HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000/04/17 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Regular 1
6:30 p.m. – Board and Commission Interviews
7:15 p.m. - Economic Development Authority
7:25 p.m. – Board of Equalization
AGENDA - CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
April 17, 2000
7:30 p.m.
1. Call to order
2. Presentation
a. Caring Youth Proclamation
3. Roll Call
4. Approval of Minutes
a. City Council Minutes of April 3, 2000
Action: Corrections/amendments to minutes - Minutes approved as presented
b. Study Session Minutes of March 27, 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
6a. Public hearing to consider Sale of City Property Located at 3554 Louisiana
Avenue to MSP SLP Apartments, LLC related to the construction of 200
apartment units on the Mill City site.
This report considers action by the City Council to adopt first reading of an
ordinance that would authorize the sale of certain City-owned property located at
3554 Louisiana Avenue.
Recommended
Action:
Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to adopt the first reading
of an ordinance that authorizes the sale of a City-owned property
located at 3554 Louisiana Avenue to MSP SLP Apartments,
LLC.
7. Petitions, Requests, Communications
7a. Variance appeal to permit an accessory building two feet from a side lot line
with a height of 18 feet 7 inches instead of the maximum 12 feet for property
located at 4312 Coolidge Avenue.
Recommended
Action:
To uphold the BOZA’s decision denying the applicant’s request
and direct staff to prepare a Resolution of Approval to permit an
accessory building with a height of 16 feet as measured from the
east gable end.
8. Resolutions and Ordinances
8a. Resolution Authorizing Renewal of Gambling Premises Permit for St. Louis
Park Hockey Boosters Association at Bunny’s Bar and Grill, 5916 Excelsior
Blvd and O’Toole’s located at 4608 Excelsior Blvd
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve the resolutions authorizing renewal.
8b. City’s Engineer’s Report: Proposed improvements to reduce traffic
congestion on Louisiana Avenue between W. 27th Street and Minnetonka Blvd.
Project No. 00-13.
This report considers the implementation of traffic management alternatives to
reduce traffic congestion and accident reduction on Louisiana Avenue.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the attached resolution approving Alternative
No. 2, establishing Improvement Project No. 00-13, ordering
improvement Project No. 00-13, approving plans and
specifications and authorizing advertisement for bids for
3
Improvement No. 00-13.
8c. Request by Project for Pride in Living, Inc. for preliminary Planned Unit
Development and variances for site improvements to Louisiana Court
apartment complex
Case No. 00-18-PUD and 00-19-VAR
2704-2768 Louisiana Court and 2740-2750 Louisiana Avenue
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt resolutions approving a Preliminary Planned
Unit Development and variances for site improvements to
Louisiana Court apartments, subject to the conditions in the
resolution
8d. Minnesota Auto Theft Grant 2000/2001
The St. Louis Park Police Department has been awarded $45,900.00 from the
Minnesota Auto Theft Prevention Board for the purpose of addressing vehicle
crime issues within the City. Grant funds will be used for officer overtime and
leasing of surveillance vehicles.
Recommended
Action:
Adopt resolution approving grant agreement between the
Minnesota Auto Theft Prevention Program and the City of St.
Louis Park.
*8e. Traffic Study No. 551 – Parking Restrictions at 3381 Gorham Ave. South
This report considers a property owners’ request for “No Parking – 5:30pm to
6:30pm Monday through Friday” in front of a portion of 3381 Gorham Ave. South
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the attached resolution authorizing installation
of “No Parking – 5:30pm to 6:30pm Monday through Friday” in
front of a portion of 3381 Gorham Ave. South.
*8f. Resolution supporting Suburban Hennepin Regional Parks in their trails,
greenways, and parks plan for First Tier Communities
This action would support Suburban Hennepin Regional Parks in the
implementation of a First Tier system of trails, greenways, and parks.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the attached resolution supporting Suburban
Hennepin Regional Parks in their trails, greenways and parks
plan for First Tier Communities of Suburban Hennepin County.
*8g. CASE NO. 00-12-ZA - Zoning Ordinance Amendments
Second reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment to modify Section 14:6-7.E.8 to
4
allow preliminary and final PUDs to be processed simultaneously under certain
circumstances.
Recommended
Action:
Approve second reading of Zoning Ordinance amendment
modifying Section 14:6-7.E.8, adopt the ordinance, approve
ordinance summary, and approve summary publication.
*8h. 2000 Neighborhood Revitalization Grant Program Awards
The neighborhood grant review committee and the City Council have reviewed the
neighborhood grant applications. The City Council is now being asked to adopt a
resolution to approve grant funding.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt a Resolution approving the 2000 neighborhood
revitalization grant program applications and authorizing the
Mayor and City Manager to execute grant agreements with the
neighborhoods.
*8i. Authorization to advertise and receive bids for contract sealcoating of streets
during 2000. City Project No. 00-11.
This request is for authorization to advertise and receive bids for contract
sealcoating of public roadways.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the attached resolution, authorizing the
advertising and bidding of contract sealcoating for 2000.
*8j. Authorization to advertise and receive bids for random curb and gutter repair
– Citywide. City Project No. 00-01
This request is for authorization to advertise and receive bids for random curb and
gutter repair – citywide.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the attached resolution, authorizing advertising
and bidding of random curb and gutter repair - citywide.
*8k. Designating the Position of City Clerk as Responsible Authority for
Administration of the Data Practices Act and Adopting the State Record
Retention Guidelines for Municipalities
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt a resolution designating the City Clerk as the
Responsible Authority for the administration of the Data
Practices Act and authorizing staff to utilize the Records
Retention Guidelines for Municipalities as they are prepared and
distributed by the State Department of Administration
5
*8l. Resolution Granting Further Extension to Correct Code Violations at St.
Louis Park Senior High School
School District #283 requests an endorsement from the City of St. Louis Park for a
time extension of the State Fire Marshal’s orders.
Recommended
Action:
Adopt a resolution to endorse the request for a time extension by
District #283.
9. Reports from Officers, Boards, Committees
*a. Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes of January 12, 2000
*b. Housing Authority Minutes of March 15, 2000
*c. Planning Commission Minutes of March 22, 2000
*d. Human Rights Commission Minutes of January 19, 2000
*e. Human Rights Commission Minutes of February 16, 2000
*f. Vendor Claim Report
Action: By consent, accept reports for filing
10. Unfinished Business
11. New Business
11a. SRF Consulting Group, Inc. Agreement
This report considers approving an agreement with SRF Consulting Group, Inc. for
the planning and design work of Oak Hill area parks.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the resolution approving an agreement with SRF
Consulting Group, Inc. for the master plan design work of the
Oak Hill area parks.
*11b. Bid Tabulation: 2000 Street Work Supplies
This report considers the purchase of bituminous patching materials.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to designate C.S. McCrossan, Inc. the lowest responsible
bidder for conventional and driveway bituminous mixture
No. 2340, and Midwest Asphalt the lowest responsible bidder for
6
bituminous cold patch material and authorize execution of
contracts with the firms in the amount of $60,125.00 and
$4,750.00, respectively.
12. Miscellaneous
13. Claims, Appropriations, Contract Payments
14. Communications
15. Adjournment
7
Item # 4a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
April 3, 2000
1. Call to Order
Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m.
2. Presentations
a. Recognize Laurel Higgins - Human Right Commission
Mayor Jacobs presented a certification of Appreciation for dedicated service to Laurel Higgins
for her service to the Human Rights Commission from February 18, 1997 to December 31, 1999.
b. National Telecommunicator’s Week Proclamation
Mayor Jacobs read a National Telecommunicator’s Week Proclamation. Heather Alex from the
Police Department was present to receive the proclamation.
c. Week of the Young Child Proclamation
Mayor Jacobs read a Proclamation establishing April 9th - April 15th as the Week of the Young
Child.
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); Economic
Development Coordinator (Mr. Kleve); Planning Manager (Ms. Jeremiah); Planning Associate
(Ms. Peterson); Director of Public Works (Mr. Rardin); TV Coordinator (Mr. Dunlap); and
Recording Secretary (Ms. Olson).
4. Approval of Minutes
a. City Council Minutes of March 20, 2000
The minutes were approved as presented.
b. Study Session Minutes of March 13, 2000
The minutes were approved as presented with the following correction.
8
Page 12, Item 3, 2nd Paragraph, change to “Councilmember Sanger suggested that cut-through
traffic could be stopped by eliminating the driveway from the townhomes to 16th Street and
instead creating another exit from the townhomes either on Zarthan Avenue or through the hotel
parking lot”.
Page 13, Item 6, 1st Sentence, change to “Councilmember Sanger stated that she would like staff
to look at other options for residents who would like to work on an expansion to their home, but
the proposed improvement would go over an existing utility easement”.
5. Approval of Agendas
a. Consent Agenda
It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Nelson, to approve the
consent agenda. The motion passed 7-0.
b. Agenda
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to approve the
agenda. The motion passed 7-0.
c. Resolutions and Ordinances
By consent, Council waived reading of resolutions and ordinances.
6. Public Hearings
6a. Public Hearing regarding proposed change of control or transfer of the St.
Louis Park cable franchise from Time Warner Cable to a new parent
company, AOL Time Warner
Reg Dunlap, TV Coordinator presented a staff report. He indicated that the report from the City
Attorney will be reviewed by the Telecommunication Commission on April 13, 2000 and public
comment is welcomed. He stated that Ken Huiras, Chair of Telecommunication Commission
and Lance Leupold of Time Warner were present to answer questions.
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing.
Terry Jetsen, 3016 Lynn Avenue, stated that he has been very displeased from the service he has
received from Time Warner. He complained that customers used to have "free" cable in an
apartment building, and at a certain point Time Warner no longer provided the same bulk
account discount to the building so he had to pay for cable service. He was upset about losing
the TV Guide channel and having channel 23 transformed to a full time infomercial channel. He
believed that local channels graphics needed to be upgraded and would like to see a tier between
basic ($10) and standard ($37) or ala carte offerings of individual channels, like Dish Network
can do for some of their services (but not all).
9
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to continue the
public hearing to May 1, 2000. The motion passed 6-0-1. Councilmember Latz abstained.
7. Petitions, Requests, Communications - None
8. Resolutions and Ordinances
8a. Request by MSP Real Estate, Inc. for Final Plat and Final Planned Unit
Development for Mill City Addition, a 200-unit apartment project
Case Nos. 99-35-PUD, 99-37-S 7301 Walker Street
Sacha Peterson, Planning Associate presented a staff report and recommended approval of the
final plat and final PUD subject to the conditions in the resolution.
Councilmember Latz was concerned about the amount of parking available and asked how many
proof of parking spaces would be available if 316 spaces were insufficient.
Ms. Peterson stated that there were 10 proof of parking spaces that are right on either side of the
garage entrance.
Councilmember Latz asked if the proof of parking was utilized would it interfere with the
operation of the garage entrance.
Ms. Peterson indicated that staff had some concern about that. She stated that part of the reason
that staff did recommend approval of the parking reduction was because of the understanding
that a large number of these units were one bedroom and were being marketed to seniors.
Milo Pinkerton, 223 France Avenue South, explained that a redesign did take place and he would
have liked to have more parking, but it has been his experience with other facilities that the
parking was more than adequate, so the proof of parking would not be needed, but it was there in
case it was.
It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Latz, to adopt the
resolution establishing the Mill City Tax Increment Financing District within Redevelopment
Project No. 1 and adopting the Tax Increment Plan therefor. The motion passed 6-1.
Councilmember Sanger opposed.
8b. The request of Costco Wholesale for a major amendment to the approved
Planned Unit Development for Park Place Plaza to permit a 139,144 square
feet wholesale retail and tire service facility at 1625 Zarthan Avenue and
5799 W. 16th Street
Case No. 95-51-PUD (Amended)
Janet Jeremiah, Planning Manager presented a staff report. She indicated that staff and the
Planning Commission recommended that as condition of approval, the PUD site shall be brought
into full compliance prior to a Certificate of Occupancy being issued for the Costco building.
This would ensure that if the improvements that were supposed to be completed a few years back
are not done, the site can be brought into compliance. In addition, staff and the Planning
10
Commission recommend adding a specific condition requiring all sidewalks to be maintained in
a clear, walkable condition at all times during which one or more building in the center are open.
She stated that staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the major amendment
to the PUD for Costco and find no need for a new EAW subject to the conditions in the attached
resolution (the Costco amendment conditions begin with number 9 in the proposed resolution
and are underlined).
Councilmember Nelson asked if the amount of proof of parking required has changed.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that staff and the Planning Commission recommend requiring additional
spaces to be set aside as proof of parking or as an alternative, staff recommends allowing the
amount of proposed parking on the Costco site, but eliminating the proposed interruptions to the
pedestrian walkway, which should be unnecessary.
Councilmember Nelson stated that when he saw that the gas pumps were eliminated because of
need for parking he was concerned that the City was requiring too much parking, but understands
that it was Costco that was requiring parking over and above what the City requires. He believed
there was too much parking there and even if they don’t want the curb cuts, there should be more
proof of parking.
Councilmember Brimeyer was opposed to approving the resolution without evidence from Ryan
that they would bring the site into compliance.
Mayor Jacobs questioned how this could be accomplished.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that staff and the Planning Commission believe that since this is one PUD
the Council could use the major amendment proposal to ensure that all of the provisions are
brought up to exceptions.
Councilmember Sanger stated she had many concerns about this property and was opposed to the
resolution. She believed that retail was the wrong use for this property and was only making the
impact of increased traffic in the nearby residential neighborhoods worse. She was concerned
about the increased in square footage and the lack of open space at this site. She recommended
that the City require a massive increased amount of proof of parking and a decrease in the sea of
paved parking. She was also concerned about the impact of the traffic on the neighboring sites
and the impact of the truck loading dock being directly across from the residential neighborhood
and didn’t believed the screening wall proposed would do a significant job. She noted that she
has received complaints from residents that the delivery hour restrictions are not being honored
at that site and believed they need to be enforced.
Councilmember Latz asked if Costco had any other business reason than the opportunity to share
parking with the Home Depot site for having the proposed interruptions to the pedestrian
walkway. Ms. Jeremiah wasn’t aware of any other reasons to have the pedestrian walkway.
Councilmember Latz was inclined to support a staff recommendation to increase the amount of
green space on this site. He was adamant that the PUD site be brought into full compliance prior
to a Certificate of Occupancy being issued for the Costco building and if that was not sufficient
11
than he would support requiring a cash deposit for however much it would cost to bring
everything into compliance before we go any further allowing Costco to open its doors.
Councilmember Nelson stated that he supported a staff recommendation to reduce the parking
provided in this existing plan and also supported a requirement on the part of Ryan Companies
for some financial guarantee that the site be brought into compliance.
Jackie Frank, Vice President for Costco, briefly explained the background and objectives of
Costco and believed that there was a tremendous amount of synergy that would be derived from
having Home Depo and Costco near one another. He stated that the pedestrian walkway would
encourage pedestrian access and enhance cross shopping opportunities. He indicated that it
would be a hardship to try and operate the business with limited number of parking stalls as
recommended.
Councilmember Brimeyer questioned the need for the larger building.
Mr. Frank explained other Costco sites and that the building at this site was tailored to the site
and was a balance between the parking and the geometry of the site. He explained how Costco
could not bring to market place the goods and services that were other communities and other
markets in a way that it was felt that was appropriate for the Costco building plan with a smaller
building.
Councilmember Latz stated that he was inclined to require the additional proof of parking, but
still allow the pedestrian walkway.
Councilmember Nelson and Councilmember Santa concurred with Councilmember Latz.
Councilmember Sanger questioned the hours of operation.
Mr. Frank explained that the delivery schedule and hours of operation would be confined to the
hours that are limited in the PUD.
Councilmember Sanger was concerned about the additional traffic to what is already a very
heavily traffic residential area.
Mr. Frank explained that nature of the business and that traffic would be generated at off peak
hours.
Dan Hulke, 1600 Alabama Avenue, Treasurer of Blackstone Neighborhood Association, was
concerned about the outstanding issues with Ryan that are not in compliance, increased traffic
and the need for a larger building.
The Council discussed how the City could ensure that Ryan complies with the original PUD.
Charlene Zimmer, Vice President of SRF Consulting presented a brief summary of the results of
the traffic study.
12
Councilmember Sanger asked what alternative would be better to minimize the cut-through
traffic either on Zarthan between 16th Avenue and Cedar Lake Road or the traffic on 16th Street
west of Zarthan.
Ms. Zimmer stated that the traffic analysis suggests that about 20% of the cut-through traffic
would be eliminated with the realignment of Zarthan and from a logical point of view looking at
the travel times, SRF could not conclude that there would be that kind of cut-through traffic.
The Council discussed their concern that Costco may be held to something that may be out of
their control as it related to Condition on Page 48, 9fii that the entire PUD site shall be found to
be in compliance with the conditions of the final PUD approval.
Mr. Frank stated that he was concerned that Ryan had not been properly notified about the
defects concerning the previous PUD and recommended that the City notify Ryan that they are
not in compliance on certain matters.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that this was already in progress, and indicated that it would be easier to
address concerns related to landscaping if staff could wait until the trees leaf out a little more.
She stated that she didn’t have a cost estimate primarily because of the landscaping issue.
Councilmember Sanger asked if the requirement of a letter of credit in the amount of $150,000
would be sufficient to cover the costs.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that $150,000 would be an sufficient amount.
Councilmember Nelson and Councilmember Latz questioned the need for this requirement
unless Costco thinks they need this assurance from Ryan.
Mr. Jackie recommended that the PUD defects be clearly articulated.
Gary Gandrood, 90 South 7th Street, stated that Ryan has been asking for a list of defects and
they can’t wait until the trees leaf out.
Councilmember Latz stated that given the history of Ryan on this site he desired to have some
financial commitment from Ryan on this.
Councilmember Brimeyer was concerned with establishing an amount for the letter of credit. He
recommended that as an alternative, prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy, temporary or
otherwise, that what is it going to take, five to six months for construction, so the buds will be
out, that gives staff to develop a defect list put an estimated of cost with it and whoever is
responsible for doing it puts up 110% of the estimated of cost prior to issuance of Certificate of
Occupancy.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that the standard was 125%.
Mr. Scott, City Attorney clarified that the Council desired to add to Page 48 of the resolution,
Section 9fii, “if the they doesn’t comply when the time comes to issue a Certificate of
Occupancy, then the applicant can post a letter of credit equal to 125% of the cost.
13
Ms. Jeremiah stated that since this was a PUD there are actually dual applicants and signatures
on the development agreement and this can be worked into the language.
Mayor Jacobs asked if this was amenable to the maker of the motion.
Councilmember Nelson and Councilmember Latz amenable.
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Latz, to approve a
resolution amending the Park Place Plaza Planned Unit and finding no need for new EAW
subject to the conditions in the resolution and on Page 47 of the resolution, Section 9aii, delete
“to eliminate the proposed cart curb cuts through the existing pedestrian connection or” and on
Page 48 of the resolution, add to Section 9fii, “if they don’t comply when the time comes to issue
a Certificate of Occupancy, then the applicant can post a letter of credit equal to 125% of the
cost. The motion passed 6-1. Councilmember Sanger Opposed.
8c. Zoning Ordinance Amendments
CASE NO. 00-12-ZA -
Ms. Jeremiah, Planning Manager presented a staff report and stated that the Staff and the
Planning Commission recommended approval.
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Latz, to approve first
reading of Zoning Ordinance amendment modifying Section 14:6-7.E.8 to allow preliminary and
final PUDs to be processed simultaneously under certain circumstances and set second reading
for April 17, 2000. The motion passed 7-0.
8d. Resolution Adopting Stormwater Management Documents
By consent, Council adopted the attached resolution approving the Stormwater Utility Policy; the
Flood Problem Area Guidelines; and the Flood Proofing Program used to operate the stormwater
management program.
9. Reports from Officers, Boards, Committees
a. Charter Commission Minutes of January 12, 2000
b. Housing Authority Minutes of February 9, 2000
c. Planning Commission Minutes of February 16, 2000
d. Planning Commission Minutes of March 1, 2000
e. Police Civil Service Commission Minutes of January 27, 2000
f. Vendor Claims
By consent, Council accepted all reports for filing.
10. Unfinished Business - None
14
11. New Business
11a. MSP Real Estate Development Agreement
Mr. Kleve, Economic Development Coordinator, stated that the City Council was required to
approve the Development Agreement in addition to the EDA because there was a City land sale
involved in this deal and recommended approval.
It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Latz, to adopt the
resolution approving the Contract for Private Redevelopment among the St. Luis Park EDA, the
City of St. Louis Park and MSP SLP Apartments, LLC relating to its development of a 200 unit
apartment building in the Mill City Tax Increment Financing District. The motion passed 6-1.
Councilmember Sanger opposed.
11b. Bid Tab: Purchase of Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) Supply Contract
By consent, Council authorized execution of a contract with Norit Americas Inc. for the purchase
of GAC in the amount of $55,600.00.
11c. 2000 Arbotect Injection Contract
By consent, Council designated Rainbow Tree Care, Inc. as the lowest responsible bidder and to
authorize execution of a contract for the 2000 Arbotect 20-S Elm injection program at a cost of
$8.69 per diameter inch.
11d. Renewal of the Property and Liability Insurance Program through the
League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust for 1999/2000
By consent, Council approved the insurance program as submitted by the League of Minnesota
Cities Insurance Trust for the period 4/1/00 through 4/1/01.
11e. Annual Insurance Renewal - Decline of Waiver on Municipal Tort Liability
Limit
By consent, Council moved to notify the LMCIT that the City Council does not waive the
municipal tort liability limits.
12. Miscellaneous - None
13. Claims, Appropriation, Contract Payments - None
14. Communications
>From the City Manager - Mr. Meyer reminded the Council of a meeting on Monday, April 10
from 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. prepare an agenda for the upcoming Staff/Council long range
planning retreat.
>From the Mayor - None
15
15. Adjournment
It was moved by Councilmember Brimeyer, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to adjourn the
meeting at 9:35 p.m. The motion passed 7-0.
City Clerk Mayor
16
Item # 4b
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
March 27, 2000
The meeting convened at 7:05 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 Parks and Recreation (Ms. Walsh),
Community Television Coordinator (Mr. McHugh), Civic Television Coordinator (Mr. Dunlap),
Public Works Director (Mr. Rardin), and City Clerk (Ms. Larsen).
1. Telecommunications Commission
Commissioners Huiras, Hartman, Jacobson and Dworsky were in attendance. Introductions were
made between the Telecommunications Commission, City Council, and representatives from
Time Warner.
Councilmember Brimeyer stated that he would like to see the Commission be proactive in
keeping abreast with current events and certain situations that may arise. Councilmember Sanger
inquired as to how Time Warner will notify customers of channel changes. Mr. Arlen Mattern of
Time Warner replied that flyers with information regarding changes will be distributed to all
affected areas within a few weeks of any change. Mr. Dunlap suggested an article or press
release in the Sun Sailor newspaper.
Councilmember Latz inquired about the school district equipment grant and what portion of the
amount shown would go to the schools. Commissioner Huiras replied that the School District
asked for an increase for equipment purchase. It was explained that the remainder of the
franchise fees go to the Cable TV Fund and a portion of that fund is invested.
Councilmember Latz asked what the commission’s position is on Senator’s Kelley’s bill
regarding telecommunications. The members had not discussed the bill in detail and
Councilmember Latz suggested that perhaps the Commission and Senator Kelley meet to discuss
the bill. Mr. Dunlap explained the position that MACTA is developing. Councilmember
Brimeyer would like to see a blend of MACTA and Senator Kelley’s positions incorporated into
the bill. He then asked if the Commission was addressing telecommunications issues other than
cable. Commissioner Huiras replied that they are planning to do so in the future.
Mr. McHugh stated that a survey is being conducted to collect information about on
telecommunication needs in the community. Mr. Dunlap spoke about innovations with
17
community television and the working relationship with the schools. Councilmember Brimeyer
suggested that staff inform Council of any new ideas or trends in telecommunications.
Councilmember Nelson asked about high definition television and when the market will be ready
to incorporate such technology. Mark Baylor of Time Warner replied that high definition
television will be pushed along as soon as broadcasts begin. Commissioner Huiras asked if 750
Mz would be able to carry high definition television. Mr. Dunlap replied that it has been tested
elsewhere and it will work if compression is used.
Mr. Jacobs then thanked the Commission members for their commitment and good work. Bob
Jacobson commented that staff keeps the Commission well informed and Council should be
proud.
2. Hennepin Parks First Tier Trails, Greenways, and Parks Plan
Mr. Bob Wickland of Hennepin Parks and Mr. Adam Arvidson of SRF Consulting Group were
in attendance and introduced by Ms. Walsh. Mr. Wickland then gave a brief description of the
history of park development in Hennepin County. He stated that he is now working with SRF to
develop an inventory of possibilities for future developments in the first tier suburbs. He has
also prepared a report and is seeking input from surrounding cities.
Mr. Arvidson gave an overview of the development process stating such efforts as steering the
committee, compiling inventory, and determining what parcels might meet the criteria for future
park development. He stated that two corridors for trail development run through St. Louis Park.
The first corridor discussed is an active rail line running through the city. Though it would be an
ideal connection, it is unlikely that a right of way would be available in the forseeable future.
Another corridor – a proposed Water Trail along Minnehaha Creek runs through a very sensitive
environment and could be susceptible to damage through too much usage. Mr. Wickland then
talked about adoption and implementation of the plan.
Councilmember Nelson said that he liked the Water Trail and asked who would have jurisdiction
over that area. Mr. Wickland replied that the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District has not yet
discussed the proposed plan with Hennepin Parks, stating that they have received plans and have
not commented to this date.
Mr. Meyer stated that for cities with their own right-of-way on the creek, MCWD may control
the flowage but not access. He also said that the DNR would be more involved. Mr. Arvidson
commented that the DNR has been included on several past discussions of the plan.
Councilmember Sanger inquired on the timeline for the proposed projects. Mr. Wickland replied
that the initiation for some of the proposed projects may be completed within two or three years.
Councilmember Sanger replied that focus should be on trail development and inquired as to what
other types of amenities are proposed. Mr. Wickland stated that the purpose was to look at the
recreational activities “generally” and large parcels were not available; therefore they have
concentrated on trail development.
18
Mayor Jacobs asked what the next step should be. Mr. Wickland said that he would like to
resolutions supporting the plan from all cities involved. Councilmember Nelson asked Ms.
Walsh her opinion on the matter and she replied that she was excited to see the plan move
forward.
Councilmember Sanger asked when the unfinished portion of the southwest trail would be
completed. Mr. Wickland stated that there had been a problem with the railroad easement.
Mr. Meyer expressed his appreciation for the effort put forth by Hennepin Parks with this plan.
Mayor Jacobs added that a resolution of support would soon be available.
3. Taxi Licensing
Mr. Hoffman answered counctil’s questions regarding history of taxi licensing in SLP and the
involvement of our staff in a regional task force to study the issue.
Mr. Hoffman stated that the Met Council had considered offering a regional licensing program,
but had determined that they did not find any reason for them to become involved in the creation
of a central licensing agency. They did offer to serve as the lead on a another task force made up
of representatives from interested cities. Mr. Hoffman also presented to council a copy of a
memorandum of understanding available to council to act upon if they chose to participate.
Mr. Hoffman then reviewed the City’s current policy for licensing of taxicabs. He stated that the
City licenses drivers, vehicles, and business but does not regulate any other areas. He stated that
all vehicles must be inspected and meet all safety regulations for a passenger vehicle. The City
has only denied one or two individuals a license and has received few complaints on the taxi
service in St. Louis Park.
After discussion council concurred with Mr. Hoffman that the city should prepare a resolution
calling for a regional licensing agency for taxicabs and drivers and directed staff to proceed with
deletion of the existing local ordinance.
4. Louisiana Avenue Traffic Congestion
Mr. Moore gave a brief review of past discussions on the topic, stating that staff had worked with
Mr. Rickert of WSB to review the concerns that Council had outlined. The Council then
reviewed the analysis summary listing all possible alternatives.
Councilmember Sanger raised several questions. She inquired about left turn signals and the
length of on street parking that would be left. She also asked if residents would need on-street
parking twenty-four hours a day. Ms. Ruth Bergene, president of the neighborhood association
in that area, replied that parking is needed all day. Councilmember Brimeyer suggested that hour
limits be set so that parking will not occur during peak hours. Councilmember Nelson suggested
combining alternatives, which would include on-street parking restrictions during peak hours and
19
left –turn lanes at intersections. Mr. Moore replied that at one time they had that configuration
and the residents were not satisfied with the results. Council then discussed what inconveniences
people would experience if parking were reduced during peak hours. Councilmember Latz felt
that many homes in that area had adequate parking without using the street. Mayor Jacobs said
that Councilmember Young had suggested a full parking ban on the street.
Councilmember Santa felt that the greatest benefit at the best cost would be a parking ban.
Councilmember Sanger disagreed with Councilmember Santa’s comments. Council then
discussed various combinations and alternatives. Councilmember Nelson clarified that the
Council all agreed that the traffic signals need to be interconnected and there needs to be some
sort of turning movement for left hand turns, and the dissent lies on whether or not to implement
a partial parking ban. Councilmember Brimeyer suggested that they interconnect the signals and
turning movement and re-analyze the situation at a later date. Councilmember Latz stated that
alternative would not reduce mid-block accidents. Councilmember Nelson pointed out that if
council determines that parking is a good idea north of Minnetonka Blvd, then parking should
also be allowed south of Minnetonka Blvd. Council also discussed bike traffic on Louisiana
Ave.
Mayor Jacobs suggested that staff bring forward a sound proposal and Council would put it up
for a vote. Councilmember Latz asked about the configuration of Louisiana Ave. if it become
three lanes with left turns from the center. Mayor Jacobs stated that Council had an
understanding of the issue. Councilmember Nelson asked staff to add the other alternative that
was discussed to the list of options. Mr. Meyer asked staff to bring back two alternatives for
Council to vote on and to include in the report the specific impacts to residents.
5. Sidewalks and Trails Update
Mr. Rardin was present at the meeting and stated that he would like to review the revised plan
and the next steps with Council. Council and staff discussed the two phases of sidewalks, City
and neighborhood, leading into a discussion regarding the assessment policy. Feedback from the
neighborhoods on that policy was mixed; some felt sidewalks were long overdue and others did
not want a sidewalk adjacent to their property for which they would be assessed. The benefits
and disadvantages of developing the neighborhood sidewalk system were discussed. They also
discussed who should push for the development of neighborhood sidewalks, whether the
neighborhood should petition for them or if the City should initiate such action. It was suggested
that the level of assessment be changed to provide an incentive for citizen participation and
contribution; and that different methods of assessment be researched to establish the assessment
districts. It was decided that the City sidewalk phase move forward and any discussion of
neighborhood sidewalks be left out at this point in time. Mr. Rardin stated that in general the
neighborhood feeling on this topic is that sidewalks are not wanted unless the neighbohood asks
for them. Council and staff discussed more specifics of the proposed plan.
Discussion took place regarding public notification. One mailing will be sent that targets the
affected homeowners and general information on the plan will be put on television and in the
Park Perspective newsletter. Council was concerned with having the proper materials to present
20
the plan to the public. They discussed several options on how to present the plan. An open
house will be held to present the plan; then public hearings to hear citizen comments will be held
in early summer. The next steps will then be to adopt the plan and approve financing for the
project. Staff will determine the phasing of individual pieces of the project and will present to
Council at a later date.
6. Communications
Mr. Meyer updated Council on the Travel Demand Management meeting that had been held
earlier that day with staff and council members from the City of Golden Valley.
7. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 11:40 p.m.
City Clerk Mayor
21
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 6a
Meeting of April 17, 2000
6a. Public hearing to consider Sale of City Property Located at 3554 Louisiana
Avenue to MSP SLP Apartments, LLC related to the construction of 200
apartment units on the Mill City site.
This report considers action by the City Council to adopt first reading of an
ordinance that would authorize the sale of certain City-owned property located at
3554 Louisiana Avenue.
Recommended
Action:
Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to adopt the first reading
of an ordinance that authorizes the sale of a City-owned property
located at 3554 Louisiana Avenue to MSP SLP Apartments,
LLC.
Background
MSP Real Estate is proposing to construct 200 market rate apartment units on the Mill City
Plywood site. The project would consist of two four-story buildings (100 units each) plus a level
of parking. The two buildings will be connected with a 2 story clubhouse/office. The plan being
proposed by MSP is generally compatible with the Highway 7-Louisiana Task Force’s
recommended master plan and consistent with the 1998 re-guiding and 1999 rezoning of the
property for high-density residential development.
The Mill City project has been through the TIF and planning approval process. The Planning
Commission Reviewed the Tax Increment Financing Plan on March 1, 2000 and found that it
was in conformance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The City Council held the TIF public
hearing and adopted the resolution creating the Mill City TIF District at its March 20 meeting.
The EDA also adopted its resolution creating the TIF at its March 20 EDA meeting. At the April
3, 2000 City Council meeting the final PUD and Plat was approved. The Council also approved
the Development Agreement at this meeting. The EDA has received grant funds for this project
in the amount of $316,785 from the Met Council and $1,308,375 from DTED for a total of
$1,625,160.
The project as approved is based on plans that included the City parcel. This was necessary in
order for MSP to meet the planning, zoning, and flood storage requirements for the 200 unit
apartment project. Therefore MSP is requesting that it be able to purchase the subject parcel from
the City.
22
Issues to Consider
What are the requirements which must be met per the City’s policy to allow land to be
sold?
Outlined below are the City policy requirements for selling property.
1. The City Council must find that the land in question has no existing or future public need.
The Planning Commission has determined that, provided certain easements are given to the
City, the land in question is not needed for a future public purpose and is not in conflict with
the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The land must not have been acquired by the City through tax delinquency or dedication.
The records show that the land was acquired from the railroad not by either of the two
methods noted above.
3. The land must not be designated on the Comprehensive Plan as Park or Open space.
As a part of the recently adopted Comprehensive Plan, the Mill City property and the City
property in question, was designated “High Density Residential”. This is consistent with the
proposed 200 unit apartment project approved for the site.
4. Land requested to be sold or vacated must be under the jurisdiction of the City.
This requirement has been met.
5. The land shall not contain any wetland.
Pursuant to the National Wetland Inventory, the property proposed to be sold does not
contain a wetland.
6. The parcel must meet all of the site requirements of the Zoning Ordinance for a buildable
parcel except that an unbuildable parcel may be sold to an abutting property owner.
This provision has been met.
7. The sale will not result in a remnant parcel that does not meet Zoning Ordinance
requirements for a buildable parcel or which does not have direct access from a public street.
This provision has been met.
23
Terms of the Sale
Section 3.2 of the Development Agreement that was approved at the April 3, 2000 Council
meeting contains the provision for conveyance of the City parcel to MSP SLP Apartments, LLC.
The terms laid out in the agreement are as follows.
• The agreed upon purchase price is $100,000. This is based on the sale of approximately
37,000 square feet (.85 acre) at $2.70/sq. ft.
• The City will deliver a quit claim deed upon the redeveloper satisfying a number of
requirements including:
• MSP has acquired the Mill City parcel.
• MSP has obtained financing for the Mill City apartment project.
• MSP has received approval of its construction plans.
• There is no uncured default under the development agreement.
Other usual and customary language is included in the Development Agreement to protect the
City.
Attachments
• Ordinance
Prepared by: Tom Kleve, Economic Development Coordinator
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
24
ORDINANCE NO. _________
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING SALE OF CITY
PROPERTY TO MSP SLP APARTMENTS, LLC
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
SECTION 1. The sale of .85 acres of property at 3554 Louisiana Avenue by the City to
MSP SLP Apartments, LLC for a total sale price of $100,000 is hereby authorized. The property
is located at the southwest corner of Walker and Louisiana Streets on the north side of the Mill
City Plywood site and is legally described as follows:
Parcel 5:
That part of vacated southwest half of Hurst Street adjacent to Lot 1, Block 323 and that
part of Lot 18, Block 324, all in Rearrangement of St. Louis Park, Hennepin County,
Minnesota, according to the recorded plat thereof, which lies Easterly of the following
described Line A and which lies Westerly of the following described Line B:
Line A:
Beginning at the most Northerly corner of Lot 1, Block 323 of said Rearrangement of
St. Louis Park; thence 134.09 feet Northeasterly along the Southerly line of said Lot
18 and its Southwesterly extension of said Southeasterly line, being a curve concave
Southeasterly having a radius of 548.70 feet, a central angle of 10 degrees 26 minutes
32 seconds and a chord bearing of North 36 degrees 54 minutes 54 seconds East,
assuming that the Southwesterly line of said vacated Hurst Street bears South 56
degrees 50 minutes 56 seconds East, the chord of said curve is 133.76 feet; thence
continued along said Southerly line of Lot 18, a distance of 177.42 feet along a
compound curve, having a radius of 500.70 feet and a central angle of 20 degrees 18
minutes 08 seconds to the beginning of the line to be described; thence North 25
degrees 46 minutes 54 seconds West radial to said curve, a distance of 95.00 feet to
the Northerly line of said Lot 18 and there terminating.
Line B:
A line drawn from the most Northerly corner of Lot 6, said Block 324 to a point on
the North line of said Lot 18, said point being 126.51 feet West of the most Easterly
corner of said Lot 18, as measured along the Northerly line of said Lot 18 and there
terminating.
25
The sale shall occur in accordance with the terms of a Purchase Agreement executed by Buyer
dated ________________, on file with the City Clerk.
SECTION 2. This ordinance shall be effective fifteen (15) days after its passage and
publication.
Adopted by the City Council _______________
Reviewed for Administration
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
1688:res/ord/N
26
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item #7a
Meeting of April 17, 2000
7a. Variance appeal to permit an accessory building two feet from a side lot line
with a height of 18 feet 7 inches instead of the maximum 12 feet for property
located at 4312 Coolidge Avenue.
Recommended
Action:
To direct staff to prepare a Resolution denying the applicant’s
request and approving a modified variance to permit an
accessory building with a height of 16 feet as measured from the
east gable end subject to the conditions set forth in the staff
report.
Background:
The Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA) held a public hearing on March 23, 2000 for the
application of Michael Christianson for a variance to permit an accessory building two feet from
a side lot line with a height of 18 feet 7 inches instead of the maximum 12 feet. After testimony
was heard, the BOZA denied the applicant’s request on a vote of 3-1.
The staff recommendation was to permit a garage height of 16 feet instead of the maximum 12
feet. This would permit the garage to be constructed as approved in the plans submitted for
building permit and what was agreed to at an on–site meeting between the applicant and city
staff. During the public hearing process, the applicant was not inclined to be in favor of the
modified variance request. The applicant wanted to have the garage at the height to which it is
currently constructed. As well, several people who spoke against the variance request were also
not in favor of the modified request proposed by staff. They wanted a code complying structure
with no variance being approval at all. With that, the BOZA denied the applicant’s request and
rejected staff’s recommendation.
One other issue raised at the BOZA meeting whether a variance can be legally granted based on
hardship. The City Attorney has found that governmental action can constitute a hardship for
purposes of a variance. For example, the City Zoning Ordinance recognizes this concept in the
case of a partial taking condemnation, Code Section 14:7-3(C). General authority gives the
Council the discretion to treat staffs mistaken approval of the 16-foot height as creating a
hardship.
Staff is recommending the modified variance request because it was erroneously approved and
the resulting structure does not create any health or life safety issues. Furthermore, the building
will be required to conform with all State Building Code regulations.
Attached is the full report sent to the BOZA. It outlines in detail the background and history of
this case and the basis for staff’s recommendation.
27
Alternatives:
1. Uphold the Board’s decision denying the applicant’s request and not approve any variance.
2. To direct staff to prepare a Resolution denying the applicant’s request and approving a
modified variance to permit an accessory building with a height of 16 feet as measured from
the east gable end subject to the conditions set forth in the staff report.
3. Direct staff to prepare a Resolution of Approval granting the applicant’s request for a garage
with a height of 18 feet 7 inches.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends alternative 2.
Prepared by: Scott Moore, Assistant Zoning Administrator, 924-2592
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
Attachments:
BOZA Report
Excerpts of Minutes (draft form)
Adopted Resolution
28
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 8a
Meeting of April 17, 2000
8a. Resolution Authorizing Renewal of Gambling Premises Permit for St. Louis
Park Hockey Boosters Association at Bunny’s Bar and Grill, 5916 Excelsior
Blvd and O’Toole’s located at 4608 Excelsior Blvd
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve the resolutions authorizing renewal.
Background:
The St. Louis Park Hockey Boosters Association has submitted an application for Gambling
Premises Permits at the Bunny’s Bar and Grill, 5916 Excelsior Blvd and O’Toole’s located at
4608 Excelsior Blvd. The organization holds a Class A license and conducts lawful gambling at
these sites only. The Association donates up to $120,000 annually to the St. Louis Park Hockey
Association.
All requirements for issuance of the license have been met. Notification was made to property
owners within 350 feet of the establishments and no calls have been received in response to that
mailing. The Police Department has conducted a thorough background investigation of the
organization and its officers.
The City Council must act to approve or deny the renewal before it is submitted to the State
Gambling Control Board. If approved, a copy of the resolution passed by the Council will be
submitted to the State.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Cynthia D. Larsen, City Clerk
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
29
RESOLUTION NO. 00-___
A RESOLUTION OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK CITY COUNCIL
APPROVING ISSUANCE OF A PREMISES PERMIT FOR LAWFUL
GAMBLING FOR THE ST. LOUIS PARK HOCKEY BOOSTER’S
ASSOCIATION AT 5916 EXCELSIOR BLVD
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 349 and St. Louis Park Ordinance Section 13-
1600 , provide for lawful gambling licensing by the State Gambling Control Board; and
WHEREAS, a licensed organization may not conduct lawful gambling at any site unless
it has first obtained from the Board a premise permit for the site; and
WHEREAS, the Board may not issue or renew a premises permit unless the
organization submits a resolution from the City Council approving the premises permit;
therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED by the City of St. Louis Park City Council that the applicant listed
below meets the criteria necessary to receive a premises permit, and the application is hereby
approved
ST. LOUIS PARK HOCKEY BOOSTER’S ASSOCIATION
AT BUNNY’S BAR AND GRILL
5916 EXCELSIOR BLVD
ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55426
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council April 17, 2000
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
__________________________________
City Clerk
30
RESOLUTION NO. 00-___
A RESOLUTION OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK CITY COUNCIL
APPROVING ISSUANCE OF A PREMISES PERMIT FOR LAWFUL
GAMBLING FOR THE ST. LOUIS PARK HOCKEY BOOSTER’S
ASSOCIATION AT 4608 EXCELSIOR BLVD
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 349 and St. Louis Park Ordinance Section 13-
1600 , provide for lawful gambling licensing by the State Gambling Control Board; and
WHEREAS, a licensed organization may not conduct lawful gambling at any site unless
it has first obtained from the Board a premise permit for the site; and
WHEREAS, the Board may not issue or renew a premises permit unless the
organization submits a resolution from the City Council approving the premises permit;
therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED by the City of St. Louis Park City Council that the applicant listed
below meets the criteria necessary to receive a premises permit, and the application is hereby
approved
ST. LOUIS PARK HOCKEY BOOSTER’S ASSOCIATION
AT O’TOOLES PUB
4608 EXCELSIOR BLVD
ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55426
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council April 17, 2000
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
__________________________________
City Clerk
31
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 8b
Meeting of April 17, 2000
8b. City’s Engineer’s Report: Proposed improvements to reduce traffic
congestion on Louisiana Avenue between W. 27th Street and Minnetonka Blvd.
Project No. 00-13.
This report considers the implementation of traffic management alternatives to
reduce traffic congestion and accident reduction on Louisiana Avenue.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the attached resolution approving Alternative
No. 2, establishing Improvement Project No. 00-13, ordering
improvement Project No. 00-13, approving plans and
specifications and authorizing advertisement for bids for
Improvement No. 00-13.
Background: At its March 27, 2000 Study Session, staff reviewed several alternatives for
reducing traffic congestion on Louisiana Avenue between W. 27th Street and Minnetonka
Boulevard. The council directed staff to more fully develop several alternatives and make a
formal recommendation on the preferred alternative. Staff and the City’s consultant, Mr. Chuck
Rickart of WSB & Associates, have developed two alternatives along with subsequent
implementation phases for each alternative. The attached report and plans describe in detail the
two alternatives.
Recommendation: It is recommended the City Council adopt the attached resolution approving
alternative No. 2 which provides for a three-lane section from just south of W. 28th Street to
W. 27th Street. This alternative appears to provide for a better level of service and greater
potential for accident reduction than Alternative No. 1. Alternative No. 2 also requires less
overall parking reduction than No. 1 (20 on the west side vs. 26 – 15 on the west and 11 on the
east sides). The estimated cost of alternative No. 2 is from $55,000 to $75,000. Funding for this
project would come from the City’s General Obligation Bonds for Public Improvements.
Attachments: WSB Report
Plans 1 and 2
Resolution
Prepared by: Carlton B. Moore, Superintendent of Engineering
Reviewed by: Michael Rardin, Public Works Director
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
32
RESOLUTION NO. __________
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE CITY ENGINEER’S REPORT,
APPROVING ALTERNATIVE NO. 2
ESTABLISHING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 00-13
ORDERING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 00-13
APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND AUTHORIZING
ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR IMPROVEMENT NO. 00-13
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the
City Engineer related to the traffic congestion on Louisiana Avenue between W. 27th Street and
Minnetonka Boulevard – Project No. 00-13.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that:
1. The City Engineer’s Report regarding the traffic congestion on Louisiana Avenue between
W. 27th Street and Minnetonka Boulevard – Project No. 00-13 is hereby accepted.
2. The proposed project, designated as Project No. 00-13 is hereby established.
3. Project No. 00-13 is hereby ordered.
4. The plans and specifications for the making of the improvement as prepared under the
direction of the Director of Public Works are approved.
5. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted at least two weeks in the official
newspaper and in the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids for the making of said
improvement under said approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall appear
not less than twenty one (21) days prior to the date and time bids will be received by the City
Clerk, and that no bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the City Clerk and
accompanied by a cashier’s check, bid bond, or certified check payable to the City for five
(5) percent of the amount of the bid.
6. The bids shall be tabulated by the Director of Public Works who shall report his tabulation
and recommendation to the City Council.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council April 17, 2000
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
33
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 8c
Meeting of April 17, 2000
8c. Request by Project for Pride in Living, Inc. for preliminary Planned Unit
Development and variances for site improvements to Louisiana Court
apartment complex
Case No. 00-18-PUD and 00-19-VAR
2704-2768 Louisiana Court and 2740-2750 Louisiana Avenue
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt resolutions approving a Preliminary Planned
Unit Development and variances for site improvements to
Louisiana Court apartments, subject to the conditions in the
resolution
Zoning: Multi-Family Residential
Comprehensive Plan Designation: RH, High Density Residential
Up to 50 units per acre
Background:
Project for Pride in Living, a nonprofit affordable housing developer, is requesting preliminary
PUD and variances to make certain improvements to Louisiana Court apartments, a 16-building
complex of modest 2 ½ story walk-ups. The project is in keeping with the goals of the Vision
St. Louis Park Housing Task Force and the objectives of a subsequent Louisiana Court Task
Force. Proposed improvements include interior building renovation, exterior building changes,
parking lot reconfiguration and upgrading, creation of additional green space, extensive
landscaping and other site features, connections to transit, and new pedestrian links. An addition
is proposed to one building, which will require lot lines to be relocated.
The PUD area includes 14 of the 16 Louisiana Court buildings, which will include 163 apartment
units, as some site improvements are proposed on all of those lots. PUD ordinance modifications
are being requested for reduced parking and reduced setbacks on existing buildings and parking
areas. Variances are being requested for existing drive aisle widths, existing building to curb
setbacks, and existing reduced distance between buildings. A variance is also being requested to
allow part of the parking requirements to be met through on-street parking on Louisiana Court.
An open house was held on March 22, 2000 to allow citizens and Planning Commissioners an
opportunity to review and ask questions about the project. Some residents expressed relief that
the area would be improved, and some were negative about the use of public tax dollars to
improve private property. Planning Commissioners’ comments included the need for a fence or
other significant screening between the apartments and the industrial park to the north, and the
desirability of removing the on-street parking along Louisiana Avenue in front of the apartments
for better traffic flow. The comments are addressed below.
34
On April 5, 2000 the Planning Commission held a public hearing and considered the preliminary
PUD and variances. Draft minutes of that meeting, which have not yet been approved by the
Planning Commission, are attached for your review. The Planning Commission recommended
approval of the preliminary PUD and variances on a vote of 4-0.
Issues:
• Are all Zoning Ordinance requirements proposed to be met?
• Is the proposal consistent with Preliminary PUD requirements, including the proposed
ordinance modifications?
• Are the findings met for the requested variances?
• Is the proposal consistent with Comprehensive Plan goals?
• Can the parking along Louisiana Avenue be removed?
Issues Analysis:
Are all Zoning Ordinance requirements proposed to be met?
Following are applicable Zoning Code requirements, the allowable modification through PUD (if
any), and the project’s proposal. Requested ordinance modifications and requested variances are
noted below and discussed further in later sections, and are also identified on the attached plans.
Standard Code Allowable
Standard Requirement by PUD Proposed
Site area 15,000 s.f. min. 2 acre min. 276,265 s.f.
Density Up to 50 units/acre 10% increase 26 units/acre
Or by Comp Plan
# of units 317 max 348 max 163
FAR 1.2 Limited by height, .54
Density, GFAR
GFAR .25 5% increase .18
Building height 75 ft/6 stories As consistent 25-30 ft.
W/Comp Plan
Front setback* 30 ft.* No required yards 20 ft. min.*
(8 of building < 30’)
Side setback 15 ft. abut street No required yards 15 ft. or greater
15 ft one side/ ½
bldg ht-other
35
Standard Code Allowable
Standard Requirement by PUD Proposed
Rear setback* 25 ft.* No required yards 24 ft.-existing bldg*
20 ft.-proposed addn.
Parking lot* 30 ft.* No required yards 13 ft. min.; 7 lots
Front setback < 30 ft.*
Parking lot* 15 ft. from No required yards 9 ft. min; 1 lot
Side setback street* < 15 ft.*
East bufferyard Buff. B same Review w/Final
No detailed plans
South bufferyard Buff. B same Review w/Final
No detailed plans
West bufferyard Buff. D same Review w/Final
No detailed plans
North bufferyard Buff. D same Review w/Final
No detailed plans
Usable open space 400 s.f. per up to 20% 100,327 s.f.
Unit= 65,200 s.f. decrease
# Parking stalls*1 277* up to 15% 236 inc. 10
decrease=236* proof of pkg
and 51 on-street**
Building to 15 ft. same 4.15 ft min; 10
Curb setback** areas < 15 ft**
Distance** Avg. height same 19.7 ft. and 21 ft.
Between buildings of bldgs vs. 25’ ht-2 areas**
Drive aisle 25 ft. same 18.23 ft. or more
2 lots
Width/pkg lots** 23.5 ft-3 lots**
Notes:
*Ordinance modification being requested through PUD.
**Variance requested.
After allowable reductions for access to transit and provision of bicycle stalls, which total to a 15% reduction.
36
Other Zoning Ordinance issues:
Building encroachment over lot lines: Building additions are proposed on both sides of the
building at 2717 Louisiana Court and are proposed to encroach on the side lot lines. The lot
lines can be moved through the administrative subdivision process, which is processed through
the Community Development Department. Staff is recommending a condition of Final PUD
approval that the applicant must obtain an administrative subdivision to eliminate the
encroachment of the building over lot lines, and that the lines be moved sufficient distance to
meet Building Code requirements.
Parking lot curbing: The Zoning Ordinance requires a six-inch poured in place concrete curb
around the perimeter of all parking lots except where it is demonstrated that curb will impede
overland drainage. In that case, other pavement edge treatment may be approved if it restricts
vehicle parking to the designated parking area, protects the pavement edge, and protects
vegetation. The applicant is proposing to install curbing around all new and existing parking
lots, except that they are proposing an alternative to curbing in front of buildings where the
parking lots are not proposed to be entirely reconstructed. In these areas, the applicant states that
installing typical curbing, which would raise the sidewalk six inches higher than the building,
would cause drainage towards the building. Staff accepts that typical curbing may not be
possible in these areas, and to consider alternatives, provided that the above objectives are met
(restricting vehicles, etc.), that the alternative is consistent with a high aesthetic standard, and can
be maintained properly over time. Staff is recommending that the alternative to curbing be
reviewed as part of the final PUD, when other design elements such as detailed landscape plans
and building entrance improvements will be reviewed.
Superior access to transit and provision of on-site bicycle stalls: The proposal meets the
Ordinance requirements which allow a reduction of up to 10% for superior access to transit and
up to 5% reduction for on-site bicycle stalls.
Landscape bufferyard/fence along north lot line: One Planning Commissioner expressed a desire
that an opaque fence and other screening be provided along the north lot line to screen the
property from the industrial use to the north. The developer has expressed an interest in using
vines on the existing chain link fence, to avoid maintenance problems with two back-to-back
fences but still achieve the desired screening. This issue can be explored further in the final PUD
process.
Is the proposal consistent with Preliminary PUD requirements, including the
appropriateness of the proposed ordinance modifications?
Following are the general PUD standards and whether the proposal meets the standard:
A. The design shall consider the whole of the project and shall create a unified environment
within project boundaries by insuring architectural compatibility of all structures,
efficient vehicular and pedestrian circulation, aesthetically pleasing landscape and site
features, and efficient design and use of utilities.
37
Architectural compatibility of all structures: The existing structures are compatible with
one another and are generally similar in massing and appearances with some variations in
exterior materials and roofing. Some exterior changes are being proposed to eleven of
the buildings, especially at building entrances. This criteria will be evaluated further as
part of the final PUD.
Efficient vehicular and pedestrian circulation: The proposed vehicular circulation is
good. It is proposed to be modified by removing some paved areas and creating better
defined parking lots with curbing. Proposed pedestrian circulation is very good. A new
sidewalk is proposed along 28th Street which will link to existing sidewalks along
Louisiana Avenue and Louisiana Court. New pedestrian paths are proposed around all
buildings and throughout the site, and a prominent pedestrian way is proposed from the
apartment site leading to Ainsworth Park to the west.
Aesthetically pleasing landscape and site features: The amount of green space on site is
proposed to be significantly increased and to exceed Ordinance requirements. Other site
features such as extensive landscaping, benches, and fencing have been proposed. Staff
is recommending that a more detailed plan of site features be submitted with the final
PUD application.
Efficient design and use of utilities: The developer is proposing to meet the City’s
stormwater management requirements through less typical methods which include more
overland drainage and on-site detention areas and less subsurface work. The Public
Works Department has approved the proposed stormwater management plan, subject to
receiving a letter from the project engineer certifying the calculations. Staff is
recommending this as a condition of approval prior to City Council consideration of the
preliminary PUD.
B. The design of the PUD shall achieve the maximum compatibility of the project with
surrounding land uses, both existing and proposed and shall minimize the potential
adverse impacts of the PUD on surrounding land uses and the potential adverse effects of
the surrounding land uses on the PUD.
The area is mixed use currently. The project is anticipated to have a positive effect on
surrounding properties through substantial and visible property improvements.
C. The design shall take into account any modifications of Ordinance requirements
permitted by Section 14:6-7.4 of this Ordinance and provide appropriate solutions to
eliminate the adverse impacts of any modification required for approval of the PUD.
Parking: After allowable reductions for access to transit and provision of bicycle stalls,
277 parking stalls are required for the proposed 163 units. With an additional 15%
reduction through PUD, 236 stalls are required. The proposal is to provide 236 stalls, 10
as proof of parking. (51 of the stalls are proposed as on-street parking on Louisiana
Court only, which requires a variance. This is discussed below.) The developer
conducted parking counts on the existing Louisiana Court lots (where the ratio of
38
apartment units to number of stalls is very similar) to show that the proposed amount of
parking would meet the parking needs of the residents (see attached counts). Staff
believes that the reduced parking is appropriate. The project is designed to serve
residents who will have no or fewer cars. Access to transit is good. On-site links to mass
transit are proposed to be enhanced by creating new bus and school bus shelters and
sidewalk links. In addition, a new bus circulator route is planned for Louisiana Avenue
to link the area to major transit routes.
Building setbacks: Eight of the 14 existing buildings in the PUD area are located
approximately 20 feet from the front lot line on Louisiana Court. Staff believes the
reduced setback is appropriate, given that a) the setbacks are essentially internal to the
PUD; b) the reduced setbacks are consistent with the City’s Livable Communities goals,
with which this project seeks to be consistent; and c) it would be impractical to increase
the setbacks. In addition, two rear yard setbacks are proposed from the 25 foot
requirement. A 24 foot setback is proposed for 2704 Louisiana Court, which staff
believes is appropriate given the small variation and that it is an existing condition. A 20
foot rear yard setback is proposed for 2717 Louisiana Court for a building addition, from
the north lot line. Staff believes this proposed setback is appropriate as well, provided
that significant screening and landscaping is provided between the building and north lot
line as required by the landscape ordinance.
Parking lot setbacks: Parking lot setbacks are proposed to be reduced to 20 feet or greater
in the areas shown on the attached plans. Most of the setbacks are existing and are at the
same setback as the adjacent buildings. Staff believes the reduced setbacks are
appropriate for reasons outlined above and given the overall site design. However, areas
between parking lots and the street should contain landscaping and other amenities to
offset the reduced setbacks, which will be reviewed under final PUD. The parking lot at
the northeast corner of Louisiana Court and 28th Street is proposed to be reconfigured and
to have a 15 foot setback along Louisiana Court and an 8 foot setback along 28th Street.
Staff believes the reduced setbacks are appropriate given the overall site layout.
Are the findings met for the requested variances?
To be granted, variances must be found to meet seven specific criteria as outlined in the Zoning
Ordinance. Below is the analysis of each variance.
PROPOSED VARIANCE TO ALLOW 51 ON-STREET PARKING STALLS ON LOUISIANA
COURT TO COUNT TOWARDS THE ON-SITE PARKING REQUIREMENT.
ANALYSIS
Section 14:8-3.3 (E) of the Zoning Ordinance states that the Board of Zoning Appeals may grant
variances from the strict application of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and impose
conditions and safeguards provided that:
39
1. Where by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of the lot, or where by reason of
exceptional topographic or water conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional
conditions of such lot, the strict applications of the terms of this ordinance would result
in a peculiar and practical difficulties or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner
of such lot in developing or using such lot in a manner customary and legally permissible
within the zoning district in which said lot is located.
The applicant states that the actual size of the lot limits the desired increase in green
space and level of on-site code required parking.
Staff agrees with the applicant that the parking probably cannot be accommodated in
additional surface lots on site due to space limitations. Buildings would have to be
moved or removed, or the amount of green space would have to be significantly reduced,
probably to below Code minimums. Staff agrees that because of the existing conditions
and existing use of the lot, a hardship exists in meeting the requirements on-site. In
addition, staff believes that the site is unique in having a public street, Louisiana Court
entirely within the development, and that this street essentially functions like a private
street for parking purposes. Staff believes that this criterion is met.
2. Conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or
immediately adjoining property and so not apply generally to other land or structures in
the district in which said land is located.
The applicant states that the actual property was developed during 1963 when required
parking levels were significantly less.
Staff agrees that the fact that the property is already developed and is only proposed to
have minor site improvements, limits the options for meeting the parking requirements.
The conditions are unique and do not apply generally to property in the area. In
addition, as mentioned staff believes that the existence of a public street which essentially
functions as a private street within this development for purposes of parking, is particular
to this property. Therefore, staff believes that this criterion is satisfied.
3. The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant.
The applicant is attempting to preserve a substantial property right by making
improvements that will improve the long term viability of the property for residential use.
The applicant states that they propose to transform the current physical environment by
the introduction of over 14% pedestrian areas achieved by a 17% reduction in the
vehicular areas.
40
If this parking were required to be provided on site, this development probably could not
meet the minimum usable open space requirements. In addition, the goals and aesthetics
of the proposal would be significantly diminished by the increase of paved surface,
whereas the parking needs can be more practically met through on-street parking. Staff
believes this criterion is satisfied.
4. The granting of the variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to the
adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in the public streets, increase
the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety.
The applicant states that all proposed improvements will neither diminish the quality of
life to adjacent properties, nor increase the congestion in the public street. On street
parking currently is not restricted in the area. On the contrary, the proposed
improvements will contribute to the overall quality of the community.
Staff agrees that the proposed variance will not result in such negative impacts to the
adjacent properties and will not increase congestion in the public streets. The proposed
on-street parking on Louisiana Court meets all Code requirements regarding design and
dimension, and the Fire Department and Public Works Department have accepted the on-
street parking proposal as adequate regarding circulation and emergency vehicle access.
Few to no other residents are anticipated to utilize this on-street parking, because the road
is internal to this development. The amount of parking proposed appears adequate as
discussed in the PUD section above, therefore the proposed variance is not anticipated to
lead to parking congestion on other public streets. Staff believes this criterion is satisfied.
5. The granting of the variance will not unreasonably impact on the character and
development of the neighborhood, unreasonably diminish or impair the established
property values in the surrounding area, or in any other way impair the health, safety,
comfort, or morals of the area.
The applicant states that the granting of the variance will better serve the community by
leading to the enhanced physical condition of the site which is anticipated to increase the
general property values in the surrounding area.
41
Staff agrees with the applicant that the proposed variance will result in a higher quality
and better project which will positively impact surrounding areas, and will not
unreasonably impact the character or development of the neighborhood, will not
unreasonably diminish or impair the established property values in the area, or in any
other way impair the health, safety, comfort, or morals of the area. Staff therefore
believes that this criterion is satisfied.
6. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Ordinance or
Comprehensive Plan.
The applicant states that the granting of the proposed variance provides the applicant with
the ability to provide the basic qualities found in a livable community which without the
variance would be unattainable.
Staff agrees that the variance allows for a higher quality and more livable residential
environment by minimizing paved area. The variance therefore furthers the Livable
Communities goals in the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, staff believes that the intent
of the Zoning Ordinance is being met by providing the minimum number of required
parking spaces for the project by allowing the on-street parking to count as site parking.
Staff believes this criterion has been met.
7. The granting of the variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but
is necessary to alleviate demonstrable undue hardship or difficulty.
The applicant states that they seek the variance to allow on-street parking to meet
required on-site parking requirements in order to create a high quality outdoor
environment at the subject property. That without the variance, this would not be
possible.
Staff believes that it has been shown that requiring the parking to be provided on site,
rather than on Louisiana Court, would probably be impossible or cause other variances to
be requested for usable open space or setbacks, and the quality of the project area would
be diminished without the variance. Staff believes this criterion has been met.
PROPOSED VARIANCES FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS (ADDRESSED IN
CONJUNCTION):
42
• Reduced required building to curb setback to a minimum of 4.5 feet rather than the required
15 feet.
• Reduce distance between existing buildings to a minimum of 19.7 feet and 21 feet
respectively, rather than the required average building height of 25 feet and 27 ½ feet
respectively.
• Reduce drive aisle widths for parking lots to a minimum of 19 feet for parking areas with one
row of parking and reduce drive aisle width to a minimum of 24 feet for parking areas with
two rows of parking.
Note: the variance being requested is the minimum dimension existing on site, and some areas
where variances are requested, the amount of the requested variance is less. For example, many
of the existing building to curb setbacks are ten feet rather than the requested variance for 4.15
feet, and this setback is not proposed to be changed.
ANALYSIS
Section 14:8-3.3 (E) of the Zoning Ordinance states that the Board of Zoning Appeals may grant
variances from the strict application of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and impose
conditions and safeguards provided that:
1. Where by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of the lot, or where by reason of
exceptional topographic or water conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional
conditions of such lot, the strict applications of the terms of this ordinance would result in a
peculiar and practical difficulties or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such
lot in developing or using such lot in a manner customary and legally permissible within the
zoning district in which said lot is located.
Staff agrees with the applicant that these are all existing conditions of the lot. It would be very
impractical to require the existing buildings to try and satisfy the distance between building
requirement. Likewise, with the requirement for 15 feet between the buildings and parking lots.
The applicant is trying to satisfy this requirement where the parking lots are being reconfigured
or reconstructed. They are providing additional green space and sidewalks. Again, this is true
for the drive aisle width. Where the parking areas are being reconstructed, the applicant is trying
to satisfy this requirement. In order to meet this requirement, they would have to reduce the
amount of green space and perhaps reduce the width of the new sidewalks. Staff believes that
this criterion has been satisfied.
2. Conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or
immediately adjoining property and so not apply generally to other land or structures in the
district in which said land is located.
43
Since all of the requests are existing conditions, there is a uniqueness about them. It is very
impractical to move the buildings or lower their height to meet the setback between building
requirement. The applicant is trying to satisfy to the best of their ability, the distance
requirement between the building and parking lots. In the areas where the parking is being
reconstructed, they are providing as much space as the site will allow. Likewise, with the drive
aisle width, they feel it is better to provide the green space and pedestrian walkways. Staff
believes that this criterion has been satisfied.
3. The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial
property right of the applicant.
Removing the buildings would also be removing the property right which has been established
on these sites over the past 35 plus years. The applicant is making every effort to comply with
the other requirements. The existing conditions on the site restrict what can and cannot be done
to gain compliance. Again, having to move the buildings to satisfy distance requirements is not
reasonable. Removing parking to satisfy this requirement is also not practical since parking is a
concern. In order to provide additional green space and good pedestrian walkways, the applicant
is narrowing the drive aisle widths by one foot. If the extra foot were included, the pedestrian
linkages would or could be removed or not installed. Staff believes that the proposed plan is
addressing both topics in the best way. Staff believes that this criterion has been satisfied.
4. The granting of the variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to the
adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in the public streets, increase the
danger of fire, or endanger the public safety.
None of the requests will impair the amount of light and air to the surrounding properties, nor
will they increase the danger of fire or endanger the public in any way. However, in the areas
where the drive aisles are proposed to remain at 18.23 feet wide and 20.25 feet wide (at the
northwest corner of the property), staff believes that traffic safety would be improved by
installing turnaround areas for cars to safely back into and then exit the parking lot without going
over the curbs. With this recommended condition of approval, staff believes that this criterion
has been satisfied.
5. The granting of the variance will not unreasonably impact on the character and development
of the neighborhood, unreasonably diminish or impair the established property values in the
surrounding area, or in any other way impair the health, safety, comfort, or morals of the
area.
The applicant’s variance requests will not unreasonably impact the character of neighborhood.
Instead it will be an improvement over what currently exists. The requests will not impair the
property values or the health, safety, comfort, or morals of the area. As mentioned above, in
order to meet the intent of safe and adequate circulation, staff is recommending a condition that
paved turnarounds be provided at the ends of the two parking lots at the northwest corner for
44
which variances are being requested. With the recommended condition, staff believes that this
criterion has been satisfied.
6. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Ordinance or
Comprehensive Plan.
Since all of the requests are existing conditions, and the applicant is reasonably
trying to meet all the code requirements, staff believes that the intent of the code
is being satisfied. It is very impractical to try and meet the distance requirement.
As well, the applicant is satisfying other code requirements by reducing drive
aisle widths. The Code allows for variances when the strict application of the
Code will cause undue hardship. Therefore, staff believes that this criterion has
been satisfied.
7. The granting of the variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but
is necessary to alleviate demonstrable undue hardship or difficulty.
It has been demonstrated that the variance requests will not be a convenience, but is necessary
for the hardships described above. In order to meet the minimum distance requirements between
buildings, either the buildings would have to be lowered in height, the buildings moved from
where they have been located for the past 35 plus years, or some of the buildings removed from
the property. All of these options are unreasonable. Again, in order to meet the minimum
distance between buildings and curbs for internal driveways and parking lots, some of the same
options exist. They would have to move the buildings or reconstruct the parking lots with a
lesser number of stalls. This would create another variance for required parking. Since parking
is a concern on this project and the applicant is providing additional green space and pedestrian
walkways, staff feels that the request is reasonable. Finally, the drive aisle width has the same as
the dimension between the buildings and parking areas. Staff believes that the applicant’s
requests are necessary in alleviating the undue hardship of the existing circumstance which exist
on the property. Staff believes that this criterion has been satisfied.
Is the proposal consistent with Comprehensive Plan goals?
The project fulfills the following Comprehensive Plan goals:
• Fulfillment of Livable Communities goals, including creating transit-friendly development;
pedestrian-oriented development; site design principles
• Preservation of existing affordable housing stock
• Removal of blighting influence
45
• Leveraging public dollars effectively (while project is publicly funded, significant sources of
funding were obtained from non-City sources and staff believes this is an effective use of
public dollars)
Can the parking along Louisiana Avenue be removed?
The Public Works Department is currently performing a comprehensive examination of several
issues related to traffic flow on Louisiana including the on-street parking in this area. This
proposal does not count any parking along Louisiana Avenue as part of its required parking,
although it may be utilized currently as guest parking. The proposed site changes do include
removal of one curb cut on Louisiana Ave., which should improve the traffic/parking situation
somewhat.
Recommendation:
Staff is recommending approval of the variances on the basis that the findings can be met and
subject to the conditions in the resolution. Staff is further recommending approval of the
preliminary PUD, subject to the conditions in the resolution.
Attachments:
• Draft Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes
• Proposed resolutions
• Parking counts by PPL (on file in City Clerk’s office)
• Official Exhibits (on file in City Clerk’s office)
Prepared by: Sacha Peterson, Planner
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
46
“DRAFT UNAPPROVED” PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Excerpts
Planning Commission Meeting
April 5, 2000
3. Public Hearings
B. Case Nos, 00-18-PUD and 00-19-VAR - Request of project for Pride in Living for
Preliminary PUD approval and Parking and Other Variance - Louisiana Court
Sacha Peterson, Planner, presented a staff report and recommended approval of
the variances on the basis that the findings can be met. She stated that staff is
further recommending approval of the preliminary PUD, subject to the conditions
outlined in the staff report with the addendum to Condition 2 to include the
following sentence: “The applicant shall also include a detailed plan of their
alternative to curbing where curbing is impossible due to drainage concerns”.
Mr. Garelick stated that he was concerned if the additional parking would impact
the traffic on Louisiana Avenue.
Ms. Peterson stated that there was no parking on Louisiana Avenue proposed as
part of this development, however she noted that Public Works is currently
working on examining the traffic conditions in this area, including examining the
existing on-street parking on Louisiana in this area.
Mr. Garelick asked if this non-profit project is taxable property.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that this property would be taxable property.
Ms. Velick questioned what would happen to the residents currently living in
Louisiana Court.
Kathy Larsen, Housing Programs Coordinator introduced Barb McCormick from
PPL.
Ms. McCormick explained the relocation plan for the project and stated that the
goal of PPL was to displace as few people as necessary.
Mr. Garelick asked how PPL got involved in this project. He asked what goals
PPL had to help make the pride as stated in PPL’s slogan be reflected in the
lifestyles of the people who live in Louisiana Court.
Ms. McCormick explained the background of how PPL was selected by the
Minneapolis Public Housing Authority and PPL’s goal in getting involved was to
improve and create good quality housing for people of limited means and that
47
doesn’t necessary mean the very lowest income population. She explained the
three functional divisions of PPL that include housing, jobs division, and self-
sufficiency program.
Mr. Garelick believed that people don’t want to perceive Louisiana Court as a
low-income housing development and asked what number of units would be
designated for the people who don’t have anything, is it done that way or does
everybody go through the same screening process.
Ms. McCormick stated that everybody goes through the same screening process
that involves income requirement, credit history and criminal background checks.
She noted that there would be paid PPL staff on site during office hours and 3-4
building managers that would live on site.
Mr. Garelick asked if there was a Board of Directors which reflects anyone from
St. Louis Park.
Ms. McCormick stated that the actual ownership structure that is going to be
created will be a limited liability company that will have a Board of managers that
will be appointed by the PPL Board which will consist of six persons, one of
those six persons will be a designee of St. Louis Park.
Chair Carver opened the public hearing.
Dave Dooley, 6013 Goodrich Avenue, former Principal of Aquila School asked
what would will happen to the Perspectives program.
Vanessa Brown, 2759 Louisiana Court, Apt. #6, Neighborhood Involvement
Program Manager for Perspectives Family Center in Louisiana Court, explained
the current Perspectives program in Louisiana Court and her work with the
community and School Board to make a smooth transition for those residents who
move into St. Louis Park. She stated that this was a welcomed partnership and
she was excited about the project and the new sense of community that is going to
be able to be forged with this new acquisition.
Dave Dooley, 6013 Goodrich Avenue, stated that his experience at Aquila was
that the Perspectives program was the most significant program I have ever
experienced for putting families on their feet and having the connection working
together with schools.
Chair Carver closed the public hearing.
Mr. Morris commented that this rehabilitation is what the Planning Commission
has always strived to see and in our tours of the neighborhood that we take each
year where we see the housing that is deteriorating or getting older we would like
to see it fixed up and see it become new and keep the residents that are here.
48
Mr. Garelick believed this would be a stimulus for the surrounding neighborhoods
to make their homes new looking and hopefully in time that whole area will be
revitalized.
Mr. Velick moved to recommend approval of the preliminary PUD and variances,
subject to conditions as recommend by staff with the addendum to Condition 2 to
include the following sentence: “The applicant shall also include a detailed plan
of their alternative to curbing where curbing is impossible due to drainage
concerns”. The motion passed 4-0 with Carver, Garelick, Morris and Velick
voting in favor.
49
RESOLUTION NO._____________
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
(PUD) UNDER SECTION 14:6-7 OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE
RELATING TO ZONING FOR PROPERTY ZONED RC MULTI-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL LOCATED AT 2704-2768 LOUISIANA COURT AND 2740-2750
LOUISIANA AVENUE
WHEREAS, an application for approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) was
received on March 15, 2000 from the applicant, and
WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing on the Preliminary PUD was mailed to all owners of
property within 350 feet of the subject property plus other affected property owners in the
vicinity and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the Preliminary PUD concept at an open
house prior to its meeting of March 22, 2000, and
WHEREAS, notice of public hearing on the Preliminary PUD as published in the St. Louis
Park Sailor on March 22, 2000, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing at the meeting of April 5,
2000, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Preliminary PUD on a
4-0 vote with all members present voting in the affirmative, and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the staff reports, Planning Commission
minutes and testimony of those appearing at the public hearing or otherwise including comments
in the record of decision.
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park:
Findings
1. Project for Pride in Living, Inc. has made application to the City Council for a Planned Unit
Development under Section 14:6-7 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code within the district
located at 2704-2768 Louisiana Court for the legal description as follows, to-wit:
Lots 1-14, Block 1, Louisiana Court (Torrens and Abstract)
50
2. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning
Commission (Case No. 00-18-PUD) and the effect of the proposed PUD on the health, safety and
welfare of the occupants of the surrounding lands, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the
effect on values of properties in the surrounding area, the effect of the use on the Comprehensive
Plan, and compliance with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance.
3. The City Council has determined that the PUD will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or
general welfare of the community nor with certain contemplated traffic improvements will it
cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards, nor will it seriously depreciate surrounding property
values. The Council has also determined that the proposed PUD is in harmony with the general
purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan and that the requested
modifications comply with the requirements of Section 14:6-7.2(E).
4. The contents of Planning Case File 00-18-PUD are hereby entered into and made part of the
public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
Conclusion
The Preliminary Planned Unit Development at the location described is approved based on the
findings set forth above and subject to the following conditions:
A. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with Official Exhibits A
through D, subject to approved plan changes through the final PUD process.
B. Prior to final PUD consideration, applicant shall submit complete final PUD application
materials. The applicant shall also include a detailed plan of the proposed alternative to
curbing where curbing is impossible due to drainage concerns. Final PUD plans shall
include a plan detailing proposed site features and proposed changes to building entrances.
C. Final PUD approval and development is contingent upon the developer meeting all
conditions of final PUD approval and sale of 2704-2742 and 2754 Louisiana Court and 2740-
2750 Louisiana Avenue to Project for Pride in Living.
D. Prior to any site work, the developer shall meet the following requirements:
1. Obtain administrative lot split to relocate lot lines so that proposed building will not
encroach on lot line at 2717 Louisiana Court. Building setbacks shall be sufficient to
meet Building Code requirements.
2. A copy of the Watershed District permit shall be forwarded to the City.
3. Any other necessary permits from other agencies shall be obtained.
4. Sign assent form and official exhibits.
E. Prior to issuance of any building permits, which may impose additional requirements, the
developer shall comply with the following:
1. Meet any Fire Department emergency access requirements for during construction.
2. Building materials samples to be submitted to and approved by City.
F. The following ordinance modifications and variances are approved based upon the findings
included in the staff report and variance resolution subject to final PUD approval:
1. 236 parking stalls including 51 on-street parking on Louisiana Court.
2. Reduced front building setbacks to 20 feet as noted on approved site plan.
51
3. Reduced rear yard building setbacks to as little as 19.5 feet as noted on approved site
plan.
4. Reduced front yard parking setbacks to as little as 15.5 feet as shown on approved site
plan.
5. Reduced building to curb setback for 4.15 feet.
6. Reduced distance between buildings to 19.7 feet.
7. Reduced drive aisle width for double parking rows to 59.5 feet.
8. Reduced drive aisle width for single parking rows to 18.23 feet, with the condition that
paved turnaround areas be installed at the ends of the two parking lots in the northwest
corner of the site.
G. A development agreement shall be executed between the developer and the City and/or financial
securities be provided to the City which covers at a minimum, sidewalk construction and maintenance
and repair and cleaning of public streets. The development agreement shall also cite the approved
ordinance modifications and variances.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council April 17, 2000
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk 99-18-PUD-prel/N/res/ord
52
VARIANCE
RESOLUTION NO. ____
A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCE FROM SECTION 14:5-7 OF THE
ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING TO PERMIT VARIANCES FOR CURB,
GUTTER, PARKING, PARKING LOT DESIGN AND DISTANCE BETWEEN
BUILDINGS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE RC MULTI-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AT 2704-2768 LOUISIANA COURT AND 2740-2750
LOUISIANA AVENUE
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of St. Louis Park, Minnesota:
FINDINGS
1. Project for Pride in Living has applied for a variance from Section 14:5-7.3 of the
Ordinance Code relating to zoning to permit:
a. Reduced building to curb setback of as little as 4.15 feet instead of the required 15
feet;
b. Reduced distance between buildings to as little as 19.7 feet instead of the required
average building heights;
c. Reduced drive aisle width for double parking rows as little as 59.5 feet instead of the
required 61 feet;
d. Reduced drive aisle width for single parking rows to 18.23 feet instead of the required
25 feet;
for property located in the RC Multi Family Residential District at the following location,
to-wit:
Lots 1 through 14, Block 1, Louisiana Court (Torrens and Abstract)
2. On April 5, 2000 The Planning Commission held a public hearing, received testimony
from the public, discussed the application and recommended approval of the variances on
a vote of 4-0 with all Commissioners voting in the affirmative.
53
3. The Planning Commission and City Council have considered the effect of the proposed
variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated
traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on
values of property in the surrounding area, and the effect of the proposed variance upon
the Comprehensive Plan.
4. Because of conditions on the subject property and surrounding property, it is possible to
use the property in such a way that the proposed variance will not impair an adequate
supply of light and air to the adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in
the public streets, increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety, unreasonably
diminish or impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to
the intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
5. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such
property or immediately adjoining property and do not apply generally to other land or
structures in the district in which such land is located.
6. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant. It will not merely serve as a convenience to
the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty.
7. The contents of Planning Case File 00-19-VAR are hereby entered into and made part of
the public hearing record and the record of decision of this case.
8. Under the Zoning Ordinance, this variance shall be deemed to be abandoned, revoked, or
canceled if the holder fails to commence the work on or before one year after the variance
is granted.
CONCLUSION
The application for the variances to permit:
a. Reduced building to curb setback of as little as 4.15 feet instead of the required 15
feet;
b. Reduced distance between buildings to as little as 19.7 feet instead of the required
average building heights;
c. Reduced drive aisle width for double parking rows as little as 59.5 feet instead of the
required 61 feet;
d. Reduced drive aisle width for single parking rows to 18.23 feet instead of the required
25 feet;
is granted based upon the finding(s) set forth above and subject to the following conditions:
A. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with Official Exhibits A
through D subject to approved plan changes through the final PUD process.
B. Prior to final PUD consideration, applicant shall submit complete final PUD application
materials. The applicant shall also include a detailed plan of the proposed alternative to
54
curbing where curbing is impossible due to drainage concerns. Final PUD plans shall
include a plan detailing proposed site features and proposed changes to building entrances.
C. Final PUD approval and development is contingent upon the developer meeting all
conditions of final PUD approval and sale of 2704-2742 and 2754 Louisiana Court and 2740-
2750 Louisiana Avenue to Project for Pride in Living.
D. Prior to any site work, the developer shall meet the following requirements:
1. Obtain administrative lot split to relocate lot lines so that proposed
building will not encroach on lot line at 2717 Louisiana Court. Building setbacks shall
be sufficient to meet Building Code requirements.
2. A copy of the Watershed District permit shall be forwarded to the City.
3. Any other necessary permits from other agencies shall be obtained.
4. Sign assent form and official exhibits.
E. Prior to issuance of any building permits, which may impose additional requirements, the
developer shall comply with the following:
1. Meet any Fire Department emergency access requirements for during construction.
2. Building materials samples to be submitted to and approved by City.
F. The following ordinance modifications and variances are subject to final PUD approval:
1. 236 parking stalls including 51 on-street parking on Louisiana Court.
2. Reduced front building setbacks to 20 feet as noted on approved site plan.
3. Reduced rear yard building setbacks to as little as 19.5 feet as noted on approved site
plan.
4. Reduced front yard parking setbacks to as little as 15.5 feet as shown on approved site
plan.
5. Reduced building to curb setback for 4.15 feet.
6. Reduced distance between buildings to 19.7 feet.
7. Reduced drive aisle width for double parking rows to 59.5 feet.
8. Reduced drive aisle width for single parking rows to 18.23 feet, with the condition that
paved turnaround areas be installed at the ends of the two parking lots in the northwest
corner of the site.
G. A development shall be executed between the developer and the City and/or financial securities be
provided to the City which covers at a minimum, sidewalk construction and maintenance and repair
and cleaning of public streets. The development agreement shall also cite the approved ordinance
modifications and variances.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council April 17, 2000
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk 00-19-VAR/N/res/ord
55
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 8d
Meeting of April 17, 2000
8d. Minnesota Auto Theft Grant 2000/2001
The St. Louis Park Police Department has been awarded $45,900.00 from the
Minnesota Auto Theft Prevention Board for the purpose of addressing vehicle
crime issues within the City. Grant funds will be used for officer overtime and
leasing of surveillance vehicles.
Recommended
Action:
Adopt resolution approving grant agreement between the
Minnesota Auto Theft Prevention Program and the City of St.
Louis Park.
Background:
The Minnesota Auto Theft Prevention Board has approved the St. Louis Park Police
Department’s application for funding in the amount of $45,900.00 for the time period of July 1,
2000, through June 30, 2001.
In 1996, the Minnesota Legislature created the Minnesota Auto Theft Prevention Board. The
purpose of this legislation was to reduce auto theft and its consequences through problem
identification, education/awareness, investigation and prosecution.
Attachments: Resolution approving grant agreement
Relative statistical data (on file in City Clerk’s office)
Grant Application (on file in City Clerk’s office)
Prepared by: Chief John Luse
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
56
RESOLUTION NO. ________
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE MINNESOTA AUTO THEFT PREVENTION PROGRAM
AND THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park Police Department has been awarded a $45,900.00
community policing grant by the Minnesota Auto Theft Prevention Program to continue a
community policing initiative targeting auto theft; and
WHEREAS, the State requires the City Council to adopt a resolution approving the grant
agreement and authorizing its execution;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approves the community
policing grant agreement and authorizes the City Manager and Chief of Police to execute the
agreement.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council April 17, 2000
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
57
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 8e*
Meeting of April 17, 2000
*8e. Traffic Study No. 551 – Parking Restrictions at 3381 Gorham Ave. South
This report considers a property owners’ request for “No Parking – 5:30pm to
6:30pm Monday through Friday” in front of a portion of 3381 Gorham Ave. South
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the attached resolution authorizing installation
of “No Parking – 5:30pm to 6:30pm Monday through Friday” in
front of a portion of 3381 Gorham Ave. South.
Background: The City received a request from Mr. Mark Scherman, Facilities Manager for
Perspectives Family Center located at 3381 Gorham Avenue South, to restrict parking for 1 hour
each evening in front of their building. The restriction is to facilitate the loading and unloading
of school buses with children attending their after-school programs at this facility.
Staff has reviewed the site and determined the request is reasonable and should not adversely
affect adjacent properties. Therefore, staff considers the request to be valid and supports the
installation of “No Parking – 5:30pm to 6:30pm Monday through Friday” in front of the easterly
60 feet immediately West of the easterly driveway of 3381 Gorham Ave. South.
Options: Staff has identified the following options available to the Council at this time;
* 1. Approve the request.
2. Deny the request.
* Staff Recommendation
Attachments: Letter w/map
Resolution
Prepared by: Carlton B. Moore, Public Works
Michael P. Rardin, Public Works
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
58
RESOLUTION NO. _______
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING “NO PARKING 5:30 PM TO 6:30 PM
MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY” IN FRONT OF A PORTION
OF 3381 GORHAM AVE. SOUTH
TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 551
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota has been requested, has studied, and
has determined that traffic controls are necessary at this location.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that the Director of Public Works is hereby authorized to install the following
controls:
1. “No Parking – 5:30pm to 6:30pm Monday through Friday” in front of the easterly 60 feet
immediately West of the easterly driveway of 3381 Gorham Ave. South to facilitate the loading
and unloading of school buses with children attending their after-school programs at this facility.
Attest: Adopted by the City Council April 17, 2000
City Clerk Mayor
Reviewed for Administration:
City Manager
59
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 8f*
Meeting of April 17, 2000
*8f. Resolution supporting Suburban Hennepin Regional Parks in their trails,
greenways, and parks plan for First Tier Communities
This action would support Suburban Hennepin Regional Parks in the
implementation of a First Tier system of trails, greenways, and parks.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the attached resolution supporting Suburban
Hennepin Regional Parks in their trails, greenways and parks
plan for First Tier Communities of Suburban Hennepin County.
Background
Representatives from Hennepin Parks were present at the March 27 Study Session to present
their trails, greenways, and parks plan for First Tier Communities. Hennepin Parks began
assessing potential locations for new ventures after receiving some criticism for not having
regional park areas in first ring cities.
Impact on St. Louis Park
The City of St. Louis Park currently has two joint projects in progress with Hennepin Parks
which include the LRT and the Hutchinson Spur Trail. In addition, this plan identifies the
Minnehaha Creek Regional Water Trail as a future joint effort. This proposed corridor is
different from the others in that it proposes a water-based recreational amenity, as opposed to a
paved trail. Many people canoe Minnehaha Creek every year, but the quality of access points
needs improvement.
If the creek were to be established as a regional water trail, Hennepin Parks would have to
cooperate with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and the cities of St. Louis Park,
Minnetonka, Hopkins, Edina, and Minneapolis. Hennepin Parks would work with the cities to
develop a management plan to establish strategies for floodway stabilization and enhancement of
access points.
Future Development of the Site
This plan does not guarantee that the Minnehaha Creek water way will be enhanced, however it
does provide a future opportunity for Hennepin Parks and the City of St. Louis Park to work
together to explore the possibilities of the creek being a recreational resource in our community.
Hennepin Parks will not go forward with any additional planning unless the City of St. Louis
Park is supportive. This recreational resource should be considered when planning future park
improvements. I would expect that Hennepin Parks would like some financial contribution from
60
the City if this proceeds. They will wait until the City of St. Louis Park expresses a desire to
further explore the waterway.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Cynthia S. Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
61
RESOLUTION NO. ___________
RESOLUTION POTENTIAL FOR TRAILS, GREENWAYS AND
PARKS IN THE FIRST TIER COMMUNITIES
WHEREAS, Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District (SHRPD) has studied the potential
for trails, greenways and parks in the First Tier Communities of Suburban Hennepin County; and
WHEREAS, the Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District has authorized its consultant,
SRF Consulting, Inc. (SRF) to draft a plan summarizing the First Tier study information; and
WHEREAS, the Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District will work with First Tier
Communities to review and comment on said plan; and
WHEREAS, the Suburban Hennepin Regional Park district desires that Communities
initiate and support the implementation of said plan; and
WHEREAS, the Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District will require a cooperative
agreement with each city where a trail, greenway or park would be implemented; and
WHEREAS, the implementation of this First Tier Plan will be an ongoing process;
therefore
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that the Parks and Recreation Department of the City of St. Louis Park supports
the efforts of the Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District to implement a First Tier system of
trails, greenways, and parks and endorses the plan for said system.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council April 17, 2000
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
62
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 8g*
Meeting of April 17, 2000
*8g. CASE NO. 00-12-ZA - Zoning Ordinance Amendments
Second reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment to modify Section 14:6-7.E.8 to
allow preliminary and final PUDs to be processed simultaneously under certain
circumstances.
Recommended
Action:
Approve second reading of Zoning Ordinance amendment
modifying Section 14:6-7.E.8, adopt the ordinance, approve
ordinance summary, and approve summary publication.
Background:
On April 3, 2000, the City Council approved first reading of a Zoning Ordinance amendment that
would potentially streamline the PUD process by allowing certain preliminary and final PUDs to be
processed simultaneously. A public hearing was held for this same proposed amendment at the
Planning Commission on March 1, 2000. The Planning Commission raised a concern about a
potential lack of neighborhood involvement, but recommended approval on a 6-1 vote.
The PUD approval process requires a public hearing only at the preliminary PUD. However, staff
has expanded neighborhood awareness beyond the required 350 foot mail notification requirement
by posting a sign on the site whenever applications are received for zoning or Comprehensive Plan
processes. In addition, staff encourages the developer to hold informal neighborhood meetings and
is in the process of implementing a procedure for notification of the affected neighborhood
association president.
The proposed amendment would allow staff to bring the preliminary and final PUD to the Planning
Commission and the City Council concurrently, but it would allow the Planning Commission or the
City Council the option to take action on the preliminary PUD and defer the final PUD. This in
effect would preserve for the Planning Commission and the City Council the right to separate the
processes.
Attachments: Draft Ordinance
Summary Ordinance
Prepared by: Judie Erickson, Planning Coordinator
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
63
ORDINANCE NO.______
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK
ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING BY
AMENDING SECTION 14:6-7.5.E.8
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
Findings
Sec. 1. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning
Commission (Case No. 00-12-ZA)
Sec. 2. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Section 14:6-7.5.E. is hereby amended by
adding the following language:
8. SIMULTANEOUS PROCESSING OF PRELIMINARY AND FINAL
PUD APPLICATIONS. In instances where a PUD application does not
require variances outside of code modifications allowed by the PUD
ordinance, the Community Development Director may elect to process the
preliminary and final PUD simultaneously under the following conditions:
a. Approval of the preliminary and final PUD will each be considered
by separate motion.
b. The application for the final PUD will not be considered complete
until the City Council approves the preliminary PUD.
Sec. 3. The contents of Planning Case File 00-12-ZA are hereby entered into and
made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
Sec.4. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication.
Adopted by the City Council April 17, 2000
Reviewed for Administration
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
64
SUMMARY
ORDINANCE NO._____________
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK
ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING BY
AMENDING SECTION 14:6-7.5.E.8
This ordinance states that preliminary and final PUD applications can be processed
simultaneously under certain circumstances.
This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication.
Adopted by the City Council April 17, 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: April 26, 2000
00-12-ZA-sum/N/res/ord
65
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 8h*
Meeting of April 17, 2000
*8h. 2000 Neighborhood Revitalization Grant Program Awards
The neighborhood grant review committee and the City Council have reviewed the
neighborhood grant applications. The City Council is now being asked to adopt a
resolution to approve grant funding.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt a Resolution approving the 2000 neighborhood
revitalization grant program applications and authorizing the
Mayor and City Manager to execute grant agreements with the
neighborhoods.
Background:
Seventeen neighborhood organizations requested funding from the neighborhood revitalization
grant program for 2000. Staff and a committee comprised of representatives from seven
neighborhoods reviewed the applications at a meeting on Tuesday, March 28th. The grant
review committee was impressed with the creativity of the proposals and recommended council
approval for all applications which were within the grant’s guidelines and limits. For several
grants, the committee also recommended conditions requiring the submission of letters of
feasibility, itemized activity budgets or the requirement to relinquish funds from previous year’s
grant cycles. Conditions recommended for grants will be outlined in the grant agreements for
each neighborhood. Neighborhoods are required to sign a grant agreement before funds are
available.
During the April 10th, 2000, study session, the City Council reviewed the recommendations
made by the grant review committee. The Council indicated its support for all of
recommendations and conditions placed on awards by the grant review committee.
$970 Blackstone $1825 Texa Tonka
$1250 Minnehaha $1804 Lake Forest
$1100 Brookside $1500 Bronx Park
$745 Minikahda Oaks $1500 Elmwood
$250 Fern Hill $1500 Sorensen
$1500 Lenox $1500 Aquila
$4000 Browndale $1458 Minikahda Vista
$3475 Birchwood $1400 Oak Hill
$1945 Creekside
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared By: Martha McDonell, Community Outreach Coordinator
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
66
RESOLUTION NO. ____
RESOLUTION APPROVING FUNDING FOR THE 2000 NEIGHBORHOOD
REVITALIZATION GRANT PROGRAM AWARDS AND AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE GRANT AGREEMENTS WITH THE
RECIPIENT NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS
WHEREAS, the City Council appropriated $40,000 in grant funds for the 2000 Neighborhood
Revitalization Grant Program for organized neighborhoods to promote and enhance community
building and leadership activities; and
WHEREAS, applications from seventeen neighborhood associations were received on March 20,
2000, that requested funds for neighborhood projects; and
WHEREAS, the grant review committee comprised of neighborhood representatives reviewed
the applications on March 28th, 2000 and made funding recommendations to the City Council;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council discussed the funding recommendations at a study session on
April 10th, 2000; and
WHEREAS, certain conditions must still be met by some neighborhoods to proceed with their
proposed projects and these will be outlined in grant agreements that will be executed between
the City and each neighborhood association;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approves the funding of the
following projects according to conditions to be set forth in grant agreements, and authorizes the
Mayor and City Manager to execute these grant agreements with the following neighborhoods:
$970 Blackstone Operating support, refreshments at quarterly meetings, volunteer
appreciation & signs, National night out, Spring Kick off, Joint
community activity (trail opening event) and Winter activity
$1250 Minnehaha 1st Annual Block Party and Mailings
$1100 Brookside 3 Association meetings, Neighborhood garage sale, National night out
party, Halloween party, New neighbor welcome packets and Thank you
to block captains
$745 Minikahda Oaks Annual Picnic, Fall & Winter Social and Neighborhood Meetings
$250 Fern Hill Annual Neighborhood Picnic
67
$1500 Lenox Quarterly Meetings, Newsletter Postage, Welcome Wagon, Children
First Activities, Spring & Fall Potluck Picnics and Holiday in Lights
Contest & Event
$4000 Browndale Newsletters quarterly, General Meetings, Picnic 2000, Fall event 2000,
Winter event 2001, Spring event 2001, Expand Browndale Park Flower
Gardens, Native plantings for Browndale Park Pond Garden and
Rainbow Park Playground bench, picnic table and trash can
$3475 Birchwood Annual Party, Babysitting Coop, Parktacular Parade participation,
Neighborhood Survey, Recognition Dinner, Novartis recognition plaque,
New Neighbor Welcome, and Community garden expansion including
benches & steel pergola for climbing roses
$1945 Creekside Annual block party, Newcomers welcome & Final farewells, Meeting
Operations and Buckthorn Removal & Native plants
$1825 Texa Tonka Newsletter & meeting expenses, Annual Picnic, Inter-Neighborhood
activity trail opening and Community garden improvements
$1804 Lake Forest Repair of power source to well, Garden improvements including soil,
manure, herb plants, wood for trellis & two evergreens, Welcome
baskets and Annual Neighborhood party
$1500 Bronx Park Mailings for general meetings and a neighborhood Clean-up day
$1500 Elmwood Meetings, newsletters, thank you’s, Twins night out, Fall Party and
Welcome baskets
$1500 Sorensen Newsletters & other Mailings, Welcome to the neighborhood, Annual
garage sale, Ice cream social/Summer picnic and Winter social event
$1500 Aquila Fall Inter-Neigh Event, Hayride, Picnic, Welcome Baskets, Internet
Service Provider, Bimonthly Meetings and Newsletter Postage
$1458 Minikahda Vista Newsletter & volunteer thanks, Welcome bags, National night
out, Fall Hayride with Browndale, Playdays (by babysitting club),
Volunteer appreciation, Garden Tour/Garden club activities,
Neighborhood event (e.g. garage sale) and Interest group administrative
costs
$1440 Oak Hill Newsletter, event mailing, meetings, Oak Hill Picnic, Inter-
Neighborhood activity and Garage Sale
68
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council April 17, 2000
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
69
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item * 8i
Meeting of April 17, 2000
*8i. Authorization to advertise and receive bids for contract sealcoating of streets
during 2000. City Project No. 00-11.
This request is for authorization to advertise and receive bids for contract
sealcoating of public roadways.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the attached resolution, authorizing the
advertising and bidding of contract sealcoating for 2000.
Background:
In the past the City has purchased aggregate and bituminous materials and sealcoated streets in
the City with City forces. As part of the preventive maintenance procedure used to insure an
adequate transportation system in St. Louis Park, sealcoating has been a technique used to aid in
the longevity of pavement in the City.
Each year the City has sealcoated approximately 10 miles of pavement in an effort to extend the
life of the pavements. This schedule provides for a sealcoat of every street once every 10 years
on average.
Discussion:
As the streets in the City have aged, pavement maintenance needs (specifically patching) have
been increasing. As a result, the pavement maintenance portion of the streets budget has been
increasing and should continue to increase to reflect this or the streets will deteriorate much more
quickly than they are. In addition, the pavement maintenance workload has increased to the point
where City forces may no longer be able to perform all the necessary maintenance. In order to
continue to adequately maintain City street pavements, additional staff may be needed, some
maintenance activities may need to be contracted for, a pavement rehabilitation or replacement
program may need to be established, or any combination or all of these may be necessary.
Various activities that could be contracted for include sidewalk repairs, patching, sealcoating,
crackfilling/sealing, and sweeping. For numerous reasons, contracting for sealcoating services as
well as some sidewalk repairs most closely matches our overall needs at this time and seems to
be the most effective course of action, both for now and into the foreseeable future.
A map showing the 2000 sealcoating areas is attached. The following schedule for this project
has been developed:
April 17 Council Authorizes Advertisement and Receipt of Bids
April – May Advertise for Bids
May 4 Bid Opening
May 15 Award Bids
70
Estimated Cost: The cost of the 2000 sealcoating program is as follows:
Sealcoating $ 67,000.00
Engineering & Administrative (12%) 8,000.00
Total $ 75,000.00
A total of $75,000 is budgeted in the 2000 Public Works Operation’s Budget and will provide for
the sealcoating of scheduled pavements as described above during 2000.
Feasibility: The project, as proposed herein, is necessary, cost effective and feasible under the
conditions noted and at the costs estimated.
Attachments: Resolution
Map of Sealcoat area
Prepared by: Carlton B. Moore, Superintendent of Engineering
Reviewed by: Michael Rardin, Public Works Director
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
71
RESOLUTION NO. __________
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE DIRECTORS REPORT,
AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE AND RECEIVE
BIDS FOR 2000 CONTRACT SEALCOATING
CITY PROJECT NO. 00-11
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the
Director of Public Works requesting authorization to advertise and receive bids for contract
sealcoating for 2000.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that:
1. The report of the Director of Public Works regarding the advertisement and receiving of
bids for contract sealcoating is hereby accepted.
2. The advertising and receiving of bids for contract sealcoating is ordered.
3. The bids shall be tabulated by the Superintendent of Engineering who, through the
Director of Public Works, shall report his tabulation and recommendations to City
Council.
Attest: Adopted by the City Council April 17, 2000
City Clerk Mayor
Reviewed for Administration:
City Manager
72
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 8j*
Meeting of April 17, 2000
*8j. Authorization to advertise and receive bids for random curb and gutter repair
– Citywide. City Project No. 00-01
This request is for authorization to advertise and receive bids for random curb and
gutter repair – citywide.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the attached resolution, authorizing advertising
and bidding of random curb and gutter repair - citywide.
Background:
n the past, the City has contracted for the citywide random curb and gutter repair. This year the
amount of repair exceeds the $25,000 limit and competitive bids must be taken. The random
repair work included in this contract is to replace curb and gutter along with the bituminous
patching adjacent to the curb. Sodding/Landscape Restoration of disturbed areas is also
included.
Discussion:
This year there were a significant number of areas disturbed, mostly by watermain breaks, and
the cost for these repairs is estimated to be $43,000. The Utility Department has budgeted
$49,000 for these repairs. In addition, there is some minor concrete work included in this
contract to fill in small areas with sidewalk that have become Landscape Maintenance problems
in Special Service District No. 1. This cost is estimated to be approximately $3,500 and is
included in the $43,000 estimate. The Operations Department has budgeted for these minor
corrections.
Following is a proposed schedule for this project:
April 17 Council Authorizes Advertisement and Receipt of Bids
April – May Advertise for Bids
May 4 Bid Opening
May 15 Award Bids
Estimated Cost:
The estimated costs for the 2000 citywide random curb and gutter repair is as follows:
Special Service District No. 1 $ 3,500.00
Citywide Random Curb and Gutter 39,500.00
Total $43,000.00
73
A total of $49,000 is budgeted in the Utility Operations and $4,000 in the Operations Divisions
to fund this project.
Feasibility:
The project, as proposed herein, is necessary, cost effective and feasible under the conditions
noted and at the costs estimated.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Carlton B. Moore, Superintendent of Engineering
Reviewed by: Michael Rardin, Public Works Director
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
74
RESOLUTION NO. __________
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE DIRECTORS REPORT,
AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE AND RECEIVE
BIDS FOR RANDOM CURB AND GUTTER REPAIR – CITYWIDE
CITY PROJECT NO. 00-01
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the
Director of Public Works requesting authorization to advertise and receive bids for random curb
and gutter repair – citywide.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that:
1. The report of the Director of Public Works regarding the advertisement and receiving of
bids for random curb and gutter repair – citywide.
2. The advertising and receiving of bids for random curb and gutter repair – citywide, is
ordered.
3. The bids shall be tabulated by the Superintendent of Engineering who, through the
Director of Public Works, shall report his tabulation and recommendations to City
Council.
Attest: Adopted by the City Council April 17, 2000
City Clerk Mayor
Reviewed for Administration:
City Manager
75
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item #8k*
Meeting of April 17, 2000
*8k. Designating the Position of City Clerk as Responsible Authority for
Administration of the Data Practices Act and Adopting the State Record
Retention Guidelines for Municipalities
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt a resolution designating the City Clerk as the
Responsible Authority for the administration of the Data
Practices Act and authorizing staff to utilize the Records
Retention Guidelines for Municipalities as they are prepared and
distributed by the State Department of Administration
Background:
The Minnesota Government Data Practices Act establishes a system for compilation and
distribution of data gathered by government agencies. All data collected and maintained by the
City of St. Louis Park is presumed public and is accessible to the public for both inspection and
copying, unless classified as Private, Confidential, Nonpublic or Protected Nonpublic in
accordance with federal law, state statute or a temporary classification. (Minn. Stat. 13.01)
To remain in compliance with the Act, each agency must appoint an official designated as the
Responsible Authority who is responsible for ensuring that the agency complies with the act. In
1992 Council adopted a resolution designating the individual who was then the City Clerk as the
Responsible Authority. Staff is now requesting that Council appoint the position of City Clerk to
be that authority rather than a named individual.
In 1992 the city prepared an administrative manual containing guidelines and procedures to
ensure the City’s compliance with the Data Practices Act. The manual has been recently updated
by staff and reviewed by the City Attorney’s office. A part of that manual includes the most
recent state recommendations for retention periods of records which was issued to cities in 1994.
Though the retention schedule is currently being used by the city, it was never formally adopted
as the state recommends.
A task force comprised of City Clerks has recently completed a review of the retention schedule
and has submitted their recommendations to the state. It is expected that those changes will be
adopted and that a new edition of the guidelines will be distributed to the cities sometime this
year. Council’s action will authorize staff to keep our administrative processes up to date as
revisions are made.
Prepared by: Cynthia D. Larsen, City Clerk
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
76
RESOLUTION NO. _________
RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE CITY CLERK AS THE RESPONSIBLE
AUTHORITY FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE DATA PRACTICES ACT; AND
AUTHORIZING THE USE BY THE CITY OF THE RECORDS RETENTION
GUILDELINES FOR MUNICIPALITIES AS THEY ARE PREPARED AND
DISTRIBUTED BY THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
WHEREAS, The Minnesota Data Practices Act and the Rules promulgated by the Commissioner
of Administration establish a system for compilation and distribution of data gathered by
government agencies; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Section 13.02, Subd. 16 requires each agency to appoint one
officer as the Responsible Authority to administer the requirements for collection, storage, use
and dissemination of data maintained by the city; and
WHEREAS, the City wishes to comply with all necessary requirements of the Minnesota Data
Practices act;
NOW THEREFORE LET IT BE KNOWN That the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park
hereby appoints the position of City Clerk as the Responsible Authority for purposes of the
administration of the Data Privacy Act; and
LET IT FURTHER BE KNOWN that the City Council also authorizes the use by the city of the
Records Retention Guidelines for Municipalities as they are prepared and distributed by the
Minnesota State Department of Administration.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council April 17, 2000
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
77
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 8l*
Meeting of April 17, 2000
*8l. Resolution Granting Further Extension to Correct Code Violations at St.
Louis Park Senior High School
School District #283 requests an endorsement from the City of St. Louis Park for a
time extension of the State Fire Marshal’s orders.
Recommended
Action:
Adopt a resolution to endorse the request for a time extension by
District #283.
Background:
After initial orders to correct code violations in District #283 the State Fire Marshal has granted
two subsequent extensions for installation and completion of an automatic fire-prevention
sprinkler system at the St. Louis Park Senior High School. The latest extension would require
work to be completed at the Senior High School by January 1, 2001. With the passage of a
referendum in 1999, the Senior High School will conduct major renovations of the building.
If we were to require District #283 to install the automatic, fire-prevention sprinkler system in
the Senior High School at this time they would need to significantly modify the system during
the remodeling/ reconstruction. District #283 has submitted a schedule for the completion of the
required fire code items in the Senior High School. They have made substantial progress meeting
all their requirements in other schools and continue to cooperate fully with our fire and building
officials. Additionally, Life Safety systems such as alarms, area separations and adequate exiting
are in place. Therefore, the Fire Department supports the District #283 request that the State Fire
Marshal grant a further extension given the proposed completion of the system on or before
September 1, 2003.
Attachments: March 30, 2000 Letter
Resolution
Prepared by: Robert Gill, Fire Chief
John Lindstrom, Fire Marshal
Jennifer Schaefer, Administrative Assistant
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
78
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION GRANTING A
TIME EXTENSION FOR DISTRICT #283
WHEREAS, with the passage of a referendum in 1999, District #283 will conduct major
renovations of the St. Louis Park Senior High School; and
WHEREAS, the State Fire Marshal has granted two subsequent extensions for installation and
completion of an automatic fire-prevention sprinkler system at the Senior High School; and
WHEREAS, the latest extension would require work to be completed at the Senior High School
by January 1, 2001; and
WHEREAS, requirement of District #283 to install the automatic, fire-prevention sprinkler
system in the Senior High School at this time would significantly modify the system during
remodeling/ reconstruction; and
WHEREAS, Life Safety systems such as alarms, area separations and adequate exiting are in
place to reasonably protect occupant safety and failure to grant the requested extension would
result in unreasonable cost in remodeling; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City of St. Louis Park City Council the District
#283 request for the State Fire Marshal to grant a further extension of the proposed completion
of the St. Louis Park Senior High School system be completed on or before September 1, 2003.
Attest: Adopted by the City Council April 17, 2000
City Clerk Mayor
Reviewed for Administration:
City Manager
79
Item # 9a*
PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY COMMISSION
Minutes of Wednesday, January 12, 2000
Rec Center Gallery
MEMBERS PRESENT: Felt, Wright, Davidman, Tomoson, Norgaard, Dombrowski
MEMBERS ABSENT: Otteson
STAFF PRESENT: Walsh, Olson
1. CALL TO ORDER – Meeting was called to order by Ms. Felt at 7:00 p.m.
2. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE AGENDA – Addition to new business – brief orientation for new
members
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF DECEMBER 8, 1999 – Motion to approve by Ms. Wright,
seconded by Ms. Tomoson. The motion passed 6-0.
4. NEW BUSINESS
A) Fee Assistance Program: Ms. Walsh stated that the staff would like a recommendation
from the Commission on this item. Ms. Walsh distributed a survey of fee assistance
programs in other cities and information on last year’s fee assistance program. The Parks
and Recreation Advisory Commission has been raising some money through the Black
Tie Dinner for fee assistance. Otherwise, the money is currently coming from the general
budget fund and guidelines and parameters for the program would be helpful. Options
based on the survey included a matching fee between the resident and the City,
restrictions on certain activities that assistance would cover, and limiting the number of
dollars available per year. Mr. Davidman inquired if a person was allowed to enter a new
activity if they had not paid in full for the previous activity. Ms. Walsh replied that in the
past, they had been able to do so. Mr. Norgaard asked if fee assistance was granted based
on means. Ms. Walsh replied that such information was not public and therefore could
not refuse assistance to anyone based on what they indicated as their salary. Mr.
Dombrowski stated that he agreed with the example from Maple Grove, of providing a
matching fee and limit on the number of dollars provided per individual per year. Mr.
Davidman agreed with a matching contribution from the applicant. Ms. Felt that the
dollar limits for assistance should be researched. Ms. Walsh suggested that fee assistance
limits could be calculated seasonally or annually. Ms. Wright agreed. Mr. Norgaard was
concerned over the funding for the program. Ms. Walsh cited the example from New
Brighton on how field trips or camps were not subsidized because program fees only
cover the cost of supplies and it could not be considered cost effective. He stated his
concern for pool passes in the summer and felt that special consideration be taken in
80
determining the amount of assistance for them. Mr. Dombrowski felt that assistance
should not be offered if the applicant has not paid past fees (1999). Ms. Tomoson
disagreed and Ms. Felt also stated her concern with the reaction to that. Mr. Norgaard
stated that it should not apply to past late fees but only to the revised policy. Ms. Walsh
suggested that a letter be drafted after the policy is in effect to notify citizens of the
changes and the new guidelines. It was agreed that staff should begin work on drafting a
new policy. A draft would be brought to the Commission at their February meeting.
B) Scholarship Fund Raising Options: Ms. Wright was interested in hosting another silent
auction. Ms. Felt explained the black tie dinner to the new members. Mr. Davidman felt
that the event was a lot of work but was gaining popularity and attendance in the
community. Ms. Felt stated that the timeline was getting short and they would have to
decide soon whether to continue the event. Mr. Davidman emphasized the need to have
commitment from the entire Commission. Ms. Walsh suggested that there are other ways
to raise funds, citing the example of using a golf event. Ms. Wright felt that if the black
tie dinner was to continue that they must have a cut off date due to the amount of work on
the staff and the Commission. Mr. Norgaard was uncomfortable with the price of the
dinner and felt that there should only be an auction for a smaller price. The Commission
discussed other options, but agreed to plan another black tie dinner. Mr. Davidman was
to contact a potential speaker. The commission agreed to hold additional meetings to
begin preparations for the dinner.
C) New Member Orientation: Ms. Walsh suggested that the new members give their
expectations of the Commission. Ms. Felt gave examples of policy-making projects they
had been involved in. She stated that perhaps the Commission should be more reactive
and bring new ideas into the Commission. She stated that she would like to see citizens
become more aware of the Parks and Recreation Commission. Ms. Walsh suggested that
to become more visible, members could participate in community events. Mr. Davidman
stated that they could participate in the parade. Ms. Felt also suggested becoming
involved in task forces. Ms. Walsh stated that she would like to see the Commission
involved with the Oak Park Village Task Force.
Ms. Wright stated that she would like their meetings held in various parks when the
weather becomes warmer.
D) 2000 Work Plan: Ms. Walsh began by suggesting that the Commission become involved
in the planning of the Oak Park Village development. Mr. Dombrowski suggested that a
department brochure would be a good project. Ms. Walsh stated that a fee assistance
policy would come back to the Commission after staff reviewed it. Ms. Felt stated that
the plan should be kept fairly simple. It was decided that the item would come back at
the next meeting.
Mr. Davidman left the meeting at 8:30 p.m.
81
5. OLD BUSINESS:
A) Ms. Walsh briefly spoke about Oak Park Village and stated that she would like to
recommend to the City Council to include a member of the Parks and Recreation
Commission on the Task Force. She will be preparing a Request for Proposal (RFP) for
staff and City Council to review the qualifications of possible park planners.
6. COMMUNICATIONS
A) Chair - None
B) Commissioners - None
C) Program Report - None
D) Director’s Report:
◊ Council Update: Ms. Walsh reported that the City Council would like to meet with the
Commission to review the Commissions progress and goals. She suggested a
meeting in March to allow time to more thoroughly develop the 2000 work plan.
◊ Community Outreach: Ms. Walsh stated that she would still like to have the City’s
Community Outreach Coordinator Martha McDonell speak to the Commission
regarding the neighborhood grant program.
7. ADJOURNMENT - Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Ms. Wright and seconded
by Mr. Dombrowski. Motion passed 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:43 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kim Olson
Administrative Clerk
82
Item # 9b*
MINUTES
HOUSING AUTHORITY
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
Wednesday, March 15th, 2000
Council Chambers
5:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Catherine Courtney, William Gavzy, Judith Moore, Bridget Gothberg
and Shone Row
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Michele Schnitker, Sharon Anderson, Kathy Larsen, Cindy Stromberg and
Paula Jordan
OTHERS PRESENT:Barb McCormick, Ron Price, Shari Pleis, PPL; Perry Bolin, Architect;
Karl Lidstrom, Professional Risk Management and a representative for League of Women Voters
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 5:15 P.M.
2. Approval of the Minutes March 15th, 2000.
Commissioner Courtney noted that the Approval date for the Minutes
should be February 9th. Change noted and corrected.
Commissioner Courtney moved to approve the February 9th minutes.
Commissioner Gothberg seconded the motion. The motion was passed on a vote
of 4-0 with Commissioners Gavzy, Moore, Courtney and Gothberg voting in
favor. Commissioner Row arrived at the Board meeting a few minutes later.
3. Hearings: None
4. Reports and Committees: None
5. Unfinished Business : None
6. New Business
83
a. Insurance Awards
Michele Schnitker reported that the Authority's current insurance policies
with Integrity, through Hanna Agency. Inc., expires on April 1, 2000. Letters
soliciting bids were sent to seven agents who have previously expressed
interest in providing insurance, and three quotes were received. Ms.
Schnitker indicated that Carl Lidstrom, the Authority's risk consultant, was
present to answer any questions commissioners may have.
Sharon Anderson reported that a portion of the Hamilton House lot is in a
flood plain and that the Authority is required to carry flood insurance for
the structure. Ms. Anderson indicated that Mr. Lidstrom would report
on flood insurance.
Ms. Anderson stated that the Authority is named on the City's liability policy
wherein coverage for errors and omissions is provided under the Open
Meeting Law. The cost for this coverage is $507 for the period of 4/1/99 to
3/31/2000. The cost for the upcoming year is anticipated to be close to
that figure.
Carl Lidstrom reported that three proposals were received from the
incumbent, Hanna Agency, Inc., West St. Paul, Minnesota; Housing
Authority Insurance, Cheshire, Connecticut (HAI); and Northern Capital
Insurance, Bloomington, Minnesota.
Mr. Lidstrom noted that the current analysis does not include flood coverage,
which is provided through the National Flood Insurance program. The
estimated cost would be $1,857 if it is renewed in its current form and would
be the same cost from any insurance agent. This insurance is due to be
renewed on May 28, 2000.
Mr. Lidstrom reported that Housing Authority Insurance (HAI) did not
include a quotation for the $5 million umbrella liability policy. The
quotations from the Hanna Agency and Northern Capital both indicate the
cost for umbrella insurance is $2,600.
Mr. Lidstrom stated that the renewal offer from Integrity, through the Hanna
Agency, is higher than last year's cost primarily because of an increase in
property values.
Mr. Lidstrom's recommended that the Authority Board needs to determine if
they will continue to purchase the $5 million umbrella coverage for $2,600. If
the Authority chooses not to purchase the umbrella liability coverage, then
the award should be made to Housing Authority Insurance of Connecticut
(HAI).
84
Ms. Schnitker stated that staff is recommending that the Authority accept the
proposal of Integrity offered through the Hanna Agency at the rate of $11,496
for property, liability & crime; $790 for automobile; $6,822 for worker's
compensation; and $2,600 for the $5 million umbrella liability coverage.
Commissioner Gothberg moved to accept the insurance proposal from Integrity
through the Hanna Agency, Inc., West St. Paul, Minnesota. Commissioner
Moore seconded the motion. The motion was passed on a vote of 5-0 with
Commissioners Gavzy, Courtney, Gothberg, Moore and Row voting in favor.
b. Louisiana Court Redevelopment Project - Relocation Plan
Ms. Schnitker reported that Kathy Larsen would be giving the update on the
Louisiana Court Project. The Louisiana Court Management Plan and the
Construction Management Plan will be reviewed by the Board and
representatives from PPL.
Kathy Larsen reported that the Louisiana Court Project continues to move
forward. PPL has negotiated purchase agreements with all six owners for the
eleven properties that are to be acquired.
Ms. Larsen reported that PPL had notified the Louisiana Court tenants of
the ownership change. A Neighborhood meeting to discuss the project, was
held Wednesday, March 8th, with good tenant response. Another meeting is
recheduled for March 16th.
Ms. Larsen reported that PPL had submitted a final request to the MHFA/Family
Housing Fund. Ms. Larsen understands that MFHA has given PPL assurance that
this funding decision will be facilitated as quickly as possible.
Ms. Larsen noted that a PUD application has been proposed to accomodate minor
revisions to the project. The current plan increases the number of units from 122
to 127. The number of 3-bedroom units will be decreased from 14 to 12. The
number of 2-bedroom units will be increased by two, thus maintaining the larger
family sized units. In order to increase open green spaces, the number of proposed
parking spaces have been reduced. PPL is seeking a variance to achieve this.
Ms. Larsen reported that the Planning Commission, along with the Louisiana
Court neighbors, will be introduced to the Louisiana Court Project at an "Open
House" prior to the Planning Commission meeting on March 22, 2000.
Commissioner Moore asked why there was an increase in units from 122 to 127.
Barb McCormick, PPL replied that after Perry Bolin, Architect, had valuated the
floor plans in the building, it was found that by reconfiguring some of the space, it
85
would allow for more livable space for the tenant. An addition will be constructed
to one of the buildings resulting in fewer one-bedroom unit conversions.
Ms. Larsen reported on the City's representation on PPL's LLC Board of
Directors. The Redevelopment Contract allows for the City to have representation
to ensure that the City's and Housing Authority's input and concerns are addressed
on an ongoing basis. At this time the Council's selection has not been made. The
Board of Directors membership will be composed of six members.
Ms. Larsen reported on upcoming actions over the next six weeks. The drafts are
in the completion process, to be mailed prior to the April 12th meeting for the
boards review.
Michele Schnitker reported on the PPL Draft Relocation, Management and
Construction Management Plans.
Ms. Schnitker began with the Relocation Plan stating that Edie Vargus has been hired by PPL as
their relocation consultant. Ms. Vargas drafted the Relocation Plan for Louisiana Court,
which was presented to the tenants at a well-attended meeting. Ms. Schnitker and Ms.
Larsen attended this meeting as well.
Ms. Schnitker reviewed PPL's estimated relocation cost of $229,900, the cost
covered moving the 23 over-income households, 16 low-income households as
well as motel costs, meals, disconnect and reconnect phone fees, moving
company costs for and relocation consultant fees. This would be the worst case
scenario.
Questions by the Board on relocation, the human factor involved, tenants rights,
improvement requirements for health impaired tenants, time factors required for
improvements, and on waiting lists were brought to the table for discussion.
Ms. Schnitker reported that staff is proposing that the preferences for Section 8
be revised, with HUD's approval, to allow the sixteen (16) low-income
households with rents exceeding 30% of their income, to be given priority for
Section 8 assistance. This procedure would move those households to the top of
the waiting list. Staff would come back to the Board to propose the change to the
Section- 8 Administrative Plan. By implementing this change, the Louisiana
Court Project would save approximately $168,000 in relocation costs.
b.Louisiana Court Project
a. Management Plan
Michele Schnitker reviewed the major components of the management plan
for Louisiana Court. The Redevelopment Contract states that PPL is required to
86
seek annual approval of its management plan and budget. The staffing plan was
reviewed.
Ms. Schnitker reviewed comparisons of SLPHA's tenant selection criteria with
PPL's for non MHOP units which only deviates with number of years of rental
history (5 for SLP, 2 years for PPL). Reasons for rejections for non-MHOP
tenants were outlined.
Commissioner Gavzy made a recommendation that the same screening criteria
be used for MHOP units as well as non-MHOP units. By using the same number
of required years of rental history, the Authority would be less liable for being
sued for discrimination or for being arbitrary. Commissioner Gavzy also
requested that PPL's screening criteria be the same as the Housing Authority's.
Ms. Schnitker continued with rent collections and the differences between HUD
and PPL concerning late rent notices.
Commissioner Gavzy expressed his concern about staffing issues. If the site
manager and the assistance site manager are existing from PPL employees, they
should be known to the Authority.
Barb McCormick responded that Chris Knox is one of people that will be in the
management positions at Louisiana Court. Ms. McCormick indicated that the
staff would be introduced to the Board along with any staff that will be employed
for the project.
Commissioner Moore inquired about all existing tenants signing new leases and
wwhether this was necessary.
Barb McCormick responded that everyone must have a new lease along with
meeting all requirements for renting in Louisiana Court. This allows for
calculating rents and tenants understand the requirements set for renting with
PPL.
b. Louisiana Court- Construction Management Plan
Ms. Schnitker reported that PPL had submitted a request to act as construction
Manager (also know as General Contractor) for the renovation of Louisiana
Court. PPL had originally planned that their construction division would act as
the construction manager of the Project. However, discussions with the HA
resulted in the Development Agreement requirement that PPL "must retain a
third-party construction manager for the Project. The Authority and City may
waive the aforementioned requirement if the Redeveloper submits an alternative
construction management plan approved by the Authority and City."
87
Ms. Schnitker stated that the Authority expressed concern regarding PPL's
capability of handling the many facets of this project effectively.
Barb McCormick stated that the contract would be with PPL as the General
Contractor. The contracts with the subcontractors would be between PPL and the
the subcontractors, not the owner. PPL would guarantee the work.
Commissioner Gavzy asked who would represent the owner in the project to
insure that PPL is completing the project as required.
Barb McCormick stated that she would be representing the owner. The
combination of Ron Price, who is PPL's project manager and Jean Hoovey, Asset
Manager, will be attending the on-site inspection meetings and signing off on the
draw requests.
Perry Bolin, Construction Manager for the Project, stated that since he began,
PPL completed renovation of two similar buildings in St. Paul under his
management. Mr. Bolin assured that Board that punch lists and work will
be completed as contracted.
Commissioner Moore expressed concern regarding where the line of
responsibility lies between the Authority and PPL. How does the Authority
maintain it's requirements during the project and does the Authority have a set of
very fair requirements.
Ms. Schnitker stated that building inspections would assure that the scope of
work is done correctly and that, there has been some discussion that the
Authority hires an inspector on their behalf.
Commissioner Gavzy expressed concern regarding PPL being the General
Contractor, Construction Manager and the Owner's Representative. If PPL was
the General Contractor with a contract with an Ownership entity to complete all
the construction work for a fixed figure, and PPL had subcontractors completing
the plumbing and electrical work, Commissioner Gavzy would then want an
owner representative who was not PPL, this would bet an independent owner's
representative that was hired to represent both the interests of the ownership entity
but also the interests of the Housing Authority. That person would coordinate the
work between the general contractor, and if necessary, the property management,
complete inspections and sign off on the construction draws.
Commissioner Gavzy stated that without this type of plan for the Project, there
is an inherent conflict of interest. This plan would provide checks and balances
and provide accountability for PPL and the Authority.
Commissioner Gothberg was if full agreement with Commissioner Gavzy.
88
Commissioner Courtney made the suggestion of hiring an Inspecting Architect,
not a designer, to protect the Authority's interests and report to the Authority.
Barb McCormick, PPL, noted that by hiring an Inspecting Architect there would
be considerable added cost to the Project, but stated that PPL would consider
covering this cost provided that the cost is reasonable.
Ron Price, PPL, stated that there are firms that can provide an inspecting architect
for a fee of approximately $6,000, where there is a monthly review to assure that
the work is being completed
Commissioner Courtney made a proposal that the Authority approve PPL to act as
the General Contractor.
Barb McCormick, PPL, requested that there be a clear definition of the scope of
work expected by the city by the inspecting architect and what the fee will be.
Ms. Schnitker asked both the Commissioners and PPL if staff drafted an
agreement that stated that an Inspecting Architect would be hired to act on the
Authority's behalf. The HA would work with PPL to resolve the issue of funding
this position.
Barb McCormick stated that the only piece of information that is missing is how
much the funding will be for hiring an Inspecting Architect. In all due respect for
the quality of PPL's work and the issues related to how the City protects its
interests, and to complete this project well with an outside General Contractor,
it is worth it to her to make the commitment to for the Inspecting Architect.
d. Hamilton House Caretakers Contract.
Ms. Schnitker reported that the contract with Zinovy and Galina Savitskiy would
be terminating as of April 1st, 2000 and that the contract with James and Michele
Hested, who had given notice, ended on February 11, 2000. In an effort to allow
maintenance personnel to focus on work orders and more technical duties, staff
felt it necessary for additional cleaning items at Hamilton House to be included in
the contracts with the caretakers.
Staff is recommending that the Authority approve (1) a contract with Zinoviy
and Galina Savitskiy for $320 per month and free rental of Unit 222 beginning
April 1, 2000, and terminating on March 31, 2001 and a (2) a contract with
Janice Komar for $380 per month and free rental of Unit 422 beginning on
March 16, 2000, and terminating on March 31, 2001.
Commissioner Gavzy put the motion to a vote. The motion was passed on a vote
of 4-0 with Commissioners Courtney, Moore, Row and Gavzy voting in favor.
Commissioner Gothberg left for another meeting at 7:30PM.
89
e. Thrash Hauling Contract at Hamilton House.
Ms. Schnitker reported that the Authority's current contract with Waste
Management expires on March 31, 2000. The monthly fee for services is $257
plus taxes and service fees which covers furnishing and emptying one 2-yard
container of trash five days per week and furnishing, maintaining, and emptying
three recycling containers for newspapers and three recycling containers for
co-mingled recyclables on a day per week.
The current CIAP work included installing the building's new trash compactors at
Hamilton House. The cost of the compactor for the north trash chute was $8,000.
Staff has not been pleased with the operation of the compactor and has made a
decision to remove it. Maintenance found that trash removed could be handled by
placing the current dumpster under the chute, it could be rolled out and a clean
dumpster rolled back in place under the chute. This would eliminate the use and
the cost of the compactor.
It is recommended that the Authority approve a contract with Waste Management
for hauling trash and recyclables from Hamilton House at a fee of $335 per
month plus tax and service fees to begin on April 1, 2000, and terminate on
March 31, 2002.
Commissioner Gavzy moved to make a motion to approve the Trash Hauling
Contract for Hamilton House. Commissioner Courtney seconded the motion.
The motion was passed on a vote of 4-0 with Commissioners, Moore, Row,
Courtney, and Gavzy voting in favor.
Commissioner Moore suggested that because of the time needed to cover the
remaining reports, could Resolutions No. 473, 474 and the Agreement for
Accounting Services be, deferred to the April 12th meeting.
Ms. Schnitker agreeded that they would be deferred until the next meeting in
April.
7. Communications from the Executive Director
a. Claims List No 3-00
Commissioner Courtney moved to approve Claims List No. 3-00.
Commissioner Moore seconded the motion. The motion was passed on a vote
of 4-0 with Commissioners Row, Moore, Gavzy and Courtney voting in favor.
b. Communications
Home Renewal Program and Habitat Program
90
Ms. Schnitker gave the update on 2929 Ottawa. The house has been demolished.
Staff is now working with a new builder. Habitat for Humanity signed a purchase
agreement for the house at3116 Georgia. Closing is scheduled for March 31st.
Habitat agreed to clean up the site prior to closing.
8. Adjournment
Commissioner Gavzy moved to adjourn. Commissioner Courtney seconded the
motion. The motion passed on a vote of 4-0 with Commissioners Row, Moore,
Courtney, and Gavzy voting in favor. Meeting adjourned at 8:10PM.
Respectfully Submitted
______________________________
Shone Row
Secretary
91
Item # 9c*
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 22, 2000 --7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Michelle Bissonnette, Paul Carver, Michael Garelick,
Ken Gothberg, Dennis Morris, Jerry Timian
MEMBERS ABSENT: Sally Velick
STAFF PRESENT: Janet Jeremiah, Scott Moore, Sacha Peterson, Nancy Sells
1. Call to Order - Roll Call
Chair Carver called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
2. Approval of Minutes of February 16, 2000 and March 1, 2000
Commissioner Carver directed staff to correct the February 16, 2000 minutes by
replacing Carver’s votes with Velick’s, as Carver was absent from the meeting.
Mr. Gothberg moved approval of minutes of February 16, 2000 and March 1, 2000
subject to the correction of the February 16, 2000 minutes and the motion passed on a
vote of 6-0 with Bissonnette, Carver, Garelick, Gothberg, Morris, and Timian voting in
favor.
3. Public Hearings:
A. Case Nos. 00-14-S and 00-15-PUD - Request of CMS/Rottlund for Preliminary
Plat approval for Pointe West Commons One and Two and Preliminary Planned
Unit Development approval to permit the construction of a 127-unit hotel, 106-
unit extended stay hotel and 84 units of townhomes for property located at the
northwest quadrant of West 16th Street and Zarthan Avenue
Sacha Peterson, Planning Associate, presented a staff report. She stated that the
developer just submitted revised plans Monday the 20th to try to address some
issues, therefore staff is recommending continuation of the preliminary PUD and
Preliminary Plat.
Mr. Morris stated that the interchange doesn’t look like a workable traffic
situation and questioned whether it could work as one intersection.
Mr. Gothberg stated that he likes this concept plan better than previous plans.
92
Mr. Carver asked if the possible realignment of Zarthan Avenue would require a
redrafting regarding the additional land dedication from the plat.
Ms. Peterson stated that the proposed preliminary plat dedicates the necessary
right-of-way for the possible realignment.
Mr. Carver asked for clarification of the driveway that Mr. Morris questioned.
Mr. Morris explained his concern which is the position of the proposed
townhouse drive on Zarthan to the 16th/Zarthan intersection.
Chair Carver asked if the Planning Commission was opposed to continue the
public hearing.
The Planning Commission had no objection.
Chair Carver opened the public hearing.
Gary Bersheid, 1604 Blackstone, stated that he was concerned about promises
made by Honeywell and Ryan Construction and he is now skeptical of the new
development. He stated that he was concerned about the impact of increased
traffic on the neighborhood. He would like to see an inward orientation of the
units rather than an outward orientation which includes parking and creates noise.
He was concerned about the debris, noise and inconvenience of equipment at the
construction site. He recommended a clean-up crew. He was concerned about
the impact on the neighborhood.
Ms. Peterson stated that the City has asked the developer that an additional 17 feet
of right-of-way along 16th Street west of Zarthan be dedicated on the plat to
accommodate road widening for on-street parking, a boulevard and 6 foot
sidewalk. She added that staff could recommend several conditions to the PUD
and plat approval to minimize impacts of construction.
Ms. Bissonnette moved that this item be continued to the next Planning
Commission meeting on April 5, 2000. The motion passed 6-0 with Bissonnette,
Carver, Garelick, Gothberg, Morris and Timian voting in favor.
Chair Carver requested that the neighborhood be notified of the April 5th
Planning Commission meeting.
4. Old Business
A. Case No. 00-08-ZA - Miscellaneous Zoning Ordinance Amendments: Deferred 2-
16
93
• Variance/Zoning Administration - 2 year time for reapplying and changing
zoning administration from Director of Inspections to Planning and Zoning
Supervisor
• Permits for Fences and Parking Lots
• Height of Fences in Side Yards
• Private Indoor Entertainment with liquor permitted with Conditional use Permit
• Sign Ordinance requirement for sign permits
Scott Moore, Assistant Zoning Administrator, presented a staff report and
recommended approval, except that the Council has directed Staff to rescind
consideration of changes to fence height per Planning Commission’s concerns.
The Planning Commission supported changing the enforcing Officer of the
Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Morris opposed the concept of the need to obtain a permit prior to the
installation of a fence because of his concern about enforcement.
Mr. Gothberg supported requiring a permit prior to the installation of a fence to
ensure that people understand requirements and are prevented from building a
fence improperly.
Ms. Jeremiah elaborated on the intent of the requirement, which includes
documentation and tracking.
Chair Carver asked what kind of problems the City has seen in the last twelve
months. He questioned if there was a need to have signed documentation.
Mr. Moore gave the example of a situation regarding a fence, which ended up in
District Court. He stated that he has received numerous complaints and that there
have been numerous disputes in the last five years.
Mr. Morris asked about other cities which were surveyed on this issue. He asked
how many have ordinances.
Mr. Moore stated that eight cities were surveyed. Four of them required fence
permits and the fees range from a free permit to the highest being based on job
valuation.
Mr. Morris stated that the City should be balancing the need to create this
documentation with an event that is unlikely to happen. He expressed concern
over the property owner’s need to find their property line to produce a site plan.
Chair Carver agreed with Mr. Morris. He said he was not generally in favor of
permits and not in favor of more permits in the City. He doesn’t think that in this
94
particular instance the proposal meets the concerns. He said he believes the
proposed requirements create a burden for the property owner.
Mr. Moore stated that the site plan required wouldn’t be a certified copy of the
survey and that surveys are easily obtained from the City. He explained that in
absence of that, staff would accept a basic drawing showing location and height
requirements.
Mr. Garelick asked if the height requirements were similar to other suburbs.
Mr. Moore stated that the height requirements are fairly similar.
Mr. Garelick stated that fences have become very popular and he believes “how-
to” information should be made available to residents.
Chair Carver asked what the $15.00 fee was based upon.
Mr. Moore stated that the fee was based upon the amount of administrative time
required. He said the proposed fee was on the low end and would not completely
cover costs.
Chair Carver asked how many calls staff has received regarding fences.
Mr. Moore replied that he receives many calls this time of year.
Ms. Bissonnette stated that she would like to see a compromise on this issue.
Mr. Morris stated that the next level down from issuing a permit is to have an
approved site plan subject to review, but it is in the same format as having a
permit.
Mr. Garelick stated that if the City doesn’t take some leadership with this issue, it
will be at risk of not having anything in compliance.
There were no Planning Commission comments on requiring a permit prior to the
construction of a parking lot.
There were no Planning Commission comments on amending how the private
indoor entertainment land use is permitted.
Mr. Gothberg asked if there was a specific definition of what “any sign” means in
Section A of the discussion of relocating parts of the sign ordinance from the
Municipal Code into the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Moore answered that “any sign” means any sign that requires a permit.
95
There were no Planning Commission comments on deleting most of the sign
section of the Municipal Code.
Chair Carver proposed that all items be considered in one motion with the
exception of the fence permit.
Mr. Morris moved to recommend adoption of the proposed Zoning Ordinance
amendments concerning 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 in the staff report and to rescind
further consideration of fence height amendments. The motion passed 6-0 with
Bissonnette, Carver, Garelick, Gothberg, Morris and Timian voting in favor.
Mr. Morris moved to deny staff’s recommendation for adopting the proposed
fence permit ordinance. The motion failed 3-3 with Carver, Morris and Timian
voting in favor of the motion and Bissonnette, Garlick and Gothberg opposed to
the motion.
Chair Carver stated that he was in favor of the motion. He said that he was
amenable to a compromise position which did not require payment of a fee, but
which accomplished the provision of information. He stated that St. Louis Park
does a good job providing the fence information in the City handbook.
Mr. Garelick proposed a motion that the Planning Commission recommends to
staff the exploration and study of a compromise ordinance which would attempt
to meet some of the concerns that have been voiced.
Mr. Morris commented that the Commission could make a motion to delete the
issue from the agenda. He would like the City to adopt a more aggressive policy
of disseminating fence information. He said he can’t support the need for an
official review and permit process.
Ms. Jeremiah asked if the Commission’s concern was with site plan provision, use
of the permit terminology, or the fee. Mr. Morris responded that all three were
concerns.
Mr. Garelick moved to direct staff to reevaluate what has been proposed and
study a compromise ordinance which would attempt to meet some of the
concerns that have been voiced. The motion passed 5-0 with Bissonnette, Carver,
Garelick, Gothberg and Morris voting in favor. (Note: Mr. Timian left at 8:15
p.m.)
A. Case No. 00-09-ZA -- Zoning Ordinance Amendment: Deferred 2-16
• Definition for catering
Mr. Moore, Assistant Zoning Administrator presented a staff report.
96
Mr. Morris asked for clarification of the language in Section 10 regarding a
signed statement.
Mr. Moore indicated that this language was copied from the existing
manufacturing ordinance.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that all applicants sign assent forms agreeing to all the
conditions that are recommended, so this language is not unusual.
Mr. Morris questioned why catering service is designated as an accessory use in
the C2 district, rather than an allowable principal use. He understands this
requirement in the C1 District.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that most catering uses are accessory and that catering tends
to be more “industrial” in that it is a processing type of use including delivery
service. She said the other purpose of the designation was to preserve the
commercial districts for those uses which have a lot of direct customer contact,
which is in agreement with livable communities principles.
Mr. Morris asked the difference between having a catering service as opposed to
having a Domino’s carry-out, which is permitted.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that this was a good point and was one of the uses that staff
struggled with a bit. She stated that a pizza business is auto-based out of a
personal car and can involve direct customer pick-up as opposed to a catering
business which includes use of larger service vehicles and does not ordinarily
involve on-site customer service.
Mr. Garelick stated that he had done some research about the health issues related
to a catering business. The overall consensus was that there was no supervision
of those persons making things out of their home for health purposes. He wanted
to know how this provision differs from the state law health requirements for
catering.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that health requirements were separate from zoning
requirements and businesses need to obtain the appropriate food service licenses
through health sanitation staff.
Mr. Garelick asked if these amendments would restrict residents from having a
catering business out of their home.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that according to the current zoning ordinance, catering
businesses out of the home are allowed only under very limited circumstances.
Mr. Moore clarified home occupation requirements.
97
Mr. Gothberg moved to recommend adoption of the proposed Zoning Ordinance
amendment. The motion passed 4-1 with Bissonnette, Carver, Garelick, and
Gothberg voting in favor and Morris opposed.
5. New Business
A. Consent Agenda - None
B. Other New Business - Open House PPL/Louisiana Court Project - Concept Plans
There were no comments regarding the Open House.
6. Communications
A. Recent City Council Action - March 6, 2000 and March 20, 2000
B. Other
Mr. Morris said that he and Mr. Timian were concerned about the highly
restrictive licensing requirements in St. Louis Park. Ms. Jeremiah said that the
Inspections Dept. was revisiting this issue at City Council study sessions.
Mr. Carver stated that he has heard that some developers choose not to work in St.
Louis Park because of licensing requirements and he believes this is a worthwhile
issue to review.
Mr. Gothberg said he believes St. Louis Park’s reputation for good housing is
because of its inspections program.
7. Miscellaneous
A. Planning Commission Training handout
B. Residential Real Estate Activity Report - 1999 Edition
8. Adjournment
Chair Carver adjourned the meeting at 8:40 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Nancy Sells
Secretary
Prepared by:
Shirley Olson
Recording Secretary
98
Item # 9d*
City of St. Louis Park
Human Rights Commission
Meeting Minutes - January 19, 2000
First Floor Community Room - City Hall
______________________________________________________________________________
Present
Commission Members: Marc Berg, Kim Fischer, Lee Gross, Herb Isbin, Lynn Littlejohn,
Betty Merritt, and Chris Smith
Staff: Martha McDonell, staff liaison, and Lynn Schwartz, recording secretary
Guest: Kristin Siegesmund
Chairperson Marc Berg called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. New commission member Lynn
Littlejohn and student representative Lee Gross were introduced.
Approval of Minutes
Moved by Herb Isbin to revise the December minutes by deleting the word “since” from the
paragraph discussing award recipients. The motion was seconded by Lynn Littlejohn. Motion
passed unanimously. After a discussion, members agreed to make motions to append
appropriate items to the minutes so they can become part of the commission’s historical record.
Approval of Agenda
Moved by Betty Merritt and seconded by Kim Fischer to approve the agenda; motion passed
unanimously.
New Business
2000 Work Plan: Marc Berg reported that he had spoken with each commissioner to assemble
the list of possible projects included in the commission’s agenda packet. Betty Merritt noted that
the commission can’t do everything on this list and urged members to prioritize projects. Herb
Isbin stated that the commission needn’t limit its goals at this point. Berg asked commissioners
to refer to the commission’s mission statement when discussing work projects. Merritt noted
that the mission statement provides three strategies that could guide the work plan: 1) promote
equal opportunity, 2) thwart discrimination and 3) encourage appreciation for diversity. Isbin
said commissioners should also consider the bylaws when drafting the work plan.
Marc Berg asked commissioners how they might advise the City Council on human rights. Lee
Gross said he thought the City Council would like to see the commission work on more special
events. Betty Merritt asked whether the commission’s role is programming and, if so, what’s
meant by programming.
After a discussion, commissioners asked Martha McDonell to request a meeting with the City
Council at its February 28 study session to discuss 1999 accomplishments and preliminary
project ideas for 2000. Chris Smith urged all commissioners to try to attend this meeting.
99
Marc Berg asked what the commission might do to promote equal opportunity and thwart
discrimination. Herb Isbin said the commission should make school and preschool programs a
priority. Lynn Littlejohn agreed that schools should be a priority but added that the commission
should also look at what the City of St. Louis Park is doing as an employer. The commission
might do an assessment of the City’s efforts in affirmative action and recruitment, make
recommendations, and then check back after a year to see what progress has been made.
Martha McDonell suggested that the commission look at adult education on attitudes concerning
renters, NIMBY (not in my back yard), income diversity and the tone of public discourse when
these issues arise. One outcome might be encouraging more people to speak out against attitudes
that exclude people. Marc Berg suggested that the commission make a point of attending
neighborhood annual meetings as a starting point.
Marc Berg asked commission members what the commission could do to encourage an
appreciation of a diverse population. Lynn Littlejohn noted that the commission first needs to
ask whether St. Louis Park is a diverse community and how residents and non-residents perceive
St. Louis Park. Then it can ask whether St. Louis Park is a welcoming community and how it
could become more welcoming. Berg suggested that obtaining data on the community’s
diversity and learning about existing perceptions about St. Louis Park could point to possible
work projects.
Noting that most people would readily agree with the commission’s mission statement, Kristin
Siegesmund suggested that the commission be more specific in its efforts. As an example,
Siegesmund suggested that—rather than look at affordable housing—it work on improving racial
attitudes at Hamilton House by facilitating a diversity trainer to create a more welcoming
atmosphere there. Martha McDonell added that the commission might look at other groups
where logical connections could be made such as neighborhood associations, Hamilton House
and the Children First initiative. Lynn Littlejohn agreed that these efforts would make these
groups more aware of the commission and help the commission determine community needs.
Marc Berg asked commissioners how they might help individuals and institutions appreciate
diversity and thwart discrimination. Betty Merritt suggested that each commissioner link
him/herself with groups such as neighborhood association, schools, businesses,
churches/synagogues or non-profits/social service institutions. Kim Fischer said the commission
needs to be more of a ‘watchdog’ by being on hand at meetings or events when issues arise. Herb
Isbin suggested writing to the officers of neighborhood associations to state that the commission
is available. Martha McDonell suggested it might be more helpful to offer neighborhood groups
specific programming ideas since neighborhood associations frequently have only vague ideas
for projects, programs or events.
Marc Berg asked each commissioner to come up with at least three specific activities to propose
at the February meeting. After a discussion, projects will be selected and prioritized for the 2000
work plan. Berg instructed commissioners to consider this evening’s discussion, as well as the
commission’s mission and bylaws, when drafting the list. Commissioners should send their list
100
to Martha McDonell by February 10 so project ideas can be included in the February agenda
packet.
Old Business
1999 Human Rights Award: Marc Berg reported on the award presentation at the City Council
meeting. Chris Smith moved that the Martha McDonell’s summary on the award recipient’s
contributions be appended to the meeting minutes. Seconded by Herb Isbin. Motion passed
unanimously. Herb Isbin noted that he was not satisfied with the presentation event at the
January 3rd City Council meeting. Isbin said the commission’s outgoing chairperson should have
been mentioned at some point during the program.
Hate Crime Follow-Up: Marc Berg updated new members on two incidents the commission
has been following. Berg pointed out that the second incident did mark a change in the Police
Department’s response since they did attempt to follow up on the incident as a hate crime.
However, officers were unable to reach the victim. Several members noted that police officers
are supposed to routinely give out the Human Rights Commission’s phone number and hate
crime information at such times. They suggested that the Police Department mention the
response plan to officers throughout the year.
Martha McDonell noted that the commission’s response plan is incorrect in one area. She
reported that the Police Department followed the plan and reported the incident to the Minnesota
Department of Human Rights; however, the department has no jurisdiction. Moved by Marc
Berg and seconded by Herb Isbin to delete this language from the response plan. Instead, the
Minnesota League of Human Rights Commissions would be contacted only when deemed
appropriate. Motion passed unanimously. McDonell will make the correction and give the
corrected version to the Police Department.
Chris Smith suggested that the police may need an easier way to provide information to victims
of possible hate crimes. He urged the commission to create a business card size information
piece that lists the Human Right Commission’s phone number. This item will be added to the
February agenda.
Year-end Report: Herb Isbin suggested an alternate draft to Laurel Higgin’s report because he
felt the City Council would prefer a shorter version in outline form. Several members said they
prefer the narrative because they found the outline version too difficult to read. Isbin also
suggested that the report reference the meeting when the item was discussed. Marc Berg agreed
to rewrite Higgin’s draft and have it ready for the February meeting. Lynn Littlejohn suggested
organizing the report under headings to ease comprehension and aid skimming.
Herb Isbin suggested eliminating the section critical of the City Council’s appointment process.
Chris Smith agreed saying that the commission’s annual report should discuss only the actions of
the Human Rights Commission, not the City Council’s actions. However, Smith did feel the
commission should discuss their concern about the appointment process with the City Council at
the February 28th meeting.
101
Brochure: Lynn Littlejohn asked what the purpose of the brochure is. Members generally
agreed that the brochure should provide information about the commission. Given that, Lynn
Littlejohn asked why the information on Minnesota law is the first thing readers would see.
After discussion, Lee Gross moved to change the order of the brochure. Motion seconded by
Herb Isbin and passed unanimously. Moved by Betty Merritt and seconded by Chris Smith to
remove the middle panel boxes so that the statements read more easily and re-order the
statements so the order is 1) affirm, 2) school support and 3) refer. Motion passed unanimously.
Reports
Marc Berg reported that the League of Women Voters is seeking commission representatives at a
meeting set for Saturday, February 26th at 9:30 a.m. to discuss welcoming new immigrants.
Moved by Lynn Littlejohn and seconded by Marc Berg to adjourn. Motion passed unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lynn Schwartz, Recording Secretary
102
Item # 9e*
City of St. Louis Park
Human Rights Commission
Minutes - February 16, 2000
First Floor Community Room - City Hall
______________________________________________________________________________
Present
Commission Members: Marc Berg, Lee Gross, Herb Isbin, Lynn Littlejohn, Betty Merritt,
Chris Smith and Emily Wallace-Jackson
Staff: Martha McDonell, Commission Liaison, and Lynn Schwartz, Recording Secretary
Guest: Anne Mendel
Chairperson Marc Berg called the meeting to order at 7:06 p.m.
Approval of Minutes
Moved by Lynn Littlejohn and seconded by Herb Isbin to accept the January meeting minutes.
Motion passed unanimously.
Approval of Agenda
Commission members approved the agenda with the addition of welcoming the commission’s
new member.
New Business
Members introduced themselves to the commission’s new member Emily Wallace-Jackson.
Meeting with City Council: Martha McDonell reported that the commission will meet with the
City Council at its February 28th study session. Commission members should plan to attend the
session and be prepared to discuss the commission’s activities over the past year and its plans for
the coming year.
Old Business
2000 Work Plan: Marc Berg recapped the commission’s discussion to date and asked
commission members to present their priorities for the coming year’s work plan so a draft plan
can be prepared for the City Council study session.
Herb Isbin stated that he felt the commission need not limit its projects to a manageable number
that can be accomplished within the upcoming year; instead, Isbin suggested that commissioners
list as many projects as they wish and see how many they can accomplish. Marc Berg responded
that the work plan can be flexible to accommodate a larger number of projects but should still be
seen as manageable. Martha McDonell pointed out that a large number of projects can be listed
as long as they are prioritized; she also noted that projects can be added during the course of the
year.
103
Because Kim Fisher could not attend tonight’s meeting, Martha McDonell presented Fisher’s
ideas for the 2000 work plan:
Increase awareness of the commission’s name and services within the community
Establish on-going contact with social service and educational service organizations
Maintain ongoing contacts with other human rights organizations.
Lynn Littlejohn’s suggestions included:
Increasing public awareness of the commission’s services and mission
Remaining involved with the School District’s diversity initiative as outlined in its strategic
plan
Addressing diversity issues within city government and ensuring that inclusiveness and
diversity are part of city policy
Continuing to work with the Police Department in responding to bias/hate crimes.
Betty Merrit’s suggestions included:
Creating community partnerships—especially efforts targeted at young people
Continuing to work with the Police Department in improving its response to bias/hate crimes
Supporting the School District’s strategic plan concerning diversity issues
Sponsoring a community event
Raising awareness of the commission by submitting quarterly articles on diversity to the Sun-
Sailor newspaper.
Marc Berg’s suggestions included:
Having each commissioner serve as a liaison to another organization to foster regular contact
between the commission and community groups
Supporting the School District’s diversity efforts as outlined in its strategic plan
Increasing the commission’s visibility in the community
Involving the schools in commission projects (such as using student art in a Human Rights
Commission poster).
Emily Wallace-Jackson’s suggestions included:
Seeking input from teachers on the diversity and curriculum issues
Building relationships between the commission and St. Louis Park employers and
professional associations
Obtaining statistics and information from advocacy groups.
Chris Smith’s suggestions included:
Helping the Police Department carry out the commission’s bias/hate crime response plan
Supporting the School District’s strategic plan and related diversity efforts
Making the commission’s existence known to the public and educating people on where to
turn for support and resources.
Herb Isbin suggested that the ideas presented by other commissioners and the ideas contained in
his five page fax could be organized into four categories:
1. Community
104
2. St. Louis Park schools
3. Library
4. City government/city council/city departments
Marc Berg asked whether the library could be placed in the community category rather than
being a separate category. Isbin responded that the library offers unique educational
opportunities; however, it could be consolidated within the community category.
Anne Mendel noted that the commissioner’s ideas were organizational in emphasis and
suggested that the commission concentrate on more person-to-person contact so that individuals
might learn from one another and be enriched by diversity. She suggested that the commission
promote personal connections by promoting family exchanges, shared dinners or projects that
require people to work together. Betty Merritt stated that Mendel’s idea is excellent. Marc Berg
noted that Mendel’s ideas might work with neighborhood activities. Lee Gross suggested that
people might work together on the poster projects. Lynn Littlejohn added that the commission
can offer cultural events to foster social interactions.
Lee Gross suggested the following projects for the commission’s work plan:
Sponsoring public events—especially ‘intense’ events such as retreats that forge bonds
between participants
Targeting awareness efforts to younger students
Supporting the St. Louis Park School District’s strategic plan
Educating students on how to deal with conflict and advocate for themselves when school
officials make determinations about student conduct or problems.
Marc Berg then lead a discussion on arranging the project ideas under related themes. The group
came up with the following organizational structure:
School Support -
Continuing to support the School District’s strategic plan
Working with teachers and social workers to gain input and insight on diversity issues
Informing students about assistance and resources available within the community.
Government -
Supporting the Police Department’s efforts to better respond to bias/hate crime incidents
Promoting equal opportunity and employment within City government.
Community -
Raising awareness about the Human Rights Commission and its services such as the hotline
Promoting partnerships and liaisons with community organizations
Offering public events and programs.
Lee Gross urged the commission to structure these items by 1) issue, 2) problem, and 3) project.
Gross suggested that the commission look at the issues to create specific projects that address the
problems. Members agreed this was a good approach. Members also said it was important to
listen to the City Council’s input before formulating specific project plans.
105
Herb Isbin said the commission needs to obtain specific information on diversity within St. Louis
Park. Chris Smith disagreed stating that statistics aren’t necessary for the commission to
formulate projects that address community concerns. Smith pointed out that the important factor
isn’t numbers but how to bring people together. Emily Wallace-Jackson agreed stating that it’s
not the extent of the diversity, but the extent of the discrimination that’s relevant.
Annual Report: Marc Berg presented his update of the annual report, and members made
suggestions to improve wording and correct typographical errors. Moved by Betty Merritt and
seconded by Chris Smith to accept the report. Herb Isbin stated that he wished to submit his own
report because he wanted a report that listed all activities rather than only summarizing
highlights. Lynn Littlejohn felt it was more appropriate for the commission to submit a single
report. Smith added that he preferred Berg’s report because the City Council has already
received minutes on each meeting. Members agreed to submit Marc Berg’s report to the City
Council while recognizing that Herb Isbin will submit an alternative report.
League of Women Voters Forum: Marc Berg reminded commissioners about the upcoming
League of Women Voters forum on hospitality and welcoming new immigrants. Berg, Isbin and
McDonell will attend the session; Berg will be a panel participant.
Moved by Lynn Littlejohn and seconded by Chris Smith to adjourn. Motion passed
unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lynn Schwartz, Recording Secretary
106
Item # 9f*
April 7, 2000
VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
5 AND 10 GENERAL SUPPLIES 177.12
ABLE HOSE & RUBBER INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 41.94
ACE SUPPLY COMPANY INC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 208.65
ADVANTA BANK CORP OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 97.45
AIRTOUCH CELLULAR TELEPHONE 565.20
ALLIANCE MECHANICAL SERVICES I BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 1,884.00
ANCHOR PAPER CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 703.17
ARAMARK GENERAL SUPPLIES 47.36
ARAMARK UNIFORM CORPORATE
ACCT
GENERAL SUPPLIES 134.94
ARCADIA FINANCIAL LTD ADULT ATHLETIC/LEAGUES -
EXEMPT
115.00
ASPEN EQUIPMENT COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS 303.53
AUTOMATIC GARAGE DOOR CO BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 428.04
AUTOMATIC SYSTEMS INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 2,838.23
AUTOMOTIVE TECHNICIANS
NETWORK
SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 30.00
BAUER BUILT TIRE & BATTERY EQUIPMENT PARTS (35.87)
BOBS PERSONAL COFFEE SERVICE GENERAL SUPPLIES 56.98
BOYER TRUCK PARTS EQUIPMENT PARTS 17.87
BROADWAY RENTAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT (1.66)
BROCK WHITE CO LLC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 2,140.33
BUZZ TOOL & DIE CO OFFICE SUPPLIES 92.89
CALGON CARBON CORPORATION CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL
SUPPLY
22,493.00
CAROL DUNKAK-DUNERKIRCHEN INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
CARTRIDGE CARE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 247.71
COLLINS COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 727.36
CONCEPT SEATING INC GENERAL SUPPLIES (180.00)
CONN, KEVIN L STUDY INCENTIVE & MERIT PAY 243.10
CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS GENERAL SUPPLIES (938.10)
CONTINENTAL RESEARCH CORP GENERAL SUPPLIES 595.41
CRILEY, KATHI L TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 69.37
CUB FOODS GENERAL SUPPLIES 274.35
DALCO GENERAL SUPPLIES 737.69
DITCH WITCH OF MINNESOTA EQUIPMENT PARTS 14.45
DJ INVESTMENTS INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
E & S ELECTRONICS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 157.50
ECOLAB GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,242.43
ENGINEERING REPRO SYSTEMS GENERAL SUPPLIES 127.80
EPA AUDIO VISUAL INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 21.56
FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (15.67)
FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP POSTAGE 635.51
FLIKEID, TERRY GENERAL SUPPLIES 18.00
FLOYD TOTAL SECURITY GENERAL SUPPLIES 21.00
GALLAGHER & CO OF MN INC, A J WORKERS COMPENSATION
INSURANCE
25,709.00
GARDNER HARDWARE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 225.32
107
GENERAL SAFETY EQUIPMENT
CORP
EQUIPMENT PARTS (14.07)
GRAINGER INC, W W SMALL TOOLS 186.33
GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 468.27
GREGORY TERNYAK GENERAL SUPPLIES 25.00
HELICOPTER FLIGHT INC OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 227.50
HENN CO TREASURER SUBSISTENCE SERVICE 7,790.75
HIGHVIEW PLUMBING INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 2,139.15
HOME DEPOT GENERAL SUPPLIES 14.44
HOME HARDWARE GENERAL SUPPLIES 186.13
HUIRAS, SHIRLEY GENERAL SUPPLIES 214.47
MELANIE SCHUMACHER OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 50.00
MICHAEL C. WALTON INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
MINNESOTA ZOO OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 255.00
MN DRIVER & VEHICLE SVCS EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT
CHARGE
(46.00)
MOEN, LORETTA PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 190.00
MULCAHY CO INC, BERNARD J BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 1,102.28
NAPA AUTO PARTS EQUIPMENT PARTS 24.89
NORTHLAND ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 563.51
NSP CO ELECTRIC SERVICE 215.77
OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE SUPPLIES 681.70
OFFICE MAX OFFICE SUPPLIES 146.88
OTTO PACKAGING MIDWEST LLC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES (72.00)
PALMS BAKERY MEETING EXPENSE 101.00
PARTS PLUS EQUIPMENT PARTS (161.25)
POMPS TIRE SERVICE INC TIRES (159.75)
PRO PRODUCTS INC GENERAL SUPPLIES (92.32)
RC INDENTIFICATIONS GENERAL SUPPLIES 15.98
RESCUE ONE EQUIPMENT PARTS 2,934.08
ROBERT DAHL INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
RUTTGERS BAY LAKE LODGE TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 80.00
SCHARBER & SONS INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 79.77
SIEGEL DISPLAY PRODUCTS GENERAL SUPPLIES 932.81
SLP CRIME PREVENTION FUND UNREALIZED REV-SAFETY CAMP 0.00
SMILEY GLOTTER NYBERG PRINTING & PUBLISHING 91.54
STANDARD SPRING OF MPLS EQUIPMENT PARTS 271.37
STREICHER'S EQUIPMENT PARTS 234.14
SUE SANFORD OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 50.00
TAMARACK MATERIALS INC. GENERAL SUPPLIES 15.00
THYMES TWO CATERING MEETING EXPENSE 33.44
TOONEN, INC. DBA UPTOWN BAR ADULT ATHLETIC/LEAGUES -
EXEMPT
115.00
TRIARCO ARTS & CRAFTS GENERAL SUPPLIES 49.40
TRUE VALUE (PARK) EQUIPMENT PARTS 27.72
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 270.00
VEIT & COMPANY CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL
SERVICE
450.00
VESSEY & ASSOCIATES OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 300.00
VIKING INDUSTRIAL CENTER GENERAL SUPPLIES 259.05
WALSER FORD EQUIPMENT PARTS (71.81)
WARNING LITES OF MN INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 222.00
WASTE MANAGEMENT-BLAINE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL 133,148.10
108
SERVICE
WESLEY AND MARVETTA ADAMS YOUTH ATHLETICS/LEAGUES-exempt 20.00
WEST WELD GENERAL SUPPLIES 396.75
WESTSIDE EQUIPMENT BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 825.01
WILSONART INTERNATIONAL BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 1,040.29
WOLF CAMERA INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 68.00
ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE OFFICE SUPPLIES 160.03
ZIEGLER INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 836.32
ZIP PRINTING PRINTING & PUBLISHING 51.18
219,314.81
April 14, 2000
VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
ABM EQUIPMENT & SUPPLY INC MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT 154.43
AIRTOUCH CELLULAR TELEPHONE 2,317.48
ALBINSONS GENERAL SUPPLIES 74.47
ANCHOR PAPER CO OFFICE SUPPLIES 479.51
ANTONSON, DALE TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 132.70
APACHE GROUP OF MINNESOTA GENERAL SUPPLIES 729.84
ARAMARK UNIFORM CORPORATE
ACCT
GENERAL SUPPLIES 721.00
AUTOMATIC GARAGE DOOR CO BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 269.17
BACHMANS BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 107.57
BATTERIES PLUS EQUIPMENT PARTS 221.51
BAUER BUILT TIRE & BATTERY EQUIPMENT PARTS (35.87)
BEACON BALLFIELDS OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 97.32
BERTELSON OFFICE PRODUCTS OFFICE SUPPLIES 8.26
BLUE OCEAN SOFTWARE INC COMPUTER SUPPLIES 700.00
BROADWAY RENTAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT (1.66)
BROOKLYN CENTER POLICE
DEPARTM
TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 800.00
BROWN TRAFFIC PRODUCTS INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 111.83
BRUCE E. BLACK INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
BRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 707.61
BUREAU OF CRIMINAL
APPREHENSIO
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 48.00
BUREAU OF MEDIATION SERVICES TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 220.00
BUZZ TOOL & DIE CO EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 70.00
CANASPHERE INDUSTRIES LIMITED OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 1,975.00
CAPITOL COMMUNICATIONS RADIO COMMUNICATIONS 197.40
CENTER FOR ENERGY &
ENVIRONMEN
OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 574.00
CHENEY SIGNS OFFICE SUPPLIES 22.89
CHRIS LASH INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT MUNICI-PALS SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 175.00
CMI INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 261.78
COFFEE MILL INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 103.84
COMM ACTION FOR SUBURBAN
HENNE
OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 5,410.05
CONCEPT SEATING INC GENERAL SUPPLIES (180.00)
CONSECO FINANCE VENDOR SERV
CO
OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 751.89
CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS GENERAL SUPPLIES (938.10)
109
CONTINENTAL RESEARCH CORP LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 454.47
COPY EQUIPMENT GENERAL SUPPLIES 74.55
DALCO BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 93.90
DANKO EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT
CO
OFFICE FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT 9,330.13
DIGITAL BIOMETRICS INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 485.00
E.H. RENNER & SONS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 6,921.25
EDTECH EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 1,575.00
ELECTRIC PUMP WALDOR GROUP NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 9,901.31
ERV'S LAWN MOWER REPAIR SMALL TOOLS 9.42
FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (15.67)
FEED STORE OF WAYZATA GENERAL SUPPLIES 79.61
FLANAGAN SALES INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 920.37
GALINE & ZINOVIY SAVITSKIY INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
GASLINE PLUS INC HEATING 39.00
GENERAL SAFETY EQUIPMENT
CORP
EQUIPMENT PARTS (14.07)
GERALDINE MELLGREN INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
GLOCK INC. GENERAL SUPPLIES 22.39
GOVERNMENT TRAINING SERVICE TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 284.00
GREAT EVENTS PUBLISHING GENERAL SUPPLIES 63.25
GROUNDS MAINTENANCE
SERVICES
TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 118.00
HASLERUD, CARRIE GENERAL SUPPLIES 92.30
HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPT SUBSISTENCE SERVICE 468.48
HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER SUBSISTENCE SERVICE 7,790.75
HOME DEPOT/GECF GENERAL SUPPLIES 14.44
HOME HARDWARE GENERAL SUPPLIES 323.03
HYDRO SUPPLY COMPANY OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 318.44
I T L PATCH COMPANY GENERAL SUPPLIES 245.48
ICE SKATING INSTITUTE OF AMERI GENERAL SUPPLIES 70.50
ICI DULUX PAINT CENTERS GENERAL SUPPLIES 147.82
IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS OFFICE SUPPLIES 149.59
INDEPENDENT BLACK DIRT CO OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 263.98
INTOXIMETERS INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 43.00
J H LARSON COMPANY OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 707.86
J.P. HANDYMAN SERVICES CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL
SERVICE
75.00
JOHN W.TREFETHEN INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
JOI KENNEDY SPECIAL PROGRAMS 12.50
JUSTUS LUMBER COMPANY OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 557.01
KANSAS STATE BANK OF
MANHATTAN
CAPITALIZED INTEREST 2,636.74
KATHERINE T. & ANDREW L. RIVAR INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
KEVIN P. LIIMATTA INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
KNOX LUMBER OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 56.90
LAKESHORE LEARNING CENTER GENERAL SUPPLIES 21.09
LARSON SPORTS INC, GREG GENERAL SUPPLIES 24.90
LAWSON PRODUCTS INC MOTOR FUELS 93.12
LEAGUE OF MN CITIES GENERAL SUPPLIES 33.04
LEDCO EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 1,771.50
LIQUID ENGINEERING
CORPORATION
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 17,800.00
110
MASTERSON PERSONNEL INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,554.32
MC CONNELL, BECKY GENERAL SUPPLIES 210.00
MENARDS OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 11.15
METRO SALES INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 175.01
METRO WATER CONDITIONING INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 254.96
METROCALL TELEPHONE 53.19
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL SEWER AVAILABILITY CHARGE 2,178.00
MIND SHARP TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 129.00
MINN STATE TREASURER STATE SURCHARGE PAYABLE 3,186.44
MINNESOTA ASSOC. OF
PROPERTY/E
SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 25.00
MINNESOTA SOCIETY OF CPA'S OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 115.00
MINNESOTA WANNER OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 601.63
MN DRIVER & VEHICLE SVCS EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT
CHARGE
(46.00)
MN PIPE & EQUIPMENT SMALL TOOLS 438.88
N.T.O.A. TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 528.00
NAPA AUTO PARTS SMALL TOOLS 81.47
NORTH STAR TURF SUPPLY LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 614.05
NSP CO ELECTRIC SERVICE 68,703.27
OESTREICH, MARK MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 120.90
OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE SUPPLIES 1,699.91
ORKIN PEST CONTROL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 30.46
OTTO PACKAGING MIDWEST LLC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES (72.00)
OXYGEN SERVICE CO INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 456.23
PALMS BAKERY MEETING EXPENSE 19.20
PARK PET HOSPITAL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 639.00
PARK TAVERN CONCESSION SUPPLIES 35.89
PARTS PLUS EQUIPMENT PARTS (161.25)
PATRICIA LEARY INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
PERSONNEL DECISIONS
INTERNATIO
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 5,051.22
POMPS TIRE SERVICE INC TIRES (159.75)
PRENTICE HALL POSTAGE 60.96
PRO PRODUCTS INC GENERAL SUPPLIES (92.32)
QUANTERRA INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,100.00
QUILL CORPORATION OFFICE SUPPLIES 48.40
REYNOLDS WELDING SUPPLY CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 9.90
RIVER CITIES MECHANICAL INC. DEPOSITS PAYABLE 5,000.00
RUTTGERS BAY LAKE LODGE TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 240.00
SALONEK, MYRON TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 50.00
SAMPSON MILLER ADVERTISING
INC
GENERAL SUPPLIES 310.76
SCHWIETZ,JULIANNE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 534.10
SHAPIRO, LAWRENCE SPECIAL PROGRAMS 12.50
SLP CRIME PREVENTION FUND UNREALIZED REV-SAFETY CAMP 0.00
SONUS INTERIORS INC BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 4,120.00
SPS COMPANIES INC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 248.25
STAR TRIBUNE OTHER ADVERTISING 372.75
STRAND MFG COMPANY EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 235.83
STRATEGIES FOR BUSINESS AND
GO
TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 170.00
SUBURBAN PROPANE MOTOR FUELS 68.69
111
TEKSYSTEMS COMPUTER SERVICES 1,120.00
TENNANT EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 220.81
TWIN CITY OPTICAL GENERAL SUPPLIES 128.14
U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE 133.99
UNIFORMS UNLIMITED GENERAL SUPPLIES 2,805.99
UNIVERSITY OF MINN TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 320.00
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 50.00
VIKING OFFICE PRODUCTS OFFICE SUPPLIES 111.46
WALSER FORD EQUIPMENT PARTS (71.81)
WARNING LIGHTS TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 192.00
WILLIAMS STEEL & HDWE SMALL TOOLS 77.71
WM H MC COY PETROLEUM FUELS OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 106.88
186,704.47
April 17, 2000
VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK TRANSFERS 1,295,000.00
HUNTER, GLENN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 77.82
HYDRO SUPPLY COMPANY OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 1,636.20
ICI DULUX PAINT CENTERS BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 18.05
IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 182.37
J H LARSON COMPANY BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 1,355.39
J-CRAFT INC. MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT 43,422.38
JACOBS, JEFF TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 1,083.97
JUSTUS LUMBER COMPANY BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 499.23
LAKE SUPERIOR COLLEGE TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 1,300.00
LATHROP PAINT SUPPLY CO BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 524.84
LEAGUE MN CITIES INS TRUST OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 419.04
LONG LAKE POWER EQUIPMENT LUBRICANTS/ADDITIVES 31.89
MARGARET LATTERELL GENERAL CUSTOMERS 131.29
MASTERSON PERSONNEL INC MEETING EXPENSE 881.82
MENARDS EQUIPMENT PARTS 19.43
METRO SYSTEMS NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 1,772.98
METRO VOLLEYBALL OFFICIALS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 41.00
METROCALL SMALL TOOLS 499.47
MINN FORESTRY ASSOCIATION LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 133.98
MINNESOTA TORPHIES & GIFTS GENERAL SUPPLIES 20.24
MN DEPT OF LABOR & INDUSTRY LICENSES/TAXES 20.00
PARK NATIONAL BANK DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 107,731.27
1,456,802.66
112
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 11a
Meeting of April 17, 2000
11a. SRF Consulting Group, Inc. Agreement
This report considers approving an agreement with SRF Consulting Group, Inc. for
the planning and design work of Oak Hill area parks.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the resolution approving an agreement with SRF
Consulting Group, Inc. for the master plan design work of the
Oak Hill area parks.
Background
At the January 10, 2000 Study Session, Council discussed the planning process for Oak Hill area
parks. Since that time, staff sent out Request for Proposals (RFP) to obtain Master Plan proposals
from park development consultants.
The RFP included not only the Oak Park Village site, but also three additional parks (Oak Hill
Park, Walker Park, and Oregon Park) due to their close proximity to the Oak Park Village area.
This will ensure services are not duplicated.
Consultant Selection
A City staff panel consisting of Janet Jeremiah, Carlton Moore, Jim Vaughan, Rick Birno and
myself interviewed five reputable firms. Although we felt all five firms could complete the work,
it was our goal to find the best consulting firm to facilitate the master plan process. The panel
decided that SRF Consulting Group, Inc. was the top choice. The panel agreed that Barry Warner
and his staff at SRF are excellent at working with citizen groups and developing group consensus
when faced with difficult issues. SRF Consulting Group, Inc. also has a good reputation for
designing parks to fit the needs of the community. Barry Warner has committed to being present
at all of the task force and public meetings to facilitate discussion.
Cost of the Planning Process
The agreement with SRF Consulting Group, Inc. identifies that compensation shall not exceed
$25,000. Staff identified potential meetings and design work necessary to execute the master
planning process. The intent is for this phase to include only the design portion of the planning.
A later phase will then include engineering and construction over sight once the City has decided
to go forward with developing the park.
Task Force Appointments
The April/May edition of the Park Perspective includes an article which solicits volunteers for
the task force. It is planned to have the City Council appoint a task force at their May 1 meeting.
113
The first task force meeting is tentatively scheduled to occur on May 10 from 6:00-7:30p.m. The
task force will then meet monthly for approximately 5-6 months. There may be a one or two
month break after the first couple of meetings to provide SRF with time to do initial design work.
There are two Open Houses planned for residents to provide input and feedback on the plan. The
first would be scheduled early in the planning process to get input and the second would be held
later in the fall for residents to give feedback on two or three alternate plans that staff and the
task force have worked on. The agreement also calls for a couple of presentations to the Council
during the process to ensure that the Council is kept up to date on the progress of the task force.
This schedule is tentative and may change depending on individual task force member’s
schedules, consultant schedules and time needed in designs.
Finished Design
The first phases will result in the design of a master plan of the four park areas that the
community, staff, and City Council can endorse for future development. A cost estimate will also
be identified for construction of the agreed upon park plan. This plan can then be kept for a
future time when funds have been identified to develop the park.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution authorizing an agreement with SRF
Consulting Group, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $25,000.
Attachments: Resolution
Contract with SRF
Prepared by: Cindy S. Walsh, Parks and Recreation Director
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
114
RESOLUTION NO. _________
RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONTRACT WITH
SRF CONSULTING GROUP, INC. FOR THE MASTER
PLAN DESIGN WORK OF THE OAK HILL AREA PARKS
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park has decided that the Oak Park Village site will be
developed as park property; and
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park will transfer the property from the Economic
Development Authority to the City for the purpose of park development; and
WHEREAS, City staff has interviewed five reputable park development firms and
determined that SRF Consulting Group, Inc. is our first choice of firms to aid in the Master Plan
for the design of the Oak Hill park area; and
WHEREAS, SRF consulting Group, Inc. has quoted the price of their services and
prepared an agreement that would not exceed $25,000 for the planning process and design work.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, authorizes the contract with SRF Consulting Group, Inc. for the Oak Hill area
park development planning and design work not to exceed $25,000.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council April 17, 2000
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
115
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 11b*
Meeting of April 17, 2000
*11b. Bid Tabulation: 2000 Street Work Supplies
This report considers the purchase of bituminous patching materials.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to designate C.S. McCrossan, Inc. the lowest responsible
bidder for conventional and driveway bituminous mixture
No. 2340, and Midwest Asphalt the lowest responsible bidder for
bituminous cold patch material and authorize execution of
contracts with the firms in the amount of $60,125.00 and
$4,750.00, respectively.
Background: Bids were received on April 11, 2000 for furnishing bituminous patching
materials used for street repair as provided in the Street Division’s 2000 Operating Budget. An
advertisement for bids was published in the St. Louis Park Sun-Sailor on March 22 and 29, 2000
and in the Construction Bulletin on March 24, and March 31, 2000. A summary of the bid
results is as follows:
Plant Mix Bituminous Mixtures
(Price Per Ton)
Vendor
Bituminous
Mix 2340
Type 41B
Bituminous
Mix 2340
Type 41A
Bituminous
Cold
Patch
* C.S. McCrossan, Inc. $ 23.25 $ 24.25 No Bid
* Midwest Asphalt $ 25.00 $ 25.90 $ 47.50
Bituminous Roadways $ 25.50 $ 26.50 $ 50.00
Commercial Asphalt $ 26.35 $ 27.60 No Bid
1999 Price $ 19.00 $ 19.25 $ 42.50
Basis of Bids 500 tons 2,000 tons 100 tons
* Recommended Low Bid
116
Financial Considerations: As stipulated in the bid documents, travel time to and from the
asphalt plant is significant to the bid award. Current rates for a truck and operator are $50.31 per
hour. Following is an analysis of the bids considering plant location:
1. Round trip drive time from Louisiana Avenue and Minnetonka Boulevard to:
C.S. McCrossan, Inc. 43 minutes = 0.71 hour
Midwest Asphalt 36 minutes = 0.60 hour
Bituminous Roadways, Inc. 46 minutes = 0.76 hour
Commercial Asphalt Company 45 minutes = 0.75 hour
2. Cost per trip:
C.S. McCrossan, Inc. 0.71 hour x $50.31/hour = $35.72
Midwest Asphalt 0.60 hour x $50.31/hour = $30.19
Bituminous Roadways, Inc. 0.76 hour x $50.31/hour = $38.24
Commercial Asphalt Company 0.75 hour x $50.31/hour = $37.73
3. Total cost per ton: Basis of calculation - 8 tons per trip.
Vendor
Bituminous Mix 2340
Type41B
500 tons
Bituminous Mix 2340
Type 41A
2000 tons
Bituminous Cold
Patch
100 tons
C.S. McCrossan, Inc $27.72
$28.72 No Bid
(($23.25x8)+$35.72)÷8) (($24.25x8)+$35.72)÷8)
Midwest Asphalt
Corp.
$28.77 $29.67 $51.27
(($25.00x8)+$30.19)÷8) (($25.90x8)+$30.19)÷8) (($47.50x8)+$30.19)÷8)
Bituminous
Roadways, Inc.
$30.28 $31.28 $54.78
(($25.50x8)+$38.24)÷8) (($26.50x8)+$38.24)÷8) (($50.00x8)+$38.24)÷8)
Commercial Asphalt
Co.
$31.07 $32.32 No Bid
(($26.35x8)+$37.73)÷8) (($27.60x8)+$37.73)÷8)
* Lowest Cost in Bold
Based upon the information provided, the lowest total cost for the two (2) 2340 specification
bituminous mixtures is incurred when the mixtures are picked up at the C.S. McCrossan, Inc.
facility. The lowest total cost for bituminous cold patch is experienced when the material is
picked up at the Midwest Asphalt Corp. facility. Accordingly, staff recommends the 2340
specification bituminous mixture supply contract be awarded to C.S. McCrossan, Inc. and the
117
bituminous cold patch supply contract be awarded to Midwest Asphalt Corp. If the contracts are
awarded as recommended, the total 2340 specification bituminous mixture cost for 2000 will be
$60,125.00. When the 2340 specification bituminous mixture cost is combined with the cost of
bituminous cold patch material ($4,750.00 as bid by Midwest Asphalt Corp.), the 2000 estimated
bituminous material expenditures will be approximately $64,875.00.
The 2000 Street Division Operating Budget for the bituminous materials is $59,030. The bid
amount is derived using the estimated quantities and the bid unit price. The actual quantity to be
used shall be reduced so as not to exceed the budget amount. If this is not possible, a budget
revision will be requested to cover the additional expenses.
Prepared by: Scott Merkley, Public Works Coordinator
Through: Michael Rardin, Public Works Director
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager