HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000/02/07 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Regular 1
AGENDA - CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
February 7, 2000
7:30 p.m.
6:30 p.m. – Board and Commission Interviews
7:00 p.m. - Economic Development Authority
1. Call to order
2. Presentation
3. Roll Call
4. Approval of Minutes
a. City Council meeting of January 18, 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
6. Public Hearing
6a. First Reading of the Ordinance Adopting a Stormwater Utility
This action would adopt an ordinance to establish a Stormwater Utility and initiate
collection of stormwater utility revenue estimated to be $769,000 annually. Rates
effective April 1, 2000.
2
Recommended
Action:
Mayor to close the public hearing. Motion to approve first
reading of an ordinance establishing a Stormwater Utility and set
second reading for February 22, 2000.
7. Petitions, Requests, Communications - None
8. Resolutions and Ordinances
8a. Resolution Authorizing Renewal of Gambling Premises Permit for Minnesota
Youth Boxing Club at Al’s Liquor Store, Inc., 3912 Excelsior Blvd
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve the resolution authorizing renewal.
8b. First Reading of the Ordinance Amending Sanitary Sewer Utility Rates
Resulting from the Ordinance Adoption of the Stormwater Utility
This action would decrease the sanitary sewer utility revenue by $200,000
annually. Rates effective April 1, 2000.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to waive first reading and set second reading for
February 22, 2000.
8c. Minnesota Department of Transportation Noise Wall Along the East Side of
Trunk Highway 100
This report is a follow-up to the Minnesota Department of Transportation
(Mn/DOT) proposed noise wall along the east side of Trunk Highway 100 from W.
41st Street to W. 44th Street and proposes the wall be extended north of W. 41st
Street 520 feet.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the attached resolution requesting Mn/DOT to
construct a noise wall along the east side of Trunk Highway 100
north of W. 41st Street to a point 520 feet north.
8d. Resolution approving Park Commons East EAW, finding no need for an
Environmental Impact Statement and requiring certain mitigation.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt a resolution approving the Park Commons East
EAW, finding no need for Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) and requiring certain mitigation.
8e. Request by MSP Real Estate, Inc. for Preliminary Plat, Preliminary Planned
Unit Development, and rear yard setback variance for Mill City Addition, a
3
200-unit apartment project
Case No. 99-35-PUD, 99-37-S, 99-38-VAR
7301 Walker Street
Recommended
Action:
• Motion to adopt a resolution approving preliminary plat and
preliminary PUD for Mill City apartments, subject to
conditions in the resolution.
• Motion to adopt a resolution approving a variance for a ten
foot rear yard setback per the findings in the resolution.
8f. Request by General Growth Properties, Inc. to amend resolution of Planned
Unit Development for Knollwood Mall renovation, approval of 36th Street
screen wall design, and approval of Development Agreement.
Case No. 99-21-PUD
8332 State Highway 7
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt a resolution to approve a Minor Amendment to
the PUD resolution, approve screen wall design, and approve
Development Agreement.
8g. Sale of City Property Located South of Jewish Community Center
4326 Cedar Lake Road
This report considers action by the City Council to adopt second reading of an
ordinance regarding the sale of certain City owned property located at 4326 Cedar
Lake Road and to authorize execution of a purchase agreement.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve second reading, adopt ordinance that
authorizes the sale of a portion of City owned property located
south of the Jewish Community Center at 4326 Cedar Lake
Road, approve summary and authorize publication.
Motion to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute a
purchase agreement with the Jewish Community Center of
Greater Minneapolis.
8h. Request by Novartis Nutrition Corp. for a Major Amendment to a Special
Permit for a 2,000 square foot building addition
Case No. 99-29-CUP
5320 W. 23rd Street
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt a resolution approving Special Permit
Amendment, subject to conditions in the resolution.
8i. First Reading Zoning Ordinance Map Amendments
CASE NO. 00-02-Z
4
First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Map Amendments to change designations for
properties located at the NW quadrant of France Avenue and Excelsior Boulevard
(the Al’s Liquor site, dry cleaner and vacant residential properties) from C1
Neighborhood Commercial and R2 Single Family Residential to MX Mixed Use
and R4 Multi Family Residential.
Recommended
Action:
Adopt first reading of ordinance changing Zoning Ordinance
Map for properties located at the NW quadrant of France Avenue
and Excelsior Boulevard and set second reading for February 22,
2000.
*8j. Second reading of an ordinance amendment to the nonconformities section of
Zoning Ordinance regarding Conditional Use Permits for multi-tenant
buildings
Case No. 99-36-ZA
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt second reading of an ordinance amending
nonconformities section of Zoning Ordinance, adopt the
summary ordinance, and to authorize publication.
*8k. Hennepin County Municipal Recycling Grant Application
This request is for authorization to apply to Hennepin County for a grant to
fund the City’s curbside recycling program.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the attached resolution authorizing
application for a Hennepin County grant to fund the City’s
curbside recycling program.
*8l. CASE NO. 00-01-RE – Study of Tax Forfeit Lands in St. Louis Park
Study of Tax Forfeited Lands located at 2432 Sumter Avenue South, 8400 26th
Street West, 8401 26th Street West, 3760 Brunswick Avenue South, 7829
Cambridge Street, 2714 Quentin Avenue South, and 2708 Quentin Avenue South
Recommended
Action:
The City Council find no current or future public need for the
properties, that none of the properties meet Zoning Ordinance
requirements for a buildable lot, and that properties be offered
for auction to adjacent property owners only.
*8m. Mill City Tax Increment Finance District
This report considers a resolution calling for a public hearing on the establishment
of a new Tax Increment Financing District within Redevelopment Project No. 1. It
5
is proposed that the district include four parcels, three at the northwest corner of
Highway 7 and Louisiana and one at the northeast corner of Walker and Louisiana.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt a resolution calling for a public hearing by the
City Council on the proposed establishment of the Mill City Tax
Increment Financing District within Redevelopment Project No.
1 and the Proposed Adoption of the Tax Increment Financing
Plan Therefor.
*8n. CSM Business Subsidy Agreement
This report considers approving a business subsidy agreement with CSM relating to
its hotel development in the Zarthan/16th Street Tax Increment Financing District.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve a resolution approving a business subsidy
agreement with CSM Hospitality, Inc. relating to its
development of two hotels in the Zarthan/16th Street Tax
Increment Financing District.
*8o. Mileage Reimbursement and Car Allowance
Reimbursing mileage amounts to employees who are required to drive their vehicle
as a requirement of their employment and position at a mileage rate consistent with
IRS regulations, and continuation of certain employees receiving a monthly car
allowance in lieu of mileage reimbursement.
Recommended
Action:
Staff recommends that Council adopt the resolution authorizing
the amount of car allowances allocated for specified positions
and set the mileage reimbursement rate consistent with IRS
regulations to be effective as of 1/1/2000.
9. Reports from Officers, Boards, Committees
*a. December Financial Report
*b. Cable TV Commission Minutes of December 9, 1999
*c. Charter Commission Minutes of November 1, 1999
*d. Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes of December 8, 1999
*e. BOZA Minutes of November 30, 1999
6
*f. Planning Commission Minutes of January 5, 2000
*g. Police Civil Service Commission Minutes of September 20, 1999
*h. Vendor Claim Report
*i. Human Rights Commission Minutes of December 15, 1999
Action: By consent, accept report for filing
10. Unfinished Business - None
11. New Business
11a. Phase II Railroad Study
Agreement with ROK-Kuusisto, Ltd. For professional services to undertake Phase
Two of the Railroad Study
Recommended
Action:
Motion to authorize Mayor and City Manager to execute a
professional services agreement for Phase Two of the Railroad
Study
*11b. Dan Patch Corridor Commuter Rail Feasibility Study Invoice and Contract.
Agreement between the I-35 W Solutions Alliance and the City of St. Louis Park to
participate in the Commuter Rail Coordinating Committee for the Dan Patch
Corridor
Recommended
Action:
Motion to authorize Mayor and City Manager to execute the
agreement
*11c. 1999 Fund Balance Reservations
This action will reserve fund balances for budgeted 1999 purchases that were either
ordered in 1999 but not received or were not able to be purchased in 1999 due to
other circumstances.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to reserve requested fund balances.
*11d. Sholom Home West Revenue Bonds
This report is to update the Council on activities within Sholom Home West
7
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve capital improvements of a covered walkway
for approximately $550,000 and heating and ventilation
improvements for approximately $200,000 done by Sholom
Home West.
12. Miscellaneous - None
13. Claims, Appropriations, Contract Payments
a. Contract payments
Final
Contractor Contract No. Amount
M.C. Magney Construction, Inc. 33-98 $ 21,332.52
Killmer Electric 18-99 $ 3,111.83
Valley Paving 19-99 $ 27,233.14
Action: By consent adopt resolutions.
14. Communications
15. Adjournment
8
Item # 4a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
January 18, 2000
1. Call to Order
Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
2. Presentations - None
3. Roll Call
The following Councilmembers were present at roll call: Ron Latz, Chris Nelson, Susan Sanger,
Robert Young, and Mayor Jeff Jacobs.
Also present were the Deputy City Manager (Mr. Pires); City Attorney (Mr. Scott); Community
Development Director (Mr. Harmening); Planning Associate (Ms. Peterson); Public Works
Director (Mr. Rardin); Police Chief (Mr. Luse); Fire Chief (Mr. Gill); and Recording Secretary
(Ms. Olson).
4. Approval of Minutes
4a. City Council Meeting of January 3, 2000
The minutes were approved as presented with the following changes.
Page 7, Item 6, Paragraph 4, change “briefly” to “extensively”. Delete Item 11b since it is
duplicative of Item 8c.
Clint Pires, Deputy City Manager asked that the suggested corrections by Councilmember
Sanger be added to the minutes: Page 9, Item 6b, paragraph 9, add “must take down the billboard
if the billboard is not located on property being redeveloped. She indicated that she did not
believe that the City had the power to require a property owner to buy nearby property and to
remedy this sort of problem on property that was not being redeveloped.”
4b. City Council Study Session meeting of December 13, 1999
The minutes were approved as presented with the following changes.
Page 14, Item 1, Paragraph 9, change “Councilmember Nelson questioned whether the zoning
would allow block 3 to share required parking with block 2. Ms. Jeremiah responded that some
percentage of shared parking is allowed. She stated all that is publicly subsidized is not
necessarily maintained in public ownership”.
9
4c. City Council executive session minutes of December 13, 1999
The minutes were approved as presented.
5. Approval of Agendas
a. Consent Agenda.
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to approve the
consent agenda. The motion passed 5-0.
b. Agenda
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Santa, 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. Public Hearing to Consider St. Louis Park Police and Fire Pension
Consolidation Accounts
Mr. Luse, Police Chief presented a staff report. He noted that both Mr. Gill, Police Chief and
Mr. Luse, Police Chief are currently active members of the PERA pension and both intend to
retire under those benefits and that they have been previous members of and contributors to the
former St. Louis Park Police and St. Louis Park Fire Departments’ Pension Consolidation
Accounts being considered under the MN Law 1999 Chapter 222, titled Omnibus Retirement
Bill.
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing.
Dave Smith, Police Department, elected Union Steward for Police Patrol Union, spoke on behalf
of the three unions (fire fighters, police patrol, sergeants). He stated that the unions were united
in their position on this issue. He presented some additional background information on MN
Law 1999 Chapter, titled Omnibus Retirement Bill. He stated that Chief Gill and Luse in their
memo of January 10th submitted to the Study Session, agenda item 12 stated that the
development of this bill was highly participative. He said that by nature the omnibus bill is
highly compartmentalized and has factional following only. The parts that pertain to those
interest groups are participative in nature. In this case the police and fire unions lobbied and
followed the portion of the bill pertaining to the reduction of contribution amounts by
employees. It was the League of Cities, acting on behalf of the cities of Bloomington and other
similar cities with relief association surpluses that lobbied for the portion of the bill that is being
10
addressed here. In his contacts with retired and active members of the relief associations he
knew of no one who has told him that they were notified, contacted or informed of this part of
the pending legislation. The language of this portion of the law is therefore in favor of the City’s
interest and not the retirees. Several former legislators have also informed him that they seldom
have time to review omnibus bills in their entirety. They are familiar with bills or portions there
of that they sponsor or are lobbied directly for. In this case specifically, representative Rhodes
worked on the contribution reduction, but did not mention the relief association surplus at any
time during contacts with union reps. The first exposure was after the law was passed and
members of the unions had a chance to read the bill on its entirety. Retirement legislation is very
complicated and it has taken this long for the unions to gain a base familiarity with the new law.
He believed that is why in part that the legislature has required public hearing on this matter.
Mr. Smith stated that secondly, in the unofficial minutes of the study session from December 13,
1999 the City Manager is quoted as stating “the surplus is the tax payers money”. Research on
that topic shows that to be only partly true. The relief association accounts were funded both
from employee and City contributions as outlined in our memo that I presented previously, the
employees voluntarily increased their contribution amount to meet the requirement of being fully
funded by the year 2010. Again, this helped result in the St. Louis Park accounts being two of
the best funded in the State at the time of consolidation. The City’s contribution, however, was
not 100% tax dollars from the citizens of St. Louis Park. The City has also received funds from
insurance companies, the State and police auctions that has been allocated and dedicated to be
used to pay its portion of the funding requirement for pension accounts. A portion of that
amount has been tax dollars, true, but the amount of tax dollars is closer to the amount that the
employees contributed themselves.
Mr. Smith stated that thirdly, he only received copies of the state attorney general’s and state
auditor’s opinions as outlined in the memo that was requested by West St. Paul which indicated
that they support the use of the residual for retirement benefit as a legal use of the money per the
statute and other state laws. He stated that the unions believe that the intent of the law was to
have the cities provide a detailed plan to the State Auditor as opposed to a general plan. The
unions would like to therefore see the plan include the initiatives that the staff presented in their
study session memo, that the excess will be used to fund training, technology, employee
development and capitol outlay not covered in the normal budget process, but the primary
purpose we feel the plan should include is funding of a benefit for retirees, that being a benefit
toward health insurance premiums which at a minimum should cover the period from age 55 to
age 65. As outlined in his memo, there are State and Federal guidelines and laws that would
appear to indicate that legally excess funds should be allocated toward employee benefits before
employer uses. Moreover, there is the ethical position that moneys allocated for retirement
benefits at their initial contribution time should still be used for that purpose when that fund
contains excess amounts. He asked the Council to approve a plan that honors that commitment
to the public safety employees of the City who sacrificed for the benefit for others as a matter of
course. He also proposed that the Council table the motion to adopt the plan as currently drafted
by the staff, allow the staff to rework the plan to include details for the expenditure of the surplus
and specifically include a benefit for retirees.
11
Paul Steinholber, 16517 Elm Circle, Minnetonka, Union President for the local fire department
was present and stated that he although he believed that the technology, training, capital outlay,
employee benefit is a wonderful avenue to spend the money, but he also believed that a lot of the
relief members paid in through their wages and deserve some credit for this.
Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing subject to right of the Council to reopen it at a future
time.
Councilmember Nelson asked for clarification of the term “retirees” when talking about
insurance benefits, does tht term refer to those currently retired or future retirees.
Mr. Smith stated that because of the size of the excess fund, there is a sufficient fund to allow an
equitable division of that interest money between the staff’s proposed plan and a benefit for
current retired members who are between the age 55 and age 65 to allow a health premium to be
paid to them as a benefit out of that interest money.
Councilmember Nelson clarified that the Mr. Smith was talking about creating a new obligation
for the City for presently retired members. He asked for clarification about the distinction
between existing retirees and future retirees.
Eric Willette, League of Minnesota Cities, stated that he believed an argument could be made
that while the State Auditor’s letter states that the use of these assets for retiree benefits would fit
the purpose and the use of the State in terms of being a police or fire expenditure, that a case
could be made that it may not fit the public purpose Statute for public funds under which we
operate.
Councilmember Nelson reviewed the letters from Deno Howard, General Counsel and Erica
Jacobson, Assistant Attorney General and asked the City Attorney if the City doesn’t have a
present obligation to a group (present retirees) for something that wasn’t bargained for under the
collective bargaining agreement was it lawful for the City to start paying present retirees a new
benefit.
Mr. Scott, City Attorney indicated that he has not examined this question and was not in a
position to give a definitive answer, but believes there is clearly an issue as to whether or not
payments to already retired employees would there be a public purpose and whether that would
be a proper expenditure.
Mr. Smith indicated that from the minutes from the last Council meeting minutes, in the City’s
expenditure list, there was an item of a payment to Roger Landgren, retired police member for
insurance benefits.
Councilmember Nelson believes that the question is that if we didn’t have these residual funds
could the City start paying this lawfully to existing retirees and if we can, then it would be
arguably lawful to use these residual funds, but if it’s not then we can’t.
Councilmember Latz asked the Police Chief to clarify the current payment to Roger Landgren.
12
Mr. Luse, Police Chief indicated that this deal was a one time offer that was made on a very
specific bracket of time for certain people who were allowed that benefit and were told it was
only good for only a window of time.
Roger Aronson, retired police officer, stated that this package was offered twice to all City
employees.
Mayor Jacobs asked where this surplus would have gone if there was not this legislation.
Eric Willette, League of Minnesota Cities, stated that had this legislation not been passed, what
was in the Statute prior to this legislation was that at the time the funds cease to exist (at the time
that the last beneficiary or there survivor died) all the remaining funds would revert to the City
for police or fire purposes.
Mayor Jacobs questioned if this surplus was all tax payer money and where did it come from.
Eric Willette, League of Minnesota Cities, stated it was different for each of the consolidation
accounts and it has a lot to do with investment performance over the years, but believed a variety
of different sources went into the plan including significant employee contributions.
Councilmember Latz asked if St. Louis Park was one of the cities that made extra amortization
payments for years when the plans were under funded.
Mr. Willette, League of Minnesota Cities indicated he didn’t have this information.
Mr. Gill, Fire Chief stated that the fire fund was making lump sum amortization payments from
tax revenues as recently as 1995 to bring it up to full funding.
Councilmember Nelson asked if the members made additional payments as a contribution to the
amortization to assist in fully funding or making just their normal payments.
Mr. Gill, Fire Chief stated that the amortization payments came from the State of Minnesota.
When the funds were closed to new members in approximately 1980 in order to fund these by
the year 2010 part of the agreement was that the State would help the cities.
Councilmember Nelson asked if the City assisted by making extra payments to fully fund these
plans.
Mr. Gill indicated that the City did, but not the employees.
Mr. Smith stated that in order for the relief associations to consolidate with PERA it required a
vote by the municipal governments to approve that and the City agreed to fully fund the former
relief association fund.
Councilmember Young asked if the surplus could be returned to the general fund.
13
Mr. Willette, League of Minnesota Cities stated the City could use these funds to cover current
levy for police and fire purposes until the money runs out, but the City couldn’t just send a rebate
check to taxpayers. He commented that in the last couple of years there has been incredible
investment performance.
Councilmember Young stated that the City employees have already receive a cost of living
increase and investment enhancement has been favorable and there was no need to make it more
lucrative by also having the tax payer pick up the cost of the health insurance.
Phil McNel, retired Fire Fighter, stated that fire fighters use to contribute more to the pension
than they do now, and some of the reason the pension is doing so well is that we gave more than
at the present time.
Councilmember Latz stated that while he had sympathy for the request that was being made, he
felt constrained by the State Auditor’s report and was in favor of adopting the resolution.
Councilmember Nelson believed that there were many opportunities to use these surplus funds,
but couldn’t vote to amend to add the fifth point just for the reasons stated.
Mayor Jacobs stated that he shared the same concerns as expressed by the Council and believed
the plan that was proposed was fiscally sound and supported the plan.
It was moved by Councilmember Young, seconded by Councilmember Santa, 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. The motion passed 5-
0.
6b. Public Hearing to consider Sale of City Property Located South of Jewish
Community Center 4326 Cedar Lake Road
Mr. Harmening, Community Development Director presented staff report and recommended
approval of the first reading. He explained that late in the process of negotiations with the JCC,
staff became aware that there was a former dumpsite in the area in questions and that it may be at
least partially on the City’s property. This dump apparently operated in the 1930’s and 1940’s
and was closed before the City acquired its property in 1954. 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 7th.
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing.
Dave Carlson, 7006 W. 23rd Street, stated that he has been a member of the Cedar Lake Park
Association and was concerned about the destruction of a very beautiful wooded area that is
heavily used by Cedar Lake park and trail users that serves as a beautiful buffer for the entire
14
corridor. He stated that he doesn’t want the City to lose or have this open green space altered to
the detriment to the citizens and even if this would be approved he would hope that that the Staff
and Council would establish a buffer to the proposed JCC expansion.
Councilmember Young asked if it was included in the plan that the City retain a trail through the
property.
Mr. Harmening stated that the purchase agreement that has been drafted does retain an storm
sewer easement that we are also retaining on this site for future trail purposes.
Paul Rosholt, 2925 Toledo Avenue South, asked if the JCC and the JCC users understand the
potential heavy traffic and what affect it would have on its parking lot.
Mr. Harmening indicated that the purchase agreement states that the JCC will agree to provide us
with the general license to drive over their property to maintain the existing storm water facilities
and to allow the City to construct a new stormwater pond and maintain the pond in the future,
but it also states that the final specific terms of the license will be agreed to prior to closing.
Councilmember Santa asked if at a later date the JCC decided to sell the entire property to
another owner, would that license be conveyed.
Mr. Scott indicated that the license would exist regardless of who owned the property.
Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing subject to the right of the Council to reopen it at a future
date.
Councilmember Nelson was concerned about the issue in finding that the land in question didn’t
have no future public need. He raised the issue of a need for a future road and since the parcel
was going to be used for parking, he suggested that the agreement be modified to designate a
road and utility easement of the same size which would preserve the right for future public
needs.
Councilmember Young asked if this would create an inability for the JCC to have adequate
parking.
Mr. Harmening stated that although there is not a formal proposal, some of the conceptual
planning does suggest using our property for parking that would encroach over some of the
easements that we would obtain. He stated that the reason that staff didn’t include a street
easement throughout the entire site is that through the years and various planning exercises, it
has been decided that it didn’t appear to be necessary to have a road pass through that site since
on the Minneapolis side there really isn’t anything that you could connect the road to pass into.
Mayor Jacobs stated that he didn’t have a problem with the lack of public purpose for a road in
that area.
15
Client Pires asked Staff to comment on what the Comprehensive Plan stated in terms of the
Transportation Chapter for that area.
Mr. Harmening stated that the Transportation Chapter does not indicate the extension of a road
through this particular property and the Comprehensive Plan has guided this a civic use and does
state specifically that the possible use of City property in the area could be for the
accommodation of the JCC campus expansion.
Councilmember Latz asked that how much land was conceived to be parking lot and how wide a
buffer would remain between the parking lot and the existing trail corridor.
Jeff Bale, JCC representative indicated that plans are still being considered, but emphasized that
the JCC share all the concerns expressed and wants to make sure the property is as aesthetically
pleasing as possible.
Councilmember Latz believed if it would have been convenient to put a road in this area it would
have been done a long time ago and doesn’t have a problem in meeting a lack of a public
purpose test in this case.
Councilmember Nelson believed that the City wouldn’t lose anything by asking for a road
easement for the future public need.
Mr. Harmening stated that staff will take another look at the road issue with the Public Works
Department and provide the Council with more information at the next meeting.
Councilmember Latz asked what the findings were from the park land and open space task force
for that area.
Mr. Harmening indicated that the findings of the task force were that all or least some of this
property could be sold and used for something else besides a public purpose and would not be in
conflict with the action being taken.
It was moved by Councilmember Latz, seconded by Councilmember Nelson, 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. The motion passed 5-0.
7. Petitions, Requests, Communication - None
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
16
Sacha Peterson, Planning Associate presented a staff report and recommended denial of the
proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow restaurants with liquor as permitted with
conditions in the C-2 District.
Cynthia Ahrens, 2944 Virginia Avenue South, stated she has been a resident of St. Louis Park
for 22 years and was concerned with the revision of the zoning ordinance that would place liquor
establishments within a 1 1/2 block area, inadequate parking, and that the shopping center access
to Minnetonka Boulevard and Texas Avenue is difficult and hazardous.
Ms. Peterson stated that these were legitimate concerns and pertain to a Conditional Use Permit
application for a restaurant with liquor so staff would address these issues if a CUP application
was received.
Jim Yarosh, Attorney for Fine Management, believed that the existing text amendment would
adequately address some of the City’s concerns related to this type of use at the Texa-Tonka
shopping center.
Councilmember Latz believed that when a particular proposal for a use comes before the Council
it needs to be examined to see if it works for the entire City. He believed the Council needed to
make a choice between tools that would make the proposal work for the particular proposal and
the entire City. He supported the use of a CUP process for this proposal because the proposed
text amendment would have a dramatic affect on other parcels throughout the City and would not
give the Council the kind of control over how land would be used in other parts of the City that
the Council wished to retain.
Councilmember Nelson was opposed to the proposed text amendment that would provide for
uses permitted with conditions and supported of the text amendment that would provide for a
CUP which doesn’t require eliminating all of the nonconformities.
Councilmember Santa concurred with Councilmember Latz and was supported the text
amendment that would provide for a CUP.
Mayor Jacobs agreed with Councilmember Latz that this was a choice of tools to make an
exciting concept for a restaurant happen and supported the text amendment that would provide
for a CUP.
It was moved by Councilmember Latz, seconded by Councilmember Nelson, to deny the
proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment. The motion passed 5-0.
8b. Request by staff to amend nonconformities section of Zoning Ordinance
regarding Conditional Use Permits
Case No. 99-36-ZA
Sacha Peterson presented a staff report and recommended approval of the proposed text
amendment that would address the CUP for multi-tenant buildings.
17
Councilmember Latz stated that the question is after it has been decided what type of tools are
preferable for how the Council proceeds, the Council needs to decide how to fashion that tool
and its specifics so that hopefully that kind of use will work and it is in the best interests over all
the developments in St. Louis Park. He believed that this tool was preferable and was adopting
in whole the types of standards that are used in another part of the City ordinance which gives
the City and potential developers a better idea of what we are looking for and how to meet the
standard in the ordinance.
Jim Yarosh, Attorney for Fine Management, was concerned about the interpretation of the new
language in the ordinance “to the extent reasonable and possible”. He stated that the land owner
suggested that this criteria be incorporated right into the ordinance so that the applicant knows
what the staff and City will be looking at and the staff will be able to provide reasoned decision
and analysis in interpreting that very difficult phrase. He stated that the landowner in this case
has already anticipated the cost of improving just the space and now depending on what is
determined to be reasonable or possible, one of the factors will be cost. He provided the Council
with a letter from the property Jeff Fine. He recommended that all the costs of the application
fees for the CUP be waived to the applicant given the extensive process he has been through.
Mr. Peterson, Planning Associate stated that staff continues to believe that it would be more
constraining and possibly create problems down the road to include the specific criteria in the
ordinance language.
Councilmember Nelson asked how the intent of the Council was addressed in the ordinance to
allow a new tenant to come in and have a different use that might be subject to a CUP rather than
having an entire multi-tenant building come in and apply for a CUP under this ordinance.
Mr. Harmening reviewed Page 58, Paragraph F and the Exception of the ordinance.
Councilmember Nelson stated that he interpreted that the exception was for multi-tenant building
and not just a particular tenant within a multi-tenant building.
Mr. Scott, City Attorney stated that the exception would only apply if one of the multiple tenant
was changing and agreed with Councilmember Nelson to clarify the language to state that the
exception only applies when “part of” a multi-tenant building is changing over to a different
tenant and should be changed before second reading.
Councilmember asked if it was in the code for special permits as to what the criteria are when
non-conformities have to be eliminated.
Ms. Peterson indicated that there wasn’t any specific criteria currently in the code for special
permit amendments.
Councilmember Nelson was in support of this proposed project, but was concerned about
possible public response as to why a particular project can’t eliminate some non-conformities
due to financial concerns. He stated that the cost of the improvement to the tenant was not fair
since the improvement to one portion of the building would influence the rest of the building.
18
Councilmember Nelson referred to Mr. Fine’s letter and agreed that the Texa Tonka shopping
center was old and needed to be updated and believed higher rents could be charged for an
updated and more usable structure.
Vladimir Velikson, 1967 Waterford Court, Shorewood, commented on the human factor
involved in this extensive process and was concerned about the lack of progress on him
personally and the proposed project. He stated that if the project collapses, the only winner will
be Jeff Fine because he will divide the parcel and find other renters without bringing any non-
conformities into compliance.
Councilmember Latz commended and thanked Mr. Velikson for his patience and perseverance
through this process and believed the outcome was a good policy for all of St. Louis Park.
It was moved by Councilmember Latz, seconded by Councilmember Nelson, to adopt first
reading of an ordinance amending nonconformities section of Zoning Ordinance and set second
reading for February 7, 2000. The motion passed 5-0.
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 Commission Minutes of December 15, 1999
e. Vendor Claims
By consent, Council accepted all reports for filing.
10. Unfinished Business
a. Board and Commission Appointment(s) - None
11. New Business
11a. School Security Contracts
Mr. Luse, Police Chief presented a staff report.
It was moved by Councilmember Young, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to authorize the
Mayor and City Manager to execute contracts with School Districts 283 and 287 for police
school liaison services.
19
11b. Consultant Retention for Construction Surveying and Engineering Services
for the Hutchinson Spur Regional Trail
By consent, Council authorized the Mayor and City Manger 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
By consent, Council authorized the 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
By consent, Council approved the lease extension.
12. Miscellaneous - None
13. Claims, Appropriation, Contract Payments- None
14. Communications - None
15. Adjournment
It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Young, to adjourn the
meeting at 9:40 p.m. The motion passed 5-0.
City Clerk Mayor
20
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 6a
Meeting of February 7, 2000
6a. First Reading of the Ordinance Adopting a Stormwater Utility
This action would adopt an ordinance to establish a Stormwater Utility and initiate
collection of stormwater utility revenue estimated to be $769,000 annually. Rates
effective April 1, 2000.
Recommended
Action:
Mayor to close the public hearing. Motion to approve first
reading of an ordinance establishing a Stormwater Utility and set
second reading for February 22, 2000.
Background:
In 1996/1997, when developing the City’s Comprehensive Water Management Plan, staff
identified deficiencies with the existing stormwater system and initiated discussion with Council
for creating a Stormwater Utility as a method to finance a stormwater management program.
Over the past two years, staff and Council have had numerous meetings discussing how to
address the flood problem areas affecting structures in the City. During these meetings, the need
to create a Stormwater Utility has also been discussed.
At Council meetings and study sessions held on July 12, 1999, September 13, 1999, September
27, 1999, and January 3, 2000, staff provided information relating to Stormwater Utilities that
included:
• What is a Stormwater Utility and why is it needed
• What surrounding cities have a Stormwater Utility and what their rates are
• What the rationale is for different charges for different land uses
• How this impacts residents, businesses, and organizations in the area
• What other options are to fund the stormwater management program
• What Public involvement/information process was used
During the development of the City’s Comprehensive Water Management Plan from 1997 to
1999, the following program costs were projected:
21
Project Description 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Cap. Improvemt. Program $364,000 $680,000 $1,010,000 $861,000 $569,000
Management Program $388,000 $393,000 $403,000 $408,000 $418,000 $428,000 $438,000
Management Studies $45,000 $60,000
Annual Grand Total $752,000 $1,118,000 $1,473,000 $1,269,000 $987,000 $428,000 $438,000
STORM WATER PROGRAM COSTS
General Stormwater Utility History:
Since the early 1970s, a significant change has taken place in municipal urban stormwater
programs. Long-term planning and preventive services are replacing day-to-day reactive
measures. The key factor enabling these changes has been the introduction of new methods for
funding stormwater management programs and capital improvements. Consistent with earlier
transitions in the management and funding of municipal water supply and wastewater treatment
programs, many cities and counties are shifting to funding concepts and “utility” management
for their stormwater programs.
Funded primarily through user fees, stormwater utilities provide stable and adequate revenue and
equitably distribute the cost of stormwater services and facilities. The scope of typical
stormwater utility programs includes all functions necessary to develop and carry out a well-
planned, long-range effort to control or eliminate negative stormwater impacts.
The following are some of the major advantages of a user-fee-funded stormwater utility:
• Stormwater service funding can be dedicated exclusively for stormwater activities under
a separate user-fee-funded utility structure, rather than having to compete with other
municipal departments for general funds.
• A user-fee-funded utility can fund programs and projects based on a realistic and
dependable revenue stream and well-planned schedule and master plan. Stormwater
projects and programs often take years to complete and require long-term planning and
funding.
Most utilities base user charges on the total amount or percentage of impervious area on
individual properties. Charges are calculated in terms of single-family equivalents, or
“residential equivalency factor” (REF), which equate runoff from all parcels to the average
runoff from a single-family residential parcel (or REF). The REF than becomes the basis for fee
calculation.
Many people are surprised that they must pay user fees to a utility for the stormwater that runs
off their property. This is because they are used to thinking about runoff as something that
occurs naturally, not something that is at least partially the result of people’s decisions and
requires public management. Similarly, most people view stormwater management, as a
government service needed to solve a public problem, not a service that is provided to manage
runoff generated from their property. The utility approach thus involves a redefinition of the
22
way in which people think about runoff and stormwater management. The basic premise is that
runoff is largely a problem for which property owners and users are responsible.
Another perceptual transition involves funding. Most traditional stormwater funding methods
distribute costs based on benefit. With the stormwater utility enterprise approach, emphasis is
placed on the cause and costs of the services and facilities rather than the benefits of its
management. Individual property owners, or residents, are viewed as generators who should pay
user charges in amounts proportionate to their stormwater runoff contribution. The rationale for
the enterprise approach, therefore, is the principle that the contributor pays the cost of the
services and facilities regardless of property values or perceived benefits.
Discussion:
Through past meetings with the City Council, it is staff’s understanding that there is a general
agreement that the stormwater management activities (increased system maintenance, correction
of drainage problem areas affecting structures, and addressing of water quality matters) are
needed. For this to occur there are two primary questions that need to be answered:
• Is the Stormwater Utility the correct method to fund the stormwater management program?
If not, how will these activities be funded?
The proposed Stormwater Utility is based on the premise of charging the users (property
owners) based on the amount of runoff generated by their property. Stormwater Utility
funding would be dedicated exclusively for stormwater activities.
Current stormwater activities are funded by the Sanitary Sewer Utility and the General
Fund. The Sanitary Sewer Utility bases its charges on drinking water usage, which has
no direct correlation with storm sewer runoff or impact to the stormwater system. With
high demand for General Fund dollars and priorities constantly changing to meet the
needs of the City, it is more difficult to develop a well-planned long-term stormwater
management using the General Fund. In addition, there are many tax-exempt properties
that create a large amount of runoff, which would not pay for stormwater expenses if
funded through the General Fund.
• Is the Stormwater Utility, as proposed, set up in a fair and reasonable way?
The general premise of the Stormwater Utility is that the most fair and equitable payment
structure is to charge a utility fee that is based on the volume of the runoff that is
generated by each property according to its size and general land use. The proposed
methodology uses Actual Annual Average Runoff to determine the REF for each land
use. To determine the runoff, actual daily rainfall data recorded at the Minneapolis/St.
Paul Airport from 1980-1989 was used to calculate the annual average runoff for each
type of land use within the City. Some cities base their utility fees on runoff volumes
generated by a specific individual storm event such as a 1-year or 10-year storm event.
This approach does not provide as accurate a reflection of how much runoff each land use
produces throughout each year.
23
Financial Analysis:
The annual revenue generated by the Stormwater Utility, using the proposed quarterly rate of $6
per single/two family residential lot, is $769,000. This assumes all single/two family residential
lots to be 1/5 acre.
The proposed Stormwater Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is approximately $3.5 million.
Using the proposed quarterly rate of $6 per single/two family residential lot, the payback period
for the $3.5 million Stormwater CIP is approximately 14 years which amounts to about $359,000
annually for the Stormwater CIP. The stormwater management program is estimated to cost
$410,000 annually. This program includes preventive / routine maintenance, water quality
issues, and related management / administrative costs. The CIP and the annual Stormwater
program costs combined are estimated to total $769,000.
The breakdown of potential quarterly revenue by land use, is as follows:
Quarterly
Land Use Chargeable Runoff REF Revenue based Cost
Acreage Ac. Ft.on $6 single/two Per Acre
(2)(3)family parcel (4)
Golf Course 299.392 20.6 0.3 2,695 $9
Single and Two Family (1)2,369.990 528.7 1 71,100 N/A
Schools 117.335 28.2 1.1 3,872 $33
Low Density Townhouse 9.514 3.1 1.4 400 $42
Community Facilities 73.773 24.5 1.5 3,320 $45
Nursing Homes 22.750 9.0 1.8 1,229 $54
Multi-Fam/High Density Twnhse 434.787 184.1 1.9 24,783 $57
Religious Institutions 47.795 28.7 2.7 3,871 $81
Comm/Office/Indust/ Hospital 930.782 611.0 2.9 80,978 $87
Total 4,306.118 1437.9
Total Quarterly Revenue 192,246
Total Annual Revenue 768,986
(1) Single and two-family parcels are considered to be 1/5 acre in size. This is the average acreage for
this land use in the City.
(2) The average annual runoff is the total annual average runoff calculated from rainfall data recorded at the
Mpls/St. Paul airport between 1980-1989.
(3) REF = Residential Equivalency Factor. A REF is defined as the ratio of the volume of runoff generated
by 1 acre of a particular land use to the volume of runoff generated by 1 acre of single/two family land use.
(4) Quarterly charge per parcel = (Rate) x (REF) x (Acreage/lot)
POTENTIAL REVENUE GENERATED BY A STORMWATER UTILITY
BASED ON ANNUAL AVERAGE RUNOFF
Sanitary Sewer Utility and General Fund Impacts:
The Sanitary Sewer Utility has funded past stormwater operations costs that have been averaging
approximately $200,000 annually. If the Stormwater Utility is approved, the Sanitary Sewer
Utility can be reduced accordingly. This could provide for a 4.49 percent rate decrease for the
24
sanitary sewer charges. The date for beginning this reduction will need to be coordinated with
the Finance Department.
The General Fund has funded past street sweeping for Stormwater Management purposes that
have been costing approximately $80,000 annually. If the Stormwater Utility is approved, the
General Fund can be reduced accordingly.
The overall increase to property owners in the City, as a result of approving the Stormwater
Utility, is estimated to be $489,000 annually. This includes $359,000 for the Stormwater CIP
and $130,000 for deferred maintenance, water quality, and management costs.
Stormwater Funding Options:
The options available to fund the stormwater management program are as follows:
• Adopt the Stormwater Utility and discontinue the use of the Sanitary Sewer Utility and
General Fund to fund stormwater activities. Reduce the Sanitary Sewer Utility and
General Fund contributions accordingly.
• Remain status quo and not approve the Stormwater Utility. Continue use of the Sanitary
Sewer Utility and General Fund. Request an annual increase from these funds to provide
the additional stormwater services required.
Recommendations:
Staff recommends Council approve the Stormwater Utility Ordinance as presented.
Attachments: Proposed Ordinance
Prepared by: Scott Merkley, Public Works Coordinator
Through: Mike Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Clint Pires, Deputy City Manager
25
ORDINANCE NO. ___________
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 9 OF THE
ORDINANCE CODE, ESTABLISHING A
STORMWATER UTILITY
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
SECTION 1. Section 9 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code is amended by adding the
following Section 9-234:
Section 9-234 Stormwater Utility
(l) Stormwater Utility Establishment. Stormwater management shall be operated as a
public utility pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 444.075.
(2) Rates and Charges. Fees for the use and availability of the storm sewer system shall be
determined through the use of a “Residential Equivalent Factor” (“REF”).
A REF is the ratio of the volume of runoff generated by one (1) acre of a particular land use to
the volume of runoff generated by one (1) acre of single/two family residential land use based
upon average annual rainfall.
(3) Determination of REF’s for Land Uses. The REF’s for the following land uses within
the City are as follows:
VII. Land Use VIII. REF
Golf Courses 0.3
Single/Two Family Residential 1.0
Schools 1.1
Low Density Townhouse 1.4
Community Facilities 1.5
Nursing Homes 1.8
Multi-Family/High Density Townhouse 1.9
Religious Institutions 2.7
Commercial/Office/Industrial/Hospital 2.9
(4) Other Land Uses. Other land uses not listed in the foregoing table shall be classified by
the Public Works Director by assigning them to the most similar classes from the standpoint of
probable hydrologic response.
26
(5) Establishing Basic Rate. In determining charges, the Council shall, from time to time,
by resolution establish a basic system rate to be charged against one (1) acre of single/two family
residential land having a REF of one (1). The charge to be made against each parcel of land shall
then be determined by multiplying the REF for the parcel’s land use classification times the
parcel’s acreage times the basic system rate. Said charges take effect April 1, 2000.
(6) Standardize Acreage. For the purpose of simplifying and equalizing charges against
property used for single/two family residential purposes, each of such properties shall be
considered to have an acreage of one-fifth acre and shall not be eligible for an Acreage
Adjustment.
(7) Adjustments of Charges. The City Council may by resolution, from time to time, adopt
policies providing for the adjustment of charges for parcels or groups of parcels, based upon
hydrologic data supplied by affected property owners, demonstrating an actual hydrologic
response substantially different from the REF being used for the parcel or parcels. Such
adjustment shall be made only after receiving the recommendation of the Public Works Director
and shall not be made effective retroactively. If the adjustment would have the effect of
changing the REF for all or substantially all of the land uses in a particular classification, such
adjustment shall be accomplished by amending the REF table in subsection (3).
(8) Exceptions. The following land uses are exempt from stormwater utility fees: (a)
public rights of way; (b) wetlands and public waters as defined by state law; (c) ponds designed
and used exclusively for stormwater retention or treatment purposes up to the 100-year flood
elevation; (d) undeveloped parcels; (e) undeveloped or natural state, county, regional and city
parklands; (f) railroads; and (g) City owned property.
(9) Adjustments of Acreage. The total parcel acreage will be used to calculate the
parcel charge. It is the responsibility of the owner of any premises to supply the City with any
necessary information required to determine if a parcel or portion of a parcel qualifies as an
Exception and is eligible for an Acreage Adjustment. The City will review the proposed
adjustment upon receipt of a complete submittal package. The adjustment must be approved by
the Public Works Director and will become effective at the beginning of the next billing cycle.
(10) Supplying Information. For the purpose of evaluating acreage adjustment requests,
the owner, occupant or person in charge of any premises shall supply the City with such
information as the City may reasonably request related to the use, development and area of the
premises. Willful failure to provide such information or to falsify it is a violation of this
subsection.
(11) Estimated Charges. If the owner, occupant or person in charge of any premises fails or
refuses to provide the information requested, as provided in subsection (9), the charge for such
premises shall be estimated and billed in accordance with such estimate, based upon information
then available to the City.
27
(12) Billing Method. Stormwater utility fees will be computed and collected by the City
along with other utilities such as sewer and water. Payment shall be required on or before the
due date established for such other billing. Delinquent accounts will be treated the same as
sewer and water accounts.
(13) Certification of Past Due Fees on Taxes. Any stormwater utility fees past due on
October 1 of any year may be certified to the County Auditor for collection with real estate taxes
in the following year or any year thereafter. In addition, the City shall also have the right to
bring a civil action or to take other legal remedies to collect unpaid fees.
SECTION 2. This ordinance shall be effective fifteen (15) days after its passage and
publication.
Adopted by the City Council February 22, 2000
Reviewed for Administration
City Manager Mayor
Attest:: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
28
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 8a
Meeting of February 7, 2000
8a. Resolution Authorizing Renewal of Gambling Premises Permit for Minnesota
Youth Boxing Club at Al’s Liquor Store, Inc., 3912 Excelsior Blvd
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve the resolution authorizing renewal.
Background:
The Minnesota Youth Boxing Club has submitted an application for a Gambling Premises Permit
at Al’s Liquor Store, Inc., 3912 Excelsior Blvd. in St. Louis Park. This organization has
operated in the City since April 1, 1998.
The City Council must act to approve or deny the renewal before it is submitted to the State
Gambling Control Board. If approved, a copy of the resolution passed by the Council will be
submitted to the State.
All requirements for issuance of the license have been met. Notification was made to property
owners within 350 feet of the establishment and no calls have been received in response to that
mailing. The Police Department has conducted a thorough background investigation of the
organization and its officers.
The MN Youth Boxing club is a non-profit organization that conducts a pull-tab operation at
only one site, that site being Al’s Bar. The Club runs a boxing gym at 440 Thomas Ave in St.
Paul MN and also supports several other boxing gyms throughout the State of Minnesota. The
organization is aware of the trade area restriction.
A representative of the organization will be present at the meeting to answer council’s questions.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Cynthia D. Larsen, City Clerk
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
29
RESOLUTION NO. 00 - 007
A RESOLUTION OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK CITY COUNCIL
APPROVING ISSUANCE OF A PREMISES PERMIT FOR LAWFUL
GAMBLING FOR THE MINNESOTA YOUTH BOXING CLUB
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 349 and St. Louis Park Ordinance Section 13-
1600 , provide for lawful gambling licensing by the State Gambling Control Board; and
WHEREAS, a licensed organization may not conduct lawful gambling at any site unless
it has first obtained from the Board a premise permit for the site; and
WHEREAS, the Board may not issue or renew a premises permit unless the
organization submits a resolution from the City Council approving the premises permit;
therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED by the City of St. Louis Park City Council that the applicant listed
below meets the criteria necessary to receive a premises permit, and the application is hereby
approved
MINNESOTA YOUTH BOXING CLUB
AT AL’S BAR
3912 EXCELSIOR BLVD
ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council February 7, 2000
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
30
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 8b
Meeting of February 7, 2000
8b. First Reading of the Ordinance Amending Sanitary Sewer Utility Rates
Resulting from the Ordinance Adoption of the Stormwater Utility
This action would decrease the sanitary sewer utility revenue by $200,000
annually. Rates effective April 1, 2000.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to waive first reading and set second reading for
February 22, 2000.
Background:
This action provides for a 4.49 percent rate decrease for the sanitary sewer charges. The
proposed decrease is a result of transferring stormwater operations out of the Sanitary Sewer
Utility and into the Stormwater Utility (being created concurrently). Past stormwater operations
costs have been averaging approximately $200,000 annually. The 4.49% decrease applies to the
volume charges while the flat service charges remain unchanged.
The current stormwater operations program consists of minimal maintenance given to existing
storm sewers, catch basins, curb & gutter, and outfalls (essentially reactive in nature). This
program is financed by the Sanitary Sewer Utility, which raised revenues based on drinking
water usage. By charging properties for stormwater operations based on their land use and size,
as is being done with the Stormwater Utility, the associated charges will be more equitably
distributed.
Summary
The recommended removal of stormwater operations and their costs from the Sanitary Sewer
Utility will provide sanitary sewer rates based solely upon actual water usage, thus all utility
charges will be more rightly distributed with the user-fee concept in mind.
Attachments: Proposed Ordinance Amendment
Prepared by: Scott Merkley, Public Works Coordinator
Through: Mike Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Clint Pires, Deputy City Manager
31
ORDINANCE NO. _____________
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATED TO THE 2000 SEWER RATES, SECTION 9-231
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
Sec. 2. Section 9-231 of the Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
“Sewer Rental Rates. Charges for sewer service to residential and non-residential users within
the City provided in Section 9-230 hereof for billings on or after April 1, 2000 shall be: $1.35 per
100 cubic feet of water consumption as measured during the winter quarter (or otherwise
determined in Section 9-231 (1)), and a service charge of $3.55 monthly, or $10.65 quarterly per
dwelling or account.”
Sec. 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective 15 days after its publication.
Adopted by the City Council February 22, 2000
Reviewed for Administration
City Manager Mayor
Attest:: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
32
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item #8c
Meeting of February 7, 2000
8c. Minnesota Department of Transportation Noise Wall Along the East Side of
Trunk Highway 100
This report is a follow-up to the Minnesota Department of Transportation
(Mn/DOT) proposed noise wall along the east side of Trunk Highway 100 from W.
41st Street to W. 44th Street and proposes the wall be extended north of W. 41st
Street 520 feet.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the attached resolution requesting Mn/DOT to
construct a noise wall along the east side of Trunk Highway 100
north of W. 41st Street to a point 520 feet north.
Background: On September 28, 1999, Mn/DOT sponsored a neighborhood meeting for area
residents regarding the proposed noise wall along the east side of Trunk Highway 100.
Residents from both Edina and St. Louis Park were invited to the meeting. Mn/DOT presented
the proposed project and responded to residents’ questions. Subsequent to the meeting, City staff
has met with the 3 residential property owners and a representative of the church, which are just
north of W. 41st Street. The property owners supported extending the wall north 520 feet to
screen noise from their properties. Church representatives did request the wall be 6 to 10 feet in
height in front of their facility so as not to block all exposure. In response to the support from
the property owners, staff requested a cost estimate from Mn/DOT for the wall extension. The
cost is estimated to be $140,000. Realizing the City does not have funds available for this, Rep.
Jim Rhodes was contacted and he is pursuing funding options at the Legislature.
For this project to continue within the estimated timeframe for construction this year, Mn/DOT
has requested a resolution from the City Council supporting the wall extension to the north. This
is necessary for Mn/DOT to continue design work on the project and is contingent upon
receiving construction funding.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Carlton Moore / Mike Rardin, Public Works
Approved by: Clint Pires, Deputy City Manager
33
RESOLUTION NO. 00-008
APPROVING MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION’S
PROPOSAL TO CONSTRUCT A NOISE WALL
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the
City Engineer related to the proposed noise wall along the east side of Trunk Highway 100 from
north of W. 41st Street a distance of 520 feet.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota that:
1. The council supports the extension of the noise wall north of W. 41st Street a
distance of 520 feet on the east side of Trunk Highway 100 only.
2. The noise wall will be constructed with concrete posts and wooden planks. The
posts will be located on the highway side.
3. Wall height will be 20 feet above the mainline except in front of the church.
4. Post and planks will be the same color. The color selected by the residents at the
meeting will be used.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council February 7, 2000
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
34
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item #8d
Meeting of February 7, 2000
8d. Resolution approving Park Commons East EAW, finding no need for an
Environmental Impact Statement and requiring certain mitigation.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt a resolution approving the Park Commons East
EAW, finding no need for Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) and requiring certain mitigation.
Background:
On September 7, 1999, the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority approved a contract
with Ingraham and Associates to complete an environmental assessment worksheet (EAW) for
the proposed Park Commons East development. Mr. Ingraham met with the developer
(AvalonBay Communities) to determine the maximum potential development scenario for the
area, so that a worst-case scenario with regard to potential impacts could be reviewed.
On September 21, 1999, the City held an Open House and received comments regarding the
concept development plan that provided the basis for the EAW analysis. On December 1, 1999,
the Planning Commission reviewed a draft of the EAW, considered the public Open House
comments, and provided additional comments. On December 13, 1999, an updated draft EAW
was distributed for City Council review.
On December 20, 1999, the EAW was completed and the City Council authorized publication of
the notice of availability and distribution of the EAW. A copy of the EAW was immediately
provided to the Minikahda Vista Neighborhood Association. On December 21, 1999, the EAW
was distributed to all required agencies, a press release was distributed to the Sun Sailor, and the
EAW was made available at City Hall and the public library. Notice of availability was
published in the EQB Monitor on December 27, 1999, and a 30-day public comment period
began. During the comment period, several interested individuals received copies of the EAW at
City Hall. The City’s traffic consultant also met with a Task Force of the Minikahda Vista
Neighborhood Association to help answer questions and provide additional background
information.
Four agencies provided formal comments during the review period. Those comments and
responses to the comments are attached. In addition, the Minikahda Vista Neighborhood
Association informed staff that they would be submitting a position paper to the City regarding
their comments on the project. The Neighborhood Association indicated that the position paper
would not be complete for submission during the EAW comment period. Staff indicated that the
City would respond to the neighborhood comments whenever they were submitted. However,
staff noted that the response would likely take place outside of the EAW process if the comments
35
were not submitted during the EAW review period. As of this writing, the neighborhood
position paper has not yet been received.
Issues:
• Are there any substantive agency comments?
• Will there be adequate opportunity to address future neighborhood comments?
Analysis of Issues:
• Are there any substantive agency comments?
The agency comments are primarily positive and confirm that the EAW is complete and
adequate. The Metropolitan Council points out that storm water treatment should be improved to
the extent possible as more detailed plans are completed. The Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency (MPCA) notes that the proposed stop light at the town green crossing will improve
existing and future conditions for automobiles and pedestrians. The MPCA indicates that the
light will be a requirement of the necessary Indirect Source Permit. Staff concurs with these
comments. All comments and responses are attached.
• Will there be adequate opportunity to address future neighborhood comments?
As noted, staff will respond to the neighborhood comments and any other comments on the
project as they are received and reviewed. Staff anticipates holding another Open House once
the project is refined. There will also be additional opportunities for formal review and
comments. The project is expected to require modifications to the Comprehensive Plan,
rezoning of properties, and approvals of a PUD and plat. All of these approvals will involve
public hearings at the Planning Commission and formal consideration by the City Council. City
staff will provide the required notice to nearby property owners as well as noticing the
neighborhood association. City staff will also continue to provide articles in the Park
Perspective as a means of updating the community on the project.
Recommendation:
Based upon the agency comments, and the fact that the EAW is based upon a “worst case
scenario” with regard to potential density and associated impacts, staff believes the EAW is
complete and a negative declaration on the need for an EIS can be made.
The attached resolution notes that appropriate mitigation (such as the traffic light) will be
incorporated into the project design and permits.
Attachments:
• Proposed Resolution
• Letter from Greg Ingraham, Responses to Comments, Findings of Fact
• Comment Letters
Prepared by: Janet Jeremiah, Planning & Zoning Supervisor
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer
36
RESOLUTION NO. 00-009
A RESOLUTION APPROVING
AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW),
FINDING NO NEED FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT,
AND REQUIRING CERTAIN MITIGATION
FOR MIXED-USE REDEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY LOCATED IN
PARK COMMONS EAST
WHEREAS, Minnesota Rules Part 4410.4300 Subp. 19D requires mandatory preparation of
an EAW for residential development of this scale in a second class city; and
WHEREAS, On September 21, 1999, a community Open House was held to provide an
update on the status of the proposed project and to receive comments on the conceptual site plan
analyzed by the EAW; and
WHEREAS, On December 1, 1999, the Planning Commission of the City of St. Louis Park
considered the draft EAW and responded with their comments as set forth in the minutes of their
meeting; and
WHEREAS, On December 13, 1999, a copy of the draft EAW was distributed to the City
Council at a study session for their review; and.
WHEREAS, On December 20, 1999, an EAW for a proposed mixed-use redevelopment
involving up to 275,000 square feet of retail/office space and up to 660 residential dwellings on
15 acres of land was completed and authorized for publication and distribution by the City
Council; and
WHEREAS, On December 21, 1999, copies of the EAW were distributed to all persons and
agencies on the official Environmental Quality Board (EQB) distribution list and other interested
parties; copies of the EAW were made available for review at City Hall and the public library;
and
WHEREAS, On December 21, 1999, a press release was distributed for publication in the
St. Louis Park Sun/Sailor announcing the completion of the EAW, availability to interested
parties, and process for submitting comments on the EAW; and
WHEREAS, On December 27, 1999, notice of the availability of the EAW was published
in the EQB Monitor and the thirty (30) day comment period commenced; and
WHEREAS, the thirty (30 ) day comment period officially ended on January 26, 2000 and
the City of St. Louis Park responded to comments received by that date and will continue to
respond to any additional comments for the project; and
37
WHEREAS, On February 7, 2000, during its regular meeting, the City Council considered
the contents of the EAW, written and verbal comments on the EAW, responses to comments, and
findings of fact supporting a negative declaration on the need for an Environmental Impact
Statement and requiring certain mitigation; and
WHEREAS, the contents of Planning Case File 99-39-MISC become a part of the official
record for the EAW.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
1. The City Council deems the Environmental Assessment Worksheet to be complete and
adequate;
2. The EAW, the permitting process, and comments received on the EAW have generated
information adequate to determine whether the proposed development has the potential for
significant environmental effects.
3. Areas where the potential for significant environmental effects may have existed have been
identified, and appropriate mitigative measures will be incorporated into the project design
and permits. The Park Commons East redevelopment is expected to comply with all the City
of St. Louis Park standards and review agency standards.
4. Based on the criteria established in Minnesota R.4410.1700, this project does not have the
potential for significant environmental effects.
5. An Environmental Impact Statement is not required.
6. The St. Louis Park City Council hereby adopts these findings and conclusions as such.
Attest: Adopted by the City Council February 7, 2000
City Clerk Mayor
Reviewed for Administration:
City Manager 1631/N/res/ord
38
St. Louis Park City Council
City of St. Louis Park
5005 Minnetonka Boulevard
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Re: Park Commons East Mixed-Use Redevelopment EAW
Negative Declaration of Need for an Environmental Impact Statement
Dear St. Louis Park City Councilmembers,
The 30 day public comment period for the Park Commons East Environmental Assessment
Worksheet (EAW) ended January 26,2000. Copies of the Park Commons East EAW were sent
to all reviewing agencies on the Environmental Quality Board distribution list and copies were
made available at local and regional libraries and at City Hall. Responses to comments and
Findings of Fact have been prepared and summarized. From this process, we conclude that this
project does not have the potential for significant environmental impacts. Therefore, we
recommend the City Council issue a negative declaration of need for an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) for the Park Commons East Redevelopment project.
Sincerely,
Greg Ingraham
Project Manager, Principal
Ingraham & Associates
CC: Janet Jeremiah, City of St. Louis Park
Enc.: Response to comments, Findings of Fact
39
MEMORANDUM
To: Helen Boyer, Metropolitan Council
Paul Czech, Minnesota Department of Transportation
Britta Bloomberg, Minnesota Historical Society
Lynne Kolze, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
From: Greg Ingraham, Ingraham & Associates
Janet Jeremiah, City of St. Louis Park
Date: February 1, 2000
Re: Park Commons East Mixed-Use Redevelopment EAW
Please find enclosed responses to all comments received as part of the redevelopment process for
the Park Commons East Mixed-Use redevelopment project Environmental Assessment
Worksheet (EAW) in St. Louis Park, Minnesota. Comments were received from the
Metropolitan Council, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Minnesota Historical Society,
and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
COMMENT
Metropolitan Council
Metropolitan Council reviewed the EAW for Park Commons East Redevelopment and noted the
following two comments.
• The Met Council would like to see additional stormwater treatment measures incorporated
into the project for the portion of the runoff that flows directly to Bass Lake, if feasible.
• The Park Commons East project is consistent with Regional Blueprint policies and will assist
St. Louis Park in promoting and implementing its Livable Communities Act.
RESPONSE
The City agrees with the idea of additional storm water runoff treatment measures. New storm
water ponds have been designed and constructed in Wolfe Park to accommodate this
redevelopment. The City will work with the developer to ensure that a large proportion of the
site will be engineered to direct storm water flow into the Wolfe Park storm water ponds. This
will minimize direct flow to Bass Lake. The City will investigate other long-term storm water
management improvements in the sub-watershed.
The City appreciates Met Council’s support of locally implemented livable community actions.
40
COMMENT
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
The MPCA, after reviewing the Park Commons East EAW, submitted the following comments:
• An Indirect Source Permit (ISP) is required for the project
• MPCA staff recommends that the traffic signal, proposed within the traffic impact analysis,
be implemented to reduce traffic delay and improve pedestrian circulation to the
development.
• In reference to the roadway improvement, a legally binding commitment to funding is needed
to the assumed improvement before an ISP can be issued in final form. The ISP will include
a provision requiring completion of the assumed improvement before occupancy of the
proposed project.
• Based on the EAW, no significant adverse air quality impacts are expected from the
proposed project.
• MPCA commends the City for taking this progressive (mixed-use/open space) approach to
redevelopment.
RESPONSE
An Indirect Source Permit application has been prepared and staff met with MPCA staff to
discuss the project and the ISP application. The ISP application will be submitted in Spring,
2000.
The installation of the traffic signal at the Excelsior/Ottawa intersection is planned as part of the
project. The City is working with Hennepin County to ensure approval of the traffic signal.
The road improvements are planned as part of the project. As part of the ISP process, the City
will work with the MPCA to define project phasing and staging and the relationship to roadway
improvements.
No response needed.
The City appreciates MPCA’s support of the mixed-use approach to redevelopment.
COMMENT
MNDOT
Minnesota Department of Transportation had no comments about the development since it does
not directly impact state highway right of way.
RESPONSE
No response needed.
41
COMMENT
Minnesota Historical Society
The Minnesota Historical Society, after review of the EAW, reconfirmed the findings of the
EAW that no properties within the project boundaries are listed on the Registers of Historic
Places, and no known or suspected archaeological properties in the area will be affected by the
project.
RESPONSE
No response needed.
42
City of St. Louis Park
Avalon Bay Communities has proposed the redevelopment of the area north of Excelsior
Boulevard and west of Monterey on 15 acres of land. The proposed redevelopment includes up
to 275,000 square feet of retail/office space and up to 660 residential dwellings. The City of St.
Louis Park has prepared an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for this proposed
project. As to the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the project and based on
the record in this matter, including the EAW and comments received, the City of St. Louis Park
makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
Findings of Fact
Project Description
Project
Park Commons East is a proposed redevelopment including up to 275,000 square feet of
retail/office space and up to 660 residential dwellings on 15 acres of land. The project will focus
on a central town green park.
Project Site
The proposed project involves 15 acres of land immediately north of Excelsior Boulevard, west
of Monterey. The project is located within portions of Sections 6 and 7, Township 28N, Range
24W. The site is currently fully developed with commercial and residential uses.
Project History
This project was subject to the mandatory preparation of an EAW under Minnesota 4410.4300
subpart 19 D, Residential Development.
An EAW was prepared on the proposed project and distributed to the Environmental Quality
Board (EQB) mailing list and other interested parties on December 20, 1999.
A press release containing the notice of availability of the EAW for public review was provided
to media serving the project area on December 21, 1999.
The EAW was noticed in the December 27, 1999, EQB Monitor. The public comment period
ended on January 26, 2000. Comment letters were received from the Metropolitan Council,
In the Matter of the Decision
of the Need for an
Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) for the
Proposed Park Commons
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND CONCLUSIONS
43
Minnesota Department of Transportation, Minnesota Historical Society, and the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency. Copies of the letters are hereby incorporated by reference.
Responses to the comments are also incorporated by reference.
Criteria for Determining the Potential for Significant Environmental Effects
Minnesota R. 4410.1700, subp.1 states that “an EIS shall be ordered for projects that have the
potential for significant environmental effects.” In deciding whether the project has the potential
for significant environmental effects, the City of St. Louis Park must consider the four factors set
forward in Minnesota R. 4410.1700, subp.7. With respect to each of these factors, the city finds
as follows:
Type, Extent, and reversibility of Environmental Effects
The type of environmental impacts anticipated as part of this project includes:
• Increased traffic generation
• Increased storm water runoff
• Carbon monoxide generation due to increased traffic generation
Traffic impacts are largely mitigated through the trip reduction due to the internal trips present in
mixed use development and the addition of a traffic signal at the Excelsior/Ottawa intersection.
Post-development traffic levels are forecast to operate at acceptable levels of B and C.
Storm water impacts will be mitigated though the use of catch basin to trap sediment loading and
the direction of storm water flow into the Wolfe Park storm water ponds, which were designed
and constructed to serve this redevelopment. Since the site is currently developed with a large
proportion of impervious surface the net increase in storm water runoff is relatively small.
Carbon monoxide increases were analyzed and are forecast to be well within the State of
Minnesota standards
The extent and reversibility of environmental impacts are consistent with those of residential and
mixed-use development.
Cumulative Potential Effects of Related or Anticipated Future Projects
The construction of Park Commons East is anticipated to occur in six continuous phases over a
four year period. The impact of the phases has been adequately addressed in the EAW. The
EAW analyzed the cumulative effect of the entire project upon the area. There are no anticipated
subsequent phases, stages or other development related to the project.
44
The Extent to which Environmental Effects are Subject to Mitigation by Ongoing Public
Regulatory Authority
The City of St. Louis Park, the St. Louis Park EDA, the MPCA and other agencies have an
oversight role pertaining to the project which will provide adequate assurance of on-going
mitigation . In addition, the following permits or approvals will be required for the project:
City of St. Louis Park Rezoning, planned unit development, plat,
development agreement, building and utility
permits
St. Louis Park EDA Financing plan, tax increment financing, land
sale
Watershed District Grading and drainage plan review for
conformance with existing permit
Hennepin County Access and curb cuts; reconstruction of
Excelsior Boulevard (streetscape)
Hennepin County &
MnDOT
Traffic signal – Excelsior & Ottawa
Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency
Indirect Source Permit, NPDES General
Permit for Construction Activities
Minnesota Housing
Finance Agency;
Minnesota Public
Housing Agency;
St. Louis Park Housing
Authority; HUD
Hollman Agreement review
Minnesota Dept. of
Health
Watermain connection
Metropolitan Council
Environmental Services
Sanitary sewer connection
The City of St. Louis Park finds that the potential environmental effects of this project are
subject to mitigation by ongoing regulatory authorities such that an EIS need not be prepared.
The Extent to which Environmental Effects can be Anticipated and Controlled as a Result
of Other Environmental Studies Undertaken by Public Agencies or the Project Proposer,
or of EIS’s Previously Prepared on Similar Projects.
The City of St. Louis Park has prepared numerous environmental studies of development
projects and has a history of planning, engineering and analysis of projects similar in scale and
45
type to the proposed Park Commons East project. The environmental impact of the proposed
projects have been addressed in the following plans prepared by the City:
• City of St. Louis Park Comprehensive Plan
• Park Commons Area Plans
• Traffic studies and analysis pertaining to Excelsior Boulevard.
• Environmental Assessment and Indirect Source Permits for nearby Tower Place and Park
Nicollet Medical Center.
• The City finds that the environmental effects of the project can be anticipated and controlled
as a result of the environmental review, planning, and permitting processes.
Conclusions
The EAW, the permitting process, and comments received on the EAW have generated
information adequate to determine whether the proposed development has the potential for
significant environmental effects.
Areas where the potential for significant environmental effects may have existed have been
identified, and appropriate mitigative measures have been incorporated into the project design
and permits. The Park Commons East redevelopment is expected to comply with all the City of
St. Louis Park standards and review agency standards.
Based on the criteria established in Minnesota R.4410.1700, this project does not have the
potential for significant environmental effects.
An Environmental Impact Statement is not required.
The St. Louis Park City Council hereby adopts these findings and conclusions as such.
46
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item #8e
Meeting of February 7, 2000
8e. Request by MSP Real Estate, Inc. for Preliminary Plat, Preliminary Planned
Unit Development, and rear yard setback variance for Mill City Addition, a
200-unit apartment project
Case No. 99-35-PUD, 99-37-S, 99-38-VAR
7301 Walker Street
Recommended
Action:
• Motion to adopt a resolution approving preliminary plat and
preliminary PUD for Mill City apartments, subject to
conditions in the resolution.
• Motion to adopt a resolution approving a variance for a ten
foot rear yard setback per the findings in the resolution.
Zoning: R-C, High Density Residential
Comprehensive Plan Designation: RH, Residential up to 50 units per acre
Background:
MSP Real Estate is proposing to redevelop the former Mill City Plywood site and a small piece
of City-owned land along Walker Street as a market rate, 200-unit apartment project. The
buildings would have ground level garage parking and four stories of apartments above, with a
clubhouse-type structure along Highway 7 as a visual focus.
Preliminary PUD, preliminary plat, and a ten foot rear yard setback variance are being requested
at this time. An ordinance modification is being requested for reduced parking per the PUD
Ordinance. In addition, a significant reduction in on site usable open space is proposed, which is
potentially allowable per the approved Redevelopment Plan for the Highway 7/Louisiana area.
Significant soil contamination exists on the site, and approximately $1.6 million in
environmental cleanup grants were recently awarded by the MN Department of Trade and
Economic Development and the Metropolitan Council. The developer is also requesting Tax
Increment Financing Assistance from the City to offset other extraordinary development costs.
The approximately .85 acre City-owned parcel must be purchased by the developer for this
project. The staff report assumes that the City-owned parcel is included in the proposed
development unless otherwise noted. However, all approvals are conditioned upon sale of the
land.
On January 19, 2000 the City Council amended the Comprehensive Plan, subject to Metropolitan
Council approval, to allow redevelopment of this property to proceed without requiring removal
of the billboard on the adjacent property to the southwest. The Comprehensive Plan still requires
47
removal of the billboard if the billboard property redevelops, and no other billboards are affected
by the amendment.
On January 5, 2000 the Planning Commission held a public hearing and considered the plat,
PUD and variance requests. The Planning Commission expressed strong concerns regarding the
lack of usable open space provided on the site, and asked the developer to provide more
information regarding increasing the open space or compensating for it in other ways. The
developer has responded to the Planning Commissions concerns and this is discussed further
below. Stating that they felt comfortable approving the preliminary requests for the project and
would look for a response to their concerns in the final PUD review, the Planning Commission
recommended approval of the preliminary plat and preliminary PUD on a vote of 6-0. The
Planning Commission recommended approval of the variance on a vote of 6-0 and added to
staff’s findings (discussed further below).
In addition to addressing the Planning Commission’s concerns, the developer was required to
make several plan revisions prior to City Council consideration, to show that the project is
consistent with Comprehensive Plan goals. The plan changes are discussed below.
Issues:
• Is the proposal consistent with the Highway 7/Louisiana area Redevelopment Plan and
other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan?
• How has the developer responded to the Planning Commission’s concerns regarding
usable open space?
• Is the preliminary plat acceptable?
• Are Zoning Ordinance requirements met?
• Are the requirements met for preliminary PUD?
• Does the proposed rear yard setback variance meet the required findings?
Issues Analysis:
Is the proposal consistent with the Highway 7/Louisiana area Redevelopment Plan and
other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan?
In 1998 a citizen Task Force studied the Highway 7 and Louisiana area and developed a set of
principles to guide redevelopment, as well as a specific Redevelopment Plan, both of which have
been adopted into the Comprehensive Plan.
The Highway 7/Louisiana redevelopment principles are as follows:
• Park Focus
• Common Design Theme
• Overall Mixed Use
• Integrate some Housing Goals
• Environmental Protection
• Higher Density/Intensity near Highway 7
48
• Neighborhood Linkages
• Traffic Lights at Louisiana/Walker and Lake
• Extensive Landscaping
• Pedestrian Paths
The specific redevelopment goals for the Mill City site are:
• Extend residential pattern from west
• Internal and park focus
• Remove billboard with redevelopment of billboard property
(These goals also apply to the billboard property)
Highway 7/Louisiana Redevelopment Plan:
The Redevelopment Plan requires that all development meet the Livable Communities design
principles that are outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. Livable Communities principles include:
• Relationship of private development to public realm
• Walkability/good pedestrian connections
• Transit supportive development
• Architectural and building/site design at a human scale, with architectural interest
particularly at the pedestrian level
The Redevelopment Plan also suggests several code deviations for the area, including:
• Elimination of the requirement for a sidewalk on Highway 7.
• Allowance of open space requirement for housing to be met by the nearby park.
All of the principles are discussed below.
• Housing goals/higher density, intensity near Highway 7/extend residential pattern from west
This proposal meets the goal for high density housing on the site, extending the pattern from the
west of market rate residential apartments of the Newport on Seven development. The proposed
density is 38 units per acre, which is a fairly high density especially given the site constraints.
• Park focus/internal and park focus/relationship of private development to the public realm
These principles indicate that buildings and entrances are intended to be oriented towards and
relate well to Walker Street and the park. There should be appropriate building massing and
setbacks, entrances facing the street, and architecturally interesting facades along the streets.
The developer has submitted revised plans which improve the orientation towards Walker Street.
The main site entrance on Walker Street creates an inviting entrance, with sidewalks and green
space bordering the driveway and leading to the clubhouse to the south. The plans have been
revised to show two external building entrances along Walker Street. Staff has recommended
that these entrances should be fairly prominent, to provide a presence along the street and more
direct building access from public transit and the park. The entrances are indicated correctly on
the site plan, with stairways leading directly to Walker and benches outside the doors. The
49
entrances are shown incorrectly on the elevation drawings and these drawings will need to be
revised for final PUD submittal to be consistent with the site plan and to meet the above
objectives.
• Neighborhood linkages/pedestrian paths/walkability
Per the City’s Trail and Sidewalk Master Plan, a six foot concrete sidewalk is proposed along the
south side of Walker Street, and a ten foot bituminous bicycle/walking trail is proposed along the
west side of Louisiana Avenue. These paths will link to existing sidewalks along both sides of
Louisiana and other future sidewalks. The internal sidewalks have been improved. There are
links from Walker Street to the clubhouse and most other building entrances. Sidewalks are not
proposed along the south perimeter of the parking lot because the proposed berming around the
building makes it too difficult to install sidewalks. The proposed building entrances along
Walker provide a convenient means for residents to access the nearby pedestrian paths, transit,
and park. In addition, a traffic signal is planned for the Louisiana/Walker intersection, which
will greatly improve pedestrian crossing safety.
• Transit-supportive development
A reduction in the number of required parking spaces is proposed, and the intended market is for
some portion of transit-users such as seniors. The project is currently on a frequently operating
transit route, and two new circulator routes have been proposed for Walker and Louisiana which
would connect the area to other major bus routes. They will also link this area to the future
dedicated busway that is planned for the railroad corridor south of Highway 7. The revised site
plan shows existing and future transit stops. The proposed pedestrian links from the site to these
stops are adequate.
• Traffic lights at Louisiana/Walker and Lake
As part of the Highway 7/Louisiana Task Force study, a traffic study was performed and some
changes were recommended to accommodate existing and future development. A traffic signal
was recommended for the intersection of Walker Street and Louisiana Avenue. It was also
recommended that Louisiana Avenue be widened between Walker Street and Lake Street to
provide double left turn lanes onto Highway 7, in order to avoid stacking beyond these streets on
Louisiana during peak traffic hours. The developer is expected to pay for installation of the
traffic signal at Walker and a portion of the road widening north of Highway 7 through tax
increment financing. The signal is expected to be installed in conjunction with this development.
The widening of Louisiana north and south of Highway 7 is expected to be done as one project,
and this is anticipated to occur when the southwest corner of Highway 7/Louisiana redevelops.
The terms of the financing are being written into a development agreement between the EDA
and developer.
• Architectural and building/site design at a human scale, with architectural interest
particularly at the pedestrian level
The proposed building setbacks from Walker Street and Louisiana and the general scale and
massing relate well to the surrounding streets and developments. Rough elevation drawings have
recently been submitted primarily to show entrances along Walker Street and have not been
reviewed by staff. A complete analysis of design issues will be provided with the final PUD
when full elevation drawings and detailed landscape plans are required. Staff is recommending
50
that the building design provide architectural interest at the pedestrian level, particularly on the
north and east facades facing local streets, prominent and architecturally interesting building
entrances along Walker Street, and compatibility of design with surrounding development,
particularly the Newport on Seven apartments.
• Code deviations: No sidewalk on Highway 7/Usable open space to be met by nearby park
No sidewalk is proposed along Highway 7 with this development. The developer is proposing to
fulfill about 75% of the usable open space requirement through the park. This issue is discussed
further below.
Other Redevelopment Goals of the City which are specified in the Comprehensive Plan:
The apartment proposal meets other redevelopment goals of the City through:
• Redevelopment of blighted property
• Cleanup and redevelopment of a contaminated property
• Leveraging public funds effectively
• Creation of additional housing
At the preliminary stage, staff believes that the proposal generally meets the Redevelopment Plan
principles and Comprehensive Plan goals. As mentioned, a more detailed design review is
anticipated as part of the final PUD process.
How has the developer addressed the Planning Commission’s concerns regarding usable
open space?
The developer is proposing to provide approximately 25% of the standard usable open space
requirement on site, and to meet the rest of the requirement by providing links to the park as
suggested in the Redevelopment Plan for this area. The designated use of the site for high
density residential and the site constraints limit the ability to provide additional on-site open
space. It is difficult for most high density residential projects to meet the standard open space
requirement. The most recent residential project of a similar density, the Park Shores assisted
living expansion, included reduced on-site open space requirements. In addition, much of the
Mill City site is within the floodplain, and most on-site open space areas are proposed to be used
for floodplain storage. This was discussed during the Highway 7/Louisiana study, and the open
space requirement was therefore waived and allowed to be satisfied by the nearby park.
At the January 5 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission expressed concern
over the lack of usable open space proposed on site. In spite of the adopted Redevelopment
Plan, the Planning Commission raised concerns that the park would not serve well as an
alternative. The Commission asked the developer to determine if additional open space could be
provided on site, even if it meant reducing the amount of parking provided, or whether it could
be provided on an adjacent site. The Commission also asked for more information regarding
other on-site recreational amenities, which the developer had presented as an alternative at the
meeting, and to better show how the park would be accessible from the apartment site.
51
The developer has revised the site plan to show some on-site recreational amenities. Benches are
proposed outside most building entrances. The clubhouse is intended to be an indoor
recreational amenity, with an exercise room, community/party room, and a large deck facing
Highway 7. In addition, the site plan has been revised to show better internal pedestrian links
and better links to the park across Walker Street. Regarding usability of Oak Park, the Parks and
Recreation Department will be undertaking a process with a task force to identify specific
improvements which should be made to Oak Park. This could include trails, playground
equipment, and other features while preserving the playing fields.
The developer states that he has examined whether additional green space could be provided in
the internal courtyard, and that this is not feasible because it would require removing either
parking stalls or drive area. Staff concurs that it does not make sense to reduce parking beyond
the proposed reductions, and that the current circulation pattern is desirable. Staff believes that
the proposed reduction in usable open space is acceptable, based upon the following findings: 1)
it was a recommendation of the task force that studied this area extensively; 2) it was adopted as
part of the Comprehensive Plan; 3) the apartments are targeted towards adults rather than
children; and 4) the plan has been revised to provide good links to the park.
Is the preliminary plat acceptable?
The preliminary plat of Mill City Addition proposes to replat approximately 4.45 acres of the
former Mill City Plywood site and .85 acres of City-owned property into one 5.3 acre parcel.
The standard ten-foot perimeter easements are proposed around the perimeter of the property, per
the Zoning Ordinance and per a request from NSP electric company. There are no existing
easements on the property. Per the Public Works Department’s requirement, the preliminary plat
shows drainage and utility easements across all areas designated for floodplain storage and/or
ponding. A trail easement is proposed along the east property line adjacent to Louisiana Avenue
to accommodate the future bike/walking trail. This easement must be recorded as a separate
document as trail easements cannot be recorded with a final plat. The Public Works Department
has reviewed the preliminary plat in light of the additional right of way needs for a future
widening of Louisiana Avenue and has accepted the plat. A minimum six foot boulevard would
be maintained between the future road and future bike trail.
Grading plan and floodplain issues: As mentioned, large portions of the site are proposed to be
used for floodplain storage and ponding. The Public Works Department has reviewed and
accepted the developer’s floodplain storage plan. The preliminary grading plan has also been
accepted.
MNDOT Review: Because the proposed plat abuts Highway 7, MNDOT reviewed the
preliminary plat. A drainage permit is required from MNDOT, and staff is recommending a
condition that the permit be obtained prior to any site work. In addition, the plat must
accommodate a possible future widening of Highway 7 at Louisiana to install dual left turn lanes.
The proposed building and parking lots are sufficiently set back to allow for this. Otherwise,
MNDOT has accepted the preliminary plat.
52
Tree Replacement: There are a large number of cottonwoods and other trees on site which are
proposed to be removed to accommodate the apartment building, surface parking, and floodplain
storage. 1,499 caliper inches of trees are proposed to be removed total, and 1,798 inches of
replacement trees are required. The developer is anticipating that fewer than half of the
replacement trees can be replanted on site. Because of soil contamination and flood storage
requirements, the areas available for replanting are very limited. Staff is recommending that
cash in lieu of the remaining replacement inches be donated to the City for planting in Oak Park
and other public lands. The exact method of determining this cash amount would be worked out
between staff and the developer, to be approved by the Community Development Director and
the Parks and Recreation Director. A final tree replacement plan is required to be submitted for
final PUD consideration which will provide more information.
Park dedication fees: In cases where no new lots are being created, the City attorney has
determined that park dedication fees are not required of the developer. Therefore, no park
dedication fees are required in this instance.
Are Zoning Ordinance requirements met?
The apartment proposal is reviewed below for compliance with the applicable requirements of
the Zoning Ordinance.
R-C District basic dimensional and density standards: Following are the basic dimensional and
density information for the apartment proposal and how it compares to the requirements for the
R-C District:
Standard Standard Code Allowable Proposed
Requirement by PUD
Site area Min. 15,000 s.f. 5.3 acres
# of units 265 max 292 max 200
Density 50 units/acre 55 units/acre 38 units/acre
Building height 75’ or 6 stories 100’ or 4 stories over
Standard Standard Code Allowable Proposed
Requirement by PUD
8 stories One level parking
FAR 1.2 max 1.32 max 1.1
GFAR* .25 max* .26 max* (.30) .24*
53
Front setback 30’ min 0’ except when 40’
(Louisiana) may be reduced abutting “R”
per Comp Plan zoned property
Side setback 15’ min “ 15’
(Walker) may be reduced
Comp Plan
Side setback approx. 25’ min “ 40’
(Hwy 7)
Rear setback** 25’** 0’ except when 10’**
(billboard property) abutting “R”
zoned property
Enclosed parking* Not required; allows 200 stalls
Density bonuses
Total parking 340 stalls*** 289 stalls 316 stalls
Plus 10 proof
Usable open space waived per 20% decrease 15,215 s.f.
Comp Plan on site
(park allowance)
*Where 50% or more of required parking is under the principal structure, 300 s.f. per enclosed
stall may be added to lot area to determine allowable building area. With the density bonus, the
proposed GFAR is .24, which complies with the Zoning Ordinance.
**A variance for rear yard setback is required. See below for analysis.
***After allowable reductions due to proximity to mass transit and provision of bicycle stalls
(see PUD section below).
With the exception noted, the proposal complies with all Code requirements. An allowable PUD
modification for parking is also being requested.
Conditions for multiple family dwellings:
a. Access shall be to a roadway identified in the Comprehensive Plan as a collector or
arterial or shall be otherwise located so that access can be provided without generating
significant traffic on local residential streets.
Access is provided by Walker Street, which is a minor collector; Louisiana Avenue,
which is a major collector; and Highway 7, which is a major arterial road. In addition,
certain road improvements are required on Louisiana Avenue to improve vehicular and
pedestrian circulation on these roads.
54
b. Building lots shall contain a minimum of 400 square feet of usable open space per
dwelling unit and no more than ½ can be located in the front yard. New developments
which are required or elect to dedicate land or cash in lieu of land for parks, trails and
open space in accordance with the provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance may reduce
this requirement on a one for one basis to a minimum of 200 square feet per dwelling unit
(can be waived per condition g below).
Usable open space requirements are proposed to be met primarily through the adjacent
park, per the Redevelopment Plan for this area (see above for analysis).
c. The minimum spacing between buildings shall be the average heights of the buildings.
This condition is not applicable as only one building is being proposed.
d. All buildings shall be located a minimum of 15 feet from the back of the curb line of
internal private roadways or parking lots.
This condition is met.
e. If parking is accommodated on the required public or private road system, it must meet
minimum public street width requirements of the subdivision ordinance to allow on-street
parking.
This condition is not applicable as there are no additional roads proposed as part of this
development.
f. Sidewalks with a minimum width of five feet shall be provided along all sides of the lot
that abut a public street (can be waived per condition g below). Sidewalks shall also be
provided between the public street and parking areas to all building entrances.
Two of the interior building entrances do not have sidewalk links. The developer states
that they have provided internal sidewalks to the extent feasible, and that the proposed
grading in front of the building prevents sidewalks from being added around the south
perimeter of the parking lot. (The ground around the first floor garage is proposed to be
bermed up several feet.) Staff finds this acceptable. The proposal otherwise meets this
requirement, since the Redevelopment Plan waives the sidewalk requirement along
Highway 7.
g. Conditions a through f and certain performance standards may be waived or amended if so
specified in a Redevelopment Plan for the area that has been adopted as part of the City
Comprehensive Plan.
As noted above, the usable open space requirement and Highway 7 sidewalk requirement
were waived per an approved Redevelopment Plan adopted as part of the Comprehensive
Plan.
Landscaping: A preliminary landscape plan is included in the attachments. However, staff has
since met with the landscape architect to discuss several aspects of the plan and it is anticipated
to change significantly. It is anticipated that the landscape and bufferyard requirements can be
met or exceeded in all areas. The landscape architect has been working with the City Forester to
ensure that the plan will work well with existing boulevard trees and complement landscaping on
nearby sites. Detailed landscape plans are required as part of the final PUD submittals.
55
Architectural Standards: Detailed building elevations are not required with preliminary PUD;
therefore, more extensive review will be provided as part of the final PUD analysis. The rough
elevations that are included in the attachments were very recently submitted and have not been
reviewed for architectural design. The developer states that the exterior building materials will
meet or exceed the City’s exterior materials standards. They are also proposing to utilize a
relatively new exterior finish called Hardiplank, which is a fibrous cement material crafted to
appear like siding and purported to be much more durable. The Hardiplank material appears
consistent with other Class II materials that the City accepts such as architectural precast
concrete and artificial stucco such as EIFS and dryvit. Therefore, staff is recommending that the
material be accepted for this project only as a Class II material, and that its continued acceptance
as a Class II material be evaluated over time.
Are the requirements met for preliminary PUD?
Building and Site Design: The following criteria are to be met for PUDs:
A. The design shall consider the whole of the project and shall create a unified environment
within project boundaries by insuring architectural compatibility of all structures,
efficient vehicular and pedestrian circulation, aesthetically pleasing landscape and site
features, and design and efficient use of utilities.
The basic site design works well given the constraints of the property, and there appear to be
some interesting architectural features proposed as part of the building. A full design review will
be conducted as part of the final PUD consideration. Pedestrian and vehicular circulation
appears acceptable.
B. The design of a PUD shall achieve the maximum compatibility of the project with
surrounding land uses, both existing and proposed and shall minimize the potential
adverse impacts of the PUD on surrounding land uses and the potential adverse effects of
the surrounding land uses on the PUD.
The project is consistent with the designated land use of the site in the Comprehensive Plan and
is generally anticipated to have a positive impact on surrounding properties. Road improvements
are being required which will improve traffic circulation in the area. Compatibility of project
design with surrounding land uses will be further evaluated with final PUD consideration;
however, the project design should in particular be compatible with the adjacent Newport on
Seven apartments.
C. The design shall take into account any modifications of Ordinance requirements
permitted by Section 14:6-7.4 of this Ordinance and provide appropriate solutions to
eliminate the adverse impacts of any modification required for approval of the PUD.
The developer is proposing to provide 316 parking stalls plus 10 proof of parking stalls. Without
considering any allowable reductions, the standard requirement would be 400 stalls. However,
the Code allows up to a 10% reduction for providing superior access to mass transit (360 stalls),
and up to a 5% reduction for provision of on-site bicycle stalls (340 stalls). The developer is
comfortable with the amount of parking proposed, and intends to market at least a portion of the
units to residents with one or no cars, such as seniors and others who tend to rely more on transit.
56
Staff believes the parking reductions are acceptable given the proposed linkages to and proximity
to transit, and that minimizing parking furthers the Comprehensive Plan goals of promoting
greater reliance on mass transit and reducing surface parking.
Staff believes that additional PUD goals are met with this proposal through creative and efficient
use of land; utilization of new technologies in cleanup of a contaminated site and construction on
poor soils; potentially a higher standard of site and building design; and preservation of needed
flood storage capacity.
Does the proposed rear yard setback variance meet the required findings?
MSP Real Estate is requesting a variance from Section 14:5-4.6 G(11) of the Zoning Ordinance
to permit a rear yard setback of ten feet instead of the required 25 feet for property located in the
R-C, High Density Residential Zoning District. The apartment building is proposed to come
within ten feet of the southwest property line, which abuts a billboard property. While the PUD
Ordinance sometimes allows for reduced setbacks as an ordinance modification, this process
cannot be used where the proposed setback is adjacent to property that is residentially zoned or
used. Because the billboard property is zoned R-C, a variance is required.
In 1999, the Zoning Ordinance was amended to allow the City Council to act as the Board of
Zoning Appeals (BOZA) to grant variances when the variance request is requested in
conjunction with a CUP, PUD, or subdivision. In these cases, the Planning Commission is to
hold the public hearing and make a recommendation to the City Council, and the City Council
approves or denies the resolution. On January 5, 2000 the Planning Commission considered the
variance request and recommended approval on a vote of 6-0. In addition to staff’s findings, the
Commission added that 1) the property developers attempted to acquire the billboard site and
were unsuccessful and 2) that it is not financially feasible for the buildings to be redesigned to
meet the rear yard setback.
The Zoning Ordinance states that BOZA (or the Council as BOZA) is to consider the request and
“consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the
community, the existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light, and air, danger of fire, risk to
public safety, the effect on the character and development of the neighborhood and the values of
property in the surrounding area, and the effect of the proposed variance upon the
Comprehensive Plan. The BOZA may grant a variance from the strict application of the
provisions of the Ordinance provided that” all seven specific findings are met.
The seven findings follow and whether staff believes the findings have been met.
1. Where by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a lot, or where by reason of
exceptional topographic or water conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional
conditions of such lot, the strict application of the terms of this Ordinance would result in
a peculiar and practical difficulties or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of
such lot in developing or using such lot in a manner customary and legally permissable
within the zoning district in which said lot is located.
57
There are several exceptional circumstances which staff believes create a hardship in
meeting the setback requirement. The parcel is irregularly shaped, with the rear lot line
cutting off the southwest corner of the property. This makes it difficult to fit a larger
building on the site without creating an odd-shaped building. As a result, one corner of
the proposed building is proposed to encroach on the setback, which is a total of 550
square feet of building footprint. It appears that the building could not be relocated on
the site for several reasons. Significant portions of the site are within the floodplain,
which limits the available site area. In addition, the City is requiring a trail easement
across the eastern edge of the property, so that the building could not be shifted to the
east to increase the rear yard setback. The site contains extensive environmental
contamination as well as poor soils, resulting in significant additional development costs
for cleanup and special construction methods. The proposed density of 38 units per acre
is within the City’s goal for this site of high density housing of up to 50 units per acre.
Therefore, staff believes this criteria has been met.
2. Conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or
immediately adjoining property and do not apply generally to other land or structures in
the district in which said land is located.
The irregular lot shape is unique to this parcel. While other parcels contain some of the
same development challenges like floodplain replacement requirements, contamination,
or soil issues, the combination of conditions is extraordinary and specific to this property.
Staff believes this criterion has been satisfied.
3. The granting of the variance in necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant.
The developer has stated, and staff concurs, that the variance is necessary to make the
project feasible. Because of the numerous difficulties in developing the site, it is unlikely
that other alternatives exist which would not also require a variance. Staff believes that
this criteria is satisfied.
4. The granting of the proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air
to the adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in the public streets,
increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety.
The adjacent property affected is the billboard property to the southwest. The billboard is
a nonconforming use and the proposed setback has no negative impact on the
nonconforming use of the billboard property. Likewise, no adverse impact is anticipated
if the property were to redevelop in the future. As mentioned above, only a small portion
of the proposed building footprint encroaches into the required setback, whereas the
average setback proposed is 34 feet along this lot line. Any future building on the
adjacent lot would be required to be at least 25 feet from the closest portion of the
apartment building. The Building Official has determined that the proposed ten foot
setback is adequate from a safety perspective. Staff believes this criterion has been met.
58
5. The granting of the variance will not unreasonably impact on the character and
development of the neighborhood, unreasonably diminish or impair established property
values in the surrounding area or in any other way impair the health, safety, comfort, or
morals of the area.
Redevelopment of the site as high density residential is anticipated to have a positive
impact on surrounding properties by eliminating blighted buildings, cleaning up a
contaminated site, and adding to the housing opportunities in the area. The reduced rear
yard setback is not anticipated to negatively impact surrounding properties. Staff
believes this criterion has been met.
6. The granting of the proposed variance will not be contrary to the intent of this ordinance
and the Comprehensive Plan.
The Planned Unit Development (PUD) ordinance allows for reduced setbacks where the
reduction will not affect adjacent residential properties and where the setback facilitates
efficient use of the site. In this case, while the adjacent property is zoned residential, the
reduced setback is affecting a nonconforming billboard rather than residences. The
setback also facilitates efficient use of the proposed apartment site. Because the
circumstances are unique to the property, staff believes that the Zoning Ordinance is
upheld. The Comprehensive Plan anticipates redevelopment of this site as high density
housing for up to 50 units per acre, and the variance is necessary to achieve a high
density project. The Comprehensive Plan also contains a Redevelopment Plan for the
area which calls for reduced front and side setbacks, indicating that some flexibility is
warranted for this redevelopment area. Staff believes this criterion has been satisfied.
7. The granting of a variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is
necessary to alleviate demonstrable undue hardship or difficulty.
There are a number of physical hardships that have been demonstrated including irregular
lot shape, floodplain areas, soil conditions, and the public need for a trail across part of
the property. Given the site difficulties, staff concurs with the applicant that the variance
is necessary to make the property developable. Staff believes that this criteria has been
satisfied.
Staff believes that all seven of the criteria have been satisfied and is therefore
recommending approval of the variance for a ten foot rear yard setback.
Recommendation:
Staff believes that all seven of the criteria have been satisfied with respect to the requested
variance, and is recommending approval of the variance for a ten foot rear yard setback.
Staff is further recommending approval of the preliminary plat and preliminary PUD subject to
the conditions in the resolution.
59
Attachments:
• Proposed preliminary PUD and plat resolution
• Proposed variance resolution
• Official Exhibits
• Rough elevation drawings
• Floor plans
Prepared by: Sacha Peterson, Planner
60
RESOLUTION NO. 00-010
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
(PUD) UNDER SECTION 14:6-7 OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE
RELATING TO ZONING
FOR PROPERTY ZONED R-C HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
LOCATED AT 7301 WALKER STREET
AND
PRELIMINARY PLAT – MILL CITY ADDITION
WHEREAS, applications for approval of a Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD)
and Preliminary Plat for Mill City addition were received on December 14, 1999 from the
applicant, and
WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing on the Preliminary PUD and Plat was mailed to all
owners of property within 350 feet of the subject property plus other affected property owners in
the vicinity and
WHEREAS, notice of public hearing on the Preliminary PUD and Plat was published in the
St. Louis Park Sailor on December 22, 1999, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing at the meeting of January
5, 2000, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Preliminary PUD and
Plat on a 5-0 vote with all members present voting in the affirmative, and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the staff reports, Planning Commission
minutes and testimony of those appearing at the public hearing or otherwise including comments
in the record of decision.
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park:
Findings
1. MSP Real Estate has made application to the City Council for a Planned Unit Development
under Section 14:6-7 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code within the R-C High Density
Residential District located at 7301 Walker Street;
and
MSP Real Estate, owners and subdividers of the land proposed to be platted as Mill City
Addition has submitted an application for approval of preliminary plat of said subdivision in the
manner required for platting of land under the St. Louis Park Ordinance code, and all
proceedings have been duly had thereunder;
61
for the legal description as follows, to-wit:
See Attached Legal Description
2. The proposed preliminary plat has been found to be in all respects consistent with the City
Plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and the
ordinances of the City of St. Louis Park.
3. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning
Commission (Case Nos. 99-35-PUD and 99-37-S) and the effect of the proposed PUD and Plat
on the health, safety and welfare of the occupants of the surrounding lands, existing and
anticipated traffic conditions, the effect on values of properties in the surrounding area, the effect
of the use on the Comprehensive Plan, and compliance with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance.
4. The City Council has determined that the PUD and Plat will not be detrimental to the
health, safety, or general welfare of the community nor with certain contemplated traffic
improvements will it cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards, nor will it seriously depreciate
surrounding property values. The Council has also determined that the proposed PUD and Plat
are in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the
Comprehensive Plan and that the requested modifications comply with the requirements of
Section 14:6-7.2(E).
5. The contents of Planning Case Files 99-35-PUD and 99-37-S are hereby entered into and
made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
Conclusion
The Preliminary Planned Unit Development and Preliminary Plat for Mill City Addition at the
location described are approved based on the findings set forth above and subject to the
following conditions:
A. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with Exhibits A through F,
subject to approved plan changes through the final PUD and final plat process.
B. Prior to final PUD or final plat consideration, applicant shall comply with the following:
1. Provide detailed elevation drawings which show building entrances along Walker
consistent with the approved preliminary site plan and address the design issues outlined
in the staff report.
2. Submit complete final PUD and final plat application requirements (detailed elevations,
final tree replacement plan, final landscape plan, final plat drawing, etc.)
3. The applicant shall obtain agreement with MTC for a transit stop on Walker Street.
C. Within 90 days, the City shall receive a final plat and final PUD application or the
preliminary plat and preliminary PUD shall become null and void. Within 90 days, the City
shall receive a final PUD application or the preliminary PUD shall become null and void.
62
D. Final plat and PUD approval and development is contingent upon sale of certain City land to
developer and meeting all conditions of final approval.
E. Before a final plat is signed by the City, the developer shall comply with the following
requirements:
1. Submit to the City a copy of owner’s policy of title insurance which insures the City’s
interest in the plat, in an amount to be determined by the City.
2. A development agreement shall be executed between the developer and the City which
covers at a minimum, sidewalk and trail construction and maintenance, tree replacement,
and repair and cleaning of public streets. The development agreement shall also cite the
approved parking modification.
3. Submit financial security in the form of cash escrow or letter of credit in the amount of
125% of the costs of tree replacement, sidewalk installation, and repair/cleaning of public
streets.
4. Submit a copy of unrecorded trail easement document to City for review.
5. Reimbursement of City attorney’s fees in drafting/reviewing such documents.
F. Within 60 days of final plat approval by the City Council, the subdivider shall
record the final plat with the County Recorder. The subdivider shall, immediately
upon recording, furnish the City Clerk with a print and reproducible tracing of the
final plat showing evidence of the recording. The subdivider shall also provide a
copy of the final plat on disc in an electronic data format.
G. Prior to or simultaneously with recording of the final plat, the trail easement shall be
recorded.
H. Prior to any site work, the developer shall meet the following requirements:
1. A drainage permit shall be obtained from MNDOT.
2. A copy of the Watershed District permit shall be forwarded to the City.
3. Any other necessary permits from other agencies shall be obtained.
4. Sign assent form and official exhibits.
I. Prior to issuance of any building permits, which may impose additional requirements, the
developer shall comply with the following:
a. Meet any Fire Department emergency access requirements for during construction.
b. The subdivider shall furnish the City with evidence of recording of the final plat and trail
easement.
J. The developer shall pay for the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Louisiana
and Walker Street and creation of a left turn lane on Louisiana Avenue. The terms of this
shall be written into a development agreement between the developer and the Economic
Development Authority.
K. A PUD ordinance modification to allow 316 parking stalls rather than the required 340 stalls
is contingent upon final PUD approval.
L. A six foot concrete sidewalk along the south side of Walker Street is to be installed and
maintained by the developer per the approved preliminary site plan, unless the City chooses
to maintain the sidewalk. A ten foot bituminous trail is to be installed on Louisiana Avenue
by the developer and maintained by the City per the approved preliminary plat.
M. The developer shall provide the required number of replacement trees on site or a
combination of on-site trees and cash in lieu of trees. The Community Development Director
and Parks and Recreation Director shall approve the cash equivalent amount.
63
Pursuant to Section 14:6-7.5(F) of the Zoning Ordinance, the City will require execution of a
development agreement as a condition of approval of the Final P.U.D. The development
agreement shall address those issues which the City Council deems appropriate and necessary.
Attest: Adopted by the City Council February 7, 2000
City Clerk Mayor
Reviewed for Administration:
City Manager 99-35-PUD-99-37-S/N/res/ord
64
RESOLUTION NO. 00-011
A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 14:5-4.6.G.11 OF THE
ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING TO PERMIT A REAR YARD
SETBACK OF TEN (10) FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED TWENTY-FIVE (25)
FEET FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE R-C HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT AT 7301 WALKER STREET
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of St. Louis Park, Minnesota:
FINDINGS
1. MSP Real Estate has applied for a variance from Section 14:5-4.6.G.11 of the Ordinance
Code relating to zoning to permit a rear yard setback of ten (10) feet instead of the
required twenty-five (25) feet for property located in the R-C. High Density Residential
District at the following location, to-wit:
See Attached Legal Description
2. On January 5, 2000 The Planning Commission held a public hearing, received testimony
from the public, discussed the application and recommended approval of a variance.
3. The Planning Commission has considered the effect of the proposed variance upon the
health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions,
light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on values of property in
the surrounding area, and the effect of the proposed variance upon the Comprehensive
Plan.
4. Because of conditions on the subject property and surrounding property, it is possible to
use the property in such a way that the proposed variance will not impair an adequate
supply of light and air to the adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in
the public streets, increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety, unreasonably
diminish or impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to
the intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
5. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such
property or immediately adjoining property and do not apply generally to other land or
structures in the district in which such land is located.
6. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant. It will not merely serve as a convenience to
the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty.
65
7. The contents of Planning Case File 99-38-VAR are hereby entered into and made part of
the public hearing record and the record of decision of this case.
8. Under the Zoning Ordinance, this variance shall be deemed to be abandoned, revoked, or
canceled if the holder shall fail to complete the work on or before one year after the
variance is granted.
CONCLUSION
The application for the variance to permit a rear yard setback of ten (10) feet instead of the
required twenty-five (25) feet is granted based upon the finding(s) set forth above.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council February 7, 2000
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
66
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 8f
Meeting of February 7, 2000
8f. Request by General Growth Properties, Inc. to amend resolution of Planned
Unit Development for Knollwood Mall renovation, approval of 36th Street
screen wall design, and approval of Development Agreement.
Case No. 99-21-PUD
8332 State Highway 7
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt a resolution to approve a Minor Amendment to
the PUD resolution, approve screen wall design, and approve
Development Agreement.
Background:
On November 15, 1999 the City Council approved a Planned Unit Development for Knollwood
Mall. The Planned Unit Development consisted of renovating the mall for a 16-screen modern
theater, 500-stall parking deck, other parking and circulation changes, interior renovation to
reconfigure existing tenants, and reconstruction of a portion of the south façade for a new tenant.
As part of the PUD approval, the concept of a six foot high screen wall was approved, which was
intended to address residents’ concerns regarding existing and anticipated traffic and noise at the
mall and along 36th Street. At that meeting, the City Council expressed a desire to refine the
screen wall concept to preserve as many existing trees as possible in the median and to ensure
that the wall would meet residents’ needs. In addition, the Council wanted to review the
Development Agreement, in order to review the terms of constructing the wall on public right of
way. The Council therefore approved the PUD, subject to approving the Development
Agreement and general screen wall design at a later meeting.
At this time, in addition to these items, the developer is requesting a modification to the
approved resolution to enable demolition work to occur on the site prior to obtaining an Indirect
Source Permit from the MPCA.
The Aquila Neighborhood Assocation held a neighborhood meeting in December on other
issues, but an informal discussion of the Knollwood screen wall took place. The Ward
councilmember attended this meeting. A variety of concerns and needs were expressed that were
in addition to the desire expressed during the PUD public hearings for a screen and noise wall
along 36th Street. Generally, several residents living near Texas Avenue along 36th Street
strongly preferred a full six foot high screen wall, to alleviate perceived great impacts on their
property of the adjacent traffic and noise. Some residents living near Xylon and Yukon
Avenues, on top of the hill which looks down on the mall, were concerned that a six foot wall
was unnecessary and would provide too much of a visual barrier. Residents near Zinran pointed
out the need to maintain visibility for the pedestrian crosswalk and residential driveways which
back out onto 36th Street, and to provide for emergency vehicle access over the median into their
neighborhood.
67
As the residents’ input illustrates, there are a variety of needs and conditions which exist along
36th Street which must be taken into account. Additional considerations include: preserving
existing trees in the median to the extent possible; grade changes along 36th Street between
residences, the streets and the mall which create various height and view differentials; the need
to maintain pedestrian access and visibility at current crosswalks and bus stops; and taking into
account existing retaining walls along the median. Having received input from residents, the
developer, Councilmembers and other City staff, staff is proposing a modified screen wall design
which is intended to provide adequate screening while preserving visibility, access and aesthetics
along 36th Street.
Issues:
• What is the proposed general design of the screen wall?
• What is the anticipated effect of the screen wall?
• What are the terms of the proposed Development Agreement?
• How is the resolution proposed to be modified?
• Are there any other issues?
What is the proposed general design of the screen wall?
The screen wall is proposed to be constructed of precast concrete textured to look like brick, and
wood. There would be precast columns and base with wood between the columns. (Please see
tha attached section drawings.) The wall is proposed to be installed north of the mall property
within the 36th Street median which divides the 36th Street frontage road from the rest of 36th
Street. (For the purposes of this report, the frontage road that is directly south of residents on
36th Street, which does not have access to Aquila and Texas Avenues, is referred to as “the
frontage road,” and the portion of 36th Street that is directly north of the mall property and runs
between Aquila and Texas, is referred to as 36th Street.) The wall is proposed to be installed
along most portions of the median from Utah Avenue on the east to Zinran Avenue on the west
and would vary in height between three and six feet. There are several mature trees within the
median, and it is proposed that the wall provide breaks where the trees exist in order to preserve
them. There are also several light poles in the median, and these are proposed to be relocated
within the median, in the same approximate location but closer to the curb to accommodate the
wall.
The wall is proposed to be installed along the median and vary in height as follows (see attached
screen wall location drawing):
1. A six foot high wall from Utah to Virginia Avenue.
Reason: As residents expressed in the Aquila Neighborhood meeting in December and in
past Planning Commission and City Council meetings, the impacts of the mall and traffic
along 36th Street are high on the nearby residences in this area. The grade is mostly flat from
the houses across the street to the mall, so there is very little existing barrier for the residents.
Cub Foods generates a relatively high level of activity in this area as well. Therefore, we
68
believe the full six foot high wall is warranted to help screen residents from mall activity,
traffic, and noise.
2. A four foot high wall from Virginia to just west of the pedestrian crosswalk at Wyoming
Avenue.
Reason: In this area, the grade of the frontage road and the houses along the frontage road
dip below 36th Street and the mall property, and there is a concrete retaining wall along the
frontage road of approximately four feet in height. There is also a pedestrian crosswalk and
bus stop which are accessed from the frontage road via a pedestrian ramp. Because the
existing grades will tend to screen much of the headlights on the mall property already, and
to avoid creating an extremely high wall directly across the street from residences in this
area, a four foot high wall is believed to be appropriate. In addition, a four foot high wall
would allow people to be seen on both sides of the wall, which is desirable to ensure
pedestrian safety at the crosswalk.
3. Vary height of wall from five feet to three feet west of the pedestrian crosswalk to Xylon
Avenue, up to where the concrete retaining wall and guard rail start along 36th Street and
the frontage road and median begin to slope upwards.
Reason: Travelling west from the pedestrian crosswalk along the median, as the concrete
retaining wall tapers off, the grade flattens out again vis-à-vis the houses, frontage road, and
36th Street. However, in this area there is berming on the mall property which helps to
screen headlights towards the north. Staff is therefore proposing that the wall be
approximately five feet tall in this area and then taper off to three feet high as it goes west
and approaches the concrete retaining wall that is along 36th Street and as the grades begin to
change again.
4. No wall along the top of the concrete retaining wall/guard rail approximately from Xylon to
Yukon Avenue.
Reason: There is a steep hill in this area on which the houses and frontage road sit
significantly higher than 36th Street and the mall property. A screen wall is redundant here,
as the height differential and retaining wall provide an existing barrier to mall activity and
traffic on 36th Street. Some residents at the neighborhood meeting who lived in this area
expressed that a screen wall was undesirable in this area.
5. Four foot wall from the end of the concrete retaining wall/guard rail to several feet short of
Zinran Avenue and the bus stop near Zinran. This retaining wall could also be installed on
the south side of 36th Street on mall property to provide the desired screening effect.
Reason: As the grade flattens out between the streets, houses and mall property, there is a
need to provide screening for headlights on the mall property. The wall is proposed to stop
several feet short of the bus stop to allow for pedestrian visibility and safety. In addition, a
resident pointed out that emergency vehicles have in the past cut over the median from 36th
Street to Zinran, saving minutes to respond to calls, and stopping the wall by Zinran would
preserve this access. There is one residential driveway west of Zinran which accesses 36th
Street directly (not the frontage road), and the proposed location and height of the wall
would preserve visibility for this driveway. Some residents in this area preferred no wall.
69
As an alternative, a four foot high wall could be placed on the south side of 36th Street on
mall property to achieve the same effect of screening vehicle headlights on mall property.
As mentioned above, the wall is proposed to have breaks to preserve existing trees. Another
possibility is to provide additional breaks or staggering of the wall to soften the feel of a solid
barrier, while still preserving the screening effect. The final details of the wall design would be
produced by an architect and engineer contracted by the City and paid for by the developer, with
the final wall design to be approved by the Public Works Director and Community Development
Director.
What is the effect of the proposed screen wall?
The screen wall is anticipated to screen traffic, noise and other activity on the mall property and
to some extent on 36th Street, primarily from residences to the north. The screen wall would
have the effect of enabling vehicle headlights to be blocked from residents’ view all along 36th
Street. From Utah Avenue to Zinran Avenue, traffic along 36th Street would be blocked visually
and there would be some screening effect from traffic noise. As discussed in the November 15
City Council meeting, the impact of the proposed wall on noise will be relatively small. In the
traffic and noise study performed by SRF Consulting, a maximum noise increase of three
decibels was projected as a result of the mall and theater renovation proposal. Three decibels of
noise or less is considered to be barely perceptible to the human ear. A six foot high screen wall
running the length of 36th Street would block approximately three decibels of noise. Therefore,
the anticipated effect of the screen wall is primarily as a visual screen, and would block a very
small amount of noise in some areas. In addition, the anticipated effect of the screen wall is to
balance the need for screening with the desire to avoid the look and effect of a solid barrier
between the residential and commercial properties and to preserve access, visibility, and
aesthetics.
What are the terms of the proposed Development Agreement?
A copy of the proposed Development Agreement is attached. It is proposed that the City will
produce the final design, bid, construct, and eventually maintain the screen wall. The developer
would be responsible for all costs associated with the wall, including ongoing maintenance and
paying annual installments into a replacement reserve fund that would be used to rebuild the wall
when needed. All payments are proposed to be done through Special Assessment, the details of
which are outlined in the Development Agreement itself. In addition, the Development
Agreement specifies plan changes which may be approved administratively, the terms under
which the developer is required to install and maintain public sidewalks on the west and north
sides of the property, and other standard language that is typically included in this type of
Development Agreement. The Development Agreement would be recorded against the property
and would run for fifty years.
The City Attorney has drafted the Development Agreement, and the City Assessor,
Superintendent of Engineering, and Community Development Director have reviewed and
accepted the proposed Development Agreement. The developer’s attorney is also in agreement
with the terms.
70
How is the PUD resolution proposed to be modified?
Screen wall: The resolution is proposed to be modified to incorporate the revised screen wall
plans, and to allow for some flexibility in minor design changes. The final design including
height, location, materials and design are to be approved by the Public Works Director and
Community Development Director.
Development Agreement: The proposed changes remove the language that the Mayor and City
Manager are authorized to execute the development agreement, which should have been deleted
with the original PUD approval.
Indirect Source Permit: The developer is anticipating receiving an Indirect Source Permit in
April, which the resolution requires before any site work is begun or any building permits issued.
The developer is requesting allowance to begin demolition work prior to obtaining an Indirect
Source Permit. Staff believes this is acceptable, and the approved resolution is proposed to be
modified to allow demolition work to begin on site before an Indirect Source Permit is issued.
Recommendation:
Staff is recommending approval of the Minor PUD Amendment, general screen wall design and
Development Agreement subject to the conditions in the resolution.
Attachments:
• Approved PUD resolution with proposed changes redlined
• Proposed amended resolution
• Revised Exhibit B, Concept plan showing location and height of screen wall
• Revised Exhibit D, Sections plan showing elevations and section of screen wall
• Proposed Development Agreement
Prepared by: Sacha Peterson, Planner
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
71
RESOLUTION NO. 00-012
Rescinds Resolution
99-125
98-103
A RESOLUTION RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 99-125 ADOPTED ON
NOVEMBER 1, 1999 AND APPROVING A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD)
UNDER SECTION 14:6-7 OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE RELATING
TO ZONING FOR PROPERTY ZONED C-2 GENERAL COMERCIAL
LOCATED AT 8332 STATE HIGHWAY NO 7
WHEREAS, the St. Louis Park City Zoning Ordinance permits shopping centers in excess
of 200,000 square feet by Planned Unit Development (PUD) under certain conditions in the C-2
Commercial Zoning District, and
WHEREAS, an application for approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) was
received on August 5, 1999 from the applicant, and
WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing on the Preliminary and Final PUD was mailed to all
owners of property within 350 feet of the subject property plus other affected property owners in
the vicinity and
WHEREAS, notice of public hearing on the Preliminary and Final PUD was published in
the St. Louis Park Sailor on August 4 & 18, 1999 , and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing at the meeting of August
18, 1999 and continued the public hearing, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission opened the continued public hearing at the meeting
of September 15, 1999, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Preliminary and Final
PUD on a 6-0 vote with all members present voting in the affirmative, and
WHEREAS, the City Council approved the Preliminary and Final PUD on November 1,
1999 and adopted Resolution No. 99-125, directing the Development Agreement and final screen
wall design to come back to the City Council for approval; and
WHEREAS, General Growth has requested an amendment to the resolution to allow
demolition to proceed before an Indirect Source Permit is obtained; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the staff reports, Planning Commission
minutes and testimony of those appearing at the public hearing or otherwise including comments
in the record of decision.
72
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park:
Findings
1. General Growth Properties, Inc. has made application to the City Council for a Planned Unit
Development under Section 14:6-7 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code within the C-2 General
Commercial District located at 8332 State Highway No. 7 for the legal description as follows,
to-wit:
See Attached Legal Description
2. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning
Commission (Case No. 99-21-PUD) and the effect of the proposed PUD on the health, safety and
welfare of the occupants of the surrounding lands, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the
effect on values of properties in the surrounding area, the effect of the use on the Comprehensive
Plan, and compliance with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance.
3. The City Council has determined that the PUD will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or
general welfare of the community nor will it cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards, nor
will it seriously depreciate surrounding property values. The Council has also determined that
the proposed PUD is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance
and the Comprehensive Plan and that the requested modifications comply with the requirements
of Section 14:6-7.2(E).
4. The contents of Planning Case Files 98-16-CUP and 99-21-PUD are hereby entered into and
made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
Conclusion
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Resolution No. 98-103 (Document not filed)
is hereby rescinded and replaced by this resolution which incorporates conditions of previously
approved continued special permit and approves a Preliminary and Final Planned Unit
Development at the location described based on the findings set forth above and subject to the
following conditions:
A. The site shall be developed, used, and maintained in conformance with Exhibits A
through H; Exhibit B, Concept plan hereby modified to reflect general location and
height of screen wall along 36th Street. Exhibit D is hereby modified to show revised
screen wall height and sections. Exhibit D to be further modified to show brick posts on
directional signs or other materials acceptable to the Planning Supervisor other than metal
poles.
B. Prior to any site work, the developer shall comply with the following:
a. Sign the official exhibits and assent form.
b. Obtain an Indirect Source Permit from the MPCA if required, and any other
necessary permits from state or other agencies, except that demolition work shall
be allowed before an Indirect Source Permit is obtained.
c. Submit a copy of the Watershed District permit to the City.
73
d. Submit and have approved detailed stormwater plans to the Public Works
Department and cooperate in making any required revisions.
e. A Development Agreement shall be executed between the owner, developer and
the City which addresses at a minimum screen wall cost and maintenance,
approved building and site design criteria, installation of landscaping and
sidewalks, construction phasing, bonding, maintenance, mall security, conditions
of approval as identified in the resolution, and administrative approvals. The
Mayor and City Manager are authorized to execute this agreement on behalf of
the City Council.
C. Prior to issuance of a building permit, which may impose additional requirements,
the developer shall comply with the following:
a. All issues with Cub Foods shall be resolved and Cub Foods shall be eligible for a
permanent Certificate of Occupancy.
b. All building material and color samples, including EIFS, stucco, brick, metal
roofing, and architectural precast, shall be submitted to and approved by the
Zoning Administrator and Community Development Director.
c. Submit irrigation and lighting photometric plans for approval by the Zoning
Administrator.
D. Prior to installation of any new signage:
a. Sign permits shall be obtained
b. The existing movie theater sign shall be removed.
E. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy:
a. Five foot wide concrete sidewalks shall be installed along the entire length of
Aquila Avenue and 36th Street per the official exhibits. Developer is responsible to
maintain sidewalks. To accommodate a sidewalk on 36th Street, branches on
existing trees may be cut on one side only up to eight feet in height.
b. Automatic irrigation shall be provided for all newly landscaped areas throughout
the mall site, including parking islands.
c. At the developer’s expense, the City shall install a six foot high masonry and wood
wall along the north side of 36th Street as shown in concept on the Official Exhibits.
The developer is also responsible for the cost of maintaining and/or replacing the
wall. A separate agreement shall be executed between the City and developer
addressing terms and conditions of constructing and maintaining the wall or the
terms shall be stated in the Development Agreement. The Mayor and City
Manager are authorized to execute such agreement. Final details of the wall
location, design, height and materials and appearance shall be generally consistent
with the Official Exhibits, with the final design to be submitted by the developer
and approved by the Director of Public Works and the Community Development
Director. All concrete portions are to be texturized to look like masonry.
F. The following ordinance modifications are approved as part of the Planned Unit
Development, and shall not exceed the standards as outlined below:
a. Parking requirements for the mall are reduced to 2,744 spaces total.
b. The main mall identification sign may be 38 feet in height.
c. Landscaping: Existing bufferyard along Highway 7 approved. Bufferyard along
36th Street approved per Official Exhibit H, landscape/screening plan.
G. Fire lanes and connections shall be as approved by the Fire Marshall.
74
H. All food service facilities shall be as approved by the Inspections Department.
I. No outdoor sales or storage is allowed (other than temporary sales in accordance with
Code provisions). Temporary permits for outdoor sales shall be issued only as the
Zoning Administrator determines that adequate parking remains for the rest of the mall.
J. Within five years, all landscaped areas including parking islands shall have automatic
irrigation.
K. Developer shall work with staff to provide evergreen plantings along Aquila Avenue if
possible.
Attest: Adopted by the City Council February 7, 2000
City Clerk Mayor
Reviewed for Administration:
City Manager 1630/N/res/ord
75
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item #8g
Meeting of February 7, 2000
8g. Sale of City Property Located South of Jewish Community Center
4326 Cedar Lake Road
This report considers action by the City Council to adopt second reading of an
ordinance regarding the sale of certain City owned property located at 4326 Cedar
Lake Road and to authorize execution of a purchase agreement.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve second reading, adopt ordinance that
authorizes the sale of a portion of City owned property located
south of the Jewish Community Center at 4326 Cedar Lake
Road, approve summary and authorize publication.
Motion to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute a
purchase agreement with the Jewish Community Center of
Greater Minneapolis.
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.
76
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
reviewed this matter and found that the sale of the property was consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
On January 18 the City Council approved first reading of an ordinance authorizing the sale. As
part of this action, the City Council asked staff to research the need to retain an easement for
roadway purposes through the entire site. This issue is discussed later in this report.
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, provided certain utility and trail 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. Please see a
section later in this report regarding the need to retain an easement for future street
purposes.
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.
77
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.
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.
78
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
dump site in the area in question and that it may be at least partially on the City’s property. This
dump apparently operated in the 1930’s and 1940’s and was closed before the City acquired the
property in 1954.
Staff had a limited Phase I Review conducted on the property which concluded the following:
“……….limited dumping activities have taken place on the subject property and that the
probability of finding a significant environmental pollution problem there is low. This
conclusion is supported by the City’s records of the 1967 sewer installation through the subject
site, that do not indicate pollution was encountered. The limited scale of dumping shown on the
photographs, the continuous presence of trees on the property, and the amount of time that has
passed since dumping ceased (prior to 1953) indicates a low potential for environmental
problems at this site due to the Gustafson Dump.”
Although the above information is good news, the City is making no representation in the
purchase agreement regarding the environmental suitability of the site. The purchase agreement
provides the buyer the option to do its own testing of the property and determine whether or not
to proceed with the purchase based on their research.
Should the City retain an easement over the site for future roadway needs?
During the 1/18/00 Council meeting a question was raised regarding the need to retain an
easement over the subject property for street purposes. The premise behind this question is that
there may be the need to extend Cedar Lake Road to the east as a means to connect with
northbound France Ave. and ultimately the south frontage road on Highway 394 (note: A 66 foot
wide France Ave. right-of-way does exist entirely within Minneapolis from the Burlington
Northern tracks to the south frontage road. There does not appear to be sufficient right-of-way to
extend France Ave. south of the Burlington Northern tracks. It appears very difficult to extend
Cedar Lake Road east of France Avenue due to various physical constraints, e.g., Brownie
Lake.) The City Council asked staff to provide a response to this question for the 2/7 meeting.
In summary, staff recommends that a street easement not be provided for at this time in the
purchase agreement. Upon discussing this matter with the Public Works and Fire Dept. staff, it
is their opinion that such a future street improvement is not essential for transportation or public
safety reasons. Support for this position includes the fact that the City’s recently adopted 20-
year Comprehensive Plan, which contains a Transportation chapter, does not call for this
improvement.
Staff would point out that the City is not necessarily closing the door on discussions about a
future street if it does not include a street easement in the purchase agreement at this time. The
purchase agreement contains a contingency in favor of the City which states that the City is not
obligated to sell the land unless the buyer receives approvals from the City in the future for their
79
project. As a result, this matter could be revisited at the time a JCC project was submitted for
approval. In fact, even if the City knew at this time that it wanted to retain an easement for
future street purposes, it would make the most sense to wait to identify and coordinate the
location of this possible future street in the context of a JCC facility expansion proposal.
Attached is an aerial photo of the area in question.
Attachments:
• Ordinance
• Ordinance Summary
• Purchase Agreement
• Survey
• Aerial Photo
Prepared by:
Tom Harmening
Community Development Director
Approved by:
Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
1620:n
80
ORDINANCE NO. 2154-00
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.
81
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
82
SUMMARY
ORDINANCE NO. 2154-00
CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING SALE OF CITY PROPERTY
TO THE JEWISH COMMUNITUY CENTER
This ordinance states that 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.
This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication.
Adopted by the City Council February 7, 2000
Jeffrey W. Jacobs /s/
Mayor
A copy of the full text of this ordinance is available for inspection with the City Clerk.
Published in St. Louis Park Sailor: February 16, 2000
99-32-re-sum
83
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;
84
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
85
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.
86
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.
87
SECTION 6.
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;
88
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.
89
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
expressly set forth herein, or in other contemporaneous written agreements. This
90
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.
8.11) This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which
shall be an original.
91
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
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
92
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
93
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.
94
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:
95
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.
96
EXHIBIT "C"
to
REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AGREEMENT
(Well Disclosure Certificate)
97
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
98
*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).
99
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 8h
Meeting of February 7, 2000
8h. Request by Novartis Nutrition Corp. for a Major Amendment to a Special
Permit for a 2,000 square foot building addition
Case No. 99-29-CUP
5320 W. 23rd Street
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt a resolution approving Special Permit
Amendment, subject to conditions in the resolution.
Zoning: I-G, General Industrial
Comprehensive Plan Designation: Industrial
Background:
Novartis is requesting a Special Permit Amendment in order to construct a 2,000 square foot
building addition onto the north side of their main building for a new boiler room. The addition
would maintain the existing 16 foot setback from the north property line and is proposed to be
consistent with the 36 foot height of the rest of the building wall.
On January 19, 2000 the Planning Commission held a public hearing and considered the Special
Permit Amendment request. The request was continued from the December 15, 1999 Planning
Commission meeting. Originally, the Special Permit Amendment request was in conjunction
with a replatting and street vacation request for the property, and a Special Permit Amendment
was required to allow more than one building on one lot. Novartis has since withdrawn the
platting and vacation request, and is requesting the Special Permit Amendment for the building
addition instead. The Planning Commission closed the public hearing and voted 6-0 to
recommend approval. Several residents spoke at the December 15, 1999 public hearing
regarding emissions of Ovaltine dust and odors, and noise from the facility. Novartis is working
with the Inspections Department to address these issues as explained below.
Issues:
• Are the requirements met for a Special Permit Amendment?
• How is Novartis addressing dust, odor and noise emissions?
Issues Analysis:
Are the requirements met for a Special Permit Amendment?
The requirements for amending a Special Permit are as follows:
100
a) Any property covered by a continued special permit shall continue to comply with all
provisions of the special permit which were in effect on December 31, 1992.
The property is in conformance with the terms of the existing Special Permit.
b) Any expansion, alteration or modification shall comply in all respects with applicable
provisions of this ordinance, and shall not result in an increase or intensification of any
existing non-conformities (with certain exceptions).
Exterior materials: The building addition is proposed to be painted concrete block to match the
rest of the north building wall, which is also painted concrete block. Painted concrete block is
considered a Class III material and is limited to no more than 10% of any building elevation.
Because the proposed building addition would fill in a portion of the existing north wall rather
than extend the wall, the proposed exterior material is not an increase in nonconformity. In
addition, staff concurs with the applicant that it makes the most sense for the exterior material of
the new portion to match that of the existing wall, given the size of the addition relative to the
rest of the wall. See below for further discussion of the exterior material of the north wall as a
whole.
Parking: Because the proposed 2,000 square foot addition is maintenance-related space, there
are no additional parking requirements, and no new parking spaces are being proposed.
Therefore, the proposed building addition does not increase the nonconformity of the parking.
c) 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 this is not required for certain provisions (including lot area, lot width, building
setbacks, usable open space, floor area ratio and certain other provisions).
The existing nonconformities on the site include exterior materials, north bufferyard, building
wall deviation, parking, and setbacks.
North building wall/bufferyard: As mentioned, the exterior material of the north building wall
consists entirely of painted concrete block, and is therefore nonconforming. In addition, there
are landscape bufferyard requirements along the portion of the property that is adjacent to the
commercial use to the north (the health club). The only landscaping in this area are a few
evergreens planted near the northwest corner of the building which screen the building from
view of the residences to the northwest. Staff analyzed the feasibility of requiring additional
landscaping, in order to bring the property into closer conformance with City Codes and to soften
the appearance of the building wall from adjacent uses. It appears that this is not feasible. The
City has obtained a temporary construction easement over most of the 16 feet between the
building and property line for purposes of installing a regional trail along the adjacent railroad
property and will be regrading the Novartis land. The soil is extremely poor and would probably
not support landscaping or trees; the City’s plan is to sod the area once the trail has been
installed. Therefore, staff is not recommending any changes to this area. There may be
opportunities on nearby public lands for landscaping/plantings in the future, in conjunction with
trail construction. Staff would usually recommend that the applicant pay for the additional
101
landscaping. However, Novartis has recently donated to the City the temporary construction
easement for the trail as well as a permanent easement over part of the same property at a value
of several thousand dollars, and to some extent the future trail is creating the desire to enhance
this area. Therefore, staff is not proposing any additional landscaping by Novartis at this time.
Building wall deviation: With the exception of the north building wall as noted above, staff
believes that the building’s shape and appearance meets the basic intent of the wall deviation
standard, and that not meeting the Code results from the very large building size. Furthermore,
the size of the proposed addition relative to the overall building size is very small, so that the
potential cost of correcting this is not warranted. Staff is not recommending any changes to
building wall deviation.
Number of parking stalls: The site provides 247 parking stalls, whereas 529 are required. The
applicant asserts, and staff has confirmed through periodic site visits, that the amount of parking
provided is more than adequate for the current needs. The discrepancy between the actual
parking needs and the requirements in the Zoning Ordinance is probably because the Zoning
Ordinance has only one parking standard for all types of manufacturing, and parking needs for
different types of manufacturing can vary greatly. There is also good access to transit from the
site, which may be reducing the number of employees driving to work. Staff believes that this
nonconformity does not need to be corrected at the present time.
Building setbacks: Required building setbacks are not met at the front yard and because old lot
lines cross through the main building. Building setbacks are not required to be addressed
through the Special Permit Amendment process.
Therefore, staff is recommending no additional changes to the property.
How is Novartis addressing dust, odor and noise emissions?
Several residents complained in the December 15, 1999 public hearing about Ovaltine dust on
their properties and odor, and one resident living to the north of Novartis complained about
noise. The Inspections Department followed up on these complaints. The noise issue appears to
have been resolved last summer, although the complaintant was encouraged to call back if the
problem reappears. Inspections has worked in the past with Novartis and proposed to continue
working with them in the future on a voluntary basis to reduce dust and odor emissions. The
operation is not in violation of state or local ordinances regarding dust or odor emissions,
however the City and Novartis agree that it is a goal to reduce emissions. Novartis is currently
looking at some new technologies to correct the problems. The new devices are fairly costly,
and Novartis would like to phase them in over time. The devices include a better monitoring
system for cleaning the filters which trap dust, and an incinerator to burn off the odors before
they can be released into the air. Staff is recommending a condition that Novartis continues to
phase in new technology to reduce dust and odors.
102
Recommendation:
Staff is recommending approval of the Special Permit Amendment with the following
conditions:
1. The site shall be developed, used and maintained according to Exhibits Z, Site Survey
and Exhibit AA, Building elevations; such documents to be incorporated by reference
herein.
2. Approval of a building permit, which may impose additional requirements.
3. Prior to any site work, assent form and official exhibits are to be signed by the applicant.
4. The applicant shall continue to phase in technology to reduce dust and odors from the
operation.
Attachments:
• Proposed resolution
• Official Exhibits
• Proposed floor plan
Prepared by: Sacha Peterson, Planner
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
103
RESOLUTION NO. 00-013
Amends Resolutions
96-99
92-165
A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 96-99 ADOPTED ON
JULY 15, 1996 AND GRANTING AMENDMENT TO CONTINUED SPECIAL
PERMIT UNDER SECTION 8-6 OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE
CODE RELATING TO ZONING TO ALLOW A 2,000 SQUARE FOOT
ADDITION AT 5320 W 23RD STREET
FINDINGS
WHEREAS, Novartis Nutrition has made application to the City Council for an amendment
to a continued special permit under Section 8-6 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code to allow a
2,000 square foot addition at 5320 West 23rd Street within an IG, General Industrial District,
having the following legal description:
Legal Description Attached
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the information related to Planning Case No.
99-29-CUP and the effect of the proposed 2,000 square foot addition on the health, safety, and
welfare of the occupants of the surrounding lands, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the
effect on values of properties in the surrounding area and the effect of the use on the
Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, a continued special permit was amended regarding the subject property
pursuant to Resolution No. 96-99 of the St. Louis Park City Council dated July 15, 1996 which
contained conditions applicable to said property; and
WHEREAS, due to changed circumstances, amendments to those conditions are now
necessary, requiring the amendment of that conditional use permit; and
WHEREAS, it is the intent of this resolution to continue and restate the conditions of the
permit granted by Resolution No. 96-99 to add the amendments now required, and to consolidate
all conditions applicable to the subject property in this resolution;
WHEREAS, the contents of Planning Case File 99-29-CUP are hereby entered into and
made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
IX. CONCLUSION
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Resolution No. 96-99 filed as Document No.
6683400 is hereby restated and amended by this resolution which continues and amends a
continued special permit to the subject property for the purposes of permitting a 2,000 square
104
foot addition within the IG General Industrial District at the location described above based on
the following conditions:
1. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with Exhibit A - Site Plan
and Exhibit B - Elevation Plan. (Exhibits on file in the City Development Department at
the City of St. Louis Park.)
2. All improvements, including the warehouse addition and landscaping as shown on
Exhibits A and B shall be completed by May 15, 1981.
3. That an expansion consisting of a warehouse, spray tower, administrative building,
mixing and packaging building, and a mechanical/maintenance building are hereby
allowed subject to the following conditions:
a. That the site be developed, used and maintained in accordance with Exhibit C -
Site Plan; Exhibit D - Composite Elevations; Exhibit E - Planting Plan; and
Exhibit F - Site Layout. (See Condition 7 for modification to Exhibit C).
b. Acceptance of the scored burnished block on the south wall on Building No. 10 is
for an interim period only, and said wall shall be improved with a brick facade
unless expansion to the south commences on or before May 1, 1986.
c. That there be no rooftop equipment on the drying tower and that other rooftop
equipment be screened as shown on the plans.
d. That all improvements including landscaping, parking, buildings and other
features as shown on Exhibits C, D, E and F be completed by May 15, 1983.
4. The new office, processing and warehouse addition be constructed in accordance with
Exhibits G - Area Plan; Exhibit H - Utility Plan; Exhibit I - Landscape Plan; and Exhibits
J, K and L - Elevation Plans, subject to the following conditions:
a. Use and the improvements of the temporary lot located on the south side of West
23rd Street is temporary extending until October 15, 1988.
b. The applicant and the applicant's successors and assigns agree to cooperate with
the City in the implementation of an improved drainage plan for the site and area.
c. All improvements including building, landscaping, curbing and other elements
shown on the exhibits shall be completed by October 15, 1985.
5. The site be developed, used and maintained in accordance with Exhibit M - Site Plan
with respect to providing a new driveway which shall be completed by May 15, 1986.
6. That the liquid storage facility containing approximately 14,000 square feet be permitted
in accordance with Exhibit N - Site Plan; Exhibit O - Elevation Plan; and Exhibit P -
Floor Plan, subject to the following:
a. That the exterior on the south elevation be brick and that the brick on the east
elevation be allowed to be delayed until May 15, 1991.
105
7. The continued special permit shall be amended pursuant to Planning Case No. 92-59-SP
to permit a security fence subject to the following conditions:
a. Exhibit C - Site Plan is hereby modified by Exhibit Q - Fence Location.
b. The fence shall be constructed of green vinyl clad chain link and shall not exceed
6 feet in height.
8. The continued special permit shall be amended pursuant to Planning Case No. 96-13-
CUP to permit construction of two separate additions to an existing building subject to
the following conditions:
a. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with Exhibit R -
Site Plan; Exhibit S - Partial Site and Landscape Plan; Exhibit T - Foundation
Plan; Exhibit U - Floor Plan; and Exhibits V, W, X and Y - Elevations which are
modified according to the following conditions:
i. Upon the use of standard C.M.U. instead of rock face block, it must be
painted to match the color of the existing building, thus reducing the
ability to decipher the new additions from the older, existing structure.
ii. The additions must both have an extension to the existing automatic
sprinkler system in compliance with NFPA 13 standards.
iii. Any new exits must be supplied with fire alarm manual pull devices in
addition to the existing alarm system.
iv. Two evergreen trees 12’ - 14’ in height and three deciduous
shade/overstory trees with a minimum of a 4” caliper will be planted along
the northern property line, across from the existing 10B addition, and in a
staggered pattern in order to provide screening of the loading area from
the nearby residential development. The location of the said trees shall be
approved by the Planning Coordinator.
v. The pavement will be extended to meet the traffic needs of the proposed
additions as illustrated on Exhibit S - Site Plan.
9. The continued special permit shall be amended on February 7, 2000 (Case No. 99-29-
CUP) to incorporate all of the preceding conditions and add the following conditions:
a. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with Exhibit Z, Site
Survey and Exhibit AA, building elevations; such documents incorporated by reference
herein.
b. Approval of a building permit, which may impose additional requirements.
c. Prior to any site work, assent form and official exhibits are to be signed by the
applicant (or applicant and owner if applicant is different from owner).
d. The applicant shall continue to phase in new technology to reduce dust and odors
from the operation.
106
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council February 7, 2000
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
107
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 8i
Meeting of February 7, 2000
8i. First Reading Zoning Ordinance Map Amendments
CASE NO. 00-02-Z
First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Map Amendments to change designations for
properties located at the NW quadrant of France Avenue and Excelsior Boulevard
(the Al’s Liquor site, dry cleaner and vacant residential properties) from C1
Neighborhood Commercial and R2 Single Family Residential to MX Mixed Use
and R4 Multi Family Residential.
Recommended
Action:
Adopt first reading of ordinance changing Zoning Ordinance
Map for properties located at the NW quadrant of France Avenue
and Excelsior Boulevard and set second reading for February 22,
2000.
Background:
On May 17, 1999, the City Council, at the recommendation of the Planning Commission,
adopted Comprehensive Plan 2000–2020 that changed land use designations for the subject
properties. The Comprehensive Plan also included development guidelines for the subject
properties in the Plan By Neighborhood chapter.
State Statute requires the City to bring “official controls” into conformance with the
Comprehensive Plan within nine months of its effective date (September 1, 1999). The proposed
Zoning Map amendments are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and are intended to meet
that statutory requirement. (Additional Zoning map amendments will be forthcoming in the next
couple months to address inconsistencies in other locations including properties within Park
Commons.)
There are no current development proposals for the subject properties.
Notification of the proposed change was mailed to every resident of the Minikahda Oaks
Neighborhood in addition to the required notification to property owners within a 350-foot radius
of the proposed change.
On January 19, 2000, the Planning Commission held a public hearing relative to the proposed
change. After taking public testimony and discussing the merits of the change, the Planning
Commission recommended approval. Persons from the Minikahka Oaks Neighborhood were in
attendance and voiced concern that any future development address their concerns relative to
traffic, building height and scale, and aesthetics. These concerns have been incorporated in the
design guidelines set forth in the Comprehensive Plan Plan By Neighborhood chapter.
108
Analysis and Proposed Map Changes:
34TH ST W
EXCELSIOR BLVDFRANCE AVE SWolfe Park
Minikahda Vista
Minikahda Oaks
Centline.shp
Slparzoning.shpCIVCMXCOCOMINDOFCPRKR 1RHRLRMROWRRRVAC
Nhood.shp
Comprehensive Plan Designations
The proposed change is located north of Excelsior Boulevard at the eastern city limits. The
property is currently occupied by a Al’s Bar, a dry cleaner and parking.
34TH ST W34TH ST W FRANCE AVE SEXCELSIO R BLVD
109
Issues:
Will the proposed change cause non-conformities?
The subject properties contain a freestanding bar, a dry cleaner, and a parking lot. Currently the
freestanding bar and that portion of the parking lot that is located on residentially zoned property
are non-conforming. Under the proposed change the dry cleaner would also be non-conforming.
The reason is that within a mixed-use zoning district, all uses are permitted by PUD and all
buildings are required to be mixed-use and multi-story. No PUD has currently been approved for
the site. The dry cleaner as a land use is permitted in the MX district provided it is part of a
larger mixed use building. A bar could also potentially be permitted as an accessory use in the
MX District by PUD.
The existing non-conforming uses would be allowed to remain in their current form until
redevelopment. However, if more than 60% of the non-conforming use was destroyed, it would
not be rebuildable.
Are changes consistent with the Plan By Neighborhood Section?
The following has been excerpted from the Plan By Neighborhood chapter of the Comprehensive
Plan.
“Specific Development Guidelines:
Redevelopment of the commercial corner shall be mixed use including small scale
retail, office, and residential uses, with primarily residential uses on the north
side. The transition from a commercial front to the single family area shall be
mindful of scale, density, quality, aesthetics, and vehicle access. Civic uses
within the commercial area are encouraged. New development shall follow urban
design goals set in Chapter R” (Livable Communities).
The Zoning Ordinance requires all properties to be in conformance with the
Comprehensive Plan. Since all uses in the Mixed-Use District are permitted only
by PUD, any new development application would receive Planning Commission
and City Council review and a public hearing.
110
Existing Zoning
R2
RC C1
Proposed Zoning
R2
RC
C1
R2
R4
CMX
Attachments: Ordinance
Prepared by: Judie Erickson, Planning Coordinator
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
111
ORDINANCE NO.__________
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE
CHANGING BOUNDARIES OF ZONING DISTRICTS
NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF FRANCE AND EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. The St. Louis Park Zoning Ordinance adopted December 28, 1959, Ordinance
No. 730; amended December 31, 1992, Ordinance No. 1902-93, as heretofore amended, is
hereby further amended by changing the zoning district boundaries by reclassifying the
following described lands from their existing land use district classification to the new land use
district classification as indicated for the tract as hereinafter set forth, to wit:
Lots 3, 4, 9, 10, 11 Block 5 “Minikahda Oaks, Hennepin County Minnesota”;
From R2 Single Family Residential to R4 Multi-Family Residential
Lots 5, 6, 7, 8 Block 5 “Minikahda Oaks, Hennepin County Minnesota”;
And
Lots 7 and 8 except road also beginning at the intersection of SWLY line of
Minikahda Oaks with the NWLY line of Excelsior Blvd as widened; thence
SWLY along said NWLY line 30 ft; thence NWLY at right angles 190 ft to SLY
extensions of center line of Glenhurst Ave; thence N along said extensions 97 ft to
SWLY line of Minikahda Oaks; thence SELY 258.4 ft to beginning;
And
Commencing at a point in the NWLY line of Excelsior Blvd as widened distant 30
ft SWLY along said road line from its intersection with the SWLY line of
Minikahda Oaks Hennepin County Minnesota; thence SWLY along said road line
140 ft; thence NWLY at right angles 190 ft; thence NELY at right angles 140 ft;
thence SELY 190 ft to beginning, except road.
from C1 Neighborhood Commercial to MX Mixed Use.
112
Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication.
Adopted by the City Council February 22,2000
Reviewed for Administration
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
113
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 8j*
Meeting of February 7, 2000
*8j. Second reading of an ordinance amendment to the nonconformities section of
Zoning Ordinance regarding Conditional Use Permits for multi-tenant
buildings
Case No. 99-36-ZA
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt second reading of an ordinance amending
nonconformities section of Zoning Ordinance, adopt the
summary ordinance, and to authorize publication.
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 proposed language provides for the desired
flexibility without the additional language regarding proportionality, as 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.
On January 19, 2000 the City Council considered the proposed ordinance amendment and voted
5-0 to approve first reading of the ordinance and set second reading for February 7, 2000.
Councilmember Nelson questioned the definition of a multi-tenant building and expressed some
concern that the ordinance could be interpreted clearly and consistently in this regard. Staff is
proposing to add a definition to the ordinance amendment to address this concern.
114
Issues:
• What is the proposed text amendment?
• 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
3) For the purposes of applying this Section, a multi-tenant building shall be
defined as a building where two or more separate leasehold agreements exist for
space separated by permanent walls.
115
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.
Staff is proposing one change to the ordinance amendment since first reading to address
Councilmember Nelson’s concern that the ordinance be applied consistently to true multi-tenant
buildings only. A definition for a multi-tenant buildings applying only to this section of the code
is proposed as stated above.
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.
116
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.
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
117
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 second reading of the proposed text amendment as stated
above and for the Council to adopt the ordinance and authorize publication.
Attachments:
• Proposed ordinance
• Proposed summary ordinance
Prepared by: Sacha Peterson, Planner
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
118
ORDINANCE NO. 2155-00
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:
G. 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.
b. 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:
3) The new use does not increase or intensify nonconformities on the property.
4) 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:
i. Lot area
j. Lot width
k. Required yards
l. Building height
m. Floor area ratio
n. Ground floor area ratio
o. Density
p. Usable open space
5) For the purposes of this Section of the Code, a multi-tenant building shall be
defined as a building where two or more separate leasehold agreements exist for space
separated by permanent walls.
119
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
120
SUMMARY
ORDINANCE NO. 2155-00
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK
ORDINACE CODE RELATING TO ZONING BY
AMENDING SECITON 14:7-2
This ordinance relaxes the standards for addressing nonconformities when a new conditional use
permit is requested for multi-tenant buildings.
This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication.
Adopted by the City Council February 7, 2000
Jeffrey W. Jacobs /s/
Mayor
A copy of the full text of this ordinance is available for inspection with the City Clerk.
Published in St. Louis Park Sailor: February 16, 2000
99-36-sum/N/es/ord
121
City Council Agenda Item #*8k*
Meeting of February 7, 2000
City of St. Louis Park
*8k. Hennepin County Municipal Recycling Grant Application
This request is for authorization to apply to Hennepin County for a grant to
fund the City’s curbside recycling program.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the attached resolution authorizing
application for a Hennepin County grant to fund the City’s
curbside recycling program.
Background:
Since 1988 the City has received annual grants from Hennepin County as an aid in supporting
the residential curbside recycling program that serves all single family through fourplex
residential structures. From the beginning through 1992, the County’s recycling grant program
provided reimbursement of 50% to 80% of eligible costs based on the amount of recyclable
material diverted from the waste stream. St. Louis Park always received the maximum
reimbursement of 80% of program costs, or about $1.75 per household per month.
In 1993 and again in 1994, the county changed its program to provide an entitlement of $1.75 per
household per month regardless of the amount of recyclable material diverted from the waste
stream.
The County’s current funding policy (grant program) covers the period from January 1, 2000
through December 31, 2004, and provides for the proportional distribution of SCORE funds,
which the County receives from the State of Minnesota. SCORE (Select Committee On
Recycling and the Environment) was established by Governor Perpich to provide a funding
source for solid waster programs throughout Minnesota. SCORE funds are derived from a 6.5%
tax on garbage collection and disposal fees. These funds are then distributed to Counties for
solid waste programs, particularly recycling collection.
Hennepin County’s share of SCORE funds is approximately $3 million per year. This is divided
evenly between Cities on a proportional basis. St. Louis Park’s share is about $110,000.
In 1995 the City authorized a grant application and agreement for the duration of this program.
Since that time, staff has prepared grant applications and agreements for the Mayor’s signature
annually. In December of 1997, Hennepin County informed staff that a Council Resolution
authorizing each application and agreement would be necessary. This report and request is based
on the Hennepin County requirement.
Summary: Attached to this report is a resolution authorizing the application to Hennepin
County for a grant to fund the City’s curbside recycling program. The grant application and the
County funding Policy are attached for Council for information purposes only.
122
Attachments: Resolution
1999 Municipal Recycling Final Report / 2000 Grant Application
Hennepin County Residential Recycling Funding Policy (on file in City
Clerk’s office)
Prepared by: Mike Roth, Public Works Administrative Supervisor
Approved by: Clint Pires, Deputy City Manager
123
RESOLUTION NO. 00-014
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR A GRANT AND EXECUTION
OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK AND HENNEPIN
COUNTY FOR FUNDING ASSISTANCE FOR RESIDENTIAL CURBSIDE
RECYCLING PROGRAM
WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statute 115A.552, Counties shall ensure that
residents have an opportunity to recycle; and
WHEREAS, Hennepin County Ordinance 13 requires each City to implement a
recycling program to enable the County to meet its recycling goals; and
WHEREAS, the County has adopted a funding assistance policy for source separated
recyclables to distribute funds to Cities for the development and implementation of waste
reduction and recycling programs; and
WHEREAS, to be eligible to receive these County funds, Cities must meet the
conditions set forth in the funding policy;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that the City Council authorizes the submittal of the 2000 Hennepin County
grant application for municipal source separated recyclables and that the Mayor, City Manager
and City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to execute on behalf of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota an agreement in its entirety which covers the furnishing of a recycling program
during 2000.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that as a condition to receive funds under the Hennepin
County funding assistance policy, the City agrees to implement a waste reduction and recycling
program as committed to by its submission of the 2000 Hennepin County recycling grant
application and that the City will use such County funds for the limited purpose of implementing
the City’s waste reduction and recycling program and that the City Clerk is hereby directed to
file a certified copy of this resolution with the agreement with the Hennepin County Contract
Compliance Officer.
Adopted by the City Council February 7, 2000
Reviewed for Administration:
City Manager Mayor
124
Attest:
City Clerk
125
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item #8l*
Meeting of February 7, 2000
*8l. CASE NO. 00-01-RE – Study of Tax Forfeit Lands in St. Louis Park
Study of Tax Forfeited Lands located at 2432 Sumter Avenue South, 8400 26th
Street West, 8401 26th Street West, 3760 Brunswick Avenue South, 7829
Cambridge Street, 2714 Quentin Avenue South, and 2708 Quentin Avenue South
Recommended
Action:
The City Council find no current or future public need for the
properties, that none of the properties meet Zoning Ordinance
requirements for a buildable lot, and that properties be offered
for auction to adjacent property owners only.
Background:
The City has received notice from Hennepin County relative to seven properties that have
forfeited to the State of Minnesota for non-payment of property taxes. Hennepin County acts as
agent for the State of Minnesota for tax forfeited properties in Hennepin County. Hennepin
County is requesting a City Council resolution approving the parcels for public auction, auction
to adjacent owners, or requesting conveyance to St. Louis Park for public purposes.
The Planning Commission reviewed these properties on January 16, 2000, and recommended the
City Council find no existing or future public need for any of the properties and that they be
offered for auction to adjacent property owners.
Analysis:
Property Address Zoning Size Buildable Size Comments
2432 Sumter Ave. S. R1 1000 sq. ft. 9000 sq. ft.
8400 26th St. W. R1 2175 sq. ft. 9000 sq. ft. land locked
8401 26th St. W. R1 2455 sq. ft. 9000 sq. ft. land locked
3760 Brunswick Ave. S. R3 80 sq. ft. 7200 sq. ft.
7829 Cambridge St. R2 2500 sq. ft. 7200 sq. ft.
2714 Quentin Ave. S. R2 256 sq. ft. 7200 sq. ft. land locked
2708 Quentin Ave. S. R2 253 sq. ft. 7200 sq. ft. land locked
Staff has reviewed all of the above parcels. There currently are no utilities located within any of
these parcels. None of the parcels is located adjacent to any parks and all have been found too
small for park purposes. None of the parcels is needed for drainage purposes, and none is
located within a wetland or floodplain. Since none of the lots meet minimum lot sizes in the
Zoning Ordinance, all are determined unbuildable. Any public sale of the properties should be to
adjacent property owners only.
126
Attachments: List of Properties with descriptions
Site map for each parcel
Resolution
Prepared by: Judie Erickson, Planning Coordinator
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
127
RESOLUTION NO. 00-015
RESOLUTION APPROVING DESIGNATION OF NONCONSERVATION
LAND SHOWN ON CLASSIFICATION LIST 1114-NC
BY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF HENNEPIN COUNTY
2432 SUMTER AVE S, 8400 26TH ST W, 8401 26TH ST W,
3760 BRUNSWICK AVE S, 7829 CAMBRIDGE ST,
2714 QUENTIN AVE S, 2708 QUENTIN AVE S.
WHEREAS, the City of Council of St. Louis Park has received from the County Auditor of
Hennepin County a list of lands in said City which became the property of the State of
Minnesota for nonpayment of taxes and said list has been designated as Classification List 1114-
NC; and
WHEREAS, each parcel of land described in said list has heretofore been classified by the
Board of County Commissioners of Hennepin County as non-conservation land, and its sale has
been authorized by said Board;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council, pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes 1949, Section 282.01, Subd. 1, that the Board’s classification of land as non-
conservation described in said list is affirmed, land described below is approved for auction to
adjacent property owners.
Property ID 07-117-21-23-0025
Property Address 2432 Sumter Ave S.
Legal Description That part of Lot 3 lying NLY of a line running from a pt in ELY
line thereof dis 20 ft SWLY from NE cor thereof to a pt in NLY line of said lot dis 100
5/100 ft NWLY from the NE cor thereof Lot 3 Block 1 South Westwood Hills Second
Addition
Property ID 07-117-21-41-0032
Property Address 8400 W 26th St W
Legal Description Lot 19 Auditor’s Subdivision No. 302 Hennepin County Minn
Property ID 07-117-21-41-0033
Property Address 8401 26th St W
Legal Description Lot 20 Auditor’s Subdivision No. 302 Hennepin County Minn
Property ID 16-117-21-33-0032
Property Address 3760 Brunswick Ave S
Legal Description E 2 ft of S 40 ft Lot 11 block 57 “Rearrangement of St. Louis Park”
128
Property ID 20-117-21-22-0083
Property Address 7829 Cambridge St
Legal Description Incl Adj ½ of Alley Vac Lot 13 Block 155 “Rearrangement of St.
Louis Park”
Property ID 31-029-24-31-0083
Property Address 2714 Quentin Ave S
Legal Description that part lying W of E 130 ft thereof Lot 9 Block 2 “Jeffrey’s
Addition”
Property ID 31-029-24-31-0085’
Property Address 2708 Quentin Ave S
Legal Description That part lying W of # 130 ft thereof Lot 10 Block 2 “Jeffrey’s
Addition”
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City hereby certifies that the aforementioned
parcel needs to be auctioned to adjacent property owners pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 85-012,
92-461; 282.01, Subd. 8; 282.018 Subd. 1 and 282.018 Subd 2.
Attest: Adopted by the City Council February 7, 2000
City Clerk Mayor
Reviewed for Administration:
City Manager 00-01-RE/N/res/ord
129
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 8m*
Meeting of February 7, 2000
*8m. Mill City Tax Increment Finance District
This report considers a resolution calling for a public hearing on the establishment
of a new Tax Increment Financing District within Redevelopment Project No. 1. It
is proposed that the district include four parcels, three at the northwest corner of
Highway 7 and Louisiana and one at the northeast corner of Walker and Louisiana.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt a resolution calling for a public hearing by the
City Council on the proposed establishment of the Mill City Tax
Increment Financing District within Redevelopment Project No.
1 and the Proposed Adoption of the Tax Increment Financing
Plan Therefor.
Background:
MSP Real Estate is proposing to construct 200 market rate apartment units on the subject site.
The project would consist of two four-story buildings (100 units each) plus a level of parking.
The two buildings will be connected with a 2 story lobby. The plan being proposed by MSP is
generally compatible with the Highway 7-Louisiana Task Force’s recommended master plan and
consistent with the 1998 re-guiding and 1999 rezoning of the property for high-density
residential development.
The EDA/Council reviewed a very preliminary TIF application at its June 28 study session and a
verbal report was presented on July 26. At the October 11, 1999 EDA/Council study session,
staff presented an updated preliminary TIF application for this project. At that time the developer
was requesting that the city sponsor DTED and Met Council grants. The City Council approved
resolutions authorizing submittal of the two grants at its October 18, 1999 meeting. Since that
time, grant announcements have been made and the MSP Real Estate project has received
$316,785 from the Met Council and $1,308,375 from DTED for a total of $1,625,160.
The Planning Commission reviewed and approved the preliminary PUD and Plat for the MSP
project at its meeting on January 5, 2000. The City Council is scheduled to review the PUD and
Plat at its February 7, 2000 meeting. At the January 24, 2000 study session staff presented the
EDA/Council with a final TIF application from MSP Real Estate for this project. It was looked
upon favorably at this meeting and staff is continuing to facilitate the development process.
Calling for the public hearing will allow the EDA/Council to take the appropriate steps to
establish a new TIF district for this project. In addition, staff will proceed in negotiating a
development agreement with MSP Real Estate. The TIF hearing is scheduled to be held on
March 20, 2000.
130
Attachments:
• Resolution
• TIF Schedule
• Site Plan
Prepared by: Tom Kleve, Economic Development Coordinator
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
131
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 00-016
RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING BY THE
CITY ON THE PROPOSED ADOPTION OF THE
MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1, THE ADOPTION OF THE
MODIFICATION TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN
FOR THE OAK PARK VILLAGE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
DISTRICT, THE PROPOSED ESTABLISHMENT OF THE MILL
CITY TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT THEREIN AND
THE PROPOSED ADOPTION OF THE TAX INCREMENT
FINANCING PLAN THEREFORE.
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the “Council”) for the City of St. Louis Park,
Minnesota (the “City”), as follows:
Section 1. Public Hearing. This Council shall meet on Monday, March 20, 2000, at
approximately 7:30 p.m., to hold a public hearing on the proposed adoption of the Modification
to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1, the proposed adoption of the
Modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Oak Park Village Tax Increment
Financing; the proposed establishment of the Mill City Tax Increment Financing District, (a
redevelopment district), and the proposed adoption of a Tax Increment Financing Plan therefor,
all pursuant to and in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.090 through 469.1081,
inclusive, as amended, and Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 through 469.179, inclusive, as
amended, in an effort to encourage the development and redevelopment of certain designated
areas within the City; and
Section 2. Notice of Public Hearing, Filing of Plan and Program. City staff is authorized
and directed to work with Ehlers and Associates, Inc., to prepare the Modification to the
Redevelopment Plan, the Modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan, and the Tax
Increment Financing Plan (the “Plans”) and to forward documents to the appropriate taxing
jurisdictions including Hennepin County and Independent School District No. 283. The City
Manager is authorized and directed to cause notice of the hearing, together with an appropriate
map as required by law, to be published at least once in the official newspaper of the City not
later than 10, nor more than 30, days prior to March 20, 2000, and to place a copy of the Plans on
file in the City Manager’s office at City Hall and to make such copy available for inspection by
the public.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by City Council February 7, 2000
132
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
133
SCHEDULE OF EVENTS
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
AND THE ST. LOUIS PARK CITY COUNCIL
FOR THE MODIFICATION OF
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1
AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF
MILL CITY TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT
(a redevelopment district for the MSP Real Estate Project)
As of August 7, 2018
February 7, 2000 EDA requests that the City Council call for a public hearing.
February 7, 2000 City Council calls for public hearing on the modification of
Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the establishment of the Tax
Increment Financing District.
February 14, 2000 Letter received by County Commissioner giving notice of potential
redevelopment tax increment financing district (at least 30 days prior
to publication of public hearing notice). [Sent by February 11, 2000]
February 16, 2000 Fiscal/economic implications received by School District and County
Board (at least 30 days prior to public hearing). [Sent by November
17, 1999]
March 1, 2000 Date of publication of hearing notice and map for the establishment of
the Tax Increment Financing District (at least 10 days but not more
than 30 days prior to hearing). [St. Louis Park Sun Sailor publication
deadline March 8, 2000]
March 5, 2000 Confirm with the City whether building permits have been issued on
the property to be included in the Tax Increment Financing District.
March 1, 2000 Planning Commission reviews Plans to determine if they are in
compliance with City’s comprehensive plan.
March 20, 2000 EDA considers the approval of the Plans.
March 20, 2000 City Council holds public hearing at 7:30 p.m. on the modification of
Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the establishment of the Tax
Increment Financing District and passes resolution approving the
Plans. [Council packet information sent by March 13, 2000]
March, 2000 Ehlers certifies Plans with county and state.
134
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 8n*
Meeting of February 7, 2000
*8n. CSM Business Subsidy Agreement
This report considers approving a business subsidy agreement with CSM relating to
its hotel development in the Zarthan/16th Street Tax Increment Financing District.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve a resolution approving a business subsidy
agreement with CSM Hospitality, Inc. relating to its
development of two hotels in the Zarthan/16th Street Tax
Increment Financing District.
Background:
At the September 27, 1999 study session staff provided the EDA/Council with the final TIF
proposal from CSM/Rottlund Corporation for the redevelopment of 5901 Wayzata Blvd/Sexton-
NSP site into a Marriott Springhill Suites with 95 rooms, a Marriott TownePlace Suites with 124
rooms, and 82 owner-occupied townhomes. A neighborhood park is also proposed. The total site
area is 11.2 acres. There was enough interest in the project for the EDA/Council to direct staff to
proceed with the rezoning and TIF process. The EDA/Council also directed staff to negotiate a
development agreement with CSM/Rottlund at the September study session and the EDA
formally authorized staff to negotiate a development agreement at its October 4, 1999 meeting.
On October 6, 1999, the Planning Commission initiated the rezoning of the southern portion of
the subject site to be in conformance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The rezoning was
approved by the Planning Commission on November 3, 1999. The City Council approved the
first reading of the rezoning at its November 15 meeting. The second reading of the rezoning was
approved at the December 6 meeting.
On November 1, 1999, the EDA/Council approved a resolution requesting/calling for a public
hearing on the creation of a TIF district at Zarthan and 16th Street related to this project. This
hearing was held on December 20, 1999 and the TIF district was approved that same evening.
Staff presented the remaining issues related to the CSM project to the EDA/Council at its
December 13, 1999 study session. At this time the EDA/Council advised staff with regard to
such issues as the term of the TIF district, the use of eminent domain on the billboard, fiscal
disparities, and local contribution. Based on these discussions staff negotiated a development
agreement with CSM. The business points of this development agreement were presented to the
EDA/Council in a study session report on January 24, 2000.
The EDA will hold the public hearing and consider the business subsidy at its February 7, 2000
EDA meeting.
135
Business Subsidy Agreement
As part of the Business Subsidy Act (Minnesota Statutes 116J.993-116J.995), the City Council
and the EDA were required to adopt a Business Subsidy Policy. The Policy sets out certain
principles and criteria with respect to subsidies granted. The Act also requires the City Council to
approve business subsidy agreements entered into by the EDA and other local government
agencies. This approval will have to occur each time a business subsidy is granted.
The EDA has a business subsidy agreement with CSM. It is included as Section 3.6 of the
development agreement between the EDA and CSM. The agreement sets out specific job and
wage goals for the CSM project. The project will not create a large number of jobs. The intent of
this project is not to create jobs but to intensify land uses, remove non-conforming uses, and
bring the CSM site into conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The
Business Subsidy Agreement also outlines other obligations required under the Business Subsidy
Act. The subsidy agreement the EDA has with CSM does meet the requirements of the Business
Subsidy Policy adopted by the EDA and the City.
Attachments:
Resolution Approving Business Subsidy
Prepared by: Tom Kleve, Economic Development Coordinator
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
136
RESOLUTION NO. 00-018
RESOLUTION APPROVING A BUSINESS SUBSIDY AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND
CSM HOSPITALITY, INC.
BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council ("Council") of the City of St. Louis Park ("City")
as follows:
Section 1. Recitals.
1.01. The St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (“Authority”) has determined a
need to exercise the powers of a housing and redevelopment authority, pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes, Sections. 469.090 to 469.108 ("EDA Act"), and is currently administering Redevelopment
Project No. 1 ("Redevelopment Project") pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to
469.047 ("HRA Act").
1.02. Among the activities to be assisted by the Authority in the Redevelopment Project is
redevelopment of certain underutilized property in the City for two hotel facilities (the “CSM
Project”).
1.03. There has been presented before the Council a Contract for Private Redevelopment
(the “Contract”) between the Authority, and CSM Hospitality, Inc. (the “Redeveloper"), setting
forth the terms and conditions of development of the CSM Project and the Authority’s participation
in that effort.
1.04. The Contract provides for certain financial assistance that constitutes a “business
subsidy” exceeding $100,000 within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, Section 116J.993 to
116J.995 (the “Business Subsidy Act”).
1.05. The “business subsidy agreement” as required under the Business Subsidy Act is
included as Section 3.6 of the Contract, and the Authority has on this date conducted a duly noticed
public hearing regarding the business subsidy agreement at which all interested persons were given
an opportunity to be heard.
1.06. Under the Business Subsidy Act this Council is required to approve any business
subsidy agreement.
1.07. The Council has reviewed the Contract, including the business subsidy agreement,
and finds that the execution thereof by the Authority and performance of the Authority's obligations
thereunder are in the best interest of the City and its residents.
Section 2. City Approval; Further Proceedings.
2.01. The Council approves the business subsidy agreement within the Contract as
presented to the Council, subject to modifications that do not alter the substance of the transaction
and that are approved by the Mayor and City Manager, provided that execution of the documents by
137
the proper Authority officials shall be conclusive evidence of approval by the Mayor and City
Manager.
2.02. City staff are authorized to take all actions necessary to assist the Authority in
performing its obligations under the business subsidy agreement and the Contract as a whole.
Approved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park this 7th day of February, 2000.
Reviewed for Administration:
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
138
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 8o*
Meeting of February 7, 2000
*8o. Mileage Reimbursement and Car Allowance
Reimbursing mileage amounts to employees who are required to drive their vehicle
as a requirement of their employment and position at a mileage rate consistent with
IRS regulations, and continuation of certain employees receiving a monthly car
allowance in lieu of mileage reimbursement.
Recommended
Action:
Staff recommends that Council adopt the resolution authorizing
the amount of car allowances allocated for specified positions
and set the mileage reimbursement rate consistent with IRS
regulations to be effective as of 1/1/2000.
Background:
Mileage Reimbursement: The City currently reimburses employees mileage consistent with
IRS regulations for use of personal automobiles for authorized work related functions. We are
asking the Council to confirm that the City continue this practice by formally approving that the
mileage reimbursement rate is set to be consistent with the rate set by IRS regulations. The
current rate set by the IRS is $.32 ½ /mile.
Car Allowance: Also, in the past, it was determined that certain positions (due to the nature of
responsibilities and duties) should receive a car allowance instead of mileage reimbursement. In
review of this practice, it was determined that some adjustments of certain car allowances should
be considered. Car allowance amounts have not been adjusted for over 7 years. Prior to making
a recommendation for adjustment, a survey was conducted in the metro area on car allowance
amounts and types of positions receiving such allowance. Based on the survey it is
recommended that the car allowance for the following positions be increased from $250.00 to
$300.00/month: Parks and Recreation Director and the Public Works Director; and increased
from $200.00/month to $300/month for Community Development Director, all effective 1/1/00.
Additionally, it is recommended, in light of the similar nature of the position, the scope of the
duties and responsibilities and the amount of driving required relative to those positions stated
above, that the Inspections Director also receive a monthly car allowance in the amount of $300
effective 1/1/2000.
Further, the following positions currently receive a car allowance in the amount of $250/month
and it is recommended that the council confirm continuing car allowance for the following
positions at $250/month: Manager of Buildings and Structures (Recreation), Operations
Superintendent (Public Works), Utilities Superintendent, and the Police Captain.
139
Upon adoption of this resolution, the City Manager would have the discretion of eliminating any
car allowance given to a position by providing the person in the position with a thirty-day notice
to eliminate the car allowance.
Finally, the only other City position that receives a car allowance is the City Manager. Since the
car allowance is covered under the City Manager’s employment contract, it does not need to be
adopted in this resolution.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Nancy Gohman, Human Resources Manager
Approved by: Clint Pires, Deputy City Manager
140
RESOLUTION NO. 00-018
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CAR ALLOWANCES
AND SETTING MILEAGE RATES EFFECTIVE 1/1/2000
WHEREAS, the City reimburses mileage amounts to employees who are required to
drive their vehicle as a requirement of their employment and position at a mileage rate consistent
with IRS regulations; and,
WHEREAS, the City has determined that certain employees receive a monthly car
allowance, in lieu of mileage reimbursement; and
WHEREAS, the City Council may make adjustments to monthly car allowances;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park,
Minnesota, that the City will reimburse employees for approved mileage at the rate consistent
with IRS regulations.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota,
that effective 1/1/2000, in lieu of mileage reimbursement, the City will provide a car allowance
as follows:
• $300 per month: Community Development Director, Inspections Director, Parks
and Recreation Director and Public Works Director;
• $250 per month: Manager of Buildings and Structures (Recreation), Operations
Superintendent, Utilities Superintendent and Police Captain;
• The City Manager has the discretion to eliminate any car allowance to an individual by
providing this person with a thirty-day notice.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council February 7, 2000
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
141
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 9a*
Meeting of February 7, 2000
*9a. Financial Report for December, 1999 (preliminary)
This report details December and year to date financial activity in comparison to
budget estimates.
Recommended
Action:
Accept report for filing
Background:
Attached is the preliminary December 1999 financial report. Adjustments will continue through
the middle of March. Auditors are scheduled to start the annual audit on March 20, 2000. When
final numbers are available, a final December 1999 report will be issued.
At this time it is difficult to give a detailed analysis of the 1999 financial statements.
Regulations dictate that the financial documents remain open until February 29, 2000 to ensure
inclusion of all 1999 activity. In addition, all funds and accounts are in the process of being
reconciled to internal and external documents. At the conclusion of the annual audit, a clear
picture of 1999 will be presented.
Beginning in March, a new format of financial statement presentation will be used. Staff hopes
that the new format will give a better understanding of the financial condition of the City.
Attachments: December 1999 Financial Report
Prepared by: Jean D. McGann, Director of Finance
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
142
Item # 9b*
OFFICIAL MINUTES
ST. LOUIS PARK CABLE TV ADVISORY COMMISSION
DECEMBER 9, 1999 --7:00 P.M.
ST. LOUIS CITY HALL - FIRST FLOOR COMMUNITY ROOM
MEMBERS PRESENT: Bruce Browning, Rick Dworsky, Dale Hartman,
John Herbert, Ken Huiras, Mary Jean Overend
MEMBERS ABSENT: Robert Jacobson
STAFF PRESENT: Reg Dunlap, Civic TV Coordinator; John McHugh, Community
TV Coordinator; and Shirley Olson, Recording Secretary
ALSO PRESENT: Arlen Mattern, Public Affairs Administrator, Time Warner
1. Call to Order - Roll Call
Chair Huiras called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
2. Roll Call:
All current members of the Commission, except Robert Jacobson were present.
3. Approval of Minutes:
It was moved by Bruce Browning, seconded by Mary Jean Overend, to approve the minutes of
October 7, 1999 meeting of the Cable TV Advisory Commission with a minor correction.
Motion carried unanimously.
Bruce Browning asked that “Bob Browning” be changed to “Bob Jacobson” in paragraph 11 of
section 5.
4. Adoption of Agenda:
Chair Huiras recommended that agenda be adopted with addition of Old Business item. The
Commission concurred.
5. New Business
A. Time Warner rate adjustments
The Commission reviewed the Time Warner letter of 11/24/99 from Kim Roden regarding rate
adjustments and changes in the channel line up.
John Herbert was concerned that the increase didn’t provide very much improvement of service.
143
Arlen Mattern, Time Warner explained that programming and system improvements required by
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) guidelines were driving the increase.
Bruce Browning questioned what satellite was delivering, what the price was and if they
negotiated better than cable.
Arlen Mattern, Time Warner indicated that Mark Hammerstrom was currently reviewing this
matter and that corporate and the number of programmers and subscribers affect the satellite
system. He indicated that David Auger was the new Division President in Administration and
working on the digital services for cable programming.
Mary Jean Overend asked what percent of cable customers had basic cable package and what
was the amount projected for the future.
Arlen Mattern, Time Warner indicated that currently approximately 11-12% of the total
subscribers in St. Louis Park have basic and the future will depend on what number of people
recognize what they can get with basic cable.
Reg Dunlap asked if Time Warner was establishing any initiative for residents to sign-up.
Arlen Mattern believed there would be an introductory special for the upgrade.
Reg Dunlap asked what would replace the TV Guide Channel that was being discontinued.
Arlen Mattern stated that with the upgrade there will be an interactive channel guide, the super-
preview channel and would need a converter box.
Reg Dunlap asked what the plan was for the full time Leased Access Channel 23. Arlen Mattern
said that it would be infomercials produced by Guthy-Renker.
John Herbert questioned what services would be offered with digital and would like to see
composite output available.
Dale Hartman was concerned about the decrease in the number of channels available and that the
pay per view didn’t have information that you could look at to determine programming.
Arlen Mattern indicated that customers who used a converter would have the access to the
highest number of channels.
John Herbert was concerned that with the TV Guide Channel, Time Warner would be in
violation of the City’s franchise ordinance (9-721, paragraph 4) and recommended that this be
investigated.
Reg Dunlap, indicated that he would consult the City Manager's office to determine
how to proceed.
144
Reg Dunlap questioned the steep price increase for converter boxes from $2.53 to $3.39.
Arlen Mattern indicated that Time Warner was buying new digital and advanced analog
converter boxes.
Ken Huiras asked when the upgrade would take place in St. Louis Park and when Roadrunner
would be available.
Arlen Mattern indicated that the upgrade would occur in late spring or early summer and
Roadrunner would be available at that time. He stated that Mike Fox of Time Warner was the
head of Roadrunner and working on the details of access and pricing.
The Commission briefly discussed the elements and benefits of Roadrunner.
B. Discuss annual Commission report to Council and 2000 Work Plan
The Commission reviewed the list of topics for the 2000 Work Plan and recommended adding
the following items for discussion:
• Time Warner interactive channel guide
• Adding fixed income to the Needs Assessment as it relates to Vision St. Louis Park
C. Plan meeting schedule for 2000, propose dates for joint meeting with City Council
The Commission reviewed the proposed 2000 Cable TV Commission Work Plan and selected
dates for each meeting (January 27, February/March: Joint meeting with City Council, April
13th, May 18th, August 10th, October 19th, December 7). The Commission recommended the
following changes:
• Holding the annual meeting in January instead of February
• Moving the futurist presentation on telecommunications industry and trends from April to
May.
• Holding the Joint meeting with the School District in April.
• Adding an October meeting if needed.
6. Old Business
The Commission members who attended the telecommunications conference recently held in
Bloomington shared about the conference and indicated that the information that was presented
was beneficial.
7. Reports - None
8. Communications from the Chair - None
9. Communications from City Staff
145
Reg Dunlap, Civic TV Coordinator reviewed the Discussion List of St. Louis Park Cable
Refranchising Issues and presented a brief review of the Time Warner cable complaints logged
by city staff.
Reg Dunlap gave a brief staff report of miscellaneous items.
10. Adjournment
With no other business to come before the Commission, it was moved by Bruce Browning,
seconded by Rick Dworsky to adjourn at 8:52 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Shirley Olson
Recording Secretary
ATTEST:
Reg Dunlap
Civic TV Coordinator
City of St. Louis Park
146
Item # 9c*
MINUTES
CHARTER COMMISSION MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
November 10, 1999
City Hall, First Floor Meeting Room
I. Call to Order:
Chair Beck called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m.
II. Introductions and Attendance
It was moved by Commissioner Kirschner, seconded by Commissioner Ahrens to excuse
the absences of James Schaefer, Alan Sargent, and Michael Sixel at the November 10,
1999 meeting. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
A. Members Present: Cynthia Ahrens, George Beck, Paul Carver, Ruth Kirschner,
Dorothea Moga, Carol Walsh
B. Members Excused: James Schaefer, Alan Sargent, and Michael Sixel
C. Members Unexcused: Richard Pogin, Chris Johnson
D. Staff Present: City Staff Liaison Clint Pires
E. Vacancies: The Commission currently has four vacancies. (In addition, Chair Beck
stated that he expected a letter of resignation from Commissioner Sargent, who is
relocating.)
III. Approval of Minutes
It was moved by Commissioner Ahrens, seconded by Commissioner Moga to approve the
meeting minutes of October 13, 1999 based on adoption of the rationale of the
recodification project’s lawyer, and as amended below. MOTION PASSED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Add a sentence to Paragraph 2 under IV in the minutes to read, “More information on the
rationale for changes suggested in 2.07 will be sought by the Commission.”
Under IV in the minutes immediately prior to changes indicated for sections 2.06, 3.03,
and 3.07, change the paragraph to read, “Also, the following changes were made based
147
on acceptance of the rationale of the recodification project’s lawyer. The text was revised
to enhance clarity:”
Under IV in the minutes, add “…” at beginning of wording for section 2.06 and section
3.07.
IV. Charter Review
Commissioner Ahrens questioned whether the Commission should review the text of
Chapter 9-Franchises. Chair Beck indicated that there was disagreement among
Commission members the last time this section was reviewed, and no changes were
approved. Chair Beck also indicated that it would be helpful to learn whether the text of
this chapter could be simplified, and whether any recent changes in the
telecommunications regulatory environment might recommend modifications.
Commissioner Ahrens agreed. Staff Liaison Pires was requested to solicit a staff member
of the League of Minnesota Cities to speak at the next Commission meeting on this topic.
There are currently four vacancies on the Commission. Staff Liaison Pires indicated he
would check with District Court to inquire as to whether any applications had been
received.
V. Retiring Commissioners/Vacancies
Staff Liaison Pires reminded the Commission of the recognition the City Council will
make as part of the December 6, 1999 Council meeting, commending "retiring" board
and commission members.
VI. Meeting Schedule
The next meeting was called for the 2nd Wednesday of January 2000.
X. Adjournment
As there was no other business, it was moved by Commissioner Carver, and seconded by
Commissioner Ahrens to adjourn the meeting at 7:55 p.m. MOTION PASSED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Respectfully submitted,
Clint Pires
Staff Liaison
148
Item # 9d*
Revised
PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY COMMISSION
Minutes of Wednesday, December 8, 1999
Rec Center Gallery
MEMBERS PRESENT: Felt, Wright, Stephansen, Chubb, Tomoson, Otteson, Norgaard
MEMBERS ABSENT: Davidman
STAFF PRESENT: Walsh, Voelker
1. CALL TO ORDER - Meeting called to order by Ms. Felt at 7:10 p.m.
2. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE AGENDA – None.
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF OCTOBER 13, 1999 - Motion to approve by Mr.
Chubb, seconded by Mr. Otteson. Motion passed 7-0.
4. NEW BUSINESS
A) Farewell to Christine Stephansen and Pete Chubb: Ms. Felt, along with the
Commission members, organized a wonderful potluck farewell party in honor of
Mr. Chubb and Ms. Stephansen. Ms. Stephansen and Mr. Chubb were
commended on the wonderful job they have done for the Commission. The
Commission also discussed having a new member orientation the beginning of
2000.
B) Browndale Neighborhood and Most Holy Trinity Church Request: Ms. Walsh
informed the Commission of a request from the Browndale Neighborhood and
Most Holy Trinity Church to take over the church’s parking lot as a park.
Currently they have asphalt everywhere except in the location of one small play
structure. Ms. Walsh explained to the requestors that we have 52 parks to
maintain and plan and others have a priority in which Mr. Meyer, the City
Manager, also agreed. Ms. Walsh then gave the church fund raising ideas which
included applying for the youth activities grant. The cost to revamp the area into
a park would be approximately $25,000 – $30,000 which would include
updating the play structure, demolition of buildings, and changing the asphalt to
green area. The Commission also discussed the neighborhood activity which is
not monitored, but assumed to be approximately 10-15 kids per week. And, with
Susan Lindgren within a couple of blocks, the Commission agreed the children
could use their play structure. The Commission agreed with Ms. Walsh’s
decision and stated the City could not do this for just one organization.
149
C) Refund Policy Review: Ms. Walsh explained the background of the policy, the
actual policy, and the procedure. The Commission suggested including a
sentence explaining a time frame in which refunds will be processed before or
after the start of the program. The Commission approved the policy, it will go
into effect 1/1/2000.
D) Youth Activities Grant Representative: Mr. Chubb agreed to continue on the
committee and will update the Commission when grants are awarded. Ms.
Tomoson is also a student representative on the committee.
E) Oak Park Village Task Force Representative: Staff will start the planning
process in 2000 with Greg Ingraham assisting since he has knowledge of the
issues. Ms. Walsh will ask Council at a January Study Session whether they
want to go ahead with the planning process. A proposed task force may be
composed of two Parks and Recreation Commission members, one City Council
member, one Planning Commission member, two neighborhood representatives,
two athletic association representatives, school district representatives and
possibly citizens. Oak Park Village is not an official park at this time. The EDA
currently owns the property. Included in consideration will be the amenities at
Walker Park and Oak Hill Park since staff does not want to duplicate amenities.
Once the task force has been set up, staff will try to schedule the task force
meetings once a month to occur before the Commission meetings.
5. OLD BUSINESS
A) Pets in the Park Update: Ms. Voelker distributed the new ordinance to the
Commission members. Ms. Walsh advised the ordinance was passed and will
go into effect January 1, 2000.
B) Proposed Amphitheater Uses: The Commission was asked to inform staff if they
have any ideas for the use of the amphitheater.
6. COMMUNICATIONS
A) Chair - None
B) Commissioners:
Ms. Wright inquired on the issue of Frisbee golf and hopes it will be considered
when planning Oak Park Village.
C) Program Report: None.
D) Director’s Report:
◊ Webster Park: Ms. Walsh advised the Commission the neighborhood will
write up an article in their January newsletter advising of status of the
installation of a guardrail. The neighborhood is having a meeting in either
February or March which Ms. Walsh will attend and Commission members
are welcome. Currently MnDOT will give the City a six-month lease until an
agreement has been made.
◊ Potential Members: Ms. Walsh informed the Commission of a potential
member who was originally interested in off leash areas. This resident is
150
doing a class project on potential off leash areas and has put together
suggested surveys for pet owners to complete. Another idea is a potential
partnership with the City of Minneapolis for Minikahda Vista Park. Ms.
Walsh will also report to Council on this item.
7. ADJOURNMENT - Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Ms. Wright and
seconded by Ms. Tomoson. Motion passed 7-0. Meeting was adjourned at 8:44 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Stacy M. Voelker
Department Secretary
151
Item # 9e*
MINUTES
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING
St. Louis Park, Minnesota
November 30, 1999
City Hall, Council Chambers
MEMBERS PRESENT: Susan Bloyer, James Gainsley, Anthony Reel,
Paul Roberts, Mr. Robertson
STAFF PRESENT: Scott Moore
1. Call to Order - Roll Call
Chair Gainsley called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
2. Approval of Minutes dated October 28, 1999
Mr. Reel moved and Ms. Bloyer seconded the motion to approve the Minutes of the
meeting dated October 30, 1999. The motion passed unanimously.
3. Consent Agenda: None
4. Public Hearings:
a. Case No. 8-98 VAR -- The request of Park Land Company for a six-month time
extension for the variances granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals on October
22, 1998.
Mr. Moore presented a staff report. He stated that the applicant had stated the reason for
the delay was due to try and secure financing for the clean-up of the polluted site. He
recommended that BOZA grant a six-month time extension for the Park Land Company
and adopt the attached resolution.
Chair Gainsley opened the public hearing.
Ms. Bloyer asked staff if a six-month was long enough.
Mr. Moore indicated that the applicant asked for a one year extension, but with the
financing that he was trying to secure from the City and the conditional use permit
expiration date, the six month sort of put everything in line. He stated that if the building
still wasn’t under construction within the six months, the applicant would not only have
152
to come back for the variances again, but would have to make an extension for his
conditional use permit as well.
Chair Gainsley closed the public hearing.
Mr. Reel moved and Mr. Roberts seconded that the request of Park Land Company for a
six-month time extension be granted. The motion passed unanimously.
b. Case No. 14-99 VAR -- The request of Kevin Kraus for a variance from the
requirements of Section 14:5-4.1(C)(7)(a) of the Zoning Ordinance to permit an
accessory building to be located in the front yard between the front building wall
and the front lot line for property located in the “R-2” Single Family District at
4101 Alabama Avenue.
Mr. Moore presented a staff report. He indicated that the applicant stated that a
variance would be necessary for almost any proposed structure and that with the
proposed safeguards the intent of the code and preservation of the neighborhood
will be upheld. He noted that the two safeguards in mention are kind of an
amendment to the resolution that was in the packet. Mr. Moore concluded that
since all seven criteria have been satisfied, it is recommended that request to
permit an accessory building to be located in the front yard between the front
building wall and the front lot line for property located in the “R-2” Single Family
District at 4101 Alabama Avenue be approved.
Chair Gainsley asked how many curb cuts there were and clarified placement of
the windows on the west side of the structure.
Mr. Moore stated that he believed there were two curb cuts on the property (West
41st Street and Alabama Avenue).
Chair Gainsley opened the public hearing.
Keven Kraus, applicant was present and available for any questions.
Chair Gainsley closed the public hearing.
Mr. Robertson stated that he worried about a garage in the front yard having a
negative impact on just the feel of the neighborhood, but at the same time as he
looks at how the property has been developed at this point, there isn’t an
alternative and he does recognize that if it had been developed differently or with
a little for foresight earlier it would be not an issue. He was inclined to grant the
variance, but with a request to do everything to make it not look like a garage.
Mr. Kraus stated that he had windows of various types that he could apply in the
structure to make it look aesthetically pleasing.
153
Ms. Bloyer moved and Mr. Reel seconded that the variance be granted with the
inclusion of the windows on the west side and the removal of the unnecessary
curb cuts. The motion passed unanimously.
c. Case No. 15-99 VAR -- The request of Timothy Manthey for a variance from the
requirements of Section 14:4-4(C)(2) of the Zoning Ordinance to permit a fence
with a height of 6 feet in the front yard instead of the maximum 3 1/2 feet for
property located in the “R-2” Single family District at 6200 Minnetonka
Boulevard.
Mr. Moore presented a staff report and concluded that since five out of the seven
criteria have not been satisfied, it is recommended the request to permit a fence
with a height of 6 feet in the front yard instead of the maximum 3 1/2 feet for
property located in the “R-2” Single family District at 6200 Minnetonka
Boulevard be denied.
Mr. Reel asked how did BOZA honestly know that a fence half the height would
eliminate just about the same noise.
Mr. Moore indicated that a traffic study would be required to determine that and
one has not been done.
Chair Gainsley opened the public hearing.
Mr. Moore clarified that the applicant and the City came to an agreement to
suspend prosecution and that this case never went before a judge or a jury. He
indicated that prosecution came about because there was a formal complaint
processed and filed with the court system.
Chair Gainsley asked staff what disturbed the finality of BOZA initial decision
and why was it not acted on since there was no variance that was expired in this
case which was unusual.
Mr. Moore stated that he did not know why the decision was not acted upon for
two years. He clarified that the code stated that any variance denied, that same
variance can be applied for six months afterwards.
Timothy Manthey, applicant was present. He stated “There is a certain tone to the
case that gives it a slight bit a reflection of the fact that I came at this with bad
intentions. He clarified that he did not do this. This was not an intentional
mistake that I went after. Mr. Moore has been very helpful in this case and he did
not point out that I was in error until 3:30 p.m. on a Friday afternoon. In the two
and half months prior to that in my planning I stopped by the City and spoke to
George Shoppe, and the secretary. This was all due to the fact that I received a
complaint on my 1930’s front sidewalk that which was crumbling on to the front
boulevards. So, instead of making this Mickey Mouse repair, I decided I was
154
going to make a good repair, do the job right and take that old sidewalk out and
put in a different sidewalk and do this whole project right. I was going about this
with my best intentions and had gone down to the City with my plans and through
a series of miscommunications, George Shoppe is a very bright man and knows
exactly what he is doing, I was given the feeling that I was proceeding in the right
direction. The whole thing is ironic since the home I am living in on Minnetonka
Boulevard, when I purchased it in the early 1980’s was an abandoned home. I got
it from Norwest and have spent over $60,000 trying to fix this home up and I
think I have done a really good job. I have had a lot of cooperation with the City
and inspectors have taken the time to come out and work through some problems
that were unique and intrinsic to my property. It’s ironic that the last thing I try to
do is the one that gets me in trouble. I think Scott and I as two different people
see this thing slightly different. I would have written this a little bit different to
shed a bit more light on it. I did talk to Dudley Yoursvig from Mndot concerning
the barrier and its affect. My biggest problem is the fact that my home is set back
a bit and with a six foot fence, it allows me to be at a situation where the buses
going east bound, I still catch the last top of the little buses. It’s much better than
it use to be. Dudley indicated that for it to be a real sound barrier one would want
to have it two feet above its biggest projection in that type of proximity. I am
making this presentation on short notice. My attorney was suppose to be hear
tonight, but he is in litigation. I feel that the ordinance is overly broad and does
not take into consideration the undue hardship created by five unique problems
that exist at 6200 Minnetonka Boulevard. When I say overly broad, I want you to
understand that I have great respect for the ordinance because a lot of the
ordinances in St. Louis Park I have benefited by, but a lot of this ordinance
applies directly to the side streets. I have a different situation on Minnetonka
Boulevard and I feel this reflects the nature of what I am doing here. The impact
of that is not truly contrary to the intent of the ordinance and the Comprehensive
Plan for St. Louis Park which I have a great amount of respect for. Where I think
the new biggest problem here and what we are not addressing is the fact that what
the recommendations of staff have shown is a snapshot of the present time. In all
due respect, a lot of the points are well taken, but at the same time, I have
researched some factors that are coming up in the future that are going to be a
very big problem for my unique intersection. I am assuming that you are all
aware of Minnetonka Boulevard’s layout and the fact that Brunswick and
Brookdale are joining the bridge which is too low. We have two points that are
going to be changing in the future. We have dramatically increased rail traffic.
Manny Camel provide for me a study that was created by RLK Rusito Limited
Engineers explaining the problems that are going to be happening in the future
and will be affecting me. We are going to have two things that are going to be
really big. The railroad is going to increase the north/south rail line and at that
point in time the railroad is going to be forced to widen the bridge. When they
widen the bridge, in comes Hennepin County with their ten year comprehensive
plan and they are scheduled in the year 2000 to 2010 to widen Minnetonka
Boulevard to 66 feet and three lanes at which point in time they will be backing
up beyond my sidewalk to the edge of where my fence was. I realized that three
155
years ago and built it appropriately for that. What will happen at that point in
time, because the bridge sits too low, and trains don’t do well with bumps, the
whole grade of the street will have to come down about 18-24 inches (I couldn’t
get the engineers to state that exactly). I am already sitting four feet above the
grade of the street, so now we are talking about a six foot drop. I asked Hennepin
County and Soo line what would happen at that point in time. They said the drop
is too precipitous, we have to build a barrier for safety. I feel like I am being very
sagacious in my problems that I am viewing here and this addresses only the
problems that are happening today and is overly broad. I believe the variance
should be granted since it reflects the current problems, the future problems and
the will of the citizens who live within 350 feet of my property. The existing
problems are the bridge, increases in car traffic and bus traffic. The future
problems are the expanding railroad and widening of Minnetonka Boulevard. I
would like to suggest another issue is that I took the time to walk around to all of
my neighborhoods and received 116 signatures that state that they do not object to
the additional 30 inches of fence height. They feel I am doing the right thing and
have supported me.”
Mr. Manthey explained in further detail the results of the study done by RLK
Rusito Limited Engineers and how the future railroad changes were going to be
affect his property.
Mr. Manthey explained in further detail how the existing conditions have
impacted his property.
Mr. Reel asked if the 2.8 accident rate that Mr. Manthey stated was based on
15,000 cars per day.
Mr. Manthey explained that it was computed by the number of accidents and the
volume of that road.
Mr. Robertson stated that he has not seen a relationship between Mr. Manthey’s
fence and accidents.
Mr. Manthey stated “This is a very big problem on Blackstone and Brunswick for
Blackstone Neighborhood Association. We want a solution to this problem. We
are tired of this in our yards and the random events that go on in the area. If my
fence was 3 1/3 or 6 feet, I don’t think it would have any impact on the accidents,
but we have a problem intersection and the reason I am elucidating the problem
with the amount of accidents is I am trying to show the fact that the thin bridge is
the problem”.
Mr. Reel asked if the original complainant was still in the area.
Mr. Moore indicated that the complaint was from City staff.
156
Mr. Roberts asked when the decision made to reroute the traffic from
Kennilworth over to the land that goes through Bronx Park.
Mr. Manthey indicated that Gail Dorfman explained that a political compromise
was made with the Golden Auto Site and briefly explained the background to the
decision.
Mr. Moore indicated that the actual decision took place back in 1998.
Chair Gainsley asked Mr. Manthey how a six feet fence would stop the increase
in trains from impinging upon his property.
Mr. Manthey stated “ The six feet fence would not stop the increase in trains from
impinging on me, but would alleviate the three things that I am talking about
would actually be recommended according to the railroad study. I can’t easily
take the fence down now and would recommend that maybe we could work at
some type of compromise so that it could show to the fact that I have done
something and respected the City’s ordinance”.
Chair Gainsley closed the public hearing.
Chair Gainsley stated that the issue was not an individuals need for a six foot
fence, but a planning issue related to a large area that has a deficiency that it did
not have before and is going against the residents in the area. He noted that in
order to do this for one person merely opens up a hodge podge of variance giving
to a number of people in the area and he didn’t believe that this was what the
variance process is set up to do. He believed that BOZA should deny the variance
and recommend that the applicant go to City Council, who should pass it to the
Planning Commission to develop a plan for the area that would take care of all of
these needs and might do it in a better way than individuals building their own
individual fences.
Mr. Robertson stated that he disagreed with the applicant that the ordinance was
more directed toward smaller streets. He believed Minnetonka Boulevard as a
major gateway through the community and wouldn’t want to present the houses
along it behind barricades. He explained how residents who purchase houses in
areas like these should be aware of the sound issues. He concurred with Chair
Gainsley comments and didn’t believe the property was that unique of a property
at this point in time.
Ms. Bloyer also concurred with Chair Gainsley comments. She believed that the
two problems for the property were the traffic increases and the railroad, and even
with these doesn’t make the property unique since there are other properties in the
cluster affected. She believed that as stated last time, the City Council has got to
be the one to take the lead or otherwise BOZA would be the one that would be
writing law.
157
Mr. Reel stated that he agreed that traffic increases are a reality and railroad
changes are coming. He believed this was a unique property because it is so close
to the railroad (sound issues) and unlike other properties that may have their side
yards abutting Minnetonka Boulevard. He believed the fence would not be a
hazard and there were enough of the five criteria to grant the variance. He didn’t
believe that that granting this variance would set a precedence and that the extra 2
feet does make a huge difference. He was in favor of granting the variance.
Mr. Reel moved and Chair Gainsley seconded to grant the variance.
Chair Gainsley stated “I think it is a planning issue. I don’t think it is a variance
issue. I don’t disagree that there are problems. The degree of uniqueness is hard
to assess because everybody’s affected in a different way subjectively by all the
problems that he has mentioned. I think that in those cases the 6 feet fence might
not do much for a lot of that, but the fact that it does a little bit and not a lot is still
no reason to give a variance for it because it doesn’t really solve the problem”.
Mr. Roberts stated “It’s going to be a City wide issue, and I am kind of surprised
that the City has not taken it up since it has been decided that this is going to
come through here for the past couple years and there has been no action by the
City to deal with this. There needs to be some sort of consistency as far as how
the planning and zoning is applied”.
Mr. Reel stated “Last month, Mr. Roberts voted against a variance for the same
reason, yet all of us approved something that we eluded to was a planning issue
and was going to be taken care, so I think we need to all sit down and think about
that”.
The motion failed 1-4 with Reel voting in favor and Bloyer, Gainsley, Roberts, Robertson
opposed.
Ms. Bloyer moved and Mr. Roberts seconded the motion that the variance be denied based on
staff’s findings. The motion passed 4-1 with Bloyer, Gainsley, Roberts, Robertson voting in
favor and Reel opposed.
5. Old Business: None
6. New Business: None
7. Communication: None
8: Miscellaneous: None
9. Adjournment:
158
Mr. Reel moved and Mr. Bloyer seconded the motion that the meeting be adjourned. The
motion passed unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Scott Moore
Zoning Administrator
Prepared by: Shirley Olson
Recording Secretary
159
Item # 9f*
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
JANUARY 5, 2000 --7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Paul Carver, Ken Gothberg, Dennis Morris,
Jerry Timian (left at 8:45 p.m.), Sally Velick
MEMBERS ABSENT: Michelle Bissonnette, Michael Garelick
STAFF PRESENT: Judie Erickson, Janice Loftus, Sacha Peterson
1. Call to Order - Roll Call
Chair Morris called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m.
2. Approval of Minutes of December 15, 1999
Mr. Gothberg moved approval of Minutes of December 15, 1999 and the motion passed
on a vote of 2-0-3 with Gothberg and Morris voting in favor and Carver, Timian, and
Velick abstaining.
3. Public Hearings:
A. Case No. 99-35-PUD -- Request of MSP Real Estate Inc. for Preliminary PUD
and Plat approval for Mill City Addition and variance for rear yard setback.
Sacha Peterson, Planner, presented a staff report. She stated that City Council
has passed first reading of a Comprehensive Text Amendment regarding the
billboard that is on the property to the southwest of the Mill City Plywood
property. That amendment would require removal of the billboard when the
billboard property itself is redeveloped. Staff is recommending approval of the
preliminary plat, preliminary PUD, and rear yard setback variance with the
conditions as outlined in the staff report with the following two additional
conditions: 12. The developer is to construct a 10 foot wide bituminous trail
along the east side of the property, as shown on the preliminary plat, which is to
be paid for by the developer and maintained by the City, and 13. Approximately
1100 inches of replacement trees or an equivalent fee is to be donated to the City
for tree planting on public land unless a variance is obtained.
Ms. Velick asked if the City is going to have a bike trail along Louisiana Avenue
and how is that going to work out.
160
Ms. Peterson stated that as part of the Sidewalk and Trail Plan, the City is
proposing to have a 10 foot wide bike trail instead of a sidewalk on the west side
of Louisiana Avenue which is actually located on the Mill City Addition property.
In answer to a question from Ms. Velick on where the bus stop would be located,
Ms. Peterson clarified the existing location of the bus stops on the plan.
Ms. Erickson indicated that she recently received a copy of two proposed new bus
circulator routes for St. Louis Park, one along Louisiana Avenue and another on
Walker Street.
Mr. Carver asked who owned the property with the billboard on it and if it is
feasible to redevelop that property.
Ms. Peterson indicated that the billboard company owned that property and
indicated that the property, zoned RC, is approximately 22,000 square feet and
could probably be developed as a duplex.
Mr. Timian asked if the developer could purchase the property.
Chair Morris asked that the developer wait to answer the question until the public
hearing is opened.
Mr. Carver asked if the City examined the possibility of an adverse impact upon
the billboard land if the variance is granted.
Ms. Peterson indicated that the building official has reviewed the proposed
setback and basically a 10 foot setback is the minimum in terms of safety. The
required setback of any building that would be located on this parcel would likely
be about 15 feet, so then you would have at least 25 feet between the two
buildings. Staff believes that would be adequate and there would not be a
crowding issue.
Mr. Carver asked, in regard to the practicability of developing the site without the
variance, if the City has been provided with a study which says that if we cut a
corner off that corner lot we no longer have enough rents to make this entire
development feasible.
Ms. Peterson stated that the developer is working closely with the Economic
Development Coordinator on the financing of the project because the developer is
requesting tax increment financing. The developer can answer more specifically
regarding finances of the project. She stated that, with the way the building is
proposed to be laid out, you only have one corner of the building that is
encroaching into the setback rather than a situation where the entire building
facade is encroaching into the setback. Basically, if you take the average setback
along this line, its about 35 feet which is 10 feet more than the requirement.
161
Chair Morris stated he is concerned with the 75% reduction in the open space
requirement and unsure if the recreational trail could be included in the open
space area. He stated he is uncertain where in the redevelopment plan it allows
for the use of the park space, to such a great extent, to supplement the open space
requirement on the property.
Ms. Peterson stated that trails and sidewalks that are on the actual property can be
counted toward the usable open space. She indicated that a citizen task force
studied this area and their recommendations formed the basis of the
Redevelopment Plan that is included in the Comprehensive Plan which allows the
park to substitute for usable open space.
Chair Morris stated that he understands the concept, but it means that all residents
in this development do not have any open space.
Ms. Erickson reviewed the task force study that was done and said that there were
3 parcels in Oak Park Village that were designated for housing, but these were
reguided for park. At the same time, the Mill City Plywood site was reguided for
residential. She said that since we are ending up with 200 units instead of the
original proposed 600 units, staff feels allowing the usable open space
requirement to be met on park land is a reasonable trade when looking at trying to
achieve some of the housing goals. She indicated that there is limited usable open
space proposed on site, but there is a substantial indoor entertainment space in the
building.
Chair Morris stated he is concerned about the linkages to transit routes. Since he
does not see any pedestrian link between this facility and the proposed transit
stops, he would not consider this project a superior transit accessibility site.
Ms. Erickson stated that the north/south transit route that is proposed to begin
service on Louisiana Avenue in September, 2000 basically connects north to the
Louisiana Avenue transit station, south to Excelsior Boulevard and then on to
Park Commons. One will be able to transfer on to Minnetonka Boulevard,
Highway 394 or Excelsior Boulevard as well as, in the future, a dedicated bus
route on the old LRT right away.
Ms. Peterson stated that there are certain criteria in the zoning ordinance that
constitute “superior access to transit” and the conditions are met with this
proposal.
Chair Morris opened the public hearing for the preliminary PUD, preliminary plat
and variance.
With no one wishing to speak, Chair Morris closed the public hearing.
162
Milo Pinkerton, Developer, MSP Real Estate, stated that he resides in St. Louis
Park and is proud to say that he could have an opportunity to develop something
in his hometown. His company has developed about 800 units in 15 different
developments. He has worked with Peter Phister who developed Newport on
Seven apartments which are to the west of the building site. He indicated that he
had tried to work with the billboard owner to see if they could include them in the
site and work with them on flood storage. The billboard owner does not want to
sell his property at any price. He indicated that, in regard to the setback, it does
get close at one point. The way we can be economical and save some money is to
design two wings on the same building (100 units) and flipping it. The design
concept is to try to get the maximum opening you could so you would have a
welcoming entrance and a view to the park across the street from a lot of the units
from the inside so you did not feel like you were on a concrete asphalt surface.
Mr. Timian asked who would want to live in these buildings with no available
green space.
Peter Phister, Barman, Crystal & Vogal Architects, stated that when he first
submitted the plan for staff review, we did an open space calculation and based on
our understanding of the open space requirements at that time, we felt that we did
meet the open space area. The difference is that we didn’t realize the fact that
flood plain storage area is not allowable as open space. In terms of the amount of
green space or open space, it does meet the intent of the ordinance. Because it is
flood plain and will be wet at certain times, it doesn’t meet the technicality of the
ordinance.
Mr. Timian asked where the children would play.
Mr. Pinkerton stated that the intent is to have a top of the line apartment and they
feel there will be a lot of seniors in this development. In regard to the children,
there is no place to locate a play set. If there are going to be children, the park is
where they would go to play. With rents starting at $880 a month and increasing
with 1 bedroom, 2 bedroom and 2 bedroom plus den, the building is not
specifically designed for family housing. He indicated that there is a business
office center, larger community room, a lot of common areas and viewing room
for movies.
Mr. Timian asked if the older citizens would have to walk across Walker to get to
the park.
Mr. Pinkerton indicated that he had done some work with comparables, such as
Park Glen, and doesn’t think there will be any problem with the marketing.
Mr. Timian said he is concerned that the park across from Walker is not a swing
set type of park.
163
Mr. Pinkerton stated that there were no 3 bedroom units to insure there was not an
issue with adequate parking. He stated that he increased the number of 1
bedrooms from 20% to 44% and indicated that he didn’t see this as a family
oriented building.
Mr. Timian asked if they were planning to use the parking across Walker Street at
the park for their visitor parking.
Mr. Pinkerton indicated that there is one to one underground parking for every
unit and plans to accommodate all the parking on the site for the residents.
Chair Morris stated he is concerned about the lack of usable open space and that,
although the concept that residents don’t have children may be valid, residents do
have visitors. To eliminate the possibility of outdoor recreation for pre-teen
visitors or residents and to expect them to use the park is not relevant. He stated
that Walker is a busy street and not a safe passage. He would like to see a place
for the residents to congregate outside for a sense of community, not just indoors.
He sees the need to have some usable open space dedicated for outdoor space (i.e.
tot lot).
Mr. Pinkerton stated that the community room will have an outdoor deck area.
He didn’t believe that children would go to an area where they are not supervised.
One thought is creating a grandmother’s room stocked with toys so senior citizens
that live there have a place to play for the kids indoors. They have used these
play rooms in their senior buildings. I think that there are some things we can do
in the community center area outdoors perhaps that may do what you are
suggsting.
Mr. Phister explained the building site plan diagrams and organization of the
buildings. He stated the intent is to have a whirlpool, but no swimming pool.
In answer to a questions from Mr. Timian on whether the building could be
pushed toward Highway 7, Mr. Phister explained that the area between the
building and Highway 7 is needed for the flood plain storage area.
Mr. Pinkerton indicated that this is a very difficult site and he is open to
suggestions.
Ms. Peterson explained that, while at the present time Oak Park doesn’t currently
have a lot of amenities for children, there are plans to develop it in the near future
with play equipment, trails, etc. In terms of usable open space, there are a number
of parcels in the city that are zoned for high density residential up to 50 units per
acre and it can be very difficult to achieve those densities and provide the usable
open space. She stated that some precedence has been set with other senior
buildings adjacent to the park. She stated that, in the Comprehensive Plan one of
164
the livable communities goals is to look at providing good links to public open
space rather than requiring large amounts of private open space.
Mr. Timian indicated that this plan has zero private open space and it doesn’t
make any sense. He said he believes that somehow there has to be a green space
placed on the interior of the horseshoe for residents to enjoy and sit outside.
Regarding a previous comment about the need for guest parking, Ms. Peterson
stated that staff would recommend designating a certain amount of the surface
parking lot as guest parking only and having signage there so those spaces could
not be leased out.
Mr. Carver asked to see a diagram that showed the elevation of the parking from
the outside.
Mr. Phister stated that a detailed elevation of the parking will be developed as part
of the final PUD submission and explained the parking garage concept.
Mr. Carver asked if any consideration was given to the possibility of a 2-level
garage because that would seem to be an offset for the green space.
Mr. Phister indicated that adding another level would not comply with the
building height requirements.
In answer to a question from Mr. Carver for clarification on the target market, Mr.
Pinkerton indicated that the target market would be less than 10% that would have
children. He explained the unit sizes and rents available.
Mr. Carver said he believes that the issue is choice in terms of where a person
rents. He believes that a real attempt has been made to strike a balance with
having the very close access to a park. He asked if there is an access from the
clubhouse that would come out into the flood plain area.
Mr. Phister stated that that the plan has not been developed to that level of detail
and if there is, it would come off the balcony down to grade level.
Mr. Carver asked about the variance request and it not being economically
feasible to have a set back large enough that you wouldn’t have to get a variance.
He indicated that, from what he has seen so far, he has to make a leap of faith that
it is not economically feasible because he has not seen any numbers or heard
anybody talk about any numbers and would like this to be addressed.
Mr. Pinkerton indicated that the two building wings are mirror images to reduce
construction costs. If you did move the east wing closer in by 15 feet you would
then eliminate up to 10 parking stalls which would then cause some economic
hardship in trying to meet the requirements for the parking stalls. If the two
165
wings were moved closer together, the distance between the units at the entrance
would be reduced, which also affects the marketability of a lot of the units. That
gap at the entrance gets tighter. If you use the same building footprint you will
have to turn it in to make the setback different. I think there are some economic
repercussions by doing that. The issue that I see is more if it is a hardship on
anybody else.
Mr. Carver asked if it would be an economic hardship to design and engineer the
east portion to be 15 feet shorter than the west portion.
Mr. Pinkerton indicated that there would be an economic hardship since the
architect fees would go up considerably.
Chair Morris asked if it is an option to explore the possibility of leasing green
space from the billboard owner for outdoor recreational area, even if it is a small
pocket park. I don’t know what the tradeoffs are for the EDA, but maybe some
soil remediation could be done and part of the billboard lot could be cleaned up.
The property owner may not want to sell it, but they may be willing to lease you a
part of it. He stated that this is not a desirable location for anything, and what you
have proposed is probably the best configuration that can be designed. In
principle, the Planning Commission sees a center focused development with no
outside recreation activity area at all. Nobody goes to the outside, and as
proposed, the parking is on the inside and there are no entrances or exits. It
certainly is a stand alone, closed off facility. He said the plan is not desirable
from his perspective, but site conditions may dictate the plan. He said he would
like to see some more exploratory work to consider outside activity amenities for
the residents.
Mr. Timian suggested giving up some parking spaces on the interior to give some
green space for the residents right in front of the center to create a central court.
Chair Morris stated he would prefer to give variances to parking stalls in
exchange for more usable open space. He stated that the green space is
designated but does not look like it is going to be used for anything.
Mr. Pinkerton stated that leasing some of the billboard property may be an
opportunity that he never explored. He indicated that there may be a way that
they can use some of their money to create an improvement in the park right
across the street. He would hate to get rid of some of the parking and didn’t know
if the location would be feasible for green space.
Mr. Phister stated that half of the billboard property is currently below the flood
plain elevation which is what we are battling on the whole site as it relates to
green space.
166
Mr. Gothberg said he believes having more exits or access to the exterior sides
would be desirable. He indicated that he lived in Park Glen, and as far as outside
activities/amenities, it was very limited but there was nearby access to some of the
ponding areas and parks/trails.
Chair Morris stated that there has been a good exchange in the discussion and
proposed that all three actions be voted on as one item.
Mr. Carver indicated that the variance request needed additional findings and
suggested voting on the variance separately.
Chair Morris concurred.
Mr. Carver moved to recommend approval of preliminary PUD and preliminary
plat, with the suggested staff recommendation and additional comments that were
added by the Planning Commission. The motion passed 5-0 with Carver,
Gothberg, Morris, Timian and Velick voting in favor.
Mr. Carver moved to recommend approval of a variance for a 10 foot rearyard
setback having found, as specified in the staff report, that the seven criteria have
been satisfied and specifically incorporate the findings as enumerated in that
report with the following additional findings: 1) The property developers
attempted to acquire the billboard area and were unsuccessful and, as such, that
further goes to show that the feasibility of their particular design requires a
variance in order to proceed. 2) Incorporate the comments related to the financial
considerations where it is not financially feasible for the building to be
redesigned. The motion passed 5-0 with Carver, Gothberg, Morris, Timian and
Velick voting in favor.
B. Case No. 99-36-ZA -- Proposed text amendment to zoning ordinance to clarify
non-conformities requirements for conditional use permits.
Sacha Peterson, Planner, presented a staff report and concluded that staff recommends
approval of the amendment to the zoning ordinance as written in the staff report.
Mr. Gothberg asked for a clarification on the wording in the proposed language for the
amendment on whether the word “property” meant the total property, including a multi-
tenant building as a whole, or the property area that is requesting the the use change.
Ms. Peterson stated that the intent is to include the property as a whole.
In response to a question from Mr. Gothberg on whether or not the area on the south side
of Cedar Lake Road at Louisiana would be affected by this amendment, Ms. Peterson
stated that staff is not sure that that particular property has a special permit or if there are
any existing nonconformities on the property. Assuming that it does not have a special
permit, Ms. Peterson stated it could be affected by this amendment.
167
Mr. Carver asked staff whether or not there is a definition in the ordinances for a “new
use” or “new tenant”. He said his request relates to Commissioner Gothberg’s statement
in terms of clarification for the term “property”. He said he thinks the point being made
is significant, that it is clear what we intend. The latter reference to property is meant to
be the entire property because that is the spirit behind this amendment. He sees this as an
opportunity to improve properties in St. Louis Park and not stall efforts which do not
financially support a complete revamping.
Judie Erickson, Planning Coordinator, stated that whenever there is a new tenant, or a
change in tenancy occurs, a Certificate of Occupancy must be issued by the Building
Inspection Department. Even though “new tenant” is not defined in the zoning code,
there is a precedent for how the City considers new tenants. The Zoning Code defines
various land uses. She said if a use that sells shoes leaves, and a new use that is a
restaurant comes in, there are definitions that determine that these are different uses. We
review new tenants with respect to the type of use and the code requirements for that use
and look at whether the use going in is more intense, whether it requires more parking,
etc. Some uses do require conditional use permits, such as a restaurant with liquor.
Mr. Carver stated that Mr. Velikson is both an old tenant, because he is there now, and a
new tenant with the hopes of the expansion. Ms. Erickson stated that the City looks at
tenant space, so we would ask “was he previously in that space”. Mr. Carver stated he
wanted to make sure there is a precedent as stated by Ms. Erickson.
Chair Morris asked for clarification about how the eight criteria on page 3 of the staff
report would be used for reducing or eliminating non-conformities. He said, to his
understanding, this portion is more of a policy issue where the criteria will be crafted
with each case. This is a concern of his because he believes everyone can plead a
financial impact or that redevelopment is likely in the future. There are a lot of
mitigating circumstances that this would not cover. His other concern is that the way it is
written, is it not specific enough. This language will accomplish a graduated approach,
but is more of a blanket decision and does not list percentages for coming into
conformance. He said that he thought the Commission suggested that pieces of the site
could be gradually phased into conformity and the language would be more fixed so there
would not be a debate each time.
Ms. Erickson stated that part of the reason for this ambiguity is because every situation is
different and has different nonconformities. What we tried to say is that items a-h on
page 2 will not be considered and we would not expect any of those eight items to be
brought into conformance. We would look only at the other items in the code where the
property is deficient or non-conforming, and then make judgements as to what seems
reasonable to require when we are trying to bring a site into conformance. Every time a
new property or new tenant comes in, there are building codes that must be brought up to
code when a tenancy changes. This is State Statute. The standard in the staff report was
used with old special permits. Part of the reason for the language in that standard is
because a number of standards changed when the City adopted the zoning ordinance in
168
1992. Something that was approved by special permit under the old code probably will
not meet a lot of the standards in the new code. Even though we have an ambiguous
statement like “reasonable and possible” it is because each issue is so complex and every
property is so different. There is a history, even in this instance, where properties were
taken by the County to widen Minnetonka Blvd and so, even if something may have been
in conformance at some time, highway takings have resulted in nonconformities.
Because St. Louis Park is the age it is, these situations exist everywhere, and that is partly
the reason for this ambiguous statement. We could try to be more specific if the
Commission wishes, but it seems that if you try to put something in a box you often leave
something out that you wished would have been included. With conversations between
the property owner and staff, there usually is some sort of understanding or agreement
and then the Commission would have the opportunity to review what staff feels is
reasonable and Council then makes a final decision. Staff is really trying to relax the
existing standard for multi tenant buildings so that it does not become as imposing on
property owners allowing for some ambiguity and leverage for us not to require them to
come into compliance with everything.
Chair Morris opened the public hearing and thanked Mr. Fine and Mr. Velikson for being
patient throughout the evening.
Jeffrey Fine 2101 Hennepin Avenue, property owner of Texa Tonka Shopping Center,
stated he has many questions and concerns to touch upon. Regarding the requirement to
obtain a new Certificate of Occupancy when there is a tenant change, he stated it is his
understanding that all current building codes that have bearing on health, safety or
welfare must be met and brought current. The issue is that whenever there is a change of
commercial tenant, those issues are going to be addressed regardless of what this new
ordinance does or does not do. With regard to the question asked earlier in reference to
the definition of the word “property” being part of the entire development or the one
property in question, he said he would like to suggest that if we do not want to create a
nightmare, and staff goes ahead with the proposed text amendment, it should apply
specifically only to the space or part of property that is going to be occupied as opposed
to the elements that are nonconforming in the building. He said his reason for saying this
is that in a multi-tenant structure if the action brought about because of a single occupant
is going to require change throughout the property, both owners and tenants in other parts
of the property are going to have a challenging problem with lease agreements in place.
There may be changes and modifications necessary in unaffected leased spaces required
by the City that the owner cannot carry out because of his lease obligations to preexisting
tenants or occupants of the building. Again, it is not always going to be easy to impose
those requirements to correct nonconformities in all parts of a building and impose that
burden on the owner of a property.
Mr. Fine stated that the Texa Tonka Shopping Center was developed in 1950 and the last
construction was completed in 1959. He said his family was involved in that
development and has owned and managed the center ever since. During that period of
time, Minnetonka Boulevard was widened on one, maybe two, occasions. The list of
approximately ten nonconformities on that property are legal nonconformities. At one
169
point in time when that building was constructed, everything was done in accordance
with zoning ordinance and code. There is nothing that has been done to create a
nonconformity other than administrative or legislative changes in zoning ordinances that
have occurred over the years. He said he thinks it is incumbant on the Commission to
decide on issues of nonconformities. It is the intent to deal with them in such a manner
that you work toward an opportunity to eliminate them, so as to bring all properties to a
standard that is contemporary and current? Reality is, that is your absolute goal and it is
your privilege to set that goal, he would suggest that the City just pass an ordinance that
any structure 15 years of age or older must be taken down, guaranteeing and assuring that
no structure could be substantially in nonconformance with the zoning ordinance. He
believes the shopping center today has an economic viability, fulfills a need in the
community and meets the needs of neighbors and merchants. However, less than a year
ago when the Comprehensive Plan guide plan was looked at, it was suggested that a
portion of the center known as the auxiliary parking lot on Texas might be reguided for
residential use as opposed to its current zoning for parking in conjunction with a
shopping center. He said that they did not see or know what was going on regarding the
Comprehensive Plan in time to address the Commission, but did find out in time to speak
about the issue before the City Council. The point they raised before the Council was
that without that parking facility being available, they would be very substantially
nonconforming with regard to the parking requirements for the Texa Tonka Shopping
Center. He said if it were the Council’s intent through the Comprehensive Plan to zone
the shopping center out of existence, so be it; they should have declared that. To make a
long story short, the City Council members acknowledged that they had some concerns
about the area and questions about its future, yet nobody specifically defined what issues
or concerns they really had in mind. It was agreed that a study initiated by the Planning
Department would be conducted some time in the year 2000 involving an outside
consultant.
Chair Morris stated that the Commission has previously discussed the study and the use
of the off-site parking. He asked Mr. Fine to focus on this ordinance amendment and its
affect of Mr. Velikson’s proposed restaurant.
Mr. Fine stated that the original proposal for the amendment to the zoning ordinance
(Velikson’s request) was not their idea. They became aware of the fact that a liquor
license was issued to the Texa Tonka Bowling Alley and it encouraged them to ask the
question if it was possible to have a liquor license on Minnetonka Boulevard. The
answer they received from a Councilmember unofficially was, yes under proper
circumstances. He said he consulted with his attorney and it was their decision that they
would seek a variance or number of variances as may be necessary to allow them to
come into a position to request a restaurant with liquor license. The City Staff suggested
that there was a more appropriate way to accomplish this in the form of an amendment to
the text of the zoning ordinance. That amendment was presented to the Commission and
supported by City staff twice. He said he was not going to oppose City Staff. If that was
the way it would be done, so they agreed to it. It looked very much like that was going to
happen. That amendment stated that a restaurant with liquor could be permitted with
five conditions. In analyzing the five conditions, three were no problem and two of them
170
were a little ambiguous. One talked about a separate pedestrian way to divide pedestrian
from vehicle traffic and the other was a bufferyard separating the use from the adjoining
residential property.
Chair Morris stated that the Commission has spent hours discussing those issues with Mr.
Velikson and Mr. Yarosh and is aware of the original request. He asked Mr. Fine to
focus on what detriment this new amendment would have on the property. He said the
Commission is viewing the amendment as a plus and are trying to craft something that
would allow further development of the shopping center and any other subsequent
properties and are looking at this as a tool to accomplish improvements to existing
properties. Chair Morris said that if he is following Mr. Fine’s line of logic, Mr. Fine is
still seeing this amendment as a detriment.
Mr. Fine said he is concerned and is hesitant to ask the Commission for anything. He
said there are costs associated with preparing this space for Mr. Velikson’s occupancy as
a restaurant. He said this situation is a train out of control because of the twists and turns
it has taken. They have not decided between themselves what the rent will be. He said
they do know, from a economic standpoint the costs that they face with regard to the
building itself are economically above the limit of what is reasonable and appropriate for
what is being proposed as a business. To the point of the current amendment, if there are
going to be additional requirements in meeting nonconforming conditions or bringing
them into conformance, there is additional expense associated with that and, in fact, there
may not be an economic viability to the project. He said they have not assessed that as
yet. He said he feels bad putting the Commission and City Council through the work
with an idea that, quite frankly, is economically marginal for them at this moment.
Chair Morris stated that the intent of the Planning Commission, which he hopes the
proposed ordinance amendment will address, is that quite possibly Mr. Velikson comes
forward with a Conditional Use Permit and through persuasion we decide that there are
minimal requirements to reduce the the conformities. Mr. Velikson would be the first foot
in the door for the center to operate as it chooses, spark new tenants, and then, understood
by the property owner, that further development will have a cost to it but you see by the
first example that it can work. The Commission is not deciding now that Mr. Velikson or
the owner has to repave the parking lot. He said if use ends up requiring a CUP, the
conditions placed on the use will be decided in the future.
Chair Morris stated that he appreciates where Mr. Fine is coming from, but mentioned
that they have heard these issues from both Mr. Yarosh and Mr. Velikson on previous
occasions with a lot of information exchanged.
Mr. Fine stated that he thinks the proof is in the pudding and he will not know the
outcome until after the fact. They have sought input from planning staff as to what they
thought might be required of them, but as stated earlier, they thought it was inappropriate
to be specific at this time. He said he would agree with Chair Morris’s suggestion that it
is important that the guidelines set forth in the staff report be incorporated as a part of the
text amendment so that those guidelines are not lost. There is a basis for, not only staff,
171
but members of the general public that are applying for a CUP to see some parameters
under which conditions are going to be considered. He wants to point out that Mr.
Velikson’s space that he would occupy is 11% of the total shopping center.
In answer to a question from Chair Morris on current vacancies in the shopping center,
Mr. Fine stated that 10-11,000 square feet are vacant out of a total of 52,000 square feet.
He said they are receiving approval from the City to redevelop the building on the
northeast corner of Texas and Minnetonka (a 4,000 s.f. building). They have a tenant for
that building. Generally speaking, there has been an improvement in the occupancy of
the commercial/retail areas and he expects further improvement to take place.
Mr. Fine concluded that he is in support of Mr. Velikson’s plan and what he wants to do.
Mr. Velikson has told Mr. Fine that he has no obligation to him if his costs become
inapproporiate. They stand before the Commission knowing that they are putting the
Commission and City through a lot of thought, concern and consideration and in the final
analysis do not want to disappoint anyone by saying it does not make sense.
Chair Morris stated he can assure them they will not be disappointed because there will
be other applicants coming forth and hopefully Mr. Velikson’s project will be the
keystone to other development tools that we will use.
Mr. Fine said that the City Council seemed a little ambivalent with the issues of this kind
of use with dancing and alcohol that we want in that location. They will consider further
issues in their study session. There was also an issue raised as to whether or not a CUP
can be transferable. He said he does not know if there was an answer to that.
Staff said CUP’s are transferable; they stay with the property.
Vladimir Velikson, commercial tenant in Texa Tonka Shopping Center, said he would
like to talk about the human/common sense factor. He said he has been torn between two
powers, St. Louis Park and Fine Management, and he perfectly realizes the fact that both
sides look at a best solution for this project. He said he has no power, money or political
tools to influence both sides but he would like to bring something good to people. He
said that on Monday he and his wife created and put together a party for almost 600
people at the Mariott, Downtown Minneapolis. He said they did this to test themselves
on how they can handle this type of activity and what reaction there would be from the
community. There were people from many cultures and it was truly an international
event. He said that is what he proposes to do in St. Louis Park in the Texa Tonka
Shopping Center. He is afraid if perhaps both powers cannot reach each other, the
project will collapse. He has already lost opportunity to borrow money with very good
interest. With no development of the restaurant, the parking lot will stay the same,
billboards will still be on the roof and darkness over the parking lot will be exactly the
same. All of us, the entire community of St. Louis Park and Twin Cities will simply
loose if restaurant is not approved.
172
Chair Morris said that Mr. Velikson’s arguments are persuasive and have been
consistently persuasive. He said that the applicant would be better served if he came in
with a conditional use permit and then sway the Planning Commission as to what needs
to be changed. At this point the Commission is discussing the tool that we need to get
you to that point of having the property owner and the city come together so that tenants
can benefit.
Mr. Velikson stated that is his message to find some tools which will connect all of us.
Chair Morris stated he does not know if this will be the perfect tool, but from the
Commission’s perspective the other method was not desirable which is why Mr.
Velikson’s proposed amendment was not accepted by the Planning Commission. He
stated he is in favor of approving what staff is recommending with a few tweaks to it. He
asked that Mr. Velikson be patient a while longer and hopefully he will be able to break
new ground. The ordinance needs to be adopted before we can get to the point of what
conditions we place on the property.
With no one else wishing to speak at the public hearing, Chair Morris closed the public
hearing.Chair Morris stated that the Commission has a recommendation before them to
approve a text amendment with some language changes to be inserted into the previous
conditional use permit language He stated that he feels that the eight criteria listed in the
staff report for reducing or eliminating the nonconformities should be part of a policy of
the Council, included in the minutes or somehow referred to in the ordinance. He
requested that staff craft something into the record related to the criteria.
Mr. Carver stated that he is convinced also that it would be a worthwhile endeavor to go
back to drawing board and come up with some language which generally talks about
improving or removing the nonconformities to be in proportion to the proposed changes.
His perspective is that this is what this amendment is all about – proportionality. We
started from a standpoint of someone coming to us wanting to make a new tenant
situation in an existing building and us saying okay, but fix all the nonconformities that
you could fix. The Commission struggled with this a long time and certainly wants to
maintain that power to change. Although the economy is great, the idea of raising all
buildings in 15 years is not feasible. The idea of indicating the proportionality within the
ordinance makes sense. Also, to the extent there are going to be specific factors which
are going to be considered, it certainly makes sense to him that those 8 criteria be
published. He said his concern is that if they only exist as part of minutes, new
commissioners, the property owner and the public will not be aware of them. He said it
is a good idea of where we have gotten with this particular proposal and it gives the
potential for meeting a need.
Mr. Carver stated that Mr. Fine indicated that he has not run the numbers as yet and
would feel bad upon an analysis of the numbers that this does not turn out to be feasible.
He said he would feel bad for St. Louis Park if the development does not go forward, but
at the same time, he thinks the amendment makes complete sense because it gives our
community, which has special concerns unlike the outer ring suburbs, the opportunity to
173
allow for improvement for new tenants without completely giving up the opportunity to
improve the property as a whole. For that specific reason, he would not support an
amendment of improving just the property that the tenant is occupying. The idea is that it
has to be for the entire property. Proportionality takes care of the concerns that Mr. Fine
articulated.
Chair Morris said an issue to bring forth is if the text amendment is not approved this
evening, the request would need to come back with a new drafted text amendment for
another public hearing which is going to slow down the proposed development. If the
amendment is approved today, Mr. Velikson could potentially submit a conditional use
permit request timed to come to the Commission when the new text amendment is in
effect. If we delay, Chair Morris pointed that this delay would also affect Mr. Velikson’s
timing.
Mr. Carver asked staff what the reasoning is for including the eight criteria on page three
of the report and not including them as part of the proposed language in the amendment.
He asked if it is as easy as cutting and pasting what we have here into the proposed
amendment.
Ms. Peterson stated that staff would need to take a more careful look at including the 8
criteria.
Mr. Carver stated that it goes back to Ms. Erickson’s comment of not wanting to miss
something by attempting to name everything we can think of now, and he agrees with
that comment. What is staff’s view of the proposal of including language as simple “the
removal of nonconformities shall be in proportion to the proposed changes”? He is not
sure “changes” is the appropriate word.
A discussion followed on proposed language.
Ms. Erickson suggsted some examples of proposed terms to add could be: “affected
tenant changes”, “reflected percent of the building subject to the conditional use permit”,
“percentage of building”, and “percentage of site”.
Mr. Carver stated he is not in favor of using percentage language because keeping the
flexibility in is the beauty of what staff has proposed.
Ms. Erickson stated that the minutes will go forward to Council with the amendment.
Ms. Velick stated that she understands what Commissioner Carver is saying, but she
wants to tweak this and make this possible to work, however she wants to see this move
expediently to City Council.
Mr. Carver suggested proposed additional language to read as follows: “the removal of
nonconformities shall be in proportion to the proposed new use” with the understanding
174
that staff does its due dilligence before the amendment goes onto Council. This
language is not absolute but fleshes out the idea, and he would support a motion.
Chair Morris said he would support that motion.
Mr. Carver moved that the Commission recommend approval of the proposed text
amendment as spelled out in the staff report with the addition of the statement “the
removal of nonconformities shall be in proportion to the proposed new use”. Ms. Velick
seconded the motion and the motion passed 4-0 with Carver, Gothberg, Morris and
Velick voting in favor.
4. Old Business: None
5. New Business
A. Consent Agenda – None
B. Other New Business
i. Election of Officers
Chair Morris stated that he had previously stated his desire to not retain the Chair
position for the Commission. He stated that Ms. Bissonnette is interested in retaining the
Vice-Chair but is not interested in accepting a nomination for Chair.
Ms. Velick nominated Paul Carver as Chair; Chair Morris supported the nomination.
There being no other nominations, Chair Morris called for a vote and Mr. Carver was
elected Chair on a 3-0-1 vote with Gothberg, Morris and Velick voting n favor and
Carver abstaining.
Chair Morris nominated Michelle Bissonnette as Vice Chair. Mr. Carver supported the
nomination. There being no other nominations, Chair Morris called for a vote and Ms.
Bissonnette was elected Vice-Chair on a 3-0-1 vote with Carver, Gothberg, Morris and
Velick voting in favor.
6. Communications
A. Recent City Council Action - December 20, 1999 and January 3, 2000
7. Miscellaneous
A. Additional Training (conflict resolution)
Ms. Erickson said that she had been pursuing some training for conflict resolution
and the cost is coming in fairly high. In order to afford this training, she advised
the Commission that she is looking into options of sharing the training and costs
175
with another department who staffs a Commission. It was suggested that other
cities be contacted. Ms. Erickson said she has some good facilitators in mind for
the training.
8. Adjournment
Chair Morris adjourned the meeting 9:35 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Janice Loftus
Administrative Secretary
Prepared by:
Shirley Olson
Recording Secretary
176
Item # 9g*
MINUTES
POLICE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 20, 1999
THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM AT CITY HALL
1) The meeting was called to order at 9:35 a.m. The following were present: Chair Jim
Lanenberg and Commissioner Linda Trummer. Also present was Staff Liaison/Human
Resources Manager Nancy Gohman and Rod Walker Police Captain. Member absent:
Brian Leary.
2) A motion was made by Commissioner Trummer and seconded by Commissioner
Lanenberg to approve the minutes of May 30, 1999. The motion carried.
.
3) The Commission welcomed new member Linda Trummer.
4) The Commission discussed vacancies in the position of Police Sergeant. Captain Walker
discussed the process that created the March 1998 list and requested certification of 4
names to fill 2 vacancies. A motion was made by Commission Trummer and seconded
by Commissioner Leary to certify the following 4 names to fill two vacancies.
David Shoemaker
John Giebel
Harlan Hildebrandt
Michael Harcey
The motion carried.
5) The meeting adjourned at 9:45 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Nancy Gohman
City Staff Liaison to the Police Civil Service Commission
177
Item # 9h*
Claims Paid through Feb. 4, 2000
January 21, 2000
VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
49er's Training Center LICENSES/TAXES 25.00
ACT ELECTRONICS INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 55.59
ALBINSONS OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES (60.05)
AMERIPRIDE LINEN AND APPAREL S CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL
SERVICE
184.05
ARAMARK UNIFORM CORPORATE
ACCT
GENERAL SUPPLIES 283.01
ASSOC OF TRAINING OFFICERS SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 25.00
BAKKEN,LARRY OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 900.00
BAUER BUILT TIRE & BATTERY EQUIPMENT PARTS (35.87)
BERKLEY RISK SERVICES OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,000.00
BOBS PERSONAL COFFEE SERVICE GENERAL SUPPLIES 145.95
BROADWAY RENTAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT (1.66)
CAPITOL COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 1,238.11
CARTRIDGE CARE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 169.06
CATCO PARTS SERVICE EQUIPMENT PARTS (159.75)
CHEYENNE LAND CO INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
CITY OF EAGAN EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT
CHARGE
24.00
COLLISYS ELECTRIC CO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 415.00
CONCEPT SEATING INC GENERAL SUPPLIES (180.00)
CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS GENERAL SUPPLIES (938.10)
CONTINENTAL SAFETY EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT PARTS 514.56
COPYMED INC OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 260.85
CUB FOODS SUBSISTENCE SUPPLIES 779.54
CUMMINS NORTH CENTRAL INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 342.63
CUSTOM PRODUCTS & SERVICES OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 18,999.75
DANKO EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT
CO
EQUIPMENT PARTS 494.97
DATABASE TECHNOLOGIES INC OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 85.00
DCA INC OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 309.62
E M S LOGCON INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 776.00
FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (15.67)
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 3,769.96
GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC RADIO COMMUNICATIONS 309.75
GOPHER STATE SEALCOAT FORFEITURES/PENALTIES 100.00
GRAINGER INC, W W SMALL TOOLS 79.82
GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES (261.50)
HAWKINS CHEMICAL INC CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL
SUPPLY
2,196.68
HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 131.09
HEWLETT-PACKARD CO OFFICE FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT 959.03
HILLMAN, LAURA OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 145.45
HOME DEPOT/GECF EQUIPMENT PARTS 28.96
178
INACOM INFORMATION SYSTEMS OFFICE FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT 1,265.06
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 100.00
KANSAS STATE BANK OF
MANHATTAN
CAPITALIZED INTEREST 2,636.74
KOVATCH MOBILE EQUIPMENT
CORP
MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT 115,977.00
LOFFLER BUSINESS SYSTEMS INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 2,373.77
MASTERSON PERSONNEL INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,210.50
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL SEWER AVAILABILITY CHARGE 4,158.00
MIDWEST CHILDRENS RESOURCE
CTR
OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 13.20
MIND SHARP TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 258.00
MINIKAHDA OAKS NEIGHBORHOOD
AS
OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 213.97
MINNEGASCO HEATING GAS 19,112.84
MINNESOTA GFOA SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 30.00
MN DEPT OF RECREATION OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 10.00
MN DRIVER & VEHICLE SVCS EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT
CHARGE
(46.00)
MN PIPE & EQUIPMENT OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 29.37
MTI DISTRIBUTING CO EQUIPMENT PARTS 184.91
NATOA SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 410.00
NSP CO ELECTRIC SERVICE 46,123.05
OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE SUPPLIES 23.55
PAGE ELECTRICAL CONTRACTING
IN
EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 71.50
PENNEY CO INC, WH GENERAL SUPPLIES 4,587.40
PIRES, CLINTON E GENERAL SUPPLIES 369.85
POSTMASTER POSTAGE 2,638.27
QUICKSILVER EXPRESS COURIER POSTAGE 826.38
REYNOLDS WELDING SUPPLY CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 70.09
RLK-KUUSISTO LTD ENGINEERING SERVICES 13,189.37
SA-AG INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 3,164.99
SAVIN CORPORATION EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 1,998.74
SEVEN CORNERS ACE HDWE SMALL TOOLS 99.50
SLP ECONOMIC DEV AUTHORITY DEPOSITS PAYABLE 2,000.00
SOJOURNER PROJECT INC OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 9,789.75
STAT MEDICAL GENERAL SUPPLIES 254.85
STATE TREASURER STATE SURCHARGE PAYABLE 1,536.30
SUN NEWSPAPERS LEGAL NOTICES 450.85
SWEENEY BROS TRACTOR EQUIPMENT PARTS (845.81)
TEKSYSTEMS COMPUTER SERVICES 1,792.00
TWIN WEST CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE
MEETING EXPENSE 110.00
U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE 170.65
UNITED RENTALS EQUIPMENT PARTS (909.49)
WENDY'S GARDEN OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 125.00
WM H MC COY PETROLEUM FUELS GENERAL SUPPLIES 24.44
WOLF CAMERA INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 80.57
ZIP PRINTING POSTAGE 332.96
269,118.88
179
January 28, 2000
VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
A M LEONARD SMALL TOOLS 311.93
ACT ELECTRONICS INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 35.00
AIRTOUCH CELLULAR TELEPHONE 126.23
ALBINSONS OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 55.59
ALLIANCE MECHANICAL SERVICES
I
BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 359.00
ALMSTEAD'S SUPERVALU CONCESSION SUPPLIES 74.50
AMERICAN FORESTS TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 25.00
AMERICAN MUSEUM OF SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 25.00
ANCHOR PAPER CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 182.11
ANDERSON, SCOTT TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 49.73
ANDERSON,ROY GENERAL CUSTOMERS 21.14
ANN'S TOOL SUPPLY GENERAL SUPPLIES 61.61
ARAMARK UNIFORM CORPORATE
ACCT
GENERAL SUPPLIES 524.98
ATI TITLE GENERAL CUSTOMERS 48.56
AUTO GLASS SPECIALISTS INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 275.54
AYLWARD,ELIZABETH SKATING LESSONS-tax exempt 49.50
BACHMANS BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 107.57
BASSETT CREEK WATER MGMT
COMM
OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 10,103.00
BATTERIES PLUS GENERAL SUPPLIES 36.55
BAUER BUILT TIRE & BATTERY EQUIPMENT PARTS (35.87)
BERNDT ELECTRIC SERVICE BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 23.21
BERNE SCALE BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 98.70
BETH EL YOUTH DEPARTMENT OTHER ADVERTISING 60.00
BIG RIVER DELI & SANDWICHES MEETING EXPENSE 34.51
BLOOMQUIST,ARNOLD GENERAL CUSTOMERS 3.31
BOBS PERSONAL COFFEE SERVICE GENERAL SUPPLIES 52.73
BOHN,DEBRA YOUTH ATHLETICS/LEAGUES-
exempt
27.00
BOY SCOUT TRP 282 DEPOSITS PAYABLE 200.00
BOYER,MARY GENERAL CUSTOMERS 17.81
BROADWAY RENTAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT (1.66)
BRYANT GRAPHICS GENERAL CUSTOMERS 9.57
BUDGET HELPER OTHER ADVERTISING 230.00
BURNETT, BETH & MORLEY BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 893.95
CALLAWAY,CAL GENERAL CUSTOMERS 64.06
CAPITOL COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT 67,664.50
CATCO PARTS SERVICE EQUIPMENT PARTS (159.75)
CENTER FOR ENERGY &
ENVIRONMEN
OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 8,070.79
CHAMBERS,DEBORAH GENERAL CUSTOMERS 68.22
CHERICO,MATT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 78.00
CIM SOFTWARE CORPORATION PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,756.67
CITY OF BURNSVILLE PLANNING 1,000.00
CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 361.21
COLLINS COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 8,012.55
COLLISYS ELECTRIC CO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 4,168.90
COMMUNICATION SERVICES INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 152.56
CONCEPT SEATING INC GENERAL SUPPLIES (180.00)
180
CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS GENERAL SUPPLIES (938.10)
CRILEY, KATHI L OFFICE SUPPLIES 39.29
CURTIS 1000 INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 50.65
D & L ASSOCIATES GENERAL CUSTOMERS 11.04
DALCO CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL
SUPPLY
171.25
DARTEK COMPUTER SUPPLY COMPUTER SUPPLIES 266.43
DIGITAL BIOMETRICS INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 485.00
E & S ELECTRONICS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 189.48
EDINA REALTY TITLE GENERAL CUSTOMERS 121.32
EHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC DEPOSITS PAYABLE 1,470.00
ELAN GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,646.30
ELVIN SAFETY SUPPLY GENERAL SUPPLIES 380.28
ENGELMAN,CHERYL TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 35.00
ENGINEERING REPRO SYSTEMS GENERAL SUPPLIES 80.49
ENGSTROM,ROGER POLICE PROF LIAB INSURANCE 126.80
ERV'S LAWN MOWER REPAIR SMALL TOOLS 485.63
EVERGREEN LAND SERVICES CO RELOCATION PAYMENTS 124.95
FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (15.67)
FLOYD TOTAL SECURITY GENERAL SUPPLIES 244.57
FRANZ REPRO GENERAL SUPPLIES 17.28
FREEWAY RADIATOR SERVICE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 496.29
G & K SERVICES EQUIPMENT PARTS 53.76
GALLAGHER & CO OF MN INC, A J WORKERS COMPENSATION
INSURANCE
0.00
GARDNER HARDWARE GENERAL SUPPLIES 18.98
GENERAL SAFETY EQUIPMENT
CORP
EQUIPMENT PARTS (14.07)
GLASS,JEFFERY GENERAL CUSTOMERS 31.44
GOVERNING SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 30.00
GOVERNMENT TRAINING SERVICE TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 370.00
GRAFIX SHOPPE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 192.00
GRAINGER INC, W W GENERAL SUPPLIES 364.28
GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES (261.50)
HENNEPIN CO INFO TECH COMPUTER SERVICES 106.58
HOISINGTON KOEGLER GROUP INC OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 389.56
HPI INTERNATIONAL INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 325.00
HUBBARD,BRIAN CHRISTMAS TREE 100.00
HYKE,ROBERT GENERAL CUSTOMERS 5.29
ICE SKATING INSTITUTE OF AMERI GENERAL SUPPLIES 3.50
IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 586.21
IMC SALT INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 15,222.85
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT
28
OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 604.50
INT ASSOC of CHEIFS of POLICE SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 100.00
INTERNL SOCIETY
ARBORICULTURE
TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 85.00
ITP PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 475.00
J H LARSON COMPANY BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 86.70
JUSTUS LUMBER COMPANY BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 17.38
KANSAS STATE BANK OF
MANHATTAN
CAPITALIZED INTEREST 62.24
KENNEDY & GRAVEN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 5,873.37
181
KIENENBERGER, BRIDGET GENERAL SUPPLIES 216.24
KILLMER ELECTRIC CO INC OTHER IMPROVEMENTS 3,111.83
KLEINSASSER,JANE GENERAL CUSTOMERS 9.44
KNOX LUMBER GENERAL SUPPLIES 69.36
LACHER,MARY GENERAL CUSTOMERS 17.26
LANDGREN, ROGER INSURANCE BENEFITS 206.36
LATHROP PAINT SUPPLY COMPANY GENERAL SUPPLIES 2.99
LEAGUE OF MN CITIES MEETING EXPENSE 140.00
LUECK,WAYNE B INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
LUSE, JOHN SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 160.00
MACQUEEN EQUIP CO EQUIPMENT PARTS 135.84
MAIL BOXES ETC # 1236 PRINTING & PUBLISHING 3.60
MASON-CUTTERS BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 275.00
MASTERSON PERSONNEL INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 894.00
MAXIMUM SOLUTIONS INC COMPUTER SERVICES 375.00
MCMAHON,ROBERT GENERAL CUSTOMERS 27.28
MENARDS SMALL TOOLS 63.31
METRO ATHLETIC SUPPLY GENERAL SUPPLIES 420.78
METRO SALES INC OFFICE SUPPLIES 65.67
MILLER,AARON GENERAL CUSTOMERS 7.00
MIND SHARP TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 258.00
MINNEAPOLIS AQUATENNIAL UNREALIZED REVENUE 200.00
MINNEAPOLIS FINANCE DEPT GENERAL SUPPLIES 63.00
MINNESOTA CONWAY EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 582.49
MINNESOTA PIPE & EQUIPMENT OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 748.92
MINUTEMAN PRESS PRINTING & PUBLISHING 45.00
MN DEPT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 2,850.49
MN DRIVER & VEHICLE SVCS EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT
CHARGE
(46.00)
MN LEGAL REGISTER MEETING EXPENSE 57.00
MN POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY GENERAL SUPPLIES 32.54
MN RECREATION & PARK ASSOC SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 455.00
MPLS DEPT OF HEALTH/FAMILY
SUP
OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 63.20
MRPA MEETING EXPENSE 27.50
McGarrigle, Elaine GENERAL CUSTOMERS 6.02
NASCO FORT ATKINSON GENERAL SUPPLIES 72.02
NATIONAL CAMERA EXCHANGE &
VID
GENERAL SUPPLIES 594.06
NORTH STAR FLAGS OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 94.13
NORTHWEST CHAPTER F B I N A A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 45.00
NSP CO ELECTRIC SERVICE 987.73
NYSCA OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 20.00
OESTREICH,W GENERAL CUSTOMERS 5.70
OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE SUPPLIES 61.06
ON SITE SANITATION GENERAL SUPPLIES 206.07
ORKIN PEST CONTROL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 30.46
PALM BROTHERS CONCESSION SUPPLIES 320.12
PAPER WAREHOUSE-GENERAL
OFFICE
GENERAL SUPPLIES 37.29
PARKDALE ASSOCIATES GENERAL CUSTOMERS 93.56
PARTS PLUS EQUIPMENT PARTS 83.31
PEPSI-COLA COMPANY CONCESSION SUPPLIES 1,037.16
182
PINKERTON SERVICES GROUP PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 419.52
POMMER MFG CO INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 314.08
POSTMASTER POSTAGE 5,100.00
PRINTERS SERVICE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 156.30
PROFILE EVALUATIONS INC. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 159.75
QUALITONE GENERAL CUSTOMERS 17.83
QUEST ENGINEERING INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 12.93
RANGER RICK SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 14.00
RIC'S LAWN, LANDSCAPE & SNOW P LAND MTCE 100.00
SALVERDA & ASSOCIATES,
DONALD
TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 722.43
SAM'S CLUB CONCESSION SUPPLIES 667.22
SCHARBER & SONS EQUIPMENT PARTS 20.34
SCHWIETZ,JULIANNE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,585.22
SEARS SMALL TOOLS 399.37
SEVEN CORNERS ACE HDWE GENERAL SUPPLIES 306.14
SHOEMAKER, DAVID TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 178.46
SIMPLEX TIME RECORDER CO EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 373.01
SLP CRIME PREVENTION FUND UNREALIZED REV-SAFETY CAMP 0.00
SPORTS TURF MANAGERS
ASSOCIATI
TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 25.00
SPS COMPANIES INC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 14.43
SRF CONSULTING GROUP INC DEPOSITS PAYABLE 8,417.46
STANDARD PLUMBING BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 709.02
STONE,DOUGLAS GENERAL CUSTOMERS 62.88
SUBURBAN PROPANE MOTOR FUELS 307.06
SUBURBAN TIRE CO TIRES 976.90
SWEENEY BROS TRACTOR EQUIPMENT PARTS (845.81)
TARGET/DAYTONS GENERAL SUPPLIES 28.08
TCF BANK 001-12-P GENERAL CUSTOMERS 25.93
THE JOURNAL OF LIGHT SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 39.95
THE MOBILE PHONE COMPANY GENERAL SUPPLIES 254.91
THE NATIONAL ARBOR DAY
FOUND
TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 40.00
THYSSEN LAGERQUIST ELEVATOR BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 463.50
TITLE,BURNET GENERAL CUSTOMERS 24.21
TITLE,STEWART GENERAL CUSTOMERS 22.94
TOMAR ELECTRONICS EQUIPMENT PARTS 1,242.61
TRAN,JENNIFER OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 66.00
TRIARCO ARTS & CRAFTS GENERAL SUPPLIES 121.83
TRUE VALUE (PARK) GENERAL SUPPLIES 6.02
TWIN CITY OXYGEN CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 4.96
U S WEST INTERPRISE TELEPHONE 422.22
UNITED RENTALS EQUIPMENT PARTS (513.88)
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 600.00
UNIVERSITY OF MN TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 300.00
US POSTAL SERVICE POSTAGE 100.00
VALLEY-RICH CO INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 2,535.86
VOELKER, STACY M CONCESSION SUPPLIES 81.71
WASHINGTON CO GOV CTR SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 60.00
WASTE MANAGEMENT-BLAINE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL
SERVICE
141,059.75
WATSON CO INC CONCESSION SUPPLIES 2,073.56
183
WEDDING GUIDE OTHER ADVERTISING 890.00
WERTZLER,MARIANNE SKATING LESSONS-tax exempt 55.00
WEST GROUP MEETING EXPENSE 28.76
WILLIAMS STEEL & HDWE SMALL TOOLS 160.28
WORTHY,JULIE YOUTH ATHLETICS/LEAGUES-
exempt
70.00
WSB ASSOCIATES INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 4,824.25
YOUNG,BRUCE GENERAL CUSTOMERS 88.77
ZEMBRYKI, MARK MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 140.92
ZIEGLER INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 737.05
ZIP PRINTING OFFICE SUPPLIES 146.51
ZIP SORT POSTAGE 25,609.54
353,741.43
February 4, 2000
VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
A M LEONARD SMALL TOOLS 147.81
ABLE COURIER OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 13.10
ABM EQUIPMENT & SUPPLY INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 18.47
AIRTOUCH CELLULAR TELEPHONE 30.21
ALLIANCE MECHANICAL SERVICES
I
BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 124.00
AMEM SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 20.00
AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSOC OFFICE SUPPLIES 158.00
APACHE GROUP OF MINNESOTA OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 795.77
APPLE PRINTING AND
SECRETARIAL
PRINTING & PUBLISHING 231.11
ARAMARK UNIFORM CORPORATE
ACCT
GENERAL SUPPLIES 954.22
ASKEGAARD,DELL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 33.11
ASPEN EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT PARTS 60.70
AUTO GLASS SPECIALISTS INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 302.58
AUTOMOTIVE NEWS SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 114.00
BATTERIES PLUS GENERAL SUPPLIES 138.44
BAUER BUILT TIRE & BATTERY EQUIPMENT PARTS (35.87)
BECKER ARENA PRODUCTS GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,082.92
BERNDT ELECTRIC SERVICE BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 5,244.27
BINACO DISTRIBUTING INC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 138.45
BIZCOM USA INC RADIO COMMUNICATIONS 417.36
BOBS PERSONAL COFFEE SERVICE GENERAL SUPPLIES 363.11
BOYER TRUCK PARTS EQUIPMENT PARTS 34.84
BROADWAY RENTAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT (1.66)
BUREAU OF CRIMINAL
APPREHENSIO
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 24.00
BURNETT, BETH & MORLEY GENERAL SUPPLIES 44.00
CALHOUN TOWERS APARTMENTS RADIO COMMUNICATIONS 450.00
CALIFORNIA CONTRACTORS
SUPPLIE
SMALL TOOLS 157.78
CAMPBELL KNUTSON
PROFESSIONAL
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 6,940.81
CAPITOL COMMUNICATIONS RADIO COMMUNICATIONS 297.65
CARTRIDGE CARE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 344.78
184
CATCO PARTS SERVICE EQUIPMENT PARTS (159.75)
COLICH & ASSOCIATES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 11,995.97
COLLINS COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 16,601.69
COMM CENTER NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 3,737.30
CONCEPT SEATING INC GENERAL SUPPLIES (180.00)
CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS GENERAL SUPPLIES (938.10)
CUSTOM PRODUCTS & SERVICES OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 4,962.75
DEKO FACTORY SERVICE INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 253.48
EARL F ANDERSEN INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 246.74
EHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,230.00
ELAN FINANCIAL SERVICES MEETING EXPENSE 181.19
ELVIN SAFETY SUPPLY GENERAL SUPPLIES 465.86
ENSR CONSULTING &
ENGINEERING
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 3,259.74
ENVIRONMENTAL DEVELOPMENT
CORP
SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 85.00
ERICKSONS SEWER SERVICE BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 93.00
EVERGREEN LAND SERVICES CO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,166.60
FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (15.67)
FORCE AMERICA INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 116.55
GALLAGHER & CO OF MN INC, A J WORKERS COMPENSATION
INSURANCE
0.00
GARDNER HARDWARE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 3,443.82
GENERAL SAFETY EQUIPMENT
CORP
EQUIPMENT PARTS (14.07)
GENUINE PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS 419.04
GIRARD,KEN OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 199.50
GOVT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOC SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 120.00
GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES (261.50)
HASLERUD, CARRIE GENERAL SUPPLIES 64.42
HENN CO ACCOUNTING SERVICES GENERAL SUPPLIES 886.50
HENNEPIN TECHNICAL COLLEGE TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 1,560.00
HIGHVIEW PLUMBING INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 1,921.24
HOME HARDWARE EQUIPMENT PARTS 0.73
HUIRAS, SHIRLEY OFFICE SUPPLIES 239.67
HYDRO SUPPLY COMPANY OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 3,193.89
I T L PATCH COMPANY GENERAL SUPPLIES 93.72
IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 502.65
INACOM INFORMATION SYSTEMS OFFICE FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT 6,484.95
INDUSTRIAL ELECTRIC CO ELECTRICAL 441.00
IOS CAPITAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT 710.36
J H LARSON COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS 10.46
JOHN G FLORA SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 10.00
JOHNSON, DICK GENERAL SUPPLIES 40.46
KENNEDY & GRAVEN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 72.00
KONICA BUSINESS TECHNOLOGIES
I
RENTAL EQUIPMENT 39.41
LOGIS RENTAL EQUIPMENT 12,328.04
LORMAN EDUCATION SERVICES TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 1,095.00
M A C T A MEETING EXPENSE 125.00
M P S A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 75.00
M/A ASSOCIATES INC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 39.51
MACQUEEN EQUIP CO EQUIPMENT PARTS 298.18
185
MAMA-LMC LABOR RELATIONS
SVC
TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 45.00
MAMA/GMC LABOR RELATIONS
SUBSC
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 5,335.00
MARKERTEK VIDEO SUPPLY GENERAL SUPPLIES 226.19
MASTERSON PERSONNEL INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,067.75
MENARDS GENERAL SUPPLIES 235.01
METRO CASH REGISTER SYSTEMS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 106.03
METRO COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL
SE
CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL
SERVICE
250,008.00
METRO SALES INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 410.05
METRO SYSTEMS NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 1,986.28
METROCALL TELEPHONE 155.44
MIDWEST CHILDRENS RESOURCE
CTR
OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 20.00
MIDWEST MAILING SYSTEMS INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 14.70
MN CHAPTER OF AIIM TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 170.00
MN DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION GENERAL SUPPLIES 46.00
MN DRIVER & VEHICLE SVCS EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT
CHARGE
(46.00)
MN RECREATION & PARK ASSOC OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,136.00
MUNICILITE EQUIPMENT PARTS 95.70
NATL ASSOC for INTERPRETATION SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 112.00
NATL AUDUBON SOCIETY SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 20.00
NATROGAS INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 61.00
NEXTEL RADIO COMMUNICATIONS 87.00
NORTH STAR INTERNATIONAL
TRUCK
EQUIPMENT PARTS 3.30
OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE SUPPLIES 639.36
ON SITE SANITATION OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 70.65
PALM'S HOME BAKERY MEETING EXPENSE 6.70
PARR EMERGENCY PRODUCT
SALES I
GENERAL SUPPLIES 357.51
PARTS PLUS EQUIPMENT PARTS 870.01
PEPSI-COLA COMPANY CONCESSION SUPPLIES 293.65
PINKERTON SERVICES GROUP PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 30.00
POLLAND,ROBERT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 448.58
POSTMASTER POSTAGE 100.00
PRAXAIR DISTRIBUTION INC. GENERAL SUPPLIES 76.26
PRESTIGE LINCOLN MERCURY EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 9,111.02
QUEST ENGINEERING INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 28.80
RADIO SHACK GENERAL SUPPLIES 22.97
RANDY'S SANITATION INC GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE 3,059.58
RC INDENTIFICATIONS GENERAL SUPPLIES 5.33
ROTARY CLUB OF SLP SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 194.00
RUFFRIDGE JOHNSON EQUIPMENT
CO
EQUIPMENT PARTS 464.05
SA-AG INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 2,078.46
SCRANTON GILLETTE
COMMUNICATIO
SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 40.00
SECURITYLINK FROM AMERITECH OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 36.10
SLP CRIME PREVENTION FUND UNREALIZED REV-SAFETY CAMP 0.00
STANDARD SPRING OF MPLS EQUIPMENT PARTS 685.58
186
STATE OF MN LICENSES/TAXES 30.00
SUBURBAN PROPANE MOTOR FUELS 83.49
SUBURBAN TIRE CO TIRES 627.75
SUN NEWSPAPERS LEGAL NOTICES 179.90
SWEENEY BROS TRACTOR EQUIPMENT PARTS 63.43
TEKSYSTEMS COMPUTER SERVICES 2,219.00
TOM ALLEN TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 1,000.00
TREE TRUST TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 25.00
TRUE VALUE (PARK) GENERAL SUPPLIES 0.86
U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE 764.44
UNITED RENTALS EQUIPMENT PARTS (513.88)
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 470.00
VALLEY PAVING INC OTHER IMPROVEMENTS 27,233.14
VESSCO INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 560.63
VISU-SEWER CLEAN & SEAL INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 6,580.20
WALSER FORD EQUIPMENT PARTS 198.63
WAYTEK EQUIPMENT PARTS 106.26
WCRA WORKERS COMPENSATION
INSURANCE
5,405.70
WEST HENNEPIN COMM SVCS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,668.75
ZIEGLER INC EQUIPMENT PARTS (50.34)
ZIMMERMAN, JEAN MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 10.14
ZIP PRINTING POSTAGE 332.96
ZIPSORT POSTAGE 119.08
426,913.49
February 4, 2000
VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
GREAT WEST LIFE & ANNUITY INS DENTAL INSURANCE 913.13
913.13
February 4, 2000
VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
AETNA LIFE INSURANCE &
ANNUITY
DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 1,385.14
ALLINA DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 86,800.71
CEDAR TRAILS WEST
HOMEOWNERS A
DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 243.52
COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 406.00
FORTIS BENEFITS DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 1,561.14
HEALTHPARTNERS DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 5,438.29
I.U.O.E. LOCAL NO 49 DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 1,387.65
ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-401 DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 491.96
ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-457 DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 24,895.92
LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR
SERVICES
DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 1,749.00
MINN COMM OF REVENUE MAPS/PRINTED MATERIALS 14,965.00
MINNESOTA BENEFIT
ASSOCIATION
DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 866.65
MINNESOTA NCPERS LIFE
INSURANC
DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 105.00
187
MN CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENT
CENTE
DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 6,865.22
MN DEPT OF REVENUE MOTOR FUELS 259.34
ORCHARD TRUST COMPANY DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 12,248.00
PARK NATIONAL BANK DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 221,367.84
PERA DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 91,830.98
PERA FIREMEN'S RETIREMENT
ASSO
DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 5,617.15
PERA POLICE RETIREMENT ASSOC DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 11,963.54
PRUDENTIAL DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 4,522.05
SLP ASSOC OF FIREFIGHTERS-LOCA DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 1,005.04
SLP CREDIT UNION DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 56,183.94
UNITED WAY OF MINNEAPOLIS
AREA
DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 439.20
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 1,520.00
USCM / MIDWEST DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 12,577.96
WESTBRIDGE CAPITAL CORP
INSURA
DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 39.00
566,735.24
February 4, 2000
VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS WORKERS COMPENSATION
INSURANCE
115.49
MEDICAL ANESTHESIA LTD WORKERS COMPENSATION
INSURANCE
373.81
PARK NICOLLET MEDICAL CENTER WORKERS COMPENSATION
INSURANCE
2,101.15
SEDGEWICK MANAGED CARE WORKERS COMPENSATION
INSURANCE
38.00
2,628.45
188
Item # 9i*
City of St. Louis Park
Human Rights Commission
Meeting Minutes - December 15, 1999
First Floor Community Room - City Hall
______________________________________________________________________________
Present
Commission Members: Laurel Higgins, Herb Isbin, Betty Merritt, John Archbold, Kim
Fischer and Chris Smith
Staff: Martha McDonell, staff liaison, and Lynn Schwartz, recording secretary
Chair Laurel Higgins called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.
Approval of Minutes
Moved by Herb Isbin and seconded by Betty Merritt to accept the November minutes.
Herb Isbin suggested that any item members would like to be included in the minutes needs to be
discussed at the meeting. Isbin also commented that the minutes show that the commission
discusses many issues but doesn’t always come to a decision about them. Isbin felt too many
items were left unfinished. Martha McDonell suggested that commission members discuss
unfinished items when they set their 2000 work plan.
Reports
Chris Smith reported that he reviewed the CD ROM from the Simon Wiesenthal Center on hate
web sites on the internet.
Laurel Higgins asked whether members are receiving “The Right Stuff,” a quarterly newsletter
published by the Minnesota Department of Human Rights. She suggested that commissioners
may wish to receive this newsletter.
Martha McDonell shared a letter from the Lenox Neighborhood Association expressing its
support to a Minneapolis church that was vandalized. McDonell also reported that Lynn
Littlejohn has been appointed to the Human Rights Commission; she will be attending the
January meeting. McDonell noted that the City Council also interviewed two other individuals,
and they received a letter stating that their applications were under consideration.
Herb Isbin reported that he spoke with the director of the St. Paul Human Rights Department
concerning their billboard campaign. He learned that St. Paul received hundred’s of phone
calls—generally supportive of the effort—but no reports of bias or hate-motivated incidents.
Isbin also told commissioners that he would like the commission to decide whether it will pursue
obtaining a grant from the Constitutional Rights Foundation. Members suggested obtaining a
few pamphlets to see if the organization offers something that St. Louis Park schools could use.
189
Isbin also told commissioners they should be aware of a pamphlet entitled, “Just the Facts,”
which discusses sexual orientation and youth.
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 in December. Herb Isbin did take one call from an individual interested in
applying for membership on the commission in November.
Police Training: McDonell reported that Mort Ryweck, Minnesota League of Human Rights
Commissions, lead a training session on bias/hate crimes at the Police Department’s December
10th annual meeting. At the same session, Laurel Higgins reminded officers of St. Louis Park’s
Bias/Hate Crime Response Plan. Martha McDonell noted that the training session was well
received by officers.
Commissioners said they felt once a year probably wasn’t a frequent enough reminder about the
bias/hate crime response plan. Members suggested asking the duty sergeant to remind officers of
the response plan on a quarterly basis. They also suggested that the plan be included in the new
officer orientation program. All officers could be given a wallet-size reminder card as well.
Martha McDonell offered to bring these suggestions to the attention of Sergeant Lorin Kramer.
Hate Crime Follow-Up: Laurel Higgins reported on a memo from Marc Berg on the recent
vandalism incident in St. Louis Park and the Police Department’s determination that the incident
did not constitute a hate crime. Higgins reported that she spoke with Sergeant Lorin Kramer
who felt Berg’s memo was not an portrayal of the Police Department’s efforts. Kramer stated
that the officer was very thorough in her investigation and pointed out that the victim did not feel
the incident was hate motivated. Without evidence or the victim’s desire for additional follow-
up, the matter was dropped.
John Archbold said this points out the issue of when the police should push the matter. Laurel
Higgins said Ryweck contends that an incident can be deemed a hate crime if there is a lack of
other motivation or if either the victim or the officer perceives that the incident was hate
motivated. Members said the problem isn’t police follow-through: it’s more an issue of how the
incident is perceived and whether the City’s Bias/Hate Crime Response Plan is at least
mentioned to the victim.
Laurel Higgins offered to call Lorin Kramer to request that the Police Department be more
aggressive in reporting probable hate crimes and providing information to victim. She also
offered to invite Kramer to a future meeting so the issue can be discussed.
Strategic Action Plan Two: Public Awareness Campaign
Brochure: Martha McDonell shared a draft of the newly updated brochure on the Human
Rights Commission. Herb Isbin suggested that members review the draft before the January
meeting so they can discuss whether the brochure accurately depicts the law.
190
Strategic Action Plan Three: School Support
School District Strategic Plan: There was no report on this item. Members agreed to discuss
the Shoreview brochure and its possible use in the schools at the January meeting.
New Business
Election of Officers: Moved by Herb Isbin and seconded by Laurel Higgins to elect Marc Berg
commission chairperson for 2000. The motion was approved unanimously.
Moved by Chris Smith and seconded by John Archbold to elect Herb Isbin commission vice-
chair for 2000. The motion was approved unanimously.
Old Business
Year-end Report: Laurel Higgins completed a draft of the commission’s year-end report, and
members may suggest modifications if they wish. Herb Isbin suggested waiting to submit the
1999 report until the statistics on illegal discrimination are available.
Bylaws: After a brief discussion of the previously proposed bylaw revisions, members accepted
the revised document. Now that the bylaw revision is completed, Herb Isbin suggested that the
commission needs to discuss the Human Rights Commission’s mission and goals.
1999 Human Rights Award: Martha McDonell reported that the commission received four
nominations for the 1999 Human Rights Award. Members then reported on each nominee’s
contributions and the comments made by their references.
After a discussion of the four nominees’ contributions, Herb Isbin suggested that all four
nominees could receive the award. Members agreed and decided to honor Portia Byrd, Louann
Lanning, Judith Moore, and Oreland and Lucille Thornsjo. Martha McDonell offered to write
something on each recipient’s contributions for the mayor’s presentation at the January 3rd City
Council meeting as well as send flowers to each recipient.
Set Agenda
Members agreed to place the following items on the January agenda: 2000 work plan with a
discussion of mission and goals, Human Rights Commission brochure, year end report, and use
of the Shoreview brochure.
Outgoing commissioner Laurel Higgins then thanked commissioners for their participation and
involvement. Members said farewell to outgoing members Higgins and John Archbold.
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:01 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lynn Schwartz
Recording Secretary
191
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 11a
Meeting of February 7, 2000
11a. Phase II Railroad Study
Agreement with ROK-Kuusisto, Ltd. For professional services to undertake Phase
Two of the Railroad Study
Recommended
Action:
Motion to authorize Mayor and City Manager to execute a
professional services agreement for Phase Two of the Railroad
Study
Background:
The City conducted Phase One of a Railroad Study in 1999 to develop sufficient background
information on railroad operations that are conducted in or affect St. Louis Park. RLK-Kuusisto,
Ltd. was the consultant for Phase One of the study and is proposed as the consultant for Phase
Two as well. In Phase One virtually all the work was done by RLK. A substantial portion of
the work will be subcontracted in Phase Two.
Scope of Services:
The general purpose of the Phase Two work is to develop plans that will address the alternatives
for:
• interconnection of the north-south and east-west rail lines in the vicinity of the Golden
Auto site
• interconnection of the north-south rail line to the Burlington Northern Mainline
• removal of the switching wye in the Elmwood area
• improvements to the north-south line and its street crossings.
It is anticipated that RLK will provide overall project management and will use subconsultants
for specific rail design tasks and for environmental work.
The project includes $21,500 for environmental work relating to the impact of rail traffic on
surrounding properties. The environmental work would not include any appreciable amount of
original research and testing, and anticipates that there is a vast amount of existing information
on noise, vibration etc that can be applied to this project. The scope of services for the
environmental work has intentionally been left very brief. It is intended that the fuller scope
would be developed with the input of a proposed task force.
192
Financing:
The estimated cost for Phase Two is $69,220. Hennepin County has reviewed the estimated
costs and has given approval that the Hennepin County Environmental Response Fund would be
used to reimburse the costs associated with this contract. The agreement provides that extra work
can be authorized by the City and County. Any such additional cost would have to be approved
by the County.
Work related to the blocking issue with Hopkins and Minnetonka is not part of this agreement.
Any such work would be part of a separate agreement and would not be reimbursed through the
Environmental Response Fund.
Attachments: Agreement for professional services including
• Exhibit A (Scope of Services)
• Exhibit B (Projected Timeline)
• Exhibit C (Rate Schedule)
• Exhibit D (Scope of Services for Environmental Work)
Prepared by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
193
AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
This Agreement is made on the ____ day of _____, 2000, between the City of St. Louis Park,
Minnesota ("City"), whose business address of 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard, St. Louis Park,
Minnesota 55416-2290, and RLK-KUUSISTO LTD ("Project Manager") whose business
address is 6110 Blue Circle Drive, Suite 100, Minnetonka, MN 55343.
XI. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
The City has adopted a policy regarding the selection and hiring of consultants to provide a
variety of professional services for City projects. That policy requires that person, firms or
corporations providing such services enter into written contracts with the City. The purpose of
this contract is to set forth terms and conditions for Project Manager services related to the
Golden Auto/National Lead Site and Railroad Connection Proposal, City Project No.______.
The City and Project Manager agree as follows:
1. Project Manager's Services. The Project Manager agrees to provide professional services
as described in Exhibit A, attached and made a part of this Agreement.
2. Time for Performance of Services. The Project Manager shall perform the services
outlined in Exhibit A according to the schedule in Exhibit B.
3. Compensation for Services. City agrees to pay the Project Manager for services as
described in Exhibit A. Compensation shall be in accordance with this Exhibit and the
hourly rates contained in Exhibit C.
4. The Project Manager, upon direction of the City, agrees to perform the following Project
Manager Services for Project:
A. See Exhibits A (Scope of Work and Budget), and B (Schedule).
B. Special Contractors may be utilized by the Project Manager when required by the
complex or specialized nature of the Project and when authorized in writing by
the City.
C. Extra Services: City agrees to pay Project Manager for extra services by the
Project Manager or Special Contractors when authorized in writing by the City.
5. The City agrees to provide the Project Manager with the complete information
concerning the scope of the Project and to perform the following services:
194
A. Access to the Area: The City shall obtain access to , and make all provisions for
the Project Manager to enter upon public and private lands as required for the
Project Manager to perform such work as surveys and inspections in the
development of the Project.
B. Consideration of the Project Manager's Work: The City shall give thorough
consideration to all reports, sketches, estimates, drawings and other documents
presented by the Project Manager, and shall inform the Project Manager of all
decisions within a reasonable time so as not to delay the work of the Project
Manager.
C. Standards: The City shall furnish the Project Manager with a copy of any design
and construction standards they may require in the preparation of the report for
the Project.
D. Owner's Representative: A person shall be appointed to act as the City's
representative with the respect of the work to be performed under this agreement.
He or she shall have complete authority to transmit instructions, receive
information, interpret, and define the City's policy and decisions, with respect to
the materials, equipment, elements, and systems pertinent to the work covered by
this Agreement.
6. Method of Payment: The Project Manager shall submit to the City, on a monthly basis,
itemized bills for professional services performed under Section 4 of this Agreement.
Bills submitted shall be paid in the same manner as other claims made to the City.
A. Progress Payment. Work will be reimbursed on an hourly basis. The Project
Manager shall indicate for each employee, his or her name, job title, the number
of hours worked, rate of pay for each employee, a computation of amounts due for
each employee, and the total amount due for each project task. Project Manager
shall verify all statements submitted for payment in compliance with Minnesota
Statues Sections 471.38 and 471.391. For reimbursable expenses, if permitted in
Exhibit A, the Project Manager shall provide such documentation as reasonably
required by the City.
B. Abandoned or Suspended Work. If any work performed by the Project Manager
is abandoned or suspended in whole or in part by the City, the Project Manager
shall be paid for any services performed on account of it prior to receipt of written
notice from the City of such abandonment or suspension, all as shown on Exhibit
A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
C. Compensation for Services of the Project Manager. The City shall pay the Project
Manager for the services described in Exhibit A of this Agreement. The fee that
the City will pay under this Agreement shall not exceed the amount shown with
Exhibit A.
195
D. Payments for the Project Manager's Reimbursable Costs. The Project Manager
shall be reimbursed for the work of special consultants, as described in Section
4.B, and for other items when authorized in writing by the City. Such items shall
include:
Transportation of principals and employees on special trips to the Project or to
other locations, materials and supplies, and expenses related to AutoCAD as
required to expedite the work, and reproduction of reports.
7. Accuracy of Work. Project Manager shall be responsible for the accuracy of the work
and the utilization of all determinant data, and shall promptly make necessary revisions or
corrections resulting from errors and omissions on the part of Project Manager without
additional compensation.
If the date or materials furnished by the City, and used in the conduct of this work are
found to be in error, incorrect, or inappropriate, the City shall direct Project Manager to
modify, update, and/or correct the affected work product. All such corrective work
performed by Project Manager shall be considered to be additional services for which
additional compensation shall be paid to Project Manager on the basis of Project
Manager's standard fees or actual costs incurred.
8. Project Manager and Staffing. The Project Manager has designated Richard L. Koppy to
serve on the project. Richard L. Koppy shall be assisted by RLK-Kuusisto, Ltd. staff
members as necessary to facilitate the completion of the Project in accordance with the
terms established herein. Project Manager may not remove of replace Richard L. Koppy
from the Project without the approval of the City.
9. Audit Disclosure. The Project Manager shall allow the City or its duly authorized agents
reasonable access to such of the Project Manager's books and records as are pertinent to
all services provided under this Agreement. Any reports, information, data, etc. given to,
or prepared or assembled by, the Project Manager under this Agreement which the client
requests to be kept confidential shall not be made available to any individual or
organization without the City's prior written approval. All finished or unfinished
documents, data, studies, surveys, drawings, maps, models, photographs, and reports
prepared by the Project Manager shall become the property of the City upon termination
of this Agreement, but Project Manager may retain copies of such documents as records
of the services provided.
10. Term. The term of this Agreement shall be February 7, 2000 through December 17,
2000, the date of signature by the parties notwithstanding. This Agreement may be
extended upon the written mutual consent of the parties for such additional period as they
deem appropriate, and upon the terms and conditions as herein stated.
11. Termination. This Agreement may be terminated by either party by seven (7) days'
written notice delivered to the other party at the address written above. Upon termination
under this provision if there is no fault of the Project Manager, the Project Manager shall
be paid for services rendered and reimbursable expenses until the effective date of
196
termination. If however, the City terminates the Agreement because the Project Manager
has failed to perform in accordance with this Agreement, no further payment shall be
made to the Project Manager, and the City may retain another Project Manager to
undertake or complete the work identified in Paragraph 1. If as a result, the City incurs
total costs for the work (including payments to both the present Project Manager and a
future Project Manager) which exceed a maximum Agreement amount, if any, specified
under Paragraph 3, then the Project Manager shall be responsible for the difference
between the cost actually incurred and the Agreement amount.
12. Subcontractor. The Project Manager shall not enter into subcontracts for services
provided under this Agreement except as noted in the scope of services, without the
express written consent of the City. The Project Manager shall pay any subcontractor
involved in the performance of this Agreement within ten (10) days of the Project
Manager's receipt of payment by the City for undisputed services provided by the
subcontractor. If the Project Manager has received payment by the City, the Project
Manager shall pay interest to the subcontractor on the unpaid amount at the rate of 1-1/2
percent per month or any part of a month. The minimum monthly interest penalty
payment for an unpaid balance of $100 or more is $10. For an unpaid balance of less
than $100, the Project Manager shall pay the actual interest penalty due to the
subcontractor. A subcontractor who prevails in a civil action to collect interest penalties
from the Project Manager shall be awarded its costs and disbursements, including
attorney's fees, incurred in bringing the action.
13. Independent Project Manager. At all times and for all purposes herein, the Project
Manager is an independent Project Manager and not an employee of the City. No
statement herein shall be construed so as to find the Project Manager an employee of the
City.
14. Non-Discrimination. During the performance of this contract, the Project Manager shall
not discriminate against any employee or applicants for employment because of race,
color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, status with regard to public
assistance, disability, or age. The Project Manager shall post in places available to
employees and applicants for employment, notices setting forth the provisions of this
non-discrimination clause and stating that all qualified applicants will receive
consideration for employment. The Project Manager shall incorporate the foregoing
requirements of this paragraph in all of its subcontracts for program work, and will
require all of its subcontractors for such work to incorporate such requirements in all
subcontracts for program work.
15. Assignment. Neither party shall assign this Agreement, nor any interest arising herein,
without the written consent of the other party.
16. Services Not Provided For. No claim for services furnished by the Project Manager not
specifically provided for herein shall be honored by the City.
197
17. Severability. The provisions of this Agreement are severable. If any portion hereof is,
for nay reason, held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be contrary to law, such
decision shall not affect the remaining provisions of the Agreement.
18. Entire Agreement. The entire agreement of the parties is contained herein. This
Agreement supersedes all oral agreements and negotiations between the parties relating
to the subject matter hereof as well as any previous agreements presently in effect
between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof. Any alterations, amendments,
deletions, or waivers of the provisions of this Agreement shall be valid only when
expressed in writing and duly signed by the parties, unless otherwise provided herein.
19. Compliance with Laws and Regulations. In providing services hereunder, the Project
Manager shall abide by all statues, ordinances, rules and regulations pertaining to the
provisions of services to be provided. Any violation shall constitute a material breach of
this Agreement and entitle the City to immediately terminate this Agreement.
20. Waiver. Any waiver by either party of a breach of any provisions of this Agreement shall
not affect, in any respect, the validity of the remainder of this Agreement.
21. Indemnification. Project Manager agrees to defend, indemnify and hold the City, its
officers, and employees harmless from any liability, claims, damages, costs, judgements,
or expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees, resulting directly or indirectly from an
act or omission (including without limitation professional errors or omissions) of the
Project Manager, its agents, employees, or subcontractors in the performance of the
services provided by this Agreement and against all losses by reason of the failure of said
Project Manager fully to perform, in any respect, all obligations under this Agreement.
22. Insurance.
A. General Liability. During the term of this Agreement, Project Manager shall
maintain a general liability insurance policy with limits of at least One Million
Dollars ($1,000,000.00) for each person, and each occurrence, for both personal
injury and property damage. This policy shall name the City as an additional
insured for the services provided under this Agreement and shall provide that the
Project Manager's coverage shall be the primary coverage in the event of a loss.
The policy shall also insure the indemnification obligation contained in Paragraph
No. 17. A certificate of insurance on the City's approved form which verifies the
existence of this insurance coverage must be provided to the City before work
under this Agreement is begun.
B. Worker's Compensation. The Project Manager shall secure and maintain such
insurance as will protect Project Manager from claims under the Worker's
Compensation Acts and from claims for bodily injury, death, or property damage
which may arise from the performance of Project Manager's services under this
Agreement.
198
C. Professional Liability Insurance. The Project Manager agrees to provide to the
City a certificate evidencing that they have in effect, with an insurance company
in good standing and authorized to do business in Minnesota, a professional
liability insurance policy. Said policy shall insure payment of damage for legal
liability arising out of the performance of professional services for the City, in the
insured's capacity as the Project Manager, if such legal liability is caused by an
error, omission, or negligent act of the insured or any person or organization for
whom the insured is legally liable. Said policy shall provide an aggregate limit of
$1,000,000.
23. Records Access. The Project Manager shall provide the City access to any books,
documents, papers, and record which are directly pertinent to the specific contract, for the
purpose of making audit, examination, excerpts, and transcriptions, for three years after
final payments and all other pending matters related to this contract are closed.
24. Ownership of Documents. All plans, diagrams, analyses, reports, and information
generated in connection with performance of the agreement shall become the property of
the City. The City may use the information for its purposes. Such use by the City shall
not relieve any liability on the part of the Project Manager.
25. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be controlled by the laws of the State of
Minnesota.
This standard agreement has been reviewed by the City Attorney.
199
EXECUTED as to the day and year first above written.
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK Reviewed for Administration:
__________________________________ __________________________________
Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
__________________________________
Charles W. Meyer, City Manager RLK-KUUSISTO, LTD
By _______________________________
Attest: Its________________________________
__________________________________ By _______________________________
Cynthia D. Larsen, City Clerk
Its________________________________
200
Exhibit A
St. Louis Park Railroad Study
Phase 2
Scope of Services,
Timeline, and Cost Estimate
Phase 1 of the St. Louis Park Railroad Study has been completed and transmitted to the City
Council. Impacted residents have also been updated through newsletters and public meetings. It
is our impression that the timing is correct to move into an implementation phase for the
activities identified as short-term in Phase 1.
The following represents a current outline of the Scope of Services to be provided by RLK-
Kuusisto, Ltd. and its subconsultants (with revisions based upon City Council concerns). A
projected timeline is attached as Exhibit B. It is assumed work that the work will begin in
February 2000 and be completed by December 2000. Fees will be billed according to the
attached hourly rate schedule attached as Exhibit C. Budgets are identified for each task. Fees
shall not exceed the budgeted amount for any identified task without the prior written consent of
the City.
The City will also contract directly with an environmental consultant for environmental impact
analysis and to study the effectiveness of railroad mitigation efforts considered for
implementation. The initial scope of services for the environmental work is attached as Exhibit
D. The scope may be refined based on input from City Council and the Railroad Advisory
Group.
I. Public Involvement Process (Budget $9,000)
Services will be provided to continue the public involvement strategy that was initiated in
Phase 1. The objective will be to work closely with the public to arrive at a Railroad
Improvement Plan that best represents the consensus opinion of all impacted residents.
A. Advisory Group Meetings (Budget $3,500)
Assemble a group consisting of railroad company executives, City and County
staff members, neighborhood leaders, and others based on City Council’s desires.
Conduct a series of meetings with this group to discuss railroad improvement
alternatives identified in the Background Report including funding and the
impacts to St. Louis Park.
201
This group would meet on a regular basis throughout the process and produce
reports to Council. Cost estimate is based on a schedule of one meeting every
other month beginning in March and continuing through December.
B. Newsletters (Budget $1,000)
Prepare newsletters as appropriate information is available for distribution by City staff to
impacted residents, businesses, and other potentially affected interests. First newsletter
would be produced in late February to announce the initiation of Phase 2. Subsequent
newsletters will be produced approximately every other month and would continue
through the completion of the study.
C. Voicemail/E-Mail Hotlines (Budget $1,000)
Provide open communication by establishing and maintaining voicemail and E-mail
“hotlines”. Numbers will be published. Messages will be transcribed and used to gain
feedback throughout the project. Those requiring feedback will be responded to
accordingly.
D. Public Information Meeting (Budget $1,000)
Conduct an informational meeting open to the general public to present the findings of
the Feasibility and Environmental Studies, and to gain public support for the pursued
Railroad Improvement Plan.
E. Ongoing Project Management and Organization of Study Tasks (Budget $2,500)
Miscellaneous project management tasks required to lead the project. These tasks
include, but are not limited to: presenting material to City Council at study sessions as
appropriate; general coordination meetings with City staff and subconsultants.
II. Engineering Feasibility Studies (Budget $33,000 – Including Subconsultant Fees)
RLK will seek bids from qualified consultants and work with City staff to select a
consultant with expertise in railroad design. The selected consultant will contract as a
subconsultant to RLK. The consultant will assist RLK in performing detailed feasibility
studies of the following alternatives:
A. North-South to East-West (NL/Golden Auto Site) Interconnect (Budget
$17,500)
Phase 1 of the study identified three possible alternatives (connection to the north using
existing right-of-way, connection to the north with a right-of-way swap, and a connection
to the south from the existing right-of-way). “Ball park” cost estimates were obtained
from conceptual sketches. Some services have already been performed that were beyond
the scope of the Phase 1 study, and fees have been deferred for billing during the Phase 2
Study.
Each of the three alternatives requires further analysis to get a more accurate cost
estimate for comparison. Additional consideration for a “run around” track will also be
included for each of the alternatives.
202
Further analysis will include topographic survey of existing rail and limited intermittent
spot elevations of surrounding area and data gathering of as-built surveys for railroad
tracks, city streets, utilities, etc. This information will be used by a subconsultant to
prepare preliminary construction plans for each of the three alternatives.
RLK, Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority, MnDOT, and railroad company
officials will work with the selected subconsultant to determine design criteria and
prepare an engineer’s cost estimate for each alternative.
B. North-South Interconnect to BNSF Mainline (Budget $4,000)
Obtain topography and existing railroad alignment data and provide the information to
the selected subconsultant. Reconstruction of the interconnect will be analyzed using
existing embankment as well as a new alignment with a tighter radius that will maximize
the distance from the adjacent townhomes. Environmental impacts including wildlife
habitat impacts and wetland remediation will be included. Cost estimates will be
provided for both alternatives as well as for noise wall barriers.
C. Removal of the Switching Wye Track (Budget $4,000)
Obtain plat maps and work with Canadian Pacific Railway to develop a plan for the
removal of track and sale of the right-of-way and/or abandonment of easements. The
City of St. Louis Park public works department will be involved in coordinating potential
city street improvement projects with the street patch work that would be required at
eliminated crossings, as well as revisions to parking restrictions or general street signing.
RLK will also work to determine a fair salvage value of track for the possible re-use in
the switching yard in Glencoe. RLK will also work with Canadian Pacific Railway and
Twin Cities & Western Railroad Company to develop a plan for alternate means of
delivery of salt to the salt industry on west-end of switching wye.
D. Upgrading Mainline Track Through St. Louis Park (Budget $2,500)
Analyze the existing north-south track and the existing east-west BNSF track (east of the
north-south line) to determine the cost to upgrade the track to a seamless rail or other
similar improvements to mitigate noise and vibrations from potential rail traffic increases
over these segments. A segment-by-segment cost estimate will be included. Discussion
with MnDOT on commuter rail implications and the possible use of State funding will be
included.
E. Railroad/Street Crossing Improvements (Budget $5,000)
Public Works has worked with MnDOT and has prepared a list of rail/ street crossings
that should be closed. Street closures would be discussed at public meetings and
coordinated with emergency services. RLK will provide concept sketches of street
closures.
Intersections not recommended for closure will be analyzed to determine what upgrades
could be made to meet the new FRA standards to facilitate future implementation of a
203
quiet zone through St. Louis Park. Discussions with MnDOT and the FRA will be
included.
III. Determine the Economic and Physical Redevelopment Opportunities and
Constraints of the Golden Property (Budget $5,220)
The Phase 1 Railroad Study contract has been closed out, and no further billing will be
submitted for that phase of the project. Work identified under Item IV. of the Phase 1
proposal was put on hold due to uncertainty of which interconnect alternative, if any,
would be pursued. $2,455 of the $7,675 budget was billed leaving a balance of $5,220.
RLK has consolidated and summarized the environmental design development studies
that had been completed prior to Phase 1. Phase 2 activities will be completed deferring
the remaining Phase 1 budget as follows:
A. Survey of the Property (Budget $1,220)
Review survey information that is available and prepare a base plan for the site.
The base plan will include areas of soil and groundwater contamination that have
been identified in previous site surveys.
B. Environmental Remediation (Budget $1,500)
A detailed Scope of Services for environmental remediation was prepared during
Phase 1 of the contract. This Scope of Services is attached as Exhibit D. If it is
determined during Phase 2 that the City will pursue environmental remediation of
the Golden Property for the construction of a new railroad interconnect and/or for
site redevelopment, RLK will meet with and seek bids from environmental
consultants to perform the work identified in Exhibit D. The tasks identified in
Exhibit D are not included in the Phase 2 scope.
C. Planning for Redevelopment (Budget $2,500)
This work is to be completed simultaneously with the feasibility studies of the
three interconnect options. Several redevelopment concepts will be prepared for
the Golden Property. The economic redevelopment opportunity for the site will
be considered as a substantial part of the decision on whether or not to pursue any
of the alternatives. The final product will consider available land for varying land
uses and associated environmental issues.
IV. Identifying Funding Sources (Budget $2,000)
RLK will meet with various agencies to identify funding sources for the alternatives that
the City wishes to investigate.
A. Hennepin County Environmental Response Fund
204
RLK will meet with Hennepin County Environmental Services to review the requested
railroad construction and environmental remediation items.
B. MnDOT Funding
RLK will meet with MnDOT officials to discuss funding for the various alternatives.
One possible source would be offset money if the rail bridge over Highway 100 were
eliminated from the MnDOT proposed highway improvement project. Long-term
considerations for commuter rail will also be included in the discussion.
C. Federal Funding
Additionally, RLK will research the availability of federal assistance to upgrade rail
crossings to conform to the new FRA standards.
V. Excess or Additional Project Management Tasks not Specified (Billed Hourly with
Authorization)
Project Management tasks exceeding a budgeted amount or not specifically identified in
this contract may be authorized by the City and County. Extra work will be billed
according to the attached hourly rate schedule (Exhibit C).
Summary of RLK-Kuusisto Phase 2 Project Management Work
Public Involvement Process $9,000
Feasibility Studies $33,000
Determine Economic and Physical Redevelopment
Opportunities and Constraints of Golden Property
$5,220
Funding with Hennepin County and Other Applicable
Agencies
$2,000
Subtotal RLK-Kuusisto Contract Amount $49,220
Summary of Phase 2 Environmental Work
Additional Noise Studies $1,500
Environmental Impacts from Rail Traffic $14,500
Determine Effectiveness of Mitigation Efforts $5,000
Subtotal Environmental Contract Amount $21,500
Total Phase 2 Contract with Hennepin County $69,220
205
Exhibit B
Projected Timeline
for
Phase 2 Railroad Study
It is anticipated that the City of St. Louis Park will enter into an agreement with Hennepin
County Environmental Services by mid February to retain RLK-Kuusisto, Ltd. as the project
manager for Phase 2 of the Railroad Study. The scope of services for the environmental work is
subject to change based on analysis by the selected consultant and input from the Advisory
Group. The revised scope may require additional contract negotiations between the City and
County.
Assuming that the remaining portions of the study are approved by mid-February, the project
manager is prepared to begin work immediately and complete the second phase according to the
schedule below:
February, 2000
RLK-Kuusisto, Ltd.
1. Hold initial meeting with the Railroad Advisory Group to present the Phase 2 scope
and discuss the action steps for the duration of the study. The scope of the
environmental work will be better defined at this meeting.
2. A newsletter will be prepared and mailed to update all P.A.I.’s on all recent
developments in the railroad study and on the initiation of Phase 2.
3. Data gathering will be initiated to prepare base information to be used for design in
the feasibility studies.
4. The Project Manager will select a subconsultant to perform the detailed design for
feasibility studies.
5. The Project Manager will use the environmental scope of services as revised by the
advisory group to meet with environmental consultants to discuss the work and
request proposals.
March, 2000
City Staff
1. City staff will establish a contract with an environmental consultant for the Phase 2
environmental work.
2. If necessary, City staff will renegotiate the environmental portion of the contract with
Hennepin County Environmental Services.
206
RLK-Kuusisto, Ltd.
1. Topographic surveys of existing railroad alignments and surrounding areas
potentially impacted by railroad improvements.
2. A second meeting will be held with the Railroad Advisory Group in late March to
introduce the environmental consultant and discuss the scope and timeline of the
environmental work.
3. Meetings with Railroad officials and MnDOT will be held to identify design
standards for railroad construction.
4. Feasibility studies will be initiated.
5. Base plan preparation for the Golden Property will be initiated.
Environmental Consultant
1. The environmental consultant will review the traffic projections and other elements of
the Phase 1 Background report.
2. Environmental studies will be initiated to evaluate the overall impacts from potential
changes in railroad traffic patterns.
3. Data gathering of previous environmental studies of mitigation measures such as
seamless rail, noise walls, home soundproofing, etc.
April, 2000
RLK-Kuusisto, Ltd.
1. Data gathering and topographic surveys will be completed as base for feasibility
studies and Golden Property redevelopment studies.
2. Feasibility study efforts will continue.
3. Initiate research to determine if there are Federal funding programs available to assist
in upgrading at-grade crossings to meet the new FRA standards.
4. Discussions will be initiated on funding railroad improvement alternatives with
MnDOT and Hennepin County will be initiated.
Environmental Consultant
1. Environmental studies will continue on environmental impacts and mitigation efforts.
May and June, 2000
RLK-Kuusisto, Ltd.
1. Feasibility study and funding efforts will continue.
2. Periodic Railroad Advisory Group meetings will be held as appropriate.
3. Periodic newsletters will be published as appropriate.
Environmental Consultant
1. Additional noise study field work will begin.
2. Environmental studies will continue on environmental impacts and mitigation efforts.
July, 2000
RLK-Kuusisto, Ltd.
1. Feasibility Studies will reach ninety-percent completion.
2. Railroad Advisory Group will meet to discuss feasibility studies and environmental
study progress.
207
3. Using Golden Property base drawing and feasibility study findings, the project
manager will initiate the redevelopment planning efforts for the NL/Golden Auto
Site.
4. Feasibility study efforts will continue.
Environmental Consultant
1. Preliminary noise study findings presented to Railroad Advisory Group.
2. Environmental studies will continue on environmental impacts and mitigation efforts.
August, 2000
RLK-Kuusisto, Ltd.
1. Final feasibility study findings will be completed.
2. Several alternatives for redevelopment planning efforts for the Golden Auto Site will
be completed.
3. The Railroad Advisory Group will meet to review the final feasibility reports, Golden
Auto Site redevelopment alternatives, and environmental studies.
4. A newsletter will be published to inform P.A.I.’s of the findings of the reports.
Environmental Consultant
1. Final noise study report will be completed.
2. Final report will be prepared by the environmental consultant.
September, 2000
RLK-Kuusisto, Ltd.
1. The Railroad Advisory Group will meet and draft a list of recommendations to City
Council.
2. The recommendations of the Railroad Advisory Group will be presented to City
Council.
3. Meetings with appropriate agencies will be held to discuss funding of the items
recommended by the Railroad Advisory Group.
4. Periodic newsletters will be published as appropriate.
Environmental Consultant
1. Attend City Council meeting to answer questions.
October, 2000
RLK-Kuusisto, Ltd.
1. After completing review of the recommendations of the Railroad Advisory Group,
City Council will direct the project manager on their chosen direction.
2. The Railroad Advisory Group will meet to discuss the reaction of City Council and
begin writing the Railroad Improvement Plan.
3. City of St. Louis Park, Hennepin County, MnDOT, and Railroad officials will meet
with Project Manager to discuss purchase of Golden Property, if applicable.
4. Discussions on funding will continue with appropriate agencies.
5. Periodic newsletters will be published as appropriate.
208
Environmental Consultant
1. Attend City Council meeting to answer questions.
2. Environmental work will be complete at this point.
November, 2000
RLK-Kuusisto, Ltd.
1. A proposed funding plan for the selected railroad improvements will be completed.
2. City of St. Louis Park, Hennepin County, MnDOT, Railroad officials, and the Project
Manager will hold a second meeting to discuss purchase of Golden Property, if
applicable.
3. Project Manager will meet with City Council at study sessions to present the final list
of desired improvements with the proposed funding plan.
4. A final newsletter will be issued which define the selected railroad improvements,
and announce a public meeting.
December, 2000
RLK-Kuusisto, Ltd.
1. A public meeting will be held to present the Railroad Improvement Plan and to gain
support from the public.
209
Exhibit C
Hourly Schedule ForCharge Rates
(July, 1999)
Level 1 Senior Project Manager $95.00
Level 2: Senior Professional Engineer $90.00
Senior Planner $90.00
Level 3: Project Engineer $65.00
Level 4: Planner $55.00
Level 5: Engineering Technician $50.00
Level 6: Administrative Assistant $40.00
Exhibit D
Scope of Services for Environmental Work
The following is a Scope of Services that the City can use to contract an environmental
consultant to perform studies that will identify the environmental impacts of changes in railroad
traffic and the effectiveness of mitigation efforts.
I. Additional Noise Studies (Budget $1,500)
Perform a study to record the noise levels generated from the switching procedure through the
“switching wye”. Compare findings to State noise standards in a similar format as the Blocking
Operation Noise Study prepared in 1999 by SBP Associates. Also measure the noise generated
by a through train on the north-south tracks at three locations (north of the BNSF track, between
the BNSF and the Milwaukee Junction, and south of the Milwaukee Junction), and on the east-
west BNSF track east of the north-south line.
II. Environmental Impacts from Rail Traffic (Budget $14,500)
Using the existing rail traffic volumes and the projected volumes, determine the environmental
impacts of each of the alternatives. Noise, vibration, and air quality issues must be quantified for
both the short-term and long-term impacts. Analysis of the social, economic, and property value
impacts for selected alternatives will also be included. All material will be prepared in a format
that can be discussed in a public arena.
III. Determine Effectiveness of Mitigation Efforts (Budget $5,000)
Prepare a study that will determine the effectiveness of each of the mitigation efforts identified in
the study.
210
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 11b*
Meeting of February 7, 2000
11b*. Dan Patch Corridor Commuter Rail Feasibility Study Invoice and Contract.
Agreement between the I-35 W Solutions Alliance and the City of St. Louis Park to
participate in the Commuter Rail Coordinating Committee for the Dan Patch
Corridor
Recommended
Action:
Motion to authorize Mayor and City Manager to execute the
agreement
Background:
The I-35W Solutions Alliance has been organized to serve as the Commuter Rail Corridor
Coordinating Committee for the commuter rail line which runs from the City of Northfield to
downtown Minneapolis. This route is known as the “Dan Patch Corridor” or “Line L”. The
Alliance has formed policy and technical committees to provide guidance on issues relating to
the development of the Advanced Corridor Plan and intends to include representatives from all
local units of government along the route.
The Policy committee will provide guidance on issues which may include alternatives anaysis,
environmental review, implementation method, public involvement, land use, service and safety.
The City has appointed City Manager, Charles Meyer as staff representative and Debra Skinner
as Citizen Representative on this committee.
The technical committee will provide guidance on issues relating to alternatives analysis,
environmental review, railroad coordination, route, track and station design, land use, service
and safety. Judie Erickson has been appointed as the City’s representative on the Technicial
committee.
In order to participate, the alliance is asking that the City make a contribution of $1000.
Attachments: Agreement
Prepared by: Cynthia D. Larsen, City Clerk
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
211
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 11c*
Meeting of February 7, 2000
*11c. 1999 Fund Balance Reservations
This action will reserve fund balances for budgeted 1999 purchases that were either
ordered in 1999 but not received or were not able to be purchased in 1999 due to
other circumstances.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to reserve requested fund balances.
Background:
Each year a review must be made of actual versus budgeted expenditures. During the review of
1999 activity, several Department Heads indicated specific items that were unable to be
purchased in 1999. The process of reserving fund balances is called Encumbrance Accounting.
When determining what would be considered for “encumbrance”, the following questions had to
be answered.
Question: What happens when dollars are allocated for specific purchases in 1999 but cannot
be spent until 2000?
Answer: If the item was ordered in 1999 and cannot be delivered and/or invoiced until 2000
it is eligible for fund reservation.
Question: If a department/division budget has excess dollars left at the end of the year, does
this money need to be spent?
Answer: No, it is not necessary to spend down budgeted dollars. The department/division
will not be penalized the following budget year. Do not spend just to spend.
Question: Should this system be used for small dollar purchases.
Answer: This system is not to be used for small dollar purchases. Small dollar purchases
should be absorbed by the 2000 budget.
212
The only General Fund reservation request is from the Clerk’s office. This request is for $800.00
to purchase binders to hold City Council official records, minutes, resolutions and ordinances.
Under normal circumstances, this would be considered a minimal purchase, however it was
budgeted for in 1999 and the anticipated purchase date was in 1999.
The other request for reservation comes from Equipment Services for major capital purchases.
These purchases have received prior Council approval and have not been purchased due to
delivery date issues. The total of this reservation is $462,530.42. Please keep in mind that some
of these items were actually ordered in 1998.
Attachments: Equipment Services listing of requested encumbrances
Prepared by: Jean D. McGann, Director of Finance
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
213
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
PUBLIC WORKS OPERATION DIVISION
CENTRAL EQUIPMENT SERVICES
7305 OXFORD ST.
ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55426
MEMORANDUM
January 7, 2000
TO: Jean McGann, Finance FROM: Dennis Millerbernd, Equip. Svcs.
SUBJECT: Encumbrance
This is the list of equipment placed on order in 1999 with anticipated delivery after February 28, 2000. One item, a full
size fire pumper truck will be ordered within the first quarter of 2000.
Unit Description P. O. # Account Code Amount Delivery Date Reason
Ford Ranger Pickup 17631 4473-6101 $14,147.00 Unknown Manufacture will not build
until they receive five or
more orders for the same
color.
Utility Body for Fire Truck 17623 4473-6101 $13,514.98 April 1, 2000 Body is available for
installation, but truck
chassis was rejected.
Chassis should be
delivered in February.
Fire Truck Chassis 17613 4473-6101 $32,160.00 March 1, 2000 The chassis received in
November was rejected.
Replacement is expected
the end of February.
Dump Body Package 17569 4473-6101 $43,257.30 April 28, 2000 Vendor just received truck
chassis. Chassis and
body were ordered in
1998.
Street Flusher Truck 17629 4473-6101 $118,451.14 March 1, 2001 Twelve month delivery time
for truck chassis.
Installation of flusher and
attachments will require
another two months.
Fire Pumper Truck XXXXX 4473-6101 $241,000.00 June 1, 2001 Solicitation for bids and
contractor award shall be
completed by 02.22.00.
Total $462,530.42
214
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 11d*
Meeting of February 7, 2000
*11d. Sholom Home West Revenue Bonds
This report is to update the Council on activities within Sholom Home West
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve capital improvements of a covered walkway
for approximately $550,000 and heating and ventilation
improvements for approximately $200,000 done by Sholom
Home West.
Background:
On July 20, 1998 the City of St. Louis Park authorized the issuance and sale of Nursing Home
Revenue Bonds for the Sholom Home West, Inc. project. This debt is conduit debt and is not an
obligation of the City.
On January 18, 2000, staff received notification from Jim Newstrom, Controller for Sholom
Community Alliance, that the organization has made significant capital improvements to the
property. The Mortgage, security agreement and fixture financing statement related to this bond
issue specifically indicates that Sholom Home West is to receive consent for additions or
improvements to the property.
The improvements made to the property are as follows:
1. A covered walkway was constructed between Sholom Home West and Knollwood Place
Apartments at an approximate cost of $550,000. The cost of the project was paid for by
a donation.
2. A substantial upgrade to the existing heating and ventilating system at an approximate
cost of $200,000 was completed in 1999. The cost of the project will be recovered
through energy savings in subsequent years.
Given that the first improvement was paid for by a donation and the cost of the second
improvement will be recovered in future years, staff recommends that Council approve the
improvements.
The signed agreements dictate that the City must give prior approval for major improvements.
Staff has discussed this issue with Mr. Newstrom, Controller of Sholom Community Alliance,
and has requested that better communication be established. Staff has requested to receive a
copy of annual audited financial statements as well as the annual budget. By receiving this
information, staff will be better able to monitor any planned improvements. Mr. Newstrom has
also indicated that he will contact the City when any major improvements are being planned.
Prepared by: Jean D. McGann, Director of Finance
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager