HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000/05/15 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Regular 1
AGENDA - CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
May 15, 2000
7:30 p.m.
7:15 p.m. - Economic Development Authority
1. Call to order
2. Presentation
a. Relay for Life Presentation by the American Cancer Society
b. Poppy Days Proclaimation
c. Years of Service Presentation
3. Roll Call
4. Approval of Minutes
a. City Council Minutes of May 1, 2000
Action: Corrections/amendments to minutes - Minutes approved as presented
b. Study Session Minutes of April 24, 2000
Action: Corrections/amendments to minutes - Minutes approved as presented
5. Approval of agenda
a. Consent agenda
Note: All matters on consent (starred items) are considered to be routine and will be enacted by
one motion approving all. There is no separate discussion of these items. If discussion is
desired, the starred item will be moved to the regular agenda.
Action: Motion to approve - Motion to delete item(s)
b. Agenda
Action: Motion to approve - Motion to add item(s)
*c. Resolutions and Ordinances
2
Action: By consent, waive reading of resolutions and ordinances
6. Public Hearing
6a. Public Hearing to Consider Currency Exchange License Application
City Council Concurrence for State Currency Exchange License Application at
8132 Highway 7 (Knollwood Shopping Center) by Community Money Centers,
Inc., dba “Money Centers”
Recommended
Action:
Mayor to close the public hearing. Motion to notify the State of
City approval.
7. Petitions, Requests, Communications
8. Resolutions and Ordinances
8a. Firefighter Contract Changes for 1/1/00 – 12/31/00
A two year agreement for Firefighters was reached settling the City and Union for
1/1/00 through 12/31/01.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the resolution approving a Labor Agreement
between the City and International Association of Firefighters
Local #993, establishing terms and conditions of employment for
the duration of 1/1/00 – 12/31/01.
8b. Request by Project for Pride in Living for Final Planned Unit Development
approval and an Amendment to the approved Preliminary PUD for certain
Louisiana Court apartments
Case No. 00-18-PUD and 00-19-VAR
2704-2768 Louisiana Court and 2740-2750 Louisiana Avenue
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt a resolution approving a Final PUD and an
Amendment to the approved Preliminary PUD for Louisiana
Court apartments, subject to conditions in the resolution.
8c City Engineer’s Report: Proposed Improvements to Reduce Traffic
Congestion and Accidents on Louisiana Avenue between the Burlington
Northern Railroad Bridge and Minnetonka Boulevard. Project No. 00-13
This report considers the implementation of traffic management alternatives to
reduce traffic congestion and accidents on Louisiana Avenue.
Recommended Motion to adopt the attached resolution approving Alternate No.
3
Action: 2, accepting this report, establishing Project No. 00-13, ordering
Project No. 00-13, approving plans and specifications, and
authorizing receipt of bids.
8d City Engineer’s Report: Storm Water Flood Area No. 11 – Improvements at
Nelson Park – Project No. 00-06; Flood Area No. 12 – Improvements at 2916
Maryland Avenue South – Project No. 00-02; Flood Area No. 17 –
Improvements in alley behind 3363 Zarthan Avenue, Project No. 00-04.
This report considers public improvements in Nelson Park to address the public
portion of the storm water in Flood Area No. 11; public improvements at the City-
owned lot at 2916 Maryland Ave. South in Flood Area No. 12; and public
improvements in alley behind 3363 Zarthan Avenue, Flood Area No. 17.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the attached resolution accepting this report,
establishing Project No.’s 00-06, 00-02, and 00-04, ordering
Project No.’s 00-06, 00-02, and 00-04, approving plans and
specifications, and authorizing receipt of bids.
*8e. Resolution Adopting a Sanitary Sewer Service Line Backwater Valve Pilot
Program
This action would establish a pilot program in which the City would participate in
the cost to furnish and install backwater valves in sanitary sewer service lines at ten
(10) identified properties.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the attached resolution approving the “Sanitary
Sewer Service Line Backwater Valve Pilot Program”.
*8f. Request by MSP Real Estate, Inc. for a Minor Amendment to the approved
Planned Unit Development for Mill City Apartments for changes to approved
Building Elevations
Case Nos. 00-35-PUD and 00-37-S
7301 Walker Street
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt a resolution approving a Minor Amendment to
the approved Planned Unit Development for Mill City
Apartments, subject to conditions in the resolution.
*8g. Miscellaneous Zoning Ordinance amendments pertaining to extending the
time limit for variance re-applications, enforcing officer, requiring permits for
fences and parking lots, how private indoor entertainment w/liquor is
permitted, relocating permits for signs, and the deletion of the sign ordinance
in the Municipal Code with retention in the Zoning Ordinance.
4
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments,
approve summary, and authorize publication.
*8h. Creating a definition for a catering land use, establishing which zoning
districts to permit a catering business, and determining a parking requirement
for a catering operation.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments,
approve the summary, and authorize publication.
*8i. Park Center Boulevard Housing TIF District
This report considers a technical correction to the Modification of the Park Center
Housing Tax Increment Financing Plan.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the Resolution Clarifying the Parcels to be
Included in the Modification to the Park Center Housing TIF
District.
9. Reports from Officers, Boards, Committees
*a. Charter Commission Minutes of January 12, 2000
*b. Planning Commission Minutes of April 5, 2000
*c. Housing Authority Minutes of April 12, 2000
*d. Vendor Claims
Action: By consent, accept reports for filing
10. Unfinished Business
11. New Business
*11a. Bid Tabulation: City-Wide Random Curb and Gutter Repair Work – City
Project No. 00-01
This report considers awarding a contract for City-wide random concrete curb and
gutter repairs.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to designate Ti-Zack Concrete, Inc. the lowest
responsible bidder and authorize execution of a contract with the
firm in the amount of $26,275.70.
5
*11b. Bid Tabulation: 2000 Contract Sealcoating
This report considers awarding a contract for the sealcoating of designated
bituminous streets within the City of St. Louis Park to Bituminous Roadways, Inc.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to designate Bituminous Roadways, Inc. the lowest
responsible bidder for the construction of bituminous sealcoating
and to authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the amount
of $59,237.78.
*11c. Consultant Retention for Assistance in Pavement Condition Evaluation
This report considers the retention of a Consultant to perform pavement surface
ratings on roadways under the City’s jurisdiction.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to Authorize Mayor and City Manager to execute a
Contract with Goodpointe Technology Corporation to perform
pavement surface evaluation services on the City’s roadway
system.
*11d. Renewal of insurance agent contract
A.J. Gallagher & Co of MN, Inc. has submitted the proposal for agent fees
effective 4-1-00 to 4-1-01.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to renew insurance agent contract.
*11e. Frauenshuh Development Contract Amendment
This report considers approving the First Amendment to the Redevelopment
Contract with Frauenshuh and increases the construction start and end dates by one
year on the medical office building.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve the First Amendment to Contract for Private
Redevelopment between the City of St. Louis Park, the
Economic Development Authority, and DRF L-7 LLC.
12. Miscellaneous
13. Claims, Appropriations, Contract Payments
14. Communications
6
15. Adjournment
7
Item # 4a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
May 1, 2000
1. Call to Order
Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
2. Presentations
a. Employee Recognition
Mayor Jacobs thanked and recognized the following police officers with a plaque for their
dedicated service to the City of St. Louis Park: John Fitzgerald, Jim Jezierski, Bill Shook, Glenn
Hunter, and Greg Loiselle
b. Jim Rhodes Appreciation Proclamation
Mayor Jacobs presented the Arts Education Leadership 2000 Award to Jim Rhodes.
c. Holocaust Days of Remembrance Proclamation
Mayor Jacobs read a proclamation designating April 30 - May 8th as the Days of Remembrance
of the victims of the Holocaust
3. Roll Call
The following Councilmembers were present at roll call: Jim Brimeyer, Ron Latz, Chris Nelson,
Sue Sanger, Sue Santa, Robert Young, and Mayor Jeff Jacobs.
Also present were the City Manager (Mr. Meyer); City Attorney (Mr. Scott); Community
Development Director (Mr. Harmening); Assistant Zoning Administrator (Mr. Moore); Planning
Manager (Ms. Jeremiah); Director of Public Works (Cindy Walsh); Human Resources Manager
(Nancy Gohman); Planning Associate (Ms. Peterson); and Recording Secretary (Ms. Olson).
4. Approval of Minutes
a. Study Session Minutes of April 10, 2000
The minutes were approved as presented.
b. City Council Minutes of April 17, 2000
The minutes were approved as presented.
8
5. Approval of Agendas
a. Consent Agenda.
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to approve the
consent agenda. The motion passed 7-0.
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Latz, 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. Continuation of public hearing and resolution approving transfer of control
of the St. Louis Park cable television franchise
Terry Judson, 3016 Lynn Avenue, asked several questions regarding the problems between
Disney, ABC and Time Warner which led to the national news story. He suggested that a
schedule channel (TV Guide Channel) be reinstated since they have one in the Media One
suburbs of St. Paul.
Lance Leupold of Time Warner stated that the problems with ABC didn’t apply in our market
because the agreements are still in force, and the negotiations were ongoing because Time
Warner was seeking to keep costs reasonable for their customers.
Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing with the right of the Council to reopen it at a future date.
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer, to adopt the
accompanying resolution approving the proposed transfer of the City’s cable television franchise
from Time Warner Cable to a new parent company, AOL Time Warner. The motion passed 6-0-
1. Councilmember Latz abstained due to a possible conflict of interest.
7. Petitions, Requests, Communications - None
8. Resolutions and Ordinances
8a. Resolution Implementing Employee Recognition Programs
Nancy Gohman, Human Resource Manager presented a staff report.
It was moved by Councilmember Brimeyer, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to approve the
resolution adopting and approving funding for the Departing Employee Recognition Program,
the Employee Service Recognition Program and the Annual Recognition Banquet. The motion
passed 7-0.
9
8b. Resolution establishing a task force to assist in the development of a Master
Plan for the Oak Hill area parks
Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation presented a staff report.
Councilmember Santa asked if there was a youth representative on the task force.
Ms. Walsh stated that there was not a youth representative on the task force, but believed it
would be a good idea.
Councilmember Latz suggested that a representative from the Lenox neighborhood be included
on the task force.
It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Latz, to adopt the
resolution establishing the Oak Hill Area Parks Task Force. The motion passed 7-0.
8c. Request by Benilde St. Margaret’s School for a Special Permit Amendment
and Five-foot height variance for building height in the R-1 Zoning District
to permit a building expansion and site improvements
Case No. 00-20-CUP and 00-21-VAR
2501 South Highway 100
Sacha Peterson, Planning Associate presented a staff report and recommended approval of the
variance request, subject to conditions in the resolution, and recommended approval of the
Special Permit Amendment, subject to conditions in the resolution.
Duane Krohmke, 2505 Princeton Court, President of the Princeton Court Association, stated that
the association supported the plan, but desired flexibility of the placement of the trees on the
bufferyard between the school property and Princeton Court.
Councilmember Sanger supported the plan and commended staff. She recommended some
shielding behind the light for the proposed cross so that it does not spill over into the
neighborhood.
Bill Hamburge, Benilde St. Margaret stated that he has been in conversation with
Councilmember Sanger about this issue.
Councilmember Brimeyer asked staff if a provision was made for the trail easement and how
does it connect to the park.
Ms. Peterson clarified that the exact location of the trail has not been determined, but staff
wanted to put some assurance in the resolution.
The Council discussed Item 4f in the resolution related to a trail easement.
Councilmember Latz was concerned that there may be a problem in the future.
10
Mr. Meyer, City Manager stated that it was his understanding that if the City had a defined
location for an easement, Benilde would be willing to grant it, but absent a defined location for
an easement, they were a little concerned that guaranteeing an easement where they have no
control over its location which would be disconcerting.
Councilmember Sanger asked how long it would take between the City and Benilde to decide
what might be an acceptable location for the trail easement.
Mr. Hamburg stated that he has been involved with the Parks and Recreation Department, but
has not seen a trail plan. He stated that Benilde was committed to working with the City and
neighbors to connect trail.
It was the consensus of the Council not to modify the original language of item 4f.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to adopt the
resolution approving a Special Permit Amendment and five foot building height variance, subject
to conditions in the resolutions with original language in Item 4f. The motion passed 7-0.
8d. Resolution setting fees for sign, fence and parking lot permits
Scott Moore, Assistant Zoning Administrator presented a staff report.
It was moved by Councilmember Young, seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer, to adopt the
resolution establishing fees for sign, fence and parking lot permits. The motion passed 7-0.
8e. Request by CSM/Rottlund for Preliminary Plat and Preliminary Planned
Unit Development approval for Pointe West Commons One and Two,
including development of 127-unit and 106-unit hotels, 84 townhomes, and a
neighborhood park
Case Nos. 00-14-S and 00-15-PUD
Northwest quadrant of West 16th Street and Zarthan Avenue
Sacha Peterson, Planning Associate presented a staff report and recommended approval of the
preliminary plat and preliminary PUD, subject to the conditions in the resolution.
Cindy Walsh, Director of Public Works, stated that it would be difficult to accommodate the
request for the neighborhood concern about the park will be developed next year.
Hans Widmer, 1601 Alabama Avenue South, was concerned about increased traffic, safety of
children, and not having the park available for the neighborhood during the construction. He
was opposed to the alternative traffic patterns on to Alabama and 16th Street.
Gary Berscheid, 1604 Blackstone Avenue South, was concerned about increased traffic and how
it would be handled. He recommended options for the Alabama access which included making it
a one-way in or used for emergency vehicles only. He recommended an alternative
configuration of the townhomes to change the location of the roadway. He was concerned about
the neighborhood children not having a park this summer and suggested constructing a
temporary park.
11
Ms. Peterson confirmed that two full emergency accesses were needed and a one-way may not
be possible because of the requirement to allow residents to leave when there was an emergency
and would be hard to enforce. Staff has met with developer to discuss reconfiguration and too
close together
Terry Judson, 3016 Lynn Avenue, asked if there any units set for affordable housing.
Mayor Jacobs stated that this development was not an affordable housing project.
Dan Hulke, 1600 Alabama Avenue South, was concerned about the loss of the park over the
summer and increased traffic. He suggested the placement of knock down posts at the Alabama
access.
Ms. Walsh, Parks and Recreation Director, stated that there were several significant issues
included timing and funding that needed to be worked out with the developer and residents
before a park could be determined.
Councilmember Sanger asked the developer about the timing of the construction.
Richard Palmiter of Rottlund Companies explained the timing of the project and issues that were
determining the phases of development.
Jim Body, 1601 Blackstone Avenue South, was concerned about the widening of 16th Street for
additional on street parking.
Ms. Peterson stated that this project would be done by the City at the same time as the
townhouse development.
Councilmember Sanger was in support of the project, but believed the issues that the residents
raised were valid with respect to traffic and driveway on Alabama. She agreed that there needs
to be emergency access, but didn’t agree that having full access the way it was proposed now
was necessary the only way to do it. She asked staff to consult with the traffic consultant with
respect to the suggestion of one-way access into the development to check the feasibility and the
approach for the soft post for another alternative.
Mr. Harmening, Community Development Coordinator, stated that if the issue was traffic
suggesting a one-way was a solution that long term wouldn’t mean anything because it would be
disregarded. He stated that staff would ask the traffic consultant about the suggestions.
Councilmember Young stated that the townhome residents were entitled to have access to their
property and was not in favor of the one-way alternative.
Councilmember Sanger suggested that if there was a way to leave the existing park in place until
the new park was created this would be highly preferable.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer, to adopt a
resolution approving preliminary plat and preliminary Planned Unit Development for Pointe
West Commons One and Two, subject to conditions in the resolution. The motion passed 7-0.
12
8f. Miscellaneous Zoning Ordinance amendments pertaining to extending the
time limit for variance re-applications, enforcing officer, requiring permits
for fences and parking lots, how private indoor entertainment w/liquor is
permitted, relocating permits for signs from the Municipal Code to the
Zoning Ordinance, and the deletion of the sign ordinance in the Municipal
Code with retention in the Zoning Ordinance.
Scott Moore, Assistant Zoning Administrator presented a staff report and recommended approval
after corrections were made as recommended.
Councilmember Sanger questioned if the site plan that was required for fence permit could be
informal.
Mr. Moore stated that the site plan would not have to be professionally designed, but just a basic
site or sketch plan of the property and where and how the fence was going to be installed.
It was moved by Councilmember Latz, seconded by Councilmember Nelson, to adopt the first
reading of the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments and set second reading for May 15,
2000. The motion passed 7-0.
8g. Creating a definition for a catering land use, establishing which zoning
districts to permit a catering business, and determining a parking
requirement for a catering operation
Scott Moore, Assistant Zoning Administrator presented a staff report and recommended
approval.
Councilmember Sanger asked how a caterer would be differentiated from a personal chef.
Mr. Moore stated that a personal chef use would not fall into the proposed catering definition.
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Young, to recommend
adoption of first reading of the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments and to set second
reading for May 15, 2000. The motion passed 7-0.
8h. Second Reading of an ordinance authorizing the 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
It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Latz, to adopt the second
reading of an ordinance that authorizes the sale of a City-owned property located at 3554
Louisiana Avenue to MSP SLP Apartments, LLC and to authorize the publication of summary
ordinance. The motion passed 7-0.
8i. MSP Real Estate Development Contract Amendment
13
By consent, Council approved the First Amendment to contract for Private Redevelopment
between the ST. Louis Park EDA, the City of ST. Louis Park and MSP SLP Apartments, LLC
increasing the maximum amount of TIF to $3,531, 853 for the Mill City Apartment project.
8j. City of St. Louis Park’s Representation on the Board of Managers for
Project for Pride in Living’s Louisiana Court Limited Liability Company
By consent, Council adopted a Resolution designating Council Member Ron Latz as the City of
St. Louis Park’s representative to the Board of Managers of Project for Pride in Living’s
Louisiana Court Limited Liability Company.
8k. City Engineer’s Report: Entrance/identity signs at Park Place Boulevard
and the South Frontage Road of I-394 - Project No. 98-16
By consent, Council adopted the resolution accepting this report, establishing Project No. 98-16,
ordering Project No. 98-16, approving plans and specifications, and authorizing receipt of bids.
8l. Consideration of a resolution denying the applicant’s request for a height
variance and granting a modified variance to permit an accessory building
two feet from a side lot line with a maximum height of 16 feet instead of the
permitted 12 feet for property located at 4312 Coolidge Avenue
By consent, Council adopted a resolution denying the applicant’s request for a variance and
granting a variance from section 14:5-4.1(c)(7)(d) and (f) of the ordinance code relating to
zoning, to permit an accessory building located within two feet of a side lot line with a maximum
height of 16 feet 0 inches instead of the permitted 12 feet for property located in the r-2, single
family district at 4312 Coolidge Avenue.
9. Reports from Officers, Boards, Committees
a. Human Rights Commission Minutes of March 15, 2000
b. Vendor Claim Report
By consent, Council accepted all reports for filing.
10. Unfinished Business - None
11. New Business
11a. Authorization to replace dehumidification system in the west arena at the
Rec Center
By consent, Council approved replacement of the dehumidification system in the west arena at
the Rec Center using 1999 General Obligation Bond proceeds.
11b. Metropolitan Livable Communities Act - Local Housing Incentive Account
Grant Agreement
14
By consent, Council authorized execution of the Livable Communities Act Local Housing
Incentive Account (LHIA) Grant Agreement by the Mayor and City Manager.
12. Miscellaneous
Ted Mondale was present and indicated that Met Council accepted the City’s proposal of the
Livable Communities Housing Incentive Fund.
13. Claims, Appropriations, Contract Payments - None
14. Communications
>From the City Manager - None
>From the Mayor - None
15. Adjournment
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to adjourn the
meeting at 9:29 p.m. The motion passed 7-0.
City Clerk Mayor
15
Item # 4b
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
April 24, 2000
The meeting convened at 7:17 p.m.
Present at the meeting were Councilmembers Jim Brimeyer, Ron Latz, Chris Nelson, Susan
Sanger, Sue Santa, Robert Young and Mayor Jeff Jacobs.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Meyer), Deputy City Manager (Clint Pires), Public Works
Director (Mr. Rardin), Community Development Director (Mr. Harmening), Economic
Development Coordinator (Mr. Kleve), Planner (Ms. Peterson), Housing Supervisor (Ms.
Schnitker), Director of Parks and Recreation (Ms. Walsh), and City Clerk (Ms. Larsen).
1. Charter Commission
The following members of the Charter Commission were present: Jim Schaefer, Paul Carver,
Mike Sixel, Carol Walsh, Cindy Ahrens, Ruth and Norman Kirschner, Cheryl Ernst, Dorothea
Moga, and Chair George Beck.
Mr. Beck gave a brief review of their 1999 accomplishments, stating such activities as
recommending and reviewing amendments to City Charter, ongoing review of legislation, and
the election and recruitment of Charter Commission members. Mr. Beck stated that the
Commission is currently reviewing the franchise policy. Other goals they would like to
complete in 2000 are the continuation of their review of sections of the Charter affected by the
City’s recodification project and determining what role the Civil Service Commissions have.
The Commission continually spends time focusing on the recruitment of new members and also
annually reviews pending legislation that may affect the Charter.
Councilmember Sanger had concerns about redistricting. Councilmember Brimeyer felt that the
Commission should look at deleting references to cable franchises and civil service
commissions. Councilmember Latz inquired on the status of the recodification process.
2. Louisiana Court Bonds
The Mayor call to order a public hearing to approve the sale of bonds for the Louisiana Court
project at 7:45 p.m.
Present were Council members Jim Brimeyer, Ron Latz, Chris Nelson, Susan Sanger, Sue Santa,
Robert Young, and Mayor Jacobs.
Mark Ruff of Ehlers and Associates and John Utley of Kennedy and Graven were both present at
the meeting.
16
Ms. Schnitker updated the Council on what has happened since the last Council meeting. She
stated that the uncertainty of MHFA has been resolved and formal approval will be granted on
April 27, 2000. PPL has received bids from contractors; staff along with consultants will meet
with PPL to review the bids and improvements that can be made within the budget.
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing to consider a resolution authorizing the issuance and
sale of general obligation bond series 2000A for the Louisiana Court project. The hearing was
closed, with no one present wishing to speak.
Councilmember Nelson felt that his concerns have been addressed and stated his intention to
vote in favor of the resolution. Councilmember Santa made the motion to approve the
resolution, seconded by Councilmember Latz. The motion passed 6-1 with Councilmember
Young opposed.
Jim Scibold, Director of PPL, thanked Council and staff for their participation and support in the
project.
It was motioned by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Sanger to adjourn the
meeting.
3. Art Funding Opportunities
The study session reconvened.
Ms. Walsh gave a brief background of the item and stated that Councilmember Brimeyer had
previously asked staff to research funding options that other communities are using to fund arts
in their community. The City of Chaska has developers fund the arts in the community; for
projects involving TIF the actual project cost may be increased and for other projects the
developer pays for the public art. The City of Fort Collins has initiated an “art in public places”
policy. For each construction project the developer must contribute a certain percentage or retain
an approved artist to participate in the construction. Fort Collins will also incorporate artistic
value in all its construction projects and public places as well. The City of Minneapolis provides
neighborhood grants of up to $2000 per project to the neighborhood associations. The City of
Los Angeles has developed a trust fund that provides funding for cultural life that was
established from the Transient Occupancy Tax. Developers would also have a choice of
dedicating money, creating a cultural facility, or commissioning work on their site depending
upon the size of the proposed development.
Ms. Walsh stated that Council could also consider the option to have one percent of the project
costs of new developments go towards funding for the arts.
Mr. Meyer asked the Council for clarification on what they think the end result should be.
Councilmember Brimeyer felt that a small percent of project development costs should go
towards public art. Councilmember Santa asked Council if they felt that funding from the
developers of project should go to that site or if the money should go into general fund.
Councilmember Sanger stated that she had a broader desire to encompass other areas of
community aesthetics such as architecture and landscaping. Mayor Jacobs was concerned with
how the decision will be made on what type of art is selected; Councilmember Sanger replied
17
that the standards would have to be set and come from a community foundation. Mr. Meyer
stated that staff will develop a package for future Council consideration and suggested that
perhaps an architectural review board be assigned.
4. Excelsior Boulevard Corridor
Mr. Harmening stated that the intent of this discussion is to select a traffic consultant for the
Excelsior Boulevard corridor between France Ave and Highway 100. Council had previously
directed staff to undergo steps for the selection of a consultant for the corridor. Staff has
envisioned that the study be done in two phases. The first will be a scoping process and
summary of existing studies. The scoping process will bring about the second phase in which
issues will be determined for further study. Staff reviewed four proposals and selected BRW and
SRF for interviews. On completion of those interviews, staff would recommend that SRF be
chosen due to their previous experience in that specific area. However, staff is concerned that
some residents may feel that the firm is too involved in the project and not able to objectively
review the issues. Also SRF’s costs for the first phase are higher than any others. Mr.
Harmening stated that BRW will also be able to do the study and would like Council direction
regarding the selection of a consultant.
Councilmember Nelson asked if BRW would also have credibility issues with the residents; Mr.
Harmening replied that there were two different public processes proposed by the two firms.
Councilmember Brimeyer felt that the first phase should be more narrow in scope to determine
the existing conditions. Councilmembers Sanger and Young agreed. Mr. Meyer stated that
perceptions of the public are only one factor to consider. Determining public perceptions is only
a part of the baseline information that is needed. Mr. Harmening stated that phase two will not
be complete if phase one does not identify everything that needs to be included. Council then
discussed the scope of the project.
Councilmember Sanger felt that a fresh look at the project needs to be taken. She suggested that
the project be done in three phases: determine existing studies and needs, build on those studies
and needs, and then incorporate it into a final result.
Councilmember Sanger suggested that they select BRW as the consultant and the other
Councilmembers agreed. Councilmember Latz stated that the credibility of sources needs to be a
concern. Councilmember Young felt that they needed to be careful to get input citywide.
5. Sanitary Sewer Service Line Backwater Valves
Mr. Rardin said that he was looking for feedback from the Council on this issue. He distributed
a handout and indicated that he would like to discuss the following topics: system problems and
remediation, cost of units, cause of problems, and setting priorities.
Mayor Jacobs stated that public participation needs to be an element in the process and also
suggested that an alarm be installed at the lift stations. Councilmember Sanger felt that the city
should take preventive measures to show due diligence rather than pay an insurance settlement in
the end.
18
Councilmember Santa felt that a grant program would give residents the option to participate.
Mayor Jacobs asked the Council if they felt that such a program should be modeled after the
Dutch Elm program. Councilmember Brimeyer felt that would be acceptable with adequate
conditions. Council agreed to the staff recommendation to adopt a pilot program and install an
alarm at lift station 19. Council agreed that there would be a $2,000 cap for the grant program
with substantial participation on the part of the resident.
The Board of Equalization reconvened at 9:15 p.m. and was adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
Mayor Jacobs called the study session to order again at 10:00 p.m.
6. Traffic and access issues at Zarthan Ave. and W 16th St.
Ms. Peterson reviewed the most recent site plan for the Council. Council questioned the
configuration of in the intersection at Zarthan Ave and W 16th St.
Councilmember Brimeyer asked for an explanation on the project from Charlene Zimmer, a
traffic consultant with SRF,. She explained how land use dictates traffic flow and how road
configuration can direct traffic to collector streets. Staff and Council discussed redirecting traffic
to facilitate an east-west movement and possible future connection to other side of Park Place
Blvd. They determined that cut through traffic in the neighborhood is currently minimal so
redirection at the intersection has little or no effect on the neighborhood situation.
Councilmember Nelson had concerns regarding costs. Mr. Harmening replied that the signal for
the intersection would be paid by Costco. He said that another source of revenue would be the
local contribution payment. Mr. Meyer asked when this would be implemented and suggested
that they look at the cost of maintaining the signal.
Councilmember Sanger questioned why two driveways were needed for entrance to the
townhomes. Ms. Peterson replied that based on traffic counts they needed every vehicle access
point. Mr. Lindstrom stated that the Fire department needed total access to the development and
would not support limited access.
Councilmember Young felt that the townhomes should be connected to the neighborhood.
Councilmember Sanger suggested offsetting the entrances to the townhomes so they are not
directly on Alabama and adding parking bays. Ms. Zimmer replied that offsetting the entrances
may create accidents and may not be practical. However, she thought that the parking bays were
a good idea.
Councilmember Young felt that all the issues raised have already been dealt with. Mayor Jacobs
stated that the Council should not try to design the intersection, but should let the traffic
engineers be responsible for the design.
7. MSP Real Estate Update/Development Contract Amendment Request
Mr. Kleve explained that changes that have taken place since the last discussion with Council.
He reported that all bids received for general contractors were above the budget for MSP. MSP
will try to fill the gap by cutting operating costs, adding equity to the project, and increasing rent.
MSP has asked the City/EDA to increase the number of years of TIF assistance from seventeen
19
to twenty. This could be paid off sooner if values increase faster than two percent per year.
Staff is reluctant to close on the property if there is a chance that the project will not move
forward. Council felt that the changes were acceptable as proposed. Mr. Kleve informed the
Council that grant funds from Met Council and DTED had been released to help fund the project.
8. Communications
Mr. Meyer informed Council that the School District has reached an agreement with PACE.
Council discussed the possibility of holding their regular meeting on July 5th and the feasibility
of doing so.
Mr. Meyer also reported that despite many rumors to the contrary, no project plans had yet been
submitted to the city for additional construction in the Shelard Park area.
9. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 11:05 p.m.
City Clerk Mayor
20
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 6a
Meeting of May 15, 2000
6a. Public Hearing to Consider Currency Exchange License Application
City Council Concurrence for State Currency Exchange License Application at
8132 Highway 7 (Knollwood Shopping Center) by Community Money Centers,
Inc., dba “Money Centers”
Recommended
Action:
Mayor to close the public hearing. Motion to notify the State of
City approval.
Background
An application to operate a currency exchange business (check cashing service) at 8132
Highway 7 (Knollwood Shopping Center) has been submitted by Cary Geller of Community
Money Centers, Inc. (dba “Money Centers”) to the MN Department of Commerce, Financial
Examinations Division. The Commissioner may not approve the application without
concurrence by the City of St. Louis Park.
Minnesota Statute 53A.04 states:
“Within 30 days after the receipt of a complete application, the commissioner shall deny
the application or submit the application to the governing body of the local unit of
government in which the applicant is located or is proposing to be located. The
commissioner may not approve the application without the concurrence of the
governing body. The governing body shall give published notice of its intention to
consider the issue and shall solicit testimony from interested persons, including those in
the community in which the applicant is located or is proposing to be located. If the
governing body has not approved or disapproved the issue within 60 days of receipt of
the application, concurrence is presumed. The commissioner must approve or
disapprove the application within 30 days from receiving the decision of the governing
body. The governing body shall have the sole responsibility for its decision. The state
shall have no responsibility for that decision.”
A memo to council on April 21, 2000 asked if any Councilmember wanted to begin a public
hearing process to consider this application. The Clerk’s office received two requests from
Councilmembers wishing to discuss the application at a public hearing. Notice of the meeting
appeared in the Sun Sailor and the applicant, Cary Geller of “Money Centers” will be in
attendance to answer council’s questions.
Attachments: Correspondence to City from MN Dept of Commerce
Application for Currency Exchange License
Prepared by: Cynthia D. Larsen, City Clerk
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
21
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 8a
Meeting of May 15, 2000
8a. Firefighter Contract Changes for 1/1/00 – 12/31/00
A two year agreement for Firefighters was reached settling the City and Union for
1/1/00 through 12/31/01.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the resolution approving a Labor Agreement
between the City and International Association of Firefighters
Local #993, establishing terms and conditions of employment for
the duration of 1/1/00 – 12/31/01.
Background:
Negotiations, although lengthy, have been productive with our Firefighters Local #993. We have
been in negotiations since September 1999 over contract language regarding our Firefighters
contract, which expired on 12/31/99. You will notice that there are substantial changes to
contract language. This has been worked on and slimmed down substantially as compared to
original contract demands.
Monetary adjustments were made to wages: 3% for 2000, consistent with other employee
groups, and a 3% for 2001. Clothing allowance was increased $50 for 2000 and $25 for 2001.
Insurance for 2000 was increased to $410 for families, consistent with our other employee
groups, and setting $440/month as the Employer contribution for 2001.
Overall, we believe this proposal is a good package for both union and management. A two-year
agreement was reached settling us for 1/1/00 through 12/31/01. Listed below is a summary of
contract changes with comments for the various areas. The proposed contract is on file with the
City Clerk. More detail is available upon request.
Summary of Contract Changes
Duration: 2 year - 1/1/00 through 12/31/01.
1. Article II – Recognition: Remove Fire Captain.
Comment: We no longer have the position of Fire Captain, language concerning Captain
is removed.
2. Article III – Definitions
Comment: Seniority changed to reflect service with Department not Employer.
Typically, in other union contracts, seniority is based on service within a specific
department. Due to this change, you will see other language clarification throughout this
contract.
22
3.13 Seniority - replace existing language with:
Seniority shall be defined as the full-time continuous service with the Fire
Department. Seniority will also be maintained by service in grade.
3. Article XII – Vacation:
Comment: To make sure the vacation language stays consistent with current practice of
accrual based on years of service with the Employer, not based on years of service with
the Fire Department, language clarifying this was added as follows:
12.1 add “with the employer” to clarify how vacation is accrued for both SHIFT and
DAY employees – to read as follows:
SHIFT EMPLOYEES, other than those assigned to special duties, shall earn vacation
from the date of their employment with the Employer according to the following
schedule: …
DAY EMPLOYEES, shall earn vacation from the date of their employment with the
Employer according to the following schedule:
4. Vacation Pick
Comment: Many hours were spent in negotiation with regard to vacation pick language.
Both management and union were looking to improve how selections were made. The
major change is the guarantee of 2 vacation selections (previously only 1 was
guaranteed). Secondly, supervisors pick is to be considered prior to unions vacation pick.
Vacation pick dates were also moved earlier in the year from March to starting of pick in
January. The changes in vacation pick will hopefully allow firefighters to take 2 shorter
guaranteed vacations instead of one continuous vacation. We had noted a pattern of more
firefighters taking 9 - 24 hour days in a row off, which was causing some scheduling
concerns. Language was modified as follows:
12.7 Each EMPLOYEE shall be granted two (2) guaranteed vacation selections per year
from the times provided as available from the EMPLOYER. Up to two (2)
EMPLOYEES may select to be off at the same time, provided the time is available and
both are on a first pick selection. At the conclusion of the first pick selections
EMPLOYEES may make a second guaranteed vacation selection from the available
times remaining at the conclusion of the first pick selections. No more than one
EMPLOYEE shall select to be off on a second pick.
Time for first vacation selection will be restricted or unavailable as a result of supervisors
first vacation selection. Also, first and second vacation selections may also be restricted or
unavailable due to unexpected or extraordinary circumstances.
23
Vacation Pick Schedule
First Pick
2 most senior bargaining unit employees on shift January 15-22
next 2 most senior bargaining unit employees on shift January 23-30
next 2 most senior bargaining unit employees on shift January 31-February
6
Second Pick
2 most senior bargaining unit employees on shift February 7 - 14
next 2 most senior bargaining unit employees on shift February 15 - 22
next 2 most senior bargaining unit employees on shift February 23 – March
2
5. Day Employee accruals
Comment: This language was modified increasing the Day Employee vacation leave
balance from 1 ½ times to 2 times balance allowed. This change was helpful to
management when changing Employees work from 24 hour shift to day schedule.
12.10 change from one and one-half to two times to read as follows:
SHIFT EMPLOYEE transferring to Day Employee status will be allowed to
transfer their vacation leave accrual. If the Day Employee has a vacation leave
balance greater than the two times balance allowed, the Day Employee’s
maximum vacation balance will become their current balance plus one-half years
vacation earnings as a Day Employee.
6. Article XIII – Rest Periods and Holidays
Comment: We are in the process of revising our Personnel Ordinance. Since contract
language referred to an ordinance section that may not be numbered as such in the future,
the reference to Personnel Ordinance Section 3-606 was removed and the appropriate
language was added to the Firefighter contract as follows:
…DAY EMPLOYEES shall receive twelve (12) eight hour paid holidays:
New Years Day – January 1
Martin Luther King Day – Third Monday in January
Presidents Day – Third Monday in February
Memorial Day – last Monday in May
Independence Day – July 4
Labor Day – First Monday in September
Veteran’s Day – November 11
Thanksgiving Day – Fourth Thursday in November
The Friday after the fourth Thursday in November
Christmas Day – December 25
24
2 days (eight hours each day) floating holiday, must be taken in 8 hour block of time
and provided when New Year’s Day, Independence Day, Veteran’s Day or Christmas
Day occur on a Sunday, the following day shall be observed as a holiday; further
provided when these specific holidays occur on a Saturday, the preceding day shall be
observed as a holiday.
7. Article XIV – Sick Leave
Comment: Due to change in Seniority language, we needed to add “with the employer”
to clarify how sick leave is accrued to read as follows:
For SHIFT EMPLOYEES, sick leave shall be accrued at the rate of one-half working day
for each calendar month of full-time employment or major fraction thereof, with the
EMPLOYER. For DAY EMPLOYEES, sick leave shall be accrued at the rate of one 8-
hour working day for each calendar month of full-time employment or major fraction
thereof, with the EMPLOYER.
8. Article XVI - Clothing Allowance
Comment: Increase allowance from $400 per year to $450 per year effective 1/1/00, and
$475 per year effective 1/1/01 based on needs and cost comparisons.
9. Article XVII - Insurance
Comment: In 1999, the Employer contribution for Firefighters was $315 for Single and
$400 for Family. The dollar contribution for Firefighters choosing family coverage was
higher than any other non-supervisory group for the city last year and single was lower
than any other group. Now, as we move to equalization, we negotiated phasing in
equalization of benefits, consistent with our other employee groups. In order to phase
in equalization of benefits, we moved the single contribution to $375/mo. and the
Family to $410/mo. It is important to understand that out of 18 employees covered by
this contract, only 2 employees have single coverage. With approval of this contract,
this employee group will now have an Employers contribution consistent with benefit
levels of other non-supervisory groups. The following non-supervisory groups are
settled at $410/mo Employer contribution for 2000: Local 49 Maintenance, Police
Dispatch and non-union non-supervisory. The only contract not settled for 2000 is
Police Officer. This is the first non-supervisory group with a contract recommending
2001 insurance contribution.
17.1 Effective 1/1/00, the EMPLOYER shall contribute $375 per month (three hundred
seventy five dollars) per employee for EMPLOYER provided group insurance
programs in 2000. EMPLOYEES may select from a list of options offered by the
EMPLOYER. EMPLOYEES selecting and receiving the EMPLOYER option of
family, employee & spouse or employee & child(ren) medical coverage shall
receive $410 per month (four hundred ten dollars) for EMPLOYER provided
group insurance programs in 2000.
25
17.2 Effective 1/1/01, the EMPLOYER shall contribute $440 per month per employee
for EMPLOYER provided group insurance programs in 2001. EMPLOYEES may
select a list of options offered by the EMPLOYER.
10. Article XXIII – Shift Exchange
Comment: Language changes to this section were proposed by the union to allow for
more flexibility in Lieutenants schedules. This language was negotiated to allow shift
exchange with no additional pay as follows:
23.1 Upon approval of the FIRE CHIEF or his/her designated representative,
EMPLOYEES may exchange shifts in grade with other members if the exchange
does not interfere with the operations of the Fire Department. Any exchange slip
signed by both parties must be submitted and approved by the FIRE CHIEF or
his/her designated representative, prior to the actual exchange of shifts.
23.2 Lieutenants may exchange shifts with Firefighters who have been authorized by
the FIRE CHIEF or his/her designated representative, if the exchange does not
interfere with the operations of the Fire Department. No Working Out of
Classification pay will be paid employees, who as a result of this trade, are
required to perform the work duties and accept full responsibilities of the higher
classification. Lieutenants who work for firefighters shall perform duties and
responsibilities of a Lieutenant.
23.3 The maximum hours of outstanding trades cannot exceed 240 hours, unless
authorized by the FIRE CHIEF or his/her designated representative. No funds,
gifts or gratuities shall be used or accepted by any party in agreement to exchange
shifts.
11. Article XXVII – Longevity
Comment: 3 % increase is added to the dollar amount for longevity for 2000 and 2001.
Fore new hires, longevity is based on service with the Department (past language is based
on years of service with the City):
EMPLOYEES hired after 1/1/00: Longevity is based on full-time continuous service with
the Fire Department.
Increase Longevity supplementary pay 3% each year as follows:
1/1/00 After 5 years… $89.43 per month
1/1/01 After 5 years… $92.12 per month
1/1/00 After 10 years… $121.06 per month
1/1/01 After 10 years… $124.69 per month
1/1/00 After 15 years $153.78 per month
1/1/01 After 15 years $158.40 per month
26
1/1/00 After 20 years $185.40 per month
1/1/01 After 20 years. $190.96 per month
12. Article IV – Employer Authority:
Comment: slight modification of language to read as follows:
11.1 The EMPLOYER retains the full and unrestricted right to operate and manage all
manpower, facilities and equipment, to establish functions and programs; to set and
amend budgets; to determine the utilization of technology; to establish and modify
the organizational structure; to select, direct and determine the number of
personnel; to establish work schedules and to perform any inherent managerial
function not specifically limited by this AGREEMENT.
13. Article XXVI – Wages
Comment: 3% wage increase for 2000, consistent with other groups settled. 3% also for
2001, consistent with various settlements in our market.
Remove Fire Captain from wage schedule.
Increase wages 3% for Firefighter and Fire Lieutenant 1/1/00
Increase wages 3% for Firefighter and Fire Lieutenant 1/1/01
14. Also change wage progression as follows:
Employees hired after 1/1/00 will have the following steps
A=hire, B=6months, C=12months, D=24 months, E=36 months
Comment: This changes wage progression for new hires, who will now reach the top of
the wage scale at 36 months rather than 48 months in our current contract.
14b. Along with the change in wage progression for new hires, Article VIII will also state for
employees hired after 1/1/00 the regular annual work requirement for SHIFT
EMPLOYEES, other than EMPLOYEES assigned to special duties, shall be one hundred
twenty two (122) twenty-four (24) hour day per year….
Comment: This language adds one more day to the work schedule for new hires
(currently the work schedule is 121 days). This is no additional pay for the increase in
one additional day of work.
15. Article XXX Shift bid
Comment: This language helps clarify Lieutenant bidding is based on time in grade not
on department seniority. This also allows management more flexibility in transfer.
30.6 change the language to read as follows:
Lieutenants shall bid first based on time in grade. Following the bid of the last
Lieutenant, the Fire Chief shall assign Firefighters with less than eighteen (18)
months of continuous full-time employment with the department as of November
1st; to be followed by the remaining Firefighters based on seniority.
30.8 Employees have the right to bid for position(s) as day employees provided such
assignments are available at the time of the employees turn to bid. These
positions may be assigned to those employees with less than eighteen (18) months
as specified in Section 30.1 of this article.
27
30.9 Employees bidding or assigned to day employee status may be transferred and
returned no more than twice within the bid cycle. Day employees transferred
more than once will be guaranteed their second (2nd) vacation selection in the
event their transfer occurs during their second (2nd) vacation selection time frame.
16. Article XXXI – Layoff and recall
Comment: This additional language allows the Chief, during layoff of sworn personnel,
to replace a non-sworn position.
Modify to add: “before any new sworn employee(s)…
Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution
approving a Labor Agreement between the City and International Association of Firefighters
Local #993, establishing terms and conditions of employment for the duration of 1/1/00 –
12/31/01.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Nancy Gohman, Human Resources Manager
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
28
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE LABOR AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
AND
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS
LOCAL #993
JANUARY 1, 2000 –DECEMBER 31, 2001
WHEREAS, the City and the Union have reached a negotiated settlement covering the
terms and conditions of a Labor Agreement as permitted by the State of Minnesota Public
Employees Labor Relations Act, and
WHEREAS, the City Council may enter into such agreements as authorized by its
Charter; now therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park that the Mayor and
City Manager are authorized to execute a Collective Bargaining Agreement, City Contract #
between the City of St. Louis Park and International Association of Firefighters Local #993
effective January 1, 2000 – December 31, 2001.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council May 15, 2000
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
29
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 8b
Meeting of May 15, 2000
8b. Request by Project for Pride in Living for Final Planned Unit Development
approval and an Amendment to the approved Preliminary PUD for certain
Louisiana Court apartments
Case No. 00-18-PUD and 00-19-VAR
2704-2768 Louisiana Court and 2740-2750 Louisiana Avenue
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt a resolution approving a Final PUD and an
Amendment to the approved Preliminary PUD for Louisiana
Court apartments, subject to conditions in the resolution.
Zoning: RC, Multi-Family Residential
Comprehensive Plan Designation: RH, High Density Residential
Up to 50 units per acre
Background:
Project for Pride in Living, PPL, is requesting final PUD approval for building renovations and
exterior site improvements for 14 of the 16 buildings within the Louisiana Court apartment
complex. An amendment to the approved preliminary PUD is also being requested for a small
office building that is proposed to be constructed adjacent to one of the existing apartment
buildings. There are some minor changes proposed to the parking plan as well.
On April 17, 2000, the City Council approved a preliminary PUD, including ordinance
modifications and variances for the Louisiana Court project, on a vote of 6-1. There was some
discussion regarding some Councilmembers’ preference to further reduce the amount of parking
provided on site. The Council also expressed an interest in having greater amounts of plantings
along the Louisiana Court street frontage to compensate for the reduced building and parking lot
setbacks that were approved as part of the preliminary PUD. In addition, there was some interest
in exploring whether the two remaining Louisiana Court buildings could be brought into the
PUD at a later date, for example if the properties changed ownership.
On May 3, 2000, the Planning Commission considered the requests and recommended approval
5-0. Draft unapproved minutes of that meeting are attached to the staff report.
Issues:
• Are the conditions met for final PUD consideration?
• What plan changes are proposed to the approved preliminary PUD plans?
• Are the final PUD plans consistent with zoning ordinance requirements, including the
PUD ordinance?
• Can the additional properties in Louisiana Court be incorporated into the PUD?
30
Issues Analysis:
Are the conditions met for final PUD consideration?
The conditions of preliminary PUD approvals include the following condition:
“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.”
Final PUD application materials: Final PUD application materials have been submitted as
required and are discussed below.
Alternative curbing plan: As part of the preliminary PUD approvals, the applicant was permitted
to propose an alternative to the standard 6-inch concrete curb and gutter in areas where typical
curbing would create drainage problems. These areas are primarily along building entrances
where the parking lots are not proposed to be substantially changed. PPL’s alternative plan
proposes permanent concrete curbing with cuts in the curbing to allow water to drain towards the
parking lot. Near building entrances, the cuts would also be placed to allow easier pedestrian
movement between the parking lots and buildings and sidewalks. The drainage problem is
proposed to be solved by having the curbing step down again on the other side of the parking lot.
The attached revised grading and drainage plan shows the locations of the alternative curbing.
Public Works has reviewed the plan and finds it acceptable from a drainage perspective. Staff
believes that the alternative curbing plan is acceptable because it accommodates the drainage
needs of this site while remaining as close as possible in quality, appearance and durability to
standard curbing.
Site Features and Changes to Building Entrances: Detailed landscape plans and building
elevations have been submitted and are reviewed below.
What plan changes are proposed to the approved preliminary PUD plans?
Detached office building: An office building was approved at the time of preliminary PUD as a
building addition to the south side of the 2722 apartment building. Due to challenges in meeting
Building Code requirements, PPL is now proposing that the approximately 400 square foot office
building be a separate structure located five feet to the south of the apartment building and eight
feet from the front property line. An ordinance modification is required for reduced distance
between buildings and reduced front yard setback. As an aside, reduced distance between
buildings was approved as a variance for two other locations in Louisiana Court with the
Preliminary PUD. Staff has since realized that reduced distance between buildings is an
allowable ordinance modification through PUD. This does not affect the already approved
variances, because the variance is a stricter standard than ordinance modifications. The
ordinance modifications are discussed further below.
Parking lot changes: The site plan that was approved as part of the preliminary PUD has been
modified to change the location of six parking stalls. The six stalls are proposed to be removed
31
from the parking lots south of Louisiana Court to allow for enlarged ponding areas between the
street and the parking lots. The same number of stalls are proposed to be added to the lots east of
Louisiana Court by removing the landscaped bump-out islands in front of several building
entrances. No change in the number of parking stalls are proposed. The change also allows
some cost savings in constructing the east parking lots. Staff believes that the proposed changes
are acceptable, because it appears that there would still be adequate parking for the apartments
south of Louisiana Court in the lots and on street. Also, while they are a pleasing feature, the
landscaped bump-outs are not as necessary in the east parking lots because ample green space is
provided between the lots and buildings (unlike the lots farther west, where buildings are close to
parking lots and bumpouts are retained to provide additional green space).
Some City Council members had recommended trying to further reduce the amount of parking
provided on site. Currently, 175 on-site parking stalls are provided for 163 apartment units, plus
10 proof of parking stalls and 51 on-street parking stalls on Louisiana Court. While PPL’s own
research shows that this ratio is ample, they are reluctant to further reduce parking or convert
more to proof of parking, because of the cost of converting proof of parking in the future. Staff
concurs with PPL’s desire to maintain the existing level of parking on the basis that the on-site
parking is already substantially reduced and the amount of green space well exceeds ordinance
requirements.
Are the final PUD plans consistent with Zoning Ordinance requirements, including the
PUD ordinance?
Architectural standards: The building entrances to most buildings are proposed to be enhanced
by adding canopy type structures, glass doors and/or other details. The goal is to achieve a cost
effective method of enhancing the building appearances and providing greater building detail
without making substantial exterior changes. No other changes are proposed to the building
exteriors except for the proposed new office structure and a building addition to the 2717
building. Both the office building and the building addition are proposed to be stucco. The
office building is proposed to have a standing seam metal roof, and the building addition is
proposed to have brick accents to match the rest of that building. The rest of the existing
buildings on the site are composed primarily of stucco and brick, and meet the City’s exterior
materials and architectural standards requirements.
Landscape Plans: Landscaped bufferyards are required to provide screening between adjacent
uses as follows: A landscaped Bufferyard D is required along the north property line, and a
Bufferyard B is required along the east, west and south property lines. A small amount of
landscaping is required along the Louisiana Court street. In addition, as mentioned, one City
Council member suggested that it would be desirable to increase the amount of plantings along
Louisiana Court street frontage. The applicant has submitted detailed landscape plans which
meet or exceed these requirements, including a high level of plantings along the Louisiana Court
street frontage. There are also additional plantings which exceed ordinance requirements along
Louisiana Avenue and along 28th Street. Additional trees are proposed to be planted internal to
the site.
32
PUD Requirements: Higher standard of building and site design: Staff believes that a higher
standard of building and site design is achieved through open space and landscaping in excess of
code requirements; superior improvements to pedestrian connections; improved access to transit;
and exterior materials which exceed code requirements. While the existing architectural design
and layout of the apartment buildings is not ideal or superior, staff believes the targeted building
improvements and substantial greening of the project area still result in a higher overall standard.
Proposed ordinance modifications: As mentioned, the applicant is seeking additional ordinance
modifications for five foot distance between two buildings and eight foot front yard setback from
Louisiana Court for a detached office building. The office building is to be used as a property
management building, and PPL’s desire is to establish a prominent on-site property management
presence, which will encourage respect for property and neighbors in the complex. The
proposed location is also prescribed by the existing conditions on the site, and opportunities for
locating the office building elsewhere are limited. Staff concurs with the applicant that the
ordinance modifications are appropriate and that they will not detract from this or other
properties.
Other PUD requirements: Other PUD requirements were reviewed with the preliminary PUD and
are not affected with the proposed plan changes and final PUD submittals.
Can the additional property in Louisiana Court be incorporated into the PUD?
Staff and the City attorney explored this question. As the two buildings not included in the PUD
are under different ownership and that owner has not chosen to be included in the PUD, there
appears to be no way to require that they be part of the PUD at this time, or to require that they
meet PUD standards. If PPL or Perspectives were to acquire the property at a later date, they
could choose to bring the two buildings into the PUD through a PUD amendment.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends adoption of the attached Resolution approving the final PUD and an
amendment to the approved preliminary PUD, subject to conditions in the resolution.
Attachments:
• Proposed Resolution
• Draft unapproved excerpts of May 3, 2000 Planning Commission meeting minutes
• Official Exhibits
Prepared by: Sacha Peterson, Planner
33
RESOLUTION NO._____________
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE APPROVED
PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND A FINAL 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, the City Council approved the Preliminary PUD on April 17, 2000,
Resolution No. 00-042; and
WHEREAS, an application for an amendment to the approved Preliminary PUD for a
detached office building and approval of a Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) was received
from the applicant on April 21, 2000, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the amendment to the approved
Preliminary PUD and the Final PUD at the meeting of May 3, 2000, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the amendment to the
approved Preliminary PUD and the Final PUD on a 5-0 vote with all members present voting in
the affirmative, and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the staff reports, Planning Commission
minutes and testimony of those appearing at the public hearing or otherwise including comments
in the record of decision.
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park:
Findings
1. 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 RC, Multi-
Family Residential District located at 2704-2768 Louisiana Court and 2740-2750 Lousiana
Avenue for the legal description as follows, to-wit:
Lots 1-14, Block 1, Louisiana Court (Torrens and Abstract)
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.
34
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 amendment to the approved Preliminary PUD and the Final PUD at the location described
are approved based on the findings set forth above and subject to the following conditions:
A. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with the Official Exhibits.
B. 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.
C. Prior to any site work, the developer shall meet the following requirements:
1. Obtain administrative lot split to relocate lot lines so that building expansion at 2717
Louisiana Court and office building at 2727 Louisiana Court do not encroach on lot lines.
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.
D. 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.
E. 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 of 20 feet for apartment buildings and 8 feet for office
building 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 of as little as 4.15 feet as shown on approved site plan.
6. Reduced distance between buildings to 19.7 feet for apartment buildings and 5 feet for
office building as shown on approved site plan.
7. Reduced drive aisle width for double parking rows to 59.5 feet.
35
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.
F. 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, repair and cleaning of public streets, and plan changes that
may be administratively approved. The development agreement shall also cite the approved
ordinance modifications and variances.
G. If parking should become a problem in the future, as determined by the Zoning
Administrator, the Zoning Administrator may require proof of parking to be converted to
parking spaces.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council May 15, 2000
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk 00-18-final/N/es/ord
36
UNAPPROVED PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Excerpts
Planing Commission Minutes
May 3, 2000
B. Other New Business
i. Case No. 00-18-PUD -- Request by Project for Pride in Living for an
Amendment to the approved Preliminary PUD and Final PUD approval
for Louisiana Court apartment complex
Ms. Peterson, Planner, presented a staff report and recommended approval
of the final PUD and approval of an amendment to the approved
preliminary PUD, subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report.
Chair Carver asked what the problem was with the office building being
integrated into the existing apartment building.
Ms. Peterson stated that it would have been much more challenging and
expensive to meet Building Code requirements.
Chair Carver asked if the proposed ordinance modifications would apply
only to the office building.
Ms. Peterson stated that is correct.
Chair Carver noted the Council’s comments regarding parking and asked
if the amount of parking was reduced.
Ms. Peterson stated that it has not, and that staff concurs with the applicant
that the amount of parking that was approved as part of the preliminary
PUD is sufficiently reduced. To reduce it further would increase the
likelihood that the proof of parking would have to be converted in the
future, which would not be cost effective.
Ms. Velick moved to recommend approval of Final PUD and an
amendment to the approved Preliminary PUD for Louisiana Court
apartments, subject to conditions as recommended by staff. The motion
passed 5-0 with Carver, Gothberg, Morris, Timian and Velick voting in
favor.
37
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 8c
Meeting of May 15, 2000
8c City Engineer’s Report: Proposed Improvements to Reduce Traffic
Congestion and Accidents on Louisiana Avenue between the Burlington
Northern Railroad Bridge and Minnetonka Boulevard. Project No. 00-13
This report considers the implementation of traffic management alternatives to
reduce traffic congestion and accidents on Louisiana Avenue.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the attached resolution approving Alternate No.
2, accepting this report, establishing Project No. 00-13, ordering
Project No. 00-13, approving plans and specifications, and
authorizing receipt of bids.
Background: At its May 8, 2000 Study Session staff reviewed several alternatives for reducing
traffic congestion on Louisiana Avenue between the Burlington Northern Railroad Bridge and
Minnetonka Boulevard. Staff and the City’s Consultant presented information on turning
movement counts at the W. 27th and W. 28th Street intersections, parking counts taken between
April 19th and May 1st, and options which could be implemented with each alternative. The City
council directed staff to return with a final report recommending Alternative No. 2.
Recommendation: It is recommended the City Council adopt the attached resolution approving
Alternative No. 2 which provides for a three (3) lane section from just south of W. 28th Street to
W. 27th Street. This alternative, combined with traffic signal interconnect and traffic signal
improvements for left turn movements will provide for an increased level of service and greater
potential for accident reduction.
Alternative No. 2 will reduce on-street parking on the west side of Louisiana Avenue. It would
eliminate all nine (9) spaces in the 2700 block and eight (8) in the 2800 block for a total of
seventeen (17) lost parking spaces. The estimated cost of Alternative No. 2 is $65,000. Funding
for this project would come from the City’s General Obligation Bonds for public improvements.
Attachments: WSB Report
Alternative No. 2
Resolution
Prepared by: Carlton Moore/Michael P. Rardin, Public Works
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
38
RESOLUTION NO. 00-066
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE CITY ENGINEER’S REPORT,
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 proposed improvements to reduce traffic congestion and accidents on
Louisiana Avenue between the Burlington Northern Railroad bridge and Minnetonka Boulevard.
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 improvements to reduce traffic congestion and
accidents on Louisiana Avenue between the Burlington Northern Railroad Bridge 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 March 6, 2000
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
39
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 8d
Meeting of May 15, 2000
8d. City Engineer’s Report: Storm Water Flood Area No. 11 – Improvements at
Nelson Park – Project No. 00-06; Flood Area No. 12 – Improvements at 2916
Maryland Avenue South – Project No. 00-02; Flood Area No. 17 –
Improvements in alley behind 3363 Zarthan Avenue, Project No. 00-04.
This report considers public improvements in Nelson Park to address the public
portion of the storm water in Flood Area No. 11; public improvements at the City-
owned lot at 2916 Maryland Ave. South in Flood Area No. 12; and public
improvements in alley behind 3363 Zarthan Avenue, Flood Area No. 17.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the attached resolution accepting this report,
establishing Project No.’s 00-06, 00-02, and 00-04, ordering
Project No.’s 00-06, 00-02, and 00-04, approving plans and
specifications, and authorizing receipt of bids.
Background: These projects are a result of the study of 22 Flood Problem Areas in St. Louis
Park and are included in the 2000 Capital Improvement Program. The study identified the
flooding issues of each area, corrective alternatives to consider, cost estimates and a
recommendation on alternatives to be implemented. City Staff and its consultant, WSB &
Associates, developed the proposed construction plans and specifications for these areas based
upon the recommended alternative and input from affected residents.
Discussion:
Nelson Park - Flood Area No. 11 – Project No. 00-06
The proposed project addresses the “Public” storm water only. Staff and WSB will work
with the property owners to develop corrective measures that can be undertaken by the
private property owners on their property if they so desire. The proposed project follows the
Study Recommendation and provides for the excavation of a temporary holding pond in
Nelson Park (see attached plan). The pond would temporarily store stormwater to provide
flood protection for the private properties abutting Nelson Park to the South. A small pump
in a manhole will discharge the water in the pond to the existing City storm sewer pipe which
crosses through Nelson Park. The holding pond would be pumped dry within a day or two
depending on the rain event. The pond would have maximum side slopes of 3:1 which are
easily maintained by City forces.
City Staff has met with the representatives of the gardens in Nelson Park and believes an
understanding has been reached as to the construction impacts, removal and restoration of the
gardens. Part of this understanding includes the construction of a retaining wall along the
40
North side of the pond to reduce the impact/removal of a number of garden plots. The
additional cost of this retaining wall adds approximately $10,000 to the overall project cost.
The estimated total project cost for Project No. 00-06 is $104,000. (See attached plan)
2916 Maryland Avenue - Flood Area No. 12 – Project No. 00-02
The proposed project addresses the “public” storm water only. Additional corrective
measures on private property can be undertaken by the private property owners, if they so desire.
The exception to this is the driveway entrances at 2920 and 2924 Maryland Avenue which will
need to be reconstructed from the back of the curb a distance of approximately 20 feet. This will
allow for the reconstruction of the catch basin in their driveway gutterline and raising the
driveways to provide additional protection from stormwater flowing from the street and down
their driveways to the rear yards. Staff has discussed the issue of a temporary construction
easement with the two property owners and they were supportive of the project and willing to
grant the easements.
The proposed plan also calls for the reconstruction of two additional catch basins in
Maryland Avenue, replacing them with higher velocity catch basins. The stormwater storage
pond to the rear of the city lot is proposed to capture the 100-year event via overland flow
from Maryland Avenue. A pump system will drain the pond within a day or two depending
on the rain event. Discharge from the pump will be into the storm sewer system in Maryland
Avenue. The pond will have 3:1 side slopes which are easily maintained by City forces.
The estimated total Project cost for Project No. 00-02 is $105,000.
Low Point in alley behind 3363 Zarthan Avenue – Flood Area No. 17 – Project No. 00-04
This project proposed to reconstruct the existing catch basins with higher capacity catch
basins and pave the area around the batch basins to provide better protection and stability for the
structures. This project will capture the “public” water in accordance with the City Council’s
Storm Water Policy. There are two property owners whose homes are flooded during the 100-
year storm event. One property owner has completed flood proofing of his home. The second
property owner has met with staff and chosen not to pursue flood proofing at this time.
The estimated total cost for Project No. 00-04 is $13,000.
Financial Considerations: It is proposed that these projects be funded entirely by the Storm
Water Utility Fund. No special assessments or other funding sources are proposed to be used for
this project. A summary of the project costs and revenue sources is as follows:
41
Proj. # 00-06 Proj. #00-02 Proj. #00-04
Flood Flood Flood
Project Costs Area #11 Area #12 Area #17
Construction $ 82,000 $ 82,000 $ 10,000
Contingency (15%) $ 11,000 $ 12,000 $ 1,500
Sub-Total $ 93,000 $ 94,000 $ 11,500
Engineering/Admin. (12%) $ 11,000 $ 11,000 $ 1,500
TOTAL $104,000 $105,000 $ 13,000
Revenue Sources Storm
Water Utility Fund
$104,000 $105,000 $ 13,000
GRAND TOTAL $222,000
Proposed Improvement Timetable: Should the City Council approve the City Engineer’s
Report, it is anticipated these projects would be bid in one contract in May/June, awarded in
June, and constructed in June/July.
Feasibility: The projects, as proposed herein, are necessary, cost effective, and feasible under
the conditions noted and at the costs estimated.
Attachments: Resolution
Plans
Prepared by: Carlton B. Moore, Superintendent of Engineering
Reviewed by: Michael Rardin, Public Works Director
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
42
RESOLUTION NO. __________
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE CITY ENGINEER’S REPORT,
ESTABLISHING PROJECT NO.’s 00-06, 00-02, 00-04
ORDERING PROJECT NO.’s 00-06, 00-02, 00-04
APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND AUTHORIZING RECEIPT OF
BIDS
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the
City Engineer related to Storm Water Flood Area No. 11 - Improvements at Nelson Park –
Project
No. 00-06; Flood Area No. 12 – Improvements at 2916 Maryland Avenue South – Project No.
00-02; Flood Area No. 17 – Improvements in alley behind 3363 Zarthan Avenue, Project No.
00-04.
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 Storm Water Flood Area No. 11 -
Improvements at Nelson Park – Project No. 00-06; Flood Area No. 12 – Improvements at
2916 Maryland Avenue South – Project No. 00-02; Flood Area No. 17 – Improvements
in alley behind 3363 Zarthan Avenue, Project No. 00-04 be approved.
2. The proposed projects, designated as Project No.’s 00-06, 00-02, 00-04 is hereby
established.
3. Project No.’s 00-06, 00-02, 00-04 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.
Attest: Adopted by the City Council May 15, 2000
43
City Clerk Mayor
Reviewed for Administration:
City Manager
44
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 8e*
Meeting of May 15, 2000
*8e. Resolution Adopting a Sanitary Sewer Service Line Backwater Valve Pilot
Program
This action would establish a pilot program in which the City would participate in
the cost to furnish and install backwater valves in sanitary sewer service lines at ten
(10) identified properties.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the attached resolution approving the “Sanitary
Sewer Service Line Backwater Valve Pilot Program”.
Background: On February 19 this year, the City suffered malfunctions at sanitary sewer lift
station No. 19 (3036 Glenhurst Avenue). As a result of these malfunctions, a total of nine (9)
residences located along Inglewood Avenue, Joppa Avenue, Minnetonka Boulevard, and Sunset
Boulevard experienced sanitary sewer backups with varying degrees of damages from a few
dollars of cleanup to upwards of $30,000. Some or most of these properties have also
experienced sewer backups in 1987 and again in 1997, as well as at other earlier unrecorded
times. As a result of these multiple sewer backups, the residents requested the City make sewer
system improvements or provide service line backwater valves to prevent sewer backups at these
properties.
The City Council reviewed this request and possible options at their April 10 and April 24 Study
Sessions. Based on these Study Session discussions, staff has developed a “Sanitary Sewer
Service Line Backwater Valve Pilot Program” for Council adoption.
In addition to the Pilot Program, the Sewer Utility is planning to add a second independent alarm
system to lift station No. 19 this year. This additional alarm will ensure us the necessary
warning so we can respond to a lift station malfunction in a timely manner which should prevent
residential backups associated with failure of this lift station.
Proposed Pilot Program Summary: The proposed pilot program is attached. Below is a brief
summary of the program:
The City will participate in the costs associated with furnishing and installing backwater valves
on service lines at the ten (10) identified locations. Participation is limited to 75% of the valve
purchase and basic installation costs, up to a maximum amount of $2,000 per residence.
Personal property costs beyond the basic installation costs are the responsibility of the property
owner. Future valve replacement costs will be the responsibility of the property owner. Property
owners must apply for City assistance under this program and will be required to provide a
waiver of liability for damages associated with future backups. Property owners will not be
45
required to obtain sewer backup insurance coverage nor provide valve maintenance as
recommended by the valve manufacture; however, it will be recommended they do so.
Recommendation: If all ten (10) identified (eligible) property owners utilize this program, total
City cost is limited to a maximum of $20,000. A second alarm system for this lift station is
estimated to cost about $8,000. Funding for this is available in the Sanitary Sewer Utility Fund.
Staff recommends Council adopt the attached resolution approving the “Sanitary Sewer Service
Line Backwater Valve Pilot Program”. This program will go into effect immediately if adopted
by Council.
Attachments: Resolution
Sanitary Sewer Service Line Backwater Valve Pilot Program
Prepared by: Scott Merkley/Mike Rardin, Public Works
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
46
RESOLUTION NO. 00-068
RESOLUTION ADOPTING
SANITARY SEWER SERVICE LINE BACKWATER
VALVE PILOT PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the City has an established sanitary sewer service operated as a public
utility pursuant to Minnesota Statutes; and
WHEREAS, the City has identified ten (10) properties subject to past multiple sanitary
sewer backups; and
WHEREAS, sewer system improvements are possible but costly; and
WHEREAS, it appears to be more timely and cost effective to assist identified residents
(properties) with the funding of backwater valves on their service lines in lieu of larger system
improvements; and
WHEREAS, the “Sanitary Sewer Service Line Backwater Valve Pilot Program”
establishes a pilot program to assist identified residents (properties) with the purchase and
installation of backwater valves on their service lines; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that the City adopts the “Sanitary Sewer Service Line Backwater Valve Pilot
Program” dated May 15, 2000.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council May 15, 2000
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
47
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
SANITARY SEWER
SERVICE LINE
BACKWATER VALVE
PILOT PROGRAM
48
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. GENERAL………………………………………………………………………….1
II. ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS………………………………………………………… 1
III. ELIGIBLE IMPROVEMENTS……………………………………………………. 1
IV. PROGRAM and APPLICANT REQUIREMENTS (RESPONSIBILITIES)………2
V. PROGRAM PROCEDURE……………………………………………………….. 2
Exhibit A
Identified Properties………………………………………………………………...3
Exhibit B…………………………………………………………………………………… 4
Administrative Procedure
Exhibits C through J Attached By Reference
(Information, Application, Estimate, Agreement Forms, etc)
49
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
SANITARY SEWER SERVICE LINE
BACKWATER VALVE PILOT PROGRAM
This program has been designed to assist identified property owners within the City of St.
Louis Park that have been subject to recurrent sanitary sewer backups due to system related
problems.
This document sets forth the guidelines for the administration of the Sanitary Sewer Service
Line Backwater Valve Pilot Program hereafter known as the “Program”.
I. GENERAL
A. The City of St. Louis Park, hereinafter known as the “City”, will provide grants to
identified
St. Louis Park property owners to cover costs associated with the purchase and basic
installation of service line backwater valves. Property owners will be responsible for
any personal property costs associated with the installation of the valves.
B. Grants will be limited to 75% of the actual purchase and basic installation costs of
approved backwater valves up to a maximum amount of $2,000 per property
(residence). Personal property costs (flooring, paneling, bookcases, etc.) are the
responsibility of the property owner and will not be paid for by the City or used for
grant determination purposes.
C. The City has defined a “basic installation” to mean the work required to remove
concrete flooring, install the valve and associated apparatus, and to restore the concrete
flooring.
D. The Program will become effective immediately upon City Council approval of the
Program and will be funded by the Sanitary Sewer Utility.
E. The City will not participate in future valve maintenance or replacement costs.
F. The Director of Public Works shall administer the Program.
II. ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS
A. Eligible applicants are owners of property identified in the Pilot Program Properties list
(Exhibit A).
III. ELIGIBLE IMPROVEMENTS
A. Improvements are limited to installation of sanitary sewer service line backwater valves
as approved by the Director of Public Works and Inspections or designee(s) and may
include but are not limited to any of the following valve types or brands/models.
1. Flapper Valve
2. Floating Ball Valve.
50
3. Gate Valve.
4. Peterson Valve Company, Model PV-4300
IV. PROGRAM AND APPLICANT REQUIREMENTS
1. Applicants are required to complete an application form and cost estimate.
2. Applicants will be required to provide a waiver of liability to the City for future
claims due to sewer backup damages.
3. It is recommended that applicants obtain or maintain sewer backup insurance
coverage.
4. It is recommended that applicants provide manufacturer recommended valve
maintenance.
V. PROGRAM PROCEDURE
A. Funding is available throughout the year. Applications will be accepted anytime
throughout the year.
B. Process program requests as outlined in Exhibit B.
51
Exhibit A
Pilot Program Properties
Station Address / Property Impacted Events Estimated
Damages
Priority
#19 - 3036 Glenhurst Ave S
2915 Inglewood Ave S 2/00 $1,300 1
2955 Joppa Ave S 2/00 $500 1
4008 Minnetonka Blvd 2/00 minimal 1
4120 Sunset Blvd 2/00 ? 1
4123 Sunset Blvd 7/87 2/00 87-$35,000
00-$20,000
1
4200 Sunset Blvd 7/87 7/97 2/00 87-$25,000
97- ?
00-$5,000
1
4201 Sunset Blvd 7/87 7/97 2/00 87-? 7/97-?
2/00-$25,000
1
4210 Sunset Blvd 2/00 ? 1
4220 Sunset Blvd 2/00 2/00-$25,000 1
Sewer Line
3217 Sumter Ave S Multiple Unknown 1
Notes:
- Properties determined by City Council during Study Session of April 24, 2000
52
Exhibit B
Public Works Administrative Process
Procedure/Task
1. Make preliminary determination of eligibility based on Exhibit A.
2. City mail program information letter, application, and cost estimate form (Exhibits C, D, and
E) to residents who express an interest in the program.
3. City conducts site inspection.
4. City reviews program rules and procedures with property owner (explain exhibits and review
owner responsibilities). Review proposed backwater valve options with owner; instruct the
owner to obtain quotes for the work and to provide final application to Public Works.
5. City contacts owner regarding grant application; sends owner an approval letter (Exhibit F)
requesting owner to return the signed and completed Owner/City Agreement (Exhibit G), to
receive final grant approval. Provide owner Completion of Work Certificate (Exhibit A) to
request grant proceeds upon completion of work.
6. City receives Owner/City Agreement (Exhibit G).
7. City receives Completion of Work Certificate (Exhibit H) upon completion of work.
8. City conducts final inspection
9. City sends completion letter (Exhibit I) to owner with grant payment.
53
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 8f*
Meeting of May 15, 2000
*8f. Request by MSP Real Estate, Inc. for a Minor Amendment to the approved
Planned Unit Development for Mill City Apartments for changes to approved
Building Elevations
Case Nos. 00-35-PUD and 00-37-S
7301 Walker Street
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt a resolution approving a Minor Amendment to
the approved Planned Unit Development for Mill City
Apartments, subject to conditions in the resolution.
Zoning: RC High Density Residential District
Comprehensive Plan
Designation: RH Residential up to 50 units per acre
Background:
The Final PUD and Final Plat for Mill City Apartments was approved by the City Council on
April 3, 2000. The developer is requesting a minor PUD amendment for changes to the
approved building elevations. The elevations that were approved by the Council were submitted
in error, and are different from the elevation drawings staff and the developer had agreed to bring
to the City Council for approval. The approved elevations show stucco in some areas on upper
stories where cement siding was intended. Please see the attached drawings for a comparison.
Issues
• Are the proposed changes to the building elevations consistent with the Planning
Commission’s and staff’s recommendations?
• Do the proposed building elevations meet all code requirements?
Issues Analysis
Are the proposed changes to the building elevations consistent with the Planning
Commission’s and staff’s recommendations?
Planning Commission recommendation: At the time of Final PUD consideration by the Planning
Commission on March 1, 2000, the developer had not finalized the building elevations. But, he
was proposing to reduce the percentage of Class I materials on some facades from 70-80%, to
closer to the ordinance minimum of 60%. Staff recommended approval of the proposed final
54
PUD, provided that the developer continue to work with staff to ensure that the elevations met
the PUD standards of compatibility with adjacent structures and higher overall standard of
building and site design, and met Livable Communities goals. The Planning Commission
concurred, with the exception of one member, and voted to recommend approval on a vote of 6-
1.
Staff recommendation: Prior to City Council consideration of the final PUD, staff met with the
developer to review proposed changes to the building elevations, including adding more brick
and ground level interest to street facing elevations, and reviewing reduced Class I materials.
Staff felt that the elevation drawings presented at this meeting, which were consistent with the
changed elevations the developer is proposing currently, were acceptable and indicated that staff
would recommend approval with one change. The developer agreed to the change, which was to
add more brick to the Walker Street elevations.
Do the proposed building elevations meet all Code requirements?
Architectural standards: The proposed building elevations meet the minimum Class I exterior
materials requirements of the City Code and other architectural standards in the ordinance.
PUD standards: Staff believes that the proposed building elevations continue to be consistent
with PUD standards and Livable Communities goals. Staff concurs with the applicant that the
reduction in Class I materials does not detract from the overall quality of the project and the final
drawings show a well balanced and well proportioned building design. The increased brick on
exterior facades is retained, including around the Walker Street entrances, which maintains
compatibility with the adjacent apartments, and provides an acceptable level of quality and
architectural interest from the street and pedestrian level.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends adoption of the attached resolution approving a minor PUD amendment for
Mill City Apartments, subject to conditions in the resolution.
Attachments:
• Proposed resolution
• Building elevations approved on April 3, 2000
• Proposed building elevations
Prepared by: Sacha Peterson, Planner
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
55
RESOLUTION NO.00-069
Amends Resolution No. 00-036
A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION 00-036 ADOPTED ON MARCH 20, 2000
APPROVING A FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) UNDER SECTION
14:6-7 OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING AND
FOR PROPERTY ZONED R-C HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LOCATED AT 7301
WALKER STREET
AND
FINAL PLAT – MILL CITY ADDITION
WHEREAS, the City Council approved the Preliminary PUD and Preliminary Plat for
Mill City Addition on February 7, 2000, Resolution No. 00-010, and
WHEREAS, an application for approval of a Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) and
Final Plat for Mill City Addition was received on February 22, 2000 from the applicant, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the Final PUD and Final Plat for Mill
City Addition at the meeting of March 1, 2000, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Final PUD and
Final plat for Mill City Addition on a 6-1 vote with six members present voting in the
affirmative, and
WHEREAS, the City Council approved the Final PUD and Final Plat for Mill City
Addition on April 3, 2000, Resolution 00-036; and
WHEREAS, an application for a minor amendment to the approved Final PUD to revise
approved building elevations was received on May 10, 2000 from the applicant,
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the staff reports, Planning Commission
minutes and testimony of those appearing at the public hearing or otherwise including comments
in the record of decision.
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park:
Findings
1. MSP Real Estate has made application to the City Council for a Planned Unit Development
under Section 14:6-7 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code within the R-C High Density
Residential district located at 7301 Walker Street:
56
and
MSP Real Estate, owners and subdividers of the land proposed to be platted as Mill City
Addition has submitted an application for approval of final plat of said subdivision in the manner
required for platting of land under the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, and all proceedings have
been duly had thereunder;
for the legal description as follows, to-wit:
see Attached Legal Description
2. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning
Commission (Case Nos. 99-35-PUD and 99-37-S) 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 Files 99-35-PUD and 99-37-S are hereby entered into and
made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
Conclusion
The Final Planned Unit Development and Plat for Mill City Addition at the location described
are approved based on the findings set forth above and subject to the following conditions:
A. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in conformance with Official Exhibits
A through G, Exhibit G building elevations to be revised to show brick to the bottom of
the third row of windows rather than cement siding on either side of the building
entrances on Walker Street.
B. Final plat and PUD approval and development is contingent upon sale of certain City land to
developer and meeting all conditions of final approval.
C. Before a final plat is signed by the City, the developer shall comply with the following
requirements:
1. Submit to the City a copy of owner’s policy of title insurance which insures the City’s
interest in the plat, in an amount to be determined by the City.
57
2. A development agreement shall be executed between the developer and the City/EDA
which covers at a minimum, allowable plan modifications, sidewalk construction and
maintenance, tree replacement, installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of
Louisiana and Walker Street and creation of a left turn lane on Louisiana Avenue, and
repair and cleaning of public streets. The development agreement shall also cite the
approved parking modification.
3. Submit financial security in the form of cash escrow or letter of credit in the amount of
125% of the costs of tree replacement, sidewalk installation, and repair/cleaning of public
streets.
4. Submit a copy of unrecorded trail easement document to City for review.
5. Reimbursement of City attorney’s fees in drafting/reviewing such documents.
D. Within 60 days of final plat approval by the City Council, the subdivider shall record the
final plat with the County Recorder. The subdivider shall, immediately upon recording,
furnish the City Clerk with a print and reproducible tracing of the final plat showing
evidence of the recording. The subdivider shall also provide a copy of the final plat on disc
in an electronic data format.
E. Prior to or simultaneously with recording of the final plat, the trail easement shall be
recorded.
F. Prior to any site work, the developer shall meet the following requirements:
1. A drainage permit shall be obtained from MNDOT.
2. A copy of the Watershed District permit shall be forwarded to the City.
3. Any other necessary permits from other agencies shall be obtained.
4. Sign assent form and official exhibits.
5. Meet all conditions for the City signing the final plat.
G. 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. The subdivider shall furnish the City with evidence of recording of the final plat and trail
easement.
3. Submit and have approved lighting plans, signage plans, and building materials samples.
H. A PUD ordinance modification to allow 316 parking stalls rather than the required 346 stalls
is approved as part of the final PUD.
I. A six foot concrete sidewalk along the south side of Walker Street is to be installed and
maintained by the developer per the approved site plan, unless the City chooses to maintain
the sidewalk. A ten-foot bituminous trail is to be installed on Louisiana Avenue by the
developer and maintained by the City per the approved preliminary plat.
58
J. The developer shall provide the 1,798 inches of replacement trees on site or a combination
of on-site trees and cash in lieu of trees. The Community Development Director and Parks
and Recreation Director shall approve the cash equivalent amount.
K. The 20 required guest parking spaces shall be reserved via signage or other means approved
by the Zoning Administrator. If evidence, such as parking on public streets, drive aisles or
fire lanes, indicates that additional guest spaces are needed, the Zoning Administrator may
require conversion of proof of parking and/or designation of additional on-site guest
parking.
L. The Final PUD shall be amended on May 15, 2000 to incorporate all of the preceding
conditions and add the following conditions:
1. Official Exhibit G, building elevations, shall be further modified to replace stucco with
cement siding in certain areas as approved by the City Council.
Pursuant to Section 14:6-7.5(F) of the Zoning Ordinance, the City will require execution of a
development agreement as a condition of approval of the Final P.U.D. The development
agreement shall address those issues which the City Council deems appropriate and necessary.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council May 20, 2000
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk 99-35-AMEND1/N/RES/ORD
59
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 8g*
Meeting of May 15, 2000
*8g. Miscellaneous Zoning Ordinance amendments pertaining to extending the
time limit for variance re-applications, enforcing officer, requiring permits for
fences and parking lots, how private indoor entertainment w/liquor is
permitted, relocating permits for signs, and the deletion of the sign ordinance
in the Municipal Code with retention in the Zoning Ordinance.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments,
approve summary, and authorize publication.
Previous Action:
The City Council unanimously approved first reading of the proposed amendments at their May
1, 2000 meeting. There was no discussion on the proposed amendments. At the March 22, 2000
Planning Commission meeting, the Commission unanimously recommended approval of most
the proposed ordinance amendments on a vote of 6-0, with the exception of requiring a permit
prior to the installation of a fence. This was the second meeting where the Planning Commission
heard the proposed amendments. At the first meeting on February 16, 2000, the Planning
Commission requested that staff bring the amendments back to them with the actual proposed
language. When the proposed language was presented to the Planning Commission, there were
some Commissioners who still had concerns pertaining to requiring a permit for the installation
of a fence. Staff explained to the Planning Commission the rational behind requiring a permit in
order to reduce after the fact enforcement of the code and to ensure that the public is well
informed of the new code changes as they relate to fences. After some discussion, the Planning
Commission recommended that staff bring the ordinance proposal back to another Planning
Commission meeting. At the April 5, 2000 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission
again heard the proposed ordinance amendment related to requiring a permit for a fence. The
Planning Commission voted 4-0 to forward this amendment onto the Council with no
recommendation.
Background:
At the January 24, 2000 City Council Study Session, staff discussed several potential ordinance
amendments with the Council. At their direction staff originally proposed ordinance
amendments to increase the amount of time an applicant must wait prior to reapplying for the
same variance and to require a permit to be issued prior to the installation of a fence or a parking
lot, and to change the height requirement for fences in certain side yards. At a recent City
Council meeting, the Council had raised the question as to how an applicant was able to reapply
for the same variance six months after either the BOZA or City Council had denied it. They felt
that six months was too short of a time frame and it should either be eliminated or increased. In
addition, staff felt that this issue could have been avoided if some sort of simple permit were
60
issued to the home owner or fence installer. Likewise, it was thought that a permit should be
issued prior to the installation of a parking lot. This would avoid having to enforce the code
after-the-fact. A Councilmember also raised the point that a different height requirement for
front yards and side yards abutting a street creates an inconsistency. During the Planning
Commission hearing on February 16, 2000, the Planning Commission questioned a change to the
fence height requirement for side yard, since it would be difficult to enjoy the privacy in the back
yard of corner lots and difficult to screen possessions. The Council reconsidered the fence height
issue at their March 13, 2000 Study Session and decided to rescind the proposed ordinance
amendment.
Staff is initiating the two other amendments pertaining to the enforcing officer and allowing
private indoor entertainment without liquor as a use permitted with conditions and require
private indoor entertainment with liquor to obtain a Conditional Use Permit. In October of 1999
the Assistant Zoning Administrator position and responsibilities transferred from the Inspections
Department to the Community Development Department. Staff is proposing amending the
enforcing officer in the code to reflect the transfer. Staff is also proposing the change to private
indoor entertainment with liquor for consistency with how other uses with liquor are treated.
This was discussed previously, but has not yet been adopted.
In addition, staff is proposing relocating the section of the Municipal Code requiring a permit for
a sign to the Zoning Ordinance, and then deleting most of the sign section in the Municipal
Code. Sign standards would be retained in the Zoning Ordinance.
Issues:
• Extending the time limit for reapplying for the same variance.
• Changing the Enforcing Officer of the Zoning Ordinance.
• Requiring a permit prior to the installation of a fence.
• Requiring a permit prior to the construction of a parking lot.
• Amending how the Private Indoor Entertainment land use is permitted.
• Relocating parts of the sign ordinance from the Municipal Code into the Zoning
Ordinance.
• Deleting most of the sign section of the Municipal Code.
Analysis of Issues:
Extending the time limit for reapplying for the same variance.
As mentioned above, at a recent City Council meeting, the question was raised as to how an
applicant was able to reapply for the same variance that previously had already been denied.
Section 14:8-3.1(L) of the Zoning Ordinance states:
61
“… Any person who is denied a variance by the BOZA or whose appeal is denied by the
City Council may not reapply for the same variance within six (6) months from the denial
date.”
This currently allows for an applicant to reapply for the same variance request every six (6)
months. This has happened twice in the past five years. In the two instances, the requests were
denied both times.
The City Attorney believes that an amendment prohibiting a person from reapplying for the same
variance could legally be challenged under the theory of a past council binding a future council.
It was his opinion that a time frame be established allowing a person to reapply for the same
variance.
Staff would propose an ordinance amendment that would not allow a person to reapply for the
same variance within twenty-four (24) months of the denial date, (rather than six months), unless
the physical conditions of the land changed. An example of this would be the lot being divided
or combined with other land, or a partial taking of the property. This would then change the
conditions that were looked upon at the previous variance hearing, and could result in a different
outcome. However, it should be noted that if the need for a variance is created by the action of
the property owner, findings for approving the variance cannot be satisfied.
This would not prevent a new property owner from applying for the same variance. Since the
applicant (property owner) would be different, staff believes that the request would have to be
heard again.
Therefore, staff proposes the following language:
Section 14:8-3.1(L) – [General Provisions for Application and Review Process]
“…Any person who is denied a variance by the BOZA or whose appeal is denied by the
City Council may not reapply for the same variance within six (6) twenty-four (24) months from
the denial date unless the physical conditions of the property or land in question have changed.
A change in the physical conditions would include but is not limited to a division or combination
of the land or a taking of part of the land for public purpose.”
Changing the Enforcing Officer of the Zoning Ordinance.
Currently, the Zoning Ordinance appoints the Director of Inspections as Zoning Administrator.
The reorganizing of the Community Development Department and Inspections Department
moved the Assistant Zoning Administrator’s position and responsibilities from Inspections to
Community Development. Staff believes that the ordinance should be amended to reflect this
change since zoning is no longer a position within the Inspections Department.
Therefore, staff proposes the following language:
Section 14:8-7.2 – [Enforcing Officer]
62
“The Director of Inspections Planning and Zoning Supervisor is appointed the Zoning
Administrator who shall enforce this Ordinance under the direction and control of the
Community Development Director and City Manager.
Requiring a permit prior to the installation of a fence.
Staff has recently determined that with the new requirements under the Zoning Ordinance for
fences, and the past history, it would be beneficial if the City were to issue some type of permit
prior to a fence being installed. This would allow the city the opportunity to explain the rules
and regulations to the homeowner or fence installer. The rules and regulations would then be
given to the applicant, and a statement signed indicating they have received and understood the
information. In the event a fence is not constructed in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance,
we would then have this signed statement indicating that the information was received and
understood. Staff would also recommend that the statement would include language stating that
the home owner agrees that it is still their responsibility to ensure the fence is installed
completely on their property. This would prevent the need for an inspection to verify the
location of the fence. There would be some staff impact in advertising and implementing the
new policy, but staff believes it would be beneficial in avoiding some after the fact enforcement
issues. It would also help prevent homeowners from having to make after the fact corrections
which can be costly.
Staff discussed potential fees with the Council on March 13, 2000, and staff recommended a
$15.00 fee which is somewhat lower than the average cost of processing the permit and the low
end of what other cities charge. The proposed fee is part of a separate report.
Staff is proposing that within the fence section of the ordinance, a new sub-section be created
entitled General Provisions. Under this new sub-section, we would state that a permit is required
prior to the installation of a fence, and give the minimum requirements that are needed in order
for the City to review the application. This may include a working drawing showing how the
fence will look after completion and the height and location of the proposed fence.
Therefore, staff proposes the following language to Section 14:4-4:
A. General Provisions
1. Permit Required – A permit shall be required prior to the installation of any fence.
2. Submission Requirements – The following information shall be submitted prior to
a fence permit being issued:
a. Application form and fee.
b. Site plan indicating location of fence.
c. Fence design indicating height and style of fence.
63
Requiring a permit prior to the construction of a parking lot.
Like the fences, parking lots have also become noticed as an area which may need more review
prior to their construction. There are many issues with parking lots that if not addressed
immediately, could be costly to the property owner. These would include perimeter and internal
curbing, tree replacement, landscaping (internal and perimeter), stall width and length, drive aisle
width, setbacks, and lighting. In addition to these city requirements, there may also be additional
requirements for the watershed districts pertaining to storm water quality and quantity.
Staff would propose that within the general provisions of the parking section of the code, the
existing language be modified to state that a permit is required prior to the construction of a
parking lot, unless the parking lot has been reviewed and approved as part of another application.
Again, the language would indicate the minimum requirements which would need to be
submitted prior to the city issuing a parking lot permit. This may include two sets of
construction drawings showing the parking lot and how it will comply with all the requirements
stated in the design and maintenance section of the parking ordinance. As well, we would have
to have adequate documentation submitted to determine compliance with other regulating
agencies. In most cases, an inspection would need to be completed to determine compliance.
Again, staff would propose that the fees for the new parking lot permit be incorporated and set
by resolution and adopted by the City Council. The parking lot fee is expected to be higher than
that for fences since an inspection would likely be required. The fees were discussed with the
City Council on March 13, 2000 and staff recommended a $75.00 fee for parking lot permits that
are not included in other applications.
Within the General Provision section of the parking ordinance, staff would propose the following
changes and language to Section 14:6-1.2(B):
2. Permit Required – A parking lot permit shall be issued prior to the installation or
reconstruction of a parking lot, unless the parking lot design has been reviewed and
approved as part of another application.
3. Submission Requirements – The following information shall be submitted prior to a
parking lot permit being issued:
a. Application form and fee
b. Certified survey showing location of any existing and proposed buildings and
parking areas.
c. Design plans of the parking lot indicating:
i. Stall length
ii. Stall width
iii. Drive aisle width
64
iv. Curbing
v. Surfacing
vi. Lighting
vii. Grading and drainage
viii. Utilities
ix. Landscaping
d. Required storm water calculations
The existing 2 through 15 will be re-numbered as 4 through 17.
Amending how the Private Indoor Entertainment land use is permitted.
Currently, the private indoor entertainment land use is permitted with conditions in the C-1, C-2,
and O Districts, and requires a PUD in the MX District. The current ordinance allows a bar as an
accessory use to the private indoor entertainment land use in only the C-2, O, and MX Districts.
Staff believes that the private indoor entertainment land use should be viewed similarly to a
restaurant or club or lodge. It should be broken into two classifications, one with liquor, and one
without liquor. The private indoor entertainment without liquor would remain as a use permitted
with conditions in the C-1, C-2 and O Districts, and require a PUD in the MX District. The
private indoor entertainment with liquor would not be permitted in the C-1 District, would
require a Conditional Use Permit in the C-2 and O District, and would require a PUD in the MX
District. This would be consistent with the current regulations for restaurants and clubs and
lodges with and without liquor in the Zoning Ordinance.
For the private indoor entertainment without liquor, the conditions for approval would not be
changed. They would remain the exact way as they exist in the current code. However, for the
new private indoor entertainment with liquor, new conditions of approval would have to be
adopted. Staff would recommend that these conditions be identical to the conditions of approval
for a restaurant or club or lodge with liquor in the same zoning district.
Staff proposes the following ordinance amendment to the “C-1” District:
Section 14:5-5.2(C)(16) – [Uses Permitted with Conditions]
“16. PRIVATE ENTERTAINMENT (INDOOR) WITHOUT LIQUOR
LICENSE.”
Staff proposes the following ordinance amendments to the “C-2” District:
Section 14:5-5.3(C)(17) - [Uses Permitted with Conditions]
“17. PRIVATE ENTERTAINMENT (INDOOR) WITHOUT LIQUOR
LICENSE.”
65
Section 14:5-5.3(D)(9) - [Uses Permitted by Conditional Use Permit]
9. PRIVATE ENTERTAINMENT (INDOOR) WITH LIQUOR LICENSE.
a. Access shall be from a roadway identified in the Comprehensive Plan as a
collector or arterial or otherwise located so that access can be provided
without conducting significant traffic on local residential streets.
b. The building housing the use shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from
any property located in an “R” Use District.
c. Separate pedestrian ways shall be constructed to allow for the separation
of pedestrian and vehicular movements within the parking lot.
d. A bufferyard “F” shall be installed and maintained along all property lines
which abut property in an “R” Use District.
Section 14:5-5.3(F)(5) – [Accessory Uses]
5. Bar if accessory to a restaurant, hotel, private entertainment (indoor), club or
lodge.
The existing 6 through 8 will be re-numbered as 5 through 7
Staff proposes the following ordinance amendments to the “O” District:
Section 14:5-6.2(C)(14) - [Uses Permitted with Conditions]
14. PRIVATE ENTERTAINMENT (INDOOR) WITHOUT LIQUOR
LICENSE.”
Section 14:5-6.2(D)(7) - [Uses Permitted by Conditional Use Permit]
7. Uses where more than one principal building is located on a single lot.
PRIVATE ENTERTAINMENT (INDOOR) WITH LQUOR LICENSE.
a. Access shall be from a roadway identified in the Comprehensive
Plan as a collector or arterial or otherwise located so that access
can be provided without conducting significant traffic on local
residential streets.
b. The building housing the use shall be located a minimum of 100
feet from any property located in an “R” Use District.
66
c. Separate pedestrian ways shall be constructed to allow for the
separation of pedestrian and vehicular movements within the
parking lot.
d. A bufferyard “F” shall be installed and maintained along all
property lines which abut property in an “R” Use District.
Section 14:5-6.2(F)(3) – [Accessory Uses]
3. BAR if accessory to a restaurant, hotel, private entertainment (indoor),
club or lodge.
The existing 4 through 6 will be re-numbered as 3 through 5.
Relocating parts of the sign ordinance from the Municipal Code into the Zoning
Ordinance.
With the recodification of the city’s Municipal Code, sections which are redundant will be
deleted and incorporated into one section. This is the case with the city’s sign ordinance. It is
listed once in the Municipal Code, and again in the Zoning Ordinance. The purpose of this
amendment is to adopt certain sections of the Municipal Code into the Zoning Ordinance in
order to ensure that permits are still obtained prior to a sign’s installation.
Staff would propose that within the general provisions of the sign section of the code, a
requirement stating that a permit shall be issued prior to a sign being installed be adopted. As
well, this amendment would also indicate what would need to be submitted by an applicant in
order for city staff to determine if a sign will be in compliance with the remainder of the code.
Within the General Provision section of the sign ordinance, staff would propose the following
changes and language to Section 14:6-2.6:
A. Permit Required – A sign permit shall be issued prior to the installation of any
sign.
B. Submission Requirements – The following information shall be submitted prior to
a sign permit being issued:
1. Application form and fee
2. Site plan and building elevations (if applicable)
3. Two sets of drawings for each sign that is proposed.
The existing A through R will be re-lettered C through T
Deleting most of the sign section of the Municipal Code.
67
With the relocation of the permitting requirements from the Municipal Code into the Zoning
Ordinance, there is no need to have those requirements duplicated. Likewise, since the fees will
be adopted by resolution, that section of the code can also be eliminated. There are other
sections of the code that are duplicated within the Zoning Ordinance that should also be deleted.
However, there are a couple of sections pertaining to licensing and billboard inspections which
will have to be retained until the recodification of the Municipal Code is completed.
Staff is proposing that the majority of the Sign Section be deleted out of the Municipal Code.
This would include Section 13-701; 13-702; 13-704 through 13-708; and 13-710 through 13-724.
Sections 13-703 and 13-709 will be retained as is within the Municipal Code as they deal with
licensing and billboard inspections respectively.
Attachments:
Proposed Ordinance
Summary Ordinance
Prepared by: Scott Moore, Assistant Zoning Administrator, 924-2592
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
68
ORDINANCE NO.______
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK
ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING BY
AMENDING SECTIONS
14:4-4, 14:5-5.2(C), 14:5-5.3(C) 14:5-5.3(D), 14:5-5.3(F), 14:5-6.2(C), 14:5-6.2(D),
14:5-6.2(F), 14:6-1.2(B),14:6-2.6, 14:8-3.1(L), 14-8-7.2
AND
DELETING MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS
13-701, 13-702, 13-704 THROUGH 13-708 AND 13-710 THROUGH 13-724
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. 00-08-ZA)
Sec. 2. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Section 14:4-4, 14:5-5.2(C), 14:5-5.3(C),
14:5-5.3(D), 14:5-5.3(F), 14:5-6.2(C), 14:5-6.2(D), 14:5-6.2(F), 14:6-1.2(B),14:6-2.6, 14:8-
3.1(L), 14-8-7.2 are hereby amended to read as follows:
Section 14:4-4:
A. General Provisions
1. Permit Required – A permit shall be required prior to the installation of any fence.
2. Submission Requirements – The following information shall be submitted prior to a fence
permit being issued:
a. Application form and fee.
b. Site plan indicating location of fence.
c. Fence design indicating height and style of fence.
Section 14:5-5.2(C)(16) – [Uses Permitted with Conditions]
16. PRIVATE ENTERTAINMENT (INDOOR) WITHOUT LIQUOR LICENSE.
Section 14:5-5.3(C)(17) - [Uses Permitted with Conditions]
17. PRIVATE ENTERTAINMENT (INDOOR) WITHOUT LIQUOR LICENSE.
Section 14:5-5.3(D)(9) - [Uses Permitted by Conditional Use Permit]
69
9. PRIVATE ENTERTAINMENT (INDOOR) WITH LQUOR LICENSE.
a. Access shall be from a roadway identified in the Comprehensive Plan as a
collector or arterial or otherwise located so that access can be provided
without conducting significant traffic on local residential streets.
b. The building housing the use shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from
any property located in an “R” Use District.
c. Separate pedestrian ways shall be constructed to allow for the separation
of pedestrian and vehicular movements within the parking lot.
d. A bufferyard “F” shall be installed and maintained along all property lines
which abut property in an “R” Use District.
Section 14:5-5.3(F)(5) – [Accessory Uses]
5. Bar if accessory to a restaurant, hotel, private entertainment (indoor), club or
lodge.
The existing 6 through 8 will be re-numbered as 5 through 7
Section 14:5-6.2(C)(14) - [Uses Permitted with Conditions]
14. PRIVATE ENTERTAINMENT (INDOOR) WITHOUT LIQUOR LICENSE
Section 14:5-6.2(D)(7) - [Uses Permitted by Conditional Use Permit]
7. Uses where more than one principal building is located on a single lot.
PRIVATE ENTERTAINMENT (INDOOR) WITH LQUOR LICENSE.
a. Access shall be from a roadway identified in the Comprehensive Plan as a
collector or arterial or otherwise located so that access can be provided
without conducting significant traffic on local residential streets.
b. The building housing the use shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from
any property located in an “R” Use District.
c. Separate pedestrian ways shall be constructed to allow for the separation
of pedestrian and vehicular movements within the parking lot.
d. A bufferyard “F” shall be installed and maintained along all property lines
which abut property in an “R” Use District.
Section 14:5-6.2(F)(3) – [Accessory Uses]
70
3. BAR if accessory to a restaurant, hotel, private entertainment (indoor), club or
lodge.
The existing 4 through 6 will be re-numbered as 3 through 5.
Section 14:6-1.2(B):
2. Permit Required – A parking lot permit shall be issued prior to the installation or
reconstruction of a parking lot, unless the parking lot design has been reviewed and
approved as part of another application.
3. Submission Requirements – The following information shall be submitted prior to a
parking lot permit being issued:
a. Application form and fee
b. Certified survey showing location of any existing and proposed buildings and
parking areas.
c. Design plans of the parking lot indicating:
i. Stall length
ii. Stall width
iii. Drive aisle width
iv. Curbing
v. Surfacing
vi. Lighting
vii. Grading and drainage
viii. Utilities
ix. Landscaping
d. Required storm water calculations
The existing 2 through 15 will be re-numbered as 4 through 17.
Section 14:6-2.6:
A. Permit Required – A sign permit shall be issued prior to the installation of any
sign.
B. Submission Requirements – The following information shall be submitted prior to
a sign permit being issued:
1. Application form and fee
71
2. Site plan and building elevations (if applicable)
3. Two sets of drawings for each sign that is proposed.
The existing A through R will be re-lettered C through T
Section 14:8-3.1(L) – [General Provisions for Application and Review Process]
…Any person who is denied a variance by the BOZA or whose appeal is denied by the
City Council may not reapply for the same variance within six (6) twenty-four (24) months from
the denial date unless the physical conditions of the property or land in question have changed.
A change in the physical conditions would include but is not limited to a division or combination
of the land or a taking of part of the land for public purpose.
Section 14:8-7.2 – [Enforcing Officer]
The Director of Inspections Planning and Zoning Supervisor is appointed the Zoning
Administrator who shall enforce this Ordinance under the direction and control of the
Community Development Director and City Manager.
Sec. 3. The St. Louis Park Municipal Code, Sections 13-701, 13-702, 13-704
through 13-708, and 13-710 through 13-724 are hereby deleted in their entirety. Sections
13-703 and 13-709 shall be retained and renumbered to 13-701 and 13-702 respectively.
Sec. 4. The contents of Planning Case File 00-08-ZA are hereby entered into and
made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
Sec.5. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication.
Adopted by the City Council May 15, 2000
Reviewed for Administration
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney 00-08-ZA/N/res/ord
72
SUMMARY
ORDINANCE NO._____________
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK
ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING BY
AMENDING SECTIONS
14:4-4, 14:5-5.2(C), 14:5-5.3(C) 14:5-5.3(D), 14:5-5.3(F), 14:5-6.2(C), 14:5-6.2(D),
14:5-6.2(F), 14:6-1.2(B),14:6-2.6, 14:8-3.1(L), 14-8-7.2
AND
DELETING MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS
13-701, 13-702, 13-704 THROUGH 13-708 AND 13-710 THROUGH 13-724
This ordinance approves miscellaneous amendments to the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to
extending the time limit for variance re-applications, enforcing officer, requiring permits for
fences and parking lots, how private indoor entertainment w/liquor is permitted, relocating
permits for signs from the Municipal Code to the Zoning Ordinance, and the deletion of the sign
ordinance in the Municipal Code with retention in the Zoning Ordinance.
This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication.
Adopted by the City Council May 15, 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: May 24, 2000
00-08-sum/N/res/ord
73
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 8h*
Meeting of May 15, 2000
*8h. Creating a definition for a catering land use, establishing which zoning
districts to permit a catering business, and determining a parking requirement
for a catering operation.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments,
approve the summary, and authorize publication.
Previous Action:
The City Council unanimously approved first reading of the proposed amendments at their May
1, 2000 meeting. There was some discussion on the amendments limited to whether the
proposed new land use definition would also include home chefs. Staff had indicated that the
proposed amendments would not include this type of home occupation.
At the March 22, 2000 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission recommended approval
of the proposed ordinance amendments pertaining to catering. This was the second meeting
where the Planning Commission heard the proposed amendments. At the first meeting on
February 16, 2000, the Planning Commission requested that staff bring the amendments back to
them with the actual proposed language. When the proposed language was presented to the
Planning Commission, there were some Commissioners who had concerns as to where this type
of business can or should be located. Some of the Commissioners thought that a straight catering
operation should also be permitted as a principal land use in the General Commercial (C-2)
District. Staff explained to the Planning Commission the rational behind permitting a catering
operation as an accessory land use versus a principal one in the C-2 District. This included
limited public contact and the large amount of truck traffic for deliveries. After some discussion,
the Planning Commission, on a vote of 4-1, recommended approval of the proposed ordinance
amendments.
Background:
During the past couple of months, the city has had numerous questions regarding where and how
a catering facility could be located and operated within the City. The current Zoning Ordinance
does not separately list or define a catering land use. A determination was needed in order to
establish where and how this type of land use would be permitted. After review, staff
determined that a manufacturing or processing facility was the closest related land use to a
catering operation. The factors in this determination were truck traffic, noise, odor, and refuse
handling as well as the overall definition of the production of a physical commodity or changing
the form of a raw ingredient. Another consideration was the fact that catering businesses do not
usually involve direct customer contact at the place of business, unless it is accessory to another
use (e.g. food service, restaurant, bakery etc.).
74
Since more of these businesses are starting up or relocating within the City, staff believes that the
land use should have a separate definition, separate standards for where and how it should be
operated, and separate parking requirements. Staff also believes that the food service definition
should be clarified to better distinguish it from catering.
Issues:
• How to define a catering business?
• What districts should a catering business be located in and how should they be
permitted?
• What should the parking requirements be for a catering operation?
• How to better define food service to distinguish it from a catering business?
Analysis of Issues:
How to define a catering business?
As mentioned above, currently, a catering business has been defined as a manufacturing and
processing facility. Even though some of the characteristics and the principal definition are
similar, staff believes that a catering business should be examined more closely and be separate
from the manufacturing use.
Staff would propose the following language for a catering land use definition:
“Catering – An operation where food is either fully or partially prepared on site and
delivered to the customer off site for final preparation and consumption. Characteristics
include truck traffic, refuse storage issues, limited on-site public contact, and possible
odors from materials and processing.”
What districts should a catering business be located in and how should they be permitted?
In determining where a catering business should be located, staff considered that the operation is
often affiliated with a restaurant business since the cooking facilities are already provided and is
most closely defined as a manufacturing business as previously explained. Staff reviewed all the
districts where these two land uses are permitted and concluded that in the commercial areas,
including the Mixed Use District, a catering operation should be permitted as an accessory use,
and in the Industrial areas, a catering business should be permitted as a principal land use.
Therefore in the C-1, C-2, and M-X Use Districts, staff is recommending that a catering business
only be permitted as an accessory use to a restaurant, food service delicatessen, grocery store, or
retail bakery. This would preserve the commercial districts for mainly customer-oriented
businesses but allow for some catering to occur in conjunction with commercial uses. In the I-P
District, a catering operation would be permitted with conditions as a principal land use. These
conditions would be similar to the ones listed for a manufacturing facility in the same district. In
75
the I-G District, a catering business would be a permitted use as a principal land use. This is
consistent with the manufacturing land use in this district.
Therefore, staff would propose the following ordinance amendments to the following Sections of
the Zoning Ordinance.
Section 14:5-5.2(E) – [Accessory Use in the C-1, Neighborhood Commercial District]
6. Catering if accessory to a restaurant, food service, delicatessen, grocery store, or
retail bakery.
Section 14:5-5.3(F) - [Accessory Use in the C-2, General Commercial District]
9. Catering if accessory to a restaurant, food service, delicatessen, grocery store, or
retail bakery.
Section 14:5-7.2(C) – [Uses permitted with conditions in the I-P, Industrial Park District]
10. Catering
Conditions:
a. All outdoor activities such as loading and unloading shall be located a
minimum of 100 feet from any property in an “R” Use District and where
possible shall be located on the side of the building farthest from an “R”
Use District.
b. The facility shall provide a Bufferyard “F” along all abutting property in
the “R”, “O”, or “C-1” Use Districts.
c. The applicant must sign a statement acknowledging and agreeing to abide
with all of the applicable performance standards and other regulations of
this Ordinance.
Section 14:5-7.3(B) – [Uses permitted in the I-G, General Industrial District]
14. Catering
Section 14:5-8(E) – [Accessory uses in the M-X, Mixed Use District]
10. Catering if accessory to a restaurant, food service, delicatessen, grocery store, or
retail bakery.
76
What should the parking requirements be for a catering operation?
Since public interaction is limited with a catering operation, staff does not believe that the
parking requirement for this type of business should be as high as a restaurant or retail facility.
Staff would propose that a catering operation have to provide one parking stall for every 500
square feet of floor area. This is similar to the parking requirements for a manufacturing facility.
Staff believes that this will provide adequate parking for employees and any potential customers.
The catering parking would be in addition to the requirement for the principal use except if space
were shared.
Therefore, staff would propose the following ordinance amendment:
Section 14:6-1.3(A)
28. Catering. One (1) parking stall for each five hundred (500) square feet of floor
area.
Existing 28 through 49 will be re-numbers as 29 through 50.
How to better define food service to distinguish it from a catering business?
To better differentiate between a food service and catering land use, staff proposes the following
modification to the definition of food service:
Section 14:5-3.2(D)(11) – [Land Use Definitions]
“The on-site sale of food and beverages which are prepared and served in individual
portions in a ready to consume state for consumption either on-site or off-site; including
seating for not more than ten persons. Characteristics may include truck and vehicle
traffic, cooking odors and refuse. The preferred location is on major thoroughfares with
no access to local residential streets. This use is often found in conjunction with motor
fuel stations and grocery stores.
Attachments:
Proposed Ordinance
Summary Ordinance
Prepared by: Scott Moore, Assistant Zoning Administrator, 924-2592
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
77
ORDINANCE NO.______
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK
ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING BY
AMENDING SECTIONS
14:5-3.2(D), 14:5-3.2(E), 14:5-5.2(E). 14:5-5.3(F), 14:5-7.2(C),
14:5-7.3(B), 14:5-8(E), 14:6-1.3(A)
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. 00-09-ZA)
Sec. 2. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Sections 14:5-3.2(D), 14:5-5.2(E). 14:5-
5.3(F), 14:5-7.2 (C), 14:5-7.3(B), 14:5-8(E), 14:6-1.3(A) are hereby amended to read as follows:
Section 14:5-3.2(D)(11) – [Land Use Definitions]
FOOD SERVICE - The on-site sale of food and beverages which are prepared and served
in individual portions in a ready to consume state for consumption either on-site or off-
site; including seating for not more than ten persons. Characteristics may include truck
and vehicle traffic, cooking odors and refuse. The preferred location is on major
thoroughfares with no access to local residential streets. This use is often found in
conjunction with motor fuel stations and grocery stores.
Section 14:5-3.2(E) – [Land use Definitions]
2. CATERING – An operation where food is either fully or partially prepared on site
and delivered to the customer off site for final preparation and consumption.
Characteristics include truck traffic, refuse storage issues, limited on-site public
contact, and possible odors from materials and processing.
Renumber existing 2-10 to 3-11
Section 14:5-5.2(E) – [Accessory Use in the C-1, Neighborhood Commercial District]
6. Catering if accessory to a restaurant, food service, delicatessen, grocery
store, or retail bakery.
Section 14:5-5.3(F) - [Accessory Use in the C-2, General Commercial District]
9. Catering if accessory to a restaurant, food service, delicatessen, grocery
store, or retail bakery.
78
Section 14:5-7.2(C) – [Uses permitted with conditions in the I-P, Industrial Park District]
10. Catering
Conditions:
a. All outdoor activities such as loading and unloading shall be located a
minimum of 100 feet from any property in an “R” Use District and where
possible shall be located on the side of the building farthest from an “R”
Use District.
b. The facility shall provide a Bufferyard “F” along all abutting property in
the “R”, “O”, or “C-1” Use Districts.
c. The applicant must sign a statement acknowledging and agreeing to abide
with all of the applicable performance standards and other regulations of
this Ordinance.
Section 14:5-7.3(B) – [Uses permitted in the I-G, General Industrial District]
14. Catering
Section 14:5-8(E) – [Accessory uses in the M-X, Mixed Use District]
10. Catering if accessory to a restaurant, food service, delicatessen, grocery store,
or retail bakery.
Section 14:6-1.3(A)
28. Catering. One (1) parking stall for each five hundred (500) square feet of
floor area.
Existing 28 through 49 will be re-numbers as 29 through 50.
Sec. 3. The contents of Planning Case File 00-09-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.
79
SUMMARY
ORDINANCE NO. 2168-00
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK
ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING BY
AMENDING SECTIONS
14:5-3.2(D), 14:5-5.2(E). 14:5-5.3(F), 14:5-7.2(C),
14:5-7.3(B), 14:5-8(E), 14:6-1.3(A)
This ordinance creates a definition for a catering land use, establishes which zoning districts to
permit a catering business, and determines a parking requirement for a catering operation.
This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication.
Adopted by the City Council May 15, 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: May 24, 2000
00-09-sum/N/res/ord
80
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 8i*
Meeting of May 15, 2000
*8i. Park Center Boulevard Housing TIF District
This report considers a technical correction to the Modification of the Park Center
Housing Tax Increment Financing Plan.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the Resolution Clarifying the Parcels to be
Included in the Modification to the Park Center Housing TIF
District.
Background:
The City Council adopted the resolution modifying the Park Center Boulevard Housing TIF
district on September 21, 1999 as part of the Parkwood Shores Assisted Living Phase II project.
At the time of adoption, the legal description of the area to be included in the TIF district was
correct but the associated PID number was not due to prior renumbering. The Council clarified
the PID number of the parcel to be included in the previous district by a resolution adopted
February 18, 1997. The parcel reference was changed to PID 06-028-24-33-0017.
By approving the resolution, the Council will clarify and reaffirm that parcel 06-028-24-33-0017
and parcel 06-028-24-33-0020 (formerly a portion of 06-028-24-33-0016 and 06-028-24-33-
0013) are the appropriate parcels to be included in the Park Center Housing TIF District as
Modified on September 21, 1999. The Council will further reaffirm that parcel identification
numbers 06-028-24-33-0021 (formerly a portion of 06-028-24-33-0013) and 06-028-24-33-0019
(formerly a portion of 02-028-24-33-0016) are to remain in the Excelsior Boulevard Tax
Increment Financing District.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Tom Kleve, Economic Development Coordinator
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
81
RESOLUTION NO. 00-070
RESOLUTION CLARIFYING THE PARCELS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE MODIFICATION
TO THE PARK CENTER BOULEVARD HOUSING TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
DISTRICT, WITHIN THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK.
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the “Council”) of the City of St. Louis Park,
Minnesota (the “City”), as follows:
Section 1. Recitals.
1.01 On September 21, 1999 the City approved and adopted a Modification to the Tax
Increment Financing Plan for the Park Center Boulevard Housing Tax Increment
Financing District (the “District”), expanding the boundaries of the District.
1.02 The legal description of the property in the District, as expanded by the
modification, was correctly identified under a replatted name of Silvercrest
Addition, Block 1, Lot 2.
1.03. Despite the correct legal description, the modification also identified the property
in the District by reference to parcel identification numbers that were inaccurate
because of prior re-numbering by Hennepin County.
1.04. Hennepin County has requested that the City clarify the parcel identification
numbers to avoid confusion regarding the boundary of the District.
Section 2. Reaffirming the City’s Intentions.
2.01 The Council hereby reaffirms that “The south 40.00 feet of Lot 1, Block 2 PARK
CENTER, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, and the
north 145.00 feet of the south 185.00 feet of the east 215.00 feet of said Lot 1” also
known as parcel identification number 06-028-24-33-0017 and “That part of Lot 2, Block
1, SILVERCREST, except that part embraced with that part of Lot 1, Block 2, PARK
CENTER, described as follows: the south 40.00 feet of said Lot 1 and the north 145.00
feet of the south 185.00 feet of the east 215 feet of said Lot 1”, also known as parcel
identification number 06-028-24-33-0020 are the two parcels to be included in the Park
Center Boulevard Housing TIF District as Modified and approved by this Council on
September 21, 1999.
2.02 The Council hereby reaffirms that parcel identification numbers 06-028-24-33-0021
(formerly a portion of 06-028-24-33-0013) and 06-028-24-33-0019 (formerly a
portion of 02-028-24-33-0016) are to remain in the Excelsior Boulevard Tax
Increment Financing District first approved on February 7, 1977.
82
2.03. This resolution is not intended to alter the boundaries of the District as approved on
September 21,1999, but only to bring the parcel references into conformance with the
map and legal description approved on that date.
2.03. The City further understands that Hennepin County is expected to assign a new parcel
number to Lot 2, Block 1, Silvercrest Addition, at which time the new parcel number will
supersede the numbers referenced in this resolution.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council May 15, 2000
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
83
Item # 9a*
MINUTES (Official)
CHARTER COMMISSION MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
January 12, 2000
City Hall, Third Floor Conference Room
Call to Order
Cynthia Ahrens chaired the meeting of January 12, due to Chair Beck's excused absence, and
called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
Introductions and Attendance
It was moved by Commissioner Moga and seconded by Commissioner Walsh to excuse the
absences of the following members: George Beck, Paul Carver, and Ruth Kirschner. MOTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
A. Members Present: Cynthia Ahrens, Michael Sixel, Cheryl Ernst, Christopher Johnson,
Dorothea Moga, David Ornstein, James Schaefer, D. Christopher Smith, and Carol
Walsh.
B. Members Excused: George Beck, Paul Carver, and Ruth Kirschner.
C. Members Unexcused: Alan Sargent (see later in the minutes for a discussion about
Commissioner Sargent's status.)
D. Staff Present: City Staff Liaison Clint Pires
E. Vacancies: The Commission currently has two vacancies, plus the likely vacancy of
Alan Sargent's seat.
Approval of Minutes
It was moved by Commissioner Walsh and seconded by Commissioner Moga to approve the
minutes of the November 10, 1999 meeting. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Charter Review
A. The Commission discussed Chapter 9, Franchises. After discussing for several
minutes, the commission decided to table further discussion until the Council meets with
key state legislators about possible telecommunications laws changes. Since legislation
is likely in 2000, the Commission will probably not discuss this issue again until after the
84
session. Mr. Pires stated he would e-mail or copy Commissioners the current state
planned legislation to keep them informed.
B. The Commission discussed Section 2.07 on compensation. The Commission reviewed
information provided by Commissioner Carver and Municipal Code Corporation, then
decided that no action was required at this time. The rationale is that the Council should
have the freedom to act on compensation.
Commissioner Resignation
The Commission then discussed the likely vacancy of Commissioner Sargent's seat. It has come
to our attention that he has probably moved out of St. Louis Park, but Commissioner Sargent has
not submitted a letter of resignation from the Commission. The Commission directed Mr. Pires
to attempt to obtain a letter of resignation. This was moved by Commissioner Johnson and
seconded by Commissioner Schaefer. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Meeting Schedule
Commissioner Johnson moved and Commissioner Schaefer seconded a motion to move the
March meeting from the 8th to the 15th. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Other Business
The Commission directed Mr. Pires to discuss with the Council which meeting we should attend
to discuss Charter issues with them. Two potential dates were offered, April 10 or April 24.
The March 15th meeting should include a legislative update, the annual elections of officers, and
a representative from the League of Minnesota Cities to comment further on the franchise section
of the Charter in the context of pending legislation.
Adjournment
As there was no other business, at 7:55 p.m., Commissioner Sixel moved and Commissioner
Schaefer seconded adjournment. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Respectfully submitted,
Mike Sixel
Secretary
85
Item # 9b*
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
APRIL 5, 2000 --7:00 P.M.
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Paul Carver, Michael Garelick, Dennis Morris,
Jerry Timian (arrived 7:20 p.m.), Sally Velick
MEMBERS ABSENT: Michelle Bissonnette, Ken Gothberg
STAFF PRESENT: Janet Jeremiah, Sacha Peterson, Shirley Olson
1. Call to Order - Roll Call
Chair Carver called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m.
2. Approval of Minutes of March 22, 2000
Mr. Morris moved approval of Minutes of March 22, 2000 with the correction listed
below and the motion passed on a vote of 4-0 with Carver, Garelick, Morris, and Velick
voting in favor.
Page 5, Paragraph 6, 1st Sentence, change to “Mr. Morris commented that the
Commission could make a motion to delete the issue from the agenda”.
3. Public Hearings:
A. Case Nos. 00-14-S and 00-15-PUD - Request of CSM/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 (continued 3-22-00)
Sacha Peterson, Planner, presented a staff report. She explained the results of the
traffic study with the possible realignment of Zarthan Avenue, the impact on local
residential streets and neighborhood traffic concerns. She stated that staff was
recommending approval of the preliminary plat and preliminary PUD with the
conditions outlined in the staff report with the proposed amendments by staff:
Amendments: Change Condition 9a to “Construction vehicles shall be prohibited
from using Zarthan (south of 16th Street), Alabama, and Blackstone Avenues”.
Add to Condition 3a “Prior to Final plat and PUD approval that the access issues
to the town houses would be resolved in a manner that would be consistent with
the recommendation of the traffic study”.
86
Mr. Morris asked the location of the nearest transit stop.
Ms. Peterson stated that there is a transit stop on Wayzata Boulevard just west of
the development. There are also park and ride facilities on Louisiana & Wayzata
and Wayzata & park Place Boulevard.
Ms. Velick asked if a transit stop was going to be built on 16th Street.
Ms. Jeremiah responded that a transit shelter will be built on 16th east of Zarthan
by Ryan, the developer for the shopping center.
Mr. Morris questioned the pedestrian flow for the entire area and asked if there
was any arrangements to have any pedestrian crossing at the 16th and Zarthan
intersection given the current configuration with the looping drive and the island.
He questioned what amenities could be added to create a safe pedestrian crossing
to the east.
Ms. Peterson believed this was a good point and stated that staff would examine
this issue and provide more information for the Council and for final PUD. Ms.
Jeremiah added that if a traffic light is installed at Zarthan & 16th Street, a
pedestrian crossing would be at the light.
Chair Carver asked if the traffic light on Zarthan and 16th Street was a condition
in the staff report.
Ms. Peterson stated that this was included under condition 4b.
Richard Palmiter of Rottlund Companies introduced Dan Pellinen, Dave Carland,
and Dave Wasnuski from CSM Corporation. He stated that he just received a
copy of the traffic study and haven’t been able to review it completely yet, but
would like to keep moving along. He explained the housing product that is being
proposed which is called the new urban townhome and explained the basic
features of the product which provides a streetscape (with units built back to back
and two stall per unit underground parking) that the market is looking for.
Mr. Garelick asked if this development was similar to the design of the
Development on Medicine Lake Road in Plymouth.
Mr. Palmiter stated that it is the general type of look, although the Plymouth
townhomes have garages on the exterior.
Mr. Garelick asked what the estimated selling price per unit would be.
87
Mr. Palmiter stated that the range would be from $130,000 to $180,000 with an
average price o $150,000. He stated that he would like to under promise and over
deliver on the unit.
Mr. Garelick questioned what the urban style meant.
Mr. Palmiter stated that that urban started with density and being able to move the
numbers up and then to look at the style of living of buyers who are more active.
Mr. Garelick asked if the park on the site plan would be a City park.
Mr. Palmiter stated that the park would be a City park. He indicated that he has
worked with staff to designate area for park and the neighborhood would have
access to the park.
Ms. Peterson concurred that the proposed location, size and access to the park are
consistent with staff’s recommendations.
Dave Carland, Vice President of Development at CSM Corporation stated that the
project provides needed housing in St. Louis Park, eliminates an industrial use
that is no longer consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, eliminates a billboard,
creates a City Park, realigns Zarthan Avenue and increases the tax base. He
explained that the two products (Springhill Suites and Town Place Suites) being
proposed are Marriott products.
Dan Pellinen briefly reviewed the aspects of the site plan and amenities of the
product.
Chair Carver asked where residents did their backyard type of activities.
Mr. Pellinen stated that there would be front patio porches to do such activities.
Mr. Garelick asked what the time frame for completion of the project was.
Mr. Pellinen stated that construction would start this summer with opening
projected in Spring, 2001.
Mr. Morris asked why Hardiplank (a cement lap siding) would be used as a Class
II material for the extended stay hotel instead of the cement stucco as with the
traditional hotel.
Mr. Pellinen stated that the hotels were marketed toward different people and the
extended stay hotel is marketed toward more of a residential look and had a
longer guarantee on the product compared to wood siding.
88
Mr. Morris asked what material would be used if Hardiplank was not approved as
a Class II material.
Mr. Pellinen indicated that they would use the EIFS(artificial stucco).
Chair Carver questioned the amount of parking and the shared parking with
businesses to the east.
Mr. Carland explained that, based on prior experience, the parking shown on the
site plan would be sufficient even at 100% occupancy for the hotels, which is
rarely achieved. If necessary, overflow would be on the office site across
Zarthan, which has a different peak parking time and CSM is willing to pursue a
parking agreement with the owner of that building.
Chair Carver opened the public hearing.
Hans Widmer, 1601 Alabama Avenue South, stated that he was concerned about
the increase in traffic in the neighborhood, amount of parking available for
townhomes, noise issues from development affecting the neighborhood, city park
being located too close to the railroad track which should be fenced. He
recommended that the park be developed first during the construction so that the
neighborhood is not inconvenienced by no park at all and that construction
parking and use of residential streets be limited.
Chair Carver believed that it was important to make the installation of the park a
priority.
Ms. Peterson stated that the Park and Recreation Department did recommend that
a non-opaque fence be installed between the railroad tracks and the park for
safety. A fence is not proposed around the pond because it is not anticipated to be
a safety hazard. The grades are fairly gradual.
Gary Berscheid, 1604 Blackstone, stated that although the City has encouraged
neighborhood involvement, he doesn’t feel like the Blackstone neighborhood
have been given an opportunity to be involved or give input on the development.
He stated that he has not seen the traffic study and was concerned that the
numbers stated for the amount of increase of traffic were incorrect and would
impact the neighborhood. He questioned how this type of development could be
built in a residential neighborhood; what the park layout was going to be; was
there going to be public parking on 16th Street; and who is responsible for snow
removal. He also questioned the configuration and colors of the townhomes;
where the townhome residents were going to park their recreational vehicles; and
asked if there would be parking restrictions on 16th Street.
Chair Carver stated that in terms of availability of information, two neighborhood
meetings have been held and through the feedback from Mr. Berscheid at the last
89
Planning Commission meeting the issues were dealt with and put in motion. In
terms of available information, the traffic study is dated April 3, 2000 and still a
draft, so because of timing it came out late and CSM hasn’t had time to review it
either. It is important for everyone to take it upon themselves and take the
initiative to come to City Hall and request information that is available. Mr.
Carver stated that it was important to realize that the Blackstone neighborhood
goes all the way up to Wayzata Boulevard and so the town houses clearly
represent change for the area, but each of the townhouses is going to be an owned
unit, so those folks will be neighbors and not “those people” and they will be a
part of the neighborhood association I hope those are the kinds of people who
move to St. Louis Park. He stated that there will be a townhouse association, so
it won’t be acceptable to park boats in visitor parking spaces.
Chair Carver asked staff to address the concern about snow removal on sidewalks.
Ms. Peterson stated that it would be the developer’s or townhouse association’s
responsibility to clear the sidewalk.
Chair Carver asked staff to clarify the size of the new park.
Ms. Peterson stated that the new park would be about one acre which is more than
three times the size of the current park. She stated that discussions have not
begun on development of the park, but that the Park and Recreation Department
intends to hold a separate neighborhood meeting at the beginning of the process to
receive input from residents on how the park should be developed. She stated that
staff would relay the neighbor’s desire to have the park developed as soon as
possible to the Park and Recreation Department, but the hitch may be having that
process occur before the developer wants to get going, so this may pose a problem
in keeping a park going. She indicated that there would be a fair amount of
grading to level the park and make it usable and believed that this point was
important and would be directed to the Parks and Recreation Department for
further discussions.
Chair Carver explained how zoning determines the density and number of stories
that are allowed in an area of the City.
Dan Hulke, 1600 Alabama Avenue South, stated that he was concerned with the
increase of traffic and the possible need for a bike crossing, and asked the City to
give consideration to an additional stop sign on 16th Street to make a 4-way stop
at Alabama.
Hans Widmer, 1601 Alabama Avenue South, stated that since the City mows
beyond the back of the park, residents currently utilize more than the .3 acres as
park area.
90
Jim Body, 1601 Blackstone Avenue, asked if there was consideration of parking
as part of the park development.
Ms. Peterson stated that there has been preliminary discussion of additional
parking along 16th Street. Park users could also share the guest parking in the
circular parking area on the west side of the site.
Gary Berscheid, 1604 Blackstone was concerned about accidents that have
occurred at the west end of 16th Street and believed if parking was going to be
established that there was a need for adequate lighting and signage to prevent
accidents and “teenager parking”.
Chair Carver closed the public hearing.
Mr. Garelick stated that he has some serious concerns about the access issues and
traffic, but is putting faith in the developer and staff to resolve these issues.
Mr. Morris stated that he doesn’t see the Zarthan Avenue driveway as being
feasible, but understands the problem with the developer to flip the configuration
and try to redesign drives. He was in favor of offsetting the driveway to the north
if feasible and believed a traffic light was in order.
Chair Carver agreed that the traffic light needs to be a part of this project
especially in light of Costco and that the amount of traffic is going to increase.
He stated that it was important to try to keep the streets as livable as possible for
the people who are not in cars.
Mr. Morris moved to recommend approval of the preliminary plat and preliminary
PUD, subject to conditions as recommended by staff with the following
amendments to Condition 3 and Condition 9a. Amendments: Change Condition
9a to “Construction vehicles shall be prohibited from using Zarthan (south of 16th
Street), Alabama, and Blackstone Avenues” and add to Condition 3a “Prior to
Final plat and PUD approval that the access issues to the town houses would be
resolved in a manner that would be consistent with the recommendation of the
traffic study”.
The motion passed 5-0 with, Carver, Garelick, Morris, Timian and Velick voting
in favor.
The Planning Commission took a short recess.
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
91
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.
Barb McCormick, PPL representative, 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
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.
92
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.
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.
Ms. 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 5-0 with Carver, Garelick, Morris, Timian and
Velick voting in favor.
93
C. Case Nos, 00-20-CUP and 00-21-VAR - Request of Benilde St. Margaret’s
School for a major amendment to a continued special permit and Variances for
height and bufferyard requirements for property located at 2501 S. Highway 100
Sacha Peterson, Planner, presented a staff report and noted that, given that all of
the seven findings are met for the variances and for the reasons outlined in the
staff report, staff is recommending approval of the Special permit amendment and
variances, subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report.
Ms. Peterson indicated that along the north lot line, the property is adjacent to
single family residential, and one of the requirements for amending the special
permit is that any ways in which the property is currently out of compliance with
our zoning ordinances would need to be brought up to the current code standards.
One issue in this area would be that we have landscape and bufferyard
requirements depending upon the adjacent use. There would be Bufferyard
requirement D between the parking lot and residents to the north. Initially
Benilde had been requesting a variance in that area because there is an existing
storm sewer line that is buried about 10 feet from the property line, and Public
Works requested that some trees be removed and additional trees be planted.
Public Works are still requiring that that some trees be removed because of
concerns about roots destroying sewer line, however there would still be six feet
between the space they need to keep clear and the property line, so the applicant
did submit a plan of a couple of alternatives to meet the requirement there which
includes an eight feet high treated wood fence and some shrubs. She stated that
staff believes this would meet the Bufferyard D requirement and a variance would
not be needed in that area and recommended that the final details be worked out
prior to this request being forwarded to City Council. She noted that a Bufferyard
C that was not constructed as promised in the past would now be required to be
built near existing townhomes.
Ms. Velick asked what the neighborhood response was to the project at the open
house held on March 23, 2000.
Ms. Peterson stated that she did not hear any additional concerns or complaints.
Jim Hamburg, President of Benilde St. Margaret’s School, thanked the Planning
Commission and City Staff. He briefly reviewed the proposed expansion and
stated that the intent is not to increase enrollment. He stated that it was his
intention to continue to fulfill the responsibilities of being a good member of the
community. He introduced Bill Hanley, Chair of the Board of Directors, Joyce
Kusho, Member of Board of Directors. Paul Synder, Architect from ATS&R and
Dave Bangasser, Senior Project Manager from Opus, and Doug Cooley, Chair of
Building Committee.
Paul Synder, Architect from ATS & R, reviewed the site plan for the project.
94
Chair Carver opened the public hearing.
Duane Krohnke, 2505 Princeton Court, President of Princeton Court Association,
stated that the Association welcomed the development, but noted that the plans
show that theoretically Benilde could add parking to the southeast further toward
the townhomes. He applauded the cooperation of the school and the synagogue to
share parking facilities and hope that will eliminate any need for any expansion.
He was happy to see the additional bufferyards and recommended the placement
of additional trees on the eastern end of the parking lot.
Chair Carver asked if there was a requirement to add additional trees on the
eastern end of the parking lot.
Ms. Peterson reviewed the landscaping and proof of parking on the site plan and
stated that staff would support flexibility in the location of the Bufferyard C if
there was a consensus between Benilde and the townhomes in terms of where the
trees should be within that Bufferyard C adjacent to the townhomes (for example,
if some of them could be better utilized on the east side of the parking lot) but the
trees that are internal to the parking lot, are meeting our minimal requirements in
terms of the internal parking lot landscaping. She reiterated the fact that Benilde
has a letter of agreement with Bethel Synagogue for shared parking, and
Benilde’s assessment is that they would not need the proof of parking and would
not need to convert the proof of parking to actual parking in the future. However,
the letter of agreement is not something that is actually recorded against the
property, so from the City’s perspective staff can’t count that as parking, so it is
required that Benilde show proof of parking.
Jim Hamburg stated that he would defend that property at the east end of the
parking lot and there will not be any parking in my lifetime. He stated that
Benilde went to great expense to level those fields and irrigate those fields and we
do not intend to put parking there. He indicated that he respected the City’s right
to require proof of parking, but we have worked in great partnership with Bethel
over the years and we have that parking agreement, and while it is not fully
recognized as meeting the code requirement, we want it known publicly that both
Bethel and BSM wish to use their parking lots as a community.
Chair Carver closed the public hearing.
Mr. Morris questioned Mr. Hamburg’s comment that he would never do the proof
of parking in his lifetime although he could be required to as a condition of the
special permit.
Mr. Hamburg clarified his comment by stating that it is not the intention of BSM
to use the proof of parking unless the City requires it.
95
Chair Carver clarified that the Planning Commission had a sensitivity since they
have dealt with promises of developers that were not completed. He stated that in
this case the Bufferyard C was neglected to be put in as a condition and realized
only later that it should have been there and that was the reason it wasn’t
completed as a part of the initial project for that portion.
Mr. Garelick moved to recommend approval of the Special Permit amendment
and variances, subject to the conditions as outlined in the staff report with the
alternative proposed.
Mr. Morris stated that the motion should be amended to reflect that there was no
longer a need for a variance for Bufferyard requirement D since staff received an
alternative from the applicant to meet the requirement and it was recommended
by staff that the final details be worked out prior to this request being forwarded
to City Council.
Mr. Garelick accepted the amendment to his motion.
The motion passed 4-0 with Carver, Garelick, Morris, Timian and Velick voting
in favor.
The Planning Commission took a short recess.
4. Old Business
A. Case No. 99-08-ZA - Amendment to Zoning Ordinance - Permits for
Fences (deferred 3-22-00)
Chair Carver recommended waiving the formal presentation.
Mr. Morris stated that he was opposed to the ordinance because he does not feel
that it is a necessary permit process. He indicated that, to his knowledge, the City
has not exhibited a great deal of violation or a great need to enforce. He
advocated more education without permitting.
Ms. Jeremiah, Planning Manager gave a brief update stating that what has
changed since the last time the Planning Commission reviewed this issue, was
that staff has clarified the ordinance as far as the submission requirements to note
that a survey would not be required to be submitted prior to a fence permit being
issued. She stated that it was hoped that this simple permit process would prevent
residents from correcting fences (at their own cost) that were built but not
allowed.
Chair Carver questioned requiring a working drawing, survey or site plan sketch
of a proposed fence since there seems to be lack of definition. He stated that he
was opposed to have the language “a survey” in Section 13:4-4, A2b because
96
residents may be taken advantage of by use of that word. He stated that he needs
to have a word in there that says that if the City is willing to accept a hand sketch
which accurately shows the roads so the lot lines can be determined, then that is
what he believes is a compromised position and he would agree with. He was
opposed to a fee. He recommended that the City put together a summary of fence
requirements that would educate residents on fence constructions and be reviewed
by City Staff who would determine if the fence was feasible or not.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that the City did have a one page description of ordinance
requirements and it has not solved the problem of misinterpreting the definition.
She indicated that the key is to have the appropriate staff person who really
understands the regulations to have the opportunity to walk through it with the
property owner to ensure that they understand the requirements and are agreeable
to them or are going to apply for a variance if they really feel that they have a
hardship or unique situation.
Chair Carver suggested the compromise to make it a permit requirement, but after
you say yes there is a permit, the resident comes in with this sheet of paper for
what they have to do. Then they schedule a meeting with the zoning
administrator to review the sketch to determine if the fence would be allowed.
Mr. Morris asked if variances would be permitted.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that there was always the opportunity to go through the
formal process for a variance. She suggested amending provision 2b to state “a
site plan sketch indicating location of fence (a formal survey is not required)”.
Mr. Morris stated that he was fundamentally opposed to the proposed ordinance
amendment and would only support no recommendation to get this issue to the
next stage.
Mr. Morris moved to forward the staff report on the fence ordinance to the City
Council with no recommendation. The motion passed 5-0 with Carver, Garelick,
Morris, Timian and Velick voting in favor.
5. New Business
A. Consent Agenda - None
B. Other
i. Task Force Member - Oak Park Village
It was the consensus of the Commission to determine the Task Force
Member at the next meeting on May 3, 2000.
6. Communications
A. Recent City Council Action - April 3, 2000
97
B. Board of Zoning Appeals Agenda - March 23, 2000
C. Texa Tonka Market Study Update - Janet Jeremiah
D. Draft minutes for Council review
E. Next Planning Commission Meeting - May 3, 2000
F. Other
7. Miscellaneous - Mr. Garelick noted that he will be attending a seminar entitled “How to
keep character in a City” and will report back to the Commission.
8. Adjournment
Chair Carver adjourned the meeting at 10:43 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Janet Jeremiah
Planning & Zoning Supervisor
Prepared by:
Shirley Olson
Recording Secretary
98
Item # 9c*
MINUTES
HOUSING AUTHORITY
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
Wednesday, April 12th, 2000
Council Chambers
5:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Catherine Courtney, William Gavzy, Bridget Gothberg,
Judith Moore and Shone Row
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Michele Schnitker, Sharon Anderson, Kathy Larsen,
Cindy Stromberg and Paula Jordan
OTHERS PRESENT: None
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 5:05 P.M.
2. Approval of the Minutes March 15th, 2000.
Commissioner Courtney made a motion to approve the Minutes of March 15th.
Commissioner Gothberg seconded the motion. The motion was passed on a vote
of 5-0 with Commissioners Gavzy, Moore, Row, Courtney and Gothberg voting
in favor.
3. Hearings: The Public Hearing for the 5 Year and Annual Agency Plan -
Resolution No. 475.
Ms. Schnitker reported that since the draft Agency Plan was presented to the
Board at the January Board Meeting, the Plan was revised to incorporate
comments received from Board members. A public notice was published
announcing that a Public Hearing regarding the Plan would be held at the April
12, 2000 Housing Authority Board meeting. The notice also announced that the
draft Plan was available for review at City Hall and that written comments could
be submitted prior to the Hearing. At the time of the Board Meeting, no
comments had been received.
99
A copy of the draft plan was distributed to three public housing residents and two
Section 8 participants who volunteered to serve on a Resident Advisory
Committee to review the Plan. Two residents attended a meeting scheduled on
February 23rd to discuss the Plan. Those unable to attend were invited to submit
written comments. There were no concerns or comments expressed at the
meeting nor were any written comments received that would require any
modifications to the final Plan.
The Plan was submitted to Hennepin County and they certified, in writing, that
the Plan is in conformance with their Consolidated Plan.
Staff recommended that the Board approve the Plan for submission and adopt
Resolution No. 475 which certifies that the Plan is consistent with the County's
Consolidated Plan and that the Housing Authority has complied with the entire
Plan related regulations.
Commissioner Gavzy opened the Public Hearing. Because there was no one from
the Public to comment or comments from the Commissioners, Commissioner
Moore made the motion to approve Resolution No. 475. Commissioner Courtney
seconded the motion. The motion was passed on a vote of 5-0 with
Commissioners Gothberg, Gavzy, Row, Moore and Courtney voting in favor.
Commissioner Gavzy closed the Public Hearing.
4. Reports and Committees: None
5. Unfinished Business : None
6. New Business
a. Section 8 Utility Allowance - Resolution No. 474
Cindy Stromberg, Section 8 Manager, reported that in accordance with HUD
regulations, utility allowances must be analyzed on an annual basis.
Allowances are based on actual utility consumption of Section 8 tenants
applied to current utility rates. Ms. Stromberg gave a review of how the
allowances are applied for the one, two, three and four bedroom units.
Commissioner Gothberg moved for approval of Resolution No. 474.
Commissioner Row seconded the motion. The motion was passed on a vote
of 5-0 with Commissioners Gavzy, Courtney, Row, Gothberg, and Moore
voting in favor.
b. Louisiana Court Redevelopment Project.
100
Kathy Larsen, Housing Coordinator, reported that the Planning Commission
has approved the preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) application
and that it would be going to the City Council Monday, April 17th. The
Construction documents have been completed and bids have been let. The
bond resolution, loan, mortgage and disbursement agreements are all in the
first draft stage.
At the April 10th Council Study Session, all information was submitted and a
discussion was held on the sale of the bonds. Mr. Mark Ruff, Ehlers and
Associates, provided a report for the City Council members. In the report,
Mr. Ruff recommended that the City, despite the uncertainties that exist,
proceed with the sale of the bonds on April 24th. PPL asked for $1.1 million,
from the MHFA, the Family Housing Fund and the MET Council. Although
the funding has not been formally approved at this time, we have been
notified that the Met Council Livable Communities Committee is
recommending that the project be funded. The MFHA's Selection Committee
will be making their recommendations public on Thursday, April 20th.
Before the Council makes the decision to sell the bonds, they will be verbal
awareness that the monies will be granted. HUD hasn't made the MHOP
commitment at this point in time, but staff stated that there is no reason that
this funding would not be granted. The City Council indicated that they
would most likely proceed and issue the Bonds on April 24th.
Ms. Schnitker reported that there needs to be six of the seven votes by the
City Council to issue the bonds. If the six out of seven votes are not reached,
the project will be most likely be terminated.
Discussion was opened to the Board because of the extent of the documents
pertaining to the Louisiana Court Project.
Commissioner Gavzy expressed concern with PPL's agreement to reimburse
the cost of the Inspecting Architect, with a not to exceed amount of $10,000
per change order. Commissioner Gavzy recommended that it would be in the
best interest of the Authority if the Inspecting Architect were contacted to
review all change orders.
Ms. Schnitker stated that the stipulation would be added to the contract with
PPL.
i. Approval of 2929 Ottawa Development Agreement
(Because of the time frame, this report was moved up).
Kathy Larsen reported that staff is recommending that the Housing Authority
accept the proposal from New Millennium Homes to develop the property at
101
2929 Ottawa Avenue in accordance with the guidelines of the Home Renewal
Program.
Ms. Larsen reviewed the architechtual plans with the Board. The plans
indicate the house will be a four-bedroom, story and one half structure.
Execution of this development agreement allows the Housing Authority to
proceed with the sale of the property to the developer who anticipates summer
construction.
Commissioner Gothberg moved approval contingent upon receiving viable
references from the developer, New Millennium Homes. Commissioner
Moore seconded the motion. The motion was passed on a vote of 5-0 with
Commissioners Courtney, Row, Gavzy, Moore and Gothberg voting in favor.
c. Contract for Lawn Maintenance at Hamilton House
Sharon Anderson reported that for the past several years, the Housing
Authority has taken advantage of City bidding for fertilizing and weed control
at Hamilton House, and the maintenance staff have performed all of the
mowing and trimming functions. These duties take at least one day per week
of maintenance staff's time.
Staff feels that it would be beneficial to the Housing Authority if the
maintenance staff could focus on work orders, turnover units, and other
projects.
Ms. Anderson stated that staff is recommending that the Authority approve a
contract with Dave Eide of Westside Lawn & Snow Service to begin on May
1, 2000, and terminate on October 31, 2001, with a negotiated increase in fee
prior to May 1, 2001.
Commissioner Gothberg moved to approve the Contract for Lawn
Maintenance at Hamilton House. Commissioner Moore seconded the motion.
The motion passed on a vote of 5-0 with Commissioners Gavzy, Row, Moore,
Gothberg, and Courtney voting in favor.
d. Addendum to Elevator Contract for Hamilton House.
Ms. Anderson reported that the current elevator contract at Hamilton House
with Minnesota Elevator, Inc., expires on May 31, 2000. Minnesota Elevator
has agreed to extend this contract to April 30, 2001, at the same monthly fee
of $227.85. All other provisions of the contract would remain the same. Ms.
Anderson stated that their services have been excellent.
102
Ms. Anderson stated that staff is recommending that the Authority approve an
Addendum to the contract with Minnesota Elevator, Inc., extending the
termination date to April 30, 2001.
Commissioner Courtney moved to approve the Addendum to Elevator
Contract for Hamilton House. Commissioner Row seconded the motion.
The motion was passed on a vote of 5-0 with Commissioners Gavzy, Moore,
Gothberg, Row and Courtney voting in favor.
e. Award of Comprehensive Improvement Assistance (CIAP) Contract
Sharon Anderson reported that in July of 1999, the Authority was notified by
HUD that we were awarded $241,287 in 1999 CIAP funding. Out of that
amount, the Board approved to fund work items included in the 1998 CIAP
contract with Flag Builders in the amount of $94,140. The remaining balance
of 1999
CIAP funds available for rehab and maintenance of the public housing units is
$147,147.00.
Ms. Anderson reported on the bid process and the quotations for landscape
work. Only one official bid was submitted for the miscellaneous scattered site
work from Flag Builders for $180,100.
Ms. Anderson reported that $34,000 of this year's grant was designated to
reimburse the PH operating budget for work completed under the 1998 CIAP
contract award. Since it is projected that the Authority will have $468,268 in
operating budget reserves at the end of 3/31/2001, staff is recommending that
reimbursement to the operating budget be reduced from $34,000 to $20,688.
The difference, $13,312, would increase the monies available for this year's
work to $150,996 providing enough funds to the contract cost after approval
of the 1st change order. Rather than reimbursing $20,688 to the operating
budget, the Board agreed that staff seek proposals for residing four houses
which staff had estimated at about $19 -$20,000.
Ms. Anderson stated that staff is recommending that the HA award a contract
to Flag Builders for $180,100 plus the alternate for the sliding glass door at
2914 Colorado for $1,800.
Commissioner Moore moved to approve the awarding a contract Flag Builders
for the Comprehensive Improvement Assistance (CIAP) Contract work in the
amount of $180,100, plus the alternate for the sliding glass door at Colorado
for $1,800, simultaneous with execution of a change order for $65,859 in
deducts. Commissioner Gothberg seconded the motion. The motion was
passed on a vote of 5-0 with Commissioners, Courtney, Row, Gavzy, Moore
and Gothberg voting in favor.
103
f. PH Leasing and Occupancy Plan: Flat Rents-Resolution No. 473
Michele Schnitker reported that the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act
of 1998 (QHWRA) states that each family residing in public housing must be
permitted to choose annually whether the family will pay a "flat rent" for their
unit or an income based rent. Currently all families in public housing pay 30% of
their adjusted income for rent, plus utilities. The two main exceptions to income-
based rents were ceiling rents (based on unit size) and minimum rents. St. Louis
Park chose not to implement ceiling rents or minimum rents.
Now St. Louis Park must have a flat rent "based on the rental value of the unit as
determined by the HA" and designed "so that the rent structures do not create
disincentive for continued residency in public housing by families who are
attempting to become economically self-sufficient through employment or who
have attained a level of self-sufficiency through their own efforts." The statute
states that flat rents must be based on a rent that would allow the unit to be
successfully rented if the units were not public housing (neither higher or lower).
Public housing operating expenses for this fiscal year have been budgeted at
$355.93 per unit month.
Based on an analysis of the Section 8 fair Market Rents (FMRs), the Section 8
Payment Standards and the average market rents for St. Louis Park as reported
in the 1999 Rental Study, staff is recommending that we adopt the current
Section 8 FMRs as "flat rents" for our public housing units.
The FMRs offer reasonable rents that represent the market rents charged for
modest housing similar to the HA public housing properties. Utilizing the
FMRs as our flat rents offers consistency with our Section 8 program and
administrative ease for updating the rents annually. Currently, there are 2
residents at Hamilton House whose income-based rent exceeds the FMRs.
Ms. Schnitker stated that staff recommends Board approval of Resolution
No. 473, revising the Public Housing Leasing and Occupancy Plan in the
section on rent calculations and using the Section 8 FMRs to be the flat
rents to be offered to public housing residents. The policy change on rent
determination is required by the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility
Act of 1998.
Commissioner Moore moved to approve Resolution No. 473. Commissioner
Gothberg seconded the motion. The motion was passed on a vote of 5-0 with
Commissioners Gavzy, Row, Moore, Courtney and Gothberg voting in favor.
g. Agreement for Accounting Services
104
Michele Schnitker reported that as part of last year's reorganization of the
Housing Authority, the City of St. Louis Park's Finance Department agreed to
provide accounting services for the Agency. The arrangement resulted in the
elimination of an Accounting Clerk position as well as the need for fee
accounting services. The proposed fee for financial services for the year 2000
is $25,750. This is a 3% increase over last year's fee.
Staff recommends that the Housing Authority Board authorize the Chair and
the Executive Director to enter into an agreement with the City of St. Louis
Park for the provision of accounting services to the Housing Authority.
Commissioner Gothberg moved to accept the Agreement for Accounting
Services. Commissioner Moore seconded the motion. The motion was passed
on a vote of 5-0 with Commissioners Gavzy, Row, Courtney, Moore and
Gothberg voting in favor.
h. Approval to Adopt GAAP Financing.
Michele Schnitker reported that the HUD Uniform Financial Reporting
standards requires Public Housing Authorities to convert their annual financial
statements from HUD's based accounting to Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles (GAAP) effective beginning with fiscal years ending September 30,
1999.
Staff recommends that the Board approve implementation of the detailed
procedures converting from the HUD financial application to Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP).
Commissioner Gothberg moved to accept the Approval to Adopt GAAP
financing. Commissioner Moore seconded the motion. The motion was
passed on a vote of 5-0 with Commissioners Gavzy, Row, Courtney, Moore
and Gothberg voting in favor.
7. Communications from the Executive Director
a. Claims List No. 04, 2000
Commissioner Moore moved to approve Claims List No. 4, 2000.
Commissioner Courtney seconded the motion. The motion was passed on a
vote of 5-0 with Commissioners Row, Gavzy, Moore, Courtney and Gothberg
voting in favor.
c. Michele Schnitker reported on the Memorandum on the effects of $100 MFIP
cuts on HA residents.
d. Michele Schnitker reported that the Housing Authority Board will be going to
105
the Council Study Session on May 8th. Ms. Schnitker asked the Board if
there were any issues that should be addressed at that meeting.
8. Adjournment
Commissioner Moore moved to adjourn. Commissioner Row seconded the
motion. The motion was passed on a vote of 5-0 with Commissioners Courtney,
Gavzy, Gothberg, Row and Moore voting in favor. The meeting adjourned
at7:05PM.
Respectfully Submitted
Shone Row
Secretary
106
Item # 9d*
May 5, 2000
VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
AIRTOUCH CELLULAR TELEPHONE 397.94
ALBERT GERDES INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
ALEXANDRIA TECHNICAL
COLLEGE-S
TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 140.00
AMERICAN AMUSEMENT ARCADES AMUSEMENT DEVICE-COIN-
OPERATED
270.00
AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSOC GENERAL SUPPLIES 164.00
ARAMARK UNIFORM CORPORATE
ACCT
GENERAL SUPPLIES 712.25
ASCAP LICENSES/TAXES 450.00
AT&T TELEPHONE 3.00
AUTOMATED ENTRANCE PRODUCTS
IN
BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 626.07
BATTERIES PLUS GENERAL SUPPLIES 69.21
BAUER BUILT TIRE & BATTERY EQUIPMENT PARTS (35.87)
BOBS PERSONAL COFFEE SERVICE GENERAL SUPPLIES 352.37
BRENDA CLEVELAND SKATING LESSONS-tax exempt 24.75
BROADWAY RENTAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT (1.66)
BUSKEY, JENNIFER OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,458.50
CAPITOL COMMUNICATIONS RADIO COMMUNICATIONS 493.82
CAROL DUNKAK-DUNERKIRCHEN INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
CHENEY SIGNS GENERAL SUPPLIES 12.65
CHIEF SUPPLY GENERAL SUPPLIES 108.88
COFFEE MILL INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 103.84
CONCEPT SEATING INC GENERAL SUPPLIES (180.00)
CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS GENERAL SUPPLIES (938.10)
COUNTRY FLAGS BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 72.16
DANKO EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT
CO
NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 146.22
DECISION RESOURCES LTD OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,500.00
DEPT OF PUBLIC SAFETY LICENSES/TAXES 875.00
DIAMOND VOGEL PAINTS OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 6,443.25
DUANE AND PATRICIA JOHNSON INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
E & S ELECTRONICS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 798.29
EDELMANN & ASSOCIATES INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 3,029.39
EDWARD KRAEMER & SONS INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 937.54
ELAN FINANCIAL SERVICES TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 492.50
ELECTRIC PUMP WALDOR GROUP EQUIPMENT PARTS 479.25
ELLEN HERMAN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,460.48
ELVIN SAFETY SUPPLY GENERAL SUPPLIES 181.37
ENGELMAN, CHERYL L TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 80.00
ENGINEERING REPRO SYSTEMS GENERAL SUPPLIES 45.75
ENSR CONSULTING & ENGINEERING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 27,632.24
ERV'S LAWN MOWER REPAIR NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 957.00
ESCOM SOFTWARE SERVICES LTD TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 325.00
EVERGREEN LAND SERVICES CO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 460.00
FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (15.67)
FLOYD TOTAL SECURITY BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 32.80
107
GARLAND'S INC. GENERAL SUPPLIES 615.57
GENERAL SAFETY EQUIPMENT
CORP
EQUIPMENT PARTS (14.07)
GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 161.33
HACH CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 55.08
HARMON INC OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 749.78
HATCH SALES CO EQUIPMENT PARTS 1,563.63
HAWKINS WATER TREATMENT
GROUP
CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL
SUPPLY
2,390.12
HEADWATERS OUTDOORS
MARKETING
GENERAL SUPPLIES 149.17
HELEN BELSAAS INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
HOME DEPOT/GECF SMALL TOOLS 198.03
HUIRAS, SHIRLEY OFFICE SUPPLIES 237.63
HYDRO SUPPLY COMPANY MERCHANDISE PURCH FOR RESALE 3,453.69
HYDROLOGIC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 32.95
I A F C TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 610.00
I C B O DEPRECIATION-FIXED ASSET SYST 195.00
IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 522.90
INDEPENDENT BLACK DIRT CO LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 399.32
IOS CAPITAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT 193.83
IVIT VINITSKY YOUTH ATHLETICS/LEAGUES-exempt 31.50
J H LARSON COMPANY GENERAL SUPPLIES 106.90
JEROME LEE INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
JOHN AND MELISSA CROW INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
JUSTUS LUMBER COMPANY OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 348.05
K AND R COMMUNICATION
SERVICES
BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 362.00
KEITH WOLFF TRUCKING ADULT ATHLETIC/LEAGUES -
EXEMPT
477.00
KNOX LUMBER GENERAL SUPPLIES 28.45
LEAH A. SWEET INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
LYLE SIGNS INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 2,173.94
M A APPAREL INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 159.50
MAAO MEMBERSHIP COORDINATOR TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 65.00
MADDEN RESORTS TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 326.64
MARK GREENE INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
MASTERSON PERSONNEL INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,972.50
MENARDS GENERAL SUPPLIES 5.33
METRO ATHLETIC SUPPLY GENERAL SUPPLIES 416.42
METROCALL GENERAL SUPPLIES 22.57
MID-AMERICA BUSINESS SYSTEMS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 12,960.00
MIKE WHITTINGTON INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
MILLAR ELEVATOR SERVICE CO BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 249.00
MILLERBERND, DENNIS MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT 1,238.78
MINNESOTA CHAPTER NAHRO TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 390.00
MINUTEMAN PRESS PRINTING & PUBLISHING 409.00
MN CHAPTER OF IAPMO SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 50.00
MN DRIVER & VEHICLE SVCS EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT
CHARGE
(46.00)
MN PIPE & EQUIPMENT OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 850.99
MODERN HEATING AND AIR
CONDITI
BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 127.00
108
NARDINI FIRE EQUIPMENT CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 500.00
NORTHLAND ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 1,379.12
NSP CO ELECTRIC SERVICE 7.76
OLSEN CHAIN & CABLE CO INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 73.53
OTTO PACKAGING MIDWEST LLC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES (72.00)
PARTS PLUS EQUIPMENT PARTS (3.88)
PERSONNEL DECISIONS
INTERNATIO
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 120.00
PIRES, CLINTON E TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 38.00
PRO PRODUCTS INC GENERAL SUPPLIES (92.32)
PROGRESSIVE CONSULTING
ENGINEE
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 455.00
REID & ASSOCIATES, JOHN E TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 375.00
RICHARD & ELIZABETH SOLSETH INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
RIDGEWATER COLLEGE TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 70.00
RLK-KUUSISTO LTD ENGINEERING SERVICES 89.11
SAVIN CORPORATION EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 115.20
SLP CRIME PREVENTION FUND UNREALIZED REV-SAFETY CAMP 0.00
SOO LINE RAILROAD CO LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS 2,500.00
SPS COMPANIES INC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 15.81
SRF CONSULTING GROUP INC ENGINEERING SERVICES 463.75
STAT MEDICAL GENERAL SUPPLIES 33.87
STODOLA WELL DRILLING INC, DON BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 1,150.00
SUBURBAN PROPANE MOTOR FUELS 68.69
SUN NEWSPAPERS DEPOSITS PAYABLE 189.47
THE ORGANIZATION COACH OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,075.00
THYMES TWO CATERING MEETING EXPENSE 103.83
TRI STATE BOBCAT MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT 117.00
U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE 41.46
UNIVERSITY OF MINN TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 50.00
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 565.00
UNIVERSITY OF ST THOMAS TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 150.00
WALSER FORD EQUIPMENT PARTS (65.43)
WARNING LITES OF MN INC TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 369.32
WHEELER LUMBER OPERATIONS OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 218.11
WILSONART INTERNATIONAL BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 281.16
WSB ASSOCIATES INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 801.00
ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE GENERAL SUPPLIES 98.09
ZIP PRINTING PRINTING & PUBLISHING 570.25
ZIP SORT POSTAGE 20,198.62
119,702.27
May 12, 2000
VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
A & T UPHOLSTERY CO EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 65.00
ACME AWNING BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 3,298.00
AIRTOUCH CELLULAR TELEPHONE 2,229.99
AMEM TREASURER SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 20.00
ANDERSON, SCOTT OFFICE SUPPLIES 111.89
ANOKA-HENNEPIN TECHNICAL TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 50.00
109
COLLE
ARAMARK UNIFORM CORPORATE
ACCT
GENERAL SUPPLIES 462.10
BACHMANS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 827.18
BACKAUS, DEAN Clothing Allow/Reimbursement 54.99
BARON, EILEEN TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 192.24
BAUER BUILT TIRE & BATTERY EQUIPMENT PARTS (35.87)
BERTELSON OFFICE PRODUCTS OFFICE SUPPLIES 54.41
BEST CLEANERS CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL
SERVICE
24.51
BIG RIVER DELI & SANDWICHES MEETING EXPENSE 184.03
BITUMINOUS ROADWAYS INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 85.52
BOBS PERSONAL COFFEE SERVICE CONCESSION SUPPLIES 161.25
BRENTS SIGNS OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 852.00
BROADWAY RENTAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT (1.66)
CALHOUN TOWERS APARTMENTS RADIO COMMUNICATIONS 600.00
CAMPBELL KNUTSON
PROFESSIONAL
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 3,300.00
CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 400.00
CAPITOL COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 41.40
CARTRIDGE CARE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 582.52
CENTER FOR ENERGY &
ENVIRONMEN
OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 5,060.00
CHENEY SIGNS OFFICE SUPPLIES 18.10
COLICH & ASSOCIATES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 13,433.84
COLLISYS ELECTRIC CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,056.00
COMPUSA INC RADIO COMMUNICATIONS 322.29
CONCEPT SEATING INC GENERAL SUPPLIES (180.00)
CONSECO FINANCE VENDOR SERV
CO
OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 751.89
CONSTRUCTION BULLETIN
MAGAZINE
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 220.10
CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS GENERAL SUPPLIES (938.10)
COPYMED INC OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 38.66
CRILEY, KATHI L TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 340.78
CUB FOODS SUBSISTENCE SUPPLIES 421.39
DANKO EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT
CO
GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,027.37
DELORES BRYAN INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
DITZLER PROPERTIES INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
DREIER, LORI A TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 200.00
EDELMANN & ASSOCIATES INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 319.18
ELAN FINANCIAL SERVICES MEETING EXPENSE 18.26
ELECTRONIC DOOR-LIFT INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 17.04
EMERY'S TREE SERVICE INC CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL
SERVICE
255.60
ENGINEERING REPRO SYSTEMS GENERAL SUPPLIES 41.54
EULL'S MANUFACTURING
COMPANY
BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 1,513.09
FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (15.67)
FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP POSTAGE 21.79
FLOYD TOTAL SECURITY BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 41.95
FRANCHETTE BRAAKSMA YOUTH ATHLETICS/LEAGUES-119.70
110
exempt
FRANCIS G. SORENSON INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
GENERAL SAFETY EQUIPMENT
CORP
EQUIPMENT PARTS (14.07)
GOODIN COMPANY GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,052.78
GRAINGER INC, W W BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 168.42
GREG SCHRAB ADULT ATHLETIC/LEAGUES -
EXEMPT
330.00
HALLMAN OIL LUBRICANTS/ADDITIVES 123.03
HASLERUD, CARRIE GENERAL SUPPLIES 138.45
HAWKINS WATER TREATMENT
GROUP
CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL
SUPPLY
1,035.62
HECKLER & KOCH INC TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 495.00
HENN CO TREASURER COMPUTER SERVICES 1,045.55
HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF SUBSISTENCE SERVICE 468.48
HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER SUBSISTENCE SERVICE 9,803.77
HOFFER COATINGS INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 1,038.38
HOME DEPOT GENERAL SUPPLIES 27.06
HOME DEPOT/GECF LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 252.28
HOME HARDWARE GENERAL SUPPLIES 297.58
HOWARD R. GREEN COMPANY PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 56,760.77
HYDRO SUPPLY COMPANY OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 690.46
I A F C SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 135.00
ICI DULUX PAINT CENTERS GENERAL SUPPLIES 46.86
IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS RENTAL EQUIPMENT 57.54
INDEPENDENT BLACK DIRT CO OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 628.98
J H LARSON COMPANY BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 786.48
J-CRAFT INC. EQUIPMENT PARTS 325.88
JEFFREY HASSAN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,893.93
JOE WIERSMA GENERAL SUPPLIES 30.00
JOHN FOSTER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,612.80
KANSAS STATE BANK OF
MANHATTAN
CAPITALIZED INTEREST 2,636.74
KNOX LUMBER OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 148.11
KOEHNEN & ASSOCIATES INC,
LEON
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 650.00
KRUGE-AIR INC. BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 89.00
LASER TECHNOLOGY INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 283.84
LAURA HILDMAN YOUTH ATHLETICS/LEAGUES-
exempt
31.50
LAWRENCE RAGAN
COMMUNICATIONS
SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 89.00
LONG LAKE POWER EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT PARTS 17.95
LUSE, JOHN SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 139.00
M A APPAREL INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 159.50
M A C T A TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 50.00
MASTERSON PERSONNEL INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,650.75
MELISSA LEMKE YOUTH RECREATION-tax exempt 58.50
MERRILL/ALTERNATIVES INC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 3,139.73
METRO CISM PROGRAM TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 150.00
METRO SYSTEMS NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 1,845.04
METROCALL SMALL TOOLS 449.68
METROPOLITAN AREA MEETING EXPENSE 16.00
111
MANAGEMENT A
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL
SERVICE
435.00
MIDWEST MAILING SYSTEMS INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 9.72
MINN DEPT LABOR & INDUSTRY LICENSES/TAXES 20.00
MINN DEPT OF ADMINISTRATION TELEPHONE 3,410.52
MINN UC FUND UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 3,711.72
MINNEGASCO HEATING GAS 16,117.51
MINNESOTA FIRE SERVICE TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 35.00
MN DRIVER & VEHICLE SVCS EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT
CHARGE
(46.00)
MOST DEPENDABLE FOUNTAINS GENERAL SUPPLIES 223.00
MOTOROLA GENERAL SUPPLIES 137.48
MTI DISTRIBUTING CO EQUIPMENT PARTS 744.53
MUNICILITE EQUIPMENT PARTS 178.07
MYERS TIRE SUPPLY COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS 15.66
NANCY WEIMAN-SCHMELZLE TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 93.00
NAPA AUTO PARTS EQUIPMENT PARTS 620.59
NATIONAL CRIME PREVENTION
COUN
GENERAL SUPPLIES 24.15
NORTHERN STATES POWER ELECTRIC SERVICE 39,222.66
NSP CO ELECTRIC SERVICE 2,859.32
OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE SUPPLIES 323.42
OFFICE DEPOT INC OFFICE SUPPLIES 30.36
OFFICE MAX OFFICE SUPPLIES 319.63
ORKIN PEST CONTROL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 30.46
OTTO PACKAGING MIDWEST LLC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES (72.00)
P & L AUTOMOTIVE INC MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT 515.00
P.S.E. ENTERPRISES EQUIPMENT PARTS 765.76
PAGE ELECTRICAL CONTRACTING
IN
EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 4,456.00
PALMS BAKERY MEETING EXPENSE 40.78
PAPER WAREHOUSE-GENERAL
OFFICE
MEETING EXPENSE 17.79
PARK PET HOSPITAL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 639.00
PARTS PLUS EQUIPMENT PARTS 158.39
PRAXAIR DISTRIBUTION INC. GENERAL SUPPLIES 86.52
PRESTIGE LINCOLN MERCURY EQUIPMENT PARTS 294.30
PRO PRODUCTS INC GENERAL SUPPLIES (92.32)
RANDY'S SANITATION INC GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE 3,509.28
RAPPORT LEADERSHIP
INTERNATION
TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 10,134.00
RICK BIRNO MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 56.23
RILEY DETTMANN & KELSEY OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 409.75
ROGER MANN OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 58.55
S & T LAWN SERVICE INC OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 383.41
S.P. GETMAN, TAXIDERMY GENERAL SUPPLIES 140.00
SCHARBER & SONS INC EQUIPMENT PARTS (3.51)
SECURITYLINK FROM AMERITECH OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 36.10
SEDGWICK HEATING & A/C HEATING 47.55
SEH PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,125.23
SIMPLEX TIME RECORDER CO BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 172.00
SLP CRIME PREVENTION FUND UNREALIZED REV-SAFETY CAMP 0.00
112
SNAP-ON INDUSTRIAL SMALL TOOLS 70.54
SNAP-ON TOOLS SMALL TOOLS 73.49
SOHNS, JO MEETING EXPENSE 36.25
SOJOURNER PROJECT INC OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 9,789.75
SOUTH DAKOTA DEPT OF
COMMERCE
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 4.16
SPS COMPANIES INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 7.95
STRAND MFG COMPANY EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 127.80
SUBURBAN PROPANE MOTOR FUELS 44.97
SUBURBAN TIRE CO TIRES 134.62
SUN NEWSPAPERS OTHER ADVERTISING 285.00
SYSTEMS SUPPLY INC OFFICE SUPPLIES 36.93
TEKSYSTEMS COMPUTER SERVICES 1,246.00
TERMINIX INTERNATIONAL BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 51.12
TIM AND JANET PICKFORD INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
TKDA PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 162.16
TOM BAZZARRE INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
TURF SUPPLY COMPANY OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 3,177.66
TWIN CITY WATER CLINIC INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 60.00
UNIVERSITY OF MINN TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 120.00
USD-MINNESOTA LLC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 9,595.00
VIKING COUNCIL JUVENILE DIV PR DEPOSITS PAYABLE 4,671.65
WALSER FORD EQUIPMENT PARTS 257.25
WASTE MANAGEMENT-BLAINE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL
SERVICE
143,503.86
WAYTEK EQUIPMENT PARTS 266.97
WEST WELD GENERAL SUPPLIES 41.64
WILLIAMS STEEL & HDWE GENERAL SUPPLIES 40.82
WOLF CAMERA INC PRINTING & PUBLISHING 19.84
WYNN, BRIDGET MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 30.88
ZEBEC OF NORTH AMERICA INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,363.00
ZEMBRYKI, MARK MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 30.07
ZEP MANUFACTURING EQUIPMENT PARTS 970.20
ZIP SORT POSTAGE 85.17
397,323.03
May 12, 2000
VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
G & K SERVICES CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL
SUPPLY
32.95
MINN COMM OF REVENUE MAPS/PRINTED MATERIALS 15,003.00
PARK NATIONAL BANK DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 106,857.59
121,893.54
113
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 11a*
Meeting of May 15, 2000
*11a. Bid Tabulation: City-Wide Random Curb and Gutter Repair Work – City
Project No. 00-01
This report considers awarding a contract for City-wide random concrete curb and
gutter repairs.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to designate Ti-Zack Concrete, Inc. the lowest
responsible bidder and authorize execution of a contract with the
firm in the amount of $26,275.70.
Background: Bids were received on May 4, 2000 for City-wide random curb and gutter repair.
Advertisement for bids was published in the St. Louis Park Sun-Sailor on April 26, 2000 and in
the Construction Bulletin on April 21 and 28, 2000. A summary of the bid results is as follows:
Contractor Bid Amount
Ti-Zack Concrete, Inc. $26,275.70
* Ron Kassa Construction $29,948.75
Nadeau Utility, Inc. $34,123.45
S. M. Hentges & Sons, Inc. $39,109.75
Scandy Concrete $45,307.80
Engineer’s Estimate $ 42,991.75
* Engineer’s correction upon extension of unit prices.
Evaluation of Bids: A total of five (5) companies submitted bids. A review of the bids
indicates Ti-Zack Concrete, Inc. submitted the lowest bid. Ti-Zack Concrete, Inc. has
satisfactorily constructed a number of similar projects in Faribault and surrounding communities.
Staff has determined that Ti-Zack Concrete, Inc. submitted the lowest responsible bid and
recommends a contract be awarded to the firm in the amount of $26,275.70.
Financial Considerations: As a majority of this work is related to damage from watermain
repairs, funding for this City-wide random curb and gutter repair is from the 2000 Water Utility
Fund. Additional repairs in Special Service District #1 will be made ($3,500) and will be funded
by the 2000 Public Works Operations Budget. No special assessments or other funding sources
are proposed for this project.
Prepared By: Carlton Moore/Michael P. Rardin, Public Works
Approved By: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
114
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 11b*
Meeting of May 15, 2000
*11b. Bid Tabulation: 2000 Contract Sealcoating
This report considers awarding a contract for the sealcoating of designated
bituminous streets within the City of St. Louis Park to Bituminous Roadways, Inc.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to designate Bituminous Roadways, Inc. the lowest
responsible bidder for the construction of bituminous sealcoating
and to authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the amount
of $59,237.78.
Background: 1) On April 17, 2000, Council authorized for the advertising and receipt of bids for
contract sealcoating. 2) Advertisement for bids were published in the St. Louis Park Sun-Sailor on
April 26, 2000 and in the Construction Bulletin on April 21, 28, 2000. 3) Bids from four (4)
contractors were received on May 4, 2000 for this work. 4) A summary of the bid results is as
follows:
Contract Sealcoating of Bituminous Pavements
Vendor Bid Total
*Bituminous Roadways, Inc. $59,237.78
Pearson Bros., Inc. $61,532.22
Allied Blacktop $61,797.35
ASTECH Corporation $68,323.81
* Recommended Low Bid
Financial Considerations: The 2000 budget includes $75,000 for contract sealcoating. The award
of the contract to Bituminous Roadways, Inc. in the amount of $59,237.78 will leave an unexpended
balance of $15,762.22. It should be noted that the City has the right to alter bituminous material
application rates, which may change the actual amount of material used to perform the sealcoating.
This could have an impact on the final contract price being either higher or lower than the total bid
price stated above. The expected impact should be negligible.
Prepared by: Carlton Moore/Michael P. Rardin, Public Works
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
115
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 11c*
Meeting of May 15, 2000
*11c. Consultant Retention for Assistance in Pavement Condition Evaluation
This report considers the retention of a Consultant to perform pavement surface
ratings on roadways under the City’s jurisdiction.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to Authorize Mayor and City Manager to execute a
Contract with Goodpointe Technology Corporation to perform
pavement surface evaluation services on the City’s roadway
system.
Background:
The City of St. Louis Park has a long term goal of maintaining, rehabilitating, and replacing it’s
infrastructure assets in the most timely and cost-effective manner possible. To accomplish this
goal, it is necessary to update our pavement condition information.
In 1995-1996, the City collected detailed roadway inventory data, pavement surface condition
data, and structural data which was used to populate the data fields in the CarteGraph Pavement
Management System Program. The previous pavement surface ratings were done by Pathways
Services Inc. for an amount of approximately $22,000, plus extras. This Program will be used
for roadway condition analysis, preparation of maintenance policies and schedules, comparison
of roadway maintenance needs with budget allocations, and implementation / coordination of the
roadway maintenance / reconstruction program.
Discussion:
Staff conferred with Mn/DOT and other local agencies to determine which consulting firms were
qualified to provide the required services. Proposal requests were sent to six (6) qualified firms
with the City receiving proposals from five (5) firms. The firms were rated on items including:
project team and firms related experience; work plan and project approach; quality assurance
program; computer program compatibility; project cost; workload; and knowledge of St. Louis
Park. Based on a review of the proposals staff selected Goodpointe Technology Corporation as
the consultant of choice because of their pavement management knowledge, past experience, and
project cost. The project scope includes the following:
• Pavement surface condition evaluation that identifies the pavement distress type,
quantity, severity, and extent.
• Curb and gutter evaluation that identifies location, type, condition, and drainage
problems.
• Executive summary report.
116
The project timeframe is from June to August of this year with a project cost of $26,010.
Recommendation: It is my recommendation the City uses Goodpointe Technology Corporation
to perform the pavement surface ratings at a compensation amount of $28,600 (includes a 10%
contingency).
Prepared by: Scott Merkley, Public Works Coordinator
Through: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director of Public Works
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
117
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 11d*
Meeting of May 15, 2000
*11d. Renewal of insurance agent contract
A.J. Gallagher & Co of MN, Inc. has submitted the proposal for agent fees
effective 4-1-00 to 4-1-01.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to renew insurance agent contract.
Background:
A.J. Gallagher & Co of MN, Inc. has been the agent representing the City for insurance received
through the League of Minnesota Cities for several years. The proposed contract is for one year
and does not reflect any increased costs from the previous contract. The contract cost is
$9,785.00 for the year.
Staff has been satisfied with the service received from the agent however; it is recommended that
an RFQ be done in time for the next renewal period. This type of professional service should
have proposals submitted every five (5) years, similar to the basis that audit services have an
RFQ prepared.
Prepared by: Jean D. McGann
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
118
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 11e*
Meeting of May 15, 2000
*11e. Frauenshuh Development Contract Amendment
This report considers approving the First Amendment to the Redevelopment
Contract with Frauenshuh and increases the construction start and end dates by one
year on the medical office building.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve the First Amendment to Contract for Private
Redevelopment between the City of St. Louis Park, the
Economic Development Authority, and DRF L-7 LLC.
Background:
For well over a year and a half the City/EDA has been working with Frauenshuh Companies on
the development of a medical office building and restaurant at the southwest corner of Highway
7 and Louisiana Avenue. The City and Economic Development Authority entered into a
development agreement with Frauenshuh Companies in July of 1999 for the development of this
site. The City Council approved the preliminary PUD and Plat for this project in August of 1999.
The developer requested an extension of the deadline to apply for a final PUD and Plat. This
extension was granted.
The developer met with staff recently to discuss the status of the project. A number of issues
were addressed including the leasing of the medical office building. The developer has been
having trouble gaining the customary 50 percent pre-leasing necessary to begin developing the
project. This has led to some discussion of changing the site plan and possibly reconfiguring the
site in addition to continuing to look for medical tenants for the office building.
Developer Request for Extensions:
Staff has approved an extension to the deadline for applying for a Final PUD and Plat by 180
days from the current May 6, 2000 deadline. This will allow the developer to continue pre-
leasing the project and finalize a site plan if changes to the existing site plan are necessary.
The developer is also requesting an extension to the construction start date and completion date
for the medical office building from May 31, 2000 and May 31, 2001 to May 31, 2001 and May
31, 2002 respectively. The date for the completion of the restaurant is May 31, 2002 and will
remain the same. The minimum market value dates were also adjusted accordingly.
The amendment clarifies that county tax abatements will start the first year that property taxes
are payable on any portion of the project. The city and school district abatements will start after
the project is substantially completed (i.e. a certificate of occupancy has been issued). This
clarification is necessary because the county wants its abatements to start immediately when
property taxes are payable. The school district and city provided for more flexibility in the case
119
of partial construction in a given tax year. None of this is an issue if the project is completed in
one year but if the project is partially completed in any given year it may reduce the total tax
abatement from the county over the abatement term. The amendment further states that the note
will not be extended to make up for any shortfall. The note has been revised to clarify this as
well.
Attachments: First Amendment to Contract for Redevelopment
Prepared by: Tom Kleve, Economic Development Coordinator
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
120
FIRST AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made as of the _________ day of May, 2000 by and between the
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, a public body corporate and
politic under the laws of Minnesota (the “Authority”), the CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK,
MINNESOTA, a Minnesota municipal corporation (the “City”) and DRF L-7 LLC, a Minnesota
corporation (the “Redeveloper”).
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the City, Authority and Redeveloper have entered into that certain Contract
for Private Redevelopment dated July 30, 1999 (the “Contract”), describing the parties’
respective responsibilities in connection with development of certain property in the City,
defined in the Contract as the Redevelopment Property; and
WHEREAS, in the parties have determined to modify certain terms of the Contract as
described herein;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual obligations of the
parties hereto, each of them does hereby covenant and agree with the other as follows:
1. Section 3.8(a) of the Contract is modified to add the following:
The first payment date on the Note will be August 1 of the first year in which
property taxes are payable on any portion of the MOB constructed by Redeveloper on the
Redevelopment Property, provided that until the MOB has been substantially completed (as
evidenced by issuance of the Certificate of Completion on or before January 2 of the assessment
year), Available Abatements shall include only the County Abatements. Commencing in the
first year in which property taxes are payable on the substantially-completed MOB, Available
Abatements shall include County Abatements, City Abatements and School District Abatements.
County Abatements will be paid no later than February 1 of the tenth year after the first payment
made with County Abatement, and School District and City Abatements will be paid no later
than February 1 of the tenth year after the first payment with City Abatement and School District
Abatement. The Developer understands and acknowledges that if the MOB has not been
substantially completed in the first year in which any property taxes are payable on such
improvements, the County Abatements payments in the first year will reflect such partial
construction, and the term of the Note will not be extended to provide additional payments in the
event any principal or accrued interest remains unpaid at the Maturity Date.
2. The first sentence in Section 4.3 of the Contract is modified to read as follows:
Subject to Unavoidable Delays, the Redeveloper shall commence construction of the
MOB by May 31, 2001. Subject to Unavoidable Delays, the Redeveloper shall complete the
construction of the MOB by May 31, 2002.
3. The first sentence in Section 6.3 of the Contract is modified to read as follows:
121
The Redeveloper agrees that the estimated market value of the Minimum Improvements
(excluding land) for tax assessment purposes shall be as follows: (a) For the MOB, no less
than $6,605,000 of January 2, 2003, or in the event of Unavoidable Delays, the next January
2 after issuance of the Certificate of Completion for the MOB; and (b) for the Restaurant, no
less than $945,000 as of January 2, 2003, or in the event of Unavoidable Delays, the next
January 2 after issuance of the Certificate of Completion for the Restaurant.
4. The Note, attached as Schedule C to the Contract, is revised to add the following
after the fourth paragraph of the Note:
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, until the MOB has been substantially
completed (as evidenced by issuance of the Certificate of Completion on or before January 2
of the assessment year), Available Abatements shall include only the County Abatements.
Commencing in the first year in which property taxes are payable on the substantially-
completed MOB, Available Abatements shall include County Abatements, City Abatements
and School District Abatements. County Abatements will be paid no later than February 1
of the tenth year after the first payment made with County Abatement, and School District
and City Abatements will be paid no later than February 1 of the tenth year after the first
payment with City Abatement and School District Abatement Therefore, if payments on the
first Payment Date are made solely from County Abatements because of partial completion
of the MOB as described above, Available Abatements payable on the final August 1 and
February 1 Payment Dates will include only City Abatements and School District
Abatements.
5. The Contract remains in full force and effect and is not modified except as
expressly provided herein.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Authority, City, and Redeveloper have caused this
Agreement to be duly executed by their duly authorized representatives as of the date first above
written.
ST. LOUIS PARK
ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY
CITY OF ST. LOUIS
PARK, MINNESOTA
DRF L-7 LLC
By By By
Its President Its Mayor Its Manager
Its Executive Director Its City Manager
122
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF __________ )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of ________
1999, by _________________________, the Manager of DRF L-7 LLC, a Minnesota limited
liability company, on behalf of the limited liability company.
Notary Public