected that a portion of the Housing Units will be subject to occupancy limits imposed by federal income tax law and regulations such that only persons and families within designated income limits will be permitted to occupy such units. It is estimated that rents for the Units will range from $975 per month to $1,375 per month. The City, in establishing this multifamily housing program (the “Program”), has considered the information contained in the City’s comprehensive plan. The Project will be acquired and rehabilitated in accordance with the requirements of Subdivisions 1 and 2 of Section 462C.05 of the Act. Section A. Definitions. The following terms used in this Program shall have the following meanings, respectively: “Act” shall mean Minnesota Statutes, Section 462C.01, et seq., as currently in effect and as the same may be from time to time amended. “Bonds” shall mean the revenue bonds to be issued by the City. “City” shall mean the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota. 50 “Housing Unit” shall mean any one of the dwelling units, each located in the Project, occupied by one person or family, and containing complete living facilities. “Land” shall mean the real property upon which the Project is situated. “Owner” shall mean West Suburban Housing Partners VII Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership. “Program” shall mean this housing program for the financing of the Project pursuant to the Act. “Project” shall mean the residential rental housing development consisting of Eighty-eight Housing Units, to be acquired and rehabilitated by the Owner. Section B. Program For Financing the Project. It is proposed that the City establish this Program to provide financing for the acquisition and rehabilitation of the Project at a cost and upon such other terms and conditions as are set forth herein and as may be agreed upon in writing between the City, the initial purchaser of the Bonds and the Owner. The City expects to issue the Bonds as soon as the terms of the Bonds have been agreed upon by the City, the Owner and the initial purchaser of the Bonds. The proceeds of the Bonds will be loaned to the Owner to finance the acquisition and rehabilitation of the Project, to fund required reserves and to pay the costs of issuing the Bonds. It is expected that a trustee will be appointed by the City to monitor the rehabilitation of the Project and the payment of principal and interest on the Bonds. It is anticipated that the Bonds will have a maturity of approximately thirty years or less and will bear interest at a variable rate or at fixed rates consistent with the market at the time of issuance. The City will hire no additional staff for the administration of the Program. Insofar as the City will be contracting with underwriters, legal counsel, bond counsel, the trustee, and others, all of whom will be reimbursed from bond proceeds and revenues generated by the Program, no administrative costs will be paid from the City’s budget with respect to this Program. The Bonds will not be general obligation bonds of the City, but are to be paid only from properties pledged to the payment thereof, which may include additional security such as additional collateral, insurance or a letter of credit. Section C. Standards and Requirements Relating to the Financing of the Project Pursuant to the Program. The following standards and requirements shall apply with respect to the operation of the Project by the Owner pursuant to this Program: (1) Substantially all of the proceeds of the sale of the Bonds will be applied to the acquisition and rehabilitation of the Project, the payment of the costs of issuing the Bonds, and the funding of appropriate reserves. The proceeds will be made available to the Owner pursuant to the terms of a loan agreement (or other revenue agreement) which will include certain 51 covenants to be made by the Owner to the City regarding the use of proceeds and the character and use of the Project. (2) The Project qualifies as a “multifamily housing development,” within the meaning of the Act, since it is comprised of an apartment facility the units of which are rented to persons or families for use as residences. The Owner will acquire the site comprising the Project and will construct the building (at a minimum cost of $132,526 per Housing Unit). (3) The Owner, and any subsequent owner of the Project, will not arbitrarily reject an application from a proposed tenant because of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, or status with regard to public assistance or disability. (4) It is expected that at least forty percent (40%) of the Housing Units will be held for occupancy by families or individuals with gross income not in excess of sixty percent (60%) of median family income, adjusted for family size. This set aside would satisfy the low-income occupancy requirements of Section 462C.05, subdivision 2, of the Act, if they were applicable. Subsection D. Evidence of Compliance. The City may require from the Owner at or before the issuance of the Bonds, evidence satisfactory to the City of the ability and intention of the Owner to complete the rehabilitation of the Project, and evidence satisfactory to the City of compliance with the standards and requirements for the making of the financing established by the City, as set forth herein; and in connection therewith, the City or its representatives may inspect the relevant books and records of the Owner in order to confirm such ability, intention and compliance. In addition, the City may periodically require certification from either the Owner or such other person deemed necessary concerning compliance with various aspects of this Program. Subsection E. Issuance of Bonds. To finance the Program authorized by this Section the City will by resolution authorize, issue and sell its revenue bonds in an aggregate principal amount of approximately $9,000,000. The Bonds will be issued pursuant to Section 462C.07, subdivision 1, of the Act, and will be payable primarily from the revenues of the Program authorized by this Section. The costs of the Project, including costs of issuance of the Bonds and required reserve funds, are presently expected to be in excess of the principal amount of the Bonds. It is expected that the Owner and its affiliates will contribute to the Project the difference between the total costs of the Project and the principal amount of the Bonds available to finance the Project. The costs of the Project may change between the date of preparation of this Program and the date of issuance of the Bonds. The Bonds are expected to be issued in the first calendar quarter of 2002. Subsection F. Severability. The provisions of this Program are severable and if any of its provisions, sentences, clauses or paragraphs shall be held unconstitutional, contrary to statute, exceeding the authority of the City or otherwise illegal or inoperative by any court of competent jurisdiction, the decision of such court shall not affect or impair any of the remaining provisions. Subsection G. Amendment. The City shall not amend this Program, while Bonds authorized hereby are outstanding, to the detriment of the holders of such Bonds. 52 Subsection H. State Ceiling. An application for an allocation of a portion of the annual volume cap for private activity bonds will be made to the Minnesota Department of Finance, pursuant to Section 146 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 474A, as amended (the “Allocation Act”). Pursuant to the terms and requirements of the Allocation Act: (i) the Project will meet the requirements of section 142(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), regarding the incomes of the occupants of the Project; (ii) the maximum rent for at least twenty percent (20%) of the units in the Project will not exceed the area fair market rent or exception fair market rents for existing housing, if applicable, as established by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development; (iii) the Owner will enter into a binding agreement with the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency under which the Owner is obligated to extend any existing low-income affordability restrictions and any contract or agreement for rental assistance payments for the maximum term permitted, including any renewals thereof; and (iv) the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency will certify that the Project reserves will be maintained on the date of issuance of the Bonds and budgeted in future years at the lesser of: (A) the level described in Minnesota Rules, part 4900.0010, 19.2 subpart 7, item A, subitem (2), effective May 1, 1997; or (B) the level of project reserves available prior to the issuance of the Bonds, provided that additional money is available to accomplish repairs and replacements needed at the time of the issuance of the Bonds. Prior to the issuance of the Bonds, the Owner will enter into a fifteen-year agreement with the City that specifies the maximum rental rates of the rent-restricted units in the Project and the income levels of the residents of the project occupying the income-restricted units. Such rental rates and income levels must be within the limitations established in accordance with the preceding paragraph. The Owner will be required to annually certify to the City over the term of the agreement that the rental rates for the rent-restricted units are within the limitations under the preceding paragraph. The City may request individual certification of the income of residents of the income-restricted units of the Project. The Minnesota Department of Finance may request from the City a copy of the annual certification prepared by the Owner. The Minnesota Department of Finance may require the City to request individual certification of all residents of the income-restricted units of the Project. 53 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 7e Meeting of December 17, 2001 7e. Subordination Agreement – Park Commons East Consider of the adoption of a Subordination Agreement between Glaser Financial Group, Inc., the City of St. Louis Park, and the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority relating to the Excelsior and Grand/Park Commons East Project Recommended Action: Motion to approve the Subordination Agreement between Glaser Financial Group, Inc., the City of St. Louis Park, and the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority relative to the Excelsior and Grand/Park Commons East Project Background: In the Contract for Private Redevelopment between TOLD, the City of St. Louis Park, and the EDA, the EDA agreed to subordinate its rights under the agreement to the holder of any mortgage securing construction or permanent financing, subject to terms and conditions mutually agreed upon by the parties. Steve Bubul, EDA legal counsel, has been working with Glaser Financial and has drafted a subordination agreement for consideration. Attachments: Subordination Agreement Prepared by: Tom Harmening, Community Development Director 2119:n 54 SUBORDINATION AGREEMENT THIS SUBORDINATION AGREEMENT (this "Agreement") is entered into this ____ day of December, 2001, by and among (i) GLASER FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., a Minnesota corporation (the “Lender”), (ii) CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, a Minnesota municipal corporation (the “City”), (iii) ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY a public body corporate and politic under the laws of the State of Minnesota (the "Authority”), and (iii) EXCELSIOR & GRAND, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company ("Borrower"). Recitals WHEREAS Lender is making a loan to Borrower in the original principal amount of ___________________________ ($___________) (the “Loan”) for the construction of an approximately 337 unit multifamily residential facility in St. Louis Park, Minnesota, upon the real property legally described on Exhibit “A” attached hereto (the “Premises”), which Loan is being insured by the Federal Housing Administration of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development under Section 221(d)(4) of the National Housing Act of 1934, as amended (the “Act”) pursuant to the FHA’s Commitment dated _________, as amended, FHA Project No. ____________, issued by the Federal Housing Commissioner; WHEREAS, as evidence of the Loan, the Borrower is executing and delivering to the Lender its Mortgage Note dated December ____, 2001, in the original principal amount of the Loan and is executing and delivering to the Lender its Mortgage and its Security Agreement, each dated of even date herewith and certain other loan and security documents (collectively the “Loan Documents”); WHEREAS, the Borrower, the Authority and the City have entered into a certain Amended and Restated Contract for Private Redevelopment Agreement dated July 23, 2001, (the “Development Agreement”); WHEREAS, as a condition to the closing of the Loan , the parties hereto desire to memorialize their agreement concerning the subordination of certain of the City’s and the Authority’s rights under the Development Agreement. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and for other valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: 1. Subordination. City and the Authority hereby agree that their rights under the Development Agreement are subject and subordinate to the Lender’s rights under the Loan Documents with the same force and effect as if the Loan Documents had been executed and delivered; and any liens created thereby perfected, prior to the execution and delivery of the Development Agreement provided, however, this subordination shall only be construed to apply to affect the relative priority of the Development Agreement as it applies to the legal parcel legally described on Exhibit “A” attached hereto. 2. Miscellaneous. This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns, including all future owners of Lender’s rights in the Loan Documents. 55 THIS SUBORDINATION AGREEMENT is executed and delivered as of the date first above written. LENDER: GLASER FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., a Minnesota corporation By: Kevin A. Filter Its: President STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of December, 2001, Kevin A. Filter, the President of GLASER FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., a Minnesota corporation, on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public 56 CITY: CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, a Minnesota municipal corporation By: Name: Title: STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ___ day of December, 2001, by ________________________________ the ____________________ of the CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public 57 AUTHORITY: ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, a public body corporate and politic under the laws of the State of Minnesota By: Name: Title: STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this __ day of December, 2001, by ________________________________ the _________________ of ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, a public body corporate and politic under the laws of the State of Minnesota, on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public 58 BORROWER: EXCELSIOR & GRAND, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company By: Name: Title: STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____day of December, 2001 by __________________ , the ___________________ of EXCELSIOR & GRAND, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, on behalf of the Company. Notary Public EXHIBIT “A” LEGAL DESCRIPTION TC3: 797687 v01 12/12/2001 59 CITY COUNCIL MEETING December 17, 2001 ITEMS TO BE ACTED UPON BY CONSENT Consent items are those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion. 1. Motion to accept report stating there will be no increase in any of the four enterprise funds for 2002 2. Motion to adopt the ordinance adopting the 2002 Code of Ordinances for the City of St. Louis Park (2nd reading), approve the summary and authorize its publication. 3. Motion to adopt a resolution approving a Minor Amendment to the Knollwood Mall Planned Unit Development (PUD) to allow façade changes and two additional entrances at 8332 State Highway 7. 4. Motion to adopt the attached resolution authorizing execution of a contract with ENSR Consulting and Engineering for consultant activities related to the implementation of the Reilly Tar & Chemical Corporation Remedial Action Plan in 2002. 5. Motion to adopt the attached resolution approving a grant agreement between the Hennepin County Department of Environmental Services and the City of St. Louis Park. 6. Motion to authorize execution of a contract extension to Contract No. 1893 with Severn Trent Services (STL - Denver) for laboratory services related to the Reilly Tar & Chemical Corporation groundwater sampling program through year 2002. 7. Traffic Study No. 559: Motion to adopt the attached resolution authorizing installation of permit parking in front of 2900 Blackstone Avenue South. 8. Traffic Study No. 560: Motion to adopt the attached resolution authorizing restricting parking along the south side of Wayzata Boulevard from Pennsylvania Avenue to a point 75 feet west. 9. Motion to accept the following report for filing: c. Charter Commission Minutes of September 12, 2001 d. Planning Commission Minutes of November 21, 2001 e. Vendor Claims 10. Police Uniform Contract. Motion to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute a contract with Uniforms Unlimited for police uniforms for a two-year period from January 1, 2002, through December 31, 2003. 60 CONSENT ITEM # 1 St. Louis Park City Council Meeting of December 17, 2001 1. Motion to accept report stating there will be no icrease in any of the four enterprise funds for 2002. Background: In the 2002 budget there is a 2% increase indicated for the Water Enterprise Fund. The proposed rate increase was to have applied only to the service fee which amounted to $.14 per quarter for a standard residential customer and would have generated less than $10,000 in revenue. Staff has changed it’s recommendation. There will be no increase in Water rates. There is also no change is proposed for Sewer Utility, Storm Water Utility or Refuse rates. The Sewer rates will be reviewed in 2002 for a possible increase in 2003. The Storm Sewer Utility rates may need to be analyzed in 2002 if the Basset Creek Watershed Management District implements their Capital Plan. If this occurs, the rate increase would only impact the northwest section of the City. The Refuse contract is currently being negotiated. In past years, the City has provided for modest increases in both the Water and Sanitary Sewer Enterprise Fund rates. It has been the City’s intent to increase rates at modest levels each year and at the same time provide for adequate levels of capital reserves. At this time, both the Water and Sanitary Sewer Enterprise funds have adequate retained earnings and a rate increase is not necessary. By maintaining adequate levels of capital reserves, the need for extraordinary rate increases is avoided. Maintaining adequate levels of capital reserves also avoids the need to issue debt or otherwise borrow for necessary improvements to the utilities’ infrastructure systems. The need for future infrastructure improvements will be better known when the Infrastructure Management System is fully implemented. This system will provide a measure for the inventory, evaluation and management of the water, sewer and storm sewer infrastructure systems. The inventorying and assessment of the infrastructure systems will help focus where and when capital improvements dollars are needed. When this system is completely in place, infrastructure needs will be known and rates will be reviewed. Issues: The second reading of the recodification of the City ordinances is scheduled for this evening. With the recodification of the Cities’ ordinances, a change was made in the manner in which utility rates are modified. Beginning after the second reading and approval of the recodified ordinances, utility rates will be part of a fee resolution that will be approved on an annual basis. Previously all utility rate increases were required to go through a first and second reading to obtain approval. As part of the motion approving the recodification, Council will be approving the fee schedule, which includes Utility rates. Recommendation: Accept report. Prepared By: Jean D. McGann, Director of Finance Approved By: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 61 CONSENT ITEM # 2 St. Louis Park City Council Meeting of December 17, 2001 2. Motion to adopt the ordinance adopting the 2002 Code of Ordinances for the City of St. Louis Park (2nd reading), approve the summary and authorize its publication. Background: City Charter and State Statute require that ordinances of the City be revised, rearranged and codified at regular intervals. The 2002 edition of the code incorporates amendments made subsequent to the most recent adoption date of 1976. At the first reading held on December 3, staff presented the council with an overview of the recodification process and results of the review of the new code conducted by staff. If approved, the effective date of the code will be January 2, 2002, the first business day of the new year. Following adoption the code will be distributed to city departments, Hennepin County Court and our City Attorneys. The code will also be posted on the internet for access by external customers and placed in word format on the city’s server for use by internal staff. At first reading staff was directed to make amendments to the adopting ordinance to clarify provisions regarding penalties for non-compliance with code provisions. Those changes have been made. Attachments: Notes from staff review Adopting Ordinance Summary Ordinance Prepared By: Cynthia Reichert, City Clerk Approved By: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 62 Notes from Review of 2002 Code of Ordinances November 26, 2001 1. Definitions Throughout the existing chapter 14 and the new chapter 36 (Zoning) references are made to the “Current Zoning Ordinance” and “the effective date of the ordinance”. These references have raised questions as to whether dates certain should be applied in these instances. After review and discussion with the City Attorney, Community Development staff and the codifier, we have concluded that the language as stated is adequate to meet the city’s needs at this time, but will be reviewed in the near future. In the meantime, staff has directed the codifier to clarify the intent of the references by adding the following definitions to Chapter 36: Zoning. Ordinance from which this Chapter is derived means Ordinance No. 92-1902 adopted December 7, 1992 and effective December 31, 1992. Effective date of the Ordinance from which this chapter is derived means December 31, 1992, the effective date of Ordinance No. 92-1902 Previous Zoning Ordinance means Ordinance No. 730 adopted December 28, 1959 and all subsequent amendments thereto which were in effect on December 30, 1992. Zoning Ordinance means Ordinance No. 92-1902 and all amendments adopted subsequent to that date and compiled as Chapter 36 of this Code. 2. Typographical errors and incorrect references: Section Page Error Correct to Read Charter 7.05 CHT:23 Public Works – How Performed Format only - correct alignment 4-89 CD4:9 in section 4-87 in section 4-88 4-134 CD4:10 provisions of sections 4-81 – 4-83 apply to cats provisions of sections 4-87 – 4-89 apply to cats 4-134 CD4:10 schedule set forth in section 4-87 schedule set forth in section 4-88 6-ARTICLE VI. CD6:16 …PROPERTY OWNERSHIP …PROPERTY MAINTENANCE 12-34 (16) CD12:7 Omission (Ord. 2174-00: exterior wood storage a public nuisance) Add: (16) The exterior storage of firewood that either: (a) is infested with rodents, insects or other nuisnce animals; (b) is stacked less than 6 inches or more than 5 feet above grade; (c) exceeds a maximum ground coverage of 64 square feet for each stack; (d) has stacks on a lot that are within 10 feet of each other; (e) is stacked in a disorderly manner; or (f) is otherwise a threat to health and safety. 63 Section Page Error Correct to Read 36-114(3) CD36:77 Division 7 of article III Division 8 of article IV 36-123(c)(21)a.4. CD36:182 Under chapter 8 of this code Under chapter 3 of this code 36-123(c)(21) CD36:183 Under chapter 8 of this code Under chapter 3 of this code 36-142(c)(28)c.1.ii CD36:91 (a)(28)c.v. of this section (a)(28)c.3.v. of this section 36-163(f)(5) CD36:106 Section 14-300 Provisions regarding subdivision 36-164(f)(5) CD36:114 Section 14-300 Provisions regarding subdivision 36-166(g)(14) CD36:132 subdivided under section 14-300 for the purpose of subdivided for the purpose of 36-193(c)(22)e CD36:149 Under chapter 8 of this code Under chapter 3 of this code 36-194(c)(22)e CD36:160 Under chapter 8 of this code Under chapter 3 of this code 36-194(c)(23)a.4. CD36:161 Under chapter 8 of this code Under chapter 3 of this code 36-194(c)(23)k. CD36:162 Under chapter 8 of this code Under chapter 3 of this code 36-223(c)(20)e. CD36:181 Under chapter 8 of this code Under chapter 3 of this code 36-243(c)(8)a.4. CD36:197 Under chapter 8 of this code Under chapter 3 of this code 36-243(c)(8)k CD36:198 Under chapter 8 of this code Under chapter 3 of this code 36-244(c)(4)a.4 CD36:204 Under chapter 8 of this code Under chapter 3 of this code 36-244(c)(4)k CD36:205 Under chapter 8 of this code Under chapter 3 of this code 3. Ordinances adopted subsequent to editorial cut off date Ordinances adopted between June 18, 2001 (editorial cut off date) and the effective date of the code (January 2, 2002) are not included in the first edition of the code but are continued in full force and effect. They will be added with the first update of the code to occur approximately 2 months following adoption. Following are ordinances amending text of the code: 2201-01 7-2-01 Amending Sections 14:6-2.6, 14:6-6.2(F), 14:912(F)Section 14:6-2.6 – Signs 2202.01 8-20-01 Amending Sections 14:5-4.1(C)(7), 14:6-1.2(C)(5), 14:6-4.8(C)(3), 14:8-2 Sheds 2205-01 9-4-01 Deleting Chapter 16, Article Ii Section 16-202 Concerning Requirements For Contractor Licenses For Housing Compliance Inspectors 2212-01 10-3-01 Amending Municipal Code Relating To Zoning By Amending Sections 14:7-3(A)(1) And 14:8-4.1 2213-01 11-5-01 Amending Municipal Code, Sections 13-1608 & 13-1613 Concerning Local Tax On Lawful Gambling In The City 2215-01 11-19-01 Amending Part Ii, Chapter 2 of the Municipal Code By Adding Section 2-204: Administrative Penalties 64 Following are Ordinances to be added to Appendix B – Ordinances saved from repeal: 2203-01 8-20-01 Amending The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code Changing Boundaries Of Zoning Districts Northern Portion Of Property Located At 2201 Edgewood Avenue 2206-01 9-4-01 Amending The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code Changing Boundaries Of Zoning Districts 1409 And 1413 Colorado Avenue South 2207-01 9-24-01 Amending The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code Changing Boundaries Of Zoning Districts 4330 South Cedar Lake Road (Jewish Community Center) 2208-01 9-24-01 Ordinance Setting Salaries For The Mayor $9,760 and Councilmembers $6,365 2209-01 10-3-01 Vacating A Utility Easement in “Minikahda Vista 2nd Addition, Hennepin County” (West Of Future Town Green In Park Commons East) 2210-01 10-3-01 Authorizing Conveyance Of City-Owned-Land Along The South Boundary Of The Westmoreland Park Plat To The St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority 2211-01 10-3-01 Renaming A Portion Of 38th And 39th Street In St. Louis Park To Park Commons Drive 2214-01 11-13-01 Amending Ordinance No 2200-01 Vacating Certain Streets, an Alley and a Sidewalk Easement East or Quentin Avenue, North of Excelsior Boulevard to the Southern portion of Wolfe Park and West of Monterey Drive – Park Commons 4. Fees adopted by resolution to be added to Appendix A – Fee Schedule 01-082 08-20-01 Resolution establishing a fee for shed permits 01-121 10-15-01 Resolution establishing permit and license fees issued by the city – Effective January 1, 2002 01-134 11-19-01 Resolution establishing fees for violations subject to administrative penalty (snow removal and utilities) 65 ORDINANCE NO. 2216-01 AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING AND ENACTING A NEW CODE FOR THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF CERTAIN ORDINANCES NOT INCLUDED THEREIN; PROVIDING A PENALTY FOR THE VIOLATION THEREOF; PROVIDING FOR THE MANNER OF AMENDING SUCH CODE; AND PROVIDING WHEN SUCH CODE AND THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. The Code entitled "Code of Ordinances, City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota" published by Municipal Code Corporation consisting of Chapters 1 through 36, each inclusive, is adopted. Section 2. All ordinances of a general and permanent nature enacted on or before June 18, 2001, and not included in the Code or recognized and continued in force by reference therein, are repealed. Section 3. The repeal provided for in section 2 hereof shall not be construed to revive any ordinance or part thereof that has been repealed by a subsequent ordinance that is repealed by this ordinance. Section 4. Unless another penalty is expressly provided, every person convicted of a violation of any provision of the Code or any ordinance, rule or regulation adopted or issued in pursuance thereof, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $1,000.00, imprisonment for not more than 90 days, or both such fine and imprisonment. Each act of violation and each day upon which any such violation shall occur shall constitute a separate offense. Unless another penalty is expressly provided, the penalty provided by this section shall apply to the amendment of any Code section whether or not such penalty is reenacted in the amendatory ordinance. In addition to the penalty prescribed above, the city may pursue other remedies such as abatement of nuisances, injunctive relief, and revocation of licenses or permits. Section 5. Additions or amendments to the Code when passed in the form as to indicate the intention to make the same a part of the Code shall be deemed to be incorporated in the Code, so that reference to the Code includes the additions and amendments. Section 6. Ordinances adopted after June 18, 2001 that amend or refer to ordinances that have been codified in the Code, shall be construed as if they amend or refer to like provisions of the Code. 66 Section 7. The Code of Ordinances is declared to be prima facie evidence of the law of the City and shall be received in evidence as provided by Minnesota Statutes by the Courts of the State of Minnesota. Section 8. This ordinance adopting the Code of Ordinances, and the Code of Ordinances itself, shall take effect fifteen days following publication. Attest: Adopted by the City Council December 17, 2001 City Clerk Mayor Reviewed for Administration: Approved as to Form and Execution: City Manager City Attorney 67 SUMMARY ORDINANCE NO. 2216-01 AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING AND ENACTING A NEW CODE FOR THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF CERTAIN ORDINANCES NOT INCLUDED THEREIN; PROVIDING A PENALTY FOR THE VIOLATION THEREOF; PROVIDING FOR THE MANNER OF AMENDING SUCH CODE; AND PROVIDING WHEN SUCH CODE AND THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. City Charter and State Statute require that ordinances of the City be revised, rearranged and codified (compiled into book form) at regular intervals. The 2002 edition of the code incorporates amendments made subsequent to the most recent adoption date of 1976. This ordinance is the adopting ordinance for that reorganized document. This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication. Adopted by the City Council December 17, 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: December 19, 2001 68 CONSENT ITEM # 3 St. Louis Park City Council Meeting of December 17, 2001 3. Motion to adopt a resolution approving a Minor Amendment to the Knollwood Mall Planned Unit Development (PUD) to allow façade changes and two additional entrances at 8332 State Highway 7. Background: General Growth Properties, Inc. is requesting a Minor Amendment to the Knollwood Mall PUD to make exterior changes, including two additional entrances on the south side of the building, between Kohl’s and Old Navy. The changes are to accommodate new tenants including Dress Barn and Avenue. General Growth is proposing to maintain the stucco at the base of the building, add new brick piers and an E.I.F.S (artificial stucco) sign band, and add variations to the parapet height for the new tenants. All of the stucco and EIFS would be painted to match the tan color used on the exterior of Kohl’s, Old Navy, and Cub. The PUD was last amended in February, 2000 for an Old Navy store and theater proposal. Old Navy has been built in accordance with the PUD approval, but there is not currently an active interest in the theater. If a theater is to be considered again in the future, staff is proposing that it would require an amendment to the PUD, which would be reviewed again by the City Council. If any major changes would be proposed compared to the previous approval, the theater proposal would also require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. Recommendation: Staff is recommending approval of the PUD amendment for the exterior façade changes and two additional entrances subject to the following conditions: 1. A new theater could not be constructed prior to approval of a future PUD amendment. 2. All building facades must maintain true cement stucco at the pedestrian level as approved by the Zoning Administrator. 3. All existing and proposed stucco must be painted to match Kohl’s and Old Navy. 4. Fire lanes shall be provided as required by the Fire Marshall. 5. Prior to any site work related to the façade changes and additional entrances, the applicant shall obtain a building permit, which may impose additional requirements. 6. Prior to installation of any new signs, the applicant shall obtain sign permits, which may impose additional restrictions. The conditions have been incorporated into the proposed resolution, which amends the previously adopted PUD resolution. Additions to the previous resolution are underlined and deletions struck out. Attachments: Proposed Resolution Proposed Exhibit B/C – Revised Site Plan and Elevations Prepared by: Janet Jeremiah, Planning & Zoning Supervisor Approved by:Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 69 RESOLUTION NO. 01-151 Amends and Restates Resolution 00-012 Rescinds Resolutions 99-125 and 98-103 A RESOLUTION AMENDING AND RESTATING RESOLUTION NO. 00-012 ADOPTED ON FEBRUARY 7, 2000, APPROVING A FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT UNDER SECTION 14:6-7 OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING FOR PROPERTY ZONED C-2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8332 STATE HIGHWAY NO. 7 WHEREAS, General Growth Properties, Inc. has made application to the City Council for a minor Amendment to a Final Planned Unit Development (Final PUD) under Section 14:6-7 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance code to allow an exterior façade change and two additional exterior entrances at 8332 State Highway No. 7 within a C-2 General Commercial Zoning District having the following legal description: See Attached Legal Description WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the information related to Planning Case No. 01-56-PUD and the effect of the proposed exterior façade change and two additional exterior entrances on the health, safety, and welfare of the occupants of the surrounding lands, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect on values of properties in the surrounding area and the effect of the use on the Comprehensive plan; and WHEREAS, a Final PUD was approved regarding the subject property pursuant to Resolution No. 99-125 of the St. Louis Park City Council dated November 1, 1999 which contained conditions applicable to said property; and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 99-125 was rescinded and a Planned Unit Development (PUD) was approved regarding the subject property pursuant to Resolution No. 00-012 of the St. Louis Park City Council dated February 7, 2000 which contained conditions applicable to said property; and WHEREAS, due to changed circumstances, amendments to those conditions are now necessary, requiring the amendment of that Final PUD; and WHEREAS, it is the intent of this resolution to continue and restate the conditions of the permit granted by Resolution No. 00-012 to add the amendments now required, and to consolidate all conditions applicable to the subject property in this resolution; and WHEREAS, the contents of Planning Case File 01-56-PUD are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing and the record of decision for this case. 70 CONCLUSION NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Resolution No. 00-012 filed as Document No. 7267099 is hereby restated and amended by this resolution which continues and amends a Final Planned Unit Development to the subject property at the location described above based on the findings set forth above and subject to the following conditions: A. The site shall be developed, used, and maintained in conformance with Exhibits A through H; Exhibit B, Concept plan hereby modified to reflect general location and height of screen wall along 36th Street. Exhibit D is hereby modified to show revised screen wall height and sections. Exhibit D to be further modified to show brick posts on directional signs or other materials acceptable to the Planning Supervisor other than metal poles. (Exhibit B – Site Plan and Exhibit C – Elevations are modified by revised plans and conditions as approved on December 17, 2001.) B. Prior to any site work related to a new theater, the developer shall comply with the following: a. Sign the official exhibits and assent form. b. Obtain an Indirect Source Permit or letter to proceed from the MPCA, and any other necessary permits from state or other agencies, except that demolition work shall be allowed before an Indirect Source Permit or MPCA letter is obtained. c. Submit a copy of the Watershed District permit to the City. d. Submit and have approved detailed stormwater plans to the Public Works Department and cooperate in making any required revisions. e. A Development Agreement shall be executed between the owner, developer and the City which addresses at a minimum screen wall cost and maintenance, approved building and site design criteria, installation of landscaping and sidewalks, construction phasing, bonding, maintenance, mall security, conditions of approval as identified in the resolution, and administrative approvals f. An amendment to the PUD shall be approved by the City Council. C. Prior to issuance of a building permit for a new theater, which may impose additional requirements, the developer shall comply with the following: a. All issues with Cub Foods shall be resolved and Cub Foods shall be eligible for a permanent Certificate of Occupancy. b. All building material and color samples, including EIFS, stucco, brick, metal roofing, and architectural precast, shall be submitted to and approved by the Zoning Administrator and Community Development Director. c. Submit irrigation and lighting photometric plans for approval by the Zoning Administrator. d. An amendment to the PUD shall be approved by the City Council. D. Prior to installation of any signage for a new theater: a. Sign permits shall be obtained b. The existing movie theater sign shall be removed. An amendment to the PUD shall be approved by the City Council. E. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for a new theater: a. Five foot wide concrete sidewalks shall be installed along the entire length of Aquila Avenue and 36th Street per the official exhibits. Developer is responsible to 71 maintain sidewalks. To accommodate a sidewalk on 36th Street, branches on existing trees may be cut on one side only up to eight feet in height. b. Automatic irrigation shall be provided for all newly landscaped areas throughout the mall site, including parking islands. c. At the developer’s expense, the City shall install a masonry and wood wall along the north side of 36th Street as shown in concept on the Official Exhibits. The developer is also responsible for the cost of maintaining and replacing the wall. A separate agreement shall be executed between the City and developer addressing terms and conditions of constructing and maintaining the wall or the terms shall be stated in the Development Agreement. Final details of the wall location, design, height and materials shall be generally consistent with the Official Exhibits, with the final design to be approved by the Director of Public Works and the Community Development Director. All concrete portions are to be texturized to look like masonry. d. An amendment to the PUD shall be approved by the City Council F. The following ordinance modifications are may be approved as part of the amendment to the Planned Unit Development for a new theater, and shall not exceed the standards as outlined below: a. Parking requirements for the mall are reduced to 2,744 spaces total. b. The main mall identification sign may be 38 feet in height. c. Landscaping: Existing bufferyard along Highway 7 approved. Bufferyard along 36th Street approved per Official Exhibit H, landscape/screening plan. d. Such ordinance modifications are subject to any other conditions of approval of an amendment to the PUD for a new theater. G. Fire lanes and connections shall be as approved by the Fire Marshall. H. All food service facilities shall be as approved by the Inspections Department. I. No outdoor sales or storage is allowed (other than temporary sales in accordance with Code provisions). Temporary permits for outdoor sales shall be issued only as the Zoning Administrator determines that adequate parking remains for the rest of the mall. J. Within five years of February 7, 2000, all landscaped areas including parking islands shall have automatic irrigation. K. Developer shall work with staff to provide evergreen plantings along Aquila Avenue if possible. L. The Planned Unit Development shall be amended on December 17, 2001 to incorporate all of the preceding conditions and add the following conditions: a. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with Exhibits A- H as modified by Exhibit B/C – Site Plan and Elevations stamped as received November 27, 2001 and subject to conditions b-f below. Approval of the theater is conceptual and subject to a future amendment to the PUD; Exhibit documents incorporated by reference herein. b. All building facades must maintain true cement stucco at the pedestrian level as approved by the Zoning Administrator. c. All existing and proposed stucco and EIFS must be painted to match Kohl’s and Old Navy. d. Fire lanes shall be provided as required by the Fire Marshall. 72 e. Prior to any site work related to the façade changes and additional entrances, the applicant shall obtain a building permit, which may impose additional requirements. f. Prior to installation of any new signs, the applicant shall obtain sign permits, which may impose additional restrictions. g. Conditions A, B, C, D, E, F and J are modified as noted above. Assent form and official exhibits must be signed by applicant (or applicant and owner if applicant is different from owner) prior to issuance of building permit. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk 73 CONSENT ITEM # 4 St. Louis Park City Council Meeting of December 17, 2001 4. Motion to adopt the attached resolution authorizing execution of a contract with ENSR Consulting and Engineering for consultant activities related to the implementation of the Reilly Tar & Chemical Corporation Remedial Action Plan in 2002. Background: In September, 1986, the Reilly Consent Decree became effective and the City accepted responsibility for a number of environmental remediation tasks contained in the Reilly Remedial Action Plan (RAP). Over the last 15 years the City has retained the services of nine consulting engineers or firms to provide for the design and/or implementation of the RAP activities. One firm, ENSR, has served as the cornerstone of the professional “consortium” because of its extensive historical relationship with the Reilly project. Contract activities have included, but not been limited to: Groundwater sampling and analysis Drafting annual reports for agency review Aquifer studies Investigation of leaking wells Soil investigations Historical file searches General project administration Discussion: While many of the studies required by the Reilly RAP have been completed by ENSR and others, certain tasks such as groundwater sample retrieval and annual reporting represent ongoing activities which will require consultant assistance in 2002 and in the future. ENSR has provided consultant services for the ongoing tasks in the past, and as such, has been recognized by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) as an approved consultant for such activities. Staff supports the continued use of ENSR for such services. The following work tasks describe the work and associated costs expected during 2002: Task 100 – 2001 Annual Monitoring Report: This task involves drafting text and preparing figures and tables to assist the City in completing the 2001 Annual Monitoring Report. The Annual Monitoring Report includes analytical results from the past year sampling efforts, as well as groundwater contour maps. Additionally, a historical summary of analytical results is provided in the Annual Monitoring Report. This report is due to the U.S. EPA and MPCA on March 15, 2002. The task budget shown in Table 1 is based on the average amount spent on this task for the last three years. 74 Task 150 – 2001 Annual Progress Report and Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) Plant Report: ENSR will assist the City in completing these two reports for submittal to the Agencies on March 15, 2002. Table 1 reflects the average amount spent on this task for the last four years. Task 400 – Groundwater Monitoring: This task involves groundwater sample collection in accordance with the 2002 Sampling Plan and water level measurements pursuant to that Plan. The cost for this task, shown in Table 1, assumes that, in 2002, ENSR will collect the number of samples that are identified in the 2002 Sampling Plan. Table 1 indicates a cost of $38,000 for this work, based on the average amount spent on this task for the last four years. Task 500 – Prairie du Chien-Jordan (PCJ) Aquifer Remedy Implementation: The scope of this task will likely change based on the recently-completed modeling exercise by MPCA, therefore, the costs shown in Table 1 represent a contingency fund for this task. ENSR will assist the City in negotiations with MPCA about modifying the PCJ Aquifer gradient control system. Until the agency negotiations are complete, this task includes the installation of a new monitor well (W413) and, quarterly monitoring for wells W48, W119 and W413. The costs in Table 1 reflect a task structure to track costs in accordance with Exhibit A of the City-Reilly Cost Sharing Agreement. Task 530 includes ENSR’s assistance to the City in preparing the drilling bid package, limited oversight of the well construction, and a brief report of the installation to the Agencies. Task 540 will cover ENSR’s costs to collect the 12 groundwater samples, including $1,500 for subcontractor costs each time well W119 is sampled. ENSR does not expect any costs associated with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, however, the agency negotiations and any administrative or miscellaneous costs incurred by ENSR related to the implementation of the remedy for this aquifer will also be included in Task 550. Task 600 – Laboratory Coordination: This task includes three subtasks: 1. Working with the City’s testing laboratory (STL – Denver) on implementing the new and improved Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP), coordinating sampling events, and updating and maintaining the water quality database. 2. Providing data review and data validation at the levels described in the new QAPP. Because the data validation and data quality review will be a more formalized process under the new QAPP, and will be documented for the Annual Monitoring Report for 2002 (prepared in March 2003), the task budget shown in Table 1 includes $5,000 for these activities. 3. Auditing the STL - Denver laboratory in Arvada, Colorado is due to be conducted this year, and is included in the Task 600 budget in Table 1 at the same cost as prior audits. Task 700 – Site Closure: This task has historically included negotiations with MPCA to establish cessation criteria for the Drift, Platteville and St. Peter aquifer pumping wells. Given the MPCA and EPA response to the City’s request to stop pumping at wells W434 and W422, it is not likely that other pumping wells will be permitted to stop pumping in the near future. Well W434 will probably be allowed to stop pumping after it has completed five years of pumping. As shown in Table 1, no costs are anticipated for this activity in 2002. Task 810 – Program Management and Miscellaneous: This task includes overall planning, 75 directing, and controlling ENSR’s resources to perform this project. This task also includes miscellaneous activities throughout the year such as next year’s Sampling Plan (due October 31, 2002), that includes the Site Management Plan and the QAPP. We may expect significant comments from the Agencies regarding our recent QAPP submittal. The costs to respond to the comments, and finalize the QAPP, are included in the Task 810 budget. ENSR’s costs for the past 12-month period have been approximately $25,000 for Task 810. The Task 810 budget, shown in Table 1, was developed to include the QAPP revisions, and reflect the historical level of effort. As noted above ENSR has been deeply involved in previous related activities and has collaborated with the City in the development of proposals submitted to the Agencies for the work tasks listed. Staff supports the continued use of ENSR for the work tasks. ENSR/City Relationship: Staff is aware of the City Council’s desire to solicit competitive quotations for consultant services whenever possible. In this instance ENSR’s historical data base and experience in developing the basic technical foundation upon which the 2002 tasks are identified cause the Agencies and City staff to strongly support a continued contractual relationship with ENSR. As in the past, all activities are assigned through, and closely monitored by staff. Wherever possible, staff drafts reports for submittals, makes contacts with the Agencies, and coordinates the consultant activities, thereby reducing out of pocket expenditures. Financial Considerations: The proposal received from ENSR estimates the cost for 2002 work tasks at $137,000. Following is a summary of the 2002 tasks and estimated costs: Table 1 TASK ESTIMATED COST, $ Task 100 2001 Annual Monitoring Report (due March 15, 2002 21,000 Task 150 2001 Progress Report and GAC Plant Report 8,000 Task 400 Groundwater Monitoring in 2002 38,000 Task 500 Prairie du Chien Aquifer Remedy Implementation 20,000(a) Subtask 530 W413 Installation 5,000(a) Subtask 540 W48, W119, W413 Monitoring 10,000(a) Subtask 550 Agency Negotiations 5,000(a) Task 600 Laboratory Coordination 20,000 Subtask: lab coordination 5,000 Subtask: data validation and review 5,000 Subtask: laboratory audit 10,000 Task 700 Site Closure 0 Task 810 Project Management/Miscellaneous 30,000 Total Estimated Project Cost for 2002 $137,000 (a) Costs will be split with Reilly. The 2002 Reilly Budget contains funding for these Reilly related consultant activities. 76 Contract Terms: The following significant terms have been in the past contracts and will also be incorporated into this contract: 1. Contract terminates annually on December 31, (2002) with City rights to extend for up to two (2) additional one (1) year periods. 2. Compensation to be based on actual work performed with a maximum contract amount of $137,000 for 2002. 3. ENSR will defend and indemnify the City for ENSR’s actions related to this contract. 4. ENSR has independent contractor status. 5. City may terminate this contract at any time for any reason with a 30 day written notice. Attachment: Resolution Prepared by: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 77 RESOLUTION NO. 01-152 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT WITH ENSR CONSULTING AND ENGINEERING FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RELATED TO IMPLEMENTATION OF THE REILLY TAR & CHEMICAL CORPORATION REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN WHEREAS, pursuant to the execution of a Consent Decree in the case of the United States of America, et al versus Reilly Tar & Chemical Corporation, et al, the City of St. Louis Park has assumed certain responsibilities in the implementation of a Remedial Action Plan related thereto; and WHEREAS, the City has determined that it will be necessary to retain the services of a professional consultant to implement various activities for which it is responsible under the terms of the Consent Decree and Remedial Action Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that: 1. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to enter into a contract with ENSR Consulting and Engineering in the amount of $137,000 for consultant activities related to the implementation of the Reilly Tar & Chemical Corporation Remedial Action Plan during 2002. Attest: Adopted by the City Council December 17, 2002 City Clerk Mayor Reviewed for Administration: City Manager 78 CONSENT ITEM # 5 St. Louis Park City Council Meeting of December 17, 2001 5. Motion to adopt the attached resolution approving a grant agreement between the Hennepin County Department of Environmental Services and the City of St. Louis Park. Background: The City of St. Louis Park applied for a Municipal Waste Abatement Incentive Fund Grant from Hennepin County in the amount of $8,975.00, with matching funds of $1,800 from the City (Staff time) to fund a project to create an educational video series. The total cost of the City’s proposed project is $10,775. The grant has been recommended for approval by the Hennepin County Municipal Waste Abatement Incentive Fund Committee. The next step is to establish a grant contract. As part of the contract, we must include a City Council Resolution authorizing execution of a grant agreement with the County. The committee’s recommendation to award the grant is scheduled for approval by the Hennepin County Board in January 2002. Upon Board approval, the contract can be fully executed and we will begin work on the project. The first payment will be processed and disbursed at that time. The estimated timeline is January 2002 through January 2003. Project Description: The City of St Louis Park has experienced a downturn in the amount recycled in the past few years. Although we’ve also experienced a downturn in solid waste collection, we have struggled finding new methods for public education and public communication. To address the issue of public education in a different manner and format, we proposed creating a video series to be broadcast on local cable television and for distribution to schools and other organizations. The videos will focus on the topic of “Reduce, Reuse, Recycle.” The first video will describe how to reduce the amount of solid waste produced by each citizen of St. Louis Park. The second video will show citizens of St. Louis Park how to Reuse what is normally thought of as solid waste-or show how some citizens reuse lawn clippings, food wastes, containers, and more. The third video will focus on recycling showing why it is important to recycle and how we recycle in our community. The videos will involve the schools in St. Louis Park. We would like to recruit one or two school children (elementary or middle school-age children) to participate in each video, rather than a staff person or other adult. The target audience is everyone in St. Louis Park. It is likely, however, to attract family and friends of school-age children. The videos will be about ten minutes each. The Reduce, Reuse, Recycle Trilogy will be used by the City of St Louis Park over an extended period of time in an effort to provide continuing education to the residents of St. Louis Park. 79 The City of St Louis Park Public Works Department staff is currently working with Waste Management, the city-wide solid waste residential contractor to provide public education. This proposed project is in addition to that education. The City of St Louis Park will also be working with St. Louis Park schools, public and private, for production of the video, posters and educational purposes. The production and technical expertise is being provided to the City’s Civic TV Coordinator. Attachment: Resolution Prepared By: Scott Merkley, Public Works Coordinator Through: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director Approved By: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 80 RESOLUTION NO. 01-153 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AND THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park Public Works Department has been awarded a $8,975 municipal waste abatement incentive fund grant by the Hennepin County Department of Environmental Services for solid waste public education; and WHEREAS, Hennepin County requires the City Council to adopt a resolution approving the grant agreement and authorizing its execution. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approves the municipal waste abatement incentive grant agreement and authorizes the City Manager and Director of Public Works to execute the agreement. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 17, 2001 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk 81 CONSENT ITEM # 6 St. Louis Park City Council Meeting of December 17, 2001 6. Motion to authorize execution of a contract extension to Contract No. 1893 with Severn Trent Services (STL - Denver) for laboratory services related to the Reilly Tar & Chemical Corporation groundwater sampling program through year 2002. Background: The City has maintained a contractual relationship with STL - Denver (formerly Quanterra Corporation and previously Rocky Mountain Analytical Laboratory for the analysis of groundwater in accordance with the provisions of the consent decree with Reilly Tar & Chemical Corporation (Reilly) since 1988. Staff has identified only two firms capable of providing necessary laboratory services. STL - Denver and CH2M Hill, the laboratory used by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Insofar as the USEPA remains opposed to the use of its laboratory consultant by either the City or Reilly, STL - Denver remains the only available consultant for laboratory services. The contract with STL – Denver has been amended each year since 1988. The City Council has previously authorized staff to negotiate contract amendments with STL – Denver. The staff has completed negotiations in costs (unit prices) for the laboratory analysis to be performed in year 2002. Additional Information: The City, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) acknowledge advances in the technology of groundwater analysis methods since the original testing methodology was agreed to in 1986. City staff has been advocating for several years to update the testing methodology at the Reilly site. Staff also determined the procedures for laboratory data reporting, data validation and data quality review needed updating and simplifying. The entire groundwater monitoring process, which is outlined in the Reilly Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP), was just recently re- formatted by the City, with EPA guidance, to current acceptable methodologies. As a result of this, the proposed 2002 monitoring program and this contract amendment include changes which significantly reduce the cost of the overall monitoring program. A summary of recent expenses follows: YEAR AMOUNT COMMENT 1995 132,070 Actual 1996 178,640 Actual 1997 174,695 Actual 1998 123,500 Actual 1999 125,620 Actual 2000 86,020 Actual 2001 95,000 Estimated 2002 70,000 Projected 82 Financial Considerations: Contract authorizations from 1988 through 2001 provide for a cumulative contract amount of $2,051,000 with total estimated expenses of $1,984,757 thereby creating an estimated contract balance of $66,243 at the end of 2001. Based on the updated analytical process and other changes related to data, staff estimates that approximately $70,000 will be expended for water sample analysis during year 2002. Therefore, staff is seeking an additional authorization of $25,000 to the contract to cover the expected 2002 costs plus unanticipated contingencies. Recommendation: Staff recommends Contract No. 1893 be amended to increase the contract amount by $25,000 to provide for groundwater sample analysis during year 2002. Attachments: Amendment No. 12 to Contract No. 1893 Prepared By: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works Approved By: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 83 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK AMENDMENT NO. 12 TO CONSULTING SERVICES CONTRACT NO. 1893 THIS AMENDMENT NO. 12 to Contract No. 1893 is made on December 17, 2001, by and between the CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, a Minnesota municipal corporation hereinafter referred to as “CITY”, and SEVERN TRENT SERVICES (formally QUANTERRA CORPORATION AND PREVIOUSLY ROCKY MOUNTAIN ANALYTICAL LABORATORY/ENSCO) hereinafter referred to as “STL - DENVER”. BACKGROUND On December 12, 1988, the CITY and STL - DENVER entered into Contract No. 1893 for consultant services related to certain rights and responsibilities the CITY accepted under an agreement with Reilly Tar & Chemical Corporation (Reilly) which is attached as Exhibit B to a Consent Decree in United States of America, et al. vs. Reilly Tar & Chemical Corporation, Housing and Redevelopment Authority of St. Louis Park, Oak Park Village Associates, Rustic Oaks Condominium, Inc. and Philips’s Investment Company, United States District Court, District of Minnesota, Civil File No. 4-80-469. Pursuant to communication between the CITY and STL – DENVER, it has been determined that it is in the best interests of the CITY and STL - DENVER to extend the term of Contract No. 1893 to December 31, 2002, and amend the provisions of Contract No. 1893 and amendments issued thereto dated June 29, 1989, March, 1990, November 18, 1991, February 22, 1994, January 11, 1995, February 20, 1996, December 2, 1996, March 2, 1998, December 7, 1998, December 6, 1999, and January 16, 2001, incorporating responsibilities each party will assume through year 2002 to discharge those responsibilities the CITY has accepted under Exhibit B to the Consent Decree. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above facts and mutual covenants herein contained, it is hereby agreed that Contract No. 1893 and all previous Amendments are amended as follows: I. Contract Period 1. The length of Contract No. 1893 shall be extended to December 31, 2002. 2. Total compensation to STL – DENVER for all services rendered pursuant to Contract No. 1893, as amended, shall not exceed $2,076,000. IT IS FURTHER AGREED that all other provisions of Contract No. 1893 and all previous Amendments shall remain unchanged and fully effective, and this Amendment shall become an integral part thereof. EXECUTED as to the day and the year first above written. 84 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA SEVERN TRENT SERVICES By: Mayor City Manager Attest: City Clerk 85 CONSENT ITEM # 7 St. Louis Park City Council Meeting of December 17, 2001 7. Traffic Study No. 559: Motion to adopt the attached resolution authorizing installation of permit parking in front of 2900 Blackstone Avenue South. Background: The City has received a request from George and LaMay Kray of 2900 Blackstone Avenue South to restrict on-street parking in front of their house. The Krays have a son who can only walk short distances with assistance. He is picked up on a daily basis in front of their home by Metro Mobility and they need to insure parking is available. Staff has informed the Krays that City practice does allow for permit parking in this situation. The installation of handicapped parking signs is not feasible, as the handicapped parking stall design requirements cannot be met on our local street. However, it is the City’s practice to use permit parking, which is removed when the individual who needs the access at the curb no longer resides there or no longer needs the access. Staff considers the resident’s request to be valid and supports the installation of permit parking for handicap access in front of 2900 Blackstone Avenue South. This recommendation is based on the following: 1. The resident of the household is handicapped. 2. Access to the curb in front of the residence is needed to provide access for Metro Mobility. 3. Conflicting parking tendencies with neighbors will be eliminated. Options: Staff has identified the following options available to the Council at this time. * 1. Approve the request. If so, the attached resolution authorizing the installation of the parking regulations may be utilized. 2. Deny the request. * Staff recommendation Attachments: Map Resolution Prepared By: Carlton Moore/Maria Hagen, Engineering Reviewed By: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works Approved By: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 86 RESOLUTION NO. 01-154 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PARKING RESTRICTIONS ALONG BLACKSTONE AVENUE SOUTH AT 2900 TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 559 BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota that it is in the best interest of the City to establish a parking restriction based upon permit issuance along Blackstone Avenue South at 2900. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that parking shall not be permitted at any time unless the vehicle prominently displays a City issued parking permit on the left rear windshield. Emergency vehicles, governmental vehicles and commercial vehicles parked at curbside while work is conducted are exempt from these restrictions. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the parking restriction enacted herein shall remain in effect as long as the resident resides at the above address. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that the Director of Public Works is hereby authorized to install the following controls: 1. Permit parking at 2900 Blackstone Avenue South. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 17, 2001 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk 87 CONSENT ITEM # 8 St. Louis Park City Council Meeting of December 17, 2001 8. Traffic Study No. 560: Motion to adopt the attached resolution authorizing restricting parking along the south side of Wayzata Boulevard from Pennsylvania Avenue to a point 75 feet west. Background: The City has received a number of requests from residents and the adjacent property owner to restrict on-street parking on the south side of Wayzata Boulevard just west of Pennsylvania Avenue. The conflict is that semi-tractor trailers frequently park near Pennsylvania Avenue blocking visibility to the west. They also park in the bus stop. Staff believes the truckers are parking there while at Embers which is on the east side of Pennsylvania Avenue. Staff has contacted Metro Transit and they support a parking restriction of 75 feet to allow busses to get closer to the curb for accessibility. When the semi trucks are parked at the corner transit riders must load in the travel lane, which is unsafe. Moving the on-street parking 75 feet to the west should not impact other adjacent businesses. Options: Staff has identified the following options available to the Council at this time. * 1. Approve the request. If so, the attached resolution authorizing the parking regulations may be utilized. 3. Deny the request. 4. Defer for additional study. * Staff recommendation Attachments: Map Resolution Prepared By: Carlton Moore/Maria Hagen, Engineering Reviewed By: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works Approved By: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 88 RESOLUTION NO. __________ RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PARKING RESTRICTIONS SOUTH SIDE OF WAYZATA BOULEVARD TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 560 WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota has studied and has determined that traffic controls are necessary at this location. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that the Director of Public Works is hereby authorized to install the following controls: 1. Restriction of parking along the south side of Wayzata Boulevard from Pennsylvania Avenue to a point 75 feet west. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 17, 2001 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk 89 CONSENT ITEM # 9a MINUTES CHARTER COMMISSION MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA September 12, 2001 City Hall, Westwood Room 1. Call to Order Chair Ahrens called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. 2. Introductions and Attendance It was moved by Commissioner Carver and seconded by Commissioner Ernst to excuse the absence of the following members: Bryan Leary, Carol Walsh, and David Ornstein. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. A. Members Present: Cynthia Ahrens, Paul Carver, Mike Sixel, Nathan Busch, Cheryl Ernst, Brian Fiderlein, Christopher Johnson, and James Schaefer. B. Members Excused: Bryan Leary, Carol Walsh, and David Ornstein. C. Members Unexcused: Christopher Smith, Norm Kirschner, and Ruth Kirschner. D. Staff and Guests Present: City Staff Liaison Clint Pires, League of Minnesota Cities Staff Duke Addicks and Eric Hedtke. E. Vacancies: One. 3. Approval of Minutes It was moved by Commissioner Carver and seconded by Commissioner Johnson that Commissioner Carver absence be changed to an Excused Absence on July 11, 2001, as he intended to attend the meeting, but was pre-empted by an out-of-town trip. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. It was moved by Commissioner Busch and seconded by Commissioner Ernst that the minutes of July 11, 2001 be approved as amended. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. Global Charter Research Task Force Update and Presentation from League of Minnesota Cities Task Force members reported that they had met last on August 28, 2001. At that meeting, they agreed that the existing language regarding Council Vacancies was sufficient, and narrowed down the scope of potential Charter amendments to the areas of initiative and 90 referendum (IR). They requested that Mr. Pires solicit subject matter experts to provide testimony to the Commission as a whole, and that they would suspend meeting as a task force so all Commission members could receive testimony as a group. League of Minnesota Cities Attorneys Duke Addicks and Eric Hedtke provided the following documents (attached) regarding initiative and referendum: “Initiative and Referendum use in other cities”, Eric Hedtke (09/012/2001) “MEMO ON INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM”, Duke Addicks Note: Eric indicated he may be able to provide more information on other cities’ activities in this area, and Duke said he could provide a copy of the proposed City of Roseville IR language, as well as results of the Roseville Charter referendum. Duke Addicks reviewed information contained in his memo on initiative and referendum. The Commission discussed the issue. Duke stated that he does not believe referendum is needed, because initiative can be used to repeal an ordinance. IR is rarely used in Minnesota. Eric Hedtke, another staff attorney with the League of Minnesota Cities, was also there. He stated that with a responsive Council, IR is probably not needed. The question was raised about whether IR creates a false sense of input for citizens into government. After all, if it is rarely used as appears to be the case in Minnesota, actual input may be quite limited. Commissioner Carver suggested that even if we have a responsive Council now, we might not in the future. The RV ordinance was highlighted as a perfect example of a time when IR may be very appropriate. Duke and Eric pointed out that that may not be a perfect example, as such zoning ordinances are not legal subjects for IR in Minnesota. At least one member of the Commission stated that a concern with IR is the possibility that a vocal minority may get something passed without sufficient deliberation. If they are passionate about something, they may be the only ones to vote. 5. Status of Police Citizen Advisory Committee and Fire Civil Service Commission Rule Changes Mr. Pires reported that the deadline for applications to the input committee to form the Police Citizen Advisory Committee was October 24. There was an article coming out in the Sun Sailor about the Committee. The City is asking for volunteers to work on this Committee. He also indicated that legislation enabling St. Louis Park the option to eliminate the Fire Civil Service Commission is on the City’s legislative agenda for the 2002 session. In the meantime, the Fire Civil Service Commission had recently revised its rules to streamline and simplify many of its processes, though the perception is that hiring decisions continue to be delayed due to procedures inherent in the nature of Civil Service Commissions. 6. Status of Commission Vacancies 91 Mr. Pires reported that Commissioner Moga had resigned due to moving out of St. Louis Park. He indicated other Commission vacancies were imminent due to relocations from the City and health reasons. 7. 2000 Annual Report Mr. Pires reported that the Commission’s annual report had been forwarded to Hennepin County, and received a favorable response. 8. Meeting Schedule The Commission agreed to meet next on November 14, 2001 and consider future meetings at that time. City Attorney Joel Jamnik is scheduled to attend the November 14 meeting to provide testimony regarding initiative and referendum provisions. Mr. Pires was also asked to add an e-mail reminder of meetings to the mailed packet. 9. Adjournment As there was no other business, at 8:39 p.m., Commissioner Sixel moved and Commissioner Carver seconded adjournment. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Respectfully submitted, Mike Sixel Secretary and Clint Pires Staff Liaison 92 CONSENT ITEM # 9b Official Minutes PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK November 21, 2001--6:00 p.m. Council Chambers MEMBERS PRESENT: Michelle Bissonnette, Michael Garelick, Ken Gothberg, Dennis Morris, Carl Robertson, Jerry Timian, Sally Velick STAFF PRESENT: Judie Erickson, Janet Jeremiah, 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 November 7, 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 6:08 and Commissioner Timian arrived at 6:02 p.m.) 3. Hearings A. Case No. 01-52-ZA – Request to consider amendments to Zoning Chapter of the Municipal Code related to recodification of the code – Chapter 14: Zoning (Chapter 36 – 2002 code) Cindy Reichert, City Clerk, presented a staff report. She reported that staff has reviewed all of the provisions of the zoning chapter. She added that staff expected to find some minor errors through the editorial process. These items were outlined in a memo, which Ms. Reichert distributed to the Planning Commission. Ms. Reichert stated that typographical errors were minor and that all the corrections will be noted for the City Council’s first reading of the adopting ordinance on December 3, with corrections to be made in the code with the first update. The first update will be received approximately two months after adoption. Chair Velick thanked Ms. Reichert for her efforts in providing the chapter to the Planning Commission for the public hearing. 93 Commissioner Gothberg asked about the procedure for errors that may be discovered in the next couple of months. Ms. Reichert said that staff is fairly confident that there are no major errors or omissions. She added that staff desires to do some reorganization of the chapter over the next year, and major ordinance changes will come before the Planning Commission. Ms. Reichert stated that if any minor editorial errors are discovered, they will be noted and corrections will be made by the codifier. Chair Velick opened the public hearing. With no one wishing to speak, she closed the public hearing. Commissioner Morris made a motion to recommend approval of Chapter 36 (Zoning) of the proposed 2002 Municipal Code of Ordinances to the City Council. The motion passed on a vote of 7-0 with Commissioners Bissonnette, Garelick, Gothberg, Morris, Robertson, Timian and Velick voting in favor. B. Case Nos. 01-53-CP and 01-54-Z – Request of Belt Line Industrial Park, Inc. (John D. McCain) to amend the Comprehensive Plan Designation for parcels along West 36th Street and Belt Line Boulevard from Industrial to Commercial and to review proposed amendment to the Zoning map from IP-Industrial Park to C2-General Commercial – 3533 Raleigh Avenue South, 3550, 3540, 3532 and the south 180 feet of 3510 Belt Line Boulevard Ms. Jeremiah, Planning and Zoning Supervisor, said the applications are intended to accommodate a proposed redevelopment of the property which currently contains the post office, a paint store, a vacant storefront, and a vacant parcel. She stated that the preferred alternative is to construct a two-story bank building with a drive-thru facility at the corner of Belt Line and 36th, which could potentially accommodate the post office customer service use as well, and a single story medical office building further west on the corner of 36th and Raleigh Ave. Ms. Jeremiah said the applicant would like the flexibility to consider other redevelopment possibilities on the site. She noted that staff is recommending continuance of the public hearing to explore some of the impacts of other possibilities on the site. Ms. Jeremiah stated that staff does support the proposed redevelopment for the bank and office building, and staff believes a change from Industrial to another district is appropriate at the site, given the changes in the area. She noted the City’s desire to see high-end townhomes developed on the Bass Lake tennis court property to the east as well as improvements to the Rec Center and Excelsior Blvd. areas. Ms. Erickson, Planning Coordinator, presented a staff report. Chair Velick opened the public hearing. 94 John McCain, V.P., Belt Line Industrial Park, Inc., asked if the Planning Commission had any questions for Belt Line’s next meeting with staff regarding the applications. Commissioner Garelick stated that the request is probably the first of many applications that will be received as a ripple effect of the Park Commons development as the area goes through a transition. He noted that the rezoning is the right thing to do to achieve the best use scenario on the site. Chair Velick asked about rezoning and the C2 district, specifically noting concern that allowing a strip mall or fast food restaurant would diminish the work put forward on Park Commons area. Ms. Erickson said that staff shares that concern and proposes to put language in the Plan by Neighborhood section which might restrict some of those uses. Commissioner Gothberg commented on traffic problems at the current post office location. He asked what the restrictions for access and nearness to the intersection would be if the property were redeveloped. Ms. Jeremiah responded that code requirements do now exist which require a greater distance for access from the intersection than what currently exists at the post office. Any major change in a use classification, as well as a redevelopment, would solve that access problem. She added that one of the reasons staff was very positive about the redevelopment concept was because it would provide a much improved circulation system. Commissioner Gothberg asked that at a future meeting staff provide the actual access distance from the intersection currently required. Commissioner Gothberg asked if staff could also provide at future discussions the businesses that do exist within the IP district. He commented that if a gradual transition and revitalization of the whole district were being considered, it would be good to know what currently exists. Commissioner Garelick suggested that when an architectural plan is brought to the Planning Commission for the area, it might be received more favorably if it reflects and complements the Park Commons area. Commissioner Bissonnette asked if the existing C2 zoning further west on 36th could continue across to the subject property as a continuous extension of the commercial district to prevent spot zoning. Mr. McCain said he believed Thermo-King and E-Z-Go Golf Cart occupy the Industrial parcel on the northwest corner of 36th and Raleigh. He added that the Glass Doctor and a tree service used to occupy that property. Mr. McCain stated 95 that these businesses include sales and some repair, not manufacturing. He does not own them or have any control. Mr. McCain went on to say that years ago Belt Line Industrial Park, Inc., looked at redeveloping the existing building and ran into several problems with the design of the project. He explained that much thought has gone into flood plain issues, traffic issues, existing uses, and accommodating the post office in the current proposal. Commissioner Robertson stated that the proposal feels like an improvement, but stated that he is concerned about encroaching on industrial. He commented that this may be the first of many such applications, but asked if it goes against the goal of maintaining a certain percentage of industrial uses. Ms. Jeremiah remarked that staff would like to have a more comprehensive discussion about industrial policies in the future. She referenced the Elmwood Area study on the west side of Highway 100 that is just starting to get underway. She commented on a desire of industrial areas to become more commercial. She referred to some enforcement issues regarding retail in excess of the maximum allowed in the industrial districts. Ms. Jeremiah said staff does see some changes as a result of market forces and a nationwide trend toward a service oriented market rather than an industrial manufacturing market. Ms. Jeremiah went on to say in this particular case, staff does feel that Industrial is no longer the appropriate use for that corner. In response to Commissioner Morris’ question regarding noticing and publishing requirements of the public hearing if the request is continued, Ms. Jeremiah explained that if the hearing is continued more than once, re-noticing is required. She added that renoticing and republishing is not required if a public hearing is continued once without specifying a date certain. She anticipates that staff will be ready to present the request at the December 5 or December 19 meeting. Commissioner Morris said that he strongly favored a C1 rezoning over a C2 rezoning. He referenced the history of the new Fern Hill residential/retail development project at Raleigh and Minnetonka. He explained that at one time C2 zoning was suggested for the site, but after discussion it was determined to leave it at its current C1 zoning because with time a more appealing development might be proposed for the site. Commissioner Bissonnette made a motion to continue the public hearing for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change designation from Industrial to Commercial and a motion to continue the public hearing for a Zoning Amendment to change the zoning map designation from IP-Industrial Park to C2- General Commercial. The motion passed on a vote of 7-0 with Commissioners Bissonnette, Garelick, Gothberg, Morris, Robertson, Timian, and Velick voting in favor. 96 C. Case No. 01-51-ZA – Request of Loffler Companies for a Zoning Ordinance amendment to allow Office Equipment Sales and Service as a use Permitted with Conditions in the Office District Ms. Jeremiah presented a staff report. She stated that staff is basically in agreement with the concept of allowing the office equipment sales and service use under certain conditions in the Office District, but staff is recommending more stringent conditions to ensure that the Office District is generally preserved for more intensive office uses. She added that staff is proposing adding conditions that would prevent the construction of new stand alone office equipment sales and service buildings and proposing a more stringent limit on the amount of warehouse space to a maximum of 25% as opposed to the 35% requested by the applicant. She added that she believes staff’s conditions would still accommodate use of the old Office Depot building by Loffler Companies. Chair Velick opened the public hearing. With no one wishing to speak, she closed the public hearing. Commissioner Garelick asked if a purchase agreement was drafted for Loffler for the old Office Depot building. Ms. Jeremiah responded that she believed a purchase agreement was drafted. In response to Commissioner Garelick’s question about a previous proposal for high density apartments at the site, Ms. Jeremiah responded that the proposal proved to be financially infeasible. Commissioner Garelick asked how the ratio of warehouse to retail related to the Soomek Oriental Rugs proposal at Highway 7 and Walker. Ms. Jeremiah responded that the Soomek property is zoned Industrial and the owner desired to do retail in excess of that allowed in the Industrial district. She added that Loffler is not proposing any retail at this site, which is zoned Office. Commissioner Bissonnette asked if the applicant could build up on the structure if additional office space was needed. Ms. Jeremiah replied that she did not believe the structure was ever intended for a second story. Commissioner Robertson asked for some background on the building and the zoning designation. Ms. Jeremiah responded that the situation was unusual. Language in the Office District states that retail is permitted if it is within a building that has another principal use, with limitations, and it can be approved as part of a larger development. She explained that at the time, the Office Depot use was proposing 97 to share parking with an adjacent office building. The Zoning Administrator made a determination that it met the requirement for being part of a larger development. She said that a finding has been made that the property could not be reoccupied as retail. She added that staff has since determined that there was no evidence of a formal shared parking agreement, so it does not seem to meet the requirement for being part of a larger development. Commissioner Gothberg asked if Loffler continues to grow and considers expanding their office use on the site, would that be increasing the percentage of office in that building and would they need a PUD to physically expand that building and continue to do warehousing. Ms. Jeremiah responded it is difficult for her to address how Loffler would anticipate expanding or intensifying use on the site, but they could introduce more office without encountering any problems as the 65% is a minimum, not a maximum. She said if Loffler wanted to redevelop the site and still retain the warehouse component, the PUD process would be required. Commissioner Morris stated he was in favor of the proposal but that he has questions regarding the wording of the text amendment change. He asked how the ordinance would define a 25% technical or processing use. Ms. Jeremiah stated that the point was well made and should be recommended for change. She said that warehousing and processing are defined in the code, but technical is not defined. Ms. Jeremiah added that repair is probably a better term and it is defined in the code. Commissioner Morris said he would suggest an amendment to the text staff is proposing to eliminate the words technical and processing. Commissioner Robertson asked if staff could propose conditions that would help tie the warehouse space and office space together, so that the 25% warehouse space would be supportive of the office district. Ms. Jeremiah said that staff would be concerned with the idea of allowing warehouse up to 25% in the office district. She explained this would only be specific to a use that is Office Equipment Sales and Service. Warehouse in and of itself or associated with any other use would continue to be prohibited. A new use would be established called Office Equipment Sales and Service, permitted with conditions in the Office District. One of the conditions would be that the particular use would have no more than 25% warehouse space. No other use would be allowed to have warehouse associated with it, nor would warehouse in and of itself be allowed to be a tenant in a space. She added that the Office Equipment Sales and Service use will also need to be carefully defined. 98 In response to Chair Velick’s request for elaboration on associated amendments which would need to be made, Ms. Jeremiah said these would include a definition for Office Equipment Sales and Service and perhaps an update to the parking code. Ms. Jeremiah said that the Land Use Table would also need to be updated. She explained that if the Planning Commission recommended that staff move forward with this amendment, a subsequent hearing would then be advertised to address the other code amendments. Commissioner Robertson suggested wording in addition to warehouse which allows for service. Ms. Jeremiah referenced a section under accessory uses in the Office District which states that incidental repair or processing which is necessary to conduct a permitted principal use is allowed up to 40% of the gross floor area. She added that it is quite permissive and would allow the technical and processing portion of Loffler’s business as an accessory use under that general language. She added that the 25% maximum for warehouse/technical/processing proposed by staff would be more restrictive than the general requirement. Commissioner Robertson asked if storage is included as an accessory use. Ms. Jeremiah responded that storage is only allowed if the stored items are used on-site by the office workers (e.g., paper supplies. She added that warehousing and storage are viewed differently. Commissioner Robertson asked if accessory use could be addressed with wording such as “in combination 25% warehousing/accessory use”. Ms. Jeremiah suggested repair/processing rather than accessory use or technical/processing would be more consistent with the ordinance. Commissioner Gothberg noted that Loffler’s application asked for up to 35% of the use for storage, tech. space, and office equipment processing. He said he wasn’t sure what was meant by tech space. and processing in terms of their request. He stated that he was concerned that the Planning Commission understands Loffler’s request as well as a general ordinance change. Commissioner Robertson moved approval of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow Office Equipment Sales and Service in the Office District subject to certain conditions recommended by staff and the Planning Commission, with final wording of the amendment to be brought back and reviewed by the Planning Commission with the other associated Code amendments. The motion passed on a vote of 7-0 with Commissioners Bissonnette, Garelick, Gothberg, Morris, Robertson, Timian, and Velick voting in favor. 4. Unfinished Business: None 99 5. New Business: A. Consent Agenda B. Other New Business Chair Velick reported on the public hearing to be held by the City of Golden Valley on November 26 regarding a storm water retention pond and parking lot at the new Carousel Audi expansion at Highway 169 and 394. Ms. Erickson reported that she has provided notification of the public hearing to residents within 350 feet of the site, to Nature Center staff, and to other City of St. Louis Park staff and officials. 6. Communications A. Recent City Council Action – November 19, 2001 B. Other 7. Miscellaneous Commissioner Timian asked if staff could provide a review of the City’s housing goals at a future meeting. 8. Adjournment Chair Velick adjourned the meeting at 7:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Nancy Sells Administrative Secretary 100 CONSENT ITEM # 9c December 7, 2001 VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT ACE SUPPLY COMPANY INC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 253.18 ALMSTEAD'S SUPERVALU CONCESSION SUPPLIES 7.61 APACHE GROUP OF MINNESOTA OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 695.30 APPLIANCE RECYCLING CENTERS OF GENERAL SUPPLIES 25.00 ARAMARK UNIFORM CORPORATE ACCT GENERAL SUPPLIES 561.92 ARMADILLO TRUCKVAULT INC. MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT (150.00) ASHER, MARYA GENERAL CUSTOMERS 97.53 ASLA SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 49.00 AUDIOVISUAL INC RENTAL EQUIPMENT 35.99 AUTOMATIC GARAGE DOOR CO BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 1,060.80 BAKER, RUTH S PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 18.00 BARBER CONSTRUCTION CO INC. OTHER IMPROVEMENTS 11,804.70 BEEKS PIZZA TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 147.35 BERNDT ELECTRIC SERVICE BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 179.09 BOBS PERSONAL COFFEE SERVICE GENERAL SUPPLIES 209.44 BOHN WELDING COMPANY BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES 414.37 BRATLAND, ROSEMOND L PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 12.75 BROADWAY RENTAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT (1.66) BUCHMAN PLUMBING BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 206.00 BURNET TITLE GENERAL CUSTOMERS 75.27 BURNETT, BETH & MORLEY NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 651.96 CARTRIDGE CARE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 779.82 CDW GOVERNMENT INC. OFFICE FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT 4,007.70 COFFEE MILL INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 103.84 COLLISYS ELECTRIC CO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 5,429.43 COMM CENTER RADIO COMMUNICATIONS 170.40 CONCEPT SEATING INC GENERAL SUPPLIES (180.00) COX, JOANN OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 67.32 CUB FOODS SUBSISTENCE SUPPLIES 314.25 DAMON FARBER ASSOC OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 5,594.49 DANKO EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT CO NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 1,663.63 DIAMOND VOGEL PAINTS OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 1,538.92 E GROUP INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 662.00 EAGLE TRAINING LLC TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 500.00 ED M. FELD EQUIPMENT CO. NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 445.00 ELECTION SYSTEMS & SOFTWARE IN PRINTING & PUBLISHING 4,677.31 ERICKSON, CHRISTA CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 25.00 ERV'S LAWN MOWER REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES 20.18 EVERGREEN LAND SERVICES CO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 685.40 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (30.67) FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,356.12 FICKBOHM, LYNNETTE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 25.00 FRONT LINE PLUS FIRE & RESCUE GENERAL SUPPLIES 90.00 G & K SERVICES CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY 45.35 GARELICK STEEL CO GENERAL SUPPLIES (2.57) GARTNER REFRIG & MFG INC BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 974.66 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (27.83) 101 GILBERT MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 527.27 GRAYBOW COMMUNICATIONS RENTAL EQUIPMENT 63.90 GREATER MINNEAPOLIS DAY CARE A REC CENTER RENTAL-TAXABLE 120.00 GREENMAN TECHNOLOGIES OF MN IN CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY 84.00 GROVE, HENRY R PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 18.00 HARMON INC BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 605.00 HARNEY, SCOTT CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 25.00 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER SUBSISTENCE SERVICE 3,571.60 HENNEPIN TECHNICAL COLLEGE TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 4,218.75 HI-LINE GENERAL SUPPLIES 105.13 HIGHVIEW PLUMBING INC CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 75.90 HIRSHFIELDS BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 402.64 HOLIDAY INN MPLS WEST MEETING EXPENSE 6,075.93 HOME DEPOT/GECF LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 158.85 HOME HARDWARE GENERAL SUPPLIES 303.23 HPI INTERNATIONAL INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 176.00 HYDRO SUPPLY COMPANY OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 2,046.28 IAGO, CATHY MEETING EXPENSE 24.00 ICI DULUX PAINT CENTERS GENERAL SUPPLIES 849.92 IIMC SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 65.00 IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 96.23 INDICATOR INC. GENERAL SUPPLIES 72.00 INTERSTATE BEARING COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (32.41) IOS CAPITAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT 1,342.97 J H LARSON COMPANY GENERAL SUPPLIES 320.13 JEREMIAH, JANET MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 823.43 JERRY STAMM OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 5.16 KASSA CONSTRUCTION, RON OTHER IMPROVEMENTS 66,948.92 LACAL EQUIPMENT INC EQUIPMENT PARTS (235.63) LARSON SPORTS INC, GREG GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,040.96 LAUE, JEAN UNREALIZED REVENUE 1,573.76 LEAGUE MN CITIES INS TRUST BLDG & CONTENTS INSURANCE 56,263.25 LOGIS COMPUTER SERVICES 36,223.14 LOUIS DEGIDIO SERVICES INC. BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 295.50 MACKAY & ASSOCIATES TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 1,400.00 MARGO, MICHELLE GENERAL SUPPLIES 49.14 MARQUARDT, DAVID PRINTING & PUBLISHING 50.00 MASTERSON PERSONNEL INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,860.00 MAUMA SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 30.00 MCCONNELL, BECKY GENERAL SUPPLIES 37.86 MENARDS BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES 367.06 METRO CASH REGISTER SYSTEMS GENERAL SUPPLIES 34.07 METRO FIRE INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 30.01 METRO VOLLEYBALL OFFICIALS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 66.00 METROCALL TELEPHONE 500.37 MICHIGAN STAE UNIVERSITY SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 10.00 MID-AMERICA BUSINESS SYSTEMS EQUIPMENT PARTS 161.67 MIDWEST ASPHALT CORP OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 540.50 MILLER, CAROL GENERAL SUPPLIES 80.65 MINN DEPT OF ADMINISTRATION TELEPHONE 4,693.77 MINUTEMAN PRESS OFFICE SUPPLIES 53.00 MN DRIVER & VEHICLE SVCS EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT CHARGE (46.00) 102 MN PIPE & EQUIPMENT OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 1,074.88 MN STATE FIRE DEPT ASSOCIATION SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 300.00 MRPA TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 1,085.00 NADEM, SIAR STUDY INCENTIVE & MERIT PAY 1,570.25 NAPA GENUINE PARTS CO/FINANCE EQUIPMENT PARTS (305.15) NEUBECK, CONNIE MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 41.40 NSP CO ELECTRIC SERVICE 1,923.44 NYSTROM PUBLISHING PRINTING & PUBLISHING 10,569.06 OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE SUPPLIES 781.70 ON SITE SANITATION OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 12.66 OPERATING ENGINEERS TRAINING TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 175.00 OTTO PACKAGING MIDWEST LLC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES (72.00) PALMS BAKERY MEETING EXPENSE 10.80 PEPSI-COLA COMPANY CONCESSION SUPPLIES (15.89) PETTY CASH GENERAL SUPPLIES 159.50 PETTY CASH-WWNC GENERAL SUPPLIES 96.55 PINACLE CONSTRUCTION BUILDING PERMIT 139.25 PRAXAIR DISTRIBUTION INC. GENERAL SUPPLIES 40.52 PRO PRODUCTS INC GENERAL SUPPLIES (92.32) RANDY'S SANITATION INC GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE 2,082.95 RELIANT ENERGY HEATING GAS 1,616.28 ROTO-ROOTER OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 2,300.00 SA-AG INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 21,638.47 SAMAMTUNGA, PRIYANTHA CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 30.80 SCHARBER & SONS INC EQUIPMENT PARTS (3.51) SCHWAAB INC OFFICE SUPPLIES 32.45 SEARS SMALL TOOLS 310.80 SECURITYLINK FROM AMERITECH OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 36.10 SEMPLE BUILDING MOVERS INC. OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 900.00 SHAW, ANITA SKATING LESSONS-tax exempt 53.10 SLP CRIME PREVENTION FUND UNREALIZED REV-SAFETY CAMP 0.00 SOUTH SIDE ELECTRIC CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 87.71 SPEEDY LOCK & KEY EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 121.00 SPORTS TECHNOLOGY INC ELECTRIC SERVICE 5,200.00 SRF CONSULTING GROUP INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 18,951.18 ST CROIX RECREATION COMPANY OTHER IMPROVEMENTS 8,500.00 STANDARD PLUMBING CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 37.10 STANDARD SIDEWALK INC. OTHER IMPROVEMENTS 19,437.00 STANDARD SPRING OF MPLS EQUIPMENT PARTS 650.28 STREICHER'S EQUIPMENT PARTS 223.90 STROTH, NANCY MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 11.04 STS CONSULTANTS LTD OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,431.50 SUBURBAN PROPANE MOTOR FUELS 183.56 SWEENEY BROS TRACTOR EQUIPMENT PARTS (82.78) THE MOBILE PHONE COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS 219.45 TOMAR ELECTRONICS EQUIPMENT PARTS (175.98) TRIARCO ARTS & CRAFTS GENERAL SUPPLIES 106.20 TRUCK UTILITIES MFG CO EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 1,064.94 TWIN CITY EMBROIDERY GENERAL SUPPLIES 600.00 TWIN CITY GARAGE DOOR CO BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 842.00 TWIN CITY OPTICAL GENERAL SUPPLIES (41.80) TWIN CITY OXYGEN CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 22.32 103 U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE 36.49 U S WEST INTERPRISE TELEPHONE 808.84 UHL CO INC BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 308.65 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 545.00 VALLEY-RICH CO INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 8,778.56 VAUGHAN, JIM TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 126.01 VEIT & COMPANY OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 124,389.30 VEIT DISPOSAL SYSTEMS GENERAL SUPPLIES 375.00 VICKERMAN BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 525.00 VIKING COUNCIL JUVENILE DIV PR DUE FROM OTHER GOVTS 4,479.91 W W GRAINGER GENERAL SUPPLIES 37.57 WATSON CO INC CONCESSION SUPPLIES 986.15 WELLS FARGO REMITTANCE CTR MEETING EXPENSE 984.72 WEST WELD GENERAL SUPPLIES 108.27 WILLIAMS STEEL & HDWE GENERAL SUPPLIES 555.48 WM H MC COY PETROLEUM FUELS OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 63.90 WORLD WATERPARK ASSOC. SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 295.00 ZACKS INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 210.34 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE GENERAL SUPPLIES 248.27 ZIEGLER INC EQUIPMENT PARTS (137.12) ZIP PRINTING PRINTING & PUBLISHING 68.58 ZIP SORT POSTAGE 296.13 ZOBIUS LEADERSHIP INT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 24.00 488,455.02 VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT AIRTOUCH CELLULAR TELEPHONE 2,942.79 ALBERS MECHANICAL SERVICES EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 222.50 ANDERSEN INC, EARL F OTHER IMPROVEMENTS 22,465.80 ANN'S TOOL SUPPLY GENERAL SUPPLIES 153.51 APACHE GROUP OF MINNESOTA GENERAL SUPPLIES 683.84 ARAMARK UNIFORM CORPORATE ACCT GENERAL SUPPLIES 678.32 ARDEA COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 427.50 ARMADILLO TRUCKVAULT INC. MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT (150.00) BACHMANS BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 106.50 BATTERIES PLUS GENERAL SUPPLIES 95.36 BAUER BUILT TIRE & BATTERY EQUIPMENT PARTS (14.91) BEARD, MARSHA CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 50.00 BEEKS PIZZA MEETING EXPENSE 180.00 BERGERSON CASWELL EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 7,272.00 BIG RIVER DELI & SANDWICHES MEETING EXPENSE 72.45 BITUMINOUS ROADWAYS INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 404.95 BLACKSTONE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSN OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 500.00 BLOOM, MARK & NANCY CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 25.00 BOBS PERSONAL COFFEE SERVICE OFFICE SUPPLIES 252.77 BRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 145.50 BROADWAY RENTAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT (1.66) BROWN TRAFFIC PRODUCTS INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 124.61 BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 8,089.07 CALIFORNIA CONTRACTORS SUPPLIE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 200.00 104 CAPITOL COMMUNICATIONS RADIO COMMUNICATIONS 4,388.59 CARTRIDGE CARE COMPUTER SUPPLIES 1,224.08 CHESLEY TRUCK SALES EQUIPMENT PARTS 35.12 COLICH & ASSOCIATES LEGAL SERVICES 9,322.57 COLLISYS ELECTRIC CO OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 697.73 COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 198.77 CONCEPT SEATING INC GENERAL SUPPLIES (180.00) CONSECO FINANCE VENDOR SERV CO EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 772.13 CUB FOODS CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY 773.05 DATABASE TECHNOLOGIES INC OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 93.00 DUBOIS, WILL DEPOSITS PAYABLE 5,700.00 EARTHGRAINS CONCESSION SUPPLIES 62.30 ELIOT NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOC. OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 500.00 ENGINEERING REPRO SYSTEMS GENERAL SUPPLIES 61.59 ERV'S LAWN MOWER REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES 1.07 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (30.67) FAIRMONT FIRE SYSTEMS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 71.78 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP POSTAGE 9.58 FIRE-GUARD SPRINKLER SERVICE, BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 135.00 FRANKIES PIZZA GENERAL SUPPLIES 83.10 GARELICK STEEL CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 183.29 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (27.83) GIWOYNA, NANCY MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 18.63 GLEN QUIST ART & DESIGN OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 401.26 GOVERNING SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 15.00 GRAFIX SHOPPE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 126.77 GRAINGER INC, W W EQUIPMENT PARTS 512.52 GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 202.35 HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPT SUBSISTENCE SERVICE 2,211.19 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE 3,789.18 HIGH ANGLE ASSOC GENERAL SUPPLIES 447.00 HOME DEPOT GENERAL SUPPLIES 28.44 HOME DEPOT/GECF GENERAL SUPPLIES 78.78 HOME HARDWARE GENERAL SUPPLIES 106.14 IND SCHOOL DIST #283 OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 102.00 INDEPENDENT BLACK DIRT CO OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 218.92 INTERSTATE BEARING COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (32.41) J H LARSON COMPANY GENERAL SUPPLIES 201.90 JERRY STAMM GENERAL SUPPLIES 6.39 JUSTUS LUMBER COMPANY GENERAL SUPPLIES 88.34 KASSA CONSTRUCTION, RON OTHER IMPROVEMENTS 85,570.07 LACAL EQUIPMENT INC EQUIPMENT PARTS (235.63) MASTERSON PERSONNEL INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 540.00 MEDSOFT CORPORATION OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 272.50 MEMA TREASURER EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS 75.00 MENARDS OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 331.20 METRO FIRE INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 257.98 METROCALL TELEPHONE 229.49 MID-AMERICA BUSINESS SYSTEMS PREPAID EXPENSES 17,100.00 MIDWEST ASPHALT CORP OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 37,055.53 MIDWEST MAILING SYSTEMS INC POSTAGE 46.37 MINN CHIEFS POLICE ASSOCIATION SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 180.00 105 MINNESOTA STATE FIRE CHIEFS AS SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 140.00 MINUTEMAN PRESS GENERAL SUPPLIES 117.12 MN DRIVER & VEHICLE SVCS EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT CHARGE (46.00) MPELRA SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 150.00 MPLS DEPT OF HEALTH/FAMILY SUP OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 52.00 MTI DISTRIBUTING CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 171.93 MUNICILITE EQUIPMENT PARTS 517.94 MUNICIPAL CODE CORPORATION OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,665.20 MYERS TIRE SUPPLY COMPANY GENERAL SUPPLIES 88.60 NAPA GENUINE PARTS CO/FINANCE EQUIPMENT PARTS 1,157.88 NATIONAL SEMINARS GROUP PREPAID EXPENSES 195.00 NORIT AMERICAS INC. CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY 26,717.72 NORTHSTAR REPRO PRODUCTS INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 15.53 NSP CO ELECTRIC SERVICE 39,527.46 NYSTROM PUBLISHING PRINTING & PUBLISHING 1,867.00 OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE SUPPLIES 877.30 OLMSTED COUNTY EXTENSION TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 30.00 OTTO PACKAGING MIDWEST LLC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES (72.00) PAPER WAREHOUSE-GENERAL OFFICE GENERAL SUPPLIES 43.79 PARTS PLUS EQUIPMENT PARTS 198.85 PEPSI-COLA COMPANY CONCESSION SUPPLIES 1,378.39 PERSONNEL DECISIONS INTERNATIO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,280.00 PETTY CASH LICENSES/TAXES 188.03 POSTMASTER POSTAGE 74.94 PRAXAIR DISTRIBUTION INC. GENERAL SUPPLIES 77.35 PRESTIGE LINCOLN MERCURY EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 1,566.76 PRO PRODUCTS INC GENERAL SUPPLIES (92.32) PROCESS MEASUREMENT CO EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 160.00 PUMP & METER SERVICE BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 65.66 R & R SPECIALTIES EQUIPMENT PARTS 2,816.25 RELIANT ENERGY HEATING GAS 6,295.44 REYNOLDS WELDING SUPPLY CO BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 98.20 RILEY DETTMAN & KELSEY PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 3,610.35 ROHLIK, CHAR MEETING EXPENSE 70.23 RONS MECHANICAL INC. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 40.00 SA-AG INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 14,714.62 SAFETY-KLEEN GENERAL SUPPLIES 217.71 SCHARBER & SONS INC EQUIPMENT PARTS (3.51) SEBCO OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 9,061.77 SLP CRIME PREVENTION FUND UNREALIZED REV-SAFETY CAMP 0.00 SNAP-ON INDUSTRIAL NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 22.54 SONUS INTERIORS INC NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 4,510.00 ST LOUIS PARK PUBLIC SCHOOLS OTHER IMPROVEMENTS 15,700.00 STAR TRIBUNE SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 1,248.95 STREICHER'S GENERAL SUPPLIES 143.78 SUBURBAN PROPANE MOTOR FUELS 186.93 SUN NEWSPAPERS LEGAL NOTICES 300.28 SUPER RADIATOR COILS BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 1,107.60 SWEENEY BROS TRACTOR EQUIPMENT PARTS (82.78) TENNANT EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 133.00 TERMINIX INTERNATIONAL BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 91.00 THE DRAWING BOARD GENERAL SUPPLIES 74.14 106 TOMAR ELECTRONICS EQUIPMENT PARTS (175.98) TRACY/TRIPP FUELS MOTOR FUELS 6,943.72 TRUCK UTILITIES MFG CO EQUIPMENT PARTS 83.90 TWIN CITY ACOUSTIC INC. OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 23,960.00 TWIN CITY AREA LABOR MANAGEMEN TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 150.00 TWIN CITY AUTO PARTS CO EQUIPMENT PARTS 64.20 TWIN CITY OPTICAL GENERAL SUPPLIES (41.80) U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE 133.06 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,569.86 UNIVERSITY OF MINN TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 150.00 VALLEY WEST HARDWARE NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 2,278.99 VIKING COUNCIL JUVENILE DIV PR OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 4,207.75 VOSS LIGHTING OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 356.55 WACO SCAFFOLDING & EQUIPMENT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 6,156.28 WALSER FORD EQUIPMENT PARTS 136.99 WASTE MANAGEMENT GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE 58.52 WATSON CO INC CONCESSION SUPPLIES 1,903.32 WESTSIDE EQUIPMENT BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 131.00 WIDMER, HANS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 25.14 ZIEGLER INC EQUIPMENT PARTS (137.12) ZIP SORT GENERAL SUPPLIES 2,331.05 409,701.12 107 CONSENT ITEM # 10 St. Louis Park City Council Meeting of December 17, 2001 10. Police Uniform Contract. Motion to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute a contract with Uniforms Unlimited for police uniforms for a two-year period from January 1, 2002, through December 31, 2003. Background: The current Police Uniform Contract with Uniforms Unlimited expires on December 31, 2001. Advertisements for bids were published in the St. Louis Park Sun-Sailor on November 14th and 21st, 2001. The bid opening was at 2:00 p.m. on December 5, 2001, at the City Hall Council Chambers. This contract was bid as a two-year contract to cover 2002-2003. A two-year contract results in lower bid prices, as the vendor would have two years to sell items to the department, and the overall two-year average would be lower. The vendor would also have continuity in items purchased by the department and would be able to keep a larger inventory on hand. A two-year contract also reduces contract preparation by both staff and the vendor. During the past several years, only one vendor, Uniforms Unlimited, has submitted a bid for the police uniform contract. This year, three vendors submitted bids; however, one vendor did not bid on all items as required. To determine the lowest responsible bidder, a priority weight, based on anticipated volume of purchase, was assigned to each bid item. The amount of the bid on each item was then multiplied by that priority weight, giving that item a tabulation number. The tabulation number for all items was then added up, resulting in a total tabulation number. Using this method, the vendor showing the lowest total tabulation number, Uniforms Unlimited was determined to be the lowest responsible bidder. Uniforms Unlimited is the current contract holder and have held the contract for the past 16 years. Uniforms Unlimited $18,481.00 Streicher’s $18,817.50 Cys Uniforms Rejected – Incomplete Bid The amount budgeted for uniforms in the year 2002 is $54,200.00 which includes uniform items for officers, staff, CSO’s, Dispatchers, Reserves, Explorers and the Emergency Response Unit. Increased prices in the bid are within the budgeted amount. Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute a contract with Uniforms Unlimited for police uniforms for a two-year period from January 1, 2002, through December 31, 2003. Prepared by: John D. Luse, Chief of Police Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager