HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000/01/18 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - RegularEconomic Development Authority - No meeting
AGENDA - CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
January 18, 1999
7:30 p.m.
1. Call to order
2. Presentation
3. Roll Call
4. Approval of Minutes
a. City Council meeting minutes of January 3, 2000
Action: Corrections/amendments to minutes - Minutes approved as presented
b. City Council study session minutes of December 13, 1999
Action: Corrections/amendments to minutes - Minutes approved as presented
c. City Council executive session minutes of December 13, 1999
Action: Corrections/amendments to minutes - Minutes approved as presented
5. Approval of agenda
a. Consent agenda
Note: All matters on consent (starred items) are considered to be routine and will be enacted by
one motion approving all. There is no separate discussion of these items. If discussion is
desired, the starred item will be moved to the regular agenda.
Action: Motion to approve - Motion to delete item(s)
b. Agenda
Action: Motion to approve - Motion to add item(s)
*c. Resolutions and Ordinances
Action: By consent, waive reading of resolutions and ordinances
2
6. Public Hearing
6a. Public Hearing to Consider St. Louis Park Police and Fire Pension
Consolidation Accounts
MN Law 1999 Chapter 222, titled Omnibus Retirement Bill, permits a portion of
account excesses to be returned to the City of St. Louis Park.
Recommended
Action:
Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to adopt a resolution
authorizing the return to the City of excess funding amounts in
the former St. Louis Park Police and St. Louis Park Fire
Departments’ Pension Consolidation Accounts and authorizing
staff to submit that resolution to the Minnesota State Auditor.
6b. Public hearing to consider Sale of City Property Located South of Jewish
Community Center 4326 Cedar Lake Road
This report considers action by the City Council to adopt first reading of an
ordinance that would authorize the sale of certain City-owned property located at
4326 Cedar Lake Road.
Recommended
Action:
Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to adopt the first reading
of an ordinance that authorizes the sale of a portion of City-
owned property located south of the Jewish Community Center
at 4326 Cedar Lake Road and set second reading for February 7,
2000.
7. Petitions, Requests, Communications
8. Resolutions and Ordinances
8a. Request by Vladimir Velikson to allow restaurants with liquor as permitted
with conditions in the C-2, Commercial District
Case No. 99-13-ZA
Recommended
Action:
Motion to deny the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment.
Staff is recommending an alternative amendment that would be
processed separately.
8b. Request by staff to amend nonconformities section of Zoning Ordinance
regarding Conditional Use Permits
Case No. 99-36-ZA
3
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt first reading of an ordinance amending
nonconformities section of Zoning Ordinance and set second
reading for February 7, 2000.
9. Reports from Officers, Boards, Committees
*a. Pay Equity report
*b. Human Rights Commission Minutes of November 17, 1999
*c. Housing Authority Minutes of December 8, 1999
*d. Planning Comission Minutes of December 15, 1999
*e. Vendor Claims
Action: By consent, accept reports for filing
10. Unfinished Business
11. New Business
11a. School Security Contracts
These contracts with School District 283 and School District 287 formalize
relationships with the City of St. Louis Park for police school liaison services.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to authorize Mayor and City Manager to execute
contracts with School Districts 283 and 287 for police school
liaison services.
11b.* Consultant Retention for Construction Surveying and Engineering Services for the
Hutchinson Spur Regional Trail
This report considers the retention of an Engineering Consultant to provide Construction
Surveying and Engineering Services for the Hutchinson Spur Regional Trail
Recommended
Action:
Motion to Authorize Mayor and City Manager to execute a Contract
with SRF Consulting Group, Inc. (SRF) for Construction Surveying
and Engineering Services for the Hutchinson Spur Regional Trail
11c.* Consultant Retention for Assistance in Design and Construction Inspection for
Six (6) Flood Problem Areas
4
This report considers the retention of an Engineering Consultant to assist City Staff
in the design and construction inspection of six (6) flood problem areas scheduled
for construction this year.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to Authorize Mayor and City Manager to execute a
Contract with WSB & Associates, Inc. (WSB) for design and
construction inspection services for six (6) flood areas.
11d.* Approve lease extension with MnDOT for Webster Park.
Authorization to execute lease extension between the City and MnDOT for the land
at the corner of Highway 7 and Highway 100 known as Webster Park.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve lease extension.
12. Miscellaneous
13. Claims, Appropriations, Contract Payments
14. Communications
15. Adjournment
5
Item # 4a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
January 3, 2000
1. Call to Order
Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m.
2. Presentations
a. Swearing In Ceremony of Mayor and Councilmembers
Judge Harvey Ginsberg was present. The following councilmembers were sworn in: Jeff
Jacobs, Mayor; Ron Latz, Councilmember At Large A; Sue Santa, Councilmember Ward 3;
and Jim Brimeyer, Councilmember At Large B.
b. Human Rights Award
Council presented the 1999 Human Rights Awards to the following individuals for their
contribution to furthering Human Rights in our community: Judith Moore, Louann Lanning,
Orland and Lucille Thornsjo, and Portia Byrd.
3. Roll Call
The following Councilmembers were present at roll call: Ron Latz, Chris Nelson, Susan Sanger,
Sue Santa, Robert Young, Jim Brimeyer and Mayor Jeff Jacobs.
Also present were the City Manager (Mr. Meyer); City Attorney (Mr. Foli); Economic
Development Coordinator (Mr. Kleve); Community Development Director (Mr. Harmening);
Planning Associate (Ms. Peterson); Public Works Director (Mr. Rardin); City Clerk (Ms.
Larsen); Community Outreach (Ms. McDonnell; Planning Manager (Ms. Erickson); and
Recording Secretary (Ms. Olson).
4. Approval of Minutes
4a. City Council Meeting of December 20, 1999
The minutes were approved as presented with the following changes.
Page 6, Item 4f, change “slow-take domain” to “slow-take” Page 7, Item 6a, change
“Councilmember Nelson” to Councilmember Latz” Page 11, Item 7a, Paragraph 5, change “six
fences” to “six feet fences” Page 13, Item 7a, Paragraph 7, add “Barb McCormick, PPL indicated
6
that all tenants were going to be required to sign new leases”. Page 8, Item 7a, Paragraph 5,
delete “in the event that all of his legal remedies have been exhausted . . .”, and add “in the event
that the City Council decided not to approve the variance then Mr. Manthey has agreed to bring
the fence into compliance”. Page 8, Item 7a, Paragraph 3, change to “Councilmember Latz
suggested changing that provision in the code permitting unlimited number of reapplications in
order to save administrative time”. Page 9, Item 7a, last paragraph, change to “The fact is that
from the beginning Mr. Manthey was aware that he was in violation of the ordinance, and it was
his obligation to be in compliance with the ordinance whether or not the staff takes affirmative
steps to enforce the ordinance. He asked how this home was different than any other homes on
Minnetonka Boulevard in that area”. Page 10, Item 7a, last paragraph, change “conversion” to
“conversation”. Page 12, Item 8a, Paragraph 3, change “Mr. Buhul” to “Mr. Bubul”.
4b. Study Session meeting of October 11, 1999
The minutes were approved as presented with the following changes.
Page 20, Item 5, Paragraph 2, change to “Councilmember Sanger felt that it was not equitable to
our residents to plow some sidewalks and not others. She added that if all sidewalks are not
plowed, enforcement of the ordinance will become an issue”.
4c. Special meeting of October 25, 1999
The minutes were approved as presented.
5. Approval of Agendas
a. Consent Agenda.
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to approve the
consent agenda. The motion passed 7-0.
b. Agenda
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to approve the
agenda. The motion passed 7-0.
c. Resolutions and Ordinances
By consent, Council waived reading of resolutions and ordinances.
6. Public Hearings
6a. Request by Vladimir Vellikson to allow restaurants with liquor as permitted
with conditions in the C-2, Commercial District
Case No. 99-13-ZA
7
Ms. Peterson, Planning Associate reviewed the history of the request and presented a staff report.
She recommended denial of the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow
restaurants with liquor as permitted with conditions in the C-2 District and indicated that an
alternative text amendment is being initiated by staff that would potentially address Mr.
Vellikson’s needs. Because staff’s proposal addresses a different section of the Zoning
Ordinance, the amendment is being initiated as a separate case and scheduled to be considered by
the City Council on January 18, 2000.
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing.
Vladimir Vellikson, 19627 Waterford Court, Shorewood, MN, provided the Council with a
personal information sheet, a plan of his proposed restaurant, and a copy of a invitation to an
event he hosted downtown. He explained the concept of his restaurant where both Europeans
and Americans could enjoy a restaurant with liquor that serves Eastern European food with
dancing and live music and indicated that his lack of experience hindered his understanding of
all the issues that needed to be addressed.
Jeff Fine, Fine Management, 2101 Hennepin Avenue South, briefly explained the history of the
Texa-Tonka Shopping Center, Mr. Vellikson’s restaurant proposal, and the City process he has
experienced so far. He believed that the proposal and concept for this restaurant was a logical
one in the Texa Shopping Center in St. Louis Park. He expressed his impatience with the
process and progress and asked that the Council approve the Staff’s initial text amendment in
which he could conform to and indicated that staff originally believed would have no adverse
ramifications on other commercial areas in St. Louis Park. He stated that he was not comfortable
with the alternative amendment that would be processed separately with regard to the non-
conformities. Under the alternative amendment it states that based upon the reasonable judgment
and probability some non-conformity issues would have to be addressed and some could be
forgiven. He stated that the list of 10 non-conformities that existed at the shopping center were
related to the fact that it was a 1950’s shopping center built under 1950’s rules. (i.e. billboards on
roof) He stated that Staff’s alternative amendment was a completely unknown and totally new
issue to him as to how it would be implemented against him and in terms of requirements of
trying to change some of the existing non-conformities.
Jim Yarosh, Attorney for Fine Management was present.
Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing subject to the right of the Council to reopen it at a future
date.
Councilmember Nelson indicated that he had several questions and recommended that the
Council defer this issue and discuss it at the study session on January 10th.
Councilmember Brimeyer was not in favor of deferring the issue. He believed that while the
concept had merit he believed it was a question was whether or not the City believes this was a
8
good use in the community at various locations. He believed that the accepting the concept of
the restaurant and cleaning up existing non-conformities were separate issues.
Councilmember Sanger stated that she believed it makes a huge difference whether a CUP is
used or whether something is permitted with conditions. If the initial text amendment went
through as “permitted with conditions”, once those conditions were met the City would not have
the authority to impose additional restrictions. She was concerned about the noise that could
potentially be generated by the music and dancing and what the impact would be on the
neighborhood. By having a CUP, there would be a hearing and residents could express their
concerns. She was also concerned with having this use permitted with conditions because the
City is not just dealing with whether this particular use is a good idea or not, but would be setting
a precedent for future decisions. She believed the concept that Mr. Vellikson is proposing is a
very good idea. She felt that the real issue is whether ordinance legislates, regulates or grants
permission for it to happen believed this text amendment is not the right choice. She would like
to maintain the CUP. She stated that is was entirely appropriate that the City tie that back to the
question of correcting non-conformities. She believed that to the extent that the non-
conformities can be corrected, she thinks the City should be using every leverage in our power to
maintain our community by improving, getting rid of non-conformities and maintaining
standards, otherwise we will continue to have properties that are in decline. She indicated that if
the text amendment went through it would apply throughout the community and may have
negative impacts.
Mr. Harmening, Community Development Coordinator clarified that there had been a point in
the process where staff did support the initial text amendment. Upon further deliberation, the
issue became the question of which process the City should use for considering restaurants that
serve liquor is some fashion. He explained the requirement of the CUP and the requirement that
all non-conformities have to come into conformance with code. He explained the options
available to the applicant. He described the alternative amendment and how it addressed the
existing non-conformities.
Councilmember Nelson believed that a study session would allow the Council to discuss that
pros and cons of using the approach of a CUP.
Councilmember Latz stated he had heard from the neighborhood that didn’t have any
outstanding concerns with this type of use. He didn’t believe there was any concern about
having this concept of a restaurant serving meals with alcohol, but there was no accessory bar.
He believed it would have been helpful to have Planning Commission minutes and copy of
language of alternative text amendment available to the Council. He was in favor of tabling this
issue until January 18th for further discussion. He was not prepared to make a decision without
knowing what the options were.
Councilmember Sanger requested a list of the non-conformities and to what extent it would be
feasible to have them remedied or not.
9
Councilmember Jacobs was not concerned about this particular restaurant or use, since he
believed is was a good use for that location. His concern was the precedence that was being set
if the recommendation to allow restaurants with liquor as permitted with conditions was
approved. He was in support of the idea of deferring this issue and discussing it at a study
session on January 10th.
It was moved by Councilmember Latz, seconded by Councilmember Nelson, to continue
discussion of the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment at the study session of January 10th.
The motion passed 6-1. Councilmember Young was opposed.
6b. Public Hearing regarding Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments Case No.
99-33-CP
Judie Erickson, Planning Coordinator presented a staff report.
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing.
With no one wishing to speak, Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing subject to the right of the
Council to reopen it at a future date.
Councilmember Nelson questioned what would happen if the property was partitioned into two
parcels ahead of time and asked who the lessor of the property was.
Ms. Erickson indicated that the billboard was never owned by Mill City Plywood. She indicated
that the amendment being considered was a site specific amendment to the Oak Hill
neighborhood, however there was no provision in zoning ordinance that forbids anybody from
partitioning a property with a billboard on it and not redeveloping it. She believed that staff has
talked about having a more aggressive policy to address billboards, but something that would
eliminate the possibility of partitioning a partial does not currently exist.
Mr. Harmening indicated that the amendment does not disallow the City from requiring the
developer to include the billboard site with his project, but it doesn’t mandate it. He stated that
the current land use policy states that when the Mill City site redevelops the billboard has to
come down.
Councilmember Sanger did not agree with staff’s interpretation and believed that the land use
policy was a statement that was an expression and aspiration that billboards need to come down,
but doesn’t say specifically that the owner of this particular property must take down the
billboard.
Councilmember Brimeyer concurred with Councilmember Sanger that if there was a parcel that
had a billboard on it, and it was redeveloped the billboard would be gone, but if you had a
billboard that was adjacent to a parcel that had a billboard on it that wasn’t part of the
redevelopment, then you couldn’t force it to happen.
10
Councilmember Sanger asked that staff propose language to the Comprehensive Plan or zoning
ordinance that would prevent partitioning of parcels in order to carve out a billboard only parcel.
It was moved by Councilmember Latz, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to adopt a resolution
amending Comprehensive Plan text contingent upon Metropolitan Council approval, approve
summary resolution, and authorize publication. The motion passed 6-1. Councilmember Sanger
was opposed.
7. Petitions, Requests, Communication - None
8. Resolutions and Ordinances
8a. Election of Mayor Pro-tem
It was moved by Councilmember Young, seconded by Councilmember Nelson, to adopt a
resolution appointing Ron Latz as Mayor Pro-tem. The motion passed 6-0-1. Councilmember
Latz abstained.
8b. Resolution Authorizing Criminal History Background Investigations of
Applicants for Certain Licenses Issued by the City
Cindy Larsen, City Clerk presented staff report.
Mayor Jacobs asked if the types of licenses subject to BCA investigation would be subject to
review by the City Council in the future.
Ms. Larsen stated that this was not the intent and that the City Manager would be given the
authority to make that decision.
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to adopt the
resolution authorizing criminal history background investigations of applicants for certain
licenses issued by the City. The motion passed 7-0.
8c. Approval of Encroachment Agreement for Private use of Dart Avenue
Councilmember Sanger asked why the property wasn’t vacated.
Mr. Rardin, Public Works Director stated that could have been an option, but he didn’t have
conversation with staff to that extent, but may have had complications with that.
It was moved by Councilmember Brimeyer, seconded by Councilmember Young, to approve the
attached resolution authorizing execution of an Encroachment Agreement. The motion passed 7-
0.
8d. Designate St. Louis Park Sun-Sailor as Official Newspaper for 2000
11
By consent, Council adopted a resolution designating the St. Louis Park Sun Sailor as the City’s
Official Newspaper for 2000.
9. Reports from Officers, Boards, Committees
a. Cable Television Commission Minutes of October 7, 1999
b. Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes of October 13, 1999
c. Vendor Claim Report
By consent, Council accepted the reports for filing.
10. Unfinished Business
a. Board and Commission Appointment(s)
It was moved by Councilmember Young, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to appoint Lee
Gross as a student representative to the Human Rights Commission and Matthew Dombrosky to
the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission. The motion passed 7-0.
11. New Business
11a. Notice to Consider Establishing a Stormwater Utility
Mr. Rardin, Public Works Director provided a brief background for establishing a stormwater
plan and utility in St. Louis Park.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to set a public
hearing and first reading for February 7, 2000 of an Ordinance amending Section 9 of the
Ordinance Code, establishing a Stormwater Utility. The motion passed 7-0.
11b. Approval of Encroachment Agreement for Private use of Dart Avenue
By consent, Council approved a resolution authorizing execution of an Encroachment
Agreement.
12. Miscellaneous - None
13. Claims, Appropriation, Contract Payments- None
14. Communications
12
>From the Mayor - Mayor Jacobs thanked the City staff for the level of Y2K preparedness the
City had.
15. Adjournment
It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Young, to adjourn the
meeting at 9:55 p.m. The motion passed 7-0.
City Clerk Mayor
13
Item # 4b
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
December 13, 1999
The meeting convened at 6:00 p.m.
Councilmembers
Present: Jeff Jacobs, Mayor; Jim Brimeyer, Ron Latz, Chris Nelson, and Sue Santa.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Meyer), Community Development Director (Mr.
Harmening), Planning Manager (Ms. Jeremiah), Housing Supervisor (Ms.
Schnitker), Housing Programs Coordinator (Ms. Larsen), Economic
Development Coordinator (Mr. Kleve), Public Works Director (Rardin),
Police Chief (Mr. Luse), Fire Chief (Mr. Gill), and Deputy City Clerk (Ms.
Stroth).
Others Present: Greg Esterman, AvalonBay Communities; Greg Ingraham, Ingraham &
Associates; Mark Ruff, Ehlers & Associates; Barb McCormick, Pride in
Living Project (PPL); Steve Bubul, Kennedy & Graven; David Carland and
William Franke, CSM Corporation; and Richard Palmatier, Rottlund
Homes.
1. Park Commons Update
Ms. Jeremiah reported the draft Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) will be ready at
the December 20 Council Meeting and after publication there would be a 30 day public comment
period.
Mr. Esterman, AvalonBay Communities, gave an overview of the December Preliminary Master
Plan from retail market feedback which included the following key adjustments:
• Deeper retail street front on Excelsior Blvd. to 38th and 39th Streets
• 39th Street to become more residential limited to four corners
• More flexibility to blocks 3 & 4 above the greens area
Mr. Esterman discussed the realities of the retail market, parking needs, traffic issues, residential
character, and new urbanism. He indicated this new plan is far less dependent on itself, simpler,
and has more flexibility
Councilmember Latz was concerned this plan was similar to a suburban strip mall with large
parking lots in front of buildings with less pedestrian density and preferred more heavy retail on
14
39th Street. Mr. Esterman stated that with the new plan, the green area would be highly
pedestrian.
Councilmember Brimeyer felt the new plan would provide easier parking.
Mr. Esterman stated the previous plan was high risk and had a challenging time frame. He
indicated that the new plan helps the budget and the retailers favor Excelsior Blvd.
Ms. Jeremiah was concerned about the town green with heights being shifted on Excelsior Blvd.
and the need for expansion space. Mr. Esterman indicated that he would be working closely with
staff regarding the plan and adjusting the schedule.
Councilmember Nelson favored the new plan and would like to see more retail instead of rental.
Mayor Jacobs indicated support of the new plan but would like to see heights reduced on
Excelsior Blvd. and office above retail.
Discussion took place regarding quality restaurants and the need to provide more commercial
parking.
Mr. Harmening recommended a letter to Avalon Bay with comments on the plan direction
acceptable and issues and concerns on moving forward.
Councilmember Nelson questioned the zoning for block 3 and cost sharing. Ms. Jeremiah
responded that some percentage of shared parking costs is allowed. She stated all that is publicly
subsidized is not necessarily maintained in public ownership.
Mr. Meyer asked about the land being sold to commercial developers. Mr. Esterman stated that
not zoning the property as a mixed use may help increase value.
Steve Bubel, Kennedy & Graven reviewed the financial keypoints including the following:
• Infrastructure timing
• Land acquisition
• Financing
TIF 1997 bonds
LCDA Grant funds
New TIF bonds for public parts of project (22 year cap)
Taxable Increment Notes for private improvements, site preparation, parking
Land sale proceeds go back into project
• Security to include assessment agreement on each phase, guarantees of debt service
• Developer partners in place
Retail partner - Federal
Office partner - Avalon Bay
Owner occupied housing - EDA
15
• Some percentage of retail space already leased
• Avalon Bay will plat property and will sell off in phases
Discussion took place regarding the EDA’s participation in the project and having a share in
market value increases. Mr. Bubul indicated the need for the project to go as scheduled to
prevent remedies from delays.
2. Louisiana Court Redevelopment Update
Housing Coordinator, Kathy Larsen, presented an update on the progress of the Louisiana Court
Redevelopment Project including the following:
• Specific analysis using eminent domain pertinent to litigation
• Support of Project for Pride in Living (PPL)
• Timeline of Project actions
Dec. 8 Housing Authority review draft Redevelopment Agreement and Project
financial pro forma
Dec. 13 City Council to review Project financial pro forma
Dec. 20 City Council approve Development Agreement with PPL and authorize
eminent domain proceedings
Dec. 22 LCDA Award notification
Dec. 27 Bond allocation request
It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Latz, to close the Study
Session meeting to an Executive Session. The motion passed 5-0.
The Executive Session convened at 8:10 p.m. in the third floor Conference Room and closed at
8:40 p.m.
The Study Session meeting reconvened at 8:45 p.m.
Mayor Jacobs stated the Council will consider the Development Agreement with PPL, the
Cooperative Agreement, and eminent domain proceedings at the December 20, 1999 City
Council meeting. He thanked Mr. Ruff and Mr. Bubul for their work on the project.
3. CSM/Rottlund Corporation - Hotel and Townhome Project at Zarthan and 16th
Street
Economic Development Coordinator, Tom Kleve, presented an update regarding the
CSM/Rottlund Project at Zarthan and 16th Street. He stated that staff prefers a 20-year limit on
TIF and that CSM is requesting “pay as you go” TIF assistance for the hotel acquisition.
16
Dave Carlton, CSM Corporation, stated they are ready to close and under a tight timeline. He
indicated Rottlund Homes has offered 200% of appraised value in counter offers to three
homeowners. He indicated NSP and Park Lane Company have still not responded.
Discussion took place regarding condemnation negotiations and the need for assistance from the
City.
Mr. Carlton stated CSM is requesting that the city condemn the billboard using the quick take
method and that CSM can buyout the billboard lease and take all financial risk. He stated the
options would be to plan the site around the billboard, relocate it, or be without it.
Richard Palmatier, Rottlund Homes stated they are willing to do slow take on the park
properties. Mr. Kleve indicated this might result in the project not getting off the ground the
same timeframe as CSM.
Mr. Meyer reviewed comments he received from Councilmember Sanger stating she was
supportive of condemnation, phasing for a short time, and a 20-year payback period. He stated
this is the first TIF project where the City makes a local contribution without a grant.
Councilmember Latz was opposed to the use of condemnation for removing the billboard.
Mr. Kleve summarized the council’s conclusion of the following issues regarding the
CSM/Rottlund Corporation - Hotel and Townhome Project at Zarthan and 16th Street:
• TIF Assistance - up to 20 years.
• Acquisition - utilize slowtake eminent domain on single family properties
• Billboard - move ahead with eminent domain to buy out with assurance from CSM
• Phasing - 2 Phase Projects simultaneously
• Local Contribution - set aside $250,000 local contribution payment
4. Sidewalk Maintenance/Liability
Finance Director McGann introduced Mark Casey of Berkley Risk Administrators who reviewed
responsibilities and liabilities associated with sidewalks. Mr. Casey summarized the following
insights:
• Sidewalks are on City property.
• There is not a large number of claims in St. Louis Park regarding sidewalks
• Surveys from the League of MN Cities show claims usually high in other cities
• Homeowner’s responsibility, but City will repair at homeowner’s expense.
• Inspections should be monitored
• Enforcement system needed to maintain sidewalks
• City of Minneapolis posts notices
• Some cities use Hold Harmless Agreements
17
Discussion was held regarding a sidewalk inspection program, involving the neighborhood
associations, and funding options.
5. Fire/Police Pension
Police Chief Luse and Fire Chief Gill discussed Chapter 2222 Omnibus Retirement Bill
Consolidation Accounts Excess Funding. Receipt of the money is contingent upon Council
holding a public hearing and approving a resolution outlining the planned expenditures.
Mr. Meyer stated priorities include keeping 90% of investment earnings for police and fire
purposes and the remaining earnings added to the principal investment pool. Examples of some
of the purposes for use of these funds in the Police and Fire Departments include technology,
training, radio system, and employee development. He stated this legislation was due to
economic growth, it is the taxpayers monies, and should be given to council for
recommendation.
6. Y2K Status and Final Preparations
Mr. Meyer stated that the City is ready for the new year, the Emergency Operations Center will
be activated, and additional City staff will be on duty New Year’s Eve and Day.
7. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
City Clerk Mayor
18
Item # 4c
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SESSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
December 13, 1999
1. Call to Order
Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 8:10 p.m.
2. Roll Call
The following Councilmembers were present at roll call: Sue Santa, Ron Latz, Chris Nelson,
Jim Brimeyer; and Mayor Jeff Jacobs.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Meyer); Director of Community Development (Mr.
Harmening; Housing Programs Coordinator (Ms. Larsen); Economic Development Coordinator
(Mr. Kleve); Housing Supervisor (Ms. Schnitker); City Attorney (Mr. Scott); and Deputy City
Clerk (Ms. Stroth).
Others present: Mark Ruff, Ehlers & Associates; and Steve Bubul, Kennedy & Graven.
3. Discussion of Louisiana Court Redevelopment Project Eminent Domain Issues
4. Adjournment
Motion to adjourn was made by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Latz.
The meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m.
City Clerk Mayor
19
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 6a
Meeting of January 18, 2000
6a. Public Hearing to Consider St. Louis Park Police and Fire Pension
Consolidation Accounts
MN Law 1999 Chapter 222, titled Omnibus Retirement Bill, permits a portion of
account excesses to be returned to the City of St. Louis Park.
Recommended
Action:
Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to adopt a resolution
authorizing the return to the City of excess funding amounts in
the former St. Louis Park Police and St. Louis Park Fire
Departments’ Pension Consolidation Accounts and authorizing
staff to submit that resolution to the Minnesota State Auditor.
Background:
The Police and Fire Chiefs met with the City Council at the December 13, 1999 study session to
discuss the above-cited legislation. For the City of St. Louis Park to receive the excess funding
portions of approximately $3.1 million in the fire account and approximately $3.8 million in the
police account, the following requirements must be met:
1. The City must hold a public hearing on potential plan expenditures.
2. The City must adopt a resolution including a plan outlining how these fund excesses will be
spent and file this plan with the Minnesota State Auditor.
3. Fire account residual amounts and investment returns must be restricted to fire department
expenses, and police account residual amounts and investment returns must be restricted to
police department expenses.
4. The police and fire residual funds must be placed in special accounts established exclusively
for them.
5. The State Auditor must periodically audit the special accounts.
Analysis:
The attached resolution outlines the plan required by the legislation and describes how the funds
will be spent. This plan permits access and use of these funds for purposes that support and
enhance public safety services for the citizens of St. Louis Park based upon the following
guidelines:
1. The principals, totaling approximately 7 million dollars, will be considered a one-time
windfall and in most cases maintained.
20
2. Up to 90% of the investment earnings will be made available for police or fire purposes not
normally covered in annual budget processes. The remaining unexpended investment
earnings would be added to the principal investment pool.
3. The investment fund principal would be allowed to grow until needed for a major capital
management program or expense that will be recognized and approved by the Council.
Attachments: Resolution
Memo to Council from police and fire unions
Memo from League of Minnesota Cities
Memo from fire union to current and past members of
Fire Relief Association and current employees
Study Session Report of December 13, 1999
Prepared by: John Luse, Police Chief
Bob Gill, Fire Chief
Approved by: Clint Pires, Deputy City Manager
21
RESOLUTION NO. 00-6
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE RETURN OF
EXCESS FUNDING AMOUNTS
IN THE FORMER ST. LOUIS PARK POLICE AND
ST. LOUIS PARK FIRE DEPARTMENTS’
PENSION CONSOLIDATION ACCOUNTS.
WHEREAS, Minnesota Law 1999 Chapter 222, titled Omnibus Retirement Bill, has
made substantial changes to public employee pensions in Minnesota, including the total merger
of 44 police and fire consolidation accounts; and
WHEREAS, one of these changes permits the return of a portion of excess funding
amounts in police and fire consolidation accounts to the local jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, the portions of excess funding available for return are approximately 3.1
million dollars in the St. Louis Park Fire account and approximately 3.8 million dollars in the St.
Louis Park Police account;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park that the following plan for receipt and use of these excess fund amounts is approved:
1. The excess funding amount derived from the St. Louis Park Fire Consolidation Account
will be used to defray St. Louis Park Fire Department expenditure items.
2. The excess funding amount derived from the St. Louis Park Police Consolidation
Account will be used to defray St. Louis Park Police Department expenditure items.
3. The excess funding amounts received from the consolidation accounts will be deposited
in special funds or accounts in the municipal treasury and will be available for periodic audits by
the State Auditor.
4. The special accounts will be invested in accordance with State statute and City
investment policy, and any investment return attributable to these special account investments
will be credited to them and disbursement of these earnings will be similarly restricted to police
and fire purposes, respectively.
5. Initiatives and proposals intended to access any portion of the balances contained in these
police and fire special accounts will be managed and regulated through the normal budget
development process of the City of St. Louis Park.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council January 18, 2000
22
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
23
SUBMITTED TO COUNCIL FOR STUDY SESSION OF DECEMBER 13, 1999
STUDY SESSION
DISCUSSION ITEM # 5
December 13, 1999
MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
THROUGH: Charles Meyer, City Manager
FROM: John Luse, Chief of Police
Bob Gill, Fire Chief
SUBJECT: Minnesota Laws 1999 – Chapter 222 Omnibus Retirement Bill Consolidation
Accounts Excess Funding Refund
Purpose of Report:
The purpose of this report is to provide the Council with sufficient information to receive the
excess funding amounts in the former Police and Fire Consolidation Pension Account. Receipt
of the money is contingent upon the Council holding a public hearing, and approval of a
resolution outlining the planned expenditures of the residual assets and filing such resolution
with the State Auditor.
Background:
The passage of MN Law 1999 Chapter 222, titled Omnibus Retirement Bill, made substantial
changes to public employee pensions in Minnesota including the total merger of 44 Police and
Fire consolidation accounts with the Public Employee Retirement Association (P.E.R.A.) Police
and Fire Fund. The consolidation accounts are the old Fire and Police Relief Associations that
St. Louis Park consolidated with P.E.R.A. in 1990 and 1991 respectively. As part of the merger,
those accounts with excess funding receive a refund of a portion of the excess fund assets.
At the time of the original consolidation both former relief funds were required to be fully
funded (assets equal liabilities) by the year 2010. The City was making large lump sum
payments annually to P.E.R.A. and was receiving approximately $85,000 annually in state
amortization aid to help offset part of the cost. Due to a better than average financial condition
at the time of consolidation in 1990 and 1991, unexpected outstanding investments earnings
during the late 90’s, and possibly lower than expected outlays; by the late 90’s both funds were
completely funded, state amortization aid had ceased, and our accounts began to run surpluses.
The 1999 Legislature provided a means to return a large portion of these surpluses now, rather
than wait decades; and provide a level contribution mechanism for these cities and departments
24
still underfunded. The St. Louis Park Police Fund and Fire Fund both have substantial excess
assets, which will be refundable following fulfillment of the legislative requirements.
In addition to returning a portion of the excess funding, the legislation also provides for a
reduction in both employer and employee contributions. Effective June 30, 1999, the employer
contribution was reduced from 11.4% to 9.3%, and the employee contribution was reduced from
7.6% to 6.2%. The lower employer contribution represents a decrease of over $50,000 in annual
City pension cost. The legislation also provides for a reduction in the early retirement penalty
for P.E.R.A. Police and Fire members, eliminates local approval formally needed for
consolidated members’ benefits increases, and allowed retirees who opted years ago for relief
association benefit increases a second opportunity to select the P.E.R.A. retirement benefit
increase.
Analysis:
The residual refund amounts as of 7/1/99 are $3,176,624 for the Fire Account and $3,849,017
for the Police Account. Both accounts are currently accruing interest. To receive the money the
City must comply with the following requirements established by the legislature.
1. Fire residual amounts and investment returns must be restricted to the Fire Department
expenses and Police residual amounts and investment returns must be restricted to Police
Department expenses.
2. The City must hold a public hearing on potential plan expenditures.
3. Following the public hearing the City must formulate and adopt a plan for fund expenditures
and file that plan in the form of municipal resolution with the State Auditor.
4. Deposit the residual funds in special municipal accounts established for that purpose.
5. The State Auditor must periodically audit the special accounts.
In preparation for the plan and necessary resolution, staff recommends a broad-brush approach
that provides for the expenditure of the respective monies, including but not limited to, the
general areas of police or fire capital outlay; employee development; technology; innovation, and
personnel. We note there are no restrictions on changing or amending the plan in the future
should the need arise. The resolution should indicate that the Finance Director will establish
special accounts for deposit of the refunded amounts and future accrued interest earnings. Such
an approach will fulfill the statutory requirement to receive the monies.
While we recommend the broad outline above for the statutory plan and resolution we also are
asking the council to consider and support the order of priority.
25
1. The principal amounts, totaling over 7 million dollars, be considered a windfall and in
most cases maintained.
2. That up to 90% of the investment earnings be made available for police or fire purposes
not normally covered in annual budget processes. The remaining unexpended monies
would be added to the growth of the principal pool.
3. The main fund principle would be allowed to grow until needed for large magnitude
capital outlay or other purposes as identified and approved by the council.
It is understood that all expenditures would be through the normal manager / council
budget process.
We have considered a number of on-going and one-time needs that could be addressed by
use of these followings the earning dollars. They include areas that reflect the strategies
and philosophical shifts both departments are experiencing and we think are consistent
with the overall City vision. These include:
1) Technology – Technology for both communications and information handling is a
critical future need for the St. Louis Park Police and Fire Department.
Information is the lifeblood of the community based public safety we are
committed to. Effective management of information and communication enables
public safety services to be responsive, proactive and diagnostic. Examples of
technology needs would include squad car video recorders, voice activated tape
recorders, computerized camera equipment, cell phones, pagers, mobile computer
terminals and information software for CAD and Records Management systems.
2) Training – The majority of the Police and Fire Department training budgets are
consumed by mandated training focusing on essential technical skills and
competencies. Additional training money would permit us to expand training
initiatives, which go outside the paradigm of traditional police or fire training.
Training in data analysis, problem solving, partnership building, inter-personnel
communication and crime prevention through environmental design are some
examples of expanded training opportunities.
Opportunities also exist with the additional dollar resources to accelerate the
enhancement of leadership development and management skills within the
department through national academies, workshops, conferences and exchange
programs.
3) Capital Outlay – One example of a large capital improvement project would be
conversion to an 800-megahertz radio system. This, conversion, regardless of the
option chosen, will have large cost implications and operational improvements for
St. Louis Park Police, Fire, Public Works, and Emergency Preparedness. Other
26
possibilities might include fire station relocation or rebuilding and the potential
use of residual Fire account monies for sprinkler special assessment funding.
4) Employee Development and Performance Measurement – This idea considers the
possibility of performance pay and opportunity incentives such as advanced
schooling, career assignments, and organizational goal achievement incentives.
Currently, both departments are developing ideas on all of these areas.
Summary:
Following the Council’s consideration of the excess funding of the two accounts, it would be
staff intent to draft a resolution outlining a plan reflecting the Council’s desired direction
for the funds and then schedule a public hearing.
The plan will consist of the following:
1) The residual amount derived from a fire consolidation account will be used to defray Fire
Department expenditure items.
2) The residual amount derived from a police consolidation account will be used to defray
Police Department expenditure items.
3) The residual asset amount will be deposited in a special fund or account in the municipal
treasury.
4) The special account will be invested and any investment return attributable to the residual
asset amount will be credited to that special fund or account and its disbursement
similarly restricted.
27
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 6b
Meeting of January 18, 2000
6b. Public hearing to consider Sale of City Property Located South of Jewish
Community Center 4326 Cedar Lake Road
This report considers action by the City Council to adopt first reading of an
ordinance that would authorize the sale of certain City-owned property located at
4326 Cedar Lake Road.
Recommended
Action:
Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to adopt the first reading
of an ordinance that authorizes the sale of a portion of City-
owned property located south of the Jewish Community Center
at 4326 Cedar Lake Road and set second reading for February 7,
2000.
Background:
For the past several years the City has had conversations on and off with the JCC regarding their
campus expansion and possible purchase of City owned property. The entire City property in
this area is approximately 8.49 acres in size. In February, 1999, the City had the property in
question appraised. This appraisal valued the property at approximately $64,000 an acre or
$1.47 per sq. ft.
In May of 1999, the JCC wrote a letter to the City expressing their desire to enter into a purchase
agreement to purchase a portion of the City property. In late June, 1999, City staff and JCC
representatives discussed the possible sale with the City Council. As a result of this discussion,
the City Council expressed an interest in selling all the City property to the JCC with the
exception of land which would be needed to accommodate a future storm water pond on the far
east end of the site. It was also noted that, at a minimum, some type of easement would need to
be retained for an existing storm sewer line which passes through the site as well as a possible
easement for future trail purposes.
Since the June study session, staff has had the City property surveyed, determined the portion of
the property which should be kept by the City for ponding basin purposes (Parcel A on attached
survey), and has had legal descriptions prepared for the various easements which should be
retained by the City. In addition, staff has been working with the JCC on the preparation of a
purchase agreement which would facilitate this sale.
Any time the City sells land, it is required that the Planning Commission review the proposed
land sale in relation to the Comprehensive Plan. On December 1, the Planning Commission
28
reviewed this matter and found that the sale of the property was consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
City Charter also requires the City Council authorize the sale of land via the adoption of an
ordinance. Thus the reason for bringing the matter to the City Council in the manner proposed.
The City Council has also adopted a policy which outlines the process for disposing of property
through a sale process. This particular sale has been processed via this policy.
Issues to Consider
What are the requirements which must be met per the City’s policy to allow land to be
sold?
Outlined below are the City policy requirements for selling property.
1. The City Council must find that the land in question has no existing or future public need.
The Planning Commission has determined that, provided certain easements are given to the
City, the land in question is not needed for a future public purpose. Per the purchase
agreement the City will receive the necessary easements.
2. The land must not have been acquired by the City through tax delinquency or dedication.
This land was not acquired through either of the two methods noted above.
3. The land must not be designated on the Comprehensive Plan as Park or Open space.
As a part of the recently adopted Comprehensive Plan, the JCC property and the City
property in question, retained the land use designation of “Civic.” The language in the Plan
by Neighborhood section of the Comp Plan relating to the area in question indicates that “the
large vacant City-owned parcel located adjacent to the Minneapolis Jewish Day School and
the Community Center is currently guided to allow for the expansion of the Jewish Day
School.”
4. Land requested to be sold or vacated must be under the jurisdiction of the City.
This requirement has been met.
5. The land shall not contain any wetland.
Pursuant to the National Wetland Inventory, the property proposed to be sold does not
contain a wetland.
6. The parcel must meet all of the site requirements of the Zoning Ordinance for a buildable
parcel except that an unbuildable parcel may be sold to an abutting property owner.
29
This provision has been met.
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.
As mentioned earlier, and as noted on the attached survey, the City will retain a portion of
the property (Parcel A) for a future ponding basin. This may present some issues regarding
the City’s policies and ordinances which generally state that all parcels should have access to
a public street. Access to this parcel is proposed to be accommodated via a “license” which
the JCC would grant to the City over its property. Therefore, to accommodate the sale and
address this issue, some action may need to be taken by the City Council in the future (e.g.
variance or ordinance change) to allow the transaction as proposed.
What are the terms of the purchase agreement?
Attached is a copy of the purchase agreement. The more significant terms of the agreement are
as follows:
• Sale price is $399,444.57. This is based on the sale by the City of approximately 6.24 acres
at $1.47 per sq. ft. (Parcel B on attached survey). It is proposed that $5,000.00 in earnest
money be provided.
• Closing within 18 months of execution of the purchase agreement.
• Buyer satisfied with soil and environmental investigation it obtains for the site.
• Buyer obtaining necessary financing.
• Buyer obtaining necessary approval from the City for its planned campus expansion. The
City also has a contingency in the agreement which states that a sale by the City to the buyer
is contingent upon the City approving the JCC campus expansion.
• JCC provides a license to the City over the JCC’s existing property, and the property it is
acquiring, to allow the City to access its easements and the future storm water pond. The
final terms of the license will be determined prior to closing.
• The purchase agreement identifies various easements which the JCC would provide to the
City as a part of this sale. The attached survey describes the specific location of the
easements. Please note that the trail easement is proposed to lay over the proposed drainage
and utility easements identified on the survey.
• The purchase agreement contains other usual and customary language associated with
transactions of this type.
The purchase agreement was prepared with the assistance of the City attorney.
Are there environmental issues associated with the subject property?
Late in the process of negotiations with the JCC, staff became aware that there was a former
dumpsite in the area in question and that it may be at least partially on the City’s property. This
30
dump apparently operated in the 1930’s and 1940’s and was closed before the City acquired its
property in 1954.
Obviously, this recent discovery does raise some flags both for the JCC and the City. Staff
proposes to undertake additional analysis in the coming days and will have a report and
recommendation available to the City Council as part of the second reading/approval of purchase
agreement scheduled for February 7.
Attachments
• Ordinance
• Purchase Agreement
• Survey
Prepared by: Tom Harmening, Community Development Director
Approved by: Clint Pires, Deputy City Manager
1605:n
31
ORDINANCE NO. _________
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING SALE OF CITY
PROPERTY TO THE JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
SECTION 1. The sale of 6.24 acres of property by the City to the Jewish Community
Center of Greater Minneapolis for a total sale price of $399,444.57 is hereby authorized. The
property is located on South Cedar Lake Road at its crossing with the Burlington Northern
Railroad and is legally described as follows:
Commencing at the Northeast corner of the South One Half of the Southeast One Quarter
of Section 30, Township 29, Range 24; thence South 00 degrees 16 minutes 42 seconds
East assumed bearing along the east line of said South One Half of the Southeast One
Quarter a distance of 459.71 feet to a point 57.16 feet northerly of the Burlington
Northern Railroad tracks centerline as now laid out; thence South 74 degrees 04 minutes
36 seconds East 57.16 feet northerly and parallel to said centerline of tracks a distance of
254.46 feet to the point of beginning; thence continuing South 74 degrees 04 minutes 36
seconds East a distance of 1365.79 feet; thence northwesterly along a non-tangential
curve concave to the southwest having a radius of 327.96 feet, a central angle of 53
degrees 43 minutes 35 seconds, an arc length of 307.53 feet, a chord distance of 296.38
feet and a chord bearing of North 54 degrees 52 minutes 52 seconds East; thence North
82 degrees 45 minutes 05 seconds East non-tangential to said curve a distance of 268.34
feet; thence North 74 degrees 04 minutes 36 seconds East a distance of 1286.87 feet;
thence South 15 degrees 55 minutes 24 seconds East a distance of 190.00 feet to the point
of beginning.
The sale shall occur in accordance with the terms of a Purchase Agreement executed by Buyer
dated ________________, on file with the City Clerk.
SECTION 2. This ordinance shall be effective fifteen (15) days after its passage
and publication.
32
Adopted by the City Council February 7, 2000
Reviewed for Administration
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney 99-32-RE/N/res/ord
33
REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") made and entered into this _____ day of
_____________, 2000, by and between the CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, a Minnesota
municipal corporation, with offices at 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard, St. Louis Park,
Minnesota 55416 (referred to herein as the "Seller"), and JEWISH COMMUNITY
CENTER OF GREATER MINNEAPOLIS, a Minnesota non-profit corporation, with
offices at 4330 South Cedar Lake Road, St. Louis Park, Minnesota 55416, (referred to
herein as the "Buyer").
SECTION 1.
SALE AND PURCHASE OF LAND
1.1) Seller shall sell to Buyer and Buyer shall purchase from Seller, upon the
terms and conditions hereof, the following property (all collectively referred to as the
"Subject Property"):
1.1.1) The land in Hennepin County, St. Louis Park, Minnesota, legally
described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein, together with all
right, title, and interest in and to any roads, rights of access, or alleys adjoining or
servicing such land, rights-of-way, or easements appurtenant thereto.
SECTION 2.
PURCHASE PRICE
2.1) The purchase price for the Subject Property (the "Purchase Price") shall be
Three Hundred Ninety-nine Thousand Four Hundred Forty-four and 57/100
($399,444.57) Dollars and shall be payable by Buyer to Seller as follows:
2.1.1) Earnest money deposit of Five Thousand and No/100 ($5,000.00)
Dollars, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged by Seller;
34
2.1.2) The balance of the Purchase Price of Three Hundred Ninety-four
Thousand Four Hundred Forty-four and 57/100 ($394,444.57) Dollars on the date
of Closing.
SECTION 3.
TITLE MATTERS
3.1) Seller shall furnish to Buyer within forty-five (45) days of the execution of
this Agreement a current commitment for the issuance of a 1987/1990 ALTA Form B
owner's policy of title insurance (the "Commitment") issued by a Title Insurance
Company acceptable to Buyer ("Title") in the amount of the Purchase Price, committing
to insure that Buyer will have good and marketable title to the Subject Property, except as
to the Permitted Encumbrances described on Exhibit "B" and matters to which Buyer
may consent in writing.
3.2) In the event any exceptions are listed in the Commitment for title insurance,
the Seller shall promptly cause the exception to be removed. If the Seller fails to remove
the same within the time allowed for closing on the Subject Property, the Buyer shall
have the right to terminate this Agreement.
SECTION 4.
CLOSING
4.1) The closing (the "Closing") shall occur within eighteen (18) months of
execution of this Agreement on a date within thirty (30) days after notice by Buyer to
Seller ("Closing Date").
4.2) On the Closing Date, Seller shall deliver to Buyer possession of the Subject
Property and execute and deliver a warranty deed, subject only to the Permitted
35
Encumbrances and any exceptions consented to by Buyer. Seller shall also execute the
license agreement referenced in Exhibit “B” hereto.
4.3) Seller shall pay at Closing any general real estate taxes levied against the
Subject Property due and payable for all years prior to and including the year of Closing,
together with any pending assessments or unpaid installments of special assessments due
therewith.
4.4) Seller shall pay on or before Closing:
4.4.1) state deed tax;
4.4.2) all costs associated with obtaining a title insurance commitment,
including name searches, tax searches, bankruptcy searches, and property
inspection fees;
4.4.3) recording fees for corrective instruments required to remove
encumbrances and place marketable title in Buyer's name;
4.4.4) one-half of the Closing fee charged by a title company, if any.
4.5) Buyer shall pay at Closing:
4.5.1) all recording fees and charges relating to the filing of the deed;
4.5.2) title insurance premiums;
4.5.3) one-half of the Closing fee charged by a title company, if any; and
4.5.4) one-half of the survey costs.
36
SECTION 5.
COVENANTS, REPRESENTATIONS, AND WARRANTIES OF SELLER
5.1) Seller, as an inducement to Buyer to enter into this Agreement, and as part of
the consideration therefor, represents, warrants, and covenants with Buyer and its
successors and assigns that:
5.1.1) There are no leases, options, purchase agreements, rights to redeem,
tenancy agreements, or rights of occupancy, written or verbal, and no person or
party has, or will have any rights of adverse possession, regarding or arising out of
the occupancy of the Subject Property;
5.1.2) There is no pending or threatened litigation, condemnation or
administrative proceedings involving the Subject Property;
5.1.3) As part of this Agreement, Seller shall execute the well disclosure
certificate attached hereto as Exhibit "C". Seller shall deliver the well certificate
to Buyer on the date of execution of this agreement. Seller warrants that all
statements set forth in the well certificate are true, accurate, and complete to the
best of Seller's knowledge.
5.2) The covenants, representations, and warranties contained in Section 5 shall
be deemed to benefit Buyer and its successors and assigns and shall survive any
termination or expiration of this Purchase Agreement or the giving of the Deed. All of
Seller's covenants, representations and warranties in this Agreement shall be true as of
the date hereof and of the Closing Date, and shall be a condition precedent to the
performance of Buyer's obligations hereunder. If Buyer discovers that any such
covenant, representation, or warranty is not true, Buyer may elect prior to closing, in
addition to any of its other rights and remedies, to cancel this Agreement, or Buyer may
postpone the Closing Date up to ninety (90) days to allow time for correction.
SECTION 6.
37
ENVIRONMENTAL/SOIL INVESTIGATION AND TESTING
6.1) Buyer and its agents shall have the right, at the sole option of Buyer, to enter
upon the Subject Property without charge and at all reasonable times from the date of the
execution of this Agreement, to perform such environmental investigation and soil tests
as Buyer may reasonably deem appropriate. If Buyer investigates and tests the Subject
Property pursuant to this section, Buyer shall pay all costs and expenses of such
investigation and testing and shall hold Seller harmless from all costs and liabilities
arising out of Buyer's activities. If the purchase and sale contemplated by this Agreement
is not closed, Buyer shall, at its own expense, repair and restore any damage to the
Subject Property caused by Buyer's investigation and testing, and shall return the Subject
Property to substantially the same condition as existed prior to such entry.
SECTION 7.
CONTINGENCIES
7.1) The obligations of Buyer under this Agreement are contingent upon each of
the following:
7.1.1) The representations and warranties of Seller set forth in Section 5 of
this Agreement must be true as of the date of this Agreement and on the Closing Date,
and Seller shall have delivered to Buyer at Closing a certificate dated and signed by
Seller on the Closing Date, certifying that such representations and warranties are true as
of the Closing Date;
38
7.1.2) Buyer shall have determined on or before the Closing Date, that it is
satisfied, in its sole discretion, with the results of the environmental/soil investigations
and tests of the Subject Property;
7.1.3) Buyer obtaining necessary financing to close the transaction;
7.1.4) Buyer obtaining necessary approval from the City of St. Louis Park
and any other public entity for an addition to its existing facility located adjacent to the
Subject Property.
7.2) The obligations of Seller under this Agreement are contingent upon Buyer
obtaining necessary approvals from the City of St. Louis Park and any other public entity
for an addition to its existing facility located adjacent to the Subject Property.
7.3) With the exception of the contingency set forth in Section 7.1.1, if any of
the remaining contingencies have not been satisfied by at least seven days before the
Closing Date, the Buyer may, at Buyer's option, (and Seller, at Seller's option as to
Section 7.2) terminate this Agreement by giving written notice to the other party. Upon
such termination, neither party shall have any further rights or obligations under this
Agreement and any earnest money paid by Buyer will be refunded. Buyer (and Seller as
to Section 7.2) shall have the right to waive any contingency by giving written notice to
the other party.
SECTION 8.
MISCELLANEOUS
8.1) The covenants, warranties and representations made by Seller shall survive
the Closing of this transaction.
39
8.2) Any notice, demand, or request which may be permitted, required or desired
to be given in connection herewith shall be in writing and sent by certified mail, hand
delivery, overnight mail service such as Federal Express, or Western Union telegram or
other form of telegraphic communication, directed to Seller or Buyer. Any notice shall
be deemed effective when delivered to the party to whom it is directed. Unless other
addresses are given in writing, notices shall be sent to Seller or Buyer at the applicable
address stated on the first page of this Agreement. Notices to Seller shall be to the
attention of the City Manager; notices to Buyer shall be to the attention of the Director,
with a copy to Jeff Baill, Suite 2350, 120 South Sixth Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota
55402.
8.3) Time shall be of the essence in this Agreement. If any date or time
prescribed by this Agreement falls on a Saturday, Sunday or holiday, such date or time
shall automatically be extended to the next normal business day.
8.4) Each party hereto shall promptly, on the request of the other party, have
acknowledged and delivered to the other party any and all further instruments and
assurances reasonably requested or appropriate to evidence or give effect to the
provisions of this Agreement.
8.5) This Agreement represents the entire agreement of the parties with respect to
the Subject Property and all prior agreements, understandings, or negotiations between
the parties are hereby revoked and superseded hereby. No representations, warranties,
inducements, or oral agreements have been made by any of the parties, except as
40
expressly set forth herein, or in other contemporaneous written agreements. This
Agreement may not be changed or modified except by a written agreement signed by
Seller and Buyer.
8.6) If Buyer defaults under any of the terms hereof, Seller shall have the right to
pursue any remedies available to Seller at law or in equity, including without limitation,
specific performance, damages (including reasonable attorney's fees) and cancellation of
this Agreement.
8.7) If Seller defaults under any of the terms hereof, including, without limitation,
the delivery of marketable title to the Subject Property as set forth in Section 4 hereof,
then Buyer shall have the right to pursue any remedies that are available to Buyer at law
or in equity, including without limitation, specific performance and damages and
cancellation of this Agreement.
8.8) If any provision of this Agreement is declared void or unenforceable, such
provision shall be deemed severed from this Agreement, which shall otherwise remain in
full force and effect.
8.9) Failure of any party to exercise any right arising out of a breach of this
Agreement shall not be deemed a waiver of any right with respect to any subsequent or
different breach, or the continuance of any existing breach.
8.10) This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the parties
hereto and their respective heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns.
41
8.11) This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which
shall be an original.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as
of the day and year first above written.
SELLER: BUYER:
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER
OF GREATER MINNEAPOLIS
By:____________________________ By:_____________________________
Jeffrey W. Jacobs, Mayor Its:
By:____________________________ By:_____________________________
Charles W. Meyer, City Manager Its:
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _______ day of
________________, 2000, by Jeffrey W. Jacobs and Charles W. Meyer, respectively the
Mayor and City Manager of the CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, a Minnesota municipal
corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by its City
Council.
__________________________________
Notary Public
42
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of
________________, 2000, ________________________________________ and
________________________________, respectively the ___________________ and
_________________________ of the JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER OF GREATER
MINNEAPOLIS, a Minnesota non-profit corporation, on behalf of the corporation.
__________________________________
Notary Public
THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY:
CAMPBELL KNUTSON
Professional Association
317 Eagandale Office Center
1380 Corporate Center Curve
Eagan, MN 55121
Telephone: (651) 452-5000
TMS
43
EXHIBIT "A"
to
REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AGREEMENT
Commencing at the Northeast corner of the South One Half of the Southeast One Quarter
of Section 30, Township 29, Range 24; thence South 00 degrees 16 minutes 42 seconds
East assumed bearing along the east line of said South One Half of the Southeast One
Quarter a distance of 459.71 feet to a point 57.16 feet northerly of the Burlington
Northern Railroad tracks centerline as now laid out; thence South 74 degrees 04 minutes
36 seconds East 57.16 feet northerly and parallel to said centerline of tracks a distance of
254.46 feet to the point of beginning; thence continuing South 74 degrees 04 minutes 36
seconds East a distance of 1365.79 feet; thence northwesterly along a non-tangential
curve concave to the southwest having a radius of 327.96 feet, a central angle of 53
degrees 43 minutes 35 seconds, an arc length of 307.53 feet, a chord distance of 296.38
feet and a chord bearing of North 54 degrees 52 minutes 52 seconds East; thence North
82 degrees 45 minutes 05 seconds East non-tangential to said curve a distance of 268.34
feet; thence North 74 degrees 04 minutes 36 seconds East a distance of 1286.87 feet;
thence South 15 degrees 55 minutes 24 seconds East a distance of 190.00 feet to the point
of beginning.
44
EXHIBIT "B"
to
REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AGREEMENT
Permitted Encumbrances
1. Reservation of an easement in favor of the City of St. Louis Park for drainage, utility,
and trail purposes, legally described as follows:
A 40.00 foot easement over, under and across the property described on the attached Exhibit A.
The centerline of said 40.00 foot easement is described as follows:
Commencing at the Northeast corner of the South One Half of the
Southeast One Quarter of Section 30, Township 29, Range 24; thence South 00
degrees 16 minutes 42 seconds East assumed bearing along the east line of said
South One Half of the Southeast One Quarter a distance of 384.33 feet; thence
South 77 degrees 16 minutes 18 seconds West a distance of 275.22 feet to the
point of beginning; thence continuing South 77 degrees 16 minutes 18 seconds
West a distance of 214.43 feet; thence South 74 degrees 06 minutes 41 seconds
West a distance of 526.51 feet and there terminating.
Together with a 60.00 foot easement over, under and across the property
described on the attached Exhibit A. The centerline of said 60.00 foot easement is
described as follows:
Commencing at the Northeast corner of the South One Half of the
Southeast One Quarter of Section 30, Township 29, Range 24; thence South 00
degrees 16 minutes 42 seconds East assumed bearing along the east line of said
south One Half of the Southeast One Quarter a distance of 384.33 feet; thence
South 77 degrees 16 minutes 18 seconds West a distance of 489.65 feet; thence
South 74 degrees 06 minutes 41 seconds West a distance of 526.51 feet to the
point of beginning; thence continue South 74 degrees 06 minutes 41 seconds West
a distance of 518.38 feet; thence North 33 degrees 13 minutes 24 seconds West a
distance of 93.73 feet and there terminating.
2. Reservation of an easement in favor of the City of St. Louis Park for street, utility
and trail purposes, legally described as follows:
An easement over, under and across the property described on the attached
Exhibit A lying northerly and westerly of the following described line:
45
Commencing at the Northeast corner of the South One Half of the
Southeast One Quarter of Section 30, Township 29, Range 24; thence South 00
degrees 16 minutes 42 seconds East assumed bearing along the east line of said
South One Half of the Southeast One Quarter a distance of 404.81 feet; thence
South 77 degrees 16 minutes 18 seconds West a distance of 484.68 feet; thence
South 74 degrees 06 minutes 41 seconds West a distance of 525.96 feet; thence
South 15 degrees 53 minutes 19 seconds East a distance of 10.00 feet; thence
South 74 degrees 06 minutes 41 seconds West a distance of 648.93 feet to the
point of beginning; thence North 74 degrees 06 minutes 41 seconds East a
distance of 108.49 feet; thence North 33 degrees 13 minutes 24 seconds West a
distance of 130.41 feet and there terminating.
3. A license in favor of the City of St. Louis Park across the subject property and Buyer’s
adjoining property for construction, maintenance and upkeep access to and from the
above referenced drainage, utility and trail easement and a storm water pond to be located
on the following parcel:
Beginning at the Northeast corner of the South One Half of the
Southeast One Quarter of Section 30, Township 29, Range 24; thence
South 00 degrees 16 minutes 42 seconds East assumed bearing along
the east line of said South One Half of the Southeast One Quarter a
distance of 459.71 feet to a point 57.16 feet northerly of the
Burlington Northern Railroad tracks centerline as now laid out;
thence South 74 degrees 04 minutes 36 seconds East 57.16 feet
northerly and parallel to said centerline of tracks a distance of 254.46
feet; thence North 15 degrees 55 minutes 24 seconds West a distance
of 190.00 feet; thence North 37 degrees 01 minute 37 seconds East a
distance of 434.40 feet to the North line of said South One Half of the
Southeast One Quarter; thence South 89 degrees 59 minutes 47
seconds East along said North line a distance of 33.00 feet to the
point of beginning.
The exact terms and conditions of the license agreement will be finalized by
the parties prior to closing.
46
EXHIBIT "C"
to
REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AGREEMENT
(Well Disclosure Certificate)
47
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
Well Management Unit, 925 Delaware Street Southeast, P.O. Box 59040, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55459-0040 (612)627-5408 or 1-800-383-9808
WELL DISCLOSURE CERTIFICATE
Please Type or Print All Information
Person filing deed must attach a $20 fee payable to the county recorder.
A. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
Attach a legal description of the property if the property does not have a lot number, block number,
and addition name.
COUNTY
LOT NO. BLOCK NO. ADDITION NAME
STREET ADDRESS
CITY
STATE ZIP CODE
B. PROPERTY BUYER MAILING ADDRESS AFTER CLOSING
FIRST NAME
MIDDLE IN.
LAST NAME
COMPANY NAME (IF APPLICABLE)
ADDRESS
ADDRESS
CITY
STATE
ZIP CODE
PHONE NO.
C. CERTIFICATION BY SELLER
I certify that the information provided on this certificate is accurate and complete to the best of my
knowledge.
__________________________________________ _______________________
Signature of Seller or Designated Representative Date
D. CERTIFICATION BY BUYER
The buyer or person authorized to act on behalf of the buyer, must sign a Well Disclosure Certificate
for all deeds given in fulfillment of a contract for deed if there is a well on the property.
In the absence of a seller's signature, the buyer, or person authroized to acton behalf of the buyer may
sign this well certificate. No signature is required by hte buyer if the seller has signed above.
Based on disclosure information provided to me by the seller or other available information, I certify
that the information on this certificate is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge.
___________________________________________ _____________________________
Signature of Buyer or Designated Representative Date
48
*Fill out a separate well information page if more than three wells are located on the property.
WELL #1
COUNTY
QUARTER
SECTION
TOWNSHIP
RANGE
WELL STATUS
Well is:
IN USE (1) NOT IN USE (2) SEALED BY A LICENSED WELL CONTRACTOR (3)
YEAR SEALED
WELL #2
COUNTY
QUARTER
SECTION
TOWNSHIP
RANGE
WELL STATUS
Well is:
IN USE (1) NOT IN USE (2) SEALED BY A LICENSED WELL CONTRACTOR (3)
YEAR SEALED
WELL #3
COUNTY
QUARTER
SECTION
TOWNSHIP
RANGE
WELL STATUS
Well is:
IN USE (1) NOT IN USE (2) SEALED BY A LICENSED WELL CONTRACTOR (3)
YEAR SEALED
SKETCH MAP-Sketch the location of the well(s) and include estimated distances fromroads, streets, and buildings.
IF MORE THAN ONE WELL ON PROPERTY, USE THE WELL LOCATION NUMBER ABOVE TO IDENTIFY
EACH WELL.
Information provided on this form is classified as public information under Minn. Stat. Ch. 13. To request this document in another format
call 627-5100 or TDD through Minnesota Relay Service at (612)297-5353 or toll free 1-800-627-3529 (Greater Minnesota).
49
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 8a
Meeting of January 18, 2000
8a. Request by Vladimir Velikson to allow restaurants with liquor as permitted
with conditions in the C-2, Commercial District
Case No. 99-13-ZA
Recommended
Action:
Motion to deny the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment.
Staff is recommending an alternative amendment that would be
processed separately.
Background:
Vladimir Velikson is requesting a text amendment to allow restaurants with liquor as
permitted with conditions, rather than requiring a Conditional Use Permit, in the C-2
Zoning District. His desire is to open an Eastern European restaurant in the Texa-Tonka
shopping center that would serve liquor and include a small area for live music and
dancing. The Zoning Ordinance requires that any property obtaining a Conditional Use
Permit must eliminate all nonconformities on the property as a condition of CUP
approval. Due to the large number of nonconformities on the shopping center property
(there are nine), which would be cost prohibitive and practically impossible to completely
eliminate, Mr. Velikson is requesting the text amendment. Another option would be to
request variances for all of the existing nonconformities.
Having come to a full understanding of the restaurant proposal and considering the effect
of the proposed text amendment on restaurants with liquor in general, staff is
recommending denial of the proposed text amendment. Staff is also proposing an
alternative text amendment that would potentially meet Mr. Velikson’s needs. The
alternative text amendment addresses the nonconformities section of the Zoning
Ordinance. This alternative text amendment is also scheduled to be considered by the
City Council on January 18, 2000.
The history of the process to date is described more fully below.
Issues:
• What is the history of the process of this request to date?
• Is it possible to distinguish between a restaurant with liquor and an accessory
bar?
• Is it appropriate to allow restaurants with liquor as permitted with conditions?
• What alternatives exist to potentially meeting the applicant’s needs?
50
Issues Analysis:
What is the history of the process of this request to date?
Mr. Velikson’s proposed text amendment request came before the Planning Commission
on July 21, 1999. At that time, staff recommended that restaurants with liquor be
permitted with conditions, but that accessory bars should still be required to obtain a
Conditional Use Permit. After some discussion, the Planning Commission continued the
request to the August 18 meeting, and directed staff to determine the number of
nonconformities existing on the shopping center site that would need to be removed if a
CUP were required, and to identify properties that would become nonconforming if the
text amendment were approved. At the August 18 Planning Commission meeting, Mr.
Velikson stated for the first time that live music and dancing were part of his restaurant
concept. This land use would require a setback variance even if the proposed text
amendment were approved. The Planning Commission sent the request on to the City
Council with no recommendation, on a vote of 2-2. On September 7, on the applicant’s
request and staff’s recommendation, the City Council voted to postpone consideration of
the amendment indefinitely, in order for Mr. Velikson to pursue a variance for the
music/dancing component, and directed staff to send the request to the Planning
Commission for further consideration before coming back to the City Council. In
applying for the setback variance for live music/dancing, it was determined that the
building setback from the north property line was only 10.7 feet, requiring setback
variances for both the music/dancing and any type of restaurant. The Board of Zoning
Appeals approved both variances on October 21, 1999. Approval of the variances
enabled Mr. Velikson to proceed with the text amendment request.
On December 15, 1999 the Planning Commission held another hearing and considered
Velikson’s text amendment request. Staff recommended denial of the request, based on a
better understanding of the restaurant concept and considering the effect of the proposed
amendment on all restaurants with liquor in the City. Staff recommended an alternative
amendment that would allow Mr. Velikson’s request to be considered by CUP. At that
meeting, Mr. Velikson presented a petition of approximately 150 people supporting the
restaurant concept. The signatures are primarily from the metro area, with about 10-15%
from St. Louis Park. A copy of the petition is attached. The Planning Commission voted
4-0 to recommend denial of the request. Commissioners expressed support for the
restaurant concept, but concurred with staff that they were not comfortable with the
proposed text amendment. The Planning Commission was receptive to finding an
alternative method of potentially allowing the restaurant in the shopping center.
The City Council held a public hearing and considered the text amendment request on
January 3, 2000. The City Council closed the public hearing and voted to continue the
request until the January 18, 2000 City Council meeting and to discuss the issues further
in a study session on January 10, 2000. The Council discussed the issues in detail on
January 10.
51
Is it possible to distinguish between a restaurant with liquor and an accessory bar?
Staff’s initial recommendation was to allow restaurants with liquor as permitted with
conditions, but to still require accessory bars to obtain a Conditional Use Permit. In the
Zoning Ordinance, bars are defined as places where the primary purpose is the serving of
alcohol, although they may serve food, and restaurants are defined as primarily serving
meals, although alcohol may also be served. Bars are permitted only as an accessory use
to restaurants, hotels, private indoor entertainment, and clubs and lodges. Most
restaurants in the City which serve alcohol have a separate bar area which primarily
serves alcohol, but where food can also be ordered. Where there is no accessory bar,
staff believes it would be difficult to enforce any requirement that liquor be served with
meals only. A portion of a restaurant could easily become a de facto bar area,
particularly if entertainment were offered on the premises that encouraged patrons to stay
after a meal. Furthermore, while the Inspections Department conducts periodic
inspections of restaurants and bars, their licensing requirements do not distinguish
between restaurants serving liquor with a meal only and bars; therefore, an entirely new
method of inspections would need to be devised to ensure that an accessory bar were not
added to a restaurant with liquor. Therefore, staff believes it is not possible or practical
to distinguish between restaurants serving liquor with or without an accessory bar.
Is it appropriate to allow restaurants with liquor as permitted with conditions?
For both uses that are permitted with conditions and uses that require a Conditional Use
Permit, the requirement of the applicant is that the proposal must meet the stated
conditions and other applicable Zoning Ordinance provisions. In addition, for a
Conditional Use Permit, a public hearing is required, in which neighbors have an
opportunity to learn about the proposal and comment or raise concerns. With a CUP, the
City Council may also impose additional conditions that it feels are necessary for the
proposed use to meet the intent of the Code and to preserve health, safety, welfare and
neighborhood character.
Staff believes that restaurants with liquor merit the additional review that a Conditional
Use Permit provides. There are several potential negative impacts from restaurants with
liquor, including late hours, noise, lights, and traffic. While the stated conditions are
generally sufficient to protect surrounding properties, the opportunity to modify the site
plan in response to public comments or to add conditions may be necessary in some cases
to allow the use to fit well into the neighborhood. With Mr. Velikson’s restaurant
proposal, the live music and dancing and liquor component could easily lead to later
hours of operation than for a typical restaurant that does not include a bar. Therefore,
staff believes these uses should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, and it is not
appropriate to allow restaurants with liquor as permitted with conditions.
Is staff proposing an alternative?
As an alternative to the proposed text amendment, staff is initiating an amendment to the
Zoning Ordinance that addresses the nonconformities section. Staff is proposing that the
52
requirement that all nonconformities be removed as a condition of any Conditional Use
Permit be made more flexible in some cases. For multi-tenant buildings only, when a
new tenant is proposed which would require a CUP and there are some nonconformities
on the property, staff is proposing that nonconformities would be required to be reduced
or eliminated to the extent reasonable and possible, and that the new use would not
increase nonconformities on the property. This is the same standard that is currently
applied for Special Permit amendments. The effect of the proposed amendment would be
to allow for the continued use and viability of multi-tenant properties which contain some
nonconformities, provided the owner is willing to invest in reasonable property
improvements. If the proposed text amendment were approved, Mr. Velikson would
need to obtain a CUP for the restaurant proposal. This text amendment has been
reviewed and recommended for approval by the Planning Commission and is scheduled
to be considered by the City Council on January 18, 2000.
Staff is also initiating a text amendment addressing private indoor entertainment with
liquor in the C-2 District. Private indoor entertainment with liquor is currently permitted
with conditions, and staff believes this use should be treated as other uses that serve
liquor and require a Conditional Use Permit.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends denial of the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow
restaurants with liquor as permitted with conditions in the C-2 District.
Attachments:
• Petition in support of Eastern European restaurant
Prepared by: Sacha Peterson, Planner
Approved by: Clint Pires, Deputy City Manager
53
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 8b
Meeting of January 18, 2000
8b. Request by staff to amend nonconformities section of Zoning Ordinance
regarding Conditional Use Permits
Case No. 99-36-ZA
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt first reading of an ordinance amending
nonconformities section of Zoning Ordinance and set second
reading for February 7, 2000.
Background:
Staff is proposing a text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to relax the standards for
addressing nonconformities when a new CUP is requested for multi-tenant buildings.
Currently, all nonconformities are required to be eliminated as a condition of any CUP.
The amendment is in response to a request for a different text amendment by Vladimir
Velikson to allow restaurants with liquor as permitted with conditions rather than a
Conditional Use Permit at the Texa-Tonka shopping center, which contains a number of
nonconformities. Staff and the Planning Commission have recommended denial of Mr.
Velikson’s proposed amendment. The City Council considered Mr. Velikson’s
amendment on January 3, 2000 and voted to continue consideration until January 18,
2000 and to discuss both text amendments further in a study session on January 10, 2000.
Staff’s proposed text amendment would potentially meet Mr. Velikson’s needs, and could
potentially require removal of some nonconformities on the shopping center property as a
condition of the CUP.
On January 5, 2000 the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding the
proposed text amendment to the nonconformities section of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr.
Jeff Fine, owner of Texa-Tonka Shopping Center, and Mr. Vladimir Velikson spoke.
The Planning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the proposed text
amendment, and recommended adding a sentence to the proposed language that “The
required reduction in nonconformities shall be in proportion to the new use.” Staff
believes that the additional language proposed by the Planning Commission regarding
proportionality is not required in order to provide for the desired flexibility. This is
discussed below. This was discussed at length during the January 10th study session. The
Council indicated that they concurred with the staff analysis. Therefore, the additional
language recommended by the Planning Commission is not included in the proposed
ordinance.
Issues:
• What is the proposed text amendment?
54
• What properties would be affected?
• How would the new standard be applied to Conditional Use Permits?
• What is the effect of the proposed amendment on Mr. Velikson’s restaurant
concept?
Issues Analysis:
What is the proposed text amendment?
Staff is proposing that for multi-tenant buildings only, when a new CUP is requested,
rather than requiring that all nonconformities be eliminated completely, that the standard
be relaxed somewhat. The proposed standard is identical to the current requirements for
Special Permit Amendments. The proposed language is as follows:
Section 14:7-2:
F. Conditional Use Permits – The City may not issue a Conditional Use Permit for
any property which contains a nonconformity unless the nonconformity is
removed as a condition of the Conditional Use Permit.
a. Exception: If a new use requiring a CUP is proposed for a multi-tenant
building, and there are no exterior modifications needed to accommodate
the new tenant which would result in an increase in FAR, GFAR, building
height, density, or a decrease in required yards, or other substantial
changes (other than property improvements to meet Building Code
requirements); then the City may issue a CUP provided the following
standards are met:
1) The new use does not increase or intensify nonconformities on the
property.
2) Any nonconformities existing on the site shall be brought into greater
or complete compliance with other provisions of this ordinance to the
extent reasonable and possible, except that greater or complete
compliance will not be required with the following provisions of this
ordinance:
a. Lot area
b. Lot width
c. Required yards
d. Building height
e. Floor area ratio
f. Ground floor area ratio
g. Density
h. Usable open space
55
The proposed language has been modified slightly since Planning Commission review.
Rather than referencing the section dealing with Special Permit Amendments, the
language is proposed to be incorporated directly into this section of the ordinance.
The Planning Commission recommended that a sentence be added that the required
reduction in nonconformities would be proportional to the new use. Staff would prefer
not to include this language, as it would restrict the flexibility in applying the ordinance.
Each situation on each property will be unique, and proportionality may or may not be
appropriate. For example, based upon the type and impact of the new use proposed and
the condition of the property, it may be appropriate to require all bufferyards to be
brought into conformance. In addition, there are several ways to interpret
proportionality, including amount of building area occupied, amount of parking utilized,
intensity of the new use, visibility or prominence of the new use.
The purpose of the proposed amendment is to allow for the continued use of multi-tenant
buildings which may contain some nonconformities, while still requiring nonconformities
to be reduced over time. The proposed amendment seeks to recognize that a requirement
to eliminate all nonconformities may be an onerous burden in some cases.
What properties would be affected?
Affected properties would be those properties containing multi-tenant buildings, which
are not currently covered by a Special Permit or Planned Unit Development, which
contain one or more nonconformities. These could include shopping centers, strip
centers, multi-tenant office buildings, office/warehouse buildings, and mixed use
buildings.
Specific properties which would be affected if a CUP was proposed for a new tenant
include the Texa-Tonka Shopping Center, the multi-tenant commercial buildings on the
southwest corner of Texas and Minnetonka, and certain multi-tenant buildings within the
Belt Line industrial park area. Properties which would not be affected include
Knollwood Mall (under PUD), Knollwood Village (under Special Permit), Miracle Mile
Shopping Center (under Special Permit), and Burlington Coat Factory site (under Special
Permit). Those properties would still have to comply with provisions for amending the
PUD or Special Permit. The Special Permit provisions are identical to those proposed for
CUPs.
How would the new standard be applied?
As mentioned, the same standard is currently applied for Special Permit Amendments,
and staff would expect the application to CUPs for multi-tenant buildings to be consistent
with past application to Special Permit Amendments. Recent Special Permit
Amendments approved by the City Council include Cub Foods in Knollwood Mall,
Microcenter Computer Store, Norwest Bank on Excelsior Boulevard, and Sam’s Club.
56
The proposed text amendment provides for flexibility in considering each unique
situation and determining the appropriate level of addressing nonconformities in each
situation. There are a number of factors that would be weighed in each case, and those
factors could change by case; however, following are examples of the types of factors
that staff would use to recommend reduction or elimination of nonconformities “to the
extent reasonable and possible”:
• Changes necessary to meet Building Code requirements or other safety requirements;
• Anticipated impact of changes on the property or surrounding properties;
• City’s policies concerning removal of certain nonconformities as priorities*
• Whether redevelopment of the property is anticipated in the near future.
*The Zoning Ordinance requires certain nonconformities to be removed on all properties
by a date certain. Nonconformities which have a date certain are those having to do with
parking lots, including internal planting, curbing, dimensions, and lighting; landscape
bufferyards; site lighting; and signs except for billboards. City staff’s enforcement of this
provision to date has been to work towards compliance at the time that a new use or
physical change is proposed for a property, which requires a Certificate of Occupancy or
building permit. Staff is in the process of compiling information regarding the number of
properties that still need to be brought up to Code, and intends to bring this to the Council
for further discussion. However, for CUP applications for multi-tenant buildings, staff
would anticipate typically focusing on bringing any nonconformities in these areas up to
Code to be consistent with Code requirements and treatment of other properties.
Example: Microcenter Computer Store:
The City Council recently approved a Minor Amendment to an existing Special Permit
for Microcenter Computer store for the former Almstead's Grocery site, next to
Burlington Coat Factory. This example is chosen because the property is a multi-tenant
property. It also has the advantage of allowing comparisons to the Velikson restaurant
proposal, because the property is within a commercial area that is designated for future
study by the City for redevelopment potential, and the property contains a number of
nonconformities.
Microcenter Computer Store proposed to occupy the former grocery store space, as one
of three tenants on the site and occupying an estimated 40% of the site. The applicant
proposed several interior changes to the building, creating a recessed loading dock out of
an existing surface level loading dock, minor grading changes in front of the building to
correct a drainage problem, and a new parapet wall/sign band for new signage; in other
words, several fairly minor changes to accommodate the new use. There are several
nonconformities existing on the site, consisting primarily of substandard exterior
materials on all but the front building façade; lack of almost any internal parking lot
landscaping or curbed islands to separate drive aisles from parking stalls; substandard
parking lot lighting; inadequate bufferyard along south/west lot line; and rooftop
equipment that is not properly screened on the Burlington Coat Factory portion of the
building.
57
Staff recommended that nonconformities be modified as follows: reface the most visible
portions of the building which Microcenter is proposing to occupy with Class I stucco on
the south façade (which faces a public street) and Class II artificial stucco on the
west/rear façade (which is also visible from a public street); bring interior parking lot
landscaping fully into compliance with City Codes for entire site, which entails
approximately 800 plant units; bring lighting up to Code by adding several light poles;
add curbed islands to parking lot; screen or paint rooftop equipment. Staff also
recommended screening the modified loading dock with an eight-foot high stuccoed wall
per City requirements, although there was not space to install the landscaping that is
required to screen loading docks. The parking lot improvements and rooftop equipment
were allowed to be phased in over two years: improvements on the portions to be utilized
primarily by Microcenter are required to be completed before the store becomes
operational; and the remaining improvements must be completed within two years. The
City Council approved staff’s recommendations for improvements and the applicant has
agreed to them.
What is the effect of the proposed amendment on Mr. Velikson’s restaurant
concept?
If the proposed amendment were approved, Mr. Velikson could apply for a Conditional
Use Permit for a restaurant with liquor. Along with the CUP consideration, the City
Council would consider what nonconformities on the property should be reduced.
Because no application has been received for such a CUP, it is not appropriate to
recommend specific changes or improvements to the property at this time. Staff would
anticipate focusing on parking lot changes such as adding curbing, landscaping, and
lighting; bufferyard improvements; minor building façade changes; and possibly removal
of one or more nonconforming rooftop signs.
Recommendation:
Staff is recommending approval of the proposed text amendment as stated above.
Attachments:
• Proposed ordinance
• Letter from attorney of Jeff Fine, Texa-Tonka shopping center owner
Prepared by: Sacha Peterson, Planner
Approved by: Clint Pires, Deputy City Manager
58
ORDINANCE NO.______
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK
ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING BY
AMENDING SECTION 14:7-2
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
Findings
Sec. 1. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the
Planning Commission (Case No. 99-36-ZA)
Sec. 2. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Section 14:7-2.F.a. is hereby
amended to read as follows:
F. Conditional Use Permits – The City may not issue a Conditional Use Permit for
any property which contains a nonconformity unless the nonconformity is
removed as a condition of the Conditional Use Permit.
a. Exception: If a new use requiring a CUP is proposed for a multi-tenant
building, and there are no exterior modifications needed to accommodate
the new tenant which would result in an increase in FAR, GFAR, building
height, density, or a decrease in required yards, or other substantial
changes (other than property improvements to meet Building Code
requirements); then the City may issue a CUP provided the following
standards are met:
1) The new use does not increase or intensify nonconformities on the
property.
2) Any nonconformities existing on the site shall be brought into greater
or complete compliance with other provisions of this ordinance to the
extent reasonable and possible, except that greater or complete
compliance will not be required with the following provisions of this
ordinance:
a. Lot area
b. Lot width
c. Required yards
d. Building height
e. Floor area ratio
f. Ground floor area ratio
g. Density
h. Usable open space
59
Sec. 3. The contents of Planning Case File 99-36-ZA are hereby entered into and
made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
Sec.4. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication.
Adopted by the City Council February 7, 2000
Reviewed for Administration
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
99-36-ZA/N/res/ord
60
Item # 9a*
HUMAN RESOURCES
To: Charlie Meyer, City Manager
From: Nancy Gohman, Human Resources Manager
Subject: Pay Equity Report
Date: 1/11/00
The City of St. Louis Park has been notified by the Minnesota Department of Employee
Relations (DOER) that we are required to submit a pay equity report by January 31,
2000. The report must show data in place as of December 31, 1999.
I am pleased to inform you that the preliminary run on the data shows the City continues
to be in compliance with this mandate. DOER will issue formal approval once data is
submitted and analyzed by that department. DOER required the report to be approved by
the governing body before submittal.
I recommend this report be forwarded to Council at its regular meeting of January 18,
2000. If the report is received, we will assume Council has approved the data. If you
need additional information regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to ask.
61
Part F: Job Class Information Report date: 1/11/00
City of St. Louis Park contact person:Nancy Gohman, HR Manager
5005 Minnetonka Blvd.phone:612) 924-2519
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
A B C D E F G H I J
Class title
Number of
Male
Employees
Number of
Female
Employees
Class
type
M, F, B
Comparable
Work Value
(Job Points)
Minimum
monthly
salary
Maximum
monthly
salary
Years
to
Max.
# Yrs.
of
Service
Exceptional
Service
Pay
1 Crossing Guard 1 3 F 35 1232 1232 0 11
2 Custodian 1 M 40 2099 2725 2
3 Weed Inspector 1 F 47 2253 2600 0 32
4 Survey Aide 1 M 47 1248 1516 0 2
5 Cadet 2 M 48 1386 1733 0 12
6 Clerk Typist - PD 1 F 51 1884 2634 4.5
7 Data Entry Clerk - PD 1 F 51 1884 2613 4.5
8 Receptionist 1 F 51 1884 2613 4.5
9 Comm. Service Officer 1 M 51 1884 2613 4.5
10 Maintenance I 22 M 54 2352 3339 2
11 Clerks - Acct/UB, Adm, Assessing, IT 5 F 55 2111 2880 4.5
12 Secretary - Eng, MSC, Utils, Hsng 4 F 55 2111 2880 4.5
13 Assessing Clerk 1 F 55 2111 2880 4.5
14 Records Specialist 1 F 55 2111 2880 4.5
15 Scheduling Coordinator 1 F 55 2111 2880 4.5
16 Program Aide 1 M 55 2111 2880 4.5
17 Maintenance II 9 M 55 3002 3394 0 26
18 Sec Program Aid - WWH 1 F 56 2125 2897 4.5
19 CSO Coordinator 1 M 56 2912 3309 4.5
20 Assessing Technician 1 F 57 2245 3072 4.5
21 IT Customer Rep - Lead 1 F 58 2366 3180 4.5
22 Maintenance III 12 M 58 3070 3462 0 32
23 Maintenance Technician - Hsng 1 M 61 3003 3400 4.5
24 Secretary - Dept.7 F 61 2444 3272 4.5
25 HR Representative 1 F 61 2444 3328 4.5
26 Maintenance IV 6 M 61 3162 3554 0 24
27 Deputy City Clerk 1 F 63 2585 3438 4.5
28 Sr. Utility Billing Clerk 1 F 63 2585 3439 4.5
62
City of St. Louis Park contact person:Nancy Gohman, HR Manager
5005 Minnetonka Blvd.phone:612) 924-2519
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
A B C D E F G H I J
Class title
Number of
Male
Employees
Number of
Female
Employees
Class
type
M, F, B
Comparable
Work Value
(Job Points)
Minimum
monthly
salary
Maximum
monthly
salary
Years
to
Max.
# Yrs.
of
Service
Exceptional
Service
Pay
29 Payroll Clerk 1 F 63 2630 3491 4.5
30 Dispatcher 3 6 F 64 2466 3606 5
31 Accounting Technician 1 F 65 2678 3547 4.5
32 Administrative Assistant Fire 1 F 65 2678 3547 4.5
33 Administrative Secretary 1 F 65 2678 3547 4.5
34 Civic & Community TV Coordinator 2 M 65 2678 3547 4.5
35 CSR 1 2 B 65 2678 3547 4.5
36 P.W. Info. Systems Spec.2 M 65 2678 3547 4.5
37 Firefighter 13 M 66 3147 4229 2
38 Public Hsng. Specialist 1 F 66 2727 3605 4.5
39 Naturalist 1 2 B 66 2727 3605 4.5
40 Planning Associate 1 F 68 2823 3718 4.5
41 Rec. Facility Coordinator 1 M 70 2918 3830 4.5
42 Patrol Officer 29 3 M 72 2686 4338 3 Longevity
43 Fire Lieutenant 4 M 72 4133 4535 0 16 Longevity
44 Police Investigator 5 1 M 74 2860 4512 3 Longevity
45 Community Outreach Coordinator 1 F 75 3159 4237 4.5
46 HR Technician 1 F 75 3159 4114 4.5
47 Maintenance Mech. Coordinator Hsn 1 M 75 3159 4114 4.5
48 Program Coordinator 1 1 B 75 3159 4114 4.5
49 Engineering Tech III 5 M 75 3307 4409 4.5
50 Residential Appraiser I 1 F 76 3202 4164 4.5
51 Housing Manager Sec. 8 1 F 76 3283 4260 4.5
52 Field Supervisor 3 M 77 3763 4155 0 30
53 PWks Administrative Supvr.1 M 77 3250 4222 4.5
54 Inspector 7 1 M 78 3301 4280 4.5
55 Inspector 1 F 78 3301 4384 4.5
56 Housing Inspection Program Manage 1 M 79 3350 4339 4.5
63
City of St. Louis Park contact person:Nancy Gohman, HR Manager
5005 Minnetonka Blvd.phone:612) 924-2519
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
A B C D E F G H I J
Class title
Number of
Male
Employees
Number of
Female
Employees
Class
type
M, F, B
Comparable
Work Value
(Job Points)
Minimum
monthly
salary
Maximum
monthly
salary
Years
to
Max.
# Yrs.
of
Service
Exceptional
Service
Pay
57 Assistant Zoning Administrator 1 M 79 3350 4339 4.5
58 Commercial Appraiser 1 M 79 3350 4339 4.5
59 Residential Appraiser II 1 F 79 3350 4339 4.5
60 Administrative Assistant/City Clerk 1 F 80 3705 4878 4.5
61 Office Manager 1 F 80 3705 4878 4.5
62 PSAP Manager 1 F 80 3705 4878 4.5
63 Communications Coordinator 1 F 81 3705 4878 4.5
64 Accountant 2 F 83 3889 5095 4.5
65 Housing Programs Coordinator 1 F 84 3949 5166 4.5
66 Assistant to City Engineer 1 M 85 4009 5256 4.5
67 Special Programs Manager 1 F 85 4009 5237 4.5
68 Housing Manager Sec. 23 1 F 86 4101 5345 4.5
69 Planning Coordinator 1 F 86 4101 5345 4.5
70 Economic Dev Coordinator 1 M 88 4193 5453 4.5
71 Equip. Superintendent 1 M 88 4193 5575 4.5
72 Facilities Superintendent 1 M 88 4193 5458 4.5
73 Traffic Superintendent 1 M 88 4193 5575 4.5
74 Sergeant - PD 8 1 M 90 5033 5804 3
75 Environmental Health Official 1 M 90 4356 5645 4.5
76 Chief Building Official 1 M 90 4356 5645 4.5
77 Mgr. Bldgs. & Structures 1 M 90 4356 5645 4.5
78 Mgr. Grounds & NR 1 M 90 4356 5645 4.5
79 Public Works Coordinator 1 M 90 4356 5645 4.5
80 Recreation Services Mgr 1 M 90 4356 5645 4.5
81 Battalion Chief - Fire 4 M 90 4516 5833 4.5
82 City Assessor 1 M 90 4903 6288 4.5
83 Engineering Superintendent 1 M 94 4555 5878 4.5
84 Info. Tech. Suppt Analyst 1 F 94 4555 5878 4.5
64
City of St. Louis Park contact person:Nancy Gohman, HR Manager
5005 Minnetonka Blvd.phone:612) 924-2519
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
A B C D E F G H I J
Class title
Number of
Male
Employees
Number of
Female
Employees
Class
type
M, F, B
Comparable
Work Value
(Job Points)
Minimum
monthly
salary
Maximum
monthly
salary
Years
to
Max.
# Yrs.
of
Service
Exceptional
Service
Pay
85 Housing Supervisor 1 F 96 4735 6091 4.5
86 Planning/Zoning Supervisor 1 F 96 4735 6091 4.5
87 Police Lieutenant 2 M 98 4799 6166 4.5
88 HR Manager 1 F 100 4916 6303 4.5
89 Superintendents- Ops & Utils 1 M 100 4916 6303 4.5
90 Deputy Fire Chief 1 M 100 5081 6498 4.5
91 Police Captain 1 M 104 5298 6753 4.5
92 Deputy City Manager 1 M 110 5532 7028 4.5
93 Dir. of Parks and Recreation 1 F 110 5532 7028 4.5
94 Fire Chief 1 M 110 5532 7028 4.5
95 Inspections Director 1 M 110 5532 7028 4.5
96 Community Development Dir.1 M 113 5702 7228 4.5
97 Finance Director 1 F 113 5702 7228 4.5
98 Police Chief 1 M 119 6070 7662 4.5
99 Public Works Director 1 M 122 6254 7878 4.5
100 City Manager 1 M 138 7232 9028 4.5
65
Item # 9b*
City of St. Louis Park
Human Rights Commission
Meeting Minutes - November 17, 1999
First Floor Community Room - City Hall
______________________________________________________________________________
Present
Commission Members: Marc Berg, Laurel Higgins, Herb Isbin, Betty Merritt and Chris Smith
Staff: Martha McDonell, staff liaison, and Lynn Schwartz, recording secretary
Chair Laurel Higgins called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m.
Approval of Minutes
After a discussion on the pros and cons of attaching absent members’ memos to the minutes, it
was moved by Chris Smith and seconded by Marc Berg to accept the October minutes as written.
Reports
Betty Merritt shared information on the Minneapolis Foundation’s ad campaign to better
welcome new immigrants to Minnesota.
Herb Isbin reported that he is attempting to obtain information on the results of St. Paul’s anti-
bias advertising campaign. Isbin also reported that he attempted—but was unsuccessful—in
tracking down the source of the information on languages spoken in St. Louis Park homes. Isbin
then reported that he obtained a CD ROM from the Simon Wiesenthal Center on hate web sites
on the internet. Chris Smith offered to take the CD home and report back on its contents at the
next meeting. Isbin then asked about status of the Constitutional Rights Foundation’s mini-
grant program. Martha McDonell responded that the program has a fall application deadline and
requires school/classroom participation. If the commission wishes to pursue this program,
McDonell said the commission could add this to its 2000 work plan.
Martha McDonell handed out information on the Minnesota legislature’s session on white
supremacist groups. She also handed out a copy of the Sun-Sailor newspaper’s summary of
police calls which reported that a swastika and “KKK” were painted on an apartment door but
the incident was not deemed to be a bias/hate crime by the Police Department.
McDonell also handed out a flier about the St. Louis Park Leadership Program and urged
interested commission members to apply for or recruit others to apply.
McDonell then reported that three candidates have been scheduled to be interviewed by the City
Council for possible appointment to the Human Rights Commission. She also reported that
Petrona Melgarejo has removed her name from consideration for appointment to the
commission. McDonell reported that Melgarejo took this action because of her frustration with
the City Council’s interview process. Melgarejo stated that she was upset and offended by the
council’s failure to provide any follow-up response after her interview. This was despite
66
Melgarejo’s calls to determine the disposition of her application. A number of commission
members stated that they were saddened by the outcome and noted that Melgarejo would have
made a good addition to the commission. Commission members also felt the council’s long
timeframe from interview to notice of appointment/no appointment presented a barrier to
volunteer participation.
McDonell reported that she met with the City Manager and Deputy City Manager to discuss
whether changes could be made to its appointment process. The council decided to regularly set
aside time twice a month to discuss board and commission appointments; however, no promises
were made on making the appointments more promptly. The City Council will begin sending a
form letter to all applicants thanking them for their application and stating that there are many
applicants and warning candidates that it may be some time before they are notified about
whether they are or are not appointed to a commission. One commissioner noted that it took six
months before he heard back from the council on his application. Members noted that this long
process misses an opportunity to involve people, and, in Melgarejo’s case, lost an opportunity to
appoint a person of color to the Human Rights Commission. Despite the fact that efforts weren’t
entirely successful, commission members commended the actions taken to create a more fair and
respectful process for board and commission applicants.
Strategic Action Plan One: Receiving, Responding and Reporting Calls
Phone Line Call Report: Martha McDonell reported that no calls were made to the Human
Rights Phone Line. She added that the voicemail recording has been updated to note the
nomination deadline for the Human Rights Award.
Strategic Action Plan Two: Public Awareness Campaign
1999 Human Rights Award: Fliers have been mailed to local community groups and some
businesses. Betty Merritt urged commission members to be aggressive in their recruiting efforts
and not depend upon mailings or flier postings. Chris Smith asked that a news release on the
award be sent to the Sun-Sailor; Betty Merritt agreed to contact the newspaper as well as the
schools. When the nominations close next month, Martha McDonell will notify members about
the nominees.
Laurel Higgins recommended that the commission ask last year’s winner to apply for
membership to the commission.
Block Captains’ Training: Marc Berg reported that he attended the recent block captains’
training session. At this session, Berg gave a short presentation on the Human Rights
Commission and mentioned the Human Rights Award. He also told block captains that the
commission is willing to come to neighborhood meetings to discuss human rights projects or
concerns specific to individual neighborhoods.
Herb Isbin said he felt the commission needs to make a greater effort to learn about the
community’s make-up and asked whether block captains could be a source of information about
the diversity within St. Louis Park. Martha McDonell suggested that commissioners consider
adding a neighborhood survey to their 2000 work plan.
67
Police Training: Laurel Higgins reported that Mort Ryweck, Minnesota League of Human
Rights Commissions, will be speaking at the St. Louis Park Police Station on December 10th as
part of the department’s annual meeting. Ryweck will discuss how officers can determine
whether a crime should be categorized as a bias/hate crime. During the meeting, Higgins will
hand out the Human Rights Commission’s Bias/Hate Crime Response Plan. Chris Smith and
Betty Merritt said they would try to attend this portion of the program.
Herb Isbin noted that he attended Mort Ryweck’s presentation at the League of Minnesota
Human Rights Commissions’ annual conference. Isbin stated that the St. Louis Park Human
Rights Commission does not follow the procedure outlined at the conference concerning contact
with crime victims. Isbin said the presentation stressed following up with victims to see how
they are doing. Isbin added that he believes the St. Louis Park commission’s existing Bias/Hate
Crime Plan doesn’t address this issue.
Several commissioners disagreed noting that this issue was fully discussed when the plan was
being drafted. They noted that St. Louis Park’s plan attempts to balance victim contact against
victim privacy. Marc Berg pointed out that a critical part of the plan is balancing the ideal of
helping the victim against the victim’s desire for privacy—that’s why there are no concrete steps
listed in St. Louis Park’s plan. Instead, the plan calls for follow-up as desired by the victim.
Berg also reminded members that the commission took this stance to avoid creating a political
agenda for itself. Laurel Higgins pointed out that she did follow-up with victims when incidents
were reported to her.
Members then asked whether the Commission should contact the victim of the apartment door
incident reported in the Sun-Sailor—even though the police determined it was not a bias/hate
crime. Some members wondered how the painting of a swastika could not be perceived as
anything but a bias/hate crime. Discussion pointed out that commissioners do not have complete
information about the investigation. The Sun-Sailor article did not discuss what facts led to the
conclusion that the crime was not motivated by bias or hate or whether the police believed the
perpetrator was an adult or minor.
Isbin then wondered whether the Police Department was forwarding incident reports to the
commission. McDonell responded that the department does forward reports about bias/hate
crimes; however, this particular incident was not deemed to be a bias/hate crime and, therefore,
wasn’t forwarded.
Members agreed that more information was needed. Marc Berg agreed to phone Sergeant Lorin
Kramer to find out what led to the determination. Depending on the outcome of this
conversation, Berg will then contact the victim to find out how she is doing and if any support is
needed. Berg will also ask for a copy of the police report and share the findings with the
commission at its next meeting.
Isbin felt it might still be appropriate to contact the victim since the commission’s role is to
promote human rights and diversity. It was agreed that Berg would determine whether the
victim should be contacted after getting more information from Sergeant Kramer.
68
Strategic Action Plan Three: School Support
School District Strategic Plan: Martha McDonell shared information about the Parent
Communication Network and noted that this group may be a good resource to the commission.
Herb Isbin reported on several brochures he obtained and sessions he attended at the annual
conference. He asked commissioners to consider whether it should distribute information to
parents similar to Shoreview’s brochure since the St. Louis Park School District is focusing on
other elements of its strategic plan this year. Martha McDonell suggested that the commission
could work jointly on this project with members of the Children First initiative. Isbin responded
that the commission first had to decide on the merit of the issue and whether the project was one
the commission wishes to pursue. In the meantime, Marc Berg offered to share the Shoreview
brochure with other parents in his Early Childhood and Family Education group.
New Business
Martha McDonell noted that a member of the Hopkins Human Rights Commission indicated that
their commission would like to meet with the St. Louis Park commission. Laurel Higgins agreed
to contact the Hopkins commission to arrange for a joint meting.
Old Business
Laurel Higgins is preparing a draft of the Human Rights Commission’s year-end report to the
City Council. The draft will be mailed to commissioners with their agenda packet.
Martha McDonell reported that she spoke with the City Clerk about the questions raised at the
October meeting. She reported that the commission’s bylaws are internal and can be modified
by the commission. The ordinance setting forth the commission’s purpose, appointment process
and duties, however, is in the City Code and cannot be changed by the commission. The City
Clerk recommended that the commission incorporate the language from the City Code into the
bylaws.
After reviewing several typographical changes and the change concerning Robert’s Rules of
Order, members agreed that the revised version should be included in next month’s agenda
packet so the commission can vote on the entire bylaws at its December meeting.
Set Agenda
As part of the bylaws discussion, Herb Isbin asked that the commission discuss the commission’s
mission and goals.
Herb Isbin asked that either or both Charlie Meyer, City Manager, and Nancy Gohman, Human
Resources Director, be invited to a future meeting to discuss the City’s progress in affirmation
action.
Herb Isbin asked that the commission update its brochure. Members were asked to forward any
suggestions to Isbin, and he will bring a revised draft to a future meeting for discussion.
69
Laurel Higgins suggested that next month’s agenda include a review of the police training
session and electing a new chairperson.
Adjournment
With no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:04 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lynn Schwartz
Recording Secretary
70
MINUTES
HOUSING AUTHORITY
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
December 8, 1999
Council Chambers
4:30 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Catherine Courtney, William Gavzy, Bridget Gothberg,
Judith Moore and Shone Row
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Michele Schnitker, Kathy Larsen, Sharon Anderson and
Paula Jordan
OTHERS PRESENT: Steve Bubul, Kennedy & Graven Chartered, Mark Ruff and
Mike Lafave, Ehlers & Associates, Ron Price, PPL, Lisa
Kugler, Consultant for PPL and a representative from the
League of Women Voters.
.
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 4:30 P.M.
2. Approval of the Minutes
Commissioner Courtney moved approval of the October 13th and the November
10th Minutes. Commissioner Moore seconded the motion. The motion was
passed on a vote of 5-0 with Commissioners Gavzy, Gothberg, Courtney, Moore
and Row voting in favor.
3. Hearings: None
4. Reports and Committees: None
5. Unfinished Business : None
71
6. New Business
a. Louisiana Court Development Agreement with PPL - Memorandum
Michele Schnitker reported that staff, along with members of the
redevelopment team, were in attendance to present to the Board an update
of the Louisiana Court Project and to answer any questions.
Staff met with the City Council at its November 22nd Study Session to review
the development agreement with them. One of the issues discussed was the
possible use of eminent domain to acquire four of the buildings. PPL has not
been able to acquire purchase agreements for four of the eleven buildings.
The effects of increased acquisition costs on the project were also discussed.
Staff will go back to the City Council Study Session on December 13th to
further discuss this issue.
Ms. Schnitker introduced Steve Bubul, Kennedy & Graven Chartered, Mark
Ruff, Ehlers & Associates, Ron Price, Project for Pride in Living (PPL) and
Lisa Kugler, Consultant for PPL who were present to answer any questions on
the project.
Kathy Larsen reported on the timeline for the project actions and dates that
will require Housing Authority and Council action.
Ms. Larsen also gave a summary of the Louisiana Court Redevelopment
Project Partner meeting that was held Wednesday, November 24th. The
purpose of the meeting was to determine partner support of the Louisiana
Court Project prior to the City's consideration to authorize application for the
General Obligation Bonds (GO Bonds). Cost is approximately $22,500 to the
City to enter into a Redevelopment Contract with Project for Pride in Living
(PPL). Staff relayed the Council's concern that the City wanted some
indication from this group as to the likelihood of funding.
The MHFA, FHF and Met Council are being asked to fund approximately
$2,000,000 of the project costs. The Minnesota Housing Finance Agency
(MFHA)'s Super RFP and the Family Housing Fund will award proposals
April 27, 2000. The MET Council's LCDA Award will be made in December
1999.
Ms. Larsen reported that Tom Fulton, Family Housing Fund (FHF), Guy
Peterson, MET Council and Bob Ordman, Minnesota Housing Finance Agency
(MHFA) all responded favorably to the project.
Ms. Larsen reported on the November 22nd City Council meeting about the
discussion concerning the four buildings that PPL has yet to secure purchase
72
agreements for. These buildings are the most blighted and it may not be
possible to do the project unless they can be purchased. Based on the element
of eminent domain, attorney Bob Lindall of Kennedy and Graven, was
contacted. Mr. Lindall was asked to submit a report showing the high and low
range for acquisition costs if eminent domain proceedings move forward.
Ms. Larsen reported that staff will ask the City Council, at the December 20th
meeting, to consider resolutions to enter into a Redevelopment Agreement
with HA and PPL, to submit an application to MHFA for a bond allocation,
enter into a Cooperation Agreement with the HA and to authorize the HA to
proceed with eminent domain. At this time the Housing Board is not being
asked to take action until its January Board meeting. At that time the Board
will be asked to commence proceedings for eminent domain, to approve the
final Development Agreement, which would have been approved by the City
Council, and to approve an Initial Agreement with Minneapolis Public
Housing Authority for development of Hollman Units.
Steve Bubul, Kennedy & Graven Chartered, reported on the Redevelopment
Agreement. The basic intent of the Agreement is to set out in advance of the
decision to sell the bonds what role each party will play along with what the
financial responsibilities will be. Mr. Bubul stated that the immediate issue is
the property acquisition in which Project for Pride in Living (PPL) has the first
responsibility to try to acquire all the property. PPL has purchase agreements
for seven of the eleven buildings, and it is their responsibility to continue to
make attempts to acquire the four remaining buildings. The current draft of
the contract states that if PPL provides a written certification that they have
been unsuccessful, the Housing Authority, at its discretion, may commence
condemnation. If the project does not move forward, the City and PPL would
share the additional cost of acquisition on a 50-50 basis. It is structured as
such that the property would not be acquired and condemnation award not paid
until all the conditions had been met to issue the bonds. Mr. Bubul stated that
if condemnation commences and the City acquires the property, it would be at
a point when there is certainty that the project will move forward and the
bonds would be sold. At that time the City and PPL would be reimbursed for
the acquisition costs.
Mark Ruff, Ehlers and Associates responded to several general questions from
the Board on the project.
Steve Bubul, Kennedy & Graven Chartered, reported on other aspects of the
acquisition. PPL will have the obligation to provide the title commitments
with the City in the position as first lender. PPL must handle all the relocation
with the intent that relocations will be as few as possible and on a temporary
basis. All relocation costs and hiring an acceptable relocation consultant are
also PPL's responsibility.
73
Mr. Bubul briefly described that PPL would be doing the site reconfiguration,
in addition to the rehabilitation of the individual units. PPL is required to
submit a Scope of Work, which is the initial construction plan to be included
as an attachment to the Redevelopment Agreement. Before the bonds are
issued, however, both parties must approve an updated Scope of Work. There
will be a set construction schedule, and the contracts will be let according to
competitive bidding requirements.
Commissioner Gavzy inquired if PPL would be serving as the general
contractor and/or the construction manager on the project.
Ron Price, Project for Pride in Living (PPL), responded that PPL would
be working as the acting construction manager. The project would be
competitively bid out and PPL would be included in that bidding process.
Commissioner Gavzy asked Mr. Price if a general contractor would be hired
for this project.
Mr. Price replied that for the preponderance of the work needed on this project,
hiring a general contractor would only increase the costs. A construction
manager will be engaging subcontractors to complete most of the work
required on this project. Mr. Price also stated that he has conferred with PPL's
construction manager about the 24 conversion units and PPL has acquired a
proposal from a general contractor for that specific work, but all other work is
being viewed as construction management.
Commissioner Gavzy inquired whether or not PPL has operated as both
construction manager and general contractor on other projects.
Mr. Price stated that PPL has been involved in several projects where they
have been both the general contractor and the construction manager.
Commissioner Gavzy asked Mr. Price if PPL had completed a project where
they hired a general contractor and if so, why not the Louisiana Court project.
Mr. Price indicated that PPL had hired general contractors several times but
indicated that there are cost savings and control factors to consider by not
hiring a general contractor.
Lisa Kugler, Consultant for PPL, reported to the Board that PPL has been
bonded up to $2,000,000 and must provide a Payment in Performance Bond
along with the financial assurances as a general contractor.
Mr. Ruff, Ehlers and Associates, addressed the issue that the City raised
concerning the fact of PPL being both the contractor and the inspector. Mr.
Ruff suggested that the City might want to consider someone other than the
74
building inspector, if PPL is the construction manager, to defer any
construction oversight. Mr. Ruff feels that, since the City is essentially the
lender, it is something the City should consider.
Commissioner Moore inquired as to the timeframe for issuing bonds.
Mr. Ruff replied that after the allocation is received, assuming it is received in
January, there are 120 days in which to issue the bonds which would be the
first week in May. The bonds will not be issued unless all the conditions have
been met. If the time frame elapses there is a possibility of selling temporary
bonds which can be later replaced with permanent bonds, but that will add a
cost element.
Ms. Schnitker asked the Board if there were further comments on the project as
staff would be meeting December 9th at 1:00 p.m. to review the Redevelopment
Agreement once again.
Mark Ruff and Mike Lafave, Ehlers & Associates, who have served as
financial advisors for the City on all bond issues, gave the report on General
Obligation Bonds (GO) for the Louisiana Court project. The bonds will not be
issued until all the conditions are met and revenues are at least 120% of debt
service. All financing, permits, and construction plans must be approved, all
property must be acquired and the rents must be workable. The City also has a
right to approve a management plan along with Scope of Work plans for the
project itself.
Commissioner Gavzy and the Housing Authority staff expressed concern
regarding PPL's construction and management standards for the Louisiana
Court project and that those standards should be equal to Housing Authority
standards.
.
b. Architectural Contract - 1999 CIAP
Sharon Anderson reported on the Architectural Contract for CIAP for 1999.
Staff is asking the Authority to authorize the Chairman and Executive Director
to execute a contract with Studio Five Architects for architectural services for
the 1999 CIAP project (contingent on HUD approval) in the amount of
$14,187 with a minimum reimbursable expense of $2,000.
Commissioner Gothberg moved to authorize the contract. Commissioner
Moore seconded the motion. The motion was passed on a vote of 4-0
with Commissioners Row, Gavzy, Gothberg and Moore voting in favor.
c. Action Plan Update - Year 2000
The Board asked if the Action Plan Update could be discussed at a special
meeting where all board members could be present for discussion and
75
approval. The Housing Secretary was asked to schedule a date and time in
January that would be acceptable so that all Board members could be in
attendance.
7. Communications from Executive Director
a. Claims List No 99-12
Ms. Schnitker reported on the new format of the Claims List and she added
that Marie Malam, the Accountant, is still working out some details that
involve working with the software vendor.
Commissioner Gavzy indicated that the Board is satisfied with the format of
the current Claims List.
Commissioner Gothberg moved to accept Claims List No. 99-12.
Commissioner Row seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of
4-0 with Commissioners Gavzy, Moore, Gothberg and Row voting in favor.
b. Communications
(1) Monthly Report for December - 1999
Ms. Schnitker pointed out that on the Summary of Participation for the
Section 8 Program, the number of units budgeted for and the total
units utilized at this point have been added.
(2) Scattered Site Houses and Hamilton House Report (verbal report)
Sharon Anderson reported that the new Social Services Coordinator,
Jen Smeby, hired at Hamilton House through the TOP grant, has been
working out very well and the residents are becoming involved in
activities again.
(3) Home Renewal Program Habitat Program Update (verbal report)
Kathy Larsen reported on the Home Renewal Program. The developer
working on the house at 1454 Jersey Avenue has given the plans to
Inspections for review. The property at 2929 Ottawa had only generated
one bid and the property has been re-bid. There has been considerable
interest in the property at a lower price. At this time there are no other
properties being considered for this program.
76
8. Other
Michele Schnitker reported that Cindy Larsen, City Clerk, had indicated that the City
Council wanted to set an agenda for meeting with the all the Commissions in the Year
2000, asking what time frame would be acceptable to the Board to meet.
The Board responded that any time other than the months of February, March and
August would be acceptable.
9. Adjournment
Commissioner Moore moved to adjourn. Commissioner Gothberg seconded the
motion. The motion was passed on a vote of 4-0 with Commissioners Gavzy, Row,
Moore and Gothberg voting in favor
Respectfully Submitted
_________________________
Shone Row
Secretary
77
Item # 9d*
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 15 1999 --7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Michelle Bissonnette (arrived at 7:10 p.m.), Michael Garelick,
Ken Gothberg, Dennis Morris,
MEMBERS ABSENT: Paul Carver, Jerry Timian, Sally Velick
STAFF PRESENT: Judie Erickson, Janice Loftus, Sacha Peterson
1. Call to Order - Roll Call
Chair Morris called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
2. Approval of Minutes of December 1, 1999
Mr. Garelick moved approval of Minutes of December 1, 1999 and the motion passed on
a vote of 3-0-1 with Garelick, Gothberg, Morris voting in favor and Bissonnette
abstaining.
3. Public Hearings
A. Novartis applications continued from 12-1
Case No. 99-28-S - Request of Novartis Nutrition for Preliminary and Final Plat
approval for Novartis Addition; and
Case No. 99-30-VAC - Request of Novartis Nutrition to vacate a portion of West
24th Street
Case No. 99-29-CUP - Request of Novartis Nutrition for an amendment to a continued special
permit to permit more than one building on a lot at 5320 W. 23rd Street.
Chair Morris noted that since there is no quorum present the Commission will
conduct business as a Committee.
Chair Morris opened the public hearings for the plat and street vacation.
Sacha Peterson, Planning Associate, presented a staff report. She stated that on
December 1, 1999 the Planning Commission voted, per staff’s recommendation,
to continue these public hearings and consideration of a land use request by
Novartis. The reason, at that time, was that Novartis had proposed a small
78
building addition very late in the process. There were several changes that were
needed to the preliminary and final plat documents before the requests could be
fully heard and analyzed. Ms. Peterson stated that Novartis has now withdrawn
their requests for replatting the property and the street vacation. However, they
are requesting continuation of their special permit amendment to January 19,
2000. Novartis owns a fairly large piece of property (about 25 acres consisting of
7 different parcels) and some of the lot lines traverse buildings. There is a fair
amount of title work that needs to be cleaned up so one of the purposes in
replatting the property is to create one continuous lot out of the entire property
and to resolve some of the title issues. They were also requesting vacation of a
portion of West 24th Street. Ms. Peterson said that, apparently, there are some
financial advantages, with respect to payment of taxes, to Novartis, in delaying
their replatting and street vacation requests, so their intention is to withdraw those
two requests and bring them back next summer.
Ms. Peterson stated that Novartis is proposing to do a small building addition,
about 2,000 square feet on the north side of the building, near the railroad tracks.
They have an existing special permit on the property so that permit would need to
be amended and the request would need to go through Planning Commission and
City Council. All of this was resolved fairly recently and staff has not reviewed
the plans for the building addition at this point. Therefore, staff is recommending,
pursuant to Novartis’ request, to continue the special permit amendment until
January 19th to give Novartis time to submit new plans and time for staff to
prepare a staff report.
Ms. Peterson mentioned that there were a number of comments from nearby
residents at the last meeting regarding some enforcement issues that included
noise on the north side of the Novartis building, Ovaltine dust that people near
the property were experiencing on their properties and the odor emanating from
the Novartis facility. One of our inspections staff, the Supervisor of Health
Inspections is the person responsible for this type of complaint. Ms. Peterson
stated he has been working with Novartis in the past and she brought these issues
to his attention. The Supervisor of Health Inspections did some further research in
the last week or so. Regarding the odor and dust issues, he did speak with
Novartis’ production engineer who was aware of both the dust and odor
complaints and they are looking at a couple of new pieces of equipment to install.
In terms of the odor, there is another type of equipment that they are looking at.
At this point, they are probably not exceeding the State standards for these types
of emissions, so, the City code enforcement is really working with Novartis on a
voluntary basis. It may take some time to resolve these issues because the
equipment is relatively expensive. As far as the noise issue, the inspections
person did follow-up with the resident who had made this complaint and is
working with him. Apparently, it was an issue that had been happening over the
summer and they believe it is resolved now, but basically the one resident who
was noting the noise issue was invited to call again if it continued to be problem.
79
Chair Morris noted that there is now a quorum present so we are conducting
business as a Planning Commission.
Chris McClellan, 5724 25 1/2 Street, stated that he missed the previous meeting.
and asked what proportion of the 25 acres are they going to consume with their
new addition.
Ms. Peterson stated that in lieu of not having an overhead, she will put a plan on
the podium for review. She indicated that the buildings are occupying
approximately 1/3 to 2/5 of the 25 acres basically on the northeast area of the
property. She showed the area being proposed for the building addition which is
approximately 2,000 square feet addition.
Barbara Wengarten, 2554 Xenwood Avenue, questioned the Planning Associate’s
statement concerning emission levels reporting that their emissions put out a film
every night that leaves dust on my windshield that I have to wash off in the
morning. It would seem to me that that is a little excessive.
Mr. Garelick asked, if to her knowledge, other people have complained about the
dust film, perhaps further toward Minnetonka Boulevard and asked how far she
was from the plant
Ms. Wengarten stated that she is not able to go around and talk to people in the
neighborhood and she didn’t know the exact distance she was from the plant.
Chair Morris stated that from the scale on the map she is approximately 800-1000
feet away.
Chair Morris closed the public hearing for the above plat and street vacation.
Chair Morris opened the public hearing for the amendment to the continued
special permit.
Mr. Garelick asked if the issue of the dust could be brought up in the future.
Ms. Peterson indicated that she would continue to obtain as much information as
she can from the Inspections Department.
Mr. Garelick asked if the dust is only on the car or did it go into the housing area
and sidewalks.
Ms. Wengarten stated that she lost a small dog to lung cancer which came from
some kind of pollution, perhaps from this or traffic on Highway 100.
80
Chair Morris stated that as part of an amended special permit that the issue of the
density and usage of the property would warrant looking into whether to expand
that usage.
Mr. Garelick moved to continue the public hearing for the special permit
amendment to the January 19, 2000 Planning Commission Meeting. The motion
passed on a vote of 4-0 with Bissonnette, Garelick, Gothberg, Morris voting in
favor.
B. Case No. 99-33-CP -- Amendment to Comprehensive Plan - Mill City Site
Judie Erickson, Planning Coordinator, presented a staff report and recommended
that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt the
proposed text changes to the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Garelick asked if he was right in thinking that it is too prohibitive and
expensive to go after the owner of the property at this point and if that was our
main justification for the amendment.
Ms. Erickson stated that the actual billboard property is owned by the company
who operates the billboard on that property. Costs to condemn the billboard
would be based on revenue and could be as much as a million dollars.
Mr. Gothberg asked if the area east of Louisiana between Walker and Highway
seven is also included in the amendment to remove a billboard in the
redevelopment statement. Is that area also in a situation where the billboard is on
a separate small parcel or is it potentially another situation like we had on the
south side of Highway 7 where we ended up having a billboard relocated?
Ms. Erickson stated that she believes the billboard property also contains another
building on that site. You are right in assuming if we can’t redevelop, we may be
back in here for another amendment. However, in lieu of the City Council’s stand
on being aggressive at removing billboards, since we don’t have a redevelopment
project and don’t know circumstances surrounding any project at this point, we
really didn’t want to address any other billboards.
Chair Morris stated that with the way the Comprehensive Plan is worded, he
thinks we are just word crafting. I think the intent is the redevelopment of a
particular property, rather than by neighborhood. Obviously, if redevelopment
occurred in a neighborhood and there was a billboard there, it wouldn’t require its
removal, only if it is on the developed property. It leads me to the question of
what do we consider the billboard property if theoretically the owner of this
property wanted to divide this land and only retain the parcel within 10 feet of his
billboard and sell the remainder to Mill City Properties. According to what I
could read in our land subdivision ordinance, that is a legitimate move so it
appears that even though they may have a significant parcel of land, we are not
81
reaching our goal of removing billboards because technically the billboard
company can start dividing out the piece of land that has the billboard on it, sell
the property off and develop the excess parcels.
Ms. Erickson indicated that the property has been reguided to RC residential
property and the RC District has minimum lot sizes so it would be fairly difficult
to divide it too small.
Chair Morris stated that he thinks this is already a non-conforming lot.
Ms. Erickson stated it is about 1/2 acre.
Chair Morris stated that if the entire Mill City Site had a billboard on it and they
could subdivide the land and keep one parcel with the billboard and redevelop the
excess parcel, it may be a possible loop hole in the Comprehensive Plan to keep
the billboard. He said he would like staff to consider this loophole.
Ms. Erickson stated that the elimination of billboards is a really hot topic and the
Council has discussed this many times. It is true that the City Council has told
staff that they want to take an aggressive approach to remove billboards, but they
are quite conservative when they are approaching the fact that they may, in fact,
have to be the agency that purchases them. In this case, we do have a proposal to
develop the Mill City site and it does not include the billboard property. Because
of that it seems unlikely that the property owner who is developing the property is
going to want to take on the task of buying another piece of property with a
billboard on it just so the billboard can be removed. The billboard company isn’t
interested in selling anyway. Staff is considering this case by itself and not
considering other scenarios or development areas. This proposal is for 200 units
of housing. Considering goals of trying to redevelop polluted sites and achieving
housing goals, staff feels it is prudent at this time to adjust the Comprehensive
Plan language in this particular case. As a staff member, I would really like to see
that billboard go, but public costs also need to be considered.
Mr. Garelick stated that last summer the Commission was involved with
discussions on the adjacent land as park land. If we have to go into the future and
spend a million dollars on removing a billboard, when we have basically said that
we have no money for park improvements, I think this would not be right and
there would be a lot of arguments against spending money to remove a billboard.
It just doesn’t seem like the right thing to do as far as appropriation of money to
deal with this one specific billboard and I think we should go with the staff
recommendation.
Chair Morris stated that he agrees, but is concerned that we don’t have a double
standard, one for property developed with City participation and one for
properties that do not require City participation.
82
Mr. Gothberg stated that Chair Morris made a very good point that within our
current ordinances a person could subdivide their property and develop one part
and maintain a billboard. On the other hand, if we get very restrictive, it could
eliminate some development. What it really boils down to is a financial issue in
most cases.
Chair Morris opened the public hearing.
With no one wishing to speak Chair Morris closed the public hearing
Mr. Gothberg moved to recommend that the City Council adopt the proposed text
changes to the Comprehensive Plan. The motion passed on a vote of 4-0 with
Bissonnette, Garelick, Gothberg, Morris, voting in favor.
4. Old Business
A. Case No. 99-13-ZA -- Reconsideration of Zoning Ordinance amendment to allow
restaurants with liquor to be permitted with conditions in the C-2 District –
(request of Vladimir Velikson)
Sacha Peterson, Planning Associate, presented a staff report which included a
history of the request, and an explanation of the site survey that was performed on
the property which determined that the set back is 10.7 feet. A setback variance
would be required for any type of restaurant to locate in the Texa Tonka Center
with or without liquor and for music or dancing which is considered private
indoor entertainment. She explained the difficulty with the proposal to determine
if it is possible to distinguish between a restaurant with liquor and an accessory
bar, if it is appropriate to allow restaurants with liquor as permitted with
conditions and what alternative existed to potentially meet the applicant’s needs.
Ms. Peterson recommended that the Planning Commission deny the proposed
amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow restaurants with liquor as permitted
with conditions in the C-2 District and recommended an alternative amendment
that would be processed separately and analyzed further at the January 5, 2000
Planning Commission meeting.
Jim Yarosh, representative of Fine Properties of Minnesota LLP, stated that Mr.
Jeff Fine has worked very closely with Mr. Velikson. Mr. Fine wants me to
indicate that his absence tonight is not any indication of his lack of support or
interest. He just wasn’t able to be here but he hopes to be able to make it to the
City Council meeting. He presented a short history of the concept of this project
and stated that Mr. Velikson is proposing to do something unique in St. Louis
Park which he hopes will appeal to a broader population. One of the Planning
Commission’s concerns was the City giving up control by making this a use
permitted with conditions rather than making a non-conforming use become
compatible. If you look at Staff’s new proposal, you run into that problem to a
greater extent and the City will really have less control over the non-conforming
83
uses. Staff’s proposal will carve out an exception for a multi-tenant building,
where right now, any conditional use permit that you issue would have to comply
with all non-conformities, so now you are actually reducing. This has wide
spread implications for any conditional use permit in the City, C-2 District or not.
The requirement is that you must comply with all non-conformities to the extent
reasonable and possible is a real tough standard to interpret. Right now you have
a hard and fast rule. I think another problem with the Staff’s new proposal is what
is the rational basis for distinguishing between a multi-tenant building and a
single tenant building with respect to non-conforming uses. Why not have that
standard for all of them, why just limit it to multi-tenant buildings, so I think there
is a problem there.
Mr. Yarosh stated he is in favor of the original proposal because it addresses the
perceived detrimental affects of this use, increase traffic and noise. The original
proposal for restaurants with or without liquor has five conditions that relate to
any worry that the City would have about this type of use. Access to a roadway
identified in the Comprehensive Plan as a collector or arterial addresses the fact
thatYou don’t want cars going through residential neighborhoods. In this
particular case, the use is right on Minnetonka Boulevard so you wouldn’t have
that problem. I am looking at it from a general perspective because, as a text
amendment, it is going to affect more than the Texa-Tonka shopping center.
Mr. Yarosh stated that the condition that the building housing the use should be
located a minimum of 25 feet from the residential district and have adequate
buffering addresses noise issues. In this particular instance a variance was
granted. I think the consideration that BOZA gave for granting the variances with
a 4-1 vote, was the large grade and the shopping center sitting a lot lower.
Mr. Yarosh stated that the next condition is about separate pedestrian ways and
that a certain type of buffer yard would be required. These already address the
concerns that you would have about a use that has liquor or later hours, or cars. I
think your ordinance already protects the City from these perceived detrimental
affects. Secondly, the initial zoning ordinance amendment proposal really has
less of an impact on the City than Staff’s new proposal
Mr. Yarosh mentioned, Staff’s current proposal will affect every CUP in the City
and it carves out that exception. If you look at the first Staff report, the Planning
Commission wanted to know how it would impact the whole City and this is why
it was continued. Staff’s conclusion, based on its research, is that most of the new
restaurants serving liquor would continue to require a CUP because most of them
have the accessory bar. The problem is in determining what is an accessory bar.
Staff didn’t have a problem determining that when they went out and looked that
there were 17 restaurants with an accessory bar. I think they used the common
sense approach to determine what is an accessory bar; it had a bartender, tables
and a bar around it and chairs. I think that can be handled that way, I don’t agree
that this is as difficult as staff has indicated.
84
Mr. Yarosh said the other positive about this proposal is that it allows a new
concept that has much public support. Members of this body have indicated quite
a bit of enthusiasm about it in the past and BOZA has. I know Mr. Velikson has
met with his Councilmember and has gotten very good feedback about this new
concept.
Mr. Yarosh distributed a chronology indicating what has happened with this
proposal to date.
Mr. Yarosh said that Mr. Velikson runs the Euro Gourmet with his wife in the
Texa-Tonka shopping center. He began discussions with Mr. Fine prior to the
May or June date I have listed here about the possibility of forming this new
concept. That is when discussions were held with Mr. Harmening and
Councilmember Latz on how we should proceed. Mr. Velikson met with staff.
The original idea with Mr. Fine and Mr. Velikson was that they thought all they
would need is the variance from the 100 foot setback. It turns out they were not
aware of the requirement that all CUPs had to come into compliance with any
non-conformity with the current zoning code. It was staff who actually
recommended this proposal and the issue of a text amendment which they
supported through two hearings before this committee. The Planning
Commission heard this the first time on July 21st and it was continued with two
questions, which were answered for the August 18th meeting. At that point, there
was an issue because of the dancing and there was some miscommunication.
Maybe some of staff, and the Councilmember may have known about the idea
that Mr. Velikson was going to have this dancing component to it. It was
determined at that time, although the ordinances don’t directly address the issue,
that dancing is considered a private indoor entertainment use, so that is when it
was decided that you have a 60 foot requirement and you need to get two
variances. That was addressed in September, and in October when the variances
were granted. Now staff is taking an about face and not supporting this text
amendment. I have given reasons on why the initial proposal is better than what
Staff is now proposing. I urge you to consider my argument and then hear Mr.
Velikson explain his proposal and look at a few renderings, I would be happy to
answer any questions that you have. Thank you for your time.
Vladimir Velikson was present and distributed a floor plan of his proposed
restaurant to the Planning Commission.
Chair Morris said he does not feel that it is necessary to prove to the Commission
that the proposed restaurant is a valid idea. The Commission, at various times,
has stated that your idea is a good idea and we wish we could accommodate it.
He said the Commission is struggling with policy and ordinance issues. As far as
I recall from any of the meetings, there is no opposition to your opening as a
business.
85
Vladimir Velikson said that in August, 1995 he and his wife opened Euro
Gourmet, a delicatessen store in Texa-Tonka shopping center. We really never
had any desire to be involved in a restaurant business because we are not deeply
involved in this part of business, but destiny led us a different direction when
Synder’s drug store moved and space became available. People from the larger
Eastern European community came to us with an idea and a request about
opening up a restaurant which will satisfy needs for the European part of the Twin
Cities. There were a number of people who looked at the opportunity and
expressed a strong desire to support this project.
Mr. Velikson presented a petition signed by several dozen people in support of his
proposed restaurant.
Mr. Velikson stated that when space became available, I took the idea to Mr. Fine
who is the owner of the property and he expressed his interest to participate in
this project from the standpoint to completely renovate the entire space by putting
in air conditioning, heating, exhaust, new ceiling and floor, and create maximum
conditions to decrease my burden to build a restaurant. I decided that maybe its a
good way to create something. Also, logistically it is very convenient, since the
restaurant can be connected with our store as shown in the picture.
Mr. Velikson said he would like to address the very sensitive issue about the bar.
It’s true, for this type of restaurant, we don’t need a bar. This type of restaurant
is where people come for specific reasons for dinner, dancing and for a longer
stay and they absolutely probably have no need to use a bar. It is not a disco, or
simple bar. This is the reason I eliminate this idea of a bar. A bar can create more
complications related to excessive drinking and attract a younger population
which is also very dangerous territory because you have to check IDs and have
more man power. If I am permitted to have a restaurant, it will be an elegant place
where people feel very comfortable and it will not be convenient to put jacket on
the back of stool or chair, so space is a very valuable in this property. The kitchen
will be a very substantial size, so dance floor, stage, coat room, lobby and kitchen
shrinks restaurant to certain scale. To understand what I am talking about, I
would like to show you some pictures of our store. Euro Gourmet has been
recognized in many very distinguished publications. Its idea will lead us in St.
Louis Park to create and establish something significant and distinguished that
will attract attention in the most positive way from population of St. Louis Park
and the Twin Cities. I’m torn between two powers, the landlord with shopping
mall and the City of St. Louis Park. The procedure and process is a new thing for
me since the liquor license was the initial issue that everyone was concentrating
on.
Chair Morris clarified that that Mr. Velikson was eliminating the accessory bar,
but he would pursue a liquor license.
Chair Morris accepted the petition for the public record.
86
Mr. Garelick said that he spent two hours with Mr. Velikson last night. I do not
speak in support of Fine development because they have neglected that center for
years. It has become shabby. Parts of the center have been vacant for a while and
he hasn’t really been a good neighbor in the area. I speak for Mr. Velikson, that I
was under the impression that this was a little restaurant deli and I walked in there
last night and what I discovered was a cultural treasure. There were Koreans,
Germans, and people from all over the world. It is probably the most
cosmopolitan place in St. Louis Park that exists right now and the cleanliness was
beautiful. I want Texa-Tonka shopping center to be improved. If we give them a
chance to put this kind of facility in there where it could be a magnet for other
people to come in and use the center, we will see what is going to happen at
Knollwood. We had to redo that one to make it palatable in today’s economy. It
does serve a need, it meets the criteria of which I have spoken often of strong
neighborhood influence. This is one reason I am told that people like to move
into the area, because of his little shop there. It has a very culturally diverse
population. He stated that Mr. Velikson showed us a petition and all of those
names were accumulated within a 30 day period. The question goes to, yes I
think we all agree this is a good thing for you and the City. I would like to see a
lot more of these in different smaller centers to act as a magnet to bring people
into them because the small centers in St. Louis Park need help.
Mr. Garelick said the question is what is Mr. Fine willing to do. What is going to
go through our minds and the Council’s is for something down the road with
landscaping or something to make this not an eyesore which it is. If he is
spending all this money to fix it up, will Mr. Fine do something. Maybe by not
asking for a standing bar, but serving liquor from the table, it is the actual solution
that we are looking for. The bottom line, I think, is something that we are going
to want to bend over backward to really work for. There is no city participation in
this as far as money goes, but it is something that can really dress up this
neighborhood and have a positive affect on this surrounding community around it.
I think we should help them in any way we can.
Mr. Yarosh said that he had that very conversation with Mr. Fine today. The
question for staff, saying is this were to go to a CUP is, how would you define
“reasonably possible”. There are aesthetic issues. Are you going to make him tear
down the walls and put up a different type of brick?
Ms. Peterson said that Staff has not gotten that far. That would be the next step if
the Council approves our recommendation.
Mr. Yarosh said that other thing would be that you already have the variance
procedure in affect and BOZA has spoken loudly about how they feel about this
proposal, so if you left it as it was or you approve the initial proposal that would
be one option. The other thing I want to point out is that the Texa-Tonka
shopping center is going to be part of a study area in the year 2000 and Mr. Fine
87
has indicated his willingness to participate. He wants the center to benefit and
wants tenants and, to a certain extent, he needs the help of the City in allowing
potential good uses to see if he can make it work. It is an effort that both the City
and Mr. Fine need to engage in. Mr. Fine has made a commitment to the City and
he will be involved in going forward with the comprehensive study area.
Mr. Velikson provided an article entitled “Hidden Jewel” from the Twin City
Taste publication.
Mr. Gothberg said that he agreed with Commissioner Garelick that everyone is
really in favor of the proposal, but it is just how to manage getting it to where it
needs to be. My only concern is that, if we are successful, the reservations may
be booked for several months just to get in. However, we do get into a situation
where how do we really handle this appropriately from an ordinance view point
and for future situations. I think this is really the issue and with a CUP we would
have a public hearing that would be an advantage in this case because you would
have a tremendous amount of neighborhood support. On the other hand, there are
also the issues which your legal representation pointed out relative to what is the
reasonable level of improvement in coming up to code. I am kind of struggling
with that and if we even go back to approving the proposed text amendment, I
believe there would still be the issue of dancing left on the table because that was
not addressed at that point and the continuing liquor license. I would be
interested in Staff’s comments relative to the issues raised about what is
reasonable to bring things up to code and the dancing component.
Ms. Peterson replied that the dancing component is permitted with conditions in
the zoning ordinance as private indoor entertainment. A variance has already
been obtained for the condition of a 60 foot setback from residential. If staff’s
text amendment were passed and Mr. Velikson came before the Planning
Commission and Council for the CUP for restaurant with liquor, the conditions
for private indoor entertainment would be met. So, staff would view that
component favorably. As far as what is a reasonable standard, the Planning
Commission has reviewed a number of special permit amendments. It is a
standard that staff has applied frequently in a number of situations. Ms. Peterson
stated that there is some precedence here. Some of the issues that are considered
include the proportion of the property that is proposed to be used, the visibility of
the property, and also what is financially reasonable. What are the existing
conditions of the property? If there are a hundred things out of conformance, lets
look at a percentage instead of trying to improve everything. So that in some
ways, you are not trying to bring all of the properties up to the exact same level.
There was a proposal that was passed by the City Council at their December 6,
1999 meeting that may be used as a case for comparison. The case is a retail
computer center, Microcenter, that intends to locate in the vacant space next to the
Burlington Coat Factory. That was under a special permit, so they were held to
that “reasonable and possible” standard. For that property, the parking was out of
compliance with regard to landscaping and lighting as well as the building façade.
88
A lot of the building is painted concrete and what was approved was a substantial
amount of curbing and landscaping in the parking lot, bringing the lighting fully
up to compliance and refacing the most visible portions of the building. That is
something that can be used as guide.
Ms. Bissonnette asked if the 2000 study will be similar to, or could have
ramifications like, the Excelsior Boulevard study where it might recommend
eliminating the center or part of the center.
Ms. Erickson stated that there is no way to know what the outcome of the study
will be until it is done. The study will look not only the shopping center, but all
four quadrants of Texas and Minnetonka Boulevard and extending to the railroad
right of way on Minnetonka Boulevard including all the retail uses along there.
We would look at vacancy rates, conduct some retail market analysis to see what
the retail possibility is in that area given the retail uses in proximity. We would
certainly look at who frequents the shopping center, traffic in the area, parking,
housing needs and aesthetics. Part of the problem that is there now, is that most
of the buildings were constructed in the 1950’s. There were no parking standards
at that time and most households owned only a single vehicle. The City wants
this area to be viable. It is just my observation, but there are a lot of people who
live there and need a neighborhood center, but what we are hearing from Mr.
Velikson is that he has customers from everywhere. The right mix of retail may
make the center a profitable place. We have had a lot of conversation with the
Texa-Tonka neighborhood wanting to work with the property owner to improve
the center, but until we gather a lot of data, we really can’t make a determination
of what that data is going to say.
Ms. Bissonnette asked what Mr. Fine’s opinion is in improving the center as far as
the issues that have been raised.
Mr. Yarosh stated that Mr. Fine wants to look at it as a whole. He gets a little
concerned when he sees language of what is reasonable and possible. That is
wide open and a question arises as to whose opinion it is and how do you figure
that out. He said that Mr. Fine has indicated that he wants to see results and
wants to help with the study area to see if it is economically viable and what the
City thinks. The issue here is that if everyone supports the idea, then how do you
get it done and does the initial proposal cover the concerns. Is the City going to
have future problems with other people trying to use this to do something that you
don’t want?
Chair Morris stated that the dilemma is that we have a mechanism in our code to
bring non-conforming properties into compliance and it is a very heavy handed
mechanism that says that you must come into conformance or you don’t improve.
On the other hand, we want improvement where we see it being proposed and we
are all in favor of it, but now we are being asked to take away that tool. My
opinion is that staff is proposing what we have been looking for and what we have
89
discussed at previous meetings. We want a balanced gradual change as
development can come in and CUP’s can be issued and at the same time non-
conformities can be diminished. It may be a reality that many of those non-
conformities can never be diminished because of geographic features and building
features, but it may be reasonable to expect a 15% development of a non-
conforming property with an off setting 15 % reduction in non-conformities. I
speak to what I think staff is going to try and craft as a balance of allowing a CUP
with a condition that the property owner starts diminishing some of the non-
conformities, not bringing all of the non-conformities into compliance in one full
swoop. It could be a matter of phased in lighting and landscaping proportional to
the amount of square feet being redeveloped. Quite possibly with Mr. Velikson’s
redevelopment, we could just require a 20% landscape increase. It appears the
property owner is willing to invest in the property and develop a tenant that will
bring business and rents to the property. The “reasonable and the possible”
language is probably crafted to mean that we are going to set standards and
percentages to phase in. This has wide spread repercussions. We want to have
conforming uses, but we don’t want to have development occur first and then
hope the conformity comes second.
Chair Morris stated he supports staff’s recommendation to deny the request for
the text amendment and requests that staff bring back a proposed text amendment
which has not yet been crafted, but with input from the Commission and the
applicant. I am not in favor of an across the board change in the text to eliminate
CUP’s for restaurants with liquor as I am in favor of seeing staff come back with
an amendment that has far reaching affects on the CUP and non-conformities.
Ms. Bissonnette concurred with Chair Morris and stated that the City needs to
keep the standards and the property owner responsible for bringing it to
conformance and being a better space for other retailers to want to locate there.
Mr. Gothberg also concurred with Chair Morris.
Mr. Garelick asked when staff would bring back the proposed text amendment.
He said he would like to see some sort of compromise. We don’t want to see the
opportunity window go away if this particular store is rented and then everything
is gone.
Ms. Peterson indicated that the proposal would be ready by the January 5, 2000
Planning Commission Meeting.
Mr. Yarosh stated that there have been other inquiries for that space.
Mr. Gothberg asked how this timeframe would affect the sequence of activities
particular to Mr. Velikson’s issues.
90
Ms. Peterson indicated that this would extend the time frame. It appears that Mr.
Velikson would come before the Planning Commission in February for a CUP
and get approval at the first City Council meeting in March with a liquor license
being issued after that.
Chair Morris stated if there had been fees paid for the petition for the text
amendment, he would like to recommend that they be applied to a CUP
application fee for the incredible amount of patience and time Mr. Velikson and
Mr. Yarosh have put into this. I think it is only fair that this consideration be
given, assuming, of course, the request for the text amendment is denied by the
City Council.
Chair Morris clarified that a CUP application can be made, but we are still at the
same point that the CUP requires 100% conformity to the non-compliance.
Technically, if we have a CUP request before us, before a text amendment is
made, it is still subject to the previous ordinance and not to any amendments to
the ordinance. So I believe, Mr. Velikson would have to request a CUP after any
text amendments provided he felt that was a viable option at that point.
Ms. Peterson presented a time line for the proposed text amendment change. The
staff’s proposed text amendment would come before the Planning Commission on
January 5, 2000 and then it could go to the City Council on January 18, 2000 for
1st reading of the ordinance and 2nd reading on February 7, 2000. If first reading
passes, staff would probably accept an application for a CUP at that point and,
provided the second reading was passed on February 7, 2000, the applicant could
come before the Planning Commission on February 16, 2000 for the CUP request.
There would be a public hearing and then I suppose it is remotely possible that the
applicant could come before the City Council on February 22, 2000, but probably
more likely at the March 6, 2000 City Council Meeting for a CUP. Apparently
there is a possibility of coming before the City Council for a liquor license at the
same time.
Chair Morris believed that with the denial of the text amendment change today,
the minutes would reflect both the Planning Commission and City Council’s
desire to craft a means of fairly allowing Mr. Velikson to implement his plan and
at the same time protect the overall interests of the City’s zoning and
Comprehensive Plan. With this in mind, I hope Mr. Fine can see his way to
continue negotiating.
Mr. Gothberg moved to deny the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment and
recommend that staff bring back an alternative amendment at the January 5, 2000
Planning Commission Meeting. The motion passed 4-0 with Bissonnette,
Garelick, Gothberg and Morris voting in favor.
91
Mr. Garelick stated that he supports this with the understanding that this will be
crafted by our staff and it will be put on the table again so we can make this a
viable option.
Chair Morris indicated that Council will or will not accept the Planning
Commission’s recommendation to deny the text amendment request at their
January 3, 2000 meeting.
5. New Business
A. Consent Agenda - None
B. Other New Business
6. Communications
A. Recent City Council Action - December 6, 1999
B. Other
7. Miscellaneous
Mr. Garelick commended those who designed the Welcome to St. Louis Park signs.
Training Session Update: Ms. Erickson asked for feedback on the recent training session.
Chair Morris indicated he would fax feedback to staff. Mr. Garelick believed that the
presentation was too generalized and how the Council and Planning Commission interact
needs to be addressed. Ms. Bissonnette stated that there was too much information
presented for one session and would recommend additional discussion on individual
focus areas. Mr. Gothberg believed it was an excellent session from an overview
standpoint and it was nice to have City Council and BOZA members present. Mr.
Gothberg believed a point that came out was to have more Planning Commission
involvement at City Council Study Sessions. Ms. Erickson stated that she received a
request that in future training session a professional in mediation training come in to talk
with Council and Commission members on how to deal with angry residents. Chair
Morris recommended that the Planning Commission members present written feedback to
Ms. Erickson for future reference.
8. Adjournment
Chair Morris adjourned the meeting at 8:55 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted, Prepared by:
Janice Loftus Shirley Olson
Administrative Secretary Recording Secretary
92
Item # 9e*
January 7, 2000
VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
ABLE COURIER OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 5.20
AIRTOUCH CELLULAR TELEPHONE 795.82
ALBINSONS PRINTING & PUBLISHING 4.00
ALMSTEAD'S SUPERVALU CONCESSION SUPPLIES 4.62
AMERICAN PLANNING
ASSOCIATION
SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 209.00
AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS
ASSOCIAT
SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 37.00
AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSOC OFFICE SUPPLIES 40.00
AQUILA NEIGHBORHOOD
ASSOCIATIO
OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 211.85
ARAMARK UNIFORM CORPORATE
ACCT
GENERAL SUPPLIES 729.45
ARC-Action Radio & Comm inc EQUIPMENT PARTS 111.50
ASSN OF METRO MUNICIPALITIES SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 8,856.00
BCA/ Traning and Development TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 600.00
BERNDT ELECTRIC SERVICE BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 409.64
BERTELSON OFFICE PRODUCTS OFFICE SUPPLIES 28.04
BOBS PERSONAL COFFEE SERVICE GENERAL SUPPLIES 289.45
BOWKER, JACQUELINE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 34.32
BOYER FORD TRUCKS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 234.99
BOYER TRUCK PARTS EQUIPMENT PARTS 548.88
BRO TEX INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 547.84
BROADWAY RENTAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT (1.66)
BURNETT, BETH & MORLEY GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,366.80
Babett's In The Park OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 321.00
CARTRIDGE CARE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 371.02
CATCO PARTS SERVICE EQUIPMENT PARTS 80.74
CIM SOFTWARE CORPORATION PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,757.67
COLICH & ASSOCIATES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 12,173.92
COLLISYS ELECTRIC CO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 62.00
COMMERS WATER SYSTEM PLUMBING 142.60
CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS GENERAL SUPPLIES (938.10)
CRAMER,WILLIAM PROGRAMMING 20.00
DALCO CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL
SUPPLY
3,922.48
DANKO EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT
CO
NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 2,167.90
DCA INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 975.00
DELEGARD TOOL CO EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 205.17
E & S ELECTRONICS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 244.91
ELAN FINANCIAL SERVICES GENERAL SUPPLIES 387.33
EMERY'S TREE SERVICE INC CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL
SERVICE
4,565.27
ENGINEERING REPRO SYSTEMS GENERAL SUPPLIES 45.97
ENSR CONSULTING & ENGINEERING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 10,846.26
FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (15.67)
FAIRMONT FIRE SYSTEMS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 66.78
FRANKLIN COVEY TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 180.18
93
GALLAGHER & CO OF MN INC, A J WORKERS COMPENSATION
INSURANCE
0.00
GARTNER REFRIG & MFG INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 459.80
GE CAPITAL IT SOLUTIONS GENERAL SUPPLIES 8,985.56
GENERAL SAFETY EQUIPMENT
CORP
EQUIPMENT PARTS (14.07)
GENUINE PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS 253.01
GLOBAL COMPUTER SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES 109.02
GOODIN COMPANY GENERAL SUPPLIES 300.99
GRAINGER INC, W W GENERAL SUPPLIES 106.68
HAWKINS WATER TREATMENT
GROUP
CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL
SUPPLY
2,196.68
HENNEPIN CO SHERIFF'S ACCT RADIO COMMUNICATIONS 259.12
HOME DEPOT/GECF GENERAL SUPPLIES 795.44
HOME HARDWARE GENERAL SUPPLIES 137.62
HONEYWELL INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 40.00
HUIRAS, SHIRLEY GENERAL SUPPLIES 214.96
HYNES,JOHN OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 105.00
ICE SKATING INSTITUTE OF AMERI GENERAL SUPPLIES 8.00
ICMA TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 4,135.00
IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS RENTAL EQUIPMENT 54.00
IMAGE WORKS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 838.65
INACOM INFORMATION SYSTEMS COMPUTER SUPPLIES 194.22
INDELCO EQUIPMENT PARTS 103.46
INTERSTATE DETROIT DIESEL EQUIPMENT PARTS 296.94
IOS CAPITAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT 1,536.80
KANSAS STATE BANK OF
MANHATTAN
CAPITALIZED INTEREST 642.43
KENNEDY & GRAVEN DEPOSITS PAYABLE 546.42
KNOX LUMBER GENERAL SUPPLIES 37.92
KRECH, BARBARA MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 122.45
LAKE FOREST ASSOCIATION OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,861.48
LANDGREN, ROGER INSURANCE BENEFITS 607.88
LARSON'S SALES, BUD GENERAL SUPPLIES 242.82
LOGIS COMPUTER SERVICES 26,462.16
M A H C O SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 75.00
M E H A MEETING EXPENSE 80.00
MACQUEEN EQUIP CO EQUIPMENT PARTS 1,469.70
MARKERT, TIM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 500.00
MASTERSON PERSONNEL INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,216.25
MC HUGH, JOHN T MEETING EXPENSE 119.29
MCBRIDE,PATRICK DRISCOLL PROGRAMMING 20.00
MCGANN,JEAN MEETING EXPENSE 48.35
MENARDS GENERAL SUPPLIES 315.12
METHODIST HOSPITAL GENERAL CUSTOMERS 657.42
METRO SYSTEMS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 5,675.25
METROCALL BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 22.57
MILLERBERND, DENNIS LICENSES/TAXES 123.35
MIND SHARP TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 516.00
MINUTEMAN PRESS OFFICE SUPPLIES 45.00
MN DRIVER & VEHICLE SVCS EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT
CHARGE
(46.00)
MN POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 1,295.00
94
MOBILE RADIO ENGINEERING NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 4,702.20
MOORE MEDICAL CORP GENERAL SUPPLIES 191.98
MPELRA SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 150.00
MSSA SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 25.00
MYERS TIRE SUPPLY COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS 87.73
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL
HEALTH
SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 170.00
NORTHERN TOOL & EQUIPMENT BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES 117.13
NORTHLAND ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 2,482.26
OLSEN CHAIN & CABLE CO INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 231.11
OSSEO SPORTS LUBRICANTS/ADDITIVES 147.19
PARTS PLUS EQUIPMENT PARTS 93.45
PRAXAIR DISTRIBUTION INC. GENERAL SUPPLIES 73.80
PRESTIGE LINCOLN MERCURY EQUIPMENT PARTS 782.97
PRO STAFF OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 816.00
QUANTERRA INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 9,770.00
QUICKSILVER EXPRESS COURIER GENERAL SUPPLIES 67.40
RADIO SHACK GENERAL SUPPLIES 67.34
ROGNESS SERVICE & SALES EQUIPMENT PARTS 116.94
SA-AG INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 1,521.79
SCAN AIR FILTER INC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 145.98
SCHWAAB INC OFFICE SUPPLIES 47.18
SCHWANTZ,MANDY OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 273.00
SEDGWICK CLAIMS GMT SERVICES PROF/CONSULT SERVICES 840.00
SELA ROOFING & REMODELING BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 600.00
SEWERMAN INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 6,075.00
SHOEMAKER, DAVID STUDY INCENTIVE & MERIT PAY 948.50
SIGN ART CO INC LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS 20,973.15
SNAP-ON INDUSTRIAL SMALL TOOLS 41.74
SPS COMPANIES INC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 226.41
SRF CONSULTING GROUP INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,984.52
ST LOUIS PARK HOCKEY ASSN OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,883.00
ST. PAUL PLUMBING & HEATING CO BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 160.52
STANDARD SPRING OF MPLS EQUIPMENT PARTS 685.58
STAT MEDICAL GENERAL SUPPLIES 74.12
STEFONOWICZ, JODY OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 195.00
STEPHENS,RICHARD OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 100.00
STROTH, NANCY MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 9.30
SUBURBAN FEED & SUPPLY GENERAL SUPPLIES 47.93
SUBURBAN PROPANE MOTOR FUELS 61.63
SUBURBAN TIRE CO TIRES 247.59
SUN NEWSPAPERS LEGAL NOTICES 94.90
SWEENEY BROS TRACTOR EQUIPMENT PARTS (875.83)
TARGET/DAYTONS GENERAL SUPPLIES 514.08
TAYLOR TECHNOLOGIES, INC TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 1,700.00
TEKSYSTEMS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 896.00
TIERNEY BROTHERS INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 6,361.01
TIFT, ANNA OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 53.90
TKDA OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 198.70
TRANSMISSION SHOP INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 684.22
TWIN CITY OPTICAL GENERAL SUPPLIES 365.14
U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE 44.06
95
UNITED RENTALS EQUIPMENT PARTS 156.78
VESSCO INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 50.06
WALSER FORD EQUIPMENT PARTS 170.73
WARNING LITES OF MN INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 348.14
WATSON CO INC CONCESSION SUPPLIES 289.55
WEISNER,MADDY PROGRAMMING 20.00
WM H MC COY PETROLEUM FUELS GENERAL SUPPLIES 45.53
WSB ASSOCIATES INC OTHER IMPROVEMENTS 1,641.50
WWW EQUIPMENT PARTS 2,032.11
ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE GENERAL SUPPLIES 51.62
ZIEGLER INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 36.77
ZIP SORT POSTAGE 172.81
190,704.13
January 14, 2000
VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
AAA-LICENSE DIVISION MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT 3,495.38
ADVANTA BANK CORP OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 97.45
AIRTOUCH CELLULAR TELEPHONE 1,570.89
ALBINSONS OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES (60.05)
AMERICAN FORD EQUIPMENT PARTS 156.05
AMERICAN INSTITUTIONAL
SUPPLY
SUBSISTENCE SUPPLIES 112.92
ANCHOR PAPER CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 498.75
ARAMARK UNIFORM CORPORATE
ACCT
GENERAL SUPPLIES 353.03
ARC-Action Radio & Comm inc EQUIPMENT PARTS 218.00
AUTOMOTIVE TECHNICIANS
NETWORK
SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 60.00
BARON, EILEEN OFFICE SUPPLIES 155.15
BARR ENGINEERING COMPANY OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 10,103.00
BATTERIES PLUS EQUIPMENT PARTS 244.93
BAUER BUILT TIRE & BATTERY EQUIPMENT PARTS (35.87)
BOB JORGENSON DEPOSITS PAYABLE 100.00
BOYER FORD TRUCKS MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT 53,375.00
BOYER TRUCK PARTS EQUIPMENT PARTS 138.56
BROADWAY RENTAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT (1.66)
BUSKEY, JENNIFER MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 140.43
Brinkman,Mark & Deborah INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
CAPITOL COMMUNICATIONS RADIO COMMUNICATIONS 932.93
CARTRIDGE CARE POSTAGE 1,269.08
CATCO PARTS SERVICE EQUIPMENT PARTS (159.75)
CEIL GORDAN PROGRAMMING 40.00
COFFEE MILL INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 96.00
CONCEPT SEATING INC GENERAL SUPPLIES (180.00)
CONSECO FINANCE VENDOR SERV
CO
OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 751.89
CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS GENERAL SUPPLIES (938.10)
COPYMED INC OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 348.11
CORNERHOUSE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 5,150.00
96
DALCOM INC RADIO COMMUNICATIONS 1,170.00
DANKO EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT
CO
GENERAL SUPPLIES 266.84
DIESEL COMPONENTS EQUIPMENT PARTS 351.64
ELAN GENERAL SUPPLIES 187.06
ENGINEERING REPRO SYSTEMS GENERAL SUPPLIES 7.20
ERV'S LAWN MOWER REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTS 65.65
EVERGREEN LAND SERVICES CO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,612.47
FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (15.67)
FREEWAY RADIATOR SERVICE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 55.00
GALLAGHER & CO OF MN INC, A J WORKERS COMPENSATION
INSURANCE
0.00
GENERAL SAFETY EQUIPMENT
CORP
EQUIPMENT PARTS (14.07)
GENUINE PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS 2,428.84
GIRARD'S BUSINESS MACHINES INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 220.00
GIWOYNA, NANCY MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 13.95
GLS-GREG LARSON SPORTS GENERAL SUPPLIES 435.98
GOHMAN, DAVID OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 105.00
GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES (261.50)
HACH CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 130.92
HENN CO TREASURER SUBSISTENCE SERVICE 4,712.50
HENNEPIN CO SHERIFF'S ACCT SUBSISTENCE SERVICE 5,103.93
HENNEPIN COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS
D
CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL
SERVICE
7,813.01
HOME HARDWARE SMALL TOOLS 237.74
HPI INTERNATIONAL INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 283.60
IMC SALT INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 739.03
JOSEPH CATERING MEETING EXPENSE 278.59
KATH FUEL OIL SERVICE LUBRICANTS/ADDITIVES 1,159.89
KIENENBERGER, BRIDGET MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 99.20
KNOX LUMBER GENERAL SUPPLIES 21.86
LABOR RELATIONS ASSOCIATES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 4,758.00
LAND CARE EQUIPMENT CO EQUIPMENT PARTS 142.66
LARSON COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS 220.15
LEARNING INNOVATIONS INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 93.00
LUBRICATION TECHNOLOGIES INC LUBRICANTS/ADDITIVES 932.21
MAIL BOXES ETC # 1236 GENERAL SUPPLIES 160.18
MASTERSON PERSONNEL INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,365.00
MENARDS GENERAL SUPPLIES 22.77
METRO SALES INC OFFICE SUPPLIES 332.69
METROCALL GENERAL SUPPLIES 801.82
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL SEWER AVAILABILITY CHARGE 45,738.00
MINN BLUE DIGITAL GENERAL SUPPLIES 13.80
MINN DEPT OF ADMINISTRATION TELEPHONE 3,418.98
MINN DEPT OF AGRICULTURE TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 50.00
MINNEAPOLIS AREA ASSOC SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 161.88
MINNESOTA CONWAY GENERAL SUPPLIES 40.39
MINNESOTA FIRE SERVICE TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 70.00
MN DEPT OF PUBLIC SAFETY RADIO COMMUNICATIONS 510.00
MN DEPT OFFICE OF TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 200.00
MN DRIVER & VEHICLE SVCS EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT
CHARGE
(46.00)
97
MN SOCIETY OF ARBORICULTURE TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 100.00
MN/S C I A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 18.00
MPELRA SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 150.00
MSSA SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 2.00
MTI DISTRIBUTING CO EQUIPMENT PARTS (159.75)
MUNICILITE EQUIPMENT PARTS 1,448.59
N E P CORPORATION EQUIPMENT PARTS 40.81
NATIONAL EMEREGENCY NUMBER
ASS
SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 75.00
NATL AUTOMOBILE DEALERS
SERVIC
SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 55.00
NATL INSTITUTE OF GOVT
PURCHAS
SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 150.00
NORTH STAR INTERNATIONAL
TRUCK
EQUIPMENT PARTS 44.25
NSP CO ELECTRIC SERVICE 10,235.23
OESTREICH, MARK MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 39.06
OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE SUPPLIES 582.84
OFFICE MAX GENERAL SUPPLIES 344.23
OLSEN CHAIN & CABLE CO INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 7.24
PARK PET HOSPITAL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 639.00
PARTS PLUS EQUIPMENT PARTS 164.73
PERSONNEL DECISIONS
INTERNATIO
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 125.00
PFC EQUIPMENT INC NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 1,352.45
PRECISION BUSINESS SYSTEMS INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 2,182.68
PRO STAFF OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 489.60
QUINLAN PUBLISHING CO INC SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 68.00
ROGERS ENTERPRISES INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 2.39
ROTH, MICHAEL J STUDY INCENTIVE & MERIT PAY 815.00
SALONEK, MYRON MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 188.17
SCHARBER & SONS EQUIPMENT PARTS 20.34
SCHWARTZ, LYNN MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 79.36
SECURITYLINK FROM AMERITECH OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 36.10
SEVEN CORNERS ACE HDWE GENERAL SUPPLIES 260.60
SEWERMAN INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 1,650.00
SILVER CREEK OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 350.00
SLP POLICE RESERVES OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 310.29
STAR TRIBUNE OTHER ADVERTISING 1,107.00
STREICHER'S GENERAL SUPPLIES 2,227.87
SWEENEY BROS TRACTOR EQUIPMENT PARTS (875.83)
TEKSYSTEMS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,120.00
THE INTERNATIONAL CPTED SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 25.00
TRACY/TRIPP FUELS MOTOR FUELS 12,408.28
TRU VALUE EQUIPMENT PARTS 8.47
U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE 3,784.13
UNIFORMS UNLIMITED DEPOSITS PAYABLE 3,489.12
UNITED RENTALS EQUIPMENT PARTS (909.49)
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE GENERAL SUPPLIES 15.00
US POSTAL SERVICE POSTAGE 100.00
VALLEY-RICH CO INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 2,868.00
VIKING OFFICE PRODUCTS OFFICE SUPPLIES 63.70
VOELKER, STACY M MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 47.37
98
W & W GENERATOR REBUILDERS EQUIPMENT PARTS 490.03
WASHINGTON CO GOV CTR SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 270.00
ZEP MANUFACTURING LUBRICANTS/ADDITIVES 1,008.20
ZIPSORT POSTAGE 75.59
213,439.96
January 14, 2000
VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
AETNA LIFE INSURANCE &
ANNUITY
DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 642.57
CEDAR TRAILS WEST
HOMEOWNERS A
DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 243.52
COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 203.00
ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-401 DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 245.98
ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-457 DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 12,074.37
ORCHARD TRUST COMPANY DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 4,966.00
PARK NATIONAL BANK DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 99,900.49
PERA DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 44,939.45
PERA FIREMEN'S RETIREMENT
ASSO
DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 2,727.97
PERA POLICE RETIREMENT ASSOC DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 6,565.00
USCM / MIDWEST DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 6,529.26
179,037.61
January 14, 2000
VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS WORKERS COMPENSATION
INSURANCE
304.70
ORTHOPAEDIC CONSULTANTS WORKERS COMPENSATION
INSURANCE
1,214.33
PARK NICOLLET MEDICAL CENTER WORKERS COMPENSATION
INSURANCE
215.39
TWIN CITIES ANESTHESIA WORKERS COMPENSATION
INSURANCE
300.00
2,034.42
99
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 11a
Meeting of January 18, 2000
11a. School Security Contracts
These contracts with School District 283 and School District 287 formalize
relationships with the City of St. Louis Park for police school liaison services.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to authorize Mayor and City Manager to execute
contracts with School Districts 283 and 287 for police school
liaison services.
Background:
The St. Louis Park Police Department has been providing school liaison services to St. Louis
Park Senior High School for nearly 20 years. This partnership has grown and evolved over time
and continues to provide tremendous benefits to our community.
Seven years ago, a second school liaison position was created by the St. Louis Park Police
Department. This position was created primarily to serve the Echo Eliot-West Metro School on
Cedar Lake Road, which is operated by Intermediate School District 287. However, the position
was also designed to provide services to St. Louis Park Junior High School, which is located a
short distance away on Texas Avenue.
Five years ago, the St. Louis Park Police Department created a third school liaison position. This
officer serves as the DARE instructor for St. Louis Park fifth grade students and also provides
school liaison services to our elementary schools.
Analysis:
During the past two years, revenue analysis done by police staff revealed some inconsistencies
regarding the perceived revenue relationships between the City and school districts 283 and 287.
During the past 12 months, meetings involving police staff and representatives from both
districts were held to discuss police school liaison services. Because of the value placed on these
partnerships by the police department and both school districts, contract agreements were
developed to fairly and equitably define revenue commitments from both school districts to the
City of St. Louis Park.
100
As a result of these contracts, the following funding ratios will exist:
St. Louis Park Senior High School Liaison Officer
− 50% by City of St. Louis Park
− 50% by St. Louis Park School District 283
Echo Eliot/St. Louis Park Junior High School Liaison Officer
− 65% by Intermediate District 287
− 19% by City of St. Louis Park
− 16% by St. Louis Park School District 283
St. Louis Park Elementary School Liaison/DARE Officer
− 100% by City of St. Louis Park
Summary
These contracts clarify the relationships for all three partners. The contracts contain cost
escalation and termination provisions. As a result of these contracts, District 287 will continue
to provide revenue support as it has in the past. District 283 will provide new revenue support
following the formulas outlined above and in the contracts.
Attachments: School Liaison Service Contract between ISD 283 & City
School Liaison Service Contract between ISD 283, ISD 287 & City
(Contracts available for review in the City Clerk’s office)
Prepared by: John D. Luse, Chief of Police
Approved by: Clint Pires, Deputy City Manager
101
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 11b*
Meeting of January 18, 2000
11b.* Consultant Retention for Construction Surveying and Engineering Services for the
Hutchinson Spur Regional Trail
This report considers the retention of an Engineering Consultant to provide Construction
Surveying and Engineering Services for the Hutchinson Spur Regional Trail
Recommended
Action:
Motion to Authorize Mayor and City Manager to execute a Contract
with SRF Consulting Group, Inc. (SRF) for Construction Surveying
and Engineering Services for the Hutchinson Spur Regional Trail
Background: In May, 1998 the City Council authorized the retention of SRF to provide
professional design services for development of the Hutchinson Spur Regional Trail along with
coordination with Hennepin County Parks and the Minnesota Department of Transportation.
The final construction plans have been completed and staff is recommending the firm be retained
for the next phase of the project, construction surveying and engineering services. The project is
anticipated to be bid for construction in the summer of 2000.
Discussion: The next phase of the project is construction surveying and engineering services.
This will involve much more administrative work as Federal Funds are involved, which requires
more documentation than typical City contracts. Following is a summary of the tasks involved
for construction surveying and engineering services:
A. Construction Surveying -- Perform day-to-day construction/surveying services as needed
by the Contractor.
B. Construction Engineering – To provide periodic on-site visits “as-needed” to assist City
staff and to ensure the construction meets specifications.
C. Contract Administration – Assist in preparing required contract/construction
documentation in accordance with the Federal requirements.
It is anticipated that the contract will be as follows:
• Construction staking $ 30,000
• Site visits/assistance $ 6,000
• Contract administration $ 12,000
$ 48,000
Staff has reviewed the work effort for this project with the Consultant and recommends the City
Council authorize execution of a contract with SRF Consulting Group, Inc. in the amount of
$48,000.
Prepared by: Carlton B. Moore, Mike Rardin, Public Works
Approved by: Clint Pires, Deputy City Manager
102
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 11c*
Meeting of January 18, 2000
11c.* Consultant Retention for Assistance in Design and Construction Inspection for
Six (6) Flood Problem Areas
This report considers the retention of an Engineering Consultant to assist City Staff
in the design and construction inspection of six (6) flood problem areas scheduled
for construction this year.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to Authorize Mayor and City Manager to execute a
Contract with WSB & Associates, Inc. (WSB) for design and
construction inspection services for six (6) flood areas.
Background: In 1999 the City Council directed staff to develop preliminary engineering
solutions for 22 flood problem areas and develop an implementation plan. In the fall of 1999,
proposed solutions were presented to the Council and staff was directed to begin implementation.
One project was completed in 1999 (Area No. 20A at Wooddale Avenue and W. 42nd Street) and
another started with detailed design. The City’s consultant on these studies and projects has been
the firm of WSB & Associates, Inc. In reviewing the public projects scheduled for 2000, staff
has determined that the assistance of WSB is needed due to their engineering expertise in the
area of hydrologic/hydraulic design, their knowledge of the problem areas, and their familiarity
with our Surface Water Management Plan.
Discussion: In response to staff’s request WSB submitted a proposal to assist City staff with the
engineering design and construction inspection for the six (6) projects scheduled for 2000.
Activities to be performed by WSB are as follows:
• Assist with public information meetings
• Finalize hydrologic/hydraulic design
• Assist in preparation of construction plans and specifications
• Develop cost estimates
• Assist in construction management/inspection
• Provide oversight of contract administration
It is anticipated that the level of involvement will vary with each project, typically varying from
$5,000 to $15,000. The total consultant fee for the engineering services is estimated to be
$70,000. Staff has reviewed the consultant’s proposal and recommends the City Council
authorize execution of an agreement with WSB & Associates, Inc. in the amount of $75,000 to
provide for some flexibility in actual services required.
Prepared by: Carlton B. Moore, Mike Rardin, Public Works
Approved by: Clint Pires, Deputy City Manager
103
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 11d*
Meeting of January 18, 2000
11d.* Approve lease extension with MnDOT for Webster Park.
Authorization to execute lease extension between the City and MnDOT for the land
at the corner of Highway 7 and Highway 100 known as Webster Park.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve lease extension.
Background: The City of St. Louis Park leases land from MnDOT at the corner of Highway 7
and Highway 100. We use this area as Webster Park. In reviewing the lease, I found that the
leased area is much smaller than the area that we mow and maintain as Webster Park. I have
spoken with MnDOT about expanding the area in the lease agreement to include the area we
currently use as park. They are interested in doing so, but would like the City of St. Louis Park
to construct a fence along the exit ramp to keep users of the park safe and away from the ramp.
Lease Extension: MnDOT has drafted a six-month lease extension for the park area at Webster
Park. The six-month time period will allow staff time to meet with the neighborhood to discuss
the need for the fence and to hire a contractor to erect the fence.
Future Lease: MnDOT has agreed to change the description of the property they lease to us to
include the entire portion we are using once we have constructed a fence. Once MnDOT has
approved the fencing plans, they will renew the lease through November 2002. Staff will return
to Council to request such a lease renewal following meeting with the neighborhood and a
decision on fence construction.
Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the City Council approve the lease extension and
authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute the lease agreement.
Reviewed by: Cynthia S. Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
Approved by: Clint Pires, Deputy City Manager