HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000/02/22 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Regular 1
Economic Development Authority - No meeting
AGENDA - CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
February 22, 2000
7:30 p.m.
1. Call to order
2. Presentation
a. Employee Recognition
3. Roll Call
4. Approval of Minutes
a. City Council meeting minutes of February 7, 2000
Action: Corrections/amendments to minutes - Minutes approved as presented
b. Study Session minutes of January 10, 2000
Action: Corrections/amendments to minutes - Minutes approved as presented
c. Study Session minutes of January 24, 2000
Action: Corrections/amendments to minutes - Minutes approved as presented
5. Approval of agenda
a. Consent agenda
Note: All matters on consent (starred items) are considered to be routine and will be enacted by
one motion approving all. There is no separate discussion of these items. If discussion is
desired, the starred item will be moved to the regular agenda.
Action: Motion to approve - Motion to delete item(s)
b. Agenda
Action: Motion to approve - Motion to add item(s)
*c. Resolutions and Ordinances
Action: By consent, waive reading of resolutions and ordinances
2
6. Public Hearing
7. Petitions, Requests, Communications
8. Resolutions and Ordinances
8a. Evaluation of Police and Fire Civil Service Commissions
Determining whether the continuance of the Police and Fire Civil Service
Commissions is appropriate.
Recommended
Action:
Council to approve report and adopt resolution.
8b. Second Reading of the Ordinance Adopting a Stormwater Utility
This action would amend the ordinance to establish a Stormwater Utility and
initiate collection of stormwater charges. The charges for a single-two family
residential lot shall be $6 / quarter with charges for other land uses to be
determined through the use of a “Residential Equivalent Factor”. The revenue is
estimated to be $769,000 annually. Rates effective April 1, 2000.
Recommended
Actions:
(1) Motion to amend the ordinance to adopt the Stormwater
Utility, approve the summary, and authorize publication of
the summary
(2) Motion to adopt the resolution establishing the single-two
family residential lot shall be $6 / quarter with charges for
other land uses to be determined through the use of a
“Residential Equivalent Factor”
8c. Second 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 approximately
$200,000 annually. Rates effective April 1, 2000.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to amend the ordinance to adopt the ordinance, approve
the summary, and authorize publication of the summary
8d. CASE NO. 00-02-Z Second Reading Zoning Ordinance Map Amendments
Second Reading of Zoning Ordinance Map Amendments to change designations
for properties located at the NW quadrant of France Avenue and Excelsior
3
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:
Approve second reading of Zoning Ordinance Map for properties
located at the NW quadrant of France Avenue and Excelsior
Boulevard. Adopt ordinance. Approve summary ordinance.
*8e. Traffic Study No. 550: Permit Parking at 3125 Idaho Avenue South
This report considers a residents request for “Permit Parking Only” in front of the
resident’s home due to accessibility needs.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the attached resolution authorizing installation
of permit parking in front of 3125 Idaho Avenue South.
*8f. Former Employees Recognition
Appreciation and recognition of William Johnson, John Thompson, Charles Hoffer,
and Gregg Hodgdon,
Recommended
Action:
Council to approve the attached resolutions.
9. Reports from Officers, Boards, Committees
*a. Housing Authority Minutes of January 11, 2000
*b. Housing Authority Special Meeting Minutes of Janaury 26, 2000
*c. Planning Commission Minutes of January 19, 2000
Action: By consent, accept reports for filing
10. Unfinished Business
11. New Business
*11a. Contract with West Suburban Mediation Center
Contract for mediation services with outside service provider
Recommended
Action:
Authorize Mayor and City Manager to execute a one-year
contract with West Suburban Mediation Center for
mediation, conciliation, information and referral, and public
education services.
4
12. Miscellaneous
13. Claims, Appropriations, Contract Payments
14. Communications
15. Adjournment
5
Item # 4a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
February 7, 2000
1. Call to Order
Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
2. Presentations - None
3. Roll Call
The following Councilmembers were present at roll call: Jim Brimeyer, Ron Latz, Chris Nelson,
Sue Sanger, Sue Santa, Robert Young, and Mayor Jeff Jacobs.
Also present were the City Manager (Mr. Meyer); City Attorney (Mr. Scott); Community
Development Director (Mr. Harmening); Public Works Coordinator (Mr. Merkley); Engineering
Superintendent (Mr. Moore); Planning Manager (Ms. Jeremiah); Planning Coordinator (Ms.
Erickson); and Recording Secretary (Ms. Olson).
4. Approval of Minutes
The minutes were approved with the following corrections.
Page 8, Item 3, Roll Call, note that it was Councilmember Santa who in attendance of the
meeting and not Councilmember Sanger.
Page 15, Item 6b, Paragraph 4, change “Jeff Bale” to “Jeff Baill”
Page 17, Item 8b, Paragraph 8, it was Councilmember Santa who made the comment.
Page 16, Item 8a, Paragraph 2, changed to “the zoning ordinance that would place three liquor
establishments within the 1 1/2 block area”.
5. Approval of Agendas
a. Consent Agenda.
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to approve the
consent agenda with the removal of Item 8j and with the correction to Item 13, actual amount for
Killmer Electric should be $3,111.83. The motion passed 7-0.
Councilmember Latz noted that in Item 9g, Police Civil Service Commission Minutes of
September 20, 1999, it was identified that Brian Leary was absent, yet it was recorded that he
seconded the motion later in the meeting.
6
b. Agenda
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to approve the
agenda with the addition of Item 8j. The motion passed 7-0.
c. Resolutions and Ordinances
By consent, Council waived reading of resolutions and ordinances.
6. Public Hearings
6a. First Reading of the Ordinance Adopting a Stormwater Utility
Scott Merkley, Public Works Coordinator made a presentation that provided information relating
to Stormwater Utilities. He outlined the following two options available to fund the stormwater
management program:
Adopt the Stormwater Utility and discontinue the use of the Sanitary Sewer Utility and General
Fund to fund storm water 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.
Sandy Ackerberg, 4201 Excelsior Boulevard, was concerned that the method of charging the fee
to the owners of property was equitable for residential and commercial property. He stated that
it was difficult to determine what was stormwater run off verses run-off that was absorbed by the
property itself and noted that public streets contribute a huge amount of water to the run off. He
also was concerned if the funds were going to be used for stormwater maintenance or capital
improvements and what was the City going to do with the $200,000 savings from the Sanitary
Sewer Utility.
Mayor Jacobs noted the fact that not only was the stormwater utility system getting old, there
was some flooding in the City despite efforts to keep it from happening and this issue needed to
be addressed in a pro-active way.
Mr. Merkley stated that the public roadways were exempt because they are used by everybody in
the community and charging the City would be taking it out of the general fund and defeating the
purpose to charge the users that generate the stormwater. He indicated that the funds would be
used exclusively for storm water purposes and the rates would be reviewed annually by the City
Council. He stated that the $200,000 savings annually would provide for a 4.49 percent rate
decrease for the sanitary sewer charges in the future.
Trevor Smith, 6712 W. 26th Street, stated that he had experienced flooding in the past and
believed that it was important for the community to adopt an ordinance to establish a Stormwater
Utility.
Ron Wydella, 6708 W. 26th Street, stated that he had also experienced flooding in the past and
believed that it was important for the community to establish a Stormwater Utility.
7
Nancy Gibson, 2712 Glenhurst Avenue, Golden Valley, Chair of Environmental Trust Fund
stated that she encouraged the City to talk about prevention of these sort of problems and take a
better look at “Mother Nature” and stop tearing down trees and replacing them with “designer
ponds”. She was concerned about the use of chemicals that are extremely dangerous to children
and causing a lot of water quality problems. She asked what the education programs were to
discourage the use of chemicals and encourage the use of native plants in St. Louis Park.
Mr. Meyer, City Manager pointed out that this project was an outgrowth of the City’s stormwater
management plan.
Mr. Moore, Engineering Superintendent, indicated that this plan was part of the City’s surface
water management plan. He indicated that the education program would involve public
education to the community at large and the City Council would be considering the prohibition
of certain pesticides and fertilizers in St. Louis Park in the future once the surface water
management plan was adopted. He also stated that the majority of the flooding areas in the
communities in the area are a result of filling low lying areas and creating parks in the past, but
indicated that a program has been laid out to address these problem areas.
Mr. Dubby, 2550 Webster Avenue, stated that he was concerned about creating new holding
ponds that may be beneficial for some residents, but detrimental to other residents and believed
the neighborhood affected should have the opportunity to approve these ponds.
Allan Paulson, 2724 Edgewood Avenue, requested a Koppy of the budget and asked for
clarification of rates. He was in favor of the stormwater utility and asked if there was a priority
list based on the identified problem areas.
Debbie Reynolds, 2665 Huntington Avenue South, stated that she would like to see more
information in newsletters and Sun Sailor encouraging residents not only to plant native plants,
but discourage the use of chemicals.
Nancy Gibson, 2712 Glenhurst Avenue, Golden Valley, Chair of Environmental Trust asked
Council to consider if there was a way to reward home and business owners who take better care
of their property so that they don’t have run off.
Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing with the right of the Council to reopen it at a future date.
Councilmember Nelson stated that the goal was to have the rate for homeowners go down to
maintenance costs after the capital improvements. He asked staff if businesses that will be
required to take private stormwater retention actions generate any kind of credit.
Mr. Merkley stated that there was a process in the ordinance where businesses come in and
provide us information showing us the size of the ponding area and then an adjustment would be
made upon approval of the City Engineer.
Councilmember Latz emphasized that Staff has had numerous meetings with residential owners
in all of the 22 flooding areas that have been identified in the City that are generating the need
for capital improvements.
8
Councilmember Sanger believed that this approach to the fee structure was the most rational and
if the City finds out later that it is not proper, adjustments can be made. She appreciated Ms.
Gibson’s comments on the elimination of chemicals which has been discussed in the past and
emphasized the need to get back to that subject again.
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to approve first
reading of an ordinance establishing a Stormwater Utility and set second reading for February
22, 2000. The motion passed 7-0.
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
Boulevard. Resolution No. 00-007
Mr. Meyer, City Manager stated that the intent of the Council was that organizations had a year
to get into compliance with the new ordinance, so if at the end of the next year, this organization
was not within the requirement that 90% of the proceeds were going within the trade area then
they may not be in a position to renew, but they would be this year.
Councilmember Nelson stated for reasons previously stated on the record he was against this
resolution, which shouldn’t be taken as a particular criticism of the applicant.
It was moved by Councilmember Latz, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to approve the
resolution authorizing renewal. The motion passed 6-1. Councilmember Nelson opposed.
8b. First Reading of the Ordinance Amending Sanitary Sewer Utility Rates
Resulting from the Ordinance Adoption of the Stormwater Utility
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Young, to waive first
reading and set second reading for February 22, 2000. The motion passed 7-0.
8c. Minnesota Department of Transportation Noise Wall Along the East Side of
Trunk Highway 100. Resolution No. 00-008
Mr. Moore, Engineering Superintendent presented a staff report and stated that the resolution
should be revised to state that it is contingent upon receipt of funding of the Legislature.
Councilmember Nelson asked for clarification of the reduction of height in front of the church
and what was the neighborhood feedback on this issue.
Mr. Moore indicated that the position of the MN Dot noise expert, Mr. Jim Hanson was that the
distance in front of the church would be small enough that it would not have a significant on the
noise transmitting through.
Councilmember Nelson stated that the residents on the west side of Highway 100 have expressed
some concern that there may be reflected off of this wall and would affect the Brookside area,
including the Brookside school and St. Luke’s Church. He stated that Mndot has not allocated
funding and we are not authorized to do so by the legislature in anywhere but residential areas
9
and Brookside school and St. Luke’s Church are not residential area, so they don’t qualify for a
noise wall. He stated that it was expressed at the neighborhood meeting that we need to monitor
the situation and have indicated that there studies will predict a decibel increase of one to two
decibels which is below the threshold of human perception.
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to adopt the
Resolution No. 00-008 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. The motion passed 7-0.
8d. Resolution approving Park Commons East EAW, finding no need for an
Environmental Impact Statement and requiring certain mitigation.
Resolution No. 00-009
Greg Ingraham, Ingraham & Associates, presented a brief overview of the project and a gave a
presentation on the EAW(Environmental Assessment Worksheet). He indicated that areas where
the potential for significant environmental effects may have existed have been identified, and
appropriate mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project design and permits. He
concluded that the Park Commons East redevelopment is expected to comply with all the City of
St. Louis Park standards and review agency standards, and an Environmental Impact Statement
was not required.
Mr. Meyer, City Manager stated that the City received a number of residential and commercial
comments and also received a position paper from the Minikahda Vista Neighborhood
Association. He stated that there may residents present at the meeting who would like to speak
to aspects of the proposed Park Commons East development, however the focus of the
discussion probably ought to be to the environmental issues and there would be opportunities for
further discussion with members of the neighborhood regarding the merits of the project. Mr.
Meyer indicated that the City did not advertise for a public hearing, but notice was given on
cable television, the City’s web site and a flyer that was generated by the Minikahda
Neighborhood Association and delivered to all of the neighbors in the area.
Councilmember Nelson made some general remarks about the position paper and stated that the
a lot of the Minikahda Vista position paper had to with the merits of the Park Commons project
and there will future meetings to do this. He stated that it would be a good idea to look again at
traffic on all of Excelsior Boulevard. He stated that it would not be economically feasible to put
in six story buildings in Park Commons, and four stories would be the maximum and he would
like to see three story buildings. He stated that there were no present plans with the exception of
the Amoco Station to take any property on the South side of Excelsior Boulevard.
John Stonhouse, 3905 Joppa Avenue South, has been a resident of St. Louis Park for 34 years.
He referred to the comments of the Metropolitan Council that the project will assist St. Louis
Park in promoting and implementing its Livable Communities Act and comments of support by
the MPCA (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency). He stated that the City’s response left out the
need for open space. He stated that he was involved in the charted process and commented on
how the proposed Park Commons project has a sharply reduced Town Green and increased
density which was not consistent with what he thought was happening. He urged the Council
and staff to rectify this as stated the position paper. He reviewed some neighborhood goals and
alternatives on page 12 of the position paper, highlighting the desire for less density, wider Town
10
Green, further traffic study and an established architectural design guideline. He indicated that
generally the people in the neighborhood support the redevelopment, but were concerned about
the livable communities principles being applied for the area. He recommended that the Council
table this item until the issues mentioned were addressed.
Fran Rutherford, 4820 W. 939th Street, #318, Wolfe Lake Condominiums representative, stated
that they were in favor of the redevelopment, but were concerned about the impact of increased
traffic and recommended that this issue be tabled until the results of a traffic study being done by
Wolfe Lake Condominiums and West Moreland Hills was completed.
Betsy Baker, 3905 Kipling Avenue South, stated that as a member of the Minikakda Vista
Neighborhood Association she does not believe that the EAW should be approved as it is
because by approving it you are basically agreeing to the statement that there is no need for an
EIS or further study. She questioned the results of the 1995 traffic study stating that the total
trips on Excelsior Boulevard were down since 1992 for a variety of reasons. She believed
additional traffic analysis was needed for the whole area rather than just Park Commons East in
order to show the whole picture for growth of the Excelsior Boulevard corridor.
John Herbert, 4713 West 40th Lane, stated that he did not believe that the EAW was adequate
and urged the Council not to adopt the resolution.
Lynn Wik, 3965 Quentin Avenue, was present and concurred with fellow residents.
Councilmember Nelson asked if the traffic consultant could address the issue of the results of the
1995 traffic study stating that the total trips on Excelsior Boulevard were down since 1992.
Fred Dock, Parsons Transportation Group, explained what factors were considered for the traffic
study that was used for the EAW and stated that he was using the cumulative forecast that was
consistent with the 20 year design volumes that used on the segment between Monterey and
France.
Councilmember Latz clarified that the cumulative impact was already included in the study, but
they are not broken out specifically but simply included as part of the 2 1/2 % background
increase.
Councilmember Sanger asked how the traffic consultant knows that the 2 1/2 % background
increase really adequately covers the projected increased traffic from proposed traffic from Park
Nicollet.
Mr. Dock explained the theory that was used based on what was projected for the area on the
basis of the Comprehensive Plan which included Park Nicollet.
Ms. Jeremiah, Planning Manager briefly commented on another comprehensive study that was
done as part of Park Commons West study.
Councilmember Nelson questioned how all of these traffic studies fit together with all of the
proposed projects in the future.
11
Councilmember Sanger asked Staff if it was any particular legal reason why this resolution
couldn’t be delayed.
Mr. Jeremiah stated that there was no reason why the resolution couldn’t be delayed, but was
concerned that the issues that are pointed out in the position paper are much broader and will be
addressed in other public processes.
Councilmember Nelson stated that he would prefer to adopt the EAW and order a traffic study
on the entire Excelsior Boulevard Corridor.
Councilmember Brimeyer believed that the traffic concern was legitimate because there will be
an impact and how to minimize the impact is the key question that needs to be addressed. He
stated that the other issues raised about the density, Town Green, and civic use were also
legitimate but emphasized that the project had to work financially and was not in favor of a
delay.
Mayor Jacobs stated that he has not heard anything that the City should move forward to an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), but was concerned that the project be done right and the
traffic impacts on Excelsior Boulevard be investigated further.
John Stonhouse, 3905 Joppa Avenue South, stated that the EAW was predicated on some issues
that the neighborhood has some concerns about, so if the Council does approve the resolution,
essentially the items in the resolution will become fact.
Mayor Jacobs clarified that by approving the resolution the Council was not approving the
specifics of the proposed design.
Rosemary Ziplion, 3716 Inglewood Avenue South, stated that she was in favor of density and
believed increased density was important for the whole region.
John Gruber, 4608 W. 39th Street, stated that he believed the issue was about what livability
meant. He was concerned about the impact of going from two stories to four stories.
Councilmember Sanger stated that she was in favor of another traffic study and believed it
would show more traffic than some of the current studies have. She questioned what the
neighborhood would expect in the event that a traffic study showed more traffic that is currently
predicted. She stated that trade-offs have already gone into the planning and more can be done,
but hated to give on something or there would be a real chance that this entire plan would not
work and it would all collapse. She was favor of moving forward with an understanding that it
won’t be a magic cure and that the density will somehow shrink to very little as a result.
Councilmember Nelson stated that the design aspects would be outlined in the development
agreement and there will be many more opportunities for the public to discuss them.
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer, to adopt
Resolution No. 00-009 approving the Park Commons East EAW, finding no need for
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and requiring certain mitigation. The motion passed 7-0.
12
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to prepare a scope
of work for a traffic study for the Excelsior Boulevard corridor from the City Limit to the City
Limit on Excelsior Boulevard. The motion passed 6-1. Councilmember Young was opposed.
Councilmember Brimeyer recommended focusing on East of Highway 100.
Mr. Harmening, Community Development Director stated that Staff would prepare a scope of
work and run it by the various stake holders to make sure staff was considering all of the issues
and concerns, get an estimated cost, and select a consultant.
Claudia Jones, 3931 Joppa Avenue, questioned how the traffic consultant would be selected.
Mr. Harmening explained that this study would be costly even though exiting data would be used
and consultants would be interviewed to determine if the expertise was present that was needed.
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. Resolution No. 00-010
Judie Erickson, Planning Coordinator presented a staff report. She stated that Staff believes that
all seven of the criteria outlined in the staff report 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.
Milo Pinkerton of MSP Real Estate, 2223 France Avenue South, introduced Peter Pfister of
Boarman Kroose Pfister Vogel & Associates.
Mr. Pfister highlighted some the issues related to the building function and the site plan.
Councilmember Sanger stated that she was distressed to see a 75% reduction of open space being
recommended for this property. She didn’t believe that the property comparison referred to in
the staff report was an appropriate comparison to what the target market was for this proposed
development that perhaps will be more likely to be more able bodies individuals. She was
opposed to this approach and urged the architect to go back and redo the site plan and site design
to include more usable green space and perhaps go up several more stories to compensate in
density for apartments.
Councilmember Santa asked if additional stories were considered for this development.
Mr. Pfister stated that this was a difficult site to work with because of the flood storage and
pollution and stated that this was as high as you could possibly go and still be economically
feasible.
Ms. Erickson addressed the issue of usable open space and concluded the trade off after the task
force study was trying to get a significant number of units on this parcel and the developer has
looked at some of the green space that is located on the South side of the lake for some kind of
park amenities that could be used by residents of this development. She stated that the
13
Comprehensive Plan does specifically state that because of these trade offs we would consider a
reduction of usable open space for development on this site.
Councilmember Latz believed that having a 30 acre park right next door was more than enough
green space for this much needed housing development in the community.
Councilmember Sanger asked if there were plans for development of the park.
Ms. Erickson stated that staff is working with the Public Works Department talking about
placing some trees and landscaping in this area as part of the tree replacement policy and the
final PUD will show further developments in this regard.
Councilmember Latz stated that their would be members of the Public Works Department on the
task force that would start some serious planning for the Oak park Village park site. He was in
favor of the development.
It was moved by Councilmember Latz, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to adopt a resolution
approving preliminary plat and preliminary PUD for Mill City apartments, subject to conditions
in the resolution.. The motion passed 6-1. Councilmember Sanger was opposed.
It was moved by Councilmember Latz, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to adopt Resolution
No. 00-011 approving a variance for a ten foot rear yard setback per the finding in the resolution.
The motion passed 6-1. Councilmember Sanger was opposed.
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. Resolution No. 00-012
Janet Jeremiah, Planning Manager presented a staff report and recommended approval of the
Minor PUD Amendment, general screen wall design and Development Agreement subject to the
conditions in the resolution.
Councilmember Santa stated that the residents on both sides of Virginia Avenue have the same
need for a six foot high wall and recommended that the wall more gradually taper down rather
than be one sharp change and asked if that could be taken into account.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that this was possible and the wall could have a smoother gradual transition
where it could be stepped down so that they have the affect of screening. She explained the
general concept of the proposed materials for the wall.
John Wilson, 3544 Utah Avenue South, stated that he was concerned that the proposed six feet
wall would not do anything for his property since it was higher than street level. He noted that at
times emergency vehicles crossed over the median to enter the residential area and this would
not be possible with a mall.
Jeff Green, 3541 Virginia Avenue South, stated that he would like the wall to continue at the
height of 6 feet for an additional block to the west of Virginia Avenue.
14
Christopher Erickson, 3533 Virginia Avenue South, thanked General Growths for their further
work with this screen wall design. He stated that he would like the wall to continue at the height
of 6 feet for an additional block to the west of Virginia Avenue.
Gerry Groth, 3545 Zinran Avenue South, stated that she didn’t want any type of wall in front of
her property. She stated that she didn’t want to see a wall and felt protected from the lights of
the shopping mall.
Mr. Harmening, Community Development Director stated that a consultant would help the City
design the wall and there would be another process with the neighborhood to try to come to final
resolution on the what the height will be along various pieces of 36th Street.
Donna Vasser, 3544 Virginia Avenue South, stated that she was in favor of the wall and would
like the wall to continue at the height of 6 feet for an additional block to the west of Virginia
Avenue.
Councilmember Young was concerned about the wall becoming a graffiti magnet, the long term
maintenance of the wall, the removal of trees and believes it is a poor signal to send to the public
that we are a walled community.
It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Latz, to adopt a
Resolution No. 00-012 to approve a Minor Amendment to the PUD resolution, approve screen
wall design, and approve Development Agreement. The motion passed 6-1. Councilmember
Young was opposed.
8g. Sale of City Property Located South of Jewish Community Center 4326
Cedar Lake Road. Ordinance No. 2154-00
Mr. Harmening , Community Development Director presented a staff report and recommended
that a street easement not be provided for at this time in the purchase agreement.
Dave Carlson, 7006 W. 23rd Street, stated that he was still concerned about the destruction of a
very beautiful wooded area that is heavily used by Cedar Lake Park and trail users that serves as
beautiful buffer for the entire corridor and hoped that if this would be approve d he would hope
that the Staff and Council would establish a buffer to the proposed JCC expansion.
Jeff Strate, 15021 Summerhill Drive, Eden Prairie, stated he was concerned about open space in
the metropolitan area. He recommended that the property not be sold and if it was, suggested
the development be constructed vertically in order to preserve the beautiful “orphan woods”.
Laurie Lundy, 1101 Cedar View Drive, was concerned about losing an essential buffer for the
Cedar Lake Trail. She preferred that the City did not sell the property, but if it was she
recommended that the community work together to try and save some of the wooded area as a
buffer.
Neil Trembley, 37 Oliver Avenue South, Secretary of the Cedar Lake Park Association, stated
that the Association was proactive about green space and the quality of life in the community and
metropolitan area.
15
Lisa Genis, 4001 Highwood Road, stated that she would hate to see this valuable wooded green
space disappear.
Martha Abbott Ladner, 1414 Tyrol Trail, Golden Valley, South Tyrol Hills Neighborhood, was
concerned about the destruction of the wooded area and stated that this would affect the
neighborhood. She asked if there had been a land density study for the area, would the JCC be
allowed to cut down all of the trees down, would the JCC be allowed to pave the area, would the
JCC be allowed to develop a road through this area, is zoning for school and community center
similar, would the JCC development after the use of neighborhood park, and asked how does tree
replacement policy work.
Mr. Harmening explained the tree replacement ordinance and stated that the City had the
authority to approve site and development plans for the project that had to meet the requirements
of the ordinance. He stated that the property was guided as Civic in the Comprehensive Plan and
zoned residential. He strongly encouraged that the residents present participate the process of
reviewing any development plans that the JCC may present. He noted that the task force report
does recommend that part of this site be considered for sale for private uses.
Jeff Bale, JCC representative, stated that the JCC desired to keep as many trees in the area
possible and accomplish goals, but does not have a formal plan yet. He indicated that it was the
JCC’s desire that the plans be developed with neighborhood and City input.
Councilmember Sanger stated that what the JCC desires to do was very beneficial to the
community, but the concern for preserving the open space and trees was also valid. She
indicated that there were additional neighborhood concerns about the increased traffic and noise
from an expansion. She asked that the JCC be committed to work with the City and
neighborhood to try to preserve trees and locate the additional parking that was needed further
away from the wooded area in order to accommodate everybody’s needs.
Julia Taber, 1527 Calturn Lane, Golden Valley, was concerned about the promises by the JCC
being made since trees that were promised to be planted by the JCC in the past have not been
planted. She desired to be notified of the upcoming opportunities for neighborhood input on the
proposed plans of the JCC.
Councilmember Sanger recommended that the Cedar Lake Park Association, residents present
tonight and the townhouse associations that are west of the JCC be notified of upcoming
opportunities to provide input.
Councilmember Nelson stated that he desired to retain a street easement for a future street
improvement in the area.
Bruce Taber, 1527 Calturn Lane, Golden Valley, stated that he was not in favor of a road going
through this area and there would be substantial neighborhood opposition to this area.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to approve second
reading, adopt Ordinance No. 2154-00 that authorizes the sale of a portion of City owned
property located south of the Jewish Community Center at 4326 Cedar Lake Road, approve
16
summary and authorize publication. The motion passed 6-1. Councilmember Nelson was
opposed.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to authorize the
Mayor and City Manger to execute a purchase agreement with the Jewish Comity Center of
Greater Minneapolis. The motion passed 6-1. Councilmember Nelson was opposed.
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. Resolution No. 00-013
Janet Jeremiah presented a staff report and recommended approval of the Special Permit
amendment with the conditions outlined in the staff report.
Councilmember Sanger asked what the timing was for the new technology to reduce dust and
odors will be phased in.
Ms. Jermiah stated that Novarits was currently working on this issue diligently.
Councilmember Sanger requested that the Council be notified when this was accomplished.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Young, to adopt
Resolution No. 00-013 approving Special Permit Amendment, subject to conditions in the
resolution. The motion passed 7-0.
8i. First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Map Amendments
CASE NO. 00-02-Z
Judie Erickson, Planning Coordinator presented a staff report and recommended approval.
Councilmember Nelson indicated that the neighborhood undertook an extensive survey process
in 1998 and submitted a document to staff and he has not received any additional neighborhood
concerns or anticipate any neighborhood opposition about these amendments.
Councilmember Latz asked if it was possible to construct a five or six apartment building on this
parcel.
Ms. Erickson stated that this type of development would never be able to meet parking
requirements and not be found consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. She indicated that any
Multi Family or Town House development would require a CUP.
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to adopt first
reading of an 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. The motion passed 7-0.
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. Ordinance No. 2155-00
17
Councilmember Nelson reviewed the new portions that were added to the ordinance. He
recommended that the language on page 114, Section 14:7-2: Exception be changed to read “If a
new use requiring a CUP is proposed for part of a multi-tenant building” and delete item number
three.
Councilmember Sanger was opposed to the ordinance because the language was much too lax on
the landlords of multi tenant buildings on letting them not do to come into full conformance.
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Young, to approve
second reading of Ordinance No. 2155-00 amending nonconformities section of Zoning
Ordinance, with the recommended amendment and adopt the summary ordinance, and to
authorize publication. The motion passed 6-1. Councilmember Sanger was opposed.
8k. Hennepin County Municipal Recycling Grant Application.
Resolution No. 00-014
By consent, Council adopted Resolution No. 00-014 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
Resolution No. 00-015
Council found 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.
By consent, Council adopted Resolution No. 00-014 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, and 2714 Quentin Ave S, 2708 Quentin Ave S.
8m. Mill City Tax Increment Finance District. Resolution No. 00-016
By consent, Council adopted Resolution No. 00-016 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. Resolution No. 00-017
By consent, Council approved Resolution No. 00-017 approving a business subsidy agreement
between the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority and 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. Resolution No. 00-018
By consent, Council adopted Resolution No. 00-018 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 1/1/200.
9. Reports from Officers, Boards, Committees
18
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
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
By consent, Council accepted all reports for filing
10. Unfinished Business
a. Board and Commission Appointment(s)
It was moved by Councilmember Young, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to appoint Kristin
Sigamund to the Human Rights Commission and Paula Fadden to CEAC. The motion passed 7-
0.
11. New Business
11a. Phase II Railroad Study
Mr. Meyer, City Manager presented a staff report and indicated that work related to the blocking
issue with Hopkins and Minnetonka was not part of this agreement.
Lee Koppy, RLK-Kuusisto, Ltd was present.
Councilmember Sanger asked where the study would be addressing noise mitigation safety
issues and costs whistle blowing restriction and any possibility of a possible connection going
South toward Edina.
Mr. Koppy stated that the connection to the south is definitely included in the feasibility study
and will be looked at. He stated that the whistle blowing item was going to be handled with the
feasibility study when they look at the intersection upgrades. He stated that RLK did not
specifically look at the safety issue, but would probably be part of the feasibility study adhering
to design standards.
Mr. Meyer stated that the intent in this agreement was that the environmental work would be
subcontracted and reference as Appendix D.
19
Councilmember Sanger was concerned that there was not adequate funds for this study to
identify and cover all the environmental issues voiced by the community.
Mr. Meyer stated that this was an issue for the Council to consider and the City could do original
studies, but indicated that this approach would use existing information that was not based on
studies done in St. Louis Park.
Councilmember Sanger recommended removing this item off the agenda and go back and look at
how it is that the City is going to think through and address the environmental issues.
Councilmember Nelson didn’t agree that any suggestion has been made that the Council was
ignoring any of the interests of the community. He asked the consultant if the proposed study
could be done within the budget outlined.
Mr. Koppy indicated that he believed that the scope of services for the environmental work has
intentionally been left very brief and that it was intended that the fuller scope would be
developed with the input of a proposed task force. He stated that if RLK was looking to do
studies that are significantly greater than the proposed budget that they may go back to the
County and renegotiate with a revised scope of work.
Councilmember Sanger believed that the Council has been given inadequate information and
there was a need to rethink this process and figure out what it takes up front to do a study that
will fully cover the issues and fully satisfy the many hundreds of residents that area convinced
that we haven’t done a good job so far.
Councilmember Brimeyer stated that if the response was going to be that this was a white wash
and we shouldn’t be doing this, then he was willing to table this and let it sit there for a couple of
years, but that this not solving the problem.
It was moved by Councilmember Latz, seconded by Councilmember Nelson, to authorize the
Mayor and City Manager to execute a professional services agreement for Phase Two of the
Railroad Study. The motion passed 5-2. Councilmembers Brimeyer and Sanger opposed.
11b. Dan Patch Corridor Commuter Rail Feasibility Study Invoice and Contract
By consent, Council authorized the Mayor and City Manger to execute the agreement.
11c. 1999 Fund Balance Reservations
By consent, Council moved to reserve requested fund balances.
11d. Sholom Home West Revenue Bonds
By consent, Council approved 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, Appropriation, Contract Payments
20
a. Contract payments
Contractor Contract No. Amount
M.C. Magney Construction, Inc. 33-98 $ 21,332.52 Resolution No. 00-021
Killmer Electric 18-99 $ 3,111.83 Resolution No. 00-019
Valley Paving 19-99 $ 27,233.14 Resolution No. 00-020
14. Communications
>From the City Manager - None
>From the Mayor - None
15. Adjournment
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to adjourn the
meeting at 11:58 p.m. The motion passed 7-0.
City Clerk Mayor
21
Item # 4b
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
January 10, 2000
The meeting convened at 7:00 p.m.
Present at the meeting were Councilmembers Jim Brimeyer, Ron Latz, Chris Nelson, Susan
Sanger, Sue Santa, and Mayor Jeff Jacobs.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Meyer), Director of Community Development (Mr.
Harmening), Planning Manager (Ms. Jeremiah), City Planner (Ms. Peterson), and City Clerk
(Ms. Larsen).
1. Executive Session
Motion was made by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer to move to
executive session to discuss pending litigation on the Christianson Garage. Motion passed
unanimously.
Present at the discussion were Councilmembers Sue Sanger, Sue Santa, James Brimeyer, Chris
Nelson, Ron Latz and Mayor Jeff Jacobs. Also present were the City Manager (Mr. Meyer);
Director of Inspections (Mr. Hoffman); City Clerk (Ms. Larsen) and City Attorney (Mr. Scott).
Motion was made by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer to
reconvene the study session at 7:55 p.m. Motion passed unanimously.
2. Zoning Standards - Restaurants with Liquor
Ms. Peterson asked Council what they felt was an appropriate process to handle restaurants with
liquor in the C2 district. She informed Council how the non-conformities are addressed with
different development tools such as PUD, CUP, special permits, etc. She then discussed how
non-conformities could be addressed in multi-tenant buildings.
The Council discussed how to best address non-conformities. They considered how to determine
which are negotiable or could be done partially and which would need to be done in whole.
Councilmember Sanger stated that she would like to retain the CUP process. The Council was in
agreement with that idea. Councilmember Sanger felt that Council should maintain control over
what non-conformities should be reduced or eliminated. She stated that she would like clear
definitions of what must come into compliance. Ms. Jeremiah replied that staff would like to see
some leeway left so that the property owner does not see their investment in the property as a
start of redevelopment.
Councilmember Santa was concerned why the non-conformities that needed correction by a
specific date have not yet been corrected.
22
Councilmember Latz felt the Planning Commission’s decision was correct and would like to
retain the CUP process. He did not want the property owner to hold off on making
improvements because they have an inability to pay to bring non-conformities into compliance.
Mr. Nelson stated that he wants Texa Tonka to improve with its current use and not necessarily
in redevelopment. Mayor Jacobs agreed and asked staff to develop a proposed approach. He
emphasized that discretion will always have to be exercised.
Councilmember Brimeyer wanted to be sure that the language applies to a future policy and not
just one particular case. Mayor Jacobs stated that the item should be brought back to the next
regular meeting for a vote.
3. Park Commons East
Staff stated that they would like to review with the Council matters associated with the
performance and progress of Avalon Bay on the Park Commons East project. They reported that
the City has made good progress on public aspects of the project, but confidence in the developer
had eroded. Staff asked Council to direct them to hold a meeting with Avalon Bay and to bring
suggestions back.
Mayor Jacobs inquired as to why the retail developer had pulled out of the project. Mr.
Harmening replied that their schedule was busy and they were not comfortable being first in the
ground on such a project.
Councilmember Sanger wondered if staff knew whether discussions about this project had taken
place on a senior staff level at Avalon Bay and if the senior staff was committed to this project.
Mr. Harmening replied that he felt the City should require Avalon Bay to take the following
steps:
• Identify its retail development partner and require the partner to be involved in all
discussions and negotiations with the City,
• present an acceptable pro forma to the City relating to the most recent development concept,
and
• provide evidence which gives the City confidence that a private development project will
occur in 2000 which has a retail component associated with it.
Councilmember Brimeyer stated that changing developers is expensive and felt it would not be
the best option. He suggested that perhaps the City should find a retail developer. Mr. Meyer
replied that another lead developer may be commercial and Avalon Bay may stay in as the
residential developer.
Councilmember Latz felt that the city should be considering other developers to put together the
retail package of the project. Ms. Jeremiah stated that the City must be careful about complying
with the predevelopment agreement. She suggested that an incremental development plan may
be the best option.
23
Councilmember Nelson stated that since he was ward Councilmember, he would like to be
involved in the discussions.
Councilmember Sanger stated that other retail developers should be researched but staff must be
careful to comply with the current agreement. Councilmember Brimeyer agreed.
Councilmember Santa felt that a discussion with parties that have been involved since the
beginning of the project should be held to determine if the project is still feasible.
Councilmember Sanger expressed her concern about relaying information to the community and
asked how the city could best respond to the public. Mr. Meyer replied that the best answer
would be the truth, which he felt would be to state that the City has done very well in moving
this project along.
Council directed staff to proceed with the proposed actions included in the staff report and to see
that Avalon Bay follows the indicated steps.
State Representative Jim Rhodes asked for ideas concerning the Park Commons project that
could be incorporated into a bill to benefit the project. Mr. Meyer replied that transit is an
important issue.
4. Railroad Phase 2 Agreement and General Update
Mr. Meyer gave a brief update. He recommended that Council discuss the possibility of
organizing a task force on this issue. He stated that public input was needed and suggested that
representatives from the neighborhoods and railroads be present as they will be affected.
Councilmember Brimeyer felt that the task force would be a good idea. Councilmember Sanger
suggested that the Blackstone and Cedarhurst neighborhoods be included in the task force.
Councilmember Nelson added that he would also like the Brooklawn and Brookside
neighborhoods included. Councilmember Sanger questioned involving a representative from
Minneapolis. Mr. Koppy replied that Minneapolis was identified as one of the impacted parties.
Mr. Meyer felt it would also help communication with Minneapolis. Councilmember Nelson felt
that the Metropolitan Council on transit should be involved as well. The Council agreed.
Council then discussed composition of the task force. Mr. Meyer stated that Council should take
action to form the task force at a meeting in the near future and asked them to consider any
changes to the composition that group.
5. Off-Leash Dog Area
Council determined that the issue need further study and directed staff to research lines of local
jurisdiction before bringing a proposal forward.
6. Oak Park Village Plan
The Council discussed the pro and cons of the transfer of land from the Economic Development
Authority to the City and the best cost for that transaction. It was suggested that a task force be
appointed with the direction to create a mixed use facility.
24
Councilmember Brimeyer felt the request for proposals should be expanded to be a coordinated
effort to make park improvements citywide. Mr. Meyer stated that community needs and the
scope of the project have to be clearly identified prior to forming a task force. Councilmember
Sanger stated that the perspective of the entire community needs to looked at. Mr. Meyer stated
that he was concerned with the size and length of the project. Councilmember Santa suggested
that since the Hwy. 7 and Louisiana corner is now a development area , the redevelopment of
Oak Park Village be planned in conjunction with the other development.
Councilmember Brimeyer suggested that staff put out requests for proposals on a park
redevelopment study and project .
7. Public Art
The item was brought forward by Councilmember Brimeyer. Councilmember Brimeyer stated
that while in attendance at the National League of Cities conference in Los Angeles, they went
on a tour of public art in the city. He mentioned that the development money for such a project
was calculated as a percentage of the cost of development projects. He suggested that this
project be assigned to a staff member and asked Mr. Meyer to determine who that would be.
8. France Ave Turnback
Councilmember Sanger stated that she had been absent at the last meeting where the issue was
last discussed but said that she is opposed unless the traffic calming devices are in place. The
Council discussed possible changes in the future. Councilmember Brimeyer suggested the topic
be brought up in the next study session with the legislators in attendance.
9. Communications
Council considered possible dates for a staff/council retreat.
Councilmember Latz asked about details of FEMA reimbursement amounts
Mr. Meyer informed council that a verbal agreement had been reached on the purchase of
additional properties at Louisiana Courts.
10. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
City Clerk Mayor
25
Item # 4c
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
January 24, 2000
The meeting convened at 7:08 p.m.
Present at the meeting were Councilmembers Jim Brimeyer, Ron Latz, Chris Nelson, Susan
Sanger, and Mayor Jeff Jacobs.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Meyer), Deputy City Manager (Mr. Pires); Director of
Community Development (Mr. Harmening), Planning Manager (Ms. Jeremiah), Economic
Development Coordinator (Mr. Kleve); Finance Director (Ms. McGann); Public Works Director
(Mr. Rardin); Supt. Of Engineering (Mr. Moore); Zoning Administrator (Mr. Moore); Director of
Inspections (Mr. Hoffman); and City Clerk (Ms. Larsen).
11. MSP Real Estate – Final TIF Application; Mill City Plywood Site
Council met with staff and real estate developers to review the final TIF application for the
project. Specific issues raised were the project economics and amount of TIF assistance; local
contribution requirement and grant requirements; public improvements and sale of city land; the
planning approval process and proposed future steps in moving this project along.
Mr. Kleve informed council that a $1.6 grant had been received from DTED and that the project
was coming together very nicely.
Councilmember Latz asked about plans for water retention and if drainage would be addressed as
part of the project. Mr. Kleve stated that the project complied with all requirements.
Mr. Harmening stated that staff had learned that there is no need to remove parcels from existing
TIF districts to create the new district. The proposed district would be entirely new. It is also
possible to add other parcels to this district to make future development easier.
Councilmember Sanger questions the sale price for the city land and asked how that price had
been determined. Mr. Kleve stated that the land was priced at market rate plus a premium to
meet the local contribution requirements of the project. He also stated that public improvements
being paid for by the developer included stop light, trail, turning lanes and others.
Councilmember Nelson asked if the project was designed as senior housing only. A
representative of the development said that the project was designed as market rate housing and
not designed strictly for seniors. Mr. Meyer pointed out that this developer had a very good
reputation for providing low and moderate income housing and did not feel that creation of
market rate housing on this site was inappropriate.
26
Councilmember Brimeyer stated that he did not mind extending the TIF payback period beyond
the 16 years proposed. He felt the project was very good and deserved public support. Mayor
Jacobs echoed that support.
Councilmember Sanger asked if the project fails, would the city land be returned to the city. Mr.
Harming said that the land transfer would be done as a coinciding land conveyance.
Staff indicated that the issue would come back for Council approval at the February 7, 2000
meeting.
12. Louisiana Avenue Traffic Congestion
At the request of the council, staff had researched traffic congestion and on-street parking on
Louisiana Avenue between Minnetonka Boulevard and West 27th Street. Several residents of the
area were in attendance at the meeting. Council was presented with traffic volumes and accident
history and informed of options for easing that congestion.
Mr. Moore suggested that if council wanted to move forward, more study would need to be done
at a greater cost. Mr. Meyer indicated that the long term cost of improvements would need to be
looked at relative to the capital planning program. He. Also stated that not MSA funding would
not be available until 2002.
Councilmember Sanger said that residents needed on-street parking and would find it a hardship
were that parking to be removed.
Mayor Jacobs suggested the project be done in phases with each phase evaluated to determine
impacts.
Councilmember Nelson was unwilling to say that parking would continue and felt that more
study needed to be done. He stated that this was the only north/south connection between
highways 169 and 100 and that he felt the city should recognize that fact.
Council discussed details of parking, post office drops, possible light changes, possible parking
restrictions and decided that a professional traffic study should be done to assess impacts of
possible solutions discussed at the meeting.
Mr. Rardin agreed to come back to council with more information and a recommendation based
on a professional traffic study.
4. Variance Issues – Reapplying, Fees, and Notices
Community Development Department staff met with council to review the existing language in
the code which permits an applicant to reapply for the same variance six months after denial.
Staff also raised the concern about the ability to apply for any number of variances under the
same application with no additional fees.
Staff suggested that the fee for each additional variance should be $50 rather than the unlimited
number of variances currently allowed with one fee.
27
Council discussed public notice requirements such as cost of mailing, extending the mailing
distance signs on the property and use of the city web site.
Council directed staff to move forward with the proposed changes to the ordinance code.
13. Legislative Update
Present at the meeting were Steve Kelley, District 44 Senator and Betty Folliard, State Senate
Representative from District 44A. Representative Jim Rhodes joined the meeting by conference
phone. The purpose of the meeting was to stimulate discussion on topics of interest to St. Louis
Park ’s councilmembers and state legislators and to hear an update on the upcoming legislative
session.
Council and representatives discussed levy limits, railroads, railroad crossings, transit funding
and other issues.
Rep. Folliard agreed that the City should not shoulder the entire fiscal responsibility for the cost
of ongoing remediation at the Reilly site and offered to work with the MPCA and design
legislation that would ease the city’s responsibility .
Rep. Rhodes offered to design legislation that would fund the extension of a noise wall on Hwy
100.
Senator Kelley gave council an overview of his proposed legislation to further regulate the
telecommunications industry by removing local franchise control and transferring that control to
the state. He did not feel that government should create arrangements that favor one form of
technology over another. He also felt that the regulatory structure should be simple and at one
level. He felt that if MN plays a leadership role in moving this model forward, there would be
benefits to the state.
Councilmembers were concerned about the lack of local control and also expressed concern that
money promised to cities would be taken away in the future.
Senator Kelley felt that the proposed legislation would keep regulation in the quality of service
and consumer protection at a level where cities could participate.
Rep Rhodes asked what the chances of the bill being passed in the current legislative session
were.
Senator Kelley was optimistic about the bill’s chances and stated that he is open to other ideas
and suggestions from his constituents.
5. Issuing permits for Fences and Parking Lots
Staff suggested to council that there is a greater chance for fences and parking lots to be installed
and constructed out of compliance with the city’s zoning requirements since a permit is not
28
required. Staff also suggested that the opportunity for education at that level would improve
citizen understanding of code requirements.
Council agreed and asked staff to present a proposal for changes to the ordinance.
6. Communications
Mr. Harmening presented an update on the status of condemnation and acquisition at the
Rottland/CSM site and also gave an update on the same subject at the Louisiana Court site.
City Clerk Mayor
29
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 8a
Meeting of February 22, 2000
8a. Evaluation of Police and Fire Civil Service Commissions
Determining whether the continuance of the Police and Fire Civil Service
Commissions is appropriate.
Recommended
Action:
Council to approve report and adopt resolution.
Background:
The City of St. Louis Park established Civil Service Commissions for the Police and Fire
Departments pursuant to Minnesota Statutes chapters 419 and 420 respectively and the City
Code §7-101 and §8-101. Under this law, the commissions’ scope of the authority includes
absolute control and supervision over the employment, promotion, discharge and suspension of
all officers and sworn personnel. According to the Charter for St. Louis Park, §11.05, the
Commissions are to continue functioning in accordance with the laws under which they were
created until abolished according to law.
In theory, a civil service system acts as a safeguard against unfair employment and promotion
practices. However, other protections such as the American’s with Disabilities Act, the Human
Rights Act, Affirmative Action, Veteran’s Preference and the Police Officer’s Bill of Rights
have since been enacted to provide protections to our employees. Additionally, union grievance
and arbitration processes are currently in place to serve as protectors to public sector employees.
These added safeguards in which compliance is mandated have led to the inquiry of whether the
Civil Service Commission is still appropriate in the year 2000 and beyond.
Legislation:
In 1999, the Minnesota legislature passed a statute enabling City Councils to abolish Police Civil
Service Commissions with a unanimous vote (please refer to Minn. Stat. Chapter 419). In light
of the above stated protections, there is a question regarding the need for the continuance of
Police and Fire Civil Service Commissions in St. Louis Park. Although our Commissions
function well, it adds excessive time and extended lengths to the recruiting, promoting and hiring
processes. It also provides an additional review process in discipline that is above and beyond
the process and rights afforded to other public sector employees. The need for such an
excessive, lengthy process is questioned at this time because there are other protections afforded
to police and fire employees.
30
Since MN Chapter 419 has been amended, Councils may abolish Police Civil Service
Commissions by a unanimous vote. The issue has been raised of whether the St. Louis Park City
Council should follow the provisions outlined in Chapter 419 and proceed with a vote regarding
the Police Civil Service Commission. If Council would choose to hold a vote, §11.05 of the St.
Louis Park Charter would have to be amended.
Since our Charter would need to be reviewed and amended, the Charter Commission, an
impartial third party, seems to be the logical review board regarding this issue of Civil Service
Commissions. Therefore, it may be appropriate for Council to have the Charter Commission
evaluate the question of whether the Police Commissions should continue or be abolished and
the implications this would have on our Charter. Currently, Minnesota statutes only provide for
the abolishment of Police Civil Service Commissions. Council may also wish to refer to the
Charter Commission to determine if this would also be an appropriate time to discuss the
possibility of continuing or also abolishing the Fire Civil Service Commission. If the Charter
Commission would determine that it would be appropriate to discuss the abolishment of the Fire
and Police Civil Service Commissions together, then the next step would be to petition the
legislature to pass similar legislation which would apply to the Fire Civil Service Commission.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Durell Vieau, Human Resources Technician
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
31
RESOLUTION NO. 00-022
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CHARTER COMMISSION TO REVIEW AND
MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL REGARDING THE CONTINUANCE
OF THE POLICE AND FIRE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSIONS
WHEREAS, the City has established Civil Service Commissions for the Police and Fire
Departments pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapters 419 and 420 and the City Code §7-101 and
§8-101; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Charter for the City of St. Louis Park, §11.05, the
Commissions are to continue functioning in accordance with the laws under which they were
created until abolished according to law; and
WHEREAS, in 1999, the Minnesota State Legislature passed Chapter 419 enabling City
Councils to abolish Police Civil Service Commissions with a unanimous vote;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that the Council refer to the Charter Commission to research, investigate,
evaluate and make a recommendation to Council regarding the continuance of the Police and
Fire Civil Service Commissions.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council February 22, 2000
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
32
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 8b
Meeting of February 22, 2000
8b. Second Reading of the Ordinance Adopting a Stormwater Utility
This action would amend the ordinance to establish a Stormwater Utility and initiate
collection of stormwater charges. The charges for a single-two family residential lot
shall be $6 / quarter with charges for other land uses to be determined through the use
of a “Residential Equivalent Factor”. The revenue is estimated to be $769,000
annually. Rates effective April 1, 2000.
Recommended
Actions:
(2) Motion to amend the ordinance to adopt the Stormwater Utility,
approve the summary, and authorize publication of the summary
(2) Motion to adopt the resolution establishing the single-two
family residential lot shall be $6 / quarter with charges for other
land uses to be determined through the use of a “Residential
Equivalent Factor”
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
First reading of the proposed ordinance was approved February 7, 2000, after discussion of the
following issues:
• Is the Stormwater Utility the correct method to fund the stormwater management program
33
• Is the Stormwater Utility, as proposed, set up in a fair and reasonable way
• What impact would approving the Stormwater Utility have on other Programs or Funds
• What are the benefits
• What are the options
Recommendations: Staff recommends Council approve the Stormwater Utility Ordinance and
initiate collection of stormwater utility quarterly rate of $6 per single/two family residential lot,
as presented.
Attachments: Proposed Ordinance
Summary notice for publication
Resolution
Prepared by: Scott Merkley, Public Works Coordinator
Mike Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
34
ORDINANCE NO.2156-00
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:
Land Use 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.
35
(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.
(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.
36
(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 this 22nd day of February, 2000, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park.
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
37
RESOLUTION NO. 00-023
RESOLUTION SETTING STORMWATER UTILITY RATES
EFFECTIVE 4/1/2000
WHEREAS, the City has established that stormwater management shall be operated as a
public utility pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 444.075; and
WHEREAS, the City has approved the Stormwater Utility to fund the Stormwater
Management Program; and
WHEREAS, the Stormwater Utility fee for the use and availability of the storm sewer
system for single-two family residential lots is constant for all properties and the lot size is
assumed to be one-fifth (1/5) acre; and
WHEREAS, the Stormwater Utility fee for all other land uses for the use and availability
of the storm sewer system shall be determined through the use of a “Residential Equivalent
Factor” (REF); and
WHEREAS, the Council shall, from time to time, by resolution revise the basic system
rate charged against single-two family residential lots; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that the City will charge properties a Stormwater Utility fee to fund the
Stormwater Management Program.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park,
Minnesota, that effective 4/1/2000, the Stormwater Utility rate for single-two family residential
lot shall be $6 / quarter with charges for other land uses to be determined through the use of a
“Residential Equivalent Factor” (REF).
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council February 22, 2000
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
38
Summary
ORDINANCE NO. 2156-00
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 9 OF THE
ORDINANCE CODE, ESTABLISHING A
STORMWATER UTILITY
Summary: This action amends the ordinance to establish a Stormwater Utility to fund the
Stormwater Management Program. The stormwater utility rate charges will be set each year by
the City Council, by resolution.
Effective Date: This ordinance shall be effective fifteen (15) days after its passage and
publication.
Adopted by the City Council February 22, 2000
Jeffrey Jacobs
Mayor
A copy of the full text of this ordinance is available for inspection with the City Clerk.
Published in the Sun-Sailor March 1, 2000.
39
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 8c
Meeting of February 22, 2000
8c. Second 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 approximately
$200,000 annually. Rates effective April 1, 2000.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to amend the ordinance to adopt the ordinance, approve
the summary, and authorize publication of the summary
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.
First reading of the proposed ordinance adoption was approved by the City Council on February
7, 2000. The notification was published in the Sun-Sailor on January 19, 2000.
Summary
The recommended removal of stormwater operations and their costs from the Sanitary Sewer
Utility will provide sanitary sewer rates solely based upon actual water usage, thus all utility
charges will be more rightly distributed with the user-fee concept in mind.
Attachments: Proposed Ordinance Amendment
Ordinance summary
Prepared by: Scott Merkley, Public Works Coordinator
Mike Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
40
ORDINANCE NO. 2157-00
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 January 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
41
SUMMARY
ORDINANCE NO. 2157-00
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATED TO THE 2000 SEWER RATES, SECTION 9-231
This ordinance states that charges for sewer service to residential and non-residential users
within the City for billings on or after January 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.
This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication.
Adopted by the City Council February 22, 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: March 1, 2000
42
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 8d
Meeting of February 22, 2000
8d. CASE NO. 00-02-Z Second Reading Zoning Ordinance Map Amendments
Second 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:
Approve second reading of Zoning Ordinance Map for properties
located at the NW quadrant of France Avenue and Excelsior
Boulevard. Adopt ordinance. Approve summary ordinance.
Background:
On February 7, 2000, the City Council approved first reading of the proposed Zoning Ordinance
map amendments for the northwest quadrant of France Avenue and Excelsior Boulevard. This
proposal, if adopted, will bring the Zoning Ordinance into conformance with Comprehensive
Plan 2000–2020 that was adopted May 17, 1999. This will meet statutory requirements for this
area that require “official controls” to be brought into conformance with the Comprehensive Plan
within 9 months of official approval by the Metropolitan Council.
The Minikahda Oaks Neighborhood received notification of the public hearing at the Planning
Commission on January 19, 2000, and first reading on February 7, 2000. Neighborhood
representatives attended the Planning Commission meeting and expressed their concerns about
future development on this site, but were not opposed to the rezoning. There are no current
development proposals for the subject properties, and any future redevelopment plans will
require a public process.
Proposed Map Changes:
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.
43
Existing Zoning
R2
RC C1
Proposed Zoning
Attachments: Ordinance
Summary Ordinance
Prepared by: Judie Erickson, Planning Coordinator
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
R2
RC
MX
R4
C1
44
ORDINANCE NO. 2158-00
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.
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
45
SUMMARY
ORDINANCE NO. 2158-00
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE
CHANGING BOUNDARIES OF ZONING DISTRICTS
NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF FRANCE AND EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD
This ordinance states that the northwest quadrant of France and Excelsior Boulevard shall be
rezoned from C-1 Neighborhood Commercial and R2 Single Family Residential to MX Mixed
Use and R-4 Multi Family Residential to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation
for the area.
This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication.
Adopted by the City Council February 22, 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: March 1, 2000
99-92-Z-sum/N/res/ord
46
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 8e*
Meeting of February 22, 2000
*8e. Traffic Study No. 550: Permit Parking at 3125 Idaho Avenue South
This report considers a residents request for “Permit Parking Only” in front of the
resident’s home due to accessibility needs.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the attached resolution authorizing installation
of permit parking in front of 3125 Idaho Avenue South.
Background: The City has received a request from Joyce Becker at 3125 Idaho Avenue South
to restrict on-street parking in front of her home. She has a handicapped parking permit due to
her handicapped condition. Her need for access to vehicles in the front of her property has
prompted this request.
Staff has discussed this request with Ms. Joyce Becker and informed her the City’s Traffic Policy
and practice does allow for permit parking in this situation. The installation of handicapped
parking signs is not feasible, as the parking stall design requirements cannot be met on our local
street. It is the City’s practice to use permit parking, which can be removed when the individual
who needed the access at the curb no longer resides there or no longer needs the access.
Staff considers the resident’s request to be valid and supports the installation of permit parking in
front of 3125 Idaho Avenue South. This recommendation is based on the following:
1. The resident of the household is handicapped.
2. Access to the curb in front of their residence is needed to provide more convenient access.
3. Conflicting parking tendencies with neighbors will be eliminated.
Options: Staff has identified the following options available to the Council at this time:
* 1. Approve the request. If so, the attached resolution authorizing the installation of
the parking regulations may be utilized.
2. Deny the request.
* Staff recommendation
Attachments: Map
Resolution
Prepared by: Carlton Moore/Michael Rardin, Public Works
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
47
RESOLUTION NO. 00-024
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PARKING RESTRICTIONS
ALONG IDAHO AVENUE SOUTH AT 3125
TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 550
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota that it
is in the best interest of the City to establish a parking restriction based upon permit issuance
along Idaho Avenue South at 3125.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that parking shall not be permitted at any time unless
the vehicle prominently displays a City issued parking permit on the left rear windshield.
Emergency vehicles, governmental vehicles and commercial vehicles parked at curbside while
work is conducted are exempt from these restrictions.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the parking restriction enacted herein shall remain
in effect as long as the resident resides at the above address.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that the Director of Public Works is hereby authorized to install the following
controls:
1. Permit parking at 3125 Idaho Avenue South.
Attest: Adopted by the City Council February 22, 2000
City Clerk Mayor
Reviewed for Administration:
City Manager
48
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 8f*
Meeting of February 22, 2000
*8f. Former Employees Recognition
Appreciation and recognition of William Johnson, John Thompson, Charles Hoffer,
and Gregg Hodgdon,
Recommended
Action:
Council to approve the attached resolutions.
Background:
Based on the City of St. Louis Park’s policy for acknowledging service to the community
employees who are retired or otherwise separated, the following individuals are recommended
for recognition of 20 or more years of service with the City.
William Johnson, Maintenance, Parks and Recreation Department, 1965-1999
John Thompson, Utilities, Public Works Department, 1969-1999
Charles Hoffer, Utilities, Public Works Department, 1971-1999
Gregg Hodgdon, Operations, Public Works Department, 1976-2000
Attachments: Resolutions
Prepared by: Durell Vieau, Human Resources Technician
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
49
RESOLUTION NO. 00-025
RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING GREGG HODGDON, PUBLIC WORKS
DEPARTMENT, FOR 24 YEARS OF SERVICE TO THE CITY.
WHEREAS, Gregg Hodgdon began his employment with the City of St. Louis
Park in 1976 in the Public Works Department; and
WHEREAS, Gregg has served in the capacity of a Mechanic and certified
Minnesota Department of Transportation Inspector in the Operations Division.
Throughout his career, he demonstrated dedication and professionalism and was
respected and admired by his peers; and
WHEREAS, Gregg was an active member of the Labor Management
Committee and the Public Works Safety Committee. His commitment to creating
a positive working environment was appreciated by his peers.
NOW THEREFORE, let it be known that the Mayor and City Council of the
City of St. Louis Park wish to thank and recognize Gregg Hodgdon for 24 years of
service to the City.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 6,
1999
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
50
RESOLUTION NO. 00-026
RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING GREGG HODGDON,
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT,
FOR 24 YEARS OF SERVICE TO THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
WHEREAS, William R. Johnson began his employment with the City of St. Louis Park in
1965 in the Parks and Recreation Department; and
WHEREAS, William was a key member of the Parks maintenance crew. Throughout his
career he demonstrated dedication and professionalism and was respected and admired by his
peers; and
WHEREAS, William’s contribution to the City’s operations has been instrumental to the
wellbeing of the community. He is recognized for his commitment to residents, staff, and the
community over the years.
NOW THEREFORE, let it be known that the Mayor and City Council of the City of St.
Louis Park wish to thank and recognize William R. Johnson for 34 years of service to the City.
WHEREFORE, I set my hand and cause
the Great Seal of the City of St. Louis Park to
be affixed this 22nd day of February, 2000.
__________________________
Jeffrey W. Jacobs, Mayor
51
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, John Thompson began his employment with the City of St. Louis Park in 1969
in the Public Works Department as a Meter Reader and promoted to a Lift Station Mechanic’s
position; and
WHEREAS, John was a key member of the Utilities maintenance crew. Throughout his
career, demonstrated dedication and professionalism and was respected and admired by his
peers; and
WHEREAS, John took pride in his work and maintaining the utility systems by providing
several preventative maintenance improvements. John is recognized for his service to the
department, staff, residents and the community.
NOW THEREFORE, let it be known that the Mayor and City Council of the City of St.
Louis Park wish to thank and recognize John Thompson for 28 years of service to the City.
WHEREFORE, I set my hand and cause
the Great Seal of the City of St. Louis
Park to be affixed this 22nd day of
February, 2000.
__________________________
Jeffrey W. Jacobs, Mayor
52
Item # 9a*
MINUTES
HOUSING AUTHORITY
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
January 11th, 2000
Council Chambers
5:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Catherine Courtney, William Gavzy, Judith Moore
and Shone Row
MEMBERS ABSENT: Bridget Gothberg
STAFF PRESENT: Tom Harmening, Michele Schnitker, Kathy Larsen, Sharon
Anderson, and Paula Jordan
OTHERS PRESENT: Steve Bubul, Kennedy & Graven Chartered, Ron Price and
Barb McCormick, PPL
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 5:05 P.M.
2. Approval of the Minutes December 8th, 1999
Commissioner Courtney moved approval of the December 8thh Minutes.
Commissioner Row seconded the motion. The motion was passed on a vote of
4-0 with Commissioners Courtney, Gavzy, Moore and Row voting in favor.
3. Hearings: None
4. Reports and Committees: None
5. Unfinished Business : None
6. New Business
a. PPL Louisiana Court Redevelopment Project- Resolutions 467, 468, and 469.
Michele Schnitker reported that staff is asking the Authority to take three
different actions to formalize the Authority's role as a partner in the Louisiana
Court Project.
53
The Recommended Actions are:
• Motion to adopt Resolution authorizing execution of Contract for
Redevelopment By and Among the City of St. Louis Park and Housing
Authority of St. Louis Park Housing and Project for Pride in Living.
• Motion to adopt Resolution to commence eminent domain proceedings
of certain real estate by the Housing Authority
• Motion to adopt Resolution authorizing execution of the Mixed-Finance
Initial Agreement between the Housing Authority of St. Louis Park and
Minneapolis Public Housing Authority.
Ms. Schnitker reviewed the role the City will play in the project. The City
and the Authority have committed $140,000 in Community Development
Block Grants. The $300,000 in secured Hennepin County HOME Funds and
$1,000,000 for the Livable Community Demonstration Account grant has
been received. The City, in addition to these funds, has agreed to issue GO
(General Obligation) Bonds to assist PPL with acquisition and renovations
costs. Notification has been received that $4.5 Million in General Obligation
Bonds have been awarded to the City. Lisa Kugler of PPL was instrumental
in securing some of the funds allocated. PPL will also be securing funds from
MHFA ( Minnesota Housing Finanace Agency) and the Family Housing
Fund, low- income tax credits and Hollman funds.
Ms. Schnitker reported on December 20, 1999, the Council approved
resolution formalizing the City's roles partner in this project. The Council
moved authorization of execution of the redevelopment agreement, the direct
Commencement of condemnation proceedings by the Authority, they
authorized the application to increase the GO bonds to $5 Million, and agreed
to authorize the execution of the cooperation.
Ms. Schnitker continued by asking Steve Bubul, Kennedy & Graven Chartered
to review the Summary of the Initial Agreement, eminent domain resolution.
Mr. Bubul reported that the only change was the bond amount of $4.505
Million of the $5 Million requested. The City has required that PPL retain a
third party construction manager for the project and submit the construction
contract to the Authority and the City for prior approval, unless PPL is able to
submit an alternative construction plan satisfactory to both the City and the
Housing Authority.
Commissioner Gavzy inquired if there were changes made in the
Redevelopment contract would the contract be required to go back to the City
for approval.
54
Mr. Bubul replied that it would depend on how subsequent the change. The
Council approved the contract by resolution and unless the changes were
significant it would not have to be reapproved by the City.
Commissioner Gavzy stated he was gratified about the change relating to the
construction management. He expressed concerns about the MHOP agreement
regarding quality, screening of tenants, maintenance and management controls.
Ms. Schnitker stated that the Authority would be responsible for monitoring
these issues concerning the MHOP units.
Tom Harmening, Executive Director, reported that there was concern
expressed by some of the Council members, regarding the fact that the City
would be imposed with liability for to day operations of the entire project. Mr.
Harmening stated that this issue could be brought back to the Council.
Commissioner Courtney and Gavzy expressed concerns whether there would
be adequate cash flow, stating that management is dysfunctional without a
management plan in place.
a. Resolution No. 468 - Authorizing Condemnation of Certain Real Estate
Steve Bubul stated that City Council, at its meeting on December 20th,
authorized the Authority to proceed with the four identified properties.
Barb McCormick, PPL, reported that PPL was successful in negotiating
Purchase Agreements for three of the four named properties, 2705 Louisiana
Court, 2717 Louisiana Court, 2722 Louisiana Court from the ownership group
represented by Rick Bane. One address remains at 2750 Louisiana Avenue,
owned by Mr. Rubenstein. Ms. McCormick indicated that PPL felt confident
that the remaining property would be purchased.
Commissioner Courtney inquired as to the effect of Public Relations if
eminent domain is implemented.
Ms. Schnitker indicated that the risk would not be great because PPL had
negotiated ten properties, prior to this project using eminent domain well
within budgets, with no adverse affect.
Resolution No. 469 - Initial Agreement between (MPHA) Minneapolis Public
Housing and the Housing Authority of St. Louis Park.
Ms. Schnitker reported on the Initial Agreement stating that the MPHA
(Minneapolis Public Housing Authority) would prepare a proposal to HUD for
the use of $859,140 and on going operating subsidy for 8 replacement units
55
and 4 incentive units.
When the development period ends, MPHA will assign to HA documents
allowing it to administer the operating subsidy and grievance procedure and
manage the waiting lists. At that point, the operating subsidy will be
determined by the HA in accordance with HA ACC.
Staff will also be working with a Regulatory and Operating Agreement
Responsibility. This agreement will require PPL to comply with all federal
laws and provisions of the ACC.
Ms. Schnitker added that there would be waiting list management. Applicants
for the 8 MPHA units come from the MPHA waiting lists, in the priority
established by the Hollman settlement (displaced persons, persons in poverty
or minority concentrated areas, all others) until the Consent Decree terminates
or 10 years from initial occupancy, whichever is later. The four HA
(incentive) units will be filled in compliance to HA waiting list procedures.
Ms. Schnitker touched base on Post-construction duties during development
phase which is the responsibility of MPHA. Tax-Certification is the
responsibility of the Housing Authority. The Operating Subsidy would be
fully described in the Regulatory and Operating Agreement, as yet, has not
been agreed upon. Regulatory and Operating Agreement Responsibility.
Ms. Schnitker reported on the Reserve Fund, which the Owner must establish
by their own funds, equal to three years estimated operating subsidy.
Administrative costs will be paid by each party for its own costs. Standard
contract provisions prohibiting members, officials or employees of MPHA
and HA to have any personal interest in Agreement. They must comply
with all federal, state and local affirmative action and nondiscrimination
requirements.
Commissioner Moore asked what screening requirements PPL had in place for
new tenants.
Barb McCormick, PPL, reviewed facts for due cause for eviction, such as
possession of firearms, controlled substances and weapons. PPL's procedures
for screening and selection have equal standards to any reputable housing
developers. A criminal background check, credit check, previous rental
history and two years of acceptable rental history are all requirements for
acceptability in PPL's rental units. Ms. McCormick stated that careful
screening prevents most problems.
Commissioner Moore stated that she understood that PPL would be screening
the tenants but who would responsible for handling grievances.
56
Ms. Schnitker stated that the Housing Authority has agreed to handle
grievances according to the Initial agreement.
Commissioner Gavzy raised the question if an applicant is rejected, who
would be responsible for handling grievances of that nature?
Barb McCormick replied that the responsibility would belong to the Housing
Authority as any grievance, as listed in the agreement.
Commissioner Gavzy inquired if any other MHOP projects, such as the
Louisiana Court Project, have been rehabbed.
Ms. Schnitker replied that two major differences in this project are, that there
has never been a project where tenants were already living in the building and
the greater difference is that St. Louis Park Housing Authority is holding the
ACC, usually held by Minneapolis. There are other counties in the process of
similar projects, but St. Louis Park will be the first working on this type of
project.
Commissioner Moore moved for approval of Resolutions 467, 468 and 469.
Commissioner Courtney seconded the motion. The motion was passed on a
vote of 4-0 with Commissioners Row, Courtney, Gavzy and Moore voting in
favor.
b. Section 8 Housing Quality Standard (HQS) Inspections Contract Approval
Ms. Schnitker reported that staff is asking approval from the Board to
enter into a contract between the Housing Authority and Lawrence C. Baker
to provide Housing Quality Standard Inspections for the Section 8 Certificates
and Vouchers Programs.
Ms. Olson, who has been conducting inspections, had terminated her contract
with the Housing Authority at the end of December. Tracy and her family
moved out of state. Staff was very satisfied with the inspection services
provided by Ms. Olson
The St. Paul Public Housing Authority has employed Mr. Baker for 16 years
and for 5 years he has been a quality inspector for Section 8. The Metropolitan
Council has also contracted Mr. Baker to perform overflow HQS inspections
over the past 2 years. Mr. Baker is very knowledgeable in the rules and
regulations governing HQS inspections and each employer has been pleased
with his work. Mr. Baker, who is still employed by these employers, will be
priimarily scheduled to complete inspections on Saturdays for St. Louis Park
Housing Authority
57
The contractor will be paid $20.00 per inspection at approximately 300 per
year at a cost of $6000. Since it was originally anticipated that staff would
complete inspections, $8500 was budgeted to cover salary costs.
Commissioner Courtney moved for approval of the Section 8 Housing Quality
Standard Inspections Contract Approval. Commissioner Moore seconded the
motion. The motion was passed on a vote of 4-0 with Commissioners, Gavzy,
Moore, Courtney and Row voting in favor.
c. Contract Approval for Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP)
conversion.
Ms. Schnitker reported that staff is asking the Board for approval for the
Chairman and the Executive Director to enter into a contract with the firm of
Niewedde & Weins, Certified Public Accountants, to assist the HA in
converting it's financial records to GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles).
Ms. Schnitker reported that HUD issued a new rule, Uniform Financial
Reporting Standards, requiring all HA's to convert their accounting records,
which are presently recorded in accordance with basis of accounting
prescribed by HUD to GAAP. The conversion, must be completed by the end
of this fiscal year, is March 31, 2000.
Jean McGann, City of St. Louis Park Financial Director, assessed the scope of
work required to convert the HA financial records to GAAPand recommended
that staff contract the accounting firm of Niewedde & Weins to assist in
accomplishing the conversion. Ms. McGann indicated that staff hours required
to complete the conversion, would not be cost effective. By contracting
Niewedde & Wiens, the conversion process would be completed in 2-3 days.
The HA will coordinate with them to insure that our accounting records are
adequately prepared for the Conversion. Section 8 and Public Housing
budgets have adequate funds to incur the contract cost.
Commissioner Courtney made a motion that to accept the Contract with
Niewedde & Wiens Certified Public Accounts to provide assistance in
converting the HA's financial records to GAAP contingent upon HUD's
approval.
Commissioner Moore seconded the motion. The motion was passed on a vote
of 4-0 with Commissioners Gavzy, Row, Courtney and Moore voting in favor.
7. Communication from Executive Director
a. Claims List No 01-00
58
Commissioner Courtney moved to accept Claims List No. 01-00.
Commissioner Row seconded the motion. The motion was passed on a vote
of 4-0 with Commissioners Gavzy, Moore, Row and Courtney voting in
favor.
b. Communications
(1) Monthly Report for January - 2000
Ms. Schnitker reported that one of the caretaker couples, gave their
notice to resign the position.
(2) Scattered Site Houses and Hamilton House (verbal report)
No report given.
(3) Home Renewal Program Habitat Program Update (verbal report)
Kathy Larson reported that the property at 2808 Georgia was sold within
the last two weeks. Two properties at 1454 Jersey and 34th and Rhode
Island are still under construction and progressing well. The property at
2929 Ottawa has been re-bid and the price lowered. At this time there
have been six bids received on Friday, January 7th, one of the parties
is very interested. Demolition of the 2929 Ottawa property is set for the
end of January.
Ms. Larson reported that staff is researching in finding more blighted
houses for the Home Renewal Program. At this time there are only
sixteen houses under $50,000 that fit in that category therefore, making
Its difficult to obtain properties for the Home Renewal Program.
(4) Action Plan
Action Plan to be discussed at the Special Meeting to be held in the
Council Chambers, January 26th at 7:30 A.M.
8. Adjournment
Commissioner Moore moved to adjourn. Commissioner Row seconded the motion.
The motion passed on a vote of 3-0 with Commissioners Gavzy, Moore and Row
voting in favor. Meeting adjourned at 6:55 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted
______________________________
Shone Row
Secretary
59
Item # 9b*
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING
HOUSING AUTHORITY
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
January 26th, 2000
Council Chambers
7:30 A.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Catherine Courtney, William Gavzy, Bridget Gothberg
Judith Moore and Shone Row
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Michele Schnitker, Kathy Larsen, Sharon Anderson,
Cindy Stromberg and Paula Jordan
OTHERS PRESENT: None
3. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 7:40 A.M.
4. Approval of the Minutes: None
3. Hearings: None
9. Reports and Committees: None
10. Unfinished Business : None
11. New Business
a. Action Plan Update - Year 2000
Ms. Schnitker reported on the background of the development of an Action
Plan for the St. Louis Park Housing Authority. At the August 1999, HA
Board meeting, the Commissioners stated that the Mission Statement and
Vision Elements were still applicable and should remain unchanged, It was
noted that it had been over a year since the Action Plan had been adopted and
the plan needed to be revised to reflect the HA goals for the coming year.
60
The Commissioners requested that staff prepare a revised Action Plan to be
presented for review at a future meeting.
Ms. Schnitker stated that the revised action items addressed the Vision
Elements established by the Board and serve as a "blueprint" for staff
initiatives for the year 2000. The plan is meant to include both board
initiatives yet to be developed and activities essential to the successful
administration of our core programs.
Ms. Schnitker reporting on desirable housing choices existing for families and
individuals of all incomes, item f. in the one year plan, which states:
Publicize and market existing single family housing related services offered
by the City of St. Louis Park
Commissioner Gavzy inquired as to what staff has envisioned doing in this
area.
Kathy Larson stated she has been working with cable television to air
publications several times daily, advertising the Housing Rehab Program in
the Park Perspectives this past October and advertising again in conjunction
with the Home Remodeling Fair. Staff is also developing a new brochure,
which can be distributed by Housing Inspectors and can be used as a mailing
piece.
Commissioner Gothberg stated that it would be very beneficial to distribute a
packet of information about the single family related services to each
elementary principal in the school system. Many families would prefer to
move here because of the school system but find that housing in St. Louis
Park is inadequate for their family size.
Commissioner Gavzy added that perhaps it would be beneficial to distribute
the information packets to realtors in the St. Louis Park as well.
Commissioner Moore stated that many people are uneducated on the
possibilities of housing opportunities and that it is important to distribute this
information to the public for the St.Louis Park areas.
Ms. Schnitker reported on the second Vision Element for the one-year plan
which address the balance of housing choices for households at all phases of
the life cycle. Staffs' goal is to purchase 6-7 Home Renewal properties within
the next year.
Kathy Larson reported that in the process of reviewing what properties were
actually available in the entire Metro area, she found that there were only 18
homes, including land under the $50,000 range, available for the Home
Renewal Program.
61
The Board suggested that a goal of 3-6 homes for the Home Renewal
Program would be more realistic for staff to pursue considering availability.
Ms. Schnitker reported on the Housing Authority goal to be financially
Solvent and strives for greater financial capacity- item b: Seeking funding for
The Trails program to be self-supporting. This year staff has determined that
additional monies from the Public Housing Program and the grant monies
from the Section 8 Program will pay the costs of the Trails program.
Tracy Olson, the outgoing coordinator has been replaced by Deb Riel who is
in the St. Louis Park office, Monday, Wednesday and Friday and the
remaining days of the workweek in the Plymouth office.
Commissioner Gothberg had to leave at this point in the meeting.
Ms. Schnitker indicated that one of the goals the Housing Authority is to seek
opportunities to collaborate with nonprofit and for profit developers to,
expand home improvement programming, resources and financing options.
The Authority would also seek to serve as an active Board member on the
Meadowbrook Collaborative Board.
Commissioner Gavzy inquired if the Authority would have a similar role
in Park Commons.
Ms. Schnitker stated that there would be a role for the City in Louisiana
Court, adding that staff should have a role and added it to the one-year goal
plan.
Ms. Schnitker noted that added to the one-year goal was to collaborate with
the Police Department to initiate the Crime Free Multi-Housing Coalition and
assist in developing a long term plan for sustaining the Coalition; obtain
Crime Free Multi-Family Housing designation for Public Housing units. To
work with neighborhood associations to address housing related issues and to
identify activities to better market City housing related programs to the
residents of St.Louis Park.
Commissioner Courtney asked the staff if they felt they could reach all the
goals already in place, along with the new goals that have been added.
Ms. Schnitker felt that in light of the reorganization that has taken place
within the staff, more time is now available to address and accomplish goals.
Commissioner Moore moved to adopt the Action Plan as amended.
Commissioner Courtney seconded the motion. The motion was passed on a
vote of 4-0 with Commissioners Gavzy, Row, Moore and Courtney voting in
favor.
62
b. Housing Authority Agency Plan
The HA Plan is meant to serve as:
1. A Planning tool for Ha's.
2. A community guide to the HA's policies, programs, and activities, and
3. A streamlined submission to HUD of grant and programmatic
information.
Ms. Schnitker reported that a draft HA Plan has been submitted to the Board
for review and discussion. Following your review, the Plan will be revised to
incorporate any needed changes. A copy of the draft plan will then be
distributed to the Resident Advisory Committee and a copy will be displayed
for public review. A meeting has been scheduled to discuss the plan with the
Resident Advisory committee. All comments received from the committee
and the public will be disclosed to the Board along with any recommendations
for corresponding changes to the Plan at a future Board Meeting. The
deadline for submission is February 29, 2000.
Commissioner Gavzy had a question on page 9 of the PHA Plan
regarding Partnering with two non-profit organizations to administer 25 units
of Shelter Plus Care housing vouchers.
Ms. Schnitker reported that at this time staff is not clear as to how this will
incorporate into our existing plan. This subject will be further discussed at
a meeting set for next week.
Commissioner Courtney moved to adjourn. Commissioner Row seconded the
motion. The motion passed on a vote of 4-0 with Commissioners Gavzy,
Moore, Courtney and Row voting in favor.
Respectfully Submitted
___________________________
Shone Row
Secretary
63
Item # 9c*
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
JANUARY 19, 2000 --7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Michelle Bissonnette, Paul Carver, Michael Garelick,
Dennis Morris
MEMBERS ABSENT: Ken Gothberg, Sally Velick, Jerry Timian
STAFF PRESENT: Judie Erickson, Janice Loftus, Sacha Peterson
1. Call to Order - Roll Call
Chair Carver called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
2. Approval of Minutes of January 5, 2000
Mr. Morris moved approval of Minutes of January 5, 2000 and the motion passed on a
vote of 2-0-2 with Carver and Morris voting in favor and Bissonnette and Garelick
abstaining.
3. Public Hearings:
A. Case No. 99-29-CUP - Request of Novartis Nutrition for an amendment to a
continued special permit to permit a 2,000 square foot building addition for
property located at 5320 W. 23rd Street (continued 12-15-99).
Sacha Peterson, Planner, presented a staff report. She indicated that the special
permit amendment request is 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.
Ms. Peterson explained the existing nonconformities on the site include exterior
materials, north bufferyard, building wall deviation, parking, and setbacks and
stated that staff is not recommending any additional changes to the property. She
indicated that in previous hearings there were some resident concerns regarding
noise, dust and odor. Ms. Peterson stated that Novartis is looking to install more
effective technology, but this will take time to phase in, and that the Inspections
Department will continue to monitor the situation. She stated that the proposed
building addition would not expand the manufacturing operation and is not
64
anticipated to result in any increase in noise, dust, or odors. Ms. Peterson
recommended approval of the special permit amendment with the following
conditions:
1. The site shall be developed, used and maintained according to Exhibit Z,
AA and BB, such comments 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.
Mr. Morris asked if the existing special permit is for a nonconformity on the
property.
Ms. Peterson stated that in the past there were certain zoning districts that
required a special permit for most uses (similar to the current conditional use
permit process), so the special permit was not originally to allow
nonconformities. In other words, the use was a permitted use, but it required a
special permit. Since that time, the zoning ordinance has changed in some
respects and one of the changes is that we no longer have special permits rather
the CUP. She indicated that there has been at least one amendment to that
special permit where there has been a similar size building addition.
Chair Carver asked for clarification of the location of the trail easement.
Ms. Peterson showed the location of the trail easement on the map and indicated
that the trail easement is approximately 10 feet along the north property line and
the trail would be constructed basically right along the edge of the Burlington
Northern property. The easement will be used for constructing the trail and some
regrading in that area.
Chair Carver asked if there is any sense that the Ovaltine dust output is in any
way a nonconformity.
Ms. Peterson stated that it is related to the requirements of the city code and
therefore would be defined as a nonconformity (corrected later: this is not
considered a nonconformity). She indicated that a representative from Novartis is
present and could address the dust issue.
Chair Carver asked staff to review the reason why the public hearing was
continued last time.
Ms. Peterson stated that at the December 15, 1999 meeting, Novartis had
requested that their replatting and street vacation request be withdrawn and were
requesting a continuation of the special permit amendment.
65
Beth Chaplin, 5524 25 1/2 Street, asked for clarification of directions (N/S/E/W)
on map and the location of the proposed addition. Ms. Peterson described the
directions and location of the addition using the site plan.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chair Carver closed the public hearing.
Mr. Morris questioned the issue of the Ovaltine dust. He stated that if we are
dealing with CUP’s, we can place conditions on the permit that deal with the
health, safety, and welfare of the community and the neighborhood. In reading
the special permit continuation, it vaguely states that they must be in
conformance with other sections of the ordinance. I see this as an opportune time
to address the issue of the Ovaltine dust, since the complaints that were received
were to the effect that is does leave a layer of coating. Any one driving by the site
can see the dust collection on the building. Maybe, it is a matter of changing the
filters more often or monitoring the filters and I don’t think that is putting any
restrictions on the applicants. I do not know what can be done about the odor. I
would like to use the opportunity to put a condition to this special permit
amendment that this nuisance be brought under control, and if it would be realistic
to put a time period on it or be revisited maybe in one to two years, I would rely
on staff to advise whether that is a realistic condition to place on this.
Mr. Garelick indicated that when this issue was brought up last time, there were a
couple of the residents that approached him after and during the meeting stating
there was no problem with the Ovaltine dust. Some spoke during the meeting
saying there was a problem, so I don’t know if there is a problem or not.
Mr. Morris stated that he would like to make sure that monitoring of the dust will
be done rather than just contained as a desirable end in the staff report.
Chair Carver asked staff if they concur that the Inspections Department has
noticed that the emissions were out of line with what they should have been.
Ms. Peterson stated that the Inspections Department has said this is an ongoing
issue that they would need to revisit because from time to time it appears to be a
problem and then it will abate somewhat. It may be a problem of not changing
the filters frequently enough.
John Nelson, Novartis Nutrition indicated that they are looking at some technical
devices to monitor the filters more often and, if there is a break, to get action
quicker. We think there is technology out there that will do this. There is another
option, that is extremely expensive, that is incineration of everything that does
come out of there, eliminating odor. Due to the nature of filters if they break, you
suddenly have a large volume of effluent and that does create a problem of
variance for these incinerators.
Mr. Carver asked if the problem is a matter of monitoring.
66
Mr. Nelson indicated that they perform regular maintenance. There are devices
that indicate when the filters are plugged and becoming inefficient and they
change them regularly. He believes that the problem occurs when the filter
breaks.
Mr. Garelick moved to recommend approval of the special permit amendment
subject to conditions recommend by staff. The motion passed 4-0 with
Bissonnette, Carver, Garelick and Morris voting in favor.
Mr. Morris stated he is comfortable with the staff recommendation, the input of
the Inspections Department and knowing that if at some point in the future the
problem continues, we could address the health, safety and welfare issues if it
increases or becomes more of a nuisance.
B. Case No. 00-02-Z -- Zoning map amendment for consistency with
Comprehensive Plan designation -- NW quadrant France & Excelsior Blvd (Al’s Bar
site).
Judie Erickson, Planning Coordinator presented a staff report.
Mr. Garelick asked what type of development would be acceptable to the
Planning Department.
Ms. Erickson stated that the Commercial/Mixed Use would mandate a mixed use
development and we would be looking for some type of commercial on a ground
floor with either office or residential use on a second or third floor. North of the
MX area, residential development with townhouses is preferred.
Ms. Bissonnette asked what currently exists in the area proposed as R-4.
Ms. Erickson stated that the lots are vacant or they serve as parking.
Chair Carver asked what would happen if the City Council doesn’t vote to change
the map.
Ms. Erickson stated that the implications are that the Comprehensive Plan is
wrong and needs to be re-examined.
Chair Carver opened the public hearing.
Skip Chell, 3305 Glenhurst Avenue South, Minikahda Oak Neighborhood
Association representative, stated that France Avenue and Excelsior Boulevard is
a major entry point into St. Louis Park. However, it is the only entry into their
neighborhood, so they are very concerned with the aesthetic value of whatever
goes onto that property. Granted, now it is a cleaners and a bar, so hopefully
67
anything would be step up from that, but we are very concerned about what this is
going to be. In the R-4 area, the one property in the lower left hand corner is a
parking lot and the rest is vacant lot, but we would like to call it a beautiful green
area that extends down to the park area and that Glenhurst stops at R-2. He stated
that the neighborhood is concerned about the density and height allowed in the R-
4 Multi Family Residential and asked that they be kept at a minimum. He also
stated that the neighborhood is concerned about potential overflow parking on
residential streets and increased traffic in the area with a development.
Chair Carver asked what density of Multi Family Residential would be allowed in
R-4.
Ms. Erickson stated that R-4 does allow for up to 30 units per acre. She indicated
that the R-3 zoning district only allows 11 units per acre and that is not dense
enough for townhouses. She read the following from the Comprehensive Plan:
“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 a single family area shall be
mindful of scale, density, quality, aesthetic, and vehicle access. Civic uses within
the commercial district are encouraged and new development shall follow urban
design goals set in the Chapter R which is Livable Communities”. She stated that
any development that occurs would have to adhere to these standards.
Ms. Erickson stated that the zoning ordinance specifically requires all uses to
have off street parking and residential uses require two parking spaces per unit.
Any entrances into off street parking would not go through the single family
neighborhood, but would have to be in the commercial area.
Ms. Erickson stated that the R-4 allows up to 3 stories in height and would have
to be mindful of scale and how the transition would look from the commercial to
the residential.
Mr. Garelick stated that if any townhomes go into the R-4 area, it would reflect a
positive nature on the neighborhood as long as it is built to the level or better than
the neighborhood, such as has been seen in other neighborhoods.
Mr. Morris asked if the R-4 lots with 40 feet frontage were conforming for single
family residence.
Ms. Erickson indicated that the zoning ordinance states that if you were to
develop a new parcel of land in the R-2 zoning district you have to have a
minimum of 60 feet. If you have a pre-existing lot of record that is two/thirds of
the requirement, it is a buildable lot, i.e a 40 feet lot could be built as single
family.
68
Chair Carver indicated that the issue of aesthetics is paramount to the City and the
Commission.
Petre Scheie, 3309 Glenhurst Avenue South, asked if there is consideration of an
R-3 designation.
Ms. Erickson indicated that there is an R-3 designation which allows up to 11
units per acre while an R-2 allows up to 7 units per acre. She again noted that
townhouses often exceed 11 units per acre and that is why R-4 is being proposed.
Mr. Scheie asked what is envisioned for the CMX area.
Ms. Erickson stated that it is a requirement of the CMX to have at least two
stories, with a commercial use on the ground floor with either an office or
residential above it.
Ms. Scheie asked what would be the maximum number of stories in that area.
Ms. Erickson stated that the MX is a new district so that there may not be an
actual building height stated, however there are limitations set by the size of area
and parking requirements of any development.
Mr. Morris indicated that the Planning Commission discussed the area during the
Comprehensive Review and decisions were made at that time.
Chair Carver indicated that part of the issue with having the area designated as R-
4 rather than R-3 is that it has to be attractive enough to allow marketable
townhouses to be developed.
Ms. Bissonnette asked what is the maximum number of units that could be
developed in that space.
Ms. Erickson stated that the zoning allows up to 30 units. The area total is about
3/4 acre and a maximum of 21 units, however accommodating these would be
difficult. More likely, fewer than 15 units would be built.
With no one wishing to speak, Chair Carver closed the public hearing.
Mr. Morris indicated that the Commission has considered public comment in the
past and that there will be additional opportunity for input from the neighborhood
residents when a proposal comes forward.
Mr. Garelick stated that the Commission is trying to be sensitive that the
development blends well with the neighborhood and will be a benefit to the
community in that area.
69
Ms. Bissonnette noted that there is an emphasis on Excelsior Boulevard as being
the City’s downtown and showcase area and how we bring it into the
neighborhood is equally important.
Mr. Morris moved that the Commission recommend approval of Zoning
Ordinance Map Amendments and forward them to the City Council for adoption.
The motion passed 4-0 with Bissonnette, Carver, Garelick, and Morris voting in
favor.
4. Old Business: None
5. New Business
A. Consent Agenda - None
B. Other New Business
i. 00-01-RE -- Tax Forfeited Lands - Hennepin County Non-Conservation
Classification List 1114-NC - 2432 Sumter Ave S, 8400 26th St. W, 8401
26th St. W, 3760 Brunswick Ave S, 7829 Cambridge St., 2714 Quentin
Ave S, and 2708 Quentin Ave S
Judie Erickson, Planning Coordinator, presented a staff report and recommended
that the Commission 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 the properties be offered for auction to adjacent property owners only.
Mr. Garelick asked who has been taking care of the lands.
Ms. Erickson stated that she is unaware of who has been taking care of the lands.
Mr. Morris stated that from his experience these parcels are part of people yards
and they often are not aware that they don’t own the property.
Mr. Morris moved that the Planning Commission 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 the properties, should only be offered for
auction to adjacent property owners. The motion passed 4-0 with Bissonnette,
Carver, Garelick, and Morris voting in favor.
6. Communications
A. Recent City Council Action - January 18, 2000
7. Miscellaneous
70
Chair Carver moved to adopt a resolution congratulating and thanking Dennis Morris for
his distinguished year of service as Chair of the Planning Commission. The motion
passed unanimously.
8. Adjournment
Chair Carver adjourned the meeting at 8:15 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Prepared by:
Shirley Olson Janice Loftus
Recording Secretary Administrative Secretary
71
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 11a*
Meeting of February 22, 2000
*11a. Contract with West Suburban Mediation Center
Contract for mediation services with outside service provider
Recommended
Action:
Authorize Mayor and City Manager to execute a one-year
contract with West Suburban Mediation Center for
mediation, conciliation, information and referral, and public
education services.
Background
West Suburban Mediation Center has provided mediation and dispute resolution services for
over fifteen years within the Hennepin County suburban area. The City has contracted with the
West Suburban Mediation Center for over ten years based on annual requests similar to other not
for profit organizations (e.g.; Sojourner, S.T.E.P., Corner House, Historical Society, Senior
Community Services, Community Band, others).
The Mediation Center provides four types of services: mediation, conciliation, public education
and information/referral. Both sides meet with trained mediators to decide on a mutually
acceptable solution. The premise of the program is that citizens are capable of identifying their
problems and resolving differences between them. Through these services, the Mediation Center
addresses the need of community members for efficient and fair alternatives for dispute
resolution. Using mediation to resolve conflicts enables people to work towards building
healthy, peaceful neighborhoods and stronger communities.
Through trained volunteer mediators, the Mediation Center helps resolve disputes for a variety of
parties, including: neighbors, family members, businesses / consumers, employers / employees,
and landlords / tenants. The Center also mediates juvenile issues such as vandalism, shoplifting,
harassment, truancy, runaways, assault, theft, and intra-family conflicts. In addition, the Center
offers victim / offender mediation, based on principles of Restorative Justice, as well as
community presentations, facilitation services, and conflict resolution training.
Analysis
The following summarizes the number of individuals served by the Center, cases worked, and
cases specifically involving St. Louis Park community members.
Individuals # Cases St. Louis Park
Served Worked #Cases City Funding
1999 2,562 724 37 $3,900
1998 1,717 555 28 $3,900
1997 2,331 657 21 $3,900
1996 1,940 642 20 $3,900
72
1995 2,597 752 38 $3,900
1994 2,582 670 56 $3,900
1993 2,108 563 25 $3,900
1992 1,363 317 26 $3,900
Attachment A summarizes the types of cases handled by the Mediation Center last year, case
dispositions and the Center’s funding sources and expected expenses for 2000. As indicated in
the attachment, about half (55%) of the case referrals are from the Housing Court. The
Mediation Center currently does not charge for its services, with a few minor exceptions, and
relies on funding primarily from various governmental agencies (see Attachment A for listing).
It is also worth noting that over 90% of the cases are successfully resolved either through
mediation, arbitration, or conciliation.
Mediation Center’s cases generally average five hours of service per adult and eight hours per
juvenile. The Mediation Center has indicated for 2000 that it will cost approximately $42 per
hour to operate the programs. Based on these estimates and the City’s current funding level of
$3,900, the estimated “break even” number of St. Louis Park cases is 19. Based on the historical
usage by St. Louis Park community members (i.e. average of 33 cases for the last 6 years), it is
recommended that no changes be made to the current funding level.
Recommendations
It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached contract to continue to fund the
West Suburban Mediation Center in the amount of $3,900 for 2000 for services to St. Louis Park
community members. West Suburban Mediation Center and the City Attorney have reviewed
this contract.
It is also recommended that the City continue to help publicize the Mediation Centers’ services
to St. Louis Park community members and refer cases as appropriate.
Prepared by: Martha McDonell, Community Outreach Coordinator
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
Attachments: Attachment - West Suburban Mediation Center Summary of Cases and
Funding SourcesContract with West Suburban Mediation Center
73
Attachment A
WEST SUBURBAN MEDIATION CENTER
SUMMARY OF CASES AND FUNDING SOURCES
Types Of Cases
(Opened This Period) 1999
Housing court
(landlord/tenant)
400
Landlord/tenant-other 14
Juvenile(e.g.vandalism) 23
Neighbor disputes 25
City/resident 4
Human rights 8
Business/consumers 209
Employer/employee 8
Intra-family 6
Co-parenting 7
Visitation/expeditor 9
Other 11
Total 724
Funding Sources Budget
2000
State of MN $18,300
Hennepin County $23,000
MCCVS 7,000
Interest 3,000
Cont. In-Kind 2,045
Fees 750
Grants, Misc 20,000
Bloomington $1,105
Eden Prairie $2,500
Edina $1,000
Hopkins $1,000
Minnetonka $3,500
Plymouth $3,500
Richfield $3,000
St. Louis Park $3,900
Total $93,600
Case dispositions
(Closed this period) 1999
Mediated/ agreement reached 513
Mediated/ no agreement 107
Conciliated/ resolved 33
Mediated/ arbitrated 5
One or more parties refused 66
Total 724
Projected Expenses 2000
Salaries 55000
FICA UC & Medical 7500
Dues 500
Professional services 1200
Annual Meeting 1500
Rent 11280
NSP
Telephone/AOL 3500
Staff Dev./Training 1200
Maintenance Agre. 300
Office Supplies 1000
Postage 3000
Printing 1000
Mis./Mileage 1000
Insurance 1000
Volunteer training 750
Promotion 1500
Office Furniture/Equip 1500
Mis./Move 870
.Total $93,600
74
AGREEMENT
This AGREEMENT is effective January 1, 2000, between the CITY OF ST. LOUIS
PARK, a Minnesota municipal corporation (“City”), and WEST SUBURBAN MEDIATION
CENTER, (hereinafter to as “Mediation Center”), a Minnesota non-profit corporation.
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park recognizes, as reflected in Vision St. Louis Park,
the importance of strong connections to the community, civic commitment, mutual respect, and
neighborliness and strongly supports individuals, neighborhoods, and community institutions
working together to solve problems; and
WHEREAS, mediation services can help resolve disputes or problems within the St.
Louis Park community for neighbors, family members, businesses, employers, employees,
landlords, tenant, juveniles and others; and
WHEREAS, the Mediation Center has organized community based mediation programs
within the Hennepin County suburban area for the purpose of offering neutral, impartial, results
oriented mediation services that focus on serving parties in a dispute and providing citizens with
a quick, accessible and inexpensive forum to resolve their disputes; and
WHEREAS, the City has an interest in supporting the provision of alternative dispute
resolution services for members of the City of St. Louis Park community who are not able to
resolve grievances alone.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED by and between the parties hereto as follows:
A. Term of the Agreement. The term of this Agreement is January 1, 2000 through December
31, 2000, subject to termination as provided in Section G.
B. Services Provided. In Consideration of the amount paid by the City, the Mediation Center
shall provide the following services.
1. The Mediation Center will provide free, confidential, voluntary, and speedy mediations,
conciliation, information and referral, and public education to resolve conflicts, disputes and
problems for members of the City of St. Louis Park community in conformance with guidelines
and rules established pursuant to Minnesota statues, Chapter 494 - Community Dispute
Resolution Program.
2. The Mediation Center will send to the City Manager a quarterly report, commencing with the
2000 1st quarter report to be provided by May 1, 2000, summarizing the number and nature of
the activities provided to St. Louis Park community members pursuant to the agreement.
3. The Mediation Center shall provide services under this agreement without regard to race,
color, creed, religion, national origin, gender, martial status, familial status, sexual orientation,
age or status with regard to public assistance or disability.
75
C. Eligibility. St. Louis Park community members eligible for the services are those persons
with a conflict or dispute appropriate for mediation and not excluded under Minnesota Statues
Chapter 494-03 or other guidelines and rules promulgated by the State Court.
D. Indemnification. The Mediation Center agrees to indemnify and keep indemnified and
defend, hold and save City harmless from and against any all actions or cause of which City shall
or may at any time sustain, precipitate or incur arising out of or in relation to the conduct of
Mediation Center or employees, agents, volunteers or servants of Mediation Center acting within
the scope of and in connection with the Mediation Center.
E. Non-Assignability. This agreement is personal to the parties specified herein and may not be
transferred or assigned by either party hereto.
F. Insurance. The Mediation Center shall carry and keep in force insurance, including but not
limited to: professional liability, general liability, automobile liability insurance, workers
compensation insurance, and any other coverage required by applicable statues. Said insurance
policies shall be from an insurance company licensed to do business in Minnesota.
G. Termination.
1. Prior to the expiration of December 31, 2000, either party for any reason upon the giving of
thirty- (30) days written notice may terminate the agreement.
2. If the agreement is terminated before expiration pursuant to this section, the Mediation Center
will be paid a pro-rata portion of the total compensation based upon the number of days in the
contract period prior to contract termination.
3. The City reserves the right to cancel this Agreement at any time in event of default or
violation by the Mediation Center of any provision of this Agreement. The City may take
whatever action at law or in equity that may appear necessary or desirable to collect damages
arising from a default or violation to enforce performance of this agreement.
H. Consideration. For the performance of the services described in this document, the City
agrees to pay the Mediation Center three thousand nine hundred dollars ($3,900) which shall
be paid in two equal payments.
76
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused the execution of this Agreement on their
behalf by their duly authorized representatives.
2000 Agreement - City & Mediation Center
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK WEST SUBURBAN MEDIATION
BY:______________________________ BY:______________________________
Its Mayor Its Executive Director
AND:
BY:______________________________
Its Manager
Attest:
City Clerk